1 / 18

MEAN Wind Project at Kimball

MEAN Wind Project at Kimball. Scheduling and Operations Impacts on MEAN and Western. Presented by: John A. Krajewski, P.E. Manager of Planning & Engineering. Background. Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN)

clio
Download Presentation

MEAN Wind Project at Kimball

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MEAN Wind Project at Kimball Scheduling and Operations Impacts on MEAN and Western Presented by: John A. Krajewski, P.E. Manager of Planning & Engineering

  2. Background • Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) • Wholesale electric provider to 46 total requirements participants in three states • 13 participants located on LAP transmission system • Third largest purchaser of power and energy from LAP

  3. Background • MEAN Wind Project at Kimball • 10.5 MW nameplate capacity • Class IV-V wind site • Interconnected to City of Kimball distribution system • Low cost renewable energy resource

  4. Background • MEAN developed Wind Project at Kimball to • Serve load • Meet obligations under Western’s Energy Planning and Management Program “Describe efforts to minimize adverse environmental effects of new resource and acquisitions.” • Prepare for renewable portfolio standards (if implemented)

  5. Regulation & Frequency Response Rate • MEAN’s objections • Excessive compared to nationally accepted study work • 300% higher than other regions • Incremental rate as opposed to embedded cost rate • Discriminatory against intermittent renewable resources • All resources impact regulation and frequency at some time • Provided no bandwidth to coincide with scheduling requirements

  6. MEAN Operations • Scheduling • MEAN submits a pre-schedule for the Wind Project at Kimball every day • Sometimes the pre-schedule is submitted up to 4-5 days in advance • MEAN uses best efforts based on multiple forecasting techniques • Many wind forecasts only 1 day in advance • MEAN generally submits schedule changes as circumstances warrant

  7. MEAN Operations • Wind scheduling realities • MEAN does not just submit a flat schedule for all hours and leave it • MEAN does not make unrealistic forecasts to match loads • MEAN is not purposely leaning on the system

  8. MEAN Operations • MEAN’s scheduling accuracy for wind has improved over time • When combined with load schedule, imbalance outside of the bandwidth has improved • MEAN incorporates diversity of wind and loads into scheduling • Impact to control area is the same • Illustrates importance of looking at entire system rather than individual pieces of the system

  9. Impacts on Western • An intermittent renewable resource looks no different to the system than an intermittent load • Both impacted by weather and human factors • Irrigation, industrial loads, residential • Both require unloaded resources to respond to changes • Scheduling accuracy impacts need for regulation service for both

  10. Impacts on Western • Differences in rate treatment (as proposed) • Wind was singled out while the load is “socialized” and diversity impacts are considered • Load serving entities with wind could be paying twice for same service • Methodology completely inconsistent with accepted methodologies used elsewhere • Xcel North, Bonneville, Iowa

  11. Impacts on Western • Large merchant wind farms • MEAN recognizes potential for large wind farms serving load outside control area to impact WACM • Western should address these projects on case-by-case basis rather than a “one size fits all” approach • Require telemetering to control area being served • Require developer to procure its own load following resource

  12. MEAN Recommendations • Western should develop guidelines that treat load and all resources serving load within the control area comparably • Renewable and conventional resources should be charged the same • Load serving entities shouldn’t pay for same service twice (on load and resource) • Use nationally accepted methodologies

  13. MEAN Recommendations • Large wind farms that do not serve load in the control area should be evaluated independently as part of the interconnection and transmission request process • Requirement to telemeter resource to control area being served or procure load following resource elsewhere may be necessary

  14. QUESTIONS?? For a copy of this presentation, contact jkrajewski@nmppenergy.org

More Related