CRA SPP WITF Wind Integration Study Final Report

Final Report
Prepared For: Southwest Power Pool 415 North McKinley, #140 Plaza West Little Rock, AR 72205
SPP WITF Wind Integration Study
Prepared By: Charles River Associates 200 Clarendon Street T-33 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Date: January 4, 2010 CRA Project No. D14422
SPP WITF Wind Integration Study January 4, 2010 Charles River Associates
Disclaimer
Charles River Associates (CRA) and its authors make no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the material contained in this document and shall have, and accept, no liability for any statements, opinions, information or matters (expressed or implied) arising out of, contained in or derived from this document or any omissions from this document, or any other written or oral communication transmitted or made available to any other party in relation to the subject matter of this document.
CRA Project Team

Project Manager: T. Bruce Tsuchida (btsuchida@crai.com) Engineering Lead: Pablo A. Ruiz (pruiz@crai.com) Officer in Charge: Aleksandr Rudkevich (arudkevich@crai.com) Team Members: Peter W. Sauer Germn G. Lorenzn Rodney Yeu Richard Baxter Jesse Cooper Daniel Cross-Call Scott L. Englander John Goldis
Final Report
Page i
Acknowledgments
CRA would like to thank the dedicated SPP and WITF members for providing the opportunity to study the complex challenges addressed in this report, as well as for their invaluable guidance throughout the process, insightful feedback on drafts of this report, and suggestions for its improvement. It has truly been a pleasure to work with all of the stakeholders. CRA would also like to express appreciation to the SPP engineers, not only for providing the many gigabytes of data essential to this analysis, but also for the hours spent providing their many keen insights on system planning and operation, without which the results of this study would be much less rich. Finally, the CRA Project Team extends its gratitude to the support staff at CRA, especially software engineering for their timely handling of the programming requests, and ITS, whose tireless efforts kept all servers in superb condition, greatly facilitating this simulation-intensive analysis.
Final Report
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................1-1
1.1. 1.2. 1.3. OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................1-1 STUDY APPROACH ...........................................................................................................1-1 MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................1-2
2.
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................2-1
2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY .................................................................2-1 THE SOUTHWEST POWER POOL........................................................................................2-2 WIND GENERATION POTENTIAL IN SPP AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS..................................2-4 KEY CHALLENGES OF WIND INTEGRATION .........................................................................2-6
3.
SPP WIND RESOURCES: CASES ANALYZED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................3-1

3.1. 3.2. 3.3. WIND PENETRATION CASES FOR SPP AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS ...................................3-2 WIND PROFILE STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...............................................................3-10 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DIVERSITY OF SPP WIND RESOURCES ......................................3-18
4.
IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON THE SPP TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................4-1

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. OVERVIEW OF POWER FLOW CASES AND METHODOLOGY .................................................. 4-2 BASE CASE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................4-5 10% CASE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................4-6
4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.3.3. Generation Dispatch in Power Flow Cases and Transmission Expansion ..................... 4-6 AC Contingency Analysis and Transmission Expansion ................................................ 4-9 Transmission Expansion Summary .............................................................................. 4-20
4.4.
20% CASE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................4-21

4.4.1. 4.4.2. 4.4.3. Generation Dispatch in Power Flow Cases and Transmission Expansion ................... 4-21 AC Contingency Analysis and Transmission Expansion .............................................. 4-25 Transmission Expansion Summary .............................................................................. 4-35
4.5.
VOLTAGE STABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................4-36

4.5.1. 4.5.2. 4.5.3. PV Analysis / Transfer Characteristics ......................................................................... 4-37 dV/dQ Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................................ 4-42 VQ Analysis / Reactive Reserves................................................................................. 4-42
Final Report
Page iii
4.6.
TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS .....................................................................................4-44

4.6.1. 4.6.2. 4.6.3. 4.6.4. Single Line Fault Transient Stability Analysis ............................................................... 4-44 GGS Flowgate Limit Transient Stability Analysis.......................................................... 4-52 Critical Clearing Time ................................................................................................... 4-54 Transient Stability Conclusions .................................................................................... 4-55
4.7. 4.8.
ADDITIONAL SPP FLOWGATES FOR COMMITMENT AND DISPATCH .....................................4-56 WIND POWER DELIVERABILITY ........................................................................................4-61
4.8.1. 4.8.2. 10% Case..................................................................................................................... 4-62 20% Case..................................................................................................................... 4-65
4.9.
AVAILABLE TRANSFER CAPABILITY IMPACTS OF INCREASED WIND PENETRATION ..............4-68
5.
IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP OPERATIONS....................................5-1

5.1 5.2 OVERVIEW OF SPP OPERATIONS BY TIMEFRAME ...............................................................5-3
WIND INTEGRATION AND RESERVE SERVICES NEEDS ........................................................5-5

5.2.1 Regulation-Up and Regulation-Down Requirements...................................................... 5-6 Updated Regulation Needs ................................................................................ 5-7 Wind Variability in the Regulation Timeframe................................................... 5-10 5.2.1.1 5.2.1.2 5.2.2
Load-Following Needs.................................................................................................. 5-15 Net Load Variability: Ramping Capability Needs .............................................. 5-17 Net-Load Uncertainty: Load-Following Reserve Needs.................................... 5-28
5.2.2.1 5.2.2.2 5.2.3
Contingency Reserve Requirements............................................................................ 5-42
5.3
MULTI-HOUR TIMEFRAME: WIND INTEGRATION IMPACTS ON UNIT COMMITMENT ................ 5-44

5.3.1 Effects of Wind Integration on Power Flows within SPP and Interchanges with Neighboring Systems............................................................................................5-48 The Impact of Wind Penetration on Power Flows Between SPP and Neighboring Systems.......................................................................................5-49 The Impact of Wind Penetration on Power Flows within SPP ..........................5-53
5.3.1.1 5.3.1.2 5.3.2 5.3.3
Transmission Congestion and Wind Curtailments........................................................5-57 New Operational Patterns of Generating Units ............................................................5-78 10% Case Results ..................................................................................................... 5-78 20% Case Results ..................................................................................................... 5-84
5.3.3.1 5.3.3.2 5.3.4
Impacts of Wind Forecast Uncertainty..........................................................................5-90 Analysis Methods Overview ..................................................................................... 5-90 Results - Number of Starts and Capacity Factor While Up by Unit Type .......... 5-94 Results Wind Curtailment...................................................................................... 5-96
5.3.4.1 5.3.4.2 5.3.4.3
5.4
SUB-HOUR TIMEFRAME: WIND INTEGRATION IMPACTS ON GENERATION DISPATCH AND PROVISION OF ANCILLARY SERVICES......................................................................5-103
5.4.1. 20% Case................................................................................................................... 5-103
Final Report
Page iv
5.4.1.1 5.4.1.2 5.4.1.3 5.4.1.4 5.4.2.
Impcts of Minimum-Generation Constraints ................................................... 5-104 Impacts of Reserve Requirements ................................................................. 5-105 Impacts of Transmission Congestion ............................................................. 5-106 Impacts of Forecasting Errors ........................................................................ 5-108
10% Case................................................................................................................... 5-110
6.
IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP MARKETS ..........................................6-1

6.1. IMPLICATIONS OF WIND INTEGRATION FOR SPP DAY 2 MARKET DESIGN AND OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................6-1
6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.1.3. 6.1.4. SPP and the Day 2 Market ............................................................................................. 6-1 Benefits of Being a Single Balancing Authority .............................................................. 6-5 Change in Market Clearing Price.................................................................................... 6-6 Increase in Net Load Forecast Error .............................................................................. 6-8
6.2.
PROPOSAL FOR ADDRESSING WIND AND LOAD FORECAST ERRORS ...................................6-8

6.2.1. 6.2.2. 6.2.3. Comprehensive and Consistent Wind and Load Forecasts for Operations .................... 6-9 Enforcement of Load-Following Reserve Requirements .............................................. 6-11 Stochastic Methods for Unit Commitment .................................................................... 6-13
6.3. 6.4.
OVERVIEW OF BEST PRACTICES OF WIND INTEGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD.................................................................................................................. 6-14 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPP............................................................................ 6-16
6.4.1. 6.4.2. 6.4.3. 6.4.4. 6.4.5. 6.4.6. 6.4.7. Interconnection Requests............................................................................................. 6-17 Transmission ................................................................................................................ 6-18 Regulation Requirements ............................................................................................. 6-18 Wind Forecasting ......................................................................................................... 6-19 Unit Commitment and Dispatch.................................................................................... 6-19 Market Updates ............................................................................................................ 6-20 Additional Recommendations....................................................................................... 6-22
7.
METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................7-1
7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. OVERVIEW OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS .....................................................................7-1 MAJOR ANALYTICAL TASKS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE STUDY .............................................7-1 DEVELOPMENT OF WIND PROFILES ...................................................................................7-4 POWER FLOW ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................7-4
7.4.1. 7.4.2. Contingency Analysis and Transmission Expansion ...................................................... 7-4 PV Analysis Methodology............................................................................................... 7-6
7.5. 7.6.
ANALYSIS OF REGULATING RESERVE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................7-7 UNIT COMMITMENT ANALYSIS .........................................................................................7-12
Final Report
Page v
7.6.1. 7.6.2. 7.6.3.
Analytical Approach...................................................................................................... 7-13 Input Assumptions and Data Sources .......................................................................... 7-14 Software Tools ............................................................................................................. 7-16
7.7.
REAL-TIME SIMULATIONS OF ECONOMIC DISPATCH ..........................................................7-16

7.7.1. 7.7.2. Input Assumptions and Data Sources .......................................................................... 7-17 Software Tools ............................................................................................................. 7-18
7.8.
OVERVIEW OF WIND INTEGRATION PRACTICES IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD ..........................7-18
8.
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................8-1
9.
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................9-1
APPENDIX A: TRANSMISSION ANALYSIS ................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B: SEASONAL DATA FROM SECTION 5.3: PRODUCTION SIMULATION ...................... B-1 APPENDIX C: OVERVIEW OF WIND INTEGRATION PACTICES IN THE U.S. AND INTERNATIONALLY ....................................................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D: ENERGY STORAGE AND WIND .......................................................................... D-1 APPENDIX E: SPP FLOWGATES ............................................................................................. E-1 APPENDIX F: LOAD DATA - INTRA-HOUR AND FORECAST PROFILES ....................................... F-1 APPENDIX G: GE MAPS ......................................................................................................... G-1 APPENDIX H: POWERWORLD SIMULATOR ............................................................................. H-1
Final Report
Page vi
LIST OF FIGURES 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION

2.2-1: SPP footprint ...................................................................................................2-3 2.3-1: Wind potential in the United States .................................................................2-5 2.4-1: Wind turbine power curve................................................................................2-7
3. SPP WIND RESOURCES: CASES ANALYZED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS

3.1-1: Wind plant sites and clusters ..........................................................................3-8 3.1-2: Base Case wind nameplate capacity distribution by cluster ...........................3-9 3.1-3: 10% Case wind nameplate capacity distribution by cluster ............................3-9 3.1-4: 20% Case wind nameplate capacity distribution by cluster ..........................3-10 3.2-1: Wind power output: histograms by case .......................................................3-12 3.2-2: Wind power output: autocorrelation by case .................................................3-13 3.2-3: Hourly change in available wind power output: histograms by case ............3-14 3.2-4: Hourly change in available wind power output: autocorrelations by case ...............................................................................................3-15 3.2-5: Histograms of deviations from day-ahead wind forecasts by case ...............3-16 3.2-6: Base Case average daily wind output by season .........................................3-17 3.2-7: Base Case range of daily wind output...........................................................3-18 3.3-1: Wind output cross-correlation between wind penetration cases...................3-19 3.3-2: Wind output cross-correlation between clusters ...........................................3-19 3.3-3: Standard deviation of hourly available wind power increments by cluster ............................................................................................3-20 3.3-4: Correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP.........................................................................3-21 3.3-5: Maximum correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP........................................................3-22 3.3-6: Time-shift for maximum correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP: 3-year time series............3-23 3.3-7: Time-shift for maximum correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP: 16 March 2004 (high ramp down event).................................................................3-24
4. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON THE SPP TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

4.2-1: Base Case transmission topology above 200 kV............................................4-5
Final Report
Page vii
4.2-2: Base Case generation dispatch in the four seasonal power flow cases ...............................................................................................4-6 4.3.1-1: 10% Case generation dispatch in the four seasonal power flow cases ...............................................................................................4-7 4.3.1-2: 10% Case transmission expansions above 200 kV included to eliminate pre-contingency violations ...............................................4-8 4.3.1-3: Initial 10% Case transmission topology above 200 kV ................................4-9 4.3.2-1: Contingencies that cause violations in the Spearville - Wichita corridor in the 10% Case spring power flow..................................4-11 4.3.2-2: Contingencies that caused violations in the Spearville - Wichita corridor in the 10% Case fall power flow .......................................4-13 4.3.2-3: Contingencies that caused violations in the SPS - OKGE corridor in the 10% Case spring power flow ...............................................4-15 4.3.2-4: Contingencies that caused violations in the SPS - OKGE corridor in the 10% Case fall power flow ....................................................4-18 4.3.3-1: Final 10% Case transmission topology above 200 kV...............................4-21 4.4.1-1: 20% Case generation dispatch in the four seasonal power flow cases .............................................................................................4-22 4.4.1-2: 20% Case transmission expansions above 200 kV included to eliminate pre-contingency violations .............................................4-24 4.4.1-3: 20% Case transmission topology above 200 kV........................................4-24 4.4.2-1: 20% Case contingency analysis of the E Manhattan - Concordia region.............................................................................................4-26 4.4.2-2: 20% Case contingency analysis of northeast Nebraska............................4-27 4.4.2-3: 20% Case contingency analysis of west Kansas.......................................4-28 4.4.2-4: 20% Case contingency analysis of the Wichita area .................................4-29 4.4.2-5: 20% Case contingency analysis of Roman Nose - El Reno ......................4-31 4.4.2-6: 20% Case contingency analysis of west Oklahoma City ...........................4-32 4.4.2-7: 20% Case contingency analysis of SPS ....................................................4-34 4.4.3-1: Final 20% Case transmission topology above 200 kV...............................4-35 4.5.1-1: Voltage contour for the maximum post-contingency transfer from SPS to SPP; Tuco-OKU line outaged, fall 10% Case ...................4-38 4.5.1-2: Voltage contour for the SPS to SPP pre-contingency transfer and minimum voltage of 0.9 p.u.; fall 20% Case...........................4-41 4.5.3-1: VQ curve for the Riley 161 kV bus in the 10% Case summer power flow, pre-contingency case .................................................4-44 4.8.2-1: Bus voltage contour for the maximum wind power injection in the summer 20% Case ........................................................................4-67 4.9-1: ATC for selected transfers by case ...............................................................4-69 4.9-2: Net export for each seller for selected transfers by case..............................4-70
Final Report
Page viii
4.9-3: Net import for each buyer for selected transfers by case .............................4-71
5. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP OPERATIONS

5.1-1: Operations timeframes for SPP Day 2 market design ....................................5-4 5.1-2: Recommended SPP operations timeframe.....................................................5-4 5.2.1.1-1: Winter regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels............................5-8 5.2.1.1-2: Spring regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels............................5-8 5.2.1.1-3: Summer regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels............................5-9 5.2.1.1-4: Fall regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels............................5-9 5.2.1.2-1: Short-term wind variability as a function of the total nameplate wind capacity .................................................................................5-10 5.2.1.2-2: Wind variability down as a function of the total nameplate wind capacity by season ........................................................................5-11 5.2.1.2-3: Wind variability up as a function of the total nameplate wind capacity by season ........................................................................5-11 5.2.1.2-4: Wind variability down as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity by day-ahead wind forecast level....................................5-12 5.2.1.2-5: Wind variability up as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity by day-ahead wind forecast level....................................5-13 5.2.1.2-6: Wind variability down as a function of the day-ahead wind forecast level by wind penetration level.........................................5-14 5.2.1.2-7: Wind variability up as a function of the day-ahead wind forecast level by wind penetration level.........................................5-14 5.2.2-1: Net load profiles for increased wind penetration levels (April 14, 2010, based on 2004 historical profiles)........................................5-16 5.2.2-2: Net load 4-hour-ahead forecast uncertainty by wind penetration case ...............................................................................................5-16 5.2.2.1-1: Net load ramps as a function of time for 6 - 7 am in the Base Case ..............................................................................................5-17 5.2.2.1-2: Net load ramps as a function of time for 6 - 7 am: a) upperbound, b) lower-bound...................................................................5-18 5.2.2.1-3: Upper-bound net load ramps as a function of time for each hour of the day...............................................................................5-19 5.2.2.1-4: Lower-bound net load ramps as a function of time for each hour of the day...............................................................................5-19 5.2.2.1-5: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day............5-20 5.2.2.1-6: Net load hourly ramp as a function of the installed wind capacity .........................................................................................5-21
Final Report
Page ix
5.2.2.1-7: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in winter .........................................................................................5-22 5.2.2.1-8: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in spring .........................................................................................5-23 5.2.2.1-9: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in summer......................................................................................5-24 5.2.2.1-10: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in fall .......................................................................................5-25 5.2.2.1-11: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day: high positive wind ramp forecast ...........................................5-26 5.2.2.1-12: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day: high negative wind ramp forecast..........................................5-27 5.2.2.1-13: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day: low wind ramp forecast..........................................................5-28 5.2.2.2-1: Day-ahead wind and load forecast uncertainty up: evolution with time ........................................................................................5-30 5.2.2.2-2: Day-ahead wind and load forecast uncertainty down: evolution with time ........................................................................................5-31 5.2.2.2-3: Day-ahead net load forecast uncertainty: evolution with time.................5-32 5.2.2.2-4: Changes between day-ahead and 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecasts ........................................................................................5-33 5.2.2.2-5: Changes between day-ahead and 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecasts as a function of the time of day......................................5-34 5.2.2.2-6: Changes between day-ahead and 4-hour-ahead net load forecasts as a function of the time of day......................................5-35 5.2.2.2-7: 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty up: evolution with time ........................................................................................5-37 5.2.2.2-8: 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty down: evolution with time .........................................................................5-37 5.2.2.2-9: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty by hour of the day ..............5-38 5.2.2.2-10: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty up: time evolution.............5-39 5.2.2.2-11: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty down: time evolution ........................................................................................5-40 5.2.2.2-12: Evolution of 10-minute-ahead persistence wind forecast uncertainty (range of deviation from 10-minute-ahead wind forecasts as a function of time) .............................................5-41 5.2.2.2-13: Persistence wind forecast uncertainty as a function of the forecast lead time ..........................................................................5-42 5.3-1: SPP hourly load for Wednesdays during summer 2010 ...............................5-44 5.3.1.1-1: Base Case annual average RTC SPP import/export flows, in MW ................................................................................................5-51
Final Report
Page x
5.3.1.1-2: 10% Case annual average RTC SPP import/export flows, in MW ................................................................................................5-51 5.3.1.1-3: 20% Case annual average RTC SPP import/export flows, in MW ................................................................................................5-51 5.3.1.2-1: Base Case annual average (RTC) intra-SPP flows, in MW ....................5-54 5.3.1.2-2: 10% Case annual average (RTC) intra-SPP flows, in MW .....................5-54 5.3.1.2-3: 20% Case annual average (RTC) intra-SPP flows, in MW .....................5-54 5.3.2-1: 10% Case summer binding constraints......................................................5-59 5.3.2-2: 10% Case fall binding constraints ..............................................................5-60 5.3.2-3: 10% Case winter binding constraints .........................................................5-60 5.3.2-4: 10% Case spring binding constraints.........................................................5-61 5.3.2-5: Wind sites 52 and 64..................................................................................5-63 5.3.2-6: Wind sites 52 and 64 (enlarged) ................................................................5-63 5.3.2-7: Wind site 52 and NF8 constraint ................................................................5-64 5.3.2-8: 20% Case summer binding constraints......................................................5-67 5.3.2-9: 20% Case fall binding constraints ..............................................................5-68 5.3.2-10: 20% Case winter binding constraints .......................................................5-69 5.3.2-11: 20% Case spring binding constraints.......................................................5-70 5.3.2-12: Wind sites curtailed in excess of 2% .......................................................5-73 5.3.2-13: NF8 constraint and wind site 52...............................................................5-75 5.3.2-14: FG6140 constraint and wind site 28.........................................................5-77 5.3.3.1-1: Non-wind generation by unit type (annual total) .....................................5-80 5.3.3.1-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type (annual average).............................................................5-81 5.3.3.2-1: Non-wind generation by unit type (annual total) .....................................5-86 5.3.3.2-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type .........................................................................................5-87 5.3.4.1-1: Spring 2004 Case....................................................................................5-91 5.3.4.1-2: Fall 2005 Case ........................................................................................5-92 5.3.4.1-3: Fall 2006 Case ........................................................................................5-92 5.3.4.3-1: Forecast direction and wind curtailment for all 20% Cases ....................5-97 5.3.4.3-2: 4-hour-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Spring 2004 20% Case..................................................................5-98 5.3.4.3-3: Day-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Spring 2004 20% Case .............................................................................5-98 5.3.4.3-4: 4-hour-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2005 20% Case .............................................................................5-99
Final Report
Page xi
5.3.4.3-5: Day-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2005 20% Case .............................................................................5-99 5.3.4.3-6: 4-hour-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2006 20% Case ...........................................................................5-100 5.3.4.3-7: Day-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2006 20% Case ...........................................................................5-100 5.3.4.3-8: Wind curtailment as a function of the forecast error .............................5-102 5.4.1.1-1: Intra-hour profiles with perfect foresight, no transmission congestion, and no reserve requirements for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case...............................................5-104 5.4.1.2-1: Intra-hour profiles with perfect foresight and no transmission congestion with reserve requirements enforced for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case...........................................5-105 5.4.1.3-1: Wind power dispatch with perfect foresight, compared to the case with no transmission congestion for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case........................................................5-106 5.4.1.3-2: Wind power dispatch with perfect foresight and fixed hourly unit commitment, compared to the case with updated intra-hourly commitment for fast-start units; Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case........................................................5-107 5.4.1.4-1: Wind forecasts and available wind power for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case........................................................5-108 5.4.1.4-2: Wind power dispatch with commitment performed using dayahead and 4-hour-ahead wind forecasts, compared to the case with perfect foresight for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case.........................................................................5-109 5.4.2-1: Wind power dispatch with perfect foresight with and without reserve requirements, compared to the available wind power for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 10% Case ...................5-111
6. MARKET IMPACT STUDY

6.1.1-1: SPP generation stack with 1,000 MW of wind .............................................6-3 6.1.1-2: SPP generation stack with 2,500 MW of wind .............................................6-4 6.1.1-3: SPP generation stack with 5,000 MW of wind .............................................6-4 6.1.2-1: Standard deviation of hourly wind generation increments ...........................6-5 6.2.2-1: Operational timeframe for load following reserves.....................................6-11 6.2.2-2: Load-following reserves example...............................................................6-12 6.2.3-1: Scenarios for stochastic unit commitments: high wind cut-out example .........................................................................................6-13 6.2.3-2: Scenarios for stochastic unit commitments: 20% - 80% forecast example .........................................................................................6-14
Final Report
Page xii
7. METHODOLOGY
7.2-1: Flow of CRA tasks for the Wind Integration Study..........................................7-3 7.5-1: Wind deviations from the wind short-term forecast versus load deviations from the load short-term forecast ...................................7-9 7.5-2: Frequency of occurrences of joint load and wind deviations for the six days analyzed ..........................................................................7-10
Final Report
Page xiii
LIST OF TABLES 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION 3. SPP WIND RESOURCES: CASES ANALYZED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
3.1-1: Wind generation capacity by penetration level ...............................................3-2 3.1-2: Base Case wind from SPP GI queue as of February 2009.............................3-4 3.1-3: 10% Case wind from SPP GI queue as of February 2009..............................3-5 3.1-4: 20% Case wind from SPP GI queue as of February 2009..............................3-6 3.1-5: 40% Case wind from SPP GI queue as of February 2009..............................3-7 3.2-1: Summary of the wind power statistics by case .............................................3-11
4. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON THE SPP TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

4.1-1: SPP load and wind power dispatch in the power flow cases ..........................4-3 4.1-2: Wind power dispatch in the power flow cases by power flow area, in MW...............................................................................................4-4 4.3.3-1: Transmission lines added to the 10% Case...............................................4-20 4.4.3-1: Transmission lines added to the 20% Case...............................................4-36 4.5.1-1: PV study results for SPS to SPP transfers in the 10% Case .....................4-39 4.5.1-2: PV study results for SPS to SPP transfers in the 20% Case .....................4-41 4.5.3-1: Nodes with VQ characteristics analyzed....................................................4-43 4.6.1-1: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case fall......................4-46 4.6.1-2: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case spring.................4-46 4.6.1-3: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case summer .............4-46 4.6.1-4: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case winter.................4-47 4.6.1-5: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case fall.......................4-47 4.6.1-6: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case spring..................4-48 4.6.1-7: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case summer ..............4-48 4.6.1-8: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case winter..................4-49 4.6.1-9: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case fall.......................4-49 4.6.1-10: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case spring ...............4-50 4.6.1-11: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case summer ............4-51 4.6.1-12: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case winter................4-52
Final Report
Page xiv
4.6.2-1: Base Case GGS flowgate limit...................................................................4-53 4.6.2-2: 10% Case GGS flowgate limit....................................................................4-54 4.6.2-3: 20% Case GGS flowgate limit....................................................................4-54 4.6.4-1: Summary of single-line fault results ...........................................................4-55 4.7-1: Newly identified constraints for the 10% Case (Part 1 of 2)..........................4-56 4.7-2: Newly identified constraints for the 10% Case (Part 2 of 2)..........................4-57 4.7-3: Newly identified constraint limits for the 10% Case (Part 1 of 2) ..................4-57 4.7-4: Newly identified constraint limits for the 10% Case (Part 2 of 2) ..................4-58 4.7-5: Newly identified constraints for the 20% Case (Part 1 of 2)..........................4-58 4.7-6: Newly identified constraints for the 20% Case (Part 2 of 2)..........................4-59 4.7-7: Newly identified constraint limits for the 20% Case (Part 1 of 3) ..................4-59 4.7-8: Newly identified constraint limits for the 20% Case (Part 2 of 3) ..................4-60 4.7-9: Newly identified constraint limits for the 20% Case (Part 3 of 3) ..................4-61 4.8.1-1: Critical constraints for wind power output increases in the summer 10% Case ........................................................................4-63 4.8.1-2: Critical constraints for wind power output decreases in the summer 10% Case ........................................................................4-64 4.8.2-1: Critical constraints for wind power output increases in the summer 20% Case (Part 1 of 2)....................................................4-65 4.8.2-2: Critical constraints for wind power output increases in the summer 20% Case (Part 2 of 2)....................................................4-66 4.8.2-3: Critical constraints for wind power output decreases in the summer 20% Case ........................................................................4-67
5. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP OPERATIONS

5.2.1.1-1: Total regulation requirements for seasonal peak loads, in MW................5-7 5.2.2.2-1: Day-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty.......................................5-29 5.2.2.2-2: Day-ahead net load forecast uncertainty ................................................5-31 5.2.2.2-3: 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty...................................5-36 5.2.2.2-4: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty ............................................5-38 5.2.2.2-5: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast error by season, in MW.........................5-39 5.3-1: Seasonal definitions ......................................................................................5-47 5.3.1-1: SPP regions for flow pattern analysis ........................................................5-48 5.3.1.1-1: SPP and neighboring areas annual average flows (RTC), in MW ................................................................................................5-52 5.3.1.1-2: SPP and neighboring areas annual average flows (on-peak), in MW ................................................................................................5-52
Final Report
Page xv
5.3.1.1-3: SPP and neighboring areas annual average flows (off-peak), in MW ................................................................................................5-53 5.3.1.2-1: SPP area annual average flows (RTC), in MW.......................................5-56 5.3.1.2-2: SPP area annual average flows (on-peak), in MW .................................5-56 5.3.1.2-3: SPP area annual average flows (off-peak), in MW .................................5-57 5.3.2-1: Binding constraints and hours binding by season......................................5-58 5.3.2-2: Average wind curtailment for the 10% Case ..............................................5-62 5.3.2-3: Wind curtailment by season and profile year for the 10% Case ................5-62 5.3.2-4: Binding constraints and hours binding by season 20% Case.................5-66 5.3.2-5: Average wind curtailment for the 20% Case ..............................................5-72 5.3.2-6: Wind curtailment by season and profile year for the 20% Case ................5-73 5.3.2-7: Curtailment for wind site 31........................................................................5-74 5.3.2-8: Curtailment for wind site 52........................................................................5-74 5.3.2-9: Curtailment for wind site 73........................................................................5-75 5.3.2-10: Curtailment for wind site 88......................................................................5-76 5.3.2-11: Curtailment for wind site 28......................................................................5-76 5.3.3.1-1: Non-wind generation (GWh) by unit type (annual total)..........................5-80 5.3.3.1-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type .........................................................................................5-81 5.3.3.1-3: Minimum average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit ..........................................................................5-81 5.3.3.1-4: Generation (GWh) by SPP area..............................................................5-82 5.3.3.1-5: Generation difference (GWh) between Base Case and 10% Case ..............................................................................................5-83 5.3.3.1-6: Capacity factors while up for the Base Case and 10% Case..................5-83 5.3.3.1-7: Number of starts for the Base Case and 10% Case for summer............5-84 5.3.3.2-1: Non-wind generation (GWh) by unit type ................................................5-86 5.3.3.2-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type .........................................................................................5-87 5.3.3.2-3: Minimum average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit ..........................................................................5-87 5.3.3.2-4: Generation (GWh) by SPP area..............................................................5-88 5.3.3.2-5: Generation difference (GWh) between Base Case and 20% Case ..............................................................................................5-89 5.3.3.2-6: Capacity factors while up for the Base Case and 20% Case..................5-89 5.3.3.2-7: Number of starts for the Base Case and 20% Case ...............................5-90 5.3.4.1-1: SPP load for selected weeks ..................................................................5-91 5.3.4.1-2: MAPS runs performed for forecast error analysis...................................5-93
Final Report
Page xvi
5.3.4.2-1: Number of starts by unit type for 20% Cases .........................................5-94 5.3.4.2-2: Capacity factors while up by unit type for 20% Cases ............................5-95 5.3.4.2-3: Number of starts by unit type for 10% Cases .........................................5-95 5.3.4.2-4: Capacity factors while up by unit type for 10% Cases ............................5-95 5.3.4.3-1: Direction of forecast errors for 20% Cases .............................................5-97 5.3.4.3-2: Forecast direction and wind curtailment for all 20% Cases ....................5-97 5.4.1-1: Scenarios analyzed for the 20% Case intra-hour simulations .................5-103 5.4.1.4-1: 10-minute deviations from hourly wind averages and wind forecasts for the 20% Case for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), in MW ...............................................................................5-108
6. MARKET IMPACT STUDY

6.1.3-1: Count of marginal hours by unit type ...........................................................6-6 6.1.3-2: Ratio of marginal hours by unit type.............................................................6-6 6.1.3-3: Market clearing price using assumptions from table 6.1.3-4........................6-7 6.1.3-4: Fuel price and heat rate assumptions ..........................................................6-7
7. METHODOLOGY
7.5-1: Load and wind deviations from their short-term forecasts for representative days, in MW .............................................................7-9 7.6.1-1: 36 MAPS model simulations ......................................................................7-14
Final Report
Page xvii
1.
1.1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) selected Charles River Associates (CRA) in early 2009 to conduct a study to determine the operational and reliability impact of integrating wind generation into the SPP transmission system and energy markets. The study required an intensive effort to perform a detailed engineering analysis and then interpret the findings and associated policy implications in the context of a regional market. To achieve the objectives, the study assessed the impacts of wind generation on three different aspects of SPP: transmission, operation, and markets.
1.2.
STUDY APPROACH
The study was performed for the year 2010 with the assumption that SPP operates as a single balancing authority (BA) with a co-optimized energy and ancillary service market (Day 2 Market). Three wind penetration levels were studied and each was compared to the current system conditions (Base Case, with approximately 4% wind penetration). The three penetration levels were 10%, 20%, and 40% by annual energy (10% Case, 20% Case, and 40% Case, respectively). Detailed studies were performed on the 10% and 20% Cases; the 40% Case was examined in those portions of the study that related to wind characteristics. The goal of the study was to identify the challenges of integrating high levels of wind penetration into the SPP transmission system. In order to meet that objective, it was necessary to identify transmission upgrades needed to accommodate the studied wind power additions with minimal curtailment. This was not an economics study; no economic optimization, such as an analysis of the tradeoff between building transmission upgrades and curtailing wind, was performed. Furthermore, the transmission upgrades implemented in the study were based on the assumed wind plant locations and sizes. To begin the study, SPP selected a set of wind plants from the SPP Generation Interconnection (GI) queue as of February 2009 to encompass the full range of wind capacity needed for the Base Case through the 40% Case.1 CRA then analyzed the characteristics of the selected wind plants, including probabilistic output and geographic correlation characteristics, as discussed in Section 3.2 Next, CRA assessed the power flow models
1 It is important to note that this study was not intended to address the impact of any individual wind plant and therefore the results should not be tied to, or used to evaluate, any individual wind plant or its operations. 2 The study results may have been different if future wind generation sites were based on wind resource assessment that showed greater geographical diversity, rather than the GI queue. Greater geographical diversity helps mitigating the variability of aggregate wind generation.
Final Report
Page 1-1
provided by SPP representing four seasons for the Base, 10%, and 20% Cases. This assessment led to the identification of transmission upgrades needed to accommodate the wind plant additions associated with each penetration level.3 The transmission upgrades were studied using several different approaches, including voltage analysis, dynamic stability analysis, and available transfer capability (ATC) analysis, as discussed in Section 4. The results of the wind characteristics analysis (Section 3) and transmission analysis (Section 4) were then used to analyze the impact of wind power on ancillary services (reserves in particular), as well as their impact on the dynamic system operations via a production simulation. The production simulation analyzed the effects of increased wind power on congestion patterns, unit commitment and dispatch decisions, and forecasting errors. Additionally, intra-hour simulations were performed for a selected day to address the challenges of wind variability. The implications of these simulation results are discussed in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 synthesizes the findings of Section 3 through Section 5 in order to examine the implications of wind power for the SPP market. It also provides recommendations ranging from methods for addressing forecast errors to policy reform. Methodological details are provided in Section 7.
1.3.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SPP wind generation resources are primarily located in the western portion of the SPP footprint, mostly in transmission-constrained locations away from load and non-wind generation centers. For this reason, increase in the wind penetration level causes changes in the power flow patterns, requiring upgrades and/or reconfigurations to the transmission system. In particular, the power flows from western SPP to eastern SPP increase significantly. To accommodate the increased west-to-east flows while meeting the reliability standards of the SPP Criteria, a number of transmission expansions were required. These included new transmission lines totaling 1,260 miles of 345 kV and 40 miles of 230 kV lines for the 10% Case, and an additional 485 miles of 765 kV, 766 miles of 345 kV, 205 miles of 230 kV, and 25 miles of 115 kV lines for the 20% Case. With the aforementioned transmission expansions, current voltage and thermal transfer limitations in the areas of greatest wind expansion were eased. For example, voltage-driven transfer limitations from SPS to SPP were increased from 529 MW in the Base Case to 1,200 MW and 3,090 MW in the 10% and 20% Cases, respectively. The contingency analysis that CRA performed on this expanded grid identified new flowgates that should be monitored during operations. No voltage stability issues were found, mainly due to the transmission expansions.
3 Transmission upgrades were selected based on their projected impact on SPP transmission system capabilities; no consideration was made of the estimated cost of any of the upgrades.
Final Report
Page 1-2
No transient stability issues were found for the 10% or 20% Cases, supporting the conclusion that increasing wind penetration levels, along with appropriate transmission expansions, does not adversely affect the transient stability of the power system. Based on the findings of this study, several transmission-related recommendations are made. First, major transmission reinforcements are needed to accommodate increased wind penetration levels, starting as low as 10%. Considering that the lead times of transmission projects are longer than those of wind plant projects, it is recommended that SPP take definitive steps to reinforce its transmission network, especially west to east, and that economic analyses of the needed transmission expansions be undertaken. Second, the addition of high voltage lines requires the installation of voltage control devices to prevent over-voltages under low-flow conditions due to contingencies or low wind power availability. Third, dynamic voltage support becomes increasingly important for higher wind penetration levels, in which several conventional generators may become displaced in the dispatch order by wind generators. Therefore, it is recommended that new reactive capability of the same nature as that provided by the displaced thermal units (i.e., continuously and instantaneously controllable) be added as wind penetration increases.4 The study found that, with all needed transmission upgrades in place, integrating the levels of wind studied in the 10% and 20% Cases could be attained without adversely impacting SPP system reliability. Although localized voltage issues and transmission congestion were observed, wind curtailment levels, on average, were around 1% for both the 10% Case and the 20% Case. Even with the transmission upgrades, however, operational complexity would increase and lead to economic challenges. Consolidating SPP into a single BA, as is planned, should reduce overall needs for reserves and flexible resources. To accommodate higher wind penetration levels, however, more operational flexibility (more start-ups and cycling of units) is required. The need for flexible units increases as the forecast error increases. A robust transmission system could reduce local generation requirements. Additionally, as the operational needs for non-wind units change, resulting changes in the commitment and dispatch bring about new flow patterns. Coordinated planning between wind and transmission is therefore essential. SPP should proceed with the cluster approach for generation interconnection evaluations, and explicitly account for the diversity and correlation of wind resources in generation interconnection and planning studies. If possible, SPP should explore ways to increase diversity in the wind resource base by encouraging wind power investment in areas without significant wind development. Ancillary service requirements depend on the wind penetration level. The increase of wind power leads to a need for increased regulation capability. The regulation requirement increase accelerates as the wind penetration level increases. Wind regulation needs are time-
4 The quantity of voltage support provided by individual units was not assessed in this study.
Final Report
Page 1-3
varying and can be reduced by improvements in forecast accuracy. The study findings show that regulation-up and regulation-down requirements are not symmetric and could differ significantly from one another. Furthermore, wind may be able to provide regulation down during high-wind periods. Therefore, CRA recommends that these two ancillary services be separated. A new type of ancillary service, such as load-following reserves, which are not currently defined or required in SPP, may become highly beneficial as the net load forecast variability increases with higher wind penetration levels.5 As with regulation, the need for these reserves is also time-dependent and not symmetric in each direction. The study found that forecast errors increase startups of flexible units and reduce generation of less flexible units, which typically have lower marginal costs. Forecast errors were observed to have different impacts depending on whether the deviation from the forecast was positive or negative. Wind under-forecasts tend to exacerbate wind curtailments and small forecast errors lead to increased curtailment levels. Wind over-forecasts have a much smaller impact on curtailment but could lead to reliability issues if not enough non-wind resources are committed. Primary causes for wind curtailments observed in the study include minimum generation requirements of committed thermal units, the need to dispatch units capable of providing reserves (especially regulation down), and transmission congestion. Minimum generation challenges arise when minimum generation is higher than net load (which decreases as the wind penetration level increases). Given the high correlation in output observed among wind sites within SPP, the implementation of a centralized forecasting system would be advantageous. It is recommended that specific-purpose forecasts be procured for difficult operational situations, such as high magnitude ramps. The needs for operational flexibility, enhanced ancillary services, and accommodation of forecast error all lead to the conclusion that unit commitment capabilities are key to wind integration. Efficient wind integration requires a sophisticated unit commitment process that explicitly addresses the uncertainty associated with forecast errors. Based on the operational impacts observed and the wind characteristics analyzed, it is recommended that the dayahead unit commitment be supplemented with an intra-day unit commitment (e.g., 4-hourahead).6 The study identified four major implications of wind integration under the Day 2 Market, which will operate as a single BA. First, the Day 2 Market will lead to different unit commitment and dispatch decisions than are currently observed, even without high wind penetration level and additional transmission. Second, a single BA would greatly facilitate the integration of wind. Third, higher penetration levels of wind do not immediately guarantee a lower market clearing price for energy. Fourth, error in the net load forecast will increase.
5 Net load is defined as load minus wind generation. 6 The Day 2 Market is assumed to have a day-ahead commitment schedule.
Final Report
Page 1-4
This study contains an overview of existing policies pertaining to wind integration in other markets, both in North America and Europe. CRA has reviewed these policies in conjunction with the findings of the analyses performed and has provided recommendations for policy implementation. These recommendations are presented and discussed in Section 6. The analytical results of the study show that there are no significant technical barriers to integrating wind generation to a 20% penetration level into the SPP system, provided that sufficient transmission is built to support it. The study, however, did not include an optimization of the level of transmission expansion required to support wind integration. The findings of this study could be used as the basis of such an optimization, which along with further analyses using actual SPP wind plant operating data (when available), is recommended as a follow-up study.
Final Report
Page 1-5
2.
2.1.
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) selected Charles River Associates (CRA) in early 2009 to conduct a study to determine the operational and reliability impact of integrating wind generation into the SPP transmission system and energy markets. The study required an intensive effort to perform a detailed engineering analysis correctly and then interpret the findings and associated policy implications in the context of a broad regional market. To achieve the overall objective, the study assessed the impacts of wind generation on three different aspects of SPP: transmission, operation, and markets. The three aspects and the analyses associated with each are summarized below.
Transmission Impact Study

Steady-state thermal and voltage analysis: pre- and post-contingency Voltage stability analysis: PV, VQ, and dV/dQ analyses Transmission expansion requirements to facilitate the wind projects including transient stability, voltage stability, and VAR requirements Impacts of wind generation on ATC Recommendations on generation interconnection (GI) analysis, procedures, and requirements for wind generation
Operational Impact Study

Impacts on both operations and markets in the regulation, load-following, and unit commitment timeframes Time-synchronized load and wind data Impacts on ancillary services
Market Impact Study

Impact of the additional wind generation on the Energy Imbalance Market and identification of potential policy changes required to accommodate the additional wind generation Review of the practices of other markets that have successfully integrated large amounts of wind generation and identification of best practices Propose method to incorporate day-ahead wind and load forecasting error in the unit commitment and dispatch processes
Final Report
Page 2-1
The study was performed for the year 2010 with the assumption that SPP operates as a single balancing authority (BA) with a co-optimized energy and ancillary service market (Day 2 Market). The goal was to identify the challenges of high wind penetration levels and the infrastructure required to accommodate the integration of wind into the SPP transmission system. One of the objectives was to identify the transmission upgrades needed to accommodate wind power without curtailment. This was not an economics study and therefore economic optimization, such as determining an appropriate balance between building transmission upgrades and curtailing wind was not performed. Another important note is that the study was not intended to address the impact of any individual wind plant and therefore the analyses results should not be tied to, or used to evaluate, any individual wind plant and its operations. The analyses were performed in the following order. First, SPP selected the set of wind plants to be included in the study. Analysis of these select wind plants characteristics was performed. This is discussed in Section 3. Then, transmission expansions needed to accommodate these wind plants were identified band added to the current system. These needs were based on the application of the SPP Criteria to a set of power flows with increased wind penetration without any consideration for cost. Transmission related analysis was performed for the upgraded system and discussed in Section 4. The results from the wind characteristic analysis (Section 3) and transmission analysis (Section 4) were then used to analyze the impact of wind on ancillary services, reserves in particular, and on system operation over time by running a production simulation. The production simulation analyzed additional congestion not observed in the transmission analysis in Section 4, unit commitment and dispatch issues, and the impact of forecast errors. These impacts to operations are all discussed in Section 5. Finally Section 6 translates findings from Section 3 through Section 5 to market impacts, and provides policy recommendations including methods to address forecast errors. Details of the methodologies used for this study are described in Section 7.
2.2.
THE SOUTHWEST POWER POOL
SPP, originally founded in 1941, is a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As an RTO, SPP ensures reliable supply of power, adequate transmission infrastructure, and competitive wholesale pricing of electricity. SPP currently serves parts or all of eight states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) and has members in nine states (Mississippi in addition to the eight states listed above), with over five million customers. It covers a footprint of over 370,000 square miles with 47,000 miles of transmission lines (nearly enough to circle the earth twice). SPP is interconnected heavily with Entergy, Associated Electric Cooperative Incorporated (AECI), the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO), Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP), and through limited DC ties with Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). SPP is also a North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Regional
Final Report
Page 2-2
Entity, overseeing compliance enforcement and reliability standards development. Figure 2.21 [52] shows the geographic footprint of SPP.
Figure 2.2-1: SPP footprint
As of December 2008, the forecasted 2009 peak demand for SPP was approximately 50 GW and the annual energy consumption was 240 TWh. As of December 2008, SPP had nearly 66
Final Report
Page 2-3
GW of installed capacity with a generation portfolio of approximately 40% coal, 42% gas, 4% nuclear, 4% hydro, 2% wind, and 8% other generation technologies. The wind power component (nameplate) of the portfolio was approximately 1.8 GW in December 2008, and approaching 3 GW in December 2009. Since 2007, SPP has been operating an Energy Imbalance Service Market in which participants can buy and sell wholesale electricity in real time. This market is currently operated under 13 BAs. The definition of SPP used for the purpose of this study is limited to the SPP members that are part of the SPP market. These members are American Electric Power West (AEPW), Empire District Electric Company (EMDE), Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), City of Independence, Missouri (INDN), Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (KACY), Kansas City Power and Light (KACP), Westar (WERE), Lincoln Electric System (LESY), Midwest Energy Incorporated (MIDW), Missouri Public Service (MIPU),1 Nebraska Public Power (NPPD), Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OKGE), Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (SUNC), and Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC). SPP plans to implement the Day-Ahead Market and Ancillary Services Market by December 2013 under a single BA (Day-2 Market). For this study, it is assumed that these markets were already in service.
2.3.
WIND GENERATION POTENTIAL IN SPP AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS
Figure 2.3-1 [55] shows the wind potential of the entire United States, as provided by 3Tier Inc. As seen in Figure 2.3-1, high wind potential exists on either side of the Rocky Mountains, including a significant portion of the SPP footprint (most of Nebraska and Kansas, the western half of Oklahoma, and the portions of New Mexico and Texas in SPP), along with the upper Midwest region of the Eastern Interconnection (EIC), including MAPP, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), and MISO. Significant penetration of wind has an enormous potential to displace generation from existing thermal units, leading to reduced emissions (NOx, SO2, and CO2) and to reduce overall energy production costs. As of December 2009, the SPP GI queue contains approximately 48,000 MW of wind generation (nearly 80% of all generation projects in the queue). This high wind potential region is sure to play a key role in evolving national energy policy. Even in the absence of a national requirement, many states are considering or requiring Renewable Energy Standards (RES), mandating that utilities generation portfolios must
1 Missouri Public Service (MIPU) is now KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company (GMOC). However it will be referred to as Missouri Public Service or MIPU throughout this report. This is to avoid unnecessary confusion as the data received from SPP, including the power flow cases, historical load data, and load forecast data, were all using the MIPU nomenclature.
Final Report
Page 2-4
contain a minimum amount of renewable sources. Of the states within the SPP footprint, Missouri, New Mexico, and Texas already require RES, and Kansas2 has recently established renewable portfolio standard although the rules and regulations that administer this portfolio standard has not yet been established at the time of preparing this report. Of the renewable resources available, wind is in the most advanced stage of development in the SPP region.
Figure 2.3-1: Wind potential in the United States
Under pending federal and state policies, states that lack renewable resources may need to seek imported power generated by renewable resources. SPP has the potential to become a large exporter of wind power to neighboring states with little wind potential. As discussed in Section 2.4, however, SPP faces significant operational considerations at all levels.
2 House Bill 2369 that established the renewable portfolio standard for Kansas was enacted in May 2009. The Kansas Corporation Commission is now given 12 months to establish rules and regulations to administer the portfolio standard, which requires states investor owned utilities and larger corporative utilities to generate or purchase certain amount of generation capacity from eligible renewable resources.
Final Report
Page 2-5
2.4.
KEY CHALLENGES OF WIND INTEGRATION
Integrating wind power into an existing portfolio does not pose significant operational challenges when the wind penetration level is low, especially in portfolios with abundant flexible resources with high response rates. As the wind penetration level increases, however, challenges arise due to the unique characteristics of wind. The most apparent challenge is that wind is a variable resource and cannot be controlled in the same manner as traditional generators. The variability leads to a greater need for reserves; disturbances of the generation-to-load balance due to high ramp events require supplementation by responsive resources, including generation and demand. Additional reserves have additional costs and increase operational challenges, especially in a market like that of SPP, in which the generation is primarily thermal with few hydro resources. Furthermore, the peak hours for wind generation usually occur in the early morning, just before sunrise, and do not coincide with the peak hours for load, which typically occur mid- to late-afternoon.3 As a result, net load (load minus wind generation) exhibits more significant fluctuations between off-peak and on-peak periods. This leads to more operational challenges in controlling non-wind generators serving the net load. For a primarily thermal generation portfolio like that of SPP, this means that additional challenges arise during the off-peak hours because of minimum generation requirements. The variation of wind output and forecast errors have a significant impact on non-wind unit commitment. Under-forecasting wind generation leads to over-commitment of non-wind generation and over-forecasting wind generation leads to under-commitment. Overcommitment can result in a suboptimal economic dispatch and high uplift costs as well as wind generator curtailment. Under-commitment can result in shortage of supply, a reliability concern. In order to avoid these commitment problems, the uncertainty introduced by wind power in the unit commitment timeframe must be minimized and explicitly modeled in the unit commitment decisions, especially with high wind power penetration levels. Another factor affecting wind integration is the output characteristic of a wind plant power curve. Figure 2.4-1 [53] shows a representative power curve. The power curve is unique to each turbine type and location and represents the relationship between wind speed and electric power output for a given unit at a given site. As seen in Figure 2.4-1, the forecast error can vary greatly depending on the wind speed. If the wind speed is in the range shown as S2 (in between the two red lines), a small forecast error in wind speed leads to a large error in wind generation output. If wind speed is in the S3 range but near the border of the S3 and S4 range, there is a risk of a cutoff event, which shuts down the wind turbine to avoid mechanical failure. These differing potential forecasting errors will lead to different reserves needs.
3 This is typically not true for off-shore wind, but there are no planned off-shore wind additions for SPP.
Final Report
Page 2-6
S1
S2
S3
S4
Figure 2.4-1: Wind turbine power curve
Apart from the unique characteristics of wind power, it is important to note that wind generation is usually located far from load centers; therefore, advanced transmission planning is required. The topology and technology of the transmission overlay is critical to integrating high wind power penetration levels. This is especially true for SPP because the areas of highest wind potential are in the west, but the load centers are in the east. Another transmission-related concern is that SPP has limited DC connections with ERCOT (to the south) and WECC (to the west). Therefore, if SPP were to export wind power, the best option would be to export to neighboring areas east and southeast of SPP, requiring additional transmission expansion. Finally, the geographic characteristics of the SPP footprint lead to another challenge. Because the SPP footprint is primarily flat terrain, the correlation of output among wind plants is relatively high compared to that of regions like PJM, where most wind plants are sited on ridge tops. Therefore, as this report will illustrate, the stochastic properties of wind and load time series become critical.
Final Report
Page 2-7
3.
SPP WIND RESOURCES: CASES ANALYZED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
This section describes the wind penetration cases modeled in this study, including a specification of the wind plants considered in each case, and analyzes their statistical characteristics. The focus of the analysis in this section is on the characteristics of wind resources that have large impacts on operations, such as average wind profiles and the deviations from those averages, and spatial and temporal wind profile diversity. The insights gained in this part of the study were used to shape and inform the transmission analysis described in Section 4 and the operations analysis described in Section 5. Four wind penetration cases defined by SPP were analyzed: the power system as it currently exists (approximately 4% wind penetration), and three levels of higher wind penetration 10%, 20%, and 40% (10% Case, 20% Case, and 40% Case, respectively). The level of penetration in each scenario signifies the percentage of annual energy generated by wind in SPP. Most wind plants in each case are concentrated in the western part of SPP. The statistical analysis performed by CRA and described in this section revealed high variability in the available wind power outputs. In fact, the maximum and minimum observed available output for the aggregate wind generating resources in SPP ranges from less than 1% to 92% of the nameplate wind capacity. On average, available wind generation depends on the season and time of day, among others factors. The overall capacity factor1 of the wind plants is about 39%. SPP wind resources exhibit geographic diversity in their profiles, so for this reason, consolidating BAs in SPP should reduce overall needs for reserves and flexible resources. For the wind cases analyzed, however, increasing wind penetration yielded little gain in diversity, because the geographic spread of wind plants in the higher wind penetration cases is similar to that of the existing wind plants. Greater geographic diversity mitigates the variability of aggregate wind generation. The study results might have been different, therefore, had different assumptions for wind generation siting been used, e.g., based on wind resource assessments instead of the current generation interconnection queue. Based on the findings in this section, CRA makes the following recommendations to enable high levels of wind integration in the SPP power system: Proceed with the consolidation of SPP into a single BA. Proceed with the cluster approach for GI evaluations.
1 Capacity factor is the average output as a percentage of the total nameplate capacity.
Final Report
Page 3-1
Explicitly account for the diversity and correlation of wind resources in planning and interconnection studies, e.g., through the use of historical wind data in the determination of wind power dispatch for the cluster studies mentioned above. Explore ways to increase diversity in the wind resource base by encouraging wind power investment in areas without significant development.2
The remainder of this section is organized into three portions. Section 3.1 describes the wind penetration cases modeled in the study; Section 3.2 provides the statistical characteristics of wind profiles; and Section 3.3 discusses the spatial and temporal diversity of wind resources in SPP.
3.1.
WIND PENETRATION CASES FOR SPP AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS
For the purposes of this study, four scenarios defined by SPP were analyzed: the power system as it currently exists (Base Case, 4% wind penetration), and three levels of wind penetration 10%, 20%, and 40%. The level of penetration in each scenario signifies the percentage of annual energy generated by wind in SPP; because the capacity factor of wind generation is below the fleet average, the wind generation proportions of total installed nameplate capacity for each scenario were higher than the corresponding penetration levels. Detailed analysis was done for the Base, 10%, and 20% Cases, while partial analysis was done for the 40% Case. Table 3.1-1 shows the wind generation capacity for each wind penetration level.3
Table 3.1-1: Wind generation capacity by penetration level
Penetration Scenario Number of farms Installed Nameplate Wind Capacity (MW) Wind/Non-Wind Nameplate Capacity
Base Case 10% Case 40 2,877 0.046 69 6,840 0.109
20% Case 100 13,674 0.217
40% Case 142 25,003 0.397
2 Western Nebraska is one example of a region in SPP with good wind potential and low wind profile correlation with the areas where most of the wind sites in this study are located. 3 Wind/Non-Wind Nameplate Capacity shows the ratio of wind generation capacity to non-wind generation capacity. It does not represent the percentage of total generation comprised of wind power. Since this study defined wind penetration level by annual energy provided by wind plants, both the wind/non-wind ratio will differ from the penetration level (as would the percentage of wind to total nameplace capacity) based on the assumed capacity factor for wind plants.
Final Report
Page 3-2
Attributes of the wind plants considered in this study, including location, size, and operating characteristics, were obtained from the SPP GI queue as of February 2009. The Base Case includes wind generators in commercial operation as of February 2009. To allocate queue capacity as new entry in the 10%, 20%, and 40% Cases, SPP prioritized the interconnection requests in the following order: Interconnection Agreement fully executed or on-schedule, Facility Study completed, Facility Study in progress, Impact Study completed, Impact Study in progress, Feasibility Study completed, Feasibility Study in progress. The wind plants for the 10%, 20% and 40% Cases were selected from the queue using this order, so that each case approximately meets its wind penetration level.4 The Base Case wind generation is included in the 10% Case, as is the 10% Case generation in the 20% Case, and the 20% Case generation in the 40% Case. These wind plants were clustered by their geographic location and point of connection to the transmission system. Table 3.1-2 through Table 3.1-5 show the 142 wind plants modeled for this study, including their GI queue ID, capacity, county and state, and the CRA-defined cluster. Figure 3.1-1 shows the geographic location of these wind plants and their clusters, as modeled by CRA.
4 Wind plants for each case were selected assuming a 40% capacity factor for wind plants and projected 2010 annual energy sales for SPP. The 40% capacity factor is consistent with the findings of the NREL wind profiles analyses discussed in Table 3.2-1.
Final Report
Page 3-3
Table 3.1-2: Base Case wind from SPP GI queue as of February 2009
Site # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10* 11 12 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 GI REQUEST GEN-2001-014 GEN-2001-026 GEN-2001-033 GEN-2001-036 GEN-2001-037 GEN-2001-039M GEN-2002-004 GEN-2002-004 GEN-2002-005 GEN-2002-008 GEN-2002-009 GEN-2002-022 GEN-2002-025A GEN-2003-004 GEN-2003-006A GEN-2003-006A GEN-2003-019 GEN-2003-019 GEN-2003-020 GEN-2003-022 GEN-2004-020 GEN-2004-023 GEN-2005-003 GEN-2005-008 GEN-2006-021 GEN-2006-024S MONTE LLANOEST SPSDIST SPSDIST SPSDIST SPSDIST SPSDIST SPSDIST SPSDIST SPSDIST SPSDIST AINSWRTH ELKHRNRDG CRFTNHLS CAPACITY (MW) 96 74 120 80 102 110 75 75 114 240 80 160 101 100 110 110 100 150 80 120 27 21 31 131 110 19 110 80 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 81 42 AREA WFEC WFEC SPS SPS OKGE WERE EMDE EMDE WFEC SPS SPS SPS KACP WFEC WERE EMDE MIDW MIDW SPS AEPW AEPW WFEC WFEC OKGE WERE WFEC MKEC SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS NPPD NPPD NPPD COUNTY STATE Case Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Cluster C OK C OK SP/NM SP/NM C OK Wichita Wichita Wichita C OK Hitchland Hitchland Amarillo Spearville C OK NE KS NE KS NE KS NE KS Amarillo C OK C OK C OK C OK C OK Wichita C OK Spearville Amarillo Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland E NE E NE E NE
HARPER OK COMANCHE OK CHAVES NM QUAY NM WOODWARD OK WICHITA KS BUTLER KS BUTLER KS ROGER MILLS OK HANSFORD TX HANSFORD TX OLDHAM TX FORD KS CADDO OK CLOUD KS CLOUD KS ELLSWORTH KS ELLSWORTH KS CARSON TX CUSTER OK CUSTER OK CADDO OK CADDO/KIOWOK HARPER OK BARBER KS HARPER OK MONTEZUMA KS CARSON TX MOORE TX MOORE TX MOORE TX MOORE TX SHERMAN TX SHERMAN TX HANSFORD TX TEXAS OK TEXAS OK BROWN NE KNOX NE KNOX NE
* Wind site 10 has 160 MW of wind power in the Base Case and 240 MW of wind power in the 10% Case and above.
Final Report
Page 3-4
Table 3.1-3: 10% Case wind from SPP GI queue as of February 2009
Site # 10* 13 15 22 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 GI REQUEST GEN-2002-008 GEN-2002-022 GEN-2002-025A GEN-2003-020 GEN-2002-006 GEN-2003-005 GEN-2005-012 GEN-2005-016 GEN-2006-006 GEN-2006-020S GEN-2006-034 GEN-2006-040 GEN-2006-043 GEN-2006-044 GEN-2006-044 GEN-2006-044 GEN-2006-045 GEN-2006-046 GEN-2006-047 GEN-2006-048 GEN-2006-049 GEN-2006-049 GEN-2006-049 GEN-2007-004 GEN-2007-005 MADISONCO BOYDCO1 ANTELOPECO COOKERCO BUTLERCO CAPACITY (MW) 240 80 50 80 150 100 250 150 206 20 81 100 99 65 139 196 240 130 240 150 141 139 120 150 200 120 125 111 108 105 AREA SPS SPS KACP SPS SPS WFEC SUNC WERE MKEC SPS SUNC SUNC AEPW SPS SPS SPS SPS OKGE SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS NPPD WAPA NPPD NPPD NPPD COUNTY STATE Case 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Cluster Hitchland Amarillo Spearville Amarillo Hitchland C OK Spearville Wichita Spearville Hitchland NW KS NW KS C OK Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland Amarillo C OK Amarillo SP/NM Hitchland Hitchland Hitchland SP/NM Hitchland E NE E NE E NE W NE E NE
HANSFORD TX OLDHAM TX FORD KS CARSON TX TEXAS OK CADDO OK FORD KS ELK KS FORD KS HANSFORD TX SHERMAN KS THOMAS KS BECKHAM OK HANSFORD TX HANSFORD TX HANSFORD TX RANDALL TX DEWEY OK RANDALL TX EDDY NM SEWARD KS SEWARD KS SEWARD KS TERRY TX HUTCHINSONTX MADISON NE BOYD NE ANTELOPE NE HOOKER NE BUTLER NE
* Wind site 10 has 160 MW of wind power in the Base Case and 240 MW of wind power in the 10% Case and above.
Final Report
Page 3-5
Site # 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 GI REQUEST GEN-2007-006 GEN-2007-008 GEN-2007-010 GEN-2007-011 GEN-2007-012 GEN-2007-013 GEN-2007-015 GEN-2007-017 GEN-2007-019 GEN-2007-019 GEN-2007-021 GEN-2007-025 GEN-2007-026 GEN-2007-027 GEN-2007-028 GEN-2007-030 GEN-2007-032 GEN-2007-033 GEN-2007-033 GEN-2007-034 GEN-2007-036 GEN-2007-037 GEN-2007-038 GEN-2007-040 GEN-2007-041 GEN-2007-042 GEN-2007-043 GEN-2007-044 PIERCECO CHERRYCO HAMILTONCO CAPACITY (MW) 200 300 200 135 300 99 129 101 188 188 201 300 130 60 200 200 150 100 100 150 200 200 200 500 600 360 300 300 171 272 301 AREA OKGE SPS SPS SUNC SUNC SUNC WERE MIPU SPS SPS OKGE WERE SPS SPS MKEC SPS WFEC SPS SPS SPS SUNC SUNC SUNC SUNC SPS SPS OKGE OKGE NPPD NPPD NPPD COUNTY STATE Case 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Cluster C OK Amarillo Amarillo Spearville NW KS Wichita NE KS NE KS Spearville Spearville C OK Wichita Amarillo SP/NM NE KS Amarillo C OK Hitchland Hitchland SP/NM Spearville Spearville Spearville Spearville Hitchland Hitchland C OK C OK E NE E NE E NE
BLAINE OK GRAY TX CASTRO TX HAMILTON KS RAWLINS KS WICHITA KS NEMAHA KS NODAWAY MO HAMILTON KS HAMILTON KS DEWEY OK BARBER KS DEAF SMITH TX CURRY NM CLOUD KS GRAY TX CUSTER OK HUTCHINSONTX HUTCHINSONTX ROOSEVELT NM FORD KS FORD KS FORD KS GRAY KS TEXAS OK HANSFORD TX GRADY OK BLAINE OK PIERCE NE CHERRY NE HAMILTON NE
Final Report
Page 3-6
Site # 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 GI REQUEST GEN-2007-045 GEN-2007-046 GEN-2007-047 GEN-2007-048 GEN-2007-049 GEN-2007-050 GEN-2007-051 GEN-2007-053 GEN-2007-055 GEN-2007-056 GEN-2007-057 GEN-2007-060 GEN-2007-061 GEN-2007-062 GEN-2007-062 GEN-2007-062 GEN-2007-062 GEN-2008-001 GEN-2008-003 GEN-2008-007 GEN-2008-008 GEN-2008-009 GEN-2008-011 GEN-2008-012 GEN-2008-013 GEN-2008-014 GEN-2008-015 GEN-2008-016 GEN-2008-017 BOYDCO2 CHEYENNECO BOOKERCO GEN-2008-018 GEN-2008-019 GEN-2008-022 GEN-2008-023 GEN-2008-024 GEN-2008-025 GEN-2008-026 GEN-2008-027 GEN-2008-028 GEN-2008-029 CAPACITY (MW) 171 200 204 400 60 200 200 150 250 600 35 202 200 191 191 191 191 200 101 102 60 60 600 150 300 150 150 248 300 491 468 408 405 300 909 150 1,001 150 300 200 360 250 AREA SPS SPS SUNC SPS WFEC OKGE WFEC MIPU SPS SPS SPS OKGE OKGE OKGE OKGE OKGE OKGE MIDW OKGE SPS SPS SPS SUNC EMDE OKGE SPS SPS SPS SUNC WAPA WAPA NPPD SUNC OKGE SPS AEPW SUNC SUNC SUNC WERE SPS OKGE COUNTY STATE Case 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Cluster Amarillo Hitchland NW KS Amarillo C OK C OK C OK NE KS SP/NM Hitchland Hitchland C OK C OK C OK C OK C OK C OK NW KS C OK SP/NM SP/NM SP/NM Spearville NE KS C OK SP/NM SP/NM SP/NM NW KS E NE W NE W NE Spearville C OK SP/NM C OK Wichita NW KS NW KS NE KS Hitchland C OK
CARSON TX TEXAS OK THOMAS KS RANDALL TX BECKHAM OK WOODWARD OK WOODWARD OK NODAWAY MO LEA NM CIMARRON TX MOORE TX BLAINE OK ELLIS OK HARPER OK HARPER OK HARPER OK HARPER OK ELLIS OK WOODWARD OK GARZA TX GARZA TX CHAVES NM FINNEY KS BENTON AR GARFIELD OK FLOYD TX FLOYD TX LYNN TX SCOTT KS BOYD NE CHEYENNE NE HOOKER NE FINNEY KS DEWEY OK CHAVES NM WASHITA OK CLARK KS SHERMAN KS THOMAS KS MORRIS KS TEXAS OK ELLIS OK
Final Report
Page 3-7
East Nebraska West Nebraska
Northwest Kansas
Northeast Kansas
Spearville Hitchland Amarillo
Wichita
Central Oklahoma South Panhandle / New Mexico

Base Case 10% Case 20% Case 40% Case
Figure 3.1-1: Wind plant sites and clusters
40 MW 200 MW 500 MW 900 MW
230 kV 345 kV 500 kV
Figure 3.1-2 through Figure 3.1-4 show the wind power distribution among the clusters for the Base Case, 10% Case, and 20% Case. Note that most wind plants are concentrated in north Texas, west Oklahoma and southwest Kansas. In fact, the Spearville, Wichita, Central Oklahoma, Amarillo and Hitchland clusters comprise 71%, 72% and 73% of the total wind capacity in SPP in the Base, 10% and 20% Cases, respectively.
Final Report
Page 3-8
Wichita 13% Spearville 7% South Panhandle/ New Mexico 7%
Amarillo 11%
Base Case 2,877 MW
Central Oklahoma 30%
Northeast Kansas 16% Hitchland 10%
East Nebraska 6%
Figure 3.1-2: Base Case wind nameplate capacity distribution by cluster
Northwest West Kansas Nebraska 3% 2% Wichita 8% Spearville 10%
Amarillo 14%
South Panhandle/ New Mexico 7% Northeast Kansas 7%
10% Case 6,840 MW
East Nebraska 9% Hitchland 23%
Figure 3.1-3: 10% Case wind nameplate capacity distribution by cluster
Final Report
Page 3-9
Northwest West Kansas Nebraska 4% 1% Amarillo Wichita 13% 7% Spearville 17%
20% Case 13,674 MW

South Panhandle/ New Mexico 5% Northeast Kansas 7%
East Nebraska 10% Hitchland 19%
Figure 3.1-4: 20% Case wind nameplate capacity distribution by cluster
For areas with high wind potential that neighbor SPP (WAPA, MAPP, and the wind-rich western side of MISO, as seen in Figure 2.3-1), a comparable wind penetration level was assumed in each case. For example, for the 10% Case, these areas were also assumed to have a 10% wind penetration level. Unlike the wind generators within SPP, which were modeled individually at specific locations, wind units outside of SPP were modeled as aggregates.
3.2.
WIND PROFILE STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The analysis of the statistical characteristics of the wind profiles for each wind penetration level is presented in this section. Because the analysis contained in this section was performed on the entire portfolio of wind generation in SPP, the results are not reflective of the statistical characteristics of individual wind plants or clusters. The wind profiles used for this study are based on the profiles developed by AWS Truewind for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS).[21] Section 7.3 provides a detailed explanation of the method employed to assign NREL profiles to the wind plants in each of the cases.
Final Report
Page 3-10
Table 3.2-1 provides a summary of the statistics for the aggregate wind penetration cases. The average capacity factor of the profiles analyzed was just below 40%. Actual available wind output5 varies greatly around the capacity factor, with maximum and minimum observed values at approximately 92% and less than 1% of the nameplate wind capacity. The 95th and 5th percentile outputs are at about 80% and 8% of the wind capacity, i.e., 90% of the time, the available wind power output is between these two values.6
Table 3.2-1: Summary of the wind power statistics by case
Penetration Scenario Number of farms Installed Nameplate Capacity (MW) Wind Wind/Non-Wind Capacity Factor Maximum Output Percentile 95 Output Mean Output Aggregate Output Statistics (MW) Median Output Percentile 5 Output Minimum Output Standard Deviation Max Hourly Increase Max Hourly Decrease 4-Hour-Ahead Forecast Error Statistics (MW) Standard Deviation Maximum Minimum Day-Ahead Forecast Error Statistics (MW) Standard Deviation Maximum Minimum
Base Case 10% Case 40 2,877 0.046 39.5% 2,663 2,336 1,135 1,021 208 16 670 687 626 260 934 -1,025 289 1,258 -1,071 69 6,840 0.109 38.8% 6,265 5,342 2,653 2,418 531 25 1,524 1,538 1,382 572 2,387 -2,492 629 2,871 -2,319
20% Case 100 13,674 0.217 39.0% 12,556 10,756 5,334 4,846 1,096 53 3,043 3,276 2,977 1,136 4,753 -4,564 1,260 5,576 -4,574
40% Case 142 25,003 0.397 39.2% 23,072 19,622 9,804 8,941 2,067 90 5,542 6,428 5,134 2,092 9,178 -8,139 2,334 10,338 -7,916
5 Available wind power output is the maximum power that can be extracted from the wind plants at a given moment. 6 NERC requirements establish the average ACE limit for 90% of the 10-minute intervals. Therefore, the 5th and 95th percentiles of the 10-minute average deviations from forecasts were used as metrics for regulation needs (in Section 5). Doing so ensures that that the range (95th percentile 5th percentile) covers 90% of the cases.
Final Report
Page 3-11
The histograms in Figure 3.2-1 indicate the likelihood of different values of total available wind output for each of the four wind penetration cases. Likelihood in the histograms is measured using the average numbers of hours observed to have the total available wind power within a small range (bin). The histograms have shapes that are different from Gaussian bells. Rather, the histograms exhibit typical truncated Weibull shapes, in which the number of hours increases rapidly as the available wind goes from 0 MW to 10% of the wind nameplate capacity, then increases more gradually until reaching the most likely available wind at 20% of nameplate capacity. The number of hours decreases gradually for further increases in total available wind until reaching 80% of the wind nameplate capacity, where the reductions are more abrupt, dropping to zero observed hours at about 91% of the wind nameplate capacity. In the histograms, the most frequent available wind outputs, or modes, are well below the median available wind output (indicated with dotted lines), and these are in turn below the mean available wind output. The mode, median and mean are approximately 20%, 35% and 39% of the wind nameplate capacity, respectively.
Base Case
600 600
10% Case
Number of hours per year
500 400 300 200 100 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Wind output (MW)
Wind output (MW)
20% Case
600
40% Case
600
500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
500 400 300 200 100 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Wind output (MW)
Wind output (MW)
Figure 3.2-1: Wind power output: histograms by case
Final Report
Page 3-12
Figure 3.2-2 shows the autocorrelation factors for the total available wind output for the four wind penetration cases as a function of the time lag in hours. The correlation factor between two random variables shows the degree to which there is a linear dependency between the two variables. A correlation factor of 1 indicates an exact, positive linear relation between the random variables, -1 indicates an exact negative linear relation, and 0 indicates no linear relation between the variables. The autocorrelation for a time lag of one hour indicates the level of linear relation between the available wind power in consecutive hours. Note that, in the diagrams, the autocorrelation is high (above 0.8) for lags up to four hours. For lags between 12 and 24 hours, the autocorrelation is low (below 0.4) and relatively constant, indicating that total available wind power output would not be a good basis for predicting the available wind power 12 to 24 hours into the future. All wind penetration levels show similar autocorrelation structures. This is because the aggregate wind output profiles for each of the wind penetration levels are highly correlated with each other, as can be seen in the next Section (Figure 3.3-1).7
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Base Case
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
10% Case
Autocorrelation factor
12
16
20
24
12
16
20
24
Lag (hour)
Lag (hour)
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
20% Case
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
40% Case
12
16
20
24
12
16
20
24
Lag (hour)
Lag (hour)
Figure 3.2-2: Wind power output: autocorrelation by case
7 High autocorrelations alone do not mean that a single forecast covering the entire SPP footprint would be sufficient. Forecasts should be done on a plant by plant basis, even if prepared by a centralized forecaster.
Final Report
Page 3-13
The histograms in Figure 3.2-3 describe the probability distribution of the hourly change in available wind power output by wind penetration case. As expected from the previous autocorrelation diagrams, most hourly changes are small, although there are some that are quite large. That is, the distribution of hourly changes is super Gaussian, meaning that, as compared with the Gaussian distribution,8 the likelihood of small hourly changes is higher (higher peak) and the likelihood of large hourly changes is also higher (thicker tails), while the likelihood of intermediate hourly changes is lower.9 Approximately half of the hourly changes are within 2.5% of the nameplate wind capacity, 90% are within 7.5% of nameplate capacity, and 98% are within 12% of nameplate wind capacity. In terms of load, 98% of the hourly wind changes are within 1.3%, 3.2% and 6.4% of the annual average SPP load for the Base, 10% and 20% Cases, respectively. The corresponding figure for the hourly load changes is 8.1%, indicating that load variability is about 25% higher than wind variability in the 20% Case.
Base Case
1,000 1,000
10% Case
800 600 400 200 0 600
800 600 400 200 0
400
200
200
400
600
1,000
500
500
1,000
1,500
Wind output hourly change (MW)
20% Case
1,000 1,000
40% Case
800 600 400 200 0 3,000 2,000 1,000
800 600 400 200 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
2,000
2,000
4,000
6,000
Figure 3.2-3: Hourly change in available wind power output: histograms by case
8 A Gaussian distribution is synonymous with a normal distribution of a random variable. 9 The excess kurtosis for the hourly wind power changes increases from 1.22 for the Base Case to 1.44 for the 40% Case. (A high kurtosis distribution has a sharper peak and longer, wider tails, while a low kurtosis distribution has a more rounded peak and shorter, thinner tails.)
Final Report
Page 3-14
The autocorrelation factors for the hourly wind changes are shown in Figure 3.2-4 by case. These decrease relatively rapidly, reaching 0 at about 5 hours, reaching a minimum intra-day value of -0.2 to -0.25 at a twelve-hour lag, and increasing for the remainder of the day. This means that on average, if power increased from the previous hour to a given hour, it will increase for four more hours and will then decrease about half a day from the given hour, showing some level of daily periodicity in the hourly increments (in a probabilistic sense). Note that the autocorrelation values are low, however, pointing to the difficulty of estimating hourly wind power changes from previous hourly changes.
Base Case
1
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0
10% Case
0.5 0.25 0
12
0.75
16
20
24
0.25
12
16
20
24
Lag (hour)
Lag (hour)
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0
20% Case
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0
40% Case
0.25
12
16
20
24
0.25
12
16
20
24
Lag (hour)
Lag (hour)
Figure 3.2-4: Hourly change in available wind power output: autocorrelations by case
Final Report
Page 3-15
Figure 3.2-5 shows the histograms of wind power deviations from the day-ahead forecasts. The deviations were defined as actual minus forecast, such that positive deviations indicated that the forecast was less than the actual, i.e., an under-forecast. The mean and median deviations were nearly 0. The distributions were not symmetric, however, due to the algorithms employed in producing the day-ahead forecasts. The mode, or most frequent deviation, is about -7% of the nameplate wind capacity in each case, i.e., 7% over-forecast. The likelihood of over-forecasts dropped quickly for higher over-forecasts. For underforecasts, or positive deviations, the likelihood decreased more gradually as the underforecast magnitude increased. Approximately half of the forecast deviations were within 7% of the nameplate wind capacity, 90% were within 15% of nameplate wind capacity, and 98% were within 20% of nameplate wind capacity. Wind deviations from day-ahead wind forecasts in the 20% Case were similar to the load deviations from day-ahead load forecasts, as will be discussed in Section 5.2.2.2.
Base Case
600 600
10% Case
400
400
200
200
0 1,000
500
500
1,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
Forecast error (MW)
Forecast error (MW)
20% Case
600 600
40% Case
400
400
200
200
4,000
2,000
2,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
Forecast error (MW)
Forecast error (MW)
Figure 3.2-5: Histograms of deviations from day-ahead wind forecasts by case
Final Report
Page 3-16
Figure 3.2-6 shows the average daily available wind profile by season for the Base Case. The average profiles are different for different seasons, although the fall and winter profiles are quite similar. All seasons have the highest average available wind in the morning, with the spring, summer, and fall average peaks occurring around 6 am, while the winter peak occurs around 10 am. The season with the steepest average hourly ramps is summer, followed by spring, fall, and winter.
Figure 3.2-6: Base Case average daily wind output by season
Final Report
Page 3-17
Figure 3.2-7 shows the range of available wind power by hour and season as compared to the average profiles. Note that even though average profiles are time-dependent, the range does not appear to be as time-dependent. In other words, for a given season and day, the maximum observed wind output can occur in any hour, not necessarily in the morning, although morning peaks are more frequent. The distribution between the maximum and minimum observed values in each hour has a similar shape to those in the histograms of Figure 3.2-1.
Figure 3.2-7: Base Case range of daily wind output
3.3.
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DIVERSITY OF SPP WIND RESOURCES
Figure 3.3-1 shows the correlation coefficients of the available wind power in the different wind penetration cases. Note that these are extremely high: 0.95 and higher. In other words, the higher wind penetration cases show little gain from the spatial diversity of the wind resources as compared to the Base Case. This is due to the composition of the cases rather than to a lack of diversity in the SPP wind resources. The additional wind plants in the higher wind penetration cases are spread over an area similar to those for the Base Case, thus the high cross-correlations. As a result, the wind profile in each subsequent case is close to a linear scale-up of the preceding one, and the variability and uncertainty in the wind profiles for each case grows almost linearly with nameplate wind capacity, as will be presented in Section 5.2.1.2 and Section 5.2.2.1.
Final Report
Page 3-18
Figure 3.3-1: Wind output cross-correlation between wind penetration cases
The different wind plant clusters, shown in Figure 3.1-1, exhibit higher wind profile diversity than do the different wind penetration cases. Figure 3.3-2 displays the cross-correlations between clusters (40% Case) in different shades of red, with darker shades indicating higher cross-correlations. All cross-correlations are positive, and tend to be higher than 0.4 except for the pairs involving Nebraska, which tend to be lower due to distance. In fact, the relative position between a pair of clusters plays a key role in their cross-correlation, as can be inferred from the Figure 3.3-2. The four clusters with the highest nameplate wind capacity in the 20% Case, i.e., Central Oklahoma, Spearville, Amarillo, and Hitchland, have crosscorrelations that are higher than 0.6.
Figure 3.3-2: Wind output cross-correlation between clusters
Wind profile diversity can also be studied by analyzing the impacts of aggregating wind plants across different regions. The top ten bars in Figure 3.3-3 indicate the standard deviations of
Final Report
Page 3-19
hourly changes in available wind power of each wind plant cluster. The bar in the bottom, labeled as SPP Separate, shows the sum of the standard deviations in each cluster, 1,740 MW. This sum can be interpreted as the standard deviation of the sum of the wind profiles in each cluster if there were no diversity in the profiles, i.e., perfect correlation between the profiles of the different clusters. The second bar from the bottom, in brown, shows the actual standard deviation of the aggregate wind profile (i.e., the sum of the profiles for each cluster), labeled as SPP Aggregate. Note that the standard deviation of the aggregate wind profile, 1,070 MW, is 38.5% lower than the sum of the standard deviations of individual profiles, indicating that there is a good degree of diversity in the wind profiles, consistent with the correlations shown in Figure 3.3-2.
Figure 3.3-3: Standard deviation of hourly available wind power increments by cluster
Standard deviations of hourly wind increments give an indication of the flexible non-wind resources needed to accommodate the wind variability. The total flexible resources needed for the case where each cluster performs dispatch functions independently, akin to maintaining separate BAs in SPP, is proportional to the sum of the standard deviations for each cluster, 1,740 MW. If there is a single BA, the flexible resources needed are proportional to 1,070 MW. This large reduction indicates the advantages of aggregating wind resources into a single BA in terms of reduced need for flexible non-wind resources. To further investigate the geographic diversity of SPP wind resources, both correlation and cross correlation (i.e., with a time lag applied) between the wind profile for each NREL site in SPP and the wind profile for a large NREL site in central Kansas were performed. The
Final Report
Page 3-20
selected reference site is NREL site 394.10 The correlation results are displayed in Figure 3.3-4. In the figure, darker shades of red indicate higher correlations. Note that the correlations are a function of the relative position between the two sites. Correlations decrease fastest with distance along northwest southeast directions and slowest along northeast southwest directions, making iso-correlation curves similar to ellipses centered on site 394, and with major axis in the SW NE direction. This figure is consistent with Figure 3.3-2 in that sites in western Nebraska are poorly correlated with sites in northeast Kansas.
Site 394
Figure 3.3-4: Correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP
Figure 3.3-4 shows the simultaneous correlations between the different wind profile pairs. Sometimes, cross-correlations (i.e., with the comparison profiles shifted in time) are higher than the correlations for the same pair, especially for pairs with significant northwest to southeast separation. For example, if a storm front comes from the north to the south, reaching the northern Nebraska border at 5 am and the southern Kansas border at 11 am, then for that day the cross-correlations between the profiles of a wind plant in northern Nebraska and another wind plant in southern Kansas will be highest if a six-hour delay is considered.
10 NREL site 394 has a capacity of 1,165 MW in the EWITS study. This site was selected as a reference due to its location in central Kansas, and its large size. Because these profiles were built as a sum of profiles for smaller wind site cells [8], the profile for this large site does not exhibit high intra-hour variability, making it appropriate for average comparisons with other wind sites.
Final Report
Page 3-21
Figure 3.3-5 displays the maximum correlations between the profile for NREL site 394 and the profile for each other NREL site in SPPs footprint, allowing for time shifts between profiles. Note that although there are some differences with Figure 3.3-4, these are not major. The plot of the time shifts to attain maximum cross-correlation, shown in Figure 3.3-6, is more instructive. In this figure, blue circles indicate that meteorological phenomena tend to occur before than at site 394 on average, while red circles indicate the opposite. From the figure, it is evident that a) the predominant weather patterns in SPP develop from northwest to southeast, and b) on average it takes about 10 hours for the phenomena to reach southeast Oklahoma from northwest Nebraska. These results are only for average conditions; particular weather patterns may exhibit different directions and speeds. For example, Figure 3.3-7 shows the shift for maximum correlation for a two-day period around March 16, 2004. This day had a high ramp-down event which progressed west to east rather than northwest to southeast.
Site 394
Figure 3.3-5: Maximum correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP
Final Report
Page 3-22
Site 394
Figure 3.3-6: Time-shift for maximum correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP: 3-year time series
The shifts for maximum correlations in Figure 3.3-6 and Figure 3.3-7 show that there is temporal diversity in the wind profiles. This diversity can be measured by the time it takes for events to cross the area with the largest wind penetration in SPP, i.e., northern Texas, southwest Kansas and western Oklahoma. These times are usually a few hours, giving operators equipped with appropriate wind forecasts ample time to plan operations to accommodate the variable wind power phenomena.
Final Report
Page 3-23
Site 394
Figure 3.3-7: Time-shift for maximum correlation factor between NREL site 394 and the remaining NREL sites in SPP: Mar 16, 2004 (high ramp down event)
Final Report
Page 3-24
4.
IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON THE SPP TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
SPP wind generation resources are located predominantly in the western portion of the SPP footprint in locations with limited transfer capability to load centers. Additional wind penetration requires transmission upgrades to enable the delivery of wind power while maintaining acceptable reliability levels. This section of the report identifies transmission expansion necessary to accommodate increased wind penetration in SPP, relying primarily on results of previous SPP transmission studies. Two wind penetration cases were analyzed, the 10% Case and 20% Case, with the Base Case used as a reference. The composition of these wind penetration cases is described in Section 3. A comprehensive transmission analysis of the SPP system was performed for each case with the specified transmission expansion. The findings of the studies in this section are summarized as follows: Increased wind penetration causes significant increases in power flows from western SPP to eastern SPP. To accommodate the increased west-to-east flows while meeting the reliability standards in the SPP Criteria, a number of transmission expansions were required. These included new transmission lines totaling 1,260 miles of 345 kV lines and 40 miles of 230 kV lines for the 10% Case and an additional 485 miles of 765 kV lines, 766 miles of 345 kV lines, 205 miles of 230 kV lines, and 25 miles of 115 kV lines for the 20% Case. These transmission reinforcements eliminate voltage and thermal issues for transfers between SPS North and South. Voltage-driven transfer limitations from SPS to SPP remain, although the maximum transfer is increased from 529 MW in the Base Case to 1,200 MW and 3,090 MW in the 10% and 20% Cases, respectively. Contingency analyses performed by CRA identified new flowgates. These flowgates should be monitored in SPP operations given wind additions and identified transmission upgrades. No voltage stability issues were found for voltages above 0.85 p.u, mainly due to the transmission expansions. However, some voltage violations were seen in the wind-rich areas, mainly in high-wind conditions due to lack of voltage support in some wind plants, or near new 345 kV and 765 kV lines under low flow conditions due to contingencies or low availability of wind. No transient stability issues were found for the 10% and 20% Cases, confirming that increasing wind capacity with appropriate transmission expansion does not adversely affect the transient stability of the power system.
Final Report
Page 4-1
Based on the findings in this chapter, the following recommendations are made to enable high levels of wind integration in the SPP transmission system: Major transmission reinforcements are needed to accommodate high levels of wind penetration, starting as low as 10%. Considering that the lead times of transmission projects are longer than those of wind plant projects, it is recommended that SPP take definitive steps to reinforce its transmission network, especially west to east, and that economic analyses of the needed transmission expansions be undertaken. The addition of high voltage lines requires the installation of voltage control, such as switchable reactors or FACTS devices, to prevent over-voltages under low flow conditions due to contingencies or low availability of wind. Dynamic voltage support becomes increasingly important for the higher wind penetration cases, in which several conventional generators may become displaced in the dispatch order by wind generators. Therefore, it is recommended that new wind plants be required to provide reactive support of the same type and quantity of the displaced thermal units, i.e., continuously and instantaneously controllable reactive support.
The remainder of this section is organized in nine subsections. Section 4.1 provides an overview of the power flow cases and the methodology employed in the analyses. Section 4.2 contains a brief description of the Base Case and the analyses performed. Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 discuss the transmission expansion analysis for the 10% and 20% Cases, respectively. The remaining sections analyze the transmission impacts of the increased wind penetration cases with the transmission expansion from Section 4.3 and Section 4.4. Section 4.5 and Section 4.6 report on the voltage and transient stability studies. Section 4.7 presents additional flowgates to model transmission limitations in the 10% and 20% Cases. Section 4.8 and Section 4.9 discuss the results of deliverability and transfer capability analyses that consider the flowgates from Section 4.7.
4.1.
OVERVIEW OF POWER FLOW CASES AND METHODOLOGY
For the transmission analysis, SPP provided four power flow models for each case, 12 power flow cases in total. These power flow cases represent the 2010 peak load conditions for summer, winter and fall, and minimum load conditions for spring. The wind plant dispatch in the power flow cases was based on wind profiles for 2004 2006 from the NREL EWITS dataset (Section 7.3) and historical load profiles for the same period provided by SPP. For the summer and winter peak power flow cases, the wind plants in the corresponding case were dispatched to the average of the wind output available for the hour with highest load in the given season over the period (2004 2006). In the fall and spring power flow cases, the wind plants were dispatched at the average of the wind output available for the hour with the highest wind in the season of each year. Thus, the fall power flow case represented a peak
Final Report
Page 4-2
load, peak wind condition, while the spring power flow case represented a minimum net load1 condition. Table 4.1-1 provides the total SPP load2 compared to the total wind power dispatch for each of the power flow cases analyzed. The average wind dispatch was about 91% of the installed wind capacity for the spring and fall power flow cases and about 42% of the installed wind capacity for the summer and winter power flow cases.
Table 4.1-1: SPP load and wind power dispatch in the power flow cases
Power Flow Spring minimum Summer peak Fall peak Winter peak Installed Nameplate Capacity
Description Min load, max wind Peak load, corresp wind Peak load, max wind Peak load, corresp wind Wind Wind / Non-Wind
SPP Load (MW) 19,198 48,005 35,604 35,754
Total Wind Generation (MW) Base Case 2,619 1,267 2,604 1,258 2,877 0.046 10% Case 6,195 3,015 6,171 2,858 6,840 0.109 20% Case 12,413 6,040 12,356 5,926 13,674 0.217
Table 4.1-2 shows the dispatch by power flow case area. The distribution of the wind generation by area indicates that most of the generation is in the western part of the SPP footprint. As such, without transmission expansion the insufficient transfer capability between the western and eastern parts of SPP would lead to severe overloads and voltage violations in the 10% and 20% Cases. Each power flow case provided by SPP contained transmission expansions needed to meet the thermal and voltage standards of the SPP Criteria [41] in the normal, pre-contingency state. In general, the expansions were: new facilities from the Balanced Portfolio upgrades [42], new facilities from the Priority Project list [40], facilities assigned to specific GI requests, or re-rating of existing facilities.
These expansions included to avoid pre-contingency overloads are specified in the appropriate sections below.
1 Net load is load minus wind power. 2 The SPP load here does not include SWPA, CELE, LAFA, and LEPA because these are not SPP market participants.
Final Report
Page 4-3
Table 4.1-2: Wind power dispatch in the power flow cases by power flow area, in MW
Season Case WFEC SPS OKGE WERE EMDE KACP MIDW AEPW MKEC NPPD SUNC WAPA MIPU Total Base 412 731 215 299 237 92 232 131 102 168 0 0 0 2,619 Spring 10% 503 2,734 330 434 237 137 232 223 290 570 390 115 0 20% 646 5,144 1,250 781 197 137 232 226 471 1,233 1,897 115 84 Base 170 288 96 147 135 65 152 58 76 80 0 0 0 Summer 10% 201 1,240 155 219 135 97 152 90 209 270 195 52 0 3,015 20% 259 2,279 560 401 135 97 152 90 324 592 1,070 52 29 6,040 Base 253 334 109 127 101 47 95 81 50 61 0 0 0 1,258 Winter 10% 161 1,394 165 188 114 23 95 150 146 206 175 41 0 2,858 20% 395 2,405 747 390 101 70 95 150 223 447 841 41 21 5,926 Base 410 735 213 298 222 93 232 132 99 170 0 0 0 2,604 Fall 10% 497 2,753 326 424 222 137 232 223 288 560 392 117 0 20% 640 5,093 1,247 797 223 137 229 226 461 1,217 1,891 116 79
6,195 12,413 1,267
6,171 12,356
CRA performed an AC contingency analysis on each power flow case provided by SPP. Whenever a violation of the post-contingency SPP Criteria was found, CRA proposed solutions to these violations to the SPP Wind Integration Task Force (WITF). Sometimes, e.g., when line overloads were above 5% and could not be avoided by a generation redispatch, the proposed solutions were transmission upgrades. The WITF considered each of the proposed solutions in consultation with SPP engineers, occasionally leading to alternative solutions that align with SPP expansion plans. The final expansions needed to meet postcontingency reliability criteria are discussed in the sections below. Each new facility included in the 10% Case was also included in the 20% Case. Moreover, if a new facility was required to meet the SPP post-contingency Criteria in one of the seasonal power flow cases for a given wind penetration level, that facility was included in all four seasonal power flow cases. The resulting power flow cases were used to perform voltage stability, transient stability, available transfer capability (ATC), and deliverability studies, all of which are presented in the following sections. They were also used to define the transmission topology and to generate new sets of transmission constraints for production simulation (Section 4.7). The assumptions and methodology for the studies in this section are provided in Section 7.4. The remainder of the section discusses the transmission study results and their implications.
Final Report
Page 4-4
4.2.
BASE CASE ANALYSIS
The Base Case did not require any transmission upgrade to meet the SPP Criteria for the pre-contingency state, beyond those included in the 2010 power flow cases published in the 2009 SPP Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP). The AC contingency analysis performed by CRA yielded post-contingency violations of the SPP Criteria. These Base Case violations, specified in Appendix A.8, were not addressed by transmission expansion and were ignored in the contingency analysis for the 10% and 20% Cases because SPP engineers and SPP WITF members determined that they were due either to model issues or to SPP Criteria violations in the current system, and as such not specifically due to wind power injections. The Base Case transmission topology for lines above 200 kV is shown in Figure 4.2-1. Figure 4.2-2 shows the power flow dispatch in the Base Case seasonal power flow cases. The green and blue circles represent generation from wind and non-wind units, respectively. The area of the circles is proportional to the generation dispatch. The non-wind generators tend to be near load centers, mainly located in the eastern portion of SPP. The wind units tend to be located on the western portion of SPP where the load is relatively low.
Figure 4.2-1: Base Case transmission topology above 200 kV
Final Report
Page 4-5
Spring Minimum
Summer Peak
750 MW 400 MW 100 MW Non-Wind Wind
Fall Peak
750 MW 400 MW 100 MW Non-Wind Wind 750 MW 400 MW 100 MW Non-Wind Wind
Winter Peak
Figure 4.2-2: Base Case generation dispatch in the four seasonal power flow cases
4.3.
10% CASE ANALYSIS
4.3.1. Generation Dispatch in Power Flow Cases and Transmission Expansion

Wind generation in the 10% Case is more than double that in the Base Case, with the majority of the additions in the western portion of SPP (Figure 4.3.1-1). The spring and fall power flow cases had wind power dispatched at almost 30% and 16% of the power flow case load, respectively, while summer and winter wind generation were between 6% and 8% of the SPP load. Due to the significant level of wind power and the limited transfer capability between west and east SPP in the Base Case, the 10% Case required a number of upgrades.
Final Report
Page 4-6
Spring Minimum
Summer Peak
Fall Peak
750 MW 400 MW 100 MW Non-Wind Wind 750 MW 400 MW 100 MW Non-Wind Wind
Winter Peak
Figure 4.3.1-1: 10% Case generation dispatch in the four seasonal power flow cases
To enable power flow convergence and meet the SPP Criteria for the normal, precontingency state without reducing wind generation, SPP engineers included in the 10% Case the following transmission upgrades: All Balanced Portfolio upgrades to eliminate violations due to high north-south flows in the SPS and SUNC areas Hitchland Woodward 345 kV line assigned to the GEN-2006-049 interconnection request; essential to solve the power flow cases once it connects western and eastern parts of the SPP footprint; located at a strategic point of the system based on the generation/load distribution Spearville Comanche Wichita 345 kV line to eliminate voltage violations and line overloads in the 230 kV system in the area
Final Report
Page 4-7
Line and transformer re-ratings to eliminate low overloads near wind plants. In some cases, the re-rating was done to match the winter rating, but most cases required line reconductoring. Additional parallel facilities due to overload in the existing facilities
The upgrades above 200 kV are shown in Figure 4.3.1-2, and the resulting network with voltage above 200 kV is in Figure 4.3.1-3. Note the reinforcements between the western and eastern portions of SPP. The list of all upgrades included by SPP to meet the precontingency SPP Criteria is shown in Appendix A.1.
Figure 4.3.1-2: 10% Case transmission expansions above 200 kV included to eliminate precontingency violations
Final Report
Page 4-8
Figure 4.3.1-3: Initial 10% Case transmission topology above 200 kV
4.3.2. AC Contingency Analysis and Transmission Expansion

CRA performed AC contingency analyses on the four seasonal power flow cases with the transmission expansion described in the previous section. The contingencies used include SPP-defined multi-element contingencies, as well as single contingencies of lines, transformers, and generators in the SPP footprint and surrounding areas. The methodology and assumptions employed and the contingencies implemented are detailed in Section 7.4.1. The contingencies that cause post-contingency violations were clustered according to geographic and electrical proximity. CRA identified two clusters that require transmission reinforcements: 1. 2. Spearville Wichita corridor SPS OKGE corridor
The remaining violations were either solved by re-dispatching thermal generation or were minor violations (lower than 5%) captured by new transmission constraints (Section 4.7). The violations in the clusters are discussed next.
Final Report
Page 4-9
Spearville Wichita Corridor AC Contingency Analysis

Contingencies in this cluster led to violations in the spring and fall power flow cases. The contingencies that led to violations in the spring were: OPEN LINE 539638 539668 1 (Flat Ridge Harper 138 kV) SPP-WERE-34 (Gill Clearwater Milan Harper 138 kV) OPEN LINE 539668 539675 1 (Harper Milan 138 kV) OPEN LINE 533036 533045 1 (Clearwater Gill 138 kV) OPEN LINE 539649 539673 1 (Sawyer Medicine Lodge 138 kV) OPEN LINE 539649 539687 1 (Sawyer Pratt 138 kV) OPEN LINE 560003 560006 1 (Comanche G07-25T 345 kV) OPEN NEW LINE 345 kV - 531469 560003 1 (Comanche Spearville 345 kV) OPEN LINE 532796 560006 1 (G07-25T Wichita 345 kV) OPEN LINE 539679 539695 1 (Mullergren Spearville 230 kV) OPEN LINE 539694 539771 1 (Spearville Nor-Jud 138 kV) OPEN 3WXFormer 539695 531469 531468 1 (Spearville 345/230 kV)
These contingencies are shown in the one-line diagram of Figure 4.3.2-1 using thick traces. In this area, there were 420 MW flowing to Spearville from the Hitchland area, three wind plants injected 551 MW at Spearville, a wind plant injected 98 MW at Flat Ridge, and 232 MW were injected at Smoky Hills, between Knoll and Summit, just north of the area of interest. The load center was Wichita and there were therefore strong flows from west to east on the 345 kV line Spearville Comanche Wichita, on the 230 kV line Spearville Mullergren Circle, and on the 138 kV lines going through Medicine Lodge to Wichita. The postcontingency violations were: The outage of the referred 345 kV lines caused significant overloads (up to 32%) on the 138 kV lines east of Flat Ridge and light overloads (4%) on the 230 kV line Smoky Hills Summit. The outage of the 230 kV line Spearville Mullergren overloaded the 345/230 kV transformer at Spearville by 20%, since the outage re-routed power from the 230 kV network to the 345 kV network.
Final Report
Page 4-10
The outage of the 115 kV line Nor-Jud Spearville re-routed power from the 230 kV and 345 kV lines to the 138 kV and 115 kV lines towards Wichita. The outage of the 115 kV lines north of Medicine Lodge re-routed power that was flowing north (to Mullergren) directly east to Wichita. These outages overloaded (up to 22%) the 138 kV lines east of Medicine Lodge, which were heavily loaded in the pre-contingency case. The outage of the lines east of Flat Ridge overload the 138/115 kV Medicine Lodge transformer by 62% and the lines north of Medicine Lodge by 21%.
420 MW 551 MW
98 MW
Figure 4.3.2-1: Contingencies that cause violations in the Spearville Wichita corridor in the 10% Case spring power flow
The contingencies that led to violations in the fall power flow case were: OPEN LINE 539638 539668 1 (Flat Ridge Harper 138 kV) OPEN NEW LINE 345 kV - 531469 560003 1 (Spearville Comanche 345 kV) OPEN LINE 560003 560006 1 (Comanche G07-25T 345 kV) OPEN LINE 532796 560006 1 (G07-25T Wichita 345 kV) OPEN 3WXFormer 539631 539630 539629 1 (Flat Ridge 138/34.5 kV)
Final Report
Page 4-11
OPEN LINE 539631 539638 1 (Flat Ridge 138 kV) OPEN Gen 539630 1 (Flat Ridge) OPEN LINE 539664 539671 1 (Greensburg Jud Lrg 138 kV) OPEN LINE 532871 539679 1 (Circle Mullergren 230 kV) OPEN LINE 539664 539697 1 (Greensburg Suncity 138 kV) OPEN LINE 533417 533427 1 (E McPherson Refinery 115 kV) SPP-WERE-34 OPEN LINE 539668 539675 1 (Harper Milan 138 kV) OPEN LINE 539649 539673 1 (Sawyer Medicine Lodge 138 kV) OPEN LINE 539673 539697 1 (Medicine Lodge Suncity 138 kV) OPEN LINE 539649 539687 1 (Sawyer Pratt 138 kV) OPEN LINE 532861 539639 1 (E Manhattan Elm Creek 230 kV) OPEN LINE 539679 539695 1 (Mullergren Spearville 230 kV)
This list, illustrated in Figure 4.3.2-2, includes most contingencies in the spring case and some new contingencies. The additional contingencies were due to the higher load in the fall power flow case, almost twice that in the spring power flow case. The main differences were: The outage of the 345 kV line Comanche Wichita caused 13% overloads on the 230 kV line Smoky Hills Summit The outage of the 230 kV line Mullergren Circle overloaded the 115 kV lines south of Mullergren by 9% The outage of the Elm Creek East Manhattan caused light overloads on the 115 kV lines north of Elm Creek
The following transmission upgrades solved violations in the Spearville Wichita corridor and were included based on consultation with the SPP WITF: Summit - Knoll 345 kV line: This line from west to east SPP improved all overloads and eliminated the overload on the 230 kV line Smoky Hills Summit. The line was already included in the 20% Case power flow cases.
Final Report
Page 4-12
Comanche Woodward 345 kV line: This line provided an additional low impedance path towards the west, especially useful in post-contingency situations for the outage of any portion of the 345 kV line Spearville Comanche Wichita. 345/138 kV transformer at Medicine Lodge, connecting Medicine Lodge with a tap in the 345 kV line Comanche Wichita: This transformer reduced overloads in the 138 kV lines near Medicine Lodge. The transformer was disconnected for the outage of the eastern section of the 345 kV line to avoid overloads in the 138 kV lines east of Medicine Lodge. 345/230 kV transformer at Spearville: CRA replaced the existing transformer with a higher capacity transformer to eliminate low overloads for the outage of the 230 kV line Spearville Mullergren. 138/115 kV transformer at Medicine Lodge: CRA replaced the existing transformer with a higher-capacity transformer to eliminate overloads for the outage of the 138 kV line lines east of Flat Ridge.
232 MW
Figure 4.3.2-2: Contingencies that caused violations in the Spearville Wichita corridor in the 10% Case fall power flow
Final Report
Page 4-13
SPS to OKGE Corridor AC Contingency Analysis

Contingencies in this cluster led to violations in all four seasonal power flow cases; the most significant violations occurred in the spring and fall power flow cases. The contingencies that led to violations in the spring power flow cases were: OPEN LINE 514880 515378 1 (Northwest Tatonga 345 kV) OPEN LINE 515375 515378 1 (Woodward Tatonga 345 kV) OPEN NEW LINE 345 kV - 515375 523097 1 (Woodward Hitchland 345 kV) OPEN LINE 525213 525830 1 (Swisher Tuco 230 kV) OPEN LINE 524415 560164 1 (Ama South G07-48T 230 kV) OPEN LINE 525213 560164 1 (Swisher G07-48T 230 kV) OPEN LINE 525481 560009 1 (PlantX G06-45T 230 kV) OPEN LINE 525481 526435 1 (PlantX Sundown 230 kV) OPEN LINE 524911 599955 1 (Roosevelt PNM-DC6 230 kV) OPEN LINE 525524 525830 1 (Tolk Tuco 230 kV) OPEN 2WXFormer 523266 523267 1 (Pringle 230/115 kV) OPEN LINE 523267 523380 1 (Pringle G07-33T 230 kV) OPEN LINE 523380 523979 1 (G07-33T Harrington 230 kV) OPEN Gen 525562 1 (Tolk)
These contingencies are shown in the one-line diagram of Figure 4.3.2-3 using thick traces. In this area, there were 665 MW injected by wind plants in the Hitchland area, 308 MW in the Woodward area, and 970 MW near to and south of Amarillo, TX. The flows west to east toward Oklahoma City were strong on all tie lines. The post-contingency violations were: The outage of the 345 kV lines Hitchland Woodward, Woodward Tatonga or Tatonga Northwest caused overloads in parallel 138 kV lines (up to 21%), in lines south of Hitchland (up to 9%), and in the 138/115 kV corridor Spearville Wichita (up to 5%). The outage of the 230 kV lines south of Amarillo caused overloads in parallel 230 kV (up to 18%) and 115 kV lines (up to 29%).
Final Report
Page 4-14
665 MW
308 MW
970 MW
Figure 4.3.2-3: Contingencies that caused violations in the SPS OKGE corridor in the 10% Case spring power flow
The contingencies that led to violations in the fall power flow case were: OPEN LINE 523853 531449 1 (Finney Holcomb 345 kV) OPEN LINE 523853 560010 1 (Finney G06-49T 345 kV) OPEN NEW LINE 345 kV - 515375 523097 1 (Woodward Hitchland 345 kV) OPEN LINE 515375 515378 1 (Woodward Tatonga 345 kV) OPEN LINE 514880 515378 1 (Northwest Tatonga 345 kV) OPEN LINE 511456 560071 1 (OKU G08-14T 345 kV) OPEN LINE 511456 511468 1 (OKU LES 345 kV) OPEN 3WXFormer 525832 525830 525824 1 (Tuco 345/230 kV) OPEN LINE 523804 524088 1 (McClellan Kirby 115 kV) OPEN LINE 523804 523811 1 (McClellan McLean 115 kV)
Final Report
Page 4-15
OPEN LINE 512107 523811 1 (Sham McLean 115 kV) OPEN 3WXFormer 512106 512105 512108 1 (Sham 115/69 kV) OPEN LINE 512104 512105 1 (Well 4WT Sham 4WT 138 kV) OPEN 3WXFormer 512106 512107 512109 1 (Sham 115/69 kV) OPEN LINE 524072 524079 1 (Yarnell Conway 115 kV) OPEN LINE 524043 524072 1 (Nichols Yarnell 115 kV) OPEN LINE 511446 511458 1 (Clinton AF Elk City 138 kV) OPEN LINE 523771 523777 1 (Grapevine Wheeler 230 kV) OPEN LINE 523777 560012 1 (Wheeler Beckham Co 230 kV) OPEN LINE 511490 560012 1 (Elk City Beckham Co 230 kV) OPEN 3WXFormer 511458 511490 511482 1 (Elk City 230/138 kV) OPEN LINE 511446 511463 1 (Clinton AF Hobart Junc 138 kV) OPEN LINE 524911 599955 1 (Roosevelt PNM DC6 230 kV) OPEN Gen 599955 1 (PNM DC6) OPEN 2WXFormer 511506 511950 1 (Washita Wind plant 138/34.5 kV) OPEN LINE 523978 523979 1 (Harring Mid Harring E 230 kV) OPEN LINE 514822 514823 1 (South Rd Romnose 138 kV) SPP-SWPS-01 SPP-SWPS-02 SPP-SWPS-02b SPP-SWPS-03a SPP-SWPS-03b
This list of contingencies, shown in Figure 4.3.2-4 by thick traces, is exclusively composed by outages of portions of SPS tie lines or by generator outages. This is different from the
Final Report
Page 4-16
contingency list for the spring power flow case. In general, the outage of any of the listed portions of tie lines created overloads on other tie lines. In particular: The outage of the 345 kV lines Hitchland Woodward, Woodward Tatonga or Tatonga Northwest caused overloads in parallel 138 kV lines (up to 63%), in lines south of Hitchland (up to 9%), and in the 138/115 kV corridor Spearville Wichita (up to 5%). The outage of the 345 kV lines Finney Holcomb or Finney G06-49T caused 14% overloads in the 345/230 kV transformer at Tuco and the 230/138 kV transformer at Elk City, as well as 8% overloads in 138 kV lines in the Woodward area. The outage of portions of the 345 kV line Tuco OKU LES or the 345/230 kV transformer at Tuco caused overloads up to 32% in the 230/138 kV transformer at Elk City, overloads up to 15% in the 138/115 kV transformer at Shamrock, and overloads up to 9% in the 230 kV tie between SPS and AEPW. The outage of portions of the 230 kV line Grapevine Elk City or the 230/138 kV transformer at Elk City overloaded the 345/230 kV transformer at Tuco by up to 9% and the 138/115 kV tie between SPS and AEPW by up to 6%. The outage of the 138 kV lines Clinton AF Elk City or Clinton AF Hobart Jct caused 10% overloads on the 138 kV line Elk City Clinton Jct. The outage of portions of the 138/115 kV tie between SPS and AEPW caused overloads up to 14% on parallel facilities.
The contingencies that caused violations in the summer power flow case were: OPEN LINE 526435 526525 1 (Sundown Wolfforth 230 kV) OPEN LINE 526460 526470 1 (Amoco G07-04T 230 kV) OPEN LINE 524044 524415 1 (Nichols Ama South 230 kV) OPEN LINE 525524 525830 1 (Tolk Tuco 230 kV)
Final Report
Page 4-17
Figure 4.3.2-4: Contingencies that caused violations in the SPS OKGE corridor in the 10% Case fall power flow
The corresponding contingencies for the winter power flow case were: OPEN LINE 526435 526525 1 (Sundown Wolfforth 230 kV) OPEN LINE 525524 525830 1 (Tolk Tuco 230 kV) OPEN LINE 526460 526470 1 (Amoco G07-04T 230 kV) OPEN LINE 526269 526525 1 (Lubbock Wolfforth 230 kV) OPEN LINE 526470 526935 1 (G07-45T Yoakum 230 kV)
Final Report
Page 4-18
The following transmission upgrades solved violations in the SPS OKGE corridor and were agreed upon with the SPP WITF to be included: Potter Co Stateline 345 kV line: This line from Potter Co to a substation near Beckham Co in the 345 kV line Tuco Woodward reduced the pre- and postcontingency flows on the parallel 345 kV, 230 kV, and 115 kV lines, improving voltage levels and overloads. The line is in the Priority Project list. Tuco Tolk Roosevelt Potter Co 345 kV line: This line eliminated the overloads caused by the outage of 230 kV lines south of Amarillo, and, together with the Potter Co Stateline line, reduced the flows on and the overloads caused by the outage of Hitchland Woodward and Tuco OKU 345 kV lines. The line is also in the Priority Project list. Comanche Woodward 345 kV line: This line provided an additional low impedance path toward the west, which was especially useful in post-contingency situations for the outage of any portion of the 345 kV line Hitchland Finney. Hitchland Pringle 230 kV line: This line helped relieve overloads caused by the outage of the 230 kV line Pringle G07-33T and the 345 kV line Hitchland Woodward.
AC Contingency Analysis with Transmission Expansion

When the transmission expansion detailed above for each cluster was included, the remaining post-contingency line overloads either could be solved by a thermal generation redispatch or were lower than 5%. The overloads that were not solved by generation redispatch are covered by the discussion of new transmission constraints (Section 4.7). Several buses had post-contingency voltages that did not meet the SPP Criteria, i.e., were below 0.90 p.u. or above 1.05 p.u. The contingencies and buses can be found in Appendix A.4.1. These buses were either in the proximity of a wind plant or were part of the 345kV, 230 kV or 115/138 kV SPS SPP ties. The causes for the voltage violations were: In some occasions, high over-voltages were due to the capacitive nature of 345 kV lines with low flows as a result of the contingency. To resolve these violations, switchable reactors must be added on the new high voltage lines. The switchable reactors would also improve the pre-contingency voltage profiles in wind-rich areas during hours when available wind power is low, resulting in low power flows on the line. Other violations were due to some transformers not having tap changing capabilities (or having it disabled in the power flow models). Such was the case of the transformers at Shamrock and Tuco.
Final Report
Page 4-19
The remaining violations were due to wind plants not having the ability to control voltage, (e.g., G03-006A) or having a limited reactive support capability for the area in which they were located (e.g., G06-43 connected to the 230 kV tie between SPS and AEPW).
4.3.3. Transmission Expansion Summary

Table 4.3.3-1 summarizes the line additions to the 10% Case from the Base Case transmission topology, needed to solve either pre- or post-contingency violations of the SPP Criteria. 1,260 miles of 345 kV lines and 40 miles of 230 kV lines were added.
Table 4.3.3-1: Transmission lines added to the 10% Case
Line Cleveland Sooner 345 kV Iatan Nashua 345 kV Muskogee Seminole 345 kV Knoll Axtell 345 kV Spearville Knoll 345 kV Tuco Woodward 345 kV Hitchland Woodward 345 kV Spearville Comache Wichita 345 kV 2nd Line Groton Groton 115 kV Tuco Tolk Roosevelt Potter Co 345 kV Potter Co Stateline 345 kV Summit Knoll 345 kV Comanche Woodward 345 kV Hitchland Pringle 230 kV
Violation Type Length (miles) Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Post Post Post Post Post 30 30 95 115 80 225 105 155 0.3 170 100 95 60 40
The resulting overlay of 200 kV or above lines for the 10% Case is shown in Figure 4.3.3-1. The thick traces indicate transmission expansion from the Base Case, either to solve precontingency violations or post-contingency violations. This overlay was used for the remaining studies on the 10% Case, including voltage and transient stability and production simulation.
Final Report
Page 4-20
Figure 4.3.3-1: Final 10% Case transmission topology above 200 kV
4.4.
20% CASE ANALYSIS
4.4.1. Generation Dispatch in Power Flow Cases and Transmission Expansion

Wind generation capacity in the 20% Case is roughly double that in the 10% Case, with the majority of the additions in the western portion of SPP (Figure 4.4.1-1). The spring and fall power flow cases had wind power dispatched at almost 60% and 32% of the power flow load, respectively, while summer and winter wind generation was between 11% and 15% of the load. Due to the significant levels of wind power and the still-limited transfer capability between west and east SPP in the 10% Case, the 20% Case required a number of additional upgrades.
Final Report
Page 4-21
Spring Minimum
Summer Peak
Fall Peak
Winter Peak
Figure 4.4.1-1: 20% Case generation dispatch in the four seasonal power flow cases
To allow for the power flow convergence and to meet the SPP Criteria for the pre-contingency state, SPP engineers included the following transmission upgrades in the 20% Case: 765 kV facilities: During the study, 765 kV lines were adopted linking the areas with the highest concentration of wind plants because at least three 345 kV circuits were needed in some areas to dispatch nearly 13 GW of wind generation in the SPP footprint. A loop configuration was selected to prevent post-contingency voltage stability issues. The lines were Hitchland Woodward, Spearville Comanche Medicine Lodge Wichita, Comanche Woodward, and Spearville Holcomb Hitchland. Mingo Knoll 345 kV line created an additional path for the power flow in the Red Willow Setab 345KV line Finney Holcomb 345 kV second circuit assigned to GEN-2006-044 interconnection customer for possible 2010 in-service based on the Facility Study posted in November 2008
Final Report
Page 4-22
Woodward Tatonga 345 kV second circuit needed to avoid overloads in the first circuit of the Woodward Tatonga 345 kV line Woodward Woodring 345 kV line and Kingfisher Co tap and tie on Tatonga -Northwest and Woodring Cimarron 345 kV solved overloads and voltage problems in the Woodward/Northwest area Valliant Hugo Sunnyside 345 kV line assigned to Aggregate Study AG3-2006 Customers for 2011 in-service: The line prevented overloads in the 138 kV system in that area. LES Seminole and Pittsburg - Ft. Smith 345 kV lines solved overloads due to the power flow coming from the west part of the SPP footprint Rose Hill - Sooner 345 kV line to be built by WERE/OKGE for 2010 in-service: This line prevented overload and voltage problems in the area. Ft. Randall - Valentine 230 kV line needed to connect the wind plants (about 270 MW) located in the Valentine area (Nebraska) because the existing 115 kV lines in the area could not support the power output from the wind plants Hitchland - Moore 230 kV line needed to solve voltage and overload problems in the Hitchland area due to the large amount of generation in this area Line and transformer re-ratings eliminated low overloads near wind plants: Most cases required line re-conductoring. Addition of parallel facilities at 345 kV and 115 kV due to overloads in the existing facilities
The upgrades above 200 kV are shown in Figure 4.4.1-2 and the resulting network with voltages above 200 kV is shown in Figure 4.4.1-3. Note the reinforcements between the western and eastern portions of SPP. The list of all upgrades included by SPP to meet the pre-contingency SPP Criteria is in Appendix A.2.
Final Report
Page 4-23
Figure 4.4.1-2: 20% Case transmission expansions above 200 kV included to eliminate precontingency violations
Figure 4.4.1-3: 20% Case transmission topology above 200 kV
Final Report
Page 4-24
4.4.2. AC Contingency Analysis and Transmission Expansion

CRA performed AC contingency analyses on the four seasonal power flow cases with the transmission expansion from the previous section. The contingencies used in these analyses consist of all contingencies used for the 10% Case contingency analyses and the single outage of all facilities added to the 20% Case. The contingencies that caused post-contingency violations were clustered according to geographic and electrical proximity. Seven clusters were identified requiring transmission reinforcements: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. East Manhattan Concordia Valentine Ft Randall Central Place City Service Setab Wichita area SPS OKGE corridor SPS area Sunnyside
The remaining violations were either solved by re-dispatching thermal generation or were minor violations (lower than 5%) captured by new transmission constraints (Section 4.7). The violations in the clusters are discussed next.
East Manhattan Concordia Cluster

Contingencies in this cluster led to violations in all four power flow cases. The contingencies that led to violations were: OPEN LINE 532861 539639 (Elm Creek E Manhattan 230 kV) OPEN LINE 539639 539658 (Elm Creek Concordia 230 kV) OPEN TRANSFORMER 539657 539658 (Concordia 230/115 kV)
These contingencies are shown by thick traces in Figure 4.4.2-1. In the 20% Case, there were two wind plants (G07-28 and G03-006A) with a combined capacity of 400 MW connected to Elm Creek 230 kV. If the 230 kV line Elm Creek East Manhattan was outaged, there were significant overloads (up to 90 MW, 100% overload) on the 115 kV lines from Concordia going east and on the Concordia 230/115 kV transformer. The outage of the Elm
Final Report
Page 4-25
Creek Concordia 230 kV line or the Concordia transformer overloaded the Elm Creek E Manhattan 230 kV line up to 20%. The solution implemented, shown by a dashed thick line in Figure 4.4.2-1, was: Summit Elm Creek 230 kV line: This line relieved overloads caused by any of the contingencies enumerated for this cluster and was assigned to the GEN-2007-028 interconnection request.
Figure 4.4.2-1: 20% Case contingency analysis of the E Manhattan Concordia region
Final Report
Page 4-26
Valentine Ft Randall Contingency

The outage of the new 230 kV line Valentine Ft. Randall caused overloads on the 115 kV lines going north of Valentine by up to 70% in the fall and spring power flow cases. This contingency is illustrated by a thick trace in Figure 4.4.2-2. In the 20% Case, there was a 272 MW wind plant connected to Valentine 230 kV. The solution implemented was: Re-rate the 115 kV line Valentine Harmony St. Francis Mission from 80/80 MVA to 160/160 MVA (equivalent to adding a parallel line)
Figure 4.4.2-2: 20% Case contingency analysis of northeast Nebraska
Final Report
Page 4-27
Central Place City Service Setab Contingency

This contingency led to a violation in the fall and spring power flow cases: OPEN LINE CENTRAL PLACE CITY SERVICE SETAB 115 KV
This line is shown by a thick trace in Figure 4.4.2-3. In the 20% Case, there was a 105 MW wind plant connected to Central Place 115 kV and a 99 MW farm at Selkirk 115 kV. The outage of the 115 kV line Central Place City Service Setab overloaded the parallel 115 kV line by up to 32%. The solution implemented was: Re-rate the 115 kV lines Central Place City Service Setab from 120/143 MVA to 180/210 MVA (equivalent to adding a third parallel line)
Figure 4.4.2-3: 20% Case contingency analysis of west Kansas
Wichita Area
Contingencies in this cluster led to violations in the fall, spring and winter power flow cases. The post-contingency violations in the winter power flow case overloaded the 345/138 kV transformers at Wichita and were related to the thermal generation dispatch in the Wichita area. They could be solved by re-dispatching thermal units. The contingencies that led to violations in the fall power flow case were: OPEN LINE 560003 560006 (Comanche G07-25 345 kV) OPEN LINE 532796 560006 (G07-25 Wichita 345 kV) OPEN LINE 532791 532796 (Wichita Benton 345 kV)
Final Report
Page 4-28
OPEN NEW 345 kV LINE - WOODWARD TO WOODRING
The contingencies causing violations are indicated by thick traces in Figure 4.4.2-4. This area had five wind plants connected to Spearville, injecting almost 1,500 MW in the fall power flow case. The flows towards Wichita from the west were strong (approximately 1,150 MW on the 765 kV line and 900 MW on the 345 kV line). In pre-contingency conditions, the 138 kV lines east of Flat Ridge going toward Wichita were overloaded and the outage of any other line carrying flow to Wichita worsened the overload. There was one 765/345 kV transformer at Wichita loaded at 93% of rated capacity. The outage of the Woodward Woodring 345 kV line overloaded this transformer by 30%. The outage of the Wichita Benton 345 kV line redirected flow to the 138 kV network, overloading the 345/138 kV transformers at Wichita by 26%.
Figure 4.4.2-4: 20% Case contingency analysis of the Wichita area
The contingencies that led to violations in the spring power flow case were: OPEN LINE 560003 560006 (Comanche G07-25 345 kV) OPEN LINE 532796 560006 (G07-25 Wichita 345 kV)
Final Report
Page 4-29
OPEN LINE 532791 532796 (Wichita Benton 345 kV) OPEN NEW WICHITA 765/345 KV TRANSFORMER OPEN NEW 765 kV LINE - COMANCHE TO WICHITA
The main difference from the fall power flow case is that the Flat Ridge Harper 138 kV line was not overloaded under pre-contingency conditions, but became overloaded by 10% for the outage of the 765 kV line Comanche Wichita. In consultation with the SPP WITF, the following solutions to the pre- and post-contingency violations were implemented for the remainder of the study: Additional 765/345 kV transformer at Wichita to eliminate overloads on the first 765/345 kV transformer at Wichita Curtail the output of the Flat Ridge wind plant to eliminate overloads on the 138 kV lines east of Flat Ridge3
SPS to OKGE Corridor

Contingencies in this cluster led to violations in the summer and winter power flow cases, with the most significant ones occurring in the spring and fall power flow cases. The contingencies that led to violations in the fall were: OPEN LINE 514819 514823 (Roman Nose El Reno 138 kV) OPEN LINE 524072 524079 1 (Yarnell Conway 115 kV) OPEN LINE 524043 524072 1 (Nichols Yarnell 115 kV)
In addition to these three contingencies, there were 29 single contingencies of 115 or 138 kV lines or 115/69 or 138/69 kV transformers that overloaded one of the following transformers by more than 5% and up to 43%: Taloga 138/69 kV Elk City 138/69 kV Stillwater 138/69 kV Jericho 115/69 kV
3 Wind curtailments at Flat Ridge were an existing issue and are expressed in an operating guide. For that reason WITF members determined that Flat Ridge output could be curtailed under the high wind conditions in the analysis.
Final Report
Page 4-30
Figure 4.4.2-5 illustrates the Roman Nose El Reno area. In the fall 20% Case, there was a wind plant (G07-06) injecting 180 MW at Roman Nose and another wind plant (G06-46) injecting 118 MW at Dewey. The pre-contingency state had the 138 kV line Roman Nose El Reno overloaded by 71%, due to these injections. Moreover, the outage of the Roman Nose El Reno line overloaded the 138 kV lines north of Roman Nose by 30%.
Figure 4.4.2-5: 20% Case contingency analysis of Roman Nose El Reno
The outage of the Nichols Yarnell Conway 115 kV line in SPS going towards Oklahoma caused 8% overloads on the Grapevine Kirby 115 kV line. In this area, the pre-contingency voltage at Shamrock 115 kV was 0.93 p.u. (below the acceptable level of 0.95 p.u.). Also, the Shamrock 138/115 kV transformer was loaded at 90% of its rating in the normal state. The contingencies causing violations in the spring power flow case were: OPEN LINE 514819 514823 (Roman Nose El Reno 138 kV) OPEN LINE 514819 514898 (El Reno Cimarron 138 kV) OPEN LINE 511477 521089 (Washita Southwestern 138 kV) OPEN LINE 520814 521089 (Washita Anadarko 138 kV) OPEN LINE 511489 511497 (Weatherford 138 kV) OPEN LINE 511433 511489 (Weatherford Hinton 138 kV) OPEN LINE 511433 511540 (Hinton Can Gas 138 kV)
Final Report
Page 4-31
OPEN LINE 511540 514821 (Can Gas Jensen 138 kV)
These contingencies are illustrated in Figure 4.4.2-6 with thick traces. The load center was Oklahoma City, so flows were predominantly west to east in the figure. As in the fall power flow case, the 138 kV line Roman Nose El Reno was overloaded (62%) in the precontingency state, and its outage caused the same overloads as in the fall power flow case. The outage of the line Weatherford Hinton Jensen overloaded the line Clinton Clinton Jct. by 17%. The outage of El Reno Cimarron redirected flows through El Reno Jensen Cimarron, overloading this line by 12%. The outage of Washita Southwestern or Washita Anadarko overloaded the other line by 10%.
133 MW 139 MW
178 MW
206 MW
Figure 4.4.2-6: 20% Case contingency analysis of west Oklahoma City
In consultation with the SPP WITF, the following solutions to the pre- and post-contingency violations were implemented: Stateline Elk City Anadarko 345 kV line to solve overloads and undervoltages in the regions 115 and 138 kV network and relieve the 138/69 kV Elk City and Taloga transformers
Final Report
Page 4-32
345/138 kV transformer at Elk City to solve post-contingency overloads in the Elk City 138/69 kV transformer 345/138 kV transformer at Tatonga/Taloga to solve post-contingency overloads in the Taloga 138/69 kV transformer Wind plant G07-06 (160 MW) connected to Tatonga 345 kV: This wind plant was connected to the 138 kV Roman Nose bus and created significant overloads in preand post-contingency situations.
SPS Area
Contingencies in this cluster led to violations in spring power flow case. The contingencies that led to violations in the fall were: OPEN LINE 525481 560009 (G06-45 Plant X 230 kV) OPEN TRANSFORMER 523266 523267 (Pringle 230/115 kV) OPEN TRANSFORMER 523097 523095 (Hitchland 230/345 kV)
These contingencies are illustrated in Figure 4.4.2-7. A summary of the overloads follows: Two wind plants injected 74 MW at Hansford, north of Pringle, and 182 MW at Pringle. The outage of the Pringle 230/115 kV or the Hitchland 345/230 kV transformers redirected flow south towards Riverview, overloading the Pringle Riverview 115 kV line by 6%. There were approximately 750 MW of wind power injected at G06-45T, south of Amarillo, creating a 161 MW flow south on the G06-45T Plant X 230 kV line. The outage of this line redirected flow through Deafsmith, overloading the line G06-45 Deafsmith by 7%.
The SPP WITF agreed to implement the following solutions to the pre- and post-contingency violations for the remainder of the study: Re-rate Pringle Riverview 115 kV line from 85/96 MVA to 100/110 MVA Wind plant G06-45 (240 MW) connected to a tap in the Roosevelt Potter Co 345 kV line: This wind plant was previously connected to the 230 kV node G06-45T together with other wind plants and this created significant post-contingency overloads on the G06-45T Deafsmith 230 kV line.
Final Report
Page 4-33
Figure 4.4.2-7: 20% Case contingency analysis of SPS
AC Contingency Analysis with Transmission Expansion

Once the transmission expansions detailed above for each cluster were included, the postcontingency line overloads that remained could either be solved by a thermal generation redispatch or were lower than 5%. The overloads that were not solved by generation redispatch are captured by the discussion of new transmission constraints (Section 4.7). A few buses had post-contingency voltages that did not meet the SPP Criteria (were below 0.90 p.u. or above 1.05 p.u.). The contingencies and buses are detailed in Appendix A.4.1. The number and range of these violations were lower than in the 10% Case in spite of the higher wind penetration. This was due to two factors: a stronger extra-high voltage overlay and the use of switchable reactors that controlled the voltage of 345 kV and 765 kV nodes in high wind penetration areas.
Final Report
Page 4-34
4.4.3. Transmission Expansion Summary

Table 4.4.3-1 summarizes the line additions to the 20% Case from the 10% Case transmission topology needed to solve either pre- or post-contingency violations of the SPP Criteria. The transmission line additions total 485 miles in 765 kV, 766 miles in 345 kV, 205 miles in 230 kV, and 25 miles in 115 kV. The resulting overlay of 200 kV or above lines for the 20% Case is shown in Figure 4.4.3-1. The thick traces indicate transmission expansion from the 10% Case, either to solve precontingency violations or post-contingency violations. This overlay was used for the remaining studies of the 20% Case, including voltage and transient stability and production simulation.
Figure 4.4.3-1: Final 20% Case transmission topology above 200 kV
Final Report
Page 4-35
Table 4.4.3-1: Transmission lines added to the 20% Case
Line Comanche Wichita 765 kV Hitchland Woodward 765 kV Woodward Comanche 765 kV Comanche Spearville 765 kV Spearville Holcomb 765 kV Holcomb Hitchland 765 kV Mingo Knoll 345 kV Finney Holcomb Ckt2 345 kV Woodward Tatonga Ckt2 345 kV Tatonga Kingfisher 345 kV Kingfisher Northwest 345 kV Woodward Woodring 345 kV Hugo Sunnyside 345 kV Hugo Valliant 345 kV LES Seminole 345 kV Pittsburg Ft. Smith 345 kV Rose Hill Sooner 345 kV Ft. Randall Valentin 230 kV Selkirk Leoti Cntrlplns Ckt2 115 kV Cntrlplns Ctyserv Setab Ckt2 115 kV Hitchland Moore 230 kV Stateline Elk City Anadarko 345 kV Summit Elm Creek 230 kV
Violation Type Length (miles) Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Post Post 100 105 60 55 60 105 85 1 35 75 10 80 105 10 90 90 80 100 15 10 45 105 60
4.5.
VOLTAGE STABILITY ANALYSIS
The following approach for analyzing the voltage stability of the SPP transmission system was established based on discussions with SPP engineers and consideration of the existing voltage-related transmission limitations: Perform PV studies for all seasonal power flow cases for the following transfers:
Final Report
Page 4-36
SPS to SPP for the loss of SPS SPP ties and major generators in SPS SPS North to South and South to North for loss of ties and major nearby generators
Monitor the dV/dQ sensitivity of all buses in SPP with voltage higher than 100 kV in the AC contingency analysis for all seasonal power flow cases Study the VQ characteristics of major load buses in Kansas City for loss of nearby lines and generators for the summer power flow case
4.5.1. PV Analysis / Transfer Characteristics

Two sets of PV analyses were studied: SPS to SPP and SPS North to South and South to North. The results of these studies were used in the re-definition of the SPSSPPTIES and SPSNORTH_STH flowgates (Appendix E) for the 10% and 20% Cases.
10% Case SPS to SPP Transfers

The SPS to SPP transfers were limited by either: Low voltage levels, usually at the Shamrock 115 kV bus due to low voltages at the Grapevine, Wheeler, and Beckham 230 kV nodes caused by high flows from west to east, as illustrated in Figure 4.5.1-1 Available committed maximum generation in SPS
No voltage instability situation was encountered before attaining a 0.9 p.u. post-contingency voltage level for a monitored bus. Voltage instability was only found for voltage levels of monitored buses of 0.85 p.u. and below. For example, if voltages were allowed to drop to 0.85 p.u., the tip of the PV curve was reached in the spring power flow case for the outage of Finney Holcomb 345 kV. Table 4.5.1-1 summarizes the PV analysis for transfers from SPS to SPP. The table shows the maximum incremental transfers over the transfer in the power flow case and the corresponding total transfer for each seasonal power flow case under different contingency conditions. The max value indicates that the maximum transfer was limited by the available committed generation capacity in SPS. The first row indicates the level of transfers in the power flow case from SPS to SPP before the generation in the injection groups is varied. Rows 2 through 4 refer to pre-contingency situations. The second and third rows indicate the
Final Report
Page 4-37
maximum transfer that leads to a minimum nodal voltage of 0.95 and 0.90 p.u., respectively.4 The fourth row indicates the minimum transfer level that overloads at least one monitored branch. Note that the values in the fourth row are higher than those in the second row for all seasons, indicating that minimum nodal voltages, rather than line overloads, were the limiting factor for normal state transfers. The minimum transfer that led to a violation was 1,197 MW for the summer power flow case (the value for the winter power flow case, 1,205 MW, was similar). Post-contingency transfer limits are shown for each contingency in the subsequent rows. The minimum post-contingency limit was 1,478 MW and occurred for the outage of Tuco OKU 345 kV in the fall power flow case. Note that generator outages did not lead to violations.
Figure 4.5.1-1: Voltage contour for the maximum post-contingency transfer from SPS to SPP; Tuco-OKU line outaged, fall 10% Case
4 The minimum acceptable voltage levels under the SPP Criteria for normal- and contingency-state operation are 0.95 and 0.90 p.u., respectively.
Final Report
Page 4-38
Table 4.5.1-1: PV study results for SPS to SPP transfers in the 10% Case
Maximum Transfer (MW) Spring Summer Inc. Total Inc. Total 0 1,606 0 722 350 1,943 487 1,197 max max 1,656 2,303 1,050 2,638 1,500 2,159 569 2,159 1,169 1,848 505 2,095 1,218 1,894 850 2,441 1,256 1,930 586 2,177 1,300 1,972 743 2,334 1,306 1,977 829 2,421 1,381 2,048
Contingency Initial PreMin V 0.95 pu Contingency Min V 0.9 pu No Overloads Tuco - OKU 345 kV Finney - Holcomb 345 kV Wheeler - Beckham 230 kV Kirby - Jericho 115 kV Hitchland - Woodward 345 kV Stateline - Woodward 345 kV Texas Co 115 kV PAR Mc Clellan - Shamrock 115 kV Generator Outages
Winter Inc. Total 0 902 312 1,205 1,542 2,369 max max 943 1,809 1,206 2,057 1,261 2,109 1,144 1,999 1,119 1,975 1,238 2,087
Fall Inc. 0 6 max 550 0 94 231 231 113 243 Total 1,478 1,483 max 1,862 1,478 1,543 1,635 1,635 1,556 1,643
either max or higher than pre-contingency min V 0.9 pu
The results shown in Table 4.5.1-1 establish an updated SPSSPPTIES flowgate for the 10% Case. The definition for this updated flowgate needed to account for the transmission expansion in the 10% Case from the Base Case. That is, two 345 kV lines were added to the interface: Woodward Hitchland and Woodward Stateline. Rounding the figures in Table 4.5.1-1 (as shown in bold), the updated limits were 1,200 MW for the pre-contingency state and 1,475 MW for the contingency state. The limiting factor for these two limits was the voltage at 115 kV and 230 kV tie nodes. Therefore, the following options could help to increase the limits if needed: Taps on the 345 kV line Potter Co Stateline, with step down transformer(s) connected to the 230 kV bus(es) and special protection schemes that would open the transformers for the outage of the 345 kV line 345 kV line Stateline - Anadarko (in addition to the previous) 138 kV line Shamrock Stateline with 345/138 kV transformer Phase shifters at Wheeler Beckham and McClellan Shamrock Capacitor banks at both Wheeler and Shamrock Open the 115 kV tie
Given that the seasonal power flow cases modeled substantially different power flow conditions, some of which may occur in more than just the season in which they were modeled, the results in the table should not be used to establish seasonal limits for the SPSSPPTIES flowgate. Further studies are required to determine seasonal limits.
Final Report
Page 4-39
SPS South to North and North to South Transfers

For all contingencies and all seasonal power flow cases, the transfer between SPS North and South was limited by the available generation in the SPS North area. That is, no voltage issues or line overloads were found. This is not surprising, given the addition of two 345 kV tie lines in the 10% Case: Tuco Stateline and Roosevelt Potter Co. Given these results, the flowgate SPSNORTH_STH is not enforced in any subsequent analysis of the 10% Case.
20% Case
Given that, in the 10% Case, no violations were found for transfers between SPS South and North, and that the 20% Case network is stronger in the area with the addition of several lines, only the SPS to SPP transfers were studied for the 20% Case. The SPS to SPP transfers in the 20% Case were limited by either: Low voltage levels, usually at the Shamrock 115 kV bus due to low voltages at the Grapevine, Wheeler, and Beckham 230 kV nodes caused by high flows from west to east, as illustrated in Figure 4.5.1-2, or, for a few transfers in the winter power flow case, at the OKU 345 kV bus Available committed maximum generation in SPS
Voltage instability was not encountered before attaining a 0.9 p.u. post-contingency voltage level for a monitored bus. Table 4.5.1-2 summarizes the PV analysis for transfers from SPS to SPP. The table shows the maximum incremental transfers over the transfer in the power flow case and the corresponding total transfer for each seasonal power flow case under different contingency conditions. The minimum transfer that led to a pre-contingency violation was 3,088 MW for the summer power flow case, and the minimum post-contingency transfer was 3,621 MW and occured for the outage of Stateline Elk City 345 kV, also in the summer power flow case. As in the 10% Case, generator outages did not lead to violations.
Final Report
Page 4-40
Figure 4.5.1-2: Voltage contour for the SPS to SPP pre-contingency transfer and minimum voltage of 0.9 p.u.; fall 20% Case
Table 4.5.1-2: PV study results for SPS to SPP transfers in the 20% Case
Maximum Transfer (MW) Spring Summer Inc. Total Inc. Total 0 3,066 0 2,224 1,406 4,443 894 3,088 max max 1,000 3,190 max max 2,431 4,547 1,450 4,485 1,450 3,621 max max 1,650 3,811 1,497 4,531 2,011 4,153 max max 2,036 4,176 max max 2,312 4,436 max max 2,319 4,442 max max 2,087 4,225 max max 2,331 4,454
Contingency Initial PreMin V 0.95 pu Contingency Min V 0.9 pu No Overloads Stateline - Elk City 345 kV Kirby - Jericho 115 kV Tuco - OKU 345 kV Hitchland - Woodward 765 kV Hitchland - Woodward 345 kV Stateline - Woodward 345 kV Wheeler - Beckham 230 kV Hitchland - Holcomb 765 kV Finney - Holcomb 345 kV Texas Co 115 kV PAR Mc Clellan - Shamrock 115 kV Generator Outages
Winter Inc. Total 0 2,682 707 3,354 2,281 4,824 1,750 4,334 1,256 3,871 1,236 3,852 1,494 4,095 1,894 4,467 2,168 4,720 1,938 4,508 2,031 4,594 2,081 4,640
Fall Inc. 0 11 1,125 400 344 250 669 737 975 962 1,000 1,019 Total 3,575 3,586 4,658 3,957 3,903 3,814 4,214 4,281 4,513 4,500 4,538 4,556
either max or higher than pre-contingency min V 0.9 pu
Final Report
Page 4-41
The results in Table 4.5.1-2 establish an updated SPSSPPTIES flowgate for the 20% Case. The definition for this updated flowgate included four lines in addition to those lines in the 10% Case flowgate definition. These new lines were: Woodward Hitchland 765 kV, Holcomb Hitchland 765 kV, Holcomb Finney 345 kV Ckt 2, and Stateline Elk City 345 kV. Rounding the figures in Table 4.5.1-2 (as shown in bold), the updated limits were 3,090 MW for the pre-contingency state and 3,620 MW for the contingency state. Note the significant increase over the 10% Case limits (1,200 MW pre-contingency and 1,475 MW post-contingency) due to the 20% Case transmission expansion. The limiting factor for these two limits is the voltage at 115 kV and 230 kV tie nodes. Given that the seasonal power flow cases modeled substantially different power flow conditions, some of which may occur in more than just the season in which they were modeled, the results in the table should not be used to establish seasonal limits for the SPSSPPTIES flowgate. Further studies are required to determine seasonal limits.
4.5.2. dV/dQ Sensitivity Analysis

CRA monitored the sensitivity of the nodal voltage with respect to changes in the reactive power injection at the same node for all buses in SPP with nominal voltage higher than 100 kV. A negative value for this sensitivity is an indication of voltage instability. Also, a large change of this sensitivity, such as a change by one order of magnitude, between the normal and a post-contingency state indicates the need for further investigation. For all monitored buses and all contingencies analyzed, this sensitivity remained positive. Moreover, only in a few cases did the post-contingency value of the sensitivities change by more than a factor of 10 from the pre-contingency sensitivity value; these instances are detailed in Appendix A.5. Upon further investigation, CRA found that these large changes in dV/dQ often occured on voltage-regulated buses and were due to the outages of lines or generators injecting reactive power at the node. Because the post-contingency voltage level for each of these nodes was acceptable, and nearby buses had smaller changes, the large changes did not indicate voltage stability problems. In summary, no voltage stability issues were found in the dV/dQ sensitivity analysis.
4.5.3. VQ Analysis / Reactive Reserves

VQ analyses were performed for high load nodes in Kansas City for the 10% Case summer power flow case. The nodes analyzed, specified in Table 4.5.3-1, were among the 10 nodes with the highest loads in Kansas City. The contingencies used were the single outages of: 345/161 kV transformers at West Gardner, Iatan, Nashua, Craig, Hawthorn, and Stillwell Five of the ten generators with the largest dispatch in the area: Montrosse 1, Bull Creek 3, La Cygne 2, Hawthorn 5, and Iatan 2
Final Report
Page 4-42
The 161 kV line connected to each node with the largest power injection: GLADSTN5 SHOLCRK5, NEAST 5 CROSTWN5, KNLWRTH5 REEDER 5, SWITZER5 RILEY 5, and TROOST 5 MIDTOWN5
Table 4.5.3-1: Nodes with VQ characteristics analyzed
Bus Number 542996 543051 543034 542990 543016
Bus Name MIDTOWN5 RILEY 5 KNLWRTH5 CROSTWN5 GLADSTN5
Load Area Load Zone ID Bus Nom kV KACP KACP KACP KACP KACP METRO JOCO JOCO 1 1 1 161 161 161 161 161
DWNTWN 1 NORTH 1
For each simulated contingency condition, if there was a 161 kV node in KACY or KACP with lower voltage or dV/dQ sensitivity lower than that of the five selected nodes in Table 4.5.3-1, the VQ characteristic of that node was also studied. Both nodal voltages and dV/dQ sensitivities were monitored for the selected nodes. The VQ analysis connects a fictitious controllable condenser at the node of interest. This condenser is set to control its nodal voltage to a specified value that is varied in 0.05 p.u. steps from 1.05 p.u. to 0.40 p.u. or until there is no power flow solution (this voltage is denoted by Vmin). The reactive power output of the condenser is monitored and recorded and a voltage versus reactive power (VQ) curve, such as the one shown in Figure 4.5.3-1 is prepared. The vertical axis shows the reactive power output of the fictitious condenser and the nodal voltage is shown on the horizontal axis. The quantity Qmin represents the increase in reactive power load at the bus that leads to voltage instability, and is interpreted as the reactive reserve available at the bus. Reactive reserves were observed for all monitored buses and all contingency conditions analyzed in the range of 744 - 1,441 MVAr, with the lowest reactive reserve value occurring at the Riley 161 kV node for the outage of the 161 kV line Riley Switzer. Thus, the nodal reactive reserves are of the same order of magnitude as the peak reactive load at KACP (807 MVAr) and KACY (125 MVAr) and higher than their sum for most nodes and contingencies. The voltage at Qmin was between 0.75 p.u. and 0.52 p.u., significantly lower than the minimum voltage allowed in the SPP Criteria (0.90 p.u.). Therefore, ample reactive reserve margins were found for the 10% Case in the Kansas City area. Consequently, the reactive reserves were not analyzed for the 20% Case, because the sources of reactive power available in the Kansas City area did not change substantially between the 10% and the 20% Cases.
Final Report
Page 4-43
400
200
Q at Vmax Reactive Power Injection (MVAr)

0
-200
Q at Vmin
-400
Qmin
-600
-800
-1000
-1200 0 0.1 0.2
Vmin
0.3 0.4
Unstable
0.5 0.6 0.7
Stable
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Voltage (pu)
Figure 4.5.3-1: VQ curve for the Riley 161 kV bus in the 10% Case summer power flow, precontingency case
4.6.
TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS
4.6.1. Single Line Fault Transient Stability Analysis

Methodology
Transient stability analysis was performed for the Base, 10%, and 20% Cases for the four seasonal models provided by SPP: fall, spring, summer and winter. The dynamic models were provided by SPP. The entire EIC was modeled with detailed representation of the machines in the SPP footprint. In particular, the power system models were comprised of wind generator models provided by their respective vendors. As commonly practiced by SPP for transient stability studies, the real power loads were converted to constant current loads, and reactive power loads were converted to constant impedance loads. Transient stability analyses were conducted using PSSE.5
5 Details of PSSE can be found at www.energy.siemens.com.
Final Report
Page 4-44
A majority of the wind plants are on the west side of the imaginary line drawn from Oklahoma City to Wichita (Figure 3.1-1). For this reason, the stability analysis focused on the lines in this area for voltage levels of 345 kV and 765 kV. In practice, [1], [13], [14] transient stability has been shown to be more suspect for lightly loaded cases. This is because there is less rotational inertia to absorb the disturbance. The excitation levels of the generators are also lower in lightly loaded cases and there is therefore less magnetic field strength coupling the stator and the rotor. For these reasons, more line faults were studied for the light-load spring case. The outage of heavily loaded lines in the spring cases was studied while the outage of heavily loaded lines that transferred power from west to east toward the imaginary line from Oklahoma City to Wichita was analyzed for the fall, summer, and winter cases. Additionally, the outage of each line added to the 10% and 20% Cases was studied. Transient stability was analyzed for 3-phase branch faults that were cleared after five cycles with line disconnection. The five-cycle clearing time was chosen in consultation with SPP because it provided a good margin from the actual breaker clearing times. If it was found that the system was not stable for a five-cycle clearing time, then a 4.5-cycle clearing time was tested. Stability was determined by looking at angles and speeds of all machines in the SPP footprint. The power outputs of the generators in the SPP footprint, as well as the voltage magnitudes of 345 kV and above buses, were also monitored.
Results
In general, the results of the analysis show that as long as transmission is expanded sufficiently to facilitate increasing wind capacity, the increase in wind capacity does not negatively affect the transient stability of the power system. Table 4.6.1-1 through Table 4.6.1-12 show the transient stability analysis results for all cases studied (the observations shown with asterisks are discussed in Appendix A.7). The results show that for all cases except for the winter Base Case, the system was stable for a fivecycle clearing time. There were two line outages in the winter Base Case, GENTLMN3 to SWEET W3 and GENTLMN3 to REDWILO3, that were unstable for a five cycle clearing time. The outage of these lines in all other seasonal models and wind penetration cases did not cause instabilities. These lines have the highest power transfers in the winter Base Case, however, and the transfers were too big for the system to recover with a five cycle clearing time. The system was stable with a 4.5-cycle clearing time in both instances. Since the actual clearing times at the breakers is four cycles, transient stability should not be an issue, but the margin for error is only 0.5 cycles.
Final Report
Page 4-45
Table 4.6.1-1: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case fall
From Bus # 515375 515375 531469 640183 640183
From Bus Name To Bus # WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 515378 523097 560004 640374 640325
To Bus Name CKT ID TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 KNOLL EHV SWEET W3 REDWILO3 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 4.6.1-2: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case spring
From Bus # 511456 515375 515375 523097 523853 523853 210400 531469 531469 531449 531451 640065 640183 640183
From Bus Name To Bus # O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 HITCHLAND 7 FINNEY7 FINNEY7 GEN_2007_04 SPERVIL7 SPERVIL7 HOLCOMB7 MINGO 7 AXTELL 3 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 511468 515378 523097 560029 560029 531449 531449 531488 560004 531465 560050 640374 640374 640325
To Bus Name CKT ID L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 CONESTOGA CONESTOGA HOLCOMB7 HOLCOMB7 COMANCHE KNOLL EHV SETAB 7 G07-012 SWEET W3 SWEET W3 REDWILO3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
*Machine at bus 523431 SIDRCH 2 unstable
Table 4.6.1-3: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case summer
From Bus # 511456 515375 515375 210400 531469 640183 640183
From Bus Name To Bus # O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 GEN_2007_04 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 511468 515378 523097 531449 531487 640374 640325
To Bus Name CKT ID L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 HOLCOMB7 COMANCHE SWEET W3 REDWILO3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Final Report
Page 4-46
Table 4.6.1-4: Single line fault transient stability results for Base Case winter
From Bus # 511456 515375 515375 523853 531469 640183 640183
From Bus Name To Bus # O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 FINNEY7 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 511468 515378 523097 560029 531487 640374 640325
To Bus Name CKT ID L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 CONESTOGA COMANCHE SWEET W3 REDWILO3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (4.5 Cycle Stable) No (4.5 Cycle Stable)
Table 4.6.1-5: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case fall
From Bus # 560004 515375 515375 515375 531469 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549
From Bus Name To Bus # KNOLL EHV WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 STATELINE POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 532773 531488 515378 523097 560004 640374 640325 523961 345001 525549 525832
To Bus Name SUMMIT 7 COMANCHE TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 KNOLL EHV SWEET W3 REDWILO3 POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 TUCO
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
**Wind generation goes offline
Final Report
Page 4-47
Table 4.6.1-6: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case spring
From Bus # 560004 515375 511456 515375 515375 523097 523853 523853 210400 531469 531469 531449 531451 640065 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549
From Bus Name To Bus # To Bus Name CKT ID KNOLL EHV 532773 SUMMIT 7 1 WWRDEHV7 531488 COMANCHE 1 O.K.U.-7 511468 L.E.S.-7 1 WWRDEHV7 515378 TATONGA 1 WWRDEHV7 523097 HITCHLAND 7 1 HITCHLAND 7 560029 CONESTOGA 1 FINNEY7 560029 CONESTOGA 1 FINNEY7 531449 HOLCOMB7 1 GEN_2007_04 531449 HOLCOMB7 1 SPERVIL7 531488 COMANCHE 1 SPERVIL7 560004 KNOLL EHV 1 HOLCOMB7 531465 SETAB 7 1 MINGO 7 560050 G07-012 1 AXTELL 3 640374 SWEET W3 1 GENTLMN3 640374 SWEET W3 1 GENTLMN3 640325 REDWILO3 1 STATELINE 523961 POTTER_CO 7 1 POTTER_CO 7 345001 ROOSEVELT2 1 ROOSEVELT2 525549 TOLK 7 1 TOLK 7 525832 TUCO 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 4.6.1-7: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case summer
From Bus # 560004 515375 511456 515375 515375 210400 531469 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549
From Bus Name To Bus # KNOLL EHV WWRDEHV7 O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 GEN_2007_04 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 STATELINE POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 532773 531487 511468 515378 523097 531449 531487 640374 640325 523961 345001 525549 525832
To Bus Name SUMMIT 7 COMANCHE L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 HOLCOMB7 COMANCHE SWEET W3 REDWILO3 POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 TUCO
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Final Report
Page 4-48
Table 4.6.1-8: Single line fault transient stability results for 10% Case winter
From Bus # 560004 515375 511456 515375 515375 523853 531469 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549
From Bus Name To Bus # KNOLL EHV WWRDEHV7 O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 FINNEY7 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 STATELINE POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 532773 531487 511468 515378 523097 560029 531487 640374 640325 523961 345001 525549 525832
To Bus Name SUMMIT 7 COMANCHE L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 CONESTOGA COMANCHE SWEET W3 REDWILO3 POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 TUCO
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 4.6.1-9: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case fall
From Bus # 560004 515375 515375 515375 531469 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549 515375 531451 511468 514803 531488 523098 515361 531488 531498 523855
From Bus Name To Bus # KNOLL EHV WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 STATELINE POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 WWRDEHV7 MINGO7 L.E.S.-7 SOONER 7 COMANCHE HITCHLAND WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB 532773 531487 515378 523097 560004 640374 640325 523961 345001 525549 525832 514715 560004 515045 532794 532798 515361 531488 531498 523855 523098
To Bus Name SUMMIT 7 COMANCHE TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 KNOLL EHV SWEET W3 REDWILO3 POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 TUCO WOODRNG7 KNOLL EHV SEMINOL7 ROSEHIL7 WICHITA WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB HITCHLAND
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Final Report
Page 4-49
Table 4.6.1-10: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case spring
From Bus # 560004 515375 511456 515375 515375 523097 523853 523853 210400 531469 531469 531449 531451 640065 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549 515375 531451 511468 514803 531488 523098 515361 531488 531498 523855
From Bus Name To Bus # KNOLL EHV WWRDEHV7 O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 HITCHLAND 7 FINNEY7 FINNEY7 GEN_2007_04 SPERVIL7 SPERVIL7 HOLCOMB7 MINGO 7 AXTELL 3 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 STATELINE POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 WWRDEHV7 MINGO7 L.E.S.-7 SOONER 7 COMANCHE HITCHLAND WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB 532773 531487 511468 515378 523097 560029 560029 531449 531449 531487 560004 531465 560050 640374 640374 640325 523961 345001 525549 525832 514715 560004 515045 532794 532798 515361 531488 531498 523855 523098
To Bus Name SUMMIT 7 COMANCHE L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 CONESTOGA CONESTOGA HOLCOMB7 HOLCOMB7 COMANCHE KNOLL EHV SETAB 7 G07-012 SWEET W3 SWEET W3 REDWILO3 POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 TUCO WOODRNG7 KNOLL EHV SEMINOL7 ROSEHIL7 WICHITA WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB HITCHLAND
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Final Report
Page 4-50
Table 4.6.1-11: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case summer
From Bus # 560004 515375 511456 515375 515375 210400 531469 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549 515375 531451 511468 514803 531488 523098 515361 531488 531498 523855
From Bus Name To Bus # KNOLL EHV WWRDEHV7 O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 GEN_2007_04 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 STATELINE POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 WWRDEHV7 MINGO7 L.E.S.-7 SOONER 7 COMANCHE HITCHLAND WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB 532773 531487 511468 515378 523097 531449 531487 640374 640325 523961 345001 525549 525832 514715 560004 515045 532794 532798 515361 531488 531498 523855 523098
To Bus Name SUMMIT 7 COMANCHE L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 HOLCOMB7 COMANCHE SWEET W3 REDWILO3 POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 TUCO WOODRNG7 KNOLL EHV SEMINOL7 ROSEHIL7 WICHITA WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB HITCHLAND
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Final Report
Page 4-51
Table 4.6.1-12: Single line fault transient stability results for 20% Case winter
From Bus # 560004 515375 511456 515375 515375 523853 531469 640183 640183 525835 523961 345001 525549 515375 531451 511468 514803 531488 523098 515361 531488 531498 523855
From Bus Name To Bus # KNOLL EHV WWRDEHV7 O.K.U.-7 WWRDEHV7 WWRDEHV7 FINNEY7 SPERVIL7 GENTLMN3 GENTLMN3 STATELINE POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 WWRDEHV7 MINGO7 L.E.S.-7 SOONER 7 COMANCHE HITCHLAND WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB 532773 531487 511468 515378 523097 560029 531487 640374 640325 523961 345001 525549 525832 514715 560004 515045 532794 532798 515361 531488 531498 523855 523098
To Bus Name SUMMIT 7 COMANCHE L.E.S.-7 TATONGA HITCHLAND 7 CONESTOGA COMANCHE SWEET W3 REDWILO3 POTTER_CO 7 ROOSEVELT2 TOLK 7 TUCO WOODRNG7 KNOLL EHV SEMINOL7 ROSEHIL7 WICHITA WOODWARD COMANCHE SPEARVILLE HOLCOMB HITCHLAND
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 Cycle CLR Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.6.2. GGS Flowgate Limit Transient Stability Analysis

Methodology
The Gentleman Generating Station (GGS) flowgate limit was tested for transient stability for outages of 345 kV lines. This was performed by first increasing the power transfer such that transfer over the flowgate lines was at the flow gate limit. Then either the GENTLMN3 to SWEET W3 or the GENTLMN3 to REDWILO3 line was faulted and cleared and the transient stability of the system was determined. The power transfer needed to reach the limit was created by increasing the generation at buses GENTLM1G and GENTLM2G with a corresponding increase of real power load at MOORE 3 (640277) for the GENTLMN3 to SWEET W3 line study and MINGO 7 (531451) for the GENTLMN3 to REDWILO3 line study. For all cases, each line was faulted and cleared with line disconnection after five cycles. As in the single line fault analysis, CRA chose a five-cycle clearing time because it provided an appropriate margin from the real breaker timing. If a case was unstable with clearing after five
Final Report
Page 4-52
cycles, it was studied with 4.5-cycle clearing time. The machine angle and speed of all the machines in the SPP area was monitored to determine transient stability.
Results
The results of the GGS flowgate transient stability study are shown in Table 4.6.2-1 through Table 4.6.2-3. Only the fall Base, 10%, and 20% Cases are stable for a five-cycle clearing time. The spring Base, 10%, and 20% cases are not stable with a 4.5 cycle clearing time. The summer 10% and 20% Cases are stable for a 4.5 cycle clearing time, but the summer Base Case is not. All winter cases are unstable for a 4.5 cycle clearing time except the GENTLMN3 to SWEET W3 line in the winter 20% Case. Based on the summer and winter cases, additional wind generation with transmission expansion improves the transient stability of the power system. The simulations showed that some cases were unstable at the current flowgate limit of 1,625 MW. Following consultation with SPP, it was concluded that these instabilities resulted from modeling errors and the flowgate limit should remain at the current limit.
Table 4.6.2-1: Base Case GGS flowgate limit
From Bus # 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183
From Bus To Bus # Name
To Bus Name
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Case Fall Base Fall Base Spring Base Spring Base Summer Base Summer Base Winter Base Winter Base
Power Transfer 185 185 960 960 220 220 130 130
5 Cycle 4.5 Cycle CLR CLR Stable Stable Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No
GENTLMN3 640325 REDWILO3 GENTLMN3 640374 SWEET W3 GENTLMN3 640325 REDWILO3 GENTLMN3 640374 SWEET W3 GENTLMN3 640325 REDWILO3 GENTLMN3 640374 SWEET W3 GENTLMN3 640325 REDWILO3 GENTLMN3 640374 SWEET W3
Final Report
Page 4-53
Table 4.6.2-2: 10% Case GGS flowgate limit
From Bus # 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183
From Bus Name
To Bus #
To Bus Name
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Case Fall 10% Fall 10% Spring 10% Spring 10% Summer 10% Summer 10% Winter 10% Winter 10%
Power Transfer 340 340 1066 1066 190 190 120 120
5 Cycle 4.5 Cycle CLR CLR Stable Stable Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No
Table 4.6.2-3: 20% Case GGS flowgate limit
From Bus # 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183 640183
From Bus Name
To Bus #
To Bus Name
CKT ID 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Case Fall 20% Fall 20% Spring 20% Spring 20% Summer 20% Summer 20% Winter 20% Winter 20%
Power Transfer 605 605 1130 1130 205 205 145 145
5 Cycle 4.5 Cycle CLR CLR Stable Stable Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes
4.6.3. Critical Clearing Time

Critical clearing time is the longest fault duration for which the power system is stable. The critical clearing time was obtained for the spring Base, 10%, and 20% Cases to test the robustness of the transmission system and to further examine the effect of wind penetration on transient stability. The spring models were chosen because they had the lightest load and were therefore more prone to transient instability. The same spring faults considered in the previous section were analyzed. The fault durations tested ranged from 5.5 cycles to 11 cycles in 0.5-cycle intervals. The fault duration was limited to 11 cycles, which is more than double the typical 5-cycle clearing time tested by SPP. Therefore, if a case was stable with a
Final Report
Page 4-54
fault duration of 11 cycles, it could only be determined that the critical clearing time was greater than or equal to 11 cycles. The critical clearing time for each simulated fault in the spring Base, 10%, and 20% Cases had a critical clearing time greater than or equal to 11 cycles with one exception. The exception was the fault of the ROOSEVELT2 to TOLK 7 345 kV line for the spring 10% Case, which has a critical clearing time of 10 cycles (double the typical clearing time tested by SPP). These results show that the system is robust even with 10% and 20% wind penetration levels and reaffirms the fact that increasing wind penetration with accompanying transmission expansion does not adversely affect the transient stability of the power system.
4.6.4. Transient Stability Conclusions

A summary of the results for the single-line fault five-cycle clearing simulations is shown in Table 4.6.4-1. Only two cases within the winter Base Case (GENTLMN3 to SWEET W3 and GENTLMN3 to REDWILO3) were not stable for a five-cycle clearing time. However, these lines were stable for a 4.5-cycle clearing time. Since the actual clearing times at these lines are 4 cycles, these cases should not cause any problems, but there is only a 0.5 cycle margin.
Table 4.6.4-1: Summary of single-line fault results
Stable for 5 Cycle Clearing

Case Season
Base Yes Yes Yes No
10% Yes Yes Yes Yes
20% Yes Yes Yes Yes
Spring Summer Fall Winter
Analysis of the critical clearing times on the light-load spring models, which are typically the most prone to voltage instability, showed that the system was stable for all simulated faults with clearing times of 10 cycles, indicating ample transient stability margins. It can be seen from the studies conducted that increasing wind capacity with commensurate transmission expansion does not adversely affect the transient stability of the power system, and may, in fact, improve it.
Final Report
Page 4-55
4.7.
ADDITIONAL SPP FLOWGATES FOR COMMITMENT AND DISPATCH
The addition of wind plants and transmission facilities in the 10% and 20% Cases changes the power flow patterns in the SPP transmission system. Therefore, a set of new transmission constraints was developed for the 10% and 20% Cases for enforcement as flowgates in the production simulation in Section 5.3. The new flowgates are in addition to the current list of SPP flowgates. Moreover, the new flowgates determined for the 20% Case are in addition to the flowgates for the 10% Case. The extra transmission constraints were determined by conducting AC contingency analyses on all four seasonal power flow cases. These contingency analyses monitored all branches in the SPP footprint with voltage higher than 100 kV. A new flowgate was created if a monitored branch had a pre- or post-contingency flow above 90% of its appropriate rating and the flowgate condition was not captured by an existing flowgate. The 10% Case had 40 such new flowgates, detailed in Table 4.7-1 through Table 4.7-4. Of these, eight monitor the flow on the 138 kV line Flat Ridge Harper for the loss of facilities that connect west and east SPP; the remainder monitor the contingent flows on lines in windrich areas. The 20% Case had 67 flowgates in addition to those for the 10% Case. These flowgates are detailed in Table 4.7-5 through Table 4.7-9. Although a few of these are due to specific wind plants, most of them are due to the increased flows from west to east SPP.
Table 4.7-1: Newly identified constraints for the 10% Case (Part 1 of 2)
Constraint Name NF1 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WWR NF2 SOUTHRD4-ROMNOSE4 fl WWR NF3 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WWR NF4 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl O.K NF5 ELKCITY6-ELKCTSTR fl WWR NF6 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WIC NF7 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WIC NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CLNF9 CLIFTON3-GRNLEAF3 fl EMA NF10 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl DE NF11 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl SA NF12 HARRNG_EST6-POTTER_CO 6 NF13 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl CE NF14 SPEARVL6-SPEARSTR fl MU NF15 WICHITA7-WICHISTR fl WI NF16 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WI NF17 EMCPHER3-MANVILE3 fl EM NF18 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl EV NF19 SPEARVL6-MULGREN6 fl SP NF20 GRAPEVINE 3-KIRBY3 fl N Monitored Element MOORLND4 138-GLASMTN4 138 SOUTHRD4 138-ROMNOSE4 138 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 ELKCITY6 230-ELKCTSTR 230 MOORLND4 138-GLASMTN4 138 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 ELKCTY-4 138-ELKCTSTR 138 CLIFTON3 115-GRNLEAF3 115 TALOGA 4 138-TALOGSTR 138 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 HARRNG-1 230-POTTER-1 230 TALOGA 4 138-TALOGSTR 138 SPEARVL6 230-SPEARSTR 345 WICHITA7 345-WICHISTR 345 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 EMCPHER3 115-MANVILE3 115 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 SPEARVL6 230-MULGREN6 230 GRAPEV-1 115-KIRBY3 115 Contingent Element WWRDEHV7 345-TATONG-1 345 WWRDEHV7 345-TATONG-1 345 WWRDEHV7 345-TATONG-1 345 O.K.U.-7 345-L.E.S.-7 345 WWRDEHV7 345-HITCHL-4 345 WICHITA7 345-G07-25T 345 WICHITA7 345-G07-25T 345 CL-AFTP4 138-ELKCTY-4 138 EMANHAT6 230-ELMCREK6 230 DEWEY 4 138-SOUTHRD4 138 SAWYER 3 115-MED-LDG3 115 HARRNG-2 230-HARRNG-1 230 CEDRDAL4 138-MOORLND4 138 MULGREN6 230-SPEARVL6 230 WICHITA7 345-WICHISTR 345 WICHITA7 345-WICHISTR 345 EMCPHER3 115-REFINRY3 115 EVANS S4 138-LAKERDG4 138 SPEARVL6 230-SPEARSTR 345 NICHOL-3 115-YARNELL3 115
Final Report
Page 4-56
Constraint Name NF21 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl BE NF22 PRINGLE 3-RIVERVIEW 3 f NF23 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl SP NF24 G06-45T-DEAFSMITH 6 fl NF25 PRINGLE 3-RIVERVIEW 3 f NF26 FLATRDG3-MED-LDG4 fl FL NF27 CANADAY7-LXNGTN 7 fl C. NF28 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF29 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF30 TERRYC3-WOLFFORTH 3 fl NF31 COWSKIN4-CENTENN4 fl EV NF32 CLIFTON3-GRNLEAF3 fl HO NF33 RIVERDL4-RIVERDL7 fl AX NF34 HASTCTY7-E7THST 7 fl AX NF35 OGALALA7-ROSCOE 7 fl MA NF36 ROOSEVELT 3-CURRY 3 fl NF37 FLATRDG3 to HARPER 4 NF38 SIBLEYPL to ECKLES-161 NF39 TURNER 5 to BELTONS5 NF40 EMANHAT6 to EMANHSTR Monitored Element FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 PRINGL-1 115-RIVERV-2 115 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 G06-45T 230-DEAFSM-2 230 PRINGL-1 115-RIVERV-2 115 FLATRDG3 138-MED-LDG4 138 CANADAY7 115-LXNGTN 7 115 SIBLEYPL 161-ECKLES-1 161 SIBLEYPL 161-ECKLES-1 161 TERRYC3 115-WOLFFO-1 115 COWSKIN4 138-CENTENN4 138 CLIFTON3 115-GRNLEAF3 115 RIVERDL4 230-RIVERDL7 115 HASTCTY7 115-E7THST 7 115 OGALALA7 115-ROSCOE 7 115 ROOSEV-1 115-CURRY-2 115 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 SIBLEYPL 161-ECKLES-1 161 TURNER 5 161-BELTONS5 161 EMANHAT6 230-EMANHSTR 230 Contingent Element BENTON 7 345-WICHITA7 345 PRINGL-1 115-PRINGL-2 230 SPEARVL7 345-KNOLL-1 345 HITCHL-4 345-POTTER-2 345-POTTERSTR 345 HITCHL-4 345-HITCHSTR 345 FLATRDG3 138-HARPER 4 138 C.CREEK4 230-RIVERDL4 230 BRUNSWK5 161-SALSBRY5 161 BLSPE 5 161-DUNCAN 5 161 SUNDOW-2 230-WOLFFO-2 230 EVANS S4 138-LAKERDG4 138 HOYT 7 345-JEC N 7 345 AXTELL 7 115-AXTELSTR 345 AXTELL 7 115-AXTELSTR 345 MALONEY7 115-N.PLATT7 115 OASIS-2 230-SW_4K3-1 230
Table 4.7-3: Newly identified constraint limits for the 10% Case (Part 1 of 2)
Constraint Name NF1 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WWR NF2 SOUTHRD4-ROMNOSE4 fl WWR NF3 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WWR NF4 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl O.K NF5 ELKCITY6-ELKCTSTR fl WWR NF6 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WIC NF7 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WIC NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CLNF9 CLIFTON3-GRNLEAF3 fl EMA NF10 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl DE NF11 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl SA NF12 HARRNG_EST6-POTTER_CO 6 NF13 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl CE NF14 SPEARVL6-SPEARSTR fl MU NF15 WICHITA7-WICHISTR fl WI NF16 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WI NF17 EMCPHER3-MANVILE3 fl EM NF18 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl EV NF19 SPEARVL6-MULGREN6 fl SP NF20 GRAPEVINE 3-KIRBY3 fl N Summer Limit (MW) 124 153 105 105 287 124 105 72 89 56 105 351 56 366 440 105 84 105 355 96 Winter Limit (MW) 124 185 105 105 287 124 105 72 117 56 105 361 56 366 440 105 84 105 470 106 Fall Limit (MW) 124 133 105 105 287 124 105 72 83 56 105 319 56 366 400 105 84 105 330 85 Spring Limit (MW) 124 153 105 105 287 124 105 72 89 56 105 351 56 366 440 105 84 105 355 96
Final Report
Page 4-57
Constraint Name NF21 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl BE NF22 PRINGLE 3-RIVERVIEW 3 f NF23 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl SP NF24 G06-45T-DEAFSMITH 6 fl NF25 PRINGLE 3-RIVERVIEW 3 f NF26 FLATRDG3-MED-LDG4 fl FL NF27 CANADAY7-LXNGTN 7 fl C. NF28 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF29 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF30 TERRYC3-WOLFFORTH 3 fl NF31 COWSKIN4-CENTENN4 fl EV NF32 CLIFTON3-GRNLEAF3 fl HO NF33 RIVERDL4-RIVERDL7 fl AX NF34 HASTCTY7-E7THST 7 fl AX NF35 OGALALA7-ROSCOE 7 fl MA NF36 ROOSEVELT 3-CURRY 3 fl NF37 FLATRDG3 to HARPER 4 NF38 SIBLEYPL to ECKLES-161 NF39 TURNER 5 to BELTONS5 NF40 EMANHAT6 to EMANHSTR Summer Limit (MW) 105 96 105 385 96 105 80 224 224 96 256 89 167 120 127 120 105 224 233 280 Winter Limit (MW) 105 106 105 329 106 105 80 245 245 106 256 117 167 120 127 185 105 245 334 280 Fall Limit (MW) 105 85 105 319 85 105 80 234 234 85 232 83 167 120 127 120 105 234 283 280 Spring Limit (MW) 105 96 105 319 96 105 80 234 234 96 232 89 167 120 127 120 105 234 283 280
Constraint Name NF201 AUBURN TRF fl HOYT 7 NF202 AUBURN TRF fl AUBURN 6 NF203 BELTONS5-TURNER 5 fl P NF204 BUFBEAR2-BUFFALO2 fl F NF205 BUSHLAND3-COULTER3 fl NF206 BUTLER4-ALTOONA4 fl NE NF207 CANADAY4-CANADAY7 fl C NF208 CIMARON4-HAYMAKR4 fl C NF209 CIMARON-DRAPER fl CLEV NF210 CIMARON-DRAPER fl SEMI NF211 CIMARON-DRAPER fl NORT NF212 CLIFTN-GRNLEAF fl HOYT NF213 CLIFTN-GRNLEAF fl SUMM NF214 CONCORD-CLIFTN fl EMAN NF215 CONCORD-CLIFTON fl HOY NF216 DVISION4-LAKESID4 fl M NF217 ELKCITY TRF fl STATELI NF218 EMANHAT TRF fl HOYT NF219 EMCPHER3-MANVILE3 fl E NF220 EVANS N4-MAIZE 4 fl B NF221 EVANS S4-LAKERDG4 fl C NF222 EVANS S4-LAKERDG4 fl E NF223 FLATRDG-HARPER fl BENT NF224 G07-25T-WICHITA7 fl CO NF225 G07-32T-CLINTJC4 fl G0 NF226 G07-32T-CLINTON4 fl WT NF227 G07-33T-HARRNG_EST6 fl NF228 GILL STR-GILL W 2 fl G NF229 HARPER 4-MILANTP4 fl C Monitored Element AUBURSTR 230 - AUBURN 6 230 AUBURSTR 230 - AUBURN 6 230 TURNER 5 161 - BELTONS5 161 BUFFALO2 69 - BUFBEAR2 69 COULTER3 115 - BUSHLA-1 115 ALTOONA4 138 - BUTLER 4 138 CANADAY7 115 - CANADAY4 230 HAYMAKR4 138 - CIMARON4 138 DRAPER 7 345 - CIMARON7 345 DRAPER 7 345 - CIMARON7 345 DRAPER 7 345 - CIMARON7 345 GRNLEAF3 115 - CLIFTON3 115 GRNLEAF3 115 - CLIFTON3 115 CLIFTON3 115 - CONCORD3 115 CLIFTON3 115 - CONCORD3 115 LAKESID4 138 - DVISION4 138 ELKCTY-4 138 - ELKCTSTR 230 EMANHSTR 230 - EMANHAT6 230 MANVILE3 115 - EMCPHER3 115 MAIZE 4 138 - EVANS N4 138 LAKERDG4 138 - EVANS S4 138 LAKERDG4 138 - EVANS S4 138 HARPER 4 138 - FLATRDG3 138 WICHITA7 345 - G07-25T 345 CLINTJC4 138 - G07-32T 138 CLINTON4 138 - G07-32T 138 HARRNG-1 230 - G07-33T 230 GILL W 2 69 - GILL STR 138 MILANTP4 138 - HARPER 4 138 Contingent Element HOYT 7 345 - JEC N 7 345 AUBURN 6 230 - SWISVAL6 230 PECULR 7 345 - PHILL 7 345 FTSUPLY4 138 - IODINE 4 138 POTTER-1 230 - BUSHLA-2 230 NEOSHO 4 138 - NEOSHSTR 138 C.CREEK4 230 - RIVERDL4 230 CZECHAL4 138 - CIMARON4 138 CLEVLND7 345 - SOONER 7 345 SEMINOL7 345 - L.E.S.-7 345 NORTWST7 345 - ARCADIA7 345 HOYT 7 345 - JEC N 7 345 SUMMIT 6 230 - ELMCREK6 230 EMANHAT6 230 - ELMCREK6 230 HOYT 7 345 - JEC N 7 345 MEMRIAL4 138 - TENESTP4 138 STATEL-1 345 - ELKCITY7 345 HOYT 7 345 - JEC N 7 345 EMCPHER3 115 - REFINRY3 115 BENTON 7 345 - WICHITA7 345 CENTENN4 138 - COWSKIN4 138 EVANS N4 138 - MAIZE 4 138 BENTON 7 345 - WICHITA7 345 COMANCHE 765 - WICHITA 765 G07-32T 138 - CLINTON4 138 WTH_JCT4 138 - WTH_SE 4 138 HITCHL-5 345 - HITCHSTR 345 GILL S 4 138 - GILL STR 138 COMANCHE 765 - WICHITA 765
Final Report
Page 4-58
Constraint Name NF230 HITCHLAND 7-HITCHLAND NF231 HOLCOMB3-PLYMELL3 fl H NF232 HOYT-MERI fl HOYT 7NF233 JEC N 7-HOYT 7 fl AUBU NF234 JEC N 7-HOYT 7 fl JEC NF235 JERICHO3-JERICSTR fl M NF236 LAWHILL6-LAWHISTR fl L NF237 MAXWELS7-CALAWAY7 fl C NF238 MCELROY4-KINZE 4 fl C NF239 MIDLAND6-MIDLASTR fl L NF240 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl W NF241 NASHUA 7-NASHUSTR fl N NF242 NORTWST TRF fl NORTWST NF243 PAOLI TRF fl WYNNTAP4NF244 SMOKYHLLS6-SUMMIT 6 fl NF245 SUMMIT 3-NORTHVW3 fl P NF246 SUNNYSD4-UNIROY 4 fl S NF247 SW 5TAP4-CLASSEN4 fl M NF248 SWISVAL7-W.GRDNR7 fl H NF249 TECHILE3-STULL T3 fl H NF250 TOLK_E-TUCO fl TOLK NF251 W.GRDNR7-STILWEL7 fl L NF252 WASHITA4-S.W.S.-4 fl A NF253 WICHISTR-EVANS N4 fl B NF254 WICHITA7-BENTON 7 fl S NF255 WICHITA 765 TRF fl BEN NF256 WILLIAM-FLETCHR fl SYR NF257 WILLIAM-FLETCHR fl KAN NF258 CLIFTON3 to GRNLEAF3 NF259 FIXCT4 to MAUD 4 NF260 YUMA_INTG 3 to WOLFFOR NF261 WILKES 7 to WILKESTR NF262 EVANS S4 to LAKERDG4 NF263 S.W.S.-4 to WASHITA4 NF264 FLETCHR3 to WILLIAM3 NF265 HIGHLANDTP3 to PANTEX_ NF266 MRWYP16 to MRWYPSTR NF267 MRWYP26 to MRWYPSTR Monitored Element HITCHL-1 765 - HITCHL-5 345 PLYMELL3 115 - HOLCOMB3 115 54&MERI3 115 - HOYT 3 115 HOYT 7 345 - JEC N 7 345 HOYT 7 345 - JEC N 7 345 JERICSTR 115 - JERICHO3 115 LAWHISTR 230 - LAWHILL6 230 CALAWAY7 115 - MAXWELS7 115 KINZE 4 138 - MCELROY4 138 MIDLASTR 230 - MIDLAND6 230 GLASMTN4 138 - MOORLND4 138 NASHUSTR 161 - NASHUA 7 345 NORTWSTR 345 - NORTWST7 345 PALIOSTR 138 - PAOLI- 4 138 SUMMIT 6 230 - SMOKYH-2 230 NORTHVW3 115 - SUMMIT 3 115 UNIROY 4 138 - SUNNYSD4 138 CLASSEN4 138 - SW 5TAP4 138 W.GRDNR7 345 - SWISVAL7 345 STULL T3 115 - TECHILE3 115 TUCO_I-3 230 - TOLK_E-1 230 STILWEL7 345 - W.GRDNR7 345 S.W.S.-4 138 - WASHITA4 138 EVANS N4 138 - WICHISTR 345 BENTON 7 345 - WICHITA7 345 WICHISTR 345 - WICHITA7 345 FLETCHR3 115 - WILLIAM3 115 FLETCHR3 115 - WILLIAM3 115 CLIFTON3 115 - GRNLEAF3 115 FIXCT4 138 - MAUD 4 138 YUMA_I-1 115 - WOLFFO-1 115 WILKES 7 345 - WILKESTR 345 EVANS S4 138 - LAKERDG4 138 S.W.S.-4 138 - WASHITA4 138 FLETCHR3 115 - WILLIAM3 115 HIGHLA-2 115 - PANTEX-2 115 MRWYP16 230 - MRWYPSTR 34.5 MRWYP26 230 - MRWYPSTR 34.5 Contingent Element HITCHL-1 765 - HITCHL-5 345 HOLCOMB3 115 - HOLCOSTR 345 HOYT 7 345 - STRANGR7 345 AUBURN 6 230 - JEC 6 230 JEC N 7 345 - MORRIS 7 345 MCCLEL-1 115 - KIRBY3 115 LAWHILL6 230 - MIDLAND6 230 C.CREEK4 230 - C.CREEK7 115 CLEVLND7 345 - SOONER 7 345 LAWHILL6 230 - LAWHISTR 230 WOODRNG4 138 - WOODRSTR 345 NASHUA 7 345 - HAWTH 7 345 NORTWST4 138 - NORTWSTR 345 WYNNTAP4 138 - PAOLI- 4 138 KNOLL -1 345 - SUMMIT 7 345 PHILIPS3 115 - SCHILNG3 115 SUNNYSD4 138 - ROCKYPT4 138 MUSTANG4 138 - COUNCIL4 138 HOYT 7 345 - STRANGR7 345 HOYT 7 345 - STRANGR7 345 TOLK -1 345 - TUCO_I-4 345 LACYGNE7 345 - STILWEL7 345 ANADARK4 138 - WASHITA4 138 BENTON 7 345 - WICHITA7 345 SWISVAL7 345 - W.GRDNR7 345 BENTON 7 345 - WICHITA7 345 SYRACUS3 115 - TRIBUNE3 115 KANARAD3 115 - G06-34T 115
Constraint Name NF201 AUBURN TRF fl HOYT 7 NF202 AUBURN TRF fl AUBURN 6 NF203 BELTONS5-TURNER 5 fl P NF204 BUFBEAR2-BUFFALO2 fl F NF205 BUSHLAND3-COULTER3 fl NF206 BUTLER4-ALTOONA4 fl NE NF207 CANADAY4-CANADAY7 fl C NF208 CIMARON4-HAYMAKR4 fl C NF209 CIMARON-DRAPER fl CLEV NF210 CIMARON-DRAPER fl SEMI NF211 CIMARON-DRAPER fl NORT NF212 CLIFTN-GRNLEAF fl HOYT NF213 CLIFTN-GRNLEAF fl SUMM Summer Limit (MW) 308 308 265 35 160 110 100 308 717 717 717 89 89 Winter Limit (MW) 308 308 354 41 177 110 336 375 717 717 717 117 117 Fall Limit (MW) 308 308 309 35 160 110 336 308 717 717 717 89 89 Spring Limit (MW) 308 308 309 35 160 110 100 308 717 717 717 89 89
Final Report
Page 4-59
Constraint Name NF214 CONCORD-CLIFTN fl EMAN NF215 CONCORD-CLIFTON fl HOY NF216 DVISION4-LAKESID4 fl M NF217 ELKCITY TRF fl STATELI NF218 EMANHAT TRF fl HOYT NF219 EMCPHER3-MANVILE3 fl E NF220 EVANS N4-MAIZE 4 fl B NF221 EVANS S4-LAKERDG4 fl C NF222 EVANS S4-LAKERDG4 fl E NF223 FLATRDG-HARPER fl BENT NF224 G07-25T-WICHITA7 fl CO NF225 G07-32T-CLINTJC4 fl G0 NF226 G07-32T-CLINTON4 fl WT NF227 G07-33T-HARRNG_EST6 fl NF228 GILL STR-GILL W 2 fl G NF229 HARPER 4-MILANTP4 fl C NF230 HITCHLAND 7-HITCHLAND NF231 HOLCOMB3-PLYMELL3 fl H NF232 HOYT-MERI fl HOYT 7NF233 JEC N 7-HOYT 7 fl AUBU NF234 JEC N 7-HOYT 7 fl JEC NF235 JERICHO3-JERICSTR fl M NF236 LAWHILL6-LAWHISTR fl L NF237 MAXWELS7-CALAWAY7 fl C NF238 MCELROY4-KINZE 4 fl C NF239 MIDLAND6-MIDLASTR fl L NF240 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl W NF241 NASHUA 7-NASHUSTR fl N NF242 NORTWST TRF fl NORTWST NF243 PAOLI TRF fl WYNNTAP4NF244 SMOKYHLLS6-SUMMIT 6 fl NF245 SUMMIT 3-NORTHVW3 fl P NF246 SUNNYSD4-UNIROY 4 fl S NF247 SW 5TAP4-CLASSEN4 fl M NF248 SWISVAL7-W.GRDNR7 fl H NF249 TECHILE3-STULL T3 fl H NF250 TOLK_E-TUCO fl TOLK NF251 W.GRDNR7-STILWEL7 fl L NF252 WASHITA4-S.W.S.-4 fl A NF253 WICHISTR-EVANS N4 fl B NF254 WICHITA7-BENTON 7 fl S NF255 WICHITA 765 TRF fl BEN NF256 WILLIAM-FLETCHR fl SYR NF257 WILLIAM-FLETCHR fl KAN NF258 CLIFTON3 to GRNLEAF3 NF259 FIXCT4 to MAUD 4 NF260 YUMA_INTG 3 to WOLFFOR NF261 WILKES 7 to WILKESTR NF262 EVANS S4 to LAKERDG4 Summer Limit (MW) 89 89 287 287 308 84 382 382 382 105 1,440 143 143 239 137 95 1,250 143 179 1,076 1,076 46 308 120 222 308 124 440 493 50 319 170 191 191 721 92 351 721 264 440 956 440 98 98 83 88 139 447 382 Winter Limit (MW) 117 117 287 287 308 84 382 382 382 105 1,440 143 143 265 137 95 1,250 222 179 1,076 1,076 46 308 120 270 308 124 440 493 50 319 170 191 191 788 92 361 788 264 440 956 440 98 98 113 107 159 447 382 Fall Limit (MW) 89 89 287 287 308 84 382 382 382 105 1,440 143 143 239 137 95 1,250 143 179 1,076 1,076 46 308 120 222 308 124 440 493 50 319 147 191 191 752 92 351 752 264 440 956 440 98 98 83 88 139 447 382 Spring Limit (MW) 89 89 287 287 308 84 382 382 382 105 1,440 143 143 239 137 95 1,250 143 179 1,076 1,076 46 308 120 222 308 124 440 493 50 319 240 191 191 752 92 351 752 264 440 956 440 98 98 83 88 139 447 382
Final Report
Page 4-60
Constraint Name NF263 S.W.S.-4 to WASHITA4 NF264 FLETCHR3 to WILLIAM3 NF265 HIGHLANDTP3 to PANTEX_ NF266 MRWYP16 to MRWYPSTR NF267 MRWYP26 to MRWYPSTR Summer Limit (MW) 212 83 120 110 110 Winter Limit (MW) 212 83 143 110 110 Fall Limit (MW) 212 83 120 110 110 Spring Limit (MW) 212 83 120 110 110
4.8.
WIND POWER DELIVERABILITY
The deliverability of wind power was analyzed by performing two series of studies: PV analyses for increments/reductions in wind generation against reductions/increments in non-wind generators, and Production simulations
These studies are complementary, and focus on different aspects of deliverability. The PV studies use an AC model of the transmission network to indicate whether there are any voltage concerns. In these studies, variations in generation dispatch, both for wind and nonwind units, are based on participation factors and the unit commitment is fixed. Production simulations, on the other hand, employ a DC model of the transmission network, but model variations in dispatch and commitment in detail. This section discusses the results of the PV analyses; production simulations are presented in Section 5.3. The summer peak power flow cases for the 10% and 20% Cases were used for the PV analysis. Two injection groups were defined. The non-wind injection group included all nonwind generators in SPP that were connected in the power flow cases. The wind injection group included all wind plants in the corresponding case. The total output of the wind injection group was varied from a 20% capacity factor to a 100% capacity factor in 100 MW increments, with the variations compensated by the non-wind injection group. The changes in generation in the wind injection group were proportional to the un-dispatched generation capacities of the wind plants, with the changes in the non-wind injection groups proportional to the participation factors in the power flow model, while abiding by each generators maximum and minimum capacity requirement. The study monitored the flows on all current and new SPP flowgates (Section 4.7 and Appendix E) and on all SPP branches with nominal voltage higher than 100 kV, as well as the voltages of all SPP nodes with nominal voltage higher than 100 kV.
Final Report
Page 4-61
4.8.1. 10% Case

The results are summarized in Table 4.8.1-1 and Table 4.8.1-2. The violations for the maximum wind power injection, with all wind plants dispatched at their nameplate capacity, are in Appendix A.6.2. The minimum voltage was 0.91 p.u. at the Shamrock 115 kV bus. There were 19 buses with voltage below 0.95 p.u. and only four of them were below 0.94 p.u. The eight buses with the lowest voltages were on the 115/138 kV and 230 kV ties between SPS and SPP. Seven buses had voltages above 1.05 p.u. There were two lines lightly overloaded (below 2.5%). Most violations were in terms of overloaded flowgates, with the NewSPSSPPTIES flowgate overloaded by 70%, indicating that this scenario with all wind plants dispatched at 100% is not realistic. Considering that a) the dispatch and commitment were not optimized for this high wind power injection level, b) the voltage issues were minor, and were for the most part captured by the new SPSSPPTIES flowgate, and c) most violations were in terms of flowgates, the results indicate that the production simulations for the 10% Case were expected to give an accurate description for the deliverability of the wind plants.
Final Report
Page 4-62
Table 4.8.1-1: Critical constraints for wind power output increases in the summer 10% Case
Wind Power Increment (MW) 0 100 600 700 862 1000 1400 1800 2100 2300 2500 2600 2800 3200 3400 3500 3700 3829 Wind Power (MW) 3015 3115 3615 3715 3877 4015 4415 4815 5115 5315 5515 5615 5815 6215 6415 6515 6715 6844 Non-Wind Power (MW) 48496 48398 47898 47799 47636 47506 47135 46756 46478 46294 46111 46021 45841 45487 45310 45219 45044 44935 Flowgate GIBRAMWEBRIC; Flowgate FLCXFRFLCXFR Flowgate NF32 CLIFTON3-GRNLEAF3 fl HO Flowgate NF9 CLIFTON3-GRNLEAF3 fl EMA Inadequate Voltage at Bus SHAM 3WT (512107) 0.950 Flowgate NF7 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WIC Flowgate NewSPSToSPPTies Flowgate NF10 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl DE Flowgate NF1 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WWR; Flowgate SHAXFROKULES; Flowgate NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CLFlowgate NF20 GRAPEVINE 3-KIRBY3 fl N Flowgate SUNXFRPITSEM Flowgate NF6 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WIC; Flowgate NF13 TALOGA 4TALOGSTR fl CE Flowgate SHAXFRTUCOKU Overload on Greenleaf to Clifton 115 kV line Flowgate SHAXFRELKGRP; Flowgate NF18 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl EV Overload on Mooreland To Glass Mountain 138 kV line; Flowgate SHAXFRFINHOL Flowgate NF26 FLATRDG3-MED-LDG4 fl FL Max Wind Generation
Newly Critical Constraint
Final Report
Page 4-63
Table 4.8.1-2: Critical constraints for wind power output decreases in the summer 10% Case
Wind Power Decrement (MW) 0 100 800 1400 1800 Wind Power (MW) 3015 2915 2215 1615 1215 Non-Wind Power (MW) 48496 48596 49296 49896 50296 Flowgate EUFXFRWELXFR Flowgate DANMAGANOFTS Flowgate FLCXFRFLCXFR 18% Max Wind Generation; Inadequate bus voltage at 115 kV bus MINDEN-3 (507778)
Final Report
Page 4-64
4.8.2. 20% Case

The results are summarized in Table 4.8.2-1 through Table 4.8.2-3.
Table 4.8.2-1: Critical constraints for wind power output increases in the summer 20%
Case (Part 1 of 2)
Wind Power Increment (MW) 0 300 600 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1800 2100 2400 2500 2700 2900 3000 3200 4200 4300 4400 4800 Wind Power (MW) 6040 6340 6640 6840 6940 7040 7140 7240 7340 7840 8140 8440 8540 8740 8940 9040 9240 10240 10340 10440 10840 Non-Wind Power (MW) 45592 45310 45022 44833 44740 44645 44551 44458 44365 43898 43621 43345 43253 43069 42886 42794 42611 41707 41618 41529 41172 Flowgate NF247 SW 5TAP4-CLASSEN4 fl M Flowgate NF220 EVANS N4-MAIZE 4 fl B Flowgate NF31 COWSKIN4-CENTENN4 fl EV Flowgate HSBIS_ELDXF Flowgate NF30 TERRYC3-WOLFFORTH 3 fl; Flowgate NF213 CLIFTN-GRNLEAF fl SUMM; Flowgate NF216 DVISION4-LAKESID4 fl M Flowgate NF7 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WIC Flowgate NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL-; Flowgate NF232 HOYT-MERI fl HOYT 7Flowgate NF234 JEC N 7-HOYT 7 fl JEC Flowgate NF15 WICHITA7-WICHISTR fl WI Flowgates NF248 SWISVAL7-W.GRDNR7 fl H; Flowgate NF233 JEC N 7-HOYT 7 fl AUBU Inadequate Voltage at buses SHAM 3WT (512107), PAWNEE 3 (530621), and RIVERDL4 (640330) 0.950; Flowgate NF9 CLIFTON3-GRNLEAF3 fl EMA; Flowgate STIMCRSPRNOR Flowgate NF255 WICHITA 765 TRF fl BEN; Flowgate NF253 WICHISTR-EVANS N4 fl B Flowgate NF223 FLATRDG-HARPER fl BENT; Flowgate NF21 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl BE; Flowgate NF240 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl W; Flowgate NF20 GRAPEVINE 3-KIRBY3 fl N Flowgate NF18 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl EV; Flowgate NF238 MCELROY4-KINZE 4 fl C Flowgate NewSPStoSPPTies Flowgate NF249 TECHILE3-STULL T3 fl H; 115 kV line Clifton to Greenleaf Flowgate NF16 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WI; Flowgate NF237 MAXWELS7-CALAWAY7 fl C Flowgate BRKSPRSWPSWD Flowgate NF11 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl SA; Flowgate NF235 JERICHO3-JERICSTR fl M; Flowgate NF251 W.GRDNR7-STILWEL7 fl L Flowgate NF254 WICHITA7-BENTON 7 fl S Newly Critical Constraint
Final Report
Page 4-65
Table 4.8.2-2: Critical constraints for wind power output increases in the summer 20%
Case (Part 2 of 2)
Wind Power Increment (MW) 4900 5000 5100 5200 5300 5500 5800 6000 6200 6400 6500 6600 6800 7000 7100 7200 7300 7400 7600 7638 Wind Power (MW) 10940 11040 11140 11240 11340 11540 11840 12040 12240 12440 12540 12640 12840 13040 13140 13240 13340 13440 13640 13678 Non-Wind Power (MW) 41084 40996 40906 40818 40729 40553 40291 40115 39945 39775 39685 39600 39428 39257 39175 39088 39003 38917 38747 38720 Newly Critical Constraint
Overload on 138 kV line Flat Ridge to Harper Flowgate NF230 HITCHLAND 7-HITCHLAND; Flowgate NF250 TOLK_E-TUCO fl TOLK; Overload on 138/69 kV transformer Elk City Flowgate NF23 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl SP; Flowgate NF4 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl O.K; Flowgate NF245 SUMMIT 3-NORTHVW3 fl P Flowgate SHAXFROKULES Flowgate NF206 BUTLER4-ALTOONA4 fl NE; Flowgate NF229 HARPER 4-MILANTP4 fl C; Flowgate NF3 FLATRDG3-HARPER 4 fl WWR Flowgate NF217 ELKCITY TRF fl STATELI; Flowgate NF13 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl CE Flowgate NF205 BUSHLAND3-COULTER3 fl; Flowgate NF6 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WIC; Overload on 138 kV line Elk City to Clinton Flowgate SHAXFRTUCOKU; Overload on 345 kV line Wichita to Benton Overload on 138 kV line S.W.S. to Washita; Overload on 138 kV line Milan to Harper Flowgate NF1 MOORLND4-GLASMTN4 fl WWR Flowgate NF224 G07-25T-WICHITA7 fl CO Overload on 138 kV line Glass Mountain to Mooreland Overload on 138 kV line Clinton to Hobart; Overload on 345 kV line Hoyt to JEC Flowgate NF10 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl DE; Overload on 230 kV line G06-45 to Deafsmith Flowgate NF226 G07-32T-CLINTON4 fl WT Flowgate NF225 G07-32T-CLINTJC4 fl G0 Flowgate NF26 FLATRDG3-MED-LDG4 fl FL Flowgate NF204 BUFBEAR2-BUFFALO2 fl F Flowgate NF239 MIDLAND6-MIDLASTR fl L Max Wind Generation; Overload on 138 kV line Haymark to Cimaron; Overload on 138 kV line Cimaron to Czech Hall; Overload on 138 kV line Kinze to Mc Elroy
Final Report
Page 4-66
Table 4.8.2-3: Critical constraints of wind power output decreases in the summer 20% Case
Wind Power Decrement (MW) 0 700 1000 3300 Wind Power (MW) 6040 5300 4986 2640 Non-Wind Power (MW) 45592 46292 46592 48892 Flowgate DANMAGANOFTS Flowgate RUSDARANOFTS 19% Max Wind Generation
Figure 4.8.2-1: Bus voltage contour for the maximum wind power injection in the summer 20% Case
The violations for the maximum wind power injection, with all wind plants dispatched at their nameplate capacity, are in Appendix A.6.2. There were 171 buses with voltage below 0.95 p.u. The minimum voltage was 0.885 p.u. at the Shamrock 115 kV bus, the remaining voltages were above 0.91 p.u. and occurred mainly in buses in AEPW and OKGE, which had a large number of wind plants, and across all voltage levels, including 345 kV nodes. This can be seen in the voltage contour of Figure 4.8.2-1. The low voltages were due to several wind
Final Report
Page 4-67
plants not providing reactive power support, either due to modeling issues or to actual inability to do so.6 This result emphasizes the importance of reactive power support by wind plants, especially in high wind penetration levels when some non-wind generators that could provide voltage support might not be operating. A few lines were overloaded, most of which were already captured in the contingency analysis. There were 77 overloaded flowgates, with the NewSPSSPPTIES flowgate overloaded by 44%, indicating that this scenario with all wind plants dispatched at 100% is not realistic. Considering that a) the dispatch and commitment were not optimized for this high wind power injection level, b) the voltage issues were concentrated in AEPW and OKGE, and were partially captured by the new SPSSPPTIES flowgate, and c) most violations were in terms of flowgates, the results indicate that the production simulation for the 20% Case is reasonably representative of wind plant deliverability.
4.9.
AVAILABLE TRANSFER CAPABILITY IMPACTS OF INCREASED WIND PENETRATION
The impacts of increased wind penetration on the ATC were studied on the summer power flow cases for ten selected transfers. CRA selected the transfers with SPP operations staff with the objective of accounting for transmission limitations in most of the SPP footprint. Because the majority of the wind plants are in the western portion of SPP and load centers tend to be in the eastern portion of SPP, all ten transfers were from west to east. The following transfers were selected: SPS to AMMO, AECI and EES SUNC to AMMO, AECI, and EES WFEC to Oklahoma City and Tulsa SUNC to Kansas City Western Nebraska to Lincoln/Omaha
The transfer capability studies were performed on the summer power flow cases for the Base, 10% and 20% Case, with all current and new flowgates for SPP enforced (see Section 4.7 and Appendix E for a specification of these flowgates), and monitoring the flow on all SPP lines above 100 kV. The remainder of this section summarizes the study results. The study assumptions, methodology and results are detailed in Appendix A.3. In the discussion that follows, exporting areas are referred to as sellers and importing areas are referred to as buyers.
6 Modern wind plants (Type III or Type IV, see footnote 8 in Section 6, page 6-20 for details of types) are typically capable of supplying reactive power and voltage control.
Final Report
Page 4-68
Figure 4.9-1 shows the ATC for each transfer and each case. The bars in shades of green show the transfer limits due to transmission constraints for the Base, 10% and 20% Cases. The figure also indicates, with dashed bars and bold upper limits, the transfer limits due to the selling area export limitations, i.e., the sellers generation units reaching their limits.
Base Case
1,200
10% Case 20% Case
Transaction Limit (MW)
1,000
800
600
400
200
SPS to AMMO
SPS to AECI
SPS to EES
SUNC to AMMO
SUNC to AECI
SUNC to EES
WFEC to OK City
WFEC to Tulsa
SUNC to KS City
W NE to Lincoln/ Omaha
Transaction Location
Figure 4.9-1: ATC for selected transfers by case
As a reference, Figure 4.9-2 and Figure 4.9-3 show the seller net export and the buyer net import, respectively, before and after the additional transactions. In Figure 4.9-2, the blue
Final Report
Page 4-69
horizontal line in the bar shows the sellers initial net export from the power flow case, while the red line shows the final net export with the additional transaction at the ATC limit. Thus, the difference between the blue and the red lines shows the ATC. Note that for some sellers and some cases, such as SUNC in the Base Case and WFEC in the Base Case and 10% Case, the initial net export may be negative, implying that the area was a net importer in the power flow case. With the additional transfer, the net import decreases, shown by the red line, which is always above the blue line. Figure 4.9-3 shows buyer net imports, with the initial net import in blue and the final net import in red.
3,000
Base Case 10% Case
2,500
20% Case Final Export Initial Export
Seller Net Export (MW)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0 SPS to AMMO SPS to AECI SPS to EES SUNC to AMMO SUNC to AECI SUNC to EES WFEC to OK City WFEC to Tulsa SUNC to KS City W NE to Lincoln/ Omaha
-500
Figure 4.9-2: Net export for each seller for selected transfers by case
Final Report
Page 4-70
2,500 2,000 1,500
Buyer Net Import (MW)
1,000 500 0 -500 -1,000 -1,500 -2,000 -2,500 -3,000 SPS to EES SUNC to EES SPS to AMMO SPS to AECI SUNC to AMMO SUNC to AECI WFEC to Tulsa SUNC to KS City W NE to Lincoln/ Omaha
WFEC to OK City
Base Case 10% Case 20% Case Final Import
Figure 4.9-3: Net import for each buyer for selected transfers by case
Initial Import
All ATC values computed were below 1,000 MW except for one (WFEC to Oklahoma City in the 20% Case) and all except three were below 700 MW. The average ATC from west SPP to neighboring areas to the east of SPP was about 400 MW. A low ATC in a summer peak power flow case can be interpreted as the network being well utilized. There was no uniform trend in the ATC change for the increase in wind penetration level. However, for eight of the ten transfers analyzed, the ATC in the 10% Case was higher than that in the Base or 20% Case. The exceptions were the transfer from WFEC to Oklahoma City, which increased the ATC for increments in the wind penetration level mainly due to a number of transmission expansions between these two areas, and west Nebraska to Lincoln and Omaha, for which the ATC in the 10% Case was the lowest due to variations in the power flow case dispatch. In general, the seller net export increased as the wind penetration increased, due to the higher available wind and the transmission expansions made to accommodate the additional wind power injections.
Final Report
Page 4-71
5.
IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP OPERATIONS
Implementing high levels of wind penetration warrants an examination of nearly every aspect of system operations. This section presents analysis and evaluation of operations timeframes, unit commitment and dispatch, and ancillary services (reserves in particular). Results of these analyses can provide key insights into potential changes in operating procedures that would better accommodate increased wind resources, as well as anticipated operational changes that would result from increased wind resources. Many of the assumptions and input data used in the analyses presented in this section were the results of analyses presented in previous sections. The results from the wind characteristic analysis (Section 3) were used to analyze the impact of wind on ancillary services (reserves in particular). The transmission analysis (Section 4) results were used to analyze the impact on system operation over time via production simulation. The findings of the studies in this section are summarized as follows:
Ancillary Service Impacts

Increased regulation is needed to accommodate wind. Moreover, increases in regulation requirement are disproportionate to increases in penetration level. The component of regulation needs associated with variability in wind power generation is time varying and can be reduced through the use of appropriate types of forecasts, such as ramp forecasts. Regulation-up and regulation-down requirements are not symmetric and can vary significantly depending on the time of day. Additionally, wind may be able to provide regulation down during high wind periods. For these reasons, regulation up and regulation down should be two separate ancillary services. Load-following reserves, which are currently not defined or required in SPP, may become highly beneficial as the net load forecast variability increases with higher wind penetration levels. As for regulation, load-following reserve requirements would be time-dependent, not symmetric (for up and down needs), and could be reduced with improved forecast tools. In discussions with SPP and the WITF, it was agreed that the current contingency reserve requirements be maintained. The contingency reserve requirement should be reevaluated in the near future, however, if the wind penetration level within SPP increases and more high-voltage transmission lines are added.
Operational Impacts
Increased operational flexibility of non-wind generation (more startups and shorter cycles) is required to accommodate net load variability caused by wind. Without a robust
Final Report
Page 5-1
transmission system, this operational flexibility needs to be localized based on transmission congestion. A robust transmission system could reduce the overall demand and locational requirements for flexible resources. The changing system conditions and operational constraints of non-wind generators such as minimum up- and down-time limitations and minimum generation requirements create the need for additional local wind curtailments. In the 20% Case, on average, wind power curtailments were affected by the following factors, listed in order of decreasing significance: minimum generation constraints, reserve requirements, transmission transfer limitations, and forecast errors. In the 10% Case, transmission limitations were the most significant driver of curtailments. Given assumed transmission enhancements, overall wind curtailments do not increase from the 10% to the 20% Case relative to available wind energy.
Forecast Impacts
Wind forecast errors increase the number of starts of flexible units and reduce the generation from less flexible (but lower cost) units. Wind over- and under-forecasting affect wind curtailments differently. Over-forecasting tends to cause fewer wind curtailments, which decrease with the level of the forecast error. Under-forecasting tends to cause more wind curtailments, which rapidly increase with the level of under-forecasting. This is because under-forecasting of wind causes over-commitment of non-wind generation and further exacerbates the challenges due to minimum generation constraints. Over-forecasting of wind can lead to under-commitment of non-wind generators and cause reliability problems.
Recommendations
Efficient wind integration requires a sophisticated unit commitment process which cooptimizes ancillary services and generation and explicitly addresses uncertainty associated with forecast errors. CRA recommends that SPP consider including an intraday commitment update in the commitment process in addition to the day-ahead unit commitment.
The remainder of this section is organized in four subsections. Section 5.1 describes SPP operations by timeframe. Section 5.2 discusses the need for certain ancillary services, specifically regulation up and down, load following, and contingency reserves. Section 5.3 describes the analysis of unit commitment and hourly dispatch to assess the impact of wind penetration on capacity factors and cycling of non-wind generating units, on transmission congestion, and on wind curtailment. In addition, this section discusses the impact of forecast errors on unit commitment and wind curtailment. Section 5.4 describes the analysis of realtime dispatch and identifies the causes for wind curtailment in real time.
Final Report
Page 5-2
5.1
OVERVIEW OF SPP OPERATIONS BY TIMEFRAME
Currently, SPP operates an Energy Imbalance Service (EIS) market that balances the supply and demand of electricity in real time. The EIS market clears every five minutes, establishing the dispatch and prices for the five-minute interval beginning ten minutes ahead.1 To operate this market, SPP requires load forecasts from balancing authorities and matches the dispatch in real time to meet the load. SPP requires two types of load forecasts. The mid-term forecast produces an hourly forecast for the following seven days. This is updated hourly using the latest short-term forecast and weather data. These data are used to confirm the commitment of generators on a day-ahead basis.2 The short-term forecast produces five-minute forecasts for the next sixty minutes, looking fifteen minutes ahead. These data are used to dispatch generators in the EIS market. Currently, SPP does not forecast wind except in a simplistic fashion known as a persistence forecast: wind generators are assumed to maintain their output at the same level for the realtime dispatch time horizon. Figure 5.1-1 shows the SPP operations timeframe for the Day 2 Market, which is similar to the EIS market. The upper timeline shows the commitment phase, during which unit commitment is performed day-ahead, based on the mid-term load forecast, resulting in generator schedules, load schedules, and prices for each hour in the 24-hour commitment period. In real time, as the lower timeline shows, dispatch signals looking ten minutes ahead are sent to units every five minutes. Figure 5.1-2 shows the operations timeframe CRA recommends. The upper timeline shows the day-ahead commitment, which is the same as it the current design for the Day 2 Market as in Figure 5.1-1. The lower time line shows the real-time dispatch, which is based on a tenminute outlook and short-term load forecast.
1 As of December 2009, the EIS market is still using a 15-minute-ahead forecast. This is planned to be changed to 10-minute-ahead in early 2010. 2 Currently the individual balancing authorities commit the units. It is assumed that when the Day 2 Market is implemented, SPP will commit units on a day-ahead timeframe.
Final Report
Page 5-3
Figure 5.1-1: Operations timeframes for SPP Day 2 market design
The operating timeframes are important because the ancillary services, particularly reserves, will be designed around these timeframes. For example, regulation is designed for the shorter timeframe related to dispatch, and load following reserves are designed for the longer timeframe related to commitment. As discussed in the following sections, high penetration levels of wind will lead to increased need for reserves to cover the wind power generation fluctuation. To accommodate this fluctuation, CRA recommends that an intra-day commitment (4-hour-ahead) be added to the operational timeframe, as shown in the middle timeline (shown in green) in Figure 5.1-2. Analyses performed in Section 3.2, Section 5.2, and Section 6.2 will illustrate the need for this intra-day commitment.
Figure 5.1-2: Recommended SPP operations timeframe
Final Report
Page 5-4
5.2
WIND INTEGRATION AND RESERVE SERVICES NEEDS
In power systems operations there are several sources of uncertainty and variability, which can be categorized into contingencies and departures from forecasts. The unreliable nature of equipment leads to unforeseen forced outage events of generation and transmission equipment. The impacts of these outages are covered by contingency reserve. With increases in wind penetration levels, the contingency events accounted for should include outage of new transmission lines and wind plant disconnections.3 Consequently, contingency reserve requirements should be reevaluated if wind penetration levels increase significantly, as discussed in the following Section 5.2.3. Departures from forecasts are often continuous in nature and include uncertain and variable load, generation and area interchange. Two types of ancillary services can compensate for these variations, in different timeframes: regulation and load-following reserve. Regulation is aimed at matching the generation to load balance within the dispatch time horizon. Regulation covers the intra-dispatch deviations and variations around the 10-minuteahead forecasts used to clear the balancing markets (Figure 5.1-1). The increased regulation requirements necessary with increased wind penetration levels are discussed in Section 5.2.1. Load-following services follow the generation-to-load balance on a longer timeframe, between the dispatch time horizon and the commitment time horizon. Load following covers the departures of the forecasts used in the balancing market from the forecasts used in the unit commitment. With low wind penetration levels, load forecast uncertainty and intra-hour variability are the main sources of load-following service needs (thus the name load following). With high wind penetration levels, the focus shifts to both load and wind as modeled by their difference, or net load. Currently, there are no specific requirements for load following in North America: load following needs are implicitly accounted for in the unit commitment decisions. Section 5.2.2 discusses the increases in net load variability and uncertainty in the load following timeframe. The observations in Section 5.2.2, together with the production simulation results of Section 5.3 and Section 5.4, are used to propose the explicit use of load-following reserves under increased wind penetration levels in Section 6.2.
3 It may also include rapid wind power reductions, such as icing events or high wind cut-off events.
Final Report
Page 5-5
5.2.1
Regulation-Up and Regulation-Down Requirements
Regulating reserves ensure that load, generation, and exchanges with external areas are in continuous balance in the seconds-to-minutes timeframe. Those units that provide regulation serve to balance the continuous deviations from EIS schedules and short-term forecasts. Short-term wind variability is one of the causes for regulation needs, others being the variability of load, non-wind generation (excluding outages), and net exchanges. All of these causes are taken into account to determine regulation requirements. The needs for regulation are assessed for up and down deviations. Regulation up covers the situations where the net demand for power is above the scheduled demand, either because the instantaneous load is above the forecasted load for the five-minute period, the total generation (including wind) is below its schedule for the period, the total net exports are above the forecasted net exports for the period, or a combination of these causes. Regulation down covers the situations where the demand for power is below the scheduled demand. In general, as wind penetration levels increase, the magnitude of the variability of wind power also increases and larger regulation reserves are required. However, regulation needs also depend on other factors, including seasonal effects, the daily peak load forecast level and the forecasted wind level for the hour of interest. Therefore, the results in this section support the use of time-varying regulation requirements updated based on load and wind forecasts. The updated regulation requirements presented below were obtained using wind profiles based on the NREL dataset (Section 7.4) and assuming that i) short-term wind variability impacts the deviations from non-wind generation and transaction schedules in the same proportion as load variability does, ii) wind variability is independent of the variability of load and other variables, iii) short-term wind variability can be established using 10-minute wind power increments, and iv) the SPP-wide regulation requirements without wind are 1% of the daily peak load. While these assumptions were appropriate given the data available to CRA, it is recommended that the regulating reserves calculations be revisited as new wind plants become operational and their output data becomes available. Section 5.2.1.1 addresses these impacts and establishes updated regulation requirements for the different wind penetration cases studied. Wind power impacts the total regulation needs through the short-term wind variability metrics. The dependence of these metrics on seasonal effects and wind forecast levels is studied in Section 5.2.1.2. The methodology and assumptions employed in this section are detailed in Section 7.5.
Final Report
Page 5-6
5.2.1.1
Updated Regulation Needs
Table 5.2.1.1-1 specifies the total regulation requirements for the seasonal peak load days. The seasonal regulation-up requirements in the table were added to the spinning contingency reserve requirement in the production simulation (Section 5.3 and Appendix G).
Table 5.2.1.1-1: Total regulation requirements for seasonal peak loads, in MW
Season
Peak Load
Case Base 10% 20% 40% Base 10% 20% 40% Base 10% 20% 40% Base 10% 20% 40%
Wind Short-Term Variability W 95 51 114 216 381 62 130 237 407 68 140 251 422 52 116 218 383 W 5 49 107 206 362 59 122 225 390 64 131 235 397 50 110 208 363 Std Dev 31 67 129 228 37 78 141 242 41 84 148 249 31 68 129 228
Regulation Requirement Up 338 357 417 562 379 401 465 617 465 487 546 684 371 390 448 586 Down 338 360 425 581 379 405 474 635 466 491 557 710 372 393 455 606
Winter
33,237
Spring
37,169
Summer
45,822
Fall
36,621
Figure 5.2.1.1-1 through Figure 5.2.1.1-4 show the updated regulation-up and regulationdown requirements for SPP on account of wind development as a function of total nameplate wind capacity. Each figure presents the result for one season for different load levels (i.e., peak, median, and minimum seasonal load). As the wind penetration level increases, the regulation requirement increases more rapidly. Using the peak seasonal loads, the increases in regulation requirements are on the order of 5%, 20% and 60% for the 10%, 20% and 40% wind penetration Cases relative to the Base Case, respectively. At lower load levels, regulation requirements are relatively higher and increase more rapidly as wind penetration increases. For example, on days with loads close to the median seasonal load, the regulation requirement increase is on the order of 15%, 60%, and 150%, for the 10%, 20% and 40% Cases relative to the Base Case, respectively.
Final Report
Page 5-7
Figure 5.2.1.1-1: Winter regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels
Figure 5.2.1.1-2: Spring regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels
Final Report
Page 5-8
Figure 5.2.1.1-3: Summer regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels
Figure 5.2.1.1-4: Fall regulation requirements as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity for different daily load levels
Final Report
Page 5-9
5.2.1.2
Wind Variability in the Regulation Timeframe
Wind power impacts the total regulation needs through the short-term wind variability metrics. This section studies the dependence of these metrics on seasonal effects and wind forecast levels. Wind variability, and the resulting need for regulation, can be assessed according to two components: up and down. Variability up is the amount by which actual wind output exceeds scheduled output, thus requiring regulation down reserves capable of decreasing energy output in the short-term timeframe. Variability down is the amount by which actual wind output is less than scheduled output, thus requiring regulation up reserves capable of increasing energy output in the short-term timeframe.4 In any given operating period, actual wind output can vary either up or down, however short-term variability tends to be slightly larger in the up direction. The wind variability up and down in the regulation timeframe is measured according to the 5th and 95th percentiles of the 10-minute wind power increments, respectively. These are shown in Figure 5.2.1.2-1. The variability up is about 5% higher than the variability down. Note that the variability increases almost linearly from the 10% Case to higher wind penetration levels as a result of the relatively limited diversity added by the wind plants in the 20% and 40% Cases (see Section 3.1).
Figure 5.2.1.2-1: Short-term wind variability as a function of the total nameplate wind capacity
4 Persistence forecasting is assumed for the analysis of regulation requirements, thus assuming the same wind output in any 10-minute interval as occurred in the previous 10-minute interval. Accordingly, variability up and down are measurements of the amount by which wind output changes from one 10-minute interval to the next.
Final Report
Page 5-10
Figure 5.2.1.2-2 and Figure 5.2.1.2-3 show the variability up and down of wind energy by season. Note that the highest variability occurs in the summer, followed by spring, fall, then winter, in spite of higher capacity factors in spring and fall as compared to summer and winter. This ordering is consistent with the average ramp magnitudes observed in the average daily wind profile in Figure 3.2-6. The differences, however, are relatively small - less than 35 MW at the highest wind penetration level.
Figure 5.2.1.2-2: Wind variability down as a function of the total nameplate wind capacity by season
Figure 5.2.1.2-3: Wind variability up as a function of the total nameplate wind capacity by season
Final Report
Page 5-11
Figure 5.2.1.2-4 and Figure 5.2.1.2-5 show how wind variability up and down grow as wind penetration increases, according to the level of the day-ahead wind forecast. The forecasted wind output is partitioned into five levels, each covering one fifth of the range between zero and the nameplate wind capacity. Each 10-minute wind power increment was allocated to the forecast level corresponding to the day-ahead wind forecast for the hour in which the 10minute increment ends. At Base Case wind penetration, wind variability is limited to a small range within about 50 MW. In contrast, with 25 GW of total nameplate wind capacity in SPP (40% Case), variability ranges from 200 to over 400 MW, with the highest variability occurring during hours with a mid-capacity forecast. Note that the variability is low for both high and low forecast levels, and it increases as the forecast levels approach 50% of the wind nameplate capacity. This is probably due to the nonlinear characteristics of the aggregate relationship between wind power and wind speed. This slope of the relationship is steepest for intermediate wind speeds and much flatter for high and low wind speeds. Thus, the same magnitude of variation in speed at low or high wind speeds would cause much lower variations in power than at intermediate wind speeds (Figure 2.4-1).
Figure 5.2.1.2-4: Wind variability down as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity by dayahead wind forecast level
Final Report
Page 5-12
Figure 5.2.1.2-5: Wind variability up as a function of the total wind nameplate capacity by dayahead wind forecast level
As an additional view of these effects, Figure 5.2.1.2-6 and Figure 5.2.1.2-7 show the wind variability up and down as a function of the day-ahead wind forecast level for the four cases studied. In these figures, it is clear that the highest variability is for intermediate wind forecasts. Note that the curves are not symmetric. The wind variability up curve is skewed toward the left while the wind variability down curve is skewed toward the right. The lack of symmetry is due to the limits in power output and the nonlinear characteristics of the aggregate relationship between wind speed and wind power. For high forecasts, it is more likely that variations in the down direction would be larger (on average) than on the positive direction, while for low forecasts the opposite is true. Also note that the lowest variability, in both directions, is for an extremely low day-ahead forecast, probably because the speedpower curve is quite flat for low wind speeds. These observations support the use of timevarying regulation requirements that depend on wind forecasts.
Final Report
Page 5-13
Figure 5.2.1.2-6: Wind variability down as a function of the day-ahead wind forecast level by wind penetration level
Figure 5.2.1.2-7: Wind variability up as a function of the day-ahead wind forecast level by wind penetration level
Final Report
Page 5-14
5.2.2
Load-Following Needs
Load following refers to the ability to balance load, generation, and exchanges with external areas in the minutes to hours timeframe (i.e., the timeframe between regulation and unit commitment). Load following capabilities cover the departures and variations of the shortterm forecasts used in the balancing market from the medium-term forecasts used in the unit commitment. Short-term forecasts are performed for five-minute periods while medium-term forecasts are hourly forecasts. Two distinct factors, in different timeframes, come into play: the variability of short-term five-minute forecasts around their hourly average, and the deviations of these hourly averages from the medium-term forecasts. Intra-hour variability requires the units committed to be able to change their dispatch frequently to follow these intra-hour variations. Hourly deviations from forecasts require the unit commitment to be flexible to accommodate these deviations, sometimes changing the commitment of fast-start units. With low wind penetration levels, load forecast uncertainty and intra-hour variability are the main sources of load following service needs, thus the use of the term load following. The generation system has been especially designed to follow the load patterns, which are, although highly variable, periodic and relatively easy to forecast as compared to wind forecasting. Therefore, load following needs have been explicitly taken into account in system planning by incorporating an appropriate level of flexibility in the resource mix for operations. Currently, in cases of deficit or surplus of committed capacity, large deviations from the forecast are covered by starting up or shutting down flexible units. Due to this, there has not been a need to enforce special reserve requirements for the load following timeframe in SPP (or any other RTO in North America). Significant additions in variable generation sources, such as wind power, shift the focus from load to net load. Net load variability is the degree to which net load changes in time. In contrast, net load uncertainty is the degree to which the actual net load, averaged over the hour, differs from net load medium-term forecasts. Increases in the wind penetration level bring increased net load variability and forecast uncertainty. For example, Figure 5.2.2-1 shows the SPP net load patterns for one 24-hour period for the four wind penetration levels studied and the load profile for that day. The notable increase in positive and negative ramps is due to high wind power ramps and illustrates the increase in net load variability. Figure 5.2.2.-2 shows impacts of wind penetration on the net load 4-hour-ahead forecast uncertainty, which is significant even for the 10% Case. This section studies the changes in net load intra-hour variability and uncertainty in the load following timeframe. The impacts of these changes on the operations of the SPP system are studied in the hour and sub-hour timeframes in Section 5.3 and Section 5.4. The findings of these sections are employed to make recommendations for addressing load and wind forecasting uncertainty in Section 6.2.
Final Report
Page 5-15
The analysis was based on historical and simulated wind and load profiles for realizations and forecasts; the wind and load profiles employed are discussed in Section 7.3 and Appendix F, respectively.
Figure 5.2.2-1: Net load profiles for increased wind penetration levels (April 14, 2010, based on 2004 historical profiles)
Figure 5.2.2-2: Net load 4-hour-ahead forecast uncertainty by wind penetration case
Final Report
Page 5-16
5.2.2.1
Net Load Variability: Ramping Capability Needs
This section discusses the changes to net load variability as the wind penetration level increases. Since the load variability is considerably higher for weekdays than for weekends and holidays, the analysis was restricted to all Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays in the three-year dataset. A net load ramp is defined to be the net load increment for a specified time. In this section, an upper-bound ramp refers to a ramp in the 95th percentile, a lowerbound ramp refers to a ramp in the 5th percentile, and the ramp range refers to the increments between the 5th and 95th percentiles.5 Figure 5.2.2.1-1 shows the evolution of upper- and lower-bound ramps for a single hour in the Base Case wind penetration level. The two lines represent the ramp behavior at these upper and lower bounds occurring at 10-minute intervals for the hour beginning at 6 am. The area between the two lines represents 90% of net load ramping events in the Base Case for that hour.
Figure 5.2.2.1-1: Net load ramps as a function of time for 6 - 7 am in the Base Case
5 The 5th and 95th percentiles were selected for consistency with the analysis of regulation needs.
Final Report
Page 5-17
Figure 5.2.2.1-2 shows the upper- and lower-bound ramps for the same hour (beginning at 6 am) with other wind penetration levels included. Note that for this particular hour, both the upper- and lower-bound ramps are positive, even in the 40% Case wind penetration level. This occurs because the load ramps are consistently large and positive at 6 am, dominating the net load ramp direction. The ramp for the Base and 10% Cases are similar to the ramp for the case without wind, again due to the dominating effect of the load for 6 am ramps.
a)
bound
b)
Figure 5.2.2.1-2: Net load ramps as a function of time for 6 - 7 am: a) upper-bound, b) lower-
Final Report
Page 5-18
Ramps are highly dependent upon the time of day, as can be observed in Figure 5.2.2.1-3 and Figure 5.2.2.1-4. In this figure, hour 0 indicates 12 am. Load ramps dominate the net load ramp range for the period 6 8 am, as well as the period from 9 pm to midnight, due to the typically large load ramps seen in those hours. This makes the range appear entirely on the positive side for the early morning hours and entirely on the negative side for the late night hours, for all wind penetration levels considered. For all other hours, the increase in wind penetration level has a larger impact on net load variability, sometimes changing the nature of the net load variability significantly with respect to the load variability. For example, the early morning hours (12 4 am) typically have moderate negative load ramps but have one of the largest ranges of net load ramps with possible positive ramps for wind penetration levels starting in the 10% Case.
Figure 5.2.2.1-3: Upper-bound net load ramps as a function of time for each hour of the day
Figure 5.2.2.1-4: Lower-bound net load ramps as a function of time for each hour of the day
Final Report
Page 5-19
Figure 5.2.2.1-5 shows the range of hourly ramps, as obtained from Figure 5.2.2.1-3 and Figure 5.2.2.1-4, and displays them explicitly using areas. The interpretation of the darker green area having an upper-bound of 500 MW for hour 0 is that, with a probability of 95%, the net load will not increase more than 500 MW over the course of the hour starting at midnight (for the 40% Case). The largest increases in net load variability due to wind additions, for which the distance from the no wind line to the 40% Case upper- or lower-bound is largest, occur early in the morning and between noon and 7 pm.
Figure 5.2.2.1-5: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day
Final Report
Page 5-20
The net load variability is a nonlinear function of the installed wind capacity (Figure 5.2.2.1-6). However, and as seen in the 10-minute variability (Figure 5.2.1.1-1), the increase in hourly variability beyond the 10% wind penetration level behaves almost linearly in relation to the installed wind capacity. This is consistent with the findings in Section 3.3.
Figure 5.2.2.1-6: Net load hourly ramp as a function of the installed wind capacity
Final Report
Page 5-21
Hourly net load variability depends on the season. In winter, load has a narrow hourly variability range while wind variability grows in both the up and down directions, especially for 11 pm 4 am and for noon 4 pm, causing the range of net load variability to increase more than threefold at 40% penetration (Figure 5.2.2.1-7).
Figure 5.2.2.1-7: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in winter
Final Report
Page 5-22
There are similar effects in the early morning hours of spring as there are in winter (Figure 5.2.2.1-8). For other parts of the spring day, however, the net load hourly increment range is either relatively narrow (8 - 10 pm) or the effects of wind are single sided (9 am - 2 pm, with dominant wind ramp downs).
Figure 5.2.2.1-8: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in spring
Final Report
Page 5-23
In the summer (Figure 5.2.2.1-9 ), the high and sustained positive load ramps from early morning to mid-afternoon, combined with predominantly negative wind ramps in the same period, cause the net load range to be positive from 5 am 2 pm for all wind penetration levels considered.
Figure 5.2.2.1-9: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in summer
Final Report
Page 5-24
Net load hourly variability in the fall (Figure 5.2.2.1-10) is similar to that which occurs in the winter.
Figure 5.2.2.1-10: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day in fall
Final Report
Page 5-25
Wind forecasts can be used to decrease the range of net load variability. For example, Figure 5.2.2.1-11 shows the hourly increment range by hour of the day for hours where the 4-hourahead wind forecast indicated a high positive ramp.6 For these hours, the net load increments in the positive direction are dominated by load increments for all wind scenarios, while the hourly increments in the negative direction have a range similar to that in Figure 5.2.2.1-5. The opposite happens for hours with forecasted negative ramps higher than 1% (Figure 5.2.2.1-12).
Figure 5.2.2.1-11: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day: high positive wind ramp forecast
6 Here, a high positive forecasted ramp means that, for the 40% Case, the difference between the wind forecast for the following hour and the hour in question was higher than 1% of the installed wind capacity in that case (i.e., 250 MW).
Final Report
Page 5-26
Figure 5.2.2.1-12: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day: high negative wind ramp forecast
Final Report
Page 5-27
For low forecasted wind ramps (below +/-1%), there is not a significant reduction in the range of net load variability with respect to not using the information on the wind forecast (Figure 5.2.2.1-13). The reduction in variability range by using appropriate forecasts is noteworthy, and can likely be improved with the use of explicit ramp forecasts (the simulated wind forecasts employed were not designed as ramp forecasts, but rather as average available capacity forecasts). This reduction can be a significant advantage for operators making unit commitment decisions.
Figure 5.2.2.1-13: Net load hourly ramp range as a function of the hour of the day: low wind ramp forecast
5.2.2.2
Net-Load Uncertainty: Load-Following Reserve Needs
This section addresses the changes in net load forecast uncertainty with the increase in wind penetration level. The impacts of these changes on SPP system operations are discussed in Section 5.3.3 and Section 5.4.2. The results of these sections are used to make recommendations on how to manage load and wind forecast errors in Section 6.2. The forecasts that were analyzed were 10-minute-ahead, 4-hour-ahead and day-ahead forecasts. These forecasts were selected based on the assumption that unit commitment and dispatch is performed in three stages, as discussed in Section 5.1. In the first stage, a dayahead unit commitment is performed to determine the commitment of all units - this commitment utilizes hourly day-ahead forecasts. In the second stage, which is performed four
Final Report
Page 5-28
hours ahead, the commitment for flexible units, such as combustion turbines, is revised based on the updated load and wind forecasts. In the third stage, which is performed ten minutes ahead, a balancing market clears using the short-term forecasts. For wind generation, the short-term forecast is assumed to be a persistence forecast (i.e., the forecasted wind power for the following ten minutes is equal to the realized wind at the time of measurement). Any deviation from the 10-minute-ahead forecasts is not handled by the balancing market, but instead by regulating reserves. Uncertainty in the forecasts for each of the three timeframes is described in the following three subsections.
Day-Ahead Forecast Uncertainty

In the day-ahead stage, the unit commitment is performed using load and wind forecasts. The uncertainty of these forecasts is described in Table 5.2.2.2-1 using different metrics to evaluate the deviation of the actual load and wind from their respective day-ahead forecasts. Note that the load forecast uncertainty is of a similar size as the 20% wind forecast uncertainty, as measured in absolute terms. Therefore, in relative terms, the day-ahead load forecast is about five times more accurate than the day-ahead wind forecasts.7 Positive deviations from a forecast indicate that the forecast was lower than the observed value; negative deviations indicate the opposite. In the remainder of the section, the metrics employed are the 5th and 95th percentiles for forecast uncertainty in the negative and positive directions, respectively, for consistency with the regulation analysis.
Table 5.2.2.2-1: Day-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty
Metric 95th percentile (MW) 5th percentile (MW) Standard Deviation (MW) Maximum (MW) Minimum (MW) Skewness Kurtosis
Load Only 1,952 -1,719 1,082 4,599 -4,570 0.38 3.45
Wind Only Base Case 501 -415 285 1,270 -1,041 0.39 2.85 10% Case 1,035 -956 619 2,832 -2,324 0.42 2.88 20% Case 2,115 -1,874 1,241 5,486 -4,539 0.36 2.79 40% Case 4,059 -3,294 2,300 10,128 -7,943 0.35 2.73
7 This is because the mean load (25,590 MW) is about five times higher than the mean available wind power for the 20% Case (5,149 MW).
Final Report
Page 5-29
Figure 5.2.2.2-1 and Figure 5.2.2.2-2 provide the growth in day-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty in the positive and negative directions, respectively, as time increases. These figures show how the range of deviations, provided by the 5th and 95th percentiles, evolve if, at time zero, there is no day-ahead forecast error. Consistent with the results in Table 5.2.2.21, the load forecast uncertainty is of the same order of magnitude as the 20% wind forecast uncertainty in absolute terms. The non-monotonic behavior of the growth in load forecast uncertainty is probably related to the daily load periodicity and the different day-ahead load forecasting errors for peak hours, valley hours, and ramping hours.
Figure 5.2.2.2-1: Day-ahead wind and load forecast uncertainty up: evolution with time
Final Report
Page 5-30
Figure 5.2.2.2-2: Day-ahead wind and load forecast uncertainty down: evolution with time
Table 5.2.2.2-2 describes the uncertainty in the day-ahead net load forecasts. For example, for the Base Case, 2,001 MW is the 95th percentile upper bound, within which actual net load might deviate from day-ahead forecasted net load. Likewise, -1,771 is the 5th percentile lower bound within which actual net load might deviate from forecasted net load. The dayahead net load forecast uncertainty for the Base and 10% Cases is approximately 3% and 13% higher than that for the case with no wind, respectively. The increments are small because the load forecast uncertainty dominates the net load uncertainty for these two cases. For the higher wind penetration cases, the net load forecast uncertainty is significantly higher than for the no wind case: approximately 50% higher for the 20% Case and 130% higher for the 40% Case.
Table 5.2.2.2-2: Day-ahead net load forecast uncertainty
No Wind 1,952 -1,719 1,082 4,599 -4,570 0.38 3.45
Base Case 2,001 -1,771 1,120 4,840 -4,362 0.33 3.32
10% Case 2,218 -1,912 1,248 5,479 -4,083 0.23 3.06
20% Case 2,763 -2,641 1,652 6,070 -6,189 -0.01 2.68
40% Case 3,933 -4,353 2,553 7,820 -9,552 -0.19 2.56
Final Report
Page 5-31
Figure 5.2.2.2-3 shows the time evolution of day-ahead net load forecast uncertainty. As seen in Table 5.2.2.2-2, there is little difference between the load forecast uncertainty and the net load forecast uncertainty for the Base and 10% Case; the differences are only significant starting with the 20% Case, due to the high load forecast uncertainty in the day ahead.
Figure 5.2.2.2-3: Day-ahead net load forecast uncertainty: evolution with time
Final Report
Page 5-32
4-Hour-Ahead Forecast Uncertainty

Four hours ahead of the period of interest, load and wind forecasts are updated. Due to the proximity to the actual time, the 4-hour-ahead forecast uncertainty is lower than the dayahead forecast uncertainty. This section examines the changes between the day-ahead and the 4-hour-ahead forecasts of load and wind and then analyzes 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty. Figure 5.2.2.2-4 shows the range of 4-hour-ahead and day-ahead forecast difference for load and wind forecasts, as measured by the 5th and 95th percentiles. Note that the largest range is for load forecasts; the range of load forecast changes is almost twice that of the wind forecasts for the 20% Case. In other words, the improvement in load forecast uncertainty from the day-ahead to the 4-hour-ahead roughly doubles as compared to the improvement in wind forecast uncertainty, considering that the day-ahead load forecast uncertainty was similar to the day-ahead wind forecast uncertainty for the 20% Case.
Figure 5.2.2.2-4: Changes between day-ahead and 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecasts
Final Report
Page 5-33
These improvements are highly dependent upon the time of day (Figure 5.2.2.2-5). It appears that 4-hour-ahead load forecasts have significantly improved uncertainty, especially for peak load hours, while the largest changes in wind forecast occur for off-peak hours. Since the changes in load forecast dominate the changes in net load forecast, the ranges in net load forecast updates by hour of the day for each net load scenario have the same shapes as the corresponding curve for the load, but show some increments that are only significant for the 40% wind penetration scenario (Figure 5.2.2.2-6).
Figure 5.2.2.2-5: Changes between day-ahead and 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecasts as a function of the time of day
Final Report
Page 5-34
Figure 5.2.2.2-6: Changes between day-ahead and 4-hour-ahead net load forecasts as a function of the time of day
The uncertainty in 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecasts is significantly improved with respect to that of day-ahead forecasts. Comparison of Table 5.2.2.2-3 with Table 5.2.2.2-1 indicates a reduction of approximately 40% in load forecast uncertainty and about 10% in wind forecast uncertainty. Note that the 4-hour-ahead load forecast uncertainty is similar to the 4-hour-ahead uncertainty for the 10% wind forecast in absolute terms. (In contrast, the day-ahead load forecast uncertainty is approximately that of the day-ahead wind forecast for the 20% wind scenario.) In relative terms, this means that 4-hour-ahead load forecasts are about 10 times more accurate than 4-hour-ahead wind forecasts.
Final Report
Page 5-35
Table 5.2.2.2-3: 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty
Load only 1,070 -1,034 636 2,582 -2,811 0.03 3.28
Wind Only Base Case 449 -376 254 983 -1,057 0.35 2.94 10% Case 944 -882 563 2,445 -2,501 0.38 3.14 20% Case 1,906 -1,711 1,117 4,816 -4,612 0.32 3.04 40% Case 3,676 -2,985 2,061 8,979 -8,188 0.32 2.95
Figure 5.2.2.2-7 and Figure 5.2.2.2-8 provide the growth in 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty in the positive and negative directions, respectively, as the time increases. These figures show how the range of deviations evolve with time if, at time zero, there is no 4-hour-ahead forecast error. Consistent with the results in Table 5.2.2.2-3, the load forecast uncertainty is of the same order of magnitude as the 10% wind forecast uncertainty in absolute terms. Note that the non-monotonic behavior of the growth in dayahead load forecast uncertainty (Figure 5.2.2.2-1 and Figure 5.2.2.2-2) is not present in the corresponding curve for the 4-hour-ahead load forecast. This is probably related to the difference in forecast improvements for different times of day (Figure 5.2.2.2-7 and Figure 5.2.2.2-8). Although these results show that the driver for updated intra-day commitment decisions is the increases in net load forecast uncertainty brought by the wind forecasts, the effectiveness of intra-day commitment decisions is mainly due to improvements in the load forecasts. This finding in no way affects the usefulness of updated commitments, since their objective is to reduce the total net load forecast uncertainty to allow for more ample flexibility in the 10minute ahead and real-time operations.
Final Report
Page 5-36
Figure 5.2.2.2-7: 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty up: evolution with time
Figure 5.2.2.2-8: 4-hour-ahead load and wind forecast uncertainty down: evolution with time
Final Report
Page 5-37
The resulting 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty for the different wind penetration levels is shown in Table 5.2.2.2-4. The uncertainty increments with respect to the no wind case are approximately 8%, 35%, 100% and 240%, for the Base, 10%, 20% and 40% Cases, respectively. Note that the 4-hour-ahead increase in uncertainty is significant even for the 10% Case. The net load forecast uncertainty depends on the time of day (Figure 5.2.2.2-9) and on the season (especially for the higher wind penetration levels, as seen in Table 5.2.2.25). Therefore, an effective approach to manage the 4-hour-ahead net load uncertainty should consider these factors.
Table 5.2.2.2-4: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty
No Wind 1,070 -1,034 636 2,582 -2,810 0.03 3.28
Base Case 1,140 -1,116 688 3,016 -3,131 0.01 3.26
10% Case 1,444 -1,383 860 3,524 -4,457 -0.11 3.14
20% Case 2,084 -2,172 1,297 4,798 -6,556 -0.22 3.03
40% Case 3,239 -3,829 2,167 7,779 -9,612 -0.29 2.93
Figure 5.2.2.2-9: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty by hour of the day
Final Report
Page 5-38
Table 5.2.2.2-5: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast error by season, in MW
Season Winter Spring Summer Fall
No Wind Up 1,089 Down
Base Case Up Down
10% Case Up Down
20% Case Up Down
40% Case Up Down
1,061 -1,058 1,148 -1,163 1,461 -1,502 2,156 -2,417 3,385 -4,250 -997 1,174 -1,081 1,514 -1,265 2,183 -1,920 3,447 -3,453 1,084 -1,028 1,137 -1,064 1,398 -1,267 1,906 -1,946 2,893 -3,411 1,037 -1,041 1,113 -1,150 1,440 -1,467 2,174 -2,283 3,418 -4,046
Figure 5.2.2.2-10 and Figure 5.2.2.2-11 show the growth in 4-hour-ahead net-load forecast uncertainty by wind penetration level for the positive and negative directions, respectively. These figures show how the range of deviations evolve with time if, at time zero, there is no 4-hour-ahead forecast error. This information can be used as an aid in determining reserve requirements and the minimum aggregate ramping needs. As shown in Table 5.2.2.2-4, there is a significant increase in the 4-hour-ahead forecast uncertainty for the 10%, 20%, 40% Cases with respect to the case with no wind. Therefore, there is a need for an explicit approach to manage the 4-hour-ahead uncertainty, as discussed in Section 6.2.
Figure 5.2.2.2-10: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty up: time evolution
Final Report
Page 5-39
Figure 5.2.2.2-11: 4-hour-ahead net load forecast uncertainty down: time evolution
Final Report
Page 5-40
Short-Term Forecast Uncertainty

The balancing market clears ten minutes ahead of the 5-minute period of interest. The updated dispatch provided by the market follows the short-term load and wind forecasts. Deviations from these forecasts are accounted for through regulating reserve. In this timeframe, persistence wind forecasts are quite accurate and frequently used. Figure 5.2.2.2-12 shows the evolution of 10-minute-ahead persistence wind forecast uncertainty with time. For each of the wind penetration levels, the figure displays the range8 of the future deviations from 10-minute-ahead forecasts as a function of time. Note that after 10 minutes, the range of observations remains nearly constant. Hence, all else being equal, the shortterm wind variability and uncertainty,9 and therefore the regulation needs, do not seem to change with the error in the short-term wind forecasts.
Figure 5.2.2.2-12: Evolution of 10-minute-ahead persistence wind forecast uncertainty (range of deviation from 10-minute-ahead wind forecasts as a function of time)
8 Here, the range is defined by the 5th and 95th percentiles for consistency with the regulation analysis. 9 Variability and uncertainty are intrinsically related here, since persistence forecasts are used: deviations for the forecasts are equal to the 10-minute wind increments.
Final Report
Page 5-41
As the elapsed time between the wind measurement and the forecasted period increases, the persistence wind forecast uncertainty increases almost linearly (Figure 5.2.2.2-13). Therefore, reducing the lead time of the balancing markets from 15 to 10 minutes (as planned for 2010) will be highly beneficial, as it would enable using the most up-to-date and most accurate wind forecasts. The information on the growth of uncertainty is valuable; it enables operators to anticipate the range of wind variation in subsequent intervals. For example, Figure 5.2.2.2-13 shows that for the 40% Case, the wind output at time t + 20 minutes will be within approximately 500 MW of the wind output at time t with a probability of 90%.
Figure 5.2.2.2-13: Persistence wind forecast uncertainty as a function of the forecast lead time
5.2.3
Contingency Reserve Requirements
SPP requires Contingency Reserves over and above its Regulating Reserves. The current requirement for Contingency Reserves equals the generating capacity of the largest unit scheduled to be online plus one-half of the generating capacity of the second largest unit scheduled to be online. At least 50% of this Contingency Reserve must be met by Spinning Reserve while the balance can be met by Ready Reserve (non-spinning reserve). For this study, because SPP was modeled as a single BA, the two largest contingencies were the loss of the Wolf Creek nuclear plant (1,150 MW) and the Iatan 2 coal power plant (900
Final Report
Page 5-42
MW).10 Therefore the Contingency Reserve requirement was 1,600 MW (1,150 + 900 / 2), with at least 800 MW (half of 1,600 MW) supplied by spinning reserves and the balance supplied by Ready Reserves. In systems with high wind penetration levels, these practices may need to be modified. For example, rapid wind power reductions or the outage of transmission lines may become the most stringent contingency.11 Given that the transmission lines are already planned on a contingency basis (N-1 criteria),12 however, it was agreed upon for this study that the current contingency requirement be maintained. Therefore, the modeled contingency requirement accounts only for the loss of non-wind generation and not for the loss of any contingency, be it any type of generation or transmission. It is important that the Contingency Reserve requirement be reevaluated in the near future if the wind penetration level within SPP increases and more high-voltage transmission lines are added. As was addressed in Section 4, additional high voltage lines at the 345 kV and/or 765 kV level are needed to accommodate additional wind. When high voltage lines are added to accommodate higher wind penetration levels, the planned maintenance outages of these lines may not occur in low load seasons because wind generation may be higher in the low load seasons. If the planned maintenance of these lines were then to occur during higher load seasons, the system would be operated at N-1 during these high load seasons and therefore one or more of the remaining lines could easily become the largest contingency, especially if the flow on a given line exceeds the current single largest contingency (1,150 MW of generation from the Wolf Creek nuclear plant).
10 While at the time of the study, Iatan 2 was scheduled to come online in summer 2010, CRA assumed it would be online starting January 1 2010 to eliminate inconsistency between seasons caused by the addition of a new unit in the middle of the year. 11 The likelihood of these events has not been analyzed in this study. 12 This is not necessarily true for operation, as operators often face situations that are already N-1, such as instances of line outages.
st
Final Report
Page 5-43
5.3
MULTI-HOUR TIMEFRAME: WIND INTEGRATION IMPACTS ON UNIT COMMITMENT
In power system operations, inter-temporal operational constraints of thermal generating units such as ramp rate limitations, minimum-up-time and minimum-down-time constraints, and the need to plan for the provision of operating reserves ahead of time are addressed during the process of unit commitment, as discussed in Section 5.1. Under the SPP Day-2 market design, unit commitment is performed day-ahead, based on the mid-term load forecast. The objective of the unit commitment process is to determine the optimal schedule for generating units based on their cost, operational flexibility (necessary to address the hour-to-hour variability of electricity demand), and geographic location (based on the grids ability to transfer power from generators to loads). The significance of the hour-tohour variation of loads is illustrated in Figure 5.3-1, which shows forecasted 2010 SPP hourly loads for Wednesdays during the summer months of June through September. Depending on the hour, the load fluctuates from less than 20,000 MW to more than 45,000 MW. The static analysis described in Section 4 only represents a fixed dispatch and load and is represented by a single point in Figure 5.3-1.
SPP Hourly Load for Wednesdays During Summer 2010 (2004 Load-Shape-Based Simulated Results)
50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000
1-Jun-10 8-Jun-10 15-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 29-Jun-10 6-Jul-10 13-Jul-10 20-Jul-10 27-Jul-10 3-Aug-10 10-Aug-10 17-Aug-10 24-Aug-10 31-Aug-10 7-Sep-10 14-Sep-10 21-Sep-10 28-Sep-10 Average
Load (MW)
30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Hour
Figure 5.3-1: SPP hourly load for Wednesdays during summer 2010
Final Report
Page 5-44
The geographic distribution of load within the SPP system has a large impact on unit commitment. Due to limitations of the transmission system which create locational congestion, certain generating units must be scheduled to run in order to relieve transmission congestion when necessary. With the addition of wind generation to the system, commitment of non-wind generating units is optimized as a function of net load. As discussed in Section 5.2, increasing the wind penetration level of the SPP system dramatically increases the hour-to-hour variability of the net load. Moreover, as demonstrated in Section 3, wind resources are frequently located far from major load centers. Therefore, increasing the wind penetration level of the SPP system changes the geographic distribution of net loads. The combination of these two factors is likely to significantly affect the commitment of non-wind generating units, which ultimately determines the hourly and sub-hourly dispatch of generators, transmission congestion, and power interchange between control areas, all of which drive generation costs and electricity prices. A day-ahead unit commitment, such as that currently considered for the Day 2 Market design, inevitably involves uncertainty regarding future system. Large-scale integration of wind resources significantly increases that level of uncertainty due to wind availability forecast error. In studying the various impacts of large-scale wind integration on system operations, the importance of using a multi-hour timeframe cannot be overemphasized. Only in the context of unit commitment can the inter-temporal effects be adequately assessed. The implications of those impacts for the planning, design, and operation of the system and associated markets are likely to be significant. To study the extent to which increasing wind penetration affects the unit commitment and the resulting physical characteristics of SPP system operations, CRA analyzed the SPP system for 2010 using the General Electric Multi-Area Production Simulation (GE MAPS) model. GE MAPS is a detailed, chronological simulation model that calculates hourly production costs while recognizing the constraints on generation commitment and dispatch imposed by the transmission system. GE MAPS performs a transmission-constrained production simulation that co-optimizes energy and spinning reserves. It uses a detailed electrical model of the entire transmission network, along with generation shift factors from a solved AC power flow, to calculate the real power flows for each generation dispatch. The GE MAPS simulations for this analysis were run for the entire EIC to account for the dynamic and geographically wide impact of wind integration within the SPP transmission system, including the newly-added region in Nebraska. By applying the findings of previous analyses (in particular, those presented in Section 4: Power Flow Analysis, Section 5.2.1: Regulation Up and Down Requirements, and Section 5.2.3: Contingency Reserve Requirements), the following analyses were performed:
Final Report
Page 5-45
1.
Identification of new power flow patterns that occurred due to the change in system dynamics caused by varying levels of wind penetration in SPP (as described in Section 5.3.1) Assessment of the impact of wind penetration on transmission congestion and identification of transmission problems that caused wind curtailment not identified in the static analysis presented in Section 4 (as described in Section 5.3.2) Identification of new operational patterns of non-wind generating units (as described in section 5.3.3) Assessment of the impact of the wind availability forecast error on operational patterns of non-wind generating units and on wind curtailments (as described in Section 5.3.4)
2.
3.
4.
The GE MAPS model was used to develop a series of 12 simulations for this study. Each season of 2010 (summer, winter, fall, and spring, as defined in Table 5.3-1) was modeled using a solved AC power flow case (provided by SPP and updated by CRA as described in Section 4) representative of that season. Additionally, each season was modeled for three different wind penetration levels: In the Base Case, generation resources were modeled as they are expected to be available in 2010, including wind resources. In the 10% Case, additional wind was added to the Base Case, as specified in Section 3.1. In the 20% Case, further wind additions were made to the 10% Case, as specified in Section 3.1.
One of the inputs required for the GE MAPS model is a definition of all transmission constraints. CRA included in its model all SPP flowgates (listed in Appendix E), newly identified flowgates (further detailed in Section 4.7), all SPP transmission lines with a nominal voltage of 345 kV or above, and all flowgates listed in the NERC Book of Flowgates (for regions external to SPP). Because most of these constraints were thermal limits and the flow patterns for high wind penetration levels were unknown, the flow in both directions was monitored for these constraints.13 Based on the defined constraints in the model, congestion patterns were compared between each of the Change Cases (10% Case and 20% Case) and the Base Case. Any observed changes in flow and congestion patterns were therefore attributable to the additional wind generation resources and associated transmission expansions. Transmission additions were modeled in each of the 10% Case and 20% Case in addition to the wind generators in an attempt to minimize wind curtailments. Therefore, the
13 There were some exceptions to this approach, including flowgates that were known to be unidirectional.
Final Report
Page 5-46
wind power curtailments were analyzed as a measure of the effectiveness of the transmission expansions. Through discussion with SPP and the WITF stakeholders, 2% wind energy curtailment was set as a threshold to identify significant curtailment.
Table 5.3-1: Seasonal definitions
Season Spring Summer Fall Winter
Months April and May June through September October and November January through March and December
Modeled Period * Mar 29 - Jun 6 May 31 - Oct 3 Sep 27 - Dec 5 Jan 1 - Apr 4 and Dec 1 - Dec 31
Hours 1,680 3,024 1,680 3,048
* GE MAPS simulations evaluate weekly intervals from Monday through the following Sunday (except for the first and last interval of a year). Given that a month need not begin on a Monday, four weekly intervals were included in two seasons each (for example, the week of May 31 June 6 overlapped spring and summer), resulting in 9,432 modeled hours in the year instead of 8,760.
Each season of each scenario was modeled using load and wind profiles from 2004, 2005, and 2006 (profile years). CRA analyzed the results of these 36 simulations (three cases, four seasons, and three profile years) in order to carefully examine trends in generation and transmission as a function of the seasons, wind penetration levels, and historical input data (load and wind). Details of the modeling methodology and assumptions used can be found in Section 7.6 and Appendix G.
Final Report
Page 5-47
5.3.1
Effects of Wind Integration on Power Flows within SPP and Interchanges with Neighboring Systems
CRA summarized and analyzed flow patterns by splitting SPP into eight regions and the neighboring areas (excluding ERCOT and WECC) into six regions.14 The eight SPP regions are AEPW and GRDA (AEPGR), East Kansas (EKS), Missouri (MO), Nebraska (NE), OKGE, Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), West Kansas (WKS), and WFEC. The six external regions are AECI, Central Louisiana Electric Company (CELE), EES, MISO, Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and WAPA. Table 5.3.1-1 shows these groupings.
Table 5.3.1-1: SPP regions for flow pattern analysis
SPP Area in Power Flow AEPW GRDA KACP KACY WERE EMDE INDN MIPU SPRM LES NPPD OPPD OKGE OMPA SPS WFEC MIDW MKEC SUNC
Grouping to Regions AEPGR AEPGR EKS EKS EKS MO MO MO MO NE NE NE OKGE OKGE SPS WFEC WKS WKS WKS
14 The flows on DC ties were modeled according to the power flow cases for this study and therefore the flow between SPP and each of ERCOT and WECC, while varying by the season, were constant among the various wind penetration levels (Base Case, 10% Case, and 20% Case). This is because both ERCOT and WECC also have wind-rich areas.
Final Report
Page 5-48
It is important to note that all simulated scenarios incorporate the assumption that SPP operates as a single BA and the energy and ancillary service markets are co-optimized. Therefore, the Base Case results differ from those of a model of the current market, in which SPP operates under multiple BAs. For example, a BA that may currently be operating as winter-peaking may no longer do so when SPP becomes a single BA.15 SPP as a whole is summer-peaking and the commitment and dispatch of units under a single BA may differ from current operations.16
5.3.1.1
The Impact of Wind Penetration on Power Flows Between SPP and Neighboring Systems
Power flows between SPP and external regions in the Base, 10% and 20% Cases are graphically represented in Figure 5.3.1.1-1 through Figure 5.3.1.1-3, respectively, and depict the magnitude and direction of annual average simulated flows. The flows between SPP and its neighbors remained substantially the same in both of the Change Cases. The direction and magnitude of flow did not show substantial changes between the Base Case and 10% Case. The largest difference was that NE imports from WAPA and MISO nearly doubled from 105 MW in the Base Case to 190 MW in the 10% Case. Although small in magnitude, AECI exports to MO increased five-fold from 16 MW in the Base Case to 80 MW in the 10% Case. This occurred because WAPA and the western portion of MISO are also regions with high wind potential and the wind penetration level for these regions was matched to the SPP level for this study. Therefore, these areas also had at least 10% wind penetration in the 10% Case. However, not much wind was added to NE, nor was there ample transmission to deliver the SPP wind from the southwest to NE, so NE imported more from external wind-rich areas. As a result, net exports from eastern SPP to AECI and MISO increased slightly. This trend appeared to vary by the season and period (RTC, on-peak, and off-peak). The shift in flows in the 20% Case was notably different from that of the 10% Case. First, the flow from WAPA to NE decreased by 12% in the 20% Case as compared to the Base Case. In the 10% Case, this flow showed an increase of 73% as compared to the Base Case, which was attributable to increased wind in WAPA (WAPA wind was modeled at a 10% penetration
15 Planned maintenance outages, which currently may be scheduled to meet the winter peak in an existing winterpeaking BA, may be shifted to meet the summer peak of SPP. 16 The assumptions used for the SPP unit characteristics were based on current operations. Many base load and intermediate load units do not currently cycle and have low start-up costs or short minimum-up-times and minimumdown-times. However, results from the unit commitment and dispatch analysis indicate that, at higher levels of wind penetration, some units begin to cycle. If simulations were to be iterated, the cycling behavior could lead to alteration of some of the unit characteristics, such as VOM and start-up costs, which would increase because cycling would lead to increased wear and tear. Ideally, a study of the impacts on cycling behavior could lead to the development of revised unit characteristic assumptions to appropriately reflect cycling frequency in each case.
Final Report
Page 5-49
level as well) while NE had few additions. In the 20% Case, the SPP transmission was more robust and therefore better able to transport wind from other SPP areas into NE, leading to less imported power from WAPA. In addition, NE began exporting to MISO in the 20% Case, as compared to importing from MISO in the Base Case. Exports to external regions from eastern SPP generally increased: in the 20% Case, exports to MISO from MO tripled, and exports to AECI from E-KS and NE increased by 40% (as compared to the Base Case). Table 5.3.1.1-1 through Table 5.3.1.1-3 provide numerical flow data for power flows between SPP and neighboring regions on an annual average basis for RTC, on-peak, and off-peak hours, respectively. As seen in these tables, flows varied significantly by time period (on-peak versus off-peak) because wind generation varied by time period (high during off-peak hours, low during on-peak hours).
Final Report
Page 5-50
WAPA MISO
Min Flow
Max Flow 100
100 SPP AECI 200 300 SWPA 400 500 EES 600
200 300 400 500 600
CELE
Figure 5.3.1.1-1: Base Case annual average RTC SPP import/export flows, in MW
WAPA MISO
Min Flow
Max Flow 100
100 SPP AECI 200 300 SWPA 400 500 EES 600
200 300 400 500 600
CELE
Figure 5.3.1.1-2: 10% Case annual average RTC SPP import/export flows, in MW
WAPA MISO
Min Flow
Max Flow 100
100 SPP AECI 200 300 SWPA 400 500 EES 600
200 300 400 500 600
CELE
Figure 5.3.1.1-3: 20% Case annual average RTC SPP import/export flows, in MW
Final Report
Page 5-51
Table 5.3.1.1-1: SPP and neighboring areas annual average flows (RTC), in MW
Combination AECI - AEPGR AECI - EKS AECI - MO AECI - NE AECI - OKGE AECI - WFEC CELE - AEPGR EES - AEPGR EES - MO EES - OKGE MISO - EKS MISO - MO MISO - N E SWPA - AEPGR SWPA - MO SWPA - OKGE SWPA - W FEC WAPA - NE RTC-Base RTC-10% RTC-20% -34 -25 -46 -212 -233 -328 16 87 45 -246 -289 -302 1 -5 -12 31 23 25 285 279 245 65 58 -17 -4 -4 -11 365 374 279 8 11 13 -47 -68 -140 24 51 -33 234 256 258 -90 -88 -91 110 122 122 25 11 8 81 140 71
Table 5.3.1.1-2: SPP and neighboring areas annual average flows (on-peak), in MW
Combination AECI - AEPGR AECI - EKS AECI - MO AECI - NE AECI - OKGE AECI - WFEC CELE - AEPGR EES - AEPGR EES - MO EES - OKGE MISO - EKS MISO - MO MISO - NE SWPA - AEPGR SWPA - MO SWPA - OKGE SWPA - W FEC WAPA - NE On-Peak-Base On-Peak-10% On-Peak-20% -28 -15 -41 -214 -230 -330 -54 31 -5 -250 -302 -319 -4 -7 -13 25 19 22 284 286 259 134 155 89 9 8 0 363 408 350 8 11 14 -66 -89 -170 54 94 -18 350 360 342 -2 -8 -26 227 234 224 55 41 32 191 276 192
Final Report
Page 5-52
Table 5.3.1.1-3: SPP and neighboring areas annual average flows (off-peak), in MW
Combination AECI - AEPGR AECI - EKS AECI - MO AECI - NE AECI - OKGE AECI - WFEC CELE - AEPGR EES - AEPGR EES - MO EES - OKGE MISO - EKS MISO - MO MISO - NE SWPA - AEPGR SWPA - MO SWPA - OKGE SWPA - W FEC WAPA - NE Off-Peak-Base Off-Peak-10% Off-Peak-20% -40 -34 -51 -211 -236 -325 79 138 90 -241 -278 -286 4 -4 -11 36 27 28 287 272 232 3 -31 -114 -16 -16 -21 368 342 215 8 10 12 -30 -49 -114 -4 12 -46 128 162 181 -170 -160 -150 3 20 29 -2 -17 -14 -20 16 -40
Appendix B contains the details of the seasonal flow data for the SPP import/export flows and intra-SPP flows. They can provide additional insight over annual averages, just as on- and off-peak data provide additional insight over RTC data.
5.3.1.2
The Impact of Wind Penetration on Power Flows within SPP
Power flows between SPP regions in the Base, 10% and 20% Cases are presented graphically in Figure 5.3.1.2-1 through Figure 5.3.1.2-3, respectively, and depict the magnitude and direction of annual average simulated flows. In the Base Case, Nebraska, East Kansas, and AEPW/GRDA appeared to be major power exporters within SPP, while SPS, Missouri, and West Kansas were major importers of SPP power. In the 10% Case, intra-SPP flows changed dramatically both in magnitude and direction. This was caused both by the introduction of wind generation and changes in the SPP transmission topology required to accommodate the wind additions, as described in Section 4. First, in the 10% Case, SPS was no longer a net importer of power from the rest of SPP. While SPS imported an average of over 300 MW in the Base Case from WKS and AEPW/GRDA, in the 10% Case, it exported to AEPW/GRDA approximately the same quantity that it imported from AEPW/GRDA in the Base Case. In the 10% Case, SPS exported to OKGE through two newly-built lines and the import from WKS decreased from over 200 MW in the Base Case to nearly one third (80 MW) in the 10% Case. As a result, the EKS flow to OKGE decreased by 20% from 350 MW in the Base Case to 290 MW in the 10% Case. Similarly, EKS flow to WKS decreased by nearly 40% from 380 MW in the Base Case to 230 MW in the 10% Case. NE, with increased imports from WAPA and MISO in the 10% Case, exported more into the
Final Report
Page 5-53
rest of SPP and the total export from NE to the rest of SPP increased by 20% from 840 MW in the Base Case to 1,100 MW in the 10% Case.
NE
Min Flow
Max Flow 100
W-KS
E-KS MO
100 200 300
200 300 400 500 600
WFEC
OKGE
400 500
SPS AEPGR
600
Figure 5.3.1.2-1: Base Case annual average (RTC) intra-SPP flows, in MW
NE
Min Flow
Max Flow 100
W-KS
E-KS MO
100 200 300
200 300 400 500 600
WFEC
OKGE
400 500
SPS AEPGR
600
Figure 5.3.1.2-2: 10% Case annual average (RTC) intra-SPP flows, in MW
NE
Min Flow
Max Flow 100
W-KS
E-KS MO
100 200 300
200 300 400 500 600
WFEC
OKGE
400 500
SPS AEPGR
600
Figure 5.3.1.2-3: 20% Case annual average (RTC) intra-SPP flows, in MW
Final Report
Page 5-54
Compared to the 10% Case, the 20% Case had significant transmission upgrades, including 765 kV lines.17 Therefore, the 20% Case had a much more robust transmission system. The added transmission and higher wind penetration caused the 20% Case to differ dramatically from the 10% Case. Unlike the 10% Case, in which WAPA exports to NE increased by 75%, the NE import from WAPA decreased to half of the 10% Case, or approximately 10% lower than that of the Base Case. This too was attributable to the robust transmission system improvements within SPP. SPPs wind center, primarily SPS, no longer imported power from the rest of SPP as in the Base Case, but instead became a generation center. The Base Case flow of 100 MW from AEPW/GRDA to SPS was reversed and SPS exported 150 MW to AEPW/GRDA. Similarly, the Base Case flow of 200 MW from WKS to SPS was reversed and SPS exported 100 MW to WKS. The new lines that connected SPS to OKGE in the 20% Case averaged 600 MW of flow from SPS to OKGE. The strengthened ties connecting WKS and OKGE to SPS changed the flows between these areas. While in the Base Case the ties were paths to SPS from the rest of SPP, in the 20% Case, the ties exported power from SPS to the rest of SPP. As a result, the flow from OKGE to AEPW/GRDA increased from zero in the Base Case to 740 MW in the 20% Case and the 380 MW flow from EKS to WKS that was observed in the Base Case was reversed, with WKS exporting 370 MW to EKS. Table 5.3.1.2-1 through Table 5.3.1.2-3 provide numerical flow data for power flows between SPP areas on an annual average basis for RTC, on-peak, and off-peak hours, respectively. As seen in these tables, flows varied significantly by time period (on-peak versus off-peak) because wind generation varies by time period (high during off-peak hours, low during onpeak hours). Seasonal data corresponding to the annual data presented here are included in Appendix B.
17 New transmission lines totaling 1,260 miles in 345 kV and 40 miles in 230 kV were added for the 10% Case, and an additional 485 miles in 765 kV, 766 miles in 345 kV, 205 miles in 230 kV, and 25 miles in 115 kV were added for the 20% Case.
Final Report
Page 5-55
Table 5.3.1.2-1: SPP area annual average flows (RTC), in MW

Combination AEPGR - EKS AEPGR - MO AEPGR - OKGE AEPGR - SPS AEPGR - WFEC EKS - MO EKS - NE EKS - OKGE EKS - WKS MO - NE MO - WKS NE - W KS OKGE - SPS OKGE - W FEC OKGE - W KS SPS - WKS RTC-Base RTC-10% RTC-20% -23 -87 -12 116 77 169 6 25 -738 101 -87 -146 -137 -161 -257 478 481 618 -92 -106 -56 347 291 315 376 232 -370 -301 -369 -389 39 39 33 446 620 392 0 -46 -600 293 348 471 0 -361 -431 -206 -79 108
Table 5.3.1.2-2: SPP area annual average flows (on-peak), in MW

Combination AEPGR - EKS AEPGR - MO AEPGR - OKGE AEPGR - SPS AEPGR - WFEC EKS - MO EKS - NE EKS - OKGE EKS - WKS MO - NE MO - WKS NE - W KS OKGE - SPS OKGE - W FEC OKGE - W KS SPS - WKS On-Peak-Base On-Peak-10% On-Peak-20% 87 -19 27 201 134 212 111 222 -577 73 -92 -160 -144 -162 -228 440 443 600 -100 -118 -74 233 236 271 381 204 -357 -302 -382 -407 37 37 31 450 681 492 0 -51 -569 311 368 465 0 -335 -428 -148 -69 86
Final Report
Page 5-56
Table 5.3.1.2-3: SPP area annual average flows (off-peak), in MW

Combination AEPGR - EKS AEPGR - MO AEPGR - OKGE AEPGR - SPS AEPGR - WFEC EKS - MO EKS - NE EKS - OKGE EKS - WKS MO - NE MO - WKS NE - W KS OKGE - SPS OKGE - W FEC OKGE - W KS SPS - WKS Off-Peak-Base Off-Peak-10% Off-Peak-20% -124 -149 -48 38 25 130 -90 -155 -884 127 -83 -133 -132 -161 -283 512 516 634 -85 -95 -40 451 341 355 371 257 -382 -299 -358 -372 41 41 35 442 565 301 0 -40 -629 277 329 477 0 -385 -433 -260 -88 129
5.3.2
Transmission Congestion and Wind Curtailments
The changes in flow patterns discussed in Section 5.3.1 were seen to cause new congestion patterns. In studying congestion patterns, CRA pursued two objectives: i) inform SPP on potentially emerging transmission bottlenecks, which will be important for congestion management and market operations and ii) specifically identify congested transmission elements that may cause significant wind curtailments not detected in the static analysis (presented in Section 4) and therefore attributable to the dynamic properties of the SPP system. It is important to note that the congestion analysis results presented in this section are predicated on the assumed location and installed capacities of new wind resources and on transmission expansion solutions identified in collaboration with SPP, as described in Section 4. Therefore if the actual penetration of wind resources and transmission expansion deviate from those assumed in this study, congestion patterns and wind curtailments would likely deviate from those reported here as well. To identify the new congestion and flow patterns for all SPP flowgates, the newly identified flowgates listed in Section 4.7 and all SPP lines with a nominal voltage of 345 kV and above were monitored in both directions.
Final Report
Page 5-57
Binding Constraints 10% Case

Table 5.3.2-1 shows the binding constraints and the number of binding hours by season.18
Table 5.3.2-1: Binding constraints and hours binding by season

Constraint Name NBF-5337_TUCXFR345230 SPP-FG-1347-WILLIVWEBRIC SPP-FG-1388-MOLHARWEBW EL SPP-FG-1901-HSBIS_ELDXF SPP-FG-1902-SCBBON RENBON SPP-FG-1937-WHISHEMABSHE SPP-FG-5005-CATXFRC ATXFR SPP-FG-5021-KILCREWOOWIC SPP-FG-5029-MANIPMDOLSWS SPP-FG-5085-DANMAGANOFTS SPP-FG-5099-PITSEMPITSUN SPP-FG-5205-SUNXFRPITSEM SPP-FG-5207-REDARC REDARC SPP-FG-5211-LONSARPITVAL SPP-FG-5228-IASCLKNASJHA SPP-FG-5232-BONXFRBONACA SPP-FG-5238-EUFXFRW ELXFR SPP-FG-5247-SPPSPSTIES SPP-FG-5263-COCCOUCOCVIL SPP-FG-5265-BONCECRIC COL SPP-FG-5267-RUSDAR ANOFTS SPP-FG-5328-KELSENEMACON SPP-FG-5337-TUCXFR345230 SPP-FG-5340-EROAVOFLIMON SPP-FG-5347-NESTULNESONE SPP-FG-5349-SHEPIOSHE2ND SPP-FG-6007-GENTLMREDWIL SPP-FG-6126-SUBTEKFTCRAU SPP-FG-6140-MEDILODGEXFR SPP-FG-6145-LKRALAIATSTR SPP-FG-6152-STMDSJFASJCO SPP-FG-90751-DU NBLSSIBORR NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl C LNF9 CLIFTON3-GRN LEAF3 fl EMA NF10 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl DE NF15 W ICHITA7-WICHISTR fl WI NF17 EMCPHER3-MANVILE3 fl EM NF22 PRINGLE 3-RIVERVIEW 3 f NF24 G06-45T-DEAFSMITH 6 fl NF28 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF29 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF30 TERRYC 3-WOLFFORTH 3 fl NF31 COW SKIN4-CENTENN4 fl EV NF36 ROOSEVELT 3-CU RRY 3 fl NF2 SOU THRD4-ROMNOSE4 fl W WR NF12 HARRNG_EST6-POTTER_CO 6 HAW TH 7 -N ASHUA 7 WICHIT A7 -W ICHISTR Total binding hours Constraint Type SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate 345 kV and above 346 kV and above Summer 1,144 57 2 31 718 0 192 0 0 158 226 179 48 0 0 82 0 0 722 0 65 15 0 4 8 13 565 0 1,112 0 0 12 964 68 17 738 119 211 225 20 1,257 274 24 608 0 0 4 0 9,881 Fall 0 25 16 86 426 0 234 3 0 17 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 276 0 0 0 107 0 291 0 44 0 617 0 0 111 0 334 63 0 55 34 0 0 45 0 0 0 2,812 Winter 769 118 52 192 92 51 260 0 128 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 459 5 360 0 0 0 962 0 11 0 0 112 144 0 208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,154 Spring 293 0 70 40 162 0 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 20 7 354 0 88 15 0 152 0 0 0 0 102 0 118 3 0 0 936 0 0 102 100 301 209 0 95 0 0 0 0 334 0 1 3,515 Total 2,206 199 139 349 1,398 51 686 3 139 326 226 182 48 7 20 89 354 10 832 15 136 167 276 4 8 13 1,232 5 1,880 3 44 12 3,479 68 29 951 219 959 641 20 1,615 308 24 608 45 334 4 1 20,362
18 The season listed here is defined in Table 5.3-1, with one week of overlap between the seasons. Therefore, the total hours modeled for the four season runs was 9,432, rather than 8,760.
Final Report
Page 5-58
As Table 5.3.2-1 shows, the most congestion was observed in summer, with 33 out of 48 constraints binding, and nearly half of the more than 20,000 binding hours.19 Constraints were observed binding the most during the summer, averaging nearly 2,500 binding hours per month, followed by spring with 1,750 binding hours per month, then by fall with 1,400 binding hours per month.20 Winter bound the least with slightly above 1,000 binding hours per month. Congestion was chiefly caused locally by the additional wind generation, or associated with interties filled to capacity exporting at the eastern boundary of SPP. Most of the constrained lines were already heavily utilized in the Base Case. Figure 5.3.2-1 through Figure 5.3.2-4 show the geographic location of the binding constraints by season. Those in blue represent the SPP flowgates (with the four-digit numbers representing the flowgate ID). Those in green represent the newly identified flowgates (with the NF number representing the newly identified flowgate ID). Those in brown represent the lines with nominal voltage of 345 kV or above.
Figure 5.3.2-1: 10% Case summer binding constraints
19 When the flow on a constraint was equal to the limit, the constraint was considered to be binding. If a line was observed to bind for ten hours, that meant that the flow on the line equaled the limit in ten distinct hours. 20 Summer and winter are 4 months each and spring and fall are 2 months each, as listed in Table 5.3-1. Therefore, summer binding nearly 10,000 hours over the four-month period equates to 2,500 binding hours per month.
Final Report
Page 5-59
Figure 5.3.2-2: 10% Case fall binding constraints
Figure 5.3.2-3: 10% Case winter binding constraints
Final Report
Page 5-60
Figure 5.3.2-4: 10% Case spring binding constraints
Appendix B contains the details of the seasonal flow data for the binding constraints. It also lists the lines that were heavily utilized (defined as a constraint on which the max flow was greater than or equal to 90% of the limit); the data could be useful when considering further transmission planning.
Final Report
Page 5-61
Wind Curtailment Results 10% Case

The wind units modeled in the 10% Case are those listed in Table 3.1-2 and Table 3.1-3 in Section 3.1. On an annual basis, there was little wind curtailment. All of the wind units that existed in the Base Case (Table 3.1-2) showed little to no curtailment, as did the additional wind units added for the 10% Case (Table 3.1-3). For these additional wind units, fall had the highest curtailment rate of 1.4%, followed by 1.0% for winter and spring, with summer being the lowest at 0.8%. Curtailment levels by unit are detailed in Table 5.3.2-2. The level of curtailment was observed to vary by season and profile year, as shown in Table 5.3.2-3. Simulations based on the 2006 profile showed the highest curtailment for all seasons but spring.
Table 5.3.2-2: Average wind curtailment for the 10% Case

Site 010 013 015 022 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 Summer 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 17.2% 0.5% 0.5% Fall Winter Spring Annual 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 1.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.6% 1.4% 1.0% 0.3% 0.7% 25.5% 18.3% 35.4% 22.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% Site 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 Summer 0.5% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% Fall 0.5% 0.5% 1.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 5.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 1.1% 0.6% Winter 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.7% Spring Annual 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 2.2% 1.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5%
Table 5.3.2-3: Wind curtailment by season and profile year for the 10% Case
Season Summer Fall Winter Spring Annual 2004 0.3% (15GWh/4418GWh) 0.5% (13GWh/2521GWh) 1.5% (74GWh/5501GWh) 0.9% (27GWh/2926GWh) 0.9% (129GWh/14875GWh) 2005 1.4% (66GWh/4832GW h) 1.0% (30GWh/4726GW h) 0.4% (18GWh/4726GW h) 1.1% (33GWh/2923GW h) 1.1% (147GWh/15424GWh) 2006 0.6% (27GWh/4284GW h) 2.6% (67GWh/2634GW h) 1.2% (67GWh/5590GW h) 1.1% (31GWh/2949GW h) 1.2% (193GWh/15457GWh)
Generators at two wind sites were curtailed significantly in the 10% Case. Wind site 52 was curtailed about 22% on an annual basis, with the highest curtailment (about 35%) during spring, followed by winter (approximately 26%), fall (18%), and summer (17%). Wind site 64 was curtailed 5% during the fall, 2% during the spring, and less than the 2% threshold in the other seasons. Note that these two wind sites could be considered outliers for curtailment; had they had been excluded, the curtailment level for the 2006 fall profile shown in Table
Final Report
Page 5-62
5.3.2-3 would fall below the 2% significance threshold. The two wind sites were analyzed further, as described below. Figure 5.3.2-5 and Figure 5.3.2-6 show the geographic location of these two sites.
64
52
Figure 5.3.2-5: Wind sites 52 and 64
64
NF8
52
Figure 5.3.2-6: Wind sites 52 and 64 (enlarged)
Final Report
Page 5-63
As seen from Table 3.1-3, wind site 52 is a 99 MW plant located in the AEPW area of Beckham County, OK - part of the SW OK cluster. Curtailment for site 52 exceeded the 2% threshold in all four seasons under all three profiles (i.e., spring, summer, fall, and winter, with the 2004, 2005, and 2006 profiles).21 This site was significantly affected by the NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL-constraint.22 Figure 5.3.2-7, which is for selected hours during the summer, illustrates the relationship between the binding of NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL- and the curtailment of wind site 52. The green line represents the shadow price23 of the binding NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL- constraint and the blue line shows the curtailment level of wind site 52. The figure shows that the timing of the constraint binding coincided with wind curtailment.
Wind Output and Shadow Price of Constraint

500 450 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 -400 -450 -500 1000 Shadow Price ($/MW)
Wind Curtailment (MW)
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 750
800
850
900
950
Hours
1W052043-Curtail (Sch-Gen) NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL-
Figure 5.3.2-7: Wind site 52 and NF8 constraint
21 On average, generators at site 52 were curtailed about 22% (67 GWh out of a possible 299 GWh of generation). Annual curtailment at this site for the 2004-based simulation was about 22% (60 GWh out of a possible 276 GWh of generation); curtailment at this site in the 2005-based simulation was also about 22% (70 GWh out of a possible 324 GWh of generation); and curtailment in the 2006-based simulation was about 24% (70 GWh out of a possible 296 GWh of generation). 22 It was confirmed during the WITF meetings that no remedies were planned for this constraint. 23 The shadow price is a measure that shows the savings that would occur if an extra MW was allowed to flow on the congested constraint.
Final Report
Page 5-64
Wind site 64 is a 200 MW plant located in the SPS area of Hutchinson County TX. It was part of the Hitchland cluster. Although fall and spring curtailments at this site exceeded the 2% threshold, annual average curtailment for this site did not. While the site was affected by the NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL- constraint, the annual impact was minimal.
Binding Constraints - 20% Case

As stated earlier in Section 5.3.1.2, compared to the 10% Case, the 20% Case had a significant amount of transmission upgrades, which included 765 kV lines. Although the 20% Case had a much more robust transmission system, significant transmission congestion was nevertheless observed in the analysis. Dramatic changes in the power flow patterns that arose in the 20% Case caused new congestion patterns. Table 5.3.2-4 shows the binding constraints and the number of binding hours by season.24 As Table 5.3.2-4 shows, summer exhibited the highest level of binding constraints; 52 out of 59 constraints bound in summer. More than half of the 22,000 binding hours occurred during the summer. On a per-month basis, constraints in the summer case bound the most, averaging more than 3,100 binding hours per month, followed by spring with 2,250 binding hours per month, then fall with 850 binding hours per month. Winter bound the least with slightly less than 800 binding hours per month.25 Figure 5.3.2-8 through Figure 5.3.2-11 show the geographic location of the binding constraints by season. Those in blue represent the SPP flowgates (with the four-digit numbers representing the flowgate ID). Those in green represent the newly identified flowgates (with the NF number representing the newly identified flowgate ID). Those in brown represent the lines with nominal voltage of 345 kV or above.
24 The seasons are defined in Table 5.3-1, with one week of overlap between the seasons. Therefore, the total hours modeled for the four season runs was 9,432, rather than 8,760. 25 Summer and winter are 4 months each and spring and fall are 2 months each, as listed in Table 5.3-1. Therefore, summer binding nearly 12,400 hours over the four-month period equates to 3,100 binding hours per month.
Final Report
Page 5-65
Table 5.3.2-4: Binding constraints and hours binding by season 20% Case
Constraint Name NBF-5337_TUCXFR345230 SPP-FG-1347-WILLIVWEBRIC SPP-FG-1388-MOLHARWEBW EL SPP-FG-1901-HSBIS_ELDXF SPP-FG-1902-SCBBONRENBON SPP-FG-5005-CATXFRC ATXFR SPP-FG-5085-DANMAGANOFTS SPP-FG-5232-BONXFRBON ACA SPP-FG-5238-EUFXFRW ELXFR SPP-FG-5263-COCCOUCOCVIL SPP-FG-5265-BONCECRICCOL SPP-FG-5267-RUSDARANOFTS SPP-FG-5328-KELSENEMACON SPP-FG-5340-EROAVOFLIMON SPP-FG-5349-SHEPIOSHE2ND SPP-FG-6007-GENTLMREDWIL SPP-FG-6140-MEDILODGEXFR SPP-FG-90751-DU NBLSSIBORR SPP-FG-5008-CRAASHVALLYD SPP-FG-5035-MONTROC LINTN SPP-FG-5196-SPSNORTH_STH SPP-FG-5249-FLCXFRFLCXFR SPP-FG-1307-RICXFRRICXFR SPP-FG-5345-KELTECCOOSTJ NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CLNF15 W ICHITA7-WICHISTR fl WI NF22 PRINGLE 3-RIVERVIEW 3 f NF24 G06-45T-DEAFSMITH 6 fl NF28 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF29 SIBLEYPL-ECKLES-161 fl NF30 TERRYC 3-WOLFFORTH 3 fl NF31 COW SKIN4-CENTENN4 fl EV NF36 ROOSEVELT 3-CURRY 3 fl NF13 TALOGA 4-TALOGSTR fl CE NF201 AUBURN TRF fl HOYT 7 NF206 BUTLER4-ALTOON A4 fl NE NF208 CIMARON4-HAYMAKR4 fl C NF211 CIMARON-DRAPER fl NORT NF219 EMCPHER3-MANVILE3 fl E NF221 EVANS S4-LAKERDG4 fl C NF223 FLATRDG-HARPER fl BENT NF228 GILL STR-GILL W 2 fl G NF231 HOLCOMB3-PLYMELL3 fl H NF232 HOYT-MER I fl HOYT 7NF234 JEC N 7-HOYT 7 fl JEC NF236 LAW HILL6-LAWHISTR fl L NF238 MCELROY4-KINZE 4 fl C NF241 NASHUA 7-NASHUSTR fl N NF246 SUNNYSD4-UNIROY 4 fl S NF248 SWISVAL7-W.GRDN R7 fl H NF249 TECHILE3-STULL T3 fl H NF251 W.GRDNR7-STILWEL7 fl L NF253 WICHISTR-EVANS N4 fl B NF257 WILLIAM-FLETCHR fl KAN NF264 FLETCHR 3 to W ILLIAM3 NF25 PRINGLE 3-RIVERVIEW 3 f NF207 CANADAY4-CANADAY7 fl C NF235 JERICHO3-JERICSTR fl M MINGO 7 -G07-12T Total binding hours Constraint Type SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate SPP Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate Newly Identified Flowgate 345 kV and above Summer 1,052 59 10 16 748 303 105 110 0 575 0 26 0 6 49 368 1,186 8 2 3 4 9 5 0 687 801 86 583 15 1,420 289 58 513 6 69 113 23 34 122 17 10 31 1,139 34 38 12 36 647 433 27 26 76 6 46 422 0 0 0 13 12,478 Fall 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 0 48 0 0 0 0 735 31 0 0 125 107 0 0 0 0 0 22 315 0 0 0 0 1,564 Winter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,015 130 66 374 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 36 0 0 525 0 0 0 33 0 39 549 0 0 0 16 3,358 Spring 393 0 108 26 141 0 4 10 155 51 16 0 29 0 0 105 121 0 85 0 4 0 0 6 889 156 202 461 0 170 3 40 0 0 0 121 0 0 71 0 24 0 446 0 0 0 113 49 0 48 0 75 0 29 348 19 12 17 0 4,543 Total 1,445 59 118 42 889 303 123 120 155 626 16 26 29 6 49 473 1,306 8 86 3 8 9 5 6 2,591 1,086 355 1,417 15 1,794 292 99 513 6 69 751 23 82 193 17 34 31 2,320 85 74 12 274 1,329 433 75 26 184 6 135 1,634 19 12 17 29 21,942
Final Report
Page 5-66
Figure 5.3.2-8: 20% Case summer binding constraints
Final Report
Page 5-67
Figure 5.3.2-9: 20% Case fall binding constraints
Final Report
Page 5-68
Figure 5.3.2-10: 20% Case winter binding constraints
Final Report
Page 5-69
Figure 5.3.2-11: 20% Case spring binding constraints
The flow and congestion patterns varied by season. The most heavily constrained season was the summer, but most binding constraints were already heavily utilized in the Base Case as well. Spring was less congested than summer, though most binding constraints were again already heavily utilized in the Base Case. In fall, only one SPP flowgate (5086) bound. However, this flowgate was not binding in the Base Case and, furthermore, it bound in the reverse direction in the 20% Case. Two other flowgates (5095 and 5336) exceeded the 90% threshold in the 20% Case, but in the opposite direction from the Base Case. These two flowgates were not heavily utilized in the Base Case. Thus, a significant change in flow pattern was observed in the fall. Winter showed a similar pattern to fall, with the three flowgates mentioned above exceeding the 90% threshold in the opposite direction from the Base Case. No flowgates bound in winter. Appendix B contains the details of the seasonal flow data for the binding constraints. It also includes the lines that were heavily utilized (defined as a constraint on which the max flow
Final Report
Page 5-70
was greater than or equal to 90% of the limit); the data could be useful when considering further transmission planning.
Wind Curtailment Results 20% Case

The wind units modeled in the 20% Case are listed in Table 3.1-2 through 3.1-4 in Section 3.1. On both an annual and seasonal basis, curtailments were less than the 2% threshold, probably as a result of the transmission upgrades. It appears that the high load level in summer was a contributing factor to lower curtailments, suggesting that larger loads within the BA would help reduce wind curtailment. Curtailment levels by unit are detailed in Table 5.3.2-5. Curtailment level exhibited some variation by season and profile year. Simulations based on the 2006 profile showed the highest curtailment for all seasons except spring. This is also consistent with the 10% Case results. Table 5.3.2-6 shows the average curtailment by season and profile year.
Final Report
Page 5-71
Table 5.3.2-5: Average wind curtailment for the 20% Case

Site Summer 001 1.2% 002 0.8% 003 0.3% 004 0.4% 005 1.2% 006 0.3% 007 0.7% 008 0.8% 009 0.9% 011 0.5% 012 0.4% 014 0.5% 016 0.8% 017 0.8% 018 0.8% 019 0.8% 020 0.7% 021 0.4% 023 0.9% 024 0.8% 025 1.0% 026 0.8% 027 1.1% 028 5.8% 029 1.1% 030 0.3% 031 0.5% 032 0.7% 033 0.6% 034 0.6% 035 0.6% 036 0.5% 037 0.5% 038 0.4% 039 0.6% 040 0.6% 041 0.1% 042 0.2% 043 0.2% 010 0.4% 013 0.4% 015 0.5% 022 0.4% 044 0.4% 045 0.8% 046 0.6% 047 0.9% 048 0.5% 049 0.4% 050 0.2% Fall 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% 0.5% 0.7% 1.2% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 3.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9% 7.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 3.4% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 1.4% Winter 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 1.2% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 1.2% 3.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 1.1% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% 1.2% Spring 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.1% 0.4% 1.2% 1.2% 0.3% 0.2% 2.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 2.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 1.1% 9.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1.0% 0.1% 2.7% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5% Annual 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 1.0% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 2.1% 0.6% 0.8% 4.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 1.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% Site Summer 051 0.3% 052 18.2% 053 0.5% 054 0.5% 055 0.5% 056 0.2% 057 1.0% 058 0.5% 059 0.2% 060 0.3% 061 0.3% 062 0.3% 063 0.3% 064 0.6% 065 0.4% 066 0.3% 067 0.2% 068 0.2% 069 0.5% 070 1.0% 071 0.6% 072 0.6% 073 5.7% 074 0.4% 075 0.3% 076 0.9% 077 1.0% 078 0.3% 079 0.3% 080 1.1% 081 0.8% 082 0.0% 083 0.4% 084 0.5% 085 0.7% 086 1.0% 087 0.5% 088 5.8% 089 0.2% 090 0.7% 091 0.5% 092 0.8% 093 0.3% 094 0.5% 095 0.6% 096 0.6% 097 0.9% 098 0.4% 099 0.2% 100 0.0% Fall 1.4% 53.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 4.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 1.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 11.5% 1.6% 0.9% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% 1.2% 6.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% W inter 1.0% 32.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 9.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% 6.1% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% Spring 0.3% 80.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 1.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 1.3% 9.0% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 1.4% 6.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.9% 1.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% Annual 0.7% 38.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 1.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 8.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0% 6.1% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
Final Report
Page 5-72
Table 5.3.2-6: Wind curtailment by season and profile year for the 20% Case
Profile 2004 2005 2006 Average
Summer 0.27% 1.18% 0.80% 0.75%
Fall 0.38% 0.94% 2.26% 1.23%
Winter 1.29% 0.36% 1.24% 1.03%
Spring Average 0.96% 0.77% 1.08% 0.87% 0.85% 1.22% 1.00% 0.98%
There were five wind sites that exceeded the 2% curtailment level on an annual average in the 20% Case. These five sites are shown in Figure 5.3.2-12.
Base Case 10% Case 20% Case 30% Case
73
28
40 MW 200 MW 500 MW 900 MW
88 31
52
Figure 5.3.2-12: Wind sites curtailed in excess of 2%
Final Report
Page 5-73
Wind site 31 is located in the SPS area in Carson County TX and has a capacity of 80 MW. It is part of the Amarillo cluster. This wind plant was curtailed mainly during spring and fall but experienced minimal curtailments in the summer as well. The constraint that impacted this wind unit output the most was the NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL- constraint, but to a much lesser degree than what was observed for wind site 52 in the 10% Case. Table 5.3.2-7 shows the curtailment level by profile year and season for wind site 31.
Table 5.3.2-7: Curtailment for wind site 31
Wind Site Profile Year Summer Fall Winter Spring 2004 0.0% 1.5% 2.7% 12.6% 2005 1.0% 8.2% 0.7% 10.4% 31 2006 0.3% 11.3% 5.5% 4.2% Average 0.5% 7.1% 3.0% 9.0%
Wind site 52, which experienced the heaviest curtailment of all modeled wind sites, is located in the AEPW area in Beckham County, OK and has a capacity of 99 MW. It is part of the SW OK cluster. This wind plant experienced heavy curtailment in the 10% Case caused by the NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL- constraint.26 The 20% Case had a new 345 kV line in parallel to the NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL- constraint but, as shown in Figure 5.3.2-13, this constraint still heavily affected this wind site. Table 5.3.2-8 shows the curtailment level by profile year and season for wind site 52. Note that this wind plant was significantly curtailed, especially during the spring with the 2004 profile. This wind site is a clear example of the need to coordinate the development of wind and transmission, including a local transformer like NF8. It also highlights the importance of assessing the existing underlying system, even as high voltage lines (345kV and/or 765kV lines) are being planned.
26 It was confirmed during the WITF meetings that no remedies were planned for this constraint.
Final Report
Page 5-74

500 450 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 -400 -450 -500 1000 Shadow Price ($/MW)
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 750
800
850
900
950
Hours
1W052043-Curtail (Sch-Gen) NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL-
Figure 5.3.2-13: NF8 constraint and wind site 52
Wind site 73 is located in the SUNC area in Hamilton County, OK and has a capacity of 135 MW. It is part of the Spearville cluster. The plant was heavily impacted by the NF264 FLETCHR3 to WILLIAM3 constraint and curtailment exceeded the 2% threshold during all four seasons in all three years profile-based simulations. Table 5.3.2-9 shows the curtailment level by profile year and season for this wind site.
Wind site 88 is located in the SPS area in Hutchinson County OK and has a capacity of 100 MW. It is part of the Hitchland cluster. The plant was impacted by several constraints, including the NF8 ELKCTY-4-ELKCTSTR fl CL-, but none of them was dominant. Table
Final Report
Page 5-75
5.3.2-10 shows the curtailment level by profile year and season for this wind site. It is interesting to observe that this plant did not experience much curtailment in the 2004 profilebased simulation.
Finally, site 28 is located in the WERE area in Barber County, KS, has a capacity of 110 MW, and is part of the Wichita cluster. This plant was only curtailed in excess of the 2% threshold during the summer, as seen in Table 5.3.2-11. The curtailment was primarily due to the SPPFG-6140-MEDILODGEXFR constraint, as seen in Figure 5.3.2-14. While this constraint bound year round, it bound especially heavily during the summer, leading to curtailment of this unit. The fact that it bound heavily during the summer indicated that this constraint was impacted by load level. This is one example of how a regional study (rather than an individual project- or cluster-based study) could help identify an issue.
Final Report
Page 5-76

500 450 0
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 0W028021-Curtail (Sch-Gen) SPP-FG-6140-MEDILODGEXFR
400
800
1200
1600
2050
2100
2150
2200
2250
2300
2350
2400
2450
2000 2500
Hours
Figure 5.3.2-14: FG6140 constraint and wind site 28
Final Report
Page 5-77
Shadow Price ($/MW)
5.3.3
New Operational Patterns of Generating Units
The operation patterns of non-wind generating units were also observed to identify potential operational problems. The metrics used to evaluate operating patterns were the change in generation by unit type, number of starts by unit type, and capacity factor while up by unit type.27 The operational impact caused by the increase in regulation due to the additional wind was also analyzed. However, this regulation impact analysis depends heavily on the mix of load level and available generation so it should not be treated as a general representation of the system behavior.28
5.3.3.1
10% Case Results
With the introduction of wind, base load units (coal-burning steam cycle units: STc units) and intermediate load units (natural gas-burning combined cycle units: CC units) generated less and cycled more, as compared to the Base Case.29 Therefore, the average number of hours up30 decreased for these unit types. In fact, during spring and fall, the CC units frequently ran only for their minimum-up-time per start. Peaking plants (natural gas-burning simple cycle
27 Capacity factor while up measures the capacity factor of a unit only during the period when it is running. In other words, it is the capacity factor between start-up and shut-down and indicates how a unit is being run. For example, assume the operation of two identical units A and B for a given period. Unit A is running at 50% capacity for the entire period. Unit B is running at 100% capacity for half of the period and being shut down for the remaining half. Both units will have a single start for that period, and a capacity factor of 50% for the period. However the capacity factor while up will be 50% for unit A and 100% for unit B. 28 For example, assume a system that has two 100 MW units Gen A and Gen B that have no minimum-up-time or minimum-down-time constraints and can be committed and dispatched at call. The marginal cost of Gen A (MCA) is lower than that of Gen B (MCB). Both units have a minimum generation of 30 MW and their start-up cost is SCA and SCB for Gen A and Gen B respectively. When the system load is 90 MW and no regulation is needed, the system would commit and dispatch Gen A and the system clearing price for energy would be MCA. When the system load is the same 90 MW but 20 MW of regulation is needed, the system would commit and dispatch both Gen A and Gen B, with Gen A generating 60 MW and Gen B generating 30 MW. The system clearing price for energy would now be MCB, which is higher than MCA. The 20 MW of regulation can be provided by either generating unit. In this example, the operational impact caused by the additional 20 MW regulation requirement is the change in commitment and dispatch from a single unit (Gen A) to two units (Gen A and Gen B). The cost is the difference in the system clearing price for energy multiplied by the load (90 MW * (MCB MCA)) plus the cost of commitment (SCB). Now in the same system, if the load were 70 MW, the system would only commit and dispatch Gen A regardless of whether the 20 MW regulation is needed. In the 70 MW load case, there is no operational impact and costs associated. Therefore the change in operation caused by additional regulation depends on the mix of load level and the available units at any given time. 29 Unit characteristics assumptions for non-wind units for this study were provided by SPP. There were more than 80 coal units and more than half of those units had minimum-up-times and minimum-down-times of less than 10 hours. This assumption may have contributed to the cycling of coal units. 30 The average hours running per start can be used as an indicator of unit cycling. Assuming the same total number of hours run, the lower this value is, the more the unit is cycled.
Final Report
Page 5-78
units: GT units) on the other hand, while varying by area, experienced less impact and, in general, seemed to experience higher capacity factors while up. The decrease in generation by base load and intermediate load generators was assumed to be caused by wind generation displacing the base load generation, because the marginal cost of wind was lower. This, along with the fluctuation of wind output, led to more cycling of these units as well. These units were still committed, however, because they were required for spinning reserves and regulation. GT units compensated for the fluctuation of wind output, and therefore ran more, especially in areas where more wind was introduced. Seasonal differences were also observed. During the summer, the less flexible peaking units (natural gas- or oil-burning steam cycle units: STgo units) and CC units experienced the largest reductions in generation. Generation from STgo units decreased to nearly half in the 10% Case as compared to the Base Case. The CC units generated 25% less in the 10% Case as compared to the Base Case. The average hours running per start for CC units was halved from an average of 57 hours in the Base Case to an average of 27 hours in the 10% Case. The impact of increased regulation requirements was also observed during summer. In the Base Case, re-dispatch (i.e., additional commitment and dispatch to provide the required spinning reserve and regulation) was needed for 41% of the hours (1,236 hours out of 3,024 hours) on average (2004: 1,242 hours, 2005: 1,196 hours, and 2006: 1,271 hours). In the 10% Case, re-dispatch was needed for 45% of the hours (1,366 hours out of 3,024 hours). The increase was 4% (129 hours). The cost of this re-dispatch increased in the 10% Case by about 12%. In the fall, the CC units had the largest impact as generation decreased to half in the 10% Case as compared to the Base Case. The capacity factor while up also dropped and the CC units on average were only ran to their minimum-up-time in the 10% Case. On the other hand, the capacity factors while up for GT units increased nearly everywhere, indicating that they were more heavily utilized. During the winter, the ST (gas/oil) and CC units exhibited the largest reduction. Generation from ST (gas/oil) and CC units decreased to half in the 10% Case as compared to the Base Case. The average hours running per start for CC units was halved from an average of 150 hours in the Base Case to an average of 70 hours in the 10% Case. The impact during the spring was similar to that of the fall. CC units bore the largest reduction, with generation decreasing to half in the 10% Case as compared to the Base Case. The average hours running per start for CC units dropped from an average of 40 hours in the Base Case to an average of 10 hours, which is near their minimum-up-time, in the 10% Case. Details of the seasonal operating patterns are listed in Appendix B.
Final Report
Page 5-79
Figure 5.3.3.1-1 and Table 5.3.3.1-1 show the annual non-wind generation (GWh) by unit type for both the Base Case and 10% Case. Note that the total generation is for non-wind generation and therefore differs between the Base Case and 10% Case. Also note that the year was modeled as 9,432 hours rather than 8,760 hours. Total generation in the 10% Case is lower because additional wind generation is introduced. Figure 5.3.3.1-2 and Table 5.3.3.12 show the average hours running per start for these unit types. Table 5.3.3.1-3 shows the minimum of the average hours running per start by unit types. That is, if a given unit type showed the average hours running per start of 20 hours for summer, 12 hours for fall, 18 hours for winter, and 15 hours for spring, this table would show 12 hours.
SPP Generation Comparison

250000
200000 Base Case Generation (GWh) 150000 10% Case
100000
50000
0 CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Total Unit Types
Figure 5.3.3.1-1: Non-wind generation by unit type (annual total)
Table 5.3.3.1-1: Non-wind generation (GWh) by unit type (annual total)

Type CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Total Base Case 10% Case 22,758 14,558 5,099 4,143 1,592 1,592 21,450 21,450 447 483 174,050 168,763 3,469 2,072 228,864 213,060
Final Report
Page 5-80
Average Hours Running Per Start

2500
2000 Base Case 10% Case 1500 Hours 1000 500 0 CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Average Unit Type
Figure 5.3.3.1-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type (annual average)
Table 5.3.3.1-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type
Type CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Average Base Case 10% Case 80 35 3 2 1,584 1,584 1,966 1,961 45 53 781 735 38 33 232 218
Table 5.3.3.1-3: Minimum average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit
Type CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Average Base Case 10% Case 19 9 1 1 49 49 724 724 12 12 593 566 6 4 169 157
Final Report
Page 5-81
The impacts illustrated above vary greatly within SPP. Table 5.3.3.1-4 shows the generation for the Base Case and 10% Case by SPP area. Table 5.3.3.1-5 then shows the generation difference by unit type and SPP area. Table 5.3.3.1-6 shows the capacity factor by unit type while up and SPP area for the Base Case and 10% Case. Table 5.3.3.1-7 shows the average number of starts by unit type and SPP area for the Base Case and 10% Case. In Table 5.3.3.1-5 through Table 5.3.3.1-7, a pink highlight indicates an increase in total non-wind generation, while a blue highlight indicates a decrease. As these tables illustrate, the impact varies by SPP area and should be considered in future planning of generation and transmission, even as a single BA.
Table 5.3.3.1-4: Generation (GWh) by SPP area
Area AEP West EMPIRE DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS CIT Y- KS PUB KANSAS CIT Y P&L CO Westar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST ENERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO Nebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E CO Omaha Pub Power SOUTHW EST ERN PSC SUNFLOW ER ELEC PWR WESTERN FARMERS ELEC Total
Base Case 10% Case 43,861 41,518 3,305 2,993 8,883 7,902 156 114 2,967 2,761 29,270 28,597 33,454 32,812 1,452 1,476 955 945 4,161 3,844 20,536 22,683 30,083 26,836 20,159 20,040 30,949 34,053 3,909 5,847 6,050 5,970 240,148 238,392
Final Report
Page 5-82
Table 5.3.3.1-5: Generation difference (GWh) between Base Case and 10% Case
Area \ Unit Type AEP West EMPIRE DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS CIT Y- KS PUB KANSAS CIT Y P&L CO Westar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST ENERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO Nebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E CO Omaha Pub Power SOUTHW EST ERN PSC SUNFLOW ER ELEC PWR WESTERN FARMERS ELEC Total CC -2,242 13 0 0 0 -72 0 9 0 -83 -4 -3,006 0 -2,590 0 -225 -8,200 GT Hydro 115 0 6 0 28 0 0 0 -2 0 -13 0 -63 0 0 0 -10 0 -86 0 7 0 -18 0 7 0 -876 0 -13 0 -39 0 -956 0 NU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PSH 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 STc STgo -517 2 -331 0 -1,043 -2 -42 0 -204 0 -778 0 -1,125 -19 16 0 0 0 -148 0 412 -2 -8 -680 -126 0 -1,023 -697 -207 17 -163 -17 -5,287 -1,397
Table 5.3.3.1-6: Capacity factors while up for the Base Case and 10% Case
Area \ U nit Type AEP West EMPIR E DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS C ITY- KS PUB KANSAS C ITY P&L CO W estar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST EN ERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO N ebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E C O Omaha Pub Power SOUTHWESTERN PSC SUNFLOWER ELEC PW R W ESTERN FARMERS ELEC Average
CC 71% 28% 0% 0% 0% 67% 0% 56% 0% 63% 46% 65% 0% 90% 0% 52% 64%
Base Case C apacity Factor W hile Up GT Hydro NU PSH STc 29% 58% 0% 0% 84% 30% 43% 0% 0% 82% 95% 27% 0% 36% 97% 1% 0% 0% 0% 59% 10% 0% 0% 0% 46% 14% 0% 0% 0% 89% 21% 0% 99% 0% 77% 18% 0% 0% 0% 92% 65% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 82% 15% 37% 99% 0% 92% 27% 39% 0% 0% 98% 21% 0% 98% 0% 91% 57% 0% 0% 0% 81% 30% 0% 0% 0% 98% 96% 0% 0% 0% 99% 26% 46% 99% 36% 82%
STgo 2% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 11% 7% 0% 24% 10% 3% 9%
CC 70% 28% 0% 0% 0% 49% 0% 44% 0% 44% 46% 43% 0% 79% 0% 35% 55%
10% Case Capacity Factor While Up GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo 35% 58% 0% 0% 83% 2% 28% 43% 0% 0% 81% 0% 94% 27% 0% 38% 95% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 49% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 44% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 88% 0% 21% 0% 99% 0% 73% 8% 26% 0% 0% 0% 93% 0% 62% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 75% 0% 18% 37% 99% 0% 92% 6% 19% 39% 0% 0% 98% 2% 23% 0% 98% 0% 90% 0% 48% 0% 0% 0% 76% 15% 28% 0% 0% 0% 95% 11% 97% 0% 0% 0% 99% 1% 26% 46% 99% 38% 80% 6%
Final Report
Page 5-83
Table 5.3.3.1-7: Number of starts for the Base Case and 10% Case for summer
Area \ U nit Type AEP West EMPIR E DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS C ITY- KS PUB KANSAS C ITY P&L CO W estar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST EN ERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO N ebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E C O Omaha Pub Power SOUTHWESTERN PSC SUNFLOWER ELEC PW R W ESTERN FARMERS ELEC Average
CC 117 6 0 0 0 89 0 34 0 74 39 122 0 103 0 77 97
Base Case Number of Starts GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo 44 5 0 0 13 1 29 5 0 0 22 0 516 5 0 443 15 3 0 0 0 0 31 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 11 0 0 0 67 0 37 0 6 0 14 6 13 0 0 0 12 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 81 0 2 5 9 0 27 2 34 5 0 0 8 4 14 0 7 0 32 0 162 0 0 0 7 14 51 0 0 0 8 4 393 0 0 0 7 3 52 5 7 443 25 5
CC 101 4 0 0 0 73 0 54 0 66 44 58 0 164 0 24 79
10% Case Number of Starts GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo 45 5 0 0 15 1 34 5 0 0 34 0 519 5 0 420 27 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 68 0 35 0 6 0 15 5 12 0 0 0 14 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 94 0 4 5 9 0 39 1 27 5 0 0 8 1 14 0 7 0 40 0 124 0 0 0 7 10 35 0 0 0 19 4 380 0 0 0 14 0 47 5 7 420 29 3
5.3.3.2
20% Case Results
With 20% wind penetration, most non-wind units generated less and cycled more. This was particularly true for base load (STc units) and intermediate load (CC units) as was expected, as well as for peaking units. Consequently, the average hours running per start went down for most units. In making this and other comparisons of the 10% and 20% Cases, it is important to remember that these two cases differed in the strength of the transmission system underlying each case. In the 10% Case, the utilization of GT units varied and the direction (increase or decrease of utilization) depending on the location. This was not so for the 20% Case. It was assumed that the more robust transmission system in the 20% Case enabled all units, including the CC and STc units within SPP, to respond to the generation fluctuations of the wind units. Therefore, the locational trends that were apparent in the 10% Case were not observed in the 20% Case. As in the 10% Case, CC units ran only up to their minimum-up-time per start in the shoulder seasons (fall and spring). In the summer, the STgo and CC units exhibited the largest reductions; generation reduced by 40% as compared to the Base Case. The average hours running per start for CC units during decreased to a third from an average of 57 hours in the Base Case to an average of 18 hours in the 20% Case. Capacity factors of GT units while up increased in all areas. The average hours running per start decreased for nuclear units but this was probably caused by a forced outage event, because the total generation from nuclear units varied little between the Base Case and 20% Case. In the fall, CC unit generation decreased to a quarter from 2,500 GWh in the Base Case to less than 600 GWh in the 20% Case. Furthermore, the average hours running per start went
Final Report
Page 5-84
down to the minimum-up-time of five hours. Most larger CC units have minimum-up-times above 5 hours. It appeared that the issues observed in the fall 10% Case were exacerbated. In the winter, CC units ran infrequently; their average hours running per start were 40 hours in the 20% Case compared to 150 hours in the Base Case. While they ran less, the conditions were not as harsh as during fall and spring when they merely ran their minimum-up-time. Unlike the 10% Case, the GT units were also impacted in the 20% Case. Both the generation and average hours running per start for GT units were halved as compared to those of the Base Case. Also, the decrease in generation of coal-burning units was substantial as compared to the 10% Case. The observations for spring were similar to that of fall. CC units ran less per start and started less frequently; their average hours running per start decreased to 6 hours, which is the minimum-up-time for most modern CC units. Generation of CC units in the 20% Case dropped to a quarter of that in the Base Case. At the same time, the GT units ran less per start and started less frequently. Generation and number of starts for GT units were both half of that of the Base Case. As a result of these different dispatch patterns (including wind), some SPP flowgates bound in the reverse direction as compared to the Base Case, (Section 5.3.1). Finally, the spinning reserve and regulation requirements did not lead to more re-dispatch (and re-commitment) during any of the seasons. This, too, could be credited to the robust transmission system enabling these requirements to be supplied from anywhere within SPP. Figure 5.3.3.2-1 and Table 5.3.3.2-1 show the annual non-wind generation (GWh) by unit type for both the Base Case and 20% Case. Note that the total generation is for non-wind generation and therefore differs between the Base Case and 20% Case. The 20% Case is lower because wind generation is introduced. Figure 5.3.3.2-2 and Table 5.3.3.2-2 show the average hours running per start for these unit types. Figure 5.3.3.2-3 shows the minimum of the average hours running per start by unit types. Seasonal analysis results for both the generation operation and transmission flows are shown in Appendix B.
Final Report
Page 5-85
SPP Generation Comparison

250000
200000 Base Case Generation (GWh) 150000 20% Case
100000
50000
0 CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Total Unit Types
Figure 5.3.3.2-1: Non-wind generation by unit type (annual total)
Table 5.3.3.2-1: Non-wind generation (GWh) by unit type

Type CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Total Base Case 20% Case 22,758 9,776 5,099 3,267 1,592 1,593 21,450 21,329 447 482 174,050 153,276 3,469 2,130 228,864 191,854
Final Report
Page 5-86
Average Hours Running Per Start

2500
2000 Base Case 20% Case 1500 Hours 1000 500 0 CC GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo Average Unit Type
Figure 5.3.3.2-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type
Table 5.3.3.2-2: Average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit type
Type Base Case 20% Case CC 80 20 GT 3 2 Hydro 1,584 1,584 NU 1,966 1,606 PSH 45 50 STc 781 660 STgo 38 33 Average 232 198
Table 5.3.3.2-3: Minimum average hours running per start for non-wind generation by unit
Type Base Case 20% Case CC 19 5 GT 1 1 Hydro 49 49 NU 724 604 PSH 12 13 STc 593 512 STgo 6 3 Average 169 139
Final Report
Page 5-87
Unlike the 10% Case, in which the impacts varied greatly within SPP, the 20% Case showed consistency accross the areas. Table 5.3.3.2-4 shows the generation (GWh) for the Base Case and 20% Case by SPP area. Table 5.3.3.2-5 then shows the generation difference (GWh) by unit type and SPP area. Table 5.3.3.2-6 shows the capacity factor by unit type and SPP area for the Base Case and 20% Case. Table 5.3.3.2-7 shows the average number of starts by unit type and SPP area for the Base Case and 10% Case. In Table 5.3.3.2-4 through Table 5.3.3.2-6, a pink highlight indicates an increase while a blue highlight indicates a decrease. As these tables illustrate, the impact by unit type (i.e. the drop in generation, increased cycling, etc) is approximately uniform across the SPP areas. This, too, suggests that the transmission system in the 20% Case is robust and many, if not all, load and/or generator pockets are eliminated.
Table 5.3.3.2-4: Generation (GWh) by SPP area
Area AEP West EMPIRE DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS CIT Y- KS PUB KANSAS CIT Y P&L CO Westar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST ENERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO Nebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E CO Omaha Pub Power SOUTHW EST ERN PSC SUNFLOW ER ELEC PWR WESTERN FARMERS ELEC Total
Base Case 43,861 3,305 8,883 156 2,967 29,270 33,454 1,452 955 4,161 20,536 30,083 20,159 30,949 3,909 6,050 240,148
20% Case 36,990 2,306 5,987 104 2,456 25,147 32,345 1,433 940 3,798 23,629 29,760 18,127 40,877 12,277 5,680 241,859
Final Report
Page 5-88
Table 5.3.3.2-5: Generation difference (GWh) between Base Case and 20% Case
Area \ Unit Type AEP West EMPIRE DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS CIT Y- KS PUB KANSAS CIT Y P&L CO Westar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST ENERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO Nebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E CO Omaha Pub Power SOUTHW EST ERN PSC SUNFLOW ER ELEC PWR WESTERN FARMERS ELEC Total CC -5,265 -145 0 0 0 -59 0 -16 0 -59 -47 -3,576 0 -3,581 0 -233 -12,982 GT -82 0 -46 1 3 -13 -90 -4 -14 -187 4 -45 -10 -1,150 -17 -183 -1,832 Hydro 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 1 NU 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11 0 0 0 -97 0 -13 0 0 0 -121 PSH 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 STc -1,763 -803 -2,886 -52 -513 -4,241 -3,101 2 0 -469 -1,284 -211 -2,009 -2,013 -605 -826 -20,773 STgo -25 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 -2 -499 0 -822 16 -17 -1,339
Table 5.3.3.2-6: Capacity factors while up for the Base Case and 20% Case
Area \ Unit Type AEP West EMPIRE DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS CITY- KS PUB KANSAS CITY P&L CO W estar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST ENERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO Nebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E CO Omaha Pub Power SOUTHWESTERN PSC SUNFLOWER ELEC PW R W ESTERN FARMERS ELEC Average
CC 71% 28% 0% 0% 0% 67% 0% 56% 0% 63% 46% 65% 0% 90% 0% 52% 64%
Base Case Capacity Factor W hile Up GT Hydro NU PSH STc 29% 58% 0% 0% 84% 30% 43% 0% 0% 82% 95% 27% 0% 36% 97% 1% 0% 0% 0% 59% 10% 0% 0% 0% 46% 14% 0% 0% 0% 89% 21% 0% 99% 0% 77% 18% 0% 0% 0% 92% 65% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 82% 15% 37% 99% 0% 92% 27% 39% 0% 0% 98% 21% 0% 98% 0% 91% 57% 0% 0% 0% 81% 30% 0% 0% 0% 98% 96% 0% 0% 0% 99% 26% 46% 99% 36% 82%
STgo 2% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 11% 7% 0% 24% 10% 3% 9%
CC 54% 28% 0% 0% 0% 60% 0% 38% 0% 49% 30% 38% 0% 78% 0% 31% 47%
20% Case Capacity Factor While Up GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo 32% 58% 0% 0% 80% 2% 34% 43% 0% 0% 78% 0% 94% 27% 0% 40% 91% 14% 4% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 41% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 84% 0% 22% 0% 99% 0% 66% 11% 13% 0% 0% 0% 93% 0% 61% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 71% 0% 14% 37% 99% 0% 87% 5% 20% 39% 0% 0% 97% 2% 19% 0% 98% 0% 85% 0% 44% 0% 0% 0% 72% 13% 26% 0% 0% 0% 91% 7% 96% 0% 0% 0% 97% 0% 26% 46% 99% 40% 76% 6%
Final Report
Page 5-89
Table 5.3.3.2-7: Number of starts for the Base Case and 20% Case
Area \ Unit Type AEP West EMPIRE DIST ELEC CO GRAND RIVER DAM AUTH INDEPENDENCE- MO KANSAS CITY- KS PUB KANSAS CITY P&L CO W estar Lincoln Electric System MIDW EST ENERGY INC MISSOURI PUB SERV CO Nebraska Pub Power OKLAHOMA G&E CO Omaha Pub Power SOUTHWESTERN PSC SUNFLOWER ELEC PW R W ESTERN FARMERS ELEC Average Base Case Number of Starts GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo 44 5 0 0 13 1 29 5 0 0 22 0 516 5 0 443 15 3 0 0 0 0 31 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 11 0 0 0 67 0 37 0 6 0 14 6 13 0 0 0 12 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 81 0 2 5 9 0 27 2 34 5 0 0 8 4 14 0 7 0 32 0 162 0 0 0 7 14 51 0 0 0 8 4 393 0 0 0 7 3 52 5 7 443 25 5 20% Case Number of Starts GT Hydro NU PSH STc STgo 38 5 0 0 16 1 33 5 0 0 44 0 435 5 0 360 41 5 1 0 0 0 35 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 10 0 0 0 76 0 38 0 6 0 13 8 9 0 0 0 13 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 102 0 3 5 24 0 65 1 18 5 0 0 8 1 10 0 11 0 74 0 105 0 0 0 8 9 30 0 0 0 33 4 238 0 0 0 39 0 39 5 14 360 37 4
CC 117 6 0 0 0 89 0 34 0 74 39 122 0 103 0 77 97
CC 74 4 0 0 0 85 0 41 0 71 29 50 0 164 0 23 66
5.3.4
5.3.4.1
Impacts of Wind Forecast Uncertainty

Analysis Methods Overview
The specific goal of this analysis was to examine the impact of wind forecast uncertainty, as presented in Section 5.2.2, on the operation of the system within the multi-hour timeframe. In order to achieve this goal, differences between wind availability assumed at the unit commitment stage and realized wind generation were explicitly accounted for in the analysis performed by CRA. This approach more closely replicated the real operation of the SPP power system. The primary focus of the analysis was on the impact of forecast error on the operation of nonwind generating units and on potential curtailments of wind generating units. To analyze the impacts of forecast errors in the unit commitment phase, the following three weeks were selected from the GE MAPS simulations: Spring 2004 Case: April 26th - May 3rd 2010 using 2004 load and wind data Fall 2005 Case: November 8th - 14th 2010 using 2005 load and wind data Fall 2006 Case: November 1st - 7th 2010 using 2006 load and wind data
These three weeks were selected because they showed some extreme patterns of variability, such as low minimum net load, high wind output, high forecast errors, and high wind ramps, as shown in Figure 5.3.4.1-1 through Figure 5.3.4.1-3. As Table 5.3.4.1-1 shows, the SPP load level for each of these three weeks was similar.
Final Report
Page 5-90
Table 5.3.4.1-1: SPP load for selected weeks
Load (MW) Spring-2004 Fall-2005 Fall-2006
Average 22085 21910 22452
Peak 27395 27077 25977
Figure 5.3.4.1-1: Spring 2004 Case
Final Report
Page 5-91
Figure 5.3.4.1-2: Fall 2005 Case
Figure 5.3.4.1-3: Fall 2006 Case
Final Report
Page 5-92
The GE MAPS simulation was rerun for these selected weeks. For each selected week, three GE MAPS run results were compared. First, the unit commitment was determined using the wind forecast data. Then, with this unit commitment, GE MAPS determined the dispatch using the actual realized wind data. This process would therefore address the commitment challenges caused by forecast errors. These runs were performed for both the day-ahead forecast (DA/Real run) and 4-hour-ahead forecast (FR04/Real run). The results of the dayahead forecast run and 4-hour-ahead forecast run were then compared to the run that used realized wind data for both commitment and dispatch (Real/Real run), used in Section 5.3.1 through 5.3.3 to identify new constraint patterns. The set of three runs (DA/Real run, FR04/Real run, and Real/Real run) were performed for both the 10% wind penetration case and 20% wind penetration case. Table 5.3.4.1-2 shows the 18 runs (excluding the 12 initial runs to extract commitment using forecast wind data) performed. The metrics used for comparison were the number of starts and capacity factor while up by unit type, and wind curtailment.
Table 5.3.4.1-2: MAPS runs performed for forecast error analysis
Run Spring 2004-10% Wind 4-hour-forecast run Spring 2004-10% Wind day-forecast run Spring 2004-10% Wind base case run Fall 2005-10% Wind 4-hour-forecast run Fall 2005-10% Wind day-forecast run Fall 2005-10% Wind base case run Fall 2006-10% Wind 4-hour-forecast run Fall 2006-10% Wind day-forecast run Fall 2006-10% Wind base case run Spring 2004-20% Wind 4-hour-forecast run Spring 2004-20% Wind day-forecast run Spring 2004-20% Wind base case run Fall 2005-20% Wind 4-hour-forecast run Fall 2005-20% Wind day-forecast run Fall 2005-20% Wind base case run Fall 2006-20% Wind 4-hour-forecast run Fall 2006-20% Wind day-forecast run Fall 2006-20% Wind base case run
Case Wind penetration Spring 2004 10% Spring 2004 10% Spring 2004 10% Fall 2005 10% Fall 2005 10% Fall 2005 10% Fall 2006 10% Fall 2006 10% Fall 2006 10% Spring 2004 20% Spring 2004 20% Spring 2004 20% Fall 2005 20% Fall 2005 20% Fall 2005 20% Fall 2006 20% Fall 2006 20% Fall 2006 20%
Commitment 4-hour-ahead forecast wind Day-ahead forecast wind Realized wind 4-hour-ahead forecast wind Day-ahead forecast wind Realized wind 4-hour-ahead forecast wind Day-ahead forecast wind Realized wind 4-hour-ahead forecast wind Day-ahead forecast wind Realized wind 4-hour-ahead forecast wind Day-ahead forecast wind Realized wind 4-hour-ahead forecast wind Day-ahead forecast wind Realized wind
Dispatch Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind Realized wind
Final Report
Page 5-93
5.3.4.2
Results Number of Starts and Capacity Factor While Up by Unit Type
Table 5.3.4.2-1 through Table 5.3.4.2-4 summarize the findings of this analysis. In general, with forecast errors, GT units started and ran more, STc units started and ran less; and CC units started less but their capacity factor while up remained approximately the same. The impact was larger in the 20% Cases than in the 10% Cases. The GT units compensated for the deviations in generation caused by the forecast errors because they were the most flexible units and capable of accommodating the net load variability, as was also observed in the results in Section 5.3.1. These flexible units were further utilized to accommodate the deviations from wind forecasts. Less flexible units, such as STc units, ran less because they did not have the capability to accommodate fluctuations in the net load. CC units, which are less flexible than GT units but more flexible than STc units, also started less. Due to their flexibility in operations, however, and perhaps their ability to provide spinning reserves, CC units maintained their capacity factors while up.
Table 5.3.4.2-1: Number of starts by unit type for 20% Cases

Unit Type Spring 2004 Fall 2005 GT Starts Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 Fall 2005 CC Starts Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 Fall 2005 STc Starts Fall 2006 Average Case Real/Real FR04/Real 121 109 73 108 84 125 93 114 7 8 14 5 23 19 15 11 68 66 82 56 68 68 73 63
DA/Real 118 108 124 117 7 5 20 11 64 56 68 63
Final Report
Page 5-94
Table 5.3.4.2-2: Capacity factors while up by unit type for 20% Cases
Unit Type Spring 2004 GT CF Fall 2005 While Up Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 CC CF Fall 2005 While Up Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 STc CF Fall 2005 While Up Fall 2006 Average Case Real/Real FR04/Real 9% 9% 5% 12% 7% 7% 7% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 17% 15% 11% 10% 50% 49% 49% 44% 60% 60% 53% 51%
DA/Real 11% 12% 7% 10% 8% 7% 15% 10% 49% 44% 60% 51%
Table 5.3.4.2-3: Number of starts by unit type for 10% Cases

Unit Type Spring 2004 Fall 2005 GT Starts Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 Fall 2005 CC Starts Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 Fall 2005 STc Starts Fall 2006 Average Case Real/Real FR04/Real 121 109 73 102 84 125 93 112 7 8 14 13 23 19 15 13 68 66 82 72 68 68 73 69
DA/Real 118 83 124 108 7 14 20 14 64 76 68 69
Table 5.3.4.2-4: Capacity factors while up by unit type for 10% Cases
Unit Type Spring 2004 GT CF Fall 2005 While Up Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 CC CF Fall 2005 While Up Fall 2006 Average Spring 2004 STc CF Fall 2005 While Up Fall 2006 Average Case Real/Real FR04/Real 9% 9% 9% 11% 7% 7% 8% 9% 8% 8% 11% 11% 17% 15% 12% 11% 50% 49% 57% 55% 60% 60% 56% 55%
DA/Real 11% 11% 7% 10% 8% 11% 15% 11% 49% 57% 60% 55%
Final Report
Page 5-95
5.3.4.3
Results Wind Curtailment
There were more curtailments in the 20% Cases than in the 10% Cases, consistent with the results based on the perfect foresight assumption reported in Section 5.3.3. The spring 2004 Cases showed more curtailment (approximately 1.5 to 2 times more) than the fall Cases (fall 2005 and fall 2006), but this was not observed in the 12-month GE MAPS runs presented in Section 5.3.1 through Section 5.3.3. Analysis of wind curtailments revealed a clear pattern between the level and direction of the forecast error and wind curtailment: in the event of under-prediction (less wind was forecasted than realized) the frequency of curtailment increased significantly and the level of curtailment increased sharply with the magnitude of the under-prediction; in the event of over-prediction (more wind was forecasted than realized) the curtailment was less drastic and the level of curtailment declined with the level of over-prediction.
This pattern was distinctly observed for all cases summarized graphically in Figure 5.3.4.3-1, as well as in Figure 5.3.4.3-2 through Figure 5.3.4.3-7. For under-predictions, the % of forecast error term becomes positive (as forecast / real < 1 and therefore 1 forecast /real > 1), and for over-predictions, this term is negative. These figures show a similar trend a sharp increase in the level of wind curtailment with an increase in the level of under-prediction of wind availability and a relatively modest decline in the level of wind curtailment with the increase in the magnitude of wind over-prediction. On average, the occurrence of over- and under-predictions appeared to be balanced across cases considered, as shown in Table 5.3.4.3-1. Corresponding average quantities of wind curtailments are shown in Table 5.3.4.32.
Final Report
Page 5-96
Forecast and Wind Curtailment - All 20% Cases

3,500 3,000
Curtailment-20%-DA Curtailment-20%-4HR
MW of Wind Curtailed
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 -1000%
-800%
-600%
-400%
-200%
0%
200%
% of Forecast Error (1 - Forecast / Real)
Figure 5.3.4.3-1: Forecast direction and wind curtailment for all 20% Cases
Table 5.3.4.3-1: Direction of forecast errors for 20% Cases
Count of Forecasts By Case Spring2004 Fall2005 Fall2006 Average
Day-ahead Forecast Error 4-hour-ahead Forecast Error Negative Positive Total Negative Positive Total 95 73 168 92 76 168 54 114 168 60 108 168 98 70 168 97 71 168 82 86 168 83 85 168
Table 5.3.4.3-2: Forecast direction and wind curtailment for all 20% Cases
Average Curtailment By Case (MW) Spring2004 Fall2005 Fall2006
Day-ahead Forecast Error Negative Positive Average 67 580 290 32 274 197 42 291 146
4-hour-ahead Forecast Error Negative Positive Average 73 494 263 43 260 182 48 274 144
Final Report
Page 5-97
4-hour-ahead Forecast and Wind Curtailment - Spring 2004 Case

1,500
1,300
1,100
900
700
500
300
100
-100 -400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
Figure 5.3.4.3-2: 4-hour-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Spring 2004 20% Case
Day-ahead Forecast and Wind Curtailment - Spring 2004 Case

1,500
1,300
1,100
900
700
500
300
100
-100 -400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
Figure 5.3.4.3-3: Day-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Spring 2004 20% Case
Final Report
Page 5-98
4-hour-ahead Forecast and Wind Curtailment - Fall 2005 Case

1,300
1,100
900
700
500
300
100
-100 -400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
Figure 5.3.4.3-4: 4-hour-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2005 20% Case
Day-ahead Forecast and Wind Curtailment - Fall 2005 Case

1,300
1,100
900
700
500
300
100
-100 -400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
Figure 5.3.4.3-5: Day-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2005 20% Case
Final Report
Page 5-99
4-hour-ahead Forecast and Wind Curtailment - Fall 2006 Case

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 -400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
Figure 5.3.4.3-6: 4-hour-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2006 20% Case
Day-ahead Forecast and Wind Curtailment - Fall 2006 Case

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 -400%
-350%
-300%
-250%
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
Figure 5.3.4.3-7: Day-ahead forecast direction and wind curtailment for Fall 2006 20% Case
Final Report
Page 5-100
The explanation for the observed trend lies in the commitment of non-wind units. In the event of wind under-prediction, more non-wind units, such as the traditional fossil fuel-burning units, are committed. Then in real time, these non-wind units can only ramp down to their minimum generation level, and thus leave less room for wind generation, leading to more curtailments of wind. On the other hand, in the event of wind over-prediction, fewer non-wind units are committed. Then in real time, absent transmission constraints, most of the wind generation is taken and curtailments are unlikely. In extreme cases, however, commitment shortage of non-wind units could lead to reliability issues. It is important to note that, in general, reducing the magnitude in the forecast error should reduce wind curtailments, as illustrated in Figure 5.3.4.3-8, which depicts the average functional relationship between the size and direction of the forecast error and the range and average levels of the corresponding wind curtailments. In this figure, the forecast error range is assumed to be symmetric and is shown by the orange double-sided arrow and the blue double-sided arrow (or the width of the orange and blue dotted boxes). The blue double-sided arrow is approximately one third the length of the orange double-sided arrow, indicating that the forecast accuracy increased by three times. The corresponding range of curtailment shown (the height of the orange and blue dotted boxes) shows that the drop in curtailment range is larger in magnitude (to about one sixth). From this figure it becomes particularly clear that improving the quality of the wind availability forecast would benefit wind generators by reducing curtailments.
Final Report
Page 5-101
Curtailments
Range and average curtailments due to larger forecast error
Range and average curtailments due to smaller forecast error
over-predictions under-predictions
Figure 5.3.4.3-8: Wind curtailment as a function of the forecast error
The results observed in this analysis suggest that for the 20% Case, forecast error plays an important role both for the operations of the non-wind (especially peaking units) and wind generators. Using a more accurate wind forecast would reduce the reliance on peaking units as flexible resources and reduce the level of wind curtailments. Observing these results, CRA recommends that improvements in the commitment procedure, such as the introduction of rolling commitment, be implemented along with improvements in the forecasting of wind, which the commitment relies upon. Section 3 shows that the wind forecast accuracy drops significantly after four hours. Therefore the inclusion of intra-day commitment, such as 4-hour-ahead and perhaps one of a shorter timeframe, should be considered.
Final Report
Page 5-102
5.4
SUB-HOUR TIMEFRAME: WIND INTEGRATION IMPACTS ON GENERATION DISPATCH AND PROVISION OF ANCILLARY SERVICES
Operations planning in general and unit commitment in particular are typically performed using a granularity of one hour. This is the same granularity employed in the analysis described in Section 5.3. Variations in load and available wind power occur continuously, however, requiring the re-dispatch of online units in the intra-hour balancing markets. To analyze the impacts of these intra-hour variations, CRA performed 10-minute simulations for Monday, November 1, 2010, based on the profiles from 2006 (Figure 5.3.4.1-1 through Figure 5.3.4-3). This day was chosen because it had a low minimum net load, high wind output, high forecast error and high net load ramps. Each simulation was performed in PowerWorld Simulator by solving one optimal power flow (OPF) for each 10-minute interval in the day, with the unit commitment taken from the production simulation run in Section 5.3.4. The simulation procedure and the input assumptions are detailed in Section 7.7 and Appendix G. Because the focus is on the ability of the SPP system to accommodate the intra-hourly wind variability, the main metrics used in presenting results are curtailed wind power and energy. The remainder of this section discusses the findings of the 10-minute simulations, starting with the most stringent wind penetration level, 20% Case, and concluding the analysis with the less stringent 10% Case.
5.4.1. 20% Case

Three benchmark scenarios, 1, 2 and 3, were simulated for comparison with the actual scenarios. These scenarios, summarized in Table 5.4.1-1, assume perfect foresight of wind output and have different assumptions on the enforcement of reserve requirements and on transmission congestion. The results of the benchmark scenarios are used to explain the impacts of forecast errors, reserve requirements and transmission congestion on the ability of the SPP system to accommodate high levels of wind output in the 20% Case.
Table 5.4.1-1: Scenarios analyzed for the 20% Case intra-hour simulations
Scenario Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 Benchmark 3 4-hour-ahead Day-ahead
Wind forecast for unit commitment Perfect foresight Perfect foresight Perfect foresight 4-hour-ahead Day-ahead
Reserve requirements No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Transmission congestion No No Yes Yes Yes
Final Report
Page 5-103
5.4.1.1
Impacts of Minimum-Generation Constraints
Benchmark scenario 1 assumes perfect foresight of wind output for unit commitment, no transmission congestion and no reserve requirements. This scenario serves as a reference to explain the cause for the possible inability of the SPP system to handle all the available wind power under certain conditions. Figure 5.4.1.1-1 shows the SPP-wide profiles for the nonwind online capacity and the minimum generating capacity of the online units, the load and the net load plus net exports, available and dispatched wind, and net exports.
Figure 5.4.1.1-1: Intra-hour profiles with perfect foresight, no transmission congestion, and no reserve requirements for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case
The day begins with decreasing load and increasing available wind power, resulting in a rapid decrease in net load. At 1:10 am, the minimum generation equals load + net exports available wind power. Given the load increase later in the day and the minimum down time constraints, the unit commitment algorithm maintains the thermal units online, in spite of wind power having a lower marginal cost. This results in a) the online thermal units working at their minimum capacity until 6 am, and b) wind power being curtailed for the same period. Note that the export gradually increases from 1 - 6 am, reducing the wind power curtailments. The shaded area indicates the total curtailed wind energy during the day (7.2 GWh out of 230 available GWh, about 3%). From 6 am onward, the load increments eliminate the minimum generation issues and there are no more wind curtailments. Wind curtailments in this reference case are exclusively due to minimum-generation constraints of SPPs thermal resources and to the unit commitment
Final Report
Page 5-104
algorithm employed by MAPS. There are a few potential options for reducing these curtailments: increase the flexibility of SPPs resource mix, manage load so as to increase it when there is excess available wind power (load shifts), increase the storage capability, increase the export capability, and enlarge SPPs geographic footprint.
5.4.1.2
Impacts of Reserve Requirements
Benchmark scenario 2 also assumes perfect foresight and no transmission congestion. In this scenario, however, reserve requirements are enforced. This case shows the impacts of reserve requirements on the SPP systems ability to accommodate the high available wind levels under analysis. Figure 5.4.1.2-1 shows the profiles of the non-wind online capacity and the minimum generating capacity of the online units, the load and the net load plus exports, available and dispatched wind, and net exports. As a reference, the figure also displays the wind curtailments without reserve requirements from the previous figure.
Figure 5.4.1.2-1: Intra-hour profiles with perfect foresight and no transmission congestion with reserve requirements enforced for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case
The fluctuations in the profiles for online non-wind capacity and minimum generation are due to the commitment and de-commitment of quick-start units by PowerWorld Simulator. Due to the reserve requirements, the unit commitment changes, increasing the number of committed units. As a result, the total minimum generation of the online units increases. Also, due to the regulation down requirement, all units providing regulation down must be dispatched above
Final Report
Page 5-105
their minimum generation level by the amount of regulation down provided. Thus, the effective minimum generation increases. This scenario results in a 67% increase in wind curtailments above the case without reserve requirements: 12 GWh with reserve requirements versus 7.2 GWh without reserve requirements. The increase in wind curtailments is exclusively due to reserve requirements. To limit the increase in curtailments, a potential remedy in addition to those mentioned in the previous section would be to manage load so that it can provide reserve services and enable wind plants to provide reserves, especially regulation down in high wind conditions.
5.4.1.3
Impacts of Transmission Congestion
The impacts of transmission congestion are analyzed by comparing the perfect foresight benchmark scenario 3 with transmission congestion included and with reserve requirements enforced to the previous benchmark scenarios. Figure 5.4.1.3-1 shows that, until 6 am, the wind curtailments in this case are almost identical to the curtailments obtained without modeling transmission congestion but with reserve requirements i.e., transmission congestion did not play a role in the early morning curtailments. With the morning load ramp, overall system congestion increases, as shown by the normalized hourly congestion curve. After 6 am, when wind curtailment ended in the previous cases, wind power continues to be curtailed due to transmission congestion. The total curtailed wind energy for this case is 13.4 GWh, an increase of 11% with respect to the case without transmission congestion modeled. Thus, transmission congestion accounts for only 10% of the wind power curtailments in this day.
Figure 5.4.1.3-1: Wind power dispatch with perfect foresight, compared to the case with no transmission congestion for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case
Final Report
Page 5-106
The curtailments between 6 and 9 am are performed on the Wichita, Spearville and Hitchland cluster wind plants (see Section 3.1), with curtailments of 20, 10 and 4% of the available wind energy between 6 and 9 am, respectively. For these hours, the following flowgates bind at least for one 10-minute period: NF7, NF22, NF206, NF211, NF230, NF251, ESSIDAMADXFR, CRAASHVALLYD, and SPSSPPTIES (see Section 4.7 and Appendix E for the definition of these constraints). If the unit commitment computed in the hourly production simulation is maintained, rather than re-committing fast-start units, the wind curtailments further increase by 26% to 16.9 GWh (Figure 5.4.1.3-2). Thus, it is important to account for the intra-hourly impacts by recommitting fast-start units that can be used to relieve a) system-wide minimum generation constraints (by de-committing units), and b) transmission congestion due to intra-hourly wind variations.
Figure 5.4.1.3-2: Wind power dispatch with perfect foresight and fixed hourly unit commitment, compared to the case with updated intra-hourly commitment for fast-start units; Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case
Final Report
Page 5-107
5.4.1.4
Impacts of Forecasting Errors
In actual operations, the unit commitment for most units is determined without perfect foresight of uncertain variables, such as wind power. Figure 5.4.1.4-1 shows the 10-minute wind profile compared to its hourly average and the 4-hour-ahead and day-ahead forecasts. The deviations for this day are described in Table 5.4.1.4-1. To analyze the impact of wind forecast errors on wind curtailments, the analysis of the previous sections was repeated, but in this case starting with the unit commitments obtained from wind forecasts rather than hourly averaged wind realizations.
Figure 5.4.1.4-1: Wind forecasts and available wind power for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case
Table 5.4.1.4-1: 10-minute deviations from hourly wind averages and wind forecasts for the 20% Case for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), in MW
Hourly Profile Hourly Average Realization 4-Hour-Ahead Forecast Day-Ahead-Forecast
Mean 0 884 1,395
Maximum 636 2,958 3,178
Minimum -687 -1,071 -723
Std Dev 204 917 921
Final Report
Page 5-108
For the day under analysis, the wind dispatch for the unit commitments obtained with dayahead and 4-hour-ahead wind forecasts is remarkably similar to that obtained using the perfect foresight unit commitment for the early morning hours (Figure 5.4.1.4-2), in spite of the high forecast errors. Thus, when the net load is at low values and the wind forecasts are below the realized wind power, forecast errors have little effect on wind curtailments. This is because the decision with perfect foresight is to curtail wind (i.e., reduce the dispatch), as was seen in the previous sections (Figure 5.4.1.1-1, Figure 5.4.1.2-1, and Figure 5.4.1.3-1). In higher net load conditions, such as for November 1 after 6 am, the impacts of the forecasting errors can be more evident, because the optimal decision with perfect foresight was to not curtail, or curtail little wind power. The result is not curtailments of wind power, however, since the recommitment of fast-start units covers for the forecast error, albeit with a cost that is not evaluated in this study.
Figure 5.4.1.4-2: Wind power dispatch with commitment performed using day-ahead and 4-hourahead wind forecasts, compared to the case with perfect foresight for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 20% Case
Final Report
Page 5-109
The curtailed wind energy quantities for the 4-hour-ahead and day-ahead unit commitment are 13.5 GWh and 13.9 GWh, respectively, both slight increases from the 13.4 GWh with perfect foresight. Given the high oscillations at around 1:30 am, and also the increased wind curtailments with fixed commitment in Figure 5.4.1.3-2, the small increase in curtailed wind energy implies that the unit commitment played a larger role than did low forecast error in reducing wind curtailments.
5.4.2. 10% Case

The wind energy curtailments for November 1 in the 10% wind penetration scenario amount to 1.3 GWh, or 1.2% of the available wind energy. The curtailments are low compared to the curtailments with the 20% Case, in part because there are no wind curtailments due to minimum capacity issues, since the net load is much higher in the 10% Case than in the 20% Case. The majority of the wind energy curtailments (84%) are due to transmission constraints, with a minor portion (16%) attributed to reserve requirements (Figure 5.4.2-1). Note that the contributions are almost opposite to those in the 20% scenario. This is due to fewer transmission reinforcements in the 10% as compared to the 20% scenario, as well as to significantly less available wind power, which in turn leads to more available thermal units capable of providing reserve services. The reserve requirements only increase the wind curtailments between 2 am and 8 am, while transmission congestion plays a significant role between 3 am and 3 pm. Eight transmission constraints bound during at least one interval between 3 am and 3 pm: NF1, NF2, NF22, CREKILWICWOO, CROLATTENLEB, GGS, SPSSPPTIES and STJMIDFAIXFR (see Section 4.7 and Appendix E for the definition of these constraints). Note that, with the exception of NF22 and SPSSPPTIES, all other constraints are different than those binding for the 20% Case, due to the changed flow patterns. The wind forecast errors have no significant impact on the wind energy curtailments for this day. This is consistent with the findings for the 20% Case, and with the fact that the 10% Case has wind profiles that are close to half of the corresponding 20% Case wind profiles.
Final Report
Page 5-110
Figure 5.4.2-1: Wind power dispatch with perfect foresight with and without reserve requirements, compared to the available wind power for Nov 1, 2010 (based on 2006), 10% Case
Final Report
Page 5-111
6.
IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP MARKETS
Section 3 through Section 5 analyzed the technical impacts of integrating high levels of wind into SPP. The observations made through the analyses are translated to implications for the SPP markets in this section. The market implications, along with wind integration policies implemented in other markets, lead to policy recommendations for SPP.1 Section 6.1 discusses the four major implications to the market, as SPP moves towards a Day 2 Market under a single BA (as was assumed for this study). First, the Day 2 Market process will lead to a different unit commitment and dispatch, as compared to what is currently observed, even without the high penetration of wind and additional transmission. Second, being a single BA would greatly help the integration of wind because this allows SPP to leverage load and generating resource diversity and reduce the various impacts of high wind penetration. Third, higher penetration of wind does not guarantee a lower market clearing price for energy. Fourth, errors in the net load forecast will increase for higher wind penetration levels, as observed in Section 5. The market implications of the net load forecasting error issue are addressed in Section 6.2. The recommendations are to implement an intra-day commitment and consider load following reserves, which do not currently exist. These market implications, combined with the wind integration policies of other markets discussed in Section 6.3 and detailed in Appendix C, lead to the operational and policy recommendations, as summarized in Section 6.4.
6.1.
IMPLICATIONS OF WIND INTEGRATION FOR SPP DAY 2 MARKET DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
6.1.1. SPP and the Day 2 Market

The base assumption for this study was that SPP is operated under a single BA with cooptimized energy and ancillary services. As indicated in Section 5, the Base Case results were expected to differ from current conditions, in which SPP operates under multiple BAs. For example, a BA area that may currently be winter peaking will no longer be so because when SPP becomes a single BA, SPP as a whole becomes summer peaking. Therefore the commitment and dispatch of units may become quite different from that seen in current operations. Figure 6.1.1-1 through Figure 6.1.1-3 illustrate the SPP generation (supply) stack assuming a gas price of $6/MMBtu and a coal price of $2/MMBtu. Nominal capacity, heat rates, variable operation and maintenance (VOM), and outage rates were taken from the unit data provided
1 Many of these recommendations are similar to the NERC recommendations for integrating variable generation.[54]
Final Report
Page 6-1
by SPP. Other costs, such as environmental costs, were ignored for simplicity. The blue stack represents nominal capacity and the pink stack represents nominal capacity derated by outage rates. For example, if a 200 MW unit had a forced outage rate of 5% and planned maintenance outage rate of 7%, the unit would be derated by 12% to 176 MW. The red vertical line represents the 2010 SPP summer peak load forecast of 48,000 MW and the light blue vertical line represents the 2010 SPP winter peak load forecast of 35,400 MW.2 The green vertical line is the minimum load of 18,000 MW for 2010 SPP. Figure 6.1.1-1 is the SPP supply stack with 1,000 MW of wind generation, where the marginal cost of wind is assumed to be $1/MWh. This figure roughly represents the Base Case, where approximately 3,000 MW of wind is installed (assuming an average 35% capacity factor, 3,000 MW of installed wind would generate 1,000 MW). Figure 6.1.1-2 is the supply stack with 2,500 MW of wind generation. This figure roughly represents the 10% Case, where nearly 7,000 MW of wind is installed (assuming an average 35% capacity factor, 7,000 MW of installed wind would generate 2,500 MW). Figure 6.1.1-3 is the supply stack with 5,000 MW of wind generation. This figure roughly represents the 20% Case, where nearly 14,000 MW of wind is installed (assuming an average 35% capacity factor, 14,000 MW of installed wind would generate 5,000 MW). The supply stacks show three plateaus. The first is where the marginal cost is around $25/MWh (approximately 5,000 MW to 27,000 MW of nominal capacity in Figure 6.1.1-1), representing coal units. The second is where the marginal cost is slightly lower than $50/MWh (approximately 27,000 MW to 38,000 MW of nominal capacity in Figure 6.1.1-1), representing CC units. The remainder, where the marginal cost grows exponentially from $50/MWh upwards (approximately 38,000 MW to 57,000 MW of nominal capacity in Figure 6.1.1-1), represents peaking units (simple cycle gas turbines and steam gas/oil). As these figures show, when SPP operates as a single BA, even with the current wind penetration level (represented by the Base Case), nearly one third to a half of the coal units will not be needed to supply power in minimum load hours. Therefore the introduction of wind into this market will require many coal units to cycle. This fact is further aggravated by the fact that wind generates more during off-peak hours when the load is lower. As a result, the coal units will cycle, as observed in the analysis results discussed in Section 5. When SPP operates as a single BA, CC plants become the marginal generators during winter peak hours. As results discussed in Section 3 indicate, however, wind generation can and will vary. This requires peaking units with more operational flexibility to fill up the gap caused by the wind fluctuation and leads to less generation by CC plants. The drop in the output of coal and CC units caused by additional wind is a concern, as these unit types are the main providers of ancillary services, such as spinning reserves and
2 Fall and spring peak loads are close to winter peak load, so are not shown.
Final Report
Page 6-2
regulation, especially for a thermal-dominated system like SPP. Therefore securing the ancillary service needs either by a market mechanism (getting the price signal right) for these ancillary services, or by a governing mechanism, such as by a coordinated planning of outages, may become necessary.3
SPP Supply Stack

300
Wind Generation = 1,000MW

250 Marginal Cost ($/MWh)
200
150
100
50
0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Load (MW)
Full Capacity
Derate Capacity
Summer Peak (2010)
Winter Peak (2010)
Min (2010)
Figure 6.1.1-1: SPP generation stack with 1,000 MW of wind
3 A third mechanism would be administrative, i.e., reliability must-run contracts, but this may not be an optimal solution.
Final Report
Page 6-3
SPP Supply Stack

300

200
150
100
50
0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Load (MW)
Full Capacity
Derate Capacity
Summer Peak (2010)
Winter Peak (2010)
Min (2010)
SPP Supply Stack

300

200
150
100
50
0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Load (MW)
Full Capacity
Derate Capacity
Summer Peak (2010)
Winter Peak (2010)
Min (2010)
Final Report
Page 6-4
6.1.2. Benefits of Being a Single Balancing Authority

There are clear benefits of having a larger BA footprint. Figure 6.1.2-1 illustrates the standard deviation of hourly wind generation increments. While not representing the multiple BAs that currently exist in SPP, this figure shows the standard deviation by the ten wind clusters for the 40% Case. It also shows the standard deviation when all wind units are aggregated into one, rather than by clusters. Finally it shows the sum of the deviations for all clusters.
Figure 6.1.2-1: Standard deviation of hourly wind generation increments
The standard deviation of hourly wind increments measures wind variability, and consequently indicates the amount of flexible non-wind resources needed to accommodate the wind variability. As Figure 6.1.2-1 shows, the standard deviation drops by 40% from 1,700 MW to 1,100 MW when the ten separate clusters are aggregated. While clusters do not accurately represent current BAs, this demonstrates the benefit of SPP operating under a single balancing market than as multiple BAs, in terms of a larger area with increased diversity and resources with which to balance variable wind resources.
Final Report
Page 6-5
6.1.3. Change in Market Clearing Price

Another implication of the impact of wind for the Day 2 market is the change in market clearing price. Under the current market rules, the energy market clearing price is determined by the marginal unit. Table 6.1.3-1 and Table 6.1.3-2 show the marginal unit type when the marginal unit was in SPP from the summer season production simulation (based on three years profiles) performed in Section 5.2. Table 6.1.3-1 shows the number of hours when a unit type was the marginal unit, and Table 6.1.3-2 shows the ratios of marginal hours corresponding to the counts of Table 6.1.3-1. Note that these results are for the 3,024 hours simulated as summer. The fact that there is a total of approximately 15,000 marginal unithours for the simulated period units means that on average there were at least five marginal units within SPP. This was caused by price separation due to transmission congestion. Thus, Table 6.1.3-1 shows that there is more price separation within SPP in the 20% Case than in the other two cases.
Table 6.1.3-1: Count of marginal hours by unit type

Case Profile CC GT STc STgo Total Base Case 2005 2006 Average 4,100 4,006 3,885 4,792 4,901 4,709 3,670 3,754 3,783 2,156 2,328 2,141 14,718 14,989 14,518 10% Case 2005 2006 Average 2,768 2,768 2,689 4,428 4,098 4,174 4,306 4,234 4,424 1,993 2,201 1,997 13,495 13,301 13,284 20% Case 2005 2006 Average 5,517 5,351 5,073 4,913 4,700 4,638 5,508 5,101 5,445 2,443 2,592 2,385 18,381 17,744 17,541
2004 3,550 4,434 3,924 1,939 13,847
2004 2,531 3,996 4,732 1,798 13,057
2004 4,350 4,301 5,726 2,121 16,498
Table 6.1.3-2: Ratio of marginal hours by unit type

Case Profile CC GT STc STgo Total Base Case 2005 2006 Average 28% 27% 27% 33% 33% 32% 25% 25% 26% 15% 16% 15% 100% 100% 100% 10% Case 2005 2006 Average 21% 21% 20% 33% 31% 31% 32% 32% 33% 15% 17% 15% 100% 100% 100% 20% Case 2005 2006 Average 30% 30% 29% 27% 26% 26% 30% 29% 31% 13% 15% 14% 100% 100% 100%
2004 26% 32% 28% 14% 100%
2004 19% 31% 36% 14% 100%
2004 26% 26% 35% 13% 100%
As these tables illustrate, the higher penetration of wind and the transmission topology change necessary to accommodate the wind additions affect which type of unit is on the marginal. For example, the ratio of marginal hours when CC were marginal decreases to around 20% in the 10% Case from around 27% in the Base Case. It increases to around 29%, however, in the 20% Case. This is most likely due to the transmission upgrades, as discussed in Section 5.3.1.2. The average ratio of marginal hours for coal units increases from 26% in the Base Case to 33% in the 10% Case, but drops to 31% in the 20% Case.
Final Report
Page 6-6
The observations from the marginal units illustrate that higher wind penetration does not necessarily lead to lower marginal prices and result in a lower cost of energy for consumers, because the market clearing price is determined by the marginal units, not by infra-marginal units like wind units. For example, if the 20% Case is compared to the 10% Case, the portion of GT on the margin in the 20% Case decreases, tending to reduce price; at the same time, the portion of coal on the margin in the 20% Case decreases, tending to increase price. These impacts tend to be offsetting. Table 6.1.3-3 shows a coarse calculation of the market clearing prices for hours when a marginal unit is within SPP. Table 6.1.3-4 shows the assumptions (heat rate and fuel price by unit type) and the calculated marginal cost by unit, ignoring VOM and environmental costs. While the market clearing price does drop, it is far less than one would expect for a 20% wind penetration. It is important to note that the total cost of generation, which drops significantly with higher penetration levels of wind, is not always reflected in the market clearing price. Thus, reducing the total cost of generation without significantly reducing the market clearing price could lead to a larger producer surplus with limited impact on consumers. For vertically integrated utilities, an increase in producer surplus may ultimately be returned to the consumers through their regulated tariffs.4
Table 6.1.3-3: Market clearing price using assumptions from Table 6.1.3-4
Case Price
Base Case $52.41
10% Case $50.42
20% Case $49.14
Table 6.1.3-4: Fuel price and heat rate assumptions
Type CC GT STc STgo
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 7,500 12,000 10,000 10,000
Fuel Cost ($/MMBtu) 6 6 2 8
Cost ($/MWh) 45 72 20 80
4 This is utility-specific, and for a given utility depends on the particular retail rate treatment approved by the relevant state regulatory body. For merchant generators, whose prevalence in SPP is expected to grow in the future, the disposition of increases in producer surplus would depend on whether the generator was under contract to a load serving entity, and if so, on the contract structure.
Final Report
Page 6-7
6.1.4. Increase in Net Load Forecast Error

As discussed in Section 5.2, the introduction of higher penetration levels of wind leads to a larger deviation between the forecast and actual net load. The increased net load forecast error leads to reliability, operations and economic issues. If the net load forecast errs on the positive side (net load forecast being higher than the actual) the shortage of non-wind generation units that are committed could lead to reliability and operations issues. On the other hand, if net load forecasts err on the negative side, the minimum generation of the committed non-wind generation units could lead to curtailment of wind in real time, suboptimal dispatch, or increased uplift costs, all of which have economic repercussions. The implications of the direction and magnitude of the net load forecast error for the market are addressed in the next section.
6.2.
PROPOSAL FOR ADDRESSING WIND AND LOAD FORECAST ERRORS
Because net load forecast error can significantly impact unit commitment, it should be addressed in some fashion. There are two ways to deal with net load forecast error: improving the forecasts, and improving the commitment process. In other words, if a flexible commitment that can cope with forecast errors is feasible, the forecast errors may require less attention. Section 5.3.4 and Section 5.4 discussed the impacts of forecast errors on unit commitment and economic dispatch on selected days under stressed conditions. The analysis of the stressed days was performed without special consideration for forecast errors in the unit commitment timeframe. It was found that forecasts errors do not have a significant impact on the ability of the SPP system to accommodate wind penetration levels of 10% and 20%, given the proposed transmission expansions. The analysis also determined that forecasts errors increase the number of starts and the use of more expensive generation while reducing the use of less expensive units. Hence, while explicitly addressing forecast errors may not be strictly required to attain high wind penetration levels, it may be highly beneficial for economic and operational reasons. This conclusion, however, may not be applicable if adequate transmission is not built, as the lack of transmission could lead to pockets where sufficient generation with operational flexibility does not exist. Under such circumstances, not addressing forecast errors becomes a reliability issue, for which the expedient (albeit undesirable) remedy is to curtail wind plant output. This is important for future planning because as the load grows and the excess non-wind generation decreases while wind penetration level increases, curtailment of wind could become increasingly necessary, for lack of adequate transmission. The combination of the following three approaches is suggested for addressing net load forecast errors: Comprehensive and consistent wind and load forecasts for operations Enforcement of load following reserve requirements
Final Report
Page 6-8
Stochastic methods for unit commitment
With adequate transmission, the design of a robust approach to address forecast errors is an economic decision, best made using a cost benefit analysis of the different options. If transmission upgrades are not performed in a timely manner, the proposed approaches would become even more valuable, and would require a detailed incorporation of locational issues. The proposed approaches are detailed next.
6.2.1. Comprehensive and Consistent Wind and Load Forecasts for Operations
To operate the SPP system under high levels of resource and load uncertainty such as those found for the 10% and 20% Cases in a reliable and effective manner, SPP operators must be equipped with a number of forecasts besides the existing short-term and medium-term load forecasts. These forecasts include: Forecasts for available wind power for each wind plant, Forecasts for complex, difficult operational conditions, such as high wind ramps, and Forecasts for events that could lead to extreme wind forecasts errors, such as icing.
While the available power forecasts need to be done for each individual wind plant, forecasts for events such as ramps and icing could be performed by wind plant clusters, because these events would likely impact entire clusters of wind plants due to the high concentration of wind plants in certain areas. All forecasts used by an operator need to be consistent, i.e., wind forecasts for different wind plants for the same timeframe should give consistent indications, and load and wind forecasts for the same timeframe need to use consistent meteorological input data, and optimize consistent objective functions. To meet these consistency requirements, it is recommended that: Wind forecasts used in operations be centrally procured by SPP, due to the high correlations observed in Section 3.3 for wind plant outputs in the highest wind penetration clusters. This recommendation does not preclude individual stakeholders employing their own forecasts for their own purposes. Data requirement protocols be developed for wind plants, so that all wind plants provide consistent data to the central wind forecasters The current SPP load forecasting tools be adapted to enable consistent load and wind forecasts
Final Report
Page 6-9
To improve the forecast uncertainty of available wind output forecasts, multiple forecasts could be procured from different vendors and be combined into a single forecast using ensemble techniques. This approach has been shown to be effective, since it reduces forecasting bias and selects the best forecasts for different meteorological conditions. An economic evaluation of costs and benefits of reduced forecast errors is needed to determine the appropriate number of forecasts to be procured. Forecast timeframes should match the operations timeframe, and should be periodically updated, so that each operational decision can be based on the most current information. For example (assuming operations decisions are as described in Figure 6.2.2-1), wind forecasts should be updated once a day for day-ahead unit commitment, hourly for 4-hour-ahead commitment updates and every five minutes for the 10-minute-ahead balancing markets. The indication of forecast uncertainty is extremely important, sometimes even more important than the forecast values themselves. For example, in hours with high forecast uncertainties it may be beneficial to commit more flexible resources, while in other hours these units would be replaced by lower cost, less flexible units. Each forecast should be accompanied by a characterization of its uncertainty, using a number of metrics such as: Range of available wind for different probabilities (e.g., 50%, 80%, 95%, 99%) Probability of high ramps (e.g., > xx MW in 10 min) for different time intervals (e.g., between 2:00 3:00 am, 1:00 4:00 am) Representative sets of possible wind scenarios
Final Report
Page 6-10
6.2.2. Enforcement of Load-Following Reserve Requirements

Currently, SPP does not specify any requirements for load-following reserves. As wind penetration level increases, load-following reserves may become necessary to accommodate net load forecast deviations. Figure 6.2.2-1 illustrates the operational timeframe that CRA recommends, also shown in Figure 5.1-2. Unit commitment occurs day-ahead based on the day-ahead load and wind forecasts. Then, an intra-day commitment is performed on flexible units, based on an updated intra-day forecast. CRA suggests an intra-day commitment lead time of four hours because: 1. It gives enough time to re-commit several unit types, such as combined cycles and smaller gas or oil-fired steam turbines, and Forecast accuracy for both load and wind tends to drop as forecast lead times increase, as observed in Section 5.2.2.2.
2.
Figure 6.2.2-1: Operational timeframe for load following reserves
Final Report
Page 6-11
The actual dispatch that balances the load and generation will be performed on a 10-minuteahead forecast. The operational timeframe for load-following reserves fall in between the dispatch based on the 10-minute-ahead forecast and intra-day commitment based on the intra-day forecast. Figure 6.2.2-2 shows an example of the forecast deviation analyzed in Section 5.2.2.2. In the 40% Case, the forecast deviation in one half-hour has the potential to go up to 1,000 MW, as shown by the shorter arrow at T = 0.5. In four hours, this deviation can go up to 3,000 MW as shown by the longer arrow at T = 4. If a four hour intra-day commitment is implemented, any deviations after this time will be taken care by the intra-day commitment, so load-following reserves beyond the four hour timeframe is not needed. Thus the load-following reserves in this example may come from 30-minute reserve and a 4-hour reserve, which are both products that do not currently exist in the SPP ancillary service market. Various types of resources/products can serve as load-following reserves, and the value depends heavily on the needs anticipated. For example, the requirements for load-following reserves will depend heavily on the wind penetration level, as seen in Figure 6.2.2-2. At one extreme, if wind penetration were to remain at the current level, load-following reserves are not needed. A separate economic analysis is required to identify the appropriate product and timeframe.
Figure 6.2.2-2: Load-following reserves example
Final Report
Page 6-12
6.2.3. Stochastic Methods for Unit Commitment

Stochastic methods offer an opportunity to manage uncertainty more efficiently by selecting the most cost-effective capacity, the right amount of capacity at the right time, and reducing procurement of less-effective capacity or procurement when and where it is not needed. The method itself is not fundamentally different from traditional methods, as both methods procure excess capacity. In both stochastic and traditional methods, the forecasts are best guesses and the context in which either is used must anticipate deviations. The difference is that stochastic methods rely less on heuristics, such as historical experience and operator judgment. Unlike the traditional method where the focus was on the single scenario that would most likely occur, stochastic methods consider multiple scenarios. Figure 6.2.3-1 and Figure 6.2.3-2 are examples of the stochastic method.[51] In both figures, the solid line is the actual wind, the dotted lines are forecasts, and the area shaded in gray is the possible range of forecasts. Figure 6.2.3-1 shows a forecast with extreme events which impact reliability. Three scenarios are shown here: the high wind scenario, the low wind scenario, and the scenario with a high speed wind cut-off event which is identified with the red oval. Figure 6.2.3-2 shows a forecast with likely events that have significant impacts on operating costs. This forecast shows two scenarios; the 20% scenario and the 80% scenario.
high / low forecast high-wind cutout forecast Wind Power
Time
Figure 6.2.3-1: Scenarios for stochastic unit commitments: high wind cut-out example
Final Report
Page 6-13
20% - 80% forecast
Wind Power
Time
Figure 6.2.3-2: Scenarios for stochastic unit commitments: 20% - 80% forecast example
In either case, the goal is to help operators make decisions knowing the forecast uncertainty, illustrated by the gray areas in the figures. The decisions resulting from the stochastic method should be robust enough to handle most scenarios, while at the same time economically efficient to the extent robustness is not sacrificed. The scenarios to be considered depend on system characteristics and the goals (i.e., reliability and cost) but the following should provide a general guideline: Scenarios with probability of occurrence above a minimum threshold Scenarios with high impact (e.g., ramp events and high / low net load) Scenarios with significant impact on expected operating costs
6.3.
OVERVIEW OF BEST PRACTICES OF WIND INTEGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD
In both North America and Europe, electricity markets are undergoing large additions of wind energy onto the grid and are applying a range of strategies to reliably integrate this variable resource. It is instructive to review the methods used in these markets for the advantages and disadvantages each offer, keeping in mind the important structural differences between markets.
Final Report
Page 6-14
Seven broad practices emerge from a review of the experiences in other markets. (Where applicable, markets or regions that are particularly notable for attention to a specific practice are noted in parenthesis): 1. Efforts are underway to improve regional coordination and to enlarge geographic size of markets and BAs. (Europe, WECC) Increased reserve requirements are needed, particularly for major ramping events. (AESO, CAISO) Enhanced intra-day and intra-hour operational flexibility is helpful to manage variable wind conditions. (AESO, CAISO) Markets and BAs with high penetration of flexible resources, especially hydro, have a distinct advantage. (BPA, Denmark due to common market with Norwegian hydro)5 There is a trend toward centralized forecasting systems, to capture the benefits of data uniformity and integration of forecasts with unit commitment and dispatch decisions. (AESO, CAISO, ERCOT, NYISO, others) Forecasting within six hours of the operating period offers significant improvement in forecast accuracy. Markets benefit from a dedicated approach to wind management, including adaptation of system operations in order to process input from wind forecasts, ongoing review of operating procedures for continual process improvement, and dedicated control centers for wind management. (CAISO, Spain)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
European countries, especially Denmark, Germany and Spain, are leaders in wind energy development, spurred by strong political mandates and favorable economic incentives. The European approach has generally been to prioritize construction of wind plants, deferring the necessary transmission upgrades and operational changes to follow. This connect and manage approach, coupled with prioritized dispatch for wind, has resulted in rapid growth in wind penetration, while accepting that wind curtailment will sometimes be necessary for reliability reasons. In recent years, country-by-country and regional efforts in Europe are giving way to continent-wide coordination, as the European Union shows increased attention to climate change concerns and has set renewable energy targets for all member states. To support this further growth in wind, the EU has made market integration and new transmission interconnections between countries a priority, highlighted by the consolidation in 2009 of six regional Transmission System Operator (TSO) associations into the single European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E).
5 BPA does face fish protocols that impact the availability of hydro generation.
Final Report
Page 6-15
The European approach is not entirely compatible with North American markets, where economic-based dispatch is the standard (instead of the must-take requirements for wind common in Europe), and strict interconnection requirements, unsuited for the rush of wind project applications, have delayed construction of wind plants. As interconnection processes are streamlined and wind penetration has reached critical levels, market operators have undertaken major planning efforts and adapted operational protocols for the integration of wind. North American planning efforts are focused on the introduction of advanced wind forecasting tools into system operations, greater intra-day and intra-hour flexibility of unit commitment and dispatch procedures to take advantage of better forecasting of wind output closer to the time of operation, and revised cost allocations among market participants to account for the impact of the changing blend of generation sources. System operators are also considering expanded use of flexible generation resources, enlarged market footprints, and greater regional cooperation. ERCOT, California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) in the Pacific Northwest are notable for the large amounts of wind being added to their systems, as well as the strategies they are adopting to handle this change. Due to structural similarities to the SPP market and a devoted wind integration stakeholder process, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) offers a particularly instructive study to SPP. The AESO generation portfolio is composed of coal and gas units, in approximately equal parts, with a limited share of flexible hydro-electric resources. Furthermore, the large share of coal generation in AESO can exceed load at low demand periods, exacerbating the challenge of adding wind. AESO has undertaken a comprehensive stakeholder process to consider wind integration issues and offers a rich archive of meetings and studies on its website. AESOs 2007 discussion paper, Market and Operational Framework for Wind Integration (MOF), followed by the 2009 MOF Recommendation Paper, have served as roadmaps for AESO wind integration planning and have resulted in prioritized development of quality wind forecasting tools and a new load/supply following service to respond to major net load ramping events. More detailed discussions of wind integration practices in other markets can be found in Appendix C.
6.4.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPP
This study reviewed the operational and reliability impacts of integrating a large quantity of wind generation into the SPP system, along with integration practices of various markets. In general, increased operational flexibility in a larger BA footprint along with transmission upgrades are needed to accommodate wind. The following seven groups of policy recommendations are made as a result of the findings of this study. Each of these recommendations is detailed in the following sections:
Final Report
Page 6-16
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. -
Interconnection Requests Cluster method for reviewing interconnection requests should be further advanced. Transmission Voltage control means need to be considered. Regulation Requirements Adopt new tools and policies to implement regulation support. Wind Forecasting Implement dedicated wind forecasting system. Unit Commitment & Dispatch Adapt unit commitment practices to handle additional wind. Market Updates Adopt market rules to incentivize wind plants to follow market signals. Separate the pricing and provision of regulation up and regulation down services. Enlarge the geographic footprint of the SPP market. Proceed with initiative to co-optimize energy and ancillary services. Additional Recommendations Revise the reserve replenishing timeframe. Consider the integration of advanced storage technologies into the grid. Establish centralized outage control system.
6.4.1. Interconnection Requests

Cluster Method for Reviewing Interconnection Requests should be further Advanced
For analysis of interconnection requests, SPP has moved from reviewing individual projects to reviewing the projects at an aggregated cluster level. While CREZ and CA still use cluster methods, BPA, following an open season application period, performed a region-wide review and found it a better option. The movement to clustered reviews should be taken one step further. As SPP becomes a single BA, the reviews should be done for the entire SPP region,
Final Report
Page 6-17
rather than dividing the requests into clusters. Analysis should account for geographic diversity of wind resources, and utilize historic data to set up the power flows. One of the reasons for this recommendation is that correlation studies (Section 3.3) showed high correlations among nearby clusters. Therefore, interconnection studies should not be done on individual clusters, as these high correlation factors will be ignored. It is also recommended that transmission planning studies be reviewed on a regional basis as well. Nevertheless, some studies are still better performed on a local basis, such as the voltage issues that SPS is currently experiencing.
6.4.2. Transmission
Voltage Control Means Need to be Considered
The production simulation analysis performed in Section 5.3 showed that with the addition of high quantity of wind and the transmission upgrades to accommodate this wind, flow patterns will change drastically from what is observed under current operations. Another point to consider is that the wind sites are typically at remote locations and high voltage lines that are to some degree dedicated to wind deliverability are built to connect the remote wind sites to load centers. As the analysis in Section 5.2.2 shows, wind output is variable. A high ramp event can easily reduce the output of wind sites from a high (nearly 90%) capacity factor to a low one (nearly 10%) within a few hours. There is the chance of wind exceeding the cut-off point and should that happen, the output of wind sites generating at nearly full capacity will drop to zero within hours, if not minutes.6 These changes require the consideration of installing voltage control means, such as switchable reactors or FACTS devices, on high voltage lines to allow voltage control and prevent over-voltages under the low flow conditions that may occur when available wind power is low, or when wind ramps down at a steep pace. Another method may be to set a minimum flow limit on lines and monitor both the max and min flow limits for operation. In the long run, these steps could lead to dynamic ratings of the lines.
6.4.3. Regulation Requirements

Adopt New Tools and Policies to Implement Regulation Support
New tools and market policies can help manage the additional regulation needs of high wind. Various markets recognize this fact and for example, in the 2007 Market and Operational Framework, Alberta lists enhanced regulation reserves as one of the four top priorities. Specific recommendations SPP should consider include:
6 These events, experienced by various operators within SPP, have not been analyzed in the study.
Final Report
Page 6-18
A more frequent update of regulation requirements, such as daily, hourly, or even subhourly depending on the market rules. Similar to the approach ERCOT takes when calculating the regulation requirements, this will align the time period to determine regulation requirements with that for unit commitment. The daily update should consider the load and wind forecasts, as the analysis performed in Section 5.2.1 showed a large variation by season and forecast. Proceed with the initiative to reduce the balancing market clearing time from 15 minutes ahead to ten minutes ahead. As observed in the load following analysis in Section 5.2.2, a 10-minute dispatch will significantly decrease the need for additional ancillary services.
6.4.4. Wind Forecasting

Implement Dedicated Wind Forecasting System
Many markets have adopted a centralized wind forecast system and these markets include CAISO, ERCOT, NYISO, PJM, MISO, Spain and other European countries. Alberta is also planning on implementing a centralized wind forecast system. As Appendix C discusses, centralized forecasts have a number of advantages. SPP should adopt such a system. Because of the high correlation observed among the various wind sites, as studied in Section 3.3, a centralized uniform and consistent forecast would benefit SPP. To mitigate the drawbacks of centralized forecasting and reduce forecast errors, the system selected should employ multiple methods and vendors. Besides showing central tendency metrics, the forecasts should include a description of the forecast uncertainty. Finally, specific forecasts for difficult operational situations, such as high magnitude ramps, should be procured. The new forecasting system should then be used for unit commitment and reliability assessment. The first step toward establishing a centralized wind forecast is to identify the needs for data from the wind sites, and develop the criteria for forecasting.
6.4.5. Unit Commitment and Dispatch

Adapt Unit Commitment Practices to Handle Additional Wind
As discussed in Section 6.3, along with improved forecast supplemental unit commitment tools should be developed to improve flexibility in operations, including: Adopt rolling unit commitment schedules, potentially at day-ahead, intra-day, and shorter-term time periods.7 The study recommends four hours ahead for the intra-day
7 One of the assumptions was that the Day 2 Market would have a day-ahead commitment.
Final Report
Page 6-19
timeframe because (i), four hours gives enough time to re-commit most CC and many STgo, and (ii) as was observed in Section 3.2, and Section 5.2, both the auto-correlation of wind and forecast accuracy drop after four hours. Address forecast errors in unit commitment by aligning unit commitment methods with wind forecast methods. As discussed in Section 6.3.3, the implementation of stochastic algorithms that incorporate specific forecasts into unit commitment for major events such as net load ramping is recommended. CAISO is currently planning on a ramp forecasting tool. In ERCOT, monthly review of historical net load conditions to plan month-ahead non-spinning reserves supports adequate reserves procurement for high-ramping hours. Day-ahead wind forecasts are also used as an input into Replacement Reserve Service for anticipated congestion management.
As discussed in section 6.3.2, setting up new reserve requirements, such as the suggested load-following reserves, will be required in parallel with enhancing the unit commitment practice. Alberta is developing a new load/supply following service as an additional product. Albertas forthcoming centralized forecasting system will be integrated with its day-ahead reserve requirements including this new product.
6.4.6. Market Updates

Adopt Market Rules to Incentivize Wind Plants to Follow Market Signals
Currently SPP does not have a market rule that provides incentives to wind units to react to market signals. Without these incentives, requirements for maximum switchable MW output for wind plants, such as the Spanish requirement of 50 MW, may be needed. This requirement could be met by controllable switches that can disconnect sections of the wind plants, or by having individual turbine controls that can set the individual turbine output to zero within the needed operational timeframe.8 While most of the newer wind turbines (Type III and IV) typically would have this capability, some of the older types (Type I and II) may not.9 As the production simulation analysis performed in Section 5.3 shows, every wind site will experience partial curtailment in the course of a year even under normal conditions. Should
8 This is mainly for wind plants that are less than 20MW, as most of the larger plants that use Type III or Type IV wind turbines are already reactive. 9 Wind turbines are typically categorized as one of the four types: Type I is a conventional induction generator that operates at constant speed not having the ability to slip wind. Type II is a variable rotor resistance generator that can operate at variable speed. Types I and II cannot provide voltage regulation. Type III is a doubly-fed asynchronous generator that can operate at variable speed. Type IV is a full-converter unit (with conventional, induction, or permanent magnetic generators) that can operate at variable speed. Types III and IV have full pitch control and can provide both frequency control and voltage regulation.
Final Report
Page 6-20
curtailment needs arise for those without the capability of controlling incremental output, the curtailment will be done on larger aggregates of wind plants, rather than on a MW-by-MW needed basis. This can lead to reliability problems similar to a load or generation dump, which causes frequency deviations, and further could become a capacity deliverability issue. Therefore, should SPP lack policies that provide incentives to wind plants to react to market signals, having the capability to switch off only the needed amount should be required rather than voluntary. Having incentives for wind to respond to market signals has obvious advantages over the use of system operator-controlled switches. Furthermore, as the transmission analysis performed in Section 4 shows, dynamic voltage support from wind plants becomes increasingly important. While there is not yet a market for voltage support yet, rules that provide incentives for wind plants to provide reactive support should be considered. This may become critical as the wind penetration level increases and more conventional generators that are currently providing the support become displaced in the dispatch order by wind generators.
Separate the Pricing and Provision of Regulation-Up and Regulation-Down Services

As discussed in the regulation requirement analysis and intra-hour simulations, both in Section 5, the regulation up and down needs are not symmetric, and moreover, the needs vary by time of day. Splitting the prices and the provision of regulation up and down simplifies the operation on high wind and low load hours, where wind plants can efficiently provide regulation down and non-wind generation can provide regulation up at a low cost. ERCOT has already separated the day-ahead procurement of regulation up and regulation down reserves. Adequate pricing of regulation is also important from the reliability perspective. Currently most units have a planned maintenance outage during the spring and fall seasons, mostly because the load, and therefore the energy price, is low. With elevated wind penetration, however, there is a risk that the system may not have enough units to provide the regulation needs during these seasons with high outage rates. Sending a high price signal for regulation during these seasons may encourage shifting some of the outages to other seasons and therefore allowing the system operator to secure enough regulationproviding units.
Enlarge the Geographic Footprint of the SPP Market

Expanded market boundaries enable a larger area from which to balance variable wind resources. In other words, this recommendation is for SPP to explore the possibility of expanding its market and/or Consolidated BA to leverage load and generating resource diversity and lower the impact of high wind penetration. Having transmission ties with its neighbors Norway and Germany with expanded market participation was one of the reasons that Denmark was able to accommodate the extreme high (nearly 20%) level of wind. Similar movements are observed in other markets. Major market integration efforts are underway in Europe, including new transmission interconnections. In July 2009, ENTSO-E was established as the consolidation of the six
Final Report
Page 6-21
European TSO associations. (European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity). Within the U.S., a WECC-wide coordinating effort is underway, including withinhour transmission scheduling; BPA and CAISO are closely involved.
Proceed with Initiative to Co-Optimize Energy and Ancillary Services

Study results indicate that co-optimization of energy and ancillary services, as currently under consideration for adoption in SPP, will be the key to support the reliable integration of wind. Thus operating SPP under a single BA a base assumption of this study is essential. In ERCOT, the day-ahead system-wide wind production forecast contributes to ancillary service procurements. Transmission planning must also be coordinated, and as discussed in Section 6.4.1, planning should be done on a regional basis rather than on a cluster basis.
6.4.7. Additional Recommendations

Revise the Reserve Replenishing Timeframe
While this topic was not specifically studied, reducing reserve replenishing timeframe to a shorter one, in coordination with the addition of load-following reserves (Section 5.4), is recommended, as it could reduce the quantity of load following reserve requirements.10
Consider the Integration of Advanced Storage Technologies into the Grid

This study did not explore the possibility of energy storage technologies to support the grid reliability. Most of the regulation needs for this study were handled by enhanced transmission and utilization of the peaking units. In reality, depending on the fuel supply contract, there may be occasions where these peaking units cannot respond to the system operators needs. Energy storage technologies can be alternative and/or complementary investments to new transmission and generation enhancements. A potential key application for storage technologies in this regard would be to focus on the time aspect of reliability where these assets would provide fast response resources for regulation and load following services to the grid. Such technologies are currently under consideration in various markets where storage technology is thought as an advanced method to balance wind fluctuation. Appendix D discusses the available options and technologies for storage.
10 NERC criteria require the reserve replenishing to be 90 minutes or shorter. SPP criteria do not explicitly define the reserve replenishing timeframe. They do state, however, that After the contingency notification has been completed, the Contingency Area shall promptly make arrangements to replace the energy requirement created by the Operating Reserve Contingency prior to the end of the Assistance Period, and this Assistance Period is defined as 60 minutes.
Final Report
Page 6-22
Establish Centralized Outage Control System

Particularly during spring and fall shoulder seasons, there is a danger that the system could become short of units providing reserves, largely due to maintenance outages. A centralized scheduling mechanism will support better coordination of non-wind plant outages. An alternative would be through improved pricing signals, such as those suggested for regulation in Section 6.4.6. This will become even more critical if the implementation of transmission upgrades is delayed relative to wind generation coming into service.
Final Report
Page 6-23
7.
7.1.
METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS
CRA began the stakeholder process with a kickoff meeting held on May 5th, 2009 in Dallas, Texas. At the kickoff meeting, CRA confirmed the assumptions, methodologies, channels of communication, and project schedule as provided in CRAs Proposal. Following the kickoff meeting, several additional stakeholder meetings took place in Dallas, Denver, and via teleconference. Throughout these meetings, CRA presented preliminary findings and discussed the project status, scope, timeline, and deliverables. All meeting materials, including the agenda, minutes, and presentations made have been made available to the public through the SPP WITF website.
7.2.
MAJOR ANALYTICAL TASKS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE STUDY
The study is aimed at identifying the operational and reliability impacts of integrating wind generation into the SPP transmission system and energy markets. The detailed engineering analyses performed are then interpreted into a regionally broad market and its policy implications. To achieve this goal the study objectives were categorized into three groups; Transmission Impacts Study, Operational Impacts Study, and Market Impacts Study, as listed in Section 2.1. To address the requirements for the three groups of studies, CRA defined nine major analytical tasks: Task 1: Formulation of Analytic Methodology with Stakeholders This is where all assumptions and methods are agreed to among the various stakeholders. Task 2: Power Flow and Transient Stability Analysis This is where the bulk of the Transmission Impacts Study is done using static power flow snapshots. The analyses are performed to identify transmission expansion requirements to accommodate the various penetration levels of wind generation into the SPP system and include the following: Contingency Analysis Voltage Analysis Transient Stability State Analysis ATC Analysis Other Power Flow related Analysis Task 3: Reserve Requirement Analysis This is where the reserve requirements to accommodate the various penetration levels of wind generation into the SPP system and includes the following: Load-Following Reserves Analysis
Final Report
Page 7-1
Up and Down Regulation Analysis Contingency Reserve (Spinning and Non-Spinning) Analysis
Task 4: Unit Commitment Analysis While the bulk of the Transmission Impacts Study is performed in Task 2, that is done for a static snapshot provided as Power Flow cases. Task 4 then uses the Power Flows that were modified to accommodate the wind additions and runs production simulations for all hours in the year 2010. The results from Task 3 will also be used in the production simulation, which co-optimizes reserve requirements through its security constrained commitment and dispatch process. The objective of the initial set of production simulations is to identify the followings: Identifying New Congestion and Evaluating Wind Deliverability Identify new operational patterns caused by the addition of wind After the initial set of these runs, a few cases will be selected to analyze commitment and forecast error impacts, and re-run with different forecasts and commitment settings. Task 5: Real-Time Simulation: Economic Dispatch For selected days, intra-hourly dispatch analyses will be performed, using the production simulation output from Task 4. The bulk of the engineering study ends with Task 5. Based on the findings of the engineering studies performed through Tasks 2 through 5, the following tasks will be performed: Task 6: Proposal to Addressing Forecast Errors Task 7: Evaluation of Best Practices Task 8: Evaluation of Policy Changes Task 9: Preparation of Detailed Report Figure 7.2-1 shows the flow of these nine tasks. The three groups of the study objectives discussed in Section 2.1 are listed below, as well as the CRA tasks in blue:
Transmission Impacts Study

Steady-state thermal and voltage analysis: pre- and post-contingency [Task 2] Voltage stability analysis: PV, VQ, and dV/dQ analyses [Task 2] Transmission expansion requirements to facilitate the wind projects including, transient stability, voltage stability, and VAR requirements [Tasks 2, 4 and 5] Impacts of wind generation on ATC [Tasks 2 and 4] Recommendations on GI analysis, procedures, and requirements for wind generation [Task 2]
Final Report
Page 7-2
Operational Impacts Study

Impacts on both operations and markets in the regulation, load-following, and unit commitment timeframes [Tasks 3, 4, and 5] Time-synchronized load and wind data [Tasks 3, 4 and 5] Impacts on ancillary services [Tasks 2, 3 and 6]
Market Impacts Study (Based on the Findings from Transmission Impacts and Operational Impacts Analysis Above)
Assess the impact of the additional wind generation has on the Energy Imbalance Market and identify potential policy changes required to accommodate the additional wind generation [Tasks 4, 5 and 8] Review practices of other markets that have successfully integrated a large amount of wind generation and identify best practice [Task 7] Time synchronized net load wind data [Tasks 3, 4 and 5] Propose a method of incorporating day-ahead wind and load forecasting error [Tasks 6 and 8]
Details of each Task are discussed in Section 7.3 through Section 7.6.
T a s k 1 : F o r m u la ti o n o f A n a ly ti c M e t h o d o lo g y w i th S t a k e h o ld e r s
T r a n s m i s s io n Im p a c t S t u d y Op e r a tio n a l Im p a c t S t u d y M a rk e t Im p a c t S tu d y
T as k 2 : Po w e r Flo w
F lo w g a t e s D e f in it io n
B in d in g F lo w g a t e s , T R E x p a n sio n P la n
Ta sk 3 : R e se r ve R e q u ir em e n ts
Ta s k 7 : B e st P r a c ti c e s
T a s k 4 : U n it C o m m itm e n t
R e s e rv e P ro vid e rs H o u r ly C o m m it m e n t
Ta s k 6 : Fo r e ca s t E rr o r s T a sk 5 : E co n o m ic D i s p a tc h
T a s k 8 : P o l ic y Change s
T a s k 9 : F in al R e p ort
Figure 7.2-1: Flow of CRA tasks for the Wind Integration Study
Final Report
Page 7-3
7.3.
DEVELOPMENT OF WIND PROFILES
The wind profiles used for each wind plant in this study, referred to as WITF wind plant, are based on the profiles developed by AWS Truewind for the NREL EWITS.[21] The EWITS wind profile dataset contains simulated 10-minute wind power output and hourly day-ahead and 4-hour-ahead wind power forecasts for 2004 2006 for a large number of sites in the EIC. The geographic coordinates and the assumed installed capacity are specified for each EWITS site. Each EWITS site is composed of several cells. The EWITS dataset provides the 10-minute wind power profile for each cell, as well as the cell location. For a description on the method employed to generate the wind profiles, the reader is referred to [8]. There are 142 WITF wind plants, with capacities ranging from 10 MW to 1000 MW, and a median capacity of 150 MW. In comparison, there are 348 EWITS sites in the SPP footprint, with capacity ranging from 100 MW to 1316 MW, and a median installed capacity of 457 MW. Each EWITS site in the SPP footprint is composed by 8 to 79 cells with capacity ranging from 0.2 to 97 MW (median 20 MW). To develop the profiles for the WITF wind plants, CRA first assigned each WITF farm to one EWITS site, avoiding repetitions of EWITS sites whenever possible.1 Upon recommendation from AWS Truewind, the wind power forecasts for each WITF wind plant were approximated by scaling the forecasts for the corresponding EWITS site using the ratio of the installed capacities in the WITF farm and the EWITS site. To construct the 10-minute wind profiles, each WITF wind plant was assigned a set of the EWITS site cells with total cell capacity within 10% of the WITF farm capacity. The 10-minute profiles for these cells were added and then scaled according to the ratio of WITF wind plant capacity and the capacity of the set of cells assigned to the WITF wind plant. In this procedure, no cell was assigned to more than one WITF wind plant.
7.4.
POWER FLOW ANALYSIS
7.4.1. Contingency Analysis and Transmission Expansion

For the transmission analysis, SPP provided four power flow models for each case, 12 power flows in total. These power flows represent the 2010 peak load conditions for summer, winter and fall, and minimum load conditions for spring. The wind plant dispatch in the power flows were based on wind profiles for 2004 2006 from the NREL EWITS dataset (Section 7.3) and historical load profiles for the same period provided by SPP. For the summer and winter peak power flows, the wind plants in the corresponding case were dispatched to the average
1 If the distance between the WITF farm being considered and the closest unassigned EWITS site was larger than 100 miles, then repetitions were allowed; this happened for fewer than 10 wind plants.
Final Report
Page 7-4
of the wind output available for the hour with highest load in the season of each year (2004 2006). In the fall and spring power flows, the wind plants were dispatched at the average of the wind output available for the hour with the highest wind in the season of each year. Thus, the fall power flow represented a peak load, peak wind condition, while the spring power flow represented a minimum net load2 condition. Each power flow provided by SPP contained transmission expansions needed to meet the thermal and voltage standards of the SPP Criteria in the normal, no-contingency state. CRA performed an AC contingency analysis on each power flow and proposed further transmission expansions to meet the SPP Criteria for post-contingency states on lines and nodes above 100 kV. Violations on elements below 100 kV were not specifically addressed, since the focus was not on solving local issues. The WITF made decisions in consultation with SPP engineers on each of the proposed expansions, sometimes mandating alternative solutions. The methodology and the contingencies employed in the contingency analysis are discussed below.
Contingencies
Multi-element contingencies defined by SPP (total of 1525) Single element contingency in SPP Every line and tie-line above 60 kV Every generator Every 3 winding transformer Every 2 winding transformer with the high voltage terminal higher than 60 kV
Single element contingencies in 1st tier areas (LAGN, EES, WAPA, AMMO, MEC, AECI) Every line and tie-line above 100 kV Every transformer with the high voltage terminal higher than 100 kV
Methodology
1. Performed DC contingency analysis for all single-element contingencies
2 Net load is load minus wind power.
Final Report
Page 7-5
2. -
Eliminated every single-contingency that Generate load islands, do not generate generation islands and are not 3-winding transformers Generate thermal overloads of less than 5%, do not lead to any islands, and cause at most one violation For all multi-element contingencies and for the remaining single-element contingencies, performed AC contingency analysis with the same setup used by SPP in the Interconnection studies, such as that found in [39]
3.
7.4.2. PV Analysis Methodology

Two sets of PV analyses were studied: SPS to SPP and SPS North to South and South to North.
SPS to SPP Transfers

For the SPS to SPP analysis, two injection groups were defined. The SPS injection group included all generators on Automatic Generation Control (AGC) in the SPS power flow area that were connected in each power flow.3 The SPP injection group included all generators on AGC in the AEPW, OKGE, Mid-Kansas Electric Company (MKEC), and SUNC power flow areas. The contingencies considered consisted of the single outages of SPS-SPP tie lines, and the single outage of the ten generators in SPS with the largest dispatch. The study monitored the active and reactive flow on all branches with nominal voltage higher than 100 kV, and the voltage on all nodes with nominal voltage higher than 100 kV. To increase the transfer from SPS to SPP, the generation of the SPS injection group was increased while the generation of the SPP injection group was decreased. The output of each unit in each injection group was changed in proportion to the units participation factor provided in the power flow. Transfer was incremented until either the SPP Criteria were violated, or the output in the SPS injection group reached the maximum generation capacity.
SPS South to North and North to South Transfers

For the analysis of transfers from SPS North to South and from South to North, two additional injection groups were defined. The SPS North injection group included all generators on AGC in zones 1402 and 1403 of the SPS power flow area that were connected in each power flow. The SPS South injection group included all generators on AGC in zones 1404 and 1405 of the SPS power flow area that were connected in each power flow. The contingencies
3 The injection groups had a different set of generators for each power flow, because the generators dispatched in the power flow changed.
Final Report
Page 7-6
considered consisted of the single outages of SPS North - South tie lines, and the single outage of the ten generators in SPS with the largest dispatch. The study monitored the active and reactive flow on all SPS branches with nominal voltage higher than 100 kV, and the voltage on all SPS nodes with nominal voltage higher than 100 kV. To increase the transfer from SPS North to SPS South, the generation of the SPS North injection group was increased while the generation of the SPS South injection group was decreased. The output of each unit in the injection group was changed in proportion to the units participation factor provided in the power flow. Transfer was incremented until either the SPP Criteria were violated, or the output in one of the injection groups reached the maximum generation capacity.
7.5.
ANALYSIS OF REGULATING RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
Regulating reserve ensures that load, generation and transactions with external areas are in continuous balance in the seconds to several minutes timeframe. Regulating reserve is provided by committed and spinning units that are available to be controlled by the system operator through an AGC system. SPP clears the Energy Imbalance market every five minutes, making the units providing regulating reserve to tend to go through a zero deviation from their short-term energy dispatch every five minutes on average. Regulation requirements in the US are stated in terms of the average Area Control Error (ACE). The ACE is the difference between the total actual interchange and the total scheduled interchange between the area of interest and the rest of the system.4 NERC requires that each BA carry enough regulating reserves to ensure that the 10-minute average ACE is less than a parameter L10 at least for 90% of the 10-minute time periods during each month.[33],[35] The value of L10 computed by SPP for the non-Nebraska SPP footprint is 140 MW. The SPP Wind Integration Task Force decided to assume a value of L10 of 125 MW for the entire SPP footprint for this study. Because NERC requirements establish the average ACE limit for 90% of the 10-minute intervals, the 5th and 95th percentiles of the 10-minute average deviations from forecasts were used as metrics for regulation needs. Doing so ensures that that the range (95th percentile 5th percentile) covers 90% of the cases. This study assumes that SPP consists of a single BA. Currently, each BA in SPP determines its own regulation requirement to meet the NERC standards. As such, there is currently no regulating reserve requirement for the SPP footprint as a whole. In this study, it is assumed that the regulation needs can be split into a wind-related component and a non-wind-related component. This separation into components is due to the different nature that the wind and non-wind deviations from short-term forecasts have. In
4 This assumes that the actual frequency is equal to the scheduled frequency and neglects metering errors.
Final Report
Page 7-7
particular, it has been found that in large regions with significant amounts of wind power, changes in total wind power generation across the region in the seconds-to-minute timeframe are not significant due to the aggregation effects of thousands of wind turbines.[27] As such, the requirements of regulation due to wind generation are mainly to follow the 10-minute trends, while the requirement of regulation to cover fast 1-minute load variations around the trend load can be significant. To determine a non-wind-related regulating requirement, CRA analyzed the average 1-minute load5 for six representative days. These days were selected by SPP operations engineers and consist of three days in the summer season, August 1, 10 and 20, 2008, and three days in the fall season, October 17 and 31, and November 26, 2008. CRA also used the short-term load forecasts provided by SPP for 5-minute intervals. The 5-minute short-term forecasts were interpolated to determine the deviation of the 1-minute load from the forecast trend. These deviations approximate the contributions of the load to the regulation needs. CRA also analyzed the corresponding historical 1-minute wind generation for the six representative days. The objective of this analysis was to detect any correlation between the load and wind needs for regulation. The wind-related regulation needs for minute m were computed as the difference between the 1-minute wind power realization for minute m and the 1-min realization for the previous minute multiple of 5, i.e., a persistence short-term wind forecast is used for each 5-minute interval.[38, p. 24-25] The findings for each of the representative days are summarized in Table 7.5-1. Note that the 5th and 95th percentiles of load deviations reach 0.5% for some low-load days, but in general tend to be below 0.5%. The correlation between the load deviations from its short-term forecast and the negative6 of the wind generation deviations from its forecast is quite low.
5 In the remainder of the section, load and wind power are for the SPP market footprint as of July 7, 2009, i.e., they do not include the control areas in Nebraska because they were not available to CRA. 6 The negative is used so that both deviation terms are consistently modeled as demand for generation regulation.
Final Report
Page 7-8
Table 7.5-1: Load and wind deviations from their short-term forecasts for representative days, in MW
Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Season Date 8/1 8/10 8/20 10/17 10/31 11/26 5th percentile load deviation -92 -113 -54 -74 -102 -96 95th percentile load deviation 93 104 78 58 77 95 5th to 95th load perc. range 185 217 132 132 179 191 Maximum load 34,979 25,825 23,693 18,340 18,967 19,938 5th perc. deviation/max load -0.3% -0.4% -0.2% -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% 95th perc. deviation/max load 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% Std dev load deviation 54 69 42 45 59 56 Maximum wind 759 538 303 918 823 483 5th percentile wind deviation -18 -22 -6 -25 -24 -25 95th percentile wind deviation 25 17 12 12 13 17 5th to 95th wind perc. range 43 39 11 37 37 42 Std dev wind deviation 12 13 5 12 12 12 5th perc. deviation/max wind -2.4% -4.1% -2.0% -2.7% -2.9% -5.2% 95th perc. deviation/max wind 3.3% 3.2% 3.9% 1.3% 1.6% 3.5% Load, -wind deviation correlation -11% 9% -5% -3% -1% -19%
Figure 7.5-1: Wind deviations from the wind short-term forecast versus load deviations from the load short-term forecast
Final Report
Page 7-9
Figure 7.5-1 shows the wind generation deviation from its forecast as a function of the load deviation from its forecast. Note the oval-like shape of the region with the most observations, as would be expected from the low correlation value between load and wind deviations from their short-term forecasts. Since load and wind deviations in the same direction cancel each other, wind deviations in the upper right and lower left quadrants reduce the total regulation needs, while they do the opposite in the upper left and lower right quadrants of Figure 7.5-2 has a 3-D depiction of the frequency of occurrence of load and wind deviation pairs.
Figure 7.5-2: Frequency of occurrences of joint load and wind deviations for the six days analyzed
CRA assume that the regulation up and down requirements for the case with no wind generation is 1% of the daily peak load. This assumption is consistent with the estimates of SPP operation engineers, with the practice of other regions such as PJM [37], and with the SPP CBA study.[48] With regulation-up and down requirements being 1% of the daily peak load, and assuming that these requirements are set to meet the NERC requirements [33], [35], then the implied 5th and 95th percentiles of the deviations from short-term schedules and forecasts is 1% of the
Final Report
Page 7-10
daily peak load plus L10. The implied variability, once reduced by L10, provides the regulation requirements that give an average ACE that is lower than L10 90% of the time. The regulation requirement for the case with no wind, 1% of the daily peak load, is about twice as high as the values of the 5th and 95th percentiles of the deviations from short term load forecasts in Table 7.5-1. The difference can be attributed to the departures of non-wind generators from their generation schedules. These departures are partially a function of the variability in the generation schedules themselves. For example, the errors in following a generation schedule that requires a rapid ramp up are typically much higher than the errors in following a schedule that requires a constant output. These errors increase, on average, the magnitude of the imbalance (load non-regulating generation), and are covered by regulating reserve. Therefore, they increase the need for regulating reserve. In the same manner as with load variability, as the variability in wind power increases, the variability in non-wind generation increases as well. Denote by a the factor that measures the increase in non-wind generation variability due to the increase in variability by other source, such as load. Based on the results in Table 7.5-1, the value of a can be between 1 and 2. A more precise determination of a requires the analysis of generation schedules versus actual outputs under different variability conditions. In this study, the value of a is assumed to be 2. The actual value of a varies with the specifics of the particular system under consideration, and can be reduced by improving the control of generating unit outputs. The wind generation deviations from short-term forecasts and the other deviations from shortterm forecasts are assumed to be independent processes for the purposes of establishing regulation requirements. This is an appropriate assumption in light of the low correlation results in Table 7.5-1. It is further assumed that the percentiles of the sum of two random variables are equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the appropriate percentiles. This assumption on the composition of wind and non-wind regulation components entail no approximation when the process of deviations from forecasts for wind and non-wind deviations are independent, mean 0 Gaussian processes. The total regulation reserve requirements are given by
Rup = Rdown =
(0.01l peak + L10 ) 2 + aW95 2 L10 (0.01l peak + L10 ) 2 + aW5 2 L10
(7.5.1) (7.5.2)
where Rup is the regulation up requirement, Rdown is the regulation down requirement and L95 and W95 are the 95 and 5 percentiles of the wind deviations. The terms
Final Report
Page 7-11
0.01l peak + L10 provide the non-wind-related regulation component while aW95 and aW5 provide the wind-related regulation component.
In the regulation requirement analysis of Section 5.2.1.1, CRA employed expressions (7.5.1) and (7.5.2), with a = 2 and L10 = 125 MW. The 10-minute wind profiles described in Section 7.3 were used for the establishing the wind-related regulation components as follows. The wind related regulation needs in a given 10-minute interval is approximated by the difference between the average wind power in the interval and the average wind power in the following 10-minute interval. This was done as the 1-minute wind power observations were not available.7 The terms W95 and W5 are computed as the 5th and 95th percentiles of the set of observed 10-minute average wind power increments under study.
7.6.
UNIT COMMITMENT ANALYSIS
While a significant portion of the Transmission Impacts Study is included in Task 2, that task is based on static snapshots provided by Power Flow cases. Task 4 used the Power Flows that were modified to accommodate the wind additions and ran production simulations for all hours in the year 2010. The results from Task 3 were also used in the production simulation, which co-optimized reserve requirements through its security constrained commitment and dispatch process. The objectives of the initial production simulations were twofold: (i) identify new congestion and evaluate wind deliverability, and (ii) identify new operational patterns caused by wind additions. Following the initial simulations, several cases were selected to analyze commitment and forecast error impacts and to repeat the simulations with different forecasts and commitment settings. CRA utilized the GE MAPS model to identify unit commitment issues and new congestion patterns caused by the addition of new wind resources. The GE Multi-Area Production Simulation Software (GE MAPS)8 is a detailed, chronological simulation model that calculates hour-by-hour production costs while recognizing the
7 The rationale for this approximation is that the total wind generation in a large region does not tend to vary significantly around their 10 minute trend. The approximation was validated using one-minute wind generation for six representative days selected by SPP operations engineers and consist of 3 days in the summer season, August 1, 10 and 20, 2008, and 3 days in the spring season, April 1 and 15, and May 1, 2009. For these six days, the average difference between the 10-minute average increments and the 5-minute average wind regulation need is less than 0.5 MW, with a standard deviation of 13.4 MW. The correlation coefficient between these two time series is 0.73. 8 CRA has used the GE MAPS simulation in multiple studies for SPP, including the RTO Cost-Benefit Analyses, the Westar 345kV Transmission Line studies, the SPP-Entergy Wheeling Rate De-Pancaking study, and the SPP 765kV EHV Overlay studies.
Final Report
Page 7-12
constraints on generation dispatch imposed by the transmission system. GE MAPS performs a transmission-constrained production simulation, which uses a detailed electrical model of the entire transmission network, along with generation shift factors determined from a solved AC power flow case, to calculate the real power flows for each generation dispatch. By applying the findings of previous tasks (Task 2: Power Flow Analysis, in particular), CRA identified the new constraints that will occur due to the addition of new wind generation. The findings from the GE MAPS simulation were then further analyzed as part of Task 2: Power Flow and Transient Stability Analysis. Additionally, these findings were used to develop transmission expansion options. CRA also used the GE MAPS model to study the effects of forecasting errors in the unit commitment phase. The GE MAPS model was used to simulate the entire EIC to account for the dynamic and geographically wide impact of wind integration into the SPP system, including the newly added Nebraska region. New transmission congestion patterns were identified by analyzing the results of several GE MAPS model simulations, specifically by comparing the results of the Base Case to those of the corresponding Change Cases. In the Change Cases, wind generation was modeled as dispatchable and CRA utilized the GE MAPS model simulations to determine the deliverability of the newly-built wind plants.
7.6.1. Analytical Approach

For the purpose of evaluating new constraints caused by the addition of wind, CRA proposed to run 36 GE MAPS model simulations, each one spanning a three-month period rather than a single week. This was proposed because the congestion patterns can easily differ based on wind power levels, load levels, unit commitment, unit outages, and other events that would not be accounted for if the simulations were to be run only for a single week. CRA then compared the Change Case runs to the corresponding Base Case runs to identify new constraints. Table 7.6.1-1 shows the GE MAPS model simulations that CRA performed. B designates a Base Case and C designates a Change Case. Each of the four wind profiles shown was run with three different wind penetration levels, resulting in thirty-six total simulations (three wind profiles, three penetration levels, and four seasons). From the 36 GE MAPS simulations, CRA selected several weeks (following discussion with SPP) to study the impacts of forecasting errors in the unit commitment phase. For the selected cases, CRA repeated the GE MAPS simulations using the exact same unit commitment (based on the given load and wind forecast), but solving the dispatch using the actual realized wind and load profiles provided by SPP. This analysis of the forecasting error impacts helped to identify and assess the most extreme weeks in terms of binding transmission constraints, shortage or excess of online capacity, and lack of ramping capability. The analysis enabled the consideration of the need to add locational reserve requirements in highly constrained areas to ensure reliable operations. The periods studied in
Final Report
Page 7-13
these exercise are explained in detail as part of Task 5: Real-Time Simulation: Economic Dispatch.
Table 7.6.1-1: 36 MAPS model simulations

Wind Penetration Wind Profile Season Base Case (B) PF 1 PF 2 PF 3 PF 4 PF 1 PF 2 PF 3 PF 4 PF 1 PF 2 PF 3 PF 4 10% Case (C) PF 5 PF 6 PF 7 PF 8 PF 5 PF 6 PF 7 PF 8 PF 5 PF 6 PF 7 PF 8 20% Case (C) PF 9 PF 10 PF 11 PF 12 PF 9 PF 10 PF 11 PF 12 PF 9 PF 10 PF 11 PF 12
Summer Winter 2004 Spring Fall Summer Winter 2005 Spring Fall Summer Winter 2006 Spring Fall
7.6.2. Input Assumptions and Data Sources

Input assumptions used in the GE MAPS simulations were established following consultation between the SPP and CRA. Input assumptions were presented to, discussed with, and agreed upon by the stakeholders prior to implementation within the GE MAPS model. Greater detail regarding the GE MAPS inputs and assumptions can be found in Appendix B.
Generator Data
Unit characteristics for SPP generators larger than twenty megawatts were taken from the SPPs ProMod data as provided to CRA. These characteristics include minimum generation, full load heat rate, maximum capacity, VOM, fixed operation and maintenance (FOM),
Final Report
Page 7-14
planned outage rate, forced outage rate, minimum runtime, minimum downtime, and must run status. For all other units (units smaller than twenty megawatts within SPP and all EIC units outside of SPP), CRA provided unit characteristics (some unit-specific data and some generic unit characteristics assigned by unit type and size). Much of CRAs data was obtained from NERC reports and FERC filings, as well as several other public sources.
Wind Profiles
Wind profile data (both realized and forecasted) was provided by the SPP from NREL. All SPP wind units used a wind profile defined by one or more sets of NREL site data as determined on a unit-by-unit basis. All wind units in areas neighboring the SPP used wind profiles defined by one or more sets of NREL site data as determined on an area-by-area basis. All other wind units in the EIC are significantly removed from the SPP and used a fixed 30% capacity factor.
Transmission Constraints
Flowgates in the Base Case were modeled as they were provided by the SPP. In the 10% and 20% Cases, additional flowgates were modeled as they were identified from the contingency analyses performed, as listed in Section 4.
Load Forecast for 2010

Hourly load forecasts are developed within the GE MAPS model based upon inputs including historical hourly load profiles and forecasted peak load and energy by area. For non-SPP areas, peak load and energy forecasts were drawn from the latest FERC-714 filing. Historical hourly load profiles for areas within the SPP were provided by the SPP for 2004, 2005, and 2006 (to correspond with the wind profile data provided for the same three years). The historical data from each of the three years were used to determine three separate hourly forecasts of the SPP load profiles for 2010. Each forecast was then used in a separate MAPS model simulation. Historical load profiles for EIC areas outside of SPP were drawn from 2002 FERC-714 filings as well as from several ISOs and NERC reliability regions.
Reserve Requirements
The SPP requires an operating reserve of 100% of the largest contingency plus 50% of the second largest contingency. In these simulations, the largest contingency was the outage of the Wolf Creek nuclear plant (1,150 MW) and the second largest contingency was the outage of the Iatan 2 coal plant (900 MW). Therefore, 1,600 megawatts of operating reserves were required in total with 800 megawatts of operating reserves provided by spinning reserves.
Final Report
Page 7-15
Fuel Prices
CRA uses a proprietary model (North American Electricity and Environment Model NEEM) to forecast coal prices on a plant-by-plant basis, including transportation costs. NEEM is a long-term planning model that optimizes fuel and environmental compliance decisions based on the environmental scenario considered. CRA also uses a proprietary model to forecast gas and oil prices on a regional basis, including transportation costs (assessed based on the age of a given plant). The model utilizes NYMEX Clearport futures contract prices as inputs and then uses a regression calibrated to historical data to determine the monthly spot price at each defined pricing point.
Environmental Allowance Prices

Environmental allowance prices for NOx, SO2, and CO2 are modeled for each area in the EIC. Coupled with the emission rates of all thermal generating units, the allowance prices enable the model to determine the marginal cost of power production attributable to environment costs. CRA modeled NOx and SO2 emissions based on the Clear Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CO2 emissions based on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). No mercury emissions were modeled. Allowance prices were taken from the Evolution Market brokerage.
7.6.3. Software Tools
7.7.
REAL-TIME SIMULATIONS OF ECONOMIC DISPATCH
CRA simulated the intra-hour effects of wind variability and uncertainty by solving OPFs for each 10-minute interval for one day with high wind levels. The selected day was Monday, November 1, 2010, based on the profiles from 2006 (Figure 5.3.3.1-3), due to the low minimum net load, high wind output, high forecast error and high net load ramps exhibited in the day. For each 10-minute interval in the day, the updated dispatch was computed using the following procedure: 1. The commitment for each thermal unit in SPP is set to that obtained for the hour in question in the production simulation (Section 5.3). The net SPP export for each tie-line and the dispatch for each hydro unit in SPP are linearly interpolated from the corresponding hourly values obtained in the production simulation. The maximum capacity of each SPP wind plant is set to the available wind power in the 10-minute interval obtained from the NREL dataset. The dispatch of SPP units is determined by solving an OPF where
2.
3.
4.
Final Report
Page 7-16
the status of each unit is given by the unit commitment fast-start units can change their status transmission constraints are enforced contingency and regulating reserve requirements are enforced
The main metrics used in presenting results are curtailed wind power and energy, since the focus is on the ability of the SPP system to accommodate the intra-hourly wind variability. The curtailed wind power for a wind plant for one 10-minute interval is determined as the difference between the available wind power for the farm and the wind plant dispatch given by the OPF solution. The curtailed wind energy is the sum of the curtailed wind power for the intervals of interest and the wind plants of interest multiplied by 10 minutes.
7.7.1. Input Assumptions and Data Sources

Reserve Requirements
The reserve requirements enforced are consistent with those enforced for the Fall season in the production simulation, detailed in Section 5.3. Contingency reserve requirements are 1,600 MW, with at least 50% of this amount being spinning reserves. Regulation up requirements are 393 MW for the 10% wind penetration scenario and 455 MW for the 20% wind penetration scenario. Additionally, regulation down requirements were enforced, with a magnitude equal to the regulation up requirement.
Power Flow Model

The power flow models employed in the OPF are based on the fall models used for the transmission analysis and production simulation, and contain the SPP market footprint and a few adjacent areas (CELE, AECI and SWPA). Each tie-line to an area that was not modeled in the original power flow was replaced by a generator with a generation magnitude equal to the flow on the tie-line (negative generation values are allowed for these virtual generators).
Transmission Constraints
The transmission constraints enforced are the same constraints enforced in the production simulation, i.e., all current and new SPP flowgates and line flows on each 345 kV line.
Wind Plants
The available wind power for each 10-minute interval is based on the NREL dataset, as described in Section 7.3. Wind power is dispatched at $1/MWh, consistent with the production simulation assumptions.
Final Report
Page 7-17
Thermal Units
The dispatch for thermal units in SPP is obtained from the OPF solution. The cost employed for each unit is the total average marginal cost per MWh for the unit reported by GE MAPS for the fall runs. Maximum and minimum capacities are enforced. Each GT with capacity no larger than 50 MW is assumed to have fast-start capability. The spinning reserve capability of each thermal unit is set to the units ramping capability for a 10-minute period. Similarly, the regulating reserve capability is assumed to be the units ramping capability for a 5-minute period.
Hydro Units
The dispatch of hydro units was set to that obtained in the production simulation, linearly interpolating between hourly values. Hydro units were set to provide spinning reserve up to 50% of their rated capacity, and non-spinning reserve up to their rated capacity.
Loads
The 10-minute load value for each area was computed by interpolating the hourly values, and assigned to each bus in proportion to the original power flow loads.
SPP Exports and Imports

The base net exchange for each tie-line was interpolated from the hourly flow values obtained from the production simulation. Deviations from these exchange levels are limited to 10 MW and priced at $500/MWh. The low deviation limit and high deviation cost model the difficulties in covering intra-hour fluctuations with resources from neighboring areas.
7.7.2. Software Tools

The OPFs were solved using PowerWorld Simulator 14, with the following options: Objective function: minimum cost Include OPF reserve requirements Allow commitment and decommitment of fast-start generators Power flow recalculation after each LP solution Use DC approximation Ignore line series resistance
Final Report
Page 7-18
7.8.
OVERVIEW OF WIND INTEGRATION PRACTICES IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD
CRA undertook a comprehensive review of wind integration strategies in other regions in order to inform the analysis of the SPP system. This research focused on the efforts in North America and Europe, as those regions currently have the highest penetrations of wind generation. Elaborate stakeholder processes and regulatory reform programs are underway in many areas, resulting in an extensive body of reports, technical analyses, and operating procedure reforms. CRAs review relied heavily upon documents produced by those ongoing stakeholder processes, many of which are publicly available on market operators websites, as well as upon the available resources of trade organizations, including the Utility Wind Integration Group (UWIG). In addition, information was gathered through primary research of legislation, market rules and operating manuals. The findings of the market policy review are summarized in Section 6.3 and Appendix C. The review is organized by topic, in order to allow a consolidated discussion of relevant issues which all operators must confront. In addition, summaries are provided for four North American system operators, as an overview of the wind integration processes underway by peer organizations is instructive for possible strategies by SPP.
Final Report
Page 7-19
8.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
GLOSSARY
AC: Alternating current ACE: Area control error AECI: Associated Electric Cooperative Incorporated AEPW: American Electric Power West AESO: Alberta Electric System Operator AGC: Automatic generation control AMMO: Ameren Missouri ATC: Available transfer capability BA: Balancing authority
10. BPA: Bonneville Power Authority 11. C OK: Central Oklahoma 12. CAISO: California Independent System Operator 13. CC: Combined cycle 14. CELE: Central Louisiana Electric Company 15. CO2: Carbon dioxide 16. CRA: Charles River Associates 17. CREZ: Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (within ERCOT) 18. DC: Direct current 19. E NE: East Nebraska 20. E-KS: East Kansas 21. EES: Entergy or Entergy Electric Services 22. EIC: Eastern Interconnection
Final Report
Page 8-1
23. EIS Market: Energy Imbalance Service Market 24. EMDE: Empire District Electric Company 25. ERCOT: Electric Reliability Council of Texas 26. EWITS: Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study 27. FACTS: Flexible AC transmission system 28. FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 29. FOM: Fixed operation and maintenance cost 30. GGS: Gentleman Generating Station 31. GI: Generation Interconnection 32. GRDA: Grand River Dam Authority 33. GT: Gas turbine 34. GWh: Gigawatt-hour 35. INDN: City of Independence, Missouri 36. KACP: Kansas City Power and Light 37. KACY: Kansas City Board of Public Utilities 38. LAGN: Louisiana Generating LLC 39. LAFA: City of Lafayette, Louisiana 40. LEPA: Louisiana Energy and Power Authority 41. LESY: Lincoln Electric System 42. MAPP: Mid-Continent Area Power Pool 43. MEC: MidAmerican Energy Company 44. MIDW: Midwest Energy Incorporated 45. MIPU: Missouri Public Service 46. MISO: Midwest Independent System Operator
Final Report
Page 8-2
47. MKEC: Mid-Kansas Electric Company 48. MW: Megawatt 49. MWh: Megawatt-hour 50. NE KS: Northeast Kansas 51. NW KS: Northwest Kansas 52. NERC: North American Electric Reliability Corporation 53. NOx: Nitrogen oxide 54. NPPD: Nebraska Public Power 55. NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 56. NU: Nuclear 57. Off-Peak: 12:00 am 6:59 am and 11:00 pm 11:59 pm on Monday through Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday 58. OKGE: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company 59. OKU: Oklaunion 60. OMPA: Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority 61. On-Peak: 7:00 am 10:59 pm on Monday through Friday 62. OPPD: Omaha Public Power District 63. OPF: Optimal power flow 64. PSH: Pump storage hydro 65. P.U.: Per unit 66. RTC: Round-the-clock 67. RTO: Regional Transmission Organization 68. SO2: Sulfur dioxide 69. SP/NM: South Panhandle / New Mexico
Final Report
Page 8-3
70. SPP: Southwest Power Pool 71. SPRM: City of Springfield, Missouri 72. SPS: Southwestern Public Service Company 73. ST: Steam turbine (STc: coal-burning, STgo: gas- or oil-burning) 74. STEP: SPP Transmission Expansion Plan 75. SUNC: Sunflower Electric Power Corporation 76. SWPA: Southwestern Power Administration 77. UC: Unit commitment 78. VOM: Variable operation and maintenance cost 79. W NE: West Nebraska 80. W-KS: West Kansas 81. WAPA: Western Area Power Administration 82. WECC: Western Electricity Coordinating Council 83. WERE: Westar 84. WFEC: Western Farmers Electric Cooperative 85. WITF: Wind Integration Task Force
Final Report
Page 8-4
9.
[1]
REFERENCES
A. A. Fouad, F. Aboytes, V. F. Carvalho, S. L. Corey, K. J. Dhir, and R. Vierra, "Dynamic security assessment practices in North America," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1310-1321, 1988. Alberta Electric System Operator. AESO Recommendation Paper: Implementation of Market and Operational Framework for Wind Integration in Alberta. March 2009. Alberta Electric System Operator. Implementation of Market & Operational Framework for Wind Integration in Alberta. March 2009. Alberta Electric System Operator. Market and Operational Framework for Wind Integration in Alberta. March 7, 2007. Alberta Electric System Operator. Wind Integration Stakeholder Meeting. (PowerPoint format) August 12, 2009. Alegria et al. Technical requirements for wind farms: A survey on technical requirements [sic] and regulation. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews; 11 (2007) 18581872. American Wind Energy Association. 3rd Quarter 2009 Market Report. October 2009. AWS Truewind, LLC. 2009. Development of Eastern Regional Wind Resource and Wind Plant Output Datasets. Prepared under Subcontract No. ACO-8-88500-01. NREL/SR-550-467-64. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Bonneville Power Administration. 2010 Wholesale Power and Transmission Rate Adjustment Proceeding (BPA-10): Administrators Final Record of Decision. July 2009. Bonneville Power Administration. How BPA supports wind power in the Pacific Northwest. March 2009. Bonneville Power Administration. In-Hour Balancing Requirements for Wind. 2009 Wind Integration Rate Case Workshop, November 30, 2007. Bonneville Power Administration. Integrating Wind Power and Other Renewable Resources into the Electric Grid. September 2009. C. Chung-Liang, L. Chuan-Sheng, and K. Chung-Kuang, "Experience with power system stabilizers in a longitudinal power system," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 539-545, 1995.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] [8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
Final Report
Page 9-1
[14]
C. W. Taylor, F. R. Nassief, and R. L. Cresap, "Northwest Power Pool Transient Stability and Load Shedding Controls for Generation-Load Imbalances," Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. PAS-100, no. 7, pp. 3486-3495, 1981. California Independent System Operator. California ISO Issue Paper Regarding Potential Modifications to Outage Reporting and Other Requirements of the EIRP. June 26, 2009. California Independent System Operator. Integration of Renewable Resources. November 2007. California Independent System Operator. News Release: California ISO okays first location-constrained transmission project. May 18, 2009. California Independent System Operator. Settlement Charges Report for Participating Intermittent Resources Program. Calendar Year 2008. Available: http://www.caiso.com/1c73/1c73b75c22a90.html Conformed Fourth Replacement CAISO Tariff Appendix F, Schedule 4. As of August 17, 2009. Decker, Chris; Regulatory Policy Institute. International Approaches to Transmission Access for Renewable Energy. March 2008. Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/integrationdatasets/eastern/methodology.html
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[21a] EnerNex Corporation. January 2010. Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study. NREL/SR-47078. Golden, CO: NREL. Forthcoming at http://www.nrel.gov/ewits/ [22] Electric Reliability Council of Texas. ERCOT Methodologies for Determining Ancillary Service Requirements. 2009. Electric Reliability Council of Texas. ERCOT Protocols; Section 4: Scheduling. July 1, 2009. Electric Reliability Council of Texas. ERCOT Protocols; Section 6: Ancillary Services. September 1, 2009. Electric Reliability Council of Texas Wind Coalition. Wind Generation White Paper: Governor Response Requirement. February 2009. Available: http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2009/04/20090428-WOTF EnerNex Corporation. Minnesota Wind Integration Study. 2006.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
Final Report
Page 9-2
[27]
European Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy The Facts, Earthscan: Sterling, VA, 2009, p. 159. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Order on Technical Conferences Interconnection Queuing Practices. FERC Docket No. AD08-2-000. March 20, 2008. General Electric Energy Consulting. "The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning, Reliability, and Operations. March 4, 2005. International Energy Agency. Variability of Wind Power and other Renewables: Management Options and Strategies. June 2005. Manz, Laura; California Independent System Operator. Memorandum to ISO Board of Governors, Re: RETI Update. July 15, 2009. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Thinking Through Embedded Cost Capacity Requirements (PowerPoint format). 2009 Wind Integration Rate Workshop, November 30, 2007. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Automatic Generation Control, Standard BAL-005-0.1b, Princeton, NJ, October 29, 2008. Available: http://www.nerc.com/files/BAL-005-0_1b.pdf North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Balancing Authority (BA) Certification of Naturener Glacier Wind Energy 1. September 11, 2008. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Real power balancing control performance, Standard BAL-001-0.1a, Princeton, NJ, October 29, 2008. Available: http://www.nerc.com/files/BAL-001-0_1a.pdf Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Overview of Northwest Wind Integration Action Plan. February 2007. Available: http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/Wind/FinalDraft.htm PJM Interconnection, Balancing Operations, PJM Manual 12, Revision 19, Valley Forge, PA, June 30, 2009. Available: http://pjm.com/documents/manuals.aspx Pierre Pinson, Estimation of the Uncertainty in Wind Power Forecasting, PhD. dissertation, cole des Mines de Paris, France, March 2006. Available: http://paristech.bib.rilk.com/2187/ Southwest Power Pool, Aggregate Facility Study for Transmission Service Requested by Aggregate Transmission Customers, Report SPP-2008-AGP1-AFS-3, Little Rock, AR, March 29, 2009. Available: http://sppoasis.spp.org/documents/swpp/transmission/studies/files/2008_Aggregate_St udies/SPP-2008-AGP1-AFS-3.pdf
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
Final Report
Page 9-3
[40]
Southwest Power Pool, DRAFT SPP Priority Projects Report, Little Rock, AR, September 11, 2009. Available: http://www.spp.org/publications/Priority%20Projects%20Report_Scope_TWG_ESWG_ 20090911.pdf Southwest Power Pool, Southwest Power Pool Criteria, Little Rock, AR, April 28, 2009. Available: http://www.spp.org/publications/CurrentCriteria04282009with%20AppendicesCurrent.pdf Southwest Power Pool, SPP Balanced Portfolio Report, Little Rock, AR, June 23, 2009. Available: http://www.spp.org/publications/2009%20Balanced%20Portfolio%20%20Final%20Approved%20Report.pdf Stoel Rives LLP. BPA Issues Decision on Wind Integration Charge in 2010 Rate Case. July 21, 2009. Stoel Rives, LLP. Renewable Energy Law Alert: FERC Rules on MISO Queue Reform. September 8, 2008. Available: http://www.stoel.com/showalert.aspx?Show=3133 TradeWind. Integrating Wind: Developing Europes power market for the large-scale integration of wind power. February 2009. TrueWind Solutions, LLC and AWS Scientific, Inc. Overview of Wind Energy Generation Forecasting. Draft Report. December 17, 2003. Utility Wind Integration Group. Wind Power and Electricity Markets. August 2009. Ventyx Corp, Southwest Power Pool Cost Benefit Study for Future Market Design, Final Report, April 7, 2009. Available: http://www.spp.org/publications/SPP%20Report%20April%20v8.pdf Bonneville Power Administration. 2009 Network Open Season Update. November 19, 2009 Customer Meeting. New York Independent System Operator. Technical Bulletin 049 Multi-Pass Methodology of Security Constrained Unit Commitment. January 28, 2009; revised January 9, 2009. Philbrick, Russ; UWIG Wind Forecasting Workshop. Managing Data and Uncertainty (PowerPoint format). February 2009. Southwest Power Pool. Footprint. Available: http://www.spp.org/publications/SPP_Footprints.pdf
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47] [48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
Final Report
Page 9-4
[53]
Global Energy Concepts, Wind Turbine Technology Overview. October 2005. Available: http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Wind/toolkit/9_windturbinetech.pdf North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Special Report: Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation. April 2009. Available: http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/IVGTF_Report_041609.pdf 3TIER Inc, U.S. National Wind Map 2010 3TIER, Inc. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC Docket No. ER07-142-000. December 29, 2006. State of Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act Rule 25.174(e). Disincentives for excess
development in a CREZ.
[54]
[55] [56]
[57]
Final Report
Page 9-5

CRA SPP WITF Wind Integration Study Final Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CRA SPP WITF Wind Integration Study Final Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Final Report

SPP WITF Wind Integration Study

CRA Project Team

SPP WIND RESOURCES: CASES ANALYZED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................3-1

IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON THE SPP TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................4-1

20% CASE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................4-21

VOLTAGE STABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................4-36

TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS .....................................................................................4-44

AVAILABLE TRANSFER CAPABILITY IMPACTS OF INCREASED WIND PENETRATION ..............4-68

IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP OPERATIONS....................................5-1

WIND INTEGRATION AND RESERVE SERVICES NEEDS ........................................................5-5

5.2.2.1 5.2.2.2 5.2.3

Contingency Reserve Requirements............................................................................ 5-42

MULTI-HOUR TIMEFRAME: WIND INTEGRATION IMPACTS ON UNIT COMMITMENT ................ 5-44

5.3.1.1 5.3.1.2 5.3.2 5.3.3

5.3.3.1 5.3.3.2 5.3.4

5.3.4.1 5.3.4.2 5.3.4.3

5.4.1.1 5.4.1.2 5.4.1.3 5.4.1.4 5.4.2.

10% Case................................................................................................................... 5-110

IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP MARKETS ..........................................6-1

PROPOSAL FOR ADDRESSING WIND AND LOAD FORECAST ERRORS ...................................6-8

ANALYSIS OF REGULATING RESERVE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................7-7 UNIT COMMITMENT ANALYSIS .........................................................................................7-12

7.6.1. 7.6.2. 7.6.3.

REAL-TIME SIMULATIONS OF ECONOMIC DISPATCH ..........................................................7-16

OVERVIEW OF WIND INTEGRATION PRACTICES IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD ..........................7-18

LIST OF FIGURES 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION

3. SPP WIND RESOURCES: CASES ANALYZED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS

4. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON THE SPP TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

5. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP OPERATIONS

6. MARKET IMPACT STUDY

4. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON THE SPP TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

5. IMPACTS OF WIND INTEGRATION ON SPP OPERATIONS

6. MARKET IMPACT STUDY

MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Transmission Impact Study

Operational Impact Study

Market Impact Study

THE SOUTHWEST POWER POOL

Figure 2.2-1: SPP footprint

WIND GENERATION POTENTIAL IN SPP AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS

Figure 2.3-1: Wind potential in the United States

KEY CHALLENGES OF WIND INTEGRATION

Figure 2.4-1: Wind turbine power curve

SPP WIND RESOURCES: CASES ANALYZED AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS

WIND PENETRATION CASES FOR SPP AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS

Table 3.1-1: Wind generation capacity by penetration level

Base Case 10% Case 40 2,877 0.046 69 6,840 0.109

20% Case 100 13,674 0.217

40% Case 142 25,003 0.397

East Nebraska West Nebraska

Spearville Hitchland Amarillo

Central Oklahoma South Panhandle / New Mexico

40 MW 200 MW 500 MW 900 MW

230 kV 345 kV 500 kV

Wichita 13% Spearville 7% South Panhandle/ New Mexico 7%

Base Case 2,877 MW

Central Oklahoma 30%

Northeast Kansas 16% Hitchland 10%

Figure 3.1-2: Base Case wind nameplate capacity distribution by cluster

Northwest West Kansas Nebraska 3% 2% Wichita 8% Spearville 10%

South Panhandle/ New Mexico 7% Northeast Kansas 7%

10% Case 6,840 MW

Central Oklahoma 17%