Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
This study was then used by the PUCT (Docket 33672) to justify the creation of
new zones to focus transmission development. The PUCT heard presentations from
transmission developers on their plans for new lines and from wind developers on their
wind power investments in the state. The PUCT was required to assess wind developers'
financial commitment in wind energy in the PUCT's CREZ designations. Of the original
twenty-five CREZ, nine were eliminated as there was no existing financial commitment
from wind developers, and another eight were removed from consideration due to limited
interest from wind developers (Public Utility Commission of Texas 2008 ) . In October
2007, the PUCT established five CREZ through an interim order and ERCOT was tasked
with conducting another scenario-based study to examine transmission plan optimization
at four different levels of wind power development (Public Utility Commission of Texas
2008 ) . While the interim order specified that all wind had to be sold within the ERCOT
system, two of the new CREZ (CREZ Panhandle A and CREZ Panhandle B) were not
located within ERCOT, but in the small region of Texas serviced by the neighboring
Southwest Power Pool (SPP). Tensions arose over the question of whether the wind in
CREZ Panhandle A and Panhandle B should connect to SPP or ERCOT (Lasher 2008 ) .
Ultimately this wind resource was connected to ERCOT.
When the PUCT order was approved in 2008, the PUCT identified more than ten
high-priority transmission lines for areas already suffering from severe congestion. For
example, in Scenario 2 studied by ERCOT, total costs of transmission were estimated at
roughly $5 billion dollars for 2,335 miles of new 345 kV lines, or $426,000 per MW of
capacity. The PUC considered the more aggressive plans with higher wind penetrations,
but found them to be too risky and speculative given current technology and knowledge
about grid integration.
Many of the early wind operators argued that they should gain priority access to the
new transmission-line capacity. They argued that additional future wind generators should
be curtailed first when transmission constraints occurred. The PUCT, however, elected not
to adopt a dispatch priority rule. While FERC has approved the “anchor-tenant” concept,
where initial projects finance some of the costs of transmission expansion to secure
transmissionrights,thishasnotbeenadoptedinTexas.InTexas,transmissionispaidforby
users of the electricity (not the electricity generators), and regulators believed that granting
priority access would leave later projects with less advantageous interconnection rights.
Substantial investment in expanding the transmission network allowed for rapid wind
development, although planning decisions on line size and location were often contentious,
because everyone was aware of how each decision determined limits on the scale of future
wind deployment. Later PUCT dockets addressed the selection of transmission providers
(No. 35665), priority, and subsequent transmission-line sequencing (36801 and 36802).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search