SPP Priority Projects
Nebraska Area
FCITC Sensitivity Analysis
Study Scope
• Evaluate FCITC impacts of SPP Priority
Projects on existing NPPD flowgates and
known constraints to regional transfer
capability.
• Document incremental FCITC impacts due to
SPP Priority Projects.
• Evaluate competing alternatives to CooperMaryville-Sibley 345 kV to mitigate COOPER_S
and known constraints in area.
Model Development
Base: 2009 Series MRO models
• 2015 Summer Peak, 2015 Summer Off-Peak, 2015 Winter Peak
Case 2: Base Models + Balanced Portfolio Projects
Case 3: Case 2 Models + Priority Projects
Case 4: Case 3 Models (Priority Projects) + Replace
Cooper-Maryville-Sibley 345 kV with Nebraska
City-Maryville-Sibley 345 kV
Case 5: Case 3 Models (Priority Projects) + Replace
Cooper-Maryville-Sibley 345 kV with Nebraska
City-Stranger Creek 345 kV
MRO vs. SPP Models
SPP staff had initially raised concerns with NPPD’s
utilization of MRO vs. SPP models for this study.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to compare
FCITC results using 2015 SUPK MRO and 2014
SUPK SPP models.
No significant differences were discovered.
FCITC Analysis
• Source Areas
• Northern MAPP/MRO
• Western NE
• Sink Areas
• Southern SPP
• Monitored Elements & Contingencies
• NPPD Flowgates
• Known constraints to regional transfer capability
• PSS/E Activity TLTG
GGS
GRIS_LNC
WNE_WKS
COOPER_S
Priority Project FCITC Impacts
Beneficial Impacts
• COOPER_S flowgate & underlying constraints
• Cooper-Maryville-Sibley 345 kV provides parallel 345 kV
path
• Significant increase in FCITC
• Parallel 161 kV paths are still most limiting
• GRIS_LNC flowgate
• Axtell-Wolf-Spearville 345 kV benefits this flowgate
• Priority Projects more tightly network the Spearville
terminal to eastern Kansas which further benefits this
flowgate.
Priority Project FCITC Impacts
Adverse Impacts
• WNE_WKS flowgate & underlying constraints
• Lower impedance west-to-east paths south of
this flowgate
• Slightly decreases FCITC on this flowgate
• Cooper-Nebraska City 345 kV FLO CooperMoore 345 kV
• Most limiting 345 kV path with Priority Projects
• Potential new Flowgate in future
Competing Alternatives
Evaluated two competing alternatives to CooperMaryville-Sibley 345 kV line
• Re-terminate new line at Nebraska City instead of
Cooper (Case 4)
• Replace Cooper – Sibley 345 kV line with Nebraska
City – Stranger Creek 345 kV (Case 5)
Case 4 Alternative
Priority Project
Case 5 Alternative
Competing Alternatives Results
• Existing Cooper – Maryville – Sibley 345 kV
Priority Project greatly improves COOPER_S
flowgate FCITC, but may result in new flowgate in
future (Cooper-Nebraska City 345 kV).
• Re-termination of Sibley line to Nebraska City
would address potential Cooper-Nebraska City
issue and provide even more FCITC benefits on
COOPER_S and underlying 161 kV constraints.
Supporting FCITC Data
MODEL
CONTINGENCY
CASE 2
-
LIMITING FACILITY FCITC
FCITC
Increase
% FCITC
Change
COOPER_S
5027
-
-
CASE 2 Cooper-Moore
NebCity-Cooper
6845
-
-
CASE 2 MINT Terminal
C.Bluffs-R.Bend
3544
-
-
CASE 3
COOPER_S
6816
1789
36%
CASE 3 Cooper-Moore
NebCity-Cooper
6700
-144
-2%
CASE 3 MINT Terminal
C.Bluffs-R.Bend
4769
1225
35%
CASE 4
COOPER_S
6839
1812
36%
10531
3686
54%
-
-
CASE 4 Cooper-Moore
NebCity-Cooper
CASE 4 MINT Terminal
C.Bluffs-R.Bend
5296
1751
49%
CASE 5
COOPER_S
7463
2436
48%
12262
5417
79%
5608
2063
58%
-
CASE 5 Cooper-Moore
NebCity-Cooper
CASE 5 MINT Terminal
C.Bluffs-R.Bend
Competing Alternatives
Cost Implications
Cooper – Maryville – Sibley 345 kV
~152 Miles of new 345 kV
Nebraska City – Maryville – Sibley 345 kV (Case 4)
~177 Miles of new 345 kV
Nebraska City – Stranger Creek 345 kV (Case 5)
~131 Miles of new 345 kV
Summary
• Overall, the Priority Projects significantly improved
the COOPER_S and GRIS_LNC flowgates.
•WNE_WKS was slightly adversely impacted due to
the lower impedance west-to-east paths in Kansas.
•Two competing alternatives demonstrated better
FCITC performance than the proposed CooperMaryville-Sibley 345 kV project.
• Neb City-Stranger 345 kV alternative was best
performing option, but this option would not
provide access to wind resource zones in NW
Missouri.
Summary
• Cooper – Maryville – Sibley 345 kV Priority
Project greatly improves COOPER_S
• Nebraska City – Maryville – Sibley 345 kV
alternative would be the preferred Priority
Project
• Costs are expected to be similar to existing Cooper
– Maryville – Sibley 345 kV priority project
• Provides transmission access to wind resource
zones in NW Missouri
• Provides superior regional transfer capability
characteristics in the COOPER_S corridor