The Future of North Dakota Transmission Capacityccaps.umn.edu/documents/CPE-Conferences/MIPSYCON...Tom Butz, P.E. Peter Koegel, P.E. The Future of North Dakota Transmission Capacity

Tom Butz, P.E.Peter Koegel, P.E.www.powersystem.org

The Future of North Dakota Transmission CapacityMinnesota Power System Conference

November 3, 2020

Forward-Thinking ProfessionalsHelping Clients and Colleagues ACHIEVE Their Goals.

© 2020 Power System Engineering, Inc.

Covered Topicso Introduction

o Existing Transmission System

o Powerflow Models

o Generator Interconnection Requests

o Modeling and Powerflow Analysis

o Energy Storage Analysis

o Nodal Pricing Analysis

o Conclusions

o Ongoing Efforts2


About PSEo Power System Engineering, Inc. (PSE) est. in Madison, WI in 1974.

o Full-service engineering and consulting firm consisting of professional engineers, economists, and financial analysts.

o Focus on Utility Engineering & Operations; Energy Resources; Technology, Communications, and Automation; Industrial Engineering; and Economics, Rates, and Business Planning.

o PSE is employee-owned and independent.

o Around 80 employees in Madison, WI; Blaine, MN; Prinsburg, MN; Marietta, OH; Sioux Falls, SD; and Topeka, KS

o Forward-Thinking Professionals Helping Clients and Colleagues Achieve Their Goals.

3


Introductiono Power System Engineering, Inc. (PSE) was engaged by the North Dakota

Transmission Authority (NDTA) to perform a study assessing the capacity of the North Dakota transmission system.

o The purpose for which the authority is created is to diversify and expand the North Dakota economy by facilitating development of transmission facilities to support the production, transportation, and utilization of North Dakota electric energy.

o PSE Study Team: Tom Butz, Laura Couillard, Peter Koegel, and Curt Lyons.

o Study was motivated by reports that numerous Renewable Energy projects in MISO and SPP queues were being assessed expensive Network Upgrades that were not financially feasible for the projects to be successful.

o PSE looked at the existing transmission capacity along with future trends based on the existing generation mix, generation interconnection queues, transmission expansion projects, and nodal pricing analysis.

4


Existing Transmission System

• 230kV, 345kV, and HVDC lines primarily used to export power to MISO and SPP markets.

• Williston Load Pocket in NW.• Centrally located Coal Plants.• Existing and Future Wind

generation.• CapX2020 built out.

5


Powerflow Modelso MISO 2021 Spring Light Load (21SLL).

o SPP 2022 Summer Peak (22SUM).

o MISO 2026 Summer Peak (26SUM).

o SPP 2027 Winter Peak (27WIN).

o PSE Developed 2038 Summer Peak (38SUM).

o GIRs dispatched in accordance with MISO and SPP dispatch criteria.

• MISO DPP-West & SPP DISIS Groups 16 & 18

o Existing fossil generation dispatch unchanged.

o Few ND TEP projects identified to be added to models.

6


Generation Interconnection Requestso As of September 1, 2019, 86 GIRs (11.7 GW) active in MISO, MPC, and

SPP queues for ND.

• 31 (2,964 MW Summer, 2,988 MW Winter) projects were in service;

• 2 (450 MW) projects were under construction or proceeding towards construction; and

• 53 (8,252 MW) projects were under study in the MISO, MPC, or SPP GI processes.

o Existing ND Generation 5 GW.

o Existing ND Load 4 GW.7


Load Growth Assumptions

o Load levels as modeled in 22SUM and 26SUM models.

o 38SUM Assumptions• 1.2% Annual Load Growth in

Williston Load Pocket.• 0.8% Annual Load Growth in

remaining ND area.

• Generation added at 20% GIR success assumption and standard dispatch criteria.

8

6,477

4,110

7,162

4,776

10,211

5,498

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

Gen Load Gen Load Gen Load

22SUM 26SUM 38SUM

MW

Zone 72 ND Outside Williston Zone 73 Williston Pocket Total ND Area


NDEX Flows

o NDEX retired as an IROL flowgate.o Defined set of transmission

facilities to measure powerflows.o NDEX flows increase to 133% of

current rating with gen and load growth.

o Indicates need for transmission.

9

1,2611,400 1,461

1,385

2,761

2,1502,080 2,080

2,1502,080

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

21SLL 22SUM 26SUM 27WIN 38SUM

MVA

SPP Defined NDEX Branches NDEX Limit


Thermal Violations

o Thermal overloads indicate MVA flow greater than 100% of applicable rating.

o Instances of thermal overloads on ND transmission facilities increased dramatically in the study models.


10

28

2,881

5,971

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

22SUM 26SUM 38SUM

Thermal Overloads > 100% RatingBase Case or N-1


Voltage Criteria Violations

o Voltage Criteria monitored against typical 0.95 – 1.05 p.u. range.

o Increasing criteria violations could indicate greater risk for voltage instability.


11

230 228

624

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

22SUM 26SUM 38SUMBus Voltages > 1.05 per unitBase Case or N-1

Bus Voltages < 0.95 per unitBase Case or N-1

Total Count of Bus VoltagesOutside Range


Energy Storage Resourceso MISO Energy Storage Options• Energy Resource (ERIS) & Network Resource (NRIS) Interconnection Service

• Surplus Interconnection Service(FERC ER19-1823 & ER19-1960)

• 19 Active MISO-West GI Energy Storage Projects totaling 900 MW

• 80 Active MISO GI Energy Storage Projects totaling 4,240 MW

o SPP Energy Storage Options

• Energy Resource (ERIS) & Network Resource (NRIS) Interconnection Service

• Surplus Interconnection Service (FERC ER19-1954)

• 1 Active SPP ND GI Energy Storage Projects totaling 74 MW

• 90 Active SPP GI Energy Storage Projects totaling 9,260 MW12


Energy Storage Analysiso With 8,252 MW and 53 GI projects being Studied

• Expecting Studies to Identify Significant Transmission System Improvement Needs.

o Consider Evaluation of Electric Storage in Lieu of Transmission Improvements

• Process Not Defined in Current Interconnection Process.

• Included in MISO Renewable Integration Impact Assessment (RIIA).

o Methodology

• Use Historic Hourly Dispatch Data – MW by Fuel Type.

• Scale Historic Wind Shape to Match a Simulated Retired Coal MWh.

13


Energy Storage Analysis (Cont.)o Methodology (Cont.)

• Assume Retirement of 900 MW of Coal.

Ø 5,600 GWh of Energy.

• Replace with Same Annual Amount of Wind Energy.

Ø 1,727 MW of Wind.

• Show Wind Curtailment at 900 MW max Wind gen output.

• Implement Adequate Energy Storage to Store curtailed Output and Dispatch Storage when Wind Generation is less than 900 MW.

14

© 2020 Power System Engineering, Inc. 15

0100200300400500600700800900

132

665

197

613

0116

2619

5122

7626

0129

2632

5135

7639

0142

2645

5148

7652

0155

2658

5161

7665

0168

2671

5174

7678

0181

2684

51

MW

Hour

Wind Curtailment Shape - 900 MW Max


(1,000)

(900)

(800)

(700)

(600)

(500)

(400)

(300)

(200)

(100)

-

135

270

310

5414

0517

5621

0724

5828

0931

6035

1138

6242

1345

6449

1552

6656

1759

6863

1966

7070

2173

7277

2380

7484

25

MW

Hourly Storage Discharge


-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

129

358

587

711

6914

6117

5320

4523

3726

2929

2132

1335

0537

9740

8943

8146

7349

6552

5755

4958

4161

3364

2567

1770

0973

0175

9378

8581

7784

69

MW

hEnergy Storage Balance - Wind Gen 900 Max MW


Energy Storage Analysis (Cont.)o Results• Raw Curtailments / Energy Stored

Ø 11% of the wind energy

Ø 609 GWh 826 MW

• Implementing Energy Storage

Ø 555 GWh 867 MW discharged to the system.

Ø Maximum storage energy level à 53 GWh to establish capital costs for storage.

o Conclusions• Storage Provides Means of Meeting Renewable Energy Target.

• Raw Curtailment to max of 900 MW Much Lower Costs.

• Transmission Improvements May Still be Required for Curtailment Only Case.18


Nodal Pricing Analysiso Evaluate System Transmission Congestion via Locational Marginal

Price(LMP) Values.

o Locational Marginal Price(LMP) Components

• Marginal Energy Component (MEC)

• Marginal Loss Component (MLC)

• Marginal Congestion Component (MCC)

o Transmission Constrained Areas – Generation Greater Than Load

• LMP Pricing Showing Negative Marginal Congestion Component.

• Combination of MLC and MCC

19


Nodal Pricing Analysis (Cont.)o Compared Pricing in Areas With Higher Levels of Wind Generation vs.

Areas with less wind generationo Nodes Near Higher Concentrations of Wind Generation• Bison, Oliver, and Coyote

o Nodes Further Away from Higher Concentrations of Wind Generation• Ashtabula and Hoot Lakea

20


MLC MCC Near More Wind Generation

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

$/M

Wh

Oliver MLC MCC Off-Peak

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

21

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

$/M

Wh

Oliver MLC MCC On-Peak

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


MLC MCC Near Less Wind Generation

22

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

$/M

Wh

Ashtabula MLC MCC On-Peak

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

$/M

Wh

Ashtabula MLC MCC Off-Peak

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


MLC/MCC Monthly Duration Curves - Bison

23

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

2016

120

16 2

2016

320

16 4

2016

520

16 7

2016

820

16 9

2016

10

2016

12

2017

120

17 2

2017

320

17 5

2017

620

17 7

2017

820

17 9

2017

11

2017

12

2018

120

18 2

2018

420

18 5

2018

620

18 7

2018

920

18 1

020

18 1

120

18 1

220

19 1

2019

320

19 4

2019

520

19 6

2019

820

19 9

2019

10

2019

11

$/M

Wh

Bison MLC/MCC Monthly Duration Curve


MLC/MCC Monthly Duration Curves - Ashtabula

24

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

10020

16 1

2016

220

16 3

2016

420

16 5

2016

720

16 8

2016

920

16 1

020

16 1

220

17 1

2017

220

17 3

2017

520

17 6

2017

720

17 8

2017

920

17 1

120

17 1

220

18 1

2018

220

18 4

2018

520

18 6

2018

720

18 9

2018

10

2018

11

2018

12

2019

120

19 3

2019

420

19 5

2019

620

19 8

2019

920

19 1

020

19 1

1

$/M

Wh

Ashtabula MLC/MCC Monthly Duration Curve


Pricing Analysiso Snapshot of Pricing Provides Insight into Congestion.o Case by Case Basis of Evaluating Market Pricing by Location.o Distribution of Results Provides Additional Insight into Pricing.• Distribution of Prices Weighted with Generation Output.

25


Conclusionso MISO and SPP GIRs are greatly outpacing forecasted load growth and

transmission expansion projects in ND.

o 80% of recent MISO and SPP GIRs were unsuccessful in ND.

o Energy Storage implementation may prove to be a viable alternative to transmission expansion and provide additional system benefits.

o Basis/LMP Pricing Analysis demonstrates that 2016-2019 MISO and SPP (MLC/MCC) values are more negative near concentrated wind generation areas in North Dakota.

o New transmission will need to be built or new uses for the existing transmission system will be needed in order to tap into more of North Dakota’s significant wind and solar resources.

26


Ongoing Efforts

o CapX2050 Transmission Vision Report

o MISO RIIA

o MISO-SPP Coordination Study

27

http://www.capx2020.com/

https://www.misoenergy.org/planning/policy-studies/Renewable-integration-impact-assessment/

https://www.misoenergy.org/about/media-center/miso-and-spp-to-conduct-joint-study-targeting-interconnection-challenges/


Reference Information

Presenters:

Tom Butz, P.E. Peter Koegel, P.E.

[email protected] [email protected]

(763) 783-5343 (763) 783-5351

Report:

North Dakota Transmission Capacity Study

February 4, 202028

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.powersystem.org/north-dakota-transmission-capacity-study-report/

Documents

The Future of North Dakota Transmission Capacityccaps.umn.edu/documents/CPE-Conferences/MIPSYCON...Tom Butz, P.E. Peter Koegel, P.E. The Future of North Dakota Transmission Capacity