1

Data Work Group

WECC - TEPPCTechnical Advisory Subcommittee Meeting

San Francisco, CANovember 28, 2007

Jamie AustinPacifiCorp

Progress Report: 2007 Database Status Database Review Process DWG Committee Activities

2

Not changed: Wind hourly shapes Hydro data (exception:

supplemented the missing 10% of NW hydro data with data generated using load following)

Hourly shapes for California Pumps

Paths Definitions Incremental

Transmission Incremental Resources

2007 Database Status (changes applied to the 2005 SSG-WI database)

Changed: Powerflow Case Loads Thermal Data

Unit commitment data that includes: heat rate curve, ramp up rate, minimum up – minimum down time, start up costs

Added Emission Data (CO2)

Fuel Prices Inflation Rates

3

Review Process Release Date: October 1 – 22, 2007 Hosted a Webinar on October 4 –

discussed high level changes applied to the 2017 Data Test Case (changes from the SSG-WI 2015 Reference Case)

discussed tools available for performing that review Hosted a Webinar on October 8 – The goal of this meeting was to

develop a criteria for processing review comments. Ranked comments as follow:

1. Ready to implement

2. Requires additional clarification

3. Postpone & follow up to implement in the next cycle (e.g. 2008 update) Pending question: how to treat data problems to be uncovered in the

course of running simulations?

2007 Database

4

Loads Focus Group (LFG) – Lead: Paul Schmidt

California Hydro – Irina Green Thermal Focus Group (TFG) – Lead: Tom

Miller Emission Focus Group (EFG) – Lead:

Darrell Holmes

DWG Committee Activities

5

Loads - 2007 data refresh – deviates from the

WECC L&R Committee Report Aligns with Average Northwest Hydro (2002

shapes) Remaining Issue

“low” loads in some sub-regions in California

6

Hydro Resources - 2007 data – Using SSG-WI 2005 fixed

numbers and shapes (Average hydro) California Hydro Data –

1. modeled detailed pumps, formally imbedded in loads

2. Modeled detailed plants, formally aggregated by river system

Issues Calibrated all energy to Average NW

hydro, using 2002 shapes – 2002 was a dry year in California

NOTE: this can be remedied using dynamic hydro modeling

7

Emission - There are two problems with emission data in the

initial database: 1. Inconsistent data issue is resolved by using the same

emission rate data (lbs/mmBtu) for all similar fuel types E.g. natural gas generators all use the same emission rate data

2. Blank data issue is resolved by filling in the appropriate data by fuel

Status of work: finalizing data Source of data is EPA emission rate data by fuel

type. Darrell Holms is confirming data with co-team member at SCE.

8

Thermal -

Make recommendation for thermal plant data that provides best estimate of key plant parameters that influence economic dispatch with universal application regardless of model

used

To do so time was spent on understanding strengths and weaknesses of proposed updates and prior dataset.

9

TFG - Accomplishments COAL Fuel Prices: - proposed to use Global Energy Decisions

(GED) - Integrated Fuel Prices, offered to WECC at no cost. This data is provided with supporting documentation on methodology.

Natural Gas Fuel Prices: developed medium (EIA), high (+50%) and low (-25%); for the stress case use 100% above the medium case.”

Emissions Data: recommendation was to integrate Emission data CO2, SOX, NOX into the database. Hosted Emissions Webinars Priority: encourage SWG to model emissions—modeling CO2

will change the outcome of the dispatch and is area of high interest

Emissions Data: reviewed and filled in gaps of EPA Emissions data gathered by NEA.

10

Thermal Unit Parameters Extensive Comparisons of SSG-WI vs. NEA Plant Modeling

Identified and corrected flawed average heat-rate curves Combined Cycle Unit: recommending data set included both NEA

generic “plant” modeling developed for use in PROMOD and more detailed unit modeling of prior SSG-WI dataset. Experts have expressed need to model multiple heat rate points that would reflect anticipated “mid-range” dispatch.

NEA: developed generic modeling for combined cycles with and without duct firing and aggregation on plant basis tailored for PROMOD.

SSG-WI Modeling of Combined Cycle is on a unit basis that reflects technology vintage.

Average Heat-Rate Curves need fixing for “no-load” component; need analysis of SIMS data to complete correction.

Proposed Heat-rate Dataset for Non-Combined Cycle to be reviewed by regional experts by EOM

11

Going forward to do list Recommend coordination with LRS, modeling work group and studies work

group to understand needs and priorities for production simulation and L&R assessments.

Regional Review Process by plant owners, LSE’s, and control operators to leverage knowledge

Calibration of Data-set: nice to have assessments of “test” production simulation results for proposed PROMOD update check for a “reasonable” dispatch. Further assessments of key unit parameters:

Full Load Average and Incremental Heat Rates by Size/Class Forced Outage Rates Maintenance Hours/schedule Variable O&M cost Primary and secondary fuel type (if applicable) Minimum Run Times and Minimum Down Times by Unit Type Startup Costs Ramp rate Min/Max operation points Summer/Winter Dependable Capacity Ancillary Service Capability