pIRP: A Probabilistic Tool for Long-Term Integrated Resource Planning of Power Systems.
Abstract not provided.
Nazir, Salman↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Integrated resource planning”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
A Review of Water and Climate Change Analysis in Electric Utility Integrated Resource Planning
The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which electric utility integrated resource plans (IRPs) evaluate the impact of water constraints on electric generation resource portfolios and the extent to which IRPs consider the impacts of climate change to generation and loads. This white paper reviewed 30 IRPs to determine best practices with respect to analyzing and reporting on potential water-based and climate change risks within the integrated resource planning process. Best practices from electric utility IRPs are identified and additional recommendations and considerations are put forth. In recent years, thermal generating facilities have experienced challenges with water availability: a shortage of cooling water, conditions in which incoming cooling water is too warm for optimal operation, and/or water discharge temperatures exceeding permit limits. S&P Global Market Intelligence recently reported on a study that identified for the year 2030, 98.2 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity at risk due to water stress. Climate change effects on hydrological cycles may adjust the timing, temperature, and volume of water availability for thermal electric cooling and for hydropower generation, which could further exacerbate the frequency and duration of operational constraints. Climate change can also impact the timing and intensity of electric loads that utilities must serve, most notably for heating and cooling.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Review of Marine Renewable Energy in Integrated Resource Plans
As part of a literature review of reference material for grid applications of marine hydrokinetic energy capture technologies, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) surveyed U.S. electric utility integrated resource plans for the mention or treatment of marine renewable energy technologies, principally wave energy, tidal energy, and offshore wind energy. This review offers a window into utility decision-making and data utilization with regard to these generating technologies. The report also offers perspectives on the relationship between traditional and emerging resource planning paradigms and metrics.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
A Resilient Integrated Resource Planning Framework for Transmission Systems: Analysis and Optimization
This article presents a resilient Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) framework designed for transmission systems, with a specific focus on analyzing and optimizing responses to High-Impact Low-Probability (HILP) events. The framework aims to improve the resilience of transmission networks in the face of extreme events by prioritizing the assessment of events with significant consequences. Unlike traditional reliability-based planning methods that average the impact of various outage durations, this work adopts a metric based on the proximity of outage lines to generators to select HILP events. The system’s baseline resilience is evaluated by calculating load curtailment in different parts of the network resulting from HILP outage events. The transmission network is represented as an undirected graph. Graph-theoretic techniques are used to identify islands with or without generators, potentially forming segmented grids or microgrids. This article introduces Expected Load Curtailment (ELC) as a metric to quantify the system’s resilience. The framework allows for the re-evaluation of system resilience by integrating additional generating resources to achieve desired resilience levels. Optimization is performed in the re-evaluation stage to determine the optimal placement of distributed energy resources (DERs) for enhancing resilience, i.e., minimizing ELC. Case studies on the IEEE 24-bus system illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In the broader context, this resilient IRP framework aligns with energy sustainability goals by promoting robust and resilient transmission networks, as the optimal placement of DERs for resilience enhancement not only strengthens the system’s ability to withstand and recover from disruptions but also contributes to efficient resource utilization, advancing the overarching goal of energy sustainability.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Effectively Considering the Distribution System in Integrated Resource Plans
While electricity planning practices vary by state and utility based on utility type and market structure, integrated resource planning (IRP) remains a prominent vehicle — even in states with centrally-organized wholesale electricity markets. IRP focuses on meeting forecasted long-term electricity needs. Typically, utilities have not considered impacts of design and operation of the low-voltage distribution network in IRP. With advanced capabilities of grid-edge technologies to generate and store electricity and provide load flexibility, and large utility investments in distribution systems, it's increasingly important to consider at least some distribution planning elements in IRP. This report considers the value proposition for doing so, such as reducing utility costs through resource co-optimization and strategic siting of grid-edge resources, and idenfities the most important touchpoints between planning for bulk power and distribution systems and provide a range of tactics for integrating these two processes.
Relf, Grace [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory↗
Best Practices in Integrated Resource Planning: A guide for planners developing the electricity resource mix of the future
Most states today require regulated electric utilities to file an IRP every 1 to 5 years, and some utilities voluntarily prepare these plans. Planning needs have changed in recent years due to emerging load growth, plant retirements, rising costs, and more extreme weather events – among other factors. In response, Synapse Energy Economics and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory produced a joint report, Best Practices in Integrated Resource Planning: A guide for planners developing the electricity resource mix of the future. The guide offers best planning practices for electricity systems undergoing a major transition, but also contains a wealth of practical guidance to develop technically sophisticated, clearer, more effective, and state-of-the-art electric utility resource plans. The guide is for resource planning professionals and stakeholders involved in resource planning processes. This diverse group includes utility personnel tasked with conducting resource planning and making investment decisions, state regulatory commissions that develop planning guidance and oversee the resource planning process, and stakeholders that represent a wide range of interests—utility consumer advocates, environmental groups, industrial customers, local governments, independent power producers, and many other
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Implications of a regional resource adequacy program on utility integrated resource planning: Study for the Western United States
LBNL collaborated with the Western Interstate Energy Board and the University of Texas, Austin to investigate the implications of a regional resource adequacy (RA) program on utility integrated resource planning. This report is focused on an active policy discussion to develop a novel voluntary program to share capacity resource and improve RA in the Western Interconnection. This report identifies two RA components of IRP that will be highly impacted by a regional RA program: resource capacity accreditation and RA targets. There are at least four resources that will require specific attention for their capacity credit calculation: (1) variable renewable resources, (2) demand-side resources, (3) hydropower, and (4) contracts. It will then be necessary to decide on a RA target reliability metric (e.g., a planning reserve margin) that is at least the minimum requirement in IRPs to ensure consistency in RA requirement calculations. The report finds that load forecasting and transmission expansion analyses will be moderately impacted, but that most of IRP components will not be significantly impacted. The report includes (i) a review of traditional resource adequacy practices in IRP; (ii) a case study of an existing regional RA program that interacts with IRP (Southwest Power Pool) and (iii) an overview of the NWPP regional resource adequacy proposal that is the object of this work. This paper does not (1) advocate for or against a regional RA program for the NWPP, (2) make detailed design recommendations for this program, or (3) assess its benefits and costs.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Implications of a regional resource adequacy program for utility integrated resource planning
Not Available
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Plan It Together: Optimizing Across Generation, Transmission, Distribution, and Distributed Energy Resources
Integrated planning holds the promise of unlocking lower total system cost solutions by connecting previously siloed planning processes. This article summarizes the state of bulk and local grid planning today and details multiple new analytical approaches that can enable more holistic planning methods to develop comprehensive solutions to generation, transmission, distribution, and distributed energy resource needs. These include both iterative approaches as well as cooptimization techniques. In addition to the benefits of these methods, the technical and institutional challenges and associated solutions are also discussed.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Beginner's Guide to Understanding Power System Model Results for Long-Term Resource Plans
This presentation summarizes a recently published beginner's guide for understanding power system model results for long-term resource plans. This guide is designed to improve decision-making in the electricity planning process by strengthening dialogue between system planners and relevant stakeholders. It focuses on interpreting scenario results generated by power system planning models. These results are often used to inform integrated resource plans, which are long-term plans for a utility to meet future electricity requirements. Whether you are a state utility commissioner, commission staff, part of a state energy office, an intervenor in the planning process, or another stakeholder, this guide is designed to help you better weigh in on the modeling methods or interpret the model results to improve decision-making. This guide can enhance your understanding to ask the right questions, which can enable better understanding of results and key assumptions, data, and methods.
ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Advanced Guide to Understanding Power System Model Results for Long-Term Resource Plans
This guide is for public utility commission staff, state energy office staff, and other stakeholders who review model results for utility integrated resource plans (IRPs). It builds on the "Beginner's Guide to Understanding Power System Model Results for Long-Term Resource Plans," and delves into more advanced topics that were not included or not fully covered in the beginner's guide. The topics included here are evolving and may or may not be important to the resource plan you are evaluating. Due to limitations in resources, it's also not possible to give the highest level of detail or attention to every topic within a plan. An important part of planning for an uncertain future involves deciding which topics deserve the most focus and resources. It's all about prioritizing efforts where they will have the most impact or be most beneficial despite uncertainties ahead. As with the beginner's guide, we intend for this guide to help improve decision-making in the electricity planning process by strengthening understanding and dialogue between electricity system planners and relevant stakeholders. The following information is designed to allow you to better engage in the planning process by evaluating results, asking questions, and thinking through what is most important. We allocate significant discussion in the guide to electricity demand evolution, demand-side resources, and resource adequacy. These topics have garnered increasing attention, hence their prominence in this guide. Other topics are also presented, but their incorporation into the planning process might vary based on interest and relevance. The absence of certain topics doesn't diminish their importance; rather, it reflects the reality that in planning, trade-offs necessitate prioritizing certain aspects over others.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Coordinated Natural Gas and Electric Planning: Case Studies of Current Approaches and Practices
This paper examines how natural gas and electric utilities across eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces are beginning to coordinate historically separate planning processes in response to growing system interdependencies, policy mandates, aging infrastructure, and changing customer energy choices. Electricity planning has long relied on robust integrated resource planning frameworks that weigh numerous objectives, risks, and costs. Natural gas planning, on the other hand, is typically less transparent and more narrowly focused on safety and system integrity. As economic, reliability, and policy drivers place new and shared demands on both systems, jurisdictions and utilities are experimenting with approaches such as coordinated forecasting, non pipeline alternatives, and combined planning pilots. A few have issued regulatory or statutory directives for greater data sharing and methodological alignment. Case studies from British Columbia, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Québec, Rhode Island, and Washington illustrate a wide range of approaches to rethinking siloed planning. The paper identifies several common themes across the jurisdictions examined. It provides observations on the methods, processes, and organizational steps that may be needed in the future to address the challenges being faced by states and utilities. Lastly, it identifies some initial steps that states and utilities can consider if they would like to pursue more integrated, cost-effective, policy-aligned energy system planning.
03 NATURAL GAS↗
South Africa’s Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards and Labeling Program
Electricity consumption in South Africa comes with a hefty environmental cost to the society. For every kilowatt-hour (kWh) produced, 1 kilogram (kg) of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is emitted, 1.4 liters of water are used, and 0.37 grams of particulate emissions are released in the atmosphere. These environmental implications result from the large share of electricity produced from coal (91 percent in 2015). While planned new capacity will ramp up renewable energy, the integrated resource plan for the country still projects the share of col to be 64 percent in 2030. Energy savings provide environmental benefits as well as economic benefits. Energy efficiency standards and labeling (S&L) programs are a policy measure proven to save energy. Such programs have been implemented in many countries to remove inefficient technologies and transform markets to more efficient technologies. In this study, we describe the methodology, assumptions and results of a stock turnover modeling tool that estimates the energy savings achievable by South Africa’s S&L program in the residential sector. We show that if regulations are passed in 2020 and effective in 2021 for 10 major end-use adopting international standards best practices, 6 terawatt-hours (TWh) will be saved in 2030 and 9.5 TWh will be saved in 2040, representing a CO 2 mitigation of 3.7 megatonnes (Mt) in 2030 and 5.8 Mt in 2040, which will contribute to the South African government’s international engagement in fighting against climate change through its National Determined Contribution (NDC). Additional environmental benefits include saving of 6.5 billion liters of water in 2030, representing approximately 100 liters per capita in 2030. Air quality will also improve, as 4 kilotons (kt) of particulate emissions will be avoided, as well as 4.3 Mt of sulfur oxides (SOx) and 23 kt of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in 2030.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
The Cost of Floating Offshore Wind Energy in California Between 2019 and 2032
California’s energy planning is centered around meeting the emissions reduction and renewable energy requirements of Senate Bill 350 by 2030. However, state power system planning is expected to eventually address California’s requirement to achieve 100% of total retail electricity sales from renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2045, as mandated by Senate Bill 100. To comply with these directives, California needs to investigate the further development of energy efficiency, storage, and a diverse range of renewable energy, zero-carbon emission, and transmission resources, including offshore wind. Wind resources off the coast of California have the potential to generate a significant portion of the state’s electric energy as it moves toward a zero-carbon economy and can help diversify its energy mix. Floating offshore wind technology, which is suitable for the deep waters along the California coast, is currently in a precommercial phase, with approximately 84 megawatts (MW) installed worldwide at the end of 2019. Globally there are over 7,000 MW in planning and permitting phases of development, with the first commercial-scale projects expected to be operational in 2024. This study provides site-specific cost and performance data for floating offshore wind to inform California’s long-term energy planning. The identification of new resources to meet California’s policy goals at least cost is part of the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process, which is coordinated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In 2019–2020 IRP modeling, offshore wind was included for the first time as a candidate resource in some sensitivity cases (CPUC 2019). The data and information presented in this report can be used to update offshore wind inputs in future IRP cycles. The authors conducted a geospatial cost analysis over portions of the offshore wind resource area of California. The analyzed spatial domain includes sites with a mean wind speed of at least 7 meters per second and water depths between 40 meters (m) and 1,300 m. Costs and energy production vary across this analysis domain. We calculated these parameters on a grid layout with over 750 sites, with each site representing a 1,000-MW commercial offshore wind power plant. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) was calculated at each site over the analysis domain. The resulting variation in LCOE across the analysis domain is illustrated through heat maps in this report. Five study areas were selected within the analysis domain where more detailed cost analysis was conducted and cost parameters, such as annual energy production, capital cost expenditures (CapEx), operational cost expenditures (OpEx), and net capacity factors are reported. These five study areas include Morro Bay, Diablo Canyon, Humboldt, Cape Mendocino and Del Norte.
17 WIND ENERGY↗
Assessing the Interactive Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Demand Response on Power System Costs and Emissions
Utilities are increasingly interested in integrating energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) measures and technologies (as well as other distributed energy resources) as a strategic approach to improve their cost-effectiveness and performance. However, the specific EE and DR features that may be best integrated, the interplay between changing EE and DR resource potential, and resulting utility system impacts are not well understood. We quantify the impacts of EE and DR in isolation and in combination on bulk power system costs and emissions based on changes in generation expansion, transmission expansion, and dispatch patterns. The study methodology mimics utility resource planning and uses more novel techniques to select least-cost generation and transmission capacity from supply-and demand-side resources, as compared to more commonly used utility approaches that only consider supply-side resources. The results identify key EE and DR characteristics affecting each other’s power system value and the most valuable technologies and strategies that can be jointly deployed. We discuss implications for EE and DR cost-effectiveness frameworks, program design, and integrated resource planning.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
State Insights On The Water-Energy Nexus And Policy Ideas To Achieve Greater Savings
Governors, state policymakers, utilities and other stakeholders across the country are increasingly aware of the connection between energy and water production and use, and the need to conserve both resources to meet economic and environmental goals. It requires substantial amounts of water to produce energy and considerable amounts of energy to treat and deliver water. The critical interdependence between energy and water was clearly illustrated during the recent winter storm in Texas and other parts of the South in February 2021. Initial power outages contributed to a longer-term water crisis. Power outages led to water pump failures while water demand increased from frozen water pipes that burst. This caused low water pressure that can lead to harmful bacteria growth in the water. The power outages also prevented water treatment plants from properly treating the water for several days, thereby leaving many residents without clean drinking water and worsening the storm’s impacts. The National Governors Association has been working with states on this connection between water and energy and strategies for conserving those resources for several years. NGA held a Water-Energy Nexus Learning Lab in September 2020. This event invited two leading states in the water-energy nexus space, Arizona and Wisconsin, to showcase some of their model policies and programs to other states, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Washington, looking for greater savings opportunities. This paper provides an overview of challenges that states are facing in developing integrated water and energy conservation policies; provides background on Arizona and Wisconsin’s innovative water-energy policies and programs; and summarizes action items the participating state teams identified for their respective states. The main categories of policy solutions identified by states at NGA’s Water-Energy Nexus Learning Lab were: Funding & Financing – providing financial incentives for water efficiency modeled after established energy efficiency programs, and an emphasis on financial support for small water and energy utilities. Education & Technical Assistance – providing more education and training opportunities about ways to achieve cost-effective energy and water savings, and the needs of resource-constrained small and medium utilities for training and other assistance. Structural Changes to Encourage Conservation – developing ways to incentivize agricultural conservation such as through water allocation strategies; adopting water reuse or water loss standards; and requiring electric utilities to consider water impacts as part of their integrated resource planning process. Communications & Data – conducting energy audits, reviewing water data provided to state agencies, and developing data benchmarking tools to measure and better manage energy and water use. Climate Strategy – establishing a multi-agency working group or other collaborative approach to determine ways to integrate energy and water savings in state policies and help meet the state climate objectives.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Analysis of water–energy nexus and trends in support of the sustainable development goals: A study using longitudinal water–energy use data
Water and energy are two critical natural resources necessary for human activities and socioeconomic development. Water and energy systems are highly interdependent, and water efficiency and energy efficiency are two related indicators for the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. It is critical to improve energy–water use efficiency to sustain socioeconomic development while reducing adverse effects on natural resources, society and the environment. By using longitudinal energy–water use data for China over the past 21 years, this paper develops a temporo-spatial study to address key issues and introduce analytical approaches needed to understand the water–energy nexus and support integrated resource planning and management to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Decomposition analysis indicates that the production effect was the dominating factor contributing the increase in the country's energy–water use, while energy–water efficiency is the major factor slowing the growth of the country's energy–water use. Changes and trends analyses show that the country's energy intensity, water intensity, and water/energy ratio significantly decreased from 1999 to 2019, but the rate of decline has slowed. The disparities of the country's provincial energy intensities, water intensities, and water/energy ratios significantly decreased with economic growth. Results suggest that improving energy–water efficiency is critical for the country to curb increasing energy and water use and achieve resource and environmental protection targets with rapid economic development. Furthermore, the disparities between regional energy-water efficiencies can be reduced along with economic growth, while an overheated economy can widen the disparities and result in unsustainable and inefficient utilization of resources. Government coordination, targets and policy as part of the efficiency governance system are critical for continuous energy–water efficiency improvement and directly influence the implementation and effectiveness of energy–water efficiency policy.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗