Post on 30-May-2018
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
1/22
Wind and Other Renewable Assumptions
in EPAs 2008 IPM Base Case
Elliot Lieberman and Serpil KayinClean Air Markets DivisionU.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation
NWCC Environmental Costs and Benefits WorkshopOctober 8, 2008
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
2/22
Outline of PresentationKey Assumptions for Potential (New) Renewable Capacity in IPM Wind
Cost, performance, and penetration assumptions Potential wind resource base Capacity credits
Cost and performance assumptions for Solar Geothermal Landfill gas Biomass (standalone and co-firing)
Tax incentives for renewables
Renewable portfolio standards Issues for future consideration
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
3/22
What is IPM The Integrated Planning Model (IPM) is a long-term
capacity expansion and production costing model foranalyzing the electric power sector
It is a multi-regional, deterministic, dynamic linearprogramming model
IPM finds the least-cost solution to meeting electricitydemand subject to environmental, transmission, fuel,reserve margin, and other system operating constraints
Developed by ICF International and populated with
assumptions specified by each client Used by U.S. EPA to project the impact of emission
policies on the U.S. electric power sector
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
4/22
4
Wind Generation Assumptions
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
5/22
5
Cost, Performance and Penetration Assumptions for Potential
Wind Technology
1,707Capital Cost (2006$/kW)
29.48Fixed O&M Cost (2006$/kW-yr)
0.0Variable O&M Cost (2006$/MWh)
Cost Parameter
The EPA Base Case explicitly models onshore wind units. Off shore wind units arenot modeled. The wind technology assumptions modeled in the EPA Base Caseare primarily based on AEO 2008.
The wind resources are categorized into 3 wind classes, 4, 5 and 6; and 5 costclasses ranging from 1 (least expensive) to 5 (most expensive).
Wind generation profile assumptions that specify hourly generation patterns for arepresentative day by region, season and wind class are based on AEO 2008.
These generation profiles define the dispatch of these units.
The EPA Base Case includes a wind penetration constraint for each model region,which restricts each regions total wind generation up to 20 percent of totalgeneration.
Base cost assumptions for new (potential) wind generation:
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
6/22
6
Potential Wind Resource Base
The assumptions regarding the wind resource base were obtained from PERI(Princeton Economic Research Inc.). The table below shows the wind resource basemodeled by NEMS region in the EPA Base Case.
Available Wind Resource Incremental Capacity (MW) in Each Cost Multiplier Step
3,664,1802,018,2971,001,955408,107192,36943,452Total
25,6164,09943554,3556,4046,404California
182,13511,058155,8923,7189,0092,934RA
695,685405,747199,84636,82441,99711,271NWP
767,229421,577207,71289,04942,4686,423SPP
3,482557592592870870SERC000000Florida
8,7201,3951,4821,4822,5561,804New England
3,654585621621913913New York
1,940,7161,066,530526,490265,18576,4436,068MAPP
3,922627667667980980MAIN
981157167167245245MAAC
30,1076,1323,8035,1189,9995,054ERCOT
1,934310329329484484ECAR
Total3X2X1.5X1.2X1XNEMS Region
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
7/22
7
Wind Technology Capacity Credit
46Wind Class 6
39Wind Class 5
32Wind Class 4
Reserve Margin Contribution (%)Wind Class
For intermittent technologies such as wind and solar units, their contribution towards regionalreserve margin requirements is less than 100%. The reserve margin contribution for suchtechnologies is estimated based on a units generation profile.
First, the hourly load for the model region is sorted in descending order (highest to lowest). Next,the average generation, derived from the generation profile, for the top 30% of the hours iscalculated.
The resulting value, expressed as a percent of the units rated output capacity is used as thereserve margin contribution/ capacity credit for the unit. The table below shows the national
average reserve margins by wind class, modeled in the EPA Base Case.
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
8/22
8
Solar Generation Assumptions
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
9/22
9
Cost and Performance Assumptions for Potential Solar
Technology Modeled in EPA Base Case
The EPA Base Case models two types of solar technologies: SolarThermal and Solar Photovoltaic.
The cost characteristics for the potential solar technologies are obtainedfrom EIAs AEO 2008 and are shown in the table below.
Solar generation profile assumptions that specify hourly generationpatterns for a representative day by region and season are based on AEO2008. These generation profiles define the dispatch of these units.
0
0
VOM Costs(mills /kWh)
55.243,004Solar Thermal
11.374,915Solar PV
FOM Costs(2006$ /kW)
Capital Costs(2006$ /kW)
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
10/22
10
Geothermal Generation
Assumptions
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
11/22
11
Performance and Unit Cost Assumptions for Geothermal
Technologies
0
VOM Costs
(mills /kWh)
8,963
Total Capacity
(MW)
147 - 2121,049 13,35229,660 397,035
Geothermal
FOM Costs
(2006$ /kW-yr)
Capital Costs
(2006$ /kW)
Heat Rate (Btu
/kWh)Technology
Geothermal technology assumptions in the EPA Base Case are site specificand are based on EIAs AEO 2008.
There are 88 sites in total. The ranges of the site specific assumptions aresummarized below.
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
12/22
12
Landfill Gas Generation
Assumptions
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
13/22
13
Cost Performance and Assumptions for Landfill Gas
Technology
0.01
0.01
0.01
VOM Costs(mills /kWh)
3,819
581
653
Resources (MW)
1113,48913,648Landfill Gas(Very Low)
1112,26613,648Landfill
Gas (Low)
1111,79913,648Landfill
Gas (High)
FOM Costs(2006$ /kW)
Capital Costs(2006$ /kW)
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Potential landfill gas technology assumptions are obtained from AEO 2008.
The potential is divided into 3 categories: High, Low and Very Lowmethane producing landfills.
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
14/22
14
Biomass Generation Assumptions
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
15/22
15
Biomass Technologies Modeled in EPA Base Case
The EPA Base Case 2008 models Two types of standalone biomass
technologies:
Biomass conventional direct firedboiler (prior to 2020)
Biomass gasification combinedcycle (from 2020 onward)
Biomass co-firing in coal fired units Cost characteristics shown in
adjacent table Limited to maximum of
10% of a coal units netcapacity coming from biomassand 50 MW of such capacity at
any given facility
The biomass supply curves used inthe EPA Base Case are obtainedfrom AEO 2008.
8.6
11.3
VOMCosts(mills/kWh)
47.02,6009,800Advanced
BGCC
(2020- )
83.03,00013,500
ConventionalDirect Fired
Boiler(before 2020)
FOMCosts(2006$/kW)
CapitalCosts(2006$/kW)
HeatRate(Btu
/kWh)
Biomass Cofiring Assumptions
10% / 50MW at a facility
Maximum Biomass Co-firing
Rate possible
7.4Fixed O&M Cost (2006$/kW)
178Capital Cost (2006$/kW1)
50Biomass Cofiring Size (MW)
600Plant Size (MW)
AllBoiler Type
1Per kW of biomass power
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
16/22
16
Tax Incentives
for Renewable Technologies
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
17/22
17
Tax Incentives for Renewable Technologies
5 year MACRS--Biomass
5 year MACRS--Landfill
5 year MACRS10%-Geothermal
5 year MACRS10%-Solar - Thermal
5 year MACRS10%-Solar - PV
5 year MACRS2--Wind
DepreciationInvestment TaxCredits (ITC)
Production TaxCredits (PTC)1
Technology
1No PTC is assumed in EPA Base Case 2008 since the first year modeled is 2012 and existing PTC provisions expireprior to 2012.2Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
18/22
18
Renewable Portfolio Standards
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
19/22
19
State Renewable Portfolio Standards
Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) require utilities to userenewable energy or renewable energy credits (RECs) to accountfor a certain percentage of their retail electricity sales or a certainamount of generating capacity within a specified timeframe.
More than half of all U.S. states have established a RPS.
The level of RPS requirements and the technologies applicable tomeet the RPS requirements vary by state.
The RPS assumptions in the EPA Base Case are based on AEO2008.
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
20/22
20
Assumptions for Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
by NEMS Region
NEMS Region % of Generation Unless Otherwise Indicated
10.010.011.012.00.0CNV
5,7935,6605,6155,4614,745New York 1
6.9
12.3
1.911.5
11.1
12.1
13.3
5.0
2025
6.96.04.23.0RA
12.311.46.64.1NWP
1.91.70.90.5SERC11.511.18.36.8New England
11.110.08.56.2MAPP
12.18.95.73.7MAIN
13.313.19.47.3MAAC
5.05.05.03.9ERCOT
2030202020152012Year
1. Figures represent GWh.
Source: Table 75. Aggregate Regional RPS Requirements http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/renewable.pdf
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
21/22
21
Issues for Future Consideration
8/14/2019 Lieberman Elliot
22/22
22
Issues for Future Consideration
Modeling wind classes 3 and 7.
Modeling offshore wind.
Revising methodology for estimating capacity credits for intermittenttechnologies such as wind and solar.
Re-evaluating capital cost assumptions for renewable (andconventional) generating technologies in view of escalating costs inthe current market.