2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsTable New England-2-5: Components of Additional ScenarioCase Summer Conceptual CapacityCapacity 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Category(MW)WindExpected On- 0 153 1,310 2,096 3,252 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,380PeakBiomassExpected On- 8 196 228 368 368 468 468 468 468 468PeakHydroExpected On- 0 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16PeakFuel CellExpected On- 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9PeakEE Supply-Side Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 126 287 450 614 781AddersSummerConceptualCapacity8 373 1,563 2,489 3,645 2,770 4,160 4,323 4,487 4,654Table New England 2-6 – Components of Scenario Case WinterConceptual CapacityCapacityCategory(MW)2009201020102011201120122012201320132014201420152015201620162017WindExpected On-PeakBiomassExpected On-PeakHydroExpected On-PeakFuel CellExpected On-PeakEE Supply-Side CapacityAddersWinterConceptualCapacity2017201820182019287 1,310 2,096 3,252 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,380104 157 368 368 418 468 468 468 468 4688 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 160 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 90 0 0 0 0 0 38 155 273 392399 1,492 2,489 3,645 3,823 3,873 3,911 4,028 4,146 4,2652009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 73
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsThe discussion below pertains to the new renewable nameplate capacities identified in TablesNew England 2-1 through Table New England 2-4 and not the Scenario Case spreadsheets.As noted earlier, wind capacity was divided into both onshore and offshore wind. By the targetyear 2018, new onshore wind capacity totals approximately 2,901 MW. Applying an annualcapacity factor of 32 percent, as derived from market rules and prior Regional wind studies, newannual onshore wind energy production is approximately 8,132 GWh of new renewable, variableenergy production by 2018.By the target year 2018, new offshore wind capacity totals approximately 829 MW. Applying anannual capacity factor of 37 percent, as derived from existing market rules and prior Regionalwind studies, new annual offshore wind energy production is approximately 2,687 GWh of newrenewable, variable energy production by 2018.By the target year 2018, new hydro-electric capacity totals approximately 17 MW. Applying anannual capacity factor of 25 percent, as derived form historical analysis of non-dispatchable, runof-river,hydro-electric facilities, new annual hydro-electric energy production is approximately37 GWh of new renewable, variable energy production by 2018.The discussion below pertains to the new renewable nameplate capacities identified in Tables 2-1 through Table New England 2-4 and not the Scenario Case spreadsheet.As noted earlier, by the target year 2018, new (wood-based) biomass capacity totalsapproximately 487 MW. Applying an annual capacity factor of 90 percent, as derived fromhistorical analysis of Regional biomass facilities, new annual biomass energy production isapproximately 3,840 GWh of new, renewable energy production by 2018.By the target year 2018, new landfill gas capacity totals approximately 34 MW. Applying anannual capacity factor of 90 percent, as derived from historical analysis of Regional landfill gasfacilities, new annual landfill gas energy production is approximately 268 GWh of new,renewable energy production by 2018.As can be seen in Tables New England 2-3 (summer) and Table New England 2-4 (winter), bothtables show the Scenario Case Renewable Seasonal Capacity Cumulative Additions by Year ofCommercialization. Since nameplate ratings have been used for the capacity values of these newrenewable projects, there is no difference in the seasonal capacity (mix) ratings for the newrenewable resources within the Scenario Case. A comparison of the generation mix between theReference and Scenario Case follows.The discussion below pertains to the capacities identified in Tables New England 2-5 and TableNew England 2-6 as also shown within the Scenario Case spreadsheets.As noted earlier, the 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment Reference Case was used as a basecase to develop the 2009 Scenario Case. The two main differences between the cases are withinthe projections for Energy Efficiency, as well as changes in the amount of conceptual capacityadditions that were assumed to materialize on the system.Page 742009 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: Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?