WGG Coal Retirement Case Transmission Repurposed for Renewables.

WGG Coal Retirement Case

Transmission Repurposed for Renewables

2

2022 PC6 – WGG Coal Retirement Case (transmission repurposed)

Purpose: to attempt to maximize the delivery of renewable energy and minimize the construction of new transmission while also trying to achieve a targeted reduction in carbon emissions.

3

2022 PC6 – WGG Coal Retirement Case (transmission repurposed)Central Questions

1) How much transmission capacity can be made available by retiring 5400 MW coal resources?

2) What is the amount of new renewable resource capacity that could feasibly utilize this freed up transmission capacity?

3) What is the resulting utilization of the transmission facilities when re-purposed to transport renewables?

4) What is the resulting reduction in WECC-wide carbon emissions produced by this re-purposing?

4

2022 PC6 – WGG Coal Retirement Case (transmission repurposed)Assumptions

Loads – decreased to reflect the assumption that “all cost-effective EE potential” is achieved throughout the West (PC4 assumption)

Transmission System – Path rating reductions

Generation – DG resources increased based on ‘interconnection potential’ of distributed

PV and ‘technical potential’ of distributed CHP as estimated by E3 (link to E3 report)

RPS resources adjusted for lower loads due to EE and behind-the-meter DG, and for increased PV DG

DSM increased based on LBNL analysis of demand response potential estimated using an updated FERC DR Potential Estimates model

Retired 25% of WECC coal fleet (5400 MW) Added renewables to repurpose transmission (~4400 MW)

http://www.westgov.org/sptsc/workgroups/dsmwg/highDSM/12-19-12WECCDGmr.pdf

Study ExecutionBuild and run study in steps…

1) Perform EE load adjustments;

2) Add DG resources, adjust RPS

3) Add DR and “tune”

4) Retire coal plants

5) Check for reliability impact due to retirement

6) Run case

7) Quantify new renewable generation that could be accessed/delivered using transmission capacity previously utilized by retired coal

8) Add renewables from (7)

9) Run final study

Complete

PC4

Complete

PC6


Loads Generation Transmission

PC4 Assumptions:Low load

PC4 Assumptions:DG + DR

Path rating reductions

Retire Coal(5400 MW)

Add Renewables(4400 MW)

Summary of Aggressive EE Load Adjustments

AE

SO

A

PS

A

VA

B

CH

B

PA

C

FE

CH

PD

D

OP

D

EP

E

FAR

EA

ST

GC

PD

IID

LD

WP

M

AG

IC V

LY

NE

VP

N

WM

T P

AC

E_I

D

PA

CE

_UT

PA

CE

_WY

P

AC

W

PG

&E

_BA

Y

PG

&E

_VLY

P

GN

P

NM

P

SC

P

SE

S

CE

S

CL

SD

GE

S

MU

D

SP

P

SR

P

TEP

TI

DC

TP

WR

TR

EA

S V

LY

WA

CM

W

ALC

W

AU

W

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Peak and Energy Load AdjustmentsPC4 High EE/DG/DR vs. PC1 Common Case

PC1 Energy (aMW) PC4 Energy (aMW) PC1 Peak (MW) PC4 Peak (MW)

En

erg

y -

aMW

Pea

k -

MW

10

2022 Incremental Distributed CHP in PC1 and PC4 – Big Picture

AB AZ BC CA CO ID MT NM NV OR TX UT WA WY WECC -

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Incremental Distributed CHP in 2022 PC4 (MW)Added DG Scaled Up for Avoided T&D Losses

Incremental CHP in the Common Case Incremental CHP to be Added in the High DG Case

WECC total ~ 9,900 MW

DR Capacity chart

NI_DR_A

ESO

NI_DR_A

PS

NI_DR_A

VA

NI_DR_B

CH

NI_DR_B

PA

NI_DR_C

HPD

NI_DR_D

OPD

NI_DR_E

PE

NI_DR_F

AR EAST

NI_DR_G

CPD

NI_DR_I

ID

NI_DR_L

DWP

NI_DR_M

AGIC V

LY

NI_DR_N

EVP

NI_DR_N

WM

T

NI_DR_P

AC_ID

NI_DR_P

AC_UT

NI_DR_P

AC_WY

NI_DR_P

ACW

NI_DR_P

GE_BAY

NI_DR_P

GE_VLY

NI_DR_P

GN

NI_DR_P

NM

NI_DR_P

SC

NI_DR_P

SE

NI_DR_S

CE

NI_DR_S

CL

NI_DR_S

DGE

NI_DR_S

MUD

NI_DR_S

PP

NI_DR_S

RP

NI_DR_T

EP

NI_DR_T

IDC

NI_DR_T

PWR

NI_DR_T

REAS VLY

NI_DR_W

ACM

NI_DR_W

ALC

NI_DR_W

AUW

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Economic DR Capacity (MW) ComparisonPC4 Capacity (MW) PC1 Capacity (MW)

Coal Retirements SelectedArizona Colorado Montana Nevada

New Mexico

Utah Wyoming

Apache 2 Mrtn Drake 5 Colstrip 1 Valmy 1 Four Crnrs 4 Carbon 1 Dave Johnston 1

Apache 3 Mrtn Drake 6 Colstrip 2 San Juan 4 Carbon 2 Dave Johnston 2

Cholla 1 Mrtn Drake 7 Corette 1 Kennecott 1 Dave Johnston 3

Cholla 3 Nucla 1 Kennecott 2 Naughton 1

Irvington 4 Nucla 2 Kennecott 3 Naughton 2

Nucla 3 Sunnyside 1 Osage 1

Nucla 4 Osage 2

W.N. Clark 1 Osage 3

W.N. Clark 2 Wygen 3

Wyodak 1

Total MW (retired capacity, total of 5366 MW)838 416 824 265 1277 450 1297

Coal Retirements Selected

25% of WECC coal fleet– 3250 MW retired prior to 2022 in the Common Case– 5370 MW retired based on WGG’s economic analysis

Arizona Colorado Montana Nevada New Mexico Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Retirements Selected for 2022 PC6

Retired in Common Case Incremental Retirements

16

• Incomplete information provided by the Technical Studies Subcommittee (TSS)oRetirement – Colstrip 1 and 2

Path 8 Montana-Northwest derated to 1600 MW

oRetirement – Nucla 1-4 TOT 2 derated to 690 MW minus output of Nucla 1-4

(total max cap of 115 MW)

• Path rating catalog reviewed to identify additional path rating impacts; no conclusive information found

Path Rating Impacts of Selected Retirements

18

• Add incremental renewable resources to WREZ zones closest to the retired coal plants, attempting to take advantage of any freed-up transmission capacity

• Used capacity values from various resources to recalculate PRM and decide how many new CTs to add

Adding Incremental Renewables

Added Renewables

StateGeothermal Solar CSP Solar PV Wind Total

MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh

Arizona 115 343 414 1064 529 1407Colorado 331 874 331 874Montana 906 2850 906 2850Nevada 265 2068 265 2068New Mexico 735 2073 385 859 684 2334 1804 5266Utah 450 991 450 991Wyoming 1427 5551 1427 5551Total 265 2068 955 2416 835 1850 3762 12673 5712 19007

Arizona Colorado Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Geothermal MW

Solar CSP MW

Solar PV MW

Wind MW

20

Coal Retirements vs. New Renewables & CTs - Wyoming/Montana Area

Coal Plant Retirement

WREZ Hub centroid, approximate location of incremental renewables

WECC Path Cut Plane

Incremental wind resource

Incremental CTs

906 MW

1,012 MW

415 MW

450 MW

380 MW

370 MW

21

• Wyoming:oCoal retired – 1,297 MWo Incremental wind added – 1,427 MWo Incremental CTs added – 1,200 MW

• Montana:oCoal retired – 824 MWo Incremental wind added – 906 MWo Incremental CTs added – 0 MW

Wyoming/Montana Area Summary

22

Coal Retirements vs. New Renewables & CTs – Colorado/New Mexico Area



WECC Path Cut Plane


Incremental CTs

330 MW

684 MW

Incremental solar resource

770 MW

200 MW

23

• Colorado:oCoal retired – 416 MWo Incremental wind added – 330 MWo Incremental CTs added – 0 MW

• New Mexico:oCoal retired – 1,277 MWo Incremental wind added – 684 MWo Incremental solar added – 770 MWo Incremental CTs added – 200 MW

Colorado/New Mexico Area Summary

24

Coal Retirements vs. New Renewables & CTs – Nevada/Utah/Arizona Area



WECC Path Cut Plane


Incremental CTs

Incremental solar resource

300 MW

Incremental geothermal resource

265 MW

450 MW

414 MW

115 MW350 MW

25

• Nevada:o Coal retired – 265 MWo Incremental geothermal added – 265 MWo Incremental CTs added – 0 MW

• Utah:o Coal retired – 450 MWo Incremental solar added – 450 MWo Incremental CTs added – 300 MW

• Arizona:o Coal retired – 841 MWo Incremental wind added – 414 MWo Incremental solar added – 465 MWo Incremental CTs added – 0 MW

Nevada/Utah/Arizona Area Summary

26

• Coal retirements selected for this study are based solely on an economic analysis performed by the Synapse modeling tool created for WGG. Tool’s input was public information available at the time of the tool’s creation.

• No capital cost analysis was completed as part of this case primarily due to the unavailability of information needed to assess costs associated with plant retirements.

Study Caveats to be Noted

27

• A full assessment of the reliability impacts of the modeled coal retirements cannot be completed as part of this study (at this time).

• Many possible combinations of renewable resources could be analyzed as part of this study, but only a single selection of incremental renewable resources was selected for this case.

Caveats, cont.

28

• The net

transmission impact,

production cost impact,

generation dispatch impact, and

carbon impact

of retiring approximately 5400 MW of coal and replacing it with ~5400 MW of renewable resources (plus CTs needed for load/gen balance)

What Will This Case Tell Us?

29

• The maximum capacity of renewable resources that could replace the retired coal without impacting the transmission system

• The reliability impact of retiring 5400 MW of coal around the Western Interconnection

• The cost of retiring 5400 MW of coal and replacing it with an equivalent capacity of renewables

What Will This Case Not Tell Us?


Generation Impact

Conventional Hydro

Pumped Storage

Steam - Coal

Steam - Other

Nuclear

Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration

IC

Negative Bus Load

Biomass RPS

Geothermal

Small Hydro RPS

Solar

Wind

(100,000,000) (50,000,000) 0 50,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC6 Carbon Reduction

GWh

Load is 10% less!and

change in multiple resource assumptions

?

?

Alber

ta

Arizon

a

British

Col

umbi

a

Califo

rnia

Color

ado

Idah

o

Mex

ico

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Texas

Utah

Was

hing

ton

Wyo

min

g-40,000,000

-30,000,000

-20,000,000

-10,000,000

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC6 Carbon Reduction

Hydro+PS Steam - Boiler Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration Renewable Other

GWh

Too many variables!

Conventional Hydro

Pumped Storage

Steam - Coal

Steam - Other

Nuclear

Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration

IC

Negative Bus Load

Biomass RPS

Geothermal

Small Hydro RPS

Solar

Wind

(40,000,000) (30,000,000) (20,000,000) (10,000,000) 0 10,000,000 20,000,000

Annual Energy Difference2022 PC4 High EE-DG-DR vs. 2022 PC6 Carbon Reduction

GWh

Same load…isolated variables



Alberta

Arizon

a

British

Colu

mbia

Califo

rnia

Colora

do

Idah

o

Mex

ico

Mon

tana

Nevad

a

New M

exico

Orego

n

South

Dak

ota

Texas

Utah

Was

hingt

on

Wyo

ming

-15,000,000

-10,000,000

-5,000,000

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC4 High EE-DG-DR vs. 2022 PC6 Carbon Reduction

Hydro+PS Steam - Boiler Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine

Cogeneration Renewable Other

GWh



Energy


Production Cost and CO2 Impact

Production Cost Summary

Category

2022 PC1 Common

Case2022 PC6 Carbon

Reduction Difference Diff %

Dump Energy 397,104 1,519,300 1,122,196 282.595%

Emergency Energy 2,676 1,372 (1,305) -48.742%

CO2 Emissions (MMetricTons) 359 282 (78) -21.627%

CO2 Adder ($/metric ton) 0.000 0.000

Variable Production Cost (thermal units excl DSM)

CO2 Adder (Total M$) 0 0 0 0.000%

Other Variable Costs (M$) 14,851 11,963 (2,888) -19.446%

Total Var. Prod. Cost (M$) 14,851 11,963 (2,888) -19.446%

Production Cost Summary

Category2022 PC4 High EE-DG-DR

2022 PC6 Carbon Reduction Difference Diff %

Dump Energy 1,515,266 1,519,300 4,034 0.266%

Emergency Energy 1,372 1,372 0 0.000%

CO2 Emissions (MMetricTons) 310 282 (29) -9.207%

CO2 Adder ($/metric ton) 0.000 0.000

Variable Production Cost (thermal units excl DSM)

CO2 Adder (Total M$) 0 0 0 0.000%

Other Variable Costs (M$) 11,902 11,963 61 0.514%

Total Var. Prod. Cost (M$) 11,902 11,963 61 0.514%

Summary of Production Cost and CO2

Production Cost: Savings of 20% from the Common Case is due to the PC4 assumptions, not the Coal Retirement Assumptions

CO2: About half of the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions from the Common Case is due to the coal retirements and added renewables. The other half can be credited to PC4 assumptions.


Transmission Impact

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

P08 Montana to Northwest Path Duration PlotsM

egaw

atts

E->W

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

P31 TOT 2A Path Duration Plots

PC6_Carbon_Reduction PC4_High_EE_DG_DR PC1_CC

Meg

awat

ts

S->N

De-rated

De-rated

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

P03 Northwest-British Columbia Path Duration Plots


Meg

awat

ts

S->N

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Interstate COI plus PDCI Path Duration PlotsM

egaw

atts

N->S

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

P26 Northern-Southern California Path Duration Plots


Meg

awat

ts

N->S

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

P29 Intermountain-Gonder 230 kV Path Duration PlotsM

egaw

atts

E->W

2022 Common Case Results Most Heavily Utilized Paths

Passed 3

Passed 2

Passed 1

P45

P26

P8

P3

P29

P47

P60P27

P1

P11/10

Summary

Transmission impact → relatively small?

Production cost impact → small

Generation dispatch impact → significant

Carbon impact → significant

WGG Coal Retirement Case Transmission Repurposed for Renewables.

Documents

Transcript of WGG Coal Retirement Case Transmission Repurposed for Renewables.