2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsInternal Demand (TID) in 2018. The Net Internal Demand (NID) is 203,100 MW. These demandvalues are the same for the reference and Scenario Cases.GenerationFigure 3 shows the location of the projected future generation locations in the Reference Case(i.e. reference future). Figure 4 shows the location of the projected future generation for theScenario Case (i.e. 20 percent Wind Energy Scenario).The amount of generating capacity included in the JCSP study is used in this assessment as thecapability of the generation in RFC. JCSP utilized a 15 percent reserve margin to determine theappropriate amount of generation to satisfy this reserve requirement. The difference in capacitybetween the Reference Case and the Scenario Case is due to changes in wind generation, coalgeneration and combustion turbine generation.The “Certain” resources and the “Planned” capacity additions are the same in both reference andScenario Cases. All the changes are due to changes in the category of “Proposed” generation.In this assessment, the amount of available wind power capability included in the reservecalculations is less than the nameplate rating of the wind resources. The difference between thenameplate rating and the expected wind capability is accounted for in the “Existing, Other”category.Scheduled maintenance and inoperable capacity are not included in this assessment whencalculating the reserve margins.RFC GENERATIONThe RFC data only includes generation physically located within the RFC Region. Generatingcapacity outside the Regional area owned by member companies is included with the scheduledpower imports. Since the Scenario Case is a wind energy scenario, there are no differencesexpected in biomass generation between the cases. Impacts of potential carboncapture/sequestration are not included in this assessment.The amount of “Certain” capacity in both the RFC Reference Case and Scenario Case is 213,700MW. The amount of “Planned” capacity is also the same in both the reference and ScenarioCases, at 5,800 MW. This results in 219,500 MW of on-peak capacity and 222,100 MW ofnameplate capacity in 2018.The capacity difference between the reference and Scenario Cases is in the “Proposed” capacitycategory. Due to the uncertainty of Proposed capacity additions, confidence factors wereprovided by PJM and MISO based upon their analyses of the likelihood of project completionand current generator queue status. These confidence factors were used to approximate theamount of capacity that needed to be proposed such that the expected installed capacity in 2018would be equivalent to the capacity in the JCSP reference and Scenario Cases. The nameplateamount of capacity for RFC in the Reference Case is 262,900 MW. This assumes that 40,800MW of nameplate capacity would be installed from projects identified in the MISO and PJM2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 123