2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsTransfer Analysis ComparisonFor 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. Calculated transfer capabilities are not extrapolated beyond the study transfer testlevels, are non-simultaneous, and based on computer simulations of interconnected electricsystem operations under a specific set of assumed operating conditions for the 2019 Summerpeak season.Each simulation represented a single “snapshot” of the operation of the interconnected systemsbased on the projections of many factors that included expected customer demands, generationdispatch, scheduled maintenance, interconnected transmission network configuration, and theelectric power transfers in effect among the interconnected systems. In real-time operation of theinterconnected electric systems, many of these factors are continuously changing. As a result, theelectric power transfers that can be supported on the transmission systems would vary.Operational IssuesAlthough it is difficult to project actual operational issues from a high level scenario analysissuch as this, a few potential issues come to mind which, while not analyzed here are listed forfuture consideration. Operating guides are likely needed by 2019. The potential differencesbetween the Scenario Case and the Reference Case which would require future evaluationinclude the following:As unit sizes increase with the new capacity additions, requirements for spinningreserve are likely to increase. Operation changes are inevitable.As generation is more concentrated at existing sites, common mode failures andmultiple contingency losses would need to be thoroughly investigated as part of theplanning process under NERC Standards in effect at the time.As more base load generation is added, its capability to follow load would need to beunderstood. At present it is expected that (based on vendor representations) new baseload nuclear plants would have greater load following capability than in the past.Reliability Assessment AnalysisThe reserve margin of the Reference Case in 2019 is 4.1 percent and of the Scenario Case is 9.7percent. Neither would meet the target margin of 15 percent as set out by NERC, however forthis scenario analysis it is instructive to see how we might achieve a better outcome. For a200,000 MW load system with a little less than 2 percent growth per year, we needapproximately 3,000 to 4,000 MW per year to keep pace. At this point in time, the announcedplans in the Reference Case do not, hence deterioration in resource margin over the period. Theamount of resources internal to the Region increase in the Scenario Case. SERC does notperform a system-wide resource adequacy study using probabilistic methods at this time.The amount of resources internal to SERC relied upon to meet state and utility resourcerequirements increases in the Scenario Case. Therefore, the amount of resources external to theRegion being relied on for reliability purposes decreases.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 141
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsFigure SERC-5: Fuel-Mix ComparisonsReference Case 2008by Fuel TypeRerefernce Case: 2019by Fuel TypeDual Fuel(Gas/Oil)14.47%PumpedStorage4.02%Hydro5.81%Other/Unknown0.76%Net ExternalPurchases0.80%Nuclear15.88%Pumped Storage4.25%Dual Fuel(Gas/Oil)14.58%Other/UnknownHydro 0.74%5.70%Net ExternalPurchases0.08%Nuclear16.38%Gas17.94%Oil1.63%Coal38.68%Gas18.31%Oil1.61%Coal38.34%Rerefernce Case: 2019by Fuel TypeScenario Case: 2019by Fuel TypePumped Storage4.25%Dual Fuel(Gas/Oil)14.58%Other/UnknownHydro 0.74%5.70%Net ExternalPurchases0.08%Nuclear16.38%Hydro5.39%Pumped Storage4.02%Dual Fuel(Gas/Oil)13.80%Other/Unknown0.70%Net ExternalPurchases0.08% Nuclear20.58%Gas18.31%Oil1.61%Coal38.34%Gas17.48%Oil1.52%Coal36.41%The fuel mix comparisons for 2019 are shown above. Note that even with a substantialgeneration addition, the 2019 nuclear component increases by 4 percent.No additional retirements were considered in this analysis except for those reported as part of the2008 Reference Case.This study provides extensive comparative information regarding transfer capability (FCITC andNITC) in the transmission section above. The Transmission additions were selected as theminimum needed to integrate the generation proposed. Deliverability is generally resolved bythese transmission additions however details planning is required to verifyThere is no incremental wind or biomass introduced in the study. While over time we may seemore biomass and other renewables, the current view is that the wind resources in the Southeast(except for the Gateway subregion and certain offshore areas of the eastern SERC states) isgenerally not economic to develop. As such, there would be no need to address the variabilityissues that would come with substantial wind generation penetration in the SERC Region..Page 1422009 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:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95: 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?