# Presentation: 511236

## Generation Sub-Group

**Generation Sub-Group**
**PacifiCorp Modeling Team Advice**
**January 21, 2005  **
**Teleconference 1:00 – 2:00 PM**
**Jamie Austin**

## Our view of the Generation Sub-Group’s role

- Propose fuel prices, fuel transportation costs, including price sensitivities
- TSG, PWG approve
- Propose resources, resource attributes
- For 2008 (base case)
- For 2015
- Scenarios
- Reference case (s)
- TSG, PWG approve
- Participate in validating the modeling
- Participate in presentations & report writing

## SSG-WI Modeling Roles

**Load Forecasting**
** ****Sub-Group**

**SSG-WI Modeling Roles**

**Generation Sub-Group**

**Transmission **
**Sub-Group**

**Modeling Team**

**   ****Topology**
**   ****Transmission path ratings & nomograms**
**   ****Transmission solutions to relieve congestion**
**   ****Validate modeling**
**   ****Presentation & reporting**

**  ****Topology**
**  ****Load forecast (2008)**
**  ****Load growth (2015)**
**  ****Load mapping to the bus level**

**  ****Planning margin**
**  ****Resources & resource   attributes **
**  ****Fuel prices**
**  ****Validate modeling**
**  ****Presentation & reporting**

**Determine:**
**   ****Congestion and congestion costs**
**    ****Economic implications for resource and transmission expansion**
**   ****Validate modeling**
**   ****Presentation & reporting**

**TSG and PWG approve key assumptions, scenarios and molding results**

## Iterate Process

**Generation  Sub-Group**
- Determine resource additions for each scenario
- Determine capital costs for added resources

**Transmission Sub-Group**
- Identify transmission solutions for each scenario
-  Iterate with modelers for economics
-  First-pass technical review
- Determine capital costs for transmission

**Modeling Team**
- Determine congestion/congestion costs with new resources added
-    -  If no new transmission is added and if existing constraint
-   are removed
- Iterate to define transmission needs (variable cost basis)
- Test transmission solutions
- Combine variable & fixed costs

-  Resource alternatives

- 2.** **Congestion and** ** LMPs w/ new resources

- 3. Iterate to define needs

- Fine-tune scenarios

**Iterate Process**
**2015 Study**

- 4. Test transmission  solutions

## Sample of economics table (RMATS)

| Recommendation 1
compared to: |  |
| --- | --- |
| All Gas Case | IRP- Based Case |
| (1,238) | (266) |
|  |  |
| 434 | 59 |
| 157 | 30 |
| - | - |
|  |  |
| 97 | 97 |
| 19 | 19 |
| 707 | 205 |
|  |  |
| (531) | (61) |

| Recommendation 2
compared to: |  |
| --- | --- |
| All Gas Case | IRP- Based Case |
| (2,560) | (1,588) |
|  |  |
| 1,005 | 630 |
| 311 | 184 |
| (254) | (254) |
|  |  |
| 427 | 427 |
| 85 | 85 |
| 1,574 | 1,072 |
|  |  |
| (986) | (516) |

| Difference in production costs |
| --- |
|  |
|     Difference in annualized resource  investment |
|     Difference in annual resource O&M |
|     Adjustment for West-Coast resources (annualized) |
|  |
|     Difference in annualized transmission investment |
|     Difference in annual transmission O&M |
| Difference in fixed costs |
|  |
| Annual net savings |

**Representative Year**
- (2004 Dollars in Millions)

## Generation Sub-GroupSpecific Responsibilities

- 2008 Base Case:
- Verify the SSG-WI data on existing resources and starts
- Confirm planned outage assumptions, plant retirements, capacity assumptions
- Integrate RMATS, STEP and San Diego enhancements into the SSG-WI database
- 2015 Scenarios:
- Develop resource scenarios and sensitivities; resource type, fuels, locations; hourly operating patterns if not dispatched
- Determine planning margin
- Implement unit commitment
- Confirm DSM assumptions and treatment in modeling
- Include CO2 and other pollutant “tax” post 2008.  Determine emissions rates for each thermal resource and emissions cap and $/mmBTU
- Confirm economic assumptions (i.e., Capex assumptions, fixed O&M, and fuel prices

##  GV’s unit commit – more accurate25 Bus example (average-annual cost)

| Area | LMP ($/MWh)  |  | Generator Cost (M$) |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Commitment Method | CommitALL  Method | Commitment Method | CommitALL  Method |
| a1 | 17.2 | 15.7 | 45.6 | 47.2 |
| a2 | 14.0 | 11.6 | 8 | 24.9 |
| a3 | 12.3 | 10.5 | 24.8 | 88.8 |
| a4 | 10.5 | 9.2 | 78.1* | 65.7 |

- CommitALL method
- Requires less run time; useful for screening
- Commitment method
- More accurate, lower production cost, higher LMP
- Can change the economic of resource and transmission alternatives
- Requires more run time
- Requires more data

- * a4 is mostly hydro and nuclear

## Decisions Required

**Decisions Required**

## Decide Planning Margin From Previous Work

- FERC indicated that resource adequacy will be left up to the states and/or regions
- Operating requirements vary by control area (NERC mandated)
- Last SSG-WI study: 15%
- RMATS participants agreed on using 15% (earlier SMD target)

**Decide Planning Margin From Previous Work**

## Determine who should supply wind data

- RMATS relied on NREL for:
- Hourly wind shapes
- Capacity Credit VS Effective Load Carrying Capability; capacity credit = 20%
- Capacity Factor VS Capacity Credit

***RMATS 2008 Wind***

## Decide Criteria for New 2008 Resources

**RMATS**
- 2008 Assumptions:
- Include plants sponsored by organizations that have the ability to secure the proper permits, financing and construction.
- More than half of the generation should be subscribed
- Must have associated transmission
- All added plants are planned to be online by 2006
- Qualified additions:
- Nebo 147 MW- Gas (Utah)
- Currant Cr 525 MW- Gas (Utah)
- Springerville Expansion 400 MW Coal (Arizona)
- Bennett Mt 167MW- Gas (Idaho)
- Pleasant Valley 144MW- Wind (Wyo)

## RMATS strawman for 2013 Generation alternatives guidelines

Each new generation project should be modeled in at least one-generation alternative either as an individual project or as a part of a coherent group.
Generation may be aggregated into coherent groups by fuel type that is within a geographic area.  If it becomes necessary to prorate generation capacity it would be reduced as a group and no individual project would be required to withdraw from the alternative.
Wind generation would be considered as having a contribution toward capacity as 20% of the nameplate rating. (will be modified based on NREL study results)
The total capacity within an alternative generation group would be generally equal to the load increase (from 2008) plus 15% planning reserve.

- Each new generation project should be modeled in at least one-generation alternative either as an individual project or as a part of a coherent group.
- Generation may be aggregated into coherent groups by fuel type that is within a geographic area.  If it becomes necessary to prorate generation capacity it would be reduced as a group and no individual project would be required to withdraw from the alternative.
- Wind generation would be considered as having a contribution toward capacity as 20% of the nameplate rating. (will be modified based on NREL study results)
- The total capacity within an alternative generation group would be generally equal to the load increase (from 2008) plus 15% planning reserve.

**Decide Criteria for 2015 Resources**

## RMATS Strawman for 2013 Gen. Alternatives Groupings
Generation equal to one times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (3,500 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on the IRPs of RM area utilities and the RMATS new generation list (as revised).
Generation equal to one times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (3,500 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on a coordinated look at the IRPs of RM area utilities and the RMATS new generation list (as revised).
Generation equal to two times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (7,000 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on the RMATS new generation list (as revised) and judgments by the RAWG. (an export case)
Generation equal to three times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (10,500 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on the RMATS new generation list (as revised) and judgments by the RAWG. (an export case)

- Generation equal to one times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (3,500 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on the IRPs of RM area utilities and the RMATS new generation list (as revised).
- Generation equal to one times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (3,500 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on a _coordinated_ look at the IRPs of RM area utilities and the RMATS new generation list (as revised).
- Generation equal to two times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (7,000 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on the RMATS new generation list (as revised) and judgments by the RAWG. (an export case)
- Generation equal to three times the RMATS Load Growth from 2008 to 2013 (10,500 MW) plus reserves.  Generation additions will be based on the RMATS new generation list (as revised) and judgments by the RAWG. (an export case)

**Decide Criteria for 2015 Resources****(Continued)**

## Improve on hydro modeling

-  **GridView allows for hydro shaping, using a peak shaving algorithm**
- Done externally in Market Simulator
-  **Data required:**
- Monthly energy and peak
-  **GENESYS – NWPCC model**
- Public domain
- Performs a detailed simulation of the Northwest power system
- Assess the ability of the system to meet load with variation of hydro conditions, temperatures and generator outages

## Determine the reference case (s)

-  IRP scenario
-  All gas scenario
-  Others?