Load Projection Studies for ERCOT

Stanton W. HadleyOak Ridge National LaboratoryAugust 20, 2010

2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Outline

• Studies of Demand– EIA Analyses

• Annual Energy Outlook • Various Climate Change Proposals

– Energy Efficiency in the South• Meta-review of Other Studies• NEMS Analysis of EE Potential Across South

– Renewable Energy Futures• High penetration of renewables by 2050

• Eastern Interconnect Process• DOE Lab Studies

3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

NEMS model used for several Studies

• National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) developed by Energy Information Administration (EIA) over past 20 years

• Complex program– FORTRAN– PC-based– 8 hours to run

4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Annual Energy Outlook

• Latest is AEO 2010• Provides national and regional results• Reference case plus 30 variations available

• High & Low Economic Growth• High & Low Technology• High & Low Coal Cost• High & Low Fossil Technology• High & Low Nuclear Cost• High & Low Renewable Cost• High & Low Oil Price• Delayed phase-out of policies• Misc. Other

5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

ERCOT results

• Demand growth varies between 0.6% and 1.3%– Selected cases with demand sensitivity

250

300

350

400

2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034

TWh

AEO ERCOT Demand Results

No CO2 Concern

No Sunset

Extended Policies

Low Int. Tech

Low Economic Growth

High Int. Tech

Hi Economic Growth

Reference

6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Other Recent EIA Studies

• Kerry-Lieberman (American Power Act)– Vary from AEO2010 reference

• gas resources • emission credit availability• Technology cost and availability

– Demand growth changes due to:• Energy prices• Economic growth changed• More efficient equipment purchased

• Waxman Markey (HR2454) – Based on AEO2009– Similar results

ERCOT Demand Growth Rate 2010-2035

Reference 0.94%Hi Gas Resource 1.00%Basic APA 0.67%No Banking 0.70%APA Hi Gas 0.63%Hi Cost 0.62%No Intl Credits 0.51%No Intl-Lim Alt 0.06%

7 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

CO2 Allowance Prices

• Range from $51 to $185 with Basic scenario at $66/ton• In nominal $, prices are $88 to $340 with Basic at $115

0

50

100

150

200

2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034

$/to

n CO

2 eq

uiva

lent

Greenhouse Gas Allowance Price, 2008 $/metric ton

No Intl-Lim Alt

No Intl Credits

Hi Cost

APA Hi Gas

Basic

No banking

Hi Gas

Reference

8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

ERCOT Demand Data

• Lack of International Credits has largest impact– Combined with limited alternatives gives lowest demand

9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Demand Growth by Sector

• NEMS calculates demands for– Residential– Commercial– Industrial– Transportation

2010-2035Growth Rate Ref Basic

No Intl -Lim Alt

Residential 0.77% 0.53% -0.02%

Commercial 1.48% 1.19% 0.56%

Industrial 0.37% 0.09% -0.62%

Transportation 8.78% 9.23% 9.71%

10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Energy Efficiency in the South

• Georgia Tech/Duke University (ORNL assistance)• Funded by Energy Foundation• Fall 2008 – Spring 2010• Evaluate potential savings from energy efficiency

policies• Studied 20 states in South• First report was meta-analysis of other studies• Used NEMS for quantitative analysis through 2030

11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Policies Analyzed

• Nine policies in three main sectors• Results below are for all of the South (20 states)

12 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Texas Energy Use in 2007

• Texas has much higher proportion of energy use in industry

21.4%

19.5%

13.5%

18.1%

16.0%

11.7%

31.8%

37.6%

50.3%

28.6%

26.9%

24.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

United States 101,600 TBtu

South Region 43,650 TBtu

Texas 11,834.5 Tbtu

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation

13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Texas Energy Savings Potential

• Metadata Study indicates savings of 5% - 11%• Quantitative analysis shows potential savings of 15%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030

Cons

umpt

ion

(TBt

u)

Consumption with Policy Packages Savings Potential from Baseline

Commercial ResidentialIndustrial

14 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Residential Savings

• Savings both in electricity and natural gas

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Cons

umpt

ion

(TBt

u)

Baseline Forecast Energy Efficiency Scenario

9.4%

13.9%

0

100

200

300

400

2020 2030

Tota

l Ene

rgy

Savi

ngs

(TBt

u)

Electricity Natural Gas Others

15 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Commercial Potential Savings

• Savings even higher for Commercial• Largely electrical

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Cons

umpt

ion

(TBt

u)

Baseline Forecast Energy Efficiency Scenario

13.6%

20.4%

0

100

200

300

400

500

2020 2030

Tota

l Ene

rgy

Savi

ngs

(TBt

u)

Electricity Natural Gas Others

16 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Industrial Potential Savings

• Industrial Savings could reverse growth in demand• Savings are in multiple fuels

4000

4200

4400

4600

4800

5000

5200

5400

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Cons

umpt

ion

(TBt

u)

Baseline Forecast Energy Efficiency Scenario

14.3%

20.3%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2020 2030

Tota

l Ene

rgy

Savi

ngs (

TB

tu)

Electricity Natural Gas Others

17 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Renewable Energy Futures Study

• What is the impact of a massive push for renewables– 80% of electricity from Renewables by 2050 – Multi-year study with ReEDS model– 2050 load flow study with GridView

• Detailed study of different renewable resources– Multi-lab plus contractor effort– Cost, availability, reliability, technology improvements– Sensitivities on multiple criteria

• Two demand scenarios developed for study• Results are still in draft, under review in September

18 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

RE Futures Demand Needs

• ReEDS model needs demand profiles for each of 120+ balancing regions– Load curve is aggregated to 16 time periods representing

different seasons and times of day– 13 NERC regions’ data can be allocated to the 120+ regions– Curves are needed for every other year 2006-2050

• Gridview needs hourly load data for 2050 for each region– Demand profile should correlate to wind profile so both used

2006 as template year

19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Residential and Commercial Demands

• PNNL generates annual loads for buildings based on two projections for improved energy intensity in new and existing stock, Low and High.

• LBNL generates hourly profiles from NEMS methodology considering building and appliance loads.– Create average weekday, weekend, and peak profile for each

month and each NERC region for every five years

• ORNL uses 2006 hourly load data for utilities from FERC to adjust average hourly profiles for every year to mimic 2006 hourly load shapes.

• NREL calculates 16-step profiles for each ReEDS region.

20 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Industrial and Transportation Demand

• ORNL uses demand projections from two NEMS runs– AEO2009 including stimulus funds and impacts for high

demand– Simulation of Waxman-Markey Bill for low demand

• Industrial load factor estimates from EPRI convert electricity demand (TWh) to peak load demand (MW)

• NREL calculates PHEV demand profiles based on assumptions on fleet growth and hourly charging patterns

21 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

ERCOT Demands 2006-2050

• Does not include PHEV demands

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

TWh

ERCOT Demand - High Scenario

non-EV Transport

Industrial

Commercial

Residential

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006

2012

2018

2024

2030

2036

2042

2048

TWh

ERCOT Demand - Low Scenario

non-EV Transport

Industrial

Commercial

Residential

Hi Demand to compare

22 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Texas Load Duration Curve Projection

• Industrial load lower and flatter than others• Data does not include PHEV loads

0102030405060708090

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dem

and,

GW

% Year

ERCOT 2030 Load Duration Curves

Sum of SectorsResidentialCommercialIndustrialTransportation

23 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

ERCOT Hourly Loads

• Applying 2006 template gives hourly variations in loads

24 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Demand Response

• Demand Response treated as supply of system reserves• Selected in model based on cost and availability• Amount and cost based on FERC study

– Percentage of peak demand for each DR and customer type– Vary over time from BAU to Full Participation

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

2036

2038

2040

2042

2044

2046

2048

2050

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pea

k D

eman

d

Potential Demand Response in ERCOT

Industrial

Commercial

Residential

25 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Eastern Interconnect Process

• Eastern Interconnect Planning Collaborative– Planning Authorities, including 8 principal investigators– Contractors- Charles Rivers Assoc. and Keystone Group

• Eastern Interconnect State Planning Council– Representatives from 39 states in Eastern Interconnect– Contractors for added studies

• Stakeholder Steering Committee– Formed by EIPC to gather guidance on scenarios and plans– Made up of EISPC representatives, environmental and

consumer groups, industry representatives– Regional and sectoral representation balance

26 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

EI Flowchart

• Roll-up of existing Transmission Plans

• Macro-economic Analyses– SSC picks 8 Futures with ≤9

sensitivities each

• Transmission Analyses– 3 Transmission plans– Reliability review– G&T Cost Estimate

• Production cost model– Used on the 3 plans and roll-

up

27 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Other EISPC Activities

• Identification of low- and no-carbon “energy zones”• EISPC has funding for additional studies• Possible topics include:

– Renewable energy potential– Nuclear potential– Coal with CCS– Demand Side resources– Distributed generation– Fast-start back-up

generation

– Energy storage– Fuel prices– Market Structures– Power purchase

agreements– Smart grid– Plug-in Hybrids

28 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

DOE National Laboratory Studies

• DOE set aside $20 million from Transmission funding for National Laboratory studies

• DOE identified four areas of interest– Transmission Reliability– Demand Side Issues– Water and Energy– Other Topics

• Lead national laboratories have been identified for each• Initial projects have been assigned• Additional study issues may be identified by DOE and

awardees

29 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Energy Demand Studies for ERCOT

Questions?