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
Recommend
More recommend
