Study Results

California In-State Net-ShortCalifornia Out-State Net-Short

California Out-State Net-Short w SWIP N

This slide deck contains results from the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the results of moving renewable resources inside and outside of California and there transmission impacts.

2

• Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing out-of-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional in-state resources?

• Change to starting input assumptions:o Loads – Noneo Transmission System – Noneo Generation – 6,201 GWh of out-of-state CA RPS

resources replaced by in-state renewables

2022 PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity

3

• Net short calculation:o RPS requirement (33% of eligible retail sales) = 88,268 GWh

less Existing renewables as of 12/31/2010 = 42,826 GWh

Net short = 45,442 GWh

o In-state net-short resources = 33,889 GWh, or 74% of total net-short resources

2022 Common Case In-state vs. Out-of-state CA Net-short Resources

In-State Net-Short

74%

Out-of-State Net-Short

26%

Strategy for Removing Out-of-State Resources

• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack– Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources– Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources

• Resulting out-of-state resources replaced: 1,787 MW for 6,201 GWh

• New in-state/out-of-state split by energy: 87%/13%

Summary GWh Mexico BC UT WY NM % TotalWind (827) - - (1,290) (2,533) 75%Biomass RPS - (145) (129) (12) - 5%Geothermal - - (1,048) - (156) 19%Small Hydro RPS - - (60) - - 1%% Total 13% 2% 20% 21% 43%

Net Zero

5

• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stacko Selected only in-state resources

• Portfolio mix of additional in-state resources: 1,078 MW for 6,201 GWh

Strategy for Adding In-state RPS Resources

Summary GWh NonCREZ Tehachapi San Diego South Imperial % TotalWind 104 205 829 - 18%Biomass 953 276 - - 20%Biogas 74 - - - 1%Geothermal - - - 3,762 61%

Net Zero

Resulting Load/Generation Balance

• Out-of-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional in-state RPS resources

• No deficits resulted

Load Gen

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

(4,000,000) (2,000,000) 0 2,000,000 4,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC2 CA In-state Net-short Sensitivity

GWh

2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation

2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Generation by State

Alberta

Arizona

British

Columbia

Californ

ia

Colorado

Idaho

Mexic

o

Montana

Nevada

New Mexic

o

Oregon

South D

akota

Texas

Utah

Wash

ington

Wyo

ming-4,000,000

-2,000,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC2 CA In-state Net-short Sensi-tivity

Hydro+PS Steam - Boiler Combined Cycle Combustion TurbineCogeneration Renewable Other

GWh

Removed(wind)

Small change in Region-to-Region Transfers

AZNMNV To Ca_S

Basin To AZNMNV

Basin To Ca_N

Basin To Ca_S

Ca_N To Ca_S

Canada To NWUS

NWUS To Basin

NWUS To Ca_N

NWUS To Ca_S

RMPA To AZNMNV

RMPA To Basin

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Region to Region Transfers - aMW

2022 2022 PC2

10

Small Changes to CA Imports/Exports

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

131

562

994

312

5715

7118

8521

9925

1328

2731

4134

5537

6940

8343

9747

1150

2553

3956

5359

6762

8165

9569

0972

2375

3778

5181

6584

79

MW

AZNMNV To Ca_S Duration Plot

PC1 PC2

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

131

562

994

312

5715

7118

8521

9925

1328

2731

4134

5537

6940

8343

9747

1150

2553

3956

5359

6762

8165

9569

0972

2375

3778

5181

6584

79

MW

NWUS To Ca_N Duration Plot

PC1 PC2

11

Small Changes in Transmission Utilization

P45 SDG&E-CFE

P29 Intermountain-Gonder

P26 Northern-Southern California

P03 Northwest-British Columbia

P47 – Southern New Mexico

Most Heavily Utilized PathsIncreases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red

P08 Montana to Northwest

P60 Inyo-Control

P27 IPP DC Line

P11 West of Crossover

P10 West of Colstrip

P01 Alberta-British Columbia

Most Heavily Utilized Paths U75 U90 U99

P45 SDG&E-CFE 50.81% 41.71% 35.89%P26 Northern-Southern California 48.89% 33.80% 25.11%P08 Montana to Northwest 57.51% 29.17% 13.71%P47 Southern New Mexico (NM1) 48.87% 24.45% 10.37%P03 Northwest-British Columbia 44.46% 23.42% 16.22%P29 Intermountain-Gonder 230 kV 46.77% 20.06% 9.09%P60 Inyo-Control 115 kV Tie 35.13% 17.31% 6.19%P61 Lugo-Victorville 500 kV Line *NEW* 15.64% 9.62% 6.83%P11 West of Crossover 63.65% 9.39% 0.00%P01 Alberta-British Columbia 10.68% 8.28% 6.96%P27 Intermountain Power Project DC Line 16.61% 7.92% 5.91%P10 West of Colstrip 53.20% 0.00% 0.00%P61 Lugo-Victorville *NEW*

2011 Study Program Results

PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity

Questions?

13

• Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing in-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional out-of-state resources?

• Change to starting input assumptions:o Loads – Noneo Transmission System – Noneo Generation – 11,168 GWh of in-state CA RPS resources

replaced by out-of-state renewables

2022 PC3 Out-of-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity

In-State Net-Short

74%

Out-of-State Net-Short

26%

Strategy for Identifying In-state RPS Resources to Replace

• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack– Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources– Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources– Resulting in-state resources that could have been

replaced: 4,720 MW for 15,709 GWh

• 11,168 GWh (3,265 MW) of resources shifted for an in-state/out-of-state split (by energy) of 50%/50% Summary GWh California % Total

Wind (5,733) 51%Biomass RPS (14) 0%Geothermal (3,821) 34%Solar CSP0 (1,132) 10%Solar PV (467) 4%

More than in-state sensitivity

(still net zero though)

15

• Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stacko Select only out-of-state resources

• Portfolio mix of additional out-of-state resources: 4,710 MW for 11,168 GWh

Strategy for Identifying Additional Out-of-state RPS Resources to Add

Summary GWh Colorado Northwest Wyoming Nevada Utah % TotalWind 621 6,934 2,457 - - 90%Biomass RPS - 810 - - - 7%Geothermal - - - 250 - 2%Small Hydro RPS - 18 11 5 63 1%% Total 6% 69% 22% 2% 1%

Net Zero

Resulting Load/Generation Balance

• In-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional out-of-state RPS resources

• No deficits resulted

Load Gen

Conventional HydroPumped Storage

Steam - CoalSteam - Other

NuclearCombined Cycle

Combustion TurbineCogeneration

ICNegative Bus Load

Biomass RPSGeothermal

Small Hydro RPSSolarWind

(4,000,000) (2,000,000) 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC3b CA OOS Net-short Sensitivity w SWIP N

GWh

2022 CA OOS Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation

?

Observed Large Generation Shift

Alberta

Arizona

British

Columbia

Californ

ia

Colorado

Idaho

Mexic

o

Montana

Nevada

New Mexic

o

Oregon

South D

akota

Texas

Utah

Wash

ington

Wyo

ming-15,000,000

-10,000,000

-5,000,000

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

Annual Energy Difference: 2022 PC1 Common Case vs. 2022 PC3b CA OOS Net-short Sensitiv-ity w SWIP N

Hydro+PS Steam - Boiler Combined Cycle Combustion TurbineCogeneration Renewable Other

GWh

Significant Changes in Region to Region Transfers

AZNMNV To Ca_S

Basin To AZNMNV

Basin To Ca_N

Basin To Ca_S

Ca_N To Ca_S

Canada To

NWUS

NWUS To Basin

NWUS To Ca_N

NWUS To Ca_S

RMPA To AZNMNV

RMPA To Basin

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Region to Region Transfers - aMW

2022 2022 PC3bw/ SWIP N.

20

Observed Key Changes in Transmission Utilization

P45 SDG&E-CFE

P29 Intermountain-Gonder

P26 Northern-Southern California

P03 Northwest-British Columbia

P47 – Southern New Mexico

Most Heavily Utilized PathsIncreases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red

P08 Montana to Northwest

P60 Inyo-Control

P27 IPP DC Line

P11 West of Crossover

P10 West of Colstrip

P01 Alberta-British Columbia

P66 COI *NEW*

Most Heavily Utilized Paths U75 U90 U99

P26 Northern-Southern California 56.92% 40.01% 30.64%P45 SDG&E-CFE 45.92% 37.58% 32.76%P08 Montana to Northwest 54.58% 26.78% 12.60%P03 Northwest-British Columbia 46.67% 24.37% 16.76%P66 COI *NEW* 36.18% 24.01% 10.70%P47 Southern New Mexico (NM1) 47.02% 23.07% 9.27%P27 Intermountain Power Project DC Line 23.30% 12.52% 9.52%P11 West of Crossover 63.46% 12.12% 0.00%P01 Alberta-British Columbia 10.19% 7.97% 6.75%P10 West of Colstrip 51.70% 0.00% 0.00%

SWIP N

21

SWIP North Utilization

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

133

867

510

1213

4916

8620

2323

6026

9730

3433

7137

0840

4543

8247

1950

5653

9357

3060

6764

0467

4170

7874

1577

5280

8984

26

MW

SWIP North

837 aMW42% Average Utilization (2,000 MW limit)

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

135

270

310

5414

0517

5621

0724

5828

0931

6035

1138

6242

1345

6449

1552

6656

1759

6863

1966

7070

2173

7277

2380

7484

25

MW

P14 Idaho-Northwest Duration Plot

PC1 PC3a

More transfers from NW into Idaho

COI

SWIP N

Questions or thoughts on this study?