NESCOE News

National Labs

DOE set aside about a 1/4 of the funds for certain work (not modeling) such as "cutting edge intellectual challenges".

Four categories: Reliability (i.e., ability of the system to respond to a loss of a large generator within 20 seconds); Demand Side (demand forecasting more difficult now); water and energy (mostly out west, part of TX; point is to bring water resource planning into sync with energy resource planning); other things (things they did not think about up front)

Gateway is to funding and work is via Topic A or B for needs they identify. 

There are proposals in under the first three. 

 

 

Roll Up Work Group Update 10/13/10 SSC Mtg

Roll Up Is What It Is

Annual load growth assumptions between regions not uniform

EE and DR are handled differently. Some adjust load; some consider a resource

Many Planning Authorities did not model DR

Some PAs include facilities approved and some included some that are "potentially needed" 

On generation assumptions, some PAs included generation needed to meet RPS. 

Role Up should be considered reference information and a possible starting point. 

Roll Up may be used as a starting point for the final 3 build outs. 

Scenario Planning may for instance want to model a future using only approved lines, or approved or planned lines or some of the conceptual lines.

 

 

Scenario Planning WG Update 10/13/10 SSC Mtg

Scenario Planning WG Report - 6 Futures Identified So Far 

1. Business as Usual (BAU)
2. Federal carbon constraint – national implementation
3. Federal carbon constraint – state and regional implementation
4. Aggressive EE/DR/DG/Smart Grid
5. National RPS with top-down implementation
6. National RPS with regional implementation*

Question: What does regional implementation mean?  Answer: States and/or regions; no federal gov't mandates 

Also, reference to Canadian low carbon resources generally was intended to mean hydro and wind, but word renewable not used because of the variations of what is considered renewables (i.e., large v. small, new v. existing, etc) 

* Note regional implementation here is a stand-alone future, not a sensitivity. In EISPC last meeting, regional implementation was considered a sensitivity. 

 

Everything above this post is from October SSC meeting; Everything below is from EISPC meeting

EE/DR/Smart Grid

Reduce 20% by 2030; discuss annual reduction 1% per year 

low cost for ee/dr

lower costs for smart grid

low cost for storage

load growth by mrn

high load growth

high gas prices 

Possible Sensitivities 

increased costs for dr, ee, smart grid

Nuclear Resurgence

force build of all applicants

increased canadian exports 

load based on mrn

assume EPA regulations 

high availability of modular 

few others 

Sensitivities 

low coal, low gas prices 

high uranium prices 

EPA carbon regulations

force in only those with load guarantee that are currently in application process 

higher load growth 

canadian hydro restricted and heavy wind penetration (would force selection of storage technologies) 

more nuclear in the south/moratoriums remain in place 

Business As Usual Sensitivities

(removed discount rate and inflation) 

EPA non carbon regs 

no build  -  would allow modeling of ee/dr; david meyer says this may be for mrn model - go back to CRA .  discussion regarding whether to include DG, on site solar etc that would not include a permit. 

higher phev

high and low load growth 

high and low gas prices

increased generation costs 

interregional fee/dispatch barriers removed 

Carbon Reduction Future

Possible Sensitivities 

reduced carbon targets 

(removed higher/lower renewable mandate)

lower cost of carbon sequestration (lots of discussion of this)

high and low load growth 

no new access to canadian resources 

limited new nuclear 

lower phev

RPS Future (formerly known as Wind Future)

20% national RPS w/ unconstrained transmission

consider targets that exceed the goal; eliminate in-state preference (least cost functional generation

discussion re: getting the costs of local v. distant

renewable resources definition - waxman definition?  suggest new supply side resources. modified waxman - ee taken out. Discussion re: "new" applying to all except hydro.  may use 25% since including existing hydro

tax credits (see sensitivities below)

existing state ee/dr requirements continue

EPA regs 

PEV (this can be a sensitivity)

more aggressive EE to compensate for high renewables (this can be a sensitivity)

Potential Sensivities (9 are contemplated by budget; possible subject to check may be able to ID 3 on one more on another so all need not be defined by 9 at this point. a few more may be helpful to have on the table)  

More agressive EE 

existing solar carve out

state in state preferences 

local renewable resources (not just wind) used before distant (i.e., this may be 3 cases - big T build and small T build)  North Carolina interested in distant v. off short wind (not just any renewables)

JT from MISO suggests using EWITS and doing more work to show wind. NY expressed caution given problems identified with reference case. 

declining solar costs should be a sensitivity

Break out wind into a different future? 

NY recommends issue is whether cost is high, low, medium whether by technological advances, tax credits, etc so sensitivity should be cost high/low

no new EPA regs 

high low forecast, high low gas (may have removed low gas costs to reduce the number of sensitivities;  may need to reconsider) 

(do not include inflation or discount rate) 

interregional fee/dispatch barriers removed 

Suggestion for No Build case to show costs associated with doing nothing at all. Suggestion to put it as a sensitivity under the BAU case, not the RPS case.  Model is said to show constant energy efficiency. 

Changes to Roll Up Work Group Plan

Denis Bergeron's proposal to strike "conclusion and results of" lessons learned from Draft Work Group Plan Work Scope approved by EISPC.