2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmentsa study of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) required by the various Western states, andproduced a weighted average renewable energy use of 8.8 percent. The Scenario Case was anextension of the base case and increased the renewable energy requirement to 15 percent. Theexisting resources, both conventional and renewable, were the same in both cases, but renewableresources were added to the different cases to satisfy the RPS requirements. These cases will bereferenced in this report as the base case for the 8.8 percent RPS case, and Scenario Case for the15 percent case.WECC studied the 2009 Scenario Case with an hourly simulation of the year 2017 as part of theTEPPC 2008 study program. 104 This study used loads from the 2007 forecasts, since the 2008forecasts were not available, though there were some updates from 2008 forecasts; one of themdriven by the requirements of the hourly simulation. The load adjustments, described on thesecond page of “Attachment - WECC Study Results” (the Attachment), did not significantlyaffect the outcome of the study or the conclusions to be drawn from it. Generation was drawnfrom the data submitted for the 2008 Long Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA) data request,modified to develop a study case with 15 percent renewables penetration.It is important to note that the Scenario Case was a constructed example of one geographic andrenewables mix among a number of possible ways to meet one forecast of 2017 load levels. Justas the absolute levels of the load are not crucial to the conclusions that can be drawn from thestudy, neither are the exact specifications of the resource build out. The scenario was constructedby TEPPC to be a reasonable build out given the types of renewable generation currently beingconsidered by Western entities, taking account of likely geographic diversity and resourcequality available at different locations in the Western Interconnection.The scenario was designed to be adequate, so it is not a test of the adequacy of a high renewablespenetration scenario. Nonetheless, it was clear in the course of developing the scenario thatadequacy issues were raised that need to be addressed, and WECC has developed a process foraddressing them.Moreover, since the modeling was in hourly time steps, the operating issues raised by variablegeneration, in particular wind since it is expected to make up a large percentage of therenewables that are developed in the Western Interconnection, were not apparent from themodeling. These issues are, however, known from other studies and from the ongoing operatingexperience of Western BAs that are already experiencing high renewables penetrations.DiscussionThe renewable generation making up the 15 percent case was approximately 44 percent wind, 15percent solar, 32 percent geothermal, and nine percent biomass. Much of this generation wassited relatively near major load centers, so that the transmission requirements though significant,were not entirely large, long-distance lines. For instance, much of the solar generation waslocated relatively near the major load centers of Phoenix and Southern California. The104 A security-constrained economic dispatch model using a DC load flow, PROMOD, was used for this study. Thehourly simulation study done by TEPPC, which developed the transmission implications of the scenario, wassupplemented by an analysis of the same data with a simplified version of PROMOD to develop other aspects ofthe study.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 151
Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmentsgeographical distribution and relative magnitudes of the incremental renewable generation areindicated in Figure 1.Figure WECC-1 - LOCATION OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES BY WECC REGIONPage 1522009 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:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105: 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?