1 / 32

System and Flexibility Analysis Results for the 2014 LTPP Phase 1a

System and Flexibility Analysis Results for the 2014 LTPP Phase 1a. 2014 Long Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) R.13-12-010 August 2014. SCE is interested in all comments, questions , and recommendations , which can be sent to : Megan.Mao@sce.com.

herve
Download Presentation

System and Flexibility Analysis Results for the 2014 LTPP Phase 1a

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. System and Flexibility Analysis Results for the 2014 LTPP Phase 1a 2014 Long Term Procurement Plan (LTPP)R.13-12-010 August 2014 SCE is interested in all comments, questions, and recommendations, which can be sent to: Megan.Mao@sce.com

  2. If you would like to use oral information provided by SCE representatives during the Webinar in your testimony, please send SCE a follow-up data request to assure accuracy of the statement in your testimony.

  3. Agenda Recommendations Background Results Next Steps

  4. Executive Summary • SCE is requesting no additional authorizations for system needs at this time • For this submission, SCE analyzed the CPUC’s High Load Scenario for the 2014 LTPP. SCE will analyze the Trajectory Scenario by November 13, 2014 • SCE applied the one event in 10 year standard to determine system need • Existing and future market solutions are sufficient to address expected over-generationin 2024 • SCE’s Phase 1a study does not test specific characteristics of power needed to resolve any shortfall identified; Phase 1b could identify various solutions to address any shortfall identified in Phase 1a

  5. Recommendations

  6. SCE is requesting no additional authorizations for system needs at this time. Need Asks • Given outstanding resource authorizations, SCE is not requesting any additional MW at this time • SCE will analyze the Trajectory Scenario by November 13, 2014 • Outstanding (not modeled) authorizations total over 2300 MW from Track 1 and Track 4

  7. Based on the Standardized Planning Assumptions, 2315 MW of resources are authorized but were not modeled. Not Modeled Resources

  8. Background

  9. SCE analyzed the High Load Scenario. Why the High Load Scenario • SCE analysis of the 2012 LTPP Base Case showed no need • 2014 LTPP Trajectory Scenario had lower load than the 2012 LTPP Base Case • SCE analyzed the High Load Scenario to provide additional analysis for this proceeding

  10. One Event in 10 Year Standard SCE’s need determination is based on a one event in 10 year standard The “one event in 10 year” standard is a generally accepted reliability standard for electric resource planning FERC reports

  11. Shortfall Results and Key Drivers

  12. For the High Load Scenario, SCE finds 6250 MW of net shortfall. Shortfall Findings and Confidence Intervals • “90% confident that the correct estimate of stage 3 emergencies is between 34 and 37” • With no additional authorizations, SCE’s analysis predicts 35 shortfall events in 10 years • Approximately 6250 MW of resources are needed to achieve a one event in 10 year reliability standard

  13. Comparison to 2012 LTPP Trajectory Case finds that solar shape and peak load are the main drivers to shortfall. Need Drivers • SCE’s analysis finds around 6200 MW of shortfall • Results are primarily driven by peak load and solar shape (1) Preliminary, based only on shortfall identified in July, August, and September (2)Indicative, analysis is stochastic while primary drivers are based on deterministic assumptions. It is a simplification to add the primary driver bars together. SCE simply intends to show the order of magnitude differences between the 2012 LTPP Trajectory and the 2014 High Load Scenario. (3)Difference based on July 6pm average generation (4) Other includes RPS resource mix, wind shape, forecast error, etc

  14. Peak load differs significantly in 2024 depending on scenario. Load Comparison • 2014 High Load Scenario and 2014 Trajectory scenario differ by 3000 MW in 2024 • 2012 Base Case and 2014 High Load Scenario differ by 2200 MW in 2024

  15. Differences in solar shape are a major driver of shortfall. Solar Shapes • Hour of peak need is around the time of reduced solar generation • Differences in solar shape significantly influence results • Improved accuracy and understanding of solar shapes is crucial for accurate analysis

  16. SCE used a one event in 10 year reliability standard, finding 6250 MW of shortfall. Expected Events Curve (MW vs. Events)

  17. Shortfall is most likely during afternoon and evening of summer days. Shortfall Time of Day/Time of Year • July to September, HE 17 – 21 have the highest likelihood of shortfall

  18. Over-Generation Results and Key Drivers

  19. For the High Load Scenario, SCE finds 225 over-generation events in 10 years. Over-Generation Findings and Confidence Intervals • “90% confident that the correct estimate of over-generation events is between 215 and 240 events in one year” • Approximately 9500 MW of over-generation reduction is needed to reach 1 over-generation event in 10 years* *There is no set reliability standard for over-generation

  20. Over-generation results are caused by tradeoffs built into the model. Over-Generation Drivers • Over-generation results are driven by cost trade-offs between dump energy and shortfall • Relative costs were modeled to prioritize reduced shortfall • Eg: dump energy instead of downward ramping shortfall • Other modeling changes also increased over-generation results • New solar shape produces more on-peak energy • High hydro sensitivities were tested • Net exports (exports - imports) were not permitted for each hour

  21. Using a one event in 10 year criteria*, 9500 MW of over-generation reduction is needed. Over-Generation Events vs. MW Curve *There is no set reliability standard for over-generation

  22. Over-generation primarily occurs during spring months and mid-day. Over-Generation Time of Day/Time of Year • March to June, HE 8 –16 have the highest likelihood of over-generation

  23. Next Steps and Timeline

  24. Next Steps and Timeline • SCE will be providing stochastic analysis for the Trajectory Scenario by November 13, 2014 • Phase 1b will be addressed in 2015 • Phase 1b could identify various solutions to address any shortfall identified in Phase 1a

  25. Thank You! Questions / Comments: Megan.Mao@sce.com

  26. Appendix

  27. PRM analysis shows no need. Planning Reserve Margin

  28. Over-generation occurs primarily in spring months. Over-Generation by Month

  29. Shortfall Hours vs. MW Curve

  30. Over-Generation Hours vs. MW Curve

  31. When compared to CAISO’s deterministic analysis, SCE’s stochastic benchmark shows greater shortfall. Shortfall Comparison • Magnitude of shortfall differs • Shape and time of shortfall are similar

  32. When compared to CAISO’s deterministic analysis, SCE’s stochastic benchmark shows less over-generation. Over-Generation Comparison • Magnitude of over-generation differs • Shape and time of over-generation are similar

More Related