A planning collaborative funded by the U.S. Department of Energy has released a final report on its analysis of several electricity generation and transmission options in the Eastern U.S.
In spite of some serious shortcomings, the report clearly indicates that building more wind generation and transmission is the most cost-effective way to meet the region’s energy needs.
Following up on the Phase I report released at the end of 2011, the Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC), which included utilities, regulators, and other stakeholders, has released the final report for Phase II, the final phase of the analysis.
Phase II developed more detailed transmission plans to accommodate generation build-outs for the following three of eight scenarios developed in Phase I:
1) National carbon policy with significant Midwest wind build-out,
2) Regional Renewable Portfolio Standard case, in which renewable requirements were met with more local (i.e., Eastern) resources, and
3) a business as usual case.
Because Phase II builds on the results of Phase I, previous complaints about flaws in the modeling inputs and methodology in Phase I apply to these results as well. These concerns included:
– Use of wind capital costs that were 50% too high,
– Failure to work from a “copper-sheet analysis” to determine the optimal level of transmission investment,
– Failure to conduct iterative transmission and generation development to reach a more optimized solution,
– Artificial limits on wind penetrations, and more.
These concerns were vindicated when the transmission build-outs proved to be too small to accommodate a significant share of the wind generation build-out in the wind-heavy case in Phase II, resulting in wind curtailment levels of 15%.
Modeling shortcomings in Phase II also affected the results, such as an inability to model the natural gas pipeline system resulting in the assumption that new gas generation would be sited at the site of retiring coal generation and likely greatly understating the actual transmission need in the gas-heavy “business as usual” case.
Even with these flawed assumptions working against wind and transmission deployment, the Phase II results provide a clear indication that wind and transmission development is the most cost-effective solution to the energy needs of the Eastern U.S.
Specifically, the national carbon policy and wind build-out case resulted in annual power system operating costs of $108 billion, significantly lower than the $151 billion annual cost in the regional RPS case and $161 billion in the business as usual case (excluding carbon costs).
These annual savings of $43 billion and $53 billion, respectively, would offset the higher upfront capital costs of the national wind case, which had capital costs of $206 billion more than the regional RPS case and $694 billion more than the business as usual case. The large annual operating cost savings produced by these very long-lived transmission and generation capital investments would repay the initial investments well before the ends of their useful lives.
If slightly larger transmission investments had been included that reduced the amount of wind curtailment from the unrealistically high 15% shown in these results, the benefit-cost proposition for wind and transmission would have appeared even more favorable, with a simple linear extrapolation indicating that an additional $17 billion worth of transmission up-front would have reduced wind curtailment to near zero and yielded additional annual operating cost reductions of $7.35 billion. Moreover, even with the high level of wind curtailment, the national carbon and wind build-out case reduced SO2 (sulfur dioxide) emissions by around 90% relative to the other cases, NOx (nitrogen oxides) by more than 98% relative to the other cases, and CO2 (carbon dioxide) by 75% and 80% relative to the RPS and business as usual cases, respectively. Assigning even a very low societal cost for this pollution would make the national wind build-out case an even clearer winner.
Phase II produced other important results as well. Many transmission lines, such as those needed for connecting wind energy along the East Coast and those needed for connecting wind development in the Midwest and transporting that energy eastward, appeared in multiple cases, indicating that those transmission lines should likely be included in any “no regrets” transmission plan.
ERCOT sets wind generation record on Christmas Day, January 14, 2013
Southwest Power Pool achieves wind penetration record, December 20, 2012
TVA named ‘Utility of Year’ for pioneering wind power in Southeast, December 3, 2012
AWEA honors Alabama Power for using wind power to save dollars for Southeastern customers, December 3, 2012
Lesser misstates facts at Heritage-Exelon anti-wind briefing, November 30, 2012
ERCOT, SPP systems see record wind generation levels, November 21, 2012
Fact check: Exelon-funded report inflates wind integration costs, November 2, 2012
Fact check: Reason Foundation FAIL on wind and emissions, October 11, 2012
Alabama Power ‘doubles down’ on wind, October 9, 2012
Facts about negative wholesale electricity prices and the Production Tax Credit, September 10, 2012
Western governors’ report highlights utility integration reform needs, August 2, 2012
Fact check: ‘Green Illusions’ ill-informed about wind power, July 5, 2012
Fact check: Post repeats false claims on wind and emissions, July 3, 2012
Texas system operator tallies new record: 8,368 MW, June 21, 2012
Fourteen wind energy myths debunked, June 20, 2012
WINDPOWER 2012 Update: Xcel Colorado sets new mark with 56.7% wind, June 5, 2012
WINDPOWER 2012 Update: Transmission for wind in western U.S.: Lower cost, lower variability, June 5, 2012
Fact check: Elliott off target on wind and cost savings, June 4, 2012
Fact check: Coverage of Argonne wind and emissions study flawed, June 1, 2012
Fact check: Bell missteps on utility integration of wind power, May 24, 2012
New study: Wind power can save Midwestern consumers between $3 billion and $9.5 billion annually by 2020, May 23, 2012
Wind generation sets new records in Texas, Spain, May 22, 2012
Fact check: Lomborg lacking on wind’s economics, emissions reductions, March 23, 2012
Fact check: Silverstein off base on transmission for wind, March 22, 2012
New technology helps Texas system operator blow through wind generation records, March 12, 2012
Wind tops 25 percent of load on main Texas grid, March 5, 2012
Fact check: Silverstein errs on wind’s variability, emissions cuts, February 27, 2012
Fact check: Pavlak errs on wind integration, February 14, 2012
Across the U.S., wind power sets new generation records, February 13, 2012
More savings for ratepayers in Southeast as Louisiana utility ups wind purchases, January 26, 2012
Fact check: Trzupek Washington Times op-ed off base on wind’s cost, utility integration, January 25, 2012
Fact check: New Dutch report misinformed on wind power and emissions, January 13, 2012
Fact check: Martikainen misguided on capabilities of renewable energy, December 1, 2011
Xcel sets world record with 55.6% wind penetration, November 28, 2011
Wind research generates savings for large utility, November 14, 2011
Xcel Energy: More wind, less cost, October 31, 2011
More wind power and utility integration: A question already being resolved, October 19, 2011
Fact check: Hayward misleads on wind and utility systems, October 7, 2011
Fact check: Michaels errs on wind’s contribution, October 3, 2011
Fact check: Fred Udo’s bogus numbers on wind and emissions savings, September 9, 2011
Fact check: Bryce whiffs on wind power and Texas heat wave, August 12, 2011
After a scorching week, wind power lessons from the Texas heat wave, August 11, 2011
Wind helps meet new Texas record for electricity demand, August 4, 2011
As Texas utility system is stressed, wind generation shows up on schedule, August 3, 2011
Fact check: Bryce, Bentek miss on emissions, July 20, 2011
Fact check: Utility spokesperson errs on wind integration, July 5, 2011
Wind energy integration: Some fundamental facts, June 23, 2011
By Michael Goggin, AWEA Manager-Transmission Policy, http://www.awea.org/blog