Pacific Northwest Low Carbon Scenario Analysis

Transcription

1 Pacific Northwest Low Carbon Scenario Analysis 2018 Scenarios and Sensitivities June 2018 Arne Olson, Senior Partner Kush Patel, Partner Nick Schlag, Director Kiran Chawla, Consultant Femi Sawyerr, Associate

2 Introduction This is a joint report to share the results of independently sponsored studies Each of the entities in the report independently requested and sponsored additional scenarios and sensitivities to the 2017 PGP Study Some entities requested the same studies Those studies were run consistently for each entity 2

3 Presentation Structure Background 100% GHG Reduction Scenario PGP Sponsored Scenarios and Results Climate Solutions Sponsored Scenarios and Results National Grid Sponsored Scenarios and Results Conclusion 3

4 Background and Context 4

5 Context of 2018 Analysis In 2017, the Public Generating Pool (PGP) sponsored the Pacific Northwest Low Carbon Scenario Analysis, a study of alternative policies for achieving reductions in electric sector carbon emissions in the Northwest The original study can be found here: completes-study-of-policy-mechanisms-to-decarbonize-the-electricsector-in-the-northwest/ In 2018, follow-up studies were individually sponsored by three organizations to explore specific questions left unanswered by the original study Public Generating Pool Climate Solutions National Grid This document reports on the assumptions and results from these additional studies 5

6 Original Study Results: Cost & Emissions Impacts in 2050 Note: Reference Case reflects current industry trends and state policies, including Oregon s 50% RPS goal for IOUs and Washington s 15% RPS for large utilities 6

7 2050 Scenario Summary From the Original Study Scenario Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Avg GHG Abatement Cost ($/ton) Effective RPS % Zero Carbon % Renewable Curtailment (amw) Reference 20% 91% % Reduction +$ $22 21% 92% % Reduction +$ $30 25% 95% % Reduction +$1, $50 31% 102% % RPS +$ $77 30% 101% % RPS +$1, $144 40% 111% % RPS +$2, $187 50% 121% 1,033 Leg Tax ($15-75) +$ $42 28% 99% 437 Gov Tax ($25-61) +$ $41 28% 99% 424 No New Gas +$1, $592 22% 93% 337 Incremental cost and GHG reductions are measured relative to the Reference Case

8 About the Additional Studies PGP sponsored additional studies exploring the means for and cost of achieving additional CO2 emissions reductions beyond the 80% goal assumed in the original study: 90%, 95% and 100% GHG emissions reductions with varying quantity and price of carbon-free biogas as a substitute for fossil natural gas Climate Solutions sponsored additional studies exploring 100% GHG emissions reductions: With and without biogas and small modular nuclear reactors (SMR), under alternative technology costs, and with a ceiling or off-ramp on compliance costs National Grid sponsored additional studies exploring the potential role for pumped hydro storage: Alternative assumptions about the cost of new pumped hydro facilities and new gas-fired generation, and accelerated coal retirement All scenarios assume revenue recycling 8

9 Scenario Matrix All Sponsored Scenarios and Sensitivities Scenario Original Study Assumptions Biogas P&Q Sensitivities INPUT ASSUMPTIONS Alternative Technology Costs Pumped Storage Cost Update High Gas Capital Costs Reference 40% Reduction 60% Reduction 80% Reduction 30% RPS 40% RPS 50% RPS Leg Tax ($15-75) Gov Tax ($25-61) No New Gas 90% Reduction 95% Reduction 100% Reduction with Hydro, Wind Geothermal, and Solar (HWGS) 100% Reduction + Biogas 100% Reduction + SMR 100% Reduction + Off Ramp Limited New Gas Build 30% RPS + No Coal Original PGP Study; PGP; Climate Solutions; National Grid 9

10 Base Cost Assumptions for Candidate Technologies Technology Resource Unit Gas Annual Core NW Fuel Costs $/MMBtu $3.24 $2.95 $3.32 $3.82 CT-Frame $/kw-ac $950 $950 $950 $950 CCGT $/kw-ac $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 Hydro Upgrades Non Powered Dam $/kw-ac $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 Upgrades $/kw-ac $1,277 $1,254 $1,206 $1,158 Geothermal Central Oregon $/kw-ac $4,557 $4,557 $4,557 $4,557 Wind Solar Battery Storage (4-hr Storage) Pumped Storage (10-hr Storage) Columbia River Basin $/kw-ac $1,925 $1,910 $1,896 $1,882 Montana $/kw-ac $1,823 $1,810 $1,796 $1,783 Wyoming $/kw-ac $1,722 $1,709 $1,697 $1,684 WA/OR $/kw-ac $1,617 $1,558 $1,513 $1,438 WA/OR $/kw-dc $1,244 $1,199 $1,164 $1,106 - $/kwh $587 $455 $372 $352 - $/kwh $261 $261 $261 $261 Base capital cost assumptions are the same as in the original PGP study Capital costs are kept flat beyond 2030

11 100% Reduction Scenario Individually Requested by PGP and Climate Solutions

12 2050 Portfolio Summary - PGP Carbon Cap Scenarios Summary 84 GW of new renewable capacity added by 2050 in 100% Reduction HWGS scenario 10 GW of new storage capacity Gas generation eliminated entirely by 2050 Resources Added (MW) Scenario Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Energy Balance (amw) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % Reference % 91% 80% Reduction +$1, % 102% 100% Reduction HWGS +$18, % 135% * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 12

13 Cost & Emissions Impacts All Cases Original PGP Study + 100% Reduction HWGS Note: Reference Case reflects current industry trends and state policies, including Oregon s 50% RPS goal for IOUs and Washington s 15% RPS for large utilities 13

14 There are significant reliability challenges under a scenario without dispatchable thermal generation The scenario considers the effect of a 100% GHG reduction cap with only hydro upgrades, wind, geothermal, solar, and electric energy storage available as new resources Without dispatchable thermal generation capacity, it may be difficult to meet load under extreme weather conditions E.g., extended cold-weather period with low wind and solar production that occurs during a drought year This challenge would only increase under a scenario with significant electrification of building and vehicle loads to meet long-term carbon goals 14

15 There are significant modeling challenges under a scenario without dispatchable thermal generation The current version of RESOLVE was not designed to consider cases without some form of dispatchable capacity The model does not provide sufficiently robust examination of unusual weather conditions that drive the need for dispatchable capacity The model cannot consider multi-day energy storage as a potential solution to the energy constraints that are encountered The model does not consider land-use or other environmental limitations on resource supply or transmission capacity More study is needed to examine resource availability and transmission requirements More study is needed to analyze whether the system as modeled meets reliability expectations 15

16 PGP Sponsored Scenarios

17 Summary of Sponsored Scenarios - PGP Scenario Name Question Answered Updates to Model 90% Reduction Effect of a 90% GHG reduction target 95% Reduction Effect of a 95% GHG reduction target 100% Reduction + Biogas Effect of availability of biogas to run in existing natural gas infrastructure Added 90% GHG reduction trajectory, assuming a straight line reduction from 2016 to 2050 Added 95% GHG reduction trajectory, assuming a straight line reduction from 2016 to 2050 Added 100% GHG reduction trajectory, assuming 60% reduction by 2030 and 100% reduction by Capacity unconstrained pipeline biogas available for use in natural gas generators at $31/MMBtu cost Sensitivity Name Question Answered Updates to Model 100% Reduction + Biogas 3xP 100% Reduction + Biogas Q/3 Effect of availability of biogas to run in existing natural gas infrastructure Effect of availability of biogas to run in existing natural gas infrastructure Capacity unconstrained pipeline biogas available for use in natural gas generators at $93/MMBtu cost 12.5 Tbtu of pipeline biogas available for use in natural gas generators at $31/MMBtu cost 100% Reduction + Biogas 3xP Q/3 Effect of availability of biogas to run in existing natural gas infrastructure 12.5 Tbtu of pipeline biogas available for use in natural gas generators at $93/MMBtu cost 17

18 2050 Portfolio Summary - PGP Carbon Cap Scenarios Summary 17 GW of new renewable capacity added by 2050 in 90% Reduction scenario 23 GW of new renewable capacity added by 2050 in 95% Reduction scenario 21 GW of new renewable capacity and 41 TBtu of pipeline biogas consumed in 2050 in 100% Reduction + Biogas scenario ** Resources Added (MW) Scenario Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Energy Balance (amw) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % 80% Reduction +$1, % 102% 90% Reduction +$1, % 112% 95% Reduction +$2, % 117% 100% Reduction + Biogas +$3, % 115% ** **Note the change in the Y-axis scale change * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 18

19 Cost & Emissions Impacts Original PGP Study Cases Note: Reference Case reflects current industry trends and state policies, including Oregon s 50% RPS goal for IOUs and Washington s 15% RPS for large utilities 19

20 Cost & Emissions Impacts Original PGP Study + Additional Carbon Cap Scenarios 100% Reduction HWGS Scenario s 2050 annual cost increase of $18.4 billion is beyond the scale of this chart Note: Reference Case reflects current industry trends and state policies, including Oregon s 50% RPS goal for IOUs and Washington s 15% RPS for large utilities 20

21 2050 Portfolio Summary - PGP 100% Reduction + Biogas Sensitivities Summary 24 GW of new renewable capacity added by 2050 and in the 100% + Biogas 3xP sensitivity 44 GW of new renewable capacity added by 2050, 12.5 TBtu of pipeline biogas is used in 2050, and about 300 GWh of unserved energy in both the 100% Reduction + Biogas Q/3 and 100% Reduction + Biogas 3xP Q/3 sensitivities Resources Added (MW) Scenario Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Energy Balance (amw) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % 100% Red. + Biogas (Base) +$3, % 115% 100% Red. + Biogas 3xP +$4, % 120% 100% Red. + Biogas Q/3 +$6, % 130% 100% Red. + Bio. 3xP Q/3 +$7, % 130% ** ** **Note the change in the Y-axis scale change * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 21

22 Cost & Emissions Impacts All Cases Original PGP Study + All PGP Additional Both Biogas Q/3 Scenarios have about 300 GWh of unserved energy in 2050 Note: Reference Case reflects current industry trends and state policies, including Oregon s 50% RPS goal for IOUs and Washington s 15% RPS for large utilities 22

23 2050 Summary of Results from PGP Sponsored Scenarios Scenario Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Avg GHG Abatement Cost ($/ton) Effective RPS % Zero Carbon % Renewable Curtailment (amw) Reference 20% 91% % Reduction +$1, $50 31% 102% % Reduction +$1, $75 41% 112% % Reduction +$2, $100 47% 117% 1, % Reduction + Biogas +$3, $118 44% 115% 1,082 PGP Biogas P & Q Sensitivities 100% Reduction + Biogas 3xP 100% Reduction + Biogas Q/3 100% Reduction + Biogas 3xP Q/3 +$4, $179 50% 120% 1,481 +$6, $247 59% 130% 4,328 +$7, $277 59% 130% 4,289 Incremental cost and GHG reductions are measured relative to the Reference Case 23

24 Summary of GHG Reductions from PGP Sponsored Scenarios Scenario Unit Original Study Assumptions 90% Reduction MMtCO % Reduction MMtCO % Reduction + Biogas MMtCO PGP Biogas P & Q Sensitivities 100% Reduction + Biogas 3xP MMtCO % Reduction + Biogas Q/3 MMtCO % Reduction + Biogas 3xP Q/3 MMtCO GHG reductions are measured relative to the Reference case 24

25 Pipeline Biogas Potential Assumptions The pipeline biogas consumed in the unconstrained 100% Reductions + Biogas scenarios is about a third of the combined Oregon and Washington in-state potential Estimated 2040 Oregon and Washington Biomethane Potential (Tbtu) Assumes no purpose-grown crops Assumed market price of $31/MMBtu reflects other uses Pipeline biogas potential available for use in electricity sector requires more study *Potential estimates are based on DOE Billion Ton Study Update of 2016: 25

26 Climate Solutions Sponsored Scenarios

27 Summary of Sponsored Scenarios Climate Solutions Scenario Name Question Answered Updates to Model 100% Reduction + Off-ramp 100% Reduction + Biogas 100% Reduction + SMR Effect of a 100% GHG reduction target with a $200/ton off-ramp Effect of a 100% GHG reduction target with pipeline biogas as zero CO fossil resource Effect of a 100% GHG reduction target with flexible small modular nuclear reactors Added 100% GHG reduction trajectory, assuming 60% reduction by 2030 and 100% reduction by $200/ton off-ramp in 2050 Added 100% GHG reduction trajectory, assuming 60% reduction by 2030 and 100% reduction by Pipeline biogas available for use in natural gas generators at $31/MMBtu cost Added 100% GHG reduction trajectory, assuming 60% reduction by 2030 and 100% reduction by New nuclear candidate resource at $100/MWh all-in cost. Retires all fossil plants in 2049 Sensitivity Name Question Answered Updates to Model Alternative Technology Costs Effect of potential technological breakthrough in cost reductions for emerging technologies *NREL 2017 Annual Technology Baseline: Solar PV costs updated using NREL 2017 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB)*. Relative to Base Case wind costs reduced by 20%; battery costs reduced by 70%; and biogas fuel cost reduced by 20% 27

28 Low Technology Cost Trajectories Solar PV WA/OR Land Based Wind Columbia River Basin Battery Storage 4-hr Storage Pipeline Biogas Original PGP Study Base; Original PGP Study Low Tech Costs; Climate Solutions Alt. Tech Costs 28

29 2050 Portfolio Summary Climate Solutions Carbon Cap Scenarios Summary 7 GW of gas capacity added by 2050 in Off-ramp Scenario 21 GW of new renewable capacity added by 2050 in 100% Reduction + Biogas Scenario 8 GW of new SMR capacity and 5 GW of pumped storage capacity added by 2050 in 100% Reduction + SMR Scenario ** Resources Added (MW) Scenario Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Energy Balance (amw) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % Reference % 91% 100% Reduction + Off-ramp +$1, % 104% 100% Reduction + Biogas +$3, % 115% 100% Reduction + SMR +$6, % 130% ** **Note the change in the Y-axis scale change * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 29

30 Cost & Emissions Impacts Original PGP Study Cases Note: Reference Case reflects current industry trends and state policies, including Oregon s 50% RPS goal for IOUs and Washington s 15% RPS for large utilities 30

31 Cost & Emissions Impacts All Cases Original PGP Study + Climate Solutions Updates Note: Reference Case reflects current industry trends and state policies, including Oregon s 50% RPS goal for IOUs and Washington s 15% RPS for large utilities 31

32 2050 Portfolio Summary Climate Solutions Alternative Technology Costs Sensitivity Summary 7 GW of renewable capacity and 9 GW of storage capacity are added by 2050 in the Reference Scenario 28 GW of renewable capacity and 7 GW of storage capacity are added by 2050 in the 100% Reduction + Biogas Scenario Scenario Reference (Alt. Technology Costs) 100% Red. + Biogas (Alt. Technology Costs) Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % % 92% +$2, % 119% ** Resources Added (MW) ** Energy Balance (amw) **Note the change in the Y-axis scale change * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 32

33 Cost & Emissions Impact Climate Solutions Alternative Technology Costs Sensitivity Alternative Technology Costs Sensitivity reduces the incremental cost of meeting the 100% reduction carbon cap target by $1 billion Cost & Emissions Impact, Base Case Cost & Emissions Impact, Alternative Technology Costs Note: 2050 annual cost increases are shown relative to the Reference Case, Alternative Technology Cost sensitivity 33

34 2050 Summary of Results from Climate Solutions Sponsored Scenarios Scenario Original Study Assumptions Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Avg GHG Abatement Cost ($/ton) Effective RPS % Zero Carbon % Renewable Curtailment (amw) Reference 20% 91% % Reduction + Off-ramp +$1, $53 33% 104% % Reduction + Biogas +$3, $118 44% 115% 1, % Reduction + SMR +$6, $238 37% 130% 852 Climate Solutions Alternative Technology Cost Sensitivity Reference +$ % 91% 201 Reference 21% 92% % Reduction + Biogas +$2, $79 47% 119% 1,354 Incremental cost and GHG reductions are measured relative to the respective Reference cases Negative GHG reductions value means emissions are higher relative to the reference scenario 34

35 Summary of GHG Reductions from Climate Solutions Sponsored Scenarios Scenario Unit Original Study Assumptions 100% Reduction + Off-ramp MMtCO % Reduction + Biogas MMtCO % Reduction + SMR MMtCO Climate Solutions Alternative Technology Cost Sensitivity 100% Reduction + Biogas MMtCO GHG reductions are measured relative to the respective Reference cases 35

36 Pipeline Biogas Potential Assumptions The pipeline biogas consumed in the 100% Reduction + Biogas base scenario is about a third of the combined Oregon and Washington in-state potential Estimated 2040 Oregon and Washington Biomethane Potential Assumes no purpose-grown crops Assumed market price of $31/MMBtu reflects other uses Pipeline biogas potential available for use in electricity sector requires more study *Potential estimates are based on DOE Billion Ton Study Update of 2016: 36

37 Reliability analysis is needed for energy limited systems with high levels of storage as a capacity resource Thermal fleet retirements in 100% GHG reductions scenarios coupled with load growth create a need for replacement capacity to ensure resource adequacy In the alternative technology costs scenarios the primary source of capacity added is energy storage (pumped hydro & batteries) Storage provides capacity to help meet peak demands but does not generate energy that is needed during low hydro years or multi-day low generation events More study is needed to analyze whether systems with significant storage capacity as modeled meet reliability expectations The alternative technology costs scenarios meet the current reserve margin requirement with the addition of new energy storage (1 MW of 10-hr storage capacity is assumed equivalent to 1 MW of natural gas capacity) However, it is unclear how much energy storage can contribute to Resource Adequacy in the Pacific Northwest 37

38 National Grid Additional Scenarios

39 Summary of Sponsored Scenarios National Grid Scenario Name Question Answered Updates to Model 30% RPS with Coal Retirement Effect of a 30% RPS combined with a forced retirement of coal generators Retires all coal generators in 2030 Sensitivity Name Question Answered Updates to Model Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs (Low PS Capex) Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & High Gas Capital Costs (Low PS Capex & High Gas Capex) Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & Limited New Gas Build (Low PS Capex & Limited New Gas) What capacity of pumped storage resources are selected when costs are updated using Swan Lake facility capital costs What capacity of pumped storage resources are selected when, building on the Low PS Capex sensitivity, the capital cost of a gas facility is increased What capacity of pumped storage resources are selected when, building on the Low PS Capex sensitivity, you constrain the build of new gas units Updated pumped storage capital cost Updated pumped storage capital cost. Updated natural gas resource capital cost using the final capital cost value for the Carty Generating Station Updated pumped storage capital cost. Constrain build of new gas units to repowering of CCGT units and 1000 MW of CT every decade 39

40 2050 Portfolio Summary National Grid Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs Summary 8 MW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the Reference Scenario 22 MW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the 80% Reduction Scenario 52 MW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the 30% RPS with Coal Retirement Scenario ** Resources Added (MW) Scenario Reference (Low PS Capex) 80% Reduction (Low PS Capex) 30% RPS with Coal Retirement (Low PS Capex) ** Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Energy Balance (amw) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % % 91% +$1, % 102% +$1, % 101% **Note the change in the Y-axis scale change * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 40

41 2050 Portfolio Summary National Grid Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & High Gas Capital Costs Summary 2 GW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the Reference Scenario 1.6 GW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the 80% Reduction Scenario 2.3 GW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the 30% RPS with Coal Retirement Scenario Resources Added (MW) Scenario Reference (Low PS & High Gas Capex) 80% Reduction (Low PS & High Gas Capex) 30% RPS with Coal Retirement (Low PS & High Gas Capex) Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Energy Balance (amw) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % % 91% +$1, % 102% +$1, % 101% ** ** **Note the change in the Y-axis scale change * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 41

42 2050 Portfolio Summary National Grid Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & Limited New Gas Build Summary 3 GW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the Reference Scenario 1 GW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the 80% Reduction Scenario 4.4 GW of pumped storage capacity is added by 2050 in the 30% RPS with Coal Retirement Scenario Resources Added (MW) Scenario Reference (Low PS & Limited New Gas) 80% Reduction (Low PS & Limited New Gas) 30% RPS with Coal Retirement (Low PS & Limited New Gas) Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Energy Balance (amw) Effective RPS % Zero CO2 % % 91% +$1, % 102% +$1, % 101% ** ** **Note the change in the Y-axis scale change * EE shown here is incremental to efficiency included in load forecast (based on NWPCC 7 th Plan) 42

43 Cost & Emissions Impact National Grid All Sensitivities Original PGP Study Low PS Capex Low PS Capex & High Gas Capex Low PS Capex & Limited New Gas Build 43

44 2050 Summary of Results from National Grid Additional Scenarios Scenario Original Study Assumptions Inc Cost ($MM/yr.) GHG Reductions (MMT) Avg GHG Abatement Cost ($/ton) Effective RPS % Zero Carbon % Renewable Curtailment (amw) Reference 20% 91% % Reduction +$1, $50 31% 102% % RPS No Coal +$1, $62 30% 101% 313 Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs Reference 20% 91% % Reduction +$1, $50 31% 102% % RPS No Coal +$1, $62 30% 101% 297 Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & High Gas Capital Costs Reference 20% 91% % Reduction +$1, $49 31% 102% % RPS No Coal +$1, $64 30% 101% 287 Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & Limited New Gas Build Reference 20% 91% % Reduction +$1, $49 31% 102% % RPS No Coal +$1, $64 30% 101% 292 Incremental cost and GHG reductions are measured relative to the respective Reference cases 44

45 Summary of Selected Pumped Storage Capacity Results Scenario Original Study Assumptions Reference 80% Reduction 30% RPS No Coal Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs Reference 8 80% Reduction 22 30% RPS No Coal 52 Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & High Gas Capital Costs Reference 655 1,051 2,010 80% Reduction ,690 30% RPS No Coal 762 1,001 2,342 Low Pumped Storage Capital Costs & Limited New Gas Build Reference 274 3,054 80% Reduction 21 1,184 30% RPS No Coal 2,067 4,456 Incremental cost and GHG reductions are measured relative to the respective Reference cases 45

46 Reliability analysis is needed for energy limited systems with high levels of storage as a capacity resource Thermal fleet retirements coupled with load growth create a need for replacement capacity to ensure resource adequacy In the limited gas scenario and when gas capital costs are assumed to be high, pumped storage is added as a capacity resource Storage provides capacity to help meet peak demands but does not generate energy that is needed during low hydro years or multi-day low generation events More study is needed to analyze whether systems with significant storage capacity as modeled meet reliability expectations 1 MW of 10-hr storage capacity is assumed equivalent to 1 MW of natural gas capacity However, it is unclear how much energy storage can contribute to Resource Adequacy in the Pacific Northwest 46

47 Thank You! Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA Tel Web Arne Olson, Senior Partner Kush Patel, Partner Nick Schlag, Director Kiran Chawla, Consultant Femi Sawyerr, Associate