1 / 79

TAG Meeting December 9, 2009

TAG Meeting December 9, 2009. NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC. 1. TAG Meeting Agenda Administrative Items – Rich Wodyka 2009 – 2019 Collaborative Plan Study Results – Joey West 2010 Study Scope – James Manning Regional Studies Update – Ed Ernst and Bob Pierce 2010 TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka

randall-schmidt
Télécharger la présentation

TAG Meeting December 9, 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 MeetingDecember 9, 2009 NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC 1

  2. TAG Meeting Agenda • Administrative Items – Rich Wodyka • 2009 – 2019 Collaborative Plan Study Results – Joey West • 2010 Study Scope – James Manning • Regional Studies Update – Ed Ernst and Bob Pierce • 2010 TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka • TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka 2

  3. Joey West Progress Energy 2009 – 2019 Collaborative Plan Study Results 3 3

  4. Outline of Results • Base Reliability Results • 2014 and 2019 • Progress Collaborative Plan Project Delays • Hypothetical Resource Supply Options • Transfer Scenarios • Nuclear Generation Scenarios 4 4

  5. 2014S and 2019S Base Reliability Results • Two new projects identified: • Brunswick 1 - Castle Hayne 230kV Line, Construct New Cape Fear River Crossing (Progress) • Reconductor Pisgah Tie-Shiloh Switching Station 230 kV lines (Duke) • Two Duke projects back in Plan: • Reconductor Central Tie-Shady Grove Tap 230 kV lines • Reconductor Peach Valley Tie- Riverview Switching Station 230 kV lines 5 5

  6. Progress Load Forecast RelatedCollaborative Plan Project Delays 6 6

  7. List of Units Included in Base Case Cliffside Coal – 825 MW Buck Combined Cycle – 620 MW Dan River Combined Cycle – 620 MW Richmond County Combined Cycle – 660 MW Wayne County CT – 160 MW Planned New Generation Units 7 7

  8. Resource Supply Options 2019 Hypothetical Transfer Scenarios 8 8

  9. Resource Supply Options2019 HypotheticalTransfer Scenarios Results • Except 600 MW South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCEG) to Duke Transfer Scenario • Upgrade Parr-Newport Tie (Parr) 230 kV Line: $89 M • Upgrade Bush River Tie-Clinton Tie (Clinton) 100 kV Line: $40 M • All transfer resource supply options can be accommodated without additional projects. 9 9

  10. Resource Supply Options 2019 Nuclear Generation Scenarios 10 10

  11. Resource Supply Options2019 Nuclear Generation Scenarios Results • Progress can accommodate an 1125 MW unit at Harris Nuclear Station without additional transmission upgrades • Duke can accommodate an 1160 MW unit at Lee Nuclear Station with one additional transmission upgrade • Bundle Lee Nuclear Station-Pacolet Tie (Roddey West) 230 kV Line: $12 M 11 11

  12. Comparison to Previous Collaborative Transmission Plan 12 12

  13. Import Scenarios 13 13

  14. Import Scenarios 14 14

  15. Import Scenarios 15 15

  16. Questions ? 16 16 16

  17. 2010 NCTPC StudyScope James Manning North Carolina EMC

  18. Study Process Steps 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

  19. Collaborative Study Assumptions Study years Short term (5 yr) and long term (10 yr) base reliability analysis Alternate model scenarios Thermal power flow analysis Duke & Progress contingencies Duke & Progress monitored elements Internal lines Tie lines

  20. Study Inputs LSEs provide: Load forecasts and resource supply assumptions Dispatch order for their resources Area interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems

  21. Enhanced Transmission Access Requests TAG request to be distributed in early February, 2010 Requests can now include in, out and through transmission service

  22. Base reliability case analysis for 2015 summer and winter, and 2020 summer An “All Firm Transmission” Case(s) will be developed which will include all confirmed long term firm transmission reservations with roll-over rights applicable to the study year(s). Duke and Progress will each create their respective generation down cases from the common Base Case and share the relevant cases with each other. Additional cases will be developed for different scenarios under a “climate change” legislation scenario 2010 Study

  23. Proposed coal sensitivity scenario for 2015: Retire 100% of existing unscrubbed coal generation plants (approximately 1,500MW in the PEC control area, 2,000MW in the Duke control area) by 2015, replace with new generation and/or imports 2010 Study

  24. Proposed wind sensitivity scenarios for 2015: Coastal NC wind sensitivity with wind injections in the following locations, based on information obtained from the UNC report: 2015 case, on peak: Wilmington (30% capacity factor): 125 MW Morehead City (40% capacity factor): 675 MW Bayboro (35% capacity factor): 425 MW 2015 case, off-peak (the final MW output studied at these locations will depend on a further assessment of loads during the off-peak case to verify operational limits and how much excess energy could be sold or exported): Wilmington (90% capacity factor): 375 MW Morehead City (90% capacity factor): 1,500 MW Bayboro (90% capacity factor): 1,125 MW 2010 Study

  25. Questions ?

  26. Update on Regional Studies 26

  27. Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) Ed Ernst Duke Energy Carolinas 27

  28. What is the EIPC? • Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative • an open approach to addressing transmission analyses with an interconnection scale • Began through discussions between regional Planning Authorities • Backdrop • Broad energy policy discussions on future renewable resources and on transmission infrastructure • Historical development and coordination of transmission plans on a regional and super-regional basis 28

  29. What are the Objectives of the EIPC? • Roll-up and analysis of approved regional plans • Development of possible interregional expansion scenarios to be studied • Development of interregional transmission expansion options 29

  30. The Collaborative is a combination of: • Regional Planning Authorities participating in a joint agreement to form an Analysis Team to perform technical studies • Federal, State and Provincial representatives • Self-formed stakeholder groups (e.g. Regional TO groups, IPPs, etc.) • Individual stakeholder participants

  31. Who are the Planning Authorities? • Alcoa Power Generating • American Transmission Co. • Duke Energy Carolinas • Entergy * • E.ON (Louisville/Kentucky Util.) • Florida Power & Light • Georgia Transmission Corp. • IESO (Ontario, Canada) • International Transmission Co. • ISO-New England * • JEA (Jacksonville, Florida) • MAPPCOR * • Midwest ISO * • Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia • New York ISO * • PJM Interconnection * • PowerSouth Energy Coop. • Progress Energy – Carolinas • Progress Energy – Florida • South Carolina Electric &Gas • Santee Cooper • Southern Company * • Southwest Power Pool • Tennessee Valley Authority *

  32. EIPC Structure Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) (Open Collaborative Process) EIPC Analysis Team Principal Investigators Planning Authorities Steering Committee Stakeholder Work Groups … Executive Leadership Technical Leadership & Support Group Stake-holder Groups States Provinces Federal Owners Operators Users

  33. EIPC Status • EIPC Analysis Team structure in place • 24 Planning Authorities signed – approximately 95% of customers covered • DOE funding proposal submitted; awaiting DOE response • Stakeholder dialog - webinar on October 13 with a repeat on October 16 – over 400 participants • Continued stakeholder discussion through beginning of DOE study cycle • Website launched – www.eipconline.com • EIPC analysis processes begin in early 2010 • DOE work begins (if awarded)

  34. Other Regional Study Activities Bob Pierce Duke Energy Carolinas 34

  35. SCRTP 2010 study PJM interface meeting SIRPP SERC-RFC East VACAR studies SERC LTSG 2009 Study TPL-001-1 35

  36. Two NCTPC related requests were submitted for study: 600 MW transfer from SCE&G to CPLE; 600 MW transfer from SCE&G to Duke; No other requests were submitted SC Regional Transmission Planning Process 36

  37. NCTPC-PJM Seams Interface Meeting 37

  38. Trail Project - 2011 NCTPC-PJM 38

  39. Path Project - 2014 NCTPC-PJM 39

  40. OTHER DISCUSSIONS Generation interconnection queue coordination and how to identify projects that may impact each party Modeling of generation dispatch in PJM and NCTPC footprints and its impact on study results Identified PJM contacts to be included when dealing directly with AEP and DVP Future studies under consideration NCTPC-PJM 40

  41. NCTPC did not submit requests for study 5 studies were selected at the 10/27/09 meeting Southeast Inter-Regional Planning Process (SIRPP) 41

  42. Entergy to Georgia ITS – 2000 MW (2014, Step 2 Evaluation) Type of Transfer: Generation to Generation Source: Same as utilized in the Step 1 evaluation. Sink: Same as utilized in the Step 1 evaluation. SIRPP 42

  43. Entergy to Georgia ITS Step 2 Evaluation Detailed evaluation of the requested transfer Identify the final transmission enhancements to resolve the identified constraints Provides detailed cost estimates and timelines associated with the identified transmission enhancements SIRPP 43

  44. MISO to TVA – 2000 MW (2015, Step 1 Evaluation) Type of Transfer: Load to Generation Source: Uniform load scale of the MISO area. Sink: Generation within TVA’s area. SIRPP 44

  45. Northern Kentucky to Georgia ITS – 1000 MW (2015, Step 1 Evaluation) Type of Transfer: Generation to Generation Source: Three existing substations in Kentucky. Sink: Generation within the Georgia ITS. SIRPP 45

  46. MISO/PJM West (SMART) to SIRPP - 3000 MW (2018, Step 1 Evaluation) Type of Transfer: TBD to Generation Source: Strategic Midwest Area Renewable Transmission study Sink: Generation within the SIRPP. Generation will be allocated to the Participating Transmission Owners by the ratio of their load to the total load of all of the Participating Transmission Owners. SIRPP 46

  47. SIRPP 47

  48. SPP to SIRPP – 3000 MW via HVDC (2018, Step 1 Evaluation) Type of Transfer: TBD to Generation via single or multiple HVDC transmission lines Source: TBD Sink: Generation within the SIRPP. Generation will be allocated to the Participating Transmission Owners by the ratio of their load to the total load of all of the Participating Transmission Owners. SIRPP 48

  49. SERC East-RFC Near-Term/Long-Term Working Group (SER NT/LT WG) 49

  50. Appraisal of the interregional transmission system performance during the 2014 summer period Supports NERC reliability standard TPL-005-0 - Regional and Interregional Self-Assessment Reliability Reports Transfers to/from PJM, the RFC portion of the Midwest ISO, and SERC East (Non-PJM-VACAR and CENTRAL) The next NT/LT WG study will be performed in 2011 for the conditions expected during the 2021 summer period SERC East-RFC Near-Term/Long-Term Working Group (SER NT/LT WG) 50

More Related