Generation and Transmission Modeling Work Group

1
Generation and Transmission Modeling Work Group
2
Outline of Presentation

• GTMWG tasks and how they fit into the WREZ
  project objectives
• Model development
• Model outlines
• Schedule
• Connections with ZITA
• Connections with EL

3
REMEMBER

• Ultimately, the buyers (load-serving entities)
  determine what transmission gets built and what
  resources get built
• We dont have a way to force unwilling parties to
  pay for transmission there must be voluntary
  collaboration to build big transmission
• We are expanding the options LSEs consider by
  providing information on more distant resources
• Presently, LSEs typically consider nearby
  resources (e.g., distributed generation and
  nearby renewables)

4
Objectives of REZ Modeling Tool

• Assist resource planners and regulators to
  evaluate the relative attractiveness of
  geographically broad renewable resource options
  at a screening level
• Estimate delivered cost of both in-state and
  out-of-state RE options from REZs to LSE load
  areas
• Highlight potential and benefits of collaboration
  between LSEs to build transmission lines
• Highlight potential for competition for limited
  renewable resources

5
Proposed Tool Outline (under review)

• Delivered Cost
• Tool calculates delivered cost of each renewable
  resource type from each REZ to an LSE within a
  load zone
• Delivered Cost Bus-Bar Cost Interconnection
  Cost Transmission Cost Local Delivery Charges
• Relative Ranking
• Tool will provide market value adjustments to the
  delivered cost to determine the relative
  attractiveness of resources
• Adjusted Delivered Cost Delivered Cost /-
  Market Value Adjustments
• Potential for Collaboration and Competition
• Tool highlights resources that are well-ranked
  for multiple load zones
• Collaboration User can modify default
  assumptions to evaluate benefits of shared lines
• 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)
• Tool Output
• Reports including the relative ranking of REZs
  and the underlying data used to generate relative
  ranking (Delivered cost, transmission cost,
  market value adjustments, etc.)
• Reports will highlight resources that are
  well-ranked for multiple load-zones

6
General Tool Functionality

• Excel-based tool
• Tool is provided with default assumptions (e.g.,
  500 kV single circuit transmission from REZ)
• User can evaluate relative ranking of resources
  to each load zone based on default assumptions
• Hope is to be able to evaluate 1 REZ to 1 load
  zone, multiple REZs to one load zone, and
  multiple REZs to multiple load zones
• Tool includes considerable flexibility for user
  to change default assumptions (e.g., generation
  cost, transmission costs)
• Users can evaluate user-defined what-if
  scenarios
• User can examine impact of their own view of the
  future

7
Illustration of Configurations
Model will do
We think model will do
Not sure simple model can do
8
Aggregate REZ Resources
Example REZ and load hubs

• Core data of tool
• REZ list
• Bus-bar (generation and collection cost) and
  transmission cost by renewable resource type
• Primary assumption
• REZ transmission cost based on new high-voltage
  substation within REZ (centroid)
• User defined assumptions
• User can change cost assumptions

9
Load Zone
Arizona Load Zone LSEs are represented within
nearest load zone

• Each LSE will be represented within a Load Zone
  worksheet (e.g., APS and SRP in Arizona Load
  Zone)
• On the order of 20 load zones
• 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)
• Tool will allow user to select which REZs and
  resource types within REZs to include in analysis

10
Delivered Cost
Tool will calculate total delivered cost from
selected resource types in selected REZs

• Tool will calculate delivered cost for each
  resource type in each REZ to the load zone
• Primary Assumptions
• Distance from REZ centroid point to load zone
  hub
• Distance will be based on routing via existing
  rights-of-way to the appropriate extent (from GTM
  sub-group)
• Incremental transmission additions assume no
  existing transfer capability

11
Relative Ranking
Tool will rank resource types and REZs to
highlight most attractive options

• Tool will determine the relative ranking of
  resource types from each REZ based on the
  delivered cost adjusted for market valuation
  factors
• Important market value adjustment factors
• Capacity value
• Time-of-Use Energy Value
• Integration costs
• Externalities (e.g. , carbon taxes if comparing
  to load-based CCGT)
• More detail on assumptions and methods will be
  provided in a Market Valuation presentation by
  LBNL

12
Comparison to other Load Zones
Similar ranking process will be done for each
load zone on separate worksheets

• Separate worksheets will be used for each load
  zone
• The same ranking cost process will be performed
  simultaneously for each load zone

13
Collaboration and Competition
Benefits of collaboration can be modeled by users
in what-if scenarios

• 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
• For example, a user could model a shared line by
  changing default assumptions for utilization and
  line distance
• Tool, as proposed, may be able to accommodate
  this type of investigation, but it would require
  significant amount of external analysis.

14
GTMWG Links to ZITA and EL
Renewable Energy Zone
15
Interaction among work groups
Technical Committee
Zone Identification Technical Analysis work group
Environment, Land Use Permitting work group
Generation/ Transmission Modeling work group
Economic assumptions in supply curves
Areas to be excluded and minimum elements an area
must have to be considered
Areas of concern
Mitigation measures and cost
Conceptual transmission plans
Model for LSE evaluation of interest in REZs
Cost information Lands information
16
Connections to ZITA

• ZITA to GTMWG
• Model input data on generation (next slide is
  draft list provided to ZITA) in 500 MW blocks
  (with some exceptions)
• Proposed default value is current conditions
• User can change assumptions
• ZITA GTMWG iteration
• Size of REZs considering collection costs to
  centroid and transmission solutions

17
Data Needs from Zita

• For each renewable generation type in each zone
  (e.g., wind, geothermal, biomass, CSP)
• Generation type and technology
• Resource block size (e.g., 500 MW blocks of
  resource)
• Expected economic life of generating facilities
  (years)
• Capital costs (overall capital costs - inclusive
  of construction financing - plus estimated
  interconnection costs) (/kW)
• Fixed operation and maintenance (/kW-year)
• Capacity factor () - annual
• Temporal profile (e.g., hourly profile of
  generation by month12x24 suggest collecting
  most detailed information available, however, as
  analysis of complementarity may require more than
  12x24 profile, and perhaps hourly data)
• Variable operation and maintenance (/MWh)
• Fuel cost expenditures (if applicable) (/MWh)
• Financing assumptions debt/equity, interest,
  term
• Taxes federal, state, other ()
• Depreciation rate, term
• Applicable tax and production incentives

18
Connections to EL

• For specific REZs whether assumed distance from
  REZ centroid to transmission corridor is other
  than a straight line
• Any information EL may collect that might be
  useful to WECC and sub-regional planning groups
  when they develop conceptual transmission plans.

19
Next Steps

• Model development
• Work through remaining assumptions
• Begin work on 1 REZ to 1 load zone model test on
  multiple REZs to 1 load zone consider ways to do
  multiple REZs to multiple load zones (likely
  require a different, less transparent model)
• Iterate with ZITA on zone size and delivery of
  data needed by the model
• October 7 webinar on model design
• Presentation of model design to Technical
  Committee Oct 15-16
• Develop, test and populate model by January
• Training on model use
• Engage WECC and sub-regional transmission
  planning groups
• Groups being briefed
• January 31 study request to WECC