1 / 38

Study Results Montana Resource Option Path 8 Upgrade (east) MSTI + SWIP N

Study Results Montana Resource Option Path 8 Upgrade (east) MSTI + SWIP N.

efia
Download Presentation

Study Results Montana Resource Option Path 8 Upgrade (east) MSTI + SWIP N

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Study ResultsMontana Resource OptionPath 8 Upgrade (east)MSTI + SWIP N This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to the Montana Resource Option. The results for the associated transmission expansion projects follow immediately along with flow information on impacted WECC paths.

  2. Study Concept Starting case: 2022 High Load (PC1-5) Increase WECC annual energy demand 8% Results in additional 12,000 GWh of RPS resource requirements (per statutes) Model added 12,000 GWh in regions throughout WECC (w/ transmission) Goal Compare different resource and transmission options Total (capital and production) cost comparisons Will be shown at a later date Renewable Options Under High Load CasesThe Basics

  3. Renewable Options Under High Load Cases Increase WECC-wide load 8% 1 Add: 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS 2 3 Add transmission For these regions

  4. Increase WECC-wide load 8% 1 8% 8% increase to peak and energy 10% 10% decrease to energy Higher Load = Additional RPS Energy

  5. Add 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS 2 Extrapolation Method

  6. Resource Option StudiesBreakdown of Incremental 12,000 GWh Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

  7. 1- Check PRM 2 - Add CTs (if needed) = Higher load and new resources

  8. PC1-5 High Load PRM Gap 1) Added CTs in 100 MW increments to make up this 11,426 MW PRM Gap 2) CT’s were adjusted in Renewable Options Under High Load studies

  9. Additional resources change this number

  10. 3 fewer CTs needed in Basin This makes sense: 3,000 MW wind × 10% = 300 MW to peak = 3 fewer CTs

  11. 3 Add transmission • Transmission Expansion Projects Path 8 Upgrade MSTI + SWIP N Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC WY-CO Intertie TransWest Express Zephyr A /B/C/D High Plains Express SSPG East SSPG North SSPG South High Plains Express None Centennial West

  12. Now to the results… • Resource assumption overview • Portfolio Case generation results (versus PC1-5 High Load) • Transmission projects overview • Expansion case generation results (versus PC1-5 High Load and Portfolio Case) • Path flow results - Reviewed duration plots for key WECC paths. Will show some that are interesting in this presentation.

  13. MontanaResource Assumptions +2266 + 34 +2034 Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

  14. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  15. No change to COI flow

  16. 10-Year Study ResultsPath 8 Upgrade (east) P8 Upgrade (East)

  17. CA, MT, CO Production cost decreased $339 M (1.9%) Dump energy increased 317 GWh (95%) Emergency Energy decreased 1.6% CO2 Emissions decreased 1.7%

  18. Production cost decreased $46 M (.3%) Dump energy decreased 189 GWh (23%) Emergency Energy increased 6% CO2 Emissions decreased 1 %

  19. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  20. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  21. + 500 MW

  22. Also no change to COI flow

  23. 10-Year Study ResultsMISTI + SWIP N MSTI + SWIP N

  24. CA, MT, CO, NV Production cost decreased $361 M (2%) Dump energy increased 472 GWh (142%) Emergency Energy decreased 1.4% CO2 Emissions decreased 1.4%

  25. Production cost decreased $33 M (4%) Dump energy increased 1.1 GWh (6%) Emergency Energy decreased 6.1% CO2 Emissions decreased .5%

  26. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  27. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  28. Also no change to COI flow

  29. Questions or thoughts on this study?

More Related