Yo CREPC let's kick it
ISO ISO baby
ISO ISO baby
All right stop collaborate and listen.

Update on state-led market on WECC market coordination options! Exactly the sort of thing that should be happening. Love to see it.

Strong team, strong governance.

Keegan Moyer, from Energy Strategies now presenting an update on the report. Looks like we're getting close publication! A reason to look forward to 2021.

This three option construct seems to be emerging at the preferred option set for new market formation in WECC and SE. Tradeoffs of time/resources and benefits/policy flexibility along the way.

This is so cool I'm shaking.

Unsure what the naming conventions would be for these different market scopes, but hopefully we can cover that in a future stakeholder meeting.

Study is from a state perspective, which is great, though note what isn't being studied (notably, reliability benefits and savings on policy-driven procurement). Also looking at costs for start up/admin.

If you zoom in it...isn't any more clear.

But more diversity of peak demand = greater efficiency gains from resource sharing. Bigger markets, bigger savings, etc.

Since I know you modeling nerds are wondering about methodology...

Assumed RTO market construct would realize 100% of capacity/peak diversity benefits, where DAM realizes 0-50%, RT is 0-10%

The capacity benefit goods. $480 million/year in regional savings if we had an WECC RTO. Nobody loses, but The One Market is really good for Washington hydro.

Capacity benefits stacked on top of operational savings.

Operational modeling assumptions: One BA to Rule Them All.

We're not studying resource portfolios here, but how a market would affect production costs.

Expanding the EIM to all WECC would produce $105 million in marginal benefits to status quot. But overnight WECC RTO would produce over $800 million in operational savings -- and greater reductions in CO2, but the market design alone (on today's resource mix) isn't the driver.

Breaking down those operational savings a little further. This is what they mean by "more efficient dispatch" I guess.

Very interesting resource dispatch results. An overnight RTO isn't necessarily driving material changes. Changes not coming from switching between fuels, but forcing the most efficient dispatch within each fuel source.

More interesting results on emissions, curtailment and transmission. AZ and PNW export more, CA/NV import more. (Again, this is an overnight RTO on the 2020 system compared to status quo 2020)

Putting it all together: capacity and operational benefits by state, if everyone was in the EIM right now.

Overnight, One Market RTO benefits. Over $1.2B annually, and everyone wins. Would love to see this per capita or per ratepayer-class

2030 timeframe studies underway. Question about how to incorporate decarbonization policies and target.

Companion qualitative analysis on regulatory pathways/policy implications of different market designs.

Oregon Commissioner Letha Tawney speaking now in reflection to the study...but honestly hasn't said anything worth tweeting. There are costs, there are benefits, need to find consensus view, data is helpful, etc etc.

Comm. Tawney says to look at MISO self-scheduling as a way real life market underdeliver modeled benefits -- but provides data and transparency to understand if self-sched is in public interest. (Timely after watching Earthjustice question Duke Energy on self-sched this AM!)

2020 study helps elucidate what an RTO does and doesn't do. Doesn't reshuffle resource mix, for example, but could make reaching policy objectives more effecient. Looking to 2030, thermal will be exposed to pressure regardless (is it the market, or is it consumer preferences?)