presentation to ferc’s northeast energy infrastructure conference electricity infrastructure in...
TRANSCRIPT
Presentation to FERC’s Northeast Energy
Infrastructure Conference Electricity Infrastructure
in New EnglandStephen G. Whitley
Sr. Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
ISO New England Inc.
January 31, 2002
2
Overview of Remarks
• ISO New England - Who we are and what we do• Supply outlook• Natural gas issues• Regional transmission planning process• Southwest Connecticut• Conclusions
3
ISOAgreement
Who is ISO New Englandand what do we do?
• INDEPENDENT system operator based in Holyoke, MA
• Private, not-for-profit corporation created according to FERC principles in 1997
• Responsible for system reliability and administration of the wholesale electricity markets and the regional transmission tariff
• ISO operates under an agreement with NEPOOL
4
Supply Additions Appear Strong in Relationship to Demand Growth
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Projected CumulativeSummer Supply
Additions over 1998
CumulativeIncrease in Summer
Peak Demandover 1998
MW
5
Gas Pipelines Have InsufficientCapacity for Power Plant Use
• Shortfalls in deliveries to electric generation sector could begin as early as this winter.
• No impacts to traditional gas LDC operations/customers.
• Potential gas contingencies assessed for impacts on electric generation sector.
• Dual fuel units switching to oil mitigates any potential delivery shortfalls.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
MW
2001/2002 2002/2003 2004/2005
Phase I High Phase II Reference Phase II High
Gas-Fired MW at Risk
6
Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP)
• ISO-NE-led effort involving both New England transmission
owners and a diverse group of stakeholders• First phase (RTEP01-Oct. ‘01) represents initial assessment
of reliability and economics of New England system• Goals of analysis:
– Assess system adequacy both regionally and sub-regionally– Identify transmission constraints– Communicate the status of planned transmission upgrades– Estimate costs of congestion to consumers– Attract a market response (generation, transmission, load response)
7
-$100
$100
$300
$500
$700
Mil./
Yea
r
CT ME MA NH RI VT NewEngland
High Case$600M
High Case$600M
Low Case$125M
Low Case$125M
Transmission Bottlenecks are IncreasingProjected Annual Costs of Congestion RTEP01, 2002-06
8
Priority One: SW ConnecticutTransmission System History and Background
• 345 kV loop originally proposed in 1970s postponed due to:– Fluctuations in economy and load growth– 115 kV system improvements– High coordination of local generator and transmission maintenance
• Loads increased 25% in 1990s• Sale of existing generators resulted in loss of control of optimum
coordination of local generator and transmission maintenance• More uncertainty surrounding future availability and performance
of local generation• Cross Sound Cable (Trans-Energie merchant facility) approved by
Connecticut Siting Council; 300 MW connection to Long Island
9
345kV Transmission Proposal
Material on this page is consider Non-Internet Public (NIP)
You would like a copy of this slide, please contact:
Public Reference RoomTelephone: 202-502-8371Toll-free 1-866-208-3676Email: [email protected]
10
In closing...• Supplies in New England are adequate, however,
‘deliverability’ is at issue– Transmission bottlenecks are increasing the cost and
decreasing the reliability of electricity production and delivery
• Natural gas requirements for power generation
increasing; current pipeline system cannot supply all
power plant requirements on coldest days• Regional transmission planning is key to success of the
regional marketplace• Southwest Connecticut requires action NOW
11
Background Information
13
MW Cuml.• Generation installed in 1999 355 355• Generation installed in 2000 1,738 2,093• Generation installed in 2001 1,570 3,663
• Expected 2002 & beyond
(under construction) 6,120 9,783• Planned 2002 & beyond
(NOT under construction) 1,584 11,367
Generator Construction is Robustas of 1/1/2002, Summer Ratings
Supply Outlook
14
History and Background
• Formation of the New England Gas/Electric Discussion
Group in 1991 to examine regional coordination issues
between the gas & electric industries– Examine operational reliability of the gas/electric
infrastructure– Increase coordination between the industries– Educate industry participants and observers
• 1993 EPRI report includes the modeling of the loss of a
major gas & non-gas fired generator, under projected 1995
system conditions• Seven years pass with no similar analysis
Gas Study
15
Why a Gas Study?
• Since 1997, ISO-NE has received applications for
interconnection System Impact Studies for
almost 55,000 MW of new merchant generation
capacity• Virtually all of this newly proposed capacity is
advanced combined cycle technology or peaking
capacity fueled exclusively by natural gas• There is a need to review the natural gas pipeline
infrastructure in New England and its ability to
reliably meet the increasing demand of the
power generation sector (deliverability study)
Gas Study
16
Scope of Study
• Study time frame: 2001 - 2005• Analysis of existing pipeline infrastructure (Phase I)• Analysis of expected pipeline infrastructure additions (Phase
I & II)• Develop a steady state hydraulic engineering model of the
pipeline systems serving the NEPOOL region (Phase I & II)• Analyze impacts of Reference and High Case natural gas
demand consumption (Phase I & II)• Conduct sensitivity analysis and transient analysis (Phase II)• Summarize results and issue report with recommendations
Gas Study
17
Phase I Steady-State Modeling ResultsIssued February 2001
• No pipeline delivery constraints on a peak day in Winter 2000-01• No summer peak day pipeline deliverability constraints through 2005• Gas delivery constraints become apparent in Winter 2003
– Shortfall in gas requirements 1,755 MW out of 7,550 MW assumed
• Gas delivery constraints intensify by Winter 2005– Shortfall in gas requirements 3,226 MW out of 11,500 MW assumed
• Theoretical mitigation potential thru back-up fuel:• Winter 2003 - 71 gas-fired units totaling 16,000 MW
- 51 dual fueled totaling 9,250 MW• Winter 2005 - 75 gas-fired units totaling 18,650 MW
- 54 dual fueled totaling 11,500 MW
Gas Study
18
RTEP
Material on this page is consider Non-Internet Public (NIP)
You would like a copy of this slide, please contact:
Public Reference RoomTelephone: 202-502-8371Toll-free 1-866-208-3676Email: [email protected]
NY-NE - 1400w/o Cross
Sound Cable
SEMA - 1000
Norwalk-Stamford - 1100
Surowiec South - 1150ME-NH -1400
North-South - 2700
Boston - 3600
SEMA/RI - 1600
NBOrrington South - 1050
NB-NE - 700HQHighgate - 225 Phase II - 1500
CSC -330
S-MELoad 5751493 MW
MELoad 11561093 MW
BHELoad 376874 MW
SEMALoad 23293346 MW
RILoad 20585419 MW
W-MALoad 20413654 MW
CMA/NEMALoad 1548
243 MW
Peak Load and Installed Capacity MW by Area - 2006
VTLoad 1353
879 MW
NY
NHLoad 19143590 MW
BOSTONLoad 52573984 MW
CTLoad 33194359 MW
SWCTLoad 26622112 MW
NORLoad 1129
463 MW Under Construction
Other Studies Required
RTEPLoad
Capacity
KEY:Connecticut - 2500Regional Transmission Expansion Plan Sub-area
Priority Studies Required
South West CT - 1700
East-West - 2150
RTEP
20
Transmission Alternatives
• Various scenarios upgrading 115 kV lines from Frost Bridge,
Southington and East Shore• 115 kV Plan
– Upgrade Devon to Norwalk 115 kV, Circuit 1– Upgrade Devon to Norwalk 115 kV Circuit 2– Upgrade Peaceable to Norwalk 115 kV– Build new Devon to Norwalk 115 kV– Build new Pequonnock to Norwalk 115 kV– Reconfigure Norwalk - Norwalk Harbor - Glenbrook 115 kV System
• Case 2 with Plumtree 115 kV Phase Angle Regulator• Case 3 with with Beseck to Devon 345 kV• 230 kV Loop: Plumtree - Norwalk - Beseck
SW Connecticut
Long Mountain
FrostBridge
Southington
BeseckJunction
Devon
PequonnockNorwalk
Plumtree
Proposed‘345 kV Loop’
1-Line
NOR-STAMNOR-STAM
SWCTSWCT
115 kV345 kVProposed 345 kVInterfaceInterface
Key:
7
SW Connecticut
22
Recommended Solution: 345-kV Loop
• Plumtree - Norwalk - Pequonnock - Devon - Beseck 345kV– 2005 / 2006 in-service date; $500-$600 million– ~100 miles - mostly on existing right-of-way– Includes associated 115kV improvements
• Meets study objectives:– Formulate long-term transmission solution for SW Connecticut that:
• Satisfies reliability criteria• Eliminates operating difficulties• Eliminates first contingency (including double circuit) overloads• Eliminates threat of voltage collapse
– Mitigates congestion by increasing SW CT and Norwalk-Stamford
transfer limits
SW Connecticut
23
Improvement Associated With Recommended Solution
• Preliminary planning transfer limits– SWCT: > 2,900 MW (up from 1,700)– Norwalk-Stamford: > 1,300 MW (up from 1,100)– May eliminate the need for the
Norwalk-Stamford interface definition
• Construction sequencing– NU has proposed a phased approach– ISO is currently investigating impacts
SW Connecticut
24
Other Associated Work
• Add new 345kV Substations at Plumtree, Norwalk, Pequonnock,
Devon, & Beseck Junction• Add new 345kV loop from Plumtree to Beseck Junction• Add (2) 3-150MVA auto transformers at Norwalk, (1) at
Pequonnock, and (1) at Devon• Add (1) 3-200 MVA auto transformers at Pequonnock to shift
Bridgeport Energy output to 345kV• Rearrange / add to 115kV between Norwalk, Norwalk Harbor
and Glenbrook• Establish new 115kV substation adjacent to Devon (East Devon)• Other 115kV work a/w new 345kV structures
SW Connecticut