Economic Planning Study. May 13, 2014

Transcription

1 Economic Planning Study May 13, 2014

2 In this presentation Review of the draft 2014 study results Potential issues Proposed improvements Status of 2019 and 2024 studies Next steps 1

3 Review of the draft 2014 results As a follow-up on the 2014 simulation, an in-depth analysis of the 2014 results have been performed Better understanding of the results Identify potential improvements The analysis has identified several issues that need to be addressed Impact study results Require further analysis May need engineering judgment 2

4 Key Issues Load shapes Fuel Costs Impact from outages Hydro changes Supply etc Review of the draft 2014 results Today, potential solutions to these issues will be discussed before they are included in all datasets 3

5 Load Shapes What type of market are we modeling? Potential needs by monthly shape Expected monthly shape Review Load Shape Issues 4

6 Problems with Load Shapes #1 Expectation: AZ load shape should have the same basic profile. Given: Three distinct load shapes APS and SRP have almost identical shapes TEP peaks a monthly earlier and has less seasonal swing 5

7 Problems with Load Shapes #2 Relative to Historic Shape: APS has three distinct dips in monthly shape WECC Jul/Aug are equal TEP base monthly shape is shifted to the right 6

8 Problems with Load Shapes #3 Relative to Historic Shape: PNM has three distinct dips in monthly shape SPP show little seasonal variation Implies a significant reduction in summer peak 7

9 Problems with Load Shapes #4 Relative to WECC Shape: Peak shape drops off Aug-Dec Load looks high in Jan-Mar and low in Jun-Aug LF Jan-Mar looks Ok while Jan- Aug drops below historic levels 8

10 Fuel Cost NG Cost: Based on Burner-Tip gas prices based on trading Hub and local transportation fees Spot & Forward Hub prices are used for core commodity cost Local fees are not escalated Coal Cost: Based on historic purchase cost by plant EIA-923 fuel cost is used as base coal cost Forecasted values: Propose using escalation based on inflation (PRB?) and FO cost Mine Mouth: 90% of price esc by inflation and 10% FO Rail delivery: 80% of price esc by inflation and 20% FO SNL Financial is used for Spot and Future prices 9

11 Adjustments to unit commitment/dispatch Use of annual or seasonal must run Use Heat Rate Multiplier (24x7) Adjustments to CC Summary of Supply Changes Adj full load HR to line up with technology Adj duct burner to line up with technology Eliminated dispatch ability of non-dispatchable supply Nuclear, GEO, Bio, CG, QF, 10

12 To minimize the impact of outages between runs: Applied 2010 outages for major ST-Coal, base loaded CC and major transmission lines for all study years. Pattern was shifted to a line day of week pattern to the modeled year (2014, 2019 & 2024) EFOR is set to zero Impact of Outages 11

13 Currently Modeling: Hydro Changes 2010: Actual 2010 monthly Hydro generation 2014: 2010 Hydro with adj to CA Hydro to 2001 generation for key Hydro plants To do: Update 2019 and 2024 Hydro to WECC s 2024 assumptions Use lessoned learned from WECC 2024 Hydro review in CG model 12

14 PS Changes To do modification for Pump Storage (PS) Apply staged full cycle efficiencies for Helms: 73%, 63% & 53% Current values are set to 70% Convert Castaic PS from one large 1,175 MW unit to three MW units with stage PS efficiency Create PS for SRP Mormon Flats and Horse Mesa Split SCE Eastwood PS into a Hydro and PS unit Eliminate PS operation at W R Gianelli (San Luis Reservoir) 13

15 Results - WECC 2024 Case v0.0 Results from WECC 2024 model ver 0.0 for COI + PDCI flow (presented TEP MWG 5/12/2014) Results in a net reduction in exports from the PNW by -1,500 amw 14

16 Supply Additions? Additions: Port Westward II (222 MW) & Carty CC (440) Retire Boardman (585 MW) & 1 Centralia unit (670) Load growth : +2,490 amw Net Change: (Supply ) (Retire ) (Load Growth 2,490):= -3,056 What s missing? 15

17 The initial sets of 2019 and 2024 cases have been developed Included the suggested changes in this presentation These changes will also be applied to 2014 case Next steps: Status of 2019& 2024 Studies & Next Steps Run the 2014 (rerun), 2019, and 2024 cases Present the study results (Early June 2014) Issuance of the draft study report (Mid June 2014) Kick off the Round 2 study 16

18 Questions? 17

19 Appendix

20 Path 8 On-Peak (MT to NW) Key drivers for back cast: CEMS outage for Colstrip Lowered Colstrip price with a Heat Rate Multiplier 18

21 Path 65 On-Peak (PDCI) 19

22 Path 66 On-Peak (COI) Flow is significantly better than WECC back cast 20

23 Path 65 & 66 On-Peak Flow is significantly better than WECC back cast 21

24 Path 46 On-Peak (WOR) Hurdle into CA from PNW and SW are identical $4/MWh 22

25 Path 27 On-Peak (IPP DC Line) IPP flow is locked to IPP generation + Milford Wind gen Jul/Aug of 2010 some of IPP gen remained in UT 23

26 Supply Reduction Major supply reduction assumptions Once Through Cooling (OTC) in California Used retirement based on CAISO 1/9/2014 Assume Moss Landing CC is retired Latest info from WECC Assume Pittsburg 5&6 say on-line with retirement of 7 Our base ST-Coal retirements match WestConnect assumptions 24

27 Units under construction Approved utility additions Supply Additions Supply additions based on utility IRP Add supply to meet minimum reserve margin At what min reserve margin target 15% What is dependable capacity: Wind, Solar, Hydro,.. CPUC approved additions for OTC and SONGS replacement (Track 1 & Track 4) SCE max gas gen of 1,500 MW + Preferred & ES: 1000 MW SDGE max gas gen 900 MW + Preferred & ES: 200 MW 25

28 Supply Additions - CA Technology limit on California additions: CA Emission Performance Standard limits long-term investment in baseload plants to 1,100 LB CO2/MWh Max HR of 9.40 MMBtu/MWh using LB CO2/MMBtu for NG Is this an operational limit or a full load HR limit? Potential gas additions: GT: LMS100 all other GT full load HR is greater than 9.4 CC: Almost all types of new CC 26

29 Demand Forecast Current forecast is based on TEPPC 2022 forecast Comparison of load forecast spreadsheet is posted on ColumbiaGrid web site. The TEPPC deadline for the 2024 forecast was last month Issues: Annual growth rate resulting in increasing or decreasing LF Monthly shape for peak demand, load or LF: Monthly spike or dip in peak demand, load or LF A season shapes that is high or low 27