Estimating the Value of Electricity Storage in Chile Through Planning Models with Stylized Operation: How Wrong Can It Be?

In light of the increased renewables penetration in power systems around the world, policy-makers, regulators, planners, and investors are significantly interested in determining the participation of energy storage in prospective scenarios of future generation capacity. In this context, this paper demonstrates the numerical errors associated with electricity planning models with stylized operation, which are of common use nowadays. We particularly focus on errors when quantifying the benefits of pumped hydro storage (PHS). The latest research identifies important distortions in the results of infrastructure expansion planning problems originated due to a stylized representation of power system operation. These distortions have been particularly emphasized in power systems with increased penetration of renewables generation that necessitate higher levels of flexibility to deal with variability and uncertainty. Apart from providing a comprehensive literature review in this subject, we provide additional and novel quantitative evidence focusing on the impacts of additional PHS capacity in power systems. Thus, we compare the outputs from two models: (i) a planning model with a stylized operation that ignores operational details in long-term investment analysis, approximating operational costs through a discretized version of the load curve (i.e., time slice representation), and (ii) a state-of-the-art, advanced planning model that recognizes operational details, including hourly resolution and technical limitations of generation plants (through the so-called unit commitment variables and constraints). Both models co-optimize generation and transmission capacity by minimizing total system investment and operational costs. Through several case studies on the Chilean power network by 2025, it is demonstrated that the benefits in terms of cost savings from PHS are significantly underestimated by the stylized model that ignores operational details. In effect, the stylized model undermines both peaking generation capacity and network capacity deferred by storage as well as the operational cost savings due to reserves and flexibility provisions from PHS. Moreover, it is shown that while CO2 emissions are reduced in the advanced model (as expected), these are increased in the stylized model, which corresponds to a remarkable misleading result. Finally, revenue projections of PHS by using primal and dual information are calculated from both optimization approaches, demonstrating that the stylized approach is biased and erroneously diminishes the PHS revenue in the case of a bulk, transmission-connected PHS in Chile. These conclusions are of particular interest for policy-makers, regulators, planners, and investors in Chile who seek to identify both PHS projects that are socially optimal (minimizing overall system costs) and privately profitable (whose revenues exceed costs).

[1]  John Boland,et al.  Estimating the potential for solar energy utilization in Chile by satellite-derived data and ground station measurements , 2015 .

[2]  Rodrigo Palma-Behnke,et al.  A simulation framework for optimal energy storage sizing , 2014 .

[3]  Mallikarjun Shankar,et al.  Co-optimizing generation and transmission expansion with wind power in large-scale power grids—Implementation in the US Eastern Interconnection , 2016 .

[4]  Paul Denholm,et al.  A Dynamic Programming Approach to Estimate the Capacity Value of Energy Storage , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[5]  Pierluigi Mancarella,et al.  Planning low-carbon electricity systems under uncertainty considering operational flexibility and smart grid technologies , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[6]  Pierluigi Mancarella,et al.  Framework for capacity credit assessment of electrical energy storage and demand response , 2016 .

[7]  Goran Strbac,et al.  Fundamentals of Power System Economics: Kirschen/Power System Economics , 2005 .

[8]  Ronnie Belmans,et al.  Evaluating the Role of Electricity Storage by Considering Short-Term Operation in Long-Term Planning , 2016 .

[9]  William D'haeseleer,et al.  Impact of the level of temporal and operational detail in energy-system planning models , 2016 .

[10]  Audun Botterud,et al.  The value of energy storage in decarbonizing the electricity sector , 2016 .

[11]  M. Carrion,et al.  A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[12]  R. Moreno,et al.  The importance of time resolution, operational flexibility and risk aversion in quantifying the value of energy storage in long-term energy planning studies , 2019, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[13]  H. Rogner,et al.  Incorporating flexibility requirements into long-term energy system models – A case study on high levels of renewable electricity penetration in Ireland , 2014 .

[14]  Marko Aunedi,et al.  Assessment of Future Whole-System Value of Large-Scale Pumped Storage Plants in Europe , 2018 .

[15]  Rodrigo Palma-Behnke,et al.  A column generation approach for solving generation expansion planning problems with high renewable energy penetration , 2016 .

[16]  R. Moreno,et al.  Opportunities for Energy Storage: Assessing Whole-System Economic Benefits of Energy Storage in Future Electricity Systems , 2017, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine.

[17]  J. Watson,et al.  Assessing the economic value of co-optimized grid-scale energy storage investments in supporting high renewable portfolio standards , 2016 .

[18]  R. Moreno,et al.  Equilibrium Analysis of a Tax on Carbon Emissions with Pass-through Restrictions and Side-payment Rules , 2020, The Energy Journal.

[19]  Iftekhar A. Karimi,et al.  Long-term optimal energy mix planning towards high energy security and low GHG emission , 2015 .

[20]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  The Next Generation of Electric Power Unit Commitment Models , 2013 .

[21]  Tom Brijs,et al.  Quantifying the importance of power system operation constraints in power system planning models: A case study for electricity storage , 2017 .

[22]  Paul Denholm,et al.  Timescales of energy storage needed for reducing renewable energy curtailment , 2019, Renewable Energy.

[23]  T. Mai,et al.  Variable Renewable Energy in Long-Term Planning Models: A Multi-Model Perspective , 2017 .

[24]  D. Kirschen,et al.  Fundamentals of power system economics , 1991 .

[25]  M. O'Malley,et al.  Accommodating Variability in Generation Planning , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[26]  H. Rudnick,et al.  CVaR Constrained Planning of Renewable Generation with Consideration of System Inertial Response, Reserve Services and Demand Participation , 2016 .

[27]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  Economic Inefficiencies of Cost-based Electricity Market Designs , 2018, The Energy Journal.

[28]  G. Strbac,et al.  Valuation of Flexible Transmission Investment Options Under Uncertainty , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[29]  Bryan Palmintier,et al.  Impact of unit commitment constraints on generation expansion planning with renewables , 2011, 2011 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting.

[30]  Mohammad Shahidehpour,et al.  Co-optimization of electricity transmission and generation resources for planning and policy analysis: review of concepts and modeling approaches , 2016 .

[31]  Wil L. Kling,et al.  Integration of large-scale wind power and use of energy storage in the netherlands' electricity supply , 2008 .

[32]  Goran Strbac,et al.  A MILP model for optimising multi-service portfolios of distributed energy storage , 2015 .

[33]  P. Ferrao,et al.  Modeling hourly electricity dynamics for policy making in long-term scenarios , 2011 .