WORLD-GENERATION MAY/JUNE 2015 V.27 #2
29
PERSPECTIVE
more of system capacity) in 2020, both
being considerably higher than system
operators would want to experience, and 43
such overloads for the year as a whole. We
found that the MISO region would need at
least $500 to $750 million in transmission
investments in order to address transmis-
sion security issues from the implementa-
tion of the proposed CPP, not including
transmission projects that have already
been approved.
To develop a nationwide estimate of the
investment needs, we then extrapolated our
MISO findings by assuming that the aver-
age impact of a generator retirement on
transmission security is similar in other
regions. For just this one function, we found
that the CPP would precipitate the need for
$1.5 to $2.5 billion nationwide in additional
investment by 2020. Figure 6 is a color con-
tour showing the nationwide investments by
region. Clearly some regions will be more
affected than others. Darker shades repre-
sent larger investments.
Since we used single (N-1) contingency
analysis, we believe that this estimate is
conservative because system planners will
analyze contingencies more severe than
those included in our assessment. In addi-
tion, this analysis did not include the incre-
mental investment required by 2020 for two
other primary grid functions: 1) resource
adequacy (maintaining sufficient capacity
to meet customer needs in spite of sched-
uled and unscheduled outages); and 2)
transmission adequacy (having sufficient
transmission capacity to move power across
key interfaces in the system). We further
did not include transmission required to
interconnect new generation that CPP-
stimulated retirements would bring forward
in time.
How much could these investments be?
They could be considerable. Transmission
security generally requires less investment
than either of the other grid functions men-
tioned, and the need for interconnection
(particularly of renewables) and the use of
N-1-1 criteria will increase the investment
required. Thus, we expect that the incre-
Figure 5 – Without
Investment there would be
Many Transmission Security
Thermal Overloads
Figure 6 – The Need for Transmission Investment is
Widespread due to the CPP
mental transmission investment could be
quite a few multiples of the amount
required for transmission security. ICF
can evaluate those requirements based on
assessments of the CPP in specific cases
to help companies identify such needs and
opportunities.
Could these needs be satisfied?
Absolutely. An incremental $1.5 to $2.5 bil-
lion investment stemming from transmis-
sion security spread over several years rep-
resents a small fraction of the national
5-year capital expenditure on transmission
— less than 3% — and will not be an
impediment to CPP implementation. The
challenge is not making the investments
needed, but rather the time frame in which
they would need to be carried out. High-
voltage transmission investment from start
to finish can easily take 10 years, and that
does not count the time required for the
solicitation processes described above. It
may be quite challenging (some would say
infeasible) for transmission owners to
make the investment required in the time
frame required to avoid the kind of system
violations described above, which could put
the reliability of power supply at risk.
Thus, it’s not a question of “how much?”,
but rather, “how soon?”.
ICF is regularly evaluating such sce-
narios and continues to work with clients
to analyze the specifics of each region and
the magnitude of such requirements.
WHO GETSTO BUILDTRANSMISSION?
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 28
Legend
Retiring Capacity as % of Peak Demand
Investment Needed to Resolve Reliability Violations
Low--------------------------------------------High
MISO Incremental Transmission Line Overloads
under Proposed CPP
Thermal Loading (%)
# of Transmission Lines Overloaded
