© ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 1 MBPC Study – 1 st Load Pocket Preliminary Results for Discussion only Entergy Regional State Committee (ERSC) Southwest

© ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 1

MBPC Study – 1st Load PocketPreliminary Results for Discussion only

Entergy Regional State Committee (ERSC) Southwest Power Pool (SPP)

February 16, 2011

ABB Inc. , Electric System Consulting Dept.

ERSC

ERSC


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


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


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


Study Approach - Overview

ERSC


Case List

ERSC


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


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


Reference Case (Power Flow)

Reference case represents system conditions at the Entergy system peak hour (Aug. 26, 2013 @ 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


Reference Case (Power Flow)

ERSC


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


Western Load Pocket Analysis

Following cases were simulated

Case Name

Definition

West_0 Same as reference case West_1 Same as West_0 with no nomogram

West_2 Same as West_1 with no Western area transmission limits and no limits on 8 tie-lines between Western & WOTAB in production costing analysis

West_3 Same as West_0 with plant turned off

West_4 Same as West_3 with no Western area transmission limits and no limits on 8 tie-lines between Western & WOTAB in production costing analysis

ERSC


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



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



Preliminary results

For West_3 Case, with Lewis Creek plant turned off, theannual 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


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


Q & A

Thank you!

Documents

© ABB Group August 23,2010 | Slide 1 MBPC Study – 1 st Load Pocket Preliminary Results for Discussion only Entergy Regional State Committee (ERSC) Southwest