1 / 46

Renewable Options Under High Load Cases The Basics

Study Results NW Resource Option Selkirk-Bell-Ashe Nicola-Chief Joseph Selkirk-Ashe DC Selkirk-Buckley DC.

rosie
Download Presentation

Renewable Options Under High Load Cases The Basics

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 ResultsNW Resource OptionSelkirk-Bell-AsheNicola-Chief Joseph Selkirk-Ashe DCSelkirk-Buckley DC This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to the Northwest 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. NorthwestResource Assumptions + 3375 + 76 + 71 + 2284 + 56 + 48 + 49 Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

  14. NV, CA, WA, OR Production cost decreased $387 M (2.1%) Dump energy increased 94 GWh (29%) Emergency Energy increased 1% CO2 Emissions decreased 1.2%

  15. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  16. 10-Year Study ResultsEC23-1 Selkirk-Bell-Ashe Project Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC

  17. NV, CA, WA, OR Production cost decreased $414 M (2.3%) Dump energy decreased 188 GWh (57%) Emergency Energy decreased .4% CO2 Emissions decreased 1.2%

  18. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  19. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  20. Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC AC projects

  21. 10-Year Study ResultsEC23-2 Nicola-Chief Joseph Project Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC

  22. NV, CA, WA, OR, AZ Production cost decreased $413 M (2.3%) Dump energy decreased 203 GWh (61%) Emergency Energy increased .7% CO2 Emissions decreased 1.2%

  23. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  24. Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC

  25. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  26. 10-Year Study ResultsEC23-3 Selkirk-Ashe DC Project Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC

  27. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  28. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  29. Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC

  30. 10-Year Study ResultsEC23-3 Selkirk-Buckley DC Project Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC

  31. NV, CA, WA, OR, AZ Production cost decreased $419 M (2.3%) Dump energy decreased 329 GWh (99%) Emergency Energy decreased 5.5% CO2 Emissions decreased 1.2%

  32. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  33. What is different? Loads Transmission Resources

  34. Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC Selkirk – Buckley DC DC projects AC projects

  35. Questions or thoughts on this study?

More Related