load projection studies for ercot projection studies for ercot ... 2050 load flow study with ... for...
TRANSCRIPT
Load Projection Studies for ERCOT
Stanton W. HadleyOak Ridge National LaboratoryAugust 20, 2010
2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Outline
• Studies of Demand– EIA Analyses
• Annual Energy Outlook • Various Climate Change Proposals
– Energy Efficiency in the South• Meta-review of Other Studies• NEMS Analysis of EE Potential Across South
– Renewable Energy Futures• High penetration of renewables by 2050
• Eastern Interconnect Process• DOE Lab Studies
3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
NEMS model used for several Studies
• National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) developed by Energy Information Administration (EIA) over past 20 years
• Complex program– FORTRAN– PC-based– 8 hours to run
4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Annual Energy Outlook
• Latest is AEO 2010• Provides national and regional results• Reference case plus 30 variations available
• High & Low Economic Growth• High & Low Technology• High & Low Coal Cost• High & Low Fossil Technology• High & Low Nuclear Cost• High & Low Renewable Cost• High & Low Oil Price• Delayed phase-out of policies• Misc. Other
5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
ERCOT results
• Demand growth varies between 0.6% and 1.3%– Selected cases with demand sensitivity
250
300
350
400
2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034
TWh
AEO ERCOT Demand Results
No CO2 Concern
No Sunset
Extended Policies
Low Int. Tech
Low Economic Growth
High Int. Tech
Hi Economic Growth
Reference
6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Other Recent EIA Studies
• Kerry-Lieberman (American Power Act)– Vary from AEO2010 reference
• gas resources • emission credit availability• Technology cost and availability
– Demand growth changes due to:• Energy prices• Economic growth changed• More efficient equipment purchased
• Waxman Markey (HR2454) – Based on AEO2009– Similar results
ERCOT Demand Growth Rate 2010-2035
Reference 0.94%Hi Gas Resource 1.00%Basic APA 0.67%No Banking 0.70%APA Hi Gas 0.63%Hi Cost 0.62%No Intl Credits 0.51%No Intl-Lim Alt 0.06%
7 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
CO2 Allowance Prices
• Range from $51 to $185 with Basic scenario at $66/ton• In nominal $, prices are $88 to $340 with Basic at $115
0
50
100
150
200
2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034
$/to
n CO
2 eq
uiva
lent
Greenhouse Gas Allowance Price, 2008 $/metric ton
No Intl-Lim Alt
No Intl Credits
Hi Cost
APA Hi Gas
Basic
No banking
Hi Gas
Reference
8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
ERCOT Demand Data
• Lack of International Credits has largest impact– Combined with limited alternatives gives lowest demand
9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Demand Growth by Sector
• NEMS calculates demands for– Residential– Commercial– Industrial– Transportation
2010-2035Growth Rate Ref Basic
No Intl -Lim Alt
Residential 0.77% 0.53% -0.02%
Commercial 1.48% 1.19% 0.56%
Industrial 0.37% 0.09% -0.62%
Transportation 8.78% 9.23% 9.71%
10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Energy Efficiency in the South
• Georgia Tech/Duke University (ORNL assistance)• Funded by Energy Foundation• Fall 2008 – Spring 2010• Evaluate potential savings from energy efficiency
policies• Studied 20 states in South• First report was meta-analysis of other studies• Used NEMS for quantitative analysis through 2030
11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Policies Analyzed
• Nine policies in three main sectors• Results below are for all of the South (20 states)
12 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Texas Energy Use in 2007
• Texas has much higher proportion of energy use in industry
21.4%
19.5%
13.5%
18.1%
16.0%
11.7%
31.8%
37.6%
50.3%
28.6%
26.9%
24.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
United States 101,600 TBtu
South Region 43,650 TBtu
Texas 11,834.5 Tbtu
Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation
13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Texas Energy Savings Potential
• Metadata Study indicates savings of 5% - 11%• Quantitative analysis shows potential savings of 15%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030
Cons
umpt
ion
(TBt
u)
Consumption with Policy Packages Savings Potential from Baseline
Commercial ResidentialIndustrial
14 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Residential Savings
• Savings both in electricity and natural gas
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cons
umpt
ion
(TBt
u)
Baseline Forecast Energy Efficiency Scenario
9.4%
13.9%
0
100
200
300
400
2020 2030
Tota
l Ene
rgy
Savi
ngs
(TBt
u)
Electricity Natural Gas Others
15 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Commercial Potential Savings
• Savings even higher for Commercial• Largely electrical
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cons
umpt
ion
(TBt
u)
Baseline Forecast Energy Efficiency Scenario
13.6%
20.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
2020 2030
Tota
l Ene
rgy
Savi
ngs
(TBt
u)
Electricity Natural Gas Others
16 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Industrial Potential Savings
• Industrial Savings could reverse growth in demand• Savings are in multiple fuels
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
5400
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cons
umpt
ion
(TBt
u)
Baseline Forecast Energy Efficiency Scenario
14.3%
20.3%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2020 2030
Tota
l Ene
rgy
Savi
ngs (
TB
tu)
Electricity Natural Gas Others
17 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Renewable Energy Futures Study
• What is the impact of a massive push for renewables– 80% of electricity from Renewables by 2050 – Multi-year study with ReEDS model– 2050 load flow study with GridView
• Detailed study of different renewable resources– Multi-lab plus contractor effort– Cost, availability, reliability, technology improvements– Sensitivities on multiple criteria
• Two demand scenarios developed for study• Results are still in draft, under review in September
18 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
RE Futures Demand Needs
• ReEDS model needs demand profiles for each of 120+ balancing regions– Load curve is aggregated to 16 time periods representing
different seasons and times of day– 13 NERC regions’ data can be allocated to the 120+ regions– Curves are needed for every other year 2006-2050
• Gridview needs hourly load data for 2050 for each region– Demand profile should correlate to wind profile so both used
2006 as template year
19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Residential and Commercial Demands
• PNNL generates annual loads for buildings based on two projections for improved energy intensity in new and existing stock, Low and High.
• LBNL generates hourly profiles from NEMS methodology considering building and appliance loads.– Create average weekday, weekend, and peak profile for each
month and each NERC region for every five years
• ORNL uses 2006 hourly load data for utilities from FERC to adjust average hourly profiles for every year to mimic 2006 hourly load shapes.
• NREL calculates 16-step profiles for each ReEDS region.
20 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Industrial and Transportation Demand
• ORNL uses demand projections from two NEMS runs– AEO2009 including stimulus funds and impacts for high
demand– Simulation of Waxman-Markey Bill for low demand
• Industrial load factor estimates from EPRI convert electricity demand (TWh) to peak load demand (MW)
• NREL calculates PHEV demand profiles based on assumptions on fleet growth and hourly charging patterns
21 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
ERCOT Demands 2006-2050
• Does not include PHEV demands
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2006
2012
2018
2024
2030
2036
2042
2048
TWh
ERCOT Demand - High Scenario
non-EV Transport
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2006
2012
2018
2024
2030
2036
2042
2048
TWh
ERCOT Demand - Low Scenario
non-EV Transport
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Hi Demand to compare
22 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Texas Load Duration Curve Projection
• Industrial load lower and flatter than others• Data does not include PHEV loads
0102030405060708090
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dem
and,
GW
% Year
ERCOT 2030 Load Duration Curves
Sum of SectorsResidentialCommercialIndustrialTransportation
23 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
ERCOT Hourly Loads
• Applying 2006 template gives hourly variations in loads
24 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Demand Response
• Demand Response treated as supply of system reserves• Selected in model based on cost and availability• Amount and cost based on FERC study
– Percentage of peak demand for each DR and customer type– Vary over time from BAU to Full Participation
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
Perc
enta
ge o
f Pea
k D
eman
d
Potential Demand Response in ERCOT
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
25 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Eastern Interconnect Process
• Eastern Interconnect Planning Collaborative– Planning Authorities, including 8 principal investigators– Contractors- Charles Rivers Assoc. and Keystone Group
• Eastern Interconnect State Planning Council– Representatives from 39 states in Eastern Interconnect– Contractors for added studies
• Stakeholder Steering Committee– Formed by EIPC to gather guidance on scenarios and plans– Made up of EISPC representatives, environmental and
consumer groups, industry representatives– Regional and sectoral representation balance
26 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
EI Flowchart
• Roll-up of existing Transmission Plans
• Macro-economic Analyses– SSC picks 8 Futures with ≤9
sensitivities each
• Transmission Analyses– 3 Transmission plans– Reliability review– G&T Cost Estimate
• Production cost model– Used on the 3 plans and roll-
up
27 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Other EISPC Activities
• Identification of low- and no-carbon “energy zones”• EISPC has funding for additional studies• Possible topics include:
– Renewable energy potential– Nuclear potential– Coal with CCS– Demand Side resources– Distributed generation– Fast-start back-up
generation
– Energy storage– Fuel prices– Market Structures– Power purchase
agreements– Smart grid– Plug-in Hybrids
28 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
DOE National Laboratory Studies
• DOE set aside $20 million from Transmission funding for National Laboratory studies
• DOE identified four areas of interest– Transmission Reliability– Demand Side Issues– Water and Energy– Other Topics
• Lead national laboratories have been identified for each• Initial projects have been assigned• Additional study issues may be identified by DOE and
awardees
29 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT
Questions?