Dale Osborn Midwest ISO October 13, 2008 EE 590 Transmission Planning with Significant Energy Resources

Historical Methods Clair’s presentation –Local generation to serve local load-expanded on NERC or local reliability criteria –Interties built for reliability, power purchase opportunities, economics are a plus LOLE, LOLP reduce the amount of generation that must be constructed Contingency for major transmission loss- ice storms Also sell capacity and energy-power purchase would justify the line in early years Sell economy energy

Transmission Planning Methods Traditional Reliability Planning-David Duebner –Find a problem –Find the “best” solution Energy ( Economic) Planning-Dale Osborn –Find the opportunity –Design a system that would capture an economic share of the opportunity

New Factors that Require Changes in the Planning Methods Open Access Transmission Tariffs RTO’s- breadth and speed of decision options greatly expanded –Generation Queue processes –Single transmission source –Energy Markets –Reliability decisions on a wide area and not the sum of individual decisions-State Estimator Model, Outage Coordination, AFC calcuations,Reliability Coordination, Settlements –Utility focused planning still required-RTO’s fit the pieces together, they do not define the pieces Energy Markets Ancillary Service Markets and Balancing Area consolidation Wind Energy- RPS Carbon reductions Environmental restrictions Load response

Transmission Design Present transmission systems were not designed to run in multi-RTO energy market environments. Generation generally was planned to serve load in a utility area. Interconnections were used to increase reliability by pooling generation reserves and for economic energy and power exchanges. Transmission could be designed to make the multiple energy markets efficient in the Eastern Interconnection. Capacity would still be planned locally for reliability purposes.

Design Criteria What do you wish to have the transmission capable of doing? –Peak power delivery- reliability –Economic energy delivery- Benefit/Cost ratio –Both- assignment of capabilities –Exporting of wind energy diversity Who would pay for it? –Integrated AC design –HVDC to separate the desing How would they pay for it? Where would it be constructed? Sequencing- can you get from here to there?

What is needed to plan a transmission system Stakeholder participation- Clair-scope of study Models-transmission, generation, loads-David Duebner Generation Forecasts- John Lawhorn Criteria- present, future –Political will –Economic performance criteria-order matters –Reliability performance critieria –Evaluation procedure Merit evaluation definition

Overlay Hub SPP MISO PJM NYISO ISO-NE TVA Entergy Southern

Dale Osborn, Zheng Zhou Midwest ISO April, Transmission Plan Based on Economic Studies Paper 08TD0721 Slides

MISO PJM Joint and Common Market

240,000 MW of Wind Generation

Market Flow

80% of Maximum Loading

Lowest cost options Target typical planned loading Mw, use economics to choose voltage

HVDC Advantages Lower cost per Mw-mile Smaller ROW- higher power density Does not interfere with railroad operations Can be undergrounded for water crossings for longer distances- Norway to the Netherlands is the longest -420 miles Provides unique dynamic characteristics to spread a disturbance over a large generation base quickly in a parallel manner. Can link New Jersey to North Dakota. No short circuit contributions No intermediate reactive control substations needed- if you need a tap use AC Combined with AC systems for contingent operation-5,000 Mw contingency design Schedulable –Power flow –Price differences –Frequency –Wind variability –Contingency response –Minimize loop flow

4,000 16,000

63,000 MW of wind mandates

765 kV 800 kV HVDC 6400 MVA

Generation Connection Capability 240,000 MW of wind generation modeled as connected to the transmission system including the overlay 180,000 MW of conventional generation modeled as connected to the transmission system including the overlay The overlay provides a place to connect generation and deliver the energy

1200/1600 MVA 400 kV +800 kV -800 kV -400 kV Bi Polar Transmission line 3 HVDC Lines would have 12 terminals at the source and 12 terminals at the sinks-14,400 MW –self contingent ACAC 400 MW can be connected per terminal, 1600 Mw total per line with a radial AC backup system

To HVDC For standard 2600 MW rated 765 kV lines 2600 MW can be delivered to the HVDC line Which is rated at 4800 MW Series capacitors, double circuits, HSIL construction all could double The delivery capability and thus Increase the generation Connection and delivery capability Advantage of looping transmission

To HVDC Advantage of looping transmission Cross links to a terminal or terminals can double the delivery to the HVDC terminal 5200 MW for standard rated 765 kV 2600 MW 2600 Mw