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

SPP Presentation PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 115 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

SPP Presentation


Kansas panhandle expansion plan

Kansas/ Panhandle Expansion Plan

Bruce Walkup

Kansas/Panhandle Workshop II

February 22, 2005

Ambassador - Amarillo


Kansas panhandle workshop i

Kansas/Panhandle Workshop I

  • February 17, 2004

  • Wichita, Kansas

  • Very well attended

  • Broad range of industry participants


Kansas panhandle workshop i 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

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

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

The Plans


Proposed scenario a

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

Scenario A

Pauline

Knoll

Holcomb

Wichita

Spearville

Mooreland

NW

Potter

Plan A


Proposed scenario b

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

Scenario B

Pauline

Knoll

Holcomb

Spearville

Wichita

Rosehill

Cleveland

Sooner

NW

Potter

Elk City


Proposed scenario c

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

Scenario C

Pauline

Summit

Holcomb

Spearville

Wichita

Rosehill

Cleveland

Sooner

Elk City

NW

Tuco


Project evaluation

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 Evaluation


Phase i analysis

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

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

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

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

Comparison of Plans –Export FCITC


Cost comparison based on spring summer runs

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

Cost Comparison


Requested sensitivity runs

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 A – Export FCITC


Comparison of selected legs of plan b export fcitc

Comparison of Selected Legs of Plan B – Export FCITC


Fcitc vs cumulative costs of first legs of plans a b

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


Sensitivity run modified plan a1

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

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 Evaluation


Phase ii fun facts

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

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

Wind Power Output Profile Data

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


Wind power output profile data1

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 sage summer average

Base System w/o Wind or Sand SageSummer Average


Plan a w o wind or sand sage summer average

Plan A w/o Wind or Sand SageSummer Average


Plan b w o wind or sand sage summer average

Plan B w/o Wind or Sand SageSummer Average


Base system w wind sand sage summer average

Base System w/ Wind & Sand SageSummer Average


Plan a w wind sand sage summer average

Plan A w/ Wind & Sand SageSummer Average


Plan b w wind sand sage summer average

Plan B w/ Wind & Sand SageSummer Average


Base system w wind sand sage typical july 21 1700 hr

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


Plan a w wind sand sage typical july 21 1700 hr

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


Plan b w wind sand sage typical july 21 1700 hr

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


Base system w wind sand sage typical july 21 2300 hr

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


Plan a w wind sand sage typical july 21 2300 hr

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


Plan b w wind sand sage typical july 21 2300 hr

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


Spring economic benefit comparison

Spring Economic Benefit Comparison


Summer economic benefit comparison

Summer Economic Benefit Comparison


Fall economic benefit comparison

Fall Economic Benefit Comparison


Winter economic benefit comparison

Winter Economic Benefit Comparison


Annual economic benefit comparison

Annual Economic Benefit Comparison


Phase ii conclusions

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

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 increments with wind sand sage

Plan A - Incrementswith Wind & Sand Sage


Plan a increments with wind sand sage1

Plan A - Incrementswith Wind & Sand Sage


Plan a increments without wind sand sage

Plan A - Incrementswithout Wind & Sand Sage


Plan a increments without wind sand sage1

Plan A - Incrementswithout Wind & Sand Sage


Plan a increment conclusions

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

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

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

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

Contact SPP

[email protected]

http://www.spp.org

General Inquiries: 501-614-3200


  • Login