Download
1 / 61
610 likes | 788 Vues
SPP Presentation. Kansas/ Panhandle Expansion Plan. Bruce Walkup Kansas/Panhandle Workshop II February 22, 2005 Ambassador - Amarillo. Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I. February 17, 2004 Wichita, Kansas Very well attended Broad range of industry participants.
E N D
Kansas/ Panhandle Expansion Plan Bruce Walkup Kansas/Panhandle Workshop II February 22, 2005 Ambassador - Amarillo
Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I • February 17, 2004 • Wichita, Kansas • Very well attended • Broad range of industry participants
Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I Participants • 61 participants • affected state commissions • state legislators • transmission owners • transmission customers like municipalities and rural electric cooperatives • wind developers • consultants • equipment manufacturers
Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I Presentations • Six formal presentations were made regarding transmission expansion alternatives by Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Aquila, Zilkha Renewable Energy, enXco, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority and SPS/Xcel Energy
Study Driver • Needed to explore alternatives ASAP and not wait for the results of the existing regional planning process which is already underway. • Interested parties agreed upon study scope, alternatives to evaluate, milestones and deliverables.
Proposed Scenario A • $419.0 million projected cost, not including underlying upgrades • Spearville – Knoll – Pauline 345 kV • Knoll 345/230 kV transformer • Spearville – Mooreland 345 kV • Potter – Mooreland 345 kV • Mooreland – Wichita 345 kV • Mooreland – Northwest 345 kV • Mooreland 345/138 kV transformer
Scenario A Pauline Knoll Holcomb Wichita Spearville Mooreland NW Potter Plan A
Proposed Scenario B • $410.0 million projected cost, not including underlying upgrades • Spearville – Knoll – Pauline 345 kV • Knoll 345/230 kV transformer • Spearville – Wichita 345 kV • Rose Hill – Cleveland – Sooner 345 kV • Potter – Elk City – Northwest 345 kV • Elk City 345/230 kV transformer
Scenario B Pauline Knoll Holcomb Spearville Wichita Rosehill Cleveland Sooner NW Potter Elk City
Proposed Scenario C • $399.5 million projected cost, not including underlying upgrades • Pauline – Summit – Wichita 345 kV • Spearville – Wichita 345 kV • Rose Hill – Cleveland – Sooner 345 kV • Tuco – Elk City – Northwest 345 kV • Elk City 345/230 kV transformer
Scenario C Scenario C Pauline Summit Holcomb Spearville Wichita Rosehill Cleveland Sooner Elk City NW Tuco
Project Evaluation • Phase I - Import and export FCITC (First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability) analysis using PTI’s MUST program • Phase II – PowerWorld/Henwood (PROSYM & MARKETSYM) economic evaluation
Phase I - Analysis • 2005 Summer Peak and 2005 Spring models for analysis • SPP and 1st tier 100 kV+ monitor elements and contingencies • Identify rough cost estimates and rank expansion alternatives based on improvements to imports/exports
Export Points • Sand Sage 600 MW • Wind Capacity 2500 MW (nameplate) • Potter 1000 MW • Holcomb 500 MW • Nichols 500 MW • Tolk 500 MW • Wind output 20% (500 MW) in Summer, 80% (2000 MW) in Spring • Assume all new generation is exported beyond SPP system (i.e., no displacement of existing SPP resources)
SPP Limiting Facilities not Fixed by any of Plans A, B or C • Sand Sage & 80% Wind Export • Holcomb-CTU Sublette 115 kV (see next) • N. Cimarron-Cimarron 115 kV • Manning-Nekoma 115 kV (see next) • Medicine Lodge 138/115 kV Trf. • Grapevine-Elk City 230 kV; Elk City 230/138 kV Trf.; Elk City-Clinton Jct. 138 kV • Kirby-McClellan Rural 115 kV; Shamrock 115/69 kV Trf., Shamrock 138/69 kV Trf.
Limiting Facilities Included in Expansion Plan • Sunflower June 2008 • Holcomb-Plymell-Pioneer Tap 115 kV • Manning Tap-Dighton-Beeler-Ness City 115 kV
Cost Comparison(based on Spring & Summer runs) • Plan C discarded due to lower FCITC and greater number of limits • $34.6 million in common underlying upgrades for Plans A or B • $5.1 million in additional underlying upgrades for Plan A • $32.4 million in a additional underlying upgrades for Plan B
Requested Sensitivity Runs • Sensitivities • Spearville-Knoll-Pauline 345 kV line rerouted to Axtell instead (Plan A or B) • 500 MW additional wind at Spearville • Not including proposed Elk City 345/230 kV transformer (Plan B) • 1000 MW less wind in Texas • Previously identified constraints largely unaffected for sensitivity runs
Sensitivity Run – Modified Plan A1 • Replace Mooreland-Potter 345 kV line with Mooreland-Tuco 345 kV line • Additional cost is approximately $30 million, plus many additional upgrades required • Comparable FCITC limits are about 400-500 MW lower
Phase I - Conclusions • Plan A is recommended based on transfer analysis and installed transmission costs • Economic choice over B • Borders key wind development areas • Provides support to Mooreland area
Phase II – Fun Facts • Runs • 40 full seasonal @ 12 hours, 2.5 GB each • 56 EXCEL workbooks @ 2 hours each (Visual Basic & MS Access queries) • Over 30 typical July week sensitivities • Learning curve for applications of economic planning • PowerWorld, PROSYSM, MARKETSYM • Program Intricacies – multiple reruns • Program Bugs – quick response by vendors
Phase II - Analysis • Create wind profiles using West Texas A&M University data • Assign SPP IPPs and new wind farms into separate areas • Monitor SPP and 1st tier 100 kV+ elements and flowgates (plus flowgates identified in Phase I) • Run spring, summer, fall and winter 2005 cases • Compare Production Cost Savings (Production Cost = Dispatch Cost + Violation Cost)
Wind Power Output Profile Data Data Courtesy of Alternative Energy Institute (West Texas A&M University, Canyon, Texas)
Wind Power Output Profile Data Data Courtesy of Alternative Energy Institute (West Texas A&M University, Canyon, Texas)
