transmission for a 33 rps n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Transmission for a 33% RPS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Transmission for a 33% RPS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 9

Transmission for a 33% RPS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 126 Views
  • Uploaded on

Transmission for a 33% RPS. Keith E. Casey Vice President Market and Infrastructure Development California ISO The Independent Energy Producers Association 29 th Annual Meeting South Lake Tahoe, California September 22-24, 2010. Planning for a 33% RPS. Where are we and what is left?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Transmission for a 33% RPS' - jacob-miranda


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
transmission for a 33 rps

Transmission for a 33% RPS

Keith E. Casey

Vice President

Market and Infrastructure Development

California ISO

The Independent Energy Producers Association

29th Annual Meeting

South Lake Tahoe, California

September 22-24, 2010

planning for a 33 rps
Planning for a 33% RPS
  • Where are we and what is left?
  • How do we plan effectively?
slide3

Calculating the “33% RPS Net-Short”

Numbers based on CTPG Phase 2 Study

approved transmission projects could potentially achieve the 33 rps if fully utilized
Approved transmission projects could potentially achieve the 33% RPS if fully utilized.

Net-Short = 53 TWh

slide5

Base case plan will heavily utilize new transmission facilities.

  • Base case – Generation projects with approved PPAs or in CAISO interconnection queue.
approved transmission provides a base case for evaluating supplemental needs
Approved transmission provides a base case for evaluating supplemental needs.
  • Alternative resource scenarios might be desirable if
    • Reduce generation procurement costs
    • Can be developed more expeditiously (siting/land-use issues)
    • Provide integration benefits through regional diversity
  • Additional resource scenarios include:
    • Higher Out-of-State scenario (e.g., RECs)
    • Higher distributive generation scenario
  • Potential benefits of different resource procurement scenarios needs to be weighed against any incremental transmission costs.
next steps
Next Steps
  • December 2, 2010 - ISO stakeholder meeting to review draft results of its 33% RPS transmission studies.
  • January 2011 – Draft report issued
  • January 2011 (or sooner) – FERC Order on CAISO revised transmission planning process.
  • March 2011 – ISO releases its 2011 Annual Transmission Plan
california iso proposed comprehensive revisions to its transmission planning process
California ISO proposed comprehensive revisions to its transmission planning process.
  • New criterion for “policy-driven” transmission to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020
  • Statewide planning approach
  • Whole system planning instead of single-project approach for a comprehensive transmission plan
  • Comprehensive planning process for addressing:
    • Reliability,
    • Generation interconnections,
    • Policy-driven (i.e., RPS mandates), and
    • Economics
ferc notice of proposed rulemaking regarding transmission planning and cost allocation
FERC notice of proposed rulemaking regarding transmission planning and cost allocation
  • Five areas of “deficiency”
    • Lack of requirement for regional plan
    • Lack of consideration for needs driven by federal and state policy
    • Obstacles to non-incumbent transmission providers
    • Lack of coordination between regions
    • Deficient cost allocation methodologies