keyyg findings from 7 plan’s resource strategy scenario ... · council scheduled to adopt draft...
TRANSCRIPT
Key Findings from 7th Plan’s y gResource Strategy Scenario
AnalysisAnalysis
Resource Strategy Advisory CommitteeSeptember 9, 2015September 9, 2015
Scope of Scenario Analysisp y Over 20 scenarios and sensitivity studies analyzedanalyzed Resource Uncertainty (DR or No DR, Lower Conservation Major Resource Loss)Conservation, Major Resource Loss) Carbon emissions compliance policy options Regional analysis only, no state level findingsg y y g
Sustained low gas and electricity prices External Market Reliance
All least cost plans required to satisfy Regional Resource Adequacy Standards
2
Key Findings Least Cost Resource Strategies Consistently Rely on Conservation
and Demand Response to Meet Nearly All Forecast Growth in Regional Energy and Capacity Needs
Regional Resource Adequacy Requirements for Winter Capacity Could Be Met by Increased Reliance on Demand Response and/or Supplied by External Markets Depending Upon Their Availability, Reliability and CostReliability and Cost
Replacement of Announced Coal Plant Retirements Can Generally be Achieved Through Increased Use of Existing Natural Gas Plants and with Modest New Development of Natural Gas Generation
Northwest Exports Play A Significant Role in Regional Resource Development
Compliance with EPA 111(d) CO2 emissions limits at the regional l l i i bl h h i h d dlevel, is attainable through resource strategies that do not depart significantly from those that are not constrained by those regulations.
3
Key Finding: Average Conservation Development Varies Little Across Scenarios
Except Under Sustained Low Gas Prices and Increased RPSExcept Under Sustained Low Gas Prices and Increased RPS
4 000
4,500
5,000
aMW) 2021 2026 2035
2 500
3,000
3,500
4,000
velopm
ent (a
1 000
1,500
2,000
2,500
esou
rce Dev
‐
500
1,000
Average Re
4
Key Finding:Conservation Development by 2021 in Least Cost Resource Strategies
Varies Over A Small Range Across Most Scenarios Varies Over A Small Range Across Most Scenarios
50%
Existing Policy, No Carbon RiskSocial Cost of Carbon ‐ BaseMaximum Carbon Reduction, Existing Technology
l f b h
Mean = 1315 aMW
40%
opmen
t
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ HighNo Coal Retirement
Mean = 1310 aMW
20%
30%
y of Develo
Means = 1395 to 1430 aMW
10%
20%
Prob
ability
0%1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600
Energy Efficiency Development by 2021 (aMW)
5
Key Finding:Least Cost Resource Strategies Offset Load Growth with EfficiencyLeast Cost Resource Strategies Offset Load Growth with Efficiency
22 000
24,000
rgy
20,000
22,000
ectiv
e En
erW)
16,000
18,000
of Cost‐Eff
ency (aM
W
14,000
16,000
Load
s Net
Efficie
Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk
Carbon Risk
L G P i N C b Ri k
10,000
12,000
PNW L Low Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk
Lower Conservation. No Carbon Risk
2016 2021 2026 2031
6
Key Finding:Net Load After Conservation for The 6th Plan and 7th Plan Draft Resource
Strategies Are Forecast to Be SimilarStrategies Are Forecast to Be Similar25,000
W)
20,000
Load
(aMW
15,000
er System L
6th Plan ‐Medium ForecastExisting Policy, No Carbon RiskC b Ri k
5 000
10,000
PNW Pow
e Carbon RiskMaximum Carbon Reduction, Existing TechnologyLow Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk
0
5,000 Lower Conservation. No Carbon Risk
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
7
Key Finding:Least Cost Resource Strategies Consistently Rely on Conservation and Demand
Response to Meet Nearly All Forecast Growth in Regional Energy and Capacity Needsp y g gy p y
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ Base
Unplanned Loss of Major Resource
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ High
No Demand Response, No Carbon Risk
Planned Loss of Major Resource
Faster Conservation Deployment
Social Cost of Carbon Base
Existing Policy No Carbon Risk
Maximum CO2 Reduction
Slower Conservation Deployment
Carbon Risk
RPS at 35%
Increased Market Reliance
Low Gas Prices with Carbon Risk
Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk
‐ 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Lower Conservation. No Carbon Risk
Low Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk
Average Development by 2035 (aMW)Average Development by 2035 (aMW)New Gas Development Renewable Development Conservation Development
8
Key Finding:Energy Efficiency Is The Largest Source of Future Winter Capacity
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ Base
Unplanned Loss of Major Resource
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ High
Carbon Risk
No Demand Response, No Carbon Risk
Planned Loss of Major Resource
Faster Conservation Deployment
Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk
Maximum CO2 Reduction
Slower Conservation Deployment
Carbon Risk
Low Gas Prices No Carbon Risk
RPS at 35%
Increased Market Reliance
Low Gas Prices with Carbon Risk
‐ 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Lower Conservation. No Carbon Risk
Low Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk
Winter Peak Capacity by 2035 (MW)Winter Peak Capacity by 2035 (MW)Thermal Renewable Demand Response Conservation
9
Key Finding:The Regional Potential for Demand Response Appears SignificantThe Regional Potential for Demand Response Appears Significant
1 600
1,800
W)
2021 Winter 2026 Winter
1,200
1,400
1,600
apacity
(MW 2021 Winter 2026 Winter
2035 Winter 2021 Summer
2026 Summer 2035 Summer
800
1,000
rly Peak Ca
400
600
gion
al Hou
r
0
200
$25 $54 $77 $189
Reg
Levelized Cost by Resource Block (2012$/KW‐year)
10
Key Finding:The Probability and Amount of Demand Response Deployment Varies Over a Wide Range, and is Particularly Sensitivity to Extra-Regional Market Reliance AssumptionsRange, and is Particularly Sensitivity to Extra Regional Market Reliance Assumptions
70%
80%
nt
Reliance on external market
50%
60%
70%
of Dep
loym
e Reliance on external market reduces probability of No DR Deployment by 2021 to 75%
20%
30%
40%
Prob
ability o
0%
10%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10001100120013001400150016001700180019002000210022002300
P
Deplo ment Le el (Winter Peak MW)Deployment Level (Winter Peak MW)Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk Social Cost of Carbon ‐ BaseSocial Cost of Carbon ‐ High Carbon RiskMaximum CO2 Reduction Unplanned Loss of Major ResourcePlanned Loss of Major Resource Faster Conservation DeploymentPlanned Loss of Major Resource Faster Conservation Deployment Slower Conservation Deployment Increased Market Reliance
11
Key Finding:New Renewable Resource Development Does Not Significantly Increase In
Carbon Emissions Reduction Policy Scenarios Except For A Policy That Sets Renewable Portfolio Standard at 35%
3,000
3,500
butio
n
2,000
2,500
ergy Con
trib
(aMW)
500
1,000
1,500
Annu
al Ene(
‐2021 2026 2035
A
RPS at 35% Social Cost of Carbon ‐ HighLow Gas Prices with Carbon Risk Existing Policy No Carbon RiskLow Gas Prices with Carbon Risk Existing Policy, No Carbon RiskMaximum CO2 Reduction No Demand Response with Carbon RiskSlower Conservation Deployment No Demand Response, No Carbon RiskSocial Cost of Carbon ‐ Base Faster Conservation Deployment Carbon Risk Unplanned Loss of Major ResourcePlanned Loss of Major Resource Low Gas Prices No Carbon RiskPlanned Loss of Major Resource Low Gas Prices, No Carbon RiskIncreased Market Reliance
12
Key Finding: There is a Low Probability of Any Thermal Development by 2021
Except Under Scenarios That Increase RPS or Do Not Develop Demand Response
C b Ri kSlower Conservation Deployment
Increased Market Reliance
Maximum CO2 ReductionExisting Policy, No Carbon Risk
Faster Conservation Deployment Carbon Risk
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ BaseLow Gas Prices with Carbon RiskLow Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk
Maximum CO2 Reduction
RPS at 35%Planned Loss of Major Resource
Unplanned Loss of Major Resource
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
No Demand Response with Carbon RiskNo Demand Response, No Carbon Risk
Probability of Thermal Plant Option Moving To Construction
13
Key Finding:The Probability of Thermal Development by 2026 Is Modest
Except In Scenarios That Assume All Coal Plants Are Retired or Do Not Develop Demand Responsep p p
Existing Policy, No Carbon RiskRPS at 35%
F t C ti D l tCarbon Risk
Slower Conservation Deployment Low Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk
Unplanned Loss of Major ResourceSocial Cost of Carbon ‐ Base
Low Gas Prices with Carbon RiskFaster Conservation Deployment
No Demand Response with Carbon RiskNo Demand Response, No Carbon Risk
Planned Loss of Major ResourceUnplanned Loss of Major Resource
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Maximum CO2 ReductionSocial Cost of Carbon ‐ High
Probability of Thermal Plant Option Moving To Construction
14
Key Finding: Increased Use of Existing Natural Gas Offsets Announced Coal Plan Retirements,
Resulting in Lower CO2 EmissionsResulting in Lower CO2 Emissions
4,000
4,500
2 500
3,000
3,500
atch (a
MW)
1,500
2,000
2,500
ng Gas Dispa
500
1,000
Existin
‐2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk Social Cost of Carbon ‐ BaseSocial Cost of Carbon ‐ High Carbon RiskM i CO2 R d ti U l d L f M j RMaximum CO2 Reduction Unplanned Loss of Major ResourceRPS at 35%
15
Key Finding:Increasing External Market Reliance for Winter Capacity Reduces
D d R d C ti D l tDemand Response and Conservation Development12,000
Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk ‐ 2021
8,000
10,000
y (M
W)
Increased Market Reliance ‐ 2021
6,000
8,000
ak Cap
acity Existing Policy, No
Carbon Risk ‐ 2026Increased Market
4,000
Winter P
ea Reliance ‐ 2026
Existing Policy, No
‐
2,000
W g y,Carbon Risk ‐ 2035Increased Market Reliance ‐ 2035
DR Conservation Thermal Renewable
16
Key Finding: Net Exports (Exports-Imports) Are Strongly Influenced By Regional
Resource DevelopmentResource Development
5,500
6,000
4,500
5,000
s (aM
W)
3,500
4,000
Net Exports
2 000
2,500
3,000
2,000 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk Social Cost of Carbon ‐ BaseSocial Cost of Carbon ‐ High Carbon RiskMaximum CO2 Reduction Unplanned Loss of Major ResourcePlanned Loss of Major Resource Increased Market RelianceLow Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk RPS at 35%
17
Key Finding:The Largest PNW Power System Cumulative CO2 Emissions Reductions Occur Under Resource Strategies That Must Respond Immediately to Occur Under Resource Strategies That Must Respond Immediately to
Carbon Reduction Policies
500S i l C t f C b Hi h
400
450
eductio
n Social Cost of Carbon ‐ High
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ Base
250
300
350
mission
s RMTE)
Maximum Carbon Reduction, Existing Technology
150
200
250
tive CO
2 Em
(MM Existing Technology
Carbon Risk
0
50
100
Cumulat
35% RPS
18
0
Key Finding:The Lowest Cost PNW Power System CO2 Emission Reduction Resource
Strategies Are Those That Re Dispatch Coal and E isting Gas GenerationStrategies Are Those That Re-Dispatch Coal and Existing Gas Generation
$40
st
$30
$35
duction Co
s)
Carbon Risk
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ Base
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ High
$20
$25
ission
s Red
lion 2012$ Social Cost of Carbon High
Maximum CO2 Reduction
RPS at 35%
$10
$15
$
of CO2 Em (bil
$5
$10
NPV
19
$‐
Key Finding:Annual Average CO2 Emissions for Least Cost Resource Strategies
Are Below EPA’s Clean Power Plan [111(b) & 111(d)] Emission Are Below EPA s Clean Power Plan [111(b) & 111(d)] Emission Limits At the Regional Level
40
E)
25
30
35
ons (MMTE
10
15
20
CO2 Em
issio
‐
5
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Average C
Annu
al Existing Policy, No Carbon Risk Social Cost of Carbon ‐ Base Social Cost of Carbon ‐ High
Carbon Risk Maximum CO2 Reduction Unplanned Loss of Major Resource
Planned Loss of Major Resource Faster Conservation Deployment Slower Conservation Deployment
L G P i N C b Ri k L G P i ith C b Ri k RPS t 35%Low Gas Prices, No Carbon Risk Low Gas Prices with Carbon Risk RPS at 35%
EPA Emissions Limits
20
Key Finding:There is A Very High Probability of Meeting EPA 111(d) Emissions Limits at y g y g ( )
the Regional Level Across All Scenarios and Future Conditions Tested
Increased Market Reliance
Slower Conservation Deployment No Demand Response, No Carbon Risk
Low Gas Prices, No Carbon RiskExisting Policy, No Carbon Risk
Low Gas Prices with Carbon RiskNo Demand Response with Carbon Risk
Carbon RiskFaster Conservation Deployment
Social Cost of Carbon BaseUnplanned Loss of Major Resource
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ HighPlanned Loss of Major ResourceLow Gas Prices with Carbon Risk
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Maximum CO2 ReductionRPS at 35%
Social Cost of Carbon ‐ Base
Probability Across All Futures of Meeting EPA CO2 2030 Emission Limi
21
Next Steps & Schedulep Council Scheduled to Adopt Draft Plan at O b 13th 14th M i i VOctober 13th – 14th Meeting in Vancouver Public Comment Through December 18, 2015 Hearings in Each State ‐ November/December Consultations As Requested
Council Scheduled to Adopt Final Plan at February 12th – 13th Meeting in Portlandy g
22