2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsProjects are identified by SPP through its Balances Portfolio and/or SPP Transmission ExpansionPlan’s 10 year reliability assessment.One objective of the Balanced Portfolio and EHV Overlay study 98 is integrate wind and otherefficient generation to serve load in the SPP footprint.Operational IssuesThe variability of wind energy remains the key operating challenge within the SPP footprint. Forinstance, power output from wind generators typically peaks during the light load hours, and alarge portion of wind generators would trip as a result of high- or low- wind situations. It wouldbe critical for SPP to managing ramp rates and maintain adequate spinning reserve using fossilfuel units.The SPP WITF (Wind Integration Task Force) is conducting and reviewing studies to determinethe impact of integrating wind generation into the SPP transmission system, energy markets, andoperations system. These impacts include both planning and operational issues. Additionally,these studies should lead to recommendations for the development of any new tools required forSPP to properly evaluate requests for interconnecting wind generating resources.SPP is also participating in NERC’s Integrating Variable Generation Task Force (IVGTF), inwhich specific recommendations will be made. SPP will participate in this effort of updating ordeveloping reliability standards to reliably integrate variable generation resources into the bulkpower system.Reliability Assessment AnalysisSPP’s Reliability Criteria requires each member to sustain a 12 percent capacity margin or 13.6percent reserve margin. For 2018, the forecast reserve margin from the 2009 Reference Case is 9percent, compared to the 2009 Scenario Case capacity margin of 18.5 percent. The 18.5 percentScenario Case capacity margin is based on assumptions in the JCSP, which uses a 33 percentcapacity factor for existing and planned wind generation and a 45 percent capacity factor forconceptual wind generation. The rationale for this capacity factor is explained in the JCSP studyassumption document.The 9 percent capacity margin from the 2009 Reference Case does not take into accountdeliverable resources or 3,305 MW of conceptual resources that are forecast to be in-service in2018.There are no known unit retirements in the Scenario Case that would impact the SPP Region’sreliability. There was no difference in the amount of deliverable resources for the SPP Regionwhen the Scenario Case was compared to the Reference Case. There are no known potentialretirements from new or emerging environmental regulations.98 SPP conducted Extra High Voltage (EHV) study which is similar to Balance Portfolio in 2008-2009 to examineeconomic projects in SPP footprint2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 147
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsSPP has not performed a specific Loss Of Load Expectation (LOLE) study with wind penetrationfor 2018. However, a sensitivity analysis was recently conducted with a wind penetration ofapproximately 2,500 MW in the western part of the SPP grid for year 2012. This LOLE analysisindicates a need for additional conventional resources in the local area and/or a transmissionsource into the western part of the grid.The penetration of wind generation into the SPP footprint may have a significant impact onoperations due to the variable nature of this type of supply-side resource. 28,542 GWh ofincremental energy are projected to be injected into the Region by new wind resources. Severalavenues are being explored to provide transmission outlets for this energy during the next tenyears, such as the EHV Overlay Study, Balanced Portfolio, and JCSP. However, operationalimpacts to regulation and control performance caused by variable generation are still unknown.SPP anticipates the WITF study to be completed by 2009 and specific operational tools would beimplemented in 2010.SPP’s is moving forward with day-ahead and ancillary service markets by 2012. The exactimpact of the scenario discussed here on SPP’s market structure or ancillary service requirementsis yet to be determined.There were no significant changes in fuel mix between the Scenario Case and the ReferenceCase, except for the integration of the 20 percent wind energy. SPP continues to monitorpotential fuel supply limitations for conventional resources by consulting with its generationowningand generation-controlling members at the beginning of each calendar year. There are noknown infrastructure issues which could impact deliverability, as SPP is blanketed by majorpipelines and railroads to provide an adequate fuel supply to the power generation sector. Coal–fired and natural gas power plants, which make up approximately 48 percent and 44 percent oftotal generation respectively, are required by SPP Criteria to keep sufficient quantities of standbyfuel in case of deliverability issues. Because hydro-electric capacity is a small fraction of theoverall capacity for the Region, run–of–river hydro issues brought about by extreme weather arealso not expected to be critical.Region DescriptionSouthwest Power Pool (SPP) Region covers a geographic area of 370,000 square miles and hasmembers in nine states: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, NewMexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. SPP manages transmission in eight of those states. SPP’s footprintincludes 26 balancing authorities and 47,000 miles of transmission lines. SPP has 54 members thatserve over 5 million customers. SPP’s membership consists of 12 investor–owned utilities, 11generation and transmission cooperatives, 11 power marketers, 9 municipal systems, 5 independentpower producers, 4 state authorities, and 2 independent transmission companies. Additionalinformation can be found on www.spp.org.Page 1482009 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:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?