Study Results Northwest Firmed Resource Option This slide deck contains results from the 2012 TEPPC Study Program related to the Northwest Firmed Resource Option Studies. The generation results for the associated transmission expansion projects follow immediately along with flow information for the added transmission.

Hydro Firming Modeling Goal Compare different hydro dispatches in different wind conditions given various modeling techniques Compare path flows and production costs Implementation Steps Start with 2022 PC23 NW Resource Option (+12,000 GWh) 1.Increase WECC annual energy demand 8% 2.Add 12,000 GWh of renewables to NW 3.Under the purview of high wind in a particular region, investigate how a nearby region’s hydro responds based on different types of modeling 4.Investigate how the changes listed above impact path flows

Add: 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS Add transmission Renewable Options Under High Load Firmed Cases Increase WECC-wide load 8% For these regions 3 Add: firming resource Gas Hydro Pumped storage

Increase WECC-wide load 8% 1 8% 8% increase to peak and energy 10% 10% decrease to energy Higher Load = Additional RPS Energy

Calculate ratios of planned renewables in TEPPC 2022 Common Case Do not include existing resources Do not include DG IRP and LRS data Apply ratio to study build-out of 12,000 GWh Concept: development trends are best representation of what could be added to each state More resources available than what is identified in WREZ More granular information from CPUC/CAISO Locate resources using WREZ peer-analysis tool Extrapolation Method Add 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS 2

10-Year Study Results EC27a – NW Firming Study A EC27b – NW Firming Study B Hydro

NW Firmed Resource Cases Comparing Four Cases Revelstoke Shrum Mica +12,000 GWh (mostly wind) +12,000 GWh (mostly wind) +12,000 GWh (mostly wind) Revelstoke Shrum Mica Revelstoke Shrum Mica Shrum PC1-5 High Load PC23 NW Resource Option PC27a NW Firmed Resource PC27b NW Firmed Resource No added resources Standard HTC modeling +12,000 GWh resources Fixed shape hydro from PC1-5 (no resources) +12,000 GWh resources Standard HTC modeling HTC modeling with price signals from a windy Northwest Revelstoke Mica Compare Results 1.Generation 2.Hydro impact 3.Path Flows

Production cost decreased $27 M (.15%) Dump energy increased 397 GWh (93%) Emergency Energy decreased 6% CO2 Emissions decreased 0% AZ, OR, CA, WA

Production cost decreased $6 M (.032%) Dump energy increased 80 GWh (19%) Emergency Energy decreased 0% CO2 Emissions decreased 0% AL, BC

PC23 vs. PC27b Normal hydro NW $ Hydro

Production cost decreased $22 M (.125%) Dump energy increased 478 GWh (1649%) Emergency Energy decreased 6% CO2 Emissions decreased 0%

PC27a vs. PC27b Fixed hydroNW $ hydro

Energy moved

Congestion Less S-N flow S-N

k k

k k

2-weeks in April 2-weeks in October

Questions or thoughts on this study?