1 / 22

Draft Business as Usual Plan

Draft Business as Usual Plan. Wind - Business as Usual. Wind Requirement Per State. 3 inter-State Transfers. Transfers to Meet Requirements. 6 intra-State Transfers. Satisfying the Future’s Requirement. The expected wind energy must be achieved while maintaining voltage

alvin-hess
Download Presentation

Draft Business as Usual Plan

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. Draft Business as Usual Plan

  2. Wind - Business as Usual

  3. Wind Requirement Per State

  4. 3 inter-State Transfers Transfers to Meet Requirements 6 intra-State Transfers

  5. Satisfying the Future’s Requirement • The expected wind energy must be achieved while maintaining voltage • Each state’s capacity and wind requirement modeled as a source-sink transfer • PV analysis • Transfer increased until near voltage collapse

  6. Satisfying the Future’s Requirement • The expected wind energy must be achieved while maintaining thermal limits • Each state’s capacity and wind requirement modeled as a source-sink transfer • Limitations to the transfers due to 345 kV contingencies identified • Focuses upon regional issues rather than local issues

  7. Issue Areas & Corridors • Voltage • No major issues encountered, up to expected business-as-usual levels • Results in-line with the latest Generation Interconnection Study • Thermal • 230 & 345 kV in the Texas panhandle • 345 kV corridor in mid-Kansas • 230 & 345 kV corridor in east Kansas

  8. Satisfying the Future’s Requirement SPP system with NTC projects

  9. Limiting Corridors

  10. Least Cost Planning Approach • Installation cost & design simplicity • Shortest distances • Lowest Cost • Existing termination points • Only 345 kV and above projects considered • Emphasis given to previously studied projects

  11. Least Cost Plan Components • Texas panhandle • Tolk – Potter Co • Potter Co – Stateline • East Kansas • Jeffrey – Iatan • Mid-Kansas • Spearville – Wichita • Wichita – Rose Hill • Oklahoma • Stateline – Anadarko

  12. Business as Usual Least-Cost Plan

  13. Lease Cost Plan Meets Requirements With proposed projects, limits are eliminated

  14. Balanced Portfolio Priority Projects STEP 345 kV projects ITP20 identified 345 kV lines

  15. Potential projects for further study • Texas panhandle • Frio Draw – Tolk • Tolk – Tuco • Tuco – Potter Co. • East Kansas • Jeffrey – Swissvale • Jeffrey – Auburn • Mid-Kansas • Medicine Lodge – Viola • Viola - Wichita • Knoll – Summit • Spearville – Reno Co.

  16. Correlation to State of the Market Flowgates 8 7 2 9 6 1 & 3 5 4 10

  17. Seams Integration • Expectation of thermal limitations in other futures’ least cost designs • Nebraska – Iowa border near Omaha • Kansas City area • Ft. Smith area • East Texas

  18. Stakeholder Feedback • Comments regarding study approach • Alternative project suggestions • Areas for development

  19. Futures 2 - 4 • Staff will begin development of least-cost plans for these three futures • Same process as business as usual case

  20. Timeline for Futures 2 - 4 • August 2010 • Least-cost plans for futures • September 2010 • Single, flexible plan for all futures • Cost-effective transmission analysis • October 2010 • Robustness evaluation • Limited reliability assessment

  21. Ben RoubiqueLead Engineer, Technical Studies & Modeling501-614-3331broubique@spp.org

More Related