2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsOverviewThe Scenario Case was constructed to examine the impacts of 15 percent renewables penetrationin the Western Interconnection in 2017. Because of the limitations on the specific analysis andstudy construction, some of the impacts are not apparent from the study itself, but are knownfrom other studies and activities that are being undertaken by WECC and other parties in theWestern Interconnection.The basic scenario study builds off two studies that were done by TEPPC: 109 a base case studythat was done to examine the transmission planning impacts of meeting existing statutory RPS inthe Western Interconnection (which yielded a renewables penetration of 8.8 percent) and thescenario study that increased the renewables penetration to 15 percent.Because the two studies were designed to meet loads, there are no direct reliability impactsdemonstrated by the studies. There are, however, operational impacts of high levels of variablegeneration that make up the bulk of the renewables in the study, and are known from otherstudies. These are described later in the report, along with the work being done by WECC andothers in the Western Interconnection to address them, and prevent them from becomingreliability problems.The following assumptions were used to develop the 2017 study data for the 2008 TEPPC Studyplan.109 http://www.wecc.biz/documents/library/TEPPC/2009/CoverLetter_Exec_Summary_Final_V4_a.pdf2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 159
Regional Reliability Scenario Self-AssessmentsDataGroupingLoadForecastNetworkRepresentation andTopologyKey AssumptionsSource of the Data• The 2006 L&R load forecast (data for the 2007 LTRA) is used for allareas except California and the Northwest which used modifiedforecasts.The load forecast for each bubble in the TEPPC topology is distributed tothe bus level using the WECC power flow case.California loads and mapping to buses are adjusted to capture the uniquecharacteristics of pumping plants in California.Transmission losses are included in the load forecasts. Currently, WECCdoes not have information to separate loss amounts.Existing and some forecasted demand side management (DSM) andEnergy Efficiency programs are embedded in the load forecast. The criteria for including line additions in the 2017 Data Test Case was toinitially include only transmission needed to for reliability or to integrategeneration. This criterion was adopted to better highlight transmissionneeds in study results. Based upon comments submitted from the review of the Data Test Case,the following revisions were made:o The Palo Verde – Devers #2 500 kV line was turned off (but leftin the data).o The Tehachapi Wind transmission was added.o Transmission was added from IID to the west (Sunrise project)o The Gateway project was submitted (connecting Wyominggeneration to the west and south) but was not included in the caseto better highlight the transmission need. The transmission wouldthen be considered in Transmission Study Cases based on the2017 Data Test Case. Topology: the topology was revised to approximately match thebalancing authorities with exceptions to accommodate variations in loadtypes and shapes as follows:o The CAISO is split into PG&E Bay, PG&E Valley, SCE, andSDGE bubbles.o Idaho/Wyoming is divided into six bubbles.Page 1602009 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:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113: 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?