2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsIt is a price taker, it does not participate in the day-ahead market, and it is exempt from deviationpenalties. Conventional generation typically dispatches around wind generation.As wind penetration increases, there would be occasions when wind would need to participate incongestion management, which can occur through operating guides, the use of SPSs, TLRprocedure, or curtailment of wind generation. With the Production Tax Credit of $19/MWh(after tax), the wind plants can economically generate even with a negative Locational MarginalPrice (LMP) as low as about -$29/MWh (before tax).Ultimately, wind generation would likely participate in the day-ahead markets. This can beaccomplished to a large extent with accurate forecasting. The Midwest ISO has 24-hour windforecast, which is typically within plus or minus 10 percent of actual levels. Wind generation, toa reasonable extent, can be controlled so as to limit ramp rates, perform fast runback forcontingencies, etc. However, it would require the integration of wind farm management systemswith Market operator dispatch signals.Reliability Assessment AnalysisIt is assumed that new wind facilities to be integrated onto the MRO footprint would complywith FERC Order 660-1A which addresses the need for low-voltage ride-through capabilities andreactive power capabilities of individual wind turbines. In the Midwest ISO, reactive poweranalysis is one integrated part of every individual Generation Interconnection System ImpactStudy. No wind plant can be granted interconnection services without mitigating the incrementalreactive support problem it would cause. The Midwest ISO Ancillary Service Market and theMidwest Contingency Reserve Sharing Group provide financial incentives and legal obligationsto ensure the entire Midwest ISO system has adequate frequency response support in both theshort term and long term. The Midwest ISO believes wind forecast accuracy is critical tominimizing unexpected ramps in wind production, which in turn would minimize therequirement for additional reactive and frequency support requirements. Generatorcharacteristics would be reviewed to identify more responsive units, which also may alleviatereactive or frequency response issues.The Midwest ISO is actively working with its stakeholders to determine the best solution to beable to incorporate large amounts of wind. Accurate wind forecasts for the Day Ahead marketprocess and accurate and timely updates during the operating day would need to occur in order toincorporate wind generation into the day-ahead market. Equitably allocating costs for reservesharing would also need to be developed.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 51
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsScenario Assessment for the MRO-Canada SubregionManitobaManitoba Hydro’s currently planned renewable capacity additions include 300 MW of windcapacity and 90 MW of hydro capacity. The wind generation is currently planned to be added inincrements of 100 MW in 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14. To serve future load obligations, anadditional 90 MW of new hydro generation is also planned for a 2017/18 in-service date. This90 MW installation would be the first unit of a new 695 MW hydro plant expected to becompleted by 2020.Resource adequacy is expected to improve as the hydro resource listed above is installed.However, the additional wind power would not be able to contribute capacity to meet Manitoba’swinter peak, as the wind turbines would be shut down due to low temperature (colder than -20°Fat times the winter peak occurs). The 90 MW of hydro would be dispatchable and would serve asa 90 MW capacity resource. The amount of external resource that Manitoba would have to relyon to meet planning reserve margins is not expected to change as these new resources becomeavailable.From a transmission adequacy standpoint, sufficient new transmission is planned to be built toensure deliverability of the added resources. Manitoba Hydro’s study methodology for aNetwork Resource assumes full nameplate generation is available at peak load for determiningthe necessary transmission infrastructure.The wind resources within Manitoba are located fairly close to major load centers or major 230kV stations and transmission lines. An exploratory study was first performed that analyzed thetransmission requirements for alternative locations of 300 MW of new wind in Manitoba. Thestudy concluded there are numerous locations where wind can be economically and reliablyinterconnected.The preferred location for the 300 MW wind project is the Letellier 230 kV station, which isabout 60 miles south of Winnipeg. Manitoba Hydro is planning to construction a third 2,000MW HVdc bipole line by 2017 to enhance the reliability of HVdc transmission system from itsnorthern generation to load centers in southern Manitoba. The hydro generation identified abovewould be delivered to load over this new HVdc bipole line.The reactive power requirements for a hydro plant are similar to a wind plant. The hydro plantmust provide a minimum of 0.9 leading and lagging power-factor capability as measured at themachine terminals. The hydro plants must also provide automatic voltage control and a highinitial response excitation system with a power system stabilizer because of the unit size. Thewind plant must provide 0.95 leading and lagging power at the point of interconnection atnominal voltage and full output. Some deviations are permissible based on the terminal voltage.The wind plant must also provide voltage regulation. A full range of disturbances are applied todetermine if the reactive power capability is adequate to meet NERC and MRO planningstandards.Page 522009 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 104 and 105:
Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
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?