4/23/2018 Steering Committee Meeting 2013 Case Alt 1 & 2 - Iteration 2 – Test Transmission Solutions Alt 3 & 4 – Iteration 1 - Define Congestion.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lessons from the 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case Mary Johannis, SSG-WI Generation Subgroup Lead Tom Carr, WIEB Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection.
Advertisements

1 Western Interconnection 2006 Congestion Assessment Study Prepared by the Western Congestion Analysis Task Force May 08, 2006.
TransWest Express and Gateway South WECC Planning Coordination Committee David Smith, National Grid October 25-26, 2007 Vancouver, B.C.
Study Results California In-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short w SWIP N This slide deck contains results from.
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study RMATS Economics Economic Comparisons Preliminary: Distribution of Gains and Losses RMATS Steering Committee July.
The States’ Flags and Their Capitals. TX NM AZ AK HI CA NV UT CO MT OR WA ID WY OK KS NE SD ND.
States & Capitals of the West Review. Colorado (Denver)
Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. Olympia is the capital of Washington.
WECC PCC Meeting Salt Lake City, UT July 16, 2014.
Major Mountain Ranges and Rivers of the United States
WGG Coal Retirement Case Transmission Repurposed for Renewables.
Montana Ambassadors Helena, Montana February 25, 2011.
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study RMATS Economics Reference Cases Economic Comparisons Distribution of Economic Gains and Losses RMATS Steering Committee.
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Transmission Projects Recommendations to RMATS Steering Committee June 9, 2004.
Energy Gateway Gateway West Project Gateway South Project
Study Results Drought Scenario Study This slide deck contains results from the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the impact in the interconection.
2013 Alternative Transmission Development Robert H. Easton March 17, 2004 RMATS Stakeholder Meeting.
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Connecting the Region Today for the Energy Needs of the Future Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Recommendations.
Matthew, Janybeth, Zohaib and Emily These are the states in our region. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, California,
Base Case Draft – For Comment Rocky Mountain States Sub-Regional Transmission Study December 9, 2003.
Southwest, Pacific, and Rocky Mountain Regions
The United States.
States, Capitals, and Abbreviations Review. Nevada.
Energy Gateway Update for Wyoming Infrastructure Authority January 27, 2009 Darrell Gerrard Vice President Transmission System Planning.
Bob Easton WAPA-RMR Planning Manager September 1, 2010.
CONTENT STANDARD MN.V.A1. Geography: Concepts of Location: The student will identify and locate major physical and cultural features that played an important.
Western Region Alaska Hawaii Montana Wyoming Washington Nevada
Study Results High EE/DG/DR Study This slide deck contains results from the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the results of an increase of EE/DG/DR.
Hydropower Vision Team May Advisor: James McCalley Members: ● Alex Tillema - Team Leader ● Nicholas Jones - Communication Leader ● Kyle Kraus - Key.
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Steering Committee Meeting January 13, 2003 RAWG proposed Alternatives.
“DRAFT” RMATS 2008 Base Case (To be presented at the RMATS Stakeholders Meeting) March 17, 2004.
STATES, CAPITALS, AND ABBREVIATIONS The Western Region of the USA.
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Steering Committee Meeting 2013 Case Alt 1 & 2 - Iteration 2 – Test Transmission Solutions Alt 3 & 4 – Iteration.
The capital for Washington is Olympia. The capital for Oregon is Salem.
Rocky Mountain States Sub-Regional Transmission Study December 9, 2003 Generation Additions Strawman.
CLASS and New Revenue from Wind Power Projects Annual Conference Seattle 2009.
Base Case Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Presentation to Steering Committee February 5, 2004.
The Amazing West By: Bradley Orsini. States And Capitals California, Sacramento Oregon, Salem Washington, Olympia Montana, Helena Wyoming, Cheyenne Colorado,
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Overall Economics of Alternatives Steering Committee Meeting April 29, SLC.
NW Loss of Load Probability James Gall Power Supply Analyst
Where does the water go? Flow diagrams of U.S. and Western water use 1/2/2013.
Northern Tier Transmission Group Report to Columbia Grid Planning Committee February 9, 2012 “To ensure efficient, effective, coordinated use & expansion.
Study Plan Development & Approach May 5, 2010 Conference Call & Webinar “To ensure efficient, effective, coordinated use & expansion of the members’
PC05 Low Hydro Study Results
PC04 High Hydro Study Results
PATH 29 and PATH 32 RATING STUDY
The United States.
TAS Quarterly Meeting November 2-3, 2016 Michael Bailey, P.E. WECC
Northwest Zone All chapters within zone
2017 Integrated Resource Plan
Idaho Power 2017 Integrated Resource Plan
Study Results Common Case Study
Keegan Moyer Interim Manager, Transmission Expansion Planning
Naughton RAS (Southwest Wyoming Generation Tripping Scheme) – LAPS
TAS Quarterly Meeting November 2-3, 2016 Michael Bailey, P.E. WECC
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
What is this part of the map called? What is it used for?
Michael Bailey, P.E. SDS Meeting, June 25-26, 2018
Study Results Common Case Study
Study Results PC8-PC16 System Stress Tests
Naughton RAS (Southwest Wyoming Generation Tripping Scheme) – LAPS
Idaho Power Transmission System
Study Results California In-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short w SWIP N This slide deck contains results from.
PacifiCorp Overview Choose from three different title slide designs by selecting “New Slide.” These slides are suitable for business and community presentations.
PATH 29 and PATH 32 RATING STUDY
Unscheduled Flow Administrative Subcommittee
Study Results Drought Scenario Study
Montpelier & Powder River 5-year Studies
Welcome to the Wild West!
ColumbiaGrid Planning Update to PCC Marv Landauer October 7, 2014
Presentation transcript:

4/23/2018 Steering Committee Meeting 2013 Case Alt 1 & 2 - Iteration 2 – Test Transmission Solutions Alt 3 & 4 – Iteration 1 - Define Congestion March 4, 2004 DRAFT - For Comment

Observation/Qualifications – Alt 1 & 2 Results from Alternative 2 (regionally “optimized”- pseudo IRP for the region) shows greater value to the Rocky Mountain region over Alternative 1 (existing & uncoordinated company IRPs); LMP prices are practically half the magnitude in the Powder River area Results: Quantify the value of Alternate 2 over Alternate 1 Validates the need to build new transmission, to integrate “new” resources in the Rocky Mountain area Highlights the need to reinforce the Bridger and Central Wyoming transmission (LMP values ~$10 to $20 lower than other locations, even within the region). Pave the way to consider reinforcing export paths ($57 LMP at LADWP vs $22 at Laramie River) Reminder, results account for just VOM costs; no consideration been given thus far to transmission & resources capital costs 2013 Case

Generation Alternatives for 2013 runs Designed Alternative 1 based RMATS load growth, IRPs and minimum new transmission; configured incremental resource additions in each state to meet projected load growth plus reserves in that state; major wind in CO-E and SW Wyoming close to load centers. Designed Alternative 2 based on RMATS load growth with a focus on Powder River coal and open range wind (cheaper resource cost) and may require more transmission in the region. Designed Alternative 3 as an export case (incremental resources equal to 2 times RMATS load growth) with additional Powder River (and Utah) coal and open range wind necessitating more transmission for export. Designed Alternative 4 as a larger export case (3 times RMATS load growth) Powder River (and Utah) coal and open range wind necessitating more transmission for export. 20% of wind nameplate applies toward capacity 2013 Case

Iteration 2 – TAWG Solutions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 2013 Case

Transmission Constraints - Alternative 1 4/23/2018 Transmission Constraints - Alternative 1 Top Congested Paths 2013 Case DRAFT - For Comment

Transmission Constraints - Alternative 2 4/23/2018 Top Congested Paths 2013 Case DRAFT - For Comment

Alternative 1 Iteration 2 4/23/2018 Alternative 1 Iteration 2 DRAFT - For Comment

Transmission Additions – Alternative 1 RUN 1: Bridger to Naughton to Ben Lomond 345 line (Bridger West and Naughton West) Miners to Bridger 345 and Miners 345/230 transformer. 230 Midpoint to Boise Note: TOT 2C was the path with the highest congestion and opportunity cost, but was not included in Alternative 1 because the TAWG felt that it should be dealt with in an export case. Transmission additions to Path 2C will be analyzed in Alternatives 3 & 4. 2013 Case

Relieving Transmission Constraints- 4/23/2018 Relieving Transmission Constraints- Alternative 1 Top Congested Paths Solutions 2013 Case DRAFT - For Comment

LMP Prices Average Annual Load LMP Generation LMP Alternative 1- No Tx Additions Alternative 1- w/ Tx Additions 2013 Case

Change in Congestion/Congestion Costs with Tx Solutions Alternative 1 Interface Location [Direction] Current Forward limit (MW) Current Reverse limit (MW) Opportunity cost of next $/MW % hours congested W/O Tx W/ TOT 2C S.W Utah to S.E. Nevada [N – S] 300 77,804 67,791 40% 37% Bridger West S.W. Wyoming to S.E. Idaho & to Northwest [E – W] 2,200 N/A 60,978 28% 0% West of Naughton S.W. Wyoming to N Utah [E – W] 920 39,533 1,371 13% Path C N Utah/ S Idaho [S – N] 1,000 19,909 3,649 6%* 2% Bonanza West N.E. Utah to Central Utah [N – S] 785 17,659 18,177 8% 10% SW Wyoming to Bonanza S.W. Wyoming to N.E. Utah [N – S] 200 17,602 34,018 9% Idaho to Montana E. Idaho to W. Montana [S – N] 337 4,741 23,429 1% 3% * Reaches seasonal capacity of 750 MW 2013 Case

Western Interconnect Impact for 2013 Alternative 1 Interface limitation Annual VOM ($000) Delta from Base Annual VOM ($000) Annual average LMP Delta from base annual average LMP Load ($/MWh) Generator ($/MWh) w/o Transmission Additions 20,069,399 49.87 48.54 All interfaces unconstrained 19,825,590 (243,809) 49.38 (.49) .84 Only internal RM interfaces are unconstrained 19,986,953 (82,446) 49.96 49.22 .09 .68 With Transmission Additions 20,017,760 (51,639) 49.93 49.15 .06 .61 Adjusted 2008 Base Case 24,641,043 4,571,644 N/A 2013 Case

Alternative 2 Iteration 2 4/23/2018 Alternative 2 Iteration 2 DRAFT - For Comment

Transmission Additions – Alternative 2 RUN 1: Reno to DJ to LRS to Cheyenne to Ault to Green Valley 345 line (TOT 3) Bridger to Midpoint 345 line via Treasureton) (Bridger West) Miners to Cheyenne 345 line and Miners 345/230 transformer (TOT 4A) Miners to Bridger 345 and Miners 345/230 transformer. 230 Midpoint to Boise RUN 2: (Add to Run 1): Reno to LRS to Ault to Green Valley 345 line (if TOT 3 still a problem) Bridger to Naughton to Ben Lomond 345 line (if Bridger West or Naughton West still a problem) RUN 3: (Add to Run 1 plus Run 2): Colstrip to Reno 345kV  Colstrip: 2 - 345/230 kV Transformers to integrate generation Reno 345/230 Transformer to integrate generation Treasureton to Ben Lomond 345kV (if Path C overloaded) Loop Bridger to Midpoint at Treasureton Loop Borah Ben Lomond at Treasureton 2013 Case

Relieving Transmission Constraints 4/23/2018 Relieving Transmission Constraints Alternative 2 Top Congested Paths Solutions 2013 Case DRAFT - For Comment

LMP Prices Average Annual Load LMP Generation LMP Alternative 2- no Tx addition Alternative 2- w/ Tx additions 2013 Case

Change in Congestion/Congestion Costs with Tx Solutions Alternative 2 Interface Location [Direction] Current Forward limit (MW) Current Reverse limit (MW) Opportunity cost of next $/MW % hours congested W/O Tx W/ C. Wyoming to Black Hills C. Wyoming to N.E. Wyoming [SE – NE] 332 265,617 21,220 84% 9% TOT 3 S.E. Wyoming to N.E. Colorado [N – S] 1,424 N/A 238,969 9,213 76% 10% Bridger West S.W. Wyoming to S.E. Idaho & to Northwest [E – W] 2,200 228,819 35 73% 0% West of Broadview South Central Montana [E – W] 2,573 172,681 98,499 51% 36% West of Naughton S.W. Wyoming to N Utah [E – W] 920 97,736 16,138 32% 6% TOT 2C S.W Utah to S.E. Nevada [N – S] 300 57,830 82,759 31% Montana to Northwest W. Montana to E. Washington [E – W] 1,350 24,361 28,493 8% 11% Idaho to Montana E. Idaho to W. Montana [S – N] 337 45,982 26,974 4% 2% 2013 Case

Western Interconnect Impact for 2013 Alternative 2 Interface limitation Annual VOM ($000) Delta from Base Annual VOM ($000) Annual average LMP Delta from base annual average LMP Load ($/MWh Generator ($/MWh) Load ($/MWh) w/o Transmission Additions 20,075,091 49.81 47.54 All interfaces unconstrained 19,653,573 (421,513) 49.41 (.40) 1.87 Only internal RM interfaces are unconstrained 19,846,737 (228,354) 49.77 48.78 (.04) 1.24 With Transmission Additions 19,850,473 (224,618) 49.80 48.70 (.01) 1.16 Adjusted 2008 Base Case 24,641,043 4,565,952 N/A 2013 Case

Alternatives 3 & 4 Iteration 1 4/23/2018 Alternatives 3 & 4 Iteration 1 DRAFT - For Comment

Transmission Constraints - Alternative 3 (w/o new transmission) 4/23/2018 Top Congested Paths 2013 Case DRAFT - For Comment

Transmission Congestion/Congestion Costs Alternative 3 Interface Location [Direction] Forward limit (MW) Reverse limit (MW) Opportunity cost of next MW % hours congested Black Hills to C Wyoming E. Wyoming to C. Wyoming [E – W] 332 274,854 99% Bridger West S.W. Wyoming to S.E. Idaho & to Northwest [E – W] 2,200 N/A 244,743 83% PAVANT, INTRMTN - GONDER 230 KV C. Utah to C. Nevada [E – W] 440 235 212,840 60% TOT 2C S. Utah to S.E. Nevada [N – S] 300 193,873 46% West of Broadview Central Montana [E – W] 2,573 181,721 Montana to Northwest W. Montana to E. Washington 1,350 173,051 71% TOT 3 S.E. Wyoming to N.E. Colorado [N – S] 1,424 136,470 50% INTERMOUNTAIN - MONA 345 KV Central Utah [W – E] 1,400 1,200 131,121 65% Idaho to Montana E. Idaho to W. Montana [S – N] 337 65,054 6% TOT 2B2 S. Utah to N. Arizona [N – S] 265 55,142 33% SW of 4 Corners S.E. Utah to N.W. New Mexico [SE – NW] 2,325 41,112 16% 2013 Case

Western Interconnect Impact for 2008 Alternative 3 Interface limitation Annual VOM ($000) Delta from Base Annual VOM ($000) Annual average LMP Delta from base annual average LMP Load ($/MW) Generator ($/MW) Base Case 19,583,034 48.40 45.45 All interfaces unconstrained 18,297,721 (1,285,313) 47.65 (.75) 2.20 Only internal RM interfaces are unconstrained 18,814,479 (768,555) 46.55 45.00 (1.85) (.45) 2008 Base case (Adjusted) 24,641,043 (5,058,009) N/A 2013 Case

Transmission Constraints - Alternative 4 (w/o new transmission) 4/23/2018 Top Congested Paths 2013 Case DRAFT - For Comment

Transmission Congestion/Congestion Costs Alternative 4 Interface Location [Direction] Forward limit (MW) Reverse limit (MW) Opportunity cost of next MW % hours congested Bridger West S.W. Wyoming to S.E. Idaho & to Northwest [E – W] 2,200 N/A 273,329 96% Montana to Northwest W. Montana to E. Washington 1,350 253,687 79% Black Hills to C Wyoming E. Wyoming to C. Wyoming [E – W] 332 176,302 79%+ TOT 2C S. Utah to S.E. Nevada [N – S] 300 154,151 43% West of Broadview Central Montana [E – W] 2,573 130,392 42% Bonanza West E. Utah to C. Utah [E – W] 785 120,829 59% TOT 3 S.E. Wyoming to N.E. Colorado [N – S] 1,424 102,056 56% Idaho to Montana E. Idaho to W. Montana [S – N] 337 99,677 8% TOT 2A S.W. Colorado [N – S] 690 97,253 50% IPP DC C. Utah to S. California [NE – SW] 1,920 76,879 85% TOT 1A W. Colorado to E. Utah [E – W] 650 64,263 West of Naughton S.E. Wyoming to N. Utah [E – W] 920 47,928 20% SW of 4 Corners S.E. Utah to N.W. New Mexico [SE – NW] 2,325 36,863 15% TOT 2B2 S. Utah to N. Arizona [N – S] 265 32,405 23% 2013 Case

Western Interconnect Impact for 2008 Alternative 4 Interface limitation Annual VOM ($000) Delta from Base Annual VOM ($000) Annual average LMP Delta from base annual average LMP Load ($/MW) Generator ($/MW) Base Case 18,694,873 46.85 43.81 All interfaces unconstrained 16,609,281 (2,085,592) 45.71 (1.14) 1.90 Only internal RM interfaces are unconstrained 18,136,071 (558,802) 45.00 42.43 (1.85) (1.38) 2008 Base case (Adjusted) 24,641,043 (5,946,170) N/A 2013 Case