renewables california update mid-c 2010

8/3/2019 Renewables California Update Mid-C 2010

1/13

California Update

14th Annual Mid-C Seminar

Wenatchee, Washington

July 19, 2010


2/13

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions in this presentation are the authors. They do not

reflect the opinions, conclusions or policy positions of the Western Power TradingForum or its members, Resero Consulting or its clients, WECC or the VGS, or the

CAISO.


3/13

Dynamic Transfers

Topics

TRECSIndependentTransmission

SupplyVariability


4/13

Copyright 2010 Resero Corporation4

TRECS (Tradable Renewable Energy Credits) Scorecard

CPUC decision issued on March 11, 2010

Through 2011, 25% of RPS target could be met with TRECS

After 2011, no cap on TRECS

IOU quotas were essentially filled at the time

Decision was stayed immediately

TRECS cant be used to meet RPS at all

CARB issued separate rules that do allow use of TRECS to meet 33% RPS

Separate initiative underway to broker a compromise (also SB 722)

60% in-state, 15% dynamic transfer, 25% TRECS

TRECS


5/13


Practical Implications of TRECS

Out-of-state renewable development has limitations

Availability of dynamic transfer capability (500 MW at COI)

Ability of BAs to absorb VG (BPAs DSO 216)

Availability and cost of transmission

Availability and cost of balancing, firming, shaping

In-state development has limitations

Costs of siting, permitting and construction

Public resistance to new infrastructure

Availability, quality and suitability of in-state resources

CPUC decision and SB 722 likely to face challenges under Commerce Clause

Lends urgency to Joint Initiative, Efficient Dispatch Toolkit, similar efforts

TRECS


6/13


aka, Who Can Build What?

~ December, 2009

CAISO proposes to confer right of first refusal to incumbent TOs for renewable

energy projects in their service territories

Independent developers complain

CPUCcomplains

~ April, 2009

CAISO backs off ROFR

Devil is in the details

Trans-Bay Cable - $400 million HVDC connecting SF with Pittsburg

Western Grid Development Proposals

Independent Transmission


7/13


Supply Variability

Indicative ResultsSource: CAISO Renewable Issues Forum 2010: Market and Product Review


8/13


Supply Variability



9/13


Supply Variability



10/13


Supply Variability



11/13


Supply Variability

Renewable (VG) Integration Issues

Managing variability and uncertainty

Whos responsible: producer, buyer, someone else?

Where is it done: gen bus, source BA, sink BA?

What tools are available: dynamic transfer, on-site supplemental resources, firming

and shaping services, changes in scheduling, etc.?

Are new grid services needed?

Ramp product for speed of response

Load following product for long-duration response

Should VG pay for its impacts on the grid?

Should VG be incentivized to bid day-ahead? Should it be required to provide

flexibility?

Is compensation for suppliers of flexibility adequate?


12/13


Supply Variability

What the Future MightLook Like*

Slow phase-out of the Day-Ahead/Hour-Ahead Markets

Continuous delivery of power is incompatible with infrequent, periodic spot markets

at defined points in time

VG and Smart Grid require frequent opportunities to update market positions

Facilitated by transition to more flexible supply and price-responsive demand

Addition of five minute energy markets, 15 minute scheduling intervals at the interties

Mitigates the impact of block hour schedules

Allows VG to do its own balancing

Automation and technology make it possible

CPS1 and CPS2 will be replaced by RBC or something else

Free-flowing interties necessary to maximize VG production Interconnection frequency and local voltages are the real reliability metrics

* See the disclaimer


13/13

13

Thanks!

Any Questions?

Contact:

Jack Ellis

Resero Consulting

[email protected]

renewables california update mid-c 2010

Documents