WSP02437

• File Number: 8220.100.50
• Description: CRSP - Power Issues
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 1/1/1982
• Author: West. Sys. Coord. Co
• Title: Western Systems Coordinating Council Ten-Year Coordinated Plan Summary 1982 - 1991
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

OPERATIONS TO ASSIST DEFICIENT UTILITIES

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

66

supplies met more than 60 percent of the requirements of SCE's oil- and
gas-fired generating plants.

SUCCESS OF OIL CONSERVATION EFFORTS

The WSCC Member Systems continued to be effective in their efforts to
conserve oil by maximizing the use of other resource types. The Rocky
Mountain Power Area (RMPA), through various resource coordination programs
was able tD offset essentially all of its oil- and gas-fired generation with
other resource types in 1981. In addition, considerable non-oil-fired
surplus energy was exported by the RMPA to oil burning regions of WSCC;
however, these exports were often limited by transmission capability out of
the Rocky Mountain area. Also, coal-fired generation in the
Montana-Utah-Wyoming area was used during 1981 to the extent possible
considering transmission limitations to displace oil-fired generation in
other areas.

Deliveries from the Pacific Northwest to the Pacific Southwest enabled
the Pacific Southwest utilities to CDnserve approximately 45 million barrels
of oil. Due tD these deliveries and the availability of natural gas in
California, Southern California Edison Company reported that its fuel oil
consumption was down 6 million barrels from the 30 million barrels burned in
1980. As further examples of the success of oil conservation efforts, the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power reported that its fuel oil
consumption was 53 percent less than in 1980, and the Arizona Public Service
Company reported that its consumption of oil was reduced by 75 percent
through increased use of coal and natural gas along with purchases of
surplus/economy coal-fired and hydro energy.

Most WSCC utilities experienced adequate power supply levels during
1981 with the exception of some California area utilities. The California
utilities had to coordinate their efforts to meet the state's 1981 summer
load requirements. As an example, Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
provided short term capacity assistance to Northern California on 44
occasions in amounts ranging from 100 to 1258 MW, with 952 GWH of associated
energy. In addition, it was necessary for SCE to arrange for short term
capacity imports on 10 occasions in amounts ranging from 75 to 629 MW. ' The
mutual assistance provided is indicative of the cooperation which exists
within the region.

Northern California was required to rely on extensive interarea
transfers to maintain adequate reserve levels due to the high incidence of
forced outages which were experienced for extended periods during 1981. For
example, Rancho Seco Nuclear Unit (900 MW), Pittsburg Unit 7 (720 MW) and
Morro Bay Unit 3 (338 MW) all incurred prolonged forced outages at various
times during the year. As a result of the high incidence of forced outages
experienced during the summer peak period, spinning reserves in the Northern
California Area dropped below seven percent for a total of 47 days, and
below six percent for 19 of those days. Area reserves averaged only
slightly over 5 percent during the week of June 22-26, when extremely hot