2026 PC18 CAES Double Capacity

Transcription

1 2026 PC18 CAES Double Capacity Colby Johnson, Staff Engineer

2 2 Modeling Logic Production Cost Model Scope Scope Key Questions Assumptions Added generation Removed generation Added transmission Results Generation Mix Path Utilization/Flows

3 3 Study Description Input Assumptions Study Requestor: Burbank, DATC Changes from 2026CC: Generation: Remove/Retire ~1,900 MW Intermountain coal units Add 2,400 MW CAES unit at IPP with 2-day storage Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) Double Capacity from PC17 Add 3,000 MW Pathfinder wind to SE Wyoming Transmission: Add 3,000MW Zephyr HVDC from SE Wyoming to central UT Load: No changes, held constant

4 4 Input Assumptions Map: PC18 CAES Double Cap. 2,400 MW CAES Remove/Retire IPP Coal units from same site Add Pathfinder 3,000 MW wind SE Wyoming Add New Branch Zephyr proxy 3,000 MW capacity

5 5 Dataset and Simulation Parameters 2026 Common Case Version 2.0 dataset GridView Version Day-ahead market type 7-day Look-Ahead Logic (LAL) LAL can adjust pumped storage schedule dynamically for more utilization

6 6 Key Questions How does the system respond to the change in generation? i.e. resource mix, production cost, CO 2 emissions How does the system respond to the change in transmission? i.e. impact to flow, path utilization,

7 7 Results for PC18

8 8 Generation Change Resource Mix Annual Generation by Category (GWh) 2026 WECC v2.0 PC18 - Double CAES Conventional Hydro Energy Storage Steam - Coal Steam - Other Nuclear Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine IC Other DG/DR/EE - Incremental Biomass RPS Geothermal Small Hydro RPS Solar Wind 0 50, , , , , ,000

9 9 Production Cost, C0 2, and Dump Energy WECC Annual Generation by Category (MWh) Category 2026 WECC v2.0 PC18 - Double CAES Difference Percent Change Conventional Hydro 235,273, ,250,491 (23,103) -0.01% Energy Storage 4,194,194 6,531,586 2,337, % Steam - Coal 186,577, ,099,136 (478,335) -0.26% Steam - Other 1,739,933 1,575,266 (164,667) -9.46% Nuclear 39,726,723 39,726, % Combined Cycle 268,033, ,945,637 (13,088,323) -4.88% Combustion Turbine 53,650,702 52,087,724 (1,562,978) -2.91% IC 2,011,189 1,967,946 (43,244) -2.15% Other % DG/DR/EE - Incremental 30,536,538 30,536, % Biomass RPS 22,782,596 22,727,611 (54,984) -0.24% Geothermal 31,522,503 31,522, % Small Hydro RPS 2,796,030 2,792,780 (3,250) -0.12% Solar 37,423,166 37,419,282 (3,884) -0.01% Wind 92,514, ,553,746 15,038, % == Total == 1,008,783,548 1,010,737,120 1,953, % Other Results Var. Prod. Cost (M$) 17,132 16,473 (659) -3.85% CO2 Cost (M$) 1,968 1,843 (125) -6.33% CO2 Amount (MMetrTn) (6) -1.76% Dump Energy (MWh) 320, ,379 26, % Pumping (PL+PS) (MWh) 13,614,121 15,570,655 1,956, % Exports (MWh) %

10 10 Changes in Total Generation Annual Energy Difference (GWh): 2026 WECC v2.0 vs PC18 - Double CAES Conventional Hydro Energy Storage Steam - Coal Steam - Other Nuclear Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine IC Other DG/DR/EE - Incremental Biomass RPS Geothermal Small Hydro RPS Solar Wind (15,000) (10,000) (5,000) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

11 11 Changes in Generation by Subregion Change (GWh) by Subregion WECC v2.0 vs. PC18 - Double CAES -10,000-5, ,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Alberta British Columbia Basin California/MX Desert Southwest Northwest Conventional Hydro Energy Storage Steam - Coal Steam - Other Nuclear Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine IC Other Biomass RPS DG/DR/EE - Incremental Geothermal Small Hydro RPS Solar Wind Rocky Mountain

12 Outpu t and Duration 12 CAES Hourly Output and Duration IPP CAES CAES Output (MW) CAES Duration Hours/% of Year

13 Output (MW) 13 Storage Unit Duration Comparison Storage Unit Duration Comparison IPP CAES Castaic_1 CabinCreekA HelmsPS Hours

14 14 Results Most Heavily Utilized Paths

15 Percent of Hours 15 Path Utilization Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 26PC18 Double CAES U75 U90 U99 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

16 16 Path Utilization Map: U99 Paths Path 27 Intermountain Power Project (IPP) DC Line Path 29 Intermountain Gonder 345kV Path 45 SDG&E - CFE *Path locations are approximate

17 Path Utilization Summary Difference PC17 to PC18 17 Path U Metric % Change P27 P29 P45 U75 U90 U99 U75 U90 U99 U75 U90 U

18 Observations 18 Compared to CAES (PC17) Study Generation and Energy Changes: ~10% increase in energy storage with double capacity at CAES Decreases in CC and CT unremarkable from PC17 Transmission Changes: Minor path utilization change from PC 17 Path 27: ~3-4% increase Path 29: <1% increase Path 45: <1% increase/decrease Production Cost Changes: No significant change to production cost compared to PC17 ~3% reduction in dump energy compared to original CAES study

19 19 Questions or Comments? Colby Johnson Staff Engineer System Adequacy Planning

20 20 Study Requestors Burbank DATC (Duke American Transmission Co.) Contact Information Bob Burner Duke Energy Bill Hosie Duke Energy