Upload
james-patrick
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TAS – Review Load and Hydro Shapes for use in TEPPC 2026 Common Case
Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGridTEPPC\Hydro Modeling Task Force -
Chair
2
Overview
• Compare unimpaired Run-Off• Compare Hydro generation• Compare Load Shapes• Wind vs. Water Year• Northwest Export to California• Perspective• Summary
3
Unimpaired Run-Off• The chart show 85 calendar years of unimpaired run-off at The Dalles
– Unimpaired Run-Off: Natural flow without regulation (dams), municipal or agriculture use• Observations:
– Annual peak flow: Jun– 2nd highest flow: May– 3rd highest flow: Jul – 4th highest flow: Apr
Northern CA run-off: Average 23.6 MAFMedian 21.5 MAF
Clearly June is the peak flow month
Black dash line: Coincident Avg Shape (11 Years)+/- 5 years around annual average
Monthly rank order (sorted) then avg/un-sorted
4
Averaging Monthly Shape• Issue: With weather dependent systems the peak can occur on
one of several month. Hydro flow is no different, a simple average or median of the data will distort - compress the fundamental shape.
• The, unimpaired run-off, peak flow on the Columbia River occurs on during May or Jun based on 86 years of water year data
• The average flow for May and June is 87% and 90%
• Averaging results in the loss of 10% of the peaking flow for the peak month
Historic Occurrence of Peak Flow MonthPeak Flow
Month2nd
Highest Flow
Month
3rd Highest
Flow Month
Net Average Flow as % of Annual
PeakMay 44% 52% 3% 100% 87%Jun 56% 43% 1% 100% 90%Typical Flow (% of Annual Peak)
100% 79% 54%
Averaging reduces monthly volatility
5
Compare 2008 and 2009 Flow
Unimpaired Run-Off(No regulation of flow)
• Typical peak flow occurs in Jun and around 30.5 MAF• 2008: Peak flow of 31.6 MAF; Summer flow in-line with historic• 2009: Peak flow of 25.7 MAF; Lower summer flow
2009 is not in the 11 years around long-term
flow
6
NW Forecasted Hydro Generation• Hydro generation from the 2014 Biological Opinion for the Core Projects on
the Columbia River– Coulee – Bonneville (11 Projects) for 79 years of operation (1929-2007)
• Observations:– Annual peak Gen: Jun– 2nd highest Gen: May– 3rd highest Gen: Jul – 4th highest Gen: Apr
Calendar year 2008 and 2009 is not included
2014 Bio Opinion
7
Compare Hydro GenerationIn favor of 2008 In favor of 2009
• John Fazio (NW Council) recommends 2008 as the best year to represent normal Hydro generation in the NW
• For NW, a clear spring peak in June while 2009 has a muted peak
• For NW, 2008 normal Jul-Sep generation while 2009 has a muted -2,250 aMW
• For CA, the 2009 has more generation in the Q3 and Q4• For CA, 2009 has a more pronounced generation in the
spring coinciding with spring run-off
Northwest Hydro generation is 4.11 times that of California’s.
8
Impact of Modeling 2009 over 2008• The net change in Hydro gen: -48 aMW• Significant reduction in NW Hydro Jun-Sep (below normal 2008)• Relative monthly change in CA Hydro is minor when compared to the NW
West wide the monthly impact of
using 2009 over 2008 is significant
5 months where the net swing is greater
than 1,500 aMW
The net swing in:Jun: -2,300 aMWJul: -3,200 aMW
Aug: -2,300 aMW
9
Load Shape
• 2008 has a uniform seasonal shape• 2009 has a muted June
Not a primary concernGrowing load with monthly peak and demand eliminate
any non-conforming seasonal shape
Background: Monthly load f(CCD) & peak f(day-day temp) CEC uses 60-30-10%
10
California Monthly Wind• Stable annual generation with monthly volatility
greater than the annual• 2008: Median spring/summer• 2009: Above median spring
CA peak wind gen May-Aug
CA Wind (2008-14)Gen %Ch(Avg)
Avg 1,618StDev 78 +/-4.8%Min 1,477 -8.7%Max 1,731 7.0%2008 1,731 7.0%2009 1,671 3.3%
11
Northwest Monthly Wind• Stable annual generation with monthly volatility
greater than the annual• 2008: Peak wind in Jun coinciding with peak Hydro• 2009: Peak wind in Mar and below median in spring
NW Wind (2008-14)Gen %Ch(Avg)
Avg 3,463StDev 227 +/-6.5%Min 3,209 -7.4%Max 3,870 11.7%2008 3,870 11.7%2009 3,309 -4.5% NW peak wind gen Apr
12
NW Export Shape to CA• The operating range on the Core Columbia River
generation has narrowed starting in 2011• The hourly export shape to CA has also narrowing
starting in 2011
Charts: Average hourly weekday shape to California (Path 65 & 66)
13
Perspective
WECC modeled Hydro generation is 2.2 times that of modeled Wind/Solar
(From 2024 WECC 1.4 dataset)
Selecting a reasonable Hydro year has a greater impact on transmission flow that modeled
Wind/Solar
14
Summary2008 2009
NW Hydro Normal Hydro genClear spring peak (Jun)Normal summer gen
Muted spring run-off: -10%Week summer gen
Q3 -2,250 aMWCA Hydro 2008 is lower than 2009 Closer to normal
but still a below normalNet Monthly Hydro The normal NW Hydro shape
out weighs the negative impact of CA Hydro
Significant negative impact to gen: Jun-Sep
Improved gen in AprLoad Shape Growing load with monthly peak and energy instead of annual
results in this being a secondary issueNW Wind Annual gen high: 11.7% Annual gen low: -4.5%
Monthly Strong spring w/spike in Jun Week spring
CA Wind Annual gen high: 7% Annual gen high: 3.3%Monthly Close to median High in spring
16
Modeled Solar WECC 1.5• On average California Solar serves 10% of it’s load
Breakdown of California Load Served by Solar in WECC 1.5 Dataset (GWh)Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
CA Solar 1,330 1,728 2,622 2,978 3,126 3,171 3,189 2,968 2,837 2,544 2,033 1,812CA Load 25,354 22,693 24,684 23,793 26,023 27,040 30,742 30,846 28,024 25,889 24,098 25,685Solar/Load 5.2% 7.6% 10.6% 12.5% 12.0% 11.7% 10.4% 9.6% 10.1% 9.8% 8.4% 7.1%