1. Keegan Moyer Interim Manager, Transmission Expansion Planning
ColumbiaGrid 2012 TEPPC Study Requests
August 1st, 2013
ColumbiaGrid – Portland, OR

2. Outline 2011 and 2012 Study Programs ColumbiaGrid studies
PC23 Northwest Resource Option
PC27(a-b) Northwest Firmed Resource Option
WECC 2013 Interconnection-wide Transmission Plan

3. WECC performed over 80 studies in 2011 and 2012
Build dataset, run a few studies
Run a bunch of studies using same dataset
10-yr
No model
Build dataset, run a few studies
20-yr

4. TEPPC’s delicate balance
Many individual “one-off” study requests.
Limited time and resources
Do “new” things
This is why TEPPC does not always perform studies that exactly meet the stakeholders request.
But hopefully they meet the intent

5. Study Results NW Resource Option Selkirk-Bell-Ashe Nicola-Chief Joseph Selkirk-Ashe DC Selkirk-Buckley DC
Focus of plan will be on common case.
Spend time on it here.

6. Renewable Options Under High Load Cases The Basics
Study Concept
Starting case: 2022 High Load (PC1-5)
Increase WECC annual energy demand 8%
Results in additional 12,000 GWh of RPS resource requirements (per statutes)
Model added 12,000 GWh in regions throughout WECC (w/ transmission)
Goal
Compare different resource and transmission options
Total (capital and production) cost comparisons

7. Renewable Options Under High Load Cases
Increase WECC-wide load 8% 1
Add: 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS 2 3
Add transmission
For these regions

8. 8% increase to peak and energy1
Increase WECC-wide load 8% 8%
8% increase to peak and energy
10%
10% decrease to energy
LRS to common case 3.2%
Higher Load = Additional RPS Energy

9. 2
Add 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS
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

10. Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS
Northwest Resource Assumptions
Capacity Added (MW)
+ 3375
+ 76
+ 71
+ 2284
+ 56
+ 48
+ 49
Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Small Hydro Geothermal Biomass RPS

11. Transmission Expansion Projects3
Add transmission
Transmission Expansion Projects
Path 8 Upgrade
MSTI + SWIP N
Selkirk – Bell – Ashe
Nicola – Chief Joe
Selkirk – Ashe DC
Selkirk – Buckley DC
WY-CO Intertie
TransWest Express
Zephyr A /B/C/D
High Plains Express
SSPG East
SSPG North
SSPG South
High Plains Express
None
Centennial West

12. Now to the results…
Portfolio Case generation results (versus PC1-5 High Load)
Transmission projects overview
Expansion case generation results (versus PC1-5 High Load and Portfolio Case)

13. Northwest Expansion Projects
Expansion Cases
Key Assumptions
EC23-1 Selkirk – Bell – Ashe
British Columbia to central Washington; 1,500-MW AC
EC23-2 Nicola – Chief Joe
EC23-3 Selkirk – Ashe DC
British Columbia to central Washington; 3,000-MW DC
EC23-4 Selkirk – Buckley DC
AC Projects
DC Projects

14. Expansion Project Flows
AC Projects
DC Projects
Most + energy
Most net energy
Focus on this result
Input/Result
EC23-1
EC23-2
EC23-3
EC23-4
75% Limit
0.23%
0.00%
0.42%
0.41%
90% Limit
0.16%
0.14%
99% Limit
0.10%
0.09%
PosFlowLimit(MW)
1,500
3,000
NegFlowLimit(MW)
-1,500
-3,073
Total Flow (net)
889,968
1,428,025
1,987,700
1,638,558
Total Flow (+)
2,303,169
2,263,289
2,252,492
2,063,278
Total Flow (−)
-1,413,201
-835,264
-264,792
-424,720
Path
Interstate Selkirk-Bell
Interstate Nicola-Chief Joe
Interstate Selkirk-Ashe DC
Interstate Selkirk-Buckley DC

15. What is different?
Loads
Transmission
Resources

16. What is different?
Loads
Transmission
Resources

17. AC projects Selkirk – Bell – Ashe Nicola – Chief Joe Selkirk – Ashe DC
Selkirk – Buckley DC
AC projects

18. Decreased flow on Path 3

19. Decreased flow on COI/PDCI

20. Annualized Cost (M$/yr)
Cost Results
PC23 Northwest – Incremental Resources
Levelized Fixed Costs ($/kW-yr)
Levelized Fixed Costs ($M/yr)
Type MW CF
Total
Renewable Resources Added
OR Biomass RPS 48
41.98%
$626
$30
OR Geothermal 56
89.08%
$667
$37
OR Solar PV – Tracking 49
19.61%
$260
$13
OR Wind
1,902
25.68%
$218
$415
425
21.53%
$227
$96
WA Biomass RPS 41
39.23%
$632
$26
WA Small Hydro RPS 76
99.57%
$512
$39
WA Wind
1,500
23.61%
$224
Capacity Resources Removed
CA CT-Aero
-500
85.00%
$238
-$119
Net Change in Resource Capital Cost*
$1,096
*Relative to 2022 PC1-5 High Load
Expansion Case
Voltage/ AC or DC
Line Length (mi.)
Line Cost (M$)
Substation Cost (M$)
Annualized Cost (M$/yr)
Selkirk – Bell – Ashe
500-kV AC
326
$1,209
$20
$177.00
Nicola – Chief Joe
186
$988
$10
$143.73
Selkirk – Ashe DC
500-kV DC
239
$678
$1,092
$254.92
Selkirk – Buckley DC
387
$1,220
$332.98

21. Cost Results

22. Flow Comparison

23. Study Results Northwest Firmed Resource Options
Focus of plan will be on common case.
Spend time on it here.

24. 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)
Increase WECC annual energy demand 8%
Add 12,000 GWh of renewables to NW
Under the purview of high wind in a particular region, investigate how a nearby region’s hydro responds based on different types of modeling (commercial behavior)
Investigate how the changes listed above impact path flows
5 – system cost curve OR L – localized view from LMP Signal, or M LMP with depth, iterative LMP dispatch signal (time-intensive) – we use this option
Pumping dispatch cost option – permits pumped storage generation to displace generation in several hours with energy resulting from pumping in one hour. The average cost of the whole pumping capacity step is used in the economic evaluation
LP – allocating limited resources among competing activities in the best possible way (optimal)

25. Renewable Options Under High Load
Firmed Cases
Increase WECC-wide load 8% 1
Hydro
Add: 12,000 GWh to meet WECC RPS
Gas 2 3
Add: firming resource 4
Add transmission
Pumped storage
For these regions

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

27. Production cost decreased $27 M (.15%)
PC23 vs. PC27a
Normal hydro
Fixed hydro
AZ, OR, CA, WA
Production cost decreased $27 M (.15%)
Dump energy increased 397 GWh (93%)
Emergency Energy decreased 6%
CO2 Emissions did not change
Note the difference in energy is mainly due to the change in dump energy
By eliminating dump energy, we require less energy to serve load
Does it appear that simply fixing the hydro might be a better solution?? (its less expensive)

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

30. PC23 vs. PC27b
Normal hydro
NW $ Hydro

31. Suggests that the “dumb” hydro based on PC1-5 conditions was more economic than smart hydro that looks at area LMP. This makes no sense, of course.
Production cost decreased $22 M (.125%)
Dump energy increased 478 GWh (1649%)
Emergency Energy decreased 6%
CO2 Emissions decreased 0%
Suggests that the “dumb” hydro based on PC1-5 conditions was more economic than smart hydro that looks at area LMP
How do we explain this?

32. PC27a vs. PC27b
Fixed hydro
NW $ hydro

33. Only modeled plants – 7500 MW of generation Red – fixed shape
Energy moved
Only modeled plants – 7500 MW of generation
Red – fixed shape
Blue – aggressive htc
Yellow – normal htc
Note how energy was shifted in price responsive case (low flow to high flow)

34. S-N
Less S-N flow
Most congestion was in 27b…
This kind of makes sense since now our price responsiveness is ignoring whether P3 is congested when additional resources are being dispatched.
This could result in a more gen, more dump, and likely a higher production cost!
Congestion

35. Cost Comparison

36. Summary
Northwest Firmed Resource Option with BC hydro fixed as historical data resulted in savings of $27 million annual over the PC23 Northwest Resource Option Case.
HTC modeling of the firming hydro resources resulted in $7 million of savings over the “base case” PC23 Northwest Resource Option case. This means that having some portion of BC hydro providing price responsiveness based on NW market signals (near areas of high wind penetration) could result in West-wide savings of $7 million per year
These savings do not include any costs to compensate or incent BCH for changing operation of its hydroelectric projects.

37. For study presentations and reports… http://www. wecc

38. 2013 Interconnection-Wide Transmission Plan (approval at August TEPPC meeting)

39. Questions Keegan Moyer
Interim Manager, Transmission Expansion Planning
(801)