2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsOverview of the Study and Reliability Impacts of the Scenario CaseThis assessment uses the JCSP study for transmission-related discussions. The JCSP studyinvestigated transmission overlays across the joint study footprint of Eastern Interconnection inthe Unites States except Florida for two wind scenarios—Reference scenario and 20 percentWind scenario. The generation forecast and siting were performed, which provide necessarygenerator assumptions for the transmission overlay studies. The JCSP study involves majortransmission operators in the Eastern Interconnection. The study participants include MidwestISO, SPP, PJM, TVA, MAPP, several key members of SERC, stakeholders of these Regionalorganizations and other interested parties.The reference scenario assumes the existing RPS laws and policies governing generationresource choices remain in place. The wind generation assumed in this scenario is based onexisting state RPS mandates on January 1, 2008, which translates to an average of 5 percent windenergy development across the joint study footprint. The siting of wind generation is “local” —close to load centers within each state that has an RPS mandate. Although there are multiplerenewable resource types that satisfy RPS standards throughout the states, the JCSP assumes thatincremental mandate needs would be met solely with wind resources. States with goals, orproposed targets, are not included in this wind assignment. The RPS mandates and goals used inthe JCSP study are detailed in Figure MRO-1. Under the Reference scenario there is about60,000 MW of new wind capacity by 2024 along with about 75,600 MW of new base load steamgeneration.Figure MRO-1: State RPS Mandates and Goals as of January 1, 20082009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 39
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsThe 20 percent Wind Scenario assumes the joint study footprint would meet 20 percent of itsenergy by 2024 using wind generation. In this scenario, large amounts of wind is assumed to belocated in those areas with highest quality wind resources, largely in the MRO-US and SPPfootprints in the western part of the Eastern Interconnection. Under the 20 percent Wind scenariothere is about 229,000 MW of new wind capacity by 2024 along with about 36,000 MW of newbase load steam generation.The wind penetration levels in the Scenario Cases discussed above range from 20 to 97 percent(in terms of energy) in the MRO-US footprint, which are much higher than the existing 5.2percent (as of June 2008). Particularly, in Scenario Case 2 the amount of wind sited within theMRO-US footprint is equivalent to 97 percent (70,000 MW nameplate) of the energy needs inthe MRO-US footprint in 2024. This indicates that if the MRO-US footprint also supplies a largeamount of wind to the eastern part of the Eastern Interconnection, above and beyond its ownstates RPS mandates, the wind penetration level within MRO footprint would become extremelyhigh.Wind penetration at these levels would create increasingly greater operational challenges thatmay jeopardize the reliability of the bulk power system. It also creates challenges for designingand constructing the transmission infrastructure needed to accommodate the increased flowsthrough the Eastern Interconnection. In this assessment, emphasis is placed on the transmissionand operational issues associated with high-wind penetration levels.The JCSP study work to-date provides “order of magnitude” type information related to theconceptual transmission overlays. The study offers one approach to investigate transmissionoverlay across a large area and one design idea. However, the adequacy of the resulted overlaysor the necessity of any overlay elements has not been thoroughly investigated. The reliabilitystudies were not performed for these overlays. The indicative designs of these overlays relate tothe specific generation and other assumptions used in the study, e.g., generation sitingphilosophy and methodology, the assumption of large amount of wind sited in the MRO-US andSPP footprints, etc. The outlook of the conceptual transmission overlay may change a great dealif some of these assumptions are changed. Therefore, the transmission facilities cited in thisassessment based on the JCSP study should not be taken out of the proper context.Significant AssumptionsFigure MRO-2 shows wind plant capacity factors estimated from the wind data for 650 siteswithin the MRO-US footprint over 11 years. For each of the 650 sites, capacity factors wereobtained by converting wind speeds at 80 meter- and 100 meter-altitudes to a theoretical windturbine output. Unit types were chosen to optimize output given that site’s wind characteristics.Capacity factors for each site were then arranged in descending order for graphical purposes tocreate Figure 2. Capacity factors for the MRO-US range from 22 to 45 percent, with 37 percentbeing the statistical mean. Since sites were dispersed fairly evenly throughout the MRO-US, itcan be assumed that 37 percent is a valid average for unit output across the entire footprint.However, because wind units are more likely to be sited in areas of higher wind levels, acapacity factor slightly higher than the statistical mean is assumed for the purposes of thisassessment. The Reference Case and Scenario Case 1 use a 40 percent capacity factor for thePage 402009 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 92 and 93:
Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
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:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Regional Reliability Scenario Self-
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
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?