steady-state analysis of new england’s interstate pipeline delivery capability
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 PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Steady-State Analysis of New England’s Interstate Pipeline Delivery Capability
Levitan & Associates, Inc.
January 16, 2001
Presentation to the NEPOOL Reliability Committee
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
Summary of Results
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
Market Dynamics in New England
New England Natural Gas Supply Sources
WCSB
Gulf Onshore
Gulf Offshore
SableIsland
LNG
RockyMountain
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)
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
Primary Interstate Pipelines
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
Assumptions
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
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)
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)
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)
Merchant Entry in New England (High Case)
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
Merchant Entry by Pipeline
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Findings and Observations
Projected Shortfalls in Gas Requirements (MW)*
2001 20032005
* 6970 Btu/kWh
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
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.
Back-up Fuel Issues
Infrastructure• Air Permits • Delivery Logistics
• Tankage • Refill
Operational Constraints, e.g. switch-on-the-fly
Sustainability
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
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
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
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
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
Gas Contingency 3
Downstream compressors able to compensate for pressure loss
7 miles of Tennessee’s 36-inch line at NY-MA border removed
Recommendations
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
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
Levitan & Associates, Inc.www.levitan.com
Tel: 617-531-2818Email: [email protected]
Questions ?