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