Rocky Mountain States SubRegional Transmission Planning

1
Rocky Mountain StatesSub-Regional Transmission
Planning

• September 26, 2003

2
Background Information and Work Completed to date

• WGA Report
• Formation of SSG-WI
• SSG-WI Study Results
• SSG-WI 2008 Case
• SSG-WI 2013 Case

3
WGA Report

• Bryce Freeman

4
Formation of SSG-WI (Bayless)

• SSG-WI was formed by the three proposed RTOs to
  address seams issues and is intended to cover the
  entire Western Interconnection
• Purpose To provide a planning forum to further
  the development of a robust West-wide interstate
  transmission system that is capable of supporting
  a competitive and seamless West-wide wholesale
  electricity market.
• Currently conducting production cost studies to
  identify potential economic system upgrades

5
Seams Steering GroupWestern Interconnection
(SSG-WI)

• SSG-WI Planning was formed to develop a robust,
  West-wide interstate transmission system to
  support a competitive and seamless wholesale
  electricity market, covering the three western
  RTOs (RTO West, WestConnect and the California
  ISO.)
• PacifiCorp served as the modeling staff to SSG-WI
  Transmission Planning
• Currently concluding production cost studies at
  the node (bus) level
• The studies identify
• Congestion and congestion costs in the West
• Potentially economic upgrades to the system
• Results to be filed in October with WGA and FERC

6
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
Overview

• Study Scope
• Evaluate Transmission Projects
• 2008 Case - Short term assessment
• 2013 Case - long enough time to allow for new
  transmission
• Simulation Results
• Mitigate Uneconomic Transmission
• Assessment of Transmission Added
• Provide Policy Makers with Information concerning
  Transmission
• Identify potential Transmission Additions for
  Generation Developers Report Requirements
• Next Steps

7
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
SSG-WI PlanningTwo Time Frames

• 5 Years Out (2008)
• Purpose is to identify uneconomic congestion so
  that sub-regional entities can develop fixes. One
  scenario was studied only generation well under
  construction.
• 10 Years Out (2013)
• Purpose To provide Energy Policy decision
  makers with insights into the transmission
  impacts of their decisions. Three generation
  development scenarios were studied (coal, gas,
  and renewable)

8
SSG-WI Studies
9
Scenarios Included in Study
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
2008 2013 Simulation
Generation Under Construction
6 Gas/Hydro Sensitivities
High Hydro
Average Hydro
Low Hydro
?
?
High Gas
?
?
Average Gas
?
?
Low Gas
Extra in the 2008 Case
10
Average Annual Load Growth Rate
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
WECC Total System
Growth 2002-2011
Smr Peak
Wntr Peak
Energy
1.6
1.9
1.9
Canada
1.6
1.4
1.7
NWPP-US
2.6
2.5
2.2
RMPA
3.0
2.7
2.7
Az-NM-S.Nv
1.5
2.0
0.9
California
8.3
9.8
7.5
Mexico-CFE
Total
2.0
2.1
1.8
11
Loads by WECC Region
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
Annual GWh with Summer Winter Peaks - 2008
Mexico - CFE
Summer 2,773 Winter 2,100
RMPA
Summer 10,846 Winter 9,835
15,469
NWPP-Canada
California
Summer 16,132 Winter 20,233
Summer 56,981 Winter 42,547
63,718
126,924
280,018
136,889
245,817
AZ, NM S. NV
Summer 29,585 Winter 20,194
NWPP-US
Summer 36,683 Winter 43,038
12
2000 2013 Peak Loads Annual Peak Loads in MW on
Existing Transmission System
British Columbia
Alberta
LEGEND 2008 2013
Mid-C
WA
E. WA/ W. MT
MT
Oregon
Snake
Snake
ID
SE ID
JB
WY
Northern California
N. NV
CHB
Utah
Central CA
Colorado
S. NV
Southern California
Arizona
NM
Mexico
13
(No Transcript)
14
Alberta
WA
MT
Colstrip
Snake
Oregon
ID
WY
JB
Utah
CHB
Colorado
NM
AZ
Mexico
2013 Incremental
Renewables
Total
MWs
66,793
Alberta
Alberta
On Existing Transmission System
WA
WA
MT
Colstrip
MT
Colstrip
Snake
Snake
Oregon
Oregon
ID
ID
WY
JB
WY
JB
Utah
CHB
Utah
CHB
Colorado
Colorado
NM
NM
AZ
AZ
Mexico
Mexico
15
Western Interconnection
Installed Generation Capacity (GWs)
GWh by Energy Source
16
SSG-WI Hydro Modeling
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
17
Gas Prices
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
18
Geothermal
79MW
262MW
585MW
480MW
50MW
913MW
200MW
450MW
204MW
100MW
Western Resource Advocates
62MW
19
Solar
53MW
58MW
222MW
459MW
371MW
1043MW
Western Resource Advocates
278MW
20
Wind
150MW
900MW
3700MW
1250MW
500MW
6900MW
800MW
1000MW
1200MW
2800MW
1700MW
Western Resource Advocates
300MW
21
Results
22
Results Summary 2008
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection

• Existing WECC Transmission Costs
• WECC 2008 Case shows some bottle-necked
  inexpensive resources - 110 million VOM
  savings, and 600 million net benefit
• Resource Development
• New resources are mostly gas-fired CCCTs
• Capacity by fuel type is shifting toward gas, the
  change in energy is greater than the rate of
  capacity increase
• Total VOM Cost Estimates
• More sensitive to gas scenario than hydro
  scenario
• In 2008, for every 1/MMbtu change in gas price,
  fuel costs in the Western Interconnection change
  2 billion

23
Expansion Values - Shadow Prices - 2008
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
24
Transmission Paths Definition
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
25
(No Transcript)
26
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
27
Perceived Transmission Needs
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection

• Criteria used for First Iteration Incremental
  Increase
• Added capacity to paths so they would operate
  below their capacity limit at least 75 of the
  time.
• Blocks of capacity additions
• 1000 - 1500 MW required 500 kV transmission
• 500 - 1000 MW required 345 kV transmission
• Sufficient transmission was added so reliability
  criteria could be met, however, power flow or
  stability studies will be required to verify
  performance
• In many cases the transmission added was not on
  the congested path, rather on another path that
  would be more effective in alleviating the
  congestion.
• Criteria used for Second Iteration Incremental
  Increase
• Used Shadow Pricing - path total Expansion Value
  of 40,000 or greater to further refine
  Transmission configuration
• Weighed cost benefit of the first two
  iterations to choose final

28
Background map courtesy of Western Electricity
Coordinating Council
29
2013 Case Results
30
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
Overview of 2013 Results

• Changes in Variable Operations Maintenance
  Costs
• Changes in Load Generation Locational Marginal
  Price (only energy market clearing price is
  estimated)
• Estimates of Net Benefits
• To Loads
• To Generators
• Areas
• Congestion that remains on Expanded System
• Compare savings cash flows to Capital
  expenditures 2008-2013

31
VOM
32
(No Transcript)
33
LMP
34
2013 LMP Prices - 2003
Clearing Prices(Energy Only) /MWH (AW-MG) 2013
Gas LMP 2013 Coal LMP 2013 Renewable LMP
Langdon 34.6/33.0/33.5
GM Schrum 35.2/33.1/33.9
Monroe 35.2/33.1/33.9
Colstrip 34.6/26.0/28.5
John Day 35.2/33.4/33.8
Midpoint 35.2/33.7/33.6
Wyodak 34.6/25.5/32
Capt Jack 35.2/33.9/33.7
Jim Bridger 34.6/24.3/33.4
Tracy 36.1/38.1/33.3
Craig 35.1/28.8/33.4
Mona 35.2/30.2/33.6
Tesla 36.3/35.9/35.8
Crystal 35.4/34.5/35.0
Four Corners 35.3/33.1/33.9
Adlanto 36.1/32.6/35.5
Meguel 37.0/36.6/36.1
Westwing 35.4/34.5/35.0
Luna 36.3/36.4/35.2
Harquaha 35.6/34.8/35.2
35
Price Difference Vs. Gas (Marginal Generator)
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
36
Congestion
37
Path Expansion values The Gas Scenario has the
lowest Expansion Values as the VOM differences
between CCCTs in different areas tend to be
low. The Renewable Scenario has more remote low
cost generators and higher Expansion Values. The
Coal Scenario has the highest Expansion Values,
due to the quantity of remote MWhs trying to move.
38
(No Transcript)
39
Resource Performance
40
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
41
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
42
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
43
Gas Scenario
44
(No Transcript)
45
Gas Scenario
46
Gas Scenario
47
Delta (2008 Transmission, Generation 2013
load) VS. ( 2013 Gas scenario)
B.C. Hydro
Alberta
Montana
Aquila
WAPAU.M.
LOAD 30.57
LOAD 31.36
LOAD 30.92
LOAD 31.35
LOAD 30.82
Gen N/A
Gen
31.72
Gen 30.77
Gen 30.98
Gen 30.49
Idaho
Northwest
LOAD 31.07
LOAD 31.48
Gen 30.74
Gen 31.21
PSCOLORADO
Sierra
LOAD 32.21
Gen 32.21
LOAD 32.33
Gen 32.27
PG E
PACE
LOAD 32.69
WAPA R.M.
Gen 33.23
LOAD 31.47
Gen 30.99
Nevada
LOAD 31.03
Gen 31.07
LOAD 31.90
LADWP
Gen 32.02
LOAD 32.97
Gen 31.76
SOCOLIF
LOAD 33.02
Gen 33.97
New Mexico
LOAD 32.15
Gen 31.49
WAPA L.C.
ImperialCA
Arizona
LOAD 31.60
LMP Costs
(2003)
- 2013
Gen 31.66
LOAD 32.36
LOAD 31.96
Gen 31.95
Gen 31.42

SCENARIO

(AW-AG)
Gas
Sandiego
Mexico -C
LOAD 33.40
LOAD 32.69
Legend
Gen 33.95
Gen 32.51
LOAD LMP Costs for the Load
Gen LMP Costs for the Generator
48
Coal Scenario
49
(No Transcript)
50
Coal Scenario
51
Coal Scenario
52
(No Transcript)
53
Delta (2008 Transmission, Generation 2013
load) VS. ( 2013 Coal scenario)
B.C. Hydro
Alberta
Montana
WAPAU.M.
Aquila
LOAD 22.35
LOAD 29.72
LOAD 29.60
LOAD 29.67
LOAD 24.39
Gen N/A
Gen
30.01
Gen 29.78
Gen 28.64
Gen 22.45
Idaho
Northwest
LOAD 29.63
LOAD 30.00
Gen 24.63
Gen 29.50
PSCOLORADO
Sierra
LOAD 25.64
Gen 25.50
LOAD 34.62
Gen 35.22
PG E
PACE
LOAD 32.59
Gen 33.41
WAPA R.M.
LOAD 27.85
Gen 25.69
Nevada
LOAD 24.48
Gen 23.51
LOAD 30.93
LADWP
Gen 32.61
LOAD 31.16
Gen 30.51
SOCOLIF
LOAD 33.01
Gen 34.04
New Mexico
WAPA L.C.
LOAD 31.12
Gen 29.62
ImperialCA
Arizona
LOAD 29.87
Gen 30.15
LMP Costs
(2003)
- 2013
LOAD 32.04
LOAD 31.03
Gen 31.82
Gen 30.47

SCENARIO
(AW-AG)

Coal
Sandiego
Mexico -C
LOAD 33.37
LOAD 37.76
Legend
Gen 33.77
Gen 37.80
LOAD LMP Costs for the Load
Gen LMP Costs for the Generator
54
Renewable Scenario
55
(No Transcript)
56
Renewable Scenario
57
Renewable Scenario
58
Delta (2008 Transmission, Generation 2013
load) VS. ( 2013 Renewable scenario)
59
How to Apply Capital Costs?
60
Generation Integration 2m/mi
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
61
Transmission Capital Costs
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
62
Which is the appropriate cash flow to consider?
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
63
(No Transcript)
64
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection
Tradeoff Capital VS. Running Cost
65
Summary Comparison - Cost/ Benefits
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection

• Transmission Capital Costs
• Generation Capital Costs
• VOM

66
Cost Savings of the Three Scenarios
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection

• Just a quick cut at Incremental Costs and
  investments.
• The Coal Scenario has incremental capital costs
  of 24 Billion while the Renewable is 22B (on
  top of 19B for the gas case).
• Savings average 3.8B for coal and 2.7B for
  renewables, so a 6 and 8 year simple payback.

67
SSG-WI Study Conclusions
Seams Steering Group of the Western
Interconnection

• Gas resources require less new transmission to
  develop
• Resources at remote areas require more
  transmission and longer time
• Transmission additions, common to all three
  scenarios, were designed to relieve congestion
  seen in 2008 and 2013
• Emphasis on reliability to be addressed in the
  sub-regional process as a necessity
• All scenario additions show to be cost effective
  
• Other supportive benefits from building
  transmission
• Loss savings benefits
• lost time for maintenance
• Symbiotic effects of transmission paving the way
  for more opportunities (i.e. wind developments in
  Montana, Coal in the eastern states of WECC)
• There are areas on the grid that will be
  congested in the near future and solutions should
  be investigated in sub regional forums