Impact of High Distributed Energy Resources
31
November 17, 2021 Jon Jensen and Nick Hatton - WECC Staff Impact of High Distributed Energy Resources
Transcript of Impact of High Distributed Energy Resources
November 17, 2021
Jon Jensen and Nick Hatton
- WECC Staff
Impact of High Distributed
Energy Resources
Impact of High Distributed Energy
Resources
Jon Jensen, Nick Hatton
2
Impact of High Distributed Energy Resources
3
• Identify potential risks of a high penetration of DER in the interconnection.
Purpose
• Impacts of DER?
•What amount of DER causes concern?
Reliability Questions
Study Methodology
▪ PCM cases DER capacity
• 9% DER
• 20% DER
• 35% DER
• 35% DER CA Distributed
• 35% DER CA Distributed with battery
▪ PF case DER capacity
• 20% DER
4
DER capacity by case
5
-
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
MW
Case
DER Capacity
ADS V2.2.1 9% DER 20% DER 35% DER 35% CA Dist DER
DER Capacity by State
6
Batteries
▪ Battery case
• 400MWx4hr per area
▪ We experimented with
other battery
configurations
• 200MWx4hr per area
• 200MWx8hr per area
7
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
AB AZ BC CA CO ID MT MX NE NM NV OR SD TX UT WA WY
Battery Capacity by State
ADS V2.2.1 35% DER CA Dist 400MWx4hr
-
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
MW
h
Category
Annual Energy (MWh)
2030 ADS V2.2.1 20% DER 35% DER 35% DER CA Dist 35% DER CA Dist 400MWx4hr 8
Annual Energy Biggest Changes
9
(100,000,000) (50,000,000) - 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000
Energy Storage
Steam - Coal
Combined Cycle
Combustion Turbine
DER
Solar
Wind
Spillage/Dump Energy (MWh)
Annual Energy Differences
20% DER 35% DER 35% DER CA Dist 35% DER CA Dist 400MWx4hr
Spillage
10
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
2030 ADS V2.2.1 20% DER 35% DER 35% DER CA Dist 35% DER CA Dist
400MWx4hr
MW
h
Case
Spillage
Solar Wind
2030 ADS V2.2.1
11
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
8/18/2030
Other
Energy Storage
Wind
Solar
DER
Gas
35% DER CA Dist
12
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
8/18/2030
Other
Energy Storage
Wind
Solar
DER
Gas
35% DER CA Dist with Battery
13
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
8/18/2030
Other
Energy Storage
Wind
Solar
DER
Gas
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
2030 ADS V2.2.1 9% DER 20% DER 35% DER 35% DER CA Dist 35% DER CA Dist
400MWx4hr bat
MW
Case
Hourly Generation 8-18-2030 Hr 13
Wind
Solar
Other Thermal
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Gas-Steam
Gas-ICE
Gas-CT
Gas-Cogen
Gas-CC
Energy Storage
DER
Coal
Bio
14
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
2030 ADS V2.2.1 9% DER 20% DER 35% DER 35% DER CA Dist 35% DER CA Dist
400MWx4hr bat
MW
Case
Hourly Generation 8-18-2030 Hr 20
Wind
Solar
Other Thermal
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Gas-Steam
Gas-ICE
Gas-CT
Gas-Cogen
Gas-CC
Energy Storage
DER
Coal
Bio
15
Gas Units Ramping
16
Coal Units
17
Average LMP
18
-4500
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
Alberta British Columbia Basin California Northwest Rocky Mountain Southwest
Average LMP for Generators ($/MWh)
ADS V2.2.1 9% DER 20% DER 35% DER CA Dist 35% DER CA Dist 35% DER 400MWx4Hr bat
19
Transmission
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
1
226
451
676
901
112
6
135
1
157
6
180
1
202
6
225
1
247
6
270
1
292
6
315
1
337
6
360
1
382
6
405
1
427
6
450
1
472
6
495
1
517
6
540
1
562
6
585
1
607
6
630
1
652
6
675
1
697
6
720
1
742
6
765
1
787
6
810
1
832
6
855
1
35% DER P66 COI
Reliability Risks
▪ Resource adequacy and performance
▪ Changing resource mix
▪ Distribution system and customer load impacts on the
transmission system
20
Findings/Next steps
▪ Optimize use of BTM resources for Bulk Electric System
21
Power Flow details
▪ 2 cases were used
• Original 2030 HS1 – baseline
• 2030 HS1 updated with 40 GW DER – similar to 20% DER PCM case
▪ Inverter representations (dynamics)
• 3 different data sets
22
43
43.5
44
44.5
45
45.5
46
46.5
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
DG Power at bus 30941 on the Diablo Midway Outage
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
500 kV 230 kV 100 kV 55-69 kV 34.5 kV and below
Buses with a greater than 5% change in voltage
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Ringdown Double Palo Diablo Midway Daniel Park Comanche Colorado River Redbluff Brownlee-Hells Canyon North Gila - Imperial Valley
Load lost due to voltage in the composite load model
30HS1 Update Fast Return Voltage Controls
PF Voltage
26
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.95 1.15 1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95
Vo
ltag
e (P
.U.)
Time (s)
Bus 30941 Load Voltage during Diablo-Midway Outage
Original Update Fast Return Voltage Controls
PF Voltage
27
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.99 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.19 1.24 1.29
Vo
ltag
e (P
.U.)
Time (s)
Bus 24229 voltage during Colorado River - Redbluff Outage
Original Update Fast Return Voltage controls
PF Frequency
28
59.82
59.84
59.86
59.88
59.9
59.92
59.94
59.96
59.98
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Fre
qu
ency
(H
z)
Time (s)
Malin 500 Frequency during Double Palo Verde Outage
Original Update Fast Return Voltage Controls
Reliability Risks
▪ Resource adequacy and performance
▪ Changing resource mix
▪ Distribution system and customer load impacts on the
transmission system
29
Findings/Next steps
▪ Additional Study
▪ Increase availability of DER data
30
Discussion
31
AcknowledgementsDistributed Energy Resources Advisory Group
QuestionsJon Jensen
Nick Hatton
