Greening the Grid: Implementing Renewable Energy Zones

Greening the Grid: Implementing Renewable Energy Zones


>>SEAN ESTERLY: Hello, everyone. I’m Sean
Esterly with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Welcome to today’s webinar which
is being hosted by the Clean Energy Solutions Center in partnership with USAID and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Today’s webinar is focused on “Greening the Grid: Implementing
Renewable Energy Zones for Integrated Transmission and Generation Planning.” And one important note of mention before we
begin our presentation is that the Clean Energy Solutions Center does not endorse or recommend
specific products or services. Information provided in this webinar is featured in the
Solutions Center’s resource library as one of many best practices resources reviews and
selected by technical experts. And before we begin, I just want to go over
some of the webinar features. You do have two options for audio. You may either listen
through your computer or over the telephone. If you do choose to listen to your computer,
just go to the audio pane and selecting the “mic and speakers” option. Doing that will
just help eliminate any feedback and echo. And if you choose to dial in by phone, simply
select a telephone option and it’ll provide you with a phone number, access code, and
audio PIN that you can use to dial in. And if anyone is having technical difficulties
with the webinar, you may contact the GoToWebinars Help Desk at 888-259-3826 and they can help
you out. And if you’d like to ask a question at any
point during the webinar, and we do encourage everyone in the audience to do so, we ask
that you use the “Questions” pane where you may type in your question and submit it there.
And if anyone is having difficulty viewing the materials through the webinar portal,
we will be posting PDF copies of the presentation at cleanenergysolutions.org/training and you
can follow along. We’ll also be posting the audio recording of the webinar to the Solutions
Center training page within a couple days of today’s broadcast. And just a reminder: we’re now adding audio
recording to the Solutions Center YouTube channel where you’ll find other informative
webinars, as well as video interviews with thought leaders on clean energy policy topics. So today’s agenda is centered around the presentations
from our guest panelists, Daniel Getman and David Hurlbut. Jennifer Leisch has also joined
us today to help moderate the question and answer portion of the webinar. Today’s panelists
have been kind enough to join us as part of the recently launched greeningthegrid.org
toolkit, a USAID and NREL collaboration designed to support countries in integrating renewable
energy into the power system, and to introduce the renewable energy zone or REZ approach. Now, before our speakers begin, I’ll just
provide a short informative overview of the Clean Energy Solutions Center initiative;
and then following the presentation, we will have the question and answer session where
panelists will address questions submitted by the audience. And this slide provides a bit of background
in terms of how the Solutions Center was first formed; and the Solutions Center is one of
13 initiatives of the Clean Energy Ministerial that was launched in April 2011, and it’s
primarily led by Australia, the United States, and other CEM partners. So an outcome of this
unique initiative includes support of developing countries and emerging economies through enhancement
of resources by policies relating to energy access, no-cost expert policy assistance,
and peer-to-peer learning and training tools such as the webinar you are now attending. There’s four primary goals for the Solutions
Center. The first goal is to serve as a clearing house of clean energy policy resources. The
second goal is to share policy best practices, data, and analysis tools specific to clean
energy policies and programs. Third, the Solutions Center strives to deliver dynamic services
that enable expert assistance, learning, and peer-to-peer sharing of experiences. And then,
lastly, the Center fosters dialogue on emerging policy issues and innovation from around the
globe. And the primary audience for the Solutions Center are typically energy policy makers
and analysts from government and technical organizations in all countries; but then we
also strive to engage with the private sector NGOs, and also civil society. And this slide provides on overview of one
of the marquee features that the Solutions Center offers, which is this no-cost expert
policy assistance knows as “Ask-an-Expert.” The Ask-an-Expert program has established
a broad team of over 30 experts from around the globe who are each available to provide
remote policy advice and analysis to all countries at no cost to you. So, for example, in the
area of renewable electricity policy, we’re very pleased to have Paul Komor, Energy Education
Director at the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute serving as one of our experts.
So if you do have a need for policy assistance in renewable electricity policy or any other
clean energy sector, we do encourage you to use this service. And, again, it would be
provided to you free of charge. So if you have a question for our experts,
please feel free to submit it through our simple online form at cleanenergysolutions.org/expert.
Or, to find out how the Ask-an-Expert service can benefit your work, please contact me directly
at [email protected] or at 303-384-7436. We also invite you to spread the word about
this service to those in your network and organization. So now I’d like to provide brief introductions
for today’s panelist. Our first speaker today is Daniel Getman who leads the Geospatial
Analysis Team in the Strategic Energy Analysis Center at NREL in Golden, Colorado. Mr. Getman
has over 15 years of experience in spatial analysis, spatial application development,
and geoinformatics working in environmental engineering, defense, and for the U.S. Department
of Energy at both NREL and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. And following Dan, we will hear from David
Hurlbut, a senior analyst with the Strategic Energy Analysis Center at NREL. He also led
NREL’s technical support to the Western Governors’ Association for the Western Renewable Energy
Zone Initiative, which identified renewable energy resource zones throughout the western
United States. And then finally to moderate our question
and answer session today, we will have Jennifer Leisch. Jennifer is a Climate Change Mitigation
Specialist in the USAID Office of Global Climate Change. She supports the U.S. Enhancing Capacity
for Low Emission Development Strategies program, and manages the USAID Greening the Grid partnership.
She also directs agency work to account for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a result
of USAID Clean Energy programs. And so with those introductions, I’d like
to now turn things over to Dan.>>DAN GETMAN: Thank you very much, Sean.
So I am Dan Getman and I’ll be presenting with David Hurlbut. We are incredibly pleased
to have the opportunity to talk about renewable energy zones with this audience. We’re going
to start off by giving a very brief description of what a renewable energy zone is; and then
I’ll be doing the first part of the presentation to talk through some of the logistics of the
analysis to figure out where opportunities are in renewable energy, to go from having
a resource assessment for an entire region or a state or a country, and narrowing that
down to the places that really make sense to begin thinking about investment or opportunity
development in renewable energy. And then I’ll be transferring the presentation to David
and he’ll be talking about much more concrete example of renewal energy zones, specifically
focused on the Texas Competitive Renewable Energy Zones process. So to start off with: “What is a renewable
energy zone?” This is a map of the resulting renewable energy zones for Texas. To be very
brief, the idea of a renewable energy zone is focusing on a specific area with the intent
of making it very appealing for the development of renewable energy. So focusing developers
into a place where we have goals that we want to accomplish, like development of transmission
or provision of energy, or we can reduce environmental impact. Essentially, making sure that development
happens in places where we can maximize the investment; and that allows local government,
state government, national government to ensure that development happens in accordance with
their longer-term plans for transmission development. So I’m going to talk a little bit about some
of the logistics for doing the analysis that leads up to renewable energy zone development
in trying to identify opportunities for renewable energy based on resource and exclusion areas. So it all starts here with this idea of renewable
energy resource. What you’re looking at in this map is a direct normal irradiance for
the North American continent: some of Canada, Central America, and South America. This is
direct normal irradiance which we’ll be referring to as DNI in the presentation. But what this
means is irradiance that is perpendicular to a PV panel or a CSP installation. And so
this is the highest irradiance that you can get. We also talk about global horizontal irradiance,
which is essentially irradiance that’s reflected throughout the atmosphere and off of other
objects. But the idea is that these data alone, just understanding where we actually have
solar resource, requires a lot of modeling. In this case, this particular dataset is four
kilometer spatial resolution and half-hour temporal resolution. So when you look at map
like this, we’re looking at an average. But you can imagine that the dataset represents
a value for every single half an hour for an entire eight-year period. So it’s very
large dataset, and we need that to really understand what happens with, in this case,
solar resource over a long period of time so we can really estimate how much production
we’re going to get from particular technologies. If you can think about this for wind, it would
be a similar type of thing, except for instead of irradiance, we’re talking about wind speed,
and those would be at different tower heights – so 30, 60, 80, 100 meters – and we would
have the same kind of dataset that would be a time series dataset where we have values
for every minute or every ten minutes or every half an hour for years at a time. So very
big datasets that help us understand where we actually have the resource to think about,
initially think about where we might be able to have an opportunity for renewable energy. So the resources is obviously a starting point.
But even dealing with the resource and trying to start to think about where we might be
able to have an opportunity for a particular technology, there’s a lot of complexity, even
in that first part, and so I want to talk very briefly about that. I’ve got six maps
up, and so I apologize they don’t have a bit more detail directing you around. But if you
look at the top two maps, we’re talking about a particular kind of technology called a fixed
tilt technology. What this means is – and we’ll be focusing more on PVs and wind at
this point – but these things apply. The fact that the technology drives – understanding
of the technology really drives the analysis. So in this case, with regard to PV, we have
this first technology type which is fixed tilt; and essentially what that means is the
system is bolted to the roof and it isn’t moving. And so the top two maps are representing
on the left variability of energy production with fixed tilt; and on the right, the capacity
factor for a fixed tilt system for the whole of the United States. If you go down to the
second two maps, we’re talking about a system that actually tracks the sun. And so the panel
itself moves from east-to-west and changes its angle so that it gets as much direct normal
irradiance as possible during a day. And then the bottom two maps are talking about an even
more advanced technology that’s to access tracking where the position of the panel is
even better able to get direct normal irradiance for a longer portion of the day. And so the reason that I’m showing you all
of these things is to talk about when you’re looking at resource data and thinking about
where you have opportunities, it’s very important to be thinking about what kind of technology
you’re actually looking at and what the limitations of that technology are. And so in this first
step, you can see – looking at the fixed tilt systems at the top – you look at the
capacity factor map on the right: as you go from fixed tilt to one-axis tracking to two-axis
tracking, the map gets more red and orange as you go through those technologies. And
what that means is, the one-axis tracking and then the two-axis tracking are better
able to take advantage of direct normal irradiance until you get more energy output from those
systems. But the down-shot is, if you look on the left,
you’re looking at variability of the resource. And what I mean by this – just to set an
extremely simple example – is if you have a PV panel and it’s getting direct normal
irradiance and it’s generating energy and a cloud goes over it, it drops significantly,
and then it comes back up when the cloud passes. And so the idea is weather patterns increase
or create variability in the energy production. And the challenge is that lots of variability
can cause issues in grid integration, and so we do a lot of things to make sure that
that gets mitigated. But you can see that as you go from fixed
tilt to one-axis tracking to two-axis tracking, you get more and more and more variability
in the energy production. And that’s one of the issues that we need to be thinking about
when we’re talking about, “How do we identify areas we have a really good opportunity?”
You can see from these two sets of maps that finding those opportunities is actually very
dependent on which technology you’re talking about. And so what we do when we talk about opportunity
assessment is we take an area that looks like the map – a dataset that looks like the
map on the left where we’ve got all of the resources, that in this case would be very
good for concentrating solar power, because this is direct normal range. We take all of
the resources and say, “We’ve got all of these places where we think the technology could
work,” and then we take it to a map on the right where we say, “Now let’s get rid of
all the places where we actually don’t think the technology would work for a myriad of
other reasons,” and I’ll talk about how that process plays out. But, again, the purpose
of showing you this is to illustrate this point that we’re actually very much focused
on developing a capability that lets us find these opportunities that are actually going
to have a good cost benefit where we put an investment in and they actually create energy,
and it’s at a price that we can actually leverage. And so that’s the reason why we’re looking
at these things. And it’s a complicated process, and so we
have a pyramid to describe it. On the bottom section of the pyramid it’s got the word “resource,”
and in this idea we’re saying, “What is the potential for a particular technology?” The
very first thing you look at is you look at the resource, which is what we’ve been talking
about so far. And this has the actual resource, and then the physics constraints of the system:
“Is it sensitive to temperature? Is it sensitive to aerosols?” How do we actually make sure
that we know, based on the particular technology, how it’s going to behave solely due to the
resource? And then when we find the areas that the technology
can be successful because we have the right resource, we then go into the next step which
is looking at some of the technical – potential of the technical limitations, the potential,
and that’s where we start to talk about, “Where do we have land use constraints?” and “Where
do we have topographic constraints?” because there’s too much variability in the slope,
and things like that that really create some pretty obvious problems or pretty obvious
costs associated with renewable energy development. As you start to go further up this potential
pyramid, we get into the economic potential, and this starts to get into, “What’s happening
with technology costs and how are those going to change?” “What’s happening with fuel costs?”
you know, “What is the distance to transmission lines?” All of these sorts of things really
start to get into, “What are the other costs associated with development?” And the last
part, this peak of the pyramid, market potential, is really where David’s going to be talking
in economic and market potential. But in market potential, we’re talking about,
“What is the impact of policy?” and “What is the impact of changes in the regulatory
environment?” and “How are investors going to respond to certain things that are happening?”
and “How do you predict that?” And as you can see, this gets more and more sort of nuanced
as we move up the pyramid. We’re going to start with the first two, and I’ll outline
those, and then David will take over and talk about economic and market potential. So this is the world I live in. I’d like to
introduce you to spatial analysis for identifying renewable energy opportunities. You’re looking
at a map on the right which is intended to demonstrate the potential for utility scale
PV across the United States; and what we do in order to generate data like this and maps
like this is we start with the resource and we say, “Okay, let’s look at the technology,
let’s look at the resource, let’s really try to understand where we’ve got opportunities
for a particular technology,” in this case, large utility scale PV, “and we figure out
all the places where it costs a lot, or it’s problematic, or you actually physically can’t
do an installation.” And so this is a very sort of brief subset
of this. There’s actually sort of hundreds of things that we look at when we do this
kind of analysis. But to give you an idea about what we’re talking about: we take the
map of the resource and then we take maps of things like water features in urban areas
and wetland where it’s obvious you can’t put a big utility scale PV system when we exclude
those areas from the available land. And then we say, “Well, now that we’ve got the rest
of the available land, where are the places where we have a very low slope so we don’t
have to do a lot of earth moving?” and “Where are the places where we know we can actually
get a big contiguous area, big enough to have the entire plant? Where are we going to have
issues with federally protected lands and environmental concerns and things like that?” And all of that sort of reduces the total
available area down to the places we actually want to think about investing. And what this
does – hugely important in the process – is that it lowers the risk and it lowers the
cost, because if you’re going to invest a significant amount of time or money in doing
all of sort of the more detailed or more nuance work to understand, “What are the actual implications
of building or developing in a certain area?” it’s best if you can reduce the area you were
actually going to look at as much as possible first so that you can make sure you’re spending
your money on the sweet spot. And that’s really what this is about is finding these sweet
spots. And so there’s plenty of other things to consider.
I wanted to toss out a few more examples; and I apologize that these are smaller maps. If you look at the map on the upper-right,
the areas that are dark blue and dark green and green are indicating places where we have
a pretty good wind resource, and the areas that are gray are indicating places where
we’re not really thinking wind because it’s too populated. So this is the idea of public
acceptance of large-scale wind. And so we exclude those areas because it would be too
expensive or too costly to deal with that. On the left map at the top, you see all of
these gray areas, including this nice big swath right through the wind resource in the
United States where we’re dealing with habitat issues. So there is a big migratory bird path,
there’s lot of species protection that’s happening in the United States. And so we need to consider
that when we’re trying to find these really good opportunities to do cost-effective wind
development. The same thing is true for radar, for example,
which is the bottom left-hand map; and you can see all of these little circles that are
grayed out indicating these are places where it would be problematic to develop wind because
of the interference with radar. And so what we wind up with is an analysis that looks
like this chart on the right. So this is a blow-up of that; and the idea
is, if you look at the line on the far right, the bottom axis here is capacity in gigawatts
and the axis on the left is cost or LCOE. And so if you look at the line on the right,
the black line is indicating without any exclusions at all, “What’s our capacity for wind at difference
cost points?” And then we start to remove these areas that we’re talking about: these
wildlife areas, radar installations, public acceptance. All of these things sort of move
that line over to the left and we wind up with less capacity available nationally at
a particular cost, but that capacity that we’re identifying is capacity we know we can
do something with, and capacity that we should be looking at how to develop. So I’m going to walk very quickly through
this process because I think it’s important just to show it visually. And this is an example
of going through this step-by-step process for concentrating solar power in the southwestern
part of the United States; and I’ll walk through what each of these steps are. So this is the resource for the southwestern
United States. Again, this is direct normal solar radiation, and so this is what we would
be looking at to assess the potential for concentrating solar power. I’m just going to add transmission lines on
for reference. We’re actually not reducing the available area based on the location of
transmission. The reason is that in many cases, we see that there’s a very good opportunity
to build transmission, and so we certainly want to consider that in the available area
that we’re looking at. So the first step is we get rid of all places
where the resource isn’t good enough to really just immediately be cost-effective with the
technology we’re looking at. And this doesn’t mean that those areas can’t be developed,
it just means that we’re looking for the really sweet spots in this particular study. So in the next step, we actually look at removing
all of the places where we have known issues with environmental concern or land use exclusions
to make sure that we’re not setting up these projects to deal with lots of permitting issues
and things of that nature. And then we remove three percent slope, because
in doing that, we actually have one cost point. And this is still relatively expensive to
deal with the earth moving associated with creating a nice flat place for this technology
to exist. But we’re actually going to take one more step in this vain and we’re going
to lower it down to a one percent slope, because these are the places where you have to do
very little preparation in order to be able to do the kind of development that we’re talking
about with these large-scale CSP. And so what we wind up with, this map on the
lower right is actually the same one we were looking at a moment ago, but it’s got typography
and things like that on it. This is very important to be considering when you look at a number,
for example, in this one table at the top where we say, “The total available land area
that you can develop for concentrating solar power is 13,000 square miles,” or “The total
solar generation capacity is 4 million gigawatt hours.” When you look at numbers like that, it’s very
important to understand that these are not numbers representative of the total possible
solar resource; these are numbers that are actually very carefully thought through to
say, “If we make all the right decisions and we’re really smart about where we put things
and everything’s cost-effective, what is the actual potential for a particular technology
in a state or a region or a country?” And so when you look at these numbers on the left
and you see these big numbers for solar generation, it’s important to keep in mind that the actual
areas we’re talking about are the areas on the right that are really right for investment. And so this is – when I think of the process
that we just went through, this is a really nuts and bolts, pretty straightforward process
of finding out where we’ve got things that are cost-effective, and where we’ve got areas
that aren’t necessarily as cost-effective. And this gets very interesting when we start
to add policy into play. So these are very old maps; and I wish I had
updated versions of this, so please keep in mind. I think this is from 2008. But the idea
here is that we’re looking at how long: “How many years does it take to pay back a PV system
in the United States? If you get it on loan and you use the money that you make, or the
money that you save, to pay for the system, how long does it pay for itself?” And at this time when we ran this with the
technology that we ran it, you can see that green is 0-5 years, and yellow is 20-30 years,
and red is greater than 60 years. So we’ve made some significant improvements there.
But the situation is similar in that when you add policy into this calculation, you
can see the entire situation changes. And so if you look at the map on the right,
the map on the right is number of years a PV system would take to pay for itself with
incentive included – and I think this is just federal incentives. And so you can see
all of a sudden whole states sort of show up as green are being very low number of years
to pay back, including places like New Jersey and Michigan, because the policies there are
all about promoting the technology so that we can get past this gap where we start to
have a benefit from the level of adoption really starts to reduce cost, which is the
intent of these incentives. And so that’s a transition in talking about
this policy piece where we start to really go from technical potential into that next
section of the pyramid, the economic and the market potential, where David’s going to take
over and start to talk a little bit about how all of those things apply in the Texas
Competitive Renewable Energy Zones.>>DAVID HURLBUT: All right. Thanks, Dan.
And what I’d like to do is to shift gears a little bit. Dan has been giving a really
good overview of the “how” involved in identifying renewable energy zones. I wanted to get into
a little bit of the “why” and basically how this concept arose, and I’ll be focusing on
how the concept developed in Texas in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the
grid operator there, for a couple of reasons. This was really the first of its kind type
of transmission policy. Texas is where the idea originated, and is also an example of
how it was executed to its fullest extent. But also it’s something that I had a lot of
involvement in before I came to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I was a Senior Economist with the Texas PUCT,
and basically oversaw the implementation of the CREZ process. So I can kind of take you
behind the scenes in the things that we dealt with and the issues that we had to confront
in coming up with renewable energy zones. But also I think it might provide a little
bit more insight as to just why this concept arose in the first place, and how does it
differ from traditional methods of transmission planning. So, basically, the competitive renewable energy
zones in Texas arose because of the peculiarities of renewable energy. In many respects – setting
aside emissions – renewable energy performs differently on the grid than a coal plant
or a natural gas plant, and that has implications for transmission planning. There’s a mismatch
in time between how long it takes to build a wind farm, for example, and how long it
takes to build a transmission to serve it. It takes five to seven years to build a high-voltage
transmission line; it takes five to seven months to put up a wind farm. So there’s a
mismatch in time that I’ll get into a little bit more detail later. But the bottom line was that it confronted
ERCOT with a dilemma that had limited the development of wind power in the most productive
areas, and the competitive renewable energy zone concept came out of staff discussions
with stakeholders to try to come up with an out-of-the-box approach to solving the problem.
But even after we had developed a concept, it really couldn’t go forward until certain
laws were changed at the state level. So that was really what the impetus was behind competitive
renewable energy zones was the need, but also the recognition in policy and the authorization
in law to proceed with this new model. So a little bit of background to sort of set
the stage for how this concept arose. In 2001, the ERCOT, the Texas wholesale power market
was restructured to allow more competition and to split the traditionally vertically
integrated utilities into three components: a generation component, transmission and distribution
component, and then a retailing component. Transmission ownership, by being separated
from generation, the transmission owners were essentially indifferent to which generators
used their systems. So they really didn’t have any stake in whether or not the electrons
flowing across their system came from a wind farm or it came from a coal plant. The transmission part of restructuring was
the only one that remained regulated by the state of Texas. The others, cost were determined
by independent generators, or prices were set in an auction process operated by ERCOT,
retailers determined their own rates that they charged their customers; but the in-between
piece, the wires piece – that was regarded as an essential infrastructure needed to make
both of those markets work, and so those remained regulated by the state. The most important part of restructure with
respect to renewable energy development was open access to transmission. This is a principle
that is involved – that’s part of all major market restructuring in the United States
and elsewhere in the world. The idea is that if you have a generation project that you
_____ has sufficient financial backing and can get out of the market, all
you have to do is really get a transmission interconnection agreement with the grid operator
and demonstrate that all the reliability issues would be addressed. But there’s no need to
demonstrate to regulators that you have an off-taker. So this open access basically allowed a lot
of development to take place. So at the time the wind market really took off in Texas – I
mean Texas really was not unique in the types of resources that it had or the incentives
that were available. There was a federal tax incentive for wind power, but that was available
anywhere, not just Texas. West Texas has exceptionally good wind, but
then so do many other states in the west. So Texas was not unique in this; and yet at
the same time, a lot of the development came to Texas mostly because of open transmission
access and the restructuring of the new market. It opened up new _____ .
So this really led to the wind industry really focusing on Texas for its first phase of development. The problem was wind responded too much. West
Texas is where the best wind resources are located, but it’s also where the existing
transmission infrastructure was located. And the interest in developing wind in Texas was
so great that it overloaded the existing transmission system in the place where the best wind resources
were located. The maximum transfer capability out of this
area was about 400 megawatts. By 2002, just one year after the market was open, 760 megawatts
of wind power had been installed. And it was leading to a number of problems: local congestions,
local costs. And in some cases, equipment was damaged because a wind gust would come
up and all the wind resources would go to 100 percent at the same time, overloading
transformers and other equipment in that area. As a result, there were regular operator ordered
curtailments because of the transmission limit, and that essentially degraded the effective
productive potential of wind as shown in their capacity factor. The capacity factor is an
indicator of how much energy is produced over a typical year based relative to the total
capacity of the equipment being used. So the engineers at ERCOT and at the transmission
utilities all knew what the answer was. It was basically to upgrade the transmission
path from West Texas to the parts of Central Texas where the large loads were. The wind
industry was also looking forward to additional development. So they were looking for a transmission
solution that would not only solve the existing problems, but avoid the same problems arising
in the future with additional development that would occur. The problem was that the transmission utilities
could not advance plans for building new lines until there was demonstration that the generation
would be there to use it. And this is where the collision between old precedents and old
practices came into conflict with the new realities of renewable energy development.
Transmission historically had been built in conjunction with a new coal plant or a new
natural gas plant, which would take about the same amount of time to build and bring
online as the transmission serving it would take. With renewables, that time table was
thrown out of kilter because of the short time it takes to build a wind farm and the
long time it takes to build the transmission to serve it. So the dilemma is circular and very hard to
break if you just focus on the precedent that we were working with at the time. In order
to build transmission, the transmission would need approval from the state that it was needed
for serving customers. But in order for the regulators to give that approval, they needed
to see the generation, they needed to know what was going to be connecting to it. But
there would be no wind farms that would be on the queue to connect to it because they
couldn’t obtain the financing necessary to assure that they could go ahead with their
construction. And the financers, the financiers and lenders would not provide the capital
unless they saw that the transmission was there. So round and round and round, and the
bottom line was no transmission was built. And this is where we came up with the idea
of competitive renewable energy zones; and there are three principles behind the development
of zones. First, is to use the most productive resource. You want to direct development into
those areas where you know that the productivity per dollar of capital invested is going to
be the highest. So you look for areas with the highest capacity factors, and that means
a higher utilization, not only of the generation assets, but the transmission assets as well. You also want to built as few lines as possible;
that means big lines, a few lines. Higher voltages for the lines have lower line losses,
and they’re more economically efficient for delivering the amount of power. It also means
that by reducing the number of transmission corridors you have to build, you’re reducing
the amount of environmental damage. If you were to have the same capacity over a proliferation
of a smaller line, you’d have a much larger footprint that you’d have to build over, increasing
the amount of environmental impact. This also means that there are fewer proceedings because
you’re having one large proceeding for one large line instead of five or ten for a bunch
of smaller lines. And then, thirdly, a very important concept
that we wanted to build into the competitive renewable energy zone process was competition;
and this, at the time, was fairly unique to Texas because of the nature of how the wholesale
power market had been restructured. It was all built around competition. It was built
around allowing generators to enter into the market and compete with one another to provide
the best service at the lowest cost. So we wanted to fold that principle into the competitive
renewable energy zone process by letting the market decide which developers and which projects
were most economically and advantageous. By selecting renewable energy zones and building
transmission to those zones, you’re directing _____ the development into
those areas where competition is going to be the hottest. And the idea also is to not
make all of the developers comfortable. Even though you might be able to _____ an additional 1,000 megawatts of transferred capability out of there ideally, there should
be 4,000 megawatts of potential competing to get to that line. That enhances the incentive
to bring the projects on quickly and to bring them on with the greatest efficiency and at
the lowest cost. So here are the basic steps of the CREZ process
that we followed in Texas, and this is really the idea. And as I said at the beginning,
this is really – the Texas CREZ process is an example of the full utilization of this
process. You start with the renewable energy assessment that Dan described in his part
of the presentation. You look at where the resources are and where the best ones are.
And then the second step is that you screen these resource areas. You look at the quality,
you look at the developability, and you look at the density. It’s not enough to have really good high-quality,
high-class wind resources. You want to make sure that there is enough concentrated in
a single area that if you were to put a 500-kV substation in the middle of an area, you could
fill it four to five times over with high-quality, high-capacity factor renewable energy potential. Once those initial areas are identified, you
want to ground truth it. So the third step is to conduct an open season, and basically
invite the developer community to indicate which of these areas they are really seriously
interested in, serious to the extent that they would have some financial skin in the
game, so to speak, and to provide some demonstration that they’re really serious about developing
in the area. Once those high-quality, high-interest areas
are identified, then you conduct an economic analysis of the zones. You look at the production
cost involved. So if you were to add 1,000 megawatts of wind in this particular zone
and connect that to the rest of the grid, how would that change production costs over
the entire grid? And in the case of wind and solar, generally the variable cost of production
goes down because you’re offsetting a generation that have natural gas fuel costs or coal fuel
costs. And then you could do a cost-benefit analysis of all the costs and all of the benefits
to see which scenarios are the best. Once you have the analysis in-hand, then you
designate the actual renewable energy zones. And in Texas, designation of the zones carry
legal and financial weight because it was directed by the state legislature and the
PUCT had authority and, in fact, a direction to approve a transmissions plan, designations
of the zones meant that transmission was going to happen in these areas. So that was a very
clear signal to all the lenders and all the financial institutions that this was going
to be a reasonable bet for transmission and for renewable energy investment. And the final step is to develop and approve
a transmission plan to connect the renewable energy zones to the rest of the grid. And
this is where you need to decide, “Do you build just as much transmission as you need
to meet your renewable energy zone, your renewable energy goal? Do you supersize it to allow
plenty of surplus development or something in-between?” So as I mentioned, the economic analysis of
the CREZ scenarios will involve production cost modeling. Production cost modeling is
essentially simulating the dispatch of the entire network on an hourly basis, or perhaps
a sub-hourly basis, to see what the most optimum utilization of generation is with respect
to the variable cost of transmission. And this can tell you what the total variable
costs are over a test year. It can show you where the congestion issues are likely to
arise and how much those congestion costs are; and congestion could increase or decrease
in different areas of the grid. There are local costs of power that you can identify
from production cost modeling. This is the sort of social benefit analysis that goes
into identifying a renewable energy zone scenario. Once you have that, you fold in the cost of
new transmission and other benefits and other costs to do a cost-benefit analysis; and you
can use the result of that analysis to compare the relative social benefit of different assemblies
of zones, or different magnitudes of development for the zones. The step of identifying commercial interest
was a very important step in the Texas CREZ process. At the end of the technical analysis,
we knew where the good wind areas were, and we knew where wind could provide exceptional
benefit for the system as a whole. For example, wind along the Texas coast fits the low profile
of Houston and San Antonio and these large urban areas much better than the daily production
profile of wind in West Texas. So that seemed to be a really interesting area. But we needed
ground troop that by looking at whether developers were really interested in areas such as this.
So the issue is, if there really is no specific interest in a project, how can regulators
know that market demand is really robust enough to get the competition that we were looking
for in developing a zone? So there was an open season, and this open
season provided developers with an opportunity to bring in their evidence of their interest
in each of the zones. They could do this in a number of ways. They could demonstrate existing
renewable projects that were in those zones as evidence that they are already familiar
with the attributes of the zone. They could provide pending or signed interconnection
agreements with ERCOT demonstrating that they’ve done the studies necessary to interconnect.
They could show leasing agreements with landowners, options for developing on areas. They could also provide letters of credit,
you know, post letters of credit with the PUCT where the funds would be used to develop
projects later on. And they also had an opportunity to provide other types of demonstration; and
all these came to the PUCT. They evaluated all these demonstrations and basically ranked
them – you know, ranked zones based on the development that had been demonstrated. So the implementation of the CREZ itself,
it began with a 12-month study that was conducted by ERCOT, going through most of the steps
that Dan described earlier in his presentation. Now, remember, this was back in 2005, and
the tools that we had for this sort of analysis were not nearly as sophisticated and detailed
and high-quality as they are today. But from those zones from that analysis, ERCOT was
able identify a number of initial study areas. There was an open and informal stakeholder
process – and this is very important to any renewable energy zone initiative wherever
it’s done: you want to make sure that the developer is there so that the assumptions
that you’re making about the renewable technologies pass the laugh test with industry. You also
want to make sure that all the environmental interests are there. This is really where
their most effective input is found. If there was an area that’s going to be off limits
because it says “Sensitive Habitat,” this is where we need to know. And that can be
screened; that can be accounted for. But it’s important for the stakeholders who have that
knowledge to be part of the process as well. The study areas were then aggregated into
scenarios. The production cost modeling was used to sort of do a first cut at what the
cost and benefits might be, and then the final report was delivered to the PUCT at the end
of 2006. This shows the initial study zones that were
identified by ERCOT in their initial zone. These were the zones that were taken by the
PUCT and carried forward into the open season for demonstrations of developer interest. And as it turned out, there really was not
a lot of demonstrated interest in these wind zones along the Gulf Coast, at least not at
the time. The strongest interests were in the areas where wind development had already
taken place, areas 5 and 9 on the map here; but also in the Texas Panhandle and in the
north area, areas 1, 2, and 4 shown in the map here. There was significant demonstration
of commercial interest there. So these were the zones that the PUCT selected as final
CREZs for transmission development. Once the zones were identified, the final
step for the PUCT was to determine what the size of the transmission buildout would be.
The final decision turned out to be about 2,400 line miles. The estimated cost was about
$5 billion, actual cost was in the neighborhood of $7 billion, and the final element was completed
in 2013. Now, in the case of taxes, the transmission
plan was really a network plan. It was a series of three 45-kV double-circuit upgrades. So
it wasn’t one single line going from one zone connecting it to the rest of the grid; it
was really a series of network upgrades. So not only did this open up really high-quality
wind areas, the network improvements also addressed other reliability issues that were
already existing in that part of the grid, independent of renewable energy development.
So there were a number of reliability benefits that came from the CREZ transmission process
as well. So the big question: “Did it work?” Well,
Texas was kind of slow with respect to wind development. In 2000-2001, the amount of wind
capacity on the system was negligible. Within a five-year period, Texas had come to surpass
California as the state with the largest amount of wind development in a very short period
of time. But at that point, development slowed mostly because of transmission. As these CREZ
elements came online, you can see the increase in actual development over time starting in
2009 and 2010, then really accelerating in 2014 and 2015. Now, a really important point here in looking
at the development trends is that wind development has basically literally blown away the state’s
renewable energy requirement. The RPS goal really isn’t a driver anymore because it’s
essentially history. There was also a non-binding renewable energy planning target that was
for 2025. We’re basically double that right now in Texas. So the opportunities opened up by the CREZ
process, and the fact that they are cost-effective, combined with the reductions in cost we’ve
seen in wind, and now that we’re seeing in solar, basically means that under the right
circumstances, wind and solar are economically competitive with natural gas and the other
conventional resources that are on the grid. Now, this means that there are other operational
issues that need to be accounted for. But the important takeaway is that ERCOT is now
addressing those issues. Cost is not the issue right now, it’s integration. This shows where the wind development has
taken place. The red lines on the right show the network upgrades that came from the CREZ
process. And you see that wind development has really followed those CREZ processes – the
zone, as well as the transmission. But there’s also been sort of a collateral affect with
the fact that the wind market for Texas has improved because of CREZs. There have been
a lot of non-CREZ wind development taking place as well, even in those areas that initially
there was no developer interest in when the PUCT solicited interest in 2007. So the development
can take place in places outside the CREZ. There’s no requirement that they’ll even be
in a zone, but it creates sort of a critical mass of economic opportunity that really sweetens
the entire market. This shows how the affect of zones have increased
the overall efficiency of the wind generations. If you look at the initial projects that were
built in 2002-2003, the capacity factors at the time were about 26 percent, and that was
using the old technologies. But also it was low due to the lack of transmission availability
in the regular curtailment. Now those capacity factors for the same equipment, the same turbines,
are up to 30 percent; and for the new equipment, the capacity factors are even higher. What’s
really significant is that the new areas opened up by the CREZ process in the Panhandle area
of North Texas. These are really high-capacity factor areas, around 45 percent, where products
are coming in at a very, very low cost per megawatt-hour. Wind is now about 10 percent of the total
generation ERCOT, up from less than 1 percent in 2001. And this shows a recent day where
the capacity impact are pretty much for the entire day for the entire plate was around
30 – wind was providing about 35 percent of ERCOT’s electric generation throughout
the day. Now, the Western Governors launched an initiative
to do something similar for the entire western United States. This was a little bit different
from what was done in Texas, mostly because there was no direct link to any statutory
authority for approving transmission. This was really more a planning exercise, something
to kind of focus planning into areas that were known to be the most efficient, with
respect to interstate delivery of renewable energy. Also unlike Texas, most of the interest – most
of the result from this planning has been looking at high-voltage DC ties that would
go from one area with a high concentration of low-cost renewables to a large load center.
There’s been a lot of interest in moving wind power from Wyoming, which has the best wind
resources in the country and a very high concentration of those wind resources, and delivering those
to California. Wind capacity factors are above 50 percent. But getting from Wyoming to California
crosses several jurisdictions. So this is something that these jurisdictions are using
in their planning. So going back to the pyramid that Dan showed
earlier in his presentation: competitive renewable energy zones are at the apex of that triangle.
This is where everything comes together – economics, the technical potential – brought together
under proactive policy that intentionally directs development to those areas that have
the highest potential for social benefit: benefit in terms of the least cost to customers
and the least environmental impact. Just the takeaways for applying the CREZ model
elsewhere: Keep in mind that the development always follows transmission; and if transmission
goes to suboptimal resource areas, well then the renewable energy development is going
to be suboptimal because that’s where the transmission is going. The intent of the CREZ
process would change that by diverting – by putting transmission into those areas where
the cost per megawatt hour would be lowest. Ideally, the authority to build transmission
should come before the process of identifying the zone so that the question going all throughout
the analysis is not whether to build transmission, but where to build it. And part and parcel
is that jurisdiction was easy in Texas because there was only one jurisdiction, if you’re
looking at several countries or different states. And those states need to be able to
coordinate their regulatory _____. [Audio fades out] So that is kind of a firehose version of what
we do in Texas and it’s applicability elsewhere. Other states have tried this model with various
changes, which certainly we can go into more detail at another time if anyone would be
interested. But before I turn it over for questions, I just wanted to let people to
know that you can find more information about renewable energy information at the Greening
the Grid website, and the URL is here. And please check back frequently; there will be
more information posted as it develops. So thank you very much.>>SEAN ESTERLY: Thank you both Dan and David
for the excellent presentations; and we will turn things over now to Jennifer who will
be moderating the question and answer session. So, Jennifer, go ahead.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: Thank you, guys. It sounds
like we’ve heard all about the process of developing a CREZ from starting with resource
analysis all the way to transmission planning. And we’ve had a few questions come in, and
maybe a very quick one we can ask David that came in is, “What is the LCOE for wind in
Texas right now? Or, how has it evolved through the CREZ process?”>>DAVID HURLBUT: Well, when we began the
CREZ process, the capital costs were a bit higher – we’re talking 2007 – and the
investment tax credit was 30 percent, and it was a very important part of the pro forma
or a project at that time. Right now we’re seeing projects come in at
a levelized cost of three to four cents per kilowatt hour, or $30.00 to $40.00 per megawatt
hour. And that’s comparable to a lot of the marketplace – location of marketplaces – but
the prices that are clearing the ERCOT auction. There’s been a rush of development to get
projects online to take advantage of kind of the residual production tax credit. That’s
been sort of in limbo for quite awhile. But there’s still a lot of project planning going
on beyond that. So development hasn’t really slowed. But those are the prices that we’re
seeing in Texas right now.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: Great. So we’ve had a
bit of questions come in with regards to data, so maybe, Dan, you can give us a few answers
on this. And this is multi-parted. Folks are really interested on where a lot of this resource
data comes from, where they might find it if they’re outside of the U.S. for their country,
and what type of analysis tools are out there and are available.>>DAN GETMAN: Yeah, that’s a question we
could spend an afternoon talking about, so I’ll give a brief answer. The brief answer
is it really depends on what you’re doing, because the resolution of the data is what
makes it more or less available. So low resolution data whereas, you know, instead of being a
four-kilometer-by-four-kilometer grid cell, we’re talking about tens-of-kilometers grid
cells. And instead of being half-an-hour data, it’s more like monthly data. Those datasets are available in several places.
There’s SWERA, an application that we have. There’s the IRENA Global Atlas for Renewable
Energy. There’s lots of resource data that’s available, lots of ancillary data that’s available
at what I’ll say are median flow resolutions. The answer for resource data for this kind
of work, the high-resolution data is that NREL generates solar irradiance data through
models for some countries, for the U.S., India, and some other places; and the challenge with
that is the modeling is actually pretty straightforward. If the validation of the models requires ground
truth, and so you have to have ground truth stations in country that have a relatively
long period of time where they’ve been taking measurements so that we can actually validate
the model against the ground truth. And the same is true for wind as it is for
solar. The modeling isn’t too bad; it’s the validation that requires sort of time investment
and equipment investment. There are companies that do that in several countries; and also
NREL produces some of those data.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: Great. And what type of
tools might folks use to do some of the geospatial analysis that you’re talking about?>>DAN GETMAN: Yeah, that’s a very good question,
and the answer is there is a bunch of them. So the very short answer is most of what we
do, we do using – we write software that does analysis using Python. We use the R,
which is an open-source statistics package. We do a lot of analysis on – some analysis
in ArcMap, but usually that’s actually a pretty limited version of it because the data are
so big. It’s actually hard to use a traditional software package, and so we have to write
codes because the data will wind up being quite large.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: We actually had a question
on very specific set of data – and I think this is of interest in a lot of countries
where earthquakes are an issue – is, “Do you at all, if at all, take fault lines in
consideration when you’re doing this analysis?” and “Are there other things with regard to
maybe climate resiliency or anything else that should be taken into account?”>>DAN GETMAN: That is a really good question.
And I think that in some cases, we do take just natural hazards in general into account
when we’re talking about what the cost is. But I think what we wind up doing is I think
of these things in phases – and you can think of the things that we’ve been talking
about today in phases. The first phase is: where are all the places
where it’s worth investing additional funds in doing detailed analysis? And then into
the second phase is where you’re actually buying more expensive data, you’re doing surveying,
those sorts of things; and I think in that second phase is where a lot of the, “What
is the actual risk of natural hazards? What’s the actual cost of strengthening wind turbines,
for example, to deal with tornados or whatever the hazard might be?” I think that’s where those costs go into this
sort of economic potential piece. But we do consider then some of the work that we do;
but I think that’s really more of siting problem where those things wind up being considered.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: Great. Maybe something
that we can do is switch a little bit more over to David and discuss the CREZ process,
maybe what it could look like outside of Texas. So there are a lot of folks who are really
interested in what other countries outside of the U.S. are currently implementing an
approach similar to this, or even some of those where it might be a good thing to begin
thinking about.>>DAVID HURLBUT: Well, I’m not aware of other
countries that have actually implemented renewable energy zones. A lot of my personal focuses
have been in the United States and U.S. more. But there has been a lot of interest. I’ve
discussed renewable energy zones with China, Chile, Mexico. So they’re looking very closely
at this idea. There seems to be a relationship between countries
that are proactively expanding their electric infrastructure. They want to fold this in
kind of at the front-end to – you know, I guess one other way to think about it is
to avoid the mistakes that were made in the United States by transmission structure being
locked into conventional generation. But there are a number of questions that any country
would need to look at in looking at zones. First and foremost is whether or not there
are opportunities for additional efficiency and cost-savings by partnering with neighboring
countries. Politics are amenable to that sort of thing. Generally, the larger the footprint
you have for planning, the better it is to – or the easier it is and lower the cost
of integrating renewables into the system as a whole. But that also means sort of getting
the jurisdiction issues sort of clarified at the front-end. Another issue is that the role of private
capital and private ownership in plans for expanding the electric grid. If infrastructure
is a state enterprise, I mean that sort of defines the decision process in one way. If
it’s private, then that defines it another way. So, generally, this same idea applies regardless
of the type of market that you’re looking at and the countries that you’re looking at.
The idea is to use transmission to direct development to those areas with the highest
social benefit; the mechanisms doing that will change from country to country though.>>DAN GETMAN: I maybe have something onto
that that I certainly neglected to say from the tools and data discussion, which is in
trying to do that to try to find these places where you’ve got the best benefit and the
best resource. I mean dealing with those data can be complicated because they’re very distributed.
Lots of different organizations have them, and one of the things we’ve done at NREL is
to produce the geospatial toolkits, whereas actually for many countries to gather as much
data as they possibly can together in one place and then provide it in some _____ for doing this technical potential kind of analysis; and so to get those first
few steps out of the way to look for places that have high potential to have that maximum
benefit. I think those are really good places to start for countries that we’ve already
done that for.>>DAVID HURLBUT: Yeah, and another – there
are a couple of examples in the United States that I think would be really applicable along
those lines. The eastern inner connection, the eastern
part of the United States, the eastern grid had an initiative a few years back basically
to identify renewable energy zones. And a big part of that was putting all that data
into a mapping platform, mapping tool, that anybody could access. So there’s a very, very
strong value in having a visual tool – the kind of visual tools that Dan is talking about
– available to all of the stakeholders at the different jurisdictions so they can start
to see visually where the best opportunities might lie. That sort of takes a lot of issues
out of the abstract where they can be kind of quite possibly volatile, and sort of bring
them down at least one step closer to reality where they can start to discuss where are
the most cost-effective options.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: And maybe something I
can even mention is that if you do check out greeningthegrid.org, there are links to the
existing geospatial tools that NREL has developed on there for over 20 countries, I believe. Another question has come in – and it’s
something I’m very interested in – is how the actual construction of the transmission
lines in the Texas CREZ process was paid for. And maybe you can discuss a little bit more
of really who bears the risk of the transmission lines being under-utilized, if the building
of the new transmission resulted in higher electricity tariffs for end-users, how the
cost was recovered.>>DAVID HURLBUT: Yes. So I’ll talk about
Texas specifically first, and then talk a little about how it is in other places. As I mentioned in the beginning of my presentation,
the model of the Texas restructuring effort was to separate utilities into different components.
The generation component was set to be competitive. The retail service section was set to be competitive.
That part of the middle transmission remained a regulated utility. And part of that is that
all of the cost of transmission and distribution involved with it – but let’s focus on transmission
– all of those costs are essentially pooled together and then distributed across all of
the area on a low-ratio basis. So everybody pays the cost of the same transmission infrastructure. And the CREZ lines are no different from any
other line with respect to the degree of utilization. Sometimes they’re fully utilized, sometimes
they’re not utilized; so that goes up-and-down. But any transmission system is that way. You
build it to the peak; but by building to the peak, that also means that for most of the
year, there’s going to be some degree of non-utilization on any different information line. So the
total cost, $7 billion, when you essentially socialize that across the entire market, it
has a cost _____ not really acceptable cost impact, and certainly one
that is offset be the reduction in production costs. So costs in the ERCOT market are determined
on an auction basis every 15 minutes. That’s based on the marginal costs of all the units
that are available, and what the level of demand is for that particular moment; and
that’s what the auction solves for. By having more wind and solar resources on the system,
those come in a zero marginal costs. Those are basically more capital cost investment.
So what that does – and we looked at this very, very closely in Texas as part of the
CREZ process, that the reduction in generation costs can be $2.00 to $3.00 to $4.00 per megawatt
hour, depending on how much wind you have and how much solar you have on the system,
because that’s going to crowd out the more expensive resources on the system. Now, in other areas, for example, the Western
United States, the outcome of the renewable energy zone process is really helping inform
planning for independent transmission providers. For example, there are two or three projects
looking at how to move wind power from Wyoming to California, but those are all independent
transmission projects. So they’d be dedicated as part of that process, and those transmission
costs would be folded into the cost of the delivering wind power utilities in California.
So in that case, the risk is born by the independent investors who were behind the transmission
project. So I mean the method of paying for transmission can vary depending on the regulatory
context.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: Seems that developing
a CREZ is a very complex and lengthy process. Are there some key stakeholders that other
countries should be considering when they do this process to ensure that it’s very inclusive
and will develop well?>>DAVID HURLBUT: So remember that the goal
of the CREZ is to direct development to places that have the greatest social benefit. So
the two stakeholders that you need – that you really need in the process are, first
of all, the developer community. So if you’re looking at developing wind resources, you
need to have wind developers as stakeholders. So you can make sure that all the planning
and the technical modeling that you’re doing accurately reflects the state of the industry
at that time. If everyone is building wind turbines on 100-meter towers, you don’t want
to use data that’s based on 50 meters. The second stakeholder group, very important,
are all of the non-governmental organizations that are involved in environmental and land
use issues. You want to get them engaged in the process as soon as possible for a couple
of reasons. One is that it is so you can make sure up front you’re avoiding areas that are
very problematic that might not show up in the technical analysis; but, secondly, it
will be very important to have them onboard with whatever comes out of the process. In the Western United States – Sierra Club,
Natural Resources Defense Council, some of the leading environmental NGOs – were involved
in that process from the very beginning. And at the end, they were very supportive of the
zones that had resulted, mostly because they recognized that renewable energy development
was a good thing with respect to things like climate change and reducing emissions. But
also they wanted it done in a way that minimized the environmental impact of the transmission
needed to accomplish those same goals. So in their mind, identifying renewable energy
zones maximizes the amount of green energy that you can put onto the grid, while at the
same time minimizing the land impact of getting that same amount of energy to market.>>DAN GETMAN: And they’re also going to have
a lot of the data that we need because assessing environmental impact and things like that
are – there’s a lot of overlap in the data required to find these opportunities, and
so that’s another reason to be contacting those folks who are there.>>JENNIFER LEISCH: So we have one last question,
and that really involves, “What kind of modifications to the process do you think would be important
in non-market or vertically-integrated systems?” which in many of the partner countries that
USA works with is the case for the power sector. David Hurlbut: You really don’t have to modify
it that much. Colorado, for example, had a similar project – similar initiative basically
right after Texas had completed its CREZ process. In some ways, it’s simpler because you’ve
only got one grid operator, one generator. But in the United States, a lot of utilities,
a lot of vertically-integrated utilities will purchase renewable power through power purchase
agreements from third-party developers. So they use that in their own internal transmission
planning process, essentially the same as ERCOT did, except that’s done by the utility.
And
they integrate that more with other transmission development plans that they have. So really
it’s the same objective, the same inputs that you need for the analysis, even if you’re
looking at a vertically-integrated utility.>>SEAN ESTERLY: Great. Thank you, again,
Daniel and David, and also Jennifer for the question and answer, and the great discussion
in addressing the attendees questions. We are coming to the close of the webinar; so
before we do wrap up, I’d like to just kindly ask our attendees to participate in a brief
survey we have for you. I will display the first question up on the
screen that is, “The webinar content provided me with useful information and insight.” And
the next question is, “The webinar’s presenters were effective.” And the third one is, “Overall, the webinar
met my expectations.” Great, thank you. And two more: “Do you anticipate
using the information presented in this webinar directly in your work and/or organization?”
And finally the last one is, “Do you anticipate applying the information presented to develop
or revise policies or programs in your country of focus?” Great. Thank you very much; appreciate your
answering our questions there. And on behalf of the Clean Energy Solutions Center, I’d
like to extend a thank you again to our expert panelists, and also to our attendees for participating
in today’s webinar. We very much appreciate everyone’s time, and thank you for joining
us. I do invite everyone to check the Solutions
Center website. We have posted the PDF version of the presentation, so you can access those
now. We’ll also be posting a webinar recording within the next day or two. Just a reminder:
we’re also now posting recordings to the Solutions Center YouTube channel where you can check
out other videos on clean energy topics. And we also invite you to inform your colleagues
and those in your network about Solutions Center resources and services, including the
no-cost Ask-an-Expert policy support. With that, hope everyone has a great rest
of your day and we hope to see you again at future Clean Energy Solutions Center events.
And this concludes our webinar.

Posts created 35452

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top