i-pcgrid Workshop 2018

Transcription

1 i-pcgrid Workshop 2018 Transmission Solution for an Uncertain Future a Case Study March 30, 2018 Chifong Thomas Director, Transmission Planning and Strategy Smart Wires Inc. USA

2 Topics 1. Case Study Description 2. Timing of Expected Potential Problems 3. Results Based on Load Forecast 4. Other System Conditions to Consider 5. Impacts due to Ramping 6. Load Serving Capabilities 7. Alternatives 8. Potential Deployment Options 2

3 Recap of Earlier Discussions Emerging Transmission Issues on DG and Renewables Integration Alternative Solution to Support Rebuilding of Transmission Infrastructure Potential Impacts of Flexible Ramping Need on Transmission Planning 3

4 Smart Wires Power Flow Control Solutions PowerLine Guardian Power Guardian SmartValve Push Push Push + Pull Spread Deployment Compact Deployment SmartTower TM SmartBank TM Mobile Solution

5 Case Study for a system with 30,000 MW Problem: Loss of Line 1 can overload Line 2; Loss of Line 2 can overload Line 1 Need: Determine the right project to be placed in service at the right time Load centers: East of Bus 4 and at Bus 5 In-area base load Generation: Gen A, Gen B, Gen C; Gen C closest to the load centers Gen B Bus 4 Bus 5 Gen C Gen A Bus 2 Bus 3 Bus 1 Overloaded Line 110 kv Line Local Area System 220 kv Line Line flow 5

6 Timing of Expected Potential Problems Load Forecast below shows 100% of Summer Peak load with and without Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Assume 0% DER, potential problem may have already existed, and could have occurred if either Line or Line 2 were loss under the right system conditions. Load (MW) Assume 100% DER, potential problems may not be expected until % Load & 0% DER 100% Load &100% DER Load Serving Capability Year 6

7 Timing of Expected Potential Problems More load levels with and without DER Load (MW) Interpreting 95% as slower peak load growth, potential problems can be expected in % Load & 0% DER 100% Load &100% DER 95% Load & 0% DER 95% Load & 100% DER Load Serving Capability Year 7

8 Timing of Expected Potential Problems More load levels with and without DER Load (MW) If the load growth were slower, with 100% DER, potential problems may never occur 100% Load & 0% DER 100% Load &100% DER 95% Load & 0% DER 95% Load & 100% DER 90% Load & 0% DER 90% Load &100% DER Load Serving Capability Year Load forecast uncertainty is only one of the factors impacting when the solution needs to be implemented 8

9 Results Based on Load Forecast Load = 100% of Summer Peak Load = 95% of Summer Peak Load = 90% of Summer Peak DER Problems % DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 106% 119% 121% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) 101% 113% 115% 100% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 98% 103% 104% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) 93% 97% 98% 0% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 96% 104% 106% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <97% 98% 101% 100% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 95% 96% 96% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <96% 92% 92% 0% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) <96% 96% <98% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <97% <98% 95% 100% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) <95% 89% 88% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <96% <92% 86% 9

10 Other System Conditions to Consider Sample Summer Demand Curves Summer Peak w/ 0% DER 95% Load w/0% DER % DER The time of peak load and the time of 100% DER is not typically coincidental Solar Gen wind Gen Demand Net Demand 10

11 Impacts on Dispatch due to Ramping Ramping starts somewhere around 5 p.m. or earlier By 8 p.m. peak, the generation pattern assumes that the generators have completed ramping: Generators needed to support ramping cannot be used to support load before the ramping starts The resources with flexibility to support ramping are (for now) hydro, pumped storage and combustion turbines (CTs) Generators used to support local load may not be located in the same parts of the network as the generators used for ramping To support the load-resource balance, less flexible generators will need to reduce their output to allow flexible generators to come on line This leads to a new dispatch pattern => significant impact on power flows in the system 11

12 Consider the Same System with 30,000 MW Need: Dispatch to provide ~5,300 MW ramping capability Load centers: East of Bus 4 and at Bus 5 System Generation on line available to support ramping: ~4,300 MW - ~4,800 MW In-area base load Generation: Gen A, Gen B, Gen C Bus 4 Gen B Bus 5 Gen C Gen A Bus 2 Bus 3 Bus 1 Overloaded Line 110 kv Line 220 kv Line Line flow Local Area System 12

13 Impacts due to Ramping Ramping completed at 8 p.m. Generators used to provide ramping cannot be used to also support load. Spread the generation reduction to all base load generators based on the following steps: Thermal generators (starting with the older and presumably more costly generators) ID total number (Y) of generators where reduction should happen. Spread the X MW of reduction over Y generators For generators that have < X/Y MW on line, the generator will be shut down and the remaining generation spread to the larger generators Installed Capacity Scenario 1 8 p.m. Scenario 2 8 p.m. Scenario 3 8 p.m. Scenario 4 8 p.m. Resources for Ramping % of on-line % of online % of on- % of on- MW gen MW gen MW line gen MW line gen MW CTs on line 3, % 3, % 3, % 3, % 3,320 Shift timing of generation from Storage % % % % 350 Shift timing of generation from Hydro 5,760 15% % % % 1,152 Add off-line CTs in system Total resources available for ramping 5,275 5,341 5,315 5,376 Need to reduce base load unit generation to balance increases at CTs (X MW)

14 Sample Results Generation Reduction for Load/Resource Balance Reduce Generation at Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 System Base Load Generators Gen A Gen B Gen C Results Facilities Summer Net Peak (8-9 p.m.); Load = 95% of Summer Peak, 0 DER Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 110% 488 MW 112.4% 475 MW 111.2% 475 MW 110.2% 464 MW Line 2 (Loss of Line 1) 104.6% 465 MW 107% 453 MW 106.8% 453 MW 104.9% 444 MW 14

15 Load Serving Capability impacted by Dispatch 5000 Load Forecast with and W/ and W/0 DER Load (MW) % Load & 0% DER 100% Load &100% DER 95% Load & 0% DER 95% Load & 100% DER 90% Load & 0% DER 90% Load &100% DER Load Serving Capability Load Serving Capability Scenario Year 15

16 Alternatives 1. Build a new line between Bus 1 and Bus 2 2. Reconductor Line 1 and Line 2 3. Install series reactors on Line 1 and Line 2 4. Install fast acting storage facilities at Bus 2 and Bus 3 and/or Energy Efficiency in Load Center Gen B 5. Rerate Line 1 and Line 2 6. Install RAS to increase generation at Gen C 7. Install RAS to shed up to 75 MW of load within the local network per Attachment 1 and Footnote 12 of TPL Install M-FACTS devices that are scalable and redeployable Bus 4 Bus 5 Gen C Gen A Bus 2 Bus 3 Bus 1 Overloaded Line 110 kv Line 220 kv Line Line flow 16

17 Possible M-FACTS Deployment Load level DER on line Problems % SP 95% SP 90% SP 0% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 106% 119% 121% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) 101% 113% 115% # of D-FACTS Devices % DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 98% 103% 104% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) 93% 97% 98% # of D-FACTS Devices n/a % DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 96% 104% 106% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <97% 98% 101% # of D-FACTS Devices n/a % DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 95% 96% 96% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <96% 92% 92% # of D-FACTS Devices n/a n/a n/a 0% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) <96% 96% <98% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <97% <98% 95% # of D-FACTS Devices n/a n/a 100% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) <95% 89% 88% Line 2(Loss of Line 1) <96% <92% 86% # of D-FACTS Devices n/a n/a n/a Redispatch for Ramping (Scenario 1) 0% DER Line 1 (Loss of Line 2) 110% 95% SP Line 2(Loss of Line 1) 105% # of D-FACTS Devices 51 Based on this study, recommend installing 51 devices in 2018, and re-study in

18 Questions? 18