wind and transmission corridors

1

Wind and Transmission Corridors

Western Central Chapter, American Planning AssociationAugust 13, 2010

Dave Olsen

www.westerngrid.net

2

About Western Grid Group

• 200 years state regulatory experience– Former chairmen, staff of 8 western PSCs

• 50 years experience as wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric power developers

• Non-profit NGO; works with Governors, utilities, regulators, agencies, advocates

• Formed 2003 to develop policies to accelerate transition to sustainable electricity, win transmission access for clean resources

3

Presentation Overview

1. National energy policy context

2. Wind power development and major proposed transmission projects

3. Federal transmission policy

4. Transmission planning

5. Corridor fundamentals

6. Planning Challenges in the Transition to Low-Carbon Electricity

4

1. National Energy Policy Context

– Policy Drivers

– Low-carbon electric sector

– Scale of transmission likely required

– DOE interconnection-wide planning

5

Policy Drivers

• Energy security: rely more on indigenous, inexhaustible sources

• Jobs, economic development: clean energy economy

• Sustainability: reduce emissions, toxics, land/habitat, water, public health impacts

6

Low-Carbon Electricity

• IPCC: 80% GHG reduction by 2050 Very low carbon electric sector

• Portfolio: Energy Efficiency, Demand Resources, Combined Heat-Power, Distributed Generation, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Biomass; some Gas

• More reliable

• Potentially lower cost

7

Scale of Transmission Needed

• With maximum Energy Efficiency, Distributed Generation, large amount utility-scale renewables needed

• 20% wind: ~300 GW

• Transmission needed to move power to cities in every region

• Regional plans underway; national plans• considered

9

Interconnection-Wide Planning

• DOE funding 1st-ever plans for Eastern, Western and Texas interconnections

• Evaluate infrastructure needed by 2030 to support transition to low-carbon economy

• Requires utilities to coordinate power flow across different regions

• Involves range of stakeholders

10

2. Status of Wind Power Development and Major Planned Transmission Projects

• DOE 2009 Wind Technologies Report• National High Voltage Transmission Overlay• Regional transmission projects

11

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

0

6

1 2

1 8

2 4

3 0

3 6

A n n u a l U S C a p a c i t y ( l e f t s c a l e )

C u m u l a t i v e U S C a p a c i t y ( r i g h t s c a l e )

U.S. Wind Power Up >40% in 2009

12

Wind Power Contributed 39% of All New U.S. Generating Capacity in 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

39% wind

42% wind42% wind

42% wind42% wind

35% wind18% wind

12% wind2% wind

3% wind

1% wind

4% wind

0% wind

Wind the 2nd-largest resource for the 5th-straight year

13

U.S Lags Others in Wind as a % of Electricity Consumption

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

DenmarkPortugalSpainIreland

GermanyGreece

Netherlands

UK Italy IndiaAustria

U.S.

SwedenFranceAustraliaCanadaTurkeyChina BrazilJapan

TOTAL

Approximate Wind Penetration, end of 2009




Projected Wind Electricity as a

Proportion of Electricity Consumption

14

~ 300 GW Wind in Transmission Interconnection Queues

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Wind Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Solar Other

Nameplate Capacity (GW)

Entered Queue in 2009 Total in queue at end of 2009

15

>90% Planned for Midwest, Mountain, ERCOT, PJM, SPP, NW

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

MISO /Midwest

Mountain ERCOT PJM SPP Northwest CaliforniaISO

New YorkISO

ISO-NewEngland

Southeast

Nameplate Wind Power Capacity (GW)

Entered queue in 2009 Total in queue at end of 2009

Not all of this capacity will be built….

16

No Offshore Projects Built Yet, but 13 Are In Advanced Development

•Three projects have signed or proposed power purchase agreements•Cape Wind granted approval by Department of Interior

17

State Policies Help Direct Location and Amount of Wind Development

Non -Binding Goal

Source: Berkeley Lab

WI: 10% by 2015

NV: 25% by 2025

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015

P A: 8.5% by 2020

NJ: 22.5% by 2021CT: 23% by 2020

MA: 11.1% by 2009 +1%/yr

ME: 40% by 2017

NM: 20% by 2020 (IO Us)10% by 2020 (co -ops)

CA: 20% by 2010

MN: 25% by 2025Xcel: 30% by 2020

IA: 105 MW by 1999

MD: 20% by 2022

RI: 16% by 2019

HI: 40% by 2030

AZ: 15% by 2025

NY: 30% by 2015

CO: 30% by 2020 (IO Us)10% by 2020 (co -ops and munis )

MT: 15% by 2015

DE: 20% by 2019

DC: 20% by 2020

WA: 15% by 2020

NH: 23.8% by 2025

OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities )5 -10% by 2025 (smaller utilities )

NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IO Us)10% by 2018 (co -ops and munis )

IL: 25% by 2025

Mandatory RPS

VT: 20% by 2017ND: 10% by 2015

VA: 15% by 2025MO: 15% by 2021

OH: 12.5% by 2024

S D: 10% by 2015

UT: 20% by 2025

MI: 10% by 2015

KS : 20% o f peak demand by 2020

O K: 15% by 2015

AK: 50 % by 2025

• KS established mandatory RPS in 2009; total now 29 states and D.C.

• State renewable funds, tax incentives, utility resource planning, voluntary green power, carbon concerns played a role in 2009

18

American Electric Power’s Transmission Vision

19

18

•

3

Regional Generation OutletStudy - MISO

23

3. Federal Transmission Policy

Policy Basics

Open Access

Location-Constrained Resources

Federal-State jurisdiction boundaries

24

Transmission Policy Basics

• Transmission = ≥ 230 kV– Deemed to be in interstate commerce– FERC sets rates; state PSCs pass through

FERC jurisdictional transmission costs

• Distribution = ≤ 230 kV– Rates set by state PSCs

• Congestion = limits on ability to deliver power; raises power costs

• Key Issues: Planning, Permitting, Paying

25

Open Access

• Vertically integrated utilities use transmission to protect their generation from competition

• FERC Orders 888, 889 (1996) unbundle transmission from generation

• Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) provide regional service over utility-owned assets

• Drivers: Competitive neutrality, efficiency; regionalization, for economics, reliability

26

Location-Constrained Resources

• Large generating projects can support dedicated major transmission lines

• Gas generators can locate projects to access existing or planned transmission

• Small, dispersed wind/solar projects cannot support major lines; can’t move generation sites

• FERC policy now allows transmission to be built to wind projects, financed initially by utilities

27

Federal v. State Siting

• Natural gas: FERC siting authority

• Electricity: state siting authority– Complicates development of interstate

transmission– State PSCs have authority only to borders

• Proposed legislation: give FERC backstop siting authority, if states won’t approve needed transmission

28

4. Transmission Planning

Planning practices evolving Interconnection animus Proposed planning standards

29

Planning Practices Evolving

Until recently:

• Consider only reliability, congestion, cost

• Little regional planning; utility service areas only

• Electrical experts only

• Little environmental, land-use input

Now, increasingly:

• New stakeholders, more environmental input

• New standards to earn public consent

30

Interconnection Animus

• Many benefits of more interconnectedness– Can’t be considered in transmission approvals

• 500 kV project: significant local impacts, and often local opposition– But small addition to regional grid– Regional benefits potentially large– State approvals restrict consideration of regional

benefits

31

New Planning Standards

• Earn public consent for new infrastructure• Energy security, jobs/economic impacts,

environment, public health of most concern– Can’t be considered in most planning

• New standards to incorporate emissions, land, wildlife, water, jobs, consumer benefits, energy independence

• More stakeholder input => better plans

32

5. Corridor Fundamentals

• Wind utilization of line capacity

• AC and DC lines• Minimizing ROW, maximizing power

transfer

• Right-Sizing transmission projects

33

Wind Line Utilization

• Wind uses ~35% of tx line capacity– Wind-only lines=>higher delivered power cost

• To use more line capacity:– Combine with solar – good diurnal match– Over-build wind capacity, curtail at times– Design line to access different wind regimes

• Some projects target 75% wind, 25% gas

34

AC and DC Lines

• HVDC less expensive over long distances– But on/off-ramps very expensive; little benefit

to states not having them– Can be under-grounded (at high cost)

• HVAC lines less expensive to access generation, deliver power in each state– Approval often easier for interstate projects

35

Corridor Power Transfer

• Maximize power transfer to minimize new corridors

• 765 kV line carries as much power as six 345 kV lines

• Reliability impacts manageable

• Dynamic line ratings increase transfer– Wind cools lines, allows more flow

36

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

37

Right-Sizing Transmission

• Design projects to carry more power than needed at present– Long-term economic savings– Significant environmental benefits

• Requires paying upfront cost of larger project; risk that extra capacity not used– Should customers pay? Government?

38

6. Planning Challenges in the Transition to Low-Carbon Electricity

• Some key challenges

• Routing design issues

• Aligning project planning with local land-use plans

39

Some Key Challenges

• Building county/state support for large-scale regional transmission projects

• Modeling land, wildlife, water impacts in electric planning– Need consistent state data, new models

• Interstate siting, cost allocation approvals– use planning venues to coordinate across state

lines, build record on which decisions based

• Designing to optimize wind-solar transfer

40

Routing Design Issues

• Smart From the Start– Projects planned to protect habitat, ecosystems

• Decision-support software– Allows communities to weight attributes of routing

alternatives, sync with local land use plans

• Make planning case for Right-sizing,

maximizing power in corridors plans

41

Align with Local Land-Use Plans

• Ensure compatibility with local comprehensive land-use, zoning plans

• Minimize conflicts with local conservation acquisition priorities

• Ensure consistency with regional transportation and infrastructure plans

42

For More Information, 1

Wind industry status, prospects 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/re-pubs.html

DOE 20% Wind by 2030: http://www.20percentwind.org/

DOE Interconnection-wide Planning Eastern: http://www.eipconline.com/

Western: http://www.wecc.biz/Planning/TransmissionExpansion/RTEP/Pages/default.aspx

Emerging system planning standards FERC Planning-Cost Allocation NOPR (Docket No. RM10-23-000, June 17, 2010):

http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2010/061710/E-9.pdf

43

For More Information, 2

Power transfer in corridors American Electric Power, Right-of-Way Stewardship,

http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/docs/LookingTowardstheFuture.pdf

Routing Alternatives Decision Support

Facet Decision Systems, web-based scenario modeling: http://www.facet.com/ourcapabilities.html:

“Smart from the Start” Project Design

Nevada Wilderness Project: http://www.wildnevada.org/smartfromthestart.html

wind and transmission corridors

Documents