2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Regional Reliability Scenario Self-AssessmentsDataGroupingGeneratingResourcesKey Assumptions The generating resources are assigned to bubbles and buses based on theprevious SSG-WI data and the new power flow data. The categoryassignments are used to group the generators by similar operatingcharacteristics, which are mainly derived from public sources.Existing resources In accordance with the L&R definitions existing resources are resourcesassumed to be online by 12/31/2006. These resources were identifiedthrough the SSG-WI 2005, WECC L&R, WECC power flow case, EIA,and other data bases. The stakeholders were invited to review the list ofresources and capacities, and their comments are included to the extentpossible. Generating resource capacities are based on the power flow caseor other sources. Thermal unit capacities are net of station service. Net togrid generation of cogeneration resources is not explicitly modeled exceptin Alberta. This is an area of improvement.Incremental resources Incremental resource data collected for the L&R process (used to collectthe LTRA data) was used to update the TEPPC data Incremental resources are resources expected to be placed in servicebetween 2007 and the 2017 (inclusive).RPS resourcesThe Studies Work Group determined the required RPS generation foreach RPS State to meet the respective State requirement for 2017.Assumptions were made for discounts and conversions between energyand capacity. Where there were insufficient renewable resources in theexisting and incremental generation, in either the RPS or Scenario Cases,generic RPS resources were added. Table 4 in section 8 details theseresources by type and location.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 161
Regional Reliability Scenario Self-AssessmentsDataGroupingHydroGenerationRenewableGenerationDSM/Energy EfficiencyKey AssumptionsThe following sources of hydro data are used for the study:o NW federal, Mid-C Nonfederal, and PacifiCorp: 2002 historicalhourly hydro generation that is reasonably reflective of latestBiological Opinion.o Other NW nonfederal: The hourly data for these units werecalculated using a Proportional Load Following algorithm.o California: The California hydro data is from the PI dataset whichwas aggregated to the river system and then disaggregatedproportionally to the Pmax values of the units on that riversystem. The California hydro data is derived from historical 2003data.o WAPA: 2002 historical hourly hydro generation that is derivedfrom the SCADA dataset.o Canada: BC Hydro provided monthly hydro for adverse, averageand above average hydro conditions grouped by their coastal,Peace River and Columbia River facilities. Data is shaped usingyear 2002 actual loads and hourly flows in and out of BC Hydroterritory (BCH-US and BCH-Alberta paths), combined withtreating the thermal generation as a block resource. Peak shavingalgorithm is utilized for Piece River facility and the ProportionalLoad Following algorithm is used for the Costal and ColumbiaRiver facilities.Hourly wind shapes used to model all wind generating resources aresupplied by National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). Exception: CAISOprovided wind shapes for its areas based on actual data. Wind is treatedas a fixed input to the model.Geothermal plants are modeled as base load plants as confirmed by Cleanand Diversified Energy Initiatives Geothermal Task Force. Data to modelspecific plants in CA is provided by CAISO.The incremental renewable resources from previous studies werereplaced by data provided by the Studies Work Group.Solar production profiles are provided by NREL.Existing and some forecasted DSM and Energy Efficiency programs areembedded in the load forecast. These amounts are not explicitly collectedby WECC.The load data for California includes adjustments for anticipatedefficiency programs.Page 1622009 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:
Page 114 and 115: Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
Page 166 and 167: 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?