Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Home , Madison Wind Farm, Wind power forecasting

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Relatively little wind generation is actually in operation on the NPCC system this year (2008). NPCC members and its neighboring Region have different ways of accounting for this generation in their resource adequacy assessments. From a historical perspective, there is relatively little operational experience regarding NPCC specific wind generation in terms of capacity forecasting and utilization factor.

The CP-8 Working Group has concluded that it is not possible to dictate a ‘one size fits all’ intermittent (wind) resource adequacy model due to the diversity of the types and configurations (wind farms/individual turbines), locations (specific regional wind speed characteristics) and varying system conditions (summer/winter peaking) across NPCC and its neighboring Region. The NPCC CP-8 Working Group has reviewed the detailed studies addressing modeling intermittent (wind) resources through the various stakeholder processes currently underway, and recommends modeling these intermittent (wind) resources in NPCC resource adequacy assessments consistent with the modeling and assumptions determined by those respective studies.

The CP-8 Working Group recommends unifying NPCC reporting and modeling methods for intermittent (wind) resources after reviewing the operational experience gained from the actual operation of the projects anticipated to be in-service in the next few years.

The CP-8 Working Group also recommends the need to study the intermittent nature of resources other than wind (for example, resulting from the so-called ‘response fatigue’ 1 that may be associated with the anticipated amounts of future demand response programs, or generation restrictions resulting from existing/future environmental regulations imposed in response to air quality concerns on high electric demand days 2 ) in order to properly assess their resource adequacy impacts.

This White Paper summarizes of the intermittent (wind) resource adequacy models and assumptions used by NPCC Areas and its neighboring Region for resource adequacy assessments. This summary provides the basis for the CP-8 Working Group’s intermittent (wind) resource adequacy Area and neighboring Region modeling guidelines for NPCC resource adequacy assessments.

1 If called upon too frequently, customers may be unwilling or unable to continue load curtailments. See: http://www.energetics.com/electricity_forum_2007/pdfs/61498.pdf

2 These are the days during the ozone season (May 1 – Sept 30) which require typically require the most electricity to be generated, but they are also the days most likely to result in the greatest ozone formation due to the ambient conditions.

NPCC 1 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

SUMMARY Area Wind Modeling Québec No wind resources were modeled in Québec in the 2008 NPCC Summer Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment. 3 All of the wind capacity in Québec is generated by Independent Power Producers. The capacity in-service for the summer of 2008 was 422 MW. This is entirely situated in the Matapédia region of the system ─ around the Gaspésie peninsula near the Gulf of St-Lawrence. A new wind farm, Carleton, is expected to be in service in December 2008. This wind farm will have a 110 MW installed capacity, bringing the total installed wind power capacity in Québec to approximately 532 MW.

According to actual planning, wind power nameplate capacity may rise up to 4,000 MW by the year 2015. Studies regarding capacity value are still in progress. In a first step, a complete dataset of 36 years of hourly wind power generation has been estimated, using backcasting techniques. This data is used for capacity value estimation. Preliminary results were found to be very sensitive to small changes in the wind power generation during a limited number of meteorological events, identified as generating 95% of loss of load probabilities. The wind power generation during these events will be subject to further analysis. Results are expected by next summer.

In the meantime, Hydro-Québec derates completely wind power for resource adequacy purposes.

Maritimes The wind resources located in Prince Edward Island (PEI) and Northern Maine Independent System Administrator (NMISA) were modeled in the 2008 NPCC Summer Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment as a fixed MW value available for all hours. The PEI wind has a rating of 21 MW during the winter, and 14 MW during the summer. The NMISA wind is rated 16 MW winter, 8 MW summer.

For Nova Scotia, the wind was modeled with an hourly profile developed from a typical daily pattern of output for each month. The maximum capacities modeled range from 11 MW in June to 29.2 MW in September through December.

3 See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reports/Seasonal.aspx

NPCC 2 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Wind project capacity in the Maritimes Area was derated for the summer and winter periods based upon results from the Sept. 21, 2005 New Brunswick System Operator (NBSO) report “Maritimes Wind Integration Study”. 4

This 2005 study showed that the effective capacity from wind projects, and their contribution to Loss of Load Expectation was equal to or better than their seasonal capacity factors. Coincidence of high winter wind generation with the peak winter loads results in the Maritimes Area receiving a higher capacity benefit from wind projects versus a summer peaking area. The effective wind capacity calculation also assumes a good geographic dispersion of the wind projects in order to mitigate the occurrences of having zero wind production. For 2008/09, the derated capacity values are approximately 20% for the summer and 40% for the winter.

New England No wind resources were modeled in New England for the 2008 NPCC Summer Multi- Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment. The total nameplate capability of wind generators in New England is 11.2 MW, while the amount claimed for capability is 4.5 MW (40 % of nameplate). Three additional wind facilities with a total nameplate rating of 114 MW are expected to come on line by the end of 2008.

The summer/winter qualified capacity of a new wind resource is the summer/winter qualified capacity claimed by the project sponsor. The project sponsor also needs to include in the qualification package the measured and recorded site-specific summer and winter data relevant to the expected performance of the wind resources (including wind speed data). The New England Independent System Operator (ISO-NE) confirms the summer and winter qualified capacity that the project sponsor claims for the wind resource based on this information.

Regarding the future, ISO-NE’s 2008 Regional System Plan references studies that show New England has the potential for developing thousands of megawatts of wind resources. 5 The studies consider improving the transmission system to reliably and economically integrate the larger wind resources, the need of maintaining the frequency of the network at 60 hertz (Hz), regulating electric power interchange schedules with neighboring regions, providing back-up supplies when the wind does not blow, and ramping other supplies to account for changes in the wind resource outputs. These and other operational issues may be addressed through more accurate forecasts of the amount of electric energy wind resources could produce and revised market rules to account for many of the

4 See: http://www.nbso.ca/Public/_private/2005%20Maritime%20Wind%20Integration%20Study%20_Final_.pdf 5 See: http://www.iso-ne.com/trans/rsp/2008/rsp08_final_101608_public_version.pdf

NPCC 3 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

physical issues introduced by the variable nature of wind resources. ISO-NE is working with stakeholders and industry experts to address these and other issues concerning the successful integration of wind resources.

New York In New York, five separate wind sites were modeled in the 2008 NPCC Summer Multi- Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment, each with its own hourly profile for all of the hours in the year developed from historical wind data. The sum of the maximum ratings each month is approximately 438 MW, although the monthly capacity factors range from 23% in August to 26% in February.

New York’s approach is to model wind resources as load modifiers with a 90% summer derate factor. Hourly wind readings taken at or near each wind resource are converted to hourly unit MW output. Wind density, turbine height, and other factors are taken into account. These hourly MW output values are then netted against the hourly zonal load. New York uses historic hourly wind readings taken in 2002. This wind study year also corresponds to the base hourly load shape year used in New York’s and NPCC’s resource adequacy studies.

Ontario The wind resources in Ontario were modeled in the 2008 NPCC Summer Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment using an hourly profile for a typical week (168 hourly values). The maximum capacity equals 173 MW through September, increasing to 331 MW in November as additional capacity is brought on-line. In this study, wind generation is assumed to contribute 10% of the nameplate rating, at the time of peak demand, for the mid term, 34 days to 18 months time horizon.

Near term forecasting, days 1-33, presently assumes wind contributes 0%. Regarding long term, the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) 6 currently uses the same 10 % contribution approach as for mid-term. Ontario Power Authority (OPA) uses a value of approximately 20% based on simulated wind contribution when demand is within 10% of annual peak (using a 20 year historic data set derived jointly with IESO and posted on OPA's web site). 7

The IESO, in coordination with stakeholders, established a new mid term wind capacity contribution method on November 5, 2008. 8 Studies after this date will use an estimated wind capacity contribution during the high risk hours for its implementation in 18 month

6 See: http://www.ieso.ca/default.asp 7 See: http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/ 8 See: http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/consult/consult_windpower-sc.asp

NPCC 4 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

outlook and seasonal assessments. This approach considers the monthly median of simulated wind data over a 10 year history and the actual wind farm data over an approximate 2 year history and uses the lesser of these two values. The method captures the top 5-contiguous peak demand hours for winter and summer seasons as well as monthly shoulder periods. This method was developed considering the IESO’s specific operational and outage planning needs as well as seasonal assessment needs. The IESO, in coordination with stakeholders, is also in a process of finalizing and implementing the wind capacity contribution method for the near term period.

PJM The wind resources in the PJM (PJM) Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) were modeled in the 2008 NPCC Summer Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment as a fixed MW value available for all hours. The total installed capacity increases through the year starting at 1,884 MW in January to 2,557 MW in December.

PJM currently has approximately 20 wind farms with a total nameplate capacity of 1,200 megawatts. The amount of capacity modeled is per PJM manual 21, appendix B for rating intermittent resources. Currently a 13% factor is applied to all wind units that do not supply individual data for a given set of wind units (NERC GADS data 9 ). Wind capacity is less than one percent of the PJM peak load and does not represent reliability concerns due to the small amount for this category of generation. The PJM RTO winds units are geographically diverse; however, PJM can experience localized constraints due to wind unit generation.

Wind projects entering the generation interconnection queue after February 2008 are studied at a default capacity value of 13% of its nameplate rating. New wind units can be assigned a different capacity factor other than the class average if they provide supporting

9 See: http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=4|43

NPCC 5 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments data, but few choose this option. Wind units are modeled at their respective capacity factors, reducing the rating of units, in planning studies. However, each wind unit is assigned a zero forced outage rate and zero planned maintenance outage at this reduced rating. When wind becomes a significant portion of the PJM generation fleet, PJM will consider using a more rigorous method to evaluate wind capacity value such as evaluation of each unit’s effective load carrying capability. The PJM 2008 Reserve Requirement Study report, for the 2012 / 2013 delivery year shows 169 wind units modeled, representing 840 MW of capacity, at a zero forced outage rate. This value was calculated by applying the 13% derate factor to the nameplate rating of the projects in the interconnection queue (approximately 31,000 MW), assuming a 15% commercial availability factor.

NPCC 6 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Area Wind Resources

As reported (page 20) in the NPCC CO-12 Working Group’s study, "NPCC Reliability Assessment for Winter 2008 - 09", November 2008 10 “ …relatively little wind generation is actually on the NPCC system this year (2008). 11 NPCC Areas have different ways of accounting for this generation. Little is known about real life operation of wind generation in terms of capacity forecasting and utilization factor. More and more of this type of generation is expected to come on line in the next few years and with this experience, NPCC will unify reporting methods.”

The following table illustrates the NPCC nameplate wind capacity reported in the NPCC Reliability Assessments for the start of the 2008 summer and 2008-09 winter periods. Some Areas include the entire nameplate capacity in their installed capacity assumptions with a derate value to account for the fact that some of the capacity will not be online at the time of peak. Others simply reduce the nameplate capacity by a factor and include this reduced capacity directly in the installed capacity assumptions.

NPCC Nameplate Summer Nameplate Winter Area Capacity (MW) Capacity After Capacity (MW) Capacity After 2008 Summer Applied Derate 2008-08 Winter Applied Derate Factor Factor Maritimes 171.96 48.57 348.3 194.5 New 11.2 4.3 12.3 4.5 England New York 424 42.4 994 298.2 Ontario 472 47.2 512 51.2 Québec 420 0 470.8 0 Total 1,499.16 118.87 2,337.4 548.4

10 See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reports/Seasonal.aspx 11 As compared to NPCC’s Projected 2008 Summer Net Operable Capacity of 150,865 MW; see NPCC Overview Summer 2008 at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/aboutus/General.aspx

NPCC 7 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

New England

NPCC 8 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

The above map (from the New England Wind Forum 12 ) shows wind projects in New England that are operating, permitted or under construction, planned, and historical. The map identifies which projects are wind farms, community-scale, customer-sited, and small wind. To read about individual projects, click on the icons shown in the map.

List of Projects

Permitted or Operating Under Planned Historical Construction

Windfarm

Community

Scale

Customer Sited

(100 kW+)

Small Wind

(<100 kW)

Operating Projects

Wind farms Searsburg Wind Energy Project Mars Hill Wind Farm

Community Scale

Hull Wind 1

Hull Wind 2

Jericho Mountain Wind

Customer Sited (100 kW+)

Portsmouth Abbey

MA Maritime Academy

12 See: http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ne_projects.asp

NPCC 9 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Jiminy Peak

IBEW

Forbes Park Wind Project

Small Wind (<100 kW) Burlington Electric Department Beaulieu Manchester/Hillsborough Dynapower Butterworks Farm

Permitted or Under Construction

Windfarms Berkshire Wind Lempster Wind Project Stetson Ridge Wind Project

Community Scale

PMLD Windfarm

Planned

Windfarms Deerfield Wind Equinox Wind Cape Wind (offshore) Beaver Ridge Record Hill Wind Project Aroostook County Wind Sheffield Wind South Coast Offshore Wind Project Minuteman Wind Kibby Wind Power Project Hoosac Wind Grandpa's Knob Windpark

NPCC 10 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Granite Reliable Power Windpark Passamapuoddy Tribe Hull Offshore RIWINDS Offshore Highland Plantation Passadumkeag Mountain Windpark Bog Wind Power Project

The total nameplate capability of wind generators modeled in New England is 11.2 MW, while the amount claimed for capability in New England resource adequacy assessments is 4.5 MW (40 % of nameplate). Three additional wind facilities with a total nameplate rating of 114 MW are expected to come on line in the end of 2008. Existing New England wind generation is listed below:

Project Name (Nameplate - MW) Location

Hull Wind Turbine U5 0.66 Boston Hull Wind Turbine II 1.80 Boston Portsmouth Abbey Wind QF 0.66 Rhode Island Jiminy Peak Wind QF 1.50 Western MASS Searsburg Wind 6.6 Western MASS

For each of the previous five summer/winter periods, the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO-NE) determines the median of the wind resource’s net output in the summer/winter Intermittent Reliability Hours. The summer/winter ratings are the averages of these median numbers of the net output. The summer Intermittent Reliability Hours are hours ending 1400 through 1800 each day of the summer period (June through September) and all summer period hours in which the ISO-NE has declared a system- wide Shortage Event and if the Intermittent Power Resource was in an import-constrained Capacity Zone, all Shortage Events in that Capacity Zone. The winter Intermittent Reliability Hours are the hours ending 1800 and 1900 each day of the winter period (October through May) and all winter period hours in which ISO-NE has declared a system-wide Shortage Event and if the Intermittent Power Resource was in an import- constrained Capacity Zone, all Shortage Events in that Capacity Zone.

The summer/winter qualified capacity of a new wind resource is the summer/winter qualified capacity claimed by the project sponsor. The project sponsor also needs to include in the qualification package the measured and recorded site-specific summer and winter data relevant to the expected performance of the wind resources (including wind speed data). ISO-NE confirms the summer and winter qualified capacity that the project sponsor claims for the wind resource based on this information.

NPCC 11 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

ISO-NE’s 2008 Regional System Plan references studies that show New England has the potential for developing thousands of megawatts of wind resources; however, the realization of large amounts of wind resources within New England could pose many technical and market challenges. 5 These include improving the transmission system to reliably and economically integrate the larger wind resources, maintaining the frequency of the network at 60 hertz (Hz), regulating electric power interchange schedules with neighboring regions, providing back-up supplies when the wind does not blow, and ramping other supplies to account for changes in the wind resource outputs. These and other operational issues may be addressed through more accurate forecasts of the amount of electric energy wind resources could produce and revised market rules to account for many of the physical issues introduced by the variable nature of wind resources. Because potential sources of wind generation are remotely located from New England load centers, the successful integration of these resources will require transmission additions. ISO-NE is working with stakeholders and industry experts to address these and other issues concerning the successful integration of wind resources.

NPCC 12 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

New York

Madison Wind Farm, located on 120 acres in Madison County, New York 13 (The first commercial wind farm in New York - dedicated in 2000)

New York has 424 MW of wind capacity listed in the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) 2008 Load and Capacity Data report. 14 Since publication, three additional wind farms have come on-line; Clinton, Ellenburg, and Bliss totaling an additional 282.5 MWs of nameplate capacity.

13 See: http://www.horizonwind.com/projects/whatwevedone/madison.aspx 14 See: http://www.nyiso.com/public/services/planning/planning_data_reference_documents.jsp

NPCC 13 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Existing New York wind generation is listed below:

Nameplate 10% Wind Farm Capacity (MWs) Capacity Zone

GoldBook April 1 2008

Fenner 30.0 3.0 C Madison 11.6 1.2 E Maple Ridge 1 90.7 9.1 E Maple Ridge 2 231.0 23.1 E Munnsville 34.5 3.5 E Steel Winds 20.0 2.0 A Wethersfield 6.6 0.7 B 424.4 42.4 On-line since April 1, 2008

Clinton 100.5 10.1 D Ellenburg 81.0 8.1 D Bliss 101.0 10.1 D 282.5 28.3

Total Summer 2008 Capacity 706.9 70.7

The New York State Public Service Commission is continuing to implement the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in New York. On September 24, 2004, after a year and a half of public hearings and participation by over 150 parties, the Commission issued its "Order Approving Renewable Portfolio Standard Policy." That Order identified the Commission's renewable energy policy and provided definitions and targets for carrying out the policy. The policy calls for an increase in renewable energy used in the State from the then current level of about 19% to 25% by the year 2013. 15 The RSP proceeding will continue to be undertaken in coordination with the New York ISO’s (NYISO) planning processes. 16

The New York ISO (NYISO) is one of the first ISO/RTOs in the United States to implement wind power forecasts for each wind power project, based on meteorological

15 See: http://www.dps.state.ny.us/03e0188.htm 16 See: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2008/2008_Comprensive_Reliability_Pla n_Final_Report_07152008.pdf

NPCC 14 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

data and historical operating characteristics of the wind power projects. 17 The data is fed directly into the NYISO operational systems that determine the balance of load and generation. This forecasting method is considered “best practice” in the industry worldwide.

As of September 1, 2008, the NYISO reports there were over 700 megawatts of wind generating capacity in commercial operation in New York State. Wind capacity in New York is projected to grow to more than 1,200 MW by the summer of 2009. Proposed projects adding another 6,500 MW of wind capacity to be developed by 2011 are proceeding through the grid interconnection study process administered by the NYISO.

New York utilizes GE’s Multi-Area Reliability Simulation (MARS) software to conduct resource adequacy studies. Generation units may be modeled probabilistically for all 8760 hours of the study year. Seasonal or monthly variations for most units can be captured in the model. Repeating the study year through a pre-determined number of iterations determines the probabilistic expected value of risk expressed as Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE).

Wind resources exhibit daily output variation that correlates to wind speed and density. A simple approach would be to model wind resources with a 90% summer derate factor. Studies have shown that a 10% summer availability factor may be appropriate. 18

17 See: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2008/NYISO_Readies_Grid_for_More_ Wind_09232008.pdf 18 “Evaluating Wind Capacity Value in New York and California,” Nicholas W. Miller, Gary A. Jordan, GE Energy, IEEE 2008 PES General Meeting; See: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4596714

NPCC 15 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Ontario

Kingsbridge I Wind Power Project Location: Lake Huron, near Goderich, Ontario 19

The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) 6 has reported 472 MW (as of the summer of 2008) of installed wind capacity.

19 See: http://www.epcor.ca/Communities/Ontario/Operations/KingsbridgeI/KingsbridgeI.htm

NPCC 16 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Part of the Melanthon II Wind Project, (an installed capacity of 33 MW) came into service in August of 2008.

At the time of the 2008 summer study, wind generation is assumed to contribute 10% of the nameplate rating, at the time of peak demand, for the mid term, 34 days to 18 months time horizon. Near term forecasting, days 1-33, presently assumes wind contributes 0%. Regarding long term, the IESO currently uses the same 10 % contribution approach as for mid-term. Ontario Power Authority (OPA) uses a value of approximately 20% based on simulated wind contribution when demand is within 10% of annual peak (using a 20 year 7 historic data set derived jointly with IESO and posted on OPA's web site).

The IESO, in coordination with stakeholders, established a new mid term wind capacity contribution (WCC) method on November 5, 2008. 8 Studies after this date will use an estimated wind capacity contribution during the high risk hours for its implementation in 18 month outlook and seasonal assessments. This approach considers the monthly median of simulated wind data over a 10 year history and the actual wind farm data over an approximate 2 year history and uses the lesser of these two values. The method captures the top 5-contiguous peak demand hours for winter and summer seasons as well as monthly shoulder periods. This method was developed considering the IESO’s specific operational and outage planning needs as well as seasonal assessment needs. The IESO, in coordination with stakeholders, is also in a process of finalizing and implementing the wind capacity contribution method for the near term period.

The IESO continues its efforts to examine and participate in various other wind capacity contribution studies. The IESO is also engaged in the efforts of NERC’s Integration of Variable Generation Task Force (IVGTF) 20 to address appropriate capacity contribution methodologies along with a number of other issues.

The IESO identified approx 433 MW of additional wind capacity to be installed by the end of 2008, as per the 2008Q2 18-Month Outlook published in June of 2008.

21 The Figure below (from the September 23, 2008 Ontario18-Month Outlook indicates the amount of wind generation contributions to the wholesale market at the time of peak demand, excluding holidays, compared to the forecast contributions. Currently, IESO forecasts available wind generation as 10 percent of installed capacity, and assumes a constant contribution over a yearly basis. The forecast methodology does not account for seasonal variances in wind patterns, and thus, results in large deviations of actual monthly median contribution from forecast during winter months as compared to summer months.

20 See : http://www.nerc.com/filez/ivgtf.html 21 See: at: http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketReports/18MonthOutlook_2008sep.pdf.

NPCC 17 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

The September 23, 2008 Ontario 18-Month Outlook assumed that 10% of the installed capacity of wind power generators would be available at the time of the weekly peak. There is a risk that wind power output could be less than 10% at the time of the weekly peak if:

• the wind isn’t blowing, or • extreme cold weather or high wind speeds necessitate that wind generator output be curtailed to prevent equipment damage (these conditions are expected to be rare).

The geographic diversity of Ontario wind resources, as more sites are commissioned, should mitigate some of the risk associated with wind speed variability.

The IESO is examining wind issues with stakeholders in the Wind Power Standing Committee (SE-29). 22

22 See: http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/consult/consult_windpower-sc.asp

NPCC 18 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Québec

1000 km

Québec Wind Integration Target: 4,000 MW in 2015

Wind Installed Capacity Installed wind power capacity in the Québec control area presently amounts to 422 MW. In December 2008, it will be 110 MW higher with the commissioning of the Carleton wind power plant.

Before 2004, all wind Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) were signed by Hydro-Québec Production. Six of these are already commissioned.

NPCC 19 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Commissioned Wind Power Plants Hydro-Québec Production

Commissioning Nameplate Wind Power plant Name Date Capacity (MW) Le Nordais 2 (Cap-Chat) Dec. 1998 57 Le Nordais 1 (Matane) Oct. 1999 43 Saint-Ulric July. 2001 2 Renard Sept. 2003 2 Mont-Copper June 2004 54 Mont-Miller June 2005 54

Since 2004, Hydro-Québec Distribution is responsible for the development of wind power. 23 PPAs were signed and three of them are already commissioned.

Commissioned Wind Power Plants Hydro-Québec Distribution

Commissioning Nameplate Wind Power plant Name Date Capacity (MW) Baie-des-Sables Nov. 2006 110 Anse-à-Valleau Nov. 2007 100 Carleton Dec. 2008 110 (forecasted)

The sum of the PPAs signed by both divisions of Hydro-Québec represents an installed capacity of 3,512 MW. 532 MW of them are commissioned and 2,980 MW will be installed by December 2015.

In addition, Hydro-Québec Distribution, in its last supply plan update, announced a call for tenders for an additional 500 MW capacity of community wind power projects. These projects should be commissioned before the end of 2014.

The following Table summarizes wind power nameplate capacity expected to be in commercial operation according to actual planning.

Nameplate Capacity in Operation at the End of Each Year

NPCC 20 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

In megawatts 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Existing PPAs Signed by HQ Production 212 517 517 517 517 517 517 517 Existing PPAs Signed by HQ Distribution 320 597 720 1,354 1,899 2,471 2,571 2,995 Planned call for tenders 100 300 500 500 Total Planned Wind Power Capacity 532 1,114 1,237 1,871 2,516 3,288 3,588 4,012

Most of the wind power plants under contract (more than the 2/3) will be located in the area of the Gaspesia peninsula and lower St-Lawrence River. This whole area covers a territory about the size of Massachusetts. The rest of the wind power plants will be dispersed over the remaining part of the greater St-Lawrence valley, including the Montérégie, Beauce, Charlevoix and lower North-Shore areas. The transmission system will have the required capacity to avoid wind power bottlenecks during the winter peaking season.

Characteristics of Wind Power in Quebec Regarding System Reliability Due to a high (over 70%) penetration of space heating in the residential sector, the Québec control area is clearly winter peaking. In the same time, it is noteworthy that the region of Gaspesia and lower Saint-Lawrence, targeted for wind power generation, is affected by sustained winds, specifically during winter months. This meteorological information is confirmed by wind generation data that shows capacity factors clearly higher in winter than in summer.

However, in extremely cold temperatures, vast high pressure systems in the North-east of the continent can cause low wind conditions and can reduce the contribution of wind resources in crucial situations for resource adequacy.

The extreme cold operation limits of wind turbines can also affect the contribution of wind power in meeting resource adequacy criterion. Even equipped with cold packages, wind turbines commercially available cannot be operated at temperatures below -30°C (-22°F). Such low temperatures are barely registered in Gaspesia and lower Saint- Lawrence. Within the 36 past years, six events that would have required the shut down of all wind power plants in that region were surveyed. However, not all of these events coincide with the highest load conditions for the Québec control area.

Capacity Credit Used for Wind Power in Reliability Assessments In recent reviews for resource adequacy, Hydro-Québec has completely derated wind power. According to actual installed capacity and demand forecast, the contribution of wind resources is not required to meet the reliability criterion. Moreover, Hydro-Québec

NPCC 21 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments is conducting studies in order to assess the capacity value of wind power plants in the Gaspesia peninsula, and some preliminary results were recently obtained.

However, after applying two different methods and conducting sensitivity analysis, the results were found to be very sensitive to small changes in some specific wind power hourly data.

In the 36 years historical time frame, fourteen meteorological events were identified as generating at least 95% of loss of load probabilities. The wind power generation during these 14 events will be subject to an in depth analysis, requiring the development of a new approach. This research will be realized in partnership with Environment Canada. Results are expected by next summer.

Wind Modeling Methods Studies conducted by HQ involve two steps: 1- Evaluation of long run hourly wind power time series using “backcasting” techniques. These time series represent the hourly generation of wind power plants, during a time frame of 36 years (from 1971 to 2006 inclusively). This time frame is also used to establish the meteorological reference for the load forecast.

In a first step, these evaluations involve eight wind power plants under contract with Hydro-Québec Distribution and covering an installed capacity of 990 MW. The report as well as output data were provided to the Quebec Energy Board and different stakeholders during Hydro-Québec Distribution’s procurement plan approval.

2- Evaluation of capacity value, using the backcasting results in step 1 in a reliability evaluation model. In this step, HQ made the simulations using two different models A) GE-MARS model. In order to be used in GE-MARS, the wind generation data was processed into capacity states definition and transition matrices. Ten capacity states and twelve different transition matrices, one for each month of the year, were defined. The model was then used to perform capacity value evaluations.

The GE-MARS program is a well known model and has been used by many other control areas for resource adequacy evaluations and wind power capacity value assessments. However, it cannot capture wind power and load correlation on a daily or hourly basis. Only monthly variations are taken into account.

NPCC 22 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

B) Sequential Monte-Carlo model (FEPMC) The FEPMC model uses 252 years of simulated hourly load data time series resulting from the same 36 years time frame of meteorological observations on which a sliding rule technique is applied in order to simulate the impact of different combinations between meteorological observations and weekdays. For instance, very cold temperatures don’t have the same impact on peak load if they happen during the week-end instead of on weekdays. The model allows a perfect match between load and wind power generation data in each of the simulated years. Unavailability of traditional resources is simulated using Monte Carlo techniques.

Though it varies from year to year, wind generation peaks in winter, the season when the Québec load also peaks.

NPCC 23 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Maritimes

Wind project capacity in the Maritimes Area is derated for the summer and winter periods based upon results from the Sept. 21, 2005 New Brunswick System Operator (NBSO) report “Maritimes Wind Integration Study”. 23

Other NBSO wind studies include:

23 See: http://www.nbso.ca/Public/_private/2005%20Maritime%20Wind%20Integration%20Study%20_Final_.pdf

NPCC 24 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

• Wind Integration Study 2 (2007) • Ea (Danish) Large Scale Wind Integration Study (Economic) (2008) • High Level Reliability Study (2008)

Key lessons learned from the studies: • Pursuing Wind Integration Efficiencies – Good correlation of high wind speeds and peak winter load – Benefits of geographic diversity of wind capacity – Lower production volatility and lower forecast error. – More flexibility reduces wind integration costs – Larger balancing area – Intra-hour tie schedule changes – Allow loads to provide ancillary services to the market. – Allow intermittent generation resources to pool their resources for scheduling to reduce their risk of energy variance.

The summer 2008 nameplate wind capacity for the Maritimes Area is 176 MW. In December of 2008, another 96 MW of nameplate capacity will be added with the Kent Hills Wind Farm.

The Table below shows the wind projects in the Maritimes, along with their nominal (nameplate), summer derated, and winter derated capacity values.

Name Nameplate MW Summer 2008 MW Winter 2008/09 MW New Brunswick Kent Hills (Dec 2008) 96 N/A 38 Prince Edward Island East Point 30 6 12 North Cape 14 3 6 West Cape 20 4 8 Norway 9 2 4 73 15 30 Nova Scotia Atlantic Wind Power 31 4 11 (Pubnico Pt) 16 2 5 Cape Breton Power 14 2 4 (Lingan) 61 8 20

Northern Maine Mars Hill 42 13 17

NPCC 25 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

As reported by the NBSO at the NPCC 2008 General Meeting 24 , it is economically feasible to develop between 5,500-7,500 MW of wind projects in the Maritimes Area:

– 3,500-5,000 in New Brunswick/Northern Maine /Prince Edward Island – 2,000-2,500 in Nova Scotia

Area Present Within 2 Years Within 5 or 6 Years NB 0 300 600 NM 42 350 850

NS 60 300 550

PEI 72 150 500

Total 174 MW 1,100 MW 2,500 MW

The results of high level reliability study (in progress – target completion date: October 31, 2008) will show:

• New Brunswick can handle about a 1,000 MW of wind without additional transmission on its interconnections • Balancing is a major issue • Additional generation will require additional transmission on the interconnections • More detailed studies required

24 See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/publications/GenMeet.aspx

NPCC 26 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Wind Farms in Pennsylvania 25 For a listing of wind projects currently under development in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, visit Action PA's wind page.

Bear Creek

Bear Creek Wind Power Project, Bear Creek, PA (Photo: Community Energy)

The Bear Creek Wind Power Project, Pennsylvania's newest wind farm, is a 24 MW wind energy facility located in the Pocono Mountain region of Pennsylvania less than 10 miles southeast of Wilkes-Barre in the town of Bear Creek. Visible while heading south on the Pennsylvania Turnpike's Northeast Extension, the Project is expected to produce over 75 million kilowatt-hours of wind energy annually. Acquired from early stage project developer Global Winds Harvest, leading wind energy marketer and developer Community Energy, Inc. has partnered with Babcock and Brown and Central Hudson Energy Group, Inc. to develop, construct, and operate the Bear Creek Wind Farm. The project was made possible by commitments from PPL Energy Plus to purchase the output of the project and leading wind energy customers such as the University of Pennsylvania and PEPCO Energy Services.

Somerset

The Somerset Wind Energy Center, located among open fields and pasture in Somerset County in Western Pennsylvania. Its six GE 1.5 MW turbines, operational since November 2001, make an impressive sight that can be seen from the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

25 See: http://www.pawindenergynow.org/pa/farms.html

NPCC 27 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Waymart

Waymart Wind Energy Center (Photo: FPL Energy)

Waymart Wind Energy Center is the largest wind generation facility in Pennsylvania, and the second largest east of the Mississippi River. The facility, comprising 43 GE 1.5 megawatt (MW) turbines, is located along the ridge of Moosic Mountain in Wayne County, northeast of Scranton. Waymart's energy is purchased by Exelon Generation and is used in Pennsylvania.

Meyersdale

The latest major wind project in Somerset County, the Meyersdale Wind Energy Center began commercial operation in December 2003. Meyersdale produces 30 MW.

NPCC 28 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

Green Mountain

Green Mountain Wind Energy Center, Garrett, PA (Photo: DOE/NREL)

The Green Mountain Wind Energy Center, also located in Somerset County, is situated on land reclaimed from a coal strip mine. It includes eight 1.3 MW turbines for a total output of 10.4 MW.

PJM The PJM RTO is evaluating and assessing how to integrate wind power into the PJM markets by consideration of the PJM Emerging Energy Resources (PEER) stakeholder process. The purpose of this process is to provide a dedicated stakeholder forum for the exchange of ideas and information regarding the market integration of emerging technologies that will facilitate achievement of policy initiatives in a manner consistent with promoting efficiency and reliability in PJM’s markets. In this process items have been identified such as the determination of capacity and ancillary service values appropriate for renewable resources, a wind power forecasting study, pairing wind units with a more controllable resource to enhance its capacity value, consideration of wind subject to operating reserve charges for deviations from schedule, and off peak high wind periods exacerbates minimum generation issues.

PJM currently has approximately 20 wind farms with a total nameplate capacity of 1,200 megawatts. The amount of capacity modeled is per PJM manual 21, appendix B 26 for rating intermittent resources. Currently a 13% factor is applied to all wind units that do not supply individual data for a given set of wind units (GADS data). Wind capacity is

26 See: http://www.pjm.com/contributions/pjm-manuals/pdf/m21.pdf

NPCC 29 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments less than one percent of the PJM RTO peal load and does not represent reliability concerns due to the small amount for this category of generation. The PJM winds units are geographically diverse; however, PJM can experience localized constraints due to wind unit generation. The projected increase in wind power, about 12,000 MW by 2015 will require development of a market and operational framework. The wind integration plan includes providing wind power forecasting information to the PJM control center: • Request for information (RFI) has been completed with educational and information gathering activities accomplished. • Request for proposal, driven by the requirements identified in the RFI process for the wind power forecasting tool will be sent out in September 2008. • Pilot evaluation of the developed wind power forecasting tool.

The goal is to integrate wind power forecasting into PJM dispatching tools and utilize this information in the operation of the PJM RTO. Wind power forecasting services is needed for the following reasons: • To address the increase to the PJM RTO fleet of units’ uncertainty and inconsistent availability • Unit commitment for day ahead markets and real time markets • Lack of experience and familiarity with this category of unit • Reliability assessment • Transmission outage scheduling • Ancillary services such as primary reserves and regulation requirements • Economics and reliability

Data requirement for any forecasting service include: • Meteorological data, including historical data to train models. • Power data, including historical data to train model and real time telemetry • Generator availability data including forced, maintenance and planned outages. • Geographic location of wind turbines

The forecasting service or tools need to provide wind power prediction: • within the hour, hourly, day head, and week ahead. • Quantitative analysis showing the mean absolute error, and root mean square error • Confidence intervals concerning uncertainty of forecast • Ramping prediction

Initial investigation of what other ISOs and RTOs are doing reveals that several do have forecasting tools in place that, in general, provide capabilities identified above. The PJM wind power forecasting initiative to date has resulted in several vendors providing a demonstration of their service and PJM may host a webpage with information concerning this initiative.

NPCC 30 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

The generation interconnection process (queue) has about 36,000 megawatts of wind resources to be evaluated. Most wind projects request to be in-service within one or two years. Projects tend to cluster in specific areas of PJM with rural location not supported by strong transmission systems. In the evaluation, the low voltage ride through testing is unique to wind units. Recent trend include off-shore development, significantly larger projects being proposed - up to 2,500 MW, and developments outside the PJM RTO footprint asking for interconnection proposing to build their own HVDC transmission facilities to the PJM RTO border. Some new wind generation has been assigned a class average 20% capacity factor, based on nameplate rating. However the class average factor has recently changed to 13%. Wind units tend to cluster along favorable location often on lower voltage sub transmission lines. During periods of favorable wind conditions it is possible that all wind projects in an area will be at their full energy output.

Capacity treatment of wind units revolves around two issues: 1. How to model existing and future wind generators in planning studies. 2. How to value wind generators in the PJM RPM capacity market.

PJM Manual 21, appendix B indicates how to value the unforced capacity value of wind units. This value is based on output over the summer period • Hours ending 3 pm – 6pm, June-August • Rolling three year average • Expressed as a percentage of nameplate installed rating.

For new wind units or those without a full three years of operating data, a wind category class average capacity factor is applied. The wind category class average factor is based on average performance of existing PJM RTO wind generators over the recent three year period. The wind class average capacity factor is subject to change with additional operating data from new wind farms. PJM has seven wind farms with capacity interconnection rights that submit GADS data. These 7 farms have 18 unit-years of operating data over the 2005 – 2007 period. The wind class average capacity factor is based on the arithmetic mean of the capacity factors from those 18 unit-years of operating experience. The calculated average capacity factor, based on the 2005 to 2007 period data, is 13 %. The use of the 13% wind class average capacity factor was endorsed by the PJM Planning Committee (PJM-PC) in February 2008. Wind projects entering the generation interconnection queue after February 2008 are studied at a default capacity value of 13% of its nameplate rating. New wind units can be assigned a different capacity factor other than the class average if they provide supporting data, but few choose this option. Wind units are modeled at their respective capacity factors, reducing the rating of units, in planning studies. However, each wind unit is assigned a zero forced outage rate and zero planned maintenance outage at this reduced rating. When wind becomes a significant portion of the PJM generation fleet, PJM will consider using a more rigorous method to evaluate wind capacity value such as evaluation of each unit’s effective load

NPCC 31 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008 Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments

carrying capability. The PJM 2008 Reserve Requirement Study report, for the 2012 / 2013 delivery year shows 169 wind units modeled, representing 840 MW of capacity, at a zero forced outage rate. 27 This value was calculated by applying the 13% derate factor to the nameplate rating of the projects in the interconnection queue (approximately 31,000 MW), assuming a 15% commercial availability factor.

PJM has formed a new Intermittent Resources Working Group 28 to address market and/or operational issues specific to intermittent resources, per the August 6, 2008 Markets and Reliability Committee (MRC) meeting. Intermittent resources are characterized by 1) a dependence on natural factors beyond the control of the resource operator for their energy production and 2) having little or no energy storage capability. Intermittent resources include, but are not limited to, wind and solar facilities. The IRWG shall address intermittent resource related issues as are assigned to it by the PJM MRC and/or the PJM Market Implementation Committee.

27 See: http://www.pjm.com/committees/working-groups/rrawg/rrawg.html 28 See: http://www.pjm.com/committees/working-groups/irwg/irwg.html

NPCC 32 Approval by the RCC – November 19, 2008