|In the Matter of:||)||Docket No. 06-IEP-1M|
|Preparation of the||)||NOTICE OF COMMITTEE WORKSHOP|
|2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report||)|
Notice of Committee Workshops on
Scenario Analyses of California's Electricity System
The California Energy Commission's (Energy Commission) Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Committee (the Committee) will conduct two full-day workshops to describe the analyses of various electricity system scenarios as part of the 2007 IEPR proceeding and receive input from stakeholders. Chairman Jackalyne Pfannenstiel is the Presiding Member, and Commissioner John L. Geesman is the Associate Member of the Committee. Other Commissioners may attend and participate in the workshop. The workshop will be held:
MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2007
MONDAY, JULY 9, 2007
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 Ninth Street
First Floor, Hearing Room A
Audio from this meeting will be broadcast over the Internet.
For details on listening in, please go to: www.energy.ca.gov/webcast/
Parties unable to attend this Committee workshop can comment by conference call.
The conference call information is: USA Toll Free Number: 800-857-6618
Passcode: IEPR, Call Leader: Lorraine White.
These two workshops will discuss the results of analyses of the electricity system under various scenarios, associated changes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and how the Energy Commission should use these results, as part of the 2007 IEPR proceeding. This scenario project is a part of a series of projects that will develop a greater understanding of the actions believed necessary to achieve major reductions in GHG emissions for the electricity sector, and the consequences of these actions. The June 18 workshop is designed to receive public input from interested stakeholders on the results of the analyses, and the July 9 workshop is designed to provide an opportunity to discuss to what extent, if any, these results may be used to develop policy decisions to be included within the 2007 IEPR.
Summary of Scenario Analyses
Scenario analyses are necessary to understand how selected performance measures (reliability, cost, and environmental impacts [e.g., GHG emissions and water use]) might change across resource cases that use alternative combinations of preferred resources (energy efficiency measures, end-user roof top photovoltaic systems, and supply-side renewable generating technologies) supplemented by conventional resources to assure reliable system operation. The assessed resource cases cover a wide range of alternative resource mixes extending from a low penetration of preferred resources that might result from continuation of "current conditions" toward a high penetration well beyond current expectations. High penetrations of these preferred resource types may be necessary to achieve the vision of major GHG emission reductions established by the California Legislature, such as through Assembly Bill 32 adopted in 2006. The analytic results will illustrate the challenges in achieving major reductions in GHG, and identify further studies that may be needed to address these challenges.
Nine thematic scenarios have been developed and assessed using the production cost model Market Analytics for the entire Western Interconnection through 2020. Each scenario has been tested for sensitivity to high and low fuel price projections. Each has been tested against three "shocks" that simulate one year departures from trend or normal variables to determine robustness of the underlying resource plan. GHG emissions, total costs, emissions of standard criteria pollutants and mercury, water consumption, fuel use, and other descriptors are reported for each of these 54 cases. A limited set of these cases has been tested for reliability consequences by conducting a stochastic assessment (an assessment that captures uncertainty) in which 100 alternative sets of values for six key variables have been randomly drawn from their range of variability to quantify how these combinations of variations from deterministic norms might affect system performance.
In June 2006, the Western Governors Association endorsed examining the feasibility of large penetrations of energy efficiency measures and renewable generation as recommended by the Clean and Diversified Energy Assessment Consortium (CDEAC). In January 2007, the Governors of five western states announced a mutual effort to achieve GHG reductions in their jurisdictions. This demonstration of western states' interest in GHG reductions suggests that preferred resource additions such as energy efficiency, end-user PV systems, and supply-side renewable generating technologies described in the CDEAC reports will be pursued in large portions of the West. To investigate the consequences of such activities, several scenarios were developed that assume high penetrations of energy efficiency, end-user photovoltaics and supply-side renewables in California-only or West-wide. These scenarios were developed into production cost model datasets and evaluated for most likely future conditions. Sensitivity of results to fuel prices and a limited number of other assumptions was also evaluated. The differences in system performance between the California-only and West-wide variants of the scenarios illustrate how the entire Western electric system might be dispatched differently. As a result, imports into California change through time and change noticeably from case to case as least cost dispatch practices accommodate major changes in resource mix.
A staff report describing the results of the scenario assessments and the analytic approach and an agenda will be available before the June 18 workshop. Additional materials describing the implications of the study results and an agenda will be available before the July 9 workshop.
Interpreting Scenario Results
Staff offers two cautions about interpreting the results that will be addressed in the July 9, 2007, workshop. First, the scenarios are designed and have been assessed on a "what if" basis, e.g., each thematic scenario assumes a specific penetration of a preferred resource through time and the analysis evaluates the consequences of the assumption across a broad range of measures by running several cases through the production cost model. Such scenario assessment is not a prediction of what will happen. There are numerous legislative, regulatory, and commercial business decisions that would have to be made for the assumptions to be transferred into action "on the ground." The project team has not attempted to develop a detailed implementation plan or to catalogue all of the uncertainties associated with these penetration levels at the assumed level of costs. The range of penetrations selected for various scenarios have been considered "feasible" through various preceding studies. Second, the assessment techniques should be interpreted as "indicative" of the consequences of the scenario in question, but not definitive. There are numerous shortcuts in modeling technique that have been undertaken, and data limitations that have been encountered, in attempting to complete this project within a seven month period.
In addition, the analyses that have been conducted are on a physical basis, while many of the forthcoming policies to achieve major GHG reductions will be designed for individual load serving entities (LSE) and generating companies. None of the analyses conducted in this project are specific enough to allow the impacts on an individual LSE to be evaluated. The potential opportunities for market-based GHG compliance systems, whether broadly between a wide range of regulated entities or narrowly among the fleet of power plants owned and operated by a single generating company, have not been addressed.
As required by Senate Bill 1389 (SB 1389, Bowen and Sher, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002), the Energy Commission conducts "assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices." The Energy Commission uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state's economy, and protect public health and safety. (PRC § 25301[a]). The Energy Commission adopts the IEPR every odd-numbered year and in even-numbered years adopts an energy policy review to update analysis from the previous IEPR or to raise energy issues that have emerged since the previous proceeding. (PRC § 25302[d]).
The 2007 IEPR proceeding Scoping Order, issued on August 1, 2006, directs staff to "evaluate constraints to and opportunities for improving the state's energy system." The scenario analyses of the electricity system are key components of this evaluation.
Workshop Participation and Comments
The IEPR Committee requests participation of interested parties in the workshops and proceeding and encourages them to present their views either orally at the workshop or through written comments. The IEPR Committee will take general comment from the public immediately following the workshop presentations.
Parties should provide comments regarding the scenario analyses, results, and workshop discussions both orally at the workshops and in writing. For the June 18 workshop, written comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 29, 2007. For the materials discussed at the July 9 workshop, written comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on July 20, 2007. Comments submitted before both workshops will be used to facilitate the discussion. Include the docket number No. 06-IEP-1M and indicate 2007 IEPR - Scenario Analyses in the subject line or first paragraph of your comments. The Energy Commission also encourages comments by e-mail. Please include your name or organization in the name of the file. Those submitting comments by electronic mail should provide them in either Microsoft Word format or as a Portable Document File (PDF) to [email@example.com].
One paper copy must also be sent to the Energy Commission's Docket Unit. If the original is more than 20 pages, please also provide 35 paper copies to:
California Energy Commission
Dockets Office, MS-4
Re: Docket No. 06-IEP-1M
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
Participants may also provide an original and 35 copies at the beginning of the workshop. All written materials relating to this workshop will be filed with the Dockets Unit and become part of the public record in this proceeding.
The Energy Commission's Public Adviser's Office provides the public assistance in participating in Energy Commission activities. If you would like information on how to participate in this workshop, please contact the Public Adviser's Office by phone at (916) 654-4489 or toll-free at (800) 822-6228, by FAX at (916) 654-4493, or by e-mail at [firstname.lastname@example.org]. If you have a disability and require assistance to participate in this hearing, please contact Lou Quiroz at (916) 654-5146 at least five days in advance.
The service list for the 2007 IEPR proceeding is handled electronically. Notices and documents for these proceedings are posted to the Energy Commission website www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/. When new information is posted, an e-mail will be sent to those on the energy policy e-mail list server. We encourage those who are interested in receiving these notices to sign up for the list server through the website www.energy.ca.gov/listservers/index.html.
Questions regarding the 2007 IEPR proceeding should be directed to Lorraine White, IEPR program manager, at (916) 654-4075 or by email at [email@example.com]. For technical questions regarding the Scenario Analyses subject matter of this workshop, please contact Mike Jaske by phone at (916) 654-4777, or by e-mail at [firstname.lastname@example.org]. Please direct all news media inquiries to Claudia Chandler, Assistant Executive Director, at (916) 654-4989.
Date: May 22, 2007
Chairman and Presiding Member
Integrated Energy Policy Report
JOHN L. GEESMANL
Commissioner and Associate Member
Integrated Energy Policy Report
Date Posted: May 23, 2007
Note: California Energy Commission's formal name is State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission.