Studies Subcommittee Meeting PC19 and PC20 Study Results Colby - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 Studies Subcommittee Meeting PC19 and PC20 Study Results Colby Johnson, Staff Engineer W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

2 Overview • PC19 – Double Battery Storage in California – Input Assumptions – Results – Observations • PC20 – High Storage Case – Combines PC19 and PC18 (Double CAES Capacity) – Input Assumptions – Results – Observations W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

2026 PC19 Double Battery Study Results W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

4 Modeling Logic Production Cost Model Assumptions Scope Results • Increased Battery • • Scope Generation Mix Storage Capacity • • Key Questions Path Utilization/Flows in California W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

5 Study Description – Input Assumptions • Study Requestor: Pacific Gas & Electric • Changes from 2026 Common Case: – Generation: • Double Battery Storage Capacity in California – PG&E Bay/Valley, SCE, SDG&E • “Generic” Storage in California – Energy Storage (ES) 2HR, 4HR, 6HR Units – 1410 MW Capacity >> Increase to 2820 MW – Transmission: • No changes – Load: • No changes W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

6 Input Assumptions Map: PC19  Double Battery Storage Capacity in California  1410 MW >> 2820 MW  PG&E Bay/Valley, SCE, SDG&E W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

7 Key Questions • How does the system respond to the change in generation? – i.e. resource mix, production cost, CO 2 emissions • How does the system respond to the change in transmission? – i.e. impact to flow, path utilization, W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

8 Results for PC 19 W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

9 Generation Change – Resource Mix Annual Generation by Category (GWh) 2026 WECC v2.0 PC19 - Double Battery Conventional Hydro Energy Storage Steam - Coal Steam - Other Nuclear Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine IC Other DG/DR/EE - Incremental Biomass RPS Geothermal Small Hydro RPS Solar Wind 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

10 Generation Change Annual Energy Difference Annual Energy Difference (GWh): 2026 WECC v2.0 vs PC19 - Double Battery Conventional Hydro Energy Storage Steam - Coal Steam - Other Nuclear Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine IC Other DG/DR/EE - Incremental Biomass RPS Geothermal Small Hydro RPS Solar Wind (200) (100) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

11 Production Cost, C0 2 , and Dump Energy WECC Annual Generation by Category (MWh) Category 2026 WECC v2.0 PC19 - Double Battery Difference Percent Change Conventional Hydro 235,273,594 235,265,368 (8,226) 0.00% Energy Storage 4,194,194 4,692,921 498,727 11.89% Steam - Coal 186,577,471 186,447,138 (130,333) -0.07% Steam - Other 1,739,933 1,740,808 875 0.05% Nuclear 39,726,723 39,726,723 0 0.00% Combined Cycle 268,033,960 267,985,050 (48,910) -0.02% Combustion Turbine 53,650,702 53,831,054 180,352 0.34% IC 2,011,189 1,996,860 (14,329) -0.71% Other 0 0 0 0.00% DG/DR/EE - Incremental 30,536,538 30,536,538 0 0.00% Biomass RPS 22,782,596 22,867,261 84,665 0.37% Geothermal 31,522,503 31,522,441 (62) 0.00% Small Hydro RPS 2,796,030 2,797,337 1,307 0.05% Solar 37,423,166 37,434,911 11,745 0.03% Wind 92,514,949 92,522,375 7,426 0.01% == Total == 1,008,783,548 1,009,366,786 583,238 0.06% Other Results Var. Prod. Cost (M$) 17,132 17,132 0 0.00% CO2 Cost (M$) 1,968 1,971 3 0.15% CO2 Amount (MMetrTn) 320 320 (0) -0.01% Dump Energy (MWh) 320,850 301,679 (19,170) -5.97% Pumping (PL+PS) (MWh) 13,614,121 14,195,585 581,464 4.27% Exports (MWh) 0 0 0 0.00% W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

12 Generation Change Total by Subregion Change (GWh) by Subregion - 2026 WECC v2.0 vs. PC19 - Double Battery -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Alberta Conventional Hydro IGS assigned to CA Energy Storage British Columbia Steam - Coal Steam - Other Nuclear Basin Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine IC California/MX Other Biomass RPS DG/DR/EE - Incremental Desert Southwest Geothermal Small Hydro RPS Northwest Solar Wind Rocky Mountain W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

13 Battery Unit Performance Annual Duration W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

14 Battery Performance Continued Example: August 8-9, 2026 2 ’ 2 3 1 1’ 3’ 2 ’ 2 1 3 3’ 1’ • Coincident peaks and valleys. When LMP is low, the unit will typically charge. When LMP is high, the unit will typically generate. • #1: Aug 8 @ 3AM, #2: Aug 8 @ 1:00 P.M. • #3: Aug 9 @ 5AM, #4 (unlabled): Aug 9 @ 12:00 P.M. (noon) W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

15 Results – Most Heavily Utilized Paths • “Most Heavily Utilized” = A path that meets any one of the following criterion (10-year plan utilization screening): – U75 > 50% – U90 > 20% – U99 > 5% • Uxx = % of year that flow is greater than xx% of the path limit W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

16 2026CC V2.0 LA Path Utilization Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 26PC1_V2_0_LA 2026CC V2.0 Look-Ahead U75 U90 U99 90% 80% 70% Percent of Hours 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

17 PC 19 Path Utilization Most Heavily Utilized Paths - 26PC19 Double Battery 100% U75 U90 U99 80% Percent of Hours 60% 40% 20% 0% Path U75 Change U90 Change U99 Change P77 +9.5% +9.8% +0.5% P83 -3.6% -3.3% 0% P29 +21% +15% +11% P45 -0.13% -0.08% -0.26% W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

18 Path Utilization Magnitude Change Net Annual Flow (GWh) - 26PC1_V2_0_LA vs 26PC19 26PC1_V2_0_LA 26PC19 P77 Crystal-Allen P83 Montana Alberta Tie Line P52 Silver Peak-Control 55 kV P29 Intermountain-Gonder 230 kV xy WY-UT P45 SDG&E-CFE P60 Inyo-Control 115 kV Tie P66 COI xy WA-BC East P36 TOT 3 P26 Northern-Southern California P24 PG&E-Sierra P03 Northwest-British Columbia P76 Alturas Project xy WA-BC West -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

19 Observations • Generation and Energy Changes: – Increased Generation: • ~12% Energy Storage • < 1% Combustion Turbine and Biomass – Decreased Generation: • Unremarkably Decreased • < 1% Coal and Combined Cycle • Transmission Changes: – 3%-10% increased utilization on Paths 77 and 83 • Production Cost and Other Changes: – 6% reduction in dump energy W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

2026 PC20 High Storage Study Results W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

21 Study Description – Input Assumptions • Study Requestor: Pacific Gas & Electric, DATC, Burbank • Changes from 2026 Common Case: – Generation: • Double CAES (Compressed Air Energy Storage) Capacity – 1,200 MW >> 2,400 MW • Add Pathfinder Wind Project – 3,000 MW wind facility in SE Wyoming • Double California Battery Storage Capacity – 1410 MW >> 2820 MW – Transmission: • Add 3,000MW Zephyr HVDC from SE Wyoming to central UT – Load: • No changes W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

22 Input Assumptions Map: PC20  Double Battery Storage Capacity in California  Add 3,000 MW wind facility in SE Wy.  Add 2,400 MW CAES facility in Cent. Ut.  Add 3,000 MW branch between SE Wy. to Cent. Ut. W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L

23 Results for PC20 W E C C E S T E R N L E C T R I C I T Y O O R D I N A T I N G O U N C I L