SYSTEM OPERATIONAL AND RELIABILITY BENEFITS TOOL ( SBT )

Transcription

1 SYSTEM OPERATIONAL AND RELIABILITY BENEFITS TOOL ( SBT ) SBT Workgroup Workshop #2 September 30, 2013 Portland, Oregon and Salt Lake City, Utah Let s turn the answers on.

2 SBT Workgroup Participants Organizations represented: Blue Castle Project Citizens Utility Board Idaho Public Utilities Commission NW Energy Coalition Oregon Department of Energy Oregon Public Utility Commission Utah Association of Energy Users Utah Clean Energy Utah Office of Consumer Services Utah Division of Public Utilities Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Wyoming Industrial Energy Consumers Wyoming Public Service Commission, Office of Consumer Advocate - Additional SBT workgroup members following Workshop #1

3 Agenda (MT) 10:00-10:15 Welcome / Introductions / Overview 10:15-10:30 Eastern Wyoming Transmission Map 10:30-11:15 Reliability Benefit 11:15-12:15 Customer & Regulatory Benefit :15 1:00 Lunch :00-1:30 Avoided Capital Cost Benefit 1:30-2:00 Wheeling Revenue Opportunity Benefit 2:00-2:30 Response to Comments / Requests for Information» Improved Generation Dispatch Benefit» Segment Line Loss (Energy) and Segment Line Loss (Capacity) Benefit 2:45-3:00 Wrap-Up / Next Steps

4 SBT Benefit Categories Seven benefit categories assessed by the SBT: Operational cost savings (economic driven) Improved generation dispatch (reliability driven) Segment loss savings (energy and capacity) System reliability Customer and regulatory Avoided capital cost Wheeling revenue opportunity Focus of SBT Workgroup Workshop #2 Focus of SBT Workgroup Workshop #1 and Make Up Webinar; as available, response to comments or requests for information included herein 4

5 Wyoming Transmission Map 5

6 SBT Benefit Metrics System Reliability Benefit System Reliability Benefit Spreadsheet System Reliability Benefits Workpaper Comments / Requests for Information: Provide information regarding the incorporation of scheduled outages in the reliability benefit. This analysis assumes that there is an economic consequence associated with all line outages and does not attempt to differentiate or allocate the impact of forced versus scheduled outages. Are there incidents (system outages) which would support reliability savings? Constructing a line in parallel with the existing system enhances reliability. This metric attempts to capture and value these reliability benefits using the methodology presented. Provide % of forced vs. planned outages applied in the example calculation. 345 kv system: 39% forced, 61% planned 230 kv system: 29% forced, 71% planned 6

7 Existing 345 kv Wyoming System (no RAS) - Bridger to 3MK Out of Service Bridger West Power Flow: 247 MW 7

8 System w/new 500 kv Line (no RAS) - Bridger to 3MK Out of Service Bridger West Power Flow: 1606 MW 8

9 N-1 Reliability Benefit for 345 kv System MW Flow w/new 500 kv line 1606 Flow w/out 500 kv line 247 Benefit

10 230 kv Wyoming System - TOT4A: 850 MW 10

11 230 kv Wyoming System Miners to Platte Out of Service TOT 4A Limit: 415 MW 11

12 System w/new 500 kv Line Miners to Platte Out of Service TOT 4A Limit: 850 MW 12

13 N-1 Reliability Benefit w/500 kv for Miners Platte Outage MW TOT4A w/out 500 kv line 850 TOT4A Derate for Miners-Platte Outage 415 Benefit (Restoration of 850 MW)

14 SBT Benefit Metrics Customer and regulatory benefits Customer and Regulatory Benefit Spreadsheet Avoided capital cost Avoided Capital Spreadsheet Wheeling revenue opportunity Wheeling Revenue Spreadsheet 14

15 Improved Generation Dispatch: Comments Improved Generation Dispatch General Comments: Explain simulation of load and generation behind transmission constraint Provide additional detail explaining the distinction of benefits between the Improved Generation Dispatch benefit calculation and the Operational Cost Savings benefit calculation Test or explore Planning and Risk (PaR) model capability to model wind generation stochastically 15

16 Improved Generation Dispatch: Thermal Dispatch Concern PacifiCorp has not done enough to explain hourly simulation of load and generation behind the transmission constraint; it is not clear how thermal generation is dispatched in the hourly simulation Response Thermal generation (PacifiCorp s share of Wyodak and Dave Johnston) is not dispatched For each hour in which there is no outage, it is assumed these low variable cost resources are deep in-the-money and operate at full output During planned maintenance outages, the hourly output for thermal resources is zero There are random daily draws for both partial forced outages and full forced outages (output is full unit rating less forced outage level) 16

17 Improved Generation Dispatch: Double Counting Operational Cost Savings Concern The Improved Generation Dispatch benefits are already captured to some degree in the Operational Cost Savings category; and double counting should be removed Response The PaR model does not explicitly report the level of thermal generation backed down due to transmission constraints we can only show change in thermal generation PaR shows improved thermal dispatch with Segment D through 2023, but reduced thermal dispatch in 2024 and beyond (coincides with incremental wind resources) It is not certain the specific drivers behind changes in thermal generation from PaR (transmission, resource portfolio differences, differences in random outage draws) Change in Thermal Generation as Compared to Total Back Down Volume in the SBT GWh (100) (200) PaR SBT (300)

18 Improved Generation Dispatch: PaR Wind Modeling Suggestion We encourage PacifiCorp to proceed with testing and verification of modeling stochastic wind generation in PaR; if successful, this would eliminate the need for a potentially duplicative Generation Dispatch SBT category Response The Company will consider testing modeling stochastic wind generation in PaR Timing and testing will need to consider all demands from other IRP modeling activities Potential challenges Model performance (we are already pushing the limits of software/hardware) Development of stochastic parameters (existing vs. future wind) The Improved Generation Dispatch SBT category may still be needed considering only thermal generation can be backed down (wind is not curtailed in PaR) 18

19 Segment Loss Savings: Comments Segment line loss savings energy Segment Line Loss Savings Energy Spreadsheet Segment Line Loss Savings Energy Workpaper Comments / Requests for Information: Provide more information on calculation of the R-equivalent calculation? Did it include the 230 kv system? 345 kv Bridger system was an illustrative example of the R_equivalent calculation. In the segment line loss savings energy workpaper. The 230 kv system is taken into account in the sub-segment calculation where 230 kv transmission line is included. Would use of actual line flow vs. those presented (2400 MW to 2200 MW) result in a different R_equivalent and therefore different energy loss savings? The R-equivalent is a constant in the loss equation and would not change with power flow levels. Losses are calculated using actual power flows for the entire 2012 year. 19

20 Segment Loss Savings: Comments Segment line loss savings cont d: Energy savings were assumed to be constant over time, but wouldn t energy savings decrease as load increases? The Company acknowledges that the future load and resource balance in eastern Wyoming may be different than today. The load may increase; however, the resources in the area may also increase. Thus line loss savings could be lower or higher than those of the typical year model. Can loads be increased consistent to the rate of load growth in the IRP (to reflect decrease in line loss and load increases)? Energy savings were calculated based on 2012 actual power flow over 8760 hours per year to approximate an estimated of a typical year. Provide natural gas prices for same period as forward price curve Incorporated in Tab 2 of the Segment Line Loss Savings Energy Spreadsheet Is there a forward price index other than Palo Verde that would better reflect the reduction in Net Power Costs expected from the projected energy loss savings? See next slide 20

21 Segment Loss Savings: Electricity Prices PacifiCorp s official forward price curve includes electricity prices for Mid-C, COB, NP15, SP15, and Palo Verde Average of monthly prices (July 2013 June 2032) ($/MWh) HLH ($/MWh) LLH ($/MWh) COB Mid C PV NP SP Source: 21

22 Segment Loss Savings Energy & Capacity: Comments Suggestion Consider implementing loss savings (both energy and capacity) as reduced load (energy and capacity) in PaR Response The Company will consider how this alternative might be implemented Timing and testing will need to consider all demands from other IRP modeling activities Potential challenges May require topology changes which affects model performance (already pushing the limits of software/hardware) Customized load forecasts would need to be developed This approach, if feasible, would require additional System Optimizer simulations (not just PaR) 22

23 Segment Loss Savings Capacity: Comments Segment line loss savings capacity Segment Line Loss Savings Capacity Spreadsheet Comments / Requests for Information: Consider pricing capacity related savings based on the cost of front office transactions vs. CCCT The Company will consider this alternative 23

24 Production Cost Benefits: Comments Request Show range of PaR results associated with average benefit of $511 million published in the 2013 IRP Response $511m Operational Cost Savings benefit represents the production cost benefit based on expected values between PaR runs with and without Segment D, assuming medium CO 2 price Expected values are derived from 100 iterations Production cost benefits by iteration ranges from $105m to $851m, depending on level of CO 2 prices 24

25 Production Cost Benefits: Distribution of Results 25

26 Production Cost Benefits: Distribution of Results 26

27 Production Cost Benefits: Distribution of Results 27

28 Next Steps comments and suggestions for SBT workgroup areas of focus for Workshop #3 by October 11 th Workgroup Workshop #3 October 31, 2013 Wrap-Up Workshop Focus on comments and feedback received throughout the workshop and refinements to the tool or further analysis to be considered