SPP.org 1
Draft Business as Usual Plan
SPP.org 3
Wind - Business as Usual
SPP.org 4
Wind Requirement Per State
Futures 1 & 3 Wind in GW
State (in SPP)Existing &
Construction Wind Additional Wind Wind RequirementAR 0 0.2 0.4KS 1 2.6 2.4LA 0 0 0.4MO 0 0.7 1.1NE 0.4 1.4 1.1NM 0.2 0.2 0.2OK 1.6 3.6 3.3TX 1 2 1.7
SPP Total 4.2 10.6 10.6
SPP.org
Transfers to Meet Requirements
5
6 intra-State Transfers
3 inter-State Transfers
SPP.org 6
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
SPP.org 7
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
SPP.org 8
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
SPP.org 9
Satisfying the Future’s Requirement
SPP system with NTC projects
SPP.org 10
Limiting Corridors
SPP.org 11
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
SPP.org
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
SPP.org 13
Business as Usual Least-Cost Plan
SPP.org 14
Lease Cost Plan Meets RequirementsWith proposed projects, limits are eliminated
With proposed projects, limits are eliminated
SPP.org
Balanced PortfolioPriority ProjectsSTEP 345 kV projectsITP20 identified 345 kV lines
SPP.org
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
SPP.org 17
Correlation to State of the Market Flowgates
Top 10 flowgates for July 2009 – July 2010
1Osage Switch - Canyon East (115) ftlo Bushland - Deaf Smith (230)
2Lake Road – Alabama (161) ftlo
Iatan to Stranger Creek (345)
3Randall County - Palo Duro (115)
ftlo Amarillo – Swisher (230)
4Lone Oak to Sardis (138) ftlo
Pittsburg – Valiant 345
5Shamrock XFR (115/69) ftlo
Tuco – Oklaunion (345)
6El Paso – Farber (138) ftlo Wichita – Woodring (345)
7Kelly – Seneca (115) ftlo E
Manhattan – Concordia (230)
8 Gentleman to Redwillow (345)
9Holcomb – Plymell Switch (115) ftlo Holcomb - Spearville (345)
10Mansfield – Int. Paper (138) ftlo
Dolet Hills – Swisher (345)
1 & 3
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SPP.org 18
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
SPP.org 19
Stakeholder Feedback
• Comments regarding study approach
• Alternative project suggestions
• Areas for development
SPP.org 20
Futures 2 - 4
• Staff will begin development of least-cost plans for these three futures
• Same process as business as usual case
SPP.org 21
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
Ben RoubiqueLead Engineer, Technical Studies & [email protected]
Top Related