Even when a utility uses one of the best resource planning models available, executives can still short-circuit the model’s capabilities.
In the case of Dominion Virginia Energy, the utility’s high-end PLEXOS model can readily determine how much solar, storage and wind power would save customers the most money. But Dominion excluded storage when it ran the model, contending that storage is “more costly” than other options in testimony elicited by the Sierra Club, through legal discovery.
The PLEXOS model has the capacity to evaluate battery resources, but the utility “simply failed” to use the model to do so, testified expert witness Rachel Wilson, of Synapse Energy Economics, for the Sierra Club. She said the utility should be required to model solar + storage as “selectable resources” at reasonable costs in its future modeling work.
Having bypassed solar + storage—which is increasingly seen as the lowest-cost option—Dominion Virginia plans to meet peak demand in Virginia with up to 3.2 GW of additional gas-fired combustion turbines by 2033. The utility’s parent company owns gas pipelines. (The utility did include a state-mandated 30 MW storage “pilot” project in its plans.)
Dominion’s plan also handicaps solar by:
- Not considering flexible solar generation—whereas in Georgia, 4 GW of flexibly operated solar now could save customers money.
- Allowing competitive bids for power purchase agreements on only 25% of new solar, while reserving 75% of new solar for the utility to build. That’s contrary to a finding that “the solar power purchase agreement option is substantially less costly than the company-build solar option,” according to testimony by Gregory Abbott, a Deputy Director with the State Corporation Commission’s Division of Public Utility Regulation.
- Assuming constant costs for solar, rather than continued declining costs as panel efficiencies improve and soft costs decline. That constant-cost assumption was uncovered by Ms. Wilson of Synapse Energy Economics, through a legal discovery process. The unreasonableness of using constant solar costs is shown by testimony in a Georgia proceeding that even NREL’s mid-case projections for solar costs “have historically underestimated real-world cost declines,” according to Energy and Environmental Economics Senior Partner Arne Olson (Georgia PUC docket number 42310).
- Limiting solar additions to 480 MW per year—except in 2028, when 1.2 GW of solar would be added to reach the state’s legislated goal of 5 GW of solar.
Solar has been similarly short-changed in resource plans recently filed by utilities in North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. Regulated utilities in 33 states must file “integrated resource plans” (IRPs) every few years, for review by state regulators.
In a rare point of agreement, a solar industry group and Dominion agreed that the state’s requirement to use a 23% solar capacity factor for modeling purposes was too low, though they differed on how much. The 23% value used over the next 15 years was “artificially low,” testified Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition’s expert witness Michael Volpe, a vice president at Open Road renewables. He predicted “capacity factors nearing 30% over the next few years” as the use of single-axis trackers and bifacial panels become the norm. Dominion maintained that a 25.4% capacity factor, which it used in developing its previous plan, was appropriate.
Noting that Dominion announced $17 billion in additional capital spending in Virginia at a March 25 investor presentation, regulatory staff had requested that Dominion re-run the PLEXOS model to reflect the full $17 billion in planned spending, but a hearing examiner denied the request.
Staff of the State Corporation Commission (SCC) are now reviewing Dominion’s plan and all testimony. Last year, regulators rejected Dominion’s initial IRP. SCC Deputy Director Gregory Abbott testified that the new plan’s lowest-cost option costs nearly $8 billion less than that of the plan regulators rejected last year.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: email@example.com.
I would hate to live in a state that is pushing the future to NG generated electricity since that will be the next version of coal – it’s already evident that it will be the high cost producer going forward.
Let’s be honest here. Why not adding the environmental damage to the cost calculation formula? Natural gas extracting, delivery, burning, and related effort to keep those gas industry facilities safe, how much do these add to the cost and who will pay for those? and when those pipelines eventually break and leak, who will pay for the damages financially? Haven’t we had enough environmental damage already? Those rich guys in gas industry never live near their pipelines or gas plants. Only the poor do.
Story on utilitydive that the data center companies in Virginia also don’t like the NG plans of Dominion and want them to do more solar+storage.
Big question is whether those data centers have sufficient land to install/source their own solar+storage behind the meter and take that load away from Dominion’s revenues… the sPower project in Spotsvylvania already has large corporate PPAs in place, for example.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.