From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:11 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Cc: Wayland, Robertj

Subject: Resource Adequacy TSD

Hopefully another TSD done

<< TSD Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis.pdf >>1 Technical Support Document:

Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis

This document describes resource adequacy and reliability impacts in 20 20 for selected

policy scenarios from this proposal , compared to a base case without the policy

. As used here,

the term r esource a dequacy means the provision of adequate generating resources to meet

projected load and generating reserve requirements in each region, while r eliability incl udes the

ability to deliver the resources to the loads , such that the overall power grid remains stable

. The

focus of the analysis is on the impact of the policy, in the context of a base case that is assumed

to be adequate and reliable. In this framework , the emphasis is on the incremental changes in the

power system that are projected to occur under the presence of the rule. 1 The EPA uses the

Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to project likely future electricity market conditions with and

without the proposed rule.

Although not the focus of this document, it is important to recognize that this proposal

provides flexibility in the context of state plan development that preserves the ability of

responsible authorities to maintain electric reliability. F or example, relevant planning authorities

(such as ISOs and RTOs) may consult with states during the formulation of a state plan. ISOs

and RTOs have also expressed interest in discussing the facilitation of emission control

requirements under multi

- state approaches. The flexibility of meeting the state goal over time

also allow s short

- term variation in CO2 emissions that may occur as certain generators run for

short periods of time to maintain system reliability . While not discussed further here, these f acts

further support this document’s demonstration that the implementation of this rule can be

achieved without undermining resource adequacy or reliability.

IPM is a multi

- regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S.

electric powe r sector

. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch,

and emission control strategies while meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission,

dispatch, and reliability constraints

. The model is designed to reflect ele ctricity markets as

1 Both the base and policy cases start from input data on the expected state of the fleet of power plants in 2016

and assume certain planned retirements and additions happen by the end of 2015; the analysis focuses on the

impacts of retirements that are pro jected by the IPM model in the 2020. See the documentation of the NEEDS data

base at epa.gov/powersectormodeling for information on what retirements and additions are assumed to occur by

the end of 2015.2

accurately as possible . The EPA uses the best available information from utilities, industry

experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis

for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM

. The model documentation provides additional

information on the assumptions discussed here as well as all other model assumptions and

inputs. 2

IPM is specifically designed to ensure generation resource adequacy, either by using

existing resources or through the construction of new resources

. IPM addresses reliable delivery

of generation resources for the delivery of electricity between the 64 IPM regions, by setting

limits to the ability to transfer power between regions using t he bulk power transmission system

.

Within each model region, IPM assumes that adequate transmission capacity exists to deliver any

resources located in, or transferred to

, the region

. For a more complete presentation of the power

sector impacts of the prop osed rule, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Overview

The EPA is proposing emission guidelines for states to use in developing plans to address

greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel

- fired electric generating units

. Specifically,

the EPA is proposing state

- specific rate

- based goals for carbon dioxide emissions from the

power sector, as well as guidelines for states to use in developing plans to attain the state

- specific

goals

. This rule, as proposed, would set in motion actions to lower the c arbon intensity of power

generation in the United States

. The agency is proposing one option (Option 1) for state

- specific

goals and requesting comment on a second option (Option 2)

. 3 For purposes of this resource

adequacy and reliability assessment, estimates and projections are taken from the Option 1 State

scenario

. This option was chosen because it limits compliance choices more than the

corresponding regional option, and is more likely than the regional option to pose challenges to

resource adequa cy

. 4 The Option 1 Regi onal scenario results are discussed relative to the results

from the Option 1 State scenario.

2 Detailed information and documentation of EPA’s Base Case using IPM (v5.13), including all the underlying

assumptions, data sources, and architecture parameters can be found on EPA’s website at:

http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/BaseCasev513.html

3 S ee Chapter 3 of the RIA for additional detail on the scenarios analyzed.

4 For more detail on the economic impacts, and more discussion of the compliance scenarios, see Chapter 3 of the

RIA for this proposal.3 Option 1 ( State ) Policy Scenario

Summary of Changes in Operational Capacity

Total operational capacity is lower in the policy scenario, primarily from reduced need

for existing and new capacity as a result of increases in energy efficiency

. These increases in

energy efficiency make possible increases in retirements compared to the base case

. Since most

regions currently have capacity above their target reserve margins, most of these retirements are

absorbed by a reduction in excess reserves over time

. Operational capacity 5 changes from the

base case in 2020 are summarized below:

Table 1

. Oper ational Capacity Summary in 2020

Base case operational capacity (MW) 1,004,942

Minus Retirements in Policy Case:

(

- ) Coal

- 48,996

(

- ) Oil

- Gas Steam

- 16,131

(

- ) Combustion Turbine

- 2,328

(

- ) Combined Cy c le

- 3,455

Plus New Capacity 36,118

Equals Policy Case Operational Capacity 9 70,150 6

Since the model must maintain adequate reserves in each region, a portion of the reduc ed

operational capacity in the policy case is taken from reserves that currently exceed the target

reserve margin and will not be needed in the future

. In order to maintain resource adequacy in

each region where existing resources retire, the model relies on this excess reserve reduction,

additions of new capacity, and reduced total resource requirements from increases in energy

efficiency

. As the table shows, the reduced resource needs permit lower capacity additions even

though there are substantial increases in retirements

. Each of these policy case chan ges is

discussed further below.

5 Operational capacity is any existing, new or retrofitted capacity that is not retired.

6 Numbers in this table may not sum to numbers in Table A1 due to independent rounding and small classification

differences between the base and policy cases.4

Reduction in Excess Reserves

IPM uses a target reserve margin in each region 7 as the basis for determining how much

capacity to keep operational in order to preserve resource adequacy

. IPM retires capacity if it is

no longer needed to provide energy for load or to provide capacity to meet reserve margin during

the planning horizon of the projections

. Since current regional reserves are generally higher than

the target reserve margin for the region, and increased energy efficiency will reduce the need for

reserves, IPM may retire reserve capacity in 20 20 if it is not economic to use it to maintain

adequate reserve margins

. Existing resources may also be more expensive , compared to

alternatives such as building new capacity or transferring capacity from another region

. As a

result, many of the plants that are projected to retire in 20 20 will not need to be replaced

.

Table 1 above shows that operational capacity is reduced by approximately 3 .5 percent

nationwide in 20 20 under the policy. 8 The majority of this reduction is the result of decreases in

load; in 2020 summer peak loads are reduced by around 3 percent nationwide, or approximately

24 GW (see Table A1)

. At the projecte d reserve margins in 2020 of 19 percent in the base case

,

these reductions reduce reserve capacity needs by around 28 GW, or about 80 percent of the

overall reduction in load of 35 GW shown in Table 1

. Moreover, these reductions are from

energy efficiency that is available in all hours, not just at peak, so it can substitute for existing or

new baseload capacity

. A reduction of 3 .5 percent in 2020 will therefore have little overall

impact

. Moreover, retirements are distributed throughout the power grid, so there will be only

small impacts at the regional level

. 9 Excess regional reserves above the target margin can be

shared among sub

- region s to ensure adequate reserve margins within a larger reliability region

.

IPM permits these transfers of reserves, but l imits their level to ensure the reliability of the bulk

power system

. These interregional transfers are discussed further below.

Although there are substantial existing regional variations in reserve margin

, IPM adjusts

regional capacities in 20 20 to meet the specific target reserve margin in each region, through

7 Reserve margin targets are generally based on the NERC 2010 10 Year Assessments for the region, except in cases

where there are more stringent state requirements or other exceptions.

8 Regional data on operational capacity is shown in Table A1 of the Appe ndix.

9 See maps of IPM regions and NERC Assessment Regions, and the table of target and projected reserve margins in

the Appendix C

. IPM regions are based on the regions NERC uses for regional assessments

. These Assessment

Regions are used for the Appendi x tables in this document.5

changes in the level of retirements, construction of new generating capacity

, or transfers of

capacity among regions to meet the specific reserve margin in each region

. Each of these

adjus tments in the 2020 projections is described below.

Change s in Retirements and New Capacity Additions in the Policy Case 10

Although there are significant retirements of 49 GW of coal and 1 6 GW of Oil

- Gas

Steam plants in the policy case in 2020 compared to the base case, these are offset by 28 GW of

capacity from load reductions discussed above and by changes in new capacity additions

.

Retiring coal units are generally older and smaller, and r etiring o il /g as s team units are generally

older, less efficient and infrequently used units

. Where needed for reserve margin, this retiring

capacity is replaced by 23 GW of Natural Gas Combined Cycle capacity, 2 GW of Combustion

Turbine capacity and 10 GW of wind capacity ( See Table A5)

. This new capacity of 35 GW

amounts to approximately 4 % of the current reserve capacity (See Table A2 for current summer

reserve capacity ) ; adding this amount of capacity to replace retiring coal and oil/gas steam units

is unlikely to present resource adequacy concerns

. Overal l, combined generation from natural

gas and coal is projected to fall by less than 5 percent at the national level in 2020 in the policy

case compared to the base case; a shift this small in the total capacity of units capable of

providing ancillary services to the grid should be entirely manageable within the normal

parameter s required for maintaining reliable operation. Although there can be local grid

reliability issues in replacing some units, these can be managed within the normal reliability

pl anning and management time frames provided by the flexible resource options and time frames

in the rule

.

The distribution of these retirements and additions across NERC Assessment regions is

shown in Appendix C

.

Reserve Transfers

In cases where it is economic to transfer reserves from a neighboring region

, rather tha n

supply reserves from within a region, IPM will transfer reserves, subject to summer and winter

10 Retirement and additions in this section are all incremental to the base case in 2020; the GW values represent

model projections of responses to the imposition of the policy, not currently announced retirements or additions

tha t are currently planned or under construction.6

limits that are designed to ensure that these reserves can be transferred reliably

. The tran sfer of

reserves can occur, for example, if a region retires capacity that was used in the base case to meet

reserve requirements , but a neighboring region has lower cost reserves that are not needed for its

own reserve requirements

. To examine these trans fers, the EPA analyzed the change in net

transfers from each region, where the net transfer for the base and policy cases is measured by

the reserves sent to neighboring regions

. In these cases, a positive value signifies the reserve

capacity sent to other regions is larger than the reserve capacity received from other regions

(sending and receiving regions can be different), while a negative value signifies that the

capacity received is larger than the capacity sent

. Thus, the value measure s the degree to which

resources in the region were reserved for use by other regions (positive value), or where the

capacity to meet load in the region was served by resources in other regions (negative value)

. In

each case these reserve transfers represent the use of the transmission system on a firm basis for

at least a season.

To look at the impact of the policy case on transfers , the measure used was the change in

the summer reserves sent in the policy case compare d to the base case

. To develop a relativ e

measure of the impact of the policy, the change in reserves was measure d as a percentage of load

in the sending region

. This percentage gives an indication of the significance of the policy for

changes in the grid

. The results of this measurement are sho wn in Table A6

. As the Table shows,

o nly three regions are at or above a 5 % . The EPA believes changes below 5 % are unlikely to

raise concerns over reliability; the three changes at or above 5 % are discussed further below.

Using this measure, t he largest change in reserves are in the Northeast in ISO

- NE , and in

the Southeast in SERC

- SE and FRCC

. In ISO

- NE the change in reserves is additional receipts of

1 947 MW, increasing net reserves received from 938 MW to 2, 885 MW

. The majority of this

chang e resulted from a net decrease of 1 261 MW in the reserves sent from ISO

- NE regions to

regions in the NYISO; the remainder resulted from a net increase in the reserves received from

Canada and from NYISO

. In projecting these shifts, IPM is constraining flows within the transfer

limits between IPM regions, but also limiting the total flow between all the IPM regions in

NYISO (New York State) and ISO

- NE (all the states in New England). 11 The modeling thus

considers both basic line limits and broader transmissio n system limits on overall flows

. The

11 For details on these limits, see the IPM documentation.7

shifts in grid transfers exhibited in the IPM modeling suggest overall grid adjustment that is

shared by these RTOs within manageable limits, and do not appear to be a cause for concern

.

In the Southeast, the largest percentage change occurs in SERC

- SE

. In the base case

,

SERC

- SE sends a net 2,071 MW to other regions, while in the policy case it receives a net 2,092

MW from other regions

. This change amounts to a shift of in increased receipts relative to the

base case of 4, 163 MW (8.3% of load in the base case )

. Although this shift is relative ly large

compared to other regions, there is little change in the absolute magnitude of transfers that need

to be managed, since transfers shift from reserves sent to reserves rec eived

– in both cases the

transfer is around 2,000 MW

. The shift to receipts corresponds to the other large shift in the

Southeast, as shift in FRCC from zero MW sent to 3,420 MW sent

. All of these transfers are to

SERC

- SE, the only region to which FRCC is connected

. When the larger SERC region i s

considered 12 , combining all the individual SERC regions, the shift as a percentage of load drops

to 4.8% of the total SERC load

. These overall changes fall within the planning areas of SERC

and are related to the placement of new capacity; within this planning area the shifts of this

magnitude should be manageable

.

Alternative Case: Option 1 (Regional)

As discussed above, the Option 1 (State) was chose n for the basic impact analysis

because it provides a stricter test of potential reliability impacts . The EPA also examined the

preferred Option 1 (Regional) case to identify differences with the State case and assess potential

impacts

. Tables B1 through B5 in Appendix B present results that correspond to Option 1 (State)

Tables A1 through A5

. As expected, both cases showed very similar patterns in total operating

and reserve capacity, since the IPM model must serve the same loads and ensure the same

reserve margins in each case

. Total operating capacity differs by less than one percent and

regional operating capacities are within 5 percent except for MAPP. 13 R eserve capacity and

projected reserve margins for Option 1 (Regional) (Tables B2 and B3) follow a pattern similar to

12 This the entire SERC region, consisting of SERC

- SE, SERC

- N, SERC

- E and SERC

- W

. See map in Appendix for

details.

13 MAPP has only 9 GW and the policy c ases differ by 9.0 percent

. An additional 848 MW of Wind capacity is

added in the regional scenario compared to the state scenario.8

operating capacity: totals are within 1% of the projections for the corresponding outputs from

Option 1 (State) an d regional reserve capacities are under 5 percent

.

Differences between the cases develop in the types of capacity that are retired and in the

amount and types of new capacity built in2020

. The Regional results show fewer incremental

retirements of coal capacity ( 46.1 GW compared to 49.0 GW) and in the total retired capacity

( 68.4 GW compared to 70.6 GW)

. Retirements of Oil

- Gas capacity remain essentially unchanged

between the two cases ( 16.3 GW) and other retirements are small (see Tables A4 and B4.) The

decrease in retired coal capacity of 2 .8 GW are offset by a decrease in new combined cycle

capac ity of the 2.1 GW

. Overall, these results indicate a greater flexibility in the choice of which

units are used to serve capacity needs, a result that indicates general flexibility over capacity

choices

. Managing these increases and decreases should raise n o reliability issues

. Retirements

of Oil/Gas Steam capacity remain unchanged between the options and no further reliability

issues arise in the regional case.

A similar indication of greater flexibility is seen in the transfers

. The two cases with the

lar gest percentage shift examined above are reduced in magnitude

. The shift in ISO

- NE is

reduced from

- 7.7% to

- 5.4%, and the shift in SERC

- SE is reduced from

- 8.3% to

- 6.7%.9 Appendix A : Tables by IPM Region

Option 1 (State)

A1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020

A2.

. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 202 0

A 3

. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 20 20

A 4

. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case in 20 20

A5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020

A6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region in 202010

A1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020(MW)

All Generation Sources Coal Only

Region Base Policy Change Base Policy

Basin (BASN) 14,163 12,864

- 1,298 5,315 4,133

Desert Southwest (DSW) 42,191 39,847

- 2,344 9,278 6,894

ERCOT 89,531 89,277

- 255 19,052 10,734

FRCC 54,766 56,723 1,956 7,893 2,291

ISO

- NE 30,239 28,533

- 1,706 141 141

MAPP 9,176 9,090

- 85 3,424 3,339

MISO 121,440 117,492

- 3,948 50,983 45,646

Northern California (CALN) 32,878 31,092

- 1,786 71 71

Northwest (NORW) 51,947 49,373

- 2,574 2,354 2,354

NYISO 38,779 37,227

- 1,552 443 594

PJM 180,193 175,676

- 4,517 55,964 51,175

Rockies (Rock) 23,509 22,163

- 1,346 10,584 9,239

SERC

- E 52,311 52,086

- 225 14,056 10,055

SERC

- N 47,824 48,498 675 16,260 15,786

SERC

- SE 60,084 55,023

- 5,061 15,794 9,670

SERC

- W 41,035 35,965

- 5,069 6,909 3,224

Southern California (CALS) 43,004 40,920

- 2,084 57 57

SPP 71,871 68,188

- 3,683 23,704 17,877

Grand Total 1,004,942 970,037

- 34,905 242,283 193,27911

A2

. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 2020

Projected Reserve

Margins

Assessment Region Peak

Demand

Base Peak

Demand

Policy Reserve

Capacity

Base Reserve

Capacity

Policy

Basin (BASN) 11,893 11,487 13,739 12,935

Desert Southwest

(DSW) 34,249 32,675 39,549 37,086

ERCOT 72,034 70,790 81,938 80,523

FRCC 45,199 44,260 54,595 53,131

ISO

- NE 25,142 24,040 28,913 27,646

MAPP 5,383 5,304 6,943 6,099

MISO 90,613 87,001 106,325 101,182

Northern California

(CALN) 22,308 21,295 28,451 26,667

Northwest (NORW) 25,442 24,350 40,590 37,994

NYISO 29,876 28,504 34,656 33,065

PJM 155,743 150,641 179,728 173,839

Rockies (Rock) 16,025 15,446 19,952 17,991

SERC

- E 44,545 43,525 51,227 50,054

SERC

- N 40,177 39,390 46,203 45,299

SERC

- SE 50,246 49,465 57,783 56,885

SERC

- W 29,834 29,514 37,940 33,941

Southern California

(CALS) 29,514 27,866 36,244 32,798

SPP 51,336 50,440 62,225 57,300

US Total 779,558 755,995 927,000 884,43512

A3

. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020

Projected Reserve Margins

NERC Assessment

Region Target

Reserve

Margin Base Case Policy

Case Policy %

Above

Margin Policy

Change

from Base

Basin (BASN) 12.60% 15.52% 12.60% 0.0%

- 2.9%

Desert Southwest

(DSW) 13.50% 15.47% 13.50% 0.0%

- 2.0%

ERCOT 13.75% 13.75% 13.75% 0.0% 0.0%

FRCC 19.25% 20.79% 20.04% 0.8%

- 0.7%

ISO

- NE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

MAPP 15.00% 28.99% 15.00% 0.0%

- 14.0%

MISO 16.30% 17.34% 16.30% 0.0%

- 1.0%

Northern California

(CALN) 14.71% 27.54% 25.23% 10.5%

- 2.3%

Northwest (NORW) 17.90% 35.58% 32.63% 14.7%

- 2.9%

NYISO 16.00% 16.00% 16.00% 0.0% 0.0%

PJM 15.40% 15.40% 15.40% 0.0% 0.0%

Rockies (Rock) 14.65% 24.51% 16.48% 1.8%

- 8.0%

SERC

- E 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

SERC

- N 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

SERC

- SE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

SERC

- W 15.00% 27.17% 15.00% 0.0%

- 12.2%

Southern California

(CALS) 15.14% 22.80% 17.70% 2.6%

- 5.1%

SPP 13.60% 21.21% 13.60% 0.0%

- 7.6%

Grand Total 15.29% 18.91% 16.99% 1.7%

- 1.9%13

A4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to the Base Case in 2020 (MW)

CC Coal CT NU OG

Steam Total

Basin (BASN) 46 1,175 0 0 345 1,567

Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 2,392 0 0 0 2,392

ERCOT 0 8,358 0 0 0 8,358

FRCC 243 5,602 0 0 3,395 9,239

ISO

- NE 1,029 0 0 0 2,671 3,700

MAPP 0 85 0 0 0 85

MISO 0 5,350 0

- 261 0 5,089

Northern California (CALN) 209 0 1,592 0 0 1,800

Northwest (NORW) 1,885 0 690 0 0 2,574

NYISO 81

- 151 0 0 1,656 1,586

PJM 0 4,622 0 0 0 4,622

Rockies (Rock) 0 1,349 0 0 0 1,349

SERC

- E 0 4,004 0 0 0 4,004

SERC

- N 0 468 0 0 0 468

SERC

- SE 0 6,148 0 0 0 6,148

SERC

- W

- 513 3,718

- 7 0 4,417 7,615

Southern California (CALS) 766 0 54 0 1,493 2,313

SPP

- 292 5,874 0 0 2,154 7,737

Grand Total 3,455 48,996 2,328

- 261 16,131 70,64914

A5. New Capacity Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020

(MW)

Region CC CT Wind Other Total

Basin (BASN) 0

- 8 4 271 267

Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 0 6 34 40

ERCOT 6,831 0 1,233 0 8,064

FRCC 11,196 0 0

- 95 11,101

ISO

- NE 99

- 7 1,903

- 33 1,961

MAPP 0

- 110 0 0

- 110

MISO 0

- 65 1,161

- 63 1,033

Northern California (CALN) 0 0 1 13 14

Northwest (NORW)

- 11

- 17 0

- 5

- 33

NYISO 0

- 14

- 37 0

- 52

PJM

- 912

- 1,729 1,633

- 295

- 1,304

Rockies (Rock)

- 1,023 265 537 0

- 221

SERC

- E 2,242

- 56 0 1,524 3,709

SERC

- N 500 0 9 0 509

SERC

- SE 1,062 0 0 0 1,062

SERC

- W 2,512

- 31 0 0 2,481

Southern California (CALS) 183 0 6 38 227

SPP 47

- 283 3,961

- 3 3,722

Grand Total 22,724

- 2,056 10,416 1,385 32,47015

A6

. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region in Base and Policy

Scenarios in 2020 (MW)

NERC Assessment

Region Base Policy Change from

Base to

Policy Change as

Percent of

Summer Peak

Basin (BASN)

- 1,430

- 1,926

- 496

- 4.2%

Desert Southwest

(DSW) 204 289 86 0.3%

ERCOT

- 1,942

- 1,913 29 0.0%

FRCC 0 3,420 3,420 7.6%

ISO

- NE

- 938

- 2,885

- 1,947

- 7.7%

MISO 1,135 1,470 335 0.3%

Northern California

(CALN) 0 0 0 0.0%

Northwest (NORW) 309 330 21 0.1%

NYISO 1,397 1,295

- 102

- 0.3%

PJM

- 12,061

- 11,872 189 0.1%

Rockies (Rock) 208 426 217 1.4%

SERC

- E

- 256

- 570

- 314

- 0.7%

SERC

- N 807 2,379 1,572 3.9%

SERC

- SE 2,071

- 2,092

- 4,163

- 8.3%

SERC

- W 3,011 1,928

- 1,084

- 3.6%

Southern California

(CALS) 251 1,622 1,371 4.6%

SPP 3,528 1,818

- 1,709

- 3.3%16 Appendix B: Tables by IPM Region

Option 1 (Regional)

B1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020

B2. Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 2020

B3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020

B4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case in 2020

B5. New Capacit y in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 202017

B1. Projected Operational Capacity in 2020(MW)

All Generation Sources Coal Only

Region Base Policy Change Base Policy Change

Basin (BASN) 14,163 13,467

- 696 5,315 4,838

- 478

Desert Southwest

(DSW) 42,191 41,810

- 382 9,278 8,433

- 845

ERCOT 89,531 88,511

- 1,020 19,052 13,246

- 5,806

FRCC 54,766 56,372 1,606 7,893 3,094

- 4,799

ISO

- NE 30,239 27,928

- 2,311 141 141 0

MAPP 9,176 9,972 796 3,424 3,372

- 52

MISO 121,440 115,908

- 5,532 50,983 45,609

- 5,374

Northern California

(CALN) 32,878 30,909

- 1,969 71 17

- 54

Northwest (NORW) 51,947 49,473

- 2,474 2,354 2,354 0

NYISO 38,779 36,716

- 2,063 443 55

- 388

PJM 180,193 175,000

- 5,193 55,964 50,082

- 5,882

Rockies (Rock) 23,509 22,342

- 1,167 10,584 9,889

- 695

SERC

- E 52,311 52,522 212 14,056 8,264

- 5,792

SERC

- N 47,824 48,516 692 16,260 15,119

- 1,142

SERC

- SE 60,084 55,797

- 4,287 15,794 11,390

- 4,404

SERC

- W 41,035 35,710

- 5,325 6,909 2,352

- 4,557

Southern California

(CALS) 43,004 40,091

- 2,913 57 57 0

SPP 71,871 69,754

- 2,117 23,704 17,853

- 5,851

Grand Total 1,004,942 970,799 - 34,143 242,283 196,164

- 46,11818

B2

. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity in 2020

Projected Reserve

Margins

Assessment Region Peak

Demand

Base Peak

Demand

Policy Reserve

Capacity

Base Reserve

Capacity

Policy

Basin (BASN) 11,893 11,487 13,739 12,935

Desert Southwest

(DSW) 34,249 32,675 39,549 37,765

ERCOT 72,034 70,790 81,938 80,523

FRCC 45,199 44,260 54,595 52,781

ISO

- NE 25,142 24,040 28,913 27,646

MAPP 5,383 5,304 6,943 6,099

MISO 90,613 87,001 106,325 101,182

Northern California

(CALN) 22,308 21,295 28,451 25,654

Northwest (NORW) 25,442 24,350 40,590 37,962

NYISO 29,876 28,504 34,656 33,065

PJM 155,743 150,641 179,728 173,839

Rockies (Rock) 16,025 15,446 19,952 18,722

SERC

- E 44,545 43,525 51,227 50,054

SERC

- N 40,177 39,390 46,203 45,299

SERC

- SE 50,246 49,465 57,783 56,885

SERC

- W 29,834 29,514 37,940 33,941

Southern California

(CALS) 29,514 27,866 36,244 33,752

SPP 51,336 50,440 62,225 57,300

US Total 779,558 755,995 927,000 885,40419

B3

. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020

Projected Reserve Margins

NERC Assessment

Region Target

Reserve

Margin Base Case Policy

Case Policy %

Above

Margin Policy

Change

from Base

Basin (BASN) 12.60% 15.52% 12.60% 0.0%

- 2.9%

Desert Southwest

(DSW) 13.50% 15.47% 15.58% 2.1% 0.1%

ERCOT 13.75% 13.75% 13.75% 0.0% 0.0%

FRCC 19.25% 20.79% 19.25% 0.0%

- 1.5%

ISO

- NE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

MAPP 15.00% 28.99% 15.00% 0.0%

- 14.0%

MISO 16.30% 17.34% 16.30% 0.0%

- 1.0%

Northern California

(CALN) 14.71% 27.54% 20.47% 5.8%

- 7.1%

Northwest (NORW) 17.90% 35.58% 32.57% 14.7%

- 3.0%

NYISO 16.00% 16.00% 16.00% 0.0% 0.0%

PJM 15.40% 15.40% 15.40% 0.0% 0.0%

Rockies (Rock) 14.65% 24.51% 21.21% 6.6%

- 3.3%

SERC

- E 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

SERC

- N 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

SERC

- SE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 0.0% 0.0%

SERC

- W 15.00% 27.17% 15.00% 0.0%

- 12.2%

Southern California

(CALS) 15.14% 22.80% 21.12% 6.0%

- 1.7%

SPP 13.60% 21.21% 13.60% 0.0%

- 7.6%

Grand Total 15.29% 18.91% 17.12% 1.8%

- 1.8%20

B4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to the Base Case in 2020

(MW)

CC Coal CT NU OG

Steam Total

Basin (BASN) 104 479 0 0 244 827

Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 848 0 0 0 848

ERCOT 0 5,832 0 0 0 5,832

FRCC 135 4,799 0 0 2,248 7,182

ISO

- NE 621 0 0 0 2,100 2,722

MAPP 0 52 0 0 0 52

MISO 21 5,405 0

- 70 384 5,740

Northern California

(CALN) 697 54 1,291 0 0 2,042

Northwest (NORW) 2,071 0 690 0 0 2,761

NYISO 254 388 0 0 1,903 2,545

PJM 0 5,730 0 0 0 5,730

Rockies (Rock) 0 696 0 0 0 696

SERC

- E 0 5,796 0 0 0 5,796

SERC

- N 0 1,145 0 0 0 1,145

SERC

- SE 0 4,428 0 0 0 4,428

SERC

- W

- 513 4,596

- 7 0 4,036 8,112

Southern California

(CALS) 963 0

- 32 0 3,109 4,041

SPP

- 292 5,906 0 0 2,243 7,857

Grand Total 4,062 46,152 1,941

- 70 16,268 68,35321

B5. New Capacity Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020

(MW)

Region CC CT Wind Other Total

Basin (BASN) 0

- 8 0 130 122

Desert Southwest (DSW) 0 0 277 186 463

ERCOT 4,661 0 125 0 4,786

FRCC 8,788 0 0

- 95 8,693

ISO

- NE 0

- 7 418

- 33 377

MAPP 0

- 110 848 0 738

MISO 0

- 65 199

- 52 82

Northern California

(CALN) 0 0 30 42 73

Northwest (NORW)

- 11

- 17 162 119 254

NYISO 357

- 14 53 0 396

PJM

- 677 - 1,729 1,832

- 313

- 887

Rockies (Rock)

- 1,210 370 147 0

- 693

SERC

- E 4,387

- 56 0 1,606 5,937

SERC

- N 1,183 0 11 0 1,194

SERC

- SE 117 0 0 0 117

SERC

- W 2,749

- 31 0 0 2,717

Southern California

(CALS) 263 0 812 52 1,126

SPP 171

- 283 5,515

- 3 5,401

Grand Total 20,777 - 1,951 10,430 1,638 30,89422

B6

. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region in Base and Policy

Scenarios in 2020 (MW)

NERC Assessment

Region Base Policy Change from

Base to

Policy Change as

Percent of

Summer Peak

Basin (BASN)

- 1,430

- 1,316 114 1.0%

Desert Southwest

(DSW) 204 1,388 1,185 3.5%

ERCOT

- 1,942

- 1,658 284 0.4%

FRCC 0 3,420 3,420 7.6%

ISO

- NE

- 938

- 2,305

- 1,367

- 5.4%

MISO 1,135 558

- 577

- 0.6%

Northern California

(CALN) 0 808 808 3.6%

Northwest (NORW) 309 345 36 0.1%

NYISO 1,397 752

- 645

- 2.2%

PJM

- 12,061

- 12,723

- 662

- 0.4%

Rockies (Rock) 208 163

- 46

- 0.3%

SERC

- E

- 256

- 192 64 0.1%

SERC

- N 807 2,395 1,589 4.0%

SERC

- SE 2,071

- 1,318

- 3,389

- 6.7%

SERC

- W 3,011 1,681

- 1,330

- 4.5%

Southern California

(CALS) 251

- 785

- 1,036

- 3.5%

SPP 3,528 2,238

- 1,290

- 2.5%23 Appendix C: Maps

C1. IPM Regions

C2.

. NERC Assessment Regions24 C1: IPM v5.13 Regions25



## C2: NERC Assessment Areas in Long Term Reliability Assessment.

Source: NERC 2012 Long Term Reliability Assessment26