PJM©2012
Offshore Wind Integration Studies at PJM
September 13, 2012
Steven Herling
Vice President, Planning
PJM Interconnection
PJM©20122
2010 RTEP - Conceptual Offshore Wind Study
www.pjm.com
• Reliability + Market Efficiency• Entirely Offshore Wind• Injected at 4 locations
– Hudson, Larrabee, Indian River, Fentress
• 4 Scenarios– No wind– 10 GW, 20 GW, 30 GW
• Conclusion– Market efficiency simulated almost no
wind curtailment at 10GW peneteration.
– Moderate curtailment at 20GW penetration
– Major curtailment at 30GW penetration
PJM©20123
2011 RTEP RPS Scenario Studies
• Satisfy RPS needs with PJM resources
• Multiple sourcing scenarios for ~ 40 GW total of wind– 20 GW offshore – 4 GW offshore
• Study identified congestion at the injection points that would require significant transmission investment.
PJM©2012
2012 RTEP Analysis
PJM©20125
2012 RTEP
• Building off the work done in the 2011 RTEP
• Evaluating three sourcing scenarios to meet PJM RPS requirements in 2027– 36 GW wind and 3.6 GW solar– Scenario 1 – source all RPS from within PJM with 7
GW offshore wind and 29 GW from land-based wind– Scenario 2 – source all RPS from land-based
resources– Scenario 3 – wind sourced 60% internal to PJM and
40% from MISO / SPP
PJM©20126
2012 RTEP – Preliminary Analysis
• Purpose– Initial modeling and analyses focused on validating
the ability of the production cost simulation tools to model a system similar to the AWC project including offshore wind resources interconnected via HVDC.
– Leveraged modeling and analysis done as part of the 2011 RTEP
PJM©20127
• Preliminary set of PROMOD runs using last year’s base case:• Study year 2016• PJM Deactivations not modeled• 2011 RTEP power flow case (no MAPP, PATH)• Gas forecast: Henry Hub ~7 $/MMBtu
• HVDC Terminals & Wind Injection Points:• Hudson1 (PSEG)• Cardiff (Atlantic Electric)• Indian River (DP&L)• Navy (Dominion)
• Offshore wind profile parameters (NREL data) :• CF 47%• Annual Total Energy ~16,401 GWh for 4000 MW nameplate
• HVDC lines modeled with no losses, no operating restrictions.
Input Assumptions
PJM©20128
Idx Scenario Description
AWC Wind Install Cap(MW)
Topology
CommentsHudson Cardiff IndRiv Navy HVDC
OffshoreRadial Lines
AWC00Base Scenario
No HVDC Offshore, No radial linesNo Wind
No No Base Scenario
AWC01Base Scenario
with HVDC OffshoreNo Wind
Yes No Shows the impact of HVDC lines even without wind injections.
AWC02Hudson 4000MW Scenario
with HVDC Offshore4000MW Wind @ Hudson
4,000 Yes No 4000MW wind installed at Hudson
AWC03Cardiff 4000MW Scenario
with HVDC Offshore4000MW Wind @ Cardiff
4,000 Yes No 4000MW wind installed at Cardiff
AWC044 x 1000MW Scenariowith HVDC Offshore4 x 1000MW Wind
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Yes No 1000MW wind each at Hudson, Cardiff, Indian River, and Navy
AWC05Hudson 4000MW Scenario
radial line into Hudson4000MW Wind @ Hudson
4,000 No Yes Same as Scenario AWC02, no HVDC lines
AWC06Cardiff 4000MW Scenario
radial line into Cardiff4000MW Wind @ Cardiff
4,000 No Yes Same as Scenario AWC03, no HVDC lines
AWC074 x 1000MW Scenario
radial lines4 x 1000MW Wind
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 No Yes Same as Scenario AWC04, no HVDC lines
1. The Market Efficiency scenarios for this study were derived from last year's interregional base case.
AWC Scenarios Overview
PJM©20129
Offshore Flows – HVDC Tie Flows
PJM©201210
• Results shows that the flows going onshore, out from the HVDC terminals, are indifferent to the wind injection point - PROMOD yields the optimal onshore injection pattern no matter of the particular position of the wind farm on the HVDC.
• Indian River appears to be the preferred injection point - may be a factor of the number of flow gates (or lack thereof) modeled for Delmarva peninsula.
• There is no wind curtailment, the wind profile is used at full capacity.• Flows from Navy HVDC terminal always heavy into the HVDC line, going north.• The total net flows toward shore, in the base case, is not zero, due to a small amount of bus
load at the injection points.
Onshore Flows (Net Flow from HVDC terminals)
PJM©201211
The charts show the incremental LMP impact (On-Peak and Off-Peak) of adding the stand-alone HVDC system to the Base Case, then adding the Offshore Wind to the HVDC System.
LMP Impacts
PJM©201212
LMP Impacts – Radial Injection vs. HVDC
PJM©201213
LMP Impacts – Radial Injection vs. HVDC
PJM©201214
• Update modeling consistent with 2012 RTEP Assumptions Footprint includes PJM, MISO 2017 updated power flow topology Updated Gas forecast: Henry Hub ~4.9 $/MMBtu PJM Announced Deactivations Installed Renewable Resources consistent with the RPS
requirements of PJM states.
• Consider the states request requirements: 7000MW Offshore Wind AWC HVDC System modeled as controllable system to optimize
the wind injection. Study year 2023 Customized outputs reports by state: production cost savings;
avoided congestion savings; pollution reduction benefits, etc.
Next Steps
PJM©201215
2012 RTEP – 7GW Radial Injection
www.pjm.com
PJM©201216
2012 RTEP – 7GW Offshore with HVDC Interconnection
www.pjm.com
PJM©201217
Offshore Wind Joint Study – NCTPC
• PJM is also engaged in a joint study with the North Carolina Transmission Planning Collaborative.
• Evaluating three scenarios– 1000 MW injection at Landstowne,
Morehead City and Southport– 2000 MW injection at Landstowne
and 1500 MW injection at Morehead City and Southport
– 4500 MW injection at Landstowne and a 3500 MW injection at Morehead City and a 2000 MW injection at Southport
• Reliability analysis of the three scenarios is in-progress
www.pjm.com