2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Background Information for this Report2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (to be published as a companion document to thisreport). 6Table 2: Reference Case used for the 2009 Scenario AnalysisRegionReference CaseERCOT 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2009-2018FRCC 2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2008-2017MRO 2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2008-2017NPCC 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2009-2018RFC 2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2008-2017SERC 2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2008-2017SPP 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2009-2018WECC 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 2009-2018Regions proposed study outlines which were submitted to the PC in June 2008 and approved.Regional self-assessments and the associated data were provided to NERC in June 2009.Subsequently, the Reliability Assessment Subcommittee peer-reviewed the results andenhancements of the Regional reliability assessments and data were made to address thesubcommittee’s comments.6 For more information on the terms used in this report, supply definitions, reliability concepts, assessment methods, andbackground material, refer to the 2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment and the 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment athttp://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=4|612009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 5
Scenario Reliability Assessment SummaryScenario Reliability Assessment SummaryIn order to meet the Scenario targets, the Regions made significant changes to their resource mix.The following Key Scenario Highlights from assessing the results during the study period are:Scenario Highlights Wind Power Forms the Base of Renewable Expansion Transmission Critical to Meeting Targets: 40,000 Miles Needed More Energy Efficiency Included in Load Forecasts Increased Penetration of Variable Generation May Indicate a Need for Higher Operatingand Planning Reserve MarginsDemandFor the 2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment, no changes were made to the peak demandforecasts from the Reference Case. Many existing and proposed Renewable Portfolio Standards(RPS) include provisions to incorporate energy savings from Demand Side Management (DSM),programs. While DSM deployment can effectively reduce energy use through EnergyEfficiency, energy from Demand Response also can contribute to reduced energy use. Regionswere able to incorporate up to 5 percent of their energy target using DSM to meet the 15 percenttarget for Scenario #1.Table 3: Energy Efficiency with Scenario Peak Demand Reductions (MW)Reference CaseTotal InternalDemandScenario CaseTotal InternalDemandEnergyEfficiencyReductionsPercentageReduction ofTotal InternalDemandERCOT 76,134 76,134 - 0.0%FRCC 59,576 59,264 (312) -0.5%MRO 58,668 58,068 (600) -1.0%NPCC**New York * 35,658 - -New England*** 30,960 30,960 (781) -2.5%Maritimes 5,765 5,765 - 0.0%Ontario 22,497 22,497 - 0.0%Quebec 40,687 40,687 - 0.0%RFC 208,600 208,600 - 0.0%SERC 252,892 252,892 - 0.0%SPP 49,696 49,696 - 0.0%WECC * 177,354 - -TOTAL 705,565 822,751 (1,693) -0.2%* The Reference Case Total Internal Demand for the New York subregion and WECC Region are notcomparable to the Scenario Case Total Internal Demand. Energy Efficiency is embedded in demand forecastsand was not explicitly reported in terms of peak demand reduction (MW).** NPCC provided demand projections by subregion.*** The New England subregion contributed Energy Efficiency as a supply-side resource, which does not reduceTotal Internal Demand.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 6
Page 1 and 2: 2009 Scenario ReliabilityAssessment
Page 3 and 4: Table of ContentsTable of ContentsN
Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryTransmission Criti
Page 10: Scenario Reliability Assessment Sum
Page 13 and 14: Scenario Reliability Assessment Sum
Page 16 and 17: Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
Page 58 and 59:
Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
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:
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?