Spp presentation
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 61

SPP Presentation PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 123 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

SPP Presentation. Kansas/ Panhandle Expansion Plan. Bruce Walkup Kansas/Panhandle Workshop II February 22, 2005 Ambassador - Amarillo. Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I. February 17, 2004 Wichita, Kansas Very well attended Broad range of industry participants.

Download Presentation

SPP Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


SPP Presentation


Kansas/ Panhandle Expansion Plan

Bruce Walkup

Kansas/Panhandle Workshop II

February 22, 2005

Ambassador - Amarillo


Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I

  • February 17, 2004

  • Wichita, Kansas

  • Very well attended

  • Broad range of industry participants


Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I Participants

  • 61 participants

    • affected state commissions

    • state legislators

    • transmission owners

    • transmission customers like municipalities and rural electric cooperatives

    • wind developers

    • consultants

    • equipment manufacturers


Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I Presentations

  • Six formal presentations were made regarding transmission expansion alternatives by Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Aquila, Zilkha Renewable Energy, enXco, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority and SPS/Xcel Energy


Study Driver

  • Needed to explore alternatives ASAP and not wait for the results of the existing regional planning process which is already underway.

  • Interested parties agreed upon study scope, alternatives to evaluate, milestones and deliverables.


The Plans


Proposed Scenario A

  • $419.0 million projected cost, not including underlying upgrades

    • Spearville – Knoll – Pauline 345 kV

    • Knoll 345/230 kV transformer

    • Spearville – Mooreland 345 kV

    • Potter – Mooreland 345 kV

    • Mooreland – Wichita 345 kV

    • Mooreland – Northwest 345 kV

    • Mooreland 345/138 kV transformer


Scenario A

Pauline

Knoll

Holcomb

Wichita

Spearville

Mooreland

NW

Potter

Plan A


Proposed Scenario B

  • $410.0 million projected cost, not including underlying upgrades

    • Spearville – Knoll – Pauline 345 kV

    • Knoll 345/230 kV transformer

    • Spearville – Wichita 345 kV

    • Rose Hill – Cleveland – Sooner 345 kV

    • Potter – Elk City – Northwest 345 kV

    • Elk City 345/230 kV transformer


Scenario B

Pauline

Knoll

Holcomb

Spearville

Wichita

Rosehill

Cleveland

Sooner

NW

Potter

Elk City


Proposed Scenario C

  • $399.5 million projected cost, not including underlying upgrades

    • Pauline – Summit – Wichita 345 kV

    • Spearville – Wichita 345 kV

    • Rose Hill – Cleveland – Sooner 345 kV

    • Tuco – Elk City – Northwest 345 kV

    • Elk City 345/230 kV transformer


Scenario C

Scenario C

Pauline

Summit

Holcomb

Spearville

Wichita

Rosehill

Cleveland

Sooner

Elk City

NW

Tuco


Project Evaluation

  • Phase I - Import and export FCITC (First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability) analysis using PTI’s MUST program

  • Phase II – PowerWorld/Henwood (PROSYM & MARKETSYM) economic evaluation


Phase I Evaluation


Phase I - Analysis

  • 2005 Summer Peak and 2005 Spring models for analysis

  • SPP and 1st tier 100 kV+ monitor elements and contingencies

  • Identify rough cost estimates and rank expansion alternatives based on improvements to imports/exports


Export Points

  • Sand Sage 600 MW

  • Wind Capacity 2500 MW (nameplate)

    • Potter 1000 MW

    • Holcomb 500 MW

    • Nichols 500 MW

    • Tolk 500 MW

  • Wind output 20% (500 MW) in Summer, 80% (2000 MW) in Spring

  • Assume all new generation is exported beyond SPP system (i.e., no displacement of existing SPP resources)


SPP Limiting Facilities not Fixed by any of Plans A, B or C

  • Sand Sage & 80% Wind Export

    • Holcomb-CTU Sublette 115 kV (see next)

    • N. Cimarron-Cimarron 115 kV

    • Manning-Nekoma 115 kV (see next)

    • Medicine Lodge 138/115 kV Trf.

    • Grapevine-Elk City 230 kV; Elk City 230/138 kV Trf.; Elk City-Clinton Jct. 138 kV

    • Kirby-McClellan Rural 115 kV; Shamrock 115/69 kV Trf., Shamrock 138/69 kV Trf.


Limiting Facilities Included in Expansion Plan

  • Sunflower June 2008

    • Holcomb-Plymell-Pioneer Tap 115 kV

    • Manning Tap-Dighton-Beeler-Ness City 115 kV


Comparison of Plans –Export FCITC


Cost Comparison(based on Spring & Summer runs)

  • Plan C discarded due to lower FCITC and greater number of limits

  • $34.6 million in common underlying upgrades for Plans A or B

  • $5.1 million in additional underlying upgrades for Plan A

  • $32.4 million in a additional underlying upgrades for Plan B


Cost Comparison


Requested Sensitivity Runs

  • Sensitivities

    • Spearville-Knoll-Pauline 345 kV line rerouted to Axtell instead (Plan A or B)

    • 500 MW additional wind at Spearville

    • Not including proposed Elk City 345/230 kV transformer (Plan B)

    • 1000 MW less wind in Texas

  • Previously identified constraints largely unaffected for sensitivity runs


Comparison of Selected Legs of Plan A – Export FCITC


Comparison of Selected Legs of Plan B – Export FCITC


FCITC vs. Cumulative Costsof First Legs of Plans A & B


Sensitivity Run – Modified Plan A1

  • Replace Mooreland-Potter 345 kV line with Mooreland-Tuco 345 kV line

  • Additional cost is approximately $30 million, plus many additional upgrades required

  • Comparable FCITC limits are about 400-500 MW lower


Phase I - Conclusions

  • Plan A is recommended based on transfer analysis and installed transmission costs

    • Economic choice over B

    • Borders key wind development areas

    • Provides support to Mooreland area


Phase II Evaluation


Phase II – Fun Facts

  • Runs

    • 40 full seasonal @ 12 hours, 2.5 GB each

    • 56 EXCEL workbooks @ 2 hours each (Visual Basic & MS Access queries)

    • Over 30 typical July week sensitivities

  • Learning curve for applications of economic planning

    • PowerWorld, PROSYSM, MARKETSYM

    • Program Intricacies – multiple reruns

    • Program Bugs – quick response by vendors


Phase II - Analysis

  • Create wind profiles using West Texas A&M University data

  • Assign SPP IPPs and new wind farms into separate areas

  • Monitor SPP and 1st tier 100 kV+ elements and flowgates (plus flowgates identified in Phase I)

  • Run spring, summer, fall and winter 2005 cases

  • Compare Production Cost Savings (Production Cost = Dispatch Cost + Violation Cost)


Wind Power Output Profile Data

Data Courtesy of Alternative Energy Institute (West Texas A&M University, Canyon, Texas)


Wind Power Output Profile Data

Data Courtesy of Alternative Energy Institute (West Texas A&M University, Canyon, Texas)


Base System w/o Wind or Sand SageSummer Average


Plan A w/o Wind or Sand SageSummer Average


Plan B w/o Wind or Sand SageSummer Average


Base System w/ Wind & Sand SageSummer Average


Plan A w/ Wind & Sand SageSummer Average


Plan B w/ Wind & Sand SageSummer Average


Base System w/ Wind & Sand SageTypical July 21 - 1700 Hr


Plan A w/ Wind & Sand SageTypical July 21 - 1700 Hr


Plan B w/ Wind & Sand SageTypical July 21 - 1700 Hr


Base System w/ Wind & Sand SageTypical July 21 - 2300 Hr


Plan A w/ Wind & Sand SageTypical July 21 - 2300 Hr


Plan B w/ Wind & Sand SageTypical July 21 - 2300 Hr


Spring Economic Benefit Comparison


Summer Economic Benefit Comparison


Fall Economic Benefit Comparison


Winter Economic Benefit Comparison


Annual Economic Benefit Comparison


Phase II - Conclusions

  • Full Plans are not economically viable (i.e., via production cost savings) if wind does not materialize (10 years @ 8% discount rate)

    • No Wind or Sand Sage

      • Plan A $171.6 M savings vs. $458.7 M cost

    • With Wind & Sand Sage

      • Plan A $490.7 M savings vs. $458.7 M cost

    • With Sand Sage and no Wind

      • Plan A 1st leg only $109.4 M savings vs. $63.3 M cost

  • Plan A is recommended based on greater production cost savings (also recommended in Phase I)


Sensitivity Runs for Plan A

  • Plan A Leg Increments (assuming Spearville-Mooreland 345 kV line is 1st leg)

    • With Wind & Sand Sage

    • Without Wind & Sand Sage

  • High Fuel

  • 2010 vs. 2005 Load

    • With Wind & Sand Sage

    • Without Wind & Sand Sage


Plan A - Incrementswith Wind & Sand Sage


Plan A - Incrementswith Wind & Sand Sage


Plan A - Incrementswithout Wind & Sand Sage


Plan A - Incrementswithout Wind & Sand Sage


Plan A - Increment Conclusions

  • With Wind & Sand Sage

    • Most benefit derived by building Mooreland-NW 345 kV line second

    • Most benefit derived by building Mooreland-Potter 345 kV line third

  • Without Wind & Sand Sage

    • Most benefit derived by building Spearville-Knoll-Pauline 345 kV line second

    • Most benefit derived by building Mooreland-NW 345 kV line third


Plan A - High Fuel

  • July 2005 Fuel Cost Sensitivity

    • Natural Gas from about $5 to $6.5 per million BTU

    • Oil #2 from about $6 to $7.5 per million BTU

  • 52.6% increase seen in full Summer season production cost savings for high fuel scenario over original ($11.1 M vs. $7.3 M), making plan more attractive

    • Results should hold for other plans


Plan A - 2010 vs. 2005

  • With Wind & Sand Sage

    • 43.4% increase seen in full Summer season production cost savings for 2010 scenario over 2005 ($32.4 M vs. $22.6 M)

  • Without Wind & Sand Sage

    • 25.4% increase seen in full Summer season production cost savings for 2010 scenario over 2005 ($9.1 M vs. $7.3 M)

  • No expansion plan items added beyond those already mentioned in Phase I


Kansas/Panhandle Timeline

  • Phase I preliminary report completed and posted May 7, 2004

  • Phase II - Economic assessment of Plan A and B

    • Created wind profiles using West Texas A&M University data September 30, 2004

    • Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter 2005 Henwood runs completed (plus sensitivities)

  • Draft report end of March 2005

  • Final report end of April 2005

  • Roll results into SPP Expansion Plan, as appropriate

    • Analysis results may change as other expansion plan items are included


Contact SPP

[email protected]

http://www.spp.org

General Inquiries: 501-614-3200


  • Login