24
2017 Study Program PC02: High Wind Bhavana Katyal W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

2017 Study Program PC02: High Wind PC02 - High...PC02: Load/Generation Balance Heavy Winter 13 W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L. PC02: Load/Generation

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    8

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 2017 Study ProgramPC02: High Wind

    Bhavana Katyal

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Modeling Logic

    2

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    2

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    Scope

    • Scope• Key Questions

    Assumptions• Increased Wind

    Generation

    Results• Generation Mix/

    Curtailment• Dump Energy• Path Utilization/Flows

    Production Cost Model

  • PC02: Purpose

    Purpose

    To study the effect of addition of 130 TWh in wind generation on generation and key path flows.

    These study case was derived from the 2026 Common Case version 2.0.

    3

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Scope

    • Study Requestors: CREPC/WIRAB, PG&E

    • Changes from 2026CC as specified by study requestors:

    – Addition of 130 TWh wind in AB, MT, WA-OR, WY, CO, NM

    – No other changes were made to CC2.0.

    • Key Questions:

    – How does the system respond to addition of increased wind?

    • Effect of curtailment due to increase in wind

    • Dump energy

    • Utilization impacts on key paths

    4

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Additional Wind Mix

    5

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    8%

    23%

    30%

    23%

    8%

    8%

    New Wind Generation

  • Generation: PC02 vs. CC2.0

    6

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I LGWh

  • Change in Generation: PC02 vs. CC2.0

    7

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    GWh

  • Generation by Subtype & Sub region: PC02 Vs. CC2.0

    8

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    0

    50,000

    100,000

    150,000

    200,000

    250,000

    300,000

    Case_1 Case_2 Case_1 Case_2 Case_1 Case_2 Case_1 Case_2 Case_1 Case_2 Case_1 Case_2 Case_1 Case_2

    Alberta British Columbia Basin California/MX DesertSouthwest

    Northwest Rocky Mountain

    Comparison by Subregion - Case_1 (2026 WECC v2.0) vs. Case_2 (2026 WECC v2.0 HighWind)

    Wind

    Solar

    Small Hydro RPS

    Geothermal

    DG/DR/EE - Incremental

    Biomass RPS

    Other

    IC

    Combustion Turbine

    Combined Cycle

    Nuclear

    Steam - Other

    Steam - Coal

    Energy Storage

    Conventional Hydro

    GWh

  • Change in Generation by Region and Subtype : PC02 vs. CC2.0

    9

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    GWh

  • Dump Energy: PC02 vs. CC2.0

    10

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    GWh

  • Other results: PC02 vs. CC2.0

    11

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    CC2.0 PC02 Change Change %

    Var. Prod. Cost (M$) 17,395 13,173 (4,222) -24%

    CO2 Cost (M$) 2,267 1,200 (1,067) -47%

    CO2 Amount (MMetrTn) 318 258 (60) -19%

    Dump Energy (GWh) 304 29,046 28,742 9451%

  • PC02: Load/Generation BalanceHeavy Summer

    12

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Load/Generation BalanceHeavy Winter

    13

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Load/Generation BalanceSpring

    14

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Most Heavily Utilized Paths

    15

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    Uxx = % of year that flow is greater than xx% of the path limit. U75 > 50%; U90 > 20%; U99 > 5%

  • PC02: Heavily Utilized Paths

    16

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    New Wind Generation

  • PC02: Most heavily utilized paths

    17

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    Path Name 99% Limit 90% Limit 75% Limit

    P36 TOT 3 45.14% 51.38% 63.89%

    P47 Southern New Mexico (NM1) 26.11% 33.92% 43.73%

    P48 Northern New Mexico (NM2) 17.99% 23.82% 30.33%

    P18 Montana-Idaho 12.27% 18.04% 29.32%

    P37 TOT 4A 9.44% 20.49% 35.63%

    P22 Southwest of Four Corners 7.40% 33.62% 52.61%

    P23 Four Corners 345/500 Qualified Path 6.66% 12.15% 26.60%

    P80 Montana Southeast 6.14% 11.61% 20.42%

    P28 Intermountain-Mona 345 kV 0.00% 29.12% 35.72%

    P83 Montana Alberta Tie Line 0.00% 48.89% 55.59%

  • Utilization Change: PC02 vs. CC2.0

    18

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • Change in Net Flow: PC02 vs. CC2.0

    19

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Utilization of key paths identified by requestors

    20

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    Path Name 75% Limit 90% Limit 99% Limit

    P08 Montana to Northwest 0.09% 0.00% 0.00%

    P26 Northern-Southern California 4.10% 1.35% 0.53%

    P46 West of Colorado River (WOR) 2.48% 0.39% 0.03%

    P49 East of Colorado River (EOR) 0.43% 0.00% 0.00%

    P65 Pacific DC Intertie (PDCI) 8.07% 5.59% 0.00%

    P66 COI 19.38% 10.21% 0.00%

  • PC02: Observations

    • Reduction in base load dispatch of coal and natural gas and high utilization of wind.

    • Lower production cost and lower CO2 vs. CC2.0.

    • Higher utilization on certain paths.

    • No significant utilization on requested key paths

    21

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • Utilization Ratings

    22

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

    • Congestion vs Utilization– Some lines are designed to be highly utilized.

    • “Most Heavily Utilized” = A path that meets any one of the following criterion (10-year plan utilization screening):– U75 > 50%

    – U90 > 20%

    – U99 > 5%

    • Uxx = % of year that flow is greater than xx% of the path limit

  • CC2.0: Most heavily utilized paths

    23

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

  • PC02: Annual Generation by Category

    24

    W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L