© ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 1 MBPC Study – 1 st Load Pocket Preliminary Results for Discussion only Entergy Regional State Committee (ERSC) Southwest Power Pool (SPP) February 16, 2011 ABB Inc., Electric System Consulting Dept. ERSC
© ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 2 Agenda Study Overview Study Status Task List and Study Approach Case List Reference Case Production Costing Power Flow Very Preliminary Results for Western Load Pocket Production Costing Power Flow Analysis Next Steps
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 3 Study Status Study assumption document submitted for review Completed development of production costing and power flow models for 2013 Reference Case (RMR nomograms enforced) Analysis started for Western Load Pocket
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 4 Task List Task 1 – Develop Data base and System Models Task 2 – Transmission Analyses with RMR Unit Task 3 – Transmission Analyses w/o RMR Unit & no Transmission Change Task 4 – Transmission Analyses w/o RMR Unit & Transmission Change Task 5 – Production Cost Simulation with RMR Unit Task 6 – Production Cost Simulation w/o RMR Unit & no related Transfer Limit Constraint Task 7 – Production Cost Simulation w/o RMR Unit & with Transmission Changes Task 8 – Economic Comparison of Benefits and Costs Task 9 – Collate results by Units, Plants and Groups. Task 10 – Congestion Analysis Task 11 – Fuel Price Elasticity Task 12 – Sensitivity Analysis Task 13 – Perform ATC Calculations Task 14 – Study Report Preparation, Discussion and Presentation Task 15 – Additional Transmission Upgrades required for Flexible Capacity (Optional)
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 5 Study Approach - Overview
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 6 Case List
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 7 Reference Case Reference case provides a base for determining the impact of removing the RMR designations for the study units RMR nomograms are enforced in the reference case Modeling assumptions described in Study Assumptions Document
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 8 Reference Case (Production Costing) Benchmarked with Entergy units, using following statistics for 2007, 2008, 2009: Annual energy production Annual service hours RMR guidelines modeling was verified Operating reserve modeling was verified Entergy generation units data were checked
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 9 Reference Case (Power Flow) Reference case represents system conditions at the Entergy system peak hour (Aug. 26, 3 pm) Started from 2013 power flow case prepared by SPP-ICT Synchronized Loads in the Power Flow and Production Costing at the peak hour Synchronized dispatch of generating units within Entergy footprint based on Production Costing dispatch (SCED) at the peak hour Also ensured interchange between Entergy footprint and Tier 1 matches Production Costing interchange Entergy footprint totals at the peak hour: Load + losses: 33,810 MW Generation: 32,068 MW Import from Tier 1: 1,742 MW
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 10 Reference Case (Power Flow)
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 11 Reference Case Results (Power Flow) Ran power flow analysis on Reference Case to check steady-state performance in Entergy footprint for following conditions: System intact N-1 contingencies G-1,N-1 contingencies (WOTAB and Amite South) Results submitted to SPP SPP reviewed results and provided Construction Plan projects and comments on results
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 12 Western Load Pocket Analysis Following cases were simulated Case Name Definition West_0Same as reference case West_1Same as West_0 with no nomogram West_2Same as West_1 with no Western area transmission limits and no limits on 8 tie-lines between Western & WOTAB in production costing analysis West_3Same as West_0 with plant turned off West_4Same as West_3 with no Western area transmission limits and no limits on 8 tie-lines between Western & WOTAB in production costing analysis
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 13 Western Analysis (Contd.) Preliminary results For case West_1, it is found that: Lewis Creek units are still being dispatched on the security constrained economic dispatch basis and also due to transmission constraints that limit the import of power into the WOTAB/Western load pocket. Power flow analysis: When RMR designation was not used for Western units (Case West_1), generation dispatch is identical to that in the Reference Case (West_0 with RMR rule enforced) at the peak load hour. Hence, there was no need to repeat power flow for the West_1 Case.
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 14 Western Analysis (Contd.) Preliminary results In Case West_2, reduction (appr. 40%) in the Lewis Creek plant annual energy (MWh) production was observed. Power flow analysis showed degradation in steady-state performance (more overloads) compared to West_1 case, because the plant was dispatched at about 20% lower MW level (than in West_1 Case) during Entergy’s peak load hour.
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 15 Western Analysis (Contd.) Preliminary results For West_3 Case, with Lewis Creek plant turned off, the annual production cost, in the Entergy footprint, increased. Power flow analysis showed further degradation in steady-state performance (overloads) compared to West_2 case, including Voltage Collapse for certain double contingencies and several G1N1 contingencies. This is mainly due to erosion of reactive capability in Western Load pocket. The results for West_4 Case were similar to West_3 Case.
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 16 Next Steps Relieve all constraining flowgates Increase WOTAB import limit Power flow analysis will be run to check for transmission constraints associated with import of cheaper power into Western Addition of transmission projects to increase load pocket import capability Analysis (production costing and power flow): a) Is more economical generation available than assumed in the Production Costing model? b) If so, does that case require associated transmission fixes? - PV curves, OPF etc.
ERSC © ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 17 Q & A Thank you!