[LDES-coremodel] [LDES] Questions to discuss during Thursday SWITCH modeling meeting

[Julia Szinai]

Hi everyone,
I've been slowly going through the SB100 report Sarah sent (thank you) and
putting together some questions that came to mind related to SWITCH
modeling of SB100 for the baseline. I don't know if there is already an
agenda for the Thursday meeting, but if not, here are some questions for
the group:

*SB100 related questions:*
1. What CO2 target should we use for CA vs the WECC to capture the legal
definition and/or spirit of SB100?
- Do we have a 0 carbon target for CA and maintain the 80% carbon reduction
from 1990 levels for the rest of WECC (inevitably creating resource
reshuffling, but more realistic than having 0 carbon in all of WECC)?
- Have there been any other updated CO2 or RPS targets in states besides CA
in the WECC that need to be incorporated?

2. SB100 updates the RPS requirements to 60% by 2030 in California, and
then requires 100% 'zero-emissions' by 2045. However, the definition of
RPS-eligible is not exactly the same as 'zero-emissions.' Based on the
SB100 report, we should be counting large hydro and nuclear as
'zero-emissions' resources for meeting SB100 targets after 2030, even
though they are not eligible for RPS requirements for 2030. Do we need to
modify the RPS module in SWITCH to add nuclear and large hydro as eligible
after 2030, or it doesn't matter because the carbon cap is the main binding
constraint?
- By the way, I think the way the RPS module is written now may include all
hydro (large and small) inadvertently which we should fix...It should only
allow for hydro < 30 MW as RPS eligible until 2030.

3. Is storage RPS eligible/zero emissions? How does it get counted under
the carbon cap and/or RPS?
- I think this is a big unresolved topic among the energy agencies that was
left unspecified in the original SB100 law.

*Other questions:*
4. What does RESOLVE use for transmission costs and can we use those costs
for SWITCH? Or are there studies available or more updated data we could
use for SWITCH transmission costs?
- We are probably underestimating the cost of transmission compared to
storage and/or solar, and it is probably one reason why the solar and
battery buildout in CA is still relatively low.

5. I haven't run the SWITCH model yet with the planning reserve margin
module. I would like to do that soon to make sure everything still runs and
is feasible. The default is 15% for the planning reserve margin. Do we
still want to use that for the baseline model?

Thanks,
Julia

-- 
*Julia Szinai*
PhD Candidate | Energy & Resources Group | University of California,
Berkeley
Graduate Student Researcher | Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
NSF InFEWS Fellow
Energy & Resources Group, MS '17
Goldman School of Public Policy, MPP '17
University of California, Berkeley
jszinai at berkeley.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucmerced.edu/pipermail/ldes-coremodel/attachments/20201208/b835cca8/attachment.html>