Modeling Work GroupDiscussion Points MWG Meeting January 23, 2012 Web Meeting
Proposed Agenda • Welcome & MWG Business Tom Miller • Task Force Updates • Hydro Modeling • Demand Side Modeling • Flexibility Reserve Test Results • California AB32 • TAS Meeting Recommendations • Next Meeting
Hydro Modeling Task Force • Hydro Contribution to Spinning Reserves • Assume Fixed Hydro does not contribute to spinning reserves. • PLF/HTC plants contribute unused capacity but spinning reserves are limited to 25% of nameplate. • Hydro Sensitivites • Normal Hydro (2005)- completed except CA’s Gianelli PS • 2010 Hydro- WECC Staff collecting data • Dry Hydro (2001): last CA data being process (Irina Green) • Wet Hydro (2011) - To start data gathering now that 2011 is over • Validation - Christie developed an automated report using matlab for quality control on HTC dispatch.
DSM Task Force • Modeling Approach • Interruptible programs: modeled as a High Cost CT unit • Non-interruptible programs: will be modeled as load modifying resources(based on WECC BA LMPs) • To Do: Implementing DRP into TEPPC 2022 dataset • LBNL’s Andy Satchwell has set-up model using preliminanry LMPs
Reserve Modeling Results • Composite Hourly Reserve Modeled for each TEPPC Sub-region 4% of Daily Peak Load + Hourly Flexibility Regulation = Composite Hourly Reserve • Flexibility reserve adjustment reflects the potential change in wind and solar output • Data provided by E3 / NREL • Results are compared without and with the reserve modeling change
Hourly Reserve Requirement by Sub-region Highest reserve requirement is in areas with most wind and/or solar generation. Dip at end of January is due to missing solar data. Flex reserves were not calculated for Alberta, British Columbia, or CFE.
Example for August 25 - 26 Unloaded capacity of committed thermal resources contribute to the reserve requirement. All unloaded HTC/PLF hydro & pump storage contributes to reserves, committed or not.
Proposals to Limit Reserve Contributions • Hydro • Promod uses available unloaded HTC/PLF hydro to meet reserve requirements. • Several factors can limit the reserve contribution • Proposal to limit contribution to 25% of plant capacity • Coal • Same use by Promod, subject to 1 hour ramp limit • In many cases wouldn’t meet the 10 minute rule for spinning reserve • Proposal to limit contribution to 15% of unloaded capacity
Test with Hydro contribution limited • Set PLF units to not contribute • Set HTC units to only contribute up to 25% of their total capacity • Preliminary results still under review • May be some problems with implementation or program behavior • Comparisons follow….
Reserve Contribution Comparison Remember that for most hours the reserve contribution exceeds the requirement
Test with Coal contribution limited • Set Coal units to only contribute up to 15% of their unloaded capacity • Difference between maximum capacity and dispatched capacity. • Preliminary results still under review • Comparisons follow….
Assessment of Reserve Changes • Overall, results more consistent with actual operation • Hydro reserve contribution issue
California AB32 Update • CO2 Cost for CA in-state Resources • CA CPUC MPR Calculation • CO2 Cost for “unspecified” CA Imports • EF(unsp) = 0.435 MT-CO2/MWh: Cost cost = 41.86 $/MT-CO2 • CA import hurdle rate: (0.435)*(41.86) = $18.21/MWh • Potential 20% Reduction for NW Imports • CO2 Cost for “designated” CA Imports • $41.86/MT CO2 reduced to account for CO-2 Hurdle Rate (unit specific)
TAS Meeting Recommendations • Flexibility Reserves • CHP Modeling • Cycling Costs and Dispatch
Wrap-up and Next meeting • Wrap-up • Next meeting • ??