Technical Advisory Subcommittee Meeting Agenda by rae18192

VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 4

									                          Technical Advisory Subcommittee
                                  Meeting Agenda

                       Thursday, August 20, 2009, 8:30 am – 3:30 pm
                                 WECC Conference Room
                               615 Arapeen Drive Suite #210
                                 Salt Lake City, UT 84108
Webcast at http://wecc.na3.acrobat.com/tas/    Voice Only: (719) 359-4032 or 866-228-9900
                                       PIN: 610530

1) Welcome, introductions, opening remarks, and agenda review                    TAS Chairs

2) Work Group Reports
   a) Studies Work Group                                                     Marv Landauer
   Next calls are 9/9 @ 12-4 PAST and 9/29 @ 8:30-3 PAST

        i) 2010 Study Ideas                                                   Marv Landauer
SWG will start from an approved WECC base case for 2020. The long range tool also should
be available from LTPTTF. The new WI planning process will have some different timelines
that the study will need to sync up with. If TAS has any additional ideas later, please send
them to Marv.

         ii) 2019 Transmission Assumptions                  Marv Landauer and Peter Krzykos
The Transmission Task Force identified new transmission projects to be included in the 2019
case based on project status and potential impact on congestion. Projects that require only
station upgrades (e.g. series capacitors) were given higher priority.
Peter K: The PV-North Gila line #2 perhaps should be added. He will follow up with WAPA
regarding whether that should be added. He also will follow up on Green Path North.
Irina Green will provide the data for the LEAPS project in EPC format. Only the Lake
Elsinore to SCE line and the pumped storage plant will be included in the base case.
The reasons for including and excluding specific projects are discussed in a paper that is
posted with the meeting materials. TAS members should provide any comments to Marv.
Staff still needs EPC files for many of the projects and will send out a data request reminder.

        iii) 2012 Study Results                                                Heidi Pacini
Heidi reviewed the 2012 study results to date. More extensive information is posted with the
meeting documents.
The Four Corners Path no longer is congested in the cases. The congestion in previous
studies was due to modeling inaccuracies, mostly representation of the Navajo Transmission
Project.

       iv) 2019 Resource Gap Assumptions                                        Tom Carr
RPS Requirements for 2019 & 2029: Tom discussed the 2019 methodology and 2029
methodology for determining the resource gap.
Fred Depenbrock: Has the potential effect of plug-in automobiles been considered?
   Grace Anderson will check with the CEC to see what they are doing on this question.
   In the 2010-2011 study program, the Scenario Development Work Group will consider
   this question and how it should be addressed in studies.
Load and Resources Gap: There needs to be a shift to subregional analysis due to
transmission constraints between subregions. Don Schofield developed a spreadsheet model
to compute the summer and winter gaps for each subregion. The spreadsheet output for 2019
was presented to TAS. The presently used regulating reserve for each subregion was used for
this analysis. Next year, we can ask LRS to request forecasts of regulating reserves.
An alternative approach, proposed by Arne Olson of E3, using incremental analysis also was
considered by the Resource Team. It requires fewer assumptions and produces a higher gap.
TAS reviewed the results of the alternative approach, but those results did not account for
generation under construction.
The Resource Team does not have a consensus view of which approach is superior, so they
may recommend using both, one as a higher bound and the other as a lower bound.

Resource Portfolio for Base Case: For CA, information from RETI and from CA PUC
regarding 33% RPS is being used. For rest of WECC, they will use IRP surveys of LSEs and
the WECC LRS data for proposed generation by type.
Once-through-cooling/Endangered Species Act. ESA could lead to loss of 3000 MW at
Snake River Dams. PacifiCorp’s Klamath relicensing could lead to loss of 170 MW.
There are about 17,000 MW of non-nuclear resources in CA with OTC that eventually will
need to be replaced or repowered. Repowering of the resources in the South Coast air basin
may not be feasible.
The Resource Team is considering whether they should assume more PV and less solar
thermal. They will look into whether NREL has a PV generation model to use with their
regional insolation data.

     b) Historical Analysis Work Group                                                Dean Perry
        i) Automating Analysis of Historical Data
OATI WebIntelligence tool is a powerful tool that would expedite historical data analysis
compared to Excel, but the cost may not be justified unless WECC has other uses (e.g. real-
time operations) for it. It can correlate different data (e.g. wind vs. path loading). OATI used
the tool for the DOE congestion analysis of the eastern interconnection. The cost of the OATI
tool will be based on how the tool is used.
There is another tool with similar capabilities available, but some of the data is confidential
and currently resides only on the OATI server in E-tag format, which needs to be converted to
POR/POD format.
HAWG will assemble the requirements for the tool, obtain a cost estimate from OATI, and
request TAS/TEPPC approval.
Dean will seek a description of the tool (which has been confidential to date) from OATI and
try to coordinate with Operating Groups (e.g. Steve Ashbaker and Bob Schwermann).
Grace Anderson: This work is important enough that she supports proceeding with OATI
even if there are no operational applications.
Tom Schneider: The quality of the underlying data has been a key issue, more than the tool.
We need to make sure that OATI will produce quality data if we commit to them.
        Dean: We need to work with OATI to do that, but it may be beneficial to have all the
        data on OATI’s server.

        ii) Investigation of a New Congestion Metric
The new metric (U75 block) counts all hours in a load period (HLH or LLH) as congested if
any one hour is congested. The old metric will be called U75 hourly. The new metric would
be a “high” bookend metric. The previous metric would be considered the “low” bookend.
At present, HAWG is leaning toward using a weighted average of the block and hourly
values.
Steve Walton: Power is sold in strips for HLH or LLH. It may be better to look at HLH and
LLH separately rather than averaging them over 24 hours.
HAWG will analyze 2009 data, which starts becoming available in November. Hearing no
objection, HAWG will use the new metric for the 2009 data analysis.

   c) Data Work Group                                                          Jamie Austin
       i) Loads
           (1) California Load Forecast
DWG followed up on the difference between the LRS loads and the CEC forecast. They
hosted a focus group discussion. The latest CEC forecast is closer to the LRS loads. There is
some gray area regarding the loads and resources for SMUD, and LRS, with cooperation of
SMUD and CEC, will consider the question at future meetings.

           (2) Review of the Proposed 2019 Load Shapes
TAS reviewed the 2019 load shapes compared to the 2017 load shapes. There are some
apparent discrepancies between the two because of different data sources and topologies.
For the next cycle, DWG will review whether there is a more recent year than 2002 that
should be used for load shapes.

        ii) California Small Hydro
DWG has a goal to automate tracking of the dispatch of small (RPS) hydro, which previously
was netted with load. A list of identified small hydro units to add to the case was compiled
and circulated for comment.

         iii) Modeling of CCCTs
         iv) Validating the 2012 Results
Staff is reviewing output data parameters for the 2019 case. The 2012 case has been
completed. But, they received little response from the plant owners or TAS on emails asking
them to review the data. Therefore, DWG will proceed with the models as proposed. Further
work to derive CCCT models from CEMS data will occur as time allows.

    d) Models Work Group                                                          Tom Miller
        i) Inter-Regional Wheeling Cost Modeling—Approval Item
MWG recommends implementation of variable inter-regional wheeling costs modeling.
Upon posting and further review by MWG, no MWG members now are actively opposing it.
Further calibration work will occur during the course of the studies.
Motion: TAS approves implementation of variable inter-regional transmission wheeling costs
using the methodology proposed by MWG starting with the 2019 and 2029 cases in the 2009
study program.
Xiaobo Wang: CAISO implemented this wheeling modeling in GridView, and the results
seemed more realistic.
Steve Walton compared the results with daily trading results and the methodology biased the
results to make it more closely match the daily trading results from Megawatt Daily.
The motion passed with no votes against and one vote abstaining.
A sensitivity case will be run on the 2019 case to demonstrate the effect of the wheeling
methodology on the results.
        ii) Hydro Modeling Task Force Update
A hydro thermal coordination model is available in Promod to use where appropriate and as
data becomes available. The types of hydro modeling being used for each area were
reviewed.

        iii) Review of Data-Set Enhancements from 2009 Study Cycle
Modeling enhancements will be needed to accommodate the range of scenarios that may
result during the new study process. Demand response modeling needs to be updated.

      iv) Modeling Needs for 2010 Study Cycle
   Potential modeling frontiers: LTPTTF, VGS, ancillary services.

    e) Long Range Planning Tools Task Force                                         Kip Sikes
Staff is setting up an introductory webex next week to set the stage. The task force will have
an in-person meeting on September 16, 2009. There is an extensive group of 25 volunteers.

3) Future Meetings & Calls
   a) November 18, 2009 – Meeting in Phoenix
             Review initial study results

4) Action Items                                                                  TAS Chairs
As highlighted above in yellow.

5) Adjourn

								
To top