Strategic Planning Committee Meeting No. 98 December 1, Southwest Power Pool STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, December 1, 2016

Transcription

1 Strategic Planning Committee Meeting No. 98 December 1, 2016 Southwest Power Pool STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, December 1, 2016 AEP Office, Dallas, Texas MINUTES Agenda Item 1 Call to Order and Administrative Items Mike Wise (GSEC) called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. Members present included: Jake Langthorn by phone (OGE); Venita McCellon-Allen (AEP); Jim Eckelberger (Director), Harry Skilton (Director); Phyllis Bernard (Director); Rob Janssen (Dogwood), by phone; Dennis Florom (LES); Mike Risan (BEPC); Traci Bender (NPPD); Ray Wahle (MRES); and Bill Grant (Xcel). SPP Staff included Michael Desselle, Carl Monroe, Bruce Rew, Lanny Nickell, Ben Bright, Jay Caspary, Casey Cathey, Steve Purdy, Sunny Raheem, and Sam Loudenslager. Other guests participated in person or via phone (Attendance Attachment 1 and 2). Agenda Item 2 Introduction Mike Wise introduced the purpose of the one-topic meeting. Agenda Item 3 Interconnection Queue Report Steve Purdy and Sunny Raheem presented information about SPP Generator Interconnection (GI) Queue (Generator Interconnection Queue Attachment 3). Their report focused on the current GI queue statistics, process, recent queue reform and results and a discussion about next steps. Committee members and participants alike questioned the purpose of the discussion. Lanny Nickell and Carl Monroe each addressed those questions. Lanny noted that the purpose was to provide a picture of where SPP is now and to facilitate learning about the processes. Both Lanny and Carl noted that if the expectations for the wind are realized that strategic changes may be needed to accommodate these increasing renewable resources. In response to Mike Wise s question are these processes broken, Steve replied that he would not characterize the processes as broken. He noted that the process works well for about 3-4 thousand MWs, but beyond that it becomes a problem. Bill Grant responded that the GI Queue process is working as designed: however, we are facing a different dynamic today deliverability to the market. Agenda Item 4 Report on Joint Renewable Energy Resource Studies Jay Caspary s presentation was skipped (Joint Renewable Energy Resource Studies Attachment 4). Agenda Item 5 Real Time Operational Impacts of Renewable Energy Resources Casey Cathey presented the operational impacts associated with renewable resources (Real Time Operational Impacts of Renewable Energy Resources Attachment 5). His presentation focused on how much wind SPP has in service and the current operational challenges associated with that wind. He also discussed the ways to mitigate the operational challenges. Richard Ross highlighted a concern expressed in the Export Pricing Task Force discussions: high level strategic disconnect in the Transmission service process and the planning process which are not in concert with the current market processes (congestion rights). Venita noted that congestion costs are increasingly taking away from enduser customer value. Bill Grant noted that not being able to recover short-term marginal cost is also a problem. Venita and others noted that distressed wind could exacerbate the problem. Bill Grant and Carl Monroe noted that the issue of ramping comes down to the question of whether SPP is fully compensating quick start units. There was recognition that there are market design and economic price signal implications that perhaps the Price Formation Task Force of the Market Working Group should consider. Casey also discussed negative Marginal Energy Costs (MEC) that SPP has experienced during 160 hours in 2016.

2 Strategic Planning Committee Meeting No. 98 December 1, 2016 Agenda Item 6 Renewable Energy Resources Member Perspective Mike Risan presented a snapshot of the Basin Electric resource planning process. This included descriptions of Basin as well as the Integrated System interaction; planning considerations, political outlook and resource expectations for the future. Likewise, Venita presented a snapshot of SWEPCO s Integrated Resources planning perspective. She noted that SWECPO is seeking 100 MW of wind capacity in the near term and will be looking for more in the future. Finally, Bill Grant described the SPS system planning process. He noted that wind and solar will play prominent roles in SPS s future resource mix. He noted that wind makes a lot of sense from an energy perspective and that SPS is not installing wind for capacity purposes. As did the others, Bill noted that the gap between firm transmission and financial congestion rights needs to be resolved. Agenda Item 7 Issue Identification and Assignments Steve Gaw (The Wind Coalition) noted that a lot of topics were discussed during the meeting but that some topics were things missing and he further noted some areas of disagreement. Staff was asked to develop a straw proposal for consideration by the SPC in January. Casey Cathey noted that the flood of renewal generation (wind and solar) that SPP faces boils down to one of three outcomes (if we get all, or a portion, of the wind in the existing queue installed): 1. SPP RC will curtail more magnitude of wind for reliability needs; or, 2. SPC pursues any/all of recommendations from EPTF and exports; or, 3. We enhance SPP and member functions allowing more renewable resources to sink within the SPP BA. Agenda Item 8 Next Steps Staff to develop straw proposal for topic prioritization for SPC consideration. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Desselle Secretary

3 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, December 1, AM 3 PM AEP Office, Dallas, Texas AGENDA 1. Call to Order and Administrative Items... Mike Wise 2. Introduction... Mike Wise 3. Interconnection Queue Report... Steve Purdy/Sunny Raheem 4. Report on Joint Renewable Energy Resource Studies... Jay Caspary 5. Real Time Operational Impacts of Renewable Energy Resources... Casey Cathey 6. Renewable Energy Resources Member Perspectives... Mike Risan, Venita McCellon-Allen, Bill Grant 7. Issue Identification and Assignments... Mike Wise 8. Next Steps... Mike Wise

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 SPP Generator Interconnection Queue Strategic Planning Committee December 1,

11 Outline Current GI Queue Statistics Current Process Recent Queue Reform and Results Discussion about Next Steps 3

12 Current GI Queue Statistics 4

13 SPP GI Queue 5

14 Existing Western/UMZ Queue Megawatts Requested Status Wind Solar Conventional Hydro Other Total Commercial Operation (32%) On Suspension (4%) IA Executed/Pending (64%) TOTAL 4623 (63%) 200 (3%) 2333 (32%) 8 ( <1%) 122 (<2%)

15 GI Studies Since ,000 10,000 8,000 MW 6,000 4,000 2,000 DISIS DISIS DISIS DISIS DISIS DISIS DISIS Original Total MW 1,629 2,213 2,211 7,055 5,366 10,028 11,307 Latest Restudy Total MW 558 1, ,205 2,701 7,332 Original Wind & Solar Total MW 1,213 1,231 1,361 6,396 4,931 9,963 10,975 Latest Restudy Wind & Solar Total MW ,170 2,701 7,312 Impact Study 7

16 Pending GI Requests by Generator Type & Study Stage Solar 13% CT 2% Battery 0% Steam Turbine 0% FACILITY STUDY STAGE 35% IA PENDING 2% FEASIBILITY STUDY STAGE 7% PISIS STAGE 2% DISIS STAGE 54% Wind 85% MW Requested by Generation Type MW Requested by Study Stage 8

17 Potential Future Generation Mix Commercial Operation Combined Nuclear 3% Solar 0% Other 2% Wind 18% Coal 31% Wind 32% Battery 0% ST 0% Coal 25% Hydro 4% Natural Gas 42% Battery 0% + = Study Queue ST 0% Natural Gas 2% Solar 13% Hydro 3% Solar 3% Other 2% Wind 85% Nuclear 2% Natural Gas 33% 9

18 Pending GI Requests by Generator Type & Study Stage Megawatts Requested Status Wind Solar Feasibility Study Preliminary Impact Definitive Impact Facilities Study Agreement Pending Comb. Turbine Steam Turbine Battery Total ,499 (6%) (2%) 11, ,580 (54%) 7,061 1, ,137 (35%) (2%) TOTAL 19,748 (85%) 2,904 (13%) 513 (2%) 20 (<1%) 29 (<1%) 23,214 November 17,

19 Magnitude of Wind MW Wind Int. Study Light Load Actual 2016 Light Load 0 Existing and on- Sched DISIS Wind by Status DISIS Existing DISIS DISIS

20 SPP North and Affected System Queues 12

21 SPP GI Study Process 13

22 SPP GI Study Process (simplified) DISIS re-study option Feasibility PISIS DISIS Facilities Entry Fast-Track Process Exit Limited Operation Study GIA Negotiation Re-studies Turbine Change Material Modification Suspension Interim GIA GIA Mandatory Process Optional Process 14

23 Interconnection Windows Four Feasibility Study Cluster Windows Two Interconnection Impact Study Cluster Windows o Preliminary (PISIS) and Definitive (DISIS) One Calendar Year Feasibility Cluster # 1 Feasibility Cluster # 2 Feasibility Cluster # 3 Feasibility Cluster # 4 Dec 1 to Feb 28 Mar 1 to May 31 Jun 1 to Aug 31 Sept 1 to Nov 30 PISIS/DISIS Cluster # 1 Dec 1 to May 30 PISIS/DISIS Cluster # 2 Jun 1 to Nov 30 Interconnection Facilities Study and Generator Interconnection Agreements Jan 1 to Dec 31 Feasibility Study and Preliminary Interconnection System Impact Study (PISIS) are OPTIONAL study phases. DISIS and Facilities Studies are MANDATORY. 15

24 GI Study Timeline Today 9/1/ /30/2015 2/28/2016 5/28/2016 8/26/ /24/2016 2/22/2017 5/23/2017 DISIS PISIS FCS DISIS Open Windows Study Time PISIS FCS FCS

25 Study and Security Deposit Requirements SPP MISO Application Deposit $10,000 Application Fee $5,000 Feasibility (optional) $10,000 M2 $4,000/MW PISIS (optional) $10k - $90k M3 10% Network Upgrade Costs DISIS $15k $80k +$1,000/MW M4 20% Network Upgrade Costs Facilities $3,000/MW 17

26 GI Study Stages Feasibility PISIS DISIS High level impact analysis High-level upgrade estimate High-level impact and stability analysis High-level upgrade estimate Detailed impact, stability, and short-circuit analysis Mid-level upgrade estimates Facilities Detailed upgrade cost estimates and construction time estimates 18

27 Challenges Multiple entry points can be confusing for customers and staff risking tariff non-compliance Volume of requests presents modeling challenges, causes delays risking tariff non-compliance and adding to the burden on Transmission Owners staff Multiple parallel study paths make it difficult to maintain consistency across GI studies and stay in-sync with ITP process Multiple restudy trigger points create fluctuation in study results, cause uncertainty for customers and requires multiple re-work and churn 19

28 Recent Queue Reform Measures 20

29 Queue Reform Measures 2009/10 Fast-track process Cluster Study Implementation First-ready, First-served Increased milestones required to enter DISIS Financial milestone at execution of GIA Addition of a performance obligation in a GIA 2013 ER10-681: Consolidation of SGIP and LGIP Supplemental DISIS Stand Alone analysis Added DISIS Security Deposit Suspension reduced from 36 mo. to 18 mo. Suspension security terms and conditions Increased milestones to enter IFS Increased milestone at execution of GIA Limitations on extensions of in-service dates requests 57,000 MW 3,125 MW wind in-service 17 requests / 3,544 MW on suspension 64 requests 9,601 MW 8,121 MW wind in-service 9 requests / 846 MW on suspension 141 requests 22,000 MW 14,000 MW wind in-service 10 requests / 1,817 MW on suspension 21

30 Conclusions 22

31 Observations Historically, studied areas that show congestion have little additional interconnection capacity. Most customer upgrades being assigned in these areas DISIS First Study had 9.5GW and assigned $2B in updates. Restudy had 7.3GW and assigned $677M in upgrades More requests are being made in study areas that are less congested with fewer upgrades assigned. Result is that higher wind penetrations are possible in the GI queue, but unknown whether this wind can be integrated into the existing generation fleet (i.e. low load periods, ramping down conventional generation) 23

32 Observations DISIS study was previously put on hold due to higher queue uncertainty. The study started Sept 1 st and is currently anticipated to be posted January 31 st, Variable-generation Integration Study (VIS) should help determine requirements for new wind interconnections What requirements should be put on wind that makes up a majority of SPP s generation fleet? Primary frequency response? Dynamic voltage control? Customer Repower investment announcements Are current processes sufficient for large volumes of repower 24

33 Discussion about Next Steps Changes in study processes are needed. Does SPP need to determine limits for renewable resources, and, if so, how would that be administered? Currently, the GI process (powerflow and stability analysis) really doesn t distinguish differences between variable and dispatchable resources. Reactive deficiency issues are becoming problematic. Review and refine, as appropriate, deposit amounts which do not appear to be effective. Are stochastic study approaches warranted? How should storage facilities be studied? Injections and withdrawals should improve market efficiencies during periods of oversupply, as well as deficiencies. Export Pricing Task Force should help. 25

34 Process Enhancements Review entry requirements for effectiveness Study and security deposits, technical data, site control, etc. Review transmission reinforcement criteria Evaluate effectiveness of current thermal and voltage criteria in identifying limiting constraints, e.g. 20% and 3% TDFs for requiring mitigation Reevaluate usefulness of interconnection service types: NRIS vs. ERIS Look for ways to draw a distinction that brings value to customers Limit process disruptions Material modifications Changes in technical parameters and dates Withdrawals Suspensions Streamline process to improve efficiency Eliminate redundant and limited-value processes Enhance coordination with affected systems Identify efficiency improvements to reduce cost and time of customers and SPP staff 26

35 JOINT STUDIES WITH SIGNIFICANT SPP RENEWABLE EXPORTS November 30 & December 1, 2016 Meetings EPTF and SPC, Dallas TX Jay Caspary, Director Research, Development & Tariff Services Southwest Power Pool 2

36 PAST STUDIES 3

37 LINKS Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP), 2008, MISO, SPP, TVA, PJM et al Power Transfer Potential to the Southeast in Response to a Renewable Portfolio Standard, 2009, ORNL Integrating Southwest Power Pool Wind Energy into Southeast Electricity Markets, 2011, EPRI Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS), 2011, NREL 4

38 5

39 JCSP REFERENCE SCENARIO 6

40 JCSP 20% WIND SCENARIO 7

41 ORNL Study FINDINGS 8

42 ORNL Study CONCLUSIONS 9

43 EWITS 20% Wind Scenario 2 10

44 OBSERVATIONS OF PAST STUDIES SPP s footprint has evolved and past studies include NE, as well as WAPA/Basin IS, in MAPP which is aggregated with MISO in most study results. Given the quality of renewable resources within SPP, the potential for economic wind exports to markets east are very large. Significant interregional transmission expansion is justified for all futures, without consideration of optimal renewable developments. For 20 30% RPS scenarios in the Eastern Interconnection, UHV AC networks and HVDC links are economically justified. JCSP concluded that transmission overlays should be strongly considered as a way to improve the future reliability and economics of the nation s bulk power electric system. More recent studies reinforce that conclusion. 11

45 EASTERN RENEWABLE GENERATION INTEGRATION STUDY (ERGIS) Published in August 2016, the ERGIS study models the ability to meet electricity demand at a 5-minute time interval by scheduling resources for known ramping events, while maintaining adequate reserves to meet random variation in supply and demand, and contingency events. In the analysis, it is shown that, under the study assumptions, generation from approximately 400 GW of combined wind and PV capacity can be balanced on the transmission system at a 5-minute level. The ERGIS results also indicate that high penetrations of wind and PV (collectively variable generation (VG)), significantly impact the operation of traditional generating resources and cause these resources to be used less frequently and operate across a broader output range because wind and PV have lower operating costs and variable output levels. ERGIS is an operational impacts analysis, it is not designed to identify the most optimal mix of generation and transmission, or analyze dynamic power system characteristics at a sub-5- minute timescale. Check out ERGIS webpage and related videos 12

46 13

47 ERGIS SCENARIO INPUTS 14

48 ERGIS SCENARIO INPUTS 15

49 16

50 17

51 18

52 19

53 20

54 21

55 22

56 23

57 24

58 25

59 ERGIS AND SPP SPP in ERGIS reflects the RTO s footprint in 2014, absent WAPA/Basin IS which is reported as part of MISO. Wind and Solar in SPP in VG Scenario are 8 and 0GW, respectively. Incremental wind is 20GW in the RT10 scenario. Incremental wind is 35 and 53GW, in the RT30 and IT30 scenarios, respectively. Incremental solar is 12GW in both the RT30 and IT30 scenarios. 26

60 27

61 28

62 29

63 30

64 31

65 ITx30 Maximum Renewable Penetration 32

66 2016 NOAA STUDY Premise is that weather is the key to decarbonization Variability of wind and solar are local affects since the variability of wind drops by 5 times when area is increased by 3 orders of magnitude Slide Deck from DOE EAC Sept 2016 Meeting Supplemental Information 33

67 NOAA 34

68 NOAA 35

69 NOAA 36

70 NOAA 37

71 2016 NOAA STUDY Conclusion: the U. S. can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% from 1990 levels while decreasing the cost of electricity with a large share of wind and solar by deploying a national transmission system and using existing technologies without using storage. Key Findings: Its not always best practice to place generators where the most power potential exists, a large area system is beneficial for numerous reasons, and the least cost paths are, at most, 80% variable generation. 38

72 DOE-FUNDED, NREL-LED EI- WECC SEAMS STUDY 39

73 BEST US RENEWABLE RESOURCES STRADDLE EXISTING SEAM 40

74 All DC ties from EI to ERCOT and almost all from EI to WECC via the SPP/IS System 41

75 B2B HVDC STATIONS BETWEEN EI AND WECC 42

76 DOE-FUNDED, NREL-LED SEAMS STUDY $1.2M, 18 month EI-WECC Seams and HVDC Overlay Study approved as part of GMLC Strong industry support Scope finalized in March Opportunity to not just replace in-kind the aging B2B HVDC Ties between EI and WECC Three DC Scenarios Status Quo Modernized/Optimized Seam with Rightsized/Relocated B2B and/or Links Macro Grid Overlay Kickoff meeting for TRC held June Promising preliminary results 43

77

78 NORTH AMERICA RENEWABLE INTEGRATION STUDY (NARIS) 45

79 NARIS 3 year GMLC study funded by DOE and led by NREL Effort will leverage models, staff and tools created to support Midwest Interconnection (EI-WECC) Seams Study Support and collaboration in process with key stakeholders in the US, Canada and Mexico Kickoff meeting held October 5, 2016 at NREL Scope yet to be finalized 46

80 OPPORTUNITIES ON THE SEAMS 47

81 SPP AND AFFECTED SYSTEM QUEUES 48

82 49

83 LESSONS LEARNED 50

84 INTERREGIONAL PLANNING WORKS In the 1960s, 11 South Central Electric Companies (SCEC) built first 500 kv network in US Facilitated 1,500 MW seasonal diversity interchange with TVA using common design 500 kv standards and 345 kv extensions, as necessary Loads and resource mixes supported mutually beneficial winter and summer season transactions Benefits grossly underestimated Planners and transmission / substation design engineers assumed only a fraction of 500 kv line thermal capacity would be needed and utilized in operations. 999 used as rating in simulations because it was hard to imagine any line ever loading over 1,000 MVA 500kV substations initially designed for 2000 Amps (1732MVA) Many 500kV terminal facilities have been upgraded recently to 3000 Amps (2598MVA) to allow line ratings to approach capability of conductors 51

85 52

86 BENEFITS OF ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE EVOLVE Seasonal diversity exchanges terminated in 1980s - convergence of issues impacting bulk power system Oil embargoes and economic recessions slowed growth Shift in seasonal load patterns in TVA to summer peaks Three Mile Island - Delay/halt nuclear expansion SCEC 500 kv backbone facilities enabled economy sales/open access with minimal incremental EHV Allowed significant economies of scale in major base load generation expansion in 70s and 80s Accommodated Independent Power Producers/QFs in 90s and 00s 53

87 Real Time Operational Impacts of Renewable Energy Resources Casey Cathey, P.E. Manager, Operations Engineering Analysis & Support 1

88 Outline How much wind do we have and what are our current challenges? What challenges shall we face moving forward and how may we mitigate them? 2

89 SPP BA Facts 746 generating resources 50,622 MW coincident peak load (July 2016) 19,900 MW low load (October 2015) 15,728 MW wind installed 21,535 MW wind in the queue Peak Wind Penetration level: 49.17% April 24, 2016 Peak instantaneous Wind output: 11,305 MW November 17,

90 SPP s wind and solar potential profile 4

91 Current and Planned MWs By Fuel Type Wind Totals MW NDVER 6430 MW DVER 9298 MW Planned DVER MW Solar 215 MW Planned Solar 3090 MW Nuclear 2636 MW Coal MW Generic Coal MW Lignite Coal 3006 MW Subbituminous 3637 MW Hydro 3425 MW Natural Gas MW Planned Natural Gas 939 MW MW's By Fuel Type Other Fuel Types (Oil, Agricultural Byproducts, Municipal Solid Waste) 1719 MWs Planned Battery 20 MW 5

92 Wind Capacity has grown significantly Wind Installed Wind Capacity Forecasted Wind Capacity Year End Forecasted Wind Capacity 6

93 SPP EHV Expansion 7

94 Wind Locations 8

95 Renewable impacts to SPP High impact on congestion and loading of the transmission system Wind can cause capacity issues by Not showing up during times of high demand, contributing to capacity shortages Showing up too high during times of low demand, contributing to Min Gen issues Uncertainty complicating unit commitments Short-term, intra-hour changes in wind require reserves to maintain balance between generation and obligations Wind forecast is crucial for SPP to have the right generation online at the right time, while maintaining the reliability and economic efficiency of the regional transmission grid. 9

96 Use of an SPP region forecast results in less forecast error SPP Average Day Ahead Wind Forecast % Error, by Zone and Total SPP Total Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 6% 4% SPP Total daily % forecast error lower than % forecast error in individual zones/regions % Wind Forecast (% of Capacity) 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% -12% -14% 5/1/2016 5/2/2016 5/3/2016 5/4/2016 5/5/2016 5/6/2016 5/7/

97 Late spring/early summer day SPP Wind by Reserve Zone SPP Wind MW 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Wind drops several GW in the west (Zones 2 & 3), while wind in the east (Zone 4) stays high through the afternoon demand 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 11

98 SPP Wind Integration Summary Market is adjusting to high levels of wind Some LMP prices driven negative Wind farms voluntarily curtailing due to price >160 hours of negative Marginal Energy Costs in 2016, due to wind on the margin Operations responding to wind impacts Forecasting continues to improve SPP is blessed with large number of quick start units Dispatchable Variable Energy Resource policies and experience from EIS market greatly helped in Integrated Marketplace Wind futures Wind capacity continues to increase, expect another 4,000 MW within 2 years Forecasting >60% penetration level in April 2017* Studying higher wind penetration level impacts to maintain reliable operations *May not occur due to thermal or capacity need limitations 12

99 Negative MECs effect* $25.00 $ $ $10.00 $ $- $(5.00) $(10.00) 5000 $(15.00) $(20.00) 0 Low Load, Low Wind Low Load, High Wind Low Load, High Wind, Higher Conventional Mins, pre-curtailment Low Load, High Wind, Higher Conventional Mins, post-curtailment $(25.00) Conventional Wind Marginal Energy Cost *assume other fuel sources negligible; example only 13

100 14

101 15

102 16

103 17

104 18

105 New SPP Historical Wind Peak On 11/17/2016

106 SPP Wind forecast Monday 11/14/2016 Tuesday 11/15/2016 Wednesday 11/16/2016 Thursday 11/17/2016 Friday 11/18/2016

107 SPP Load SPP Gen SPP Wind

108 Wind lost during wind peak record 22

109 SPP Essential Reliability Services Thermal congestion management Transient stability Scenario 1 of VIS Primary Frequency Response Scenario 2 of VIS Voltage stability and reactive reserves Scenario 3 of VIS Ramping and Regulation Scenario 4 of VIS Inertia response Balancing and Capacity management 23

110 SPP Wind Integration Recommendations Wind Integration Study Recommendations Interconnection Requests Cluster method for reviewing interconnection requests should be further advanced. 2 Voltage control means need to be considered. Adopt new tools and policies to implement 3 regulation support. SPP Action 2009 queue reform package filed at FERC FERC Order 827. Offline VSAT 2016, Online VSAT 2017 Integrated Marketplace CBA 4 Implement dedicated wind forecasting system. Completed and continuing to enhance Adapt unit commitment practices to handle 5 additional wind. Integrated Marketplace RUC process 6 Adopt market rules to incentivize wind plants to follow market signals. Integrated Marketplace DVER design 24

111 SPP Wind Integration Recommendations 2009 Wind Integration Study Recommendations SPP Action 7 Separate the pricing and provision of regulation up and regulation down services. Integrated Marketplace separate Regulation products 8 9 Proceed with initiative to co-optimize energy and ancillary services. Enlarge the geographic footprint of the SPP market. Integrated Marketplace Nebraska and IS have joined since study 10 Revise the reserve replenishing timeframe. In progress Consider the integration of advanced storage 11 technologies into the grid. In progress with Stored Energy RR 12 Establish centralized outage control system. Completed 25

112 SPP Wind Integration Recommendations Wind Integration Study Recommendations SPP Actions Assess voltage reactive support capabilities for existing wind farms and recommend enhanced operations tools for Dynamic Reactive Reserves and Voltage Task Force created. Operating Criteria develop criteria requirements for real-time RR in progress. FERC Order 827 compliance operations. filed. 2 3 Evaluate and recommend real-time operations tools to calculate and monitor real-time voltage stability limits using an applicable real-time software suite. Provide additional flexibility to the Reliability Coordinator for NDVER redispatch. Offline VSAT 2016, Online VSAT 2017, and Online TSAT targeted for 2018 TBD 26

113 SPP Wind Integration Recommendations Wind Integration Study Recommendations SPP Actions Develop additional planning criteria to enhance analysis requirements for incorporating a more robust scenario development. Evaluate ITP projects for acceleration based on study results. Evaluate the bulk electric system impacts with the addition of Solar PV in combination with wind. Perform an additional evaluation of PMU applications to provide real-time situational awareness. TPITF recommendations incorporation in progress TPITF recommendations incoporation in progress 2017 Variable generation Integration Study In scope of PMU project 27

114 SPP Wind Integration Recommendations 2017 Wind Integration Study Preliminary Recommendations SPP Actions 1 Fast Fault Screening for next day operations TBD 2 Online TSAT and SSAT for realtime operations. In SPP plan 3 5% reactive reserve holdback Margin for stability In progress; VTF RR 4 Study for FACTS devices to provide flexibility for increasing renewable penetration. 5 Consider Transmission Acceleration TBD TPITF recommendations incorporation in progress 28

115 SPP Wind Integration Recommendations 2017 Wind Integration Study Preliminary Recommendations SPP Actions 6 Frequency response requirements Not started 7 Market System Ramping Product MWG initiative 8 PMU siting for critical interfaces In progress; SST 9 System Inertia Requirements Monitoring 29

116 2015 Wind Integration Study (WIS) 60% Wind Penetration Wind Output and Siting. 30

117 WIS - Voltage Stability Analysis The Spring operations model (Outages) 31

118 Real-time challenges in SPP Wind farms are often grouped together geographically and connected to the same major transmission tie-points This can lead to large MW swings (up/down) coming from the same place Increased volatility and very quick loading on the transmission system Second-by-second generation/load balancing (maintaining ACE) can be difficult requires regulating reserves to all be deployed very quickly System prices spike in the 5-minute RTBM market as the wind power has to be replaced, typically by gas and coal generation 32

119 Transmission System Loading Loading on transmission constraint swinging 20-50% of limit as storm rolls through nearby wind farms 33

120 Real-Time Balancing Up/Down Regulation deployed to maintain ACE near zero as the storm passes through multiple wind farm sites across the region 34

121 Regulation Requirement Procurement methodology Regulation Up and Regulation Down requirements are calculated separately, using four components Load Magnitude (accounts for most of Regulation Requirement) Load Variability Intermittent Resource Magnitude Based on total forecasted wind MW for the hour Average around 11-12% of Regulation Requirement Intermittent Resource Variability Based on forecasted hour-to-hour change in wind MW Average ~3-4% of Regulation Requirement 35

122 The Regulation requirement includes the impact of both the loss and variability of wind generation Average of Load Magnitude Componet Average of Load Variability Component Average of Wind Magnitude Component Average of Wind Variability Component MW Wind Variability component creates higher requirement on average during morning hours, as wind is typically ramping down during this time (expected use of Regulation Up during this time) Hour of Day 36

123 Event 1: Operation Model Transfer to Voltage Collapse Spring 30% Penetration Event 1 plus 3,600 MW - Voltage Contour. 37

124 Event 1: Planning Model Transfer to Voltage Collapse Spring System Intact 45% Penetration Event 1 plus 500 MW - Voltage Contour. 38

125 Dynamic Reactive Reserve (MVAR) - Spring Model Type Season & Renewable Penetration Renewable Start (MW) Renewable Stop (MW) Delta Transfer (MW) DRR [1] (MVAR) SVC (MVAR) Source (MVAR) Sink (MVAR) Operation Outages Spring 30% 7,100 10,700 3, Stable Operation Outages Spring 45% 10,700 11,700 1,000 1, VC Operation Outages Spring 45% + (SVC2) 10,700 14,300 3,600 3,239 2, Stable Operation Outages Spring 60% + (SVC2) 14,300 15, ,365 2, VC Operation Outages Spring 60% + (SVC3) 14,300 15,400 1,100 3,046 2, Stable Planning Spring 30% 7,100 10,700 3, Stable Planning Spring 45% 10,700 13,100 2,400 1, ,030 VC Planning Spring 45% + (SVC1) 10,700 14,300 3,600 2,780 1, Stable Planning Spring 60% + (SVC1) 14,300 15,400 1,100 2,039 1, Stable State SVC 1 locations are Washita, Spearville, Thistle. SVC 2 locations are Washita, Spearville, Thistle, Tatonga. SVC 3 locations are Washita, Spearville, Thistle, Tatonga, Smokey Hills. (VC) Voltage Collapse. [1] Dynamic Reactive Reserves (MVAR) = Total Reactive Reserves = SVC + Source + Sink. 39

126 Dynamic Reactive Reserve (MVAR) - Fall Season & Renewable Penetration Renewable Start (MW) Renewable Stop (MW) Delta Transfer (MW) DRR [1] (MVAR) SVC (MVAR) Source (MVAR) Sink (MVAR) Model Type State Operation Outages Fall 30% 7,200 10,800 3, Stable Operation Outages Fall 45% 10,800 13,000 2, ,035 VC Operation Outages Fall 45% + (SVC1) 10,800 14,400 3,600 2,361 1, Stable Operation Outages Fall 60% + (SVC1) 14,400 15,400 1,000 2,141 1, Stable Planning Fall 30% 7,200 10,800 3, Stable Planning Fall 45% 10,800 13,100 2, ,037 VC Planning Fall 45% + (SVC1) 10,800 14,400 3,600 1,976 1, Stable Planning Fall 60% + (SVC1) 14,400 15,400 1,000 1,976 1, Stable SVC 1 locations are Washita, Spearville, Thistle. (VC) Voltage Collapse. [1] Dynamic Reactive Reserves (MVAR) = Total Reactive Reserves = SVC + Source + Sink. 40

127 Renewable generation real power (MW) limits Model % Reserve Operations (N-0) Operations (N-1) System Intact (N-0) System Intact (N-1) Spring 0 11,700 10,700 13,100 11,200 Spring 5 11,100 10,100 12,400 10,600 Fall 0 13,000 10,900 13,100 10,900 Fall 5 12,300 10,300 12,400 10,300 41

128 Sudden wind drop 11/10/2016

129 Wind dropped 3000 MW.

130

131

132