HomeMy WebLinkAbout0377.092'.
r
-
, ..
~.
• 0
"'''':', ,,,':.
"
AUqu5t E, 1992
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, Cali!crnia
1992 Electric Integrated Resource plan
Members 0 f the Counc i 1 :
Report in Brief
~is staff ~eport is t~ inform Council of the completion of Palo
~to's first Electric Utility Integrated Resource Plan (lRP) and
to present the resulting recommended Short-Te~ Action Plan and
Long-Term Strategic Pla~. The Utilities Advisory Commission
(UAC) appr~~ed the IRP recommendations at their July 1, 1992
lIsetinq. '!'his report explains the IRP process, describes the
alternatives that were considered, addresses relevant factors and
":'sCertainties, and sumJllarizes the results. A formal IRP Report
". _11 be prepared for review by the !lAC and presented to Council
in the fall ot 1992. All actions in the Short-Term Action Plan
will be presented to Council in separate staff reports. No action
is requested of council at this time.
Short-Term Action Pl~D.
1. Partieip~te in the Seattle city Light capacity ana Energy
E.x:char.qe Agreement ~
2. Do not pa.rticipate in the NCPA CClII.bustion T'U.rbine Project
Nuaber 2 (STIGl Third Phase Aqreement. Lay oft or withdra~
fro. Lhe NCPA Natural Gas Third Vhase Agreement.
3. I.plement Demand-Side Management (OSM) Vilot programs during
the FY 92-94 time period and develop the 30 MW DSM Progra~
Plan to begin implementation in 1994.
CIIR:177 192
-:7l' '. .. i . . J
.~.
""',
Ipng-Term strategic plan
1. Phase i=plementation of the ~o year-3o MW DSH program Plan
beginning in FY 94-95.
2. Participate in NCPA feasibility studies and conduct
independent fa4sibility studies r~lated to participation in
the proposed NCPA H':fdroele.ctric project enhancements~
3~ Conduct enginee.rinq feasibility studies of participating in
or contracting for annual ana summer baseload gas fired
generation projects~
4. Investigate cust~erlsmall scale generation and cogeneration
opportunities ~ithin the City emphasizing fuel cells.
~erviey of Integrated Resource Plan
An intensive effort over A one-year period has resulted in the
City 1 8 first IRP. The recommended plan includes diverse supply
and conservation resources. The plan was formulated th~ouqh a
team effort crossinq utility divisions and inCluded input and
participation from the public, the Utility Advisory Co~ission
(CAe] and other er ~qy experts. The selection criteria included
electricity prices, risk-~inimization: environmental quality and
energy-service cost.
_by prepare AD integcoted resource plan?
An IRP is undert_3:ken to provide qeneral guidance on lonq-ter:m
direction of the utility, with a goal to provide reliable
electricity BUPf ~e& to customers at the least possible cost.
CUstomer deMand for electricity may be served in two ways. The
first way, thrcugh supply resources, is to co~struct, oper~t~ and
~intain generators, transmission lines and distribution sYStems
to .~et the d&mand. The second way, not necessarily in orde~ of
priority, is throuqh conservation or demand-side rssources, to
eneourag. cuatos&rs to install, on their side of the meter,
equipwent and appliances that use electriCity mo~e efficiently.
Iapleaentinq a. deaand reaource le:ads. to -reduction in demand and
thus dete~& t~e need to build or purchase new supply resou~ces.
The benefits of deferring supplies include mitiqatinq the harmful
impact on the environment, lower overall cost ~f supplying the
energy needs of customers ana deferring lonq-ter.m financial
commitDIe~ts.
In 1991 staff negotiated joint comments with the Sacramento
MuniCipal Utility District and the Natural Resources Defense
exa.177.U 2
L
,
I
. ,
,.J
, ..
L
. r
council vhich were sub~itted to the Western Area Pover
Adla.inistration (Kestern). Thoee comments l which require
preparatio~ of an IRP and resulting energy efficiency imp:-ovement
cOMmitaen: 5 a requirement fo~ allocation, ~ere inco~r~ted
into the proposed Western Energy Pl~nninq and Manaqement Proqra~
(gpAMP)~ The Palo Alto IRP meets all requirements set forth by
Western's EPAKP to obtain renewal of 98 percent of the City's
existinq allocation. All that remains is to follow through ~ith
imclementation of the recommended Short-T~rm ~ction Plan which
viil be periodically updated ~nd submitted to Western.
What is an integrated resource plan and ~hat do~ ~integrate~ft
HAnl
An IRP is a. rQa.d map for the utility that recommends a rc~te "_C\
reach our destination keepinq in mind th~t as we travel on tha~
road. we may need to take off-ramps to a. different route depending
on route conditions. The IRP benefits include it.s ability to
minimize total Obsta for present and future customers and to help
assure long-te~ availability of Affordable electricity for all
C",JstoDlers ..
Integrated in inteqrated resource planning refe~s to the process
of simultaneously subjecting supply anQ demand resources to
rigorous analysis. The results of the analysis a.re evaluated,
usinq the same yardstick to arrive at ~ mix of resources to help
ensure that the customer's demand tor electricity lrfill be met at
the least cost. For Palo Alto, the cho!len yardstiCKS 'Were
societal costs and electricit:r rate.
Proper integrated resource planning helps utilities assess a
v4riety ot demand and supply r~sources to meet customer energy
service needs on a consistent basis. The plan attempts to guide
utility actions to max~ize benefits and minimize burdens tor
users or electricity and all those affecte~ by its use~ The plan
also recomMends actior.s that avoia excessive depencence on
unstable resources and ~dverse effects on the natural
environment.
!bot yill A typical liP document contain?
A typioal IRP is likely to inclUde the following:
Descr ipt ion of the oVera,11 process
A long-t~rm plan with a time horizon of 20 years
A short-term action oriented plan with a time period of 2
years
CKIU 377. t2 3
,
i
f->'
l
I
I .,.,
,r" -,
,,,",,,
Simultaneous ISvBluation of !lvailahle supply and demand
resources
Explicit treat=ent of uncertain~y And ris~
Analy~i& ot alternative plans in light of a range of futur~
IScenazoios
Explicit treatment of enviro~ental ~xternalities
Provi~e for public participati~n
Coordinat.d with the Palo Alto UAC
What ora the primary differences betwee~ our traditional planning
prpeegs nnd inteqrnbCd resource planning?
It is different from our traditional approach in that the
evaluation of supply Md demand reao'.Jrces was clone simultaneously
and vas subjected to the same an~lysis criteria. In the past,
supply re90urces and demand resourcea were evaluated in two
separate arenas. Traditionally, supply resources were eva!:.. ':&d
individually as they Yare proposed by the Northern californ~Q
Power Agency (NePAl. Deaand resources ~~re iMplemented it th~
sua of the demand resource cost and tbe revenue from lost sales
va. 1 •• a than the alternative cost, namely buyinq supply
res.ources.
It is different frOB our traditional approach in that the
planninq effort was coordinated with various divisions acr_ss tha
utility; included public participation, e~nt. and input ~rom
the UAC on a continual basi.; a~ input fro. outside energy
experts. This i_ in contrast to a traditional approach of a
recoamendation ema.natiJ\g trOll .eo single di", is Ion without t_he
checks and balances, and the. full spectCUlol of inputs and
IIIlxpertise that the IPJ' process encourages.
It is different from ~~e typical method of electric utility
resource plennin<; hi. t.."'1at the pr-eferred plan selection criteril'
inclu4e electricity prices, environmental effects, risk redUction
and total cost of supplyinq enerqy from a combined customer and
utility perspective. Previous &pproach~s treated electriCity
price as the sole det~rainant tor selecting resources.
Wbat alternative: were considered in this plan?
The attachment to this report provides more deti'liled descriptions
of the alternatives that were considered. The proc~ss invol,-ed
screenlnq a larqe list of alternative demand and supply
4
I
I
I
!
. . ' -.~" .. ,
...... ':, ' ,I
';. .. '
, ,
I
i • I
,. ~
rasourcea, ~hich werE developed through NCPA solicitations and
staff inaependent research. A total of ten resources ~~re found
to be suitahle for further detailed evaluation. One was a share
of NC!PA CoJ:l.bustion T".lrbine Project. No. :2, two were contracts for
natural qas fueled generators, one was the SCL Exchange
Agreement, two vere en.'1anc-e-ments to ti,e existing C&laveras
hydroelectric project, one vas the evolving fuel cell tec~~oloqy,
and three ~ere DSM alternatives. These ten alternatives ~ere
combined into five long-term plans (Table ~ of attachment)
considerir~ the amount and ti~in9 of the need for additional
resources. The five plans were then subje~ted to the ri90rows
analysi& described in th~ lRP process.
~-JUi risk-reduction accODmodated in t~ 's plao?
Risk is explicitly conside~ed in arrivin9 at the recommended
course of action. A technique known as de~ision analysis was
used in this planning process. Decision analysis models the
proble.Jt. as a s<equence of decisions and uncertainties exprE!'.e.sed in
the form of a decision tree. The uncertainties ar~ quantified by
assessing-the probability of occun:ence of t.he diff~rer\t state.s
of the uncertainty. Using this method allows us to recomm~nd a
plan or a course of action incorpora.ting risk reduction as ·one .of
t~e selection criteria.
A qreat deal ot effort ~ent into determining which factors would
have the greatest influence on the plans. An i~portant objective
was to develop plans that will be able to stand up to the
u.11certainties or future and as yet Ilnknown events; in other
words, a desire for robust plans. A list of eight factors were
tested by the IRP model with the result that four uncertainties
were found to actually have the qreatest influence. Those
factors are Western energy allocation, hydro availability,
forecasted load, an~ OSM impact. More detail is provided in the
attachaent. .
is th~ recomm~nded plan environmentally sound?
An explicit quantification of environmental exte=nalities was
used to penalize resources that would pollute the air. The
environmental impacts of each resource incluaed in each plan was
considered in the analysis and was a criteria used in arriving at
the most environmentally sound recommendation.
HoW much flexibility is there and are we locked into the
recommended plan for the next 20 years?
We viII constantly monitor the outcomes of impl~entinq the
recommendations of the short-term action plans and simultaneously
CXJt. 377 "2
L
,
L
--",
obsEirve a!'ld analyze the long-term impacts of decisions t.h3t are
made in the present. The City ia not ~ocked into the long-term
plan recommendations. The flexibility inherent in the 2-year
updates of ~~e IRP permits chang_s in co~~se direction in
accordance with the changing circumstances as they unfold in the
f\lture~
HOW often Will ye updat. the integrated resource plsn?
The 19F' contains &. long-term plan 'With a t.ime horizon of ;:0 years
and a ahort-term action plan with a time horizon of 2 years. The
short-term action plan id~n~ifies deei&ion5 regarding specific
resources to acquire and proqrams to develop in tr~ next two
year.~ The. IRP 'Will be updat.ed every tvc years -w::..:.h the
intention of coordinating-the recomlllendations of the updated
short-t.ra action plan with each budget cycle.
What is the next step?
Wo are pr.pari~ the formal lRP Report, vhich will be reviewed by
the CAe and presented to Council in the fall of 1992.
Separate 5~atf reports will be prep~red tor each of the
reeomaendations of the Short-Term Action Plan. This will include
reports on feasibility studies of particlpatinq in (second phase)
the calaveras hydro enhancements Bnd the baseload ~nd summer gas
project.~ (Additional staff reports viII be prepared requesting
COWlc:il appr-oval of the 30 MW OSK Progr .... Plan. J The proposed
OS)! pilot program results will be included in the next IRP prior
to preperation of the F¥ 94-96 budqet. It will be necessary to
bril19 the experience of the p'.lot. prograJIS into the development
of tbe: actual DSH programs. While the exact dounts are not
known at thi. ti~1 there will be increased staffing and £unding
reqUiremeMts consi~ered during the budget process.
Smnmory
Palo Alto'. first .IF-P has been completed and a formal report of
the project and results will De presented tv council in the fall
of 1992. The IRP meets the anticipated requirements of Western
to renew the City's allocation and has resulted in a Short-Term
Action Plan and a Lonq-Term Strate9Y~ Successful implementation
of the OSM Proqram Plan identified in the IRP will be an
important requi.i:"ement for maintaining the City' s Western
allocation~ SpecifiC actions included in the short-Term Action
Plan will be presented to Council for approval in separate staff
ClOU 377 "2 6
L
1
'·····
, ,
''C'.
-
c-,
"
reports. Th~ lRP, Short-Term Action Plan ana Long-Term strategic
Plan will be ypdated biannually to provide appropriate
recommendations tor funning in coordination with the City's
budget-cycle ~
Respectfully submitted,
~?lMP9M
RONALD P. B~LVAL
Manaqe~, Resource Planning
:;::;;.-;<~
Director ot Utilities
city Manager
Attac~ent: IRP Update
ClOt I 317 "2 7
,,~'l'c; '-.
~~j}':.
,"
1
I ,
t
I
~
1
1 • I
1
I
j
, -
JL.:ly 1. 1992
IRP UPDATE
During the past six months, st.?.Jf ha..<; conducted :::.cveral stl.ldlCS to screen supply
resources and demar..d-side management (DSM) programs IO produce Palo Alto's fir~t
Integrated ResolJrce P1an (IRP). The IR.D is a."'T1ong tiJ.e flr~l in California to evaluat-e SllPP~Y
and dema"1d optior .... <;-on a level playing field.
\\ie started v.ith over 3000 ~.fW of supply resourc(;s and approximately 35 MW of
DSM pwgrarru. A short list of supply .resuurces and three levels of DS~.1 program activities
were developed tc be considered for brther analysis (see Tabte 1), Thu;e results were
prtsenttd to ~he Utilities Advisory Commi5~ion (VAC) on May 6, 1992.
St:lff conducted additional a:!:lalysis in May to develop five alternative plans. Eacb
plan contains a mix of sl)pply rt',sources and DSM progl&.ffiS lhat v.ill meet the long-tenn
needs of our customers (see Table 2). Thes.e plans were presented to the UAC on June 3,
1992,
The results of the evaluation of the five plans <tIe attached In preparation for
discussion at the July 1, 1992 UAC meetrng.
Pro.gress Repo.tl
The first order of business following our meeting y.rith yeu in June was to take a long
look at the list ofplaru and uncertainties that were presented to you. This examination was
necessary. given the fact that we bad a very snort time to examine this information prior to
OUT prese.lltation.. Tonight staf! ~rilJ eA-plain tbc changes that were made and the reasons.
beh~·D.d making those changes.
The second s.tep was io exam.i.ne how :;er..si1.ive. 111e p1ans are to each um:ertainty in
order to discGl'..rd those uncertainties that do not have an impact on the decision being made.
The jdea is to reduce the number of uncertainties to a manageable number which could hi!
easily bandIed through the modeling prxess. Grapbs 1 through 8 snow how [he plans ran.1c,
from three different perspectives, as a function of each u.ncertainty.
Tbe final step was !.0 ;;xamine the plan .. .;; from three different perspectives in light of
all rel.evaut uncertainties. Graphs 9 through 11 shov,.·' tbe expected, high and low values fnm~
tolai resourc-e, soci~taJ and rate irnpact perspectives. Graphs 12 through 14 show the
probability di.s.tribution for each of th~ va'ues for each plan.
L
,
I
I
-
R!:!:QmmendatiQns
Short-Term:
• Far'~icipate L, the Seattle City Ught Energy Excllange
• Do not pursue ST1G
• Pursue DSM .at Lel,'el 2
Long-Term:
• Participate in the development of:
-Hydroelectric enhancement
-Base gas project
-Summer gas project
-Local generation and cog~nera+joll
What is next ??
Assuming the Utilities Advisory Commission e~dorses staffs recommendations. our
concJl.lSiOES will then be relayed to NCPA This should al]r " NCPA staff ample time to
prepare for tbe July NCPA Comrr....ission meeting during which members are likely to vote
on the STIG and the SCL Exchange Third Pha." Agreements.
The second step will be to prepare staff reports to present the recommendation to
Palo Alto City Council in mid August Finally staff will begin tbe writing pbase of the
Integrated Resource Plein. The plan is scheduled for completion in late September.
Total resource cost is the Sum of production cost. utility DSM inile~trneDt. and customer
DS M investment
Societ:&.w.t is the sum of total resource cost and environmental externalities.
~tem a .... erage r2~e Is the total revenues divided by total sales.
2
L
,., -
I
, .r9
.~ !
"
w
-_.----.-----.---------~-.-------
TABLE 1
i DEMANDAND SUPPLY RESOURCE DATA($1992j~··----------------
I
RESOURCE YEAR CAPACITY ENERGY CAPACITY
ON LINE MW MWH FACTOR
STIG 1995 5 3J:2-30 65%
SCL 1993 11 9636 (a,b)
BASE GAS 1998 6 47304 90%
SUMMER GAS 1998 6 26280 100%(d)
RAMSEY 2002 3 6965 (e)
FRENCH 2000 3 9593 m
FUEL CE~L 2000 2 16644 95%
-oSM LEVEL 1 1994 20 839£2 48%
DSM LEVEL 2 1995 30 '(39624 53%
[)SM LEVEL 3 1996 33 170824 59%)
tt91,!
(a) Deliveries from SCl June through October, CF ~ 50%
(b) Deliveries from NCPA November through April, CF = 50% to 70%
(e) Variable cost is system incremental entJrgy cost
(d) Available 1000/. IrOm May through October
(e) Varies from 13% (December) to 66% (April)
(I) Varies from 13% (October) to 06% (April)
l
COST
VARIAbLE
$/MWH
FIXED
$/KW-YR
112 2E
NA (e)
139 13
12Q 14
276 3
258 3
296 22
4.77 14.33
4.33 12.54
4,73 13.43
)
I
)
. ., .' t •. , ""'.: , .'.; -.,
',' ., '" -.-~ 'i' '. " -" ,~'-,_",':§i~:-: " ': .. : ").G:";'·'~:\::':i '}\,(~'~;~~
'\;)>'i,'lii,> 'lfti'il\li:'" ~'\:, I' ki<' :,:~vJfil~~~\,,~JII'~l '~,»;";9~;' t ·~,h .. ~r~~t'~:t,.-j~ \\,',,' , ,t, .. ~;t -' ,
\ .. "~i.·.'i'.'~-.~f;..r .. -.'.". ;;;.';;." II ... , ~'.J" 'l ",' '. !:,' ,.
~. .,',
,
I ,
:~
-
"',
TABLE 2
(PJI units in MW)
SnG SCL BGAS SGAS FRENCH RAMSEY FCELL DSM
Plan A 0 II 6 6 0 0 0 30
Plan B 0 11 6 0 0 0 2 33
Plan C a 9 6 6 a 3 0 30
PkJD 0 9 6 6 3 0 0 30
Plan E 5 9 6 6 0 0 0 20
MODIFIED INFLUENCE DIAGRAM
(~:::~) (-;-~\ Ir---\
~ \ capacity
\ availability / j __ TR..,:. ~_ ~ Envi.ronmentar i
"--~ I Exte.~lllleS) 1 ext_malilies I
" "---" ,/ "-.. '--.. _---
"-allocation '~~ !
--------'-~ __ I~ Total)
. ___________ ~ Resour~.1
. _~---Cos' (TRe) J -----' ----"T--~. ~ I
----. I _~-----/ i. __ -I
Hydro _____ / I
I~V _ ----(, \ e s~ ./' @SMI,~. penelratlon / ----Impact) -l / --...-..<'1"""* __ -------Sys!em
--Forecast)----~ A ..... erage.
~~~ \ __ R:!~
4
-
SENSITIVITY TO FORECAST LOAD
Total Resource Cost
~ 5251-------"~ ---------
~ SOO 1-----------------! 475 ~-------------------------------------------------------
I i :::t---~r~---
f"--=::=---~~ l~c \
: -::---Ha1(' l~ I
j -.--Lvw lead i ~-----------~
j
I
I I E,. ' l_~~.~-;':,B -~--;;:~-;'.,E~~~ __ _ !
-------'
&78/91
--------------
Societal cost
Ioo'!I 525 1---------------
I 6 SGO t-------------------
1
=1 ___ ~
ii' i::~i-!--_00 -~
'a ~ __ --, ---__
• 425 r-~ 0;; -.-----
I .. ,
'1 .. 400 L-__ Plol! A PIIII. B Pian C Plat! D PIBII E
-------1------
System average rate
I
15 r------------
~ 74t------------I L3~ ------~~ ,
l! n ~;::. ~~ -=--,-----!, ~_j c ___ ~
I l_
71V ---.. ----.
,01-1-----
PI:iIIlA Plan B Plljl:l C PLanD PLr.cE
5
---~.=:----~-~.--·L
" ......
t{;-~:
I
:-----'1 I
-.... 0--'''£b '.~d .1
i --0--Base lood l=' __ ~_wload ! I
r-· Ibgh '''''' 'I
I --:::----Base load
L=~ __ LOW IO!W
I
.J
,
1 .,.
~
l
1
,
7i~·" I~fjn •.
6<']lWl
I
I
SENSITIVITY TO HYDRO LEVEL ,-----
I , Total Resource Cost
10'1 515 ,-------,-----
~ :: ~ -~--------.--------
~ "ok -;,.--_ I ~--i 1 --~ E m~ ~ -; ~----
400 --------------. ~-----------.
Plu A pj::UJ B PilUle Pl:lD D Flan E
"------------
1
I
,!
I'-"'~-~ I
! I I ~ ---{)--A.r: r I' l ___ o:J I
i
~
------------_ .. _-,
Societal Cust
525 r-
I j500r-Ii." . -It::~ I .. I
1 400 !--------------.----------------l PIn A PJllI B Ptall C Platl D PI:il:1 E
------------
System a\'crage 'llte
r----, : • W~!
I ~J-A," I
i D<y ]
L J
__ • ________ . .J
-----~
im------;-;:'1
i -=-A>< I
L __ ~~J
L .,Q---------"._
P1u.... P1~. Pla."C PIli! D Plall.E
---------
6
-
SENSITIVITY TO WAPA El'I'ERGY IN 2004 r------
Total Resource Cosl
I S2S, ---------------
~ I
j 500 ~ ---------.-
~ 4 7 , ~ --------~ i ......-~ ~ 450 1 • ~ ~ --;; F~-,~ ~ 425 • -------
! 400 l----_______ _
l'!:;n A Plan B Pi~1!. C PJ:;l!lD PJatJE
~-r----
I
! ,
Societal cost
.-; 525 1 ------
~ SOO r------=-£--i::~~=
~ 42~ I~-----------------------------
'100 1
Pljlll A Pllm B Plan C Plac D Ptolill !:
1--
i System Ryerage rate
I
t
i
i
I
! ----------
L Piao A Pac B Plane
~j~"'~CT, _w.'",-, ......... '_.->'-'
.. '","_~-~?;'1
pian D PiOlO E
; __ n --;----~-~I~X:~-OfLF --1
I __ -r~ __ ~~ -95"'. ofU' I , -
-~-I.o .90"'. cr/...." ! -
-,
__ J
----------, ,
I
,----ffi----l00%of~1 I
I ~~--Bs·9'j.%ofLf I \
• , I
t ! ! L~--Lo· 900/. ofLf
I-----~
! .-.---ffi ·lM;' ofLF i
J i
!--=-Bs-950/0ofU' I
! -+----lA -9(f'l'<.ofLf i _______ J
-:-;:]:~,..
L
SENSITIVITY TO DSM PENETR<\ TION
,----
I
1
1
1-
Total Resoilrce Cost
~ 5:5 r-
~ 500 1-----------------
i I
• 475 +---------------------------
~ I ! 450 ~---~---------------
imP *~---=----.ooL
P .... A PluZ PI>nC rtAD n
---------------
Societal cost
PlaDA Plan S PluC PlAnD P~IlE
System Average Rate
75 -I --
------------I ~ 74j---
I i 7) C-----
.. 7>~-·==-=~-__
.!:j... ----------~ ! 71L-L: -..= -.] -===C<.
701----
PI>n .. PlacB Plan C PlanD PlanE
I
1 r---o.>--High penet l i
1--0--&sepenel I I ---LAW~J I
i
I
------~ --I
I
-, I • High penet !
I~ I I -Bu<r=:'
l Low.-J
I ____ I
[---1
, • fJ.lP peoet_ ' 1-0-B~penet I
L_ ~pcIl~_J
--------------------
B
L
t ~!~.:~:?-~ .
.• ~-~-
i·'l r
~
h'
SENSITIVITY TO WAPA ALLOCATION IN 2004
FifiW~ S
1
" Total Resource Cost
525 r-------i SOO ~-----
r 'il L
1 : 415
1
---
I ~:: eLs-:;;;;" ::=;::'~;::::::;;;-",-==-;.;:-~'==-"--=-,,,~~::=~
1 ~ ,,~,~-FJ':-'--;~~:-~ ?1:6D D----~I(~~--L _____________ . __
----,
------HI -9g'\-,j, !
I --=---8l· 9_~~. I
L ___ ~_.9(fj
" ,
--'
Societal cost
~25 r--~------------------.-------~
~ 500 \--------
'" I ~ 47S t------------! 450 i _____________ _ ~ ___ _
-a ~-
~ ~25 t--------------------------------
!--=;--~';'l
j ---0--Bs • 95% :
I J~.'>:fl<. I I ______ J
400 L --------~---l_. ___ ~~u.-~ PlnlB Pine PlabD p~_:_~ ______ _
,----
1
------------1,
I :L
'I ! 73L---
I j" ~-~;=-="-;::;;;;,-' -
I 7J F----=---· ~---
L _____ 7_~_'~_A_.~~=P~I-._'~-~----~:_-_c-__ ~~~-,-~--_ --;-aD_E ________ _
System average rate
r----·······~
f • Hi· 98"11. : I I
1 --C-B,·95% :
I ____ ~·.~J
-
~&'92
-
SENSITIVITY TO NATlJR<\L GAS PRICF~ ---== --------------_._--! I Totill Resource Cost
~ , I 525 r------
~ S(.'<j I-Ii:: t~ ------------~----------.---=------
I I:: ~l~=--"~"".::-"""''''"''''-~'''-'''-=-'''......-''---
! Pl:IDA PlllllB PltlDC PlanD L-. ___ _
r-
I
I
I
Societal co~t
52S ~
'8 500 J
g I
~ ~ 7S t-----------------
> 450 L-_________ • ~
1." r----=~------.. i
400 L.! ------
PLaIl A FlID B Pl:aa C PllllD L _____ _
r
I
I
System average rate
7S ~-.-... -....... --
.J;:. i4 ---------
~ ~ nt------I" ~?F;;~~~.
7l t--------!~
!
101--
Plan A Plu B PI;l.1l C Pian D Plu E
10
i
I __ J
------.. -,
I
'Ir--~-~-:;;: I' --0-13=""1
L • H,gh.." I -.----, I
!
J
I
I
r=::ll l_'~i"J I
I ______ -.J
617&"2
-
-,
SENSITIVITY TO DSM IMPACT
Total Resource Cost
S2S .,.
.. I
j: 500 ;...-
50 ! 7 41S t
~ ,
i :::~~:---~-~.~=_ ~ • I •
4N L,-____ ~ ______ --~--------------------------
Phm :s Plllt C Plan D PI:u E
1-----
!
I
I
Societal cost
~ 525 r--------------
t 500 r-----------------~--------
~'5 J-'------------------~ I ~ :<s",~ ~-.. -J 415 j-------
"",L __
PIUA PI:tl:lB Flu C PluD Plao E
---
System average rate
11
--1
!
·--------1 I .. lli Impact I
l~B$ilrP'l"tl
~ -+---UJ impa..-t ! l _______ .. ..l
---l
i
:-----------------------'1.
: • }[i impact i
i ,I j --0---B!. lmr"'---t I
i Lo impact ; L _______ !
-----------1
!
-
---" ----'.
SENSITIVITY TO ANNUAL BASELOAD GAS COST &
FUEL CELL A VAU.ABII..,ITY
Total ResQurce Cost
Plan I
.--------
Societal cost
L __ l'I_'_" _A __ PliIIl B Flu. C PlanD PJ~ [
System a,'erage rate
"I
~ 7<t-I---
~L ~ " --------------
i :l?'?:~~_=~.' .•. =
70 L =-=----_ -> ----
Plu A FLac B Plar. C Pisn D Plln E L ---,-----
1Z
l
I ~--~PA'FC I i
I
, ~c-OOANC I I
I j
. I ~CPA J i ,------I
-~
I
I
I -----NCPA.+FC \ :
I ~~BGANC I I
~~NCPA i'i
I
I
----1
I r-------i • NcPA+FC II:
j -::-BGAS+FC ;
I~NCPA I[
i __ J
Fiprt ,
; ,i."
~
w
r-~' .... ----~----.. --~. .------.--.------.. ---
TOTAL RESOURCE COST 1
600
575
"" 550 c
.8
'3 525 a
g 500
"'iil >
C 475 <>
'" " ...
P.. 450
425
400
EXPECTED AND EXTREME VALVES
r
1.
.. .. ----... _----_.
----~---~~'------------~ -
r=~.s1·5 ~=_r'~J==-~=r;·~---r~;---··· .. f6J
~----------.---.. -~-==f~---~-~~-~~:=~~
+--l-------j· -------l----j· --------1" 1--iii_-~ :c--=-=+'-c--,,-;;r c---••• --
1----r---'-'---r--
i~ __ 1~--+-_..lOJ-" ... _J'05 -----+---J.:iI6---I--:..:--i
A B C
Plan
D E
.---'-------~-.---
• HIGH
• LOW
.--EXPECTED _
L __ .. ___ .. _ ---'1
i
j
-.~------~--------_ .. _---------~-----~ --------.. _-------------'
}<1NA/Ji.\,P ~U£l) ('han I
6I]RlfJ) /<71:11" 9'
o
.,
/
.'" \>: .'
. '"
'\ ' ".;~: 1~'.~1'", •. : ,
"'f1~,~~~I:,':·--i .
. ':};r"''"'\ ,," '~'it. \,'
'j.. ',,'
t ~ ~:tjl
"". -'. ,'.
. ,
,
___________ ... _,~,.,._,_ •• ,,~_"_ . ~~ __ ._~. ______ .__t.... ..... _"__
~
~
r
I
I
V)
§ ,-
~ I':
ic:i \>
I~
'" 1£
I
I
SOCIETAL COST
EXPECTED AND EXTREME VALVES
600,-.,------------
575 t~-r=-'": ---r-"-~--l'"-~ J-550
525 '\
500 t
I
·-1·----------·-·1·--·-·--------\-·----+------
475
~r6 ~L'.·· -.-~=-t-l---=---=-ji ,_-~=~==L.-~? /:'----. --
. _________ cc tJr::. ___ _
I L------I _';38 ·no . -... ------m-·~---"-~-hii-·~------
450
425
<II
400 -~ ----+---------1--------+-------.-,
A u c D E
Plan
I
I
I-~~~----j
I • LOW I i -.... -EXPECTED
,--_._---'._-
1
I
I
L.... .------... -----------~-------------.----------,-------~---'
FlHALF.XP.flS ehof! J
fi/11ll91 Fi,l"'~ 10
u
)
.'
q
I
I~~
I
I
" .• ,y·.'~ r,
,
76.00
75.00
.c 74.00
" ~ '" ::: 73.00
~ IE '" .", ... I ~ 72.00
QJ
....l 71.00
70.00
69.00
I ,
I
'-------..
FINALF.X/, Xl]j Charl J
6/211/91
SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE
SXPECTED AND EXTREME VALUES r----·-----t-.. _____ · ___ r_6
_,8 __
1-f"---t-~-J74!~---r.il6----P.8D-
',--' -----_.-.. -------..... _-----_ .. _-+-
I .. / l-Z66
I ~..---~---~-~--'-----
+.-.... _--_ ...... _-[ ..... _-_ ...... _---"--'-'--'-'
I 70.59 70.38
• HIGH
i • LOW l--"-E)(PECTED
--'"-----------
I '69.79
I
----r(, .. 9.8}----.. +69.78
L--.------+-------------+------,.----.. --·----.. 1---------·,
A B I) E
!
C
Plan ._ .... _-_ .. __ .... __ ._--_ .. __ ..... _1
Figll" 11
)
,. ,< ';t:~,;r\>-:' l~":':'
I
!
i
.. .,
j
r11
", ,~,.---,.'
I ---.. -------~----------------------.-----~--I
I
600
575
i <A 550
1<:: ) .9
:: 525
E
~ i g 500 '" OJ >
i E 475
OJ
V>
f:!
P. 450
425
400
TOTAL RESOURCE COST
CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION
r --~-----------,---
---------_. ---------~--.----------~ --
+----~'-------'---------'-----------~ I .. ;:
1 I
1 ~-.--r~'---. --'-------_._------------------.---
~=:-~, l--j-+---+-+--t--+---i--+--t-+---I---+-,'--~: -[-----1
8 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 a _ _ N N ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ d d ~
-----Pian A
--Q-.. _-Plan B
I--+--Plan C 1--'--I'lan D
--,,--PlanE !---~-.---
l Cumulative probability , ----~~-------------------------.-----~
F1NAJ.TR('wlJ~ Chan I
61}8fl}] Fig.m~ /1
u
J
"·"S J ~', 'i','
./,< ',' "'( •• ' ",' ,'-,"
~i,
'/; ,
l{j~~ '~t~i~~!~~~' : ;..' '.
i ~ ~ : :-', 'i:tl'.;:' )~ \V:,}'~ ;r. ;v.~\ '!" .',;, "",',' ' if, ,.I': ,. "!)~>', :.; .. -, r,;"'i "1
" \ ..
t ~;;;~*ll~;
r'/
t
~
~
-' ------------""-------"--... ~---.-"----
1-----------.,~~.-----------.--~---------.------,
SOCIETAL COST !
I CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION I
! 600 '
I
IfA
I.~ I;::::
1--i~
l~
'" I::
1 5
I~ , "-Ip...
1
575
r----I -------
----------
_I __ '~___ ~.-~-_.-------r
-__ ----t +_ ___ I-
I ---------. -----. --xl
1___ _ ----/ Ii __ _,,~..A
1________ _ _ =-~----. _;07~c"·~ -. .--_. ~-~--._. ---./."( t/~:C~'----_~:>:Co<'~ .---
)~n--n---<T-n--J .------.--
_~.....u-~--o-----,----.-------------
550
525
500
475
450
425
400 ~---;---+-+-+-l--t---+-+-/---i-+--I-I--I·---+·----+----j----f--+----I
o ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 o ~ ~ N N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci ci 0 000
Cumulative probability
II') C V'I 'J V'I r--. 00 OQ 0'\ 0, o 0 000
,--------
-----.--... Plan A
---{l--Plan n
---.---Pl<tn C
i ----<~----Plan D
Ic=~~~'-an E J
I
l. ______ ,_____ _ ____ . _____________ .. ---.. ---_______ . ___ . ___ . __________ ~ ___ ---____ .. ____ .,_----'
F/NAlSOC,X1S Charf 1
M18/9l Figlll"fl' }J
'0
-','
)
.'
r'l
J
t
t
I
1
I ' ''''-'''''''r'~'':r. , ........... _._
~
'"
f
!
-~~~~---.---~--~--.-----~--~.-..... "
SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE
CUMULATIVE PROBABU.ITY DISTRIBUTION
76 ,-~
~ .-------~---.~~-
_~._~ I .------jL
/
75 ~ .. ~----.-..
! ---~~. ----~~---//;!
... --~-/
/r~ -~1'>/
;.;: I~
74t--
1
i r==-p~;~~
IS IE
.1$ IH I'~
1,3
73 " .~---------~~-~,-~l:~'M~--~--'~~>--~_
\ ~>--D' ,p'~ ! _---".Jr-·~~ _~~
12 r~~~-'Y:n-_if:::~ .A. ....-=c_~_~ ___ ... ____ .~. ___ _
7l ~-):=-~ . -_. ________ ~ ____ ~ __ "~~ ____ ~ _____ .. __
9 / A:
I 71) ~------~--~-.-~-~~ ~---.-.~~----.-•. ----~
I !
i
,
1'----<>--Pk.n!l
I ---.~--P!.2.,!"{ r
i
! -~,-PianO
I
i ~~~ P~E
'-------
! 69 +-+~-+---i___I___+__+--_+____r-_i-+_. I +--I---+-+---!--I----/
: 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ a ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 n 0 ~. 8 o 0 N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ I cccccooooocoooooccoc...; I
i Cumulative probability I L_. __ ~_~'~_'_~_~~ ___ "~_~ .. ___ . ______ . _______ ~_~~ ______ ... ,, __ ,, __ p~_~_~
fi7.NAr£ATXili Om111
filM)
t"it;VriU
-~~~ ... ---.. '"------~-----~
'-
)
)
~ -, ~
':~'"'''''' . :: .. ---,~,'~-.-,,~ ,
l'
Ii
1
, ..
,
:"/i1~1,:
~
',;J;>"
t
t
PROCESS TO ARRIVE AT RECOMMENDATION
i STEP DESCRIPTION SLIDE .j
1 Resized SCL exchange from 6-12 MW to9-IIMW I
2 Unctrtainties considered for deterministic analysis and 2
selected for probab ilistic analysis
3 Detemlinistic analysis for each uncertainty Figures 1-8
4 Eliminated 4 uncertainties 2
5 Assessed judgmental probabilities for shortlisted 3
uncertain variables
6 Constructed and simulated decision tree -405 endpoints 3
7 Constructed cumulative probability curves for each
Idecision
4
8 Examined expected value and extreme "values of each 5
,decision
19
.. . .;:e;'L-.. fM' II
,
-
" -
",--.j-.. -
,...., SLrD€ 1
'" ..
RESIZING SCL EXCHANGE CONTRACT
ASSTJMPTIONS
NOMlNAL CASE
RESOURCES IDENTICAL TO NOMINAL PL".NS A-E
PROCEDURE
SIZED EXCHA1',GE CONTRACT AT 6,7,8,9,10,11 & 12 MW
CALCULATED TOTAL RESOURCE COST AND SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE
RESULTS
lDEN11FIED 9 AND II MW AS REFINED SIZE
7!lJt)1 20
_,c.:;
•
UNCERTAINTIES
UNCERTAINTIES CONSIDERED FOR
DETERMINISTIC ANALYSIS
FORECAST LOAD
HYDRO LEVEL
WESTERN ENERGY ALLOCATION IN 2004
DSM PENETRATION
WESTER,'\! CAP AClTY ALLOCATION IN 2004
NATURAL GAS PRiCE
DSMIMPACT
RESOURCE AVAILABILITY & COST
Sf IUt 2
UNCERTAINTIES SELECTED FOR PROBABILISTIC
. ANALYSIS
'1/1192
FORECAST LOAD
HYDRO LEVEL
WESTERN ENERGY ALLOCATION IN 2004
DSM PENETRATION
21 [1JACSUDE.Ja. 1+jVnctn>Jinty· det &: pro/)
}~~;;1-'-"-.
;"--,.:'.
-
!
N
N
DECISION TREE FOR FINAL ANALYSIS
Plan DSM )\TAPA
A
penetration energy
Hydro
level
Forecast
load
/ B Hi 0.25 Hi _., O,3~ Wet 0.33 Hi 0'25 ' [~--{:~: ~: -::: cE :: (~-:~ <~
\ E \._---
. "',-"~ '",!,"-,~ , ; or----
, ) \ ,
)
"> •
'" ",
'"
-,,~~~'
SLI DE 4
CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION
,
I
I
I 76
I 75 I [1
74 '-s; I::: 73 I! ~~ 72
1.3 71
70
69
SOCIETAL COST
SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE
------
o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~_ O __ NN~M~~~~~~~~~~~~
ddodddddddddd666d66
Cumulative probability
21
r=-=-Plll:~
! -....... :.:.----?lan d
I
i -------Plan C
--<-PlanD i
I -_r__-Plan E L. __ _
I
J
-1
i--··-
-...... -PlanA
----::-PlIl1lB
--Plane
i . ---c.-----Plan D
1--PlanE
I
,
I
-
5UDE 5
EXPECTED AND EXTREME VALUES
I
i
I 500~-
I 575 L
--~;~~;AL C~ST ~_-~~_-----I
I .. I""
I =_~ 55() t-+--
E 525 --f--.
11 5()0 i--I---
~ ~ m rl i<'=----£.5O --
425 ~,-~]-,---+-
I .00· A
l
~" I
I
SYSTEM AVERAGE RA T;--------I
16\--->Q I
, 75 t-------+ -----I
I I I 11 74 : n" ----'F"'--t'!J'----;r=".',--d It '72) t---._____ '""-" -"'-im--~:~~~~~-~+--II :-::H L. l __ +r'_"" ____ t-------1-------=-L::--EXP<..cTED1
! :T1i.5>l j
70 -I _ _ ________ _
1 5~,i'S
1,)9 L--_--.-~ ----
A 8
E ________ 1
C D
PJa.1
24
f
• ,
1
I •
t
-,
-
RECOMMENDATION
SHORT-TERM ACTION PLAN
· Participate in the Seattle City light
Energy Exchange
· Decline to participate in phase 3 of
the STIG project
· Pursue 75% of DSM Achievable Potential
LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN
· Participate in phase 2 of
the Hydro Enhancements
· Participate in the development of
a base gas project and in a summer
gas project
· Investigate local generation and
cogeneration options
25
-, -' ~
16
-
-........ -"'-~'~-.---.. -~ ""'----
r-.----
L _______________ _
-
f
:-.
;--' -.
-'~--_. '.
-"".--""' .. ~
I·a:,
r---
I
I ..
" , " ! .!! ..
I
...
I ~
" ..
I
...
~
" ~
j I
I
L
--
,..---,
• I
! • ~
j
)
,~:...
I
~
i
i ,
I
i
I
I ,
• I
I
I
t
I
I '"-
L
• "
0=
"'" Ilt.£,~
.. !;E.
"" "" ....
"" "'" ''''' "'" "'" """ "'.<
lOOl -=
""" > "'" "" "" .66:
~.
,on ,"". "', U>E,
29
• "
""" «xx
''''' "'"'.
"'" "'" "'"' =
).00<: ::
DOC<
'''POOl.
L66~ ... ,
"'" ...,
"', t~,
"'" DUll
""'
I
I
1
~
, •
-
1'~~4/95 WINTER MONTHS ENERGY BALANCE
SNTITLEMENTS (LE3S WAPA) VS SCL ENERG'y
MONTH m SCl f§ WWP 8; CALAVEPAS ra PG&E OFF PEAK
11?9~2000 WINTER MONTHS ENERGY BALANCE
ENTiTLEMENTS (LESS WAPA) VS SCl ENERGY
MONTH
\j§! $('.(. f§ wwp !2Cj CALAVERAS
2004105 'MNTER MONTHS E"'ERGY BALANCE ~TlTLEMENTS (LESS WAPAI VS SCL ENERGY
11 rr----10r 0 F-""
9 r
siT
7it
6 It fl 5 ,[ a @!
Iii ~~ :<li~) 0
NOV
-~.---------'-
L
u:
i''l ~ I l'I . ,
J) :::"ll, t" t~1 MI
II
r>,
Qi !'J' S§i
WI ~I ~t-I ~lll! ~: c'1, : ' .. ' J i§, ,,I ~It~' ! JAN
DEC FEB
MONTH
C:~ SCL §:3 WWP [~:2 CALAVERAS
30
I'll
'JI ~:
"]' i' ,ii :,l
",'~' t'ii ~'I. ~ ,~ ~i ~!' '4', ~JI
MAR
§'Jl ~~ l' 1
t~'i i
" I ·~:::I t+ I ~' :L-J
I
APR