# Presentation: 794994

## SSG-WI Transmission Study

**August 15, 2003**

## Meeting Objectives

- Preview/Confirmation of the 2013 Base Cases with Transmission Addition for the three Scenarios
- Gas
- Coal
- Renewable

**Meeting Objectives**

## Study Schedule

**April**

**May**

**June**

**July**

**Aug**

**Sept**

**2008 Base Simulation**

**2008 Sensitivities**

**2013 Base Simulation**

**2013 Scenarios**

**2013 Sensitivities**

**Report Writing**

## 2008 Base Case(Final)

## Changes Applied in Canada

- Added approximately 9400 GWh of energy output to reflect the energy output for the IPPs, DSM and upgrade to Hydro (omitted previously).
- Increased the energy output at the Kemano plant from 1230 GWh to 1440 GWh to reflect properly the Alcan energy delivery to BC Hydro.
- Lowered the VOM cost (from $150/MWh to $90/MWh) for the Canadian dummy generators in order to reflect the Canadian flexibility in shaping hydro around load, rather than fire up quick start peakers in other regions.

## Other Concerns

- “Path 15” Representation in the 2008 Base Case

## Results From The 2008 Re-run

- WECC  wide average LMPs remained the same or were lowered depending on the study scenario

- The differences between BC Hydro monitored buses average LMP Vs the WECC wide average LMPs remained the same or were lowered depending on the study scenario.

## Results From The 2008 Re-run 

- Eight of the top 10 Interfaces by shadow price expansion value from the previous 2008 study remained in the top 10 of this updated 2008 study.
- Alberta to BC & TOT 7 replaced Northwest to Canada & North of Miguel on the list of the top 10 Interfaces by expansion value.

- The LMP values of what load pays and what generation receives are reduced substantially.

## Estimated Annual Average LMP - 2008 Gas Cases

## Shadow Prices

**Shadow Prices**

## NW - Canada “Old”

## NW - Canada “New”

## Alberta - British Columbia “Old”

## Alberta - British Columbia “New”

## Scenarios Included in Study - (See SSG-WI web-site for full analysis)

- 

**Scenarios Included in Study - **(See SSG-WI web-site for full analysis)

***6 Gas/Hydro Sensitivities***

***Generation***
***Under***
***Construction***

**High Hydro**

**Average Hydro**

**Low Hydro**

**High Gas**

**Average Gas**

**Low Gas**

- 

- 

- 

***2008 Simulation***

- 

- 

- Optional

- 

## 2008 Base Case Results

## Existing WECC Transmission Cost
WECC 2008 Case shows some bottle-necked inexpensive resources - ~$900 millions 
Implication would be transmission underbuild 

Resource Development
New resources are mostly gas-fired CCCTs
Capacity by fuel type is shifting toward gas, the % change in energy is greater than the rate of capacity increase

Total VOM Cost Estimates
More sensitive to gas scenario than hydro scenario

- WECC 2008 Case shows some bottle-necked inexpensive resources - ~$900 millions
- Implication would be transmission underbuild
- Resource Development
- New resources are mostly gas-fired CCCTs
- Capacity by fuel type is shifting toward gas, the % change in energy is greater than the rate of capacity increase
- Total VOM Cost Estimates
- More sensitive to gas scenario than hydro scenario

**Results Summary**

## Scenario Results Summary

- Determined that Gas has to make-up the difference for Hydro
- Defined the boundaries of usage and their associated costs; specific path usage profile vary depending on:
- Hydro conditions
- Gas price sensitivities
- Location of expected loads and resources

## Hydro Results

- LMP differences get muted when looking across varying hydro sensitivities
- Program just looks at variable costs
- Does not factor in costs associated with bid behavior
- Plants peak shaving algorithm will spend a considerable percentage of this modeled hours at the minimum output level
- Hydro regulation min & max MW may be inappropriate; typically not used for many hours of actual hydro operation
- Peak shaving may underestimate the use of thermal peakers, lowering peak hour LMP estimates

## 2013 Base Case

## 2013 Base Case Assumption Consensus Status

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

** **

- 

- 

- 

- 

## Scenarios Included in Study

- 

**Scenarios Included in Study**

***4 Gas/Hydro Sensitivities***

***Three scenarios***
- Gas-fired
- Coal-fired
- Renewable

**High Hydro**

**Average Hydro**

**Low Hydro**

**High Gas**

**Average Gas**

- 

- 

- 

***2013 Simulation***

## 2013 Base Case Transmission Additions

## Modifications developed for three scenarios
Gas-fired
Coal-fired
Renewable

- Gas-fired
- Coal-fired
- Renewable

**Transmission Topology**

## Perceived Transmission Needs

**Gas**

**Renewable**

**Coal**

- COI

- 0

- 0

- +2000

- ID - NW

- 0

- 0

- +1000

- WOR

- +2000

- +2000

- +4000

- EOR

- +500

- 0

- 0

- TOT3

- 0

- +500

- +1500

- MT - NW

- 0

- +1500

- +4500

- SW OF 4C

- 0

- +300

- +2300

- BRIDGER WEST

- 0

- +1000

- +2000

- ALBERTA - BC

- +1500

- +1500

- +300

**Incremental Increase****Determined by ****Flow on 2008 Grid w/no Transmission Limits**

## Transmission Additions

## Transmission Additions (continued)

## Slide 28

## Gas Scenario - “New” Transmission - 2013

## Slide 30

## Renewable Scenario - “New” Transmission - 2013

## Slide 32

## Coal Scenario - “New” Transmission - 2013

## DC Lines - Coal Scenario

- A DC line is modeled as a matched pair of withdrawal (or load) MWs and injection (or generation) MWs taking place at fixed points on the grid.
- The model really doesn't see any lines, only MWs in and matched MWs out.
- A multi terminal DC could be modeled as a series of DC lines between points.
- The model will simply move the MWs to minimize costs.
- The model operates control devices (e.g. DC Lines and phase shifters) in the same manner as generator dispatch.
- The user specifies the bounds and costs for DC lines and phase shifters as well as for the generators. The optimization routine will use all three to minimize total system production cost.

## 2013  Base Case Preview, Preliminary Results & Next Steps

## Economic Value of Added Transmission (LMP Value)

**Gas**
- WECC wide load cost is reduced by $819m annually (weighted average of $0.96 per MWh)
- WECC wide Generation revenue is reduced by $106m (weighted average of $0.11 per MWh)
**Coal**
- WECC wide load cost is reduced by $4.2b annually (weighted average of $4.36 per MWh)
- WECC wide Generation revenue is reduced by $159m (average of $0.17 per MWh)
**Renewable**
- WECC wide load cost is reduced by $1b annually (weighted average of $1.09 per MWh)
- WECC wide Generation revenue is increased by $1b (average of $1.10 per MWh)

## Remaining Value of Transmission: New System Vs No Limit - LMP Value

**“****New” Transmission Contribution **
**Gas **
- WECC wide  results in $ 108 m decrease in variable O&M
**Coal**
- WECC wide  results in $ 300 m decrease in variable O&M
**Renewable**
- WECC wide  results in $ 119 m decrease in variable O&M

## Preliminary Run Totals (with “NEW” Transmission)

**Showing the different Cost and LMP Estimates**
- $ X (1000)
- Average Hydro, Medium Gas

## Gas Scenario - Flow Duration (w/new Transmission)

## Gas Scenario - Flow Duration (w/new Transmission)

## Coal Scenario - Flow Duration (w/new Transmission)

## Coal Scenario - Flow Duration (w/new Transmission)

## Renewable Scenario - Flow Duration (w/new Transmission)

## Renewable Scenario - Flow Duration (w/new Transmission)

## Initial Scenario Results - 2013 (w/o Transmission)

-  Transmission is required to evaluate the economics of adding remote generation
- Coal Scenario  - without Transmission additions, 55% of total new coal resources is trapped
- Gas Scenario - Transmission stresses similar to 2008 case; new resources located adjacent to loads
- Renewable scenario  - without Transmission, some low cost coal was displaced; Renewable largely displaced gas

**Initial Scenario Results - 2013 (w/o Transmission)**

## Even with “New” Transmission, we still have some trapped generation

Following costs reflect VOM only -
The Coal Scenario has the largest reduction in VOM costs (3:1 savings in VOM as compared to Gas)
WECC wide the LMP cost to serve load has been reduced in all three scenarios.  
WECC wide The net LMP value of generation has increased in renewable scenario and decreased in the others.

- Following costs reflect VOM only -
- The Coal Scenario has the largest reduction in VOM costs (3:1 savings in VOM as compared to Gas)
- WECC wide the LMP cost to serve load has been reduced in all three scenarios.
- WECC wide The net LMP value of generation has increased in renewable scenario and decreased in the others.

**Preliminary Results with “New” Transmission**

## Path Expansion (Value & Rank) - $2013

## SSG-WI Validation of Changes & Further Analysis of Transmission Options

Analytical Support
Provide analytical summaries to report writers

FERC Filing/WGA Report Filing

- Analytical Support
- Provide analytical summaries to report writers
- FERC Filing/WGA Report Filing

**Next Steps**