PC24 High RE w/o Eldorado-Moenkopi

Transcription

1 PC24 High RE w/o Eldorado-Moenkopi Stan Holland January 20, 2017

2 PC24 Modeling 2 Production Cost Model Scope Scope Key Questions Assumptions Use PC12 with Eldorado-Moenkopi removed Results Generation Dispatch CO 2 Emissions & CPP impacts Path Flows

3 3 Purpose High RE w/o Eldorado-Moenkopi To study the effect of removing the 500 kv Eldorado-Moenkopi transmission line in a high renewable environment. The case used the December 20 th version of the PC12 case (High RE). Comparisons are made to that case.

4 4 PC24 Scope Study Requestor: Hualapai Tribe PC12 study changes from 2026 CC Renewable generation added to increase RE share PC24 study changes from PC12 Remove line MOENKOPI ELDORDO Key Questions How does the system respond to removal of line? Generation dispatch Transmission utilization Loads served & RPS/CPP impacts

5 Resources Added by State 5 Added Capacity (MW) Added Energy (GWh) RPS State Instate Out of State Instate Out of State Alberta 6,791-20,710 - Arizona 5,358 1,247 11,888 3,593 California - 9,102-29,261 Colorado 2,820-8,854 - Montana 994-3,419 - New Mexico 859 2,215 - Nevada 1,366-5,773 - Oregon 627 3,084 1,268 11,420 Texas 1,128-2,502 - Utah ,265 2,950 Washington 1,903 6,118 5,261 21,043

6 Eldorado Moenkopi Line 6 Eldorado-Moenkopi is part of Path 49 (East of the Colorado River)

7 Power Flow (MW) Moenkopi-Eldorado Flow in PC12 Power Flow (MW) No Aggregation, PC12_Final2, 1/17/ :40:56 AM Hour

8 8 Disclaimer The study was run under assumed renewable additions at various locations. A comprehensive evaluation of removing a major transmission line would usually involve several entities and types of studies. The Clean Power Plan is currently on hold, and if it moves forward will be implemented by the appropriate agencies in each state.

9 Comparison of Generation Results 9

10 WECC Annual Generation by Category (MWh) Category 2026 PC12 High RE 2026 PC24 High RE w/o Elderado- Moenkopi Difference Conventional Hydro 240,733, ,733,067 (107) Energy Storage 2,680,327 2,623,732 (56,595) Steam - Coal 158,881, ,250,548 (630,727) Steam - Other 1,818,650 1,803,210 (15,440) Nuclear 34,799,444 34,644,203 (155,242) Combined Cycle 217,632, ,932, ,649 Combustion Turbine 32,408,678 32,877, ,723 IC 616, ,446 9,222 Other DG/DR/EE - Incremental 35,990,426 35,990, Biomass RPS 18,791,621 18,866,188 74,567 Geothermal 34,413,274 34,401,075 (12,199) Small Hydro RPS 3,743,247 3,743,233 (14) Solar 54,277,064 54,325,428 48,364 Wind 163,420, ,371,027 (49,603) == Total == 1,000,206,415 1,000,187,050 (19,365) Other Results Var. Prod. Cost (M$) 12,908 12, CO2 Cost (M$) 1,333 1, CO2 Amount (MMetrTn) (0) Dump Energy (MWh) 19,774,539 19,921, ,421 Pumping (PL+PS) (MWh) 11,475,860 11,391,863 (83,997) 10 The line removal caused some minor redispatch of units, mainly in Arizona and California Some increase in dump energy

11 Change in Annual Generation by State 11

12 Path Utilization 12

13 13 Summary Observations The average hourly flow on Path 49 decreased by 215 MW, from 2067 in PC 12 to 1852 in PC 24 Path 49 was not constrained in either PC12 or PC24; however the Navajo-Crystal 500 kv line was constrained for 37 hours in PC24 Recommend that regional planning group be consulted regarding potential impacts Path limits, loop flows, etc.

14 Contact Info Stan Holland (801)