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