DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

1 Technical Support Document: Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis [DRAFT Results Subject to Change]

This document describes resource adequacy and reliability impacts in 2020 for the base case and selected 111d scenarios. As used here, the term resource adequacy means the provision of adequate generating resources to meet projected load and ge nerating reserve requirements in each region, while reliability includes the ability to deliver the resources to the loads, such that the overall power grid remains stable. The EPA uses the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to project likely future electricity market c onditions with and without the proposed rule.

IPM is a multi-regional, dynamic, determinis tic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector. It provide s 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 electricity markets as accurately as possible. The EPA uses the best av ailable 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.1

IPM is specifically designed to ensure ge neration 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 el ectricity between the 64 IPM regions, by setting limits to the ability to transfer power between regions using th e bulk power transmission system. Within each model region, IPM assumes that adequate transmission capacity exists to deliver any resources located in, or transfe rred to, the region. For a more comp lete presentation of the power sector impacts of the proposed rule, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Overview

1 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.htmlDRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

2 The EPA is proposing emission guidelines for stat es to use in developing plans to address greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-f ired electric generating units. Specifically, the EPA is proposing state-specif ic 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 motio n actions to lower the carbon intensity of power generation in the United States. The agency is pr oposing one option (Option 1) for state-specific goals and requesting comment on a second option (Option 2). Fo r 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 ch allenges to resource adequacy. 2 The Option 1 Regional scenario results are discussed relative to the results from the Option 1 State scenario.

Option 1 (State) Policy Scenario

Summary of Changes in Operational Capacity

Total operational capacity is lower in the pol icy scenario, primarily from reduced need for existing and new capacity as a result of incr eases in energy efficiency. These increases in energy efficiency make possible increases in retire ments compared to the base case. Since most regions currently have capacity a bove their target reserve margins, most of these retirements are absorbed by a reduction in excess rese rves over time. Operational capacity 3 changes from the

base case in 2020 are summarized below:

2 For more detail on the economic impacts, and more discus sion of the compliance scenarios, see Chapter 3 of the RIA for this proposal. 3 Operational capacity is any existing, new or retrofitted capacity that is not retired.DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

3 T able 1. Operational 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 Cycle -3,455 Plus New Capacity 36,118

Equals Policy Case Operational Capacity 970,150 4

Since the model must maintain adequate rese rves in each region, a portion of the reduced operational capacity in the policy case is taken from reserves that currently exceed the target reserve margin and will not be needed in the fu ture. 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 re source requirements from increases in energy efficiency. As the table shows, the reduced re source needs permit lower capacity additions even though there are substantial increases in retirem ents. Each of these policy case changes is

discussed further below.

Reduction in Excess Reserves

IPM uses a target reserve margin in each region 5 as the basis for determining how much capacity to keep operational in or der to preserve resource adequac y. 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 curre nt regional reserves ar e generally higher than the target reserve margin for the region, and incr eased energy efficiency will reduce the need for reserves, IPM may retire reserve capacity in 2020 if it is not economic to use it to maintain adequate reserve margins. Existing resources may also be more expensive, compared to

4 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. 5 Reserve margin targets are generally based on the NERC 201 0 10 Year Assessments for the region, except in cases where there are more stringent stat e requirements or other exceptions.DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

4 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 2020 will not need to be replaced.

Table 1 above shows that operational capacity is reduced by approximately 3.5 percent nationwide in 2020 under the policy. 6 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 projected 2020 reserv es 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, no t just at peak, so it can substitute for existing or new baseload capacity. A reduction of 3.5 percen t in 2020 will therefore have little overall impact. Moreover, retirements ar e distributed throughout the power grid, so there will be only small impacts at the regional level. 7 Excess regional reserves a bove the target margin can be shared among sub-regions to ensure adequate rese rve margins within a la rger reliability region. IPM permits these transfers of reserves, but limits their level to ensure th e reliability of the bulk power system. These interregional transf ers are discussed further below.

Although there are substantial ex isting regional variations in reserve margin, IPM adjusts regional capacities in 2020 to meet the specific target reserve margin in each region, through changes in the level of retirements, construc tion of new generating cap acity, or transfers of capacity among regions to meet the specific rese rve margin in each region. Each of these adjustments in the 2020 projecti ons is described below.

Changes in Retirements and New Capacity Additions

Although there are significant retirements of 49 GW of coal and 16 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 smalle r, and retiring oil/gas steam units are generally older, less efficient and infrequently used units . Where needed for reserve margin, this retiring

6 Regional data on operational capacity is shown in Table A1 of the Appendix.

7 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 Appendix tables in this document.DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

5 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 concer ns. Although there can be local grid reliability issues in replacing some units, these can be ma naged within the normal reliability planning and management time frames provided by the flexible resource options and time frames in the rule.

The distribution of these retirements across NE RC Assessment regions is shown in Appendix C.

Reserve Transfers

In cases where it is economic to transfer reserves from a neighboring region, rather than supply reserves from within a region, IPM will tr ansfer reserves, subject to summer and winter limits that are designed to ensure that these reserves can be transf erred reliably. The transfer of reserves can occur, for example, if a region retires capacity that was used in the base case to meet reserve requirements, but a neighbo ring region has lower cost reserves that are not needed for its own reserve requirements. To examine these tran sfers, 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 se nt. Thus, the value measures 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 comp ared to the base case. To develop a relative measure of the impact of the policy, the change in reserves was measured 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 measurem ent are shown in Table A6. As the Table shows,DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

6 only three regions are at or a bove a 5%. The EPA believes changes below 5% are unlikely to raise concerns over reliability; the three changes at or above 5% are di scussed further below.

Using this measure, the largest change in rese rves are in the Northeast in ISO-NE, and in

the Southeast in SERC-SE and FRCC. In ISO-NE th e change in reserves is additional receipts of 1947 MW, increasing net reserves received from 938 MW to 2,885 MW. The majority of this change resulted from a net decrease of 1261MW in the reserves sent from ISO-NE regions to regions in the NYISO; the remainde r resulted from a net increase in the reserves received from Canada and from NYISO. In proj ecting these shifts, IPM is constr aining 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). 8 The modeling thus

considers both basic line limits and broader transmission system limits on overall flows. The shifts in grid transfer s 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 re ceipts relative to the base case of 4, 163 MW (8.3% of load in the base case). Although this sh ift is relatively 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 rece ived – in both cases the transfer is around 2,000 MW. The shift to receipts corresponds to the othe r 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 co nnected. When the larger SERC region is

considered 9 , combining all the individual SERC regions, the shift as a percentage of load drops

to 4.8% of the total SERC load. These overall ch anges 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)

8 For details on these limits, see the IPM documentation. 9 This the entire SERC region, consis ting of SERC-SE, SERC-N, SERC-E and SERC-W. See map in Appendix for details.DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

7 As discussed above, the Option 1 (State) wa s chosen 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 di fferences with the State case and assess potential impacts. Tables B1 through B5 in Appendix B pr esent results that corr espond to Option 1 (State) Tables A1 through A5. As expected, both cases s howed 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 wi thin 5 percent except for MAPP. 10 Reserve capacity and projected reserve margins for Option 1 (Regional) (Tables B2 and B3) follow a pattern similar to operating capacity: totals are w ithin 1% of the projections fo r the corresponding outputs from Option 1 (State) and regional rese rve capacities are under 5 percent.

Differences between the cases develop in the t ypes of capacity that ar e retired and in the amount and types of new capacity built in2020. Th e 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 retireme nts 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 capacity of the 2.1 GW. Overall, th ese 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 no reliability issues. Retirements of Oil/Gas Steam capacity remain unchanged be tween the options and no further reliability issues arise in the regional case.

A similar indication of greater flexibility is s een in the transfers. The two cases with the largest percentage shift examin ed above are reduced in magnit ude. 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%.

10 MAPP has only 9 GW and the policy cases differ by 9.0 percent. An additional 848 MW of Wind capacity is added in the regional scenario compared to the state scenario.DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

8 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 2020

A3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins in 2020

A4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case in 2020

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

A6. Net Reserves Sent by NE RC Assessment Region in 2020DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

9 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 -34,905 242,283 193,279DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

10 A2. Summary of Summer Peak Load s 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 779,558 755,995 927,000 884,435DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

11 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%DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

12 A4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremen tal 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 70,649DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

13 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 32,470DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

14 A6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC A ssessment 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%DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

15 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 Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case in 2020DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

16 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 -46,118DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

17 B2. Summary of Summer Peak Load s 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 779,558 755,995 927,000 885,404DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

18 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%DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

19 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 68,353DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

20 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 30,894DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

21 B6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC A ssessment 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%DRAFT MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

– NOT FOR DISTRUBUTION

22 Appendix C: Maps

C1. IPM Regions

C2. . NERC Assessment RegionsDRAFTMATERIALFORDISCUSSIONONLY–NOTFORDISTRUBUTION23C1: IPM v5.13 RegionsDRAFTMATERIALFORDISCUSSIONONLY–NOTFORDISTRUBUTION24C2:NERCAssessmentAreasinLongTermReliabilityAssessment.Source:NERC2012LongTermReliabilityAssessmentDRAFTMATERIALFORDISCUSSIONONLY–NOTFORDISTRUBUTION25