2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsFor the target year assent of 2018, the Reference Case assumed approximately 12,462 MW ofconceptual capacity, of which some portion could possibly be commercial by that date. However,beginning with this year’s NERC Long-Term Reliability Assessment submittal, a 20 percentConfidence Factor 49 has been applied to this amount of Conceptual Capacity Resources. This 20percent Confidence Factor represents the amount of Conceptual Capacity that may becomecommercialized within the Region, starting in the year 2010. This 20 percent Confidence Factoris held constant going forward in time. In the summer of 2018, this equates to approximately2,492 MW.The types of on-peak capacity assumed to be making up this amount are: 2,180 MW of wind,468 MW of biomass, and 16 MW of hydro-electric technologies, and the rest (9,798 MW) beingcomprised of single-cycle or combined-cycles gas turbine projects, combustion turbine projects,a pumped storage project, internal combustion, and other small projects.Since the 2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment focuses on Scenario #1—studying the effects ofan accelerated integration of renewable resources, for the target assessment year of 2018, theScenario Case assumed 4,654 MW of renewable-only, Conceptual Capacity, of which the entireportion would be commercial by 2018. The accompanying Scenario Case spreadsheet assumes a100 percent Confidence Factor for all of this renewable conceptual capacity. This specificamount of capacity was the current amount of new, renewable capacity that is currently proposedwithin the ISO-NE Generator Interconnection Queue. Therefore, if all of this new renewablecapacity is commercialized, under the Scenario Case, these projects would satisfy over 11.1percent of the annual energy demand in 2018, and when combined with the assume 5 percentnew Energy Efficiency contribution (totaling 16.1 percent), then over 15 percent of the forecastannual energy production would be met by renewable resources, as mandated by the Scenario #1requirement.In more detail for the year 2018, the 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment Reference Casewind capacity was assumed to be 2,530 MW 50 versus 3,730 MW 51 in the Scenario Case, adifference of 1,200 MW. This large difference in new wind project assumptions are the five (5)proposed wind projects, totaling 1,200 MW, proposed for Aroostook County, Maine. Currently,that part of the bulk power system is operated by NMISA, 52 which is not part of ISO New49 This 20 percent value for the Confidence of Conceptual Resources was developed from a historical trend thatreflects the amount of capacity that has commercialized from within ISO-NE’s Generator Interconnection Queue.Within the 2009 LTRA Reference Case, ISO-NE’s Conceptual Capacity reflects all the remaining capacity withinthe ISO-NE Generator Interconnection Queue that has not been classified as either Future, Planned or Future,Other – Capacity Additions.50 For the summer of 2018, the 2,530 MW value includes 2,180 MW of Conceptual Wind Capacity plus 88 MW ofFuture, Planned On-Peak Wind Capacity plus 262 MW of Future, Other On-Peak Wind Derate Capacity.51 For the summer of 2018, the 3,730 MW value includes 3,380 MW of Conceptual Wind Capacity plus 88 MW ofFuture, Planned On-Peak Wind Capacity plus 262 MW of Future, Other On-Peak Wind Derate Capacity.52 The Northern Maine Independent System Administrator (“NMISA”) was created in 1999 in response to themandate of the legislature of the State of Maine that effective retail electric competition be available to all ofMaine’s electricity consumers by March 1, 2000. The NMISA’s size, scope, purpose and electricity market weredesigned to facilitate the development and implementation of retail electric competition and foster Regionalreliability efforts in the electrically isolated area of the state in portions of Aroostook, Washington and PenobscotCounties. Northern Maine is characterized by low population density and a very low electric demand incomparison with other electricity markets. (continued in next page footnotes)2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 75
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsEngland’s Regional Balancing Authority, so those projects are currently not included with theISO-NE Generation Interconnection Queue. 53 However, in keeping with the mandate of theScenario #1 requirements, for the Scenario Case, it was assumed that these new, renewable windprojects would materialize, and due to their significant size 54 and the future need to satisfyRegional renewable portfolio standards (RPS), those projects would eventually be (by 2018)incorporated into either the New England (under ISO-NE Balancing Authority) or NewBrunswick (NBSO Balancing Authority) power grids via new bulk transmissioninterconnections.All of the other assumptions for Conceptual Capacity are the same between the Reference Caseand the Scenario Case, which include: 551) New biomass capacity, which was assumed to be 468 MW,2) New hydro-electric capacity, which was assumed to be 16 MW,3) New landfill gas capacity, which was assumed to be 34 MW, and4) New fuel cell capacity, which was assumed to be 9 MW.These common assumptions for non-wind Conceptual Capacity within both the Reference andScenario Cases comprise a total of 527 MW.Within both the 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment Reference and Scenario Cases, ISO-NE’s Deliverable Capacity Resources amount to 34,499 56 MW in the summer of 2018. ThatThe dominant characteristics of the Northern Maine Market are its electrical isolation, large geographic size, smallelectric demand, and modest population. The electric system in Northern Maine is not directly interconnected withthe rest of New England, including any other Maine utility or any other domestic electric system. NMISAparticipants, therefore, are not participants in the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) and are not subject to thecontrol of ISO New England (“ISO-NE”). The Region’s only access to the electric system that serves theremainder of Maine and the rest of New England is through the transmission facilities of New Brunswick Power(“NB Power”). The New Brunswick System Operator (“NBSO”) is the Balancing Authority and ReliabilityCoordinator (“RC”) for the Balancing Authority Area that includes the Northern Maine and Maritimes Regions.53 As of the March 15, 2009 ISO-NE Generator Interconnection Queue, proposed projects were sorted into twocategories: Category #1 = Active – Administered Transmission System, which are Interconnection Requests to theAdministered Transmission System, Generation and Elective Transmission Upgrade Requests, and Requests forTransmission Service (These are FERC-regulated projects falling under the ISO-NE Open Access TransmissionTariff (OATT) - Schedules 22 and 23), and Category #2 = Active – Affected System – Interconnection Requestsfor which the Administered Transmission System is an Affected System, Generation Requests (These projects areeither FERC-regulated projects that do not fall under the ISO-NE Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT)Schedules 22 and 23, due to their interconnection location on the local or distribution system, or are non-FERCregulated projects on neighboring systems, that may impact the reliability of ISO-NE’s bulk transmission system,and thus, require transmission interconnection studies by ISO-NE.54 Currently, the NMISA system is a winter-peaking system with native load forecast to be approximately 150 MWfor the year 2018. The possible commercialization of 1,200 MW of the Aroostook wind projects is significantlymore generation than is needed to satisfy own-load requirements, resulting in those projects being likelycandidates for interconnecting to the New England system in order to sell their excess renewable “green” capacityand energy to Regional wholesale markets.55 Although the overall amounts of Conceptual Capacity assumptions are the same between the Reference Case andScenario Case, some amounts of capacity reside within the Future (Planned and Other) Capacity line items. Alsonote that the Confidence Factors applied to the each of the Cases are different.Page 762009 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: Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
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?