10-Year Study Results Colorado Resource Options and Transmission Expansion This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to.

10-Year Study Results

Colorado Resource Options and Transmission Expansion

This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to the Colorado Resource Option. The results for the associated transmission expansion projects follow immediately along with flow information on impacted WECC paths.

Renewable Options Under High Load CasesThe Basics

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

Add: 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS

Add transmission

Renewable Options Under

High Load Cases

Increase WECC-wide load 8%

1

2

3

For these regions

Increase WECC-wide load 8%1

2010 2022800,000

850,000

900,000

950,000

1,000,000

1,050,000

1,100,000

Western Interconnection Annual Energy (GWh)10-Year Study Comparison

Common Case LRS

An

nu

al E

ner

gy

(GW

h)

8%

8% increase to peak and energy

10%

10% decrease to energy

Higher Load = Additional RPS Energy

Calculate ratios of planned renewables in TEPPC 2022 Common Case • Do not include existing resources• Do not include DG• IRP and LRS data

Apply ratio to study build-out of 12,000 GWh• Concept: development trends are best representation of

what could be added to each state • More resources available than what is identified in WREZ• More granular information from CPUC/CAISO

Locate resources using WREZ peer-analysis tool

Extrapolation Method

Add 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

California Southwest Wyoming Montana Northwest Basin

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Colorado

Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

Resource Option StudiesBreakdown of Incremental 12,000 GWh

Higher load and new resources =1- Check PRM2 - Add CTs (if needed)

Biom

ass R

PS

Geoth

ermal

Small H

ydro

RPS

Solar P

V

Solar C

SP0

Solar C

SP6

Win

d

Hydro

Pumped S

tora

ge

Coal

Nuclear

Combin

ed Cyc

le

Combust

ion T

urbin

e

Oth

er Ste

am

Oth

er

Negative B

us Load

Dispatc

hable D

SM

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Summer - Percentage of Installed Capacity Available to Serve Load at Time of Peak

AZ-NM-NV

AZ-NM

-NV

Basin

Alber

ta

Britis

h Colu

mbia

CA-North

CA-South

NWUS

RMPA

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

PC1-5 High Load Summer PRM GapM

W

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

Installed Generation Capacity

Generation Type AZ-NM-NV Basin AlbertaBritish

Columbia CA-North CA-South NWUS RMPA WECCBiomass RPS 172 53 320 800 757 501 535 0 3,137Geothermal 35 785 0 20 1,480 2,443 58 0 4,820

Small Hydro RPS 3 53 0 0 827 592 284 0 1,759Solar PV 1,822 57 0 0 3,517 3,166 197 618 9,377

Solar CSP0 507 0 0 0 370 1,591 0 0 2,468Solar CSP6 299 110 0 0 0 0 0 133 541

Wind 1,960 3,597 4,507 969 3,119 5,460 12,053 3,344 35,009Hydro 3,924 2,342 998 18,046 7,886 1,401 30,902 1,313 66,811

Pumped Storage 146 0 0 0 1,212 1,414 0 524 3,296Coal 9,875 9,923 5,385 0 102 138 3,239 6,520 35,182

Nuclear 4,035 0 0 0 2,240 2,246 1,160 0 9,681Combined Cycle 17,177 2,263 6,670 240 12,007 13,804 7,154 3,586 62,900

Combustion Turbine 4,377 1,146 4,619 66 4,759 7,428 730 3,629 26,755Other Steam 1,476 346 78 17 954 2,999 451 562 6,883

Other 177 112 12 0 305 100 78 247 1,030Negative Bus Load 243 52 0 0 0 61 140 32 528Dispatchable DSM 1,148 1,239 66 0 1,579 2,954 285 326 7,597

Total 47,375 22,077 22,654 20,158 41,113 46,299 57,265 20,833 277,775

Additional resources change this number

AZ-NM

-NV

Basin

Alber

ta

Britis

h Colu

mbia

CA-North

CA-South

NWUS

RMPA

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

PRM Gap ComparisonPC21 vs. PC1-5

Summer PC21

Summer PC1-5

MW

3 fewer CTs needed in Basin

This makes sense:

3,000 MW wind × 10% = 300 MW to peak = 3 fewer CTs

WY-CO Intertie TransWest Express Zephyr A /B/C/DHigh Plains Express

Path 8 Upgrade MSTI + SWIP N

Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief JoeSelkirk – Ashe DC

Selkirk – Buckley DC

SSPG East SSPG North SSPG South

High Plains Express

None

Centennial West

Transmission Expansion Projects

3 Add transmission

Now to the results…

1) Resource assumption overview2) Portfolio Case generation results

(versus PC1-5 High Load)3) Transmission projects overview4) Expansion case generation results

(versus PC1-5 High Load and Portfolio Case)

5) Path flow results - Reviewed duration plots for key WECC paths. Will show some that are interesting in this presentation.

+ 267+ 93+ 753

+ 3786

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Solar CSP6

Wind

Resource Additions 12,000 GWhColorado

Resource Assumptions

Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

Conventional Hydro

Pumped Storage

Steam - Coal

Steam - Other

Nuclear

Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration

IC

Negative Bus Load

Biomass RPS

Geothermal

Small Hydro RPS

Solar

Wind

(10,000,000) (5,000,000) 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1-5 High Load Case vs. 2022 PC25 Colorado

GWh

Production cost decreased $405 M (2.3%)

Dump energy increased 37 GWh (11%)

Emergency Energy decreased 0%

CO2 Emissions decreased 1.4%

AZ, NV, CA, CO

Alberta

Arizon

a

British

Colu

mbia

Califo

rnia

Colora

do

Idah

o

Mex

ico

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Texas

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

-6,000,000

-4,000,000

-2,000,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000


Hydro+PS Steam - Boiler Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration Renewable Other

GWh

What is different?LoadsTransmissionResources

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

P46 West of Colorado River (WOR) Path Duration Plots

2010 PC1_5_HighLoad PC25_CO

Meg

awatt

sE->W

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

P36 TOT 3 Path Duration Plots


Meg

awat

tsN->S

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Interstate COI plus PDCI Path Duration Plots


Meg

awat

tsN->S

10-Year Study ResultsPC25 Colorado Resource OptionEC25-1 HPX

HPX

Conventional Hydro

Pumped Storage

Steam - Coal

Steam - Other

Nuclear

Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration

IC

Negative Bus Load

Biomass RPS

Geothermal

Small Hydro RPS

Solar

Wind

(15,000,000) (10,000,000) (5,000,000) 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1-5 High Load Case vs. 2022 EC25-1 HPX (west)

GWh

Production cost decreased $438 M (2.5%)

Dump energy increased 25.7 GWh (7.7%)


CO2 Emissions decreased 1.4%

AZ, NV, CA, CO

Alberta

Arizon

a

British

Colu

mbia

Califo

rnia

Colora

do

Idah

o

Mex

ico

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Texas

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

-6,000,000

-4,000,000

-2,000,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000




GWh


Conventional Hydro

Pumped Storage

Steam - Coal

Steam - Other

Nuclear

Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration

IC

Negative Bus Load

Biomass RPS

Geothermal

Small Hydro RPS

Solar

Wind

(1,000,000) (800,000) (600,000) (400,000) (200,000) 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC25 Colorado vs. 2022 EC25-1 HPX (west)

GWh

CO,NV,WY

Production cost decreased $33 M (.1%)

Dump energy decreased 11.5GWh (3.1%)


CO2 Emissions decreased .1%

AZ,CA

Alberta

Arizon

a

British

Colu

mbia

Califo

rnia

Colora

do

Idah

o

Mex

ico

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Texas

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

-1,500,000

-1,000,000

-500,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC25 Colorado vs. 2022 EC25-1 HPX (west)



GWh


9 315 621 927 1233 1539 1845 2151 2457 2763 3069 3375 3681 3987 4293 4599 4905 5211 5517 5823 6129 6435 6741 7047 7353 7659 7965 8271 8577

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

High Plains Express (west circuit) Flow

HPX WY-CO HPX CO-NM HPX NM-AZ

9 315 621 927 1233 1539 1845 2151 2457 2763 3069 3375 3681 3987 4293 4599 4905 5211 5517 5823 6129 6435 6741 7047 7353 7659 7965 8271 8577

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

High Plains Express (west circuit) Duration

6,000 GWh

8,000 GWh

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

P46 West of Colorado River (WOR) Path Duration Plots

2010 PC1_5_HighLoad PC25_CO EC25_1_HPX

Meg

awatt

sE->W

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

P36 TOT 3 Path Duration Plots


Meg

awat

tsN->S

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Interstate COI plus PDCI Path Duration Plots


Meg

awat

tsN->S

10-Year Study Results Colorado Resource Options and Transmission Expansion This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to.

Documents