Integrating Southwest Power Pool Wind to Southeast Electricity ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

single pool. However, there are no load aggregation benefits in this scenario since the regional loads have not been combined. The study team did not expect this scenario to be viable. The expectation was that SPP would not have sufficient reserves and flexible resources to be able to reliably balance this much additional wind generation. The scenario was defined simply as an extreme end of the balancing spectrum. A proxy case for Scenario 1, with wind forecasts assumed perfect and no additional reserves needed to cater for intra-hour variability and uncertainty in wind, is also examined, to quantify the additional balancing costs incurred by wind. Scenario 2: Dynamic Scheduling Wind to Each SERC BA Scenario 2 dynamically scheduled each SERC BA’s wind generation out of SPP and to the SERC BA. Each BA aggregates its wind with its load and uses its own internal resources to balance the net BA variability and uncertainty. This scenario increases the size of the load that wind is aggregated with and increases the pool of responsive generation but looses the aggregation benefits associated with combining the variability and uncertainty of all of the wind fleet together. Scenario 4: Reserves Shared Throughout SPP and the SERC BAs Without Hurdle Rates Scenario 4 provides the largest aggregation benefit. All of the resources throughout SPP and the SERC BAs are available for balancing and the balancing obligation is reduced through aggregation of the footprint wide variability and uncertainty of both wind and load. The regional contingency reserves are also aggregated by using the maximum of the regional requirements. The day-ahead unit commitment is done based upon each BAs obligations and expectations but the real-time balancing is optimized over the footprint. Scenario 3: Reserves Shared Throughout SPP and the SERC BAs With Hurdle Rates Scenario 3 is similar to scenario 4 in its aggregation benefits and reserve requirements but there are hurdle rates between the BAs that increase the cost of inter-BA transactions. 4-2
5 HIGH WIND TRANSFER CASE RESULTS This chapter examines results from the High Wind Transfer scenarios described in the previous chapters. As noted in Chapter 2, all of the high wind transfer cases utilize the Transportation mode solution that provides an unconstrained transmission network model so that transmission does not curtail wind significantly. Utilizing these models, first, the impact of increasing SPP wind generation capacity from 14 GW to 48 GW is examined briefly to provide context as to the effect of high levels of wind on the unconstrained case so that the subsequent results are better understood. The bulk of the chapter examines in detail the differences in the four High Wind Transfer scenarios that are the basis for understanding the potential benefits of coordinated scheduling and balancing throughout the SPP-SERC footprint. Generation, interchanges between regions, costs, and reserve allocation are shown to better understand the possible benefits of cooperation. Impacts of Increasing Wind Penetration to Meet 20% RES This subsection examines how generation output and flows across the SPP-SERC footprint are impacted when wind generation capacity in SPP increases from the 14 GW level to 48 GW. Identifying these impacts is not the primary focus of the study, but understanding the change in generation which is due to high wind being added provides a better understanding of how the generation and flows between regions will change as the wind is being balanced differently, which is examined in the next section. The analysis is based on comparison of the 14 GW “unconstrained” case described in Chapter 2 and the High Wind Transfer Scenario #1 described in Chapter 4. Table 5-1 lists the only differences in the case setups, with all other aspects of the cases being the same. Table 5-1 Differences in 14 GW Unconstrained and High Wind Scenario #1 Case Setups 14 GW Unconstrained High Wind Scenario #1 Installed Wind Cap 14 GW 48 GW Scheduling of DA Wind Forecast All to SPP Shares to SPP and SERC Intra-Hr Reserves for Wind Carried by SPP alone for 14 GW 5-1 Carried by SPP alone for all 48 GW Generation and Interchange Differences Increasing installed wind capacity by 34 GW within the footprint obviously impacts the output levels of other types of generation within each region and the flows between regions. Table 5-2 shows the change in average generation when wind is increased from 14 GW installed capacity to 48 GW. As expected, wind displaces combined cycle gas (CC) and coal usage. Blue indicates a reduction in generation, green an increase, as wind is added to the system. There is a small
Page 1: DOE: Integrating Southwest Power Po
Page 4 and 5: DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITA
Page 6 and 7: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This DOE-funded p
Page 8 and 9: Summary of average regulation requi
Page 10 and 11: generation in the 2022 Non-RES case
Page 12 and 13: System and Cost Impacts of High Win
Page 14 and 15: Figure 6-6: Individual Coal Capacit
Page 17 and 18: 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Proje
Page 19 and 20: 2 REPRESENTATION OF TRANSMISSION NE
Page 21 and 22: participants the possibility of a r
Page 23: assumption is affecting specific di
Page 26 and 27: Table 3-1 Wind energy targets for e
Page 28 and 29: site selection could have congregat
Page 30 and 31: Wind Production (MW) Wind Productio
Page 32 and 33: Wind Delivery (MW) 12000 10000 8000
Page 34 and 35: 1. Regulation is required to cover
Page 36 and 37: The polynomial shown in Equation 3
Page 38 and 39: Regulation (MW) Figure 3-12 Summary
Page 41: 4 HIGH WIND TRANSFER SCENARIO DECRI
Page 45 and 46: decreasing smaller amounts. It is i
Page 47 and 48: Coal 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 GasOil 0.7
Page 49 and 50: Figure 5-3 Average hourly generatio
Page 51 and 52: Figure 5-6: Average hourly generati
Page 53 and 54: SBA. More details on these types of
Page 55 and 56: Figure 5-8: Total production costs
Page 57 and 58: The flow chart shown in Figure 5-9
Page 59 and 60: Table 5-10 shows the difference in
Page 61 and 62: more likely to be turned off during
Page 63 and 64: Figure 5-13: Average Regulation up
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5-16: Average Spinning reser
Page 67 and 68: Figure 5-18: SBA Capacity Factors b
Page 69 and 70: Figure 5-20: Capacity Factors for S
Page 71 and 72: Unit Startups Changing the balancin
Page 73 and 74: Gas Price Sensitivity Case Results
Page 75 and 76: 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED NEXT
Page 77 and 78: generation characteristics across r
Page 79: overstates the ability of the syste
Page 82 and 83: Figure 6-2: Individual coal capacit
Page 84 and 85: in the 22% to 50% in Scenario 2. Th
Page 86 and 87: Figure 6-8: individual coal capacit
Page 88 and 89: able to carry some of the reserve t
Page 90: Export Control Restrictions Access

Integrating Southwest Power Pool Wind to Southeast Electricity ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?