This post is part of a multi-part series on capacity markets.
In a previous post, I described
how electricity markets in the US provide incentives for independent power generators
to build and maintain generating capacity. Capacity ensures that the grid has sufficient ability to generate the necessary electricity during peak
hours. These markets function well for traditional
natural gas power plants which can be turned on and off fairly easily. The post looks at the current methodology for valuing the capacity of renewable
intermittent resources, such as wind or solar.
In general, wind blows stronger at night, but this chart of the power output
every day for a month of a California wind farm shows that there can be
quite a lot of variability
|
On the other hand, conventional power plants such as a natural gas power plan is not available all the time either, and it still receives capacity
value. Conventional resources have scheduled maintenance,
and unplanned outages. Moreover, even if
wind and solar do not always perform at their maximum rated output during peak
hours, surely they are providing some benefit which could be estimated
statistically.
California has attempted to
address this issue by creating a net qualifying capacity (NQC) methodology to
determine the amount of resource adequacy a power plant of a given technology
provides. Resource adequacy, as I
mentioned previously, is the closest thing California has to a forward capacity
payment.
The NQC for renewables is determined by an “exceedance methodology”, calculate by California state regulators: the public
utilities commission (CPUC), the energy commission (CEC), and the ISO
(CAISO). The exceedance approach
measures the minimum amount of generation produced by the resource in a certain
percentage of peak hours. The exceedance
level used to calculate the QC of wind and solar resources is 70%. Another way to describe the exceedance level
is that the 70% exceedance level of a resource’s production profile is the
maximum generation amount that it produces at least 70% of the time (during
peak hours). The peak hours, for the
purpose of the exceedance methodology calculation, are 5 hours a day, 4-9 p.m.
November to March and 1-6 p.m. April to October.** These hours vary regionally, and would not
make sense for a grid at a different latitude than California.
To determine the minimum production
level of solar and wind resources for 70% of the peak hours, California looks
at historical values for load data and power output from solar and wind
resources. Typically, an average of the
past 3 years is used.
NQC values for renewable
power resources are dependent on seasonality, geographic diversity of the
resource, and site specific factors. Anecdotally, I would expect the NQC value
of a solar facility to be approximately 25-35% of its installed capacity
(measured in MWs), and the NQC value for wind to be approximately 10-20%.
**5 hours a day year round is
a relatively conservative metric because the industry standard for determining
capacity among distributed resources is the top 250 load hours of the
year. 250 hours is an “eyeballed” number
for the peak hours in which the grid is most likely to have an outage. A more rigorous loss of load probability (LOLP)
analysis is done for reliability planning, but for economic estimates of
resource planning, 250 hours will usually suffice. 5 hours a day is roughly 20% of the hours in
the year, whereas 250 hours is less than 3% of the hours in the year.