2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment - NERC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmentsnot applied, and unless ISO-NE changes its forward going methodology to determine NewEngland’s annual resource adequacy requirements, they will not apply going forward.The 2018 Summer Reserve Margins for the category Existing Certain and Net FirmTransactions shows a 7.1 percent margin for both the Reference Case and the Scenario Case.This is because both the Reference and Scenario Case have the same assumptions for Existing(Certain & Other) Capacity, Future (Planned& Other) Capacity and Capacity Transactions(Imports & Exports).The 2018 Summer Reserve Margins for the category Total Potential Resources shows a 53.2percent margin for the Reference Case and a 28.0 percent margin for the Scenario Case. Thisdifference is due to the fact that within both the Reference Case and the Scenario Case, 100percent of the identified Conceptual Capacity was added to the Total Potential Resourcesmargins. The Reference Case Conceptual Capacity (12,462 MW) is 7,808 MW greater than thatof the Scenario Case Conceptual Capacity (4,654 MW). The Reference Case Total PotentialResources margin (53.2 percent) is almost twice as much as that of the Scenario Case TotalPotential Resources margin (28.0 percent).The 2018 Summer Reserve Margins for the category Adjusted Potential Resources shows a 20.2percent margin for the Reference Case and a 27.2 percent margin for the Scenario Case. Thisdifference is due to the fact that within the Scenario Case, a 100 percent Confidence Factor (Line16c) was applied to the Conceptual Capacity, thus adding the total amount of renewableresources (4,654 MW) to the Adjusted Potential Resources margins. However, the ReferenceCase only applies a 20 percent Confidence Factor (Line 16c) to the total amount of ConceptualCapacity (12,462 MW), which results in approximately 2,492 MW of resources being applied tothe Adjusted Potential Resources, which results in a margins of only 20.2 percent.New England does not have a particular capacity margin requirement; rather it projects itscapacity needs to meet the NPCC once in ten-year loss of load expectation (LOLE) resourceplanning reliability criterion. 67 The capacity needs to meet this criterion are purchased throughannual auctions three years in advance of the year of interest. For reference purposes, the annualaverage percent capacity needed to meet the resource adequacy planning criterion based on aforecast of representative future installed capacity requirements is approximately 15 percent.Since the primary assumption within the mandate of the Scenario #1 requirement is the anaccelerated integration of new renewable resources, this Scenario Case assumes that all the newrenewable resources (4,654 MW) would be expected to be commercialized within New Englandand operating as designed during the target assessment year 2018. Thus, in this Scenario Caseand similar to that within the Reference Case, there is maximum reliance on both internal andexternal capacity resources, in the year 2018, to be available to deliver their capacity and energyas contractually bound to satisfy their obligations under the FCM.67 To develop installed capacity requirements to meet the once in 10 years disconnection of firm load resourceplanning reliability criterion, ISO New England takes into account the random behavior of load and resources in apower system, and the potential load and capacity relief obtainable through the use of various ISO-NE OperatingProcedures.2009 Scenario Reliability Assessment Page 89
Scenario Reliability Self-AssessmentsAs stated above, there is maximum reliance on external capacity resources, in the year 2018, tobe available to deliver their capacity and energy as contractually bound to satisfy theirobligations under the FCM.The one exception to the statement above concerns the wind resources that are targeted forcommercialization within Aroostook County, Maine. In more detail for the year 2018, theReference Case Conceptual Wind Capacity was assumed to be 2,180 MW versus 3,380 MW inthe 2009 Scenario Case, a difference of 1,200 MW. This large difference in new wind projectassumptions are the five (5) proposed wind projects (totaling 1,200 MW of nameplate capacity)proposed for Aroostook County, Maine. Currently, that part of the bulk electrical system isoperated by Northern Maine Independent System Administrator (NMISA), which is not part ofthe ISO-NE’s Regional Balancing Authority, so therefore those projects are currently notincluded within the ISO-NE Generation Interconnection Queue. 68 However, in keeping with themandate of the Scenario #1 requirement, for the Scenario Case it was assumed that these new,renewable wind projects were assumed to materialize and due to their significant size and thefuture need to satisfy Regional renewable portfolio standards (RPS), those projects wouldeventually be (by 2018) incorporated into either the New England (under ISO-NE BalancingAuthority) or New Brunswick (NBSO Balancing Authority) power grids via new bulktransmission interconnections.No detailed resource adequacy or (LOLE-based) reliability studies were performed to gauge theimpact on system reliability from the set of assumptions contained within the mandates of theScenario #1 requirement.As noted above, since no detailed resource adequacy or (LOLE-based) reliability studies wereperformed to gauge the impact on system reliability from the set of assumptions contained withinthe mandate for the Scenario #1 requirements, no LOLE comparison can be made between theReference Case and the Scenario Case..Since the projected seasonal peak demands are the same within both the Reference and ScenarioCases, a higher peak demand in the range of the 90/10 forecast would probably require the use ofEmergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), should supply and demand-side resources be short ofserving increased 90/10 demand levels. ISO-NE currently has approximately 4,000 MW of loadand capacity relief available within various EOPs. It is assumed that by 2018, that amount ofload and capacity relief would be significantly increased due to the upcoming implementation ofnew “smart-grid” technologies.68 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 & 23), and Category #2 = Active – Affected System – Interconnection Requests forwhich the Administered Transmission System is an Affected System, Generation Requests (These projects areeither FERC regulated projects that not fall under the ISO-NE Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT)Schedules 22 & 23, due to their interconnection location on the local or distribution system or these projects maybe non-FERC regulated projects on neighboring systems, that may however, impact the reliability of ISO-NE’sbulk transmission system, and thus, require transmission interconnection studies by ISO-NE.Page 902009 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:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43: Scenario Reliability Self-Assessmen
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?