Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
3/18/2015
1
Draft 7th Plan Development S h d l d Schedule and
Scenarios Proposed for Testing
h March 24, 2015
2014 Q4 Q1 2015 2015
Methodology for Quantification of
Environmental Costs and Benefits
Q2
Major Seventh Plan Development Milestones
Resource Adequacy Analysis
EE and Generating
Resource Cost and Availability
Final Approach to Capacity,
Balancing, and Flexibility
Q2
Demand/Price Forecasts Updated
Draft Scenarios and Resource Strategies for RPM Analysis Discussed and Approved 2‐4/2015*
DR Supply Curves Updated
Resource Needs Assessment
Draft Resource and Action Plan Approved,
8/2015*
Q3 Q4
Q2
2015
Draft Plan Public D ft Pl Fi l Pl
2015
Scenarios and Resource Strategies Analyzed in RPM
Q2
i i i di
*Refers to the Council meeting in that month. Dates are DRAFT until each Council meeting agenda is finalized.
Draft Plan Released9/2015*
Comment Draft Plan Revisions
Final Plan Adoption, 12/2015*
Sensitivity Studies for Resource
Strategy Identified for RPM, 5/2015*
3/18/2015
2
Scenario Analysis is About Answering Five Simple Questions
1. When Will We Need Resources?1. When Will We Need Resources?
2. How Much Will We Need?
3. What Should We Build/Buy?
4. How Much Will It Cost?
5. What’s the Risk?
Plan Development Analytical Process Flow
ElectricityElectricityDemandDemandForecastForecast
EnergyLoad
Energy Efficiency Resource Energy Efficiency Resource Potential AssessmentPotential Assessment
Units & BaselineUnit Use
Regional Regional Portfolio ModelPortfolio Model
Energy Efficiency“Supply Curves”
LoadForecast
Range(without
efficiency)
Generating
Council Reviews Cost Council Reviews Cost and Risk of Alternative and Risk of Alternative Resource PortfoliosResource Portfolios
Data to
4
Generating Generating ResourceResourcePotential AssessmentPotential Assessment
gResource
Cost &Availability
Distributions of Key Drivers (e.g., Fuel prices, wholesale market prices)
Data to Create
Futures Council Adopts Plan’s Council Adopts Plan’s Resource Portfolio Resource Portfolio Management Strategy Management Strategy and Action Planand Action Plan
3/18/2015
3
Draft 7th Plan Wholesale Electricity Market Price Forecast Range
$70
$80ricity
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Market Wholesale Elect
Average Annual Price
(2012$/M
Wh)
$0
$10
$20
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mid‐C
5
Draft 7th Plan Natural Gas Price Forecast Range
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
as
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$
atural G
as Prices @ Suma
(2014$/m
illion BTU
)
$‐
$1.00
$2.00
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Na
6
3/18/2015
4
Draft 7th Plan Forecast Range of Average Annual Energy Loads(Pre-Conservation-Frozen Efficiency)
30,000
32,000 aM
W) 6th Plan Range
Draft 7th Range
22,000
24,000
26,000
28,000
Frozen‐Efficiency Load
s (a
18,000
20,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Annual F
7
Draft 7th Plan Forecast Range of Winter Peak Loads(Pre-Conservation)
38,000
40,000
(MW)
32,000
34,000
36,000
l Frozen‐Efficiency Load
s
28,000
30,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Annual
8
3/18/2015
5
PNW Existing Energy Resources
30,000
35,000 WM)
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
al Energy Cap
ability (aW Coal
Gas
Solar
Wind
Other Must Run
CGS
‐
5,000
10,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Annu
Hydro (Average)
9
PNW Existing Capacity Resources
35,000
40,000
45,000
W)
10 000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Winter Peak Cap
acity (M
W
Coal
Gas
Solar
Wind
Other Must Run
CGS
H d (A )
‐
5,000
10,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
W Hydro (Average)
10
3/18/2015
6
Forecast Range for the Net Change in Average Annual Loads & Resources*
5,000
6,000
7,000 MW)
Low Load Growth
High Load Growth
Existing Resource Addition/Loss
(1 000)
‐
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Load
s/Resources (aM
1700 – 3100 aMW
3900 – 7100 AMW
(2,000)
(1,000)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
11
* Reflects Average Water and Announced Resource Additions and Retirements with Potential Climate Change Temperature Impacts
Forecast Range for the Net Change in Winter Peak Loads & Resources*
6 000
8,000
10,000
ter MW)
Low Load Growth
High Load Growth
Existing Resource Addition/Loss
‐
2,000
4,000
6,000
Load
s/Resources (Wint
1700 – 3600 MW
6200 – 10,500 MW
(2,000)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
12
*Reflects Average Water and Announced Resource Additions and Retirements with Potential Climate Change Temperature Impacts
3/18/2015
7
What Resources Should “Fill The Gap”?839b(e)(1). The plan shall, as provided in this paragraph,
give priority to resources which the Council determines to be cost-effective to be cost-effective.
Priority shall be given:
first, to conservation;
second, to renewable resources;
third, to generating resources utilizing waste heat or
generating resources of high fuel conversion efficiency;g g g y;
and fourth, to all other resources.
Source :Northwest Power Act, §4(e)(1), 94 Stat. 2705.
13
Sixth and Seventh Plan Conservation Supply Curves
6,000
7,000
8,000
‐
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
aMW
14
Levelized Cost Bin ($/MWh)
7P Preliminary Supply Curve 6P Supply Curve
3/18/2015
8
Renewable Resource OptionsOn Shore WindOn Shore Wind••MontanaMontana
Outback Solar PV Plant, 5 MW, Oregon
MontanaMontana••Columbia BasinColumbia Basin
Solar Photovoltaic• Southern Idaho
15Photo credit: Obsidian Renewables
• Southern Idaho
5000
6000
7000
8000
Utility Scale Solar PV Capital Cost Estimate ‐ $/kWac
Collected Analyst Forecast Range ‐ grey area
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
$/kW ac ‐$2012
7th Plan Draft
16
0 2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Seventh Plan Ref. Plant SEPA >10 MW Projection E3 <20 MW Tracker EIA 20 MW Tracker
LBNL Utility Sc 2013 Avalon Solar Project Bevins Point Solar Old Mill Solar
Palo Alto Est Sun Shot Goal Sun Shot Evol. Projection Adelanto
Foothills I Five Points Solar Station Pine Tree Picture Rocks
3/18/2015
9
Generating Resources With High Fuel Conversion Efficiency
Langley Gulch, 300 MW, Idaho, 2012
Natural GasNatural Gas‐‐Fired Fired C bi d C lC bi d C lCombined Cycle Combined Cycle Combustion TurbinesCombustion Turbines
Natural GasNatural Gas‐‐
17
Port Westward II – Recip Photo credit: PGE flickr
FiredFiredReciprocating Reciprocating EnginesEngines
$400
$500
$600
year
Levelized Fixed Cost ($/kW‐yr) ‐ In Service 2020
$0
$100
$200
$300
Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Solar PV Wind ‐ Solar PV Wind ‐ Wind ‐ Wind ‐ Wind ‐
2012$/kW‐y
18
Frame Intercool CCCT 1 Wet Cool
Aero CCCT 2 Dry Cool
Recip Eng
Utility Scale ‐ S Idaho
Col. Basin
Utility Scale S ID ‐ New Trans.
MT Colstrip Ret.
MT Existing Trans.
MT New 230kV Line
MT Upgrade Trans
11 10 12 9 13 8 1 3 2 7 4 5 6
Capital O&M Fixed Fuel Trans. 6th Plan Value
3/18/2015
10
$200
$250
$300Wh
Levelized Cost of Energy (2012$/MWh) ‐ In Service 2020
$0
$50
$100
$150
Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Wind ‐ Solar PV Wind ‐ Wind ‐ Wind ‐ Wind ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐ Solar PV Ntl Gas ‐ Ntl Gas ‐
$2012/M
W
19
CCCT 1 Wet Cool
CCCT 2 Dry Cool
MT Colstrip Ret.
Utility Scale ‐ S Idaho
MT Existing Trans.
MT New 230kV Line
MT Upgrade Trans
Col. Basin
Intercool Frame Utility Scale S ID ‐ New Trans.
Aero Recip Eng
12 13 7 1 4 5 6 3 10 11 2 9 8
Capital O&M Fixed and Var Fuel Fixed and Var Trans, Integ 6th Plan Value
The Answer To One Question is Simple(Because It’s Prescribed by Statute)
1. When Will We Need Resources?
2. How Much Will We Need?
3. What Should We Build/Buy?
4. How Much Will It Cost?
5 What’s the Risk?5. What s the Risk?
The lowest cost, lowest risks resources first.
3/18/2015
11
2025 Resource Portfolio Analysis on One Slide
$200
$250
$300Generic gas, solar PV and wind units are shown at typical project sizes - more units could be built at comparable cost.
^AlmostAlmost
1600 3000 aMW
-$50
$0
$50
$100
$150
2012
$/M
Wh
Efficiency Gas – CCCT Gas ‐ Recip Solar PV ‐ Utility Scale Solar PV – Distributed Wind – MTWind ‐ Basin
1600 – 3000 aMW
-$100- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
MWa
While the “All Resource Energy Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, While the “All Resource Energy Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, it doesn’t tell us it doesn’t tell us how much,how much, when or the costs and risks when or the costs and risks of acquisition!of acquisition!
21
Wind Basin
2035 Resource Portfolio Analysis on One Slide
$200
$250
$300Generic gas, solar PV and wind units are shown at typical project sizes - more units could be built at comparable cost.
^AlmostAlmost
3600 6700 AMW
$
-$50
$0
$50
$100
$150
2012
$/M
Wh
Efficiency
Gas – CCCT
Gas ‐ Recip
Solar PV ‐ Utility Scale
Solar PV – Distributed
Wind – MT
Wind ‐ Basin
3600 – 6700 AMW
-$100- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
MWa
While the “All Resource Energy Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, While the “All Resource Energy Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, it doesn’t tell us it doesn’t tell us how much,how much, when or the costs and risks when or the costs and risks of acquisition!of acquisition!
22
Wind Basin
3/18/2015
12
Winter Capacity Resource Supply Options
$150
$200 year)
$(50)
$‐
$50
$100
$150
acity Cost (2012$/KW‐y
Demand Response
RECIP ‐West
RECIP ‐ East
CCCT ‐Wet Cool
CCCT ‐ Dry Cool
$(50)
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000Cap
a
Winter Peaking Capacity (MW)
23
While the “All Resource Capacity Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, While the “All Resource Capacity Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, it doesn’t tell us it doesn’t tell us how much,how much, when or the costs and risks when or the costs and risks of acquisition!of acquisition!
Summer Capacity Resource Supply Options
$150
$200
year)
$(50)
$‐
$50
$100
$150
acity Cost (2012$/KW‐y
Demand Response
RECIP ‐West
RECIP ‐ East
CCCT ‐Wet Cool
CCCT ‐ Dry Cool
$(50)
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000Cap
a
Summer Peaking Capacity (MW)
24
While the “All Resource Capacity Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, While the “All Resource Capacity Supply Curve” tells use what to acquire, it doesn’t tell us it doesn’t tell us how much,how much, when or the costs and risks when or the costs and risks of acquisition!of acquisition!
3/18/2015
13
We Are Now At Regional Portfolio Modeling
ElectricityElectricityDemandDemandForecastForecast
EnergyLoad
Energy Efficiency Resource Energy Efficiency Resource Potential AssessmentPotential Assessment
Units & BaselineUnit Use
Regional Regional Portfolio ModelPortfolio Model
Energy Efficiency“Supply Curves”
LoadForecast
Range(without
efficiency)
Generating
Council Reviews Cost Council Reviews Cost and Risk of Alternative and Risk of Alternative Resource PortfoliosResource Portfolios
Data to
25
Generating Generating ResourceResourcePotential AssessmentPotential Assessment
gResource
Cost &Availability
Distributions of Key Drivers (e.g., Fuel prices, wholesale market prices)
Data to Create
Futures Council Adopts Plan’s Council Adopts Plan’s Resource Portfolio Resource Portfolio Management Strategy Management Strategy and Action Planand Action Plan
The Insight to Answer the Other Questions Comes (in part) From Scenario Analysis
Resource Strategies – actions and policies over which the decision maker has control that will affect the
Futures – circumstances over which the decision maker has no control that will affect the outcome ofmaker has control that will affect the
outcome of decisionsthat will affect the outcome of decisions
Scenarios – Combinations of Resource Strategies and Futures used to “stress test” how well what we control performs in a world we don’t control
26
3/18/2015
14
Proposed Scenarios Were Designed By Varying “Stresses” and “Constraints”
Some scenario’s subject potential resources strategies to futures that impose one or more stresses. Examples: Uncertain GHG emissions limits or costs
Unanticipated Loss of major resource(s)
Climate change impacts on loads and hydro-system output
Some scenario’s constrain potential resources strategies across allfutures: Examples: GHG emissions limits or costs
Maximum pace of conservation development
Fixed retirement schedule for existing coal generation
I d li i bl h PNW/CA Increased reliance on variable resources across the PNW/CA
Availability of emerging technology (generation, storage and EE)
Some scenarios place no limits on the uncertainty surrounding future conditions or on potential resource strategies?
27
Proposed Scenarios Were Selected by Considering . . .
What insight/information do we expect to get from this scenario? Resource strategies that are “robust” across range of future conditions Need for near term resource de elopment actions (EE and generation) Need for near term resource development actions (EE and generation)
What insights/information might be gained by comparing the results of this scenario with those of other scenarios? Examples: Cost of risk mitigation reduction Cost of carbon emission reduction compared to estimated societal cost
of damage Impact of carbon cost/emissions constraints on energy efficiency
and/or renewable resource developments Potential value of storage, etc.
What insights/information might be gained by comparing the least risk and/or least cost resource strategies under this scenario? With resource strategies that have equivalent cost but higher risk? With resource strategies that have equivalent risk but higher cost?
28
3/18/2015
15
ScenarioNumber
Scenario Name Scenario Description
Key Stress Factors /Constraints Tested
Existing Policy Existing RPS, state and federal environmental regulations, including MATS
Known generation fleet retirements and regulatory compliance costs
1A
g ywithout Uncertainty, w/o GHG reduction risk
g , gand haze, CA and BC carbon costs, state carbon limits on new generation. Average value across all futures for all major sources of uncertainty.
costs
Existing RPS, state and federal environmental regulations, including MATS
Cost and Value of uncertainty risk mitigation with known generation fleet retirements and
29
1B
Existing Policy with Uncertainty, w/o GHG reduction risk
g gand haze, CA and BC carbon costs, state carbon limits on new generation. Distribution of values for all major sources of uncertainty across all futures. No carbon regulation or cost risk.
regulatory compliance costsDelineated by 1B – 1A
ScenarioNumber Scenario Name Scenario Description
Key Stress Factors /Constraints Tested
Existing Policy with Uncertainty and with certain GHG reduction risk/target. Proposed Policy Target =Clean Power Plan/Clean Air Act 111(d) goal (e g
Existing RPS, state and federal environmental regulations, including MATS and haze, CA and BC carbon costs, state carbon limits on new generation. Distribution of values for all major sources of uncertainty across all futures. Scenarios will test specific carbon reduction targets or costs. Example: Resource strategies must result in 30% less GHG
Cost and Value of uncertainty risk mitigation with known generation fleet retirements and regulatory compliance
2A
111(d) goal (e.g., 30% below 2005 level by 2030
Resource strategies must result in 30% less GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 (or some variant of this policy)
and regulatory compliance costs Delineated by 2A – 1B
Existing Policy with Uncertainty and with certain GHG reduction risk/target. Proposed Policy Target = Mitigate to Estimated
Existing RPS, state and federal environmental regulations, including MATS and haze, CA and BC carbon costs, state carbon limits on new generation. Distribution of values for all major sources of uncertainty across all futures. Scenarios will test specific carbon reduction targets or costs. Example: GHG emissions cost/price set equivalent to the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon
Cost and Value of uncertainty risk mitigation with known generation fleet retirements and regulatory compliance costs. If SCC is used to represent damage cost, resulting portfolios theoretically achieve GHG mitigation equivalent to damage costs.
30
2B GHG Damage Cost (SCC) Delineated by 2B – 1B
2C
Existing Policy with Uncertainty and with uncertain GHG reduction risk/target.
Existing RPS, state and federal environmental regulations, including MATS and haze, CA and BC carbon costs, state carbon limits on new generation. Distribution of values for all major sources of uncertainty across all futures. Scenarios will test specific carbon reduction targets or costs. GHG emissions cost/price allowed to vary across futures between $X and $Y
Cost and Value of uncertainty risk mitigation without known generation fleet retirements and regulatory compliance costsDelineated by 2C – 1B
3/18/2015
16
Options for Representing Clean Power Plan Policy Goal
Proposed Baseline, Interim and Final Mass and Rated‐Based Equivalent CO2 Emissions Limits for Existing Affected and New Sources
2012 Baseline Interim 2012Baseline Mass
Equivalent (Million
Metric Tons)
Interim Mass
Equivalent (Million
Metric Tons)
Final Mass Equivalent (Million
Metric Tons)
2012 Baseline Rate
(pounds/MWh)
Interim Rate (pounds/M
Wh)
Final Rate (pounds/M
Wh)
Idaho 0.6 0.9 1.0 858 244 228
Montana 16.3 15.4 15.2 2,439 1,882 1,771
Oregon 7.0 5.2 5.3 1,081 407 372
Washington 6.6 4.4 4.8 1,379 264 215
Region 30.5 25.9 26.2 1,634 658 571
31
Note: EPA emissions limits shown in this table include generating resources located in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. They do not include emissions from power plants modeled in the RPM that are located in Wyoming and Nevada and that serve the Northwest Region.
Interagency Working Groups Estimated Social Cost of CO2, 2015-2050 and 6th Plan Carbon Risk Scenario Average
(2012$/Metric Ton)
Discount Rate and Statistic
6th Plan Carbon
Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average
3% 95th
Percentile
Risk Scenario
(Average Across All
Futures
2015 $12 $40 $62 $118 $36
2020 $13 $47 $69 $139 $52
2025 $15 $51 $75 $156 $57
2030 $17 $56 $81 $173 $582030 $17 $56 $81 $173 $58
2035 $20 $61 $87 $190
2040 $22 $66 $94 $208
2045 $26 $71 $100 $224
2050 $29 $77 $106 $239
32
3/18/2015
17
ScenarioNumber
Scenario Name Scenario Description
Key Stress Factors /Constraints Tested
Determine lowest feasible power system carbon emissions resource strategies using only availablegeneration storage and energy
Cost and risk of minimizing power system GHG
3A
Lowering carbon
emissions with current technology
generation, storage and energy efficiency technologies, including anticipated cost reductions. May include retirement of all regional coal plants and replacement with no or lower carbon emitting resources.
system GHG emissions feasible with existing technologyDelineated by 3A –2C
Lowering carbon
emissions with
Determine lowest feasible power system carbon emissions resource strategies using emerging generation,
Cost and risk of minimizing power
33
3B
with emerging
technology (e.g.,
storage, CO2
heat pumps, SSL)
strategies using emerging generation, storage and energy efficiency technologies, including anticipated cost reductions. May include retirement of all regional coal plants and replacement with no or lower carbon emitting resources.
minimizing power system GHG emissions feasible with emerging technologyDelineated by 3B –3A
ScenarioNumber Scenario Name Scenario Description
Key Stress Factors /Constraints Tested
Major Resource Uncertainty -UnexpectedLoss of Major Resource (e.g., CGS Forced
Determine the resource strategies best suited to managing the unanticipated loss of a major (>1000 MW) non GHG
Cost and risk associated with unanticipated loss of major, non-GHG gas emitting resource
4ACGS Forced Retirement)
of a major (>1000 MW) non-GHG emitting resources
emitting resourceDelineated by 4A – 2C
Major Resource Uncertainty AnticipatedLoss of Major Resource(s) (e.g.,Snake River
Determine the resource strategies best suited to managing the loss of a major
Cost and risk associated with replacement of existing hydro-generation.
34
4B Dam Removal,)g g j
hydro resourcesgDelineated by 4B – 2C
4C & D
Major Resource Uncertainty –Pace of Conservation Deployment
Determine the resources that would be developed/displaced if the deployment of energy efficiency is faster or slower than anticipated
Cost and risk associated with assumed upper and lower limits on pace of conservation in resource strategies Delineated by 4C/4D –2C
3/18/2015
18
ScenarioNumber Scenario Name Scenario Description
Key Stress Factors /Constraints Tested
Integration of Variable Resources (i.e., Managing th NW I t D t i th t t i th t
Cost and risk associated with potentially large extra-regional surpluses
il bl t l i
5A
the NW Impact of the "Duck Curve"/50% CA RPS)
Determine the resource strategies that would best serve the region should CA achieve a 50 percent RPS using primarily solar PV
available at low prices during certain periods of the day and yearDelineated by 5A – 2C
5B
Southwest Market Uncertainty: Liquidity and Variability
Determine the resource strategies that would best serve the region under different scenarios of Southwest market availability
Cost and risk associated with reduced liquidity associated with the Southwest Market.Delineated by 5B – 2C
35
5B Variability availability. Delineated by 5B 2C
ScenarioNumber
Scenario Name Scenario Description
Key Stress Factors /Constraints Tested
6A Climate Change Indirect Effects Load
Determine the impact on resource strategies under forecast future load conditions with increased population and economic gro th d e to potential
Change in system load and load shapeDelineated by 6A –2CEffects Load
Impactsand economic growth due to potential in-migration
2C
6B Climate Change Hydro Impacts
Determine the impact on resource strategies under forecast future hydro-power output conditions
Change in hydro outputDelineated by 6B–2C
36
3/18/2015
19
Scenario Scenario Name Priority Modeling Effort
DRAFT Schedule
1B Existing Policy with Uncertainty, w/o GHG reduction risk 1 Med April
1A Existing Policy without Uncertainty, w/o GHG reduction risk 2 Med April
2C Existing Policy with Uncertainty and with uncertain GHG reduction risk/target. 3 Low April
2B Existing Policy with Uncertainty and with certain GHG reduction risk/target. Example Policy Target = Mitigate to Estimated GHG Damage Cost
4 Low Early May
4C Major Resource Uncertainty – Faster Pace of Conservation Deployment 5 Low Early May
4D Major Resource Uncertainty – Slower Pace of Conservation Deployment 6 Low Early May
2A Existing Policy with Uncertainty and with certain GHG reduction risk/target. Example Policy Target = Clean Power Plan/Clean Air Act 111(d) goal (e.g., 30% below 2005 level by 2030
7 Med Late May
3A Lowering carbon emissions with current technology 8 Med Late May
4A Major Resource Uncertainty ‐ Unexpected Loss of Major Resource (e.g., CGS Forced Retirement)
9 Med/High Late May
4B Major Resource Uncertainty Anticipated Loss of Major Resource(s) (e.g., Snake 10 Low Late Mayj y p j ( ) ( g ,River Dam Removal,)
y
3B Lowering carbon emissions with emerging technology (e.g., storage, CO2 heat pumps, SSL)
11 High Not Modeled
5A Integration of Variable Resources (i.e., Managing the NW Impact of the "Duck Curve"/50% CA RPS)
12 Med/High Early June
6A Climate Change Load Impacts Resulting from Indirect Effects of Climate Change 13 Low Early June
6B Climate Change Hydro Impacts 14 High Early June
5B Southwest Market Liquidity Variability 15 Low Early June37
Annual Loads Are Forecast to Increase Slightly Due To Potential Climate Change Temperature Affects
(Frozen Efficiency Load Forecasts)
27,000
28,000 Existing Low
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
27,000
Annual Load
(aM
W)
Revised Low w/Climate Change
Existing High
Revised HIgh w/Climate Change
19,000
20,000
21,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
A
38
3/18/2015
20
Annual Peak Loads Are Forecast to Increase Due To Potential Climate Change Temperature Affects
(Frozen Efficiency Load Forecasts)
38 000
40,000 Existing Low ‐ Peak
Revised Low w/Climate Change ‐ Peak
Summer Peaks
32,000
34,000
36,000
38,000
nnual Peal Load
(MW)
Revised Low w/Climate Change Peak
Existing High ‐ Peak
Revised HIgh w/Climate Change ‐ Peak
28,000
30,000
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
An
39
Winter Peaks
