2008 integrated resource plan - seattle.gov€¦ · 2008 irp stakeholders. january 31, 2008 page 5....

2008 Integrated Resource Plan:Resource Adequacy and Portfolios

IRP StakeholdersJanuary 31, 2008

Seattle City Light IRPSeattle City Light IRP 2008 IRP Stakeholders2008 IRP StakeholdersJanuary 31, 2008January 31, 2008

Agenda

• Tidal and Wave Energy 4:00 – 4:30 PMAssessment

• Resource Adequacy 4:30 – 5:15 PM• Break 5:15 – 5:30 PM• Round 1 Portfolios 5:30 – 6:00 PM• Scenarios 6:00 – 6:30 PM

Resource Adequacy


What is “Resource Adequacy?”

“The ability of the electric system to supply theaggregate electrical demand and energyrequirements of the end-use customers at alltimes, taking into account scheduled andreasonably expected unscheduled outages ofsystem elements.” (emphasis added)

- North American Electric Reliability Council


Cold Snap in 2007Thursday, Jan 11 - Monday, Jan 15

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22

Hour in the Day

Hou

rly P

eak

(MW

)

About 14 degrees below normal Near normal temperature (1/18/07 - 1/22/07)

1771 MW Peak Hour

27 degrees 25 degrees 25 degrees 28 degrees 29 degrees

39 degrees 40 degrees 41 degrees 40 degrees 45 degrees

2007 Cold Snap Thursday, Jan. 11 – Monday, Jan. 15


Average Daily Temperature, 1990-2007

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%

2.1%

7.4%

16.6%

18.4%

14.7%13.7%

14.6%

8.5%

2.5%

0.6%0.1% 0.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Average Daily Temperature

Perc

ent F

requ

ency

Lowest normal average daily temperature

is 40 degrees Fahrenheit

Seattle Average Daily Temperatures Frequency in Percent


Resource Adequacy Criteria Energy and Sustained Peaking

ProbabilisticReserve Requirements

(2006 SCL IRP)

95%

1 day in 10years

No Generation-Caused Outages

5%

Energy Standard95% Confidence of No Unserved Energy

ProbabilisticReserve Requirements

(2006 SCL IRP)

95%

1 day in 10years


5%

Energy Standard95% Confidence of No Unserved Energy

Reserve Requirements

Draft Peaking Standard

6% forOperating Reserves6% forOperating

Adverse Temperature Reserves

8% forAdverse

14%

Example DeterministicReserve Requirements

Draft Sustained Peaking

For the Pacific Northwest

6% forOperating Reserves6% forOperating

Adverse Temperature Reserves

8% forAdverse

14%

6% forOperating Reserves

forOperating

Adverse Temperature Reserves and PlanningAdjustment Reserve

17% forAdverse

23% (Winter)

Northwest Power & Conservation Council


Varying Perspectives on Measures for PNW Reserve Margins

Organization 2008

NWPP (50 hrs. in 5 days)(PNW severe weather event, margin above operating reserve)

+9.2%

BPA January Energy (1-mo.)(50:50 peak, critical water, heavy load hours only)

-14%

PNUCC Average Energy (4-mo.)(PNW Dec.-Mar., 50:50 peak, critical water)

-11%

GED Average Energy (12-mo.)(Annual average energy, average water)

+44%

WECC (WECC NWPP winter, average water)

+31%


Assumption PNUCC NWPP NPCC BPA

Adverse temp. reserve (MW) na 7,000* 3,740* (estimated)

na

Monthly Planning 4-Mo. Average

Yes * Yes* Yes

Critical Water Year 1936-37 1936-37 1936-37 1936-37

Hydro Flex (MW) na 2,000 2,000 2,000

Available IPP Cap. (MW) 0 Yes 1,000 32

Peak Diversity na 0 Yes 1,600

Interruptible Load na 250 0 0

PNW Winter Imports 2,000 3,000 3,000 235*Uses 50:50 peak for planning, but recommends maintaining additional reserves for high sustained peak events.

Notes: Assumptions are often not fully documented, so that there may be material differences from this table. Sustained peak = the MW capacity needed above the forecast peak. All assume no hydro emergency is declared.

Assumptions Vary in PNW Resource Assessments


2006 IRP Preferred Portfolio* for January Energy Needs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts

WindBiomassGeothermalHydro ContractLandfill GasCall OptionSeasonal ExchangeSeasonal ExchangeConservation

*Reduced for 100 aMW of Market Purchases


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

MW

93%95%97%

93% 141 167 180 189 190 224 254 273 293 304 336 358 385 408 441 458 495 519 541 565

95% 166 186 204 214 210 250 270 289 307 321 353 386 407 425 454 483 522 543 559 574

97% 195 205 215 235 239 275 289 308 322 352 387 408 430 445 484 504 543 558 582 601

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Estimate of January Energy Needs* Similar to 2006 IRP

aMW

*Not Reduced for 100 aMW of Market Purchases

January 1937 Critical WaterExpected Peak Loads

January 1937 Critical WaterExpected Peak Loads

DRAFT

Round 1 Resource Portfolios


Determining SCL Resource Needs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


Round 1 Resource Portfolios

Resource Adequacy Needs

Compliance With I-937-937

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


Round 1 Resource Portfolios95%

1 day in 10years


5%

95%

1 day in 10years


5%

0

50

100

150

200

250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts

Stateline Wind Project Add'l RPS Req.

3%9%

15%

0

50

100

150

200

250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


0

50

100

150

200

250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


0

50

100

150

200

250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


3%9%

15%

0

50

100

150

200

250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


0

50

100

150

200

250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


0

50

100

150

200

250

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts


3%9%

15%

3%9%


• Design round 1 portfolios to be differentiated by intensive use of individual resources (e.g. wind, biomass, etc.) within limits

• Minimize the amount of resources required to meet resource adequacy requirement and if applicable, the RPS

• Use lower cost resources in the early years to maximize the net present value of the portfolios

• Avoid large resource commitments in the early years by using exchanges, options, conservation, and green exchanges

Design Objectives for Resource Portfolios


Design Objectives for Resource Portfolios (continued)

• Use scalable resources when possible as opposed to separate projects (e.g. wind, geothermal, combustion turbines)

• Ensure that there is sufficient new generation in summer months to meet proposed summer for winter exchanges

• Avoid resources in the early years that would require new transmission to be constructed on an unreasonably short timeline


Resource aMW NotesLandfill Gas 35 Limited opportunities remain

Biomass 75 Transmission to distant resources

Geothermal 125 Hydro-thermal and potential EGS

Wind 150 Integration and hydro correlation issues

CHP 25 Limited industrial hosts in area

CCT 200 I-937 is the key limitation

SCT 100 I-937 is the key limitation

Exchange 150 Limited by firm transmission capacity

Capacity Purchase 100 Short-term substitute for generation

Assumed Limitations on Resource Availability


Draft Round 1 Portfolios

1. Hi-LFG Landfill Gas2. Hi-Geo Geothermal3. Hi-Bio Biomass4. Hi-Wind Wind5. Hi-SCT Simple Cycle Turbine6. Hi-CCT Combined Cycle Turbine7. Hi-Exch Exchanges

Scenarios for the 2008 IRP


Scenarios for 2008 IRP

• Electric Vehicles– EPRI electric vehicle market penetration assumptions

• 60% of all new vehicles by 2040

• Climate Change– NPCC Fifth Power Plan hydro impacts

• Uses elements of a UW climate change analysis from 2005

• Carbon Dioxide: Cap and Trade– Lieberman-Warner Bill

• Duke University study adjusted for legislative revisions


Scenarios for 2008 IRP (continued)

• High Gas Prices– Global Energy Decisions high gas price forecast

• 75% percentile, averaging about $6.50/MMBTU in 2007 dollars

• High Demand Growth– Accelerated growth of Seattle Metro area


Studies of Resource Potential for the 2008 IRP

• Tidal and Wave Energy Assessment

• Distributed Generation Assessment

• Demand Response Assessment

2008 integrated resource plan - seattle.gov€¦ · 2008 irp stakeholders. january 31, 2008 page 5....

Documents