Renewable Planning and Operations Conference€¦ · 2018 Strategic Directions Re-port on Electric...

Denver Marriott South at Park MeadowsLone Tree, CO

October 17-18, 2018

Renewable Planning and Operations Conference

Instructed by:Theodore (Ted) Burhans, Director, Emerging Technology and and Innovations, Tucson Electric Power

Robert Mechler, Director, T&D Project Development and Regional General Manager, Black & Veatch Corp. David Penney, Sr. Principal Engineer, Texas Reliability Entity

Byron Woertz, Manager, System Adequacy Planning, Western Electricity Coordinating Council Anna Lundin, Sr. Project Manager, Environmental; Business Class Lead, HDR

Cody Sickler, Engineer II (Power System Planning), Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association Elizabeth Waldren, P.E., Renewable Energy Consultant, Black & Veatch Corp.

Rod Fisher, Principal Project Manager, Gateway Transmission, PacifiCorp Jeffrey Plew, Director of Development, NextEra Energy Resources

RMEL ~ 6855 S. Havana, Ste 430 ~ Centennial, CO 80112 ~ (303) 865-5544 ~ FAX: (303) 865-5548 ~ www.RMEL.org

WiFi InformationNetwork: Marriott_ConferencePassword: RMEL2018

Wednesday, October 17,

20188:00-8:15 a.m.Welcome and Introductions

8:15-9:00 a.m.Renewable Planning for Generation Theodore (Ted) Burhans, Director, Emerging Technology and Innovations, Tucson Electric PowerTucson Electric Power has had continual year-over-year growth of solar DG adoption since the late 2000s. In addi-tion, it is on track to achieve 30% of its energy needs from renewable resources by 2030. TEP will present on what some of the acute sys-tem impacts and integration challenges are from variable generation; as well as what it sees as the long-term issues from high solar and wind deployment.

9:00-9:45 a.m.The New Power Grid: Obligations in the ERA of ChangeRobert Mechler, Director, T&D Project Development and Regional GM, Black & VeatchThe presentation will cover a brief history of the electric power industry from its earliest beginnings into the past 40 years where new market drivers have started to change how we see the power grid, but not neces-sarily changed our focus on having a reliable system. The presentation will draw some conclusions from the 2018 Strategic Directions Re-port on Electric Power which Black & Veatch assembles annually from a national survey of the electric power industry.

9:45-10:00 a.m.Networking Break

10:00-10:45 a.m.Operational Considerations for Integration of RenewablesDavid Penney, Sr. Principal Engineer, Texas Reliability EntityInverter-based renewable generation has much dif-ferent performance charac-teristics than synchronous machines. Integrating re-newables in large quantities into the bulk power system requires an understanding of how these inverter-based machines can affect system performance, including frequency control, primary frequency response, system inertia, ramping, voltage ride-through, and system dynamic performance. This presentation will present a high level view of how these issues are being addressed in ERCOT.

10:45-11:30 a.m.Renewable Integration and Other Reliability Assessments 2016-2019Byron Woertz, Manager, System Adequacy Planning, WECCWECC developed a study program for 2016-2017 to evaluate potential future reli-ability risks associated with the changing resource mix, possible changes to loads and transmission topology. The presentation will review the results of the 2016-2017 Study Program as well as the reliability assessment ap-proach and themes currently being considered for the 2018-2019 Study Program.

11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.Morning Recap and Discussion

12:00-1:00 p.m.Networking Lunch

1:00-1:45 p.m.Identifying and Addressing Environmental Constraints in the Federal Permitting ProcessAnna Lundin, Sr. Project Manager, Environmental Business Class Lead, HDRAddressing a federal nexus in siting and permitting of renewable energy projects can often create unan-ticipated project delays and expenses. This presentation reviews lessons learned on how to move a project through the federal review process more efficiently by identifying and resolving potential environmental constraints early in the plan-ning process, based on the federal permitting processes of four recent renewable en-ergy generation projects in the Rocky Mountain region. The potential constraints to be reviewed include early identification of environmen-tal issues ranging from eagle take, sage-grouse impacts, and potential air space violations; development of reasonable alternatives to satisfy requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and, addressing emerging and evolving federal regulations and associated case law as early as possible in the environmental permitting process, including the recent establishment of Executive Order 13807 and Department of Interior Secretarial Order 3355, both aimed at stream-lining federal infrastructure decisions.

1:45-2:30 p.m. San Luis Valley: Non-Transmission AlternativesCody Sickler, Engineer II (Power System Planning), Tri-State Generation & Transmission AssociationThis presentation will give an overview of Tri-State’s evalu-ation of Non-Transmission Alternatives to mitigate reliability issues in the San

Luis Valley (located in south-central Colorado). Under heavy loading, a loss of the 230kV line serving the valley results in voltage collapse and load shedding. The identified solution is to build a second 230kV line into the valley, however this is high cost project (60+ miles) and there are several land rights issues. As an alternative to a second 230kV line, this study evaluated the use of energy storage (with a focus on battery storage) to serve the load in the valley follow-ing an outage of the existing 230kV source. This covers battery sizing using a sta-tistical analysis of daily load and solar generation curves as well as a cost analysis.

2:30-2:45 p.m.Networking Break

2:45-3:00 p.m.Attendee AnnouncementsAny registered attendee is invited to make a short announcement on their com-pany, new products, tech-nologies or informational updates. Announcements may include showing a prod-uct sample but not videos and power point slides. Please limit announcement to 5 minutes.

3:00-4:30 p.m.Roundtable Discussion

Thursday October 18,

20188:00 a.m. - 8:45 a.m.Benefits of Pairing BESS with RenewablesElizabeth Waldren, P.E., Renewable Energy Consultant, Black & VeatchThis presentation will begin with an introduction of energy storage technologies including a brief overview of the technical concept, benefit and challenges of batteries: lithium-ion, flow,

CONFERENCE AgENdA*Visit www.RMEL.org for the latest topic and

speaker information.

Thank You RMEL Transmission Committee

Thank You RMEL Generation CommitteeCHAIR

Curt BrownAssociate Vice President,

Retrofit and Plant Betterment, Power Genera-

tion ServicesBlack & Veatch Corp.

VICE CHAIRTom Wos

Regulatory Program Administrator

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Assn.

David ArandaNewman Plant Manager

El Paso Electric Company

Matt FergusonVP, Power & Energy Section

ManagerHDR, Inc.

Jeff KruseCPS Energy

Sr. Director - Coal Gen-eration Operations │ Power

Generation

Gary RuhlManager, Fuels & Technical

ServicesOmaha Public Power District

Ed Seal Arizona Public Service

Richard ThreetDirector, Power Generation

PNM Resources

Kellen WaltersRegional Sales DirectorMitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc.

and zinc based electro-chemistries. An update will be provided on recently announced and installed renewable + storage projects in the US. The presentation will explore benefits of pairing renewable genera-tion with batteries in terms of land use, transmission interconnection, and grid services / use cases.

8:45-9:30 a.m.PacifiCorp’s Energy Vision 2020Rod Fisher, Principal Project Manager, Gateway Transmission, PacifiCorpPacifiCorp’s Energy Vision 2020 is a $3 billion invest-ment in 1150 MW of new wind in Wyoming, repower-ing approximately 900 MW (648 MW in Wyoming) of existing wind projects, and constructing 191 miles of new high voltage transmission lines in Wyoming. These investments stem from the Company’s 2017 Integrated Resource Plan as the least risk, least cost option to serve our 1.9 million custom-ers into the future. These projects are planned to be in-service before December 31, 2020 to qualify for 100% of the Production Tax Credits.

9:30-9:45 a.m.Networking Break

9:45-10:30 a.m.Battery Storage: The “Swiss Army Knife” of the GridJeffrey Plew, Director of Development, NextEra Energy ResourcesAs battery costs continue to decline and energy markets evolve, opportunities to apply energy storage on the T&D grid in an economic manner are becoming more prevalent. As a flexible resource, energy storage can provide a variety of different services to the grid. This session will includes an over-view of the concept of “Use-Case Stacking” and where future opportunities might arise as a result of FERC or-ders 841 and 845, as well as a review of several different battery storage projects in operation that demonstrate use case stacking in both traditional vertical utilities as well as those in ISO markets.

10:30-11:30 a.m.Roundtable Discussion

CHAIRAngela Piner

VPHDR, Inc.

VICE CHAIRAna Bustamante

Director, T&D EngineeringUNS Energy Corporation

Scott BayerManaging Engineer,

Substation Relay Engineering

Austin Energy

Jedd FischerSenior Project Manager Nebraska Public Power

District

Chad KinsleyElectric T&D Engineering

Manager Black Hills Corporation

Chris KochManager, Substation

EngineeringKansas City Power & Light

Keith NixVP, Technical Services and

System ReliabilityTexas New Mexico Power

Mike PfeisterManager of Scheduling &

Reliability ServicesSRP

Chris PinkTechnical Services and Bulk

Systems Planning Mgr. Tri-State Generation & Trans-

mission Association

John QuintanaTransmission Asset

Maintenance ManagerWestern Area Power

Administration

CHAIRBill Galloway

Colorado Springs UtilitiesStandards Managing

Engineer

VICE CHAIRJoshua Jones

PacifiCorpDirector, Distribution

Standards and Engineering Publications

Andy AlexanderKansas City Power & Light

Manager, T&D Central Design

Steve DuranSRP

Engineer

Thank You RMEL Distribution Committee

Brent GerlingKansas City Power & Light

Engineer IV – Central Design

Travis JohnsonXcel Energy

Electric Standards Manager

Danny McReynoldsAustin Energy

Power System Engineer Sr.

Frank SandersonArizona Public Service

Manager, Metro Distribution Maintenance

RENEWABLE PLANNING AND OPERATIONS CONFERENCERenewable Integration: RMEL Member Best Practices, Case

Studies, Strategies and Experiences

Renewable Planning for Generation

Theodore (Ted) Burhans Director, Emerging Technology and Innovations

Tucson Electric Power

Tucson Electric PowerTED BURHANS

DIREC TOR, EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATIONRMEL , OC TOBER 17, 2018

Who & Why?

Tucson Electric Power• ~420,000 customer over

1,000 square miles• Vertically integrated• Balancing Authority for

TEP, UNSE, and others

Arizona Corporation Commission

Arizona Renewable Energy Standard• Annual renewable goals increase 1%

each year to 15% in 2025• 8% in 2018

• At least 30% of total from distributed generation

• One of the highest in the nation

TEP’s Commitment

• TEP plans to reach 30% by 2030

• Planned additions of 800-1000 MW over next 10 years

• 1,000 MW Winter / 2,500 MW Summer

TEP Utility-Scale Renewable Portfolio

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

GWh

Solar Wind

*Does not include DG

Diversifying TEP’s Resource Portfolio

36%

34%

30%

2014 2017 2023 2032

Energy MixCoal Natural Gas & Purch. Power Renewables & Energy Efficiency

20%

30%

16%

TEP and Renewables

• Roughly 350 MW Utility-Scale Wind and Solar

• Additional 355 MW over the next 2 ½ years

5

• 270 MW Residential and Commercial Distributed Generation (DG)– Additional ~70 MW in 2017

620 MW Total

Annual Installations

6

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Num

ber o

f Ins

talla

tions

Annual Residential Solar Installations

# of Installs In Progress

Installation Distribution

7

250

8

Acute Integration Issues

Solar Production

9

Operator Challenges From Intermittancy

10Causes NERC Area Control Error (Load Matching Generation) Havic

Renewable Energy Forecasting

11

Types of Forecasting• Advanced Numerical Modeling

• Prediction based on intense iterative modeling• Lots of computing power

• Satellite Imagery• Watching clouds and predicting cloud behavior (space down)

• Irradiance/Velocimetric Model• Watching clouds and predicting cloud behavior (ground up)

TEP Energy Storage Projects

• As of EOY 2016 TEP had ≈5% of the grid-scale energy storage capacity in U.S

• Provide frequency and voltage support for local distribution grid

1. NextEra Energy Resources• 10MW lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt

battery, 15 minute duration (2.5 MWh)• DeMoss-Petrie Substation

2. E.On Climate & Renewables• 10MW lithium Titanate oxide battery, 15

minute duration (2.5 MWh)• Combined with 2 MW Solar PV• U of A Science and Tech Park

Next Era’s Pima Energy Storage System (PESS)

E.On C&R’s Iron Horse Energy Storage System

EPRI – Resource Aggregation and Integration Network (Project RAIN)

• Purpose• The state of the industry with respect to Distributed Energy Resource (DER)

aggregation • The real-world capabilities of individual DER as well as groups• Potential for customer engagement in supporting the grid• Practical challenges of communication and coordination• Future strategies for applying DER management to TEP grid operations

• What is a DERMS?• Command translation among disparate protocols• Aggregates many resources into smaller set of control points• Reduces overall instructions group to a usable size• Optimizes commands fairly efficiently influence controlled devices

14

DERMS Architecture

15

About the Demonstration

Project Includes:• Commercial PV• Residential PV• Battery Storage• Grid-Interactive Water Heating• Smart Thermostats• Electric Vehicle Charging

About the Demonstration:• Field testing beginning Fall 2018• Results available Summer 2019

17

Grid-Scale Integration Issues

TEP’s Solar Coaster

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

Hour

30% Target

2030 Winter/Spring Day

Existing Solar (8% of 2030 Target)

15% of 2030 Target

Reduced Thermal Unit Minimums

Thermal Unit Ramp UpThermal Unit Ramp Down

No Peak Contribution

TEP Coal minimum(reduced with retirements)

Flexible Generation Resources

• Gila River Power Station• 2 Units Natural Gas Combined Cycle• Backstop for coal plant retirements• Low cost, efficient, fast-ramping resources• $300/kW purchase price

• Natural Gas Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE)• Fast-ramping resource for renewable

integration (starts in 2 minutes, full load in 5 minutes)

• Low water consumption• ~56 million gallons to <1,000 gallons

• 200 MW online in 2019

Future…

• 100 MW Wind – COD mid-2020• NextEra Energy Resources• New Mexico wind• Existing Transmission Capacity

• 100 MW Solar + 30 MW Energy Storage – COD end of 2020• NextEra Energy Resources• Sub-$30 per MWh for solar energy• 4-hour duration storage

• Wind RFP• 150 MW New Mexico wind• ~47% capacity factor• Complements solar production

20

Future…

• Energy Storage Task Force• Identifying use cases for future storage up to ~70 MW• Solutions looking for problems• Batteries can do a lot of things, but only 1 or 2 really well

• Arizona Energy Modernization Plan• 80% Clean Resources by 2050• 3,000 MW of storage

• Batteries, pumped, compressed air, etc.• 2,000 pumped-storage hydro in development – Big Chino

• Biomass• 50,000 acres per year ~60 MW per year

• Electric Vehicles• Revamped Energy Efficiency

• NextGen Constitutional Ballot Initiative (Proposition 127)• 50% by 2030• 20% Distributed Generation carve-out

21

Thank you!

[email protected]

Operational Considerations for Integration of Renewables

David Penney Sr. Principal Engineer Texas Reliability Entity

David Penney, P.E., CISSPSenior Principal Engineer

Texas Reliability Entity, Inc.

Operational Considerations for Integration of Renewables

Meeting Title Date

2

RMEL Renewables Planning and Operations ConferenceOctober 17-18, 2018

Agenda

● ERCOT Operational considerations for integration of renewable generation

Renewable generation growth in ERCOT Inertia Frequency Control and Frequency Response Ramping Voltage Ride Through Other Dynamic Issues

3

Introduction


● Separate electric interconnection located entirely within the state of Texas

● Operates as a single Balancing Authority and Reliability Coordinator area

● 25 million Texas customers● 90 percent of the state's electric load● Covers approximately 200,000 square miles● 46,500 miles of transmission lines● More than 600 generation units● All-time peak of 73,264 MW in July 2018● Energy-only market with diverse

membership

4


Renewable Generation in ERCOT

As of Aug 1, 2018Wind - 21,190 MW

- 2,621 MW Coastal wind- 18,569 MW non-Coastal

Solar – 1,487 MW

Projected by 2020Wind – 28,457 MWSolar – 2,816 MWBased on signed IA’s with financial security posted

5


Historical Renewable Generation Growth

6


Historical Renewable Generation Growth

7




Agenda

8


Inertia Background

● System Inertia – tendency of the system to maintain 60hz during a disruption without any resource response

● Inertia of various system resources: Synchronous machines – mechanical motion, proper

speed Wind – mechanical motion, low and variable speed Solar – no mechanical motion

● In ERCOT, inertia can be correlated to load and wind gen: MW-Seconds or MW*s Inertia = function of synch machines & characteristics No. synch machines = function(load, wind gen)

9


Inertia Background

● Power Converters allow wind generator speed and system frequency to be decoupled More efficient Most of modern wind turbines are Type 3 and 4

• Type 3 - Doubly Fed Induction Generator • Type 4 - Full Converter Generator

● Synthetic Inertia (other terms: emulated inertia, wind inertia …) Electronic Power Converters Almost instantaneous adjustment of electrical torque (a few cycles) Not natural inertial response – controlled vs uncontrolled If electronics lost, inertia is lost Actually a frequency response , Energy available is limited and

cannot be sustained, unless coupled with storage or load

10


Inertia vs Renewable Generation %

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Renewable Generation as a % of Load vs Inertia (MW-sec) Critical Inertia level for ERCOT is approximately 100 GW-sec (noted by red dashed line)

Interpolating the slope of the regression line leads to the conclusion that ERCOT can manage 60-65% renewable penetration before the critical inertia level is reached

11


Inertia vs Time of Year

Inertia (MW-Sec)360,000352,000344,000336,000328,000320,000312,000304,000296,000288,000280,000272,000264,000256,000248,000240,000232,000224,000216,000208,000200,000192,000184,000176,000168,000160,000152,000144,000136,000

Hour Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec0 1 8 2 1 3 6 .8 7 8 1 1 6 4 8 3 7 .4 2 1 1 6 6 0 0 3 .4 8 8 1 1 7 0 0 6 1 .9 1 7 2 1 8 7 4 3 1 .2 4 8 1 2 4 4 6 8 7 .1 8 0 7 2 7 6 8 2 9 .9 6 5 2 7 4 6 6 5 .0 8 1 4 2 2 2 4 7 3 .2 9 8 1 1 8 8 0 9 6 .9 2 4 2 1 7 1 9 9 3 .7 7 1 4 2 0 6 3 0 8 .7 5 8 5

1 1 8 1 1 7 8 .1 0 3 9 1 6 3 1 5 1 .2 4 0 3 1 6 3 8 9 1 .9 8 1 7 1 6 4 3 7 6 .0 5 1 2 1 8 3 2 7 7 .5 4 8 2 4 0 1 2 3 .9 6 0 4 2 7 1 9 9 3 .9 0 9 8 2 7 1 0 9 3 .4 8 0 4 2 1 9 0 1 8 .9 4 6 6 1 8 5 6 3 2 .1 2 3 9 1 7 0 5 5 3 .6 0 3 2 0 4 9 9 4 .5 7 2 3

2 1 8 2 0 7 1 .2 3 4 3 1 6 3 8 0 0 .4 9 0 4 1 6 3 9 3 4 .1 8 4 9 1 6 4 3 3 2 .9 7 4 7 1 8 3 2 5 2 .5 8 7 5 2 3 9 4 8 3 .3 4 7 6 2 7 1 5 3 1 .7 5 9 2 7 0 7 1 4 .5 9 5 6 2 1 8 8 0 0 .3 9 0 2 1 8 5 8 0 4 .5 9 0 4 1 7 0 6 6 1 .1 5 8 3 2 0 5 9 6 3 .4 1 6 6

3 1 8 4 4 3 1 .1 9 6 6 1 6 5 7 1 9 .8 4 6 1 1 6 6 0 4 2 .6 4 6 1 1 6 5 5 7 3 .0 3 6 1 1 8 3 9 9 0 .5 0 9 4 2 3 9 6 5 5 .4 6 0 4 2 7 1 3 2 7 .4 3 2 2 7 0 9 5 3 .0 1 4 9 2 1 8 9 5 6 .6 3 4 5 1 8 6 4 3 6 .7 9 4 8 1 7 2 1 9 6 .3 6 3 1 2 0 7 8 8 7 .2 3 5 5

4 1 9 0 5 5 7 .0 4 5 1 1 7 2 2 7 2 .5 6 4 5 1 7 1 9 4 7 .7 2 8 1 6 9 1 7 9 .5 3 4 1 1 8 6 6 0 2 .6 3 9 7 2 4 1 3 3 9 .2 8 0 7 2 7 1 5 6 3 .4 3 4 6 2 7 1 5 7 4 .0 8 7 2 2 1 0 0 7 .4 2 7 1 1 8 9 5 6 9 .1 9 2 1 1 7 6 0 6 1 .4 7 6 9 2 1 3 8 0 2 .0 9 8 3

5 2 0 1 0 1 9 .0 4 5 4 1 8 5 5 6 3 .0 2 9 6 1 8 2 4 9 4 .7 9 8 7 1 7 7 1 6 1 .7 6 6 9 1 9 5 0 6 9 .9 6 2 7 2 4 8 2 0 0 .7 5 4 7 2 7 3 7 1 8 .2 5 1 5 2 7 3 4 0 7 .2 7 7 7 2 2 5 6 5 4 .3 0 3 1 9 8 3 0 4 .7 8 9 5 1 8 6 5 2 5 .5 0 9 6 2 2 5 5 3 7 .5 8 9 4

6 2 0 5 7 4 1 .3 2 3 6 1 9 2 7 2 5 .2 5 2 3 1 8 9 3 6 2 .8 7 2 8 1 8 2 2 4 6 .2 4 0 5 2 0 3 9 5 2 .7 6 4 1 2 5 7 0 0 3 .3 7 6 2 7 8 4 8 5 .0 5 1 7 2 7 5 7 9 6 .1 7 1 4 2 2 9 8 9 3 .2 0 4 1 2 0 4 2 5 9 .8 7 5 9 1 9 3 1 3 2 .1 6 2 2 2 3 0 6 9 1 .0 8 6 9

7 2 0 7 3 1 6 .8 9 7 7 1 9 5 5 5 7 .9 8 6 5 1 9 3 3 4 1 .9 0 0 2 1 8 7 3 8 5 .9 0 8 4 2 1 0 5 0 9 .5 8 2 5 2 6 5 2 2 7 .7 6 4 8 2 8 5 2 6 3 .0 2 3 8 2 8 1 1 1 7 .1 3 2 8 2 3 6 3 6 9 .0 6 0 6 2 0 8 8 3 0 .3 6 3 1 1 9 7 3 1 7 .5 8 2 1 2 3 2 7 1 4 .6 3 1 9

8 2 0 8 8 2 5 .1 1 6 3 1 9 8 4 1 9 .1 4 4 2 1 9 7 5 1 2 .5 4 4 7 1 9 3 4 2 9 .7 1 7 9 2 1 8 5 3 4 .3 4 8 6 2 7 7 0 3 6 .7 3 6 8 2 9 5 5 7 1 .7 6 4 2 9 0 2 8 1 .7 6 1 9 2 4 7 2 0 9 .9 2 0 8 2 1 7 4 2 5 .2 6 2 1 2 0 1 4 7 7 .1 5 5 5 2 3 4 4 3 1 .4 8 1 3

9 2 1 0 1 6 9 .1 2 0 5 2 0 1 0 5 8 .0 5 0 5 2 0 1 3 1 6 .5 7 8 7 1 9 9 6 2 3 .7 2 5 9 2 2 7 2 0 8 .0 7 0 5 2 8 9 7 7 9 .6 4 3 7 3 0 9 0 1 6 .9 6 2 2 3 0 2 0 9 3 .1 6 9 3 2 6 0 9 8 2 .7 2 1 4 2 2 4 7 9 0 .2 8 8 6 2 0 6 0 3 2 .0 4 1 6 2 3 5 8 4 7 .5 6 8 7

10 2 1 0 5 6 3 .5 9 0 1 2 0 2 7 5 4 .6 2 7 2 2 0 6 3 0 8 .4 8 0 4 2 0 5 8 8 9 .5 2 2 4 2 3 6 3 8 6 .8 5 6 6 3 0 0 0 3 9 .5 6 4 6 3 2 1 6 3 2 .4 8 0 5 3 1 2 2 7 8 .1 4 2 3 2 7 7 2 9 9 .4 5 8 3 2 3 2 4 4 8 .5 6 8 4 2 1 0 3 5 6 .0 7 7 2 3 7 0 8 7 .1 3 7 4

11 2 0 9 6 1 8 .2 9 2 0 4 1 2 2 .1 9 3 1 2 0 9 2 6 0 .6 1 6 1 2 1 1 4 3 4 .9 2 2 9 2 4 4 4 3 5 .3 4 8 8 3 0 7 6 3 3 .6 1 4 6 3 3 1 2 2 8 .7 2 2 7 3 1 9 3 1 7 .7 4 5 8 2 8 7 1 6 3 .5 9 0 9 2 3 8 3 7 0 .9 2 1 3 6 0 2 .5 8 2 2 2 3 7 0 1 4 .9 5 0 1

12 2 0 9 1 9 3 .8 0 4 7 2 0 4 7 4 1 .1 7 7 1 2 1 1 2 9 2 .5 1 5 5 2 1 6 1 7 3 .7 0 5 5 2 4 9 3 5 4 .5 8 2 7 3 1 2 7 7 1 .4 8 7 7 3 3 8 1 9 0 .8 2 2 7 3 2 4 0 3 7 .1 3 0 4 2 9 3 7 6 4 .7 0 7 6 2 4 2 9 3 5 .4 1 9 6 2 1 6 1 5 3 .2 7 5 3 2 3 6 5 3 0 .9 2 3 8

13 2 0 9 4 8 2 .6 0 6 1 2 0 5 1 7 7 .7 2 6 1 2 1 3 0 8 4 .5 3 8 1 2 1 8 7 5 7 .3 7 4 9 2 5 2 1 0 6 .8 8 4 5 3 1 6 1 5 3 .4 5 5 5 3 4 2 3 9 3 .3 6 4 2 3 2 7 4 0 2 .1 1 6 2 9 7 2 7 7 .5 3 0 5 2 4 6 7 2 2 .1 7 8 3 2 1 7 8 8 8 .0 0 6 3 2 3 6 5 3 8 .0 3 9 4

14 2 1 0 6 6 4 .8 7 7 8 2 0 6 2 9 7 .1 6 6 1 2 1 3 6 7 3 .3 0 5 9 2 2 0 6 1 1 .0 5 6 7 2 5 4 6 8 7 .1 1 2 6 3 1 8 2 8 6 .0 4 5 2 3 4 4 3 9 1 .1 3 1 8 3 2 9 8 0 4 .7 0 3 9 2 9 9 2 9 5 .8 7 0 1 2 4 8 8 5 6 .5 4 7 2 1 9 1 3 5 .4 4 7 2 3 7 5 2 7 .4 2 2 8

15 2 1 2 3 4 4 .8 4 5 9 2 0 6 9 6 2 .9 5 0 2 2 1 3 5 0 7 .0 1 5 4 2 2 2 1 8 3 .6 9 0 7 2 5 6 0 4 2 .7 9 1 5 3 1 9 4 7 4 .5 5 0 5 3 4 5 5 4 3 .5 7 2 6 3 3 0 9 0 5 .2 0 3 8 3 0 0 3 6 1 .2 8 5 6 2 4 9 6 5 8 .7 9 3 4 2 1 9 9 3 2 .3 0 4 1 2 3 9 4 1 5 .9 3 4 2

16 2 1 3 6 2 8 .6 0 2 2 0 7 1 7 4 .2 5 9 2 2 1 3 8 3 9 .5 8 5 8 2 2 2 6 6 6 .9 8 6 7 2 5 6 8 5 5 .7 4 8 7 3 1 9 5 0 7 .5 6 3 7 3 4 5 6 1 1 .4 4 5 8 3 3 1 1 4 7 .1 0 1 8 3 0 0 5 4 7 .5 3 2 2 2 5 0 1 6 7 .8 3 1 3 2 2 0 3 5 7 .8 6 9 2 4 0 6 6 1 .7 4 7 7

17 2 1 4 1 4 4 .3 6 7 5 2 0 7 5 4 3 .4 0 8 2 1 3 8 2 7 .8 6 2 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 .5 8 0 8 2 5 6 3 7 9 .5 3 9 3 1 8 3 7 9 .7 5 9 1 3 4 4 3 2 6 .4 9 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 5 .0 5 7 6 2 9 9 3 8 6 .9 5 6 2 2 4 9 9 8 4 .7 5 8 5 2 2 0 6 1 9 .1 7 0 1 2 4 1 3 8 9 .6 9 9 8

18 2 1 3 9 6 1 .4 8 3 4 2 0 7 5 6 2 .3 1 1 2 1 3 0 3 3 .3 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 2 .7 4 8 2 5 3 8 9 7 .4 0 9 2 3 1 4 8 0 1 .5 7 9 8 3 4 0 0 9 2 .1 2 8 5 3 2 6 7 0 1 .6 6 2 9 2 9 6 1 0 9 .3 1 6 7 2 4 7 9 5 1 .6 6 2 9 2 1 9 9 5 4 .6 9 9 4 2 4 1 9 4 3 .8 7 5

19 2 1 1 3 6 2 .9 8 4 2 2 0 4 9 1 9 .3 8 5 3 2 1 1 0 5 2 .8 2 3 2 2 1 9 1 1 3 .4 3 9 5 2 4 9 3 9 5 .9 3 7 1 3 0 9 1 9 6 .5 0 6 8 3 3 4 4 7 0 .9 1 8 3 3 2 2 6 8 8 .6 9 6 7 2 9 0 2 1 9 .1 6 9 6 2 4 4 0 1 7 .9 8 7 2 2 1 5 5 2 3 .0 8 3 2 2 4 0 2 4 8 .5 9 9 8

20 2 0 6 9 2 3 .4 6 4 3 1 9 8 6 8 2 .5 8 7 3 2 0 7 6 8 0 .6 1 5 3 2 1 7 7 5 1 .9 4 9 9 2 4 5 1 6 0 .6 1 7 8 3 0 2 1 9 3 .7 6 9 6 3 2 8 0 3 8 .8 7 2 2 3 1 8 0 2 9 .7 5 3 1 2 8 3 5 3 2 .0 4 0 3 2 3 7 0 2 1 .7 7 1 5 2 0 7 7 8 3 .2 3 7 4 2 3 6 9 2 4 .9 0 9 3

21 2 0 2 0 4 7 .2 1 4 1 9 2 1 7 7 .7 5 4 2 2 0 0 0 8 5 .3 3 0 9 2 1 1 2 6 9 .4 7 4 4 2 3 8 1 2 0 .3 2 2 1 2 9 3 1 3 4 .2 3 3 4 3 2 0 0 1 7 .4 3 3 2 3 0 9 8 8 1 .6 6 7 7 2 6 9 6 4 0 .4 6 8 4 2 2 6 5 2 9 .5 2 7 4 1 9 9 6 6 4 .4 5 9 2 2 3 2 3 8 3 .0 8 8 4

22 1 9 3 1 8 9 .1 7 2 7 1 8 0 2 2 2 .0 3 1 5 1 8 5 0 7 5 .0 6 6 8 1 9 6 4 6 6 .2 6 1 2 1 9 5 3 0 .3 8 6 7 2 7 6 2 9 5 .0 4 0 5 3 0 5 4 1 6 .9 3 0 2 2 9 5 6 4 0 .4 1 8 6 2 5 0 0 7 4 .0 1 8 2 2 1 1 8 5 4 .0 0 2 7 1 8 7 5 4 0 .8 3 3 7 2 2 4 4 8 4 .2 8 4 2

23 1 8 6 8 5 8 .6 2 3 2 1 7 0 7 6 9 .4 2 7 2 1 7 3 8 0 0 .7 8 2 8 1 8 3 5 7 6 .8 1 3 3 2 0 0 9 3 9 .2 5 6 7 2 5 7 7 7 7 .7 7 3 1 2 8 8 8 4 9 .8 1 0 4 2 8 2 0 6 2 .2 7 4 1 2 3 1 8 7 7 .1 2 5 1 1 9 7 6 2 5 .4 3 2 5 1 7 8 1 9 0 .7 9 4 5 2 1 6 6 2 1 .2 3 8 4

A heat map graph of 2017 inertia levels shows the weakest inertia time periods are HE 01, 02, 03, and 04 during the shoulder months of February, March, April, and November.

12


Monitoring/Maintaining Critical Inertia (Day Ahead)

Hour Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Reserves1 2 9 2 0 3 2 0 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 2 9 5 7 2 5 6 5 2 5 0 7 2 5 0 7 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5 32002 2 9 2 0 3 2 0 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 2 9 5 7 2 5 6 5 2 5 0 7 2 5 0 7 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5

3 2 9 2 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 0 0 6 2 6 1 4 2 5 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5 31004 2 9 2 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 0 0 6 2 6 1 4 2 5 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5

5 2 9 2 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 0 0 6 2 6 1 4 2 5 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5

6 2 9 2 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 3 0 0 6 2 6 1 4 2 5 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5 30007 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 5 7 3 0 0 6 2 8 2 3 2 5 2 8 2 4 4 0 2 4 4 0 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 7 2 2 9 0 5

8 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 5 7 3 0 0 6 2 8 2 3 2 5 2 8 2 4 4 0 2 4 4 0 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 7 2 2 9 0 5 29009 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 5 7 3 0 0 6 2 8 2 3 2 5 2 8 2 4 4 0 2 4 4 0 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 7 2 2 9 0 5

10 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 5 7 3 0 0 6 2 8 2 3 2 5 2 8 2 4 4 0 2 4 4 0 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 7 2 2 9 0 5

11 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 0 5 2 3 0 0 2 3 7 3 2 4 4 0 2 6 6 5 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2 280012 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 0 5 2 3 0 0 2 3 7 3 2 4 4 0 2 6 6 5 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2

13 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 0 5 2 3 0 0 2 3 7 3 2 4 4 0 2 6 6 5 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2 270014 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 0 5 2 3 0 0 2 3 7 3 2 4 4 0 2 6 6 5 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2

15 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 8 6 6 2 5 9 5 2 3 7 3 2 3 0 0 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2

16 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 8 6 6 2 5 9 5 2 3 7 3 2 3 0 0 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2 260017 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 8 6 6 2 5 9 5 2 3 7 3 2 3 0 0 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2

18 2 7 7 2 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 8 6 6 2 5 9 5 2 3 7 3 2 3 0 0 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 6 1 4 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2 250019 2 8 1 6 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 4 6 6 2 7 4 7 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2

20 2 8 1 6 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 4 6 6 2 7 4 7 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2

21 2 8 1 6 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 4 6 6 2 7 4 7 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2 240022 2 8 1 6 2 9 5 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 6 5 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 4 0 5 2 4 6 6 2 7 4 7 2 8 4 2 2 8 4 2

23 2 9 2 0 3 2 0 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 2 9 5 7 2 5 6 5 2 5 0 7 2 5 0 7 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5

24 2 9 2 0 3 2 0 0 3 1 5 0 3 1 5 0 2 9 5 7 2 5 6 5 2 5 0 7 2 5 0 7 2 6 6 5 2 9 0 5 2 9 8 5 2 9 8 5 2300

● Inertia levels forecasted in Day-Ahead studies● Additional frequency-responsive generation reserves are procured if low inertia

levels are forecasted

13


Monitoring/Maintaining Critical Inertia (Real-Time)

● Critical Inertia level for ERCOT ~ 100 GW-sec● Visual alarms when inertia gets close to critical

120 GW-sec >= Inertia Normal 120 GW-sec > Inertia >= 110 GW-s Yellow 110 GW-sec > Inertia >= 100 GW-s Orange 100 GW-sec < Inertia Red

● Take Action when system inertia < 105 GW-sec Possible Actions:

• Deploy Non-Spinning Reserve from Offline Generation Resources♦ ~4000 MW-sec inertia increment

• Deploy Quick Start Resources♦ ~6000 MW-sec inertia increment

• Order generation on-line that can be turned on within one hour

14




Agenda

15


Frequency Control

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

59.9

59.9

0559

.91

59.9

1559

.92

59.9

2559

.93

59.9

3559

.94

59.9

4559

.95

59.9

5559

.96

59.9

6559

.97

59.9

7559

.98

59.9

8559

.99

59.9

95 6060

.005

60.0

160

.015

60.0

260

.025

60.0

360

.035

60.0

460

.045

60.0

560

.055

60.0

660

.065

60.0

760

.075

60.0

860

.085

60.0

960

.095

60.1

2011 2017ERCOT Frequency Profile

0.017 Hz deadband

• In 2011, required maximum governor dead-band was 0.034 Hz

• Regional standard BAL-001-TRE went into effect 4/2015 and required all resources to have active governor dead-bands of 0.017 Hz

• Wind resources with active governor control rarely provide frequency response for low frequencies, but respond very well during high frequency deviations

16


Inertial Effect

Initial rate of change of frequency (RoCoF) prior to any resource response is solely a function of inertia

Source: Inertia Basic Concepts and Impacts on the ERCOT Grid, ERCOT Report, 2018

17


Inertial Effect

Higher Inertia

Lower Inertia


18


Modeled Inertia Effect on Frequency Response

Source: Frequency Response Study on ERCOT under High Photovoltaic Penetration Conditions, 2017, University of Tennessee-Knoxville

ERCOT frequency response after 1129MW generator trip

Metric Base case

20% 40% 60%

RoCoF (mHz/s) 100 110 140 200

Nadir (Hz) 59.67 59.62 59.44 59.26

Settling time (s) 15 20 23 25

Settling frequency (Hz)

59.77 59.71 59.55 59.43

Renewable Penetration

19


Measured RoCoF vs Inertia During Unit Trips

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000

Rate of Change of Frequency (RocoF) per GW vs Inertia (MW-s)

RoCo

F/GW

Inertia

Actual measured RoCoF vs Inertia during ERCOT large generator trips

20




Agenda

21


Wind vs Load

• Wind generation output typically moves in opposite direction from load (summer peak)• Balancing load & generation during morning/evening ramp periods becomes critical

22


Ramping - Wind

-12,000

-9,000

-6,000

-3,000

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Wind Ramping Example: July 22, 2018

Net Load Ramp Load Net Load Wind

Wind/Ramp MWLoad MW • Net Load up-ramp exceeds 6,000 MW per hour during morning load ramp

• Net Load down-ramp exceeds 6,000 MW per hour during evening hours

• Synchronous generation must be able to respond to these up & down ramps

23


Ramping - Solar

-1,000

-750

-500

-250

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Solar Ramping Example: April 15, 2018

Solar Ramp Load Net Load Solar

Load MW Solar/Ramp MW • Solar ramp more predictable than wind

• Ramp rate can approach 50% or more of total capacity in the hour

24


Large Ramp Alert System

• ERCOT Large Ramp Alert System (LRAS) forecasting tool for wind ramping

• Estimates probability for different ramp rates in 15-minute, 1-hour, and 3-hour horizons

25




Agenda

26


Voltage Ride Through

6400

6750

7100

7450

7800

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

60.05

4:55

4:56

4:57

4:58

4:59

5:00

5:01

5:02

5:03

5:04

5:05

5:06

5:07

5:08

5:09

5:10

Wind MW Loss and Frequency

Frequency Total Wind

• A 345 kV line fault caused a single-phase low voltage excursion• Lost 343 MW of wind generation across seven wind plants• PMU data - voltage oscillated between 0.78 and 1.07 per-unit for <0.5

seconds

27


Voltage Ride Through

2900

3050

3200

3350

3500

3650

3800

59.9

59.925

59.95

59.975

60

60.025

60.05

15:0

8

15:0

9

15:1

0

15:1

1

15:1

2

15:1

3

15:1

4

15:1

5

15:1

6

15:1

7

15:1

8

15:1

9

15:2

0

15:2

1

15:2

2

15:2

3

Wind MW Loss and Frequency

Frequency Total Wind

• A 138 kV line fault caused a low voltage excursion• Lost 404 MW of wind generation across six wind plants• Five wind plants were connected to the 345 kV transmission grid• PMU data from the 345 kV system - voltage oscillated between 0.84 and 1.09

per-unit for ~ 0.2 seconds

28


Voltage Ride Through Issues Noted

• Failure of Uninterruptible Power Supplies Clean power for critical aux controls: blade pitch, nacelle yaw, and brake control Power for SCADA, metering, and other controls Battery failures Environment-related (humidity, temperature, vibration) circuit board failures

• Failed Crowbar Components• “Smart Crowbar” hardware – not functioning properly

Without: ride-through voltage excursions limited to +/-10% of nom voltage• Ride-through Tolerance - insufficient for the magnitude of the voltage disturbance

capabilities ranged from: • Less than 0.80 per-unit for 0.08 to 0.2 seconds • Between 0.80 and 0.90 per-unit for up to 60 seconds

• NERC Lesson Learned LL20170701: Loss of Wind Turbines due to Transient Voltage Disturbances on the Bulk Transmission System

29



Renewable generation growth in ERCOT Inertia Frequency Control and Frequency Response Ramping Voltage Ride Through Dynamic Issues

Agenda

30


Dynamic Effects – Sub Synchronous Resonance

Aug 24, 2017• Sub-Synchronous oscillations

started after WGRs became radially connected to series capacitors

• Oscillation frequency: ~ 25.6 Hz

Source: ERCOT, South Texas SSR, Report to Reliability Operations Subcommittee, May 2018

Sept 27, 2017• Sub-Synchronous oscillations

started after WGRs became radially connected to series capacitors

• Oscillation frequency: ~22.5 Hz

31


Dynamic Effects Lessons Learned

• Interconnecting wind units at or near series capacitors requires detailed modeling and can pose reliability issues

• SSR/SSCI events were not easily observable Appeared to be a simple relay trip Requires high resolution measurements to detect PMUs are not suitable for detecting SSCI events

• Reproducing the disturbance requires detailed analysis Model adequacy and assumptions are critical

• Controller tuning is inherently difficult Wide variety of grid conditions and dispatch conditions May require controller re-design (not just a parameter change) Type III (DFIG) wind turbines - tend to be more vulnerable Rely more heavily on damping controllers

32


Summary

• The impact of integrating large amounts of renewable generation into the grid is becoming better understood

• The effect of lower system inertia can be mitigated by: Studies to determine the critical inertia level Procedures to take action when inertia approaches the critical level

• Ramping issues can be mitigated by: Forecasting tools to predict ramping limitations Procedures to take action in advance of large system ramps

• Ride-through and dynamic issues can be understood by: Detailed modeling of inverters and controllers High resolution measurement devices Generation interconnection requirements

33

Questions?


34


Appendix

35

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr-

09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr-

11

Jul-1

1

Oct

-11

Jan-

12

Apr-

12

Jul-1

2

Oct

-12

Jan-

13

Apr-

13

Jul-1

3

Oct

-13

Jan-

14

Apr-

14

Jul-1

4

Oct

-14

Jan-

15

Apr-

15

Jul-1

5

Oct

-15

Jan-

16

Apr-

16

Jul-1

6

Oct

-16

Jan-

17

Apr-

17

Jul-1

7

Oct

-17

Jan-

18

Apr-

18

Jul-1

8

Fuel Type as % of Total Energy

Gas Coal Nuclear Renewable12 per. Mov. Avg. (Gas) 12 per. Mov. Avg. (Coal) 12 per. Mov. Avg. (Nuclear) 12 per. Mov. Avg. (Renewable)

Changes in Overall ERCOT Generation Mix


Jan 2018: Retirement of 4400 MW of coal generation

36

Historical Inertia


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

ERCOT System Inertia

37

Critical Inertia Concept



Currently, the Critical Inertia Level for ERCOT is approximately 94 GW-s (based on current operations and response characteristics of current resources)

• Simulation results have shown that below this level RoCoF is high enough that frequency would drop below 59.3 Hz for two nuclear units tripping

• Simulation results have also shown wide-area voltage oscillations at inertia below this level

38

Critical Inertia Concept



39

Inertia from Synchronous Machines


• The amount of inertia present in a system depends on the number and size of on-line generators and motor loads synchronized to the system. It may be difficult to account for motor loads as this information typically is not available to the system operator; therefore, inertial response of motor load is usually lumped into load damping constant1.

• For any hour, synchronous inertial response (SIR) from generators (Msys) is calculated as follows:

sys=Σ ∗ VA

where I is the set of on-line synchronous generators or condensers; MVAi is MVA base of on-line synchronous generator or synchronous condenser I; and Hi is the inertia constant for an on-line generator or synchronous condenser i in a system (in seconds on machine MVA base, MVAi).

40

Inertia from Synchronous Machines


MVA base range Inertia Constant (H)

Inertial responsecontribution range

(H*MVA base)Nuclear 1410 – 1504 3.8 – 4.34 5344 – 6530

Coal 194 – 1120 2.9 – 4.5 863 – 3158

Combustion Turbine 7 – 235 1 – 12.5 22 – 1288

Gas-Steam 14 – 887 1 – 5.4 13 – 2216

Combined Cycle 25 – 1433 1.1 – 9 97 – 8765

Hydro 9 – 36 2 – 3 19 – 1133

Reciprocating Engine

10 - 70 1.1 – 2.1 13 – 97

Wind - 0 0

Solar PV - 0 0


41

Synthetic Inertia from Wind Generators


Source: G.C. Tarnowski, P. C. Kajaer, P.E. Sorensen, J. Ostergaard Variable Speed Wind Turbines Capability for Temporary Over-Production, IEEE PES GM 2009

● As wind turbine extracts available power from wind, it is possible to generate a temporary active power overproduction. This temporary active power overproduction mainly depends on rotational speed variations, drive train inertia and wind speed conditions.

42

Synthetic Inertia from Wind Generators



● Performance close to nominal wind speed is most demanding for the recovery phase

43

Synthetic Inertia from Battery Storage


0

8

16

24

32

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

60.05

13:0

5

13:0

6

13:0

7

13:0

8

13:0

9

13:1

0

13:1

1

13:1

2

13:1

3

13:1

4

13:1

5

13:1

6

13:1

7

13:1

8

13:1

9

13:2

0

30 MW Battery Response to 800 MW Unit Trip

Frequency MW

Battery storage units can quickly provide and sustain energy (synthetic inertia) to the grid following frequency disturbances

44

System Strength


Recorded unstable response for a wind plant connected to a weak transmission grid

• When a portion of the grid has low short-circuit currents relative to the power flow, it is referred to as an area of low system strength

• Synchronous generators produce large short-currents, typically 5-10 times rated load current

• Fault currents from inverter-based generators can be as low a 1-1.1 times rated load current

• Inverter-based generation controllers require sufficient system strength for reliable operation

• Controller tuning and coordination is necessary to dampen oscillations• Accurate modeling of controller settings is critical

Renewable Integration and Other Reliability Assessments 2016-2019

Byron Woertz Manager, System Adequacy Planning

Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Renewable Integration and Other Reliability Assessments—2016 to 2019

Byron Woertz, Manager—System Adequacy Planning

W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

Overview

• What is WECC?• 2016-2017 Study Program

– Study Program scope– Observations

• 2018-2019 Study Program– Study Program approach– Initial themes for consideration

2


Who We Are

Not-for-Profit Organization• Assure reliable bulk power system in

the Western Interconnection

Regional Entity• Approved by FERC• Largest of seven

Authority delegated by NERC• Create, monitor and enforce reliability

standards

Unique Perspective• Both Region and Interconnection

3


WECC

What Does WECC Do?

Compliance

• Ensure compliance with NERC reliability standards

• Conduct audits every 1-3 years

Planning

• Reliability Assessments 0-20 years in the future

• Essential Reliability Services, Economics and Policy Impacts

• Event Analysis• Situational Awareness• Performance Analysis

4


2016-2017 Study Program

• Study Program Development• Long-Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA)• 2016 Study Cases• 2017 Study Cases• Preliminary Observations

5


2016 Study Program

2026 Common Case

• Most likely future in 2026

Sensitivity Cases

• High/Low Loads• High/Low

Hydro• High/Low Gas

Price• High/Low CO2

Price

Special Interest Cases

• Resource retirements

• Resource expansion

• Resource locations

• Probabilistic study

• Energy storage

6


2017 Study Program—Year 10 Cases

2026 Common Case

• Most likely future in 2026

Resource Cases

• High Wind• High Solar

Transmission Expansion Cases

• East-to-West• NE-to-SW• “Transmission

Backbone”

Special Interest Case

• Curtailment Prices

• Probabilistic Study

7


2017 Study Program—Year 20 Cases

2034 Reference Case

• Extension of 2026 Common Case

Scenario-Based Cases

• S2—Focus on Clean Energy

• S3—Focus on ST Consumer Costs

• S4—Focus on LT Societal Costs

• Energy-Water-Climate Change

Special Interest Cases

• High Distributed Energy Resources

• High Coal Retirements

8


Observations—LTRA (2017)

Planning Reserve Margins

Based on Reference Margin Level (RML)

No WECC subregiondrops below the RML within the

assessment period

Demand

CA/MX: Relatively flat (0.27% growth)

Other subregions: 0.62% – 1.88%

growth

Generation

Based on 2015 flexibility study, WI appears to be able

to function with expected high

renewables

Retirement of generation is not currently a major

concern

Ongoing study of gas-electric interface

Transmission

Several entities have proposed new transmission

projects

It is not anticipated that transmission additions will be

needed to maintain reliability

9


Cautionary Note—2016-2017 Study Program

10


Results are based on modeling

Interpret results in view of modeling

assumptions

Consider limitations of

modeling approach

Transmission Utilization

Terminology

“Utilization” rather than

“Congestion”

Some Paths Designed for High

Utilization

Utilization Metrics

U75: % of hours flows are 75% or

more of path rating


more of path rating


more of path rating

“Most Heavily Utilized”

U75 > 50% OR

U90 > 20% OR

U99 > 5%

11


Preliminary Observations—Year 10 Studies

Transmission

Across all studies, grid appears to be

adequate

Storage Cases

Additional storage facilitates additional

wind—with limitations

Pumped hydro storage can absorb wind

fluctuations

Incremental pumped hydro has minimal

transmission or resource mix

impacts—modeling issue?

Gas

In high renewable cases, gas varies

counter to renewables

No consistency in impacts on

transmission flows

12


Preliminary Observations—Year 20 Studies

Renewable Development

Increase in renewables requires

larger generation portfolio

Increased variability increases reserve and

flexibility requirements

CO2 Cost

At $58/ton, all coal present in 2026 is displaced in 2034

Gas resources maintained to meet

reliability needs

Water consumption and CO2 production decreased by over

50%

Energy and Capacity

2027 Common Case resources can satisfy

most energy goals

Additional resources needed for capacity

and seasonal variations in

moderate-to-high growth scenarios

Higher capacity needed for

scenarios with higher renewables

or constraints

13


Year 20 Observations—Cont.

SolarPV preferred over CSP

DG carve-outs may be a factor

WindMost economic

renewable based on energy production

Significant additions in NM

Potential need for transmission

reinforcements may warrant further study

GasGas generation may not be economically

competitive for energy-only in 10-20

year horizon

Needed for flexibility and reliability goals

Potential need for market-based

incentives

14


From Past to Future

Tool-Based Approach

• What can we learn from PCM analyses?

• What can we learn from power flow analyses?

Risk-Based Approach

• What potential future reliability risks should we be thinking about?

• How can we study them?

15


Drivers for Future Reliability Assessments

2018-2019 Study

Program

Priority Reliability

Issues

Board Near-Term Priorities

WECC Scenarios

16


WECC Near-Term Priorities

• Improve the representation of inverter-based resources in WECC’s base cases• Focus on data collection for utility-scale photovoltaic resources, battery

storage, and Distributed Energy Resources (DER)

Representation of Inverter-Based Resources

• Existing Path Ratings• Remedial Action Scheme effectiveness• Expansion of utility-scale storage devices• Protection system ratings• Resource adequacy (RA) and alternate RA methodologies• Interface between transmission and distribution with a focus on modeling

techniques• Essential Reliability Services unique to the Western Interconnection

Impacts of the Changing Resource Mix

17


WECC Near-Term Priorities

• Evaluate potential reliability risks and mitigating measures• Consider Regional Reliability Standards, resulting from the expansion of

Reliability Coordinators (RC) and/or market service providers

Expansion of RC and Market Service Providers

• Improve coordination by clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among WECC and• FERC-Jurisdictional Regional Planning Groups• International Planning Groups (non-FERC Jurisdictional Canadian entities)• Planning Coordinators• Transmission Planners• Other stakeholders involved in BPS planning

Clarify Roles in BPS Planning

18


WECC Scenarios19


Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Reliability Assessment Structure

Key Reliability Question

Connection to NT Priorities

and Scenarios

Modeling Options

Data Needs

Expected Results

Resource Requirements

Potential Partners

20


Potential Reliability Assessments Themes

Electric Vehicle Market Penetration

• Do high penetration levels (10%? 20%? 50%?) create reliability risks?

• How would these penetration levels affect transmission utilization?

Achieving GHG Reduction

• Are renewables the best option?

• What additional resources ca be used to enhance ERS with high renewable penetration levels?

• What CO2 price would be required to achieve GHG reduction targets?

Significant Increase in Demand

• What reliability risks could result from a significant increase in demand in the next 10-20 years?

• At what demand increase level could stability issues create a reliability risk?

21


Potential Themes, cont.

Resilience

• What are the reliability impacts of a major disruption in 2020, 2028 and 2038?

• What natural events could cause a major disruption?

• What corresponding impacts on gas, water, communications or other systems could exacerbate electric system impacts?

Water Availability Impacts

• With projected increases in natural gas generation, will there be sufficient water to operate thermal resources?

Utility Business Models

• Will alternate utility business models create reliability risks?

• Could the development of “prosumagers” create reliability risks?

• What could be the impact of aggregated prosumagersbecoming virtual utilities?

22



WECC Scenarios

• What are the reliability impacts of each of the five WECC Scenarios?

Change in System Inertia

• What are the reliability impacts of retiring significant thermal resources?

• What are the impacts on frequency response?

• Could the system respond adequately with high solar/wind penetration an no synthetic inertia?

Gas-Electric Interface Issues

• What additional reliability risks might the Western Interconnection experience with high intermittent resource penetration?

• What additional strains could there be on the gas transmission system?

23



Resource Adequacy Under Contingency

• Will there be sufficient resource adequacy if generator outages in 2028 follow historic patterns observed in 2015-2017?

Reliability Impacts of the Most Likely Year 10 Future

• In the Year 10 “Base Case” (2028 Anchor Data Set), are there any reliability risks associated with path flows, resource adequacy, system stability or other parameters?

24


2018-2019 Study Program Timeline25


2018 2020

Today

Jan Apr Jul Oct 2019 Apr Jul Oct 2020

2018-2019 Study Program ApprovedSep 30

Jan 1 - Jun 29Create Study Program Protocol

Jul 1 - Sep 30Develop 2018-2019 Study Program

Oct 1 - Dec 31Complete and Report on Priority Reliability Assessments

Dec 1 - Feb 29Create Summary Report on 2018-2019 Study Program

Contact Information

Byron WoertzManager—System Adequacy

[email protected](801) 883-6841

26


Identifying and Addressing Environmental Constraints in the

Federal Permitting Process

Anna Lundin Sr. Project Manager, Environmental Business

Class Lead HDR

© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Anna Lundin

Identifying and Addressing Environmental Constraints in the Federal Permitting Process

Federal permitting and NEPA nexus in Renewable Energy Development

Constraints in U.S. Mtn West

Climate change as a constraint

Recommendations on how to address constraints

Federal NexusAgency (Department) Action Implementing Authority

EPA (Independent) NPDES Permit, compliance with NSPS and NAAQS standards, waste and substance management

Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Noise Control Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Solid Waste Disposal Act; Toxic Substance Control Act

ACHP, SHPO, THPO, NPS (DOI)

Archaeological, cultural impacts National Historic Preservation Act; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

USACE (DOD) Section 404 Permit for activities in jurisdictional waters or wetlands, Section 9 or 10 Permit

Clean Water Act; Rivers and Harbours Act

Forest Service (USDA) Activities on federal (Forest Service) land Federal Land Policy and Management Act

BLM (DOI) Activities on federal (BLM) land Federal Land Policy and Management ActUSFWS (DOI) Incidental Take Permit/Eagle Take Permit Endangered Species Act/ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Rural Development (USDA)

Loans, Loan Guarantees, Grants Rural Electrification Act

WAPA, SWPA etc. (DOE)

Interconnections to Power Administrations or Power Authorities; Permitting or Financial Assistance

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Sections 216 & 1222); Transmission Infrastructure Program

FERC Hydrodam Licensing Federal Power Act

Evolving and Emerging Regulations

Agency with Jurisdiction Evolving Action Implementing Law

USDA, DOE Loans, Loan Guarantees, Grants Rural Electrification Act, Energy Policy Act, Agricultural Act

EPA Greenhouse Gas Rules Clean Air Act

USACE Section 404 Permit for activities in jurisdictional waters or wetlands Clean Water Act

Forest Service or BLM

Incentives or moratoriums for activities on Federal lands Federal Land Policy and Management Act

USFWS or NMFS Changes to listings of endangered or threatened species Endangered Species Act

USFWS Eagle Take Permit Bald and Golden Eagle Protection ActUSFWS Migratory Bird Take Permit Migratory Bird Treaty Act FERC Order 1000 Energy Policy Act

Increasing Regulatory “Rollbacks” & Uncertainties

Umbrella law triggered by:o Federal permito Federal lando Federal money (federal loan, loan guarantees

and grants) 95% CEs, <5% EAs, <1% EISs >50% of EISs

o Forest Serviceo BLMo USACEo Federal Highway Administration

Federal Nexus = NEPA

1. Reasonable alternatives

2. Impacts to federally protected avian species (sage-grouse, migratory birds, eagles)

3. Potential air space violations

4. Visual impacts

5. Tribal consultations

6. Regulatory “gray” areas

Identification of Constraints in Federal ROW Permitting

Reasonable Alternatives

Use Alternatives Screening Criteria such as specifying

that reasonable alternatives must:• Meet the purpose and need • Pose a clear choice for the decision maker • Be consistent with laws and regulations • Be technically feasible (that is, would use

commercially available technology) • Be implementable by the project proponent

Addressing Constraints

Protected species & air space violations

• Include airspace designations and biological data in siting reviews

• Early consultations with BMPs identified at the pre-construction (10-30% design) phase


Visual Impacts

• Complete simulations » BLM VCR methodology by default» Variations if impacts to USACE, FHA,

NPS or FS properties


Tribal Consultations

• NHPA, EO 13175 and Environmental Justice

• Early engagement and understand “meaningful opportunity” for consultations


Regulatory “gray” areas: climate change

U.S. has no binding international agreements Domestically, the EPA regulates GHGs as pollutants under the CAA CEQ 2010, 2014, 2016 & 2017: Draft, Revised Draft, Final Guidance & Withdrawal EO 13783 Energy Independence and Economic Growth EO 13807 Discipline and Accountability in Environmental Review


NEPA litigation is most common form of federal environmental litigation 711 lawsuits in U.S. involving climate change and various permits and planning documents

(also common in Australia)o Massachusetts v. EPAo Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationo Hapner v. Tidwello Montana Environmental Information Center v. BLMo WildEarth Guardians v. Jewello High Country Conservation Advocates, et al. v. U.S. Forest Serviceo Friends of the Earth and the Western Organization of Resource Councils v. BLM

Litigation

Shareholder proposals: average support for proposals on climate risk jumped from 7% in 2011 to 28% in 2016 Institutional Investors Activist boycotts and campaigns

Additional Incentive

Include climate change in specific aspects of federal permitting and planning documentation

Two broad categories of climate change considerations need to be addressed: o Effects of climate change on a projecto Effects of a project on climate change

How to Address Climate Change

1. Characterize the projected future affected environment due to climatic effects2. Design operations to account for changing environment Identify Sensitivities Incorporate Adaptability Design for Resiliency

Effects of Climate Change on a Project

Climate Change can produce chronic stressors and be responsible for acute shocks. Resiliency is a defense against all chronic stressors and acute shocks By assessing the risks associated with climate change as part of the due diligence on project design,

project liability is reduced by identifying and communicating the nature of those risks so that cost-efficient adaptive actions can be taken.

Plan for Change

GHG emissions and changes in carbon sequestration and storage Connected actions (upstream and downstream) Quantify and evaluate GHG emissions from a project and its connected actions

Project Effects on Climate Change

Identify comprehensive constraints (underground, surface, air, tribal & NGO) during site analysis.

Characterize foreseeable changes due to climatic changes for the life of the project as part of the affected environment.

Evaluate sensitivities, adaptation and resiliency as part of project alternatives, design and planning.

Recommendations

Thank You andQuestions

San Luis Valley: Non-Transmission Alternatives

Cody Sickler Engineer II (Power System Planning)

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association

1

2

Purpose

To comparatively consider Non-Transmission Alternatives to mitigate the reliability issues in the San Luis Valley.

Specifically, Tri-State has received stakeholder feedback that asks about using energy storage in the San Luis Valley as alternatives to transmission upgrades.

3

4

Flows can be >120MW

230kV

115kV65MW Capacity

San Luis Valley~140 – 150 MW peak load

San Luis Valley~140 – 150 MW peak load

5

Storage Technology Overview

Pumped Hydro Large size (100+ MW) and long

discharge time (16+ hours) ~$1-2M per MW (not counting

interconnection costs) Lack of suitable location in SLV Environmental concerns

Compressed Air Storage Similar performance/cost as

pumped hydro Requires underground caverns

http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Powerplant.jsp?fac_Name=Mount+Elbert+Powerplant

6

Storage Technology Overview

Flywheels Fast response time (<1ms) Large power density Low power (100kW per

flywheel) Short discharge time (<15min) High frictional losses for long

term storage Best for frequency/voltage

regulationhttp://beaconpower.com/hazle-township-pennsylvania/

7

Electro-Chemical Battery Technology Lead-acid

~$5-6M per MW <4hr discharge 90% Efficiency 2000 cycle life

Lithium-ion (Li-ion) ~$1-3M per MW ~4hr discharge 90% Efficiency 4000 cycle life Many vendors-fast growing

market Sodium Sulfur (NaS)

~$3-4M per MW 6-7hr discharge 75% Efficiency 4500 cycle life

DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA

8

Industry Examples of Grid Scale NaSBattery Installations

34MW (NaS) – Rokkasho, Japan Largest single NaS

installation in the world Used for wind following

4MW (NaS) – Presidio, Texas Outage mitigation for radial

distribution system http://www.eei.org/about/meetings/meeting_documents/abe.pdf

9

65MW : Voltage collapse threshold for 230kV outage

10

65MW : Voltage collapse threshold for 230kV outage

11

Typical Daily Load Curves

Sum of the flows on Poncha-Sargent 115kV

and Poncha-SLV 230kV

Years 2014 and 2015

Average of Top 10% of heaviest loading

days from Summer months

12

13

Battery Sizing Example

6hr Outage Peak MW deficit

24hr Outage Greater of:

Peak MW deficit MW capacity to deliver

MWh energy deficit 48hr Outage

Greater of: Peak MW deficit MW capacity to deliver

2x MWh energy deficit less available charging energy

14

Battery Sizing Scenarios Provide mitigation for

approximately 99% of days in the year.

Summer 2016 Top 10% of summer days in

2014-15 Added assumption of new

50MW Hooper Solar Farm 24hr and 48hr outages

15

Battery Sizing Scenarios

Summer 2016 Light Solar Summer 2016 plus 1

standard deviation accounts for solar variation

6hr, 24hr, 48hr outages

16

Battery Sizing Scenarios

Summer 2020 Light Solar Summer 2016 Light Solar

plus load growth (shifted by 10MW so that peak matches 2011 peak)

6hr, 24hr, 48hr outage

17

Battery Configuration

18

Cost Estimates

Battery/Converter Module Costs DOE/NRECA Study with quotes from vendors Capital cost including installation, transportation, etc. Fixed O&M

Substation Costs Switchgear Step-up Transformers 230kV Buswork

19

Sizing and Cost Results (NaS)

20

Conclusion• High cost

• Short outage (6hr) mitigation: $197-229 Million

• Long outage (48hr) mitigation: $663-877 Million

• SLV battery storage would be largest system of its kind• May be scaling issues for large sizes

• Limited capacity for future growth

• Doesn’t fully mitigate need for load shedding• Relies partially on solar generation

• Analysis doesn’t include other transmission reliability

factors (VAR support, stability, etc.)

21

Questions?

PacifiCorp’s Energy Vision 2020

Rod Fisher Principal Project Manager, Gateway Transmission

PacifiCorp

Energy Vision 2020RMEL Presentation October 18, 2018

• Company Overview

• Energy Gateway / Transmission Update

• Energy Vision 2020• Overview

• Repowering

• New Wind

• New Transmission

• Questions

Agenda

PacifiCorp Overview

• Two divisions – Rocky Mountain Power and Pacific Power

• 5600 Employees

• 1.9 million electricity customers

• 141,000 square miles of service territory in six states

• 16,500 miles of transmission

• 10,887 MW owned generation capacity

• Generating capacity by fuel type• Coal 55%

• Natural Gas 25%

• Hydro 10%

• Wind, geothermal and other 10%

Energy Gateway Program Status

Energy Vision 2020 https://youtu.be/Ojb0h568nvc

Energy Vision 2020

• PacifiCorp announced April 4, 2017 $3.0 billion wind and transmission projects

• Repowering of 905 MW (648 MW in WY) of existing wind

• 1,150 MW of new wind

• 191-mile transmission project to connect new wind

• New Ekola bridge - $4.2 million

• All federal tax credits will offset costs to our customers

• Net result is a cost savings for PacifiCorp customers

Energy Vision 2020 in Wyoming

Energy Vision 2020 Wyoming Benefit

Energy Vision 2020 – Repowering https://youtu.be/VlGb4NTcsCw

https://youtu.be/VlGb4NTcsCw

Repowering Overview• Repowering of 999 MW of existing wind facilities; 12 of

13 existing PacifiCorp projects.

• Regulatory proceedings complete with pre-approval in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming; awaiting Wyoming commission written order.

• Turbine supply and installation negotiations nearly complete for all facilities.

• 2019 - 2020 in-service dates.

New Wind and Transmission Overview• 950 MW of new owned wind facilities; three projects

• TB Flats I & II – 500 MW

• Ekola Flats – 250 MW

• Cedar Springs – 200 MW

• An additional 200 MW of wind procured through PPA

• Cedar Springs – 200 MW

• 140-mile, 500 kV segment of Gateway West transmission

• 230 kV transmission network upgrades required for wind interconnection

• Regulatory proceedings complete; awaiting Wyoming commission written order

• Landowner negotiations proceeding across Wyoming.

• Final commercial negotiations for wind projects ongoing; transmission in bidding phase

• Strong state and local stakeholder support in Wyoming

• Construction start – April 2019

• 2020 in-service

Questions?

Date post:	21-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Renewable Planning and Operations Conference€¦ · 2018 Strategic Directions Re-port on Electric...

Documents