Slide 1

Long-term Renewables Planning Methodology, Inputs and Assumptions

for the 2010 Long-Term Procurement Plan Proceeding

California Public Utilities Commission

December 10-11 2009

Scope and Purpose

· Workshop scope: RPS planning in the LTPP system proceeding

· Workshop purpose:

Scope and Purpose

· Proceeding scope: LTPP system proceeding is not the forum for deciding RPS procurement obligations. Rather, results from RPS analyses could serve three purposes:

Agenda

· Direction of LTPP, long-term renewables planning

· 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results

· California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed approach

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed inputs and assumptions

· Summary, schedule, next steps

Background

· Previous Commission Decisions

· February 14, 2008 Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) for the current 2008 LTPP proceeding (R.08-02-007)

· August 28, 2008 Assigned Commissioner's Ruling (ACR) and Scoping Memo

· June 2009 33% RPS Implementation Analysis: Preliminary Report

Background (cont'd)

· July 1, 2009 Amended ACR and Scoping Memo released the Energy Division Straw Proposal on LTPP Planning Standards (Staff Proposal)

· Working Principle - Resource plans should consider the scale of investment in transmission and flexible fossil resources to integrate and deliver new renewables

· A single, statewide "Renewables and Transmission Study" is needed as a foundational element

December 3, 2009 ACR (cont'd)

· Suspends previously determined schedule

· Signals a split of LTPP into two separate proceedings

· ACR does not address (1) who will be responsible for system studies, and (2) whether issues in Phase 1 of the 2008 LTPP will be resolved by Decision.

December 3, 2009 ACR (cont'd)

· Acknowledged staff's 33% RPS Implementation Analysis

· Noted parties' general support, in response to the Staff Proposal, for:

· Signaled use of an updated RPS study as a direct input into the 2010 LTPP system proceeding

Agenda

ü Direction of LTPP, long-term renewables planning

· 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results

· California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed approach

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed inputs and assumptions

· Summary, schedule, next steps

33% RPS Implementation Analysis - Portfolio Selection Methodology

December 10, 2009

Arne Olson, E3

Carl Linvill, Aspen Environmental Group

Susan Lee, Aspen Environmental Group

Contents

· Resource gap calculation and sources of renewable resource cost and availability data

· Renewable resource cost assumptions

· Methodology for selecting portfolios of renewable resources

· Methodology for calculating cost impacts

· Strengths and weaknesses of approach

Portfolio Development Process

Input: 2020 load forecast

Input: 2007 existing

resources

Resource gap to meet

RPS by 2020

Input: renewable

resource potential

and cost

Select RE resources

to fill each CREZ

Input: energy and
capacity value

Select CREZs to meet
RPS Target

If needed, add CCGTs
& CTs to meet load

RPS Resource Gap and Availability of Resources to Fill it

Resource Gap Calculation

· Start with 2020 load forecast

· Calculate 2020 RPS target, equal to 33% of eligible retail sales

· Estimate quantity of renewable resources online in base year

· RPS Resource "Gap" is the difference between the 2020 target and the 2007 renewables claims

Slide 15

Note: Gap based on 2007 CEC load forecast minus 2007 claims from CEC Net System Power Report. No adjustments for EE or CHP that is incremental to forecast.

*

*

*

Four Sources of New Resources to Fill Resource Gap

n ED Project Database

n RETI database

n E3 GHG Calculator

n Original Renewable DG resource potential estimates

*

· Database of contracted and short-listed projects, assigned to zone by E3/Aspen

· Two options for ranking ED RPS projects:

· Projects not selected for portfolio unless Zone is selected

CPUC ED Project Database

*

*

Incorporating ED RPS Projects into Ranking

· Categorize projects based on status and CPUC ratings of development risk:

· Category A projects assumed sunk in all cases

· Disposition of Categories B & C depends on case

*

*

Renewable Resource Data from RETI

· Based on Black & Veatch estimates of resource cost, availability and performance

· RETI database includes site-specific cost estimates

· Used for California, Mexico and some BC resources

*

Map of RETI Zones in California

Out of State Renewable Resource Data from E3 GHG Calculator

· E3 developed renewable resource cost and performance data as part of our GHG modeling

· Used to seed GHG calculator with renewable
resource options

· For 33% Implementation Analysis, E3 GHG data
is used for US regions outside of California

*

E3 - B&V Estimates of DG Potential

Illustrative Example of Distributed Solar PV

· Distributed generation (DG) is small-scale generation interconnected at sub-transmission system or lower

· Rule 21 sets DG interconnection limit at 15% of peak load on a feeder

· Feeder-by-feeder analysis of rooftop PV potential matched to substation loading

· Results:

20 MW near substations

Large commercial rooftops

Residential rooftops

Additional Zones for Distributed and non-CREZ Resources

· Model logic selects individual resources to fill zones, then selects zones to meet RPS target

· Created "zones" for groupings of resources assumed not to need new transmission:

List of Renewable Energy Zones in 33% RPS Analysis

n Alberta

n Arizona-Southern Nevada

n Baja

n Barstow

n British Columbia

n Carrizo North

n Carrizo South

n Colorado

n Cuyama

n Distributed Biogas

n Distributed Biomass

n Distributed CPUC Database

n Distributed Geothermal

n Distributed Solar

n Distributed Wind

n Fairmont

n Imperial East

· Imperial North

· Imperial South

· Inyokern

· Iron Mountain

· Kramer

· Lassen North

· Lassen South

· Montana

· Mountain Pass

· Needles

· NE Nevada

· New Mexico

· Northwest

· Owens Valley

· Out-of-State Early

· Out-of-State Late

· Palm Springs

· Pisgah

· Remote DG

· Reno Area/Dixie Valley

· Riverside East

· Round Mountain

· San Bernardino - Baker

· San Bernardino - Lucerne

· San Diego North Central

· San Diego South

· Santa Barbara

· Solano

· South Central Nevada

· Tehachapi

· Twentynine Palms

· Utah-Southern Idaho

· Victorville

· Wyoming

*

Renewable Resource Portfolio Selection Methodology

Project Ranking: Modified RETI Ranking Methodology

· Step 1: Rank projects within each zone

· Step 2: Select projects to fill fixed-size transmission line

· Step 3: Rank and select zones to meet RPS target

· Projects from ED RPS Project Database that are assumed sunk automatically float to top of ranking

Project Ranking Formula

+ Levelized cost of energy

+ Interconnection (gen-tie) costs

+ Deemed integration costs

+ Levelized, per-MWh incremental transmission costs

- Energy value

- Capacity value

- T&D avoided costs

- Adjustment for ED RPS Projects

± Environmental score

= Final project rank

*

*

*

Renewable Resource Capital Cost Assumptions

· Capital cost assumptions for "generic" resource based on average of RETI sites

· Retained RETI's site-specific cost information

· Supplemented with other data sources for resources not considered by RETI

· Assume IPP resource financing

· Different financing for solar projects

Financing Assumptions

Slide 29

Sizing and Costing of New Transmission

· Model assumes new transmission required for all projects not in a "Distributed" zone

· Used simple transmission costing model to
estimate cost of new transmission

Transmission Costing Assumptions

*

Energy Value

· Market value of the energy produced by the renewable resource can vary depending on gas price, CO2 price, output profile, location

· Calculate implied heat rate with respect to SP15 gas prices for each resource based on simplified output profile:

· Energy value is equal to gas price times implied heat rate

Capacity Value

· Capacity value is equal to the capacity credit times the cost of capacity purchases avoided due to renewable resource

· Capacity credit varies by resource type (% of nameplate MW):

· Avoided capacity cost is equal to net annual cost of new CT:

Siting Risk Scores and Integration Costs

· Permitting risk incorporated as an adjustment to project ranking:

· Applied scoring to projects in ED Project Database as well as RETI/E3 lists

· Intermittent renewable resource integration: assumed $7.50/MWh for wind and solar PV

*

Environmental Scoring Methodology

Project Level Environmental Scoring Objective

· Previous environmental scoring was based on zonal scores

· Energy Division data base plus Aspen's GIS expertise allowed project level scoring

· Aspen identified project specific factors that are often relevant for environmental analysis

· Aspen produced project specific scores for use by E3 in their portfolio composition process

*

Project Level Environmental Scoring Complements RETI

Projects selected by E3 to populate the portfolios come from two sources:

· Projects Identified in RETI Phase 1B (779 projects)

· Projects included in Energy Division data base (280 projects)

*

Five Project Scoring Components

Scoring Components were supplemented based on GIS analysis that allowed for greater location specific characterization

· RETI Environmental Scoring

· Transmission footprint

· Pre-identified vs. Proxy projects

· Proximity to sensitive lands

· Projects on federal land

*

Use of RETI Environmental Scores

· RETI Phase 1B scores

· RETI Scores are normalized to allow combination with other environmental factors

· RETI Environmental Project Score for Aspen Methodology

*

Remaining Score Components

· Transmission proximate to a CREZ scores better

· Pre-identified projects score better

· Proximity to sensitive lands score worse

· Projects on Federal land score worse

*

Scoring Methodology Summary

*

Scoring Results

· Scores Range from 1 to 5

· An Example:

*

Categorization of Scores

· Evaluation of score results for all projects suggested three break points

· A cost penalty for potential environmental challenges was imposed as described earlier in the Portfolio Selection portion of this presentation

December 10, 2009

*

*

*

Opportunities for Improvement

· Other potential scoring factors, based on Aspen's work on proposed projects in the past year:

*

Methodology for Calculating Cost Impacts

Once-Through Cooling Retirements

· Study assumes retirement of 6617 MW of plants using once-through cooling

· Four plants assumed repowered or retrofit on site (2333 MW)

· Others replaced as needed depending on load-resource balance

Balancing Portfolio with Conventional Generation

· Total resource additions required to match growth from 2008 - 2020

· Energy balance calculated after adding renewables and OTC repowering

· Capacity balance calculated after adding CCGTs

Calculating Cost Impacts

· Cost impact of 33% RPS is equal to:

2020 Revenue Requirement

+ Existing T&D cost

+ New T&D caused by organic growth

+ Fixed costs of existing Gen.

+ Variable costs of existing Gen.

+ Annualized cost of new renewables

+ Annualized cost of new transmission

+ Annualized cost of new conventional resources

+ Cost of unspecified energy (market purchases)

+ Cost of renewable integration

+ Net cost of CO2 allowances

= 2020 Revenue Requirement

*

*

*

33% RPS Cases Studied

n 20% RPS Reference Case: Existing state policy with 20% RPS

n 33% RPS Reference Case: Most likely case based on contracts signed by IOUs with project developers

n High Wind Case: Mix of new resources that includes substantial quantities of wind in California and Baja

n Out-of-State Delivered Case: Mix of new resources that includes wind resources in California and Wyoming and geothermal resources in Nevada

n High DG case: Mix of new resources that minimizes the need for new bulk transmission, including 15,000 MW of distributed solar PV

n Low Load Sensitivity: Assume mix of policy-driven resources that substantially reduces 2020 load

n Solar Cost Sensitivity: Assume substantial reduction in the cost of distributed solar PV

n Gas and CO2 Price Sensitivities: Assume dramatically higher and lower natural gas and CO2 prices

· Incremental cost of 33% Ref. Case in 2020:

· Incremental cost of High DG Case in 2020:

Cost Impacts of 33% Cases

Strengths & Weaknesses of 33% RPS Calculator Approach

Strengths of 33% RPS Calculator Approach

· Analysis conducted using publicly-available model

· Incorporates IOU solicitation/contract data

· Incorporates environmental/ permitting metric

· Identifies desirable CREZs based on a combination of contracts and theoretical economics

· Incorporates out-of-state resources

Weaknesses of 33% RPS Calculator Approach

· Did not have time or budget to conduct detailed mapping of existing projects to ED Database, TEPPC database, CEC claims database, RETI pre-ID projects, etc.

· Assumes new transmission for most projects - no ability to determine which projects could get built without a renewables trunk line

· Model selects from "bundles" of projects - cannot select individual projects outside of bundle

· Did not look at operational impacts of renewables in this quantity - integration costs based on rule of thumb

· Project viability ratings not very scientific

· Contract/project info already out-of-date; POU data lacking

· DG potential estimates very high-level

Contact Information

Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3)
Phone: 415-391-5100

Aspen Environmental Group

Phone: 916-379-0350

*

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about this analysis.

Agenda

ü Direction of LTPP, long-term renewables planning

· 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results

· California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed approach

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed inputs and assumptions

· Summary, schedule, next steps

Objective of Barriers and Timelines Analysis

· Gain understanding of possible timeframe associated with achieving a 33% RPS

· Identify market and regulatory barriers to renewable development

· Identify solutions and their impacts on achievement of a 33% RPS

Standardized Timelines

· Aspen Environmental Group studied historic timelines of generation and transmission projects in California

· Reviewed CAISO, CPUC, CEC, BLM, and other approval timelines

· Identified the types of permitting processes that would apply to developing the reference case portfolios

· Developed "standardized" timelines for major transmission and each type of generation permitting

Locally Permitted Wind Project Sample

Transmission Permitting Sample

33% Reference Case Generation Resources

· 20% RPS Reference Case (9,437 MW):

· 33% RPS Reference Case (14,361 MW):

Prepared by CPUC Energy Division

*

Developing Overall Timelines for the
33% RPS Reference Case

Prepared by CPUC Energy Division

*

Sample Zone Timeline:
San Bernardino-Lucerne Zone

è Transmission-generation lag could adds significant time

Prepared by CPUC Energy Division

*

Key Assumptions for Zone Timelines

· Transmission development timeline is driving force in each zone timeline

· 30-month delay for full interconnection of all generation in a zone is built into timeline for each zone

· Agencies face unprecedented numbers of permits, on expedited basis

· Developers in the same region may time permit applications to coincide with timing of transmission availability, potentially swamping regional offices

Key Point:

· Although transmission timing is assumed to be most critical, resource constraints at generation permitting agencies may add delay.

*

33% RPS Reference Case Timelines

· Timeline 1 (Historical experience without process reform)

· Timeline 2A (Current practice with process reform & no external risks)

· Timeline 2B (Current practice with process reform & external risks)

*

Reforms Assumed in Timeline 2A

· Generation interconnection process reform at California Independent System Operator (ISO)

· Streamlined transmission permitting - environmental review and need determination - at CPUC

· Streamlined generation permitting

· Successful implementation of the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative

· Planning for renewable resources in 2010 Transmission Planning process at California ISO - "Conceptual 33% RPS Master Plan" by Q1 2010

· Transmission corridor designation at California Energy Commission

*

*

Timeline 2B:
w/ Process Reform & External Risks

Result: 33% RPS Reference Case is not achieved using current procurement strategy

Prepared by CPUC Energy Division

*

Strengths, Weaknesses of Timeline Analysis

· Strengths:

· Weaknesses:

Agenda

ü Direction of LTPP, long-term renewables planning

ü 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results

· California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed approach

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed inputs and assumptions

· Summary, schedule, next steps

California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

· Study is a crucial input to LTPP - operational impacts of a 33% RPS inform size and type of fossil need

· ISO is studying the impacts of the scenarios developed for the 33% Implementation Analysis

· CPUC anticipates using results to inform:

CAISO 33% RPS Operational Study

Udi Helman, PhD

Principal, Markets and Infrastructure Division

CPUC Public Workshop:

Long-term Renewable Planning Methodologies, Inputs, and Assumptions for the 2010 Long-Term Procurement Plan Proceeding

December 10, 2009

*

Overview of Presentation

· Objectives of Operational Study - Phase 1 and 2

· Overview of Inputs and Study Limitations

· Status and Schedule

Slide *

Overview of 33% RPS Operational Study

· Simulates the California power system in 2020 under alternative CPUC 33% RPS renewable generation scenarios

· Two Phases

Slide *

Phase 1- Step 1: Assesses Intra-Hour Operational Requirements

· Estimates added intra-hour variability under each studied renewable portfolio

· Calculate the following:

· Isolates the contribution to system variability of load, wind resources and solar resources.

· Methodology originally used in ISO 2007 study, now updated

· Required intensive development of 1-min load, wind and solar profiles

Slide *

Example of changes in five minute economic dispatch/load following capacity for 33% reference case
[results are preliminary and not to be relied upon]

Maximum upward increase from 2500 MW to 5100 MW in HE 8.

Maximum downward decrease from 2100 MW to 5200 MW in HE 18.

Slide *

Regulation Requirements for 33% Reference Case [results are preliminary and not to be relied upon]

Slide *

Phase 1 - Step 2: Production Simulation

· Dynamic optimization model that simulates the power system using least-cost commitment and dispatch of resources to meet load in an hourly time-step

· For each renewable portfolio it will determine:

Slide *

Core Inputs to Model

· Supply

· Ancillary Services requirements -- Regulation (from Step 1) and Operating Reserves

· Transmission Network

· Demand (Load) - CEC September Updated High Load Case

· Environmental emissions factors (GHG)

Slide *

Transmission Modeling Assumptions

· California state-wide system modeled

· Rest of WECC

Slide *

Generation Operating Characteristics

· Generic generation data (Pmin, Pmax; Min. up- and down time; Ramp rates; Ancillary Service Ranges); checked by CAISO against confidential Master File data for consistency

· California hourly hydro generation and AS contribution is based on data obtained from IOUs

· Renewable resources assumed to be fixed output profiles (not dispatchable)

Slide *

Constraint Violations Evaluated in Production Simulation

§ Regulation-Up

§ Regulation-Down

§ Spin

§ Non-Spin

§ Unserved Energy

§ Over-generation

* Either insufficient ramping capability or insufficient available capacity results in one of the above violations. Exact penalty costs in optimization to be determined.

Slide *

This study is not examining a range of operational, reliability and transmission requirements and costs

· Transmission Build-out

· Operational/Transmission Planning

Slide *

Second Phase - 33 % Operational Study

· Focuses on quantifying impacts of alternative solutions to mitigating variability and possible study refinements

· Will provide further insight into:

Slide *

Study is conducted through a collaborative working group.

· Core Study Team (Phase 1) - responsible for doing the work

· Working Group - represents a cross-section of industry and provides input on methodology, assumptions and outputs through weekly calls

· Other Public forums - ISO will hold at least two "stakeholder" meetings to discuss preliminary and final results

Slide *

Schedule and Status

· Phase 1

· Phase 2 modeling begins in Spring 2010

Slide *

Agenda

ü Direction of LTPP, long-term renewables planning

ü 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results

ü California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed approach

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed inputs and assumptions

· Summary, schedule, next steps

Proposed approach - portfolio development

· Reminder of working principle: Resource plans should consider the scale of investment in transmission and flexible fossil resources to integrate and deliver new renewables

· A single, statewide "Renewables and Transmission Study" is needed as a foundational element

Conceptual Overview of RPS in the 2010 LTPP System Analysis

Focus of today's workshop

"SYSTEM PLAN"

System Portfolios

RPS Portfolios

RPS Portfolios

EE

CHP

CSI/DG

Clean Fossil

Metrics

· Cost/risk

· Time

· Env./GHG

Constraints

· Reliability/

PRM

· AB32 caps

ENERGY (GWh)

CAPACITY (MW)*

Staff-generated,

with party input

IOU-generated,

with party input

"Need" =

Proceeding

Outcome

IOU- or Staff-generated,

with party input

*While the focus of system planning is to ensure sufficient capacity, the system plan would need to assess energy as well to demonstrate consistency with RPS and GHG laws.

Tentative Stakeholder Process & Schedule
(for RPS analysis only)

Timeframe for New OIR

on 2010 LTPP System Proceeding

1st Workshop

Dec 10-11, 2009

2nd Workshop

Final RPS

Methods Report

Draft Staff Report

on Proposed RPS

Inputs, Assumptions & Methods

("Draft RPS Methods Report")

Formal Comments

on Draft RPS

Methods Report

Formal

Comments

ACR/Scoping Memo

for 2010 LTPP System

"Locks Down"

Required

RPS

Portfolios

Draft Staff Results

for Required* RPS Portfolios

Party Filing of

Alternative Proposals for

Required RPS Portfolios

* Required RPS portfolios are those that must be included in the 2010 LTPP system analysis, whether staff or IOUs are ultimately responsible for the complete system analysis.

Proposed Definitions

· Scenario - A possible future set of conditions about policy requirements, market realities or resource development choices. A set of conditions that define the supply-side resource stack.

· Sensitivity - A change in an input (e.g., load, PV cost) due to an alternative set of assumptions (e.g., about demand-side resource achievements - EE, CSI/DG, CHP, etc.), within the same scenario.

· Case - Any single combination of scenario and sensitivity (e.g. 33% Reference Scenario/High Load Sensitivity)

· Portfolio - A specific set of resources to meet the requirements of a case.

Proposed Definitions - Example

Sensitivity

Load

Scenario

33% Reference

33% High DG

33% OOS

Portfolio:

(2020)

Biogas - 280 MW

Biomass - 390 MW

Geothermal - 1440 MW

Hydro, Sm. - 25 MW

Solar PV - 3235 MW

Solar Thermal - 6764 MW

Wind - 7573 MW

Proposed Guiding Principles for RPS Planning

Inputs, Assumptions and Methodology

· Assumptions should reflect the behavior of market participants, to the extent possible

· Methodology should be consistent with previous regulatory decisions, to the extent applicable

· Any proposal should explain the policy basis for the proposal

· Any proposal must include supporting documentation

Proposed Guiding Principles for RPS Planning

RPS Scenarios

· RPS scenarios should be reasonably feasible and reflect plausible procurement strategies with associated (conceptual) transmission.

· RPS scenarios should represent substantially unique procurement strategies resulting in material changes to corresponding (fossil) procurement needs and/or required (conceptual) transmission.

· RPS scenarios should be limited to 3-5

Proposed Approach to Portfolio Development

Trajectory Scenario

High DG Scenario

Balanced Scenario

33%

High Out-of-State Scenario

Environ-mentally
Preferred Scenario

RPS generation contracted and under negotiation

Discounted Core

Re-DEC

Renewable Distributed Energy Collaborative

Re-DEC is a statewide stakeholder effort to better understand the challenges and identify solutions to integrate increasing levels of renewable energy into the grid.

· System-side renewable distributed generation (DG) that is dispersed throughout the grid is playing an increasing role in meeting CA's renewable energy goals

· New and proposed system-side renewable DG programs include:

· Stakeholders have identified a number of challenges that impact both project developers and grid operators as increasing volumes of renewable DG attempt to interconnect to the distribution grid

Purpose of Re-DEC

· Re-DEC will inform an implementation analysis of a High DG scenario

· Kick-off meeting held on December 9th

Agenda

ü Direction of LTPP, long-term renewables planning

ü 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results

ü California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

ü Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed approach

· Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed inputs and assumptions

· Summary, schedule, next steps

New Inputs: Time and Risk

· 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results considered relative cost of scenarios, but only Reference Case was assessed for risk and development timing

· Balanced consideration of cost, risk and time is crucial to effective long-term planning

· Black & Veatch is developing a tool to evaluate the risk and timing associated with individual projects, as an input into portfolio development and as a means for assessing overall portfolios

Timeline and Risk Analysis Tool

CPUC LTPP/RPS Workshop

December 11, 2009

Previous work

Renewable energy portfolios developed for several cases:

· 20% base case

· 33% cases - CPUC approved contracts AND 39 TWh from:

Timelines were developed for the 20% and 33% base case only, including barriers and reforms

Timelines Developed for the Base Case

l Base timeline - business as usual, no reforms/risks

l Reforms only

l Reforms + External Risks

Black & Veatch's Current Scope of Work

· Previous work concludes that under base case assumptions, it is unlikely that California will meet RPS goals

· We are currently examining the three alternative cases:

· For each case, we are considering:

Timeline Tool Purpose

· Analyze the Timing and Risk in reaching California's 33% RPS Goal

Timeline Tool - Data

· Defined Portfolios = Approved Contracts + Proxy Projects

· Generic scheduling factors based on

Timeline Tool - Features

· Dynamically generated

· Aggregated portfolios for alternative cases presented with summary timelines and yearly generation charts

· Timelines for individual projects available for review

· Project development (permitting/interconnection) and construction are broken out

Example Only

Timeline Tool - Modifiers

· Research is being performed on potential barriers, constraints, reforms and their scheduling impacts

· Timelines able to be dynamically modified by the user based on:

Project Viability

· Planned projects are scored for risk based on:

Implementing Project Viability Into Timelines

· Project viability scores for planned projects will be imported into the timeline tool

· Multiple potential applications

Example Visualization

· Yearly generation charts can be broken out by viability class - high, medium, and low viability

Example Only

A Major Outcome of the Timelines Tool

Barriers - Examples

Reforms - Examples

Questions?

Slide 112

Comments on the 33% RPS Implementation Analysis:
Preliminary Results

and

Staff Recommendations for 2010 LTPP

Comment Topics

· A number of other topics were raised

· All ideas were considered

· Some comments not addressed here since:

Conceptual Overview of RPS in the 2010 LTPP System Analysis

Focus of today's workshop

"SYSTEM PLAN"

System Portfolios

RPS Portfolios

RPS Portfolios

EE

CHP

CSI/DG

Clean Fossil

Metrics

· Cost/risk

· Time

· Env./GHG

Constraints

· Reliability/

PRM

· AB32 caps

ENERGY (GWh)

CAPACITY (MW)*

Staff-generated,

with party input

IOU-generated,

with party input

"Need" =

Proceeding

Outcome

IOU- or Staff-generated,

with party input

*While the focus of system planning is to ensure sufficient capacity, the system plan would need to assess energy as well to demonstrate consistency with RPS and GHG laws.

Comments outside the RPS context

· Feedback on Fossil

· Feedback on Demand Response (DR)

· Staff proposal

Load Forecast

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

CARB Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm

Renewable Baseline

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-010/CEC-200-2009-010-CMF.PDF

What is online from ED DB

Once-Through Cooling (OTC)

· Feedback

· Staff Proposal

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-013/CEC-200-2009-013-SD.PDF

Cost of Generation

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SD.PDF

Ongoing B&V work with a RETI WG. Expected by the end of the year. (Use CEC for fossil only).

Overlap Between RETI and ED Database

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Storage

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Overgeneration

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

High Distributed Generation (DG) Case

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Amount of Photovoltaic (PV) Capacity

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Amount of Solar Thermal

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Scenarios

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Net Qualifying Capacity (NQC)

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/102755.htm

Project Viability

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Out-of-State Resources

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Unbundled Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Timelines

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Additional Updates

· Update projects expected to come online based on the following sources:

DRECP is a work in progress

RETI updates in RE supply is expected by the end of the year

Transmission Costs

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Have consistently indicated that tx values are rough

Existing Transmission Capacity

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Need for New Transmission

· Feedback

· Staff proposal

Agenda

ü Direction of LTPP, long-term renewables planning

ü 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results

ü California ISO 33% RPS Operational Study

ü Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed approach

ü Considering a 33% RPS in 2010 LTPP - proposed inputs and assumptions

· Summary, schedule, next steps

Top Of Page