20101203Hearing Exhibit 133.pdf

LBNL1471E
ERNEST ORLANDO LAWRENCE
BERKELEY NATIONAL LASORA TORY
The Cost of Transmission for
Wind Energy: A Review of
Transmission Planning Studies
Andrew Mills, Ryan Wiser, and Kevin Porter
Environmental Energy
Technologies Division
February 2009
Download from http://eetd.lbl.govlEAÆMP
The work described in this report was fuded by the Office of Energy
Effciency and Renewable Energy (Wind & Hydropower Technologies
Prograi) and by the Offce of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(Permitting, Siting and Analysis Division) of the U.S. Deparent of Energy
under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CHl 1231.
Wi 15.3
subject to plausible contingencies. In most caes, this aiount of added transfer capacity is
equivalent to the amount of new generation capacity that is assumed to be added in the resource
area. In contrast to some of the studies with a congestion focus, the deliverabilty-focused
Western studies do not require time series of location-specific wind production data to determine
binding constraints, do not readily allow for redispatch possibilties, and often have an exclusive
focus on long-distance transmission from resource area to specific load centers.
Table 4. Range of Equipment Cost Assumptions
Equipment
Transmission Lines
Minimum Cost Maximum Cost Unit
Number of
samples
765 kV (no description)3.2
-...._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52.0 ($milion/mi)._-------------------------------------------..._------._...._-----------..-._._.._---------------_.
500 kV (single circuit)1.5 2.2
500 kV (double circuit)2.0 3.5
2.6500 kV (no descrption)0.8
($millon/mi)
($millon/mi)
($milion/mi)
6
5
3.7
-------------------------_._----------------------------------------------- ---.------------------
10
HVDC Line (800kV)
HVDC Line (345 - 500kV)1.1 3.0._--------_._-------------------------._._-------------------------------_._---------------------8
HVDC Undersea Cable 4.0
($millon/mi)
($millon/mi)
($milion/mi)
345 kV (single circuit)1.5
._------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40.6
345 kV (double circuit)1.0 2.3
345 kV (no description)0.5 2.2--_...._---------------------------------------_.._---------------------_._-----------------------10
230 kV (double circuit)2.0
230 kV (no descrption)
230 kV (rebuild/reconductor)
0.3 1.6
0.5
($millon/mi)
($millon/mi)
($millon/mi)
($millon/mi)
($millon/mi)
($millonlmi)
5
6
0.2 0.4
---------_._---------------------_._------------------------_._----_.__._-._...._-----_._----.._.
115 kV (no descrption)
115kV (rebuild/reconductor)0.1 0.3
115 kV (uprate)0.05 0.4
Associated Equipment
($milion/mi)
($milion/mi)
($milion/mi)
2
2
2
HV Substations 60
_._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
610($millon/unit)-------------_.._------------------------------.-------._----------------------------..----.._------
DC Terminal ($/MW)
DC Terminal ($/unit)
0.1 0.2
250 500 5
($millon/MW)
($millon/unit)
4
The different study approaches have even been applied to very similar study scenarios. For
example, the Frontier study has a deliverabilty focus and the RM TS study has a congestion
focus, but the Frontier (scenarios A and B) and RMTS-2 scenario both consider the addition of
generation resources in Wyoming and large amounts of power transfer to Western load centers
over high voltage lines. The Frontier study assumes that all new generation added in Wyoming
must transfer its power over the capacity created by a new high voltage line. The RM TS-2
38