Cert Ambient Generation And Transmission


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • -Important to consider how the objectives of these analyses overlap with the objectives of the REZ tool - All of the analyses, to some degree, consider the bus-bar cost or a resource that requires new transmission, the cost of the new transmission, and the value of the energy sent over the transmission line -The first two that will be discussed are analyses that were not done using spreadsheet models, but they do address the question of how to determine which renewable resources and transmission lines are most attractive -Next two models focus on California as the load, then evaluate various options to obtain renewables (both in-state and out-of-state) -Final two models focus more on evaluating specific transmission lines (single source, single sink)
  • Overall, the idea of a transmission line is that you want to access distant resources that are more valuable than local resources. Build transmission lines if the value of the power accessed is more than the delivered cost of that resource. Three key components to this decision: bus-bar cost, transmission cost (sum of two is delivered cost) and market value adjustments
  • First two: non-spreadsheet analyses that provide useful guidance on what is driving transmission development ERCOT evaluated different transmission options to various CREZ zones to determine which options were most economically attractive. Value analysis: very detailed production cost modeling of new wind in each CREZ Bus-bar cost: simplistic assumptions for wind capital cost Cost of transmission: detailed power flow and economic dispatch modeling or several different transmission solutions for each resource level and location (over 60 transmission upgrades were considered for one CREZ alone!). Transmission criteria was that it reduce the level of wind curtailment to below 2% for all wind
  • Based on their results, I estimated the relative ranking of each option in $/MWh of wind terms. Ranking was based on the formula: Bus-bar cost + transmission cost – market value adjustment. Options that are most attractive have lowest ranking cost
  • WinDS is a optimization model – similar to NEMS but it includes detailed modeling of wind. ReEDS is under development and includes multiple resource types Wind resources are selected if that wind resource is the least cost option including transmission cost. Up to 10% of existing transmission capacity is assumed to be available for wind for free Additional transmission capacity can be built at cost of $1,600/MW-mi – no lumpiness: same cost multiplier for 500 MW of wind from WY-CO as 1500 MW of wind from WY-CO
  • Note that some new lines are built to transfer <500 MW of wind (i.e. Arizona)
  • No we get into spreadsheet based tools. RETI and E3 compare options from various regions in the West, delivered to California load zones. Relative ranking of different options is based on delivered cost adjusted for market value (energy and capacity – no integration costs) RETI Transmission costs: All out-of-state transmission costs based on pro-rata share of 500 kV transmission line. Line utilization based on capacity factor of resource (assumes no curtailment). No lumpiness of transmission costs.
  • General framework employed in RETI is similar framework we propose to use for each load zone (i.e. we propose to perform a RETI-type analysis for each of the 20 load zones)
  • E3 analysis is very similar to RETI, with a few major exceptions Market value adjustments in E3 are based on capacity and integration costs only. Integration costs (only for wind) increase with more wind penetration in CA – no benefits of diversity are accounted for Resource selection: Resources are grouped into zones – i.e. B.C. has predefined mix of hydro and wind (user examines them jointly, not individually user cannot easily examine just wind from B.C. without hydro. (Multi-technology zones) Cost of transmission : very lumpy – 250 MW of wind in B.C. triggers new 500 kV line with all cost assigned to 250 MW of B.C. wind
  • Very high cost options (far right are due to lumpiness of transmission – bus-bar cost is sub $100/MWh but total delivered cost Is > $300/MWh due to assumption of new line being built to accommodate small resource
  • Next two examples are tools that are better suited to determine the delivered costs based on specific transmission lines (not generic $/MW-mi assumptions) FEAST determines the delivered cost (source) and compares it to the resources displaced at the load (sink). FEAST framework can work for any source-sink pair, but tool only evaluates one pair at a time.
  • Useful interface for exploring contribution of each component to the value analysis of the transmission line. Bottom right two columns: Do benefits (Value of resource – Cost of Resource) exceed transmission cost? Key feature of model – disconnect line utilization from capacity factor of resource - 1200 MW of wind can be put on 1000 MW of transfer capacity – higher line utilization Limited options can be evaluated in tool – options can only be evaluated one at a time.
  • Another transmission line-centered analysis. No market value adjustment, only calculates delivered cost Also allows transmission utilization to be different from resource capacity factor.
  • ampl
  • Cert Ambient Generation And Transmission

    1. 1. CERT-AMBIENT Generation and Transmission Evans Development Group [email_address]
    2. 2. Modeling Work Group <ul><li>Two Primary Tasks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Model Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WECC Transmission Planning </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Work Group Composition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>64 members; all sectors represented </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regular meetings, mostly via phone/webinar </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interface with other WREZ Work Groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Zone Identification (ZITA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environment & Lands </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. WREZ Model Development <ul><li>Review of Existing Models </li></ul><ul><li>Model Features </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resource cost & operational characteristics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission cost & operational characteristics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sensitivity Analyses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scenario Analyses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Model Development </li></ul><ul><li>Validation </li></ul><ul><li>Application </li></ul><ul><li>Documentation and Training </li></ul>
    4. 4. Model Features – Primary Considerations <ul><li>Users: Resource planners, public policymakers & regulators to evaluate situations/scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>Approach: Incremental Additions – Renewables Focus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interstate vs. intrastate deliveries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Driven by Input Assumptions – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resource cost and operating characteristics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission cost and operating characteristics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value Determination: characteristics of deliveries at load (sink) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Delivered power costs: capacity & energy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration costs and dependability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geographic diversity and overbuilding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Source/Sink Relationships – Single vs. Linked </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources: Renewable types and locations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role of gas: benchmark and/or to support wind </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scenario Analysis Options? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time Issues: costs & technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sensitivity: CO 2 penalties & gas price </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Toggles (on/off): reliability value, storage value, seasonal exchange, and regulatory incentives (PTCs & ITCs) </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Modeling Group Schedule
    6. 6. Power Delivery Tool Development: Review of Previous Work Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Black & Veatch Generation & Transmission Modeling Work Group
    7. 7. Outline <ul><li>Review Previous Analyses and Models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What are objectives of analysis/model? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How is the value of the remote resource determined? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How is the cost of the remote resource estimated? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How is the cost of transmission estimated? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Previous Analyses That Compares Remote Renewable Resources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ERCOT CREZ Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind Deployment System (WinDS) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Previous Spreadsheet-based Resource Planning Models that Include Transmission: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E3 Greenhouse Gas Calculator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B & V Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Previous Spreadsheet-based Transmission Economic Analysis Models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Frontier Line Economic Assessment Screening Tool (FEAST) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee: Canada–Northwest–California Transmission Options Study </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Framework <ul><li>All studies and models can be reduced to evaluating the question: </li></ul><ul><li>Do the benefits of obtaining power from a remote resource outweigh the cost of accessing the resource? </li></ul><ul><li>If so, transmission should be built to access the remote resource </li></ul><ul><li>In other words, is: </li></ul><ul><li>Value of Remote Resource > </li></ul><ul><li>Bus-bar Cost of Remote Resource + Transmission Cost? </li></ul>
    9. 9. ERCOT CREZ Analysis (2008) <ul><li>Objectives of Analysis: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine the transmission required to access various levels of new wind in several CREZs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimate the relative attractiveness of each option </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Production cost savings from security constrained economic dispatch and unit-commitment of ERCOT system (inherently includes time-of-delivery energy value) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No fuel sensitivity or carbon price </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Generic estimate of wind capital cost ($1000/kW) and site specific capacity factors. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No renewable incentives, no integration cost estimates </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Transmission </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Least cost transmission designed to reduce wind curtailment to below 2% in all scenarios </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generic capital cost estimates for 345 kV single and double circuit lines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Line utilization not explicitly calculated but implicit in economic dispatch </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. ERCOT CREZ Analysis (2008) <ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Table in main report details site specific capacity factors, total wind capital cost, total new transmission cost, and annual production cost savings for each CREZ option </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Derived Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ranking cost (Bus-bar Cost + Transmission Cost – Production Cost Savings) was calculated for each option and plotted on the right </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. WinDS: 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Analysis (2008) <ul><li>Objectives of Analysis: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine the least cost regional expansion of generation and transmission for the next 50 years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources are built to satisfy load requirements in 136 balancing areas within 16 time slices. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Renewable energy resources are compared to conventional generation options </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Includes option to model nation-wide carbon cap or carbon taxes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Includes integration cost estimates for wind energy (based on additional operating reserves) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Capital cost estimates and performance estimates include technological learning with time. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance is based on 358 different wind regions in the U.S. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bus-bar cost includes estimate of interconnection cost to nearest transmission line </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Transmission </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assumes 10% of existing transmission capacity is available for new wind energy at no cost above interconnection costs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New transmission lines can be built between balancing regions at a fixed cost of $1,600/MW-mi (only 50% of cost is assigned to wind due to shared reliability benefits) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No lumpiness or economies of scale are accounted for </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Line utilization: New lines are only used by new resources, no “over-build” or curtailment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Line losses: fixed line loss assumption (0.236 kW/MW-mi) </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. WinDS: 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Analysis (2008) <ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Global optimization determines the least cost options for meeting load in each balancing area. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chart shows the projected use of existing (blue) and new (red) transmission to transport wind energy between balancing areas by 2030. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Model results: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wind is transported across multiple states on existing lines </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New lines are built within states or between states </li></ul></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Black & Veatch Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) (2008) <ul><li>Objectives of Tool: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify and quantify renewables for CA RPS requirement and transmission necessary to deliver that energy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Value of remote resource is based on capacity and energy value: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity value: Capacity credit based on capacity factor of resource-specific generation profile during peak period, capacity cost based on CT peaker plant </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Energy value: Resource-specific generation during three periods and zone-specific prices in each period based on economic dispatch model </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No sensitivity to carbon or fuel prices in base case </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No integration cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Range of capital cost and performance provided in Phase 1A, Phase 1B will provide more detail </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Levelized cost based on pro-forma financial worksheet with Federal incentives, capital costs, and performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Transmission: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In-state: Utilize utility transmission ranking cost reports (TRCRs) to estimate transmission needs, transmission costs, and step-size (primarily based on power-flow studies). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Out-of-state: Transmission based on distance of resource to delivery point in CA. Transmission cost based on pro-rata share of 500-kV line with generic $/MW-mi cost estimate. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Line utilization based on capacity factor of remote resource </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Black & Veatch Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) (2008) <ul><li>Details of Ranking Cost: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each resource is compared to other resources on equivalent basis using ranking cost method: </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ranking Cost = Generation Cost + Transmission Cost – Capacity Value – Energy Value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources with lowest ranking cost are most valuable to CA </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. E3 Green House Gas Calculator (2008): Renewable Energy Supply Curves <ul><li>Objectives of Tool: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Overall: Enable regulators to determine the cost of various policy options to reduce green house gas emissions in the electricity and natural gas sector in California. Policy options include in-state and out-of-state renewables. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rank several renewable zones based on delivered cost and cost adders (integration, capacity adjustment, etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Firming” cost adder used to reflect less than nameplate capacity contribution of resources toward capacity requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration cost for wind. Integration costs estimated from previous studies in other states. Increasing penetration leads to increasing integration cost. No consideration for geographic diversity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No adjustment for differences in time-of-delivery energy value between renewable resources in ranking cost. However four time slices are used in separate estimate of total state-wide impact </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bus-bar cost for all resources in a zone based on user-defined capital costs, performance, incentives, and interconnection costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interconnection costs based on $1,600/MW-mi estimate with collector system distances that differ for each type of renewable technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Transmission </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In state renewable zones: Transmission costs based on previous studies (mostly based on power flow analysis) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Out-of-state: Assume new lines must be built to import any new resources. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New lines are very lumpy – 250 MW of new renewables from out-of-state triggers new transmission line. All costs assigned to new resource. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New lines in default case are all HVDC lines. User can define 230 and 500 kV AC lines too. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Line utilization based on capacity factor of remote resource </li></ul></ul></ul>
    16. 16. E3 Green House Gas Calculator (2008): Renewable Energy Supply Curves <ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chart shows relative ranking of in-state and out-of-state renewable options. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total cost is decomposed into components </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant variation in costs due to default assumption that HVDC lines are built for even small resource imports. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results indicate integration costs are minor compared to other components </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Frontier Economic Assessment Screening Tool (FEAST) (2007) <ul><li>Objectives of Tool: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine the cost/benefit ratio of individual transmission lines based on the line utilization and the energy price basis between the source and sink </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Remote resources displace user-defined mix of generation resources in the sink. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity valued based on fixed cost of peaker and ‘dependable’ capacity of remote resource. Dependable capacity is technology-specific but does not vary based on geographic location </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User-defined integration cost, conventional fuel price forecasts, and carbon taxes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User defined mix of resources in remote ‘source’ location </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Levelized bus-bar cost based on capital cost, performance, incentives, and ‘levelizing factors’ for merchant or utility financing. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No interconnection cost estimates </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Transmission: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>500 kV AC or DC transmission lines with user defined line utilization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Line utilization is assumed to be higher for wind with 20% ‘overbuild’ (1200 MW of wind on a 1000 MW line) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capital cost estimates based on engineering judgment, generic equipment cost assumptions, and distance from source hub to sink hub </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peak-load losses based on length and type of line </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Frontier Economic Assessment Screening Tool (FEAST) (2009) <ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Table shows results of one case analyzed in study of Frontier transmission line with 20% overbuild of wind in Wyoming displacing energy from CCGT and capacity from CT in CA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chart shows sensitivity of results to line utilization and regional cost spread (basis) between source and sink </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee (NTAC) (2009) <ul><li>Objectives of Tool: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison of delivered cost of inventory of new generation resources in Western Canada and the Pacific Northwest to options in the Northwest and California. Evaluates specific transmission line options </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compares delivered cost of remote resource to CCGT in PNW or California </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No capacity value or time-of-delivery energy value adjustment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No integration costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User-defined carbon and fuel price </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Remote Resource: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Levelized bus-bar cost based on capital cost, performance, incentives, and single capital charge rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No interconnection cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost of Transmission: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission options designed outside of tool. Most options evaluated using powerflow analysis. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission cost estimates based on detailed equipment requirement and cost assumptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission line utilization is a user-defined assumption (e.g. 35% for wind only, 65% for hydro only, or 75% for combined wind and hydro option). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes transmission losses based on length and type of line </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee (NTAC) (2009) <ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison of delivered cost of energy for mix of resources using different transmission line options </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Options are compared to CCGT in PNW or S. CA load centers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tool only reports total delivered cost: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tool does not adjust costs for capacity value, time-of-delivery energy value, or integration costs </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Summary
    22. 22. References <ul><li>ERCOT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 2006. Analysis of Transmission Alternatives for Competitive Renewable Energy Zones in Texas. December. http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations/2006/ATTCH_A_CREZ_Analysis_Report.pdf . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WinDS: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. Appendix B. May. http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_wind_energy_report_05-11-08_wk.pdf . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>E3 GHG: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.ethree.com/cpuc_ghg_model.html </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RETI: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Black & Veatch. 2008. Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative Phase 1A. RETI Stakeholder Steering Committee, March. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/documents/2008-03_RETI_PHASE-1A_DRAFT_REPORT.PDF. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FEAST: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Western Regional Transmission Expansion Partnership (WTREP). 2007. Frontier Line Feasibility Study . April 30. http://www.ftloutreach.com/workinggroups/economicanalysis.html. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NTAC: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee. 2006. Canada–Northwest–California Transmission Options Study. Northwest Power Pool, May 16. http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/CNC%20Report%20-%20Final%2016%20May%202006.pdf . </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Adequacy of Exiting Models <ul><li>Existing Modeling Approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Source/Sink Pairs (Excel): FEAST & NTAC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regional Rankings (Excel): RETI & E3-GHG </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>System Optimization (non-Excel): CREZ, WinDS, </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What is the Desired Approach? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hybrid to evaluate scenarios for selected load centers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection-driven vs. optimized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Optimized for shortest transmission </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. Wind Solar Load Flow CASE A WREZ Delivery Scenarios Other CASE B CASE C INCREASING COMPLEXITY Gas-at-load Remote Gas
    25. 25. Screening-Level REZ Analysis Tool: Straw-man Proposal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Black & Veatch Generation & Transmission Modeling Work Group
    26. 26. Outline <ul><li>Objectives of REZ Analysis Tool </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed Tool Outline </li></ul><ul><li>Strengths and Weaknesses of Proposed Tool </li></ul><ul><li>Select Questions for Workgroup </li></ul>
    27. 27. Objectives of REZ Analysis Tool <ul><li>Assist resource planners and regulators to evaluate the relative attractiveness of geographically broad renewable resource options at a screening level </li></ul><ul><li>Estimate “delivered cost” of both in-state and out-of-state RE options from REZs to LSE load areas </li></ul><ul><li>Highlight potential and benefits of collaboration between LSEs to build transmission lines </li></ul><ul><li>Highlight potential for competition for limited renewable resources </li></ul>
    28. 28. Proposed Tool Outline <ul><li>Delivered Cost: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tool calculates delivered cost of each renewable resource type from each REZ to an LSE within a load zone </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Delivered Cost = Bus-Bar Cost + Interconnection Cost + Transmission Cost + Local Delivery Charges </li></ul><ul><li>Relative Ranking: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tool will provide market value adjustments to the delivered cost to determine the relative attractiveness of resources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Adjusted Delivered Cost = Delivered Cost +/- Market Value Adjustments </li></ul><ul><li>Potential for Collaboration and Competition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tool highlights resources that are well-ranked for multiple load zones </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration: User can modify default assumptions to evaluate benefits of shared lines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competition: User can choose which resources to include in analysis. A user may decide to exclude a resource that they expect to not be available due to competition for a limited resource (or other reasons) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tool Output: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reports including the relative ranking of REZs and the underlying data used to generate relative ranking (Delivered cost, transmission cost, market value adjustments, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reports will highlight resources that are well-ranked for multiple load-zones </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. General Tool Functionality <ul><li>Excel-based tool </li></ul><ul><li>Tool is provided with default assumptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User can evaluate relative ranking of resources to each load zone based on default assumptions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tool includes considerable flexibility for user to change default assumptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Users can evaluate user-defined “what-if” scenarios </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User can examine impact of their own view of the future: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tax incentives, cost changes, value of energy and capacity etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Changes to default assumptions will primarily be based on external analysis </li></ul></ul></ul>
    30. 30. Aggregate REZ Resources <ul><li>Core data of tool: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>REZ list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bus-bar and interconnection cost by renewable resource type </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(specific ZITA deliverables TBD) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Primary assumption: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>REZ interconnection cost based on new high-voltage substation within REZ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>User defined assumptions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User can change bus-bar cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(specific bus-bar cost modeling TBD) </li></ul></ul></ul>Example REZ and load hubs
    31. 31. Load Zone <ul><li>Each LSE will be represented within a Load Zone worksheet (e.g. APS and SRP in Arizona Load Zone) </li></ul><ul><li>On the order of 20 load zones </li></ul><ul><li>Tool will have empty placeholders for user to define non-REZ resources to include in relative ranking (e.g. distributed photovoltaics or CCGT sited at load) </li></ul><ul><li>Tool will allow user to select which REZs and resource types within REZs to include in analysis </li></ul>Arizona Load Zone – LSEs are represented within nearest load zone
    32. 32. Load Zone User can deselect resources they think should not be included in analysis <ul><li>Each LSE will be represented within a Load Zone worksheet (e.g. APS and SRP in Arizona Load Zone) </li></ul><ul><li>On the order of 20 load zones </li></ul><ul><li>Tool will have empty placeholders for user to define non-REZ resources to include in relative ranking (e.g. distributed photovoltaics or CCGT sited at load) </li></ul><ul><li>Tool will allow user to select which REZs and resource types within REZs to include in analysis </li></ul>
    33. 33. Delivered Cost Tool will calculate total delivered cost from selected resource types in selected REZs <ul><li>Tool will calculate delivered cost for each resource type in each REZ to the load zone </li></ul><ul><li>Primary Assumptions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distance from interconnection point to load zone hub: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Distance will be based on routing via existing rights-of-way to the appropriate extent (from GTM sub-group) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incremental transmission additions – assume no existing transfer capability </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Delivered Cost Tool will calculate total delivered cost from selected resource types in selected REZs <ul><li>Transmission cost component: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission Capital Cost (Based on voltage and distance) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission utilization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Distance multiplier </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Per mile losses based on line voltage assumption </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delivery charge from load zone hub to LSE load center </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operating costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All are user-defined assumptions with default assumptions provided with tool </li></ul>
    35. 35. Relative Ranking <ul><li>Tool will determine the relative ranking of resource types from each REZ based on the delivered cost adjusted for market valuation factors </li></ul><ul><li>Important market value adjustment factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time-of-Use Energy Value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Externalities (e.g. Carbon taxes if comparing to load-based CCGT) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More detail on assumptions and methods will be provided in a Market Valuation White paper by LBNL </li></ul>Tool will rank resource types and REZs to highlight most attractive options
    36. 36. Comparison to other Load Zones <ul><li>Separate worksheets will be used for each load zone </li></ul><ul><li>The same ranking cost process will be performed simultaneously for each load zone </li></ul>Similar ranking process will be done for each load zone on separate worksheets
    37. 37. Comparison to other Load Zones Similar ranking process will be done for each load zone on separate worksheets <ul><li>Separate worksheets will be used for each load zone </li></ul><ul><li>The same ranking cost process will be performed simultaneously for each load zone </li></ul>
    38. 38. Collaboration and Competition <ul><li>The tool will highlight resources that rank well for multiple load zones </li></ul><ul><li>Users can explore the impact of competition by examining the new resource ranking if they assume the resource will be fully utilized by another load zone </li></ul>Resources that rank well for multiple load zones will be highlighted in the tool
    39. 39. Collaboration and Competition <ul><li>After determining the well ranked resources for different load zones, a user can modify default assumptions to determine the benefits of collaboration in “what-if” scenarios </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For example, a user could model a shared line by changing default assumptions for utilization and line distance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tool, as proposed, may be able to accommodate this type of investigation, but it would require significant amount of external analysis. </li></ul>Benefits of collaboration can be modeled by users in “what-if” scenarios
    40. 40. Strengths and Weaknesses <ul><li>Strengths: (Tool models well) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simultaneous relative ranking of resources across multiple load zones </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Well-ranked resources in multiple load zones present opportunities for collaboration or competition between LSEs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wide geographic scope: relative comparison of both in-state and out-of-state resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexibility: Default assumptions are provided, user can modify default assumptions to create their own “what-if” scenarios </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transparent screening of resources: Excel based tool with many user-defined assumptions </li></ul></ul>
    41. 41. Strengths and Weaknesses <ul><li>Weaknesses: (Tool does not model well) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Optimal resource mix: Tool complements traditional resource planning models, but will not substitute for one </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission to access multiple resource types in same zone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E3 GHG Model may be useful guide for how to incorporate this feature into the tool, but it may involve tradeoffs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission to access multiple zones with one transmission line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission to access multiple loads and multiple zones with one transmission line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Default assumptions will be single resource in REZ. Multiple resources and multiple load hubs require user to modify default assumptions: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blended Bus-bar and interconnection cost? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission utilization: User-defined transmission utilization (e.g. default would assume 40% utilization for wind-only REZ, user could assume 60% for wind and solar in user-defined multiple resource-REZ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Transmission line length: Multiple REZ and load hubs may require longer lines. User must specify increase in line length </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value of seasonal exchange </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value of reliability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Detailed transmission pricing (instead based on very simple assumptions) </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. Select Questions for Workgroup <ul><li>What is the primary use of the tool? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Current focus: determine relative ranking of resources in REZs for each load zone based on simple user-defined assumptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Similar to E3 GHG and RETI analyses </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative focus: Focus more on specific transmission lines. Determine delivered cost of resources based on detailed modeling of specific transmission lines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Similar to NTAC and FEAST analyses </li></ul></ul></ul>
    43. 43. Select Questions for Workgroup <ul><li>Is proposed tool potentially too complex? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each load zone (~20 load hubs) will potentially rank all resources in each REZ ( potentially 40 or more REZs with multiple technologies) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tradeoffs between being comprehensive (ability to screen all resources for each load zone) and depth of modeling (detailed modeling of transmission line sizing, routing, and usage) </li></ul></ul>
    44. 44. Select Questions for Workgroup <ul><li>Is the basic functionality of the tool sufficient to highlight potential for both competition and collaboration? </li></ul><ul><li>Tool simply highlights resources in REZs that are well ranked for multiple load zones. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tool does not specify total demand for renewables in load zones </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Competition: User can examine effect of competition by excluding resource from relative ranking in their load zone </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration: User can develop changes to default assumptions to model different routing and line utilization that might occur with shared transmission lines. Tool will provide little guidance on how to develop and model these user-defined shared lines. </li></ul>
    45. 45. Transmission Work Tasks <ul><li>Model Development Sub-Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Model design & features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Matrix of desired input to ZITA Workgroup </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transmission Segments Sub-Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mileage and routes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing corridors and to link/access REZs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Build on prior work: Frontier, BC-CA & NTAC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Default routes for each load </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transmission Costs & Operations Sub-Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Voltages and capacity ratings: AC & DC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Configurations: single & double circuit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Line losses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Line-mile and associated costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial and operating costs </li></ul></ul>
    46. 46. Example Model Inputs (FEAST) (to be populated by ZITA)
    48. 48. Example Transmission Segments (Frontier)
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.