Wind and Transmission Corridors
Western Central Chapter, American Planning Association
August 13, 2010
Dave Olsen
www.westerngrid.net
1
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
2
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
3
1. National Energy Policy Context
–
Policy Drivers
–
Low-carbon electric sector
–
Scale of transmission likely required
–
DOE interconnection-wide planning
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
8
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
9
2. Status of Wind Power
Development and Major Planned
Transmission Projects
• DOE 2009 Wind Technologies Report
• National High Voltage Transmission Overlay
• Regional transmission projects
10
11
20 09
20 08
20 07
20 06
20 05
20 04
20 03
20 02
20 01
20 00
19 99
19 98
19 97
19 96
19 95
19 94
19 93
19 92
19 91
19 90
19 89
19 88
19 87
19 86
12
A nnual US Capacity (le ft scale)
8
24
6
18
4
12
2
6
0
0
C um ulativ e C a pa c ity (G W )
10
19 85
19 84
19 83
19 82
19 81
A nn ua l C ap ac ity (G W )
U.S. Wind Power Up >40% in 2009
36
30
Cumulative US Capacity (right scale)
Wind Power Contributed 39% of All New
U.S. Generating Capacity in 2009
Total Annual Capacity Additions (GW)
80
Other non-Renewable
Coal
Gas (non-CCGT)
Gas (CCGT)
Other Renewable
Wind
42%
42%
wind
wind
1% wind
70
3% wind
60
4% wind
50
40
0% wind
30
39% wind
2% wind
12% wind
20
42% wind
42%wind
wind 35% wind
18%
44% wind
10
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Source: EIA, Ventyx, AWEA, IREC, Berkeley Lab
2008
Wind the 2nd-largest resource for the 5th-straight year
12
2009
U.S Lags Others in Wind as a
% of Electricity Consumption
Approximate Wind Penetration, end of 2009
20%
Approximate Wind Penetration, end of 2008
18%
Approximate Wind Penetration, end of 2007
16%
Approximate Wind Penetration, end of 2006
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
13
TOTAL
Japan
Brazil
China
Turkey
Canada
Australia
France
Sweden
U.S.
Austria
India
Italy
UK
Netherlands
Greece
Germany
Ireland
Spain
0%
Portugal
2%
Denmark
Projected Wind Electricity as a
Proportion of Electricity Consumption
22%
~ 300 GW Wind in Transmission
Interconnection Queues
350
Entered Queue in 2009
Nameplate Capacity (GW)
300
Total in queue at end of 2009
250
200
150
100
50
0
Wind
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Solar
14
Other
>90% Planned for Midwest, Mountain,
ERCOT, PJM, SPP, NW
Nameplate Wind Power Capacity (GW)
90
Entered queue in 2009
80
Total in queue at end of 2009
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MISO /
Midwest
Mountain
ERCOT
PJM
SPP
Northwest California New York
ISO
ISO
ISO-New Southeast
England
Not all of this capacity will be built….
15
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
16
State Policies Help Direct Location and
Amount of Wind Development
WA: 15% by 2020
MT: 15% by 2015
MN: 25% by 2025
Xcel: 30% by 2020
ME: 40% by 2017
NH: 23.8% by 2025
ND: 10% by 2015
OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities)
5-10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)
NV: 25% by 2025
IA: 105 MW by 1999
IL: 25% by 2025
MO: 15% by 2021
CO: 30% by 2020 (IOUs)
10% by 2020 (co-ops and munis)
OK: 15% by 2015
AZ: 15% by 2025
VT: 20% by 2017
NY: 30% by 2015
SD: 10% by 2015 WI: 10% by 2015
PA: 8.5% by 2020
UT: 20% by 2025 KS: 20% of peak
demand by 2020
CA: 20% by 2010
MI: 10% by 2015
NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
10% by 2020 (co-ops)
NJ: 22.5% by 2021
MA: 11.1% by 2009 +1%/yr
RI: 16% by 2019
CT: 23% by 2020
DE: 20% by 2019
OH: 12.5% by 2024
DC: 20% by 2020
MD: 20% by 2022
VA: 15% by 2025
NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)
10% by 2018 (co-ops and munis)
AK: 50% by 2025
TX: 5,880 MW by 2015
HI: 40% by 2030
Mandatory RPS
Non-Binding Goal
Berkeley Lab
•Source:
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
17
American Electric Power’s Transmission Vision
18
19
20
21
22
3. Federal Transmission Policy

Policy Basics

Open Access

Location-Constrained Resources

Federal-State jurisdiction boundaries
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
4. Transmission Planning
 Planning practices evolving
 Interconnection animus
 Proposed planning standards
28
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
29
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
30
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
31
5. Corridor Fundamentals
•
Wind utilization of line capacity
•
AC and DC lines
•
•
Minimizing ROW, maximizing power
transfer
Right-Sizing transmission projects
32
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
33
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
34
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
35
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
36
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?
37
6. Planning Challenges in the
Transition to Low-Carbon Electricity
• Some key challenges
• Routing design issues
• Aligning project planning with local
land-use plans
38
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
39
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
40
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
41
For More Information, 1
Wind industry status, prospects
2009 Wind Technologies Market Report: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/repubs.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
42
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
43