2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Regional Reliability Scenario Self-AssessmentsWECC conclusions are based primarily on the 15 percent Scenario Case and corresponding basecase, rather than a comparison to the 2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment case. Because thesecases are constructed to meet study goals, they are not directly comparable to Long-TermReliability Assessment cases since they consist, on the resource side, of a recounting of utilityplans and expectations for independent generation development with varying levels ofconfidence.For the study cases, WECC constructed a resource build-out based on RPS and 15 percentrenewables penetrations, with additional resources submitted by utilities for the 2008 Long-TermReliability Assessment and from generic resources needed to meet load-plus adequacy margins.WECC believes its approach would yield the most useful information for NERC about theconsequences of high renewables penetrations in the Western Interconnection.DemandThe loads for the scenario, including the weather and economic assumptions, are based on theloads submitted for the 2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. This data was used since the2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment load data was not available at the time the TEPPC studyprocess commenced. WECC does not believe that the key findings of the study werecompromised by this decision. The peak loads are based on normal weather conditions with a 50percent exceedence probability. The economic assumptions built into the load forecast werebased on submittals by the utilities. WECC does not collect these economic assumptions nordoes WECC create independent forecasts of economic conditions or loads.The base case and the Scenario Case were based on the 2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessmentloads. The difference between the scenario forecast and the 2009 Long-Term ReliabilityAssessment forecast for total WECC loads in 2017 is 7,580 MW. The primary differencebetween these two is the effect of the current recession on expectations for 2017 loads.Additionally, the demand reported in the 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment is a noncoincidentalpeak demand whereas the demand reported in the scenario is coincidental demand.The WECC scenario used only renewable generation to meet the scenario target, and did not relyon the various demand management programs that are allowed by the scenario definition. Ingeneral, however, WECC would not expect any of these demand side programs to be adverselyimpacted due to high renewables penetration comparable to the penetrations in the ScenarioCase. On the contrary, some of these programs — such as interruptible demand and directcontrol load management — offer significant benefits to utilities faced with the balancing andregulation problems posed by large amounts of variable generation (a prominent subset ofrenewable generation) in their BA areas. More details on demand management programs can befound in the NERC Special Report: Accommodating High Level of Variable Generation. 110GenerationA vital metric used by NERC in its reliability assessment compares resources and projected peakinternal demand. To increase the visibility and transparency of supply-side resource optionsbeing considered by Regions and subregions for this scenario assessment, NERC requiresadditional information regarding projected resources along with a comparison between theReference Case and the scenario submittals.110 http://www.nerc.com/files/IVGTF_Report_041609.pdf2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 163
Regional Reliability Scenario Self-AssessmentsTable 1 below shows the requested categories. Note that outside of the existing generation, thescenario consists largely of assumed generation to meet the scenario target; therefore, WECCdoes not believe it meets the criteria for either planned or proposed generation. However, forpurposes of accounting for this information, WECC has categorized it all as Planned.2009LTRAResources(MW)Table WECC- 1 - Resource MixSummer 2017 Winter 2017ResourceType (MW)ScenarioResources(MW)ResourceType (MW)2009LTRAResources(MW)ResourceType (MW)ScenarioResources(MW)ResourceType (MW)CategoryRegion: WECC WideExisting Certain 190,796 194,656 189,436 178,686Wind 951 1,140 778 2,273Solar 396 569 370 0Hydro 61,204 25,869 58,079 21,984Biomass 1,340 758 1,339 746Existing Uncertain 15,174 5,018 19,390 18,667Wind 4,578 3,814 5,763 2,681Solar 111 1 119 543Hydro 7,933 0 9,355 0Biomass 256 33 256 45Inoperable 2,292 1,170 3,845 15,398Planned 12,940 45,388 11,095 46,253Wind Available 549 3,537 297 7,754Wind Unavailable 2,884 12,984 1,763 8,768Solar Available 284 5,855 0 0Solar Unavailable 4 454 280 6,211Hydro Available 1,736 0 1,422 0Hydro Unavailable -103 0 -103 0Biomass Available 187 755 167 610Biomass Unavailable 11 42 11 71Proposed 14,753 0 13,444 0Wind Available 440 0 392 0Wind Unavailable 7,502 0 7,518 0Solar Available 9 0 9 0Solar Unavailable 0 0 0 0Hydro Available 640 0 541 0Hydro Unavailable 0 0 0 0Biomass Available 166 0 161 0Biomass Unavailable 0 0 0 0Some resources were added to the generation mix constructed by TEPPC in order to meet thereserve requirement of the TEPPC scenario. Proposed natural gas generating units were added tothe Regions if additional resources were needed to meet the reserve margin of this case. Ifadditional resources beyond the proposed units were needed, generic natural gas resources wereadded to meet the reserve requirement.WECC studied the scenario for only one year, 2017, and both seasonal peaks are shown in theanswers to the questions above.WECC characterized all the resources beyond existing as planned. Resources were added to theexisting system, starting with what WECC’s 2008 Power Supply Assessment, Attachment 8:Generation Additions/Retirement, characterized as follows:Page 1642009 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:
Page 116 and 117: 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?