Topic:"Electric Resource Assessment Model" in M08929

not included in NS Power’s sourced wind generation but contributes to operational 23 considerations of the total amount of wind generation. 24 25 7.3.1 Energy Resource Interconnection Service Connected Resources 26 In the 2018 10-Year Syst...

AI summary The text discusses the 2018 10-Year System Outlook Report by NS Power, which evaluated the potential capacity contribution of Energy Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS) facilities. It references a UARB Decision Letter from October 5, 2018, regarding generation utilization and optimization.

QDFWXDOIXHOFRVWVIDFHGE\ 163,UHVLGHQWLDOFXVWRPHUV" YL :KDWDUHWKH³VLJQLILFDQWPDUNHWEDUULHUVWRFXVWRPHUDGRSWLRQ´RI+9$&IXHO VZLWFKLQJ" %$7(6:+,7(  3DJH IRP Update Appendix 1 Page 175 of 487 Attachment 9 -...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has raised several questions regarding the assumptions and methodologies used in the RECAP model by NS Power, including DR dispatch, solar profiles, transmission constraints, and effective capacity definitions, as part of the 2019 IRP prework.

ommendations Attachment 18 - Pre-IRP Deliverables Page 67 of 82 Natural Gas Generation (2 of 2) ¬ E3 generally recommends using the WECC Cost Survey for gas plant cost Capital Cost Technology Source (2019 CAN $/kW) Notes E3 WECC Survey (li...

AI summary The document discusses natural gas generation technologies, comparing capital costs from various sources such as the WECC Cost Survey, New Brunswick IRP, and NREL ATB. E3 recommends using the WECC survey data for combustion turbine and reciprocating engine technologies.

38 IRP Update Appendix C Page 40 of 136 Summary of Assumptions Operating Costs – All Technologies Operating Cost Technology Subtechnology Fixed O&M Variable O&M ($/kW-yr) ($/MWh) Wind Onshore $59 $0 Offshore $165 $0 Solar PV Tracking $18 $...

AI summary The document presents operating costs for various energy technologies, including fixed and variable O&M costs for wind, solar, biomass, tidal, storage, coal, natural gas, and nuclear technologies. All O&M costs are assumed to escalate at 2% per year.

2.4.4 Long-Term Capacity Expansion Modeling Software In previous IRPs, Nova Scotia Power relied on Strategist, a resource planning tool supported by ABB Enterprise Software. This tool worked well when the system was predominantly dispatcha...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power is transitioning from the Strategist tool to PLEXOS LT and RESOLVE for long-term capacity expansion modeling due to the increasing integration of variable renewable resources. PLEXOS LT provides detailed optimization and production cost modeling, while RESOLVE offers faster scenario analysis and screening capabilities to support integrated resource planning.

em needs due to lower annual capacity factors (resulting in a higher energy cost) and a solar generation profile that is highest in the summer months (while Nova Scotia's load is winter-peaking load). 2c Coal units are generally sustained...

AI summary The text discusses the economic sustainability of coal units in Nova Scotia until their model-imposed retirement dates, with retirements tied to replacement capacity availability. It highlights the need for new firm capacity to offset retiring coal units, lower carbon emissions, and meet growing electricity demand. Retirements are expected as early as 2023, with some scenarios showing retirements of a second coal unit by 2030.

ave a firm source of gas supply to reliably generate power during winter peaks; • Operational Mode/utilization must be considered (i.e. primarily for capacity or for energy and capacity); • Three supply paths have been developed that consi...

AI summary The document discusses three natural gas supply options for Nova Scotia Power, including existing gas, peaking gas, and base-loaded gas, each with different capacity and cost assumptions. Scenarios for each option include base, high, and low cases.

ng diversity benefits associated with a mix of resources. This could result in the analysis selecting too much of the resources with high ELCC values in the E3 study and too little of other resources. 5. Planning Reserve Margin and Capacit...

AI summary The text discusses concerns with the E3 study's methodology in selecting resources based on ELCC values and raises questions about the relationship between weather data and load profiles in the Capacity Value Study. It also references a response by NS Power to the NSUARB regarding the 2020 ACE Plan, highlighting poor performance of specific hydro feeders.

Nova Scotia Power IRP Final Report Appendix H Page 294 of 321 IRP Assumptions – Participant Comments March 11, 2020 Category Participant Assumption Comment NS Power Response 7. ELCC (Wind, Verschuren ETS should be considered separately fro...

AI summary Participants in the IRP process have commented on the Effective Load-Carrying Capability (ELCC) of energy storage technologies, suggesting that Energy Thermal Storage (ETS) has higher ELCC potential compared to other technologies and could be a better solution for balancing wind energy. NS Power responded by noting that ETS participation is considered in the 2019 Load Forecast and that DR assumptions may serve as a proxy for other DR programs.

Asset: - Decommissioning Costs - Sustaining Capital (in (outside RESOLVE) RESOLVE) - Replacement System - Fixed O&M (in RESOLVE) Costs (in RESOLVE) The difference between decommissioning and sustaining/operating reflects the system benefit...

AI summary The text discusses the system value provided by Wreck Cove Hydro in different scenarios within the RESOLVE model. It highlights that Wreck Cove offers incremental energy and capacity value, especially as emissions regulations tighten and coal units retire. The value is higher in the 2.1.C. scenario due to higher loads and lower carbon targets.

ase Summary Nova Scotia Power IRP Final Report Appendix J Page 39 of 245 Net Zero, Mid. Elec./Base DSM, Current Landscape Key Observations Metric 2035 2045  With access to firm import options, the model chooses GHG Emissions (MMT) 3.2 1.2...

AI summary The analysis in the document highlights that increased access to firm imports reduces the need for gas, wind, and battery capacity, lowers GHG emissions, and decreases the net present value of system costs. It also notes that regional integration lowers generation costs and the NPV of system costs compared to a previous scenario.

cost decline over the planning horizon was larger than for onshore. Ongoing O&M costs are estimated to be 2 times more expensive than onshore wind. In addition, the Capacity Factor midpoint is estimated to be 41% for offshore wind, 2% high...

AI summary The text compares the costs and capacity factors of offshore and onshore wind energy. It notes that offshore wind has higher ongoing O&M costs and a slightly higher capacity factor compared to onshore wind.

SUMMARY RESULTS - Avoided Costs of Demand Side Management ("Avoided Costs") have been calculated on IRP Reference Case Scenarios 2.0C (Low Electrification / 2040 Coal Retirement / Regional Integration) and 2.1C (Mid Electrification / 2040...

AI summary Avoided Costs of Demand Side Management have been calculated using the DRR methodology on two IRP Reference Case Scenarios. Allocations between capacity and energy are guided by the Cost of Service Study methodology, using Load Factor or ELCC approaches.