# Presentation: 056796

## 2015 “Reference Case” Resources

**2015 “Reference Case” Resources**
** **
**SSG-WI Planning Work Group Meeting**
**November 9, 2005**
**Mary Johannis**

## 2015 &

- ; in some cases dynamic demand response is modeled as resource.

**2015 &**

- Updated November 2005

- November 9, 2005

## 2015 &

**2015 &**

- November 9, 2005

## Slide 4

- November 9, 2005

## Challenge of Conforming Transmission Topology to Resource Planning Topology

- NTAC = Alberta + BC Hydro + PNW ((NW East + NW West) + Idaho (Oxbow/Hells Canyon + Midpoint Boise & Snake + KGB + JB) ) + Montana
- Nevada = Sierra + Nevada
- Utah = Utah North + Utah South + Bonz
- Wyoming = Ywtl + BHB + Wyo + SW Wyo + Bhills + LRS
- Colorado = Col W + Col E
- New Mexico = New Mexico
- Arizona = Arizona + WAPA L.C.
- California = PG&E + Bay Area + So. Calif. + San Diego + Imperial CA + LADWP + IPP + Mexico CFE

- November 9, 2005

## SSG-WI Planned Resource Reference

**SSG-WI Planned Resource Reference**
**Principles for Resource Additions (2008-2015)**
- “Minimal Interregional Transfer” Case

**Principles:**
-  Incremental 2008-2015 resources from IRPs, to satisfy RPS and be consistent with other formal plans
-  Incremental resources primarily to meet load growth in subareas, i.e. CA, NTAC, RMATS, SWAT & CCPG
-  If existing through 2008 resources are for export to other subareas, then assume same level of export for 2015

- November 9, 2005

## State RPS Requirements

**State RPS Requirements**

- November 9, 2005

## ARIZONA (proposed changes)

| RPS Requirement | Eligible Techs | Set-Asides? | Extra Credits? | RECS? | Coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.00% in 2005
1.25% in 2006
1.50% in 2007
1.75% in 2008
2.00% in 2009
2.50% in 2010
3.00% in 2011
3.50% in 2012
4.00% in 2013
4.50% in 2014
5.00% in 2015
6.00% in 2016
7.00% in 2017
8.00% in 2018
9.00% in 2019
10.00% in 2020
11.00% in 2021
12.00% in 2022
13.00% in 2023
14.00% in 2024
15.00% in 2025
(based on retail electricity sales) | Solar, incl. DHW, space heating, air conditioning and daylighting
Landfill methane
Wind
Biomass
Geothermal
Small new hydro
Fuel cells using renewable fuel sources | Solar electric
set-aside:
15% in 2005-2007
16% in 2008
17% in 2009
18% in 2010
19% in 2011
20% in 2012
and thereafter
Distributed renewable energy requirement:
10% in 2006
15% in 2007
20% in 2008
25% in 2009
and thereafter
Renewable power purchase agreement set-aside:
10% in 2006
15% in 2007
20% in 2008
30% in 2009
40% in 2010 | 1.5 x multiplier for in-state installation of new solar electric systems.
1.5 x multiplier for in-state manufacturing or installation content.
1.5 x for distributed solar.
(up to 3.0 x additive)
Extra credit for ownership or significant investment in any solar electric manufacturing plant located in-state. | Yes, but new eligible technologies must be located in-state. | Any public service corporation serving retail electric load in Arizona, but excluding any utility distribution company with more than half of its customers located outside of Arizona. |
| Special Considerations/Uncertainties |  |  |  |  |  |
| Enabling Legislation |  |  |  |  |  |

- November 9, 2005

## CALIFORNIA

| RPS Requirement | Eligible Techs | Set-Asides? | Extra Credits? | RECS? | Coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20% by 2017
(based on retail sales)
Each utility must achieve a minimum renewables increase of 1%.yr. |  | No | No | For in-state accounting purposes only. RECs and electricity must be sold together as bundled product.
(Facilities located out-of-state must (1) secure a contract to sell to IOU or ISO, and (2) deliver to in-state market hub or substation.) | IOUs |
| Special Considerations:
PUC has ordered acceleration of RPS timeline to 2010.
Governor has proposed expanding the RPS to 33%.
Utility payments to renewable energy generators are capped at the market price referent (MPR). Any costs above the MPR are to be covered by the state’s renewable energy fund, but are limited by the overall availability of funds. |  |  |  |  |  |
| Enabling Legislation: |  |  |  |  |  |

| Solar PV
Solar thermal Wind
Biomass
Geothermal
Ocean |
| --- |

- November 9, 2005

## COLORADO

| RPS Requirement | Eligible Techs | Set-Asides? | Extra Credits? | RECS? | Coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3% for 2007-2010
6% for 2011-2014
10% for 2015 and thereafter
(based on retail electricity sales) | Solar
Wind
Geothermal
Biomass
Hydro (≤10 MW)
Fuel cells using hydrogen derived from renewable sources | At least 4% of the renewable requirement shall be derived from solar electric generation technologies with at least one-half of the 4% derived from solar electric facilities located on-site at customers’ facilities. | 1.25 x multiplier for in-state generation. | Yes
(no in-state delivery requirement) | All electric service providers with more than 40,000 customers. |
| Special Considerations:
Cost of solar set-aside capped at 50¢ per month for residential customers.
Utilities may opt via a majority vote of customers providing that a minimum of 25% of eligible consumers participate in the election. |  |  |  |  |  |
| Enabling Legislation:
Amendment 37 passed by voters in November 2004.
Clarifying legislation passed in 2005 . . .
Colorado PUC to establish rules. |  |  |  |  |  |

- November 9, 2005

## MONTANA

| RPS Requirement | Eligible Techs | Set-Asides? | Extra Credits? | RECS? | Coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5% in 2008
10% in 2010
15% in 2015 and thereafter
(based on retail electricity sales) | Wind
Solar
Geothermal
Hydro (≤10 MW)
Biomass
Fuel cells using hydrogen derived from renewable sources | At least 75 MW must come from community renewable energy projects. | 1.25 x multiplier for in-state generation. | Yes
(with in-state delivery requirement) | Each public utility operating in the state. Cooperatives with 5,000 or more customers required to implement a renewables  standard reflecting the intent of the legislature to encourage new renewable energy production. |
| Special Considerations:
Restructured utilities operating in the state are relieved from the RPS obligation if the cost of electricity from an eligible renewable resource—including the cost of ancillary services necessary to manage the transmission grid and firm the resource—is greater than the cost of power available from nonrenewable suppliers. Other utilities are relieved from the RPS obligation if the cost of the renewable resource exceeds the cost of power from other sources by more than 15%. |  |  |  |  |  |
| Enabling Legislation:
SB 415 (2005) (http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2005/billhtml/SB0415.htm)  |  |  |  |  |  |

- November 9, 2005

## NEVADA

| RPS Requirement | Eligible Techs | Set-Asides? | Extra Credits? | RECS? | Coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6% in 2005-2006
9% in 2008
12% in 2010
15% in 2012
18% in 2014
20% in 2015
and thereafter
(based on electricity sales) | Wind
Solar
Geothermal
Hydro (≤30 MW)
Biomass
Energy efficiency measures | Not less than 5% from solar energy systems. |  | Yes
(no in-state delivery requirement?) |  |
| Special Considerations:
Energy efficiency measures can meet up to 25% of the standard in any one year. |  |  |  |  |  |
| Enabling Legislation:
AB (2005) (http://leg.state.nv.us/22ndSpecial/bills/AB/AB3_EN.pdf))  |  |  |  |  |  |

| 2.4 x for customer-sited solar PV
1.15 x for other onsite renewables generation
0.7 x for waste tire facilities using “reverse polymerization” technology |
| --- |

| All retail electricity suppliers, excl. co-ops, munis or general improvement districts. |
| --- |

_**NEVADA**_

- November 9, 2005

## NEW MEXICO

| 
RPS Requirement | Eligible Techs | Set-Asides? | Extra Credits? | RECS? | Coverage |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5% in 2006
6% in 2007
7% in 2008
8% in 2009
9% in 2010
10% in 2011
and thereafter
(based on retail sales) | Solar
Wind
Hydropower
Geothermal
Hydro
Fuel cells that are not fossil-fueled
Biomass | No |  | Yes
(in-state delivery requirement) |  |
| Special Considerations:
RECS can be banked for up to 4 years.
PRC to establish “reasonable cost threshold” for compliance
RPS costs capped for large customers |  |  |  |  |  |
| Enabling Legislation:
SB 43 (2004) |  |  |  |  |  |

| 3 x for solar
2 x for other renewables (excl wind & hydro) |
| --- |

| All retail electricity suppliers under PRC jurisdiction, (excl. co-ops & munis). TNP exempted while subject to all-requirements contract. |
| --- |

- November 9, 2005

## Conclusions

- On final iteration, Renewable Portfolio Standards satisfied in all six states with RPS requirements
- Principles for 2015 Reference Case satisfied in constructing the reference case
- The differing assumptions regarding imports and market availability in utilities’ IRPs results in high planning margins in some states and deficient margins in a couple of states
- Overall, WI has sufficient generation to meet load
- Model runs will point out if generation is deliverable to load

- November 9, 2005