SMUD
Assessment of Renewable Energy Resources using the
Western Renewable Energy Zones (WREZ) Model
January 2011
Page - 1
Guide
How to use this Presentation
Run the presentation in slide-show mode
(Press F5) to use navigation buttons

This presentation is designed to provide a succinct review of
results while allowing users to access more guidance if
necessary

Navigation (must be in full-screen mode)

Hyperlink – Link to additional information resources

– Click to get more information on assumptions
and methodology for a specific slide (if available)

Page - 2
Guide
– Click to return to the last viewed slide
Guide
Organization of Material in this Presentation
1.
Introduction
2.
Renewable Energy Demand
3.
Identification of Most Economic WREZ Resources
4.
Comparison to Local Resources
5.
Maps of Top WREZ Resource Areas for SMUD
6.
Slide by Slide Guide
Page - 3
Introduction
Page - 4
Guide
Overview of WREZ Initiative

The WREZ initiative has identified “hubs” composed of environmentally preferred, high
quality renewable resources sufficient to justify building new high-voltage transmission in
the Western Interconnection



WREZ resource data was developed by the Zone Identification and Technology
Assessment (ZITA) workgroup. A discussion of the resources and zone identification
process may be found at:
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46877.pdf (8 MB)
A Generation and Transmission Model (GTM) was developed

Transparent and user-friendly model for load-serving entities (LSEs), regulators and
others to evaluate the delivered cost of energy coming from renewable energy hubs

Focus is on renewable resources that may be more distant from loads, but local
resources can be added by users for comparison

Available at:
http://www.westgov.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=102%3Ai
nitiatives&id=220%3Awrez-transmission-model-page&Itemid=81
Both ZITA and GTM were stakeholder-led processes with consensus from western utilities
and industry stakeholders
Page - 5
Guide
WREZ and the Generation and Transmission
Model Can Assist with Key Questions

Which resources might be economically attractive for
meeting renewable portfolio standard (RPS) targets in the
West?

What new transmission is needed to access those
resources?

Which LSEs may be potential partners for coordinated
procurement and transmission?

How do local options compare to more distant resources?
Purpose of this presentation is to address these key questions for
SMUD using “base case” (default) assumptions for the GTM.
Page - 6
Guide
Important Considerations

The WREZ GTM was run with a common set of assumptions across all the Western
Interconnection

For example, all incremental transmission, 50 percent line utilization

The model is available to download and customize as users would like

The results provide a consistent basis to compare utilities, but they are likely different
from the utilities’ current resource priorities.

Focus is on potential resources. No evaluation of existing resources.

The model was run independently for 25 utilities. The same potential resources were
modeled for all utilities. Multiple utilities could identify the same resource as being
economic for their portfolio. Utilities may compete or collaborate for these better
resources. This slide indicates resource overlap.

Projections were made to 2030 with high RPS targets. This is to encourage long range
thinking.

The intent is for this information to stimulate conversation about long range resource
planning
Page - 7
Renewable Energy Demand
Page - 8
Guide
Modeled Renewable Energy Demand (GWh/yr)
Renewable
Demand
Scenario
Load in Goal
Year
Gross
Renewables
Demand
Existing
Resources*
Net
Renewables
Demand
33% by 2020
12,079
3,986
Not included
3,986
Total Demand in 2030
13,124
-
Not included
-
*Generation from existing plants and plants currently under construction.
Not included at this time.
Notes –Load forecast values obtained from survey performed by LBNL.
Page - 9
Identification of Most Economic WREZ
Resources
Page - 10
Guide
GTM Resource Cost Determination
Adjusted Delivered Cost of Energy
Resource cost information provided by
model:

Busbar cost: “raw” cost of generation

Delivered cost: cost to transmit energy
to load zone


Adjusted delivered cost: the value of a
resource to a load zone, taking into
consideration the energy and capacity
benefit delivered by the resource
Additional information on specific approach
and assumptions in accompanying guide
slides
Busbar Cost
+
Transmission Cost
+
Integration Cost
Energy Value
Capacity Value
Adjusted Delivered Cost
Page - 11
Delivered Cost

AB_NO
Guide
BC_NO
WREZ Resources
BC_NE
BC_NW
BC_CT

The Zone Identification and Technical
Analysis (ZITA) workgroup identified
potential renewable resource hubs
BC_WE
BC_EA
AB_EC
BC_WC
BC_SW
AB_EA
BC_SO

Hubs are meant to represent the highest
quality resources in the Western
Interconnect
BC_SE
AB_SE
MT_NW
WA_SO
OR_NE
OR_WE


The size of the hub is proportional to its
energy potential (GWh/yr)
MT_NE
MT_CT
ID_SW
OR_SO
ID_EA
Each hub can have multiple resources
depending on what is available
WY_NO
WY_EC
NV_NO
NV_EA

Hub names provide the following
information on state and relative location in
the state. Examples:



Page - 12
NV_WE: Nevada West
BC_WC: British Columbia West Central
NM_EA: New Mexico East
WY_EA
WY_SO
CO_NE
UT_WE
NV_WE
CO_EA
NV_SW
CA_WE
CA_CT
CO_SO
AZ_NW
CA_NE
AZ_NE
CA_EA
AZ_WE
CA_SO
BJ_NO
NM_CT NM_EA
AZ_SO
NM_SW NM_SO
BJ_SO
NM_SE
TX
CO_SE
Guide
Most Economic WREZ
Resources


The GTM model was run with
“base case” assumptions to
identify the most economic
resources to meet SMUD’s
renewable demand
These are shown as the
colored circles at right
(“Hubs”)
OR_WE
OR_SO
ID_SW
NV_NO
NV_WE

Additional detail
provided in the
following slides
Resource Key
Hydro
Wind
Biomass
Solar PV
Solar Thermal
Geothermal
Note: Color represents the
dominant resource in the Hub.
Page - 13
CA_WE
CA_CT
CA_EA
CA_SO
300
Guide
Supply Curves of All WREZ Resources and
Top 100 TWh of Resources*
200
All WREZ in WECC
100
Total Demand in 2030
2020 RPS Goal
Adjusted Delivered Cost of Energy, $/MWh
100
80
Geothermal
Solar
0
0
500
1000
1500 1750
Wind
Biomass
Hydro
60
40
20
0
0
Page - 14
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cumulative Annual Generation Potential, TWh
Most economic resources, detailed on next slide
100
* Supply curves do not include local, non-WREZ resources
Guide
Most Economic Resources Identified to Meet Renewables Demand:
Individual Resources, Sorted by Cost
Generation
Cumulative*
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Type
Wind Class 7
Wind Class 6
Wind Class 7
Geothermal
Wind Class 5
Wind Class 7
Wind Class 6
Wind Class 7
Wind Class 4
Wind Class 6
Wind Class 5
Geothermal
Wind Class 7
Hydro
Wind Class 6
Geothermal
Wind Class 7
Wind Class 7
Wind Class 5
Geothermal
Wind Class 4
Location
Oregon South
Oregon South
California West
Oregon South
Oregon South
California Central
California West
Oregon West
Oregon South
California Central
California West
Nevada North
California South
Idaho Southwest
Oregon West
Oregon West
Nevada West
California East
California Central
Oregon South
California West
Capacity, Resource
% of 2030
MW
, GWh/yr GWh/yr
load
6.2
0.0
0
<1%
25.9
95.3
95
<1%
104.3
420.1
515
4%
45.0
354.8
870
7%
22.8
77.9
948
7%
2.8
11.1
959
7%
329.5
1,212.1
2,171
17%
10.4
41.9
2,213
17%
71.5
225.5
2,439
19%
12.6
46.4
2,485
19%
565.6
1,932.3
4,417
34%
202.5
1,596.5
6,014
46%
12.4
50.0
6,064
46%
8.4
44.5
6,108
47%
18.7
68.6
6,177
47%
315.0
2,483.5
8,660
66%
1.2
4.6
8,665
66%
0.2
0.6
8,666
66%
26.0
88.8
8,754
67%
384.0
2,691.1
11,446
87%
824.4
2,599.8
14,045
107%
Adjusted Delivered Cost of Energy $/MWh
Busbar
Cost
$62
$68
$60
$81
$73
$61
$66
$61
$79
$67
$71
$77
$61
$69
$67
$78
$61
$61
$72
$92
$77
Tx Cost
with
IntegraLosses tion Cost
$21
$5
$21
$5
$30
$5
$21
$0
$21
$5
$33
$5
$30
$5
$37
$5
$21
$5
$33
$5
$30
$5
$36
$0
$39
$5
$44
$0
$37
$5
$37
$0
$46
$5
$39
$5
$33
$5
$21
$0
$30
$5
Energy
Value
($72)
($72)
($70)
($71)
($72)
($69)
($70)
($72)
($72)
($69)
($70)
($71)
($68)
($71)
($72)
($71)
($70)
($72)
($69)
($70)
($70)
Capacity
Value
($10)
($10)
($12)
($18)
($10)
($11)
($12)
($10)
($10)
($11)
($12)
($18)
($11)
($18)
($10)
($18)
($14)
($5)
($11)
($13)
($12)
Total
$5
$11
$13
$13
$17
$18
$19
$20
$23
$24
$24
$25
$25
$25
$26
$26
$28
$28
$29
$30
$30
Note: Under cumulative, the generation column (GWh/yr) is the running total of the resources identified as most economic; the
next column shows the corresponding percentage of 2030 load.
Page - 15
Guide
Most Economic Resources Identified to Meet Renewables Demand:
Summary by Area, Sorted by Cost
Capacity by Resource Type, MW
Area
California West
Nevada North
California South
Idaho Southwest
Oregon West
California Central
Oregon South
Nevada West
California East
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Hydro
Wind Wind Class Wind Class
Class 3
4
5+
824
999
203
12
8
315
429
72
29
41
55
1
0
Total Capacity,
MW
1824
203
12
8
344
41
555
1
0
Total
Generation,
GWh/yr
6164
1597
50
44
2594
146
3445
5
1
Energy
Weighted
Adjusted
Cost
($/MWh)*
25
25
25
25
26
27
27
28
28
*This column shows the Adjusted Delivered Cost of Energy weighted by the energy share of each resource in the
resource area (e.g. share of wind Class 7 in California West). Only resources identified as most economic are included in
the calculation.
Click here for Maps of Each Area
Page - 16
Percentage of Hub Energy
Identified as “Most
Economic” for a Given Utility
Guide
Northwestern
BC Hydro
Idaho Power
Tacoma
PSE
Avista
EWEB
PGE
Pacificorp (WA)
Pacificorp (OR)
Pacificorp (UT)
Xcel (CO)
CSU
Tri-State G&T
El Paso
PNM
NV Energy
TEP
SRP
APS
IID
SDGE
SCE
LADWP
SMUD
PG&E
Resource Area
Arizona Northeast
Arizona Northwest
Arizona South
Arizona West
California Central
California East
California Northeast
California South
California West
Colorado East
Colorado Northeast
Colorado Southeast
Colorado South
Idaho East
Idaho Southwest
Montana Central
Montana Northeast
Montana Northwest
New Mexico Central
New Mexico East
New Mexico Southeast
New Mexico South
New Mexico Southwest
Nevada East
Nevada North
Nevada Southwest
Nevada West
SCL
>90%
66.7 - 90%
33.3 - 66.7%
10 - 33.3%
>0% - <10%
Utilities That May be Interested in Similar Resource Areas
Greater Potential Interest Indicated by Filled Circles
Percentage of Hub Energy
Identified as “Most
Economic” for a Given Utility
Guide
Page - 18
Northwestern
BC Hydro
Idaho Power
Tacoma
PSE
Avista
EWEB
PGE
Pacificorp (WA)
Pacificorp (OR)
Pacificorp (UT)
Xcel (CO)
CSU
Tri-State G&T
El Paso
PNM
NV Energy
TEP
SRP
APS
IID
SDGE
SCE
LADWP
SMUD
PG&E
Resource Area
Oregon Northeast
Oregon South
Oregon West
Texas
Utah West
Washington South
Wyoming East
Wyoming East Central
Wyoming North
Wyoming South
Alberta East
Alberta East Central
Alberta North
Alberta Southeast
British Columbia Central
British Columbia East
British Columbia Northeast
British Columbia North
British Columbia Northwest
Birtish Columbia Southeast
Birtish Columbia South
British Columbia Southwest
British Columbia West Central
British Columbia West
Baja North
Baja South
SCL
>90%
>90%
66.7
- 90%
66.7
- 90%
33.3
- 66.7%
33.3
- 66.7%
1010
- 33.3%
- 33.3%
>0%
- <10%
<10%
Utilities That May be Interested in Similar Resource Areas
Greater Potential Interest Indicated by Filled Circles (cont.)
Guide
Annual Average Hourly Profiles in WREZ With
Most Generation From That Resource
Oregon South
Geothermal 81% Avg
90%
$100
$90
80%
Energy Price $70/MWh
Avg
$80
Capacity Factor (%)
$70
60%
California West Wind
39% Avg
50%
$60
$50
40%
$40
30%
$30
20%
$20
10%
$10
0%
$0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Hour Beginning
Page - 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Energy Price ($/MWh)
70%
Comparison to Local Resources
Page - 20
Guide
Potential Resources in SMUD Service Territory
Legend Symbols not
to Scale
LSE Service Areas
Transmission Lines
Size (kV)
230-499
500
DC
Page - 21
Existing
Foundational
Potential
Guide
Potential Wind and Solar PV Resources in SMUD
Territory
Local Wind and Solar PV Resources
Wind
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5+
Solar PV
1% of service territory
See guide for important notes and assumptions
Page - 22
Potential Capacity
(MW)
0
0
0
945
Guide
Economic Analysis of Local Resources in Service Territory
Economics of Local Resources
WREZ Resources (Previous Supply Curve)
Busbar
Cost
Tx Cost
Int. Cost
Energy
Value
$154
-
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
$2.5
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
($75)
-
Total
Capacity
Without
Value
Tx Cost
($34)
$48
-
Total Demand in 2030
Generic
Comparative
Local Resource
Solar PV
Wind Class 3
Wind Class 4
Wind Class 5
Wind Class 6
Wind Class 7
2020 RPS Goal
Adjusted Delivered Cost of Energy, $/MWh
Adjusted Delivered Cost of Energy, $/MWh
100
80
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Biomass
Hydro
60
40
20
0
0
Page - 23
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cumulative Annual Generation Potential, TWh
100
Maps of Top WREZ Resource Areas for
SMUD
Page - 24
Guide
Oregon West Potential Resources
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PGE
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
Eugene W&E
PacifiCorp
Eugene W&E
LSE Service Areas
Transmission Lines
Size (kV)
230-499
PacifiCorp
0
MILES
500
50
100
150
200
DC
Existing
Foundational
Potential
Guide
Oregon South Potential Resources
Idaho Power
Company
PacifiCorp
Idaho Power
Company
Avista
Avista
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
LSE Service Areas
Transmission Lines
Size (kV)
PG&E
230-499
Sierra Pacific
Power Co
0
MILES
50
100
150
200
500
DC
Existing
Foundational
Potential
Guide
California West Potential Resources
SCE
SCE
PG&E
SCE
SCE
SCE
Imperial
Irrigation
District
SCE
SCE
LADWP
LSE Service Areas
SCE
CA Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)
SCE
Competitive Renewable Energy Zones in vicinity
• Tehachapi
• Fairmont
• Kramer
Transmission Lines
Size (kV)
SDGE
230-499
500
0
MILES
50
100
150
200
DC
Existing
Foundational
Potential
Guide
California Central Potential Resources
SCE
SCE
PG&E
SCE
SCE
LADWP
SCE
SCE
SCE
LADWP
CA Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)
Competitive Renewable Energy Zones in vicinity
SCE
• Pisgah
SDGE
• Victorville
• Twentynine Palms
• San Bernardino Lucerne
• Barstow
LSE Service Areas
Imperial
APS
Transmission Lines
Size (kV)
230-499
500
0
MILES
50
100
150
200
DC
Existing
Foundational
Potential
Slide-by-Slide Guide
Page - 29
Guide
Guide: Renewables Demand
This slide shows a table which roughly indicates how much renewable
energy the utility might be interested in under future scenarios.

Renewables demand is generally
determined for two scenarios

RPS goals in 2020

33% renewables in 2030*

The gross renewables demand is calculated by the renewable percentage times
the relevant load forecast (based on public information)

If existing and under-construction renewables are quantified, these are subtracted
from the gross demand to determine the net renewables demand

Net renewables demand is used as a “mile-marker” to indicate the rough
renewables needed for the utility

The 33% by 2030 scenario is used as the basis for the analysis in the
presentation (tables, charts, etc.)
*For California utilities, 2030 total demand is shown
Page - 30
Guide
Guide: GTM Resource Cost Determination

Busbar Cost – levelized cost of energy considering capital cost, O&M,
fuel costs, heat rate (biomass), incentives, net plant output, gen-tie costs,
capacity factor, economic life, discount rate, inflation, and financing costs.

Detailed ZITA resource assumptions:
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46877.pdf (8MB)

Transmission Cost – levelized cost of delivering the energy from the resource to load area including
losses. For the purposes of this model, all resources are assumed to require new transmission, costs
for which are estimated based on a 500 kV single-circuit ac line operating at 50% utilization

Integration Cost – Indirect operation cost to the transmission system to accommodate the generation
from the project into the grid. Starting point assumptions are provided in the model, but a user can
change the integration cost for each technology.

Wind - $5/MWh, solar thermal - $2.50/MWh, solar photovoltaic - $2.50/MWh, all others - $0/MWh

Energy Value – represents the value of a resource’s hourly output to the load zone – i.e. the load
zone’s marginal cost. Energy values were developed by Black & Veatch based on 2015 market forecast
($2009) using the ProMod production cost model.

Capacity Value – capacity value represents the fractional avoided carrying costs of simple cycle
combustion turbine. A capacity credit fraction is calculated for each project based on its operation
during peak periods (top 10% of load hours).
Click here for full description of methodology and assumptions:
http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/wrez/gtm/documents/GTM%20V%202.0%20Method%20Assumptions.pdf
Page - 31
AB_NO
Guide
BC_NO
Guide: WREZ Resources
BC_NE
BC_NW
BC_CT
BC_WE
BC_EA
AB_EC
BC_WC
BC_SW
Resource Hub
AB_EA
BC_SO
BC_SE
AB_SE
MT_NW
WA_SO
OR_NE
OR_WE
MT_NE
MT_CT
Example resource
ID_SW
OR_SO
ID_EA
WY_NO
WY_EC
NV_NO
Transmission
WY_EA
WY_SO
NV_EA
CO_NE
UT_WE
NV_WE
CO_EA
NV_SW
Environmental exclusions
CA_WE
CA_CT
CO_SO
AZ_NW
CA_NE
AZ_NE
CA_EA
AZ_WE
CA_SO
BJ_NO
NM_CT NM_EA
AZ_SO
NM_SW NM_SO
BJ_SO
Page - 32
NM_SE
TX
CO_SE
Guide
Guide: Supply Curve of WREZ Resources
This slide shows all of the WREZ resources in the Western Interconnection (upper right hand corner), sorted
from lowest to highest adjusted delivered cost. The top 100 TWh of resources are shown in the large supply
curve. Two demand lines are shown on this chart (dashed red lines). One for a 2020 RPS target (if
applicable), and a second representing 33% of 2030 load (total load for California utilities). The resources to
the left of the lines represent the most economic resources for that scenario.
Page - 33
Guide
Guide: Most Economic Resource Tables
This slide lists all of the individual WREZ resources identified
as most economic to meet a 33 percent renewable energy
target. Each resource represents a “step” in the supply curve
shown on the previous page. The resources are listed in
ascending order from lowest to highest cost. Generation is
tracked on a cumulative basis so that the renewable
penetration running total can be tracked.
This slide summarizes the information in the previous table by
technology and by resource area. The resources are listed in
ascending order from lowest to highest cost.
Page - 34
Guide
Guide: Utility Comparison Matrix
This slide compares the most economic resource areas for all utilities. The symbols represent the potential
“interest”* level of a utility in an area. This is measured by the percentage of the resource area’s total
resources that are identified as economic for a utility. Greater potential interest is indicated by filled circles.
For example, 9,700 GWh of California West resources are identified as being economic resources to meet
PG&E renewable targets. The total potential resources in California West are 59,000 GWh/yr, meaning
PG&E’s interest is 16%. Per the key, the quarter-filled circle is displayed.
Resource Area
Arizona Northeast
Arizona Northwest
Arizona South
This zone is common to APS and SRP. A shared
Arizona West
transmission solution may be economic
California Central
California East
California Northeast
California South
California West
Percentage of Hub Energy
Identified as “Most
Colorado East
Economic” for a Given Utility
Colorado Northeast
All California utilities may be interested in this zone, including
>90%
Colorado Southeast
some with significant interest. This indicates potential for
66.7 - 90%
Colorado South
competition and/or collaboration
33.3 - 66.7%
Idaho East
10 - 33.3%
*For the purposes of this discussion, “interest” means that the resource has been identified by
Idaho Page
Southwest
- 35
the model as being potentially economic. It does not imply actual interest by the utility.
<10%
Northwestern
BC Hydro
Idaho Power
Tacoma
SCL
PSE
Avista
EWEB
PGE
Pacificorp (WA)
Pacificorp (OR)
Pacificorp (UT)
Xcel (CO)
CSU
El Paso
PNM
NV Energy
TEP
SRP
APS
IID
SDGE
SCE
LADWP
SMUD
PG&E
While other utilities may be interested in
this zone, it is most economic for APS
Tri-State G&T
This slide allows a quick comparison of potential transmission collaboration or resource competition. Some
examples are shown below.
Guide
Guide: Annual Average Hourly Profiles
This slide shows the output profiles of the largest WREZs (by generation) identified as economic for the 33%
by 2030 scenario. The profiles are compared to the energy price profile for the utility. Average annual diurnal
profiles are provided for price and capacity factor.
The purpose of this chart is to be able to compare the relative “fit” between the output of the resources and
the need (as expressed by energy value) of the utility. In the example below, the flash-based geothermal
project provides a baseload resource available 24 hours a day. The wind resource is more variable, but still
peaks near when energy prices are highest. It is important to note that there are seasonal variations in these
data as well, not shown below. The GTM model considers a 12 month by 24 hour profile when making
energy and capacity value calculations (more detailed GTM methodology and assumptions provided here).
Oregon West
Geothermal
90% Avg
100%
90%
100
90
80
Energy Price
$71/MWh Avg
Capacity Factor (%)
70%
70
60%
60
50%
50
California West Wind
36% Avg
40%
40
30%
30
20%
20
10%
10
0%
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Hour Beginning
Page - 36
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Energy Price ($/MWh)
80%
Guide
Guide: Utility Service Area Map Showing Local Resources
Maps are provided for the utility service area to show local and nearby WREZ renewable resources (if any).
The maps show the renewable resources in relation to other features, including land exclusions, other utility
service areas, and transmission lines. Key features of the maps are identified below.
Potential transmission line
Existing transmission line
Geothermal resource
Resource legend
Wind resources
Hydro resources
Exclusions: lands removed from consideration
for development due to environmental
restrictions (e.g., wilderness area), or other
land use constraints (urban areas)
Solar resources
Page - 37
Transmission line types
Guide
Guide: Potential Local Resources
This slide quantifies potential local resources (solar PV and wind), based on a
high-level GIS analysis. Utilities may supplement this with their own
knowledge about other resources, including biomass, hydro and geothermal.
The intent is to show how local resources might complement or compete with
more distant resources.
General Assumptions

The estimates represent total potential and do not account for existing resources that have
already been developed.

Estimates do not consider constraints on the transmission or distribution system.

Local resources were quantified in a manner consistent with the evaluation of larger WREZ
resources:

Wind: quantified Class 3 and higher wind on land that has not been excluded for
environmental or other land use reasons. Only included land outside of WREZ hubs.
Assumed 25% of the resulting land could be developed. Assumed 5 MW/km2
development density.

Solar: Estimate is just a rough indication of potential based on the geographic size of the
utility service territory. Quantified total area of utility service territory. Assumed 1% of
this land could be developed. Assumed 38 MW/km2 development density. Unlike wind,
did not account for environmental exclusions or larger WREZ resources.
Page - 38
Guide
Guide: Local Resource Economics
This slide compares the economics of potential local solar and wind resources
(table on left) to the WREZ resources previously identified (supply curve on
right). The intent is to show how local resources might complement or
compete with more distant resources. Quantities of local resources are not
definitive, so this chart just indicates where the relative cost of local resources
lies compared to distant resources. An important caveat is that the local
resources do not include the cost of transmission and distribution upgrades,
which are unknown. As such, the economics shown here should be
considered a best case scenario for local resources.
General Assumptions

Costs are based on utility-scale local resources (>20 MW) and consider generic performance typical for
the service territory.

Wind assumptions:


$2,200/kW capital cost
Capacity factor is based on the wind class, as quantified on the previous slide.


Class 3 (32%), class 4 (36%), class 5 (39%), class 6 (42%), class 7 (46%).
Solar PV assumptions:

Thin film, fixed tilt technology

$3800/kW capital cost (ac basis)

capacity factor determined based on location
Page - 39
Guide
Guide: WREZ Resource Maps
Maps are provided for each WREZ resource area identified as having high economic potential. The maps
show the renewable resources in relation to other features, including land exclusions, utility service areas,
and transmission lines. Key features of the maps are identified below.
Example foundational
transmission line
WREZ area of interest
Mini-map showing
selected hub and
surrounding areas
Solar resources
Resource legend
Geothermal resources
Wind resources
Transmission line types
For California areas, any overlapping
Competitive Renewable Energy Zones
(CREZs) from the Renewable Energy
Transmission Initiative are identified (map).
Page - 40
Exclusions: lands removed from consideration
for development due to environmental
restrictions (e.g., wilderness area), or other
land use constraints (urban areas)
Guide
Guide: Transmission Line Types

Existing: Operating lines 230 kV and higher

Foundational: transmission projects that have a very
high probability of being in service in a 10-year
timeframe and are an assumed input into WECC’s 2011
10-year transmission plan

Potential: transmission projects that have been
identified in WECC Subregional Planning Group 10-year
plans but do not meet the
Size (kV) Existing Foundational Potential
foundational transmission
230-499
project criteria
500
DC
Page - 41