steady-state analysis of new england’s interstate pipeline delivery capability

49
Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability Levitan & Associates, Inc. January 16, 2001 Presentation to the NEPOOL Reliability Committee

Upload: mrinal

Post on 15-Jan-2016

26 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability. Presentation to the NEPOOL Reliability Committee. Levitan & Associates, Inc. January 16, 2001. Levitan & Associates, Inc. (LAI) Practice Areas. Energy Markets Simulation and Optimization Modeling - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Levitan & Associates, Inc.

January 16, 2001

Presentation to the NEPOOL Reliability Committee

Page 2: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Levitan & Associates, Inc. (LAI) Practice Areas

Energy Markets Simulation and Optimization Modeling

Merchant Generation Economics

Pipeline Transportation Management

Fuel Supply Procurement

Power System Engineering/Heat Balance Optimization

ISO Interconnection Policy and Pricing

NUG Contract Administration (Reformation and Buyouts)

Environmental Compliance Strategy

Litigation Support

Page 3: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Confidentiality

ISO-NE & LAI have and will continue to comply with the

NEPOOL Information Policy - Rev 3, dated August 10, 2000

Proprietary Information kept Confidential

Steady-State hydraulic model developed from interstate

pipeline public domain information

• FERC 567 Reports & FERC Flow Diagrams Reflecting Peak Day

Design

Page 4: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

What the Study Is & Is Not

Individual & Consolidated Models

Steady-State Perspective

No Temporal & Force Majeure

Page 5: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Why a Gas Study ? In 1991, formation of the New England Gas/Electric Discussion

Group to examine regional coordination issues between the gas & electric industries

Three objectives of the “Discussion” Group:• to examine the operational reliability of the gas/electric infrastructure• to increase coordination between the industries• to educate industry participants and observers

Analysis includes the modeling of the loss of a major gas & non-gas fired generator, under projected 1995 system conditions

Seven years go by - no similar analysis has been performed since the publication of that EPRI report

Page 6: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Purpose of Study

Since 1997, ISO-NE has received applications for interconnection System Impact Studies for almost 40,000 MW of new merchant generation capacity

Virtually all of this newly proposed capacity is advanced combined cycle technology or peaking capacity fueled exclusively by natural gas

There is a need to review the natural gas pipeline infrastructure in New England and its ability to reliably meet the increasing demand of the power generation sector (deliverability study)

Page 7: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Scope of Study Study time frame: 2000 - 2005 Analysis of existing pipeline infrastructure Analysis of expected pipeline infrastructure additions Develop a steady state hydraulic engineering model of the

pipeline systems serving the NEPOOL region Analyze impacts of Reference and High Case natural gas

demand consumption Conduct sensitivity analysis and recommend transient analysis

(Phase II of the Study) to be conducted in 2001 Summarize results and issue report of findings

Page 8: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Timeline of Developments Summer of 1999, ISO-NE and NEPOOL MRPC discuss the initiation

of a Gas Study Project

Fall of 1999, ISO-NE looks to retain a consultant who can provide

technical assistance in the development of the RFP

Four potential Consultants were identified:• Energy Market Decisions (EMDEC)

• Supply Planning Associates (SPA)

• National Economic Research Associates (NERA)

• Tabors, Caramanis & Associates (TCA)

EMDEC chosen to develop the RFP - Mr. John Meeske

Page 9: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Timeline of Developments (cont’d) During the winter 2000, ISO & EMDEC work to develop a Gas Study

RFP RFP Issued March 9th, 2000 - Sent to 25 vendors Eight vendors respond to the ISO’s RFP On-site presentations of proposals by select bidders - narrowed down

the “Short-List” to three vendors:• Levitan & Associates (LAI)

• Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA)

• R.W. Beck

Levitan & Associates was chosen as final vendor Negotiations with LAI continue into early summer to refine the Scope

of Work and agree upon costs

Page 10: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Contractual Deliverables

Bi-weekly status reports

Draft report of findings to be issued by December 31, 2000

Final report of findings to be issued by January 31, 2001

Steady state database model which runs under the Gregg Engineering WinFlowTM application

Page 11: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Summary of Results

Page 12: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Steady-State Modeling Results No pipeline delivery constraints on a peak day in Winter 2000-01

No summer peak day pipeline deliverability constraints through 2005

Delivery constraints are apparent in Winter 2003

• Shortfall in gas requirements 1,755 MW out of 7,550 MW assumed

Delivery constraints intensify by Winter 2005

• Shortfall in gas requirements 3,226 MW out of 11,500 MW assumed

Theoretical mitigation potential thru back-up fuel: Winter 2003 - 71 gas-fired units totaling 16,000 MW

- 51 of which are dual fueled totaling 9,250 MW

Winter 2005 - 75 gas-fired units totaling 18,650 MW - 54 of which are dual fueled totaling 11,500 MW

Page 13: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Market Dynamics in New England

Page 14: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

New England Natural Gas Supply Sources

WCSB

Gulf Onshore

Gulf Offshore

SableIsland

LNG

RockyMountain

Page 15: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

New England Natural Gas Infrastructure

New England’s Major Interstate Pipelines• Iroquois • Portland• Algonquin • Maritimes & Northeast• Tennessee

Existing pipeline delivery capacity = 3.6 Bcf/d.

Daily LNG sendout capability at Everett = 0.450 Bcf/d.• Expansion of 0.60 Bcf/d for 1,550 MW Sithe New Mystic Station,

possibly Island End• About 1.4 Bcf/d peak day deliverability behind the citygates• Liquids via truck 100 MMcf/d (0.1 Bcf/d)

Page 16: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Tennessee

Iroquois

PNGTS

M&N

Algonquin

New England’s Interstate Pipelines

Western Canadian Gas thru TCPL, Iroquois

and PNGTSEastern Canadian

Gas thru M&N

Western Canadian Gasthru Tennessee

Gulf Coast Gasthru AlgonquinAnd Tennessee

LNG fromAlgeria and

Trinidad

Page 17: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Primary Interstate Pipelines

Page 18: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Interstate Transportation Market Dynamics

14 pipeline projects placed in-service during 1999-’00 + 2.0 Bcf/d in the Greater Northeast

New Pipelines in New England, M&N and PNGTS, result in + 615 MMcf/d (0.615 Bcf/d), or about 3800 MW• Counterflow capability through Dracut Tennessee• Pressure and flow benefits improve network reliability

New LNG supplies from Trinidad

Commoditization of the “Supply Chain”• Repackaged Btu services • Synthetics• Increased liquidity • Risk management

Page 19: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Assumptions

Page 20: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Steady-State Demand AssumptionsTwo Gas Demand Cases developed by ISO-NE & LAI: Reference Case & High Case

11,5797,551Capacity Additions

2.5%1.6%Winter Peak Demand Growth Rate

2.9%1.7%Summer Peak Demand Growth Rate

2.4%1.5%Annual Net Energy Growth Rate

High CaseReference Case

Page 21: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Electric Assumptions

ISO-NE develops electric side assumptions PROSYM production simulation model Analysis performed for 2000 - 2005 ISO-NE assumptions for:

• projected NEPOOL loads,

• existing & proposed capacity and capacity attrition

• net-interchange with New York, New Brunswick and Hydro-Quebec

ISO-NE delivers hourly gas demands for NEPOOL units for peak day (summer/winter) and 60 day winter average (Dec 15th thru Feb 15th)

Page 22: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Electric Assumptions - Reference Case

Reference case load growth forecast thru 2005

7,500 MW (winter) of new capacity by 2005

200 MW of capacity attrition - 2000 CELT Report

Net Interchange:• firm contracts per 2000 CELT Report - (NY, NB, HQ)

• modeling of post-HQ FEC deliveries - (HQ Phase II)

• modeling of NEPOOL sales via proposed new interconnections (cross-sound cable)

Page 23: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Electric Assumptions - High Case

High case load growth forecast thru 2005

11,500 MW (winter) of new capacity by 2005

4,000 MW (winter) of capacity attrition

Net Interchange - Higher than Reference case:• firm contracts per 2000 CELT Report - (NY, NB, HQ)

• modeling of post-HQ FEC deliveries - (HQ Phase II)

• modeling of NEPOOL sales via proposed new interconnections (cross-sound cable & Bridgeport cable)

Page 24: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Merchant Entry in New England (High Case)

Page 25: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Merchant Entry by Pipeline (2005 High Case)

Pipeline Winter MW MMcf/d

Iroquois 1118 163.2

Tennessee 2654 479.7

Algonquin 2645 440.7

M&N 2698 278.2

PNGTS 443 67.3

Page 26: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Merchant Entry by Pipeline

Page 27: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Forecast of Annual LDC Gas Demand

530

540

550

560

570

580

590

600

610

Bil

lion

Cu

bic

Fee

t (B

cf)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

WEFA Forecast Adjustment to WEFA Forecast

Page 28: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Monthly Gas Send-Out in New England

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Jun-

98

Jul-

98

Aug

-98

Sep

-98

Oct

-98

Nov

-98

Dec

-98

Jan-

99

Feb

-99

Mar

-99

Apr

-99

May

-99

MM

cf/m

onth

Source: NEGA, 2000 Statistical Guide, March 2000

Page 29: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Typical New England LDC Daily Gas Send-Out

Storage InjectionsPipeline

Storage Withdrawals

LNG/Propane

Source: WEFA, Northeast Natural Gas Markets, Opportunities and Risks, November 1998

Page 30: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Load Profiles and Seasonality

Winter• Reliance on Peak Day System Flow diagrams from

various certificate applications to serve merchant generators

Summer• Statistical inference from LDCs’ normalized sales

Page 31: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Gregg’s WinFlow Steady-State Model

WinFlow is a shell, requiring extensive and elaborate customization

WinFlow calculates the balanced steady-state pressure-flow relationships for pipeline networks

Page 32: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Validation of Steady-State Models

Each individual interstate pipeline model matched its Peak Day Flow diagram within industry tolerances 5# psi 10 hp

Steady-state models for Algonquin, Tennessee and M&N were reviewed and informally validated with individual pipelines

Page 33: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Scheduling Priorities during Constraints

Primary Firm Transportation LDCs, to a lesser extent, QFs and some merchants

Secondary Firm Transportation (quasi-firm) Marketers and merchant generators

Interruptible Transportation Industrials, merchant generators

Page 34: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Findings and Observations

Page 35: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Projected Shortfalls in Gas Requirements (MW)*

2001 20032005

* 6970 Btu/kWh

Page 36: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Summary of Peak Day Gas Scenarios – Total Regional Demand vs. System Capacity

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

4600

4800

2001 2003 2005

MM

cf/d

System Capacity Reference High

Page 37: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Steady-State Modeling Results

Year Scenario Forecast

Pipeline Demand (MMcf/d)

Unserved Merchant

LDCs Merchant Generators

Volumes

(MMcf/d)

Capacity

(MW)

2001 Winter Peak Day High 2617 751 --- ---

2003 Winter Peak Day Reference 2837 872 189 1164

Winter 60-Day Reference 2837 804 72 443

Winter Peak Day High 2837 880 285 1755

Winter 60-Day High 2837 861 191 1176

2005 Winter Peak Day Reference 2837 907 241 1484

Winter 60-Day Reference 2837 782 76 468

Winter Peak Day High 2837 906 524 3226

Winter 60-Day High 2837 867 513 3159

Summer Peak Day High 406 1501 --- ---

Unserved merchant capacity does not take into account back-up fuel capabilities.

Page 38: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Back-up Fuel Issues

Infrastructure• Air Permits • Delivery Logistics

• Tankage • Refill

Operational Constraints, e.g. switch-on-the-fly

Sustainability

Page 39: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Mitigation Potential

CaseNew Entry

(MW)

Back-up Fuel

Capability

(MW)

Peak Day Gas

Available w/ Back-up Fuel

Use

(MMcf)

Peak Day Transport Shortfall

(MMcf)

Excess or Shortfall w/

Back-up Fuel Use

(MMcf/d)

Reference 7,551 2,263 382.5 241.0 141.5

High 11,579 5,890 971.5 524.0 447.5

Page 40: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Electrical Contingency: Loss of Major Gas-Fired Generating Unit

No significant loss of pressure or flows

Interstate pipelines have the ability to divert and/or re-route gas along the 1100-mile transportation path

Page 41: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Electrical Contingency: Loss of 2000 MW Hydro-Quebec Phase II Facility

Winter Peak Day (after winter 00/01) - System cannot transport any additional gas

Summer Peak Day - More than sufficient pipeline capacity to support replacement gas fueled generation

Page 42: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Gas Contingency 1

Increased horsepower requirements at other compressor stations

Fall in delivery pressures to levels that could disrupt plant operations

No observed impact on other pipelines

Available compression capacity at Burrillville on Algonquin derated from 11,400 hp to 5,700 hp

Page 43: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Gas Contingency 2

Downstream compressor stations able to make-up for loss

No unacceptably low delivery pressures for merchant plants observed

No impact on other pipelines

Available compression capacity at Agawam on Tennessee derated from 9,760 hp to 3,253 hp

Page 44: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Gas Contingency 3

Downstream compressors able to compensate for pressure loss

7 miles of Tennessee’s 36-inch line at NY-MA border removed

Page 45: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Recommendations

Page 46: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Recommendations Certify quality of interstate transportation arrangements

Increase understanding of merchant generators’ fuel-switching capabilities

Promote coordination of power and natural gas scheduling protocols

Advocate the streamlining of FERC’s pipeline certification process

Page 47: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

LAI Project Team

Richard LevitanPresident

John BitlerPrincipal

Edward McGee, P.E.Managing Consultant

Jack Elder, P.E. Manager, Power Systems and Technology

John Pitts Senior Consultant

John Mesko, P.E.Senior Consultant

Lilly ZhuConsultant

Shilpa ShahAssistant Consultant

Page 48: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Levitan & Associates, Inc.www.levitan.com

Tel: 617-531-2818Email: [email protected]

Page 49: Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability

Questions ?