2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Regional Reliability Scenario Self-AssessmentsTable 2 below shows the changes in fuel use between the 15 percent scenario and the RPS case.Table WECC-2: Comparison of Energy Results by CategoryGeneration Results (MWh)8.8 percentCategory(RPS)Renewables15 percentRenewables DifferenceConventional Hydro 247,488,545 247,488,544 (1)Pumped Storage 1,377,489 750,985 (626,503)Steam – Coal 288,608,846 285,814,830 (2,796,815)Steam – Other 17,551,927 12,004,708 (5,552,239)Nuclear 72,487,213 72,482,901 (4,312)Combined Cycle 311,369,001 259,278,246 (52,068,696)Combustion Turbine 19,177,905 15,182,948 (4,002,519)GTC 13,779 6,926 (6,256)IC 2,978 1,016 (1,735)Synthetic Crude Tar Sands 3,348,501 3,060,507 (288,929)Biomass RPS 6,473,885 10,389,102 3,914,260Geothermal 22,221,153 51,027,441 28,806,289Small Hydro RPS 2,372,443 2,372,442 (1)Solar 8,175,985 24,545,047 16,369,061Wind 54,039,205 70,391,909 16,352,705Total 1,054,708,855 1,054,797,552 94,309Renewable Total 93,282,671 158,725,942 65,442,314Renewable Percent 8.8 percent 15.0 percent 0Diffpercent0.0percent-45.5percent-1.0percent-31.6percent0.0percent-16.7percent-20.8percent-49.7percent-65.9percent-8.6percent60.5percent129.6percent0.0percent200.2percent30.3percent0.0percent70.2percent70.1percentTransmissionThe WECC study of the 15 percent Scenario Case did not develop a full build-out of thetransmission system additions that would be necessary for the generation that was added. Rather,it identified the principle paths that would need to be expanded to accommodate that added2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 167
Regional Reliability Scenario Self-Assessmentsgeneration. The further actual development of the transmission system to accommodate whateveradded generation would actually be required by individual utilities in the WesternInterconnection would be a function of the actual pattern of renewable generation development,which could be similar to or different from the locations simulated in the Scenario Case.A list of the constrained transmission paths as produced through the scenario studies, and adescription of the constrained paths, are detailed in Charts 1 and 2 below.The transmission expansion was not studied in the level of detail to allow a completecharacterization of the required transmission build out.Table WECC-1: Most Often Constrained Transmission PathsPathIndexPath NameMax NegLimitMax PosLimit75%Limit90%Limit99%LimitShadow Rank 75% Rank 90% Rank 99%Price (k$) Limit Limit Limit1 IPP DC LINE ‐1400 1920 92.9% 86.4% 81.6% 3 1 12 TABLE MOUNTAIN ‐ VACA DIXON ‐2145.9 2145.9 86.3% 73.9% 63.2% ‐280.62 4 3 33 FOUR CORNERS 345/500 KV ‐840 840 80.3% 66.8% 55.7% ‐214.44 7 4 44 ALBERTA ‐ BRITISH COLUMBIA ‐720 700 60.0% 51.5% 46.6% ‐43.51 13 5 55 MONTANA ‐ NORTHWEST ‐1350 2200 68.0% 48.8% 34.8% ‐85.47 9 6 66 TOT 2C ‐300 300 63.9% 46.8% 34.4% ‐106.32 10 8 77 PACIFIC DC INTERTIE (PDCI) ‐2780 3100 33.6% 28.5% 20.5% 32 16 98 WYOMING TO UTAH not defined 1700 81.6% 43.0% 18.8% ‐21.68 6 11 109 TOT 4A ‐810 810 62.4% 32.9% 14.6% ‐25.29 12 12 1210 MIDPOINT ‐ SUMMER LAKE ‐600 1500 58.2% 29.0% 12.0% ‐30.33 15 13 1411 PV West not defined 3600 59.0% 28.7% 11.9% ‐7.36 14 15 1612 Tot 2a 2b 2c Nomogram ‐1600 1570 49.7% 25.1% 11.3% ‐11.00 20 19 1713 BRIDGER WEST not defined 2200 45.4% 20.6% 9.3% ‐16.42 22 20 1814 TOT 2A ‐690 690 35.4% 16.9% 8.3% ‐8.37 27 23 1915 NW to Canada East BC ‐400 400 19.3% 9.9% 5.8% ‐14.74 52 34 2116 TOT 2B1 ‐600 560 26.1% 12.9% 4.9% ‐3.67 46 26 2317 West of John Day not defined 2650 32.8% 18.6% 4.7% ‐5.72 36 21 2418 TOT 3 ‐1800 1800 34.5% 10.3% 3.5% ‐5.96 31 33 2619 TOT 2B ‐850 780 31.3% 14.8% 3.4% ‐2.38 38 24 2720 LUGO ‐ VICTORVILLE 500 KV LINE ‐900 2400 35.0% 11.1% 3.1% ‐3.40 28 31 28Notes to this table:•Paths are sorted based on "Rank 99% Limit"•The following paths were omitted from the list because congestion on the path was due to a local resource issue: SDG&E Mexico (CFE), SANMATEO_30700 To MARTIN C_30695, NEWARK D_30630 ToRAVENSWD_30703•The following phase shifting transformers were omitted from the list: California Substation Phase Shifter, Nelway Phase Shifter•The following paths were omitted from the list because they are covered as part of another path also on the list: Z9‐HA‐Red Butte PS (part of TOT 2C), BURNS_45029 To SUMMER L_41043 (part ofMIDPOINT ‐ SUMMER LAKE)•INTERMOUNTAIN ‐ MONA 345 KV was omitted from the list because congestion on this path is driven by loading of the IPP DC linePage 1682009 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:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121: 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?