Download
1 / 77
770 likes | 888 Views
Base Case Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study Presentation to Steering Committee. February 5, 2004. Changes since January 26 Technical Review. Revised inputs Monitor/enforce constraints on an additional 4 paths Naughton to Ben Lomand; Yellowtail N and S; Sierra total imports
E N D
Base CaseRocky Mountain Area Transmission StudyPresentation to Steering Committee February 5, 2004
Changes since January 26 Technical Review Revised inputs • Monitor/enforce constraints on an additional 4 paths • Naughton to Ben Lomand; Yellowtail N and S; Sierra total imports • Modify the way in which 2 additional paths are monitored • Brownlee East and Flaming Gorge to Bonanza • Also increase Brownlee East by 100 MW to 1850<W • Refine schedules for planned maintenance • Correct and update certain loads • Adjust NW load flow data for change in aluminum smelters loads; add upper Missouri loads; zero out the negative loads in SSG-WI data for DC ties to Eastern Interconnect • Calculate average LMPs on seasonal as well as annual basis • January and June months selected
Changes since January 26 Technical Review Additional validation • Address discrepancy in COI and Pacific DC duration curves • Model is loading DC less than actual practice • Combine COI and the DC for comparison purposes • Apply nomogram to enforce split of flows between DC and AC • Address discrepancy in TOT 2 • Additional info • SCIT duration curve • Examine discrepancy between modeling results and actuals • Compare base case load forecast to WECC forecast • Document process and key assumptions for load forecast (in progress – LFWG) • Examine dispatch of thermal units • Esp. minimum run
Changes since January 26 Technical Review Additional runs • Run “unconstrained” cases for internal RMATS paths only and for top 5 RMATS congested paths only, as well as for all Western Interconnect • A first look: transmission to address congestion in 2008 • IPP DC line: Determine change in system-wide variable costs (VOM) if 500 MW capacity is added • SW Wyoming to Bonanza: Determine change in VOM if line rating is increased by100 MW • Idaho to Montana: Determine change in VOM if phase shifter added
Changes since January 26 Technical Review Presentational improvements • Further clarify model capabilities and limitations • Clarify certain input and modeling assumptions • For example, wind resource hourly shape assumptions, heat rates not adjusted for elevations, wheeling charges not included in LMP prices • Enhance contour maps • Expand geographic scope and focus on time periods of greatest congestion • Add certain calculations to slides • Add mean, Std Dev., and correlations to duration curves • Remove net position slides • Further refine formatting of duration curves • Editorial fixes
Base Case Observations • In concept, transmission congestion (bottlenecks) and losses cause differences in marginal prices at the nodal/bus level (LMPs) • In this modeling, transmission congestion drives differences in LMPs • LMPs are calculated separately for loads and generation • In the base case, the lowest LMPs for loads are at Laramie River, Colorado-West, and Yellowtail • Lowest LMPs for generation are at Laramie River, Colorado-West, and Bonanza • Indicates generation is bottled up • LMPs tend to decrease as relatively low cost resources are added • High wind capacity sensitivity is an example • Targeted transmission investments would levelize/stabilize marginal prices because congestion is relieved • Sensitivities were run to explore the change in VOM costs if constraints are removed – all constraints west-wide, constraints internal to the Rocky Mountain sub-region only, and constraints on Rocky Mountain import/export paths only • VOM cost savings would be significant and reach broadly • Such savings alone do not justify making investments, however. Investment costs and other factors must also must be considered
Base Case Observations • The top 5 congested paths in the Rocky Mountain sub-region are also export-related paths: • Idaho to Montana • TOT 2C • Bridger West • IPP DC • TOT 3 • The top 5 congested paths at $4 gas price are also the top 5 at $5 gas price • Dispatch ranking of plants is unchanged • Exception: high wind capacity sensitivity • Analysis includes a first look at opportunity costs (congestion costs) and potential solutions for three of the top 5 congested paths • Next steps: consider other alternative transmission solutions for 2008, determine capital costs, determine technical feasibility
Key RM Transmission Constraints$4 gas, 2008 loads, base case wind * $4 Gas- H load- $26,325; 12%
Opportunity Costs- RMATSSavings if increase path by 1 MW Sorted
Idaho to Montana($4 gas, 2008 loads, high wind capacity)Base Case 2008 • Opportunity cost of not increasing the line by 1 MW: $19,047 • Forward limit (S – N): 337 MW • Reverse limit (N – S): -337 MW • Power flowing south is congested 3% of all hours S N Potential LineLoading represents that the interface was modeled with no constraints on all WI paths Blue line is reverse limit Black line is forward limit 1,042,362 MWh 1,373,642 MWh 576, 174 MWh/ 15% S N S N
TOT 2C($4 gas, 2008 loads, high wind capacity) Base Case 2008 • Opportunity cost of not increasing the line by 1 MW: $20,341 • Forward limit (N – S): 300 MW • Reverse limit (S – N): -300 MW • Power flowing south is congested 23% of all hours N S 1,687,891 MWh 1,579,072 MWh 708,400 MWh/ 19% 40,864 MWh/ 1% N S N S
Bridger West($4 gas, 2008 loads, high wind capacity) Base Case 2008 • Opportunity cost of not increasing the line by 1 MW: $43,690 • Forward limit (E – W): 2,200 MW • Reverse limit (W – E): N/A • Power flowing west is congested 36% of all hours E W 17,149,430 MWh 17,913,183 MWh 9,520,533 MWh/ 45% E W E W
IPP DC Duration Curve NE SW
IPP DC($4 gas, 2008 loads, high wind capacity) Base Case 2008 • Opportunity cost of not increasing the line by 1 MW: $13,067 • Forward limit (NE – SE): 1900 MW • Reverse limit (SW – NE): -1400 MW • Power flowing south-east is congested 72% of all hours NE SW 10,076,000 MWh/ 58% 15,041,672 MWh 17,147,800 MWh NE SW NE SW
TOT 3 ($4 gas, 2008 loads, high wind capacity) Base Case 2008 • Opportunity cost of not increasing the line by 1 MW: $8,259 • Forward limit (N – S): 1424 MW • Reverse limit (S – N): NA • Power flowing south-east is congested 10% of all hours N S 7,880,417 MWh 8,903,396 MWh 1,418,324 MWh/ 10% N S N S
SW Wyoming to Bonanza($4 gas, 2008 loads, high wind capacity) Base Case 2008 • Opportunity cost of not increasing the line by 1 MW: $695 • Forward limit (N – S): 265 MW • Reverse limit (S – N): -300 MW • Power flowing north is congested 1% of all hours N S 739,634 MWh 739,634 MWh 366,427 MWh/ 17% N S N S
Western Interconnect Impact for 2008$4 gas, 2008 loads, High Wind
Idaho to Montana Duration CurvePath Constraint Sensitivities S N
