Sign North Dakota Electrical Services Contract Computer

Document type sign electrical services contract north dakota computer

hi everyone welcome to our webinar today the topic for today's webinar is using overbuilding plus curtailment to achieve 100 clean electricity this webinar is being presented by the clean energy states alliance also known as sisa as part of our 100 clean energy collaborative before i pass this over to our host and our guest speakers i'd like to go over a few quick webinar logistics all of our attendees are in listen only mode you have a couple of options to join the audio portion of today's webinar you can call in using a telephone or you can connect using your computer mic and speakers if you'd like to minimize your webinar console so that you can view the presentation full screen you can click on the orange arrow that you see circled there and you can also click on that to expand the webinar console one of the things you might like to do with your webinar console is to submit questions and comments we encourage you to do that we'd like to hear from you and we'll be saving about 15-20 minutes at the end of our presentations for a q a with the audience so please do type your questions and comments and as you think of them don't wait until the very end we'll get to as many as we can a final note this webinar is being recorded we'll send you an email probably this afternoon or tomorrow at the latest with a link to the webinar recording the slides will also be posted and you can find all those materials posted on our website at csaid.org backslash webinars so with that i'd like to now pass it over to csa executive director warren leon warren over to you hey thanks very much everybody and thanks to everyone for joining us for today's webinar um this webinar is being presented by the clean energy states of alliance as part of the 100 clean energy collaborative cesa is a membership organization composed of public agencies across the country primarily state agencies and you can see our members up here on the screen and we engage in a variety of activities on a range of topics through csa and one of the activities we are doing is the 100 collaborative which is an initiative for those states that have adopted 100 clean energy goals or for states that are considering adopting 100 clean energy goals in the future and those states meet together to figure out what joint challenges they have what strategies they should be using to overcome those challenges and we also present information for a wider range of stakeholders and for the general public including webinars like the one today and we have a monthly newsletter which talks about news related to 100 clean energy at the state level if we could go to the next slide today's topic is focusing as you heard on the strategy of overbuilding plus curtailment this is a really interesting strategy and an interesting approach to dealing with one of the essential issues related to going towards 100 clean energy and that is how do you address the fact that some clean energy technologies such as solar and wind have variable generation with generation ramping up and down based on the availability of the resource and folks have talked about different ways to address that variability including things like high use of demand side management or retaining some variable generations such as natural gas pica plants or going heavily into energy storage well in minnesota they had a grant from the department of energy the minnesota solar pathways grant and they were looking into how could they move towards high penetration of clean energy in minnesota and in the miso region and as part of that what they did is they explored the concept of overbuilding and curtailment and that's what we're going to talk about today i think you find it really interesting and their findings very suggestive and we're going to have two speakers um mark perez who's going to talk about this study that he worked on dealing with over building plus curtailment and then brian ross is going to talk about some of the issues involved with implementing such a strategy and citing the sorts of facilities you would need to cite to implement it i'm going to introduce mark now he's then going to speak and then i will introduce brian so mark perez is a senior researcher and consultant at clean power research in california where he manages r d activities in the areas of high penetration renewables and solar potential assessment using remote sensing data mark serves on the board of the american solar energy society and the expert boards of the international battery energy storage alliance and joint forces for solar he's a trained scientist with 15 years experience in the solar pv sector across multiple roles he holds a phd and two master's degrees in earth and environmental engineering from columbia university mark you're on well thank you for that uh introduction warren without further ado here thank you for this opportunity by the way always um thrilled to speak to um audiences about this work that we've been doing for a number of years and particularly this minnesota solar pathways work which i think you'll find very interesting and pertinent to uh to your work so today i'll be speaking about using overbuilding and curtailment to achieve 100 clean electricity um specifically i'll be talking about this case study where we employed this model across the miso region and i'll touch upon some of the other work that we've done uh using similar models to balance the different strategies um that will help us achieve 100 clean electricity without breaking the bank so here we go um so why investigate 100 renewables in the first place um well there's the environmental prerogative and the socioeconomic prerogative both prerogatives of which um i'm sure you'll be familiar with there's of course the resource availability there's 1200 times more continental solar resource available and seven times more wind resource available on the continents than global primary energy demand how do we investigate 100 renewables well the non-dispatch ability that warren touch upon of um energy of this renewable variable energy supply creates novel energy and power balance dynamics that need to be addressed and this changes the paradigm from the existing energy the existing paradigm of meeting load which you know relies upon essentially dispatchable resources for the most part enter the cpt model this is the clean power transformation model that we developed in the context of the minnesota solar pathways project this model identifies optimized portfolios of solutions including storage geographic dispersion of renewable resources dispatchable backup and renewable hybridization in order to minimize cost essentially it it seeks to see how we can actually meet load 24 7 365 firmly with high levels of renewables of the specifically these variable types of renewables um interestingly the solar and wind resource have very different spatial and temporal characteristics across large spatial regions how does this affect cost so enter miso is a case study pictured at the left is the miso region and what you're looking at here is the wind capacity factor as a heat map red is higher capacity factor blue is lower so there's a lot less wind in the southern part of the miso region near the gulf of mexico than there is upwards towards canada and the dakotas um and if we go back one this is the solar capacity factor and it's as you can see it's a lot hotter in the south they're a lot sunnier in the south and in the north and the great lakes region so the two resources are spatially decorated um what value does a large interconnected region deliver in terms of reduced energy costs relative to smaller sub-regions of course if you start to increase the resiliency of smaller sub-region regions you have more resiliency and that has cost implications as well but here we'll be talking about what are the effects of smoothing load and resource across such a large region um and increasing buffering the transmission power flow capabilities across large regions you do get benefits from that in terms of reduced uh mismatch between supply and demand um finally how does the how do the expected prices of system components change the picture solar has decreased tenfold in cost over the past 10 years wind about 7x you know those trends are expected to continue particularly for storage how do those those projected trends uh influence the build out of uh of these different technologies so some characteristics regarding miso 120 gigawatt peak 670 terawatt hours per year of demand renewables currently stand at 21 gigawatts of wind and 330 megawatts of pv uh the geography there's three macro regions you can subdivide the general mesa region into north central and south there are 10 load resource zones these are balancing areas within the miso the resource is vastly different across these different regions let's zoom in here to zone three and pictured it right is a one year of a monthly interval capacity factor for wind in blue the blue line and in solar the yellow line you can see first of all that wind has a much higher capacity factor generally than solar um in this region at least and you can also see that they have a seasonal uh anti-correlation there's more sun in the summer and in the winter and vice versa for wind you go down to a more southerly zone zone 10 down here in the south and wind first of all has a much lower capacity factor there's less wind resource most month-long periods throughout the course of the year and and one kilowatt of solar is going to produce more energy than one kilowatt of wind except for in late december and they're still seasonally anti-correlated in the same fashion that they are up north so let's let's examine the influence that these characteristics have on optimized capacity expansion and the costs that result they're from how do we optimize capacity expansion and dispatch so this clean power transformation model that i mentioned before used across the minnesota solar pathways project uh reunion region italy new york and los angeles um this optimizes capacities and dispatch of the following technologies on the generation side we have wind pv and it and can include dispatchable generation like gas it could be renewable gas landfill gas something like that biogas balancing technologies we use electricity storage and implicit storage which is this concept of over building plus curtailment and we've called it implicit storage because it has the same balancing effect as storage and i'll talk more about that in the following slides the optimization is lcoe cost based and four scenarios uh include component costs and characteristics uh we developed from the latest nrl atb which is the annual technology baseline we have 20 50 high and low degrees of technological development and 2025 high and low degrees of technological development here's a an expansive table with all of these cost assumptions that we made for these two for these four different cost scenarios you can see we have capital costs and operating costs for utility scale pv wind storage and gas that we use in the context of the model to to examine what the costs are for different build-outs of these different capacities so these four scenarios are run for the 14 different distinct geographic zones the 10 load resource zones the three macro regions and the miso as a whole that i pictured on the previous page each region has its own distinct load shape and resource characteristics all in all we ran almost 25 000 year-long hourly interval dispatch simulations in seeking the optimal across these 56 different uh distinct scenarios so let's dive in let's start the story when renewables are small enough in capacity to never exceed load in any given hour so that's the case here we're going to zoom into load resource zone 7 which is the michigan oven mitt up here with no no pv first and foremost and no overbuild this is what the load looks like for a given week in july you can see it peaks in the late afternoon and it hits a trough in the early morning we increase pv to uh five percent energy penetration and we start to serve some of the load um and when i'm talking about ener energy penetration an easy way to think about it is the integral of the pv so the integral of the yellow in this case if you sum up all the yellow it's exactly equal to the integral of the load the black times p percentage so in this case five percent um 10 we can we can add a little bit more pv we go to 15 we start digging an even bigger chunk out of load at 20 25 now this is the point where pv is just close enough it's almost exceeding load so there's not a lot of residual load unmet by pv in the middle of the day and there's still a ton in the middle of the night um so markets are currently designed to incentivize renewables injecting power with very few constraints this works until roughly you reach 20 25 energy penetration for solar at least and this is assuming that the residual load is composed of flexible dispatch will generation because you can't run a nuclear or conventional coal plant easily to meet this residual this needs to be something like uh natural gas or something um and just to flip the script a little bit so you can see the the duct curve this is the same 25 energy penetration but i've just subtracted the pv from the load so you can see what the residual actually looks like and these gigantic duct curves in the middle of the day you need something that can ramp a lot as i mentioned before this is the distribution of hourly ramp rates for to meet this residual it's plus or minus six gigawatts that we need which is far more ramping capability than we need now because currently you can just have base load hit almost 10 gigawatts in this region and then your ramping capability is only five five six gigawatts or something like that all right so next so if we want to push the envelope further we start to need energy storage to charge with the excess and discharge when the resource is inefficient or insufficient let's go to thirty percent um so here you can see that go back to 30 here so here you can see that we're charging when we have excess middle of the day and we discharge immediately when there's a deficit so right after there's insufficient sunlight and pv production being injected to meet load we discharge the storage um so 40 can be achieved on an energy basis um if we want to push the envelope further here we go let's go there's a bit of a lag here excuse excuse the technology okay 50 we can do easily 60 we can do easily seventy percent we can do easily etc um and you can see the residual gets uh smaller and smaller um but we still need roughly a similar capacity let's go to 100 okay perfect we can do 100 on an energy basis easily um we just need to store all the excess that happens in the middle of the day and discharge it at night um so it seems feasible what does the storage need to operate like in order to achieve this what what are the specs of the storage so let's look at the uh storage duty cycle in order to meet this load 100 pv um for zone 7. roughly um and it and the green right here is is when the storage is charging the pink is when it's discharging we need roughly 50 41 gigawatts of charge capacity um so if this is um hydrogen paradigm for instance we'd need a 41 gigawatt electrolyzer um and on the discharge side on the fuel cell side if it's hydrogen 17 gigawatts of discharge capacity or if it's a lithium ion battery we need 41 41 gigawatts of uh a battery size essentially and how many hours of storage does that does that indicate well it's about four hours relative to the pv capacity it's about 230 gigawatt hours of storage uh that's required to mitigate diurnal variability and you can see here this is the storage state of charge for the same week you can see this the chore the storage uh discharging at night and and charging during the day discharging at night charging during the day et cetera so 100 penetration is is feasible the integral of the pv can be set to equal exactly the integral of the load but we're left with a big energy imbalance problem and that's shown here this is one year of monthly monthly interval load so you can see that's the red curve over here and monthly interval pv is the yellow and you can see that there's big energy and b lance problems here there's a big summer surplus and big winter shortfalls if we size the solar exactly to meet load on an energy basis so to meet a 100 of load on energy basis we need about 66 gigawatts of pv but we have this big imbalance and this is what the storage state of charge looks like for the entire year um and you can see that it's it's gigantic it's about 205 hours of storage um which is about 55 times more energy capacity than we need for the diurnal imbalance it's about 13.5 terawatt hours i mean that's because we need to discharge all winter and charge all summer basically and just to show you that the seasonal trend is much much larger than the diurnal trend that storage uh state of charge plot that i showed earlier for the week in july is all fits within this tiny little square box in the middle of the year so you can see that the from an energy perspective this seasonal imbalance is much more important so how can we solve this well first let's look at the the cost implications it's exceedingly expensive oops what you're looking at here is an is a stacked column showing the levelized cost of electricity to firmly meet load um where pv where we have the 66 gigawatts of pv we're roughly two dollars per kilowatt hour and most of the cost is dominated by the red portions of this stacked column which come from storage uh the yellow piece is the contribution of this almost two dollars per kilowatt hour that comes from pv and it's very small we're mostly paying for storage in order to firmly meet load um with with when pv is sized to meet load on energy basis we can optimize one one of the strategies to overcome this imbalance is to overbuild renewables so we can optimize the degree of overbuild in order to minimize cost in this case the optimum happens to be at 174 gigawatts of pv so it's about 2.6 x over build so that means that we're building 2.6 kilowatts of pv for every one kilowatt pv that we need to meet load on an energy basis so essentially there's you know a little bit over half being curtailed and but you can see what it does here to this um monthly average pv generation there's no 30-day period where pv is producing less energy than uh load requires of it at least in this zone we have a year-round surplus before we have these big seasonal imbalances now we have no more seasonal imbalances remaining what does this do to uh the state of charge well this the storage size is significantly diminished now we're at only around four hours of storage or 719 gigawatt hours which is far far less than we had uh before what does this do to uh cost back to this lcoe plot and on the x-axis here is the percentage of curtailment which is linked to the degree of overbuilding so 50 curtailment would be a 2x on 2x on capacity so building 2 kilowatts for every one kilowatt and this is what it looks like as we start to curtail more and more the marginal contribution of cost that comes from storage decreases exponentially as you can see and the marginal contribution of cost that comes from pv increases exponentially and that's why there's a sweet spot which in this case happens to be at a roughly 27 cents per kilowatt hour so this margin on renewable capacity is what we are calling implicit storage because it has the same balancing effect as storage otherwise would and you know we need a little bit over 60 curtailment in this case at our sweet spot um which you might think of as wasteful but think about all of the storage that otherwise would be wasted i mean the storage capacity is only being used once per year um it's only being fully discharged once per year to do this seasonal cycling and think about all the environmental costs associated with you know battery technology for instance that you'd otherwise need so this is actually even though we think of curtailment as wasteful it's actually saving um a lot of a lot of cost and a lot of environmental implications so very economical 2025 low degree of technological development miso zone 7 100 pv plus storage at 27 cents per kilowatt hour so let's look at the impact of price this was uh this is kind of our high cost bracket 2025 a low degree of technological development what if we move to our low cost bracket 2050 with a high degree of technological development well first uh right off the bat a 70 70 reduction in um capital cost yields a roughly 70 reduction in lcoe so we go from almost 23 or 27 cents per kilowatt hour down to almost eight cents per kilowatt hour just under eight cents i mean you can see even with no uh curtailment whatsoever we drop our cost from two dollars per kilowatt hour down to 50 cents per kilowatt hour um so a significant reduction um particularly at the sweet spot and we haven't changed the optimal amount of curtailment we've just have scaled both the yellow portion and the red portion of the curve down downwards so 2050 high degree of technological development mice zone 7 100 pv plus storage at just under 8 cents per kilowatt hour what about wind does the same uh overbuilding and curtailment uh implicit storage strategy hold true so let's look at wind this is what the um wind picture looks like for the course of a of a given year and you'll see that it's this is if wind is sized to meet load on an energy basis uh throughout the course of the year in the same way that we did for pv no overbuilding and you can see that there's the seasonal imbalances flipped there's a summer shortfall and there are winter spring fall surpluses so it has the opposite seasonality overbuilding also eliminates these long drawdowns if we over build wind to the optimal point which in this case happens to be 2.7x so 2.7 kilowatts of wind for every one kilowatt of wind that we need on an energy basis and we have a year-round surplus as a result what does this do to cost this is what the optimization curve looks like for wind also in 2050 so the costs are roughly comparable to that of pv which was uh um you know right around this cost point six point two cents per kilowatt hour and they say the same lesson is true overbuilding really saves a ton of money about 90 percent in this case so 2050 high technological development miso zone 7 100 wind plus storage at 6.2 cents per kilowatt hour what about a blend can we reduce costs further by hybridizing these two resources and remember that because of the seasonal anti-correlation effect um adding these two resources together can have a net uh flattening effect on the aggregate resource so can this be leveraged to reduce costs further wind plus pv so let's optimize the relative capacities of wind and pv and see see what we get well it's true we reduced the cost about 50 relative to pv alone and um 25 relative to wind alone down to 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour and we're even um lower in terms of the optimal point the the sweet spot for curtailment and for the stocked area plot the blue portion is the contribution of this lcoe from wind the yellow portion is the contribution from solar the red portions are from storage and the green portion is from implicit storage so the margin on renewable capacity in order to reduce these imbalances to to show you where we ended up in terms of the optimal blend for zone seven despite the extraordinary high wind resource and very low pv resource in 2050 cost terms at the optimal point lands at around 37 pv and 63 wind so 2050 high technological development miso zone 7 100 wind plus pv plus storage at 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour what about a larger region how did the dynamics change here so let's zoom out a little bit to the central region pictured here at left which encompasses zone seven um here we're marginally cheaper roughly the same price 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour um the wind resource is less favorable than in load resource zone seven pv is marginally cheaper on the whole so therefore we end up with more pv here we're at 75 percent pv and 25 percent wind on a cost optimal basis so 2050 a high technological development miso central region 100 pv plus 1 plus storage at 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour what about all of miso let's expand the uh the region even more so this is the entire miso region and here we're even cheaper 4.2 cents per kilowatt hour but on the same order of magnitude there's a bit more pv in the optimum than uh in the wind solar blend than we than we were in the central region we're at eighty percent pv and twenty percent wind and that's because we're starting to capture really high yield pv zones in the south um in the southern part of the miso region so the miso region as a whole 2050 high technological development wind pv and storage at 4.2 cents per kilowatt hour so with 667 terawatt hours of annual usage this equates to 28 billion dollars of annual expenditures if all the rate payers within the miso region were to pay 4.2 cents per kilowatt hour to in order to make each of these um the builders of these technologies whole at the capital cost we've identified so what if each load resource zone optimized for themselves so this is what it looks like um if each load resource zone islanded themselves and optimized their resource blends electricity price weighted average should be 4.65 cents per kilowatt hour and the uh the lcoes for each individual zones are highlighted in that the map over left here and so you could see zone three is only three point eight cents per kilowatt hour zone nine is it over five cents per kilowatt hour and the color is uh indicates the where it lands on the wind pv spectrum in terms of where it was optimized so that's the weighted average cost and that equates to 31 billion dollars a year which is um three billion dollars a year more than if we had interconnected the entire miso region so therefore it seems to reason that the miso region interconnection will save ratepayers three billion dollars a year of course there's these aforementioned uh resiliency benefits that you get from you know making sure that each of the load resource zones are resilient um and this is just a little bit more detail on where the exact bv wind blend ended up if you want to read more into that um the same lesson is true if each miso macro region islanded themselves this is what the map looks like and the cost to look like for each islanded macro region three point eight eight cents for the iso north uh a little bit more wind and four point almost five cents per kilowatt hour in the south with uh much more pv the weighted average cost of this is 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour um which is about two billion dollars more 30 billion dollars a year than if we had interconnected the entire miso so there's also savings uh for these um for the whole niso relative to these much larger reasons generally the larger the interconnection region the lower the cost and finally what about adding five percent new build gas as we did for minnesota so let's relax the 100 renewable energy target or let's let's uh relax the 100 uh variable renewable energy target and allow some flexible resources in there in this case we've chosen the natural gas cost but this could be some more renewable dispatchable resource like hydrogen-derived gas with captured co2 or something like that landfill gas this is just a standard for flexibility and this flexibility could come from the demand side as well we're talking about supply side flexibility here but it could be demand side so in this case uh we reduce our lcoe significantly to 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour it's about 20 cheaper than 100 renewables across miso with significantly less curtailment uh only 17 versus 36 percent for the entire miso and this is even with building all new gas facilities we're not using any existing gas at all this is all new state-of-the-art gas so you can imagine that if the capital cost of whatever dispatchable resource you're going to use as a stand-in for this you know feeding in to meet these extreme balance deficits if that's cheaper then this black portion will decrease and the cost will be even less so gas essentially does the same job that both implicit and real storage is doing it's it's a it uh it stands in during these uh worst drawdown periods and ramps up so the capacity factor on gas is very low this is what the dispatch with five percent gas looks like for that same week that we've shown before you can see the black is the portion coming from gas the blue is the portion coming from wind pink is coming uh from storage green is going to storage and yellow is coming from solar and this red line is the uh is the load right here you can see gas is ramping up when storage is empty there's no more storage to be drawn upon and gas ramps up so it really it fills in when um when there's a lack of resource available key takeaways the value of implicit storage um is is very important overbuilding curtailments highly cost effective in every case the value of hybridizing wind and pv wind and pv hybrid resourcing is significantly cheaper than either alone due to this seasonal resource anti-correlation even in areas that have a dominant resource eg micel north still wound up with 46 percent pv at the optimal point and 20 50. the impacts of cost nominal technology costs change the lcoes and relative costs change the technological mix if we raise the wind cost relative to the pv cost we decrease the optimal wind percentage if we raise the storage cost relative to the renewables cost we increase the implicit storage use if i think generally confidence and consensus surrounding cost will help solidify the planning process pv is generally favored in 2050 high technological development scenarios drive pv capex so low that even in areas where wind appears dominant pv is largely favored this is despite a very strong wind resource in the northern part of miso territory the exceptions included miso zones 3 and 7 where there's such a high wind resource that it tilts the balance despite the very low pv costs 95 renewables is significantly cheaper allowing five percent gas or some other dispatchable generation uh archetype to do some of the work during these uh very extreme balance deficits from our resource deficits for wind and pv can be very impactful on cost and also reduces the amount of optimal curtailment and use of implicit storage the value of miso the larger the region we interconnect across the lower the aggregate cost on the whole this is going to save ratepayers billions annually the caveat here of course is that in our studies renewables were distributed evenly and co-located with storage in this study if we bias the siting of solar and wind to higher resource areas for both more wind in the north more pv in the south this is going to decrease the cost even more but entails a significant transmission and distribution expenditure as a result future and recent funded work the blue zones are where we've run recent studies using this model the miso region minnesota new york state reunion island and italy in the near-term future we have the atlantic provinces in canada and switzerland and perhaps your uh your region of interest also so finally i'd like to leave with 100 of of miso load 30 wind 65 solar and 5 gas at 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour that's not too bad so thank you very much hey mark thank you um we're going to go on to brian in a minute but i want to ask a couple questions because i'm a little worried that we are going to lose some people in terms of them not being able to follow your analysis could you explain again your definition of implicit storage and why you call it implicit storage sure that's a great question uh implicit storage is the concept of overbuilding renewable capacity and curtailing the excess when we don't need it and we call it implicit storage because it has the same balancing effect as regular storage as electrochemical or pumped hydroelectric or something like that um storage is there in order to take these surpluses of renewables and dispatch when there's a deficit when there's not enough wind or solar when the sun isn't shining strongly enough for the wind isn't blowing strongly enough implicit storage by increasing the amount uh our deficits are significantly lower um so that that's the overall concept we over build to reduce the deficits good and then defining high technological development that scenario which it seems like you're defining as doing this in 2050 when the technology has advanced and costs have come down are you then saying you're trying about implementing all of this at once in one year wouldn't you have the higher low technological development costs in the early years as you were ramping up to your full scenario definitely yeah yeah absolutely i mean these are these are cost projections from nrel the lcoe is using the future cost but of course the aggregate cost that we start now is going to be higher as we build out but you know historically the projections have been conservative both from you know nrel and from the international energy agency for cost so my guess is that we're going to end up closer to 2050 high technological development or lower costs um we'll get even lower than that is my guess um so i i think i i don't think the lcoes are un unreasonable okay thank you and let's turn to our second presentation today brian is going to talk about discussions they had of what it would mean in terms of implementing this vision and let me introduce brian ross who's a vice president of the grain plains institute he leads the institute's renewable energy market transformation efforts in the midwest and nationally he has 25 years experience working with local regional and state governments on climate and energy planning on policy and regulation he managed the stakeholder engagement and technical committee facilitation for the minnesota solar pathways project and through that that involved identifying barriers and solutions to deep penetration of renewable energy in minnesota and the rest of the midwest so brian it's off to you okay thank you can you hear me yep all right well i uh we're just to make sure we leave some time for questions i may go through this kind of quickly um but uh the kind of work that we're doing on um uh that we did on this was really to kind of engage stakeholders around the original concept of the solar pathways project which was how do we get to 10 solar by 2030 in minnesota which when that there was a some legislation that was passed in 2013 as a as a kind of uh uh a non-binding goal um and the which at the time seemed quite ambitious uh almost unachievable and of course now 10 solar in 2030 is practically inevitable uh so we we've really transformed quite a bit in the last few years um um i just wanted to say here that we kind of you know in our discussion stakeholder engagement we kind of hit all these different people to really talk about what are the opportunities and constraints the solar development in minnesota uh kind of at the time looking to these two kind of ten percent of 2030 and then high renewables in 2050 go to the next slide yeah the the opportunities and constraints that we came up with out of all these discussions without going into any of the method that we used or the analysis uh was we kind of came up with three buckets of concerns that came up from stakeholders uh you know everywhere from the electric utilities including uh kind of we had representatives not only from the our our incumbent utilities but also from miso uh all the way down to residential consumers um was that there was a whole group of things that related to local and state fighting issues kind of barriers to using the use of marginal lands things like agricultural protection rural character uh ecological services conflicts or or opportunities and things at the distributed scale as well there were several things that related to market integration when we started talking about high penetrations uh whether or not our transmission planning uh was was accommodating the kind of futures that we were looking at here whether there was some ways that we needed to change the plan in order to better accommodate that and the interconnection barriers associated with those and then a a lot of discussion around project financing as we move to a high renewables future particularly when we started looking at the results of the of the solar potential analysis that marcus went over about how do you you know the the spa looked at at this from a kind of centralized planning standpoint but we don't do deployment on centralized planning we do it on a project by project basis what happens when you start integrating the concept of implicit storage into um into ppas what is it what do they look like how does that change things uh we know that it's going to change it quite a bit but we don't really know how um and then there's some additional concerns that came up with all things like how do we address equity issues about uh you know uh how this is affecting different kinds of consumers or different kinds of existing inequities in the in the um as electric system we go to the next slide okay and um uh really the the kind of uh different i was gonna go to run over some of these specific things the fighting opportunities the constraints really uh was recognizing the the large uh and growing uh difficulty there is at the kind of fighting level both of the state and the local level about uh land use conflicts when you start talking about large-scale solar deployment uh and we have here a list of things that came up for the state of minnesota but which are also things that that relate to a lot of the other states in the miso region okay go to the next slide uh the next uh kind of slide is addressing uh that that deployment of barrier around energy market opportunities and constraints uh when you start talking about high curtailment rates how does that affect dispatch rules when you have a zero marginal cost uh resource or resources that would solar and win that that are that are affecting how you actually dispatch things in in terms of those market rules uh what kind of changes in transmission planning are there future purchase power agreements and the financial risks in a high curtailment future how that relates to actual projects so if you go to the next slide and similarly the next slide is about that kind of some of those equity issues um really that relates to um the who pays and who benefits a question and the uh transition costs and access to energy that kind of kind of comes about when you change dramatically the the kind of uh the resource base and generation sources that you're using and then there were some things that came up around because they have been consistently coming up at the local level around things like decommissioning and electronic waste disposal and whether or not we're addressing those in a meaningful way okay go to the next slide now and actually when i go advanced two if you can we'll try to go through this a little more quickly sorry okay um yeah i i did uh now uh uh mark created a little widget about kind of showing all the analysis that he just showed in the different regions and i ran a quick uh kind of scenario on that widget and in preparation for this where we looked at um for just the northern region there of miso um that resulted in in kind of this uh uh this kind of a scenario for the that 2050 build-out um where we're looking at about 24 gigawatts of deployed wind capacity 51 gigawatts of deployed solar capacity in that region um and then i said well what does that mean in terms of new capacity that we have to do siding for uh that's about 49 gigawatts because in the region now there's roughly 2 gigawatts worth of both utility and community scale solar which doesn't show up in the miso numbers because they don't look at the community scale but there's an awful lot of it out there and uh that that 49 gigawatts translates into about somewhere between 350 and almost a half a million acres of solar development that's needed in order to meet this deployment scenario for implicit storage now half a million acres of land sounds like a lot of course and it is a lot um over the region it's a tiny tiny fraction of the total land area so it's actually not that much land where we're um we're working with but almost all that land uh will will uh will it will not be uniformly distributed across the area but it will instead be clustered where there are things like transmission assets uh and and uh and ability to have less conflict with solar sorry with other land uses okay go to the next slide uh and and kind of doing that in in the context of how we do siding in minnesota we looked at in minnesota the current state the state has fighting authority over everything that is larger than 50 megawatts per solar um there's a different threshold for wind but we'll just focus on the solar question right now uh and things that have come up in that 50 with the state has been looking at that has been problematic in some of the fighting that they've done even today at the low relatively low levels of solar penetration we see at the utility and community scale uh where prime farmland is in a prime farmland exclusion rule uh for power plant generation that has come up as a sighting barrier about what do we do uh how do we avoid prime farmland can we what are the circumstances around that there's a host of questions around natural resource and water quality protections when you start deploying solar at that scale that came up and we're not kind of a great deal of uncertainty about whether we're creating an asset or we're creating the liability and then of course consideration of local standards and community inputs now anything below 50 megawatts in threshold is exclusively a local site in authority where the local governments have control and they have their own set of policies and priorities such as a lot of these counties have uh protect agriculture on the land use basis because it's their primary economic base and so that how do we address the integration of solar with agriculture in a way that creates a mutual benefit between them rather than conflict okay go to the next slide um we we had a number of uh kind of things we looked at such as how do we develop on areas that that are difficult to develop or where solar may be good uh out of this project of the solar pathways college project we actually had a whole study that came out of it about blight fields how do we actually address this uh in minnesota and put solar on closed landfills and there's some very interesting results around that and can we get to scale where we can get the number of acres of development in order to kind of meet our solar deployment goals they go to the next slide we also had some similar uh kind of questions and i was going to dive just a little bit deeper than this but i'm going to probably run through these slides a little quick more quickly since we have a few at least a few minutes left for questions um and that is uh the integration of solar and natural resources or or ecological services is we kind of talk about this from a land use standpoint and we had actually a partnership discussion uh where we convened 15 around 15 natural resource advocates agencies and stakeholders over several meetings developed five use cases for how solar and natural resources might actually work together and create assets rather than barriers because right now the perception is that you do solar development you're in conflict with natural resources can we flip that equation and say we'll develop this and cite these things in a way that we can create an asset and is there scale in those in those assets that we're creating to get to the kind of scale where we could open the myso north region reach a half a million acres of solar development to go to the next question the next slide sorry and the five use cases uh in the next slide um were that we looked at that that all achieved and some all achieved the kind of scale that we wanted to get to was was doing solar as a drinking water protection strategy in nitrate contamination areas in the drinking water um uh protection well head protection areas we also looked at where solar with uh with appropriate site design and fighting could could actually provide surface water protection in impacted watersheds and serve as an infiltration basin or buffer uh we looked at carbon sequestration and soil restoration where you're doing solar and also doing ground covers that are going to be sequestering soil or carbon in the soil and ultimately improving soil health on that site so it could be returned to agriculture we looked at habitat buffers and restoration of function around core habitat areas where again you would build in the habitat opportunity into the solar development as a function of to kind of co-locate those two uses as well as some growth management opportunities that we looked at where you put solar on the edge of communities in order really to protect the rural community outside of those areas okay and here why don't let's see yeah go to the next slide that'll work and the one out of those five use cases that came up as the biggest slam dunk in minnesota anyway in the near term was the drinking water supply area where we actually calculated that there were approximately 120 000 acres of drinking water supply area wellhead protection areas that were currently in corn and soybeans um one of our environmental organizations had already done this calculation and so we kind of knew what could come to scale and really we mapped those out kind of where those areas are and and looked at whether or not we could move ahead with a pro with projects where we would be deploying solar in these areas in order to get to that kind of 100 000 acre kind of deployment scenario and there were some other limitations to it obviously in terms of where these things are located in transmission access but we're kind of this is a pathway that we're actually proceeding down now as a result of the solar pathways work to try to say can we get to these large scale deployments um in a sighting basis and create amenities through co-location of these sites with with other kinds of um other kinds of uses and then go to the final next slide is my final slide uh where were uh we also are looking into the drink the surface water um uh question where we're looking at whether or not we can calculate uh surface runner off coefficients to document that solar with appropriate ground cover can actually be a green infrastructure amenity in those areas for instance that have impaired waters or uh you know total management total total maximum daily low tmdl uh numbers that that where you need to kind of limit sedimentation or other kinds of impacts to these waters uh there's currently we got funded a doe project called the pb smart project where we're documenting this and this is a three-year study that's underway uh that kind of came out of the concepts we talked about so i rushed through that i left a few minutes for questions hey thanks very much brian um just for folks on the line to know we're going to go over um 10 minutes till 10 minutes after the hour for those of you who are able to stay and listen to questions and i have some that came in both for you brian and for mark so brian it looks like you did a you know pretty elaborate analysis of what the barriers would be to implementing this um overbuilding scenario and ways to overcome it at the end of the day did you end up feeling hey this could work let's try it or did you end up feeling this is a nice exercise on paper but it could never happen well you know the the the the barriers we're really dove into first were the kind of the fighting issues and and i was very encouraged by that because we actually found ways to address almost all the fighting barriers and create amenities uh with the co-location of solar the the bigger question i think that hasn't been been looked at in in a comprehensive way is the is the transmission planning issue uh and the kind of uh remuneration issue in other words how do you restructure ppas to make uh to make the system the centralized system that we've been modeling work on a project by project basis in a way that's going to allow allow the people with the money the capital people to finance people sufficient uh um levels of risk uh as we kind of move into a new realm of how we structure ppas in order to make those projects kind of pencil and i think that that that's a real challenge but i think there's a lot more discussion that we need to need to move into on both those issues yeah just so you know there are a lot of questions that came in on that last point his for either of you to what extent does this whole overbuilding scenario depend on a very serious and large-scale investment in long-distance transmission [Music] i i can i can handle that one to some extent i think this uh this strategy works no matter what the spatial scale which is what we've tried to show a little bit in this miso work by contrasting the results within each load resource zone to the mice as a whole you do get savings the larger the region which requires more transmission but this is an effective strategy from the scale of a single home to a community a distribution feeder you know this same overbuilding strategy works it's just you need less the more the wider the area the less you need it because you're starting to smooth load and smooth the resource but it's it's you know even on the on the effect of the home actually this over building strategy um has been in use by the off-grid solar people since the 70s if you have an off-grid house and you're constrained you know you don't have the load to use as an infinite battery you're gonna need to do over building um essentially so you know this is a strategy that's that's useful no matter what the scale good here's another question for you mark and that is in your analysis how sensitive was the analysis of overbuilding and curtailment to large and long multi-day black swan weather patterns that you don't normally get in some case where you assume there's a multi-day dip in generation from both solar and wind at the same time over a large area not that sensitive um and we in in this project we only looked at uh three years we looked at i think 2014 15 and 16. um you know which covered i think a polar vortex period during that time forget which year exactly um but you know it's it changes marginally the amount of optimal over building but not by too much because once you once you increase once you go over 1.5 x uh you know 1.5 kilowatts per kilowatt that you need on energy basis you're you really remove most of these multi-day periods and you're only dealing with the seasonal and very long-term stuff um afterwards yeah and and i i would add too that that that uh we do we do hear questions about whether or not the kind of extreme events uh uh can are handled by this but i i have to note to some extent the existing system doesn't handle those events either um so uh you know we have to put it into context that you never plan for anything to address the the kind of absolute worst circumstance you always recognize that at some point you're going to have to do things like ask people to dramatically curtail or forcibly curtail demand side in order to kind of address these things and that's the kind of situation we've always used and it probably will continue whether we take a kind of overbuilt scenario or not yeah exactly what it is sensitive to is um this this seasonal imbalance thing is going to change with electrification and that's something we looked at in the minnesota portion of the work once you electrify heating you know uh to a large extent it's going to add a ton of bulk in the winter and there you're going to need more overbuilding and more wind which is what we saw in the case of minnesota so the balance point between wind and pv is going to be a bit closer to the wind side because you know you produce more wind in the winter than in the summer vice versa okay and that was actually a question that several people wrote in about um the scenarios you were presenting made assumptions that there would be significant electrification of things like transportation and thermal uses not for the iso work but for the minnesota work yes we looked at transport electrification and domestic hot water and space heating electrification and the electric vehicle stuff is going to add a lot of capacity constraints that's going to be distribution system impacts for sure um but it's not it's you know it's not like people are using driving a lot more using a lot more transport in the summer relative to the winter it's not a seasonal it doesn't change the seasonality of the mismatch heating does because heating all happens in the winter so that starts to change that this balance this long-term balance uh question significantly um which pushes you towards more wind than solar so yeah and and i'll just i just wanted to add to that that we when we looked at using those kind of dramatically expanded uh uh electrification issues in the minnesota study um people like me were really disappointed in how little uh opportunity there was for from the standpoint of flexible load to mitigate for things it actually mark if i'm remembering it only had like a at most in a in a rather heroic um assumption set of assumptions about flexible load it only had like a 10 impact on the on the cost yeah and that's because a lot of the cost comes from these longer time scale imbalance things you know the you can you can shift um electric vehicles significantly but it's on a diurnal basis you know our multi-day max so it's not having a huge impact on these longer term you know imbalance things which start to become much more important as we push the envelope on a renewable penetration great so um brian i want to ask about the conversations with stakeholders and your sense about how far in the future it would be when folks really had to take seriously this overbuilding and curtailment strategy what i mean by that you know you were identifying some uses of solar that make a lot of sense in minnesota for a variety of reasons at the moment you're not at 10 of solar so you're not at these extreme cases where there would be significant curtailment of solar generation um you know how far can you go before people really have to start confronting do we want to go down this overbuilding and entailment well scenario a great question because you know what we we i mean uh when we look at our current build-out scenario we we we think that in in in minnesota or in the midwest uh we we think that we can you know get to that 10 kind of solar uh uh uh um you know by 2030 without too much problem but it's gonna you know it's gonna require a build out that is is you know four times what we've seen so far um and and the kind of and and that's that's that doesn't reach that overbuilding scenario yet um so uh it's you know there's there's there's an awful lot of change that has to happen if we want to get to the overbuilding scenario and a great deal of kind of um of recognition for both solar and wind uh of the of the is you know we talk a lot about in in my world uh a lot about the you know the social license to operate that needs to be developed at the land use for this development that that needs to happen so that state and local governments can kind of recognize this as a needed thing um you know not that every project needs to go go ahead without question but that that social license is something that we need to talk a lot about because we need to do 10 times the amount of solar and wind that we have now in order to kind of really get to into that overbuilding kind of scenario so we it is it is out of ways if we build out at the projected rates and even accelerate those in the next 10 years we're not yet going to be getting to the overbuilding kind of level of integration so we are talking about kind of um uh put you know we'll have enough that will start to address over capacity issues and curtailment issues even at 10 percent let me just emphasize that but but that's that's going to be that's going to be limited to just a few months for both the solar and the wind resource however if you want to one talk about the kind of level of scale at the 2050 level yeah we have a ways to go before we're going to see that kind of curtailment okay well i am going to ask one more question and then i'm going to give each of you an opportunity to have some famous last words anything else you want to say that you haven't had a chance to say and this last question is from mark this came in from a couple of people you know basically saying look with the cost trajectory we've been on on energy storage especially battery costs is it possible that the cost of batteries will come down significantly enough that we could rely on them more and over building less that's a great great question um and one that we did address that you can kind of see in the results here the problem is that solar particularly and wind also are also decreasing really rapidly you know and you know so that the relative ratio between those two things isn't going to change that much right i don't see it changing that much but yeah you're right storage is going to come way down and you know the the cost projections for lithium ion storage are incredibly low they're lower than or they're on par at least with pump storage hydroelectric which is the cheapest you know and most widely implemented storage globally first you know grid scale energy storage at least you know so it's going to be cheaper than that and even despite that cheapness solar and wind are just so going to be so cheap that the balance point isn't going to change that much so these strategies are still going to be uh really heavily implemented i think good so um what is something that you haven't had a chance to say that you would like to say and the last things you want to leave in people's minds as we come to the end of the webinar um brian do you want to go first and then mark you could go second okay well and and hopefully i won't be stealing mark's uh mark's point but um the the the to me one of the the the kind of simple lessons out of this whole analysis that both the one that was done for minnesota as well as the michael analysis is that the long-term storage question that we continue to hear and you can read the literature and it still comes up even today over and over again we've got to solve the long-term storage issue it's been solved you know we don't know for sure if it'll be implicit storage but if it isn't something else we have implicit storage you know that that that uh you know maybe we'll come up with uh you know some and there's been some talk about different kinds of uh of uh long-term storage opportunities that have great cost potential to come down dramatically in price and maybe change this equation but if those don't happen we can use the over building and the implicit storage kind of concept to solve that that's that inter-seasonal question and really the the main questions we have are about deployment integration and how that happens within our current kind of market rules and market systems uh rather than trying to figure out the long-term storage question we can kind of set that aside and not worry about it great thank you and mark i i was going to say a very similar thing to what brian just said no i agree implicit storage is really i mean it does the same thing as storage so so storage is going to need to come down incredibly incredibly in cost in order to compete with implicit storage i mean that is the long-term storage essentially and it's way cheaper both from an economic perspective and i think an environmental perspective as well and i'd just like to add we we have a on this siding issue we have a big paper going out pretty soon by the end of the year um probably in solar energy journal or one of the other journals about sighting and how much land use in the context of all the other existing land uses for for every state in the in the country so i look look forward to uh sharing that with all of you hey great thank you very much to um both of you for excellent presentations and thanks to you and to our audience for your patients on a day when we had more technical problems than we normally do with our webinars i hope folks will come back and listen to future webinars of the 100 percent clean energy collaborative you could see on the screen um some that are coming up just right around the corner here um we appreciate you're taking the time and spending it with us today this webinar will be on our website and we also encourage you to read the reports and papers that um undergird this research so thanks very much everybody thank you you