CERT-AMBIENTGeneration

and Transmission

Evans Development Group

evans.development@gmail.com

1

Modeling Work Group

Two Primary Tasks Model Development WECC Transmission Planning

Work Group Composition 64 members; all sectors represented Regular meetings, mostly via

phone/webinar Interface with other WREZ Work

Groups Zone Identification (ZITA) Environment & Lands

2

WREZ Model Development

Review of Existing Models Model Features

Resource cost & operational characteristics Transmission cost & operational characteristics Sensitivity Analyses Scenario Analyses

Model Development Validation Application Documentation and Training

3

Model Features – Primary Considerations Users: Resource planners, public policymakers & regulators to

evaluate situations/scenarios Approach: Incremental Additions – Renewables Focus

Interstate vs. intrastate deliveries Driven by Input Assumptions –

Resource cost and operating characteristics Transmission cost and operating characteristics

Value Determination: characteristics of deliveries at load (sink) Delivered power costs: capacity & energy Integration costs and dependability Geographic diversity and overbuilding

Source/Sink Relationships – Single vs. Linked Resources: Renewable types and locations Role of gas: benchmark and/or to support wind

Scenario Analysis Options? Time Issues: costs & technology Sensitivity: CO2 penalties & gas price Toggles (on/off): reliability value, storage value, seasonal

exchange, and regulatory incentives (PTCs & ITCs)4

Modeling Group Schedule

Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09Task 1: Model Development Existing Models Assessment Features for Model Model Development Validation of Model Application of Model Model Documentation & Training

Task 2: WECC Transmission Planning Sub-Regional Venues WECC Transmission Planning

GTMWG Meeting Schedule Co-Chair Coordination Calls Conference Calls On-Site Meetings/Webcasts

WeeklyMonthly and at Critical Junctures

Bi-Monthly and at Critical Junctures

5

6

Power Delivery Tool Development:Review of Previous Work

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Black & Veatch

Generation & Transmission Modeling Work Group

7

OutlineOutline Review Previous Analyses and Models

What are objectives of analysis/model? How is the value of the remote resource determined? How is the cost of the remote resource estimated? How is the cost of transmission estimated?

Previous Analyses That Compares Remote Renewable Resources: ERCOT CREZ Analysis Wind Deployment System (WinDS)

Previous Spreadsheet-based Resource Planning Models that Include Transmission:

E3 Greenhouse Gas Calculator B & V Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative

Previous Spreadsheet-based Transmission Economic Analysis Models Frontier Line Economic Assessment Screening Tool (FEAST) Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee: Canada–

Northwest–California Transmission Options Study

8

FrameworkFramework

All studies and models can be reduced to evaluating the question:

Do the benefits of obtaining power from a remote resource outweigh the cost of accessing the resource?

If so, transmission should be built to access the remote resource

In other words, is: Value of Remote Resource >

Bus-bar Cost of Remote Resource + Transmission Cost?

9

ERCOT CREZ Analysis (2008)ERCOT CREZ Analysis (2008) Objectives of Analysis:

Determine the transmission required to access various levels of new wind in several CREZs

Estimate the relative attractiveness of each option Value of Remote Resource:

Production cost savings from security constrained economic dispatch and unit-commitment of ERCOT system (inherently includes time-of-delivery energy value)

No fuel sensitivity or carbon price Cost of Remote Resource:

Generic estimate of wind capital cost ($1000/kW) and site specific capacity factors.

No renewable incentives, no integration cost estimates Cost of Transmission

Least cost transmission designed to reduce wind curtailment to below 2% in all scenarios

Generic capital cost estimates for 345 kV single and double circuit lines Line utilization not explicitly calculated but implicit in economic dispatch

10

ERCOT CREZ Analysis (2008)ERCOT CREZ Analysis (2008) Results:

Table in main report details site specific capacity factors, total wind capital cost, total new transmission cost, and annual production cost savings for each CREZ option

Derived Results: Ranking cost

(Bus-bar Cost + Transmission Cost – Production Cost Savings) was calculated for each option and plotted on the right

ERCOT CREZ Analysis: Ranking Cost Curve (Assuming 15% Capital Recovery Factor for Wind and Transmission Capital Costs)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000

Cummulative Wind (MW)

Ran

kin

g C

ost

($/

MW

h)

Coastal, 1 GW

Central Western, 2 GW

Panhandle, 4.6 GW

11

WinDS: 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Analysis WinDS: 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Analysis (2008)(2008)

Objectives of Analysis: Determine the least cost regional expansion of generation and transmission for the

next 50 years Value of Remote Resource:

Resources are built to satisfy load requirements in 136 balancing areas within 16 time slices.

Renewable energy resources are compared to conventional generation options Includes option to model nation-wide carbon cap or carbon taxes Includes integration cost estimates for wind energy (based on additional operating reserves)

Cost of Remote Resource: Capital cost estimates and performance estimates include technological learning

with time. Performance is based on 358 different wind regions in the U.S. Bus-bar cost includes estimate of interconnection cost to nearest transmission line

Cost of Transmission Assumes 10% of existing transmission capacity is available for new wind energy at

no cost above interconnection costs. New transmission lines can be built between balancing regions at a fixed cost of

$1,600/MW-mi (only 50% of cost is assigned to wind due to shared reliability benefits)

No lumpiness or economies of scale are accounted for Line utilization: New lines are only used by new resources, no “over-build” or

curtailment Line losses: fixed line loss assumption (0.236 kW/MW-mi)

12

WinDS: 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Analysis WinDS: 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Analysis (2008)(2008)

Results:

Global optimization determines the least cost options for meeting load in each balancing area.

Chart shows the projected use of existing (blue) and new (red) transmission to transport wind energy between balancing areas by 2030.

Model results: Wind is

transported across multiple states on existing lines

New lines are built within states or between states

13

Black & Veatch Renewable Energy Black & Veatch Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) (2008)Transmission Initiative (RETI) (2008)

Objectives of Tool: Identify and quantify renewables for CA RPS requirement and transmission necessary to

deliver that energy Value of Remote Resource:

Value of remote resource is based on capacity and energy value: Capacity value: Capacity credit based on capacity factor of resource-specific generation profile

during peak period, capacity cost based on CT peaker plant Energy value: Resource-specific generation during three periods and zone-specific prices in each

period based on economic dispatch model

No sensitivity to carbon or fuel prices in base case No integration cost

Cost of Remote Resource: Range of capital cost and performance provided in Phase 1A, Phase 1B will provide more

detail Levelized cost based on pro-forma financial worksheet with Federal incentives, capital

costs, and performance Cost of Transmission:

In-state: Utilize utility transmission ranking cost reports (TRCRs) to estimate transmission needs, transmission costs, and step-size (primarily based on power-flow studies).

Out-of-state: Transmission based on distance of resource to delivery point in CA. Transmission cost based on pro-rata share of 500-kV line with generic $/MW-mi cost estimate.

Line utilization based on capacity factor of remote resource

14

Black & Veatch Renewable Energy Black & Veatch Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) (2008)Transmission Initiative (RETI) (2008)

Details of Ranking Cost: Each resource is

compared to other resources on equivalent basis using ranking cost method:

Ranking Cost = Generation Cost + Transmission Cost – Capacity Value – Energy Value

Resources with lowest ranking cost are most valuable to CA

15

E3 Green House Gas Calculator (2008):E3 Green House Gas Calculator (2008):Renewable Energy Supply CurvesRenewable Energy Supply Curves

Objectives of Tool: Overall: Enable regulators to determine the cost of various policy options to reduce green house gas emissions in the

electricity and natural gas sector in California. Policy options include in-state and out-of-state renewables. Rank several renewable zones based on delivered cost and cost adders (integration, capacity adjustment, etc)

Value of Remote Resource: “Firming” cost adder used to reflect less than nameplate capacity contribution of resources toward capacity

requirements Integration cost for wind. Integration costs estimated from previous studies in other states. Increasing penetration

leads to increasing integration cost. No consideration for geographic diversity No adjustment for differences in time-of-delivery energy value between renewable resources in ranking cost. However

four time slices are used in separate estimate of total state-wide impact Cost of Remote Resource:

Bus-bar cost for all resources in a zone based on user-defined capital costs, performance, incentives, and interconnection costs

Interconnection costs based on $1,600/MW-mi estimate with collector system distances that differ for each type of renewable technology

Cost of Transmission In state renewable zones: Transmission costs based on previous studies (mostly based on power flow analysis) Out-of-state: Assume new lines must be built to import any new resources.

New lines are very lumpy – 250 MW of new renewables from out-of-state triggers new transmission line. All costs assigned to new resource.

New lines in default case are all HVDC lines. User can define 230 and 500 kV AC lines too. Line utilization based on capacity factor of remote resource

16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1.8E

+03

1.4E

+05

2.6E

+05

3.8E

+05

5.3E

+05

6.8E

+05

7.9E

+05

9.0E

+05

1.0E

+06

1.1E

+06

1.2E

+06

1.3E

+06

1.3E

+06

Cummulative Renewable Resources (GWh/yr)

Del

iver

ed C

ost

+ A

dd

ers

($/M

Wh

)

Transmission Cost ($/MWh)

Integration Cost ($/MWh)

Firming Cost ($/MWh)

Bus-bar Costs ($/MWh)

E3 Green House Gas Calculator (2008):E3 Green House Gas Calculator (2008):Renewable Energy Supply CurvesRenewable Energy Supply Curves

Results: Chart shows relative

ranking of in-state and out-of-state renewable options.

Total cost is decomposed into components

Significant variation in costs due to default assumption that HVDC lines are built for even small resource imports.

Results indicate integration costs are minor compared to other components

17

Frontier Economic Assessment Screening Frontier Economic Assessment Screening Tool (FEAST) (2007)Tool (FEAST) (2007)

Objectives of Tool: Determine the cost/benefit ratio of individual transmission lines based on the

line utilization and the energy price basis between the source and sink Value of Remote Resource:

Remote resources displace user-defined mix of generation resources in the sink.

Capacity valued based on fixed cost of peaker and ‘dependable’ capacity of remote resource. Dependable capacity is technology-specific but does not vary based on geographic location

User-defined integration cost, conventional fuel price forecasts, and carbon taxes

Cost of Remote Resource: User defined mix of resources in remote ‘source’ location Levelized bus-bar cost based on capital cost, performance, incentives, and

‘levelizing factors’ for merchant or utility financing. No interconnection cost estimates

Cost of Transmission: 500 kV AC or DC transmission lines with user defined line utilization

Line utilization is assumed to be higher for wind with 20% ‘overbuild’ (1200 MW of wind on a 1000 MW line)

Capital cost estimates based on engineering judgment, generic equipment cost assumptions, and distance from source hub to sink hub

Peak-load losses based on length and type of line

18

BC Ratio Break-Even Curve

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Line Utilization Factor

Reg

ion

Co

st D

iffe

ren

ce N

eed

ed f

or

BC

=1

($/M

Wh

)

BC > 1

BC < 1

Frontier Economic Frontier Economic Assessment Screening Tool Assessment Screening Tool

(FEAST) (2009)(FEAST) (2009)

Financing

Installed Capacity

MWEnergy GWh

Source: Montana/WyomingWind - Wyoming Merchant 3,600 15,137

Sink: CaliforniaCombined Cycle - CA Merchant 2,215 15,137

Trans Option No. 7b Installed Cost ($Million) 4,300

Capacity (MW) 3,000

Description Wyoming - Mona (Utah) - S. Nevada - Southern CALine Utilization 58%

Regional Difference Annual AnnualSource Sink Diff Benefits Cost

($/MWh) ($/MWh) ($/MWh) ($/MWh) ($Million) ($Million)Line Cost 28.0 424

Power Cost 39.8 66.5 26.7 405GHG Adder 0.0 16.0 16.0 242CO2 for EOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Renewable Credit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0System Integration 3.0 0.0 -3.0 -45Prod Tax Credit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Losses 1.7 -1.7 -25Grid Eff 0.0 0.0 0Dependable Cap Value -2.1 -2.1 -32 *TOTAL 44.5 80.4 35.9 544 424Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.28

•Results:

- Table shows results of one case analyzed in study of Frontier transmission line with 20% overbuild of wind in Wyoming displacing energy from CCGT and capacity from CT in CA

- Chart shows sensitivity of results to line utilization and regional cost spread (basis) between source and sink

19

Northwest Transmission Assessment Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee (NTAC) (2009)Committee (NTAC) (2009)

Objectives of Tool: Comparison of delivered cost of inventory of new generation resources in Western Canada

and the Pacific Northwest to options in the Northwest and California. Evaluates specific transmission line options

Value of Remote Resource: Compares delivered cost of remote resource to CCGT in PNW or California No capacity value or time-of-delivery energy value adjustment No integration costs User-defined carbon and fuel price

Cost of Remote Resource: Levelized bus-bar cost based on capital cost, performance, incentives, and single capital

charge rate No interconnection cost

Cost of Transmission: Transmission options designed outside of tool. Most options evaluated using powerflow

analysis. Transmission cost estimates based on detailed equipment requirement and cost

assumptions Transmission line utilization is a user-defined assumption (e.g. 35% for wind only, 65% for

hydro only, or 75% for combined wind and hydro option). Includes transmission losses based on length and type of line

20

Northwest Transmission Assessment Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee (NTAC) (2009)Committee (NTAC) (2009)

Results: Comparison of delivered

cost of energy for mix of resources using different transmission line options

Options are compared to CCGT in PNW or S. CA load centers

Tool only reports total delivered cost:

Tool does not adjust costs for capacity value, time-of-delivery energy value, or integration costs

Real Levelized Unit Costs, 2005$

$0.0 $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0 $90.0 $100.0

South California Combined Cycle

US Pac NW Combined Cycle

3000 MW Montana Coal

Syngas Cogen & Coal

3000 MW Syngas Cogen

3000 MW Mont. Coal to L. Vegas

3000 MW Montana Coal

Syngas Cogen & Coal

Syngas Cogen & Coal

3000 MW Syngas Cogen

3000 MW Syngas Cogen

1500 MW Syngas Cogen

1500 MW Syngas Cogen

1500 MW AB Coal

1500 MW AB Coal

Hydro in BC&AB Sngas Cogen

Hydro in BC&AB Sngas Cogen

1500 MW Syngas Cogen

1100MW Wnd, 680 Hyd, 500 CC

1100 MW wnd, 680 Hyd, 400 CC

1100 MW Wind, 680 MW Hydro

3200 MW wind, 1800 MW Hydro

8b

8a

7d

7c

'7

c7

b7

a6

d6

c6

b6

a5

b5

a4

b4

a3

2b

2a

2a

'1

$US/MWh

Generating Cost Transmission to Pac NW Transmission to California

21

SummarySummary

Tool/ Analysis WinDS ERCOT RETI (Out-of-state)

E3 GHG - Renewable Supply Curve Component FEAST NTAC

General

User-friendly Spreadsheet Analysis X X P P P PGlobal Optimization P X X X X X

Production Cost Model/ Economic Dispatch X P X X X X

Focus of Analysis

Relative Ranking of Multiple Resources X P P P X X

Detailed Estimate of Delivered Cost X X X X P PValue of Remote Resource

Capacity Value P X P P P X

Time-of-Use Energy Value P P P X X X

Integration Cost P X X P P X

Cost of Remote Resource

Detailed Pro-forma Analysis of Bus-bar Cost X X P X X X

Regulatory Incentives (PTC, ITC, etc) P X P P P PCost of Transmission

Transmission Capacity = Resource Nameplate Capacity

P X P P X X

Detailed Transmission Routing X P X X P PTransmission Cost Discounted for Reliabiltiy Benefits

P X X X X X

Seaonal Exchange Benefits X X X X X X

Storage X X X X X X

22

ReferencesReferences

ERCOT Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 2006. Analysis of Transmission Alternatives for

Competitive Renewable Energy Zones in Texas. December. http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations/2006/ATTCH_A_CREZ_Analysis_Report.pdf.

WinDS: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution

to U.S. Electricity Supply. Appendix B. May. http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_wind_energy_report_05-11-08_wk.pdf.

E3 GHG: http://www.ethree.com/cpuc_ghg_model.html

RETI: Black & Veatch. 2008. Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative Phase 1A. RETI Stakeholder Steering

Committee, March. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/documents/2008-03_RETI_PHASE-1A_DRAFT_REPORT.PDF.

FEAST: Western Regional Transmission Expansion Partnership (WTREP). 2007. Frontier Line Feasibility Study .

April 30. http://www.ftloutreach.com/workinggroups/economicanalysis.html.

NTAC: Northwest Transmission Assessment Committee. 2006. Canada–Northwest–California Transmission

Options Study. Northwest Power Pool, May 16. http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/CNC%20Report%20-%20Final%2016%20May%202006.pdf.

Adequacy of Exiting Models

Existing Modeling Approaches Source/Sink Pairs (Excel): FEAST & NTAC Regional Rankings (Excel): RETI & E3-GHG System Optimization (non-Excel): CREZ, WinDS,

What is the Desired Approach? Hybrid to evaluate scenarios for selected load

centers Selection-driven vs. optimized Optimized for shortest transmission

23

Wind Solar Load Flow

CASE A

WREZ Delivery Scenarios

Other

CASE B

CASE C

INC

RE

AS

ING

CO

MP

LE

XIT

Y

Gas-at-load

Remote Gas

24

25

Screening-Level REZ Analysis Tool:

Straw-man Proposal

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Black & Veatch

Generation & Transmission Modeling Work Group

26

OutlineOutline

Objectives of REZ Analysis Tool Proposed Tool Outline Strengths and Weaknesses of

Proposed Tool Select Questions for Workgroup

27

Objectives of REZ Analysis Objectives of REZ Analysis ToolTool

Assist resource planners and regulators to evaluate the relative attractiveness of geographically broad renewable resource options at a screening level

Estimate “delivered cost” of both in-state and out-of-state RE options from REZs to LSE load areas

Highlight potential and benefits of collaboration between LSEs to build transmission lines

Highlight potential for competition for limited renewable resources

28

Proposed Tool OutlineProposed Tool Outline Delivered Cost:

Tool calculates delivered cost of each renewable resource type from each REZ to an LSE within a load zone

Delivered Cost = Bus-Bar Cost + Interconnection Cost + Transmission Cost + Local Delivery Charges

Relative Ranking: Tool will provide market value adjustments to the delivered cost to determine

the relative attractiveness of resources

Adjusted Delivered Cost = Delivered Cost +/- Market Value Adjustments Potential for Collaboration and Competition:

Tool highlights resources that are well-ranked for multiple load zones Collaboration: User can modify default assumptions to evaluate benefits of

shared lines Competition: User can choose which resources to include in analysis. A user

may decide to exclude a resource that they expect to not be available due to competition for a limited resource (or other reasons)

Tool Output: Reports including the relative ranking of REZs and the underlying data used to

generate relative ranking (Delivered cost, transmission cost, market value adjustments, etc.)

Reports will highlight resources that are well-ranked for multiple load-zones

29

General Tool FunctionalityGeneral Tool Functionality Excel-based tool

Tool is provided with default assumptions

User can evaluate relative ranking of resources to each load zone based on default assumptions

Tool includes considerable flexibility for user to change default assumptions

Users can evaluate user-defined “what-if” scenarios

User can examine impact of their own view of the future:

Tax incentives, cost changes, value of energy and capacity etc.

Changes to default assumptions will primarily be based on external analysis

30

Aggregate REZ ResourcesAggregate REZ Resources

Core data of tool: REZ list Bus-bar and

interconnection cost by renewable resource type

(specific ZITA deliverables TBD)

Primary assumption: REZ interconnection cost

based on new high-voltage substation within REZ

User defined assumptions: User can change bus-bar

cost (specific bus-bar cost

modeling TBD)

Example REZ and load hubs

31

Load ZoneLoad Zone

Each LSE will be represented within a Load Zone worksheet (e.g. APS and SRP in Arizona Load Zone)

On the order of 20 load zones

Tool will have empty placeholders for user to define non-REZ resources to include in relative ranking (e.g. distributed photovoltaics or CCGT sited at load)

Tool will allow user to select which REZs and resource types within REZs to include in analysis

Arizona Load Zone – LSEs are represented within nearest load zone

32

Load ZoneLoad ZoneUser can deselect resources they think should not be included in analysis

• Each LSE will be represented within a Load Zone worksheet (e.g. APS and SRP in Arizona Load Zone)

• On the order of 20 load zones

• Tool will have empty placeholders for user to define non-REZ resources to include in relative ranking (e.g. distributed photovoltaics or CCGT sited at load)

• Tool will allow user to select which REZs and resource types within REZs to include in analysis

33

Delivered CostDelivered CostTool will calculate total delivered cost from selected resource types in selected REZs

Tool will calculate delivered cost for each resource type in each REZ to the load zone

Primary Assumptions: Distance from

interconnection point to load zone hub:

Distance will be based on routing via existing rights-of-way to the appropriate extent (from GTM sub-group)

Incremental transmission additions – assume no existing transfer capability

34

Delivered CostDelivered CostTool will calculate total delivered cost from selected resource types in selected REZs

Transmission cost component: Transmission Capital Cost (Based

on voltage and distance) Transmission utilization Distance multiplier Per mile losses based on line

voltage assumption Delivery charge from load zone hub

to LSE load center Operating costs

All are user-defined assumptions with default assumptions provided with tool

35

Relative RankingRelative Ranking Tool will determine the relative

ranking of resource types from each REZ based on the delivered cost adjusted for market valuation factors

Important market value adjustment factors:

Capacity value Time-of-Use Energy Value Integration costs Externalities (e.g. Carbon taxes if

comparing to load-based CCGT)

More detail on assumptions and methods will be provided in a Market Valuation White paper by LBNL

Tool will rank resource types and REZs to highlight most attractive options

36

Comparison to other Load Comparison to other Load ZonesZones

Separate worksheets will be used for each load zone

The same ranking cost process will be performed simultaneously for each load zone

Similar ranking process will be done for each load zone on separate worksheets

37

Comparison to other Load Comparison to other Load ZonesZones

Similar ranking process will be done for each load zone on separate worksheets

Separate worksheets will be used for each load zone

The same ranking cost process will be performed simultaneously for each load zone

38

Collaboration and CompetitionCollaboration and Competition

The tool will highlight resources that rank well for multiple load zones

Users can explore the impact of competition by examining the new resource ranking if they assume the resource will be fully utilized by another load zone

Resources that rank well for multiple load zones will be highlighted in the tool

39

Collaboration and CompetitionCollaboration and Competition

After determining the well ranked resources for different load zones, a user can modify default assumptions to determine the benefits of collaboration in “what-if” scenarios

For example, a user could model a shared line by changing default assumptions for utilization and line distance

Tool, as proposed, may be able to accommodate this type of investigation, but it would require significant amount of external analysis.

Benefits of collaboration can be modeled by users in “what-if”

scenarios

40

Strengths and WeaknessesStrengths and Weaknesses

Strengths: (Tool models well) Simultaneous relative ranking of resources across multiple

load zones

Well-ranked resources in multiple load zones present opportunities for collaboration or competition between LSEs

Wide geographic scope: relative comparison of both in-state and out-of-state resources

Flexibility: Default assumptions are provided, user can modify default assumptions to create their own “what-if” scenarios

Transparent screening of resources: Excel based tool with many user-defined assumptions

41

Strengths and WeaknessesStrengths and Weaknesses

Weaknesses: (Tool does not model well) Optimal resource mix: Tool complements traditional resource planning models, but will

not substitute for one Transmission to access multiple resource types in same zone

E3 GHG Model may be useful guide for how to incorporate this feature into the tool, but it may involve tradeoffs

Transmission to access multiple zones with one transmission line Transmission to access multiple loads and multiple zones with one transmission line

Default assumptions will be single resource in REZ. Multiple resources and multiple load hubs require user to modify default assumptions:

Blended Bus-bar and interconnection cost? Transmission utilization: User-defined transmission

utilization (e.g. default would assume 40% utilization for wind-only REZ, user could assume 60% for wind and solar in user-defined multiple resource-REZ)

Transmission line length: Multiple REZ and load hubs may require longer lines. User must specify increase in line length

Value of seasonal exchange Value of reliability Detailed transmission pricing (instead based on very simple assumptions)

42

Select Questions for Select Questions for WorkgroupWorkgroup

What is the primary use of the tool? Current focus: determine relative ranking of

resources in REZs for each load zone based on simple user-defined assumptions

Similar to E3 GHG and RETI analyses

Alternative focus: Focus more on specific transmission lines. Determine delivered cost of resources based on detailed modeling of specific transmission lines

Similar to NTAC and FEAST analyses

43

Select Questions for Select Questions for WorkgroupWorkgroup

Is proposed tool potentially too complex? Each load zone (~20 load hubs) will

potentially rank all resources in each REZ ( potentially 40 or more REZs with multiple technologies)

Tradeoffs between being comprehensive (ability to screen all resources for each load zone) and depth of modeling (detailed modeling of transmission line sizing, routing, and usage)

44

Select Questions for Select Questions for WorkgroupWorkgroup

Is the basic functionality of the tool sufficient to highlight potential for both competition and collaboration?

Tool simply highlights resources in REZs that are well ranked for multiple load zones.

Tool does not specify total demand for renewables in load zones

Competition: User can examine effect of competition by excluding resource from relative ranking in their load zone

Collaboration: User can develop changes to default assumptions to model different routing and line utilization that might occur with shared transmission lines. Tool will provide little guidance on how to develop and model these user-defined shared lines.

Transmission Work Tasks

Model Development Sub-Group Model design & features Matrix of desired input to ZITA Workgroup

Transmission Segments Sub-Group Mileage and routes Existing corridors and to link/access REZs Build on prior work: Frontier, BC-CA & NTAC Default routes for each load

Transmission Costs & Operations Sub-Group Voltages and capacity ratings: AC & DC Configurations: single & double circuit Line losses Line-mile and associated costs Financial and operating costs

45

Example Model Inputs (FEAST)(to be populated by ZITA)

Heat-Rate CapacityDepend.Capacity

Installed Cost

Fixed O&M

Other Fixed

Variable O&M

Plant Type BTU/kWh Factor Factor 2006$/kW $/kW-Yr $/kW-Yr $/MWhBiomass 8,910 90% 100% $2,200 $95.70 $62.81 $5.20Gas Combined Cycle 6,920 78% 100% $1,000 $13.70 $39.19 $2.40Gas Combustion Turbine 9,300 10% 100% $750 $12.30 $26.10 $9.90Geothermal NA 95% 100% $3,600 $64.00 -$6.20 $23.60Solar Concen. NA 40% 87% $3,150 $38.00 $75.03 $1.50Solar Concen. (Storage) NA 40% 100% $3,150 $38.00 $75.03 $1.50Wind - California NA 36% 21% $1,300 $11.50 $0.00 $5.50Wind - Generic NA 35% 30% $1,300 $11.50 $0.00 $5.50Wind - Utah NA 36% 35% $1,300 $11.50 $0.00 $5.50Wind - Wyoming NA 48% 39% $1,300 $11.50 $0.00 $5.50

46

Primary WECC Transmission Paths

BUCKLEY

SUNDANCE

FT. PECK

PEACE CANYON

MICA

VANCOUVER

SEATTLE

PRINCE RUPERT

AREA

AREA

COLSTRIP

BOISE

PORTLANDAREA

MALIN

TABLE MTN

ROUND MTN

SALT LAKECITY AREA

MEXICO

EL PASOAREA

DEVERSLUGO

SAN FRANCISCO

MIDPOINT

AREA

LOS ANGELESAREA

ALBUQUERQUEAREA

NAVAJO

DENVERAREA

MOJAVE

HOOVER

PHOENIXAREA

LANGDON

HOT SPRINGS

HELLSCANYON

CHIEF JOSEPH

BURNS

PINTO

FOURCORNERS

SHASTA

LANGDON

CANADA

UNITED STATES

47

Example Transmission Segments (Frontier)

Segment Route MilesCapacity

(MW) Design $MM Lossesa S.E. Montana - S. Wyoming 205 1500 1-500 kV AC 800 2.1%b S. Wyoming - Southern CA 850 3000 1-500 kV DC 2,700 6.3%c S. Wyoming - Southern CA 1700 6000 2-500 kV DC 5,400 6.3%d S. Wyoming - N.E. Nevada 512 3000 1-500 kV DC 1,900 4.4%e S. Wyoming - N.E. Nevada 1024 6000 2-500 kV DC 3,700 4.4%f N.E. Nevada - S. Nevada 234 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,300 1.2%g N.E. Nevada - S. Nevada 468 6000 4-500 kV AC 2,400 1.2%h S. Nevada - Southern CA 200 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,200 1.0%i S. Nevada - Southern CA 400 6000 4-500 kV AC 2,200 1.0%j Northwest - N.W. Nevada 350 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,800 1.8%k S. Wyoming - N.W. Nevada 685 3000 1-500 kV DC 2,300 5.4%l S. Wyoming - N.W. Nevada 1370 6000 2-500 kV DC 4,500 5.4%

m N.W. Nevada - Northern CA 233 3000 2-500 kV AC 2,400 1.2%n N.W. Nevada - Northern CA 466 6000 4-500 kV AC 4,800 1.2%o Northern CA - Southern CA 325 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,800 1.6%p Northern CA - Southern CA 650 6000 4-500 kV AC 3,500 1.6%q Northwest - Northern CA 560 3000 1-500 kV DC 2,100 4.7%r S. Wyoming - S. Nevada 635 3000 1-500 kV DC 2,200 5.1%s S. Wyoming - S. Nevada 1270 6000 2-500 kV DC 4,300 5.1%t S. Wyoming - Arizona 900 3000 1-500 kV DC 2,800 6.6%u S. Wyoming - Arizona 1800 6000 2-500 kV DC 5,600 6.6%v Arizona - Southern CA 320 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,700 1.6%w Arizona - Southern CA 640 6000 4-500 kV AC 3,200 1.6%x Wyoming - Mona (Utah) 360 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,900 1.8%y Mona (Utah) - Southern Nevada 280 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,500 1.4%z Mona (Utah) - N.E. Nevada 170 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,000 0.9%

aa Wyoming - Midpoint (Idaho) 420 3000 2-500 kV AC 2,200 2.1%ab Midpoint (Idaho) - N.E. Nevada 220 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,200 1.1%ac Midpoint (Idaho) - N.W. Nevada 280 3000 2-500 kV AC 1,500 1.4%

48