Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis...
-
Upload
isabel-goodwin -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
Transcript of Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis...
![Page 1: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard:
Selection of Hydro Events
Mary JohannisMary JohannisPNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee MtgPNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg
November 27, 2007November 27, 2007
![Page 2: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 2
Why Evaluate Hydro Capacity
• Regional Capacity Adequacy Assessment performed by Council
• WECC Loads and Resource Reporting by Balancing Authorities
• PNUCC Reporting
• Individual Utility Resource Planning
![Page 3: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 3
Steps to Finalize Capacity Adequacy Standard
• Validate & Calibrate GENESYS Model• Select Threshold(s) in GENESYS that define
bad events Region wants to avoid• Select Sustained Peaking Period for
Capacity Metric (i.e. Planning Reserve Margin)
• Agree how to count resources toward satisfying Capacity Adequacy Standard– HYDRO – WIND– THERMAL– CONTRACTS
UnderwayUnderway
Done
Underway
![Page 4: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 4
Calculation of Sustained Hydro Peaking CapacityH
ydro
Cal
cula
tio
nE
ven
tD
ura
tio
n 18 hour Sustained Peaking Duration: Decide for what months to evaluate Capacity Adequacy Standard--February and July? Using expected loads 1/, select peak day & peak hour for winter & summer months. Hydro capacity to be evaluated for 6 highest hours around peak for 3 continuous days with highest
average peak
1 in 20 year Probability Event: Select a historical year and month for both summer & winter, which have approximately a 5% probability of
occurrence based on combined adverse temperature-induced load and adverse hydro conditions. Decide whether different events are needed to evaluate hydro located in Columbia Basin, Willamette Basin
and/or West-side streams.
Evaluate Maximum Hydro Capability over 3 Day Event: Evaluate maximum hydro capability by increasing load to maximize generation possible over peak hours,
constrained by physical/operational constraints and maximum allowable purchases assumed duringshoulder and off-peak hours.
For the winter event, maximize hydro generation over both peaks of the daily load curve. Decide on appropriate off and shoulder peak purchase assumptions. Define NON-EMERGENCY heat-wave and cold-snap operations (e.g. for the FCRPS, Coulee is drafted up
to 2 feet/day and Dworshak generates at full output during winter cold snap). Sum hourly hydro generation for highest 6 consecutive hours over 3 days and divide by 18. This is sustained hydro peaking capacity and is maximized for system capability not planned to load.
1/ i.e. temperature neutral loads
![Page 5: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 5
Historical vs. CalculatedSustained FCRPS Peaking Capacity
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
MW
s Historical Cold Snap Hydro
Expected Load
CalculatedSustained FCRPS Cap
Purchases PurchasesCapto meet
ExpectedLoad
Surplus + Cap to
meet PRM
![Page 6: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 6
Alignment with LOLP = 5%
• Approach:– Plan hydro capacity to assure sufficient capacity available
to meet load 95% of time.– Plan hydro capacity to meet load under 1 in 20 probability
event• Adverse hydro• Adverse temperature-induced load
• Select regional summer and winter hydro condition– For WECC and Resource Adequacy Forum reporting, the
selection of hydro condition for which to report hydro capacity assures consistency
– Utilities could then define temperature-induced adverse load conditions for their own resource planning efforts which approximate 1 in 20 probability event
![Page 7: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 7
Representative NW Hydro Projects
ROSS
Round Butte
Columbia River Hydro
![Page 8: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 8
Suggested Representative Projects
• FCRPS– FCRPS not very sensitive to Selection of
Adverse Event
• Non-Columbia River Projects – PGE’s Round Butte Project on Deschutes
River is representative of Williamettes– Seattle’s ROSS on Skagit River is a
representative West-side project
![Page 9: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 9
Selecting Adverse Hydro Condition for Winter Event
• Approach– Look at candidate
events, which represent more or less adverse hydro conditions
– Investigate events with February flows within 1 standard deviation (α) lower than mean
– Pick event which Region believes is most reasonable
• Candidate Feb Events– 1936-37 = reference, not
candidate event– 1968-69 = 1 standard
deviation below mean for Williamettes & Westside; adverse for Columbia R.
– 1988-89 = less adverse for Williamettes & Westside; 1 standard deviation for Columbia R.
– 1945-46 = somewhat adverse for all
![Page 10: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 10
Water Year
Unreg Feb Flows (cfs)
Water Year
Unreg Feb Flows (cfs)
Water Year
Unreg Feb Flows (cfs)
1.41% 1931 - 32 3,025 1936 - 37 462 1936 - 37 50,4182.82% 1963 - 64 3,390 1928 - 29 499 1935 - 36 50,4494.23% 1940 - 41 3,457 1935 - 36 575 1993 - 94 55,6805.63% 1930 - 31 3,619 1984 - 85 705 1928 - 29 57,0377.04% 1932 - 33 3,619 1943 - 44 865 1930 - 31 58,0678.45% 1936 - 37 3,673 1968 - 69 878 1943 - 44 59,5769.86% 1939 - 40 3,790 1965 - 66 887 1976 - 77 60,130
11.27% 1935 - 36 3,912 1955 - 56 890 1931 - 32 61,35312.68% 1928 - 29 3,925 1941 - 42 936 1938 - 39 61,40014.08% 1968 - 69 3,925 1992 - 93 939 1992 - 93 61,57915.49% 1992 - 93 4,024 1932 - 33 955 1987 - 88 62,56516.90% 1993 - 94 4,030 1972 - 73 956 1932 - 33 63,43818.31% 1929 - 30 4,051 1978 - 79 957 1988 - 89 64,68919.72% 1941 - 42 4,051 1938 - 39 962 1963 - 64 66,589
21.13% 1934 - 35 4,069 1937 - 38 1,028 1965 - 66 70,99022.54% 1991 - 92 4,241 1948 - 49 1,036 1972 - 73 71,22723.94% 1988 - 89 4,267 1987 - 88 1,057 1954 - 55 73,39825.35% 1938 - 39 4,303 1974 - 75 1,065 1940 - 41 73,91526.76% 1990 - 91 4,319 1993 - 94 1,128 1984 - 85 73,94928.17% 1937 - 38 4,339 1945 - 46 1,155 1945 - 46 81,09829.58% 1989 - 90 4,349 1947 - 48 1,199 1986 - 87 81,44330.99% 1944 - 45 4,357 1954 - 55 1,208 1937 - 38 81,73832.39% 1947 - 48 4,398 1988 - 89 1,245 1979 - 80 84,32933.80% 1945 - 46 4,465 1977 - 78 1,294 1978 - 79 84,75635.21% 1987 - 88 4,572 1951 - 52 1,311 1974 - 75 84,76136.62% 1943 - 44 4,590 1942 - 43 1,336 1989 - 90 85,45738.03% 1959 - 60 4,659 1940 - 41 1,408 1944 - 45 85,52639.44% 1965 - 66 4,664 1949 - 50 1,449 1939 - 40 88,31540.85% 1933 - 34 4,718 1956 - 57 1,452 1968 - 69 92,12042.25% 1954 - 55 4,718 1997 - 98 1,473 1929 - 30 92,49343.66% 1967 - 68 4,729 1976 - 77 1,539 1941 - 42 94,80945.07% 1948 - 49 4,736 1986 - 87 1,552 1977 - 78 95,12146.48% 1949 - 50 4,754 1963 - 64 1,555 1956 - 57 96,80647.89% 1966 - 67 4,790 1958 - 59 1,558 1961 - 62 98,41049.30% 1976 - 77 4,790 1998 - 99 1,586 1955 - 56 98,63650.70% 1946 - 47 4,844 1989 - 90 1,602 1991 - 92 99,16552.11% 1961 - 62 4,988 1939 - 40 1,639 1934 - 35 100,13853.52% 1986 - 87 4,988 1969 - 70 1,651 1947 - 48 101,06254.93% 1972 - 73 5,168 1973 - 74 1,726 1959 - 60 101,22956.34% 1951 - 52 5,198 1979 - 80 1,778 1948 - 49 102,35457.75% 1984 - 85 5,222 1959 - 60 1,882 1966 - 67 103,225
The DallesProbability of Occurrence
Round Butte ROSS
![Page 11: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 11
February18-hour Federal Hydro Generation and Natural Streamflows
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
1936 - 37
1943 - 44
1987 - 88
1972 - 73
1986 - 87
1989 - 90
1941 - 42
1991 - 92
1966 - 67
1997 - 98
1946 - 47
1990 - 91
1960 - 61
1994 - 95
1995 - 96
Historical YearsRanked by Hydro Condition
Nat
tura
l U
nre
gu
late
d F
low
s (
cfs)
14000
14500
15000
15500
16000
16500
17000
17500
Hyd
ro G
ener
atio
n (
aMW
s)
TDA
ICE
Gen MWs
Feb 1968-69Nat Flow
Standard Deviation
![Page 12: Evaluating Hydro Capacity for Capacity Adequacy Standard: Selection of Hydro Events Mary Johannis PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Mtg November.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072109/56649f335503460f94c506a3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
November 27, 2007
PNW Resource Adequacy Technical Committee Meeting 12
Next Steps• Agree on Approach for evaluating regional hydro
capacity both in summer & winter• If hydro capacity is to be evaluated for single
historical summer & winter event, agree on candidate events to be evaluated (still need research on summer events)
• FCRPS to be evaluated by BPA in-house• Options for evaluating non-Federal Hydro Capacity
– Each hydro utility to evaluate– Hire consultant to evaluate, or assist with evaluation through
Technical Committee Subgroup– Possible consultants:
• Columbia Vista Vendor• Other Consultant