1. 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 the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the results of moving renewable resources inside and outside of California and there transmission impacts.

2. 2022 PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity
Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing out-of-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional in-state resources?
Change to starting input assumptions:
Loads – None
Transmission System – None
Generation – 6,201 GWh of out-of-state CA RPS resources replaced by in-state renewables

3. 2022 Common Case In-state vs. Out-of-state CA Net-short Resources
Net short calculation:
RPS requirement (33% of eligible retail sales) = 88,268 GWh
less Existing renewables as of 12/31/2010 = 42,826 GWh
Net short = 45,442 GWh
In-state net-short resources = 33,889 GWh, or 74% of total net-short resources

4. Strategy for Removing Out-of-State Resources
Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack
Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources
Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources
Resulting out-of-state resources replaced: 1,787 MW for 6,201 GWh
New in-state/out-of-state split by energy: 87%/13%
Net Zero

5. Strategy for Adding In-state RPS Resources
Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack
Selected only in-state resources
Portfolio mix of additional in-state resources: 1,078 MW for 6,201 GWh
Net Zero

6. Resulting Load/Generation Balance
Out-of-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional in-state RPS resources
No deficits resulted
Load
Gen

7. 2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation
No change in CO2
No change in production cost

8. 2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Generation by State
Removed
(wind)

9. Small change in Region-to-Region Transfers

10. Small Changes to CA Imports/Exports

11. Small Changes in Transmission Utilization
Most Heavily Utilized Paths
Increases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red
P01 Alberta-British Columbia
P03 Northwest-British Columbia
P08 Montana to Northwest
P11 West of Crossover
P10 West of Colstrip
P29 Intermountain-Gonder
P27 IPP DC Line
P60 Inyo-Control
P26 Northern-Southern California
P61 Lugo-Victorville *NEW*
P47 – Southern New Mexico
P45 SDG&E-CFE

12. 2011 Study Program Results PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity Questions?
Focus of plan will be on common case.
Spend time on it here.

13. 2022 PC3 Out-of-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity
Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing in-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional out-of-state resources?
Change to starting input assumptions:
Loads – None
Transmission System – None
Generation – 11,168 GWh of in-state CA RPS resources replaced by out-of-state renewables

14. Strategy for Identifying In-state RPS Resources to Replace
Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack
Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources
Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources
Resulting in-state resources that could have been replaced: 4,720 MW for 15,709 GWh
11,168 GWh (3,265 MW) of resources shifted for an in-state/out-of-state split (by energy) of 50%/50%
More than in-state sensitivity
(still net zero though)

15. Strategy for Identifying Additional Out-of-state RPS Resources to Add
Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack
Select only out-of-state resources
Portfolio mix of additional out-of-state resources: 4,710 MW for 11,168 GWh
Net Zero
Deliverability of Resources
Assume all unbundled RECs have already been spoken for in the CPUC cases, and all firming/shaping has been taken advantage of
Deliverability assumptions for incremental out-of-state resources (OOS):
Assume resources are scheduled into CA or dynamically transferred directly to CA
Incremental OOS resources are assigned to a CA load area so that the resources will count towards CA’s load/generation balance during PROMOD’s commitment and dispatch steps
Transmission has been added to assist in the deliverability (SWIP N and TransWest in two separate cases; PC3b and PC3c)

16. Resulting Load/Generation Balance
In-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional out-of-state RPS resources
No deficits resulted
Load
Gen

17. 2022 CA OOS Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation?
18% increase in dump energy
No change to co2 or production cost

18. Observed Large Generation Shift

19. Significant Changes in Region to Region Transfers
w/ SWIP N.
More imports into California generally makes sense
CA N to S – On next slide as Path 26

20. Observed Key Changes in Transmission Utilization
Most Heavily Utilized Paths
Increases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red
P01 Alberta-British Columbia
P03 Northwest-British Columbia
P08 Montana to Northwest
P11 West of Crossover
P10 West of Colstrip
SWIP N
P66 COI *NEW*
P29 Intermountain-Gonder
P27 IPP DC Line
P60 Inyo-Control
P26 Northern-Southern California
P47 – Southern New Mexico
P45 SDG&E-CFE

21. SWIP North Utilization
COI
837 aMW
42% Average Utilization (2,000 MW limit)
More transfers from NW into Idaho

22. Questions or thoughts on this study?