WECC ACTIVITIES.ppt by lovemacromastia

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 20

									TEPPC, SPSG, SPG Updates
         LeeAnn Torkelson
        February 16, 2011
 RegionalTransmission Expansion Planning
 (RTEP) Ten Year Plan Whitepaper
    Documenting steps to get to the September 2011
     ten year plan required by the DOE grant
    Draft #3 of whitepaper can be located at:
     http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/1118200
       /default.aspx?InstanceID=1
    Next meeting February 23-25, Salt Lake City
        SPSG Feb 23-24
        Joint session, about 2 hours Feb 24
        TEPPC Feb 24-25
 Scenario      Planning Steering Group (SPSG)
    Organized to bring non-utility perspective to
     planning
        Commission representation
        Consumer advocate
        New technology
        Renewable integration
        Environmental
        Tribal
    Incorporating environmental and other non-
     traditional data into planning
 RFP’s
    SPSG Technical Support RFP (AWARDED)
        Environmental Data Analysis (ICF)
        Energy Planning Analysis (ICF)
        Energy Policy Analysis (E3)
    Scenario Planner RFP (AWARDED)
        IHS CERA
    Long Term Planning Tools Task Force (pending
     recommendation)
   SPSG Environmental Data Task Force (EDTF)
     SPSG, through EDTF, is developing recommendations
      for a methodology to incorporate environmental data
      into transmission planning process.
     Interview with ICF International on 2/21 to share how
      we incorporate environmental data in SWAT.
     I need your help – How do we (SWAT) incorporate
      environmental data into transmission planning?
     Who else has been contacted?
   What is “environmental data”?
       Land, wildlife, cultural, historical, water resources
   How/when do we bring environmental data into
    the planning process?
       Developers? Utilities? Governments?? Others??
   A Sampling of the Interview Questions:
       “What is it about the planning process that could be
        improved to facilitate the development of
        transmission (in general or from an environmental
        perspective)?”
       “What assumptions are made in the transmission
        planning process related to environmental issues?”
       “Please describe the nature and extent of
        environmental considerations in IRP processes.”
       “What types of environmental info does your planning
        process consider?”
       “How do we define “environmental data”? Land
        ownership? Air emissions? Policy?”
       “How can we use the environmental data to assist
        transmission development (as opposed to being an
        obstacle)?”
 TheDRAFT Scenarios Proposed to be
 investigated 20 year):
    Scenario 1 – Brave new world or green ascendant
    Scenario 2 – Shifting Sands or Riding the Waves
    Scenario 3 – Lost Years or the Abyss
    Scenario 4 – Energy Stockade, Fortress USA,
     Energy Island USA
   Scenario 1 – Brave New World or Green Ascendant
       Expects climate change regulation through:
           Taxes
           Carbon redux goals
           State vs federal mandates
       Closure of 90% of coal plants, enacted carbon tax,
        cheap gas and renewable deployment increase
       High adoption of alt-fuel vehicles, energy efficiency
       Technology improvements to lower carbon footprint,
        smart homes, grid, distributed generation vs large
        centralized plants
       Transmission lines needed to harness remote resources
        for load and meet RPS standards
   Scenario 2 – Shifting Sands or Riding the Waves
       Anticipates no clear policy or direction
           Periods of activity, followed by laissez faire, vacillating
            government policies, lack of clarity at federal, state,
            local levels
           Federal Cap and Trade is proposed to be passed,
            international agreement to reduce carbon emissions
     Coal plants are moderately affected, some closure,
      but less environmental (EPA) focus
     Renewables and Natural Gas are fuels of choice,
      California policy of all in-state renewables stalls
      development of mountain-state renewables
     Transmission development difficult in early years,
      easier in later years to access renewables, smart grid,
      dynamic pricing opportunities
   Scenario 3 – Lost Years or the Abyss
       National/international financial crises stall any
        significant climate change, energy, or transmission
        policy. Water crises emerge.
           Subsidies to fossil fuels and renewables are eliminated
           Low oil/gas prices, low demand in early years, some
            price volatility.
     Climate change legislation abandoned to address the
      basic needs of food/water
     Limited EPA regulations on coal, minimal coal
      retirements. Federal regulations on water impact
      generation development, eliminates OTC
     Limited transmission development in early years,
      modest additions to meet California loads with out of
      state solar/wind
   Scenario 4 – Energy Stockade, Fortress USA, Energy Island
    USA
       International geopolitical instability and huge trade imbalance
        results in a self-sufficient US energy policy
           Reduced oil imports (Canada exempt)
           Alternatives to gasoline engines encouraged by a bridging tax on all
            gas engines
           Federal government agnostic on power plant fuels as long as they
            are domestic fuels – natural gas and renewables are favored
     Energy independence mandates result in energy efficiency,
      conservation, technology, and building standards.
     DG encouraged to reduce vulnerability of transmission system.
     Self-sufficiency and US isolationism due to international
      instability result in economic stagnation and very little
      transmission development.
     The limited amount of transmission developed is in response to
      security (cyber attack/terrorism) concerns and to meet CA
      loads and RPS standards.
 The     scenario descriptions are available at:
 http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%
 2fcommittees%2fBOD%2fTEPPC%2fSPSG%2fShared%20Documents%2fScenario%20Planning&FolderCTID=&View=%7b
 AFB30CAC%2dC89C%2d43B8%2dAB4A%2d3AFB9A253FDE%7d




 How do these scenarios translate into
 transmission, studies, and a report for
 2013?
    More to come!
 SCG       = Subregional Coordination Group
   Eight planning entities
    (CTPG still to be added, making 9)

 Developed Foundational
  & Potential Projects list
 Foundational Projects used
  in determining the base
  transmission in the 2020
  production cost modeling
  studies
 Potential Projects may be
  used to relieve congestion
   January 2011 meeting
       Technical Study of the 2020 Reference case
           Round-trip of powerflow-promod-powerflow case
           SCG’s to determine season/hour of interest to study (SEE NEXT
            SLIDE)
           SCG’s to help develop N-1 (select N-2) outages to be studied
           Consultant will be hired to perform the study work by 2/28
       “Reasons for Building New Transmission” whitepaper
           Trying to highlight/educate that there are more reasons to build
            transmission than just production cost modeling
           May be discussed at the February 23-25 SPSG/TEPPC meetings
       Improving SPG’s coordination and interaction
           Beginning to formalize SPG coordination to ensure that
            projects don’t get missed
       Developing “Planning Projects in the West”
        informational paper regarding transmission planning in
        the West
           Educate on process, groups involved, deliverables
      The Round-Trip N-1 analysis – Hours tentatively selected for SWAT
       footprint
          Reminder: 2020 transmission topography, Foundational Projects in
           service, running n-1 and perhaps selected n-2 contingencies
          What other hours of the 2020 case are of interest?
Date               Hour of     Hour of    Reason for Selection
                   Day         Year
07-24-2020         15          4935       Highest Load for AZ-NM-NV (31314MW),
                                          Also highest load-net solar date/time
10-18-2020         4           6988       Lowest AZ-NM-NV load (10869MW)

03-15-2020         12          1788       Greatest delta between AZ-NM-NV load and
                                          largest amount of renewables online (4321MW
                                          delta) (see next slide)
12-23-2020         10          8578       Highest WOR flow (9232MW)

Others?

Others?
   Plot of March 15, 2020 showing load and load net renewables in
    the 24-hour period. Hour 12 shows the largest “delta” between
    plots.

               AZ-NM-NV: Load vs. Load net Renewables

            17,000

            16,000

            15,000

            14,000

            13,000
                                                                Load net Renewables
       MW




            12,000                                              Load

            11,000

            10,000

             9,000

             8,000
                     1   3   5   7   9   11 13 15 17 19 21 23
                                     3/15/2020 Hour
     LeeAnn Torkelson
     Salt River Project

    Contact information:
LeeAnn.Torkelson@srpnet.com
       602.236.0973

								
To top