2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsThe process for selecting the incremental planned and proposed resources included in the changecase was based on input of utilities in the SERC Region for prospective projects beyond thoseformally announced as of June 2008. The projects are largely co-located with existing facilities.A majority of the new resources being conventional and for the most part nuclear. Any impactsof carbon sequestration on fossil generation (i.e. derates) were not considered.Capacity Transactions on Peak and Assumed TransfersThere are no differences in capacity transactions on peak due to the availability of additionalgeneration resources. No SERC-wide economic dispatch model was run because no single entityperforms economic dispatch assessments across the entire SERC footprint at this time and thislevel of effort was not within the scope of the scenario analysis request from NERC.This study incorporates projected loads and base transfers as well as the interconnectedtransmission network configuration and generation facilities of SERC member systems currentlyidentified for operation by the 2019 summer peak season. IPP generating facilities without asigned interconnection agreement are not modeled as being in-service for the Reference Case.The amount of resources external to the SERC Region used by utilities in the SERC Regionwould likely decrease due to the incremental resources added within the Region in this scenario.TransmissionNew bulk transmission line facilities upgrades and new lines necessary to integrate the 13,112MW of incremental generation resources outlined in section 1 is presented in summary in thefollowing table.Table SERC-3: SERC Region Transmission Projects by Facility Type - MilesTransmission Facility Type Reference Case 94 ScenarioCase 95New Lines 2,429 547161 kV 0 80230 kV 1,644 188345 kV 338 0500 kV 447 279Upgrades Lines 0 170230 kV 0 59500 kV 0 111Total 2,429 717No new bulk transmission transformer facilities necessary to integrate the incremental generationwere identified at this time although when the planning for these facilities is undertaken therewould likely be new transformer additions.There were no new FACTS, SVC or similar technology projects assessed in this scenario.94 This represents the cumulative period result from the Reference Case.95 Single year assessment for 2019.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 137
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsTransfer capability assessmentThis study assesses the strength of the SERC interconnected network by determining its ability tosupport power transfers, which are incremental to the base transfers. Transfer capabilities arecalculated using a linear analysis technique in accordance with accepted practice as defined byNERC in the document Transmission Transfer Capability, dated May 1995. Both the NormalIncremental Transfer Capabilities (NITCs) and First Contingency Incremental TransferCapabilities (FCITCs) are used in this report. For conditions other than those modeled, responsefactors can be used to approximate incremental transfer capabilities.For the subregional transfers, an AC power flow at the transfer test level was conducted with thefirst reported “hard” limit contingency in effect to check for voltage constraints associated withthe transfer. Compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards (Table I of NERC ReliabilityStandard TPL-001 and TPL-002) was assessed with an AC Contingency Analysis (PSS/Eactivity ACCC); to test for voltage violations and thermal overloads on the power flow studymodel for all submitted contingencies.Calculated transfer capabilities in this report are not extrapolated beyond the study transfer testlevels. Study transfers are simulated by increasing generation in one area while simultaneouslydecreasing generation in another area. When necessary, control area loads are reduced in theexporting system in order to provide sufficient capacity for modeling desired levels of transfer.Monitored circuits that are not significantly affected by the power transfer are not generallyreported. Variations in local conditions typically have a more profound effect on these facilitiesthan do the power transfers under investigation. In general, limiting facilities having a transferresponse calculated to be less than 3.0 percent are omitted from the reported results.The transfer capabilities identified in this report are non-simultaneous, and based on computersimulations of interconnected electric system operations under a specific set of assumedoperating conditions for the 2019 summer peak season. Each simulation represents a single“snapshot” of the operation of the interconnected systems based on the projections of manyfactors that included expected customer demands, generation dispatch, scheduled maintenance,interconnected transmission network configuration, and the electric power transfers in effectamong the interconnected systems. In the real-time operation of the interconnected electricsystems, many of these factors are continuously changing. As a result, the electric powertransfers that can be supported on the transmission systems would vary from one instant to thenext. For this reason, the transfer capabilities reported in this study correspond to a specific set ofsystem conditions for the interconnected network and can be significantly different for any otherset of system conditions. The transfer capabilities reported in this study should be viewed asindicators of system capability.As a measure of projected transmission system performance for the 2019 summer season, thisstudy utilizes assessments of incremental transfer capabilities among the SERC member systems.This study also assessed performance as required by NERC Reliability Standards forTransmission System Performance.The bubble diagrams that follow depict the subregional First Contingency Incremental TransferCapability (FCITC) for the Reference Case (Figure 1) and the Scenario Case (Figure 2). FCITCPage 1382009 Scenario Reliability Assessment
Page 1 and 2:
2009 Scenario ReliabilityAssessment
Page 3 and 4:
Table of ContentsTable of ContentsN
Page 5 and 6:
Executive SummaryTransmission Criti
Page 8 and 9:
Background Information for this Rep
Page 10:
Scenario Reliability Assessment Sum
Page 13 and 14:
Scenario Reliability Assessment Sum
Page 16 and 17:
Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91: Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
Page 164 and 165: Regional Reliability Scenario Self-
Page 180 and 181: About This Reporto Nuclear scenario
Page 182 and 183: Joint Coordinated System PlanThemat
Page 184 and 185: Joint Coordinated System Plan2009 S
Page 186 and 187: Scenario LetterScenario LetterDecem
Page 188 and 189: Scenario LetterIn an effort to add
Page 190 and 191:
Scenario Letterd) Provide a table,
Page 192 and 193:
Reliability Assessment Subcommittee
Page 194 and 195:
Reliability Assessment Subcommittee
Page 196:
the reliability of theto ensurebulk
show all

2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?