1 / 79

TAG Meeting April 23, 2009

TAG Meeting April 23, 2009. NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC. TAG Meeting Agenda Introductions and Agenda – Rich Wodyka Enhanced Transmission Access Requests – Rich Wodyka 2009 Study Activities – Denise Roeder NCTPC TAG Sector Structure – Rich Wodyka Regional Studies – Bob Pierce

kalin
Download Presentation

TAG Meeting April 23, 2009

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. TAG MeetingApril 23, 2009 NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC

  2. TAG Meeting Agenda • Introductions and Agenda – Rich Wodyka • Enhanced Transmission Access Requests – Rich Wodyka • 2009 Study Activities – Denise Roeder • NCTPC TAG Sector Structure – Rich Wodyka • Regional Studies – Bob Pierce • TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka • TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka

  3. Enhanced Transmission Access Requests Rich Wodyka ITP

  4. Enhanced Transmission Access Requests TAG memo was distributed on February 6, 2009requesting input The deadline for input was February 27, 2009 No requests were received for 2009

  5. NCTPC 2009 Study Activities Denise Roeder Electricities

  6. Purpose of Study Assess Duke and Progress transmission systems' reliability and develop a single Collaborative Transmission Plan Also assess Enhanced Access Study requests provided by Participants or TAG members

  7. Completed Steps and Status of the Study Process 1. Assumptions Selected 2. Study Criteria Established 3. Study Methodologies Selected 4. Models and Cases Developed 5. Technical Analysis Performed 6. Problems Identified and Solutions Developed 7. Collaborative Plan Projects Selected 8. Study Report Prepared

  8. Study Assumptions Selected Study Year – near term reliability analysis: 2014 Summer, 2014/2015 Winter High load summer import sensitivity to CPLW Study Year – longer term reliability analysis: 2019 Summer LSEs provided: Input for load forecasts and resource supply assumptions Dispatch order for their resources Interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems

  9. Study Criteria Established NERC Reliability Standards Current standards for base study screening SERC Requirements Individual company criteria

  10. Study Methodologies Selected Similarities to previous studies: Thermal Power Flow Analysis Voltage, stability, short circuit, phase angle analysis - as needed Sensitivity to examine the use of high temperature conductor on the DEC Caesar (Shiloh-Pisgah) 230kV line

  11. Base Case Models Developed Latest available MMWG cases were selected and updated for study years (change made from previous studies to incorporate latest PJM transmission upgrades) Combined detailed model for Duke and Progress was prepared Planned transmission additions from updated 2008 Plan were included in models

  12. Resource Supply Options Selected Hypothetical imports To Duke To Progress To Duke and Progress Hypothetical export: CPLE to PJM Hypothetical base load generation

  13. Hypothetical Import/Export Scenarios

  14. Technical Analysis Conduct thermal screenings of the 2014 and 2019 base cases Conduct sensitivity analysis on 2014 base case for high temperature line and CPLW area high import Conduct thermal screenings of the 2019 Resource Supply Option cases

  15. Problems Identified and Solutions Developed Identify limitations and develop potential alternative solutions for further testing and evaluation Estimate project costs and schedule

  16. Collaborative Plan Projects Selected Compare all alternatives and select preferred solutions Study Report Prepared Prepare draft report and distribute to TAG for review and comment

  17. Questions ?

  18. Rich Wodyka ITP NCTPC Stakeholder Sector Structure

  19. TAG Sector Voting Process • Participant must register at least 2 weeks prior to the first meeting at which the TAG participant intends to vote. • Web-based registration • Indicate whether the TAG participant is registering as an “Individual” or as an agent or employee of a “TAG Sector Entity.” • If the TAG participant registers as an agent, member, or employee of a TAG Sector Entity, s/he must identify such TAG Sector Entity. • An individual TAG participant may register as an agent, member, or employee of more than one TAG Sector Entity.

  20. TAG Sector Voting Process • A TAG Sector Entity may be any organized group (e.g., corporation, partnership, association, trust, agency, government body, etc.) • A TAG Sector Entity may be a member of only one TAG Sector. • A TAG Sector Entity and its affiliates or member organizations all may register as separate TAG Sector Entities, as long as such affiliates or member organizations meet the definition of TAG Sector Entity.

  21. TAG Sectors: • Cooperative LSEs that serve load in the NCTPC footprint; • Municipal LSEs that serve load in the NCTPC footprint; • Investor-Owned LSEs that serve load in the NCTPC footprint; • Transmission Providers/Transmission Owners that are not LSEs in the NCTPC footprint; • Transmission Customers (a customer taking Transmission Service from at least one Transmission Provider in the NCTPC); • Generator Interconnection Customers (a customer taking FERC- or state-jurisdictional generator interconnection service from at least one of the Transmission Providers in the NCTPC); • Eligible Customers and Ancillary Service Providers (includes developers; ancillary service providers; power marketers not currently taking transmission service); and • General Public. An Individual is only eligible to join the General Public Sector.

  22. Only one individual TAG participant that has registered as an agent or employee of a TAG Sector Entity may vote on behalf of a particular TAG Sector Entity with regard to any particular vote. • An individual TAG participant may vote on behalf of more than one TAG Sector Entity, if authorized to do so. • Questions to be voted on will be answerable with a Yes or No.

  23. Sector Voting Process • Each TAG Sector that has at least one TAG Sector Entity representative, or at least one Individual or TAG Sector Entity representative in the case of the General Public Sector, present will receive a Sector Vote with a worth of 1.00. • A Sector Vote is divisible. The vote of each TAG participant eligible to vote in a Sector Vote is not divisible. • The vote of each TAG participant in a TAG Sector will be multiplied by 1.00 divided by the total number or TAG participants voting in such Sector to determine how the Sector Vote with a total worth of 1.00 will be allocated.

  24. Sector Voting Process • Allocation of votes is between “Sector Yes Votes” and “Sector No Votes.” That is, each Sector Vote will be allocated such that the Sector Yes Vote and Sector No Vote totals 1.00. • The Sector Yes Vote and Sector No Vote for each TAG Sector will then each be weighted by multiplying each of them by 1.00 divided by the number of TAG Sectors participating in the relevant vote. • The results will be called “Weighted Sector Yes Vote” and “Weighted Sector No Vote.” • The winning position will be the larger of the Weighted Sector Yes Vote and Weighted Sector No Vote.

  25. Sector Voting Example

  26. Questions ?

  27. Bob Pierce – Duke Energy Regional Studies Reports

  28. Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP) activities have been suspended Eastern Wind Integration & Transmission Study (EWITS) plans to do more detailed economic evaluations using JCSP input JCSP and EWITS 28

  29. Objectives of EWITS • Evaluate the power system impacts and transmission associated with increasing wind capacity to 20% and 30% of retail electric energy sales in the study area by 2024; • Impacts include operating due to variability and uncertainty of wind reliability; • Build upon prior wind integration studies and related technical work; • Coordinate with JCSP and current regional power system study work; • Produce meaningful, broadly supported results through a technically rigorous, inclusive study process.

  30. EWITS Region Definition Study area includes: • PJM • Midwest ISO • Mid-Continent Area Power Pool • Southwest Power Pool • TVA • New York ISO • ISO New England • Other interested parties

  31. Why 20% and 30% Wind?

  32. EWITS Scenario 3 Generation Siting

  33. JCSP reference future and 20% wind and 30% wind scenarios Builds on JCSP work Analyze different transmission alternatives for different wind scenarios 765 AC and HVDC High in-state wind versus high wind exports Key Tasks- Develop Transmission Plan

  34. Use JCSP 20% wind scenario transmission overlay as the starting point to develop initial plans for EWITS four scenarios Determine type, size and route of transmission lines Determine costs and land requirements Determine potential substation and DC terminal locations Development of Preliminary Transmission Plans

  35. Joint Coordinated System Plan Overlay – 20% Wind Scenario

  36. EWITS Schedule • Nov 07 – Feb 08 Study Development • March 2008 Award Wind Mesoscale Modeling Contract • July 2008 Award Wind Integration Contract • April – Oct 2008 Develop Wind Data Sets • Sept 08 – June 2009 Evaluate Operating & Reliability Impacts; Develop Transmission Plan • August 2009 Complete Study

  37. EWITS Website - http://wind.nrel.gov/public/EWITS/ Suggestions on questions to address in study or other comments/input Contact Dave Corbus atDavid_Corbus@nrel.gov(303-384-6966) or Matt Schuerger atMattSchuerger@earthlink.net(651-699-4971) JCSP Website reference - http://www.jcspstudy.org/ Message from EWITS ---- Your Input is Important!

  38. Special Report: Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation Reliably integrating high levels of variable resources — wind, solar, ocean, and some forms of hydro — into the North American bulk power system will require significant changes to traditional methods used for system planning and operation. This report builds on current experience with variable resources to recommend enhanced practices, study and coordination efforts needed to lay the foundation for this important integration effort. NERC Special Report 39 39 39

  39. NERC Special Report Power system planners must account for the impacts of variable generation on power system planning and design and develop the necessary practices and methods to maintain long-term bulk power system reliability (NERC’s Planning Committee) 40 40

  40. NERC Special Report Operators will require new tools and practices, including enhanced NERC Standards to maintain bulk power system reliability (NERC’s Operating Committee) 41 41

  41. NERC Special Report Planners and operators would benefit from a reference manual which describes the changes required to plan and operate the bulk power and distribution systems to accommodate large amounts of variable generation. 42 42

  42. Stakeholders requested the following studies: Entergy to Georgia ITS (2000 MW) SPP to SIRPP footprint (5000 MW) PJM “classic” to Southern (3000 MW) PJM west to Southern (2000 MW) Southern to PJM “classic” (3000 MW) Southeast Inter-Regional Participation Process (SIRPP) Status Update 43 43

  43. Refined study underway to look at transfers impact on reliability of SIRPP participants Will build models with large bulk transfers and each TO will run TPL type analysis to determine impacts and possible solutions Website Link : www.southeastirpp.com Southeast Inter-Regional Participation Process (SIRPP) Status Update 44 44

  44. PJM Planning Coordination Agreement • New effort across Duke/Progress/PJM seams • Model and Data exchange • Planning practices • LGIP and TSR study practices • Planning Issues • Major projects scope/schedule 45

  45. Approved PJM Backbone 500 kV and 765 kV Facilities • Since 2006, the PJM Board has approved six new major 500 kV and 765 kV backbone upgrades, as shown on this map: • 502 Junction – Loudoun 500 kV line, also known as the TrAIL Line (2006 RTEP) • Carson – Suffolk 500 kV line (2006 RTEP) • Lackawanna – Roseland 500 kV line (2007 RTEP) • Amos – Kemptown 765 kV line, also known as the PATH line (2007 RTEP) • Possum Point – Salem 500 kV line, also known as the MAPP line (2007 RTEP) • Branchburg – Roseland – Hudson 500 kV line (2008 RTEP) Source: PJM 2008 RTEP Report, Feb 27, 2009 3. 6. 5. 4. 1. 5. 4. 1. 2. The right-of-way routes shown on this map are for illustrative purposes only and may not depict the actual routes that may eventually be chosen. Substation locations may also be modified if more beneficial connections are determined by PJM.

  46. Building 2009 Series models Coordinated tie lines and interchange Submitted 10 years of model data for each control area Models to be complete in early June and submitted to the MMWG process 2009 LTSG Study Scope SERC LTSG (Long-term Study Group) 47 47

  47. LTSG 2019S Study 2008 Study Scope • Accomplish the objectives of the various reliability agreements among SERC member systems, and • Meet the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) requirements for a Long-Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA) for both a 10-year reference case and a scenario case. 48 48

  48. LTSG 2019S Study • Base case analysis of bulk energy transfers • Scenario case assessment of the impact of potential new large generating sites 49 49

  49. LTSG 2019S Scenario Case 50 50

More Related