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
U.S. Wind Power Up >40% in 2009
1 2 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 )

1 0 3 0

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 )

8 2 4

6 1 8

4 1 2

2 6

0 0

11
Wind Power Contributed 39% of All New
U.S. Generating Capacity in 2009

80
42%
42% wind
1% wind
70

60 3% wind

50 4% wind

40
0% wind
30 2% wind 39% wind
12% wind
20 42% wind
wind 35% wind
42%wind
18%
10

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

12
U.S Lags Others in Wind as a
% of Electricity Consumption

22%
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% Wind Electricity as a
Projected
Proportion
4% of Electricity Consumption

2%
0%
UK Italy
India U.S.
SpainIreland
Greece Austria France ChinaBrazilJapanTOT
Turkey
Portugal
Denmark Sweden Canada
Australia
Germany
Netherlands

13
~ 300 GW Wind in Transmission
Interconnection Queues
350

300 Entered Queue in 2009 Total in queue at end of 2009

250

200

150

Nameplate
100 Capacity (GW)

50

0
Wind Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Solar Other

14
>90% Planned for Midwest, Mountain,
ERCOT, PJM, SPP, NW
90

80 Entered queue in 2009 Total in queue at end of 2009

70

60

50

40

30

20
Nameplate Wind Power Capacity (GW)
10

0
MISO / Mountain ERCOT PJM SPP Northwest California New York ISO-New Southeast
Midwest ISO ISO 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 MN: 25%by 2025
ME: 40%by 2017
MT: 15%by 2015 Xcel: 30% by 2020
NH: 23.8% by 2025
ND: 10% by 2015 MI: 10%by 2015 VT: 20% by 2017
MA: 11.1%by 2009 +1%/yr
OR: 25%by 2025 (large utilities ) WI: 10% by 2015 NY: 30% by 2015
S D: 10% by 2015 RI: 16% by 2019
5 -10% by 2025 (s maller utilities )
P A: 8.5% by 2020
CT: 23%by 2020
NV: 25% by 2025 IA: 105 MW by 1999 NJ: 22.5% by 2021
DE: 20% by 2019
UT: 20% by 2025 KS : 20% o f peak IL: 25% by 2025 OH: 12.5%by 2024
demand by 2020 DC: 20%by 2020
CO: 30%by 2020 (IO Us) MO: 15%by 2021 MD: 20%by 2022 VA: 15% by 2025
CA: 20%by 2010
10% by 2020 (co -ops and munis )
O K: 15% by 2015 NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IO Us )
10% by 2018 (co -ops and munis )
AZ: 15% by 2025 NM: 20%by 2020 (IO Us )
10% by 2020 (co -ops )
AK: 50 % by 2025

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015

Mandatory RPS
HI: 40% by 2030
Non -Binding Goal

•Source:
KS Berkeley Lab
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
 Regional Generation Outlet
Study - MISO
•

3 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/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

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