2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmentsincludes 33,244 MW of Existing, Certain generating capacity, -94 MW of net CapacityTransactions, and 1,349 MW of Future, Planned generating capacity additions. The ReferenceCase shows that ISO-NE has a total of 12,462 MW of Conceptual Capacity within its GeneratorInterconnection Queue, 57 with in-service dates ranging from 2009 to 2015. The Scenario Caseshows that ISO-NE has only a total of 4,654 MW of Conceptual Capacity of new renewablecapacity within the same Generator Interconnection Queue, with in-service dates ranging from2009 to 2014. Although some projects that reside within the ISO-NE Generator InterconnectionQueue have declared in-service dates of 2009 or 2010, some of those projects have notdemonstrated viable pre-commercial activities and were categorized as conceptual capacity.Within the Reference and Scenario Cases, Future, Planned wind capacity for the summer of 2018includes 88 MW (350 MW nameplate with a 262 MW on-peak derate) of new wind capacity.Reference Case Conceptual wind capacity amounts to 2,180 MW while the Scenario CaseConceptual wind capacity amounts to 3,380 MW.A total of 468 MW of Conceptual biomass capacity is proposed for installation in New Englandwith target in-service dates of 2009 through 2014. This is the same assumption for the ScenarioCase.ISO-NE’s capacity margin calculations include Planned Capacity Resources that are expected tobegin commercial operation by the end of 2009. This information is based on either the datespecified in a signed Interconnection Agreement, or discussions with the ISO indicating that theproject is nearing completion and is preparing to become an ISO generator asset. Also includedin the planned capacity resources are new projects that have obligations in the ISO-NE ForwardCapacity Market through 2011—2012.Within the Scenario Case, the same base assumption sets are used throughout the ten-yeartimeframe, except for the fact that the magnitude of Conceptual Capacity Resources 58 in the year2018 is somewhat larger than those assumed for the Reference Case.Capacity Transactions on PeakThe same assumptions were used for Capacity Transactions for the 2009 Scenario Case thatwere used within the Reference Case, with respect to firm on-peak imports and exports. Underboth cases, firm summer imports amount to approximately 401 MW in 2009, 899 MW in 2010,and 2,298 MW for 2011 and 2012. The imports for 2010 and 2011 reflect the Forward CapacityAuction results. The 2011 FCA results were assumed to remain in place in 2012. Since the FCAimports are based on one-year contracts, beginning in 2013 the imports reflect only known, longtermInstalled Capacity (ICAP) contracts. Firm summer imports decrease to 334 MW in 2013and 2014, and decrease again to 284 MW in 2015 and 112 MW in 2016, and then level off at 6MW for the summers of 2017 and 2018.56 Due to differences in assumptions, the amount of existing and planned capacity in summer 2009 is different fromthat published in ISO New England’s 2009-2018 Forecast Report of Capacity, Energy, Loads, and Transmission(CELT Report).57 As of the March 15, 2009 ISO-NE Generation Interconnection Queue publication.58 After applying the individual, but different, Confidence Factors.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 77
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsFor the summer of 2009, ISO-NE reports a firm capacity export to New York (Long Island) of343 MW, anticipated to be delivered via the Cross-Sound Cable. This sale will be reduced to 100MW beginning in 2010. It should be noted that there is no firm transmission arrangementthrough the New England PTF system associated with this contract. This export is backed by afirm contract for generation, but because the power has to go through the Connecticut importconstrained interface, and there is no firm transmission arrangement, it can be cut earlier thannon-recallable exports in the case of a transmission import constraint into Connecticut. Theexport across the Cross-Sound Cable is based on a make-whole contract.TransmissionThere are no differences between the Reference Case and the Scenario Case with respect to newbulk power transmission, transformer additions, and substation equipment. Although it is knownthat under the Scenario Case, to rapidly integrate the large amounts of renewable resources intoNew England’s system, it is assumed that both local and bulk transmission would need to beadded and/or modified to support such new, renewable infrastructure enhancements. However,the majority of these types of projects have multiple (transmission) interconnection proposalsbased on variations in possible future transmission topology and as such, the true amount offuture new transmission infrastructure needed to incorporate these renewable projects isundetermined at this time. In a recent ISO-NE report, 2009 Economic Study: Scenario Analysisof Renewable Resource Development 59 , transmission needs are identified for a high-level ofrenewable generation scenario by 2030.There are no differences between the Reference Case and the Scenario Case with respect to bulkpower transmission additions. Table New England 4-1 lists significant transmission additions tothe bulk power system that will influence reliability. These are the same transmission additionsfor the Scenario Case that were identified within the Reference Case.Table New England 4-1 – Significant Transmission Additions within the 2009Scenario CaseTransmission Project Voltage Length In-Description/StatusName(kV) (Miles) ServiceDate(s)Short Term LowerSEMA UpgradesGreater Rhode IslandTransmissionReinforcementsVermont SouthernLoop ProjectNEEWS (RhodeIsland ReliabilityProject)115 8.3 Jun-2009115 3.4 Jun-2011345 51.2 Jun-2011345 21.4 Jun-2012Install second circuit from Carver toTremont.Install circuit from Somerset to BraytonPoint.Install circuit from Vermont Yankee toNewfane to Coolidge.Install circuit from Kent County toWest Farnum.59 http://www.nescoe.com/uploads/iso_eco_study_report_draft_sept_8.pdfPage 782009 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:
Page 30 and 31: Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
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?