Modeling Work Group Discussion Points MWG Meeting June 6, 2011 Web Meeting.

Modeling Work GroupDiscussion Points

MWG Meeting

June 6, 2011

Web Meeting

2

• Welcome and business Tom Miller• COI Nomogram Results Stan Holland• Gridview Comparison Discussion• Modeling Southern California Thermal Discussion• New- Modeling California Cap and Trade Discussion• Other?

• Next Meeting Tom Miller

Tentative Agenda

3

• Updated the COI Nomogram based on parameters provided by Sherman Chen

• Nomogram models 2011 Spring AC/DC Nomogram from CAISO

• 4 nomogram segments based on percent of Northern California hydro

• Not a significant difference in the COI flow versus run using old nomogram

PROMOD run w Updated COI Nomogram

COI Flows

The run with new COI nomogram (PC0_98COI) overlays run with old nomogram (PC0_84)

COI Nomogram 90 – 100%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

COI Nomogram 1 - Daily Max/Min/Ave (MW)

COI Nomogram 1 = COI + Alturas + .53(NCal Hydro)The upper limit is 6378 MW


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000


COI Nomogram 2 = COI + Alturas + .41(NCal Hydro)Upper Limit = 5923 MW


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000




0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000



COI AC/DC Nomogram - Spring

Sample COI Nomogram Results

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

4/13/2020 4/14/2020 4/15/2020 4/16/2020 4/17/2020

COB Flow with Nomograms (NCal Hydro)

NCH-100

NCH-90

NCH-80

NCH-70

NCH-60

COB

NCalHydro

Nomogram not binding as NCal Hydro less than 2000 MW. The assumed maximum NCal Hydro is 4245 MW, although many of the units have monthly derates that reduce the maximum output level.

More Nomogram Results

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

7/23/2020 7/24/2020 7/25/2020 7/26/2020 7/27/2020

COB Flow with Nomograms (NCal Hydro)

NCH-100

NCH-90

NCH-80

NCH-70

NCH-60

COB

NCalHydro

More Nomogram Results

Hard to tell if Ncal Hydro is causing nomograms to be binding.

N. Cal. Hydro Duration Plot

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

118

436

755

073

391

610

9912

8214

6516

4818

3120

1421

9723

8025

6327

4629

2931

1232

9534

7836

6138

4440

2742

1043

9345

7647

5949

4251

2553

0854

9156

7458

5760

4062

2364

0665

8967

7269

5571

3873

2175

0476

8778

7080

5382

3684

1986

02

Meg

awatt

s

Northern California Hydro Duration Plot

NCalHydro

NCH60

NCH70

NCH80

NCH90

NCH100

COI Flow – PC2 High Load case

This shows that the COI flow is sensitive to the load forecasts. The difference in load between the Promod PC0 and Gridview PC0 was 3.2%. The PC2 loads were about 4% higher than the PC0 loads. Without the same loads the comparison is invalid.

15

Element PROMOD 9.8.04 Gridview

Study Case 2020 PC0 (w/o IPP nomogram)

Load Forecast PC0 LRS forecast

AC Losses Single Pass (no impact to loads, but applied to gen dispatch)

Full loss (loads increased by transmission losses)

DC Losses I2R (reduced penalty)

Hydro - HTC Canada 42%Northwest 50%California 46%

COI + Alturas Limit 5100 MW

COI Nomogram Updated version from Sherman

IPP DC Nomogram Turned off Turned on (generation forced onto line)

Input/Run Assumptions

16

Element PROMOD 9.8.04 Gridview

John Day vs COI/PDCI nomograms

Not updated since 2008

SCE Import Nomogram Fall 2010 version

Hurdle Rates Not updated

Maintenance Outages Fixed schedule

Forced Outages Random pattern generated by Promod

Gas Prices $7.28 Henry Hub (2010 $) with monthly profile

Gas Transport NPCC Inferred Values

Conversion changes n/a Specify reference busesCorrect impedance issuesCorrect other data issues

Input/Run Assumptions (2)

PDCI Comparison

PROMOD’s piece-wise linear DC loss implementation is obvious, but results compare well with 2008 historical.

18

• How can a true “apples to apples” comparison be accomplished?

• What is purpose of comparison?

• What is the effect of changes between the 2008 and 2020 systems?

Discussion

19

• Imports into Southern California is supported by inertia– Today’s existing fleet of Units provides majority of inertia (mass)– Peaker and renewables have small to insignificant inertia– If high imports can not be supported then many more new resources are needed

into the load pockets then retired– Peakers have usually higher energy costs and higher rates of emissions– Limits based on the percentage of Under-Frequency Load Shedding (UFLS)

requirements for the individual Participating Transmission Owner’s (PTO’s) area

• California Long-term Planning Study – LA Basin 60/40 Rule: there needs to be generation equal to 40 percent of load

at all times– SDG&E 75/25 Rule: : there needs to be generation equal to 25 percent of load

at all times– '*San Onofre 2 & 3 Units contribute 80% of their generation to the SCE Min Gen

Requirements, and 20% of their generation to the SDGE Min Gen Requirements– SCE has provided Lists of units that can support

Southern California Local Area Requirements

20

• Uncertainty about what GHG costs will be. o $10/ton floor starting 2012 for CA Plantso Escalate at 5% + CPI

• Imports: o Unspecified Resource: .435 metric tons/MWh about 8215 mmbtu/MWh on NGo LADWP Intermountain Coal: .95 metric tons/MWh

• SB 1368 Coal Imports (2020): 1100lbs/MWh higher Base Load (contract term no longer than 5-years at 50% capacity factor)

• GHG Costs downstream from liquid trading hubs: hence no change in wholesale price of NG

• Modeling Question:o California as an “island” or WECC-Wide GHG cost?o CA Imports “Hurdle” rate raise to account for emission costs?o Next Steps

California Cap and Trade

21

• Wrap-up

• Next meetingoNot first Monday of July – Holiday

Wrap-up and Next meeting

Questions?

Modeling Work Group Discussion Points MWG Meeting June 6, 2011 Web Meeting.

Documents

Transcript of Modeling Work Group Discussion Points MWG Meeting June 6, 2011 Web Meeting.