# Presentation: 524584

## SSG-WI 2015  IRP - RPS  Reference CaseProduction Cost Modeling Results

**SSG-WI 2015  IRP - RPS  Reference Case****Production Cost Modeling Results**

- Changes Applied since 12-22-05 meeting
- Production Cost Results
- Congestion Costs
- Path Flows
- Post-SSG-Wi:  Refinements to Database

- January 30, 2006

## Path Changes since the 12/22/05 PresentationConfirmed by the Transmission Sub-Group

**Notes:**
Load growth:  Rocky Mountain annual load growth: 2.3% energy, 2.8% peak
Western Interconnect annual load growth: 2% energy, 1.8% peak
 Hydro:  High: ~280,000GWh, Med: ~245,000GWh, Low: ~210,000GWh
Accelerated DSM: ~8% energy savings,  2013 loads reduced by ~8%
Fuel price conversions:
6.50 gas (2013) is 5.20 (2004), 4.50 gas (2013) is 3.60 (2004),
PRB minemouth: .50 coal (2013) is .40 (2004)
.69-1.56 (2013) is .55 - 1.25 (2004) – range is different sources than PRB, also incl transportation adjustments for trucking and rail
CO2:  $5 and $15/per ton applied to incremental emissions from the resource additions 
Mohave:  in, otherwise assumed to be retired by 2008

Simplifying assumptions
ABB Market Sim – detailed representation of WI transmission -- but to keep the modeling efficient and flexible, dispatch logic was stripped down.  
For example, the commitment logic removed, and simulation assumes a single, seamless West-wide market, with none of today’s inefficiencies due to multiple control areas and rate and loss charge pancaking.  
Details may be found in Chapter 2 and in Appendix F. 

**Branch Changes since the 12/22/05 Presentation**Confirmed by the Transmission Sub-Group

**Notes:**
Load growth:  Rocky Mountain annual load growth: 2.3% energy, 2.8% peak
Western Interconnect annual load growth: 2% energy, 1.8% peak
 Hydro:  High: ~280,000GWh, Med: ~245,000GWh, Low: ~210,000GWh
Accelerated DSM: ~8% energy savings,  2013 loads reduced by ~8%
Fuel price conversions:
6.50 gas (2013) is 5.20 (2004), 4.50 gas (2013) is 3.60 (2004),
PRB minemouth: .50 coal (2013) is .40 (2004)
.69-1.56 (2013) is .55 - 1.25 (2004) – range is different sources than PRB, also incl transportation adjustments for trucking and rail
CO2:  $5 and $15/per ton applied to incremental emissions from the resource additions 
Mohave:  in, otherwise assumed to be retired by 2008

Simplifying assumptions
ABB Market Sim – detailed representation of WI transmission -- but to keep the modeling efficient and flexible, dispatch logic was stripped down.  
For example, the commitment logic removed, and simulation assumes a single, seamless West-wide market, with none of today’s inefficiencies due to multiple control areas and rate and loss charge pancaking.  
Details may be found in Chapter 2 and in Appendix F. 

## Generation Changes since the 12/22/05 Presentation

**Notes:**
Load growth:  Rocky Mountain annual load growth: 2.3% energy, 2.8% peak
Western Interconnect annual load growth: 2% energy, 1.8% peak
 Hydro:  High: ~280,000GWh, Med: ~245,000GWh, Low: ~210,000GWh
Accelerated DSM: ~8% energy savings,  2013 loads reduced by ~8%
Fuel price conversions:
6.50 gas (2013) is 5.20 (2004), 4.50 gas (2013) is 3.60 (2004),
PRB minemouth: .50 coal (2013) is .40 (2004)
.69-1.56 (2013) is .55 - 1.25 (2004) – range is different sources than PRB, also incl transportation adjustments for trucking and rail
CO2:  $5 and $15/per ton applied to incremental emissions from the resource additions 
Mohave:  in, otherwise assumed to be retired by 2008

Simplifying assumptions
ABB Market Sim – detailed representation of WI transmission -- but to keep the modeling efficient and flexible, dispatch logic was stripped down.  
For example, the commitment logic removed, and simulation assumes a single, seamless West-wide market, with none of today’s inefficiencies due to multiple control areas and rate and loss charge pancaking.  
Details may be found in Chapter 2 and in Appendix F. 

## SSG-WI Path LimitsWECC Catalogue Operating Limits & Adjustments Made by SSG-WI

- Confirmed by the Transmission Sub-Group

**Notes:**
Load growth:  Rocky Mountain annual load growth: 2.3% energy, 2.8% peak
Western Interconnect annual load growth: 2% energy, 1.8% peak
 Hydro:  High: ~280,000GWh, Med: ~245,000GWh, Low: ~210,000GWh
Accelerated DSM: ~8% energy savings,  2013 loads reduced by ~8%
Fuel price conversions:
6.50 gas (2013) is 5.20 (2004), 4.50 gas (2013) is 3.60 (2004),
PRB minemouth: .50 coal (2013) is .40 (2004)
.69-1.56 (2013) is .55 - 1.25 (2004) – range is different sources than PRB, also incl transportation adjustments for trucking and rail
CO2:  $5 and $15/per ton applied to incremental emissions from the resource additions 
Mohave:  in, otherwise assumed to be retired by 2008

Simplifying assumptions
ABB Market Sim – detailed representation of WI transmission -- but to keep the modeling efficient and flexible, dispatch logic was stripped down.  
For example, the commitment logic removed, and simulation assumes a single, seamless West-wide market, with none of today’s inefficiencies due to multiple control areas and rate and loss charge pancaking.  
Details may be found in Chapter 2 and in Appendix F. 

## 2015 Loads and Resources By Area 

## 2015 Resources By Area and Fuel Type 

## Over 61,000 MW of nameplate capacity will be added 2004-2015

***See next slides for  Canada, Northwest and  Rocky Mountain regions...***

## Over 61,000 MW of nameplate capacity will be added 2004-2015 (Continued, 1)

***See next slide for Rocky Mountain region...***

## Over 61,000 MW of nameplate capacity will be added 2004-2015 (Continued,2)

##  2015 Reference Case Results

## Annual Generation and Load Served by Area

*$5 Gas (HH in $2005)*

## Capacity Factors Under Different Gas Price ScenariosBy Region and Technology Type

**Capacity Factors Under Different Gas Price Scenarios**By Region and Technology Type

***Arguably, the Reference Case includes too many resources (29 percent planning margin for West after capacity discounts and assuming average hydro conditions).  This leads to low capacity factors for thermal units, as reflected in the combined cycle (CCCT) and steam turbine (ST) technology columns.  For example, of  the 1,500MW of  new 50MW gas-fired SCCTs added in AZ, none dispatched in any of the three price scenarios.***

## Capacity Factors Under Different Gas Price Scenarios (Cont’d)By Region and Technology Type – Peak Hours Only

**Capacity Factors Under Different Gas Price Scenarios (Cont’d)**By Region and Technology Type – Peak Hours Only

## Capacity Factors for Gas-Fired Units By Region and Technology Type  (All Hours - 8760)

**Capacity Factors for Gas-Fired Units **By Region and Technology Type  (All Hours - 8760)

##   Production Costs Annual Fuel and Other Variable O&M (M$) 

**  ****Production Costs **Annual Fuel and Other Variable O&M (M$)** **

**(2005 dollars)**

## Two Methods of Calculating Congestion Costs(2015 Annual Summary)

**Method I:**  In the shadow price X MW flow columns, congestion cost for each congested path is defined as the hourly shadow price for each congested hour times the flow on the path for that hour, with the results summed for the year.
**Method II:**  Shadow price is the production cost decrease if 1 MW limit of the constraint is relaxed.

***See next slide for more details***

## Method II for Calculating Congestion Costs(2015 Annual Summary)

***Shadow Price $/MW***

## Alberta – British Columbia

## Northwest to Canada Washington and southern British Columbia

## Idaho to PNW Duration Curve Southwest Idaho and Eastern Oregon/Washington and Northern Idaho

## North of John Day

## South of Alston

## Montana to PNW Duration Curve

## Brownlee East

## Bridger West

## Path C Northern Utah/southern Idaho 

## Wyoming to Utah

## Bonanza West

## IPP DC Intermountain to Adelanto station in southern California

## TOT2 (A+B+C) Duration Curve Southern CO, southern Utah to N. Arizona and southern Utah to South-East Nevada 

## Slide 32

## Slide 33

## CAISO Study Results for PV to Devers #2

**CAISO Study Results for PV to Devers #2**
**February, 2005**

## East of the River Western Arizona

***Slide from CAISO report of 2/4/2005***

***AZ/NM***
***9,351 MW***
***[8,151 MW]***

***LADWP***
***300 MW***
***[300MW]***

***SDG&E***
***314 MW***
***[192 MW]***

***SOCAL***
***4,478 MW***
***[1,853 MW]***

***PG&E***
***4,462 MW***
***[3,787 MW]***

***NV***
***1,446 MW***
***[1,446 MW]***

***McCullough***
***1215 MW***
***[443 MW]***

***Numbers in Gray are:***
***Nameplate, net of retirements MW***
***[Incl. Derated Renew. MW]***
***IRP-RPS 2015 Ref. Case***

## Cholla – Pinnacle Peak

**Cholla – Pinnacle Peak**

## Southwest of Four Corners

## East of the River Duration Curve Western Arizona

## West of the River Duration Curve

## COI Between Oregon and northern California

## PDCIThis path (between northern Oregon and Los Angeles) shows high utilization

## Path 26 Duration Curve

## SCIT Duration Curve

## Post SSG-Wi:  Refinements to the Database (1)

- Economics table
- Essential for comparing full cost of scenarios
- Tune-up transmission capex
- Capital costs for transmission added since December 22, 05 presentation
- Final review of generic assumptions
- Capital charge sensitivities
- Tune-up resource capex
- Alberta resources
- Energy efficiency capex behind the load forecasts
- Revisit wind “wear and tear” on thermals
- Capital charge sensitivities
- Additional resource case(s)
- Sensitivities around the reference case
- Too many resources – 29% planning margin for region (on discounted capacity basis)
- Level and location of renewables and energy efficiency investment
- Load forecast sensitivities

## Disaggregate load forecasts
Transmission losses
DSM and energy efficiency
Assignment of load to topology bubbles
Hourly shape sensitivities
Hydro generation
Low and high sensitivities (in combo with gas price cases)
BC hydro generation modeling
Test dynamic hydro algorithm
Cogeneration data
Verification of net to grid MWs
Review heat rate curves assigned to technology types and assignment of technology and fuel types to thermal resources
Incorporate CDEAC study resource characteristics, e.g. thermal non-coal/gas fuel prices
Review certain bus assignments/transmission to integrate new resources 
Data for wheeling charges

- Transmission losses
- DSM and energy efficiency
- Assignment of load to topology bubbles
- Hourly shape sensitivities
- Hydro generation
- Low and high sensitivities (in combo with gas price cases)
- BC hydro generation modeling
- Test dynamic hydro algorithm
- Cogeneration data
- Verification of net to grid MWs
- Review heat rate curves assigned to technology types and assignment of technology and fuel types to thermal resources
- Incorporate CDEAC study resource characteristics, e.g. thermal non-coal/gas fuel prices
- Review certain bus assignments/transmission to integrate new resources
- Data for wheeling charges

**Post**** ****SSG-Wi:  Refinements to Database (2)**