SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION OF BANKS LAKE AND …SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION OF BANKS LAKE AND JOHN W....
110
SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION OF BANKS LAKE AND JOHN W. KEYS III PUMP-GENERATING PLANT PUMPED STORAGE OPERATIONS FOR WIND INTEGRATION By TYLER JAMES LLEWELLYN A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY School of Earth and Environmental Sciences MAY 2011
Transcript of SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION OF BANKS LAKE AND …SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION OF BANKS LAKE AND JOHN W....
!
SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION OF BANKS LAKE AND JOHN W. KEYS III
PUMP-GENERATING PLANT PUMPED STORAGE
OPERATIONS FOR WIND INTEGRATION
By
TYLER JAMES LLEWELLYN
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
MAY 2011
ii
To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of TYLER JAMES LLEWELLYN find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. ___________________________________ Andrew Ford, D.E., Chair ___________________________________ Birgit Koehler, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Allyson Beall, Ph.D.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to recognize and thank several individuals for their contributions to my thesis
research. First, I would like to thank my committee, Andrew Ford, Birgit Koehler, and Allyson
Beall, for their help and encouragement throughout this process. I would also like to thank the
numerous managers and analysts at the Bonneville Power Administration who provided
invaluable information and suggestions for my thesis research. Finally, I would like to thank my
parents for their unwavering support and encouragement throughout my time in school.
iv
SYSTEM DYNAMICS SIMULATION OF BANKS LAKE AND JOHN W. KEYS III
PUMP-GENERATING PLANT PUMPED STORAGE
OPERATIONS FOR WIND INTEGRATION
Abstract
By Tyler James Llewellyn, M.S. Washington State University
May 2011
Chair: Andrew Ford
The Northwest region of the United States has experienced rapid development of wind power
over the last decade. Most Northwest wind power development is concentrated within the
Bonneville Power Administration balancing authority area, exceeding 3,000 megawatts in 2010.
Because wind is an intermittent, non-dispatchable resource, it requires significant balancing
reserves to correct for deviations between its actual and scheduled generation. The flexibility of
the Federal Columbia River Power System currently utilized to supply balancing reserves for
wind integration is being rapidly depleted. Pumped storage represents one resource that could
restore flexibility to the conventional hydropower fleet and facilitate additional wind power
development. The Bonneville Power Administration has one existing pumped storage project,
Banks Lake and the John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant (BLK). This research utilizes the
system dynamics modeling paradigm through creating the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation
Simulator to simulate BLK operations for both wind integration and irrigation. BLK Wind
v
Integration and Irrigation Simulator simulations suggest that BLK could provide most of the
balancing reserves demanded by current wind power development. Further, simulations
demonstrate that irrigation withdrawal requirements are not adversely impacted by wind
integration operations over the one-week period simulated. Finally, changes to current irrigation
operations could enhance BLK’s ability to supply balancing reserves for wind integration
without adversely impacting its ability to meet irrigation withdrawal requirements.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
LIST OF COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................ xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
Wind Power Development and Impacts on System Operations.............................................. 1
Operating Pumped Storage for Wind Integration.................................................................... 2
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND ON THE NORTHWEST POWER SYSTEM
AND WIND POWER DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 4
The Northwest Power System ................................................................................................. 4
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 4
The Columbia River Basin............................................................................................... 4
The Federal Columbia River Power System.................................................................... 7
The Bonneville Power Administration ............................................................................ 8
Northwest Wind Power.................................................................................................. 11
Northwest Wind Power Development.................................................................... 11
Key Drivers of Northwest Wind Power Development........................................... 12
vii
Impacts of Wind Power Integration on Bonneville Power Administration
System Operations.................................................................................................. 15
June 2010 Case Study............................................................................................. 18
Potential Resources and Procedures to Allow Additional Wind Power Development ......... 20
Overview of Potential Resources and Procedures for the Bonneville Power
Administration ............................................................................................................... 20
Operation of Pumped Storage for Wind Integration...................................................... 21
Explanation of Pumped Storage ............................................................................. 21
Banks Lake and the John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant ............................. 22
Estimates of Wind Integration Costs ............................................................................. 23
CHAPTER THREE: HDR ENGINEERING, INC. BANKS LAKE AND JOHN W. KEYS III
PUMP-GENERATING PLANT PUMPED STORAGE STUDY................................................ 25
Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 25
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 26
Limitations............................................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER FOUR: DYNAMIC SIMULATION USING THE BLK WIND INTEGRATION
AND IRRIGATION SIMULATOR ............................................................................................. 28
System Dynamics and the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator ........................ 28
BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator ................................................................... 30
Simulation Software and Parameters ............................................................................. 30
Stock and Flow Diagrams.............................................................................................. 31
Wind Generation and Scheduling Sector ............................................................... 31
viii
Pumped Storage Hydrology Sector ........................................................................ 32
Pumped Storage Energy Sector .............................................................................. 35
Causal Loop Diagram .................................................................................................... 36
BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator Results and Discussion............................. 39
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 39
Irrigation Operations Base Case .................................................................................... 41
Wind Integration Operations Base Case ........................................................................ 44
Wind Integration and Current Irrigation Operations ..................................................... 50
Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations................................................... 57
Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations with Actual Wind Schedules .... 64
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 72
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 77
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................ 77
Limitations and Future Work ................................................................................................ 78
Pumps and Pump-Generators......................................................................................... 78
Scheduled Pumping Operations..................................................................................... 80
Other Banks Lake Flows................................................................................................ 81
Treatment of Wind Station Control Error ...................................................................... 82
Wind Integration and Irrigation Costs ........................................................................... 83
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 84
APPENDIX A: EXPLANATION OF MODEL INPUTS ........................................................... 87
ix
LIST OF TABLES Page
4.1 Summary of Irrigation Water, Incremental Reserves, and Decremental Reserves
Supplied In Each Simulation ............................................................................................ 40
x
LIST OF FIGURES Page
2.1 Columbia River Basin......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Columbia River Streamflows.............................................................................................. 6
2.3 Columbia River Runoff and Total Storage Capacity.......................................................... 8
2.4 Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System ................................................. 10
2.5 Growth of Nameplate Wind Capacity in the Bonneville Power Administration
Balancing Authority Area ................................................................................................. 11
2.6 Federal Columbia River Power System Incremental Reserve Capacity, Decremental
Reserve Capacity, and Minimum Flow Requirements Operating Constraints ................. 17
2.7 John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant ........................................................................ 22
2.8 Wind Integration Cost Estimates ...................................................................................... 24
4.1 Illustrative Model of System Dynamics ........................................................................... 30
4.2 Wind Generation and Scheduling Sector of the BLK Wind Integration
and Irrigation Simulator .................................................................................................... 32
4.3 Pumped Storage Hydrology Sector of the BLK Wind Integration
and Irrigation Simulator.................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Pumped Storage Energy Sector of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator . 35
4.5 Causal Loop Structure of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator ............... 38
4.6 Irrigation Operations Base Case Inflows and Outflows ................................................... 42
4.7 Irrigation Operations Base Case Banks Lake Elevation ................................................... 43
4.8 Irrigation Operations Base Case Irrigation Water Demanded and Delivered................... 44
xi
4.9 Wind Integration Operations Base Case Wind Generation and Schedules ...................... 45
4.10 Wind Integration Operations Base Case Inflows and Outflows ....................................... 47
4.11 Wind Integration Operations Base Case Banks Lake Elevation....................................... 48
4.12 Wind Integration Operations Base Case Incremental Reserves ....................................... 49
4.13 Wind Integration Operations Base Case Decremental Reserves ...................................... 50
4.14 Wind Integration and Current Irrigation Operations Inflows and Outflows..................... 52
4.15 Wind Integration and Current Irrigation Operations Banks Lake Elevation .................... 54
4.16 Wind Integration and Current Irrigation Operations Incremental Reserves ..................... 55
4.17 Wind Integration and Current Irrigation Operations Decremental Reserves.................... 56
4.18 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations Inflows and Outflows.................. 58
4.19 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations Banks Lake Elevation ................. 60
4.20 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations Incremental Reserves .................. 62
4.21 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations Decremental Reserves ................. 63
4.22 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations with Actual Wind Schedules
Wind Generation and Schedules....................................................................................... 66
4.23 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations with Actual Wind Schedules
Inflows and Outflows........................................................................................................ 67
4.24 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations with Actual Wind Schedules
Banks Lake Elevation ....................................................................................................... 68
4.25 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations with Actual Wind Schedules
Incremental Reserves ........................................................................................................ 70
4.26 Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations with Actual Wind Schedules
Decremental Reserves....................................................................................................... 71
xii
4.27 Comparison of Federal Columbia River Power System Flexibility Resulting
from Alternative John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant Operations .......................... 76
xiii
LIST OF COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BAA balancing authority area
BLK Banks Lake and John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
CV Columbia Vista
dec decremental reserves
FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System
HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.
HLH heavy load hours
inc incremental reserves
kcfs thousand cubic feet per second
ksfd thousand second foot days
kW-month kilowatt-month
LLH light load hours
MW megawatts
MWh megawatt-hours
PTC Production Tax Credit
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Wind Power Development and Impacts on System Operations
The Northwest region of the United States has experienced rapid development of wind power
over the last decade. Northwest wind power development is concentrated east of the Columbia
River Gorge within the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) balancing authority area (BAA)
(BPA 2010c). From 1998 through 2010, nameplate wind capacity grew from 25 to 3,372
megawatts (MW) (BPA 2011). Wind power is an intermittent, non-dispatchable resource and
accurate wind generation forecasting has proved to be difficult in the Northwest. Consequently,
wind power requires significant levels of balancing reserves to correct for deviations between its
actual and scheduled generation for three reasons. First, wind generation forecasts can be
inaccurate, resulting in actual wind generation significantly deviating from forecasted wind
generation. Second, an hourly wind schedule may not perfectly reflect the average forecasted
wind generation over that hour. Third, because energy is scheduled flat across the whole hour,
even a schedule that is based on a perfect forecast will require balancing reserves if actual
generation increases and/or decreases over the hour (BPA 2008).
The Northwest power market is unique as BPA is the primary wholesale power marketer and
transmission provider. BPA is the Federal Power Marketing Administration responsible for
marketing power generated by the 31 Federal dams in the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS) (BPA et al. 2001). As a result, BPA represents approximately 45 percent of the
2
wholesale power market and approximately 75 percent of the transmission capacity in the
Northwest (Brooks et al. 2005).
BPA has effectively utilized the flexibility of the FCRPS to provide the balancing reserves
required by the development of wind power within its BAA. However, the exponential growth
of wind power is quickly reaching the limits of the FCRPS to integrate additional wind power.
Wind power development within BPA’s BAA is expected to continue at its current rate over the
next few years. BPA forecasts that wind power interconnected to its transmission system will
double to more than 6,000 MW by the end of 2013 (BPA 2010a). Due to future wind power
development, BPA is currently researching new procedures that can reduce, as well as new
resources that can supply, the balancing reserves required by wind power.
Operating Pumped Storage for Wind Integration
Pumped storage represents one potential resource that can supply the balancing reserves required
by wind power, restoring flexibility to the FCRPS and facilitating the integration of additional
wind power. BPA has the opportunity to supply balancing reserves through modifying the
operations of its existing pumped storage project, Banks Lake and the John W. Keys III Pump-
Generating Plant (BLK). During times of wind over-generation, BLK could store the excess
wind energy by pumping water into Banks Lake. Conversely, during times of wind under-
generation, BLK could release the stored wind energy by generating electricity as the water is
allowed to flow back into Lake Roosevelt. However, to be economically feasible, BLK must be
able to supply balancing reserves at or below other utilities’ estimated wind integration costs.
3
Problem Statement
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator uses the system dynamics modeling
paradigm to simulate the operation of BLK as pumped storage to provide balancing reserves for
wind power within BPA’s BAA. The objective of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation
Simulator is to investigate the following three areas of interest:
• Ability of BLK pumped storage to absorb wind balancing reserve requirements from the
FCRPS conventional hydropower fleet to restore flexibility to the FCRPS;
• Impacts of operating BLK pumped storage on the ability to meet irrigation withdrawal
requirements for the Columbia Basin Project; and,
• Benefits and impacts of modifying current BLK irrigation pumping schedules to increase the
amount of wind balancing reserves provided by BLK pumped storage.
This research uses system dynamics through the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator
to gain insight about the three areas of interest outlined above regarding operating BLK as
pumped storage to provide wind balancing reserves. Chapter 2 provides a background on the
Northwest power system, how wind power development impacts current BPA system operations,
and how pumped storage can provide wind balancing reserves. Chapter 3 reviews a previous
analysis on using BLK as pumped storage to provide wind balancing reserves. Chapter 4
describes a system dynamics model constructed to simulate alternative BLK pumped storage
operations to provide wind balancing reserves. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the main
conclusions and limitations associated with this research as well as recommended future work.
4
CHAPTER TWO
BACKGROUND ON THE NORTHWEST POWER SYSTEM
AND WIND POWER DEVELOPMENT
The Northwest Power System
Introduction
The current Northwest power system is the fundamental result of three characteristics unique to
the Northwest. First, the Columbia River Basin has provided the Northwest with a hydropower
resource unmatched in the United States (BPA et al. 1993). Second, the development of
hydropower projects by the United States government has made the Columbia River Basin one
of the largest hydroelectric systems in the world (BPA et al. 2001). Third, the creation of BPA
has made public power an integral part of the Northwest power market. As a result of these
unique characteristics, the Northwest power system demands innovative solutions to the
emerging issues related to wind integration.
The Columbia River Basin
The Columbia River Basin is a massive energy resource spanning seven western states and one
Canadian province (Figure 2.1). The Columbia River Basin covers a total of 258,500 square
miles, with 219,000 square miles in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada,
and Utah and the remaining 39,500 square miles in British Columbia, Canada. The Columbia
River originates at Columbia Lake in British Columbia’s Rocky Mountains. After leaving
British Columbia, the Columbia River travels through Washington until it becomes the border
5
between Washington and Oregon and eventually empties into the Pacific Ocean. The Columbia
River is 1,214 miles long, making it the 15th longest river in North America (BPA et al. 2001).
Figure 2.1. Map of the Columbia River Basin including the Columbia River and its major tributaries and major Northwest dams (BPA et al. 2001).
The combination of steep topography and high precipitation make the Columbia River Basin the
most powerful hydropower resource in the United States (BPA et al. 1993). The Columbia
38
11
1. BONNEVILLEC olumbia River, USAC E
2. THE DALLESC olumbia River, USAC E
3. JOHN DAYC olumbia River, USAC E
4. MCNARYC olumbia River, USAC E
5. PRIEST RAPIDSC olumbia River, G rant C o. PUD
6. WANAPUMC olumbia River, G rant C o. PUD
7. ROCK ISLANDColumbia River, Chelan Co. PUD
8. ROCKY BEACHColumbia River, Chelan Co. PUD
9. WELLSColumbia River, Douglas Co. PUD
10. CHIEF JOSEPHC olumbia River, USAC E
11. GRAND COULEEC olumbia River, USBR
12. KEENLEYSIDEC olumbia River, BC Hydro
13. REVELSTOKEC olumbia River, BC Hydro
14. MICAC olumbia River, BC Hydro
15. CORRA LINNKootenay River, W. Kootenay
16. DUNCANDuncan River, BC Hydro
17. LIBBYKootenai River, USAC E
18. BOUNDARYPend O reille River, SC L
19. ALBENI FALLSPend O reille River, USAC E
20. CABINET GORGEC lark Fork River, W W P
21. NOXON RAPIDSC lark Fork River, W W P
22. KERRFlathead River, MPC
23. HUNGRY HORSEFlathead River, USBR
24. CHANDLERYakima River, USBR
25. ROZAYakima River, USBR
26. ICE HARBORSnake River, USAC E
27. LOWER MONUMENTALSnake River, USAC E
28. LITTLE GOOSESnake River, USAC E
29. LOWER GRANITESnake River, USAC E
30. DWORSHAKN .F. C learwater River, USAC E
31. HELLS CANYONSnake River, IP
32. OXBOWSnake River, IP
33. BROWNLEESnake River, IP
34. BLACK CANYONPayette River, USBR
35. BOISE RIVER DIVERSIONBoise River, USBR
36. ANDERSON RANCHBoise River, USBR
37. MINIDOKASnake River, USBR
38. PALISADESSnake River, USBR
39. PELTONDeschutes River, PGE
40. ROUND BUTTEDeschutes River, PGE
41. BIG CLIFFN . Santiam River, USAC E
42. DETROITN . Santiam River, USAC E
43. FOSTERS. Santiam River, USAC E
44. COUGARMcKenzie River, USAC E
45. GREEN PETERM. Santiam River, USAC E
46. DEXTERW illamette River, USAC E
47. LOOKOUT POINTW illamette River, USAC E
48. HILLS CREEKW illamette River, USAC E
49. MERWINLewis River, PP&L
50. YALELewis River, PP&L
51. SWIFTLewis River, PP&L
52. MAYFIELDC owlitz River, TC L
53. MOSSYROCKC owlitz River, TC L
54. GORGESkagit River, SC L
55. DIABLOSkagit River, SC L
56. ROSSSkagit River, SC L
57. CULMBACKSultan River, Snohomish C o. PUD
58. LOST CREEKRogue River, USAC E
59. LUCKY PEAKBoise River, USAC E
60. GREEN SPRINGSEmigrant C reek, USBR
Major Northwest DamsThe dams on this map generally represent the largest projects and those that have a significant role in river system management. A complete list ofprojects in the basin can be found in Appendix A. Acronyms and abbreviations are defined on page 76.
Kootenai Rive r
Will
am
ette
Rive
Des
chu te
sRiv
er
S n akeRive
r
Clark Fork River
Salmon River
C le arw a ter River
FlatheadRiver
PendOreille River
Columbia RiverPa
ci f
i c O
ce
an
O RE G O N
M O N T A N A
BR IT IS H
C O L U M BIA
U T A HC A L IF O RN IA
A L BE RT A
N E V A D A
ID A H O
W A S H IN G T O N
1
41
4039
23
4
26
27 28 29
24
5
6
25
7
57
5455
56
8
9
18
12
15
13
14
2021
17 23
19
1011
45
42
43
444647
48
58
49 5051
535230
22
31
3233
34
35
59
36
37
16
- FEDERAL DAMS
- NON-FEDERAL DAMS
- CANADIAN DAMS C OLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
10
6
River’s average annual runoff at its mouth is approximately 198 million acre-feet, making it the
second and sixth largest river in the United States and North America, respectively, in terms of
runoff (BPA et al. 2001). However, the natural flow of the Columbia River is extremely erratic,
both annually and seasonally (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2. Graph of the highest, average, and lowest Columbia River streamflows measured at The Dalles, Oregon (BPA et al. 2001).
Record flows range from a high of 1,240 thousand cubic feet per second (kcfs) to a low of 36
kcfs, a 34 to 1 ratio, as measured at The Dalles, Oregon. Even more erratic are the record flows
at the United States-Canadian border, ranging from a high of 680 kcfs to a low of 13 kcfs, a 52 to
1 ratio (BPA et al. 1993). As a result, power planning and operations in the Columbia River
Basin are more difficult than most other large, developed river systems.
6
downstream migration. Morework is under way toenhance fish passage.Indian tribes and commer-cial and sport anglers sharethe salmon and steelheadharvest in the river. Nearly401,000 kilograms (900,000pounds) of steelhead troutand chinook, coho, chum,and sockeye salmon werecaught in 1998. Fish hatch-eries are an important partof the river system. Somestocks of Columbia Basin
salmon and sturgeon fallunder the protection of the ESA, and this hasbecome an important factorin how the hydro system is operated.
• Fish and wildlifehabitat. The Columbia Basinis alive with wildlife andboth resident and migratingfish. State and Federal lawsrequire protection of thehabitat that supports theseanimals. The region has spenthundreds of millions of dollarsrestoring and protectinghabitat. The investmentsinclude programs to reestab-lish wetlands, control erosionof streambanks, purchasesensitive wildlife tracts, and acquire harvest rightsfor old growth timber toprotect habitat.
• Electric power gen-eration. The hydroelectricdams on Columbia Basinrivers have a maximum
B. Uses of the River System
There are nine primaryuses of the Columbia Riversystem.
• Flood control.Because the ColumbiaRiver’s flow varies so widely,the river is subject to severefloods. Controlling thedamaging floodwaters wasone of the original purposesfor many of the dams onthe river. Flood controlremains a high priority forsystem operations duringhigh runoff years.
• Fish migration. TheColumbia River is famous forits salmon runs. Federal damsin the lower Columbia andSnake rivers have fish laddersto help adult anadromous fishmigrate upstream. Bypass sys-tems have been installed tohelp juvenile smolts in their
Columbia Riverdams provideflood control, irriga tion, naviga tion, power genera tion,and recrea tionbenefits to theN orthwest.
0
2 0 0 , 0 0 0
4 0 0 , 0 0 0
6 0 0 , 0 0 0
8 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0
OCT N O V DEC JA N FEB M AR APR M AY JUN JUL AUG SEP
- HIGHEST EVER OBSERVED
- AVERAGE
- LOWEST EVER OBSERVED
F lo w (C ub i c F ee t Pe r S e c o n d )
Columbia River Streamflows
Flow on the Columbia River is generally measured at The Dalles, Oregon. Historic records show an annual pattern, withpeak flows in late spring.
Fish Ladder: A series of sta ir-step poolstha t enables sa lmon to get past thedams. Sw imming from pool to pool,sa lmon work their way up the ladder tothe top where they continue upriver.
Barges travel up and down the river,transporting fuel, fertilizers, andagricultural products.
Anadromous Fish: Fish, such as sa lmonand steelhead trout, that hatch in freshwater,migra te to and ma ture in the ocean, andreturn to freshwa ter as adults to spawn.
7
The Federal Columbia River Power System
The FCRPS is comprised of 31 federally-owned hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River and
its tributaries. Most of the major FCRPS projects are owned and operated by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with the exception of Grand Coulee and Hungry Horse,
which are owned and operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) (BPA et al.
2001). The FCRPS has a nameplate capacity of approximately 22,500 MW and represents
approximately 60 percent of the Northwest’s hydroelectric generating capacity (BPA et al. 2001;
BPA et al. 2003). Most FCRPS projects are run-of-river, with the exception of Albeni Falls,
Dworshak, Grand Coulee, Hungry Horse, and Libby. Three Canadian storage dams—Duncan,
Mica, and Keenleyside—operated by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority are also
included in coordinated planning with the FCRPS (BPA et al. 2001). Due to the limited amount
of storage provided by projects in the Columbia River Basin, less than 40 percent of the average
Columbia River runoff can be stored, whereas other systems such as the Colorado and Missouri
can store two to three times their annual runoff (Figure 2.3) (BPA et al. 2001; BPA 2010c). The
limited storage capacity on the Columbia River and its tributaries makes all of the dams highly
interdependent, with releases from a headwaters dam impacting flows at up to 19 dams
downstream (BPA 2010c).
The interdependency and limited storage in the FCRPS requires close coordination among
Canadian, Federal, and non-Federal dams to achieve the system’s multipurpose goals. Fourteen
of the 31 FCRPS hydropower projects are large-scale multipurpose facilities that are
instrumental in the coordinated operation of the FCRPS. These multipurpose facilities, in
addition to dams and reservoirs, include boat launches; cultural resource protection areas;
8
downstream bypass and collection facilities, fish ladders, and spillways for anadromous fish; fish
hatcheries; high-voltage power lines and substations; hydroelectric power plants; irrigation
diversions and pumps; lands dedicated to the projects; navigation channels and locks; parks and
recreation facilities; and wildlife reserves (BPA et al. 2001). The facilities listed above help the
FCRPS meet its multipurpose-use mandate, which includes operating projects for cultural
resource protection, electric power generation, fish migration, fish and wildlife habitat, flood
control, irrigation, navigation, recreation, water supply, and water quality (BPA et al. 1994).
Figure 2.3. Comparison of the average annual runoff and total storage capacity for three United States river systems (BPA et al. 2001).
The Bonneville Power Administration
In 1937, the Bonneville Project Act established BPA to market electricity from the Bonneville
and Grand Coulee projects. The USACE and USBR remained the owners and operators of
Bonneville and Grand Coulee, respectively (BPA et al. 2003). To market electricity, BPA was to
“build and operate transmission facilities and to market electricity to encourage its widest
Pa
cific
O
ce
an
W A S H IN G T O N
O RE G O N
C A N A D A
ID A H O
M O N TA N A
Keenleyside
Corra Linn
Albeni Falls
Ice Harbor
Brownlee
The Dalles
Grand Coulee
133.6
55.3
81.5
39.5
29.620.7
207.1
18.35.8
36.111.7
12.7 9.5
- AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF
- AC CUMULATED UPSTREAM STORAGE CAPACITY
All Measurements in Million Acre-feet
1 Million Acre Feet= 1.2335 billion cubic meters
Canadian and U.S. Storage
Storage at all projects on the ma jor tributaries and the ma instem Columbia River totals 67.8 billion cubic meters (55.3 million acre-feet). As this diagram shows, most storage has been developed on the upper Columbia system; only about 8 percent of the capacity is in the lower Columbia River below its junction with the Snake River.
The ColumbiaRiver is unique in having more annua l runoff thanstorage capacity.
12
The Columbia River has high runoff and a small amountof storage compared to two other large river systems, theColorado and Missouri.
150
100
50
0C O L O R A D O M I S S O U R I C O L U M B I A
- AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF
- TOTAL STORAGE CAPACITY
All Measurements in Million Acre-feet
1 Million Acre Feet= 1.2335 billion cubic meters1 Million Acre Feet= 1.2335 billion cubic meters
Maf
Columbia River Runoff andStorage Compared to theColorado and Missouri Rivers
A few key reservoirs, including three in Canada and fivein the U.S., hold most of the storage in the ColumbiaRiver Basin.
A l lO t h e rD a m s
3 3 %
M a j o rF e d e r a l
S t o r a g eD a m s 3 0 %
C a n a d i a n D a m s 2 8 %
N o n - T r e a t y S t o r a g e 9 %
M i c a
K e e n l e y s i d e
G r a n d C o u l e e
H u n g r y H o r s e
L i b b y
O t h e r F e d e r a l
P r i v a t e U t i l i t i e s
A l b e n i F a l l s
D w o r s h a k
D u n c a n
P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s 5 5 . 3
5 0
4 0
3 0
2 0
1 0
0
All Measurements in Million Acre-feet1 Million Acre Feet= 1.2335 billion cubic meters
Columbia River SystemStorage Space
on the Columbia River, thereis not the degree of controlthat exists on the Missouriand Colorado River systems,thus giving the Columbia amore natural runoff shape.
It should be noted thatreservoirs west of theCascade Mountains areoperated differently thanthose in the interiorNorthwest, because most of
the winter precipitation onthe west side falls as rain.At these projects, reservoirsare lowered during the latesummer and fall to providespace in case of heavy
- DAM TYPE
- USAGE
9
possible use” (BPA et al. 2003 pg. 2). Publicly- and cooperatively-owned utilities were given
preference to the system’s output, although output was also sold to private utilities and direct-
service industries (BPA et al. 2001; BPA et al. 2003).
Today, BPA continues to be the power marketer for electricity generated by FCRPS projects
(BPA et al. 2003). BPA schedules and dispatches power within the constraints of other river
uses (BPA 2010c). “Flood control, protection of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act,
compliance with the Clean Water Act and other requirements take precedence over power
production” (BPA 2010c pg. 1). BPA also markets the electricity generated by the only nuclear
power plant in the Northwest, the Columbia Generating Station, which is owned and operated by
Energy Northwest (BPA et al. 2003). As a result, BPA is the major wholesale power marketer in
the Northwest, representing approximately 45 percent of the electricity demand (Brooks et al.
2005).
BPA is also the primary high-voltage transmission provider in the Northwest because of its
extensive transmission system (Figure 2.4) constructed to deliver the electricity generated by
FCRPS projects (BPA 2010c). BPA’s transmission system represents approximately 75 percent
of the high-voltage transmission capacity in the Northwest (Brooks et al. 2005). The
transmission system also includes major transmission interties with California, Canada, and the
Southwest (BPA et al. 2001). As a transmission provider, BPA integrates new power generation
sources into its transmission system “consistent with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
policies for open-access, non-discriminatory high-voltage transmission” (BPA 2010c pg. 1).
10
Figure 2.4. Map of Bonneville Power Administration high-voltage transmission lines and substations (BPA et al. 2001).
BPA must provide balancing reserve services to power generators interconnected to its
transmission system to maintain load and generation balance within its BAA. Balancing reserve
services include regulating, load following, and generation imbalance. Regulating reserves
maintain minute-to-minute load-resource balance. Load following reserves are the real-time
dispatch of reserves in the 5 to 60 minute timeframe to compensate for intra-hour variation
between scheduling adjustments. Finally, generation imbalance reserves correct for the
difference between the energy scheduled over a given hour for a specific resource and the actual
amount of energy produced by that resource over that hour (BPA 2008).
O ver 900 ,000pounds of
steelhead troutand sa lmon
were harvested in 1998 .
miles) from the PacificOcean. Four Federal damson the mainstem of theColumbia River—Bonneville,The Dalles, John Day, andMcNary—have navigationlocks through which boatsand barges can pass. Locksat Ice Harbor, LowerMonumental, Little Goose,and Lower Granite dams onthe lower Snake River alsoaccommodate river traffic.
• Irrigation. Six per-cent of the Columbia Basin’s
water (measured at itsmouth; 9 percent of flowsat The Dalles) is divertedfor agriculture. Growers in arid parts of easternWashington, northeasternOregon, and southern Idahodepend on this water toproduce wheat, corn, pota-toes, peas, alfalfa, apples,grapes, and a vast assort-ment of other crops.
• Recreation. Therivers and lakes in theColumbia Basin attractboaters, sport anglers,swimmers, hunters, hikersand campers throughoutthe year. Thousands ofsightseers visit the river andthe projects. The wind inthe Columbia River Gorgehas made the area a world-class destination for windsurfers.
• Water supply andquality. The ColumbiaRiver system supplies water
nameplate capacity of about22,500 megawatts and produced in 1998 an average of about 12,000 megawattsof electricity. The dams are the foundation of theNorthwest’s power supply.Power lines originate atgenerators at the dams andextend outward to utilitycustomers throughout theregion and beyond. Thetransmission grid in theNorthwest is interconnectedwith Canada to the north,with California to the south,and with Utah and otherstates to the south and east.Power produced at dams in the Northwest serves customers locally and thou-sands of kilometers away.
• Navigation. TheColumbia and Snake riverscan be navigated as farupstream as Richland,Washington, and Lewiston,Idaho, 748 kilometers (465
Salmon River
Pa
cific
O
ce
an
M O N T A N A
U T A HC A L IF O RN IA N E V A D A
ID A H O
O RE G O N
Sn
a ke Rive
Columbi a Riv er
Clark Fork Riv erW
illam
ette
Rive
r
ootenai
River
Substation / C o m plex
Power is delivered to cities around the region over a network of transmission lines. The BPA transmission grid interconnectswith Canada to the north and California to the south.
BPA Transmission Grid
Megawatts: A measure of electrica lpower equa l to one million wa tts.Megawa tts delivered over an hour aremeasured in megawa tt-hours.
Marinas and boat launches giverecreational boaters ready access tothe reservoirs.
Transmission Grid: The network of high-voltage transmission lines tha t serves thereg ion, carrying power from genera tingplants to cities.
7
11
Northwest Wind Power
Northwest Wind Power Development
Wind power is the fastest growing renewable resource in the Northwest and has exceeded a
nameplate capacity of 5,000 MW (BPA 2010c). A large fraction of this wind power has been
constructed within BPA’s BAA (Figure 2.5), and is consequently interconnected to BPA’s
transmission system (BPA 2008).
Figure 2.5. Growth of nameplate wind capacity in the Bonneville Power Administration balancing authority area from 1998 through 2010 (BPA 2011).
WIND_InstalledCapacity_current.xls 1/28/2011
WIND GENERATION CAPACITY IN THE BPA BALANCING AUTHORITY AREA
Sequential Increases in Capacity, Based on Date When Actual Generation First Exceeded 50% of Nameplate
10/5/07
10/15/07
1/1/09
10/8/10
10/24/1011/15/10
12/1/1011/29/10
8/11/10
8/11/106/30/10
1/1/10
6/28/05
11/25/05
10/4/06
6/18/02
12/18/011/16/02
11/26/07 5/10/08
4/29/08
6/6/08 12/7/08
2/12/09
1/27/09
11/17/07
10/25/98
8/10/06
3/22/09
5/1/09
8/6/09
9/21/09
11/30/09
12/16/09
1/15/10
6/6/10
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
1/1
/19
98
7/2
/19
98
1/1
/19
99
7/2
/19
99
1/1
/20
00
7/2
/20
00
12
/31
/20
00
7/2
/20
01
12
/31
/20
01
7/2
/20
02
1/1
/20
03
7/2
/20
03
1/1
/20
04
7/1
/20
04
12
/31
/20
04
7/2
/20
05
12
/31
/20
05
7/2
/20
06
12
/31
/20
06
7/2
/20
07
1/1
/20
08
7/1
/20
08
12
/31
/20
08
7/1
/20
09
12
/31
/20
09
7/2
/20
10
12
/31
/20
10
7/2
/20
11
12
/31
/20
11
MW
3372 MW
12
In 1998, the nameplate wind capacity interconnected to BPA’s transmission system was 25 MW
(BPA 2011). In December 2010, the nameplate wind capacity interconnected to BPA’s
transmission system had grown to 3,372 MW (BPA 2011). By the end of 2013, BPA estimates
that the nameplate wind capacity interconnected to its transmission system will exceed 6,000
MW (BPA 2010a).
In 2010, the peak load in BPA’s BAA was approximately 11,000 MW (HDR 2010). With a
nameplate wind capacity of 3,372 MW in December 2010, BPA had a wind penetration level of
approximately 30 percent (HDR 2010; BPA 2011). Thus, BPA has the highest wind penetration
level in North America, and possibly the world, due to the growth of wind power in its BAA
over the past thirteen years (HDR 2010).
Key Drivers of Northwest Wind Power Development
Six primary drivers have resulted in wind power being the fastest growing renewable resource in
the Northwest. The six drivers include Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), access to existing
transmission with available capacity, the Federal Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit
(PTC), use of wind power as a hedge against market risks, relatively good wind resource areas,
and compatible land uses (NWPCC 2007). These drivers have been the primary cause for the
concentrated development of wind power within BPA’s BAA.
Of the six drivers of wind power development listed above, RPSs enacted in California,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington are together the primary driver of wind power development
in the Northwest. The goals of these standards range from Washington’s 15 percent RPS by
13
2020 to California’s 33 percent RPS by 2030 (NWPCC 2007). To further stimulate renewable
energy development, “Western governors have called for 30,000 MW of clean, diversified
energy in the Western Interconnection by 2015” (NWPCC 2007 pg. 8).
Access to existing transmission with available capacity is a driver of wind power development
that is unique to BPA’s BAA and “has emerged as the key driver of project location in the
Northwest” (NWPCC 2007 pg. 17). BPA’s existing transmission capacity was constructed to
transmit electricity generated by FCRPS projects to Northwest load centers and the interties with
California and Canada (NWPCC 2007). As a result, easily accessible, sufficient available firm
transmission capacity is available in portions of BPA’s BAA for wind projects owned or under
contract to non-Federal utilities in the Northwest and California (BPA 2010c). In 2007, 40
percent of the wind projects in service or under construction in the Northwest were within the
McNary-John Day transmission corridor east of the Columbia River Gorge while an additional
20 percent of wind projects were located in the Wallula Gap-Walla Walla area. Although these
two areas are not among the best wind resource areas in the Northwest, they have available
transmission capacity to the load centers west of the Cascade Mountains. Further, because the
northern terminals of the southern interties are located east of the Columbia River Gorge,
California utilities have access to the transmission capacity necessary to purchase or develop
wind power within BPA’s BAA. Due to the available transmission capacity to Northwest load
centers and California, future wind power development is expected to remain concentrated in the
Lower Columbia River area within BPA’s BAA (NWPCC 2007).
14
Subsidies and market forces have also promoted the development of wind power in the
Northwest. First, the Federal Renewable Electricity PTC has been extended through 2012, an
incentive that has been an important driver of past wind power development (NCSU 2010).
Second, volatile natural gas prices and potential carbon legislation have increased the risk
associated with making investments in coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. As a result,
renewable energy, such as wind power, has been viewed by utilities as a hedge against the risks
associated with thermal power plants (NWPCC 2007). While these wind power incentives are
not unique to the Northwest and BPA’s BAA, they still represent important drivers of wind
power development in the region.
The physical geography of the Northwest has also contributed to the development of wind power
in the region. First, the Northwest includes many good wind resource areas characterized by the
smooth topography and low vegetation optimal for wind power. Second, many Northwest land
uses are compatible with wind power development. Examples include open range and dryland
wheat farming located distant from population centers. Because these land uses often extend
across large expanses of land, they allow wind power developers sufficient space to exploit
economies of scale (NWPCC 2007).
All of the above drivers of wind power development have resulted in the rapid increase in the
nameplate wind capacity located within BPA’s BAA. Approximately 80 percent of the
electricity generated by wind power is exported using BPA transmission capacity to purchasing
utilities located outside of BPA’s BAA. Only approximately 20 percent of the electricity is
consumed by utilities within BPA’s BAA (BPA 2010c). Because wind power is being
15
developed to serve load in other regions, “generating capacity is being developed in the
Northwest far in advance of regional power demand” (BPA 2010c pg. 1).
Impacts of Wind Power Integration on Bonneville Power Administration System Operations
The rapid development of wind power within BPA’s BAA has resulted in significant impacts on
BPA system operations. As a transmission provider, BPA must maintain transmission system
reliability through continuously balancing loads and generation within its BAA. Prior to each
hour, BPA receives schedules from power plant operators specifying the amount of power each
operator plans to generate and transmit over BPA’s transmission system in the coming hour
(BPA 2008). The deviation between the actual real-time generation of a wind power plant and
its hourly schedule is known as wind station control error (BPA 2010c). To maintain moment-
to-moment load-resource balance in its BAA, BPA must immediately increase or decrease
electricity generation from other sources as wind generation varies. If actual real-time wind
generation falls short of its schedule, BPA increases FCRPS generation, referred to as
incremental (inc) reserves. If actual real-time wind generation exceeds its schedule, BPA
decreases FCRPS generation, referred to as decremental (dec) reserves. These balancing
reserves and other services provided to wind generators are collectively referred to as wind
integration services (BPA 2008).
Wind generation interconnected to BPA’s transmission system is extremely variable (BPA
2010c). The primary reason for the high variability of wind generation is due to the
concentration of wind power development east of the Columbia River Gorge, resulting in very
low geographical diversity. Consequently, wind generation in BPA’s BAA generally responds to
16
the same variable wind patterns characteristic of the Columbia River Gorge as storm systems
pass through the area (BPA 2010c; HDR 2010). These extremely variable wind patterns cause
large up and down ramps in generation that are difficult to forecast, causing actual wind
generation to significantly exceed or fall short of scheduled generation (BPA 2008; BPA 2010c).
Because most of these large changes in wind generation occur over a 10 to 60 minute timeframe,
wind generation significantly increases the incremental demand for load following reserves
while only modestly increasing the incremental demand for regulating reserves (NWPCC 2007).
Further, the incremental demand for generation imbalance reserves is significantly increased by
the interconnection of wind power (BPA 2010a). Thus, significant incremental and decremental
capacity is reserved in FCRPS projects to meet reserve obligations for wind integration services
(BPA 2008).
BPA primarily uses the FCRPS to provide wind integration services. In 2010, with
approximately 3,000 MW of nameplate wind capacity interconnected to its transmission system,
BPA held approximately 850 and 1,050 average MW of FCRPS capacity to provide incremental
and decremental reserves, respectively. To provide incremental reserves, BPA operates the
FCRPS no higher than approximately 850 MW below its maximum generating capacity so
generation can be increased up to 850 MW at any time if actual wind generation falls below its
schedule (Figure 2.6). To provide decremental reserves, BPA operates the FCRPS no lower than
approximately 1,050 MW above its minimum generating capacity so generation can be reduced
up to 1,050 MW at any time if actual wind generation rises above its schedule. If wind
generation deviates from its schedule more than the incremental and decremental reserve
capacities held, BPA signals wind generators to reduce their output by feathering their blades or
17
curtails their transmission to limit the amount of additional generation provided by the FCRPS
(BPA 2010c).
Figure 2.6. Federal Columbia River Power System incremental reserve capacity, decremental reserve capacity, and minimum flow requirements operating constraints. Minimum flow requirements is illustrative, but does not necessarily represent the relative constraint imposed by minimum flow requirements.
Holding incremental and decremental reserves to provide wind integration services consumes a
substantial portion of the operational flexibility of the FCRPS and has resulted in significant
consequences to BPA system operations over the last few years (BPA 2008; BPA 2010c). First,
operating the FCRPS below its maximum generating capacity in high flow periods to provide
incremental reserves moves power generation from heavy load hours (HLH) to light load hours
1,050
850
0
22,500
Meg
awat
ts Incremental Reserve Capacity
Operating Range
Decremental Reserve Capacity
Minimum Flow Requirements
18
(LLH) and may result in increased spill during very high flow events. Second, operating the
FCRPS above its minimum generating capacity at night to meet both minimum flow
requirements and hold decremental reserves also moves power generation from HLH to LLH.
Third, during low flow periods, the higher flows at night from holding decremental reserves may
result in the inability to meet both minimum flow requirements and decremental reserve flow
requirements. Fourth, reducing generation when supplying decremental reserves may result in
involuntary spill during high flow events (BPA 2010a). Elevated levels of total dissolved gas
below FCRPS projects from excessive spill can cause gas bubble trauma to salmon and steelhead
species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Gas levels exceeding 110 percent saturation at
any point on the Columbia River violates Washington and Oregon water quality standards under
the Clean Water Act (BPA 2010c).
June 2010 Case Study
The events that unfolded during the first two weeks of June 2010 provide an excellent case study
of the challenges faced by BPA in maintaining system reliability while integrating variable wind
generation and protecting endangered salmon and steelhead species. Following a dry winter,
river flows in spring 2010 were expected to remain fairly low (BPA 2010c). However, in early
June, the first high-water event in several years took place as “a strong Pacific jet stream brought
storm systems with heavy precipitation and flooding in some areas” (BPA 2010c pg. 2). In five
days, Snake River flows nearly tripled and flows into Lake Roosevelt increased 70 percent. In
addition, the continuous movement of strong storms through the region resulted in wind
generation fluctuating between zero and nearly full output, resulting in a high capacity factor of
33 percent in June (BPA 2010c).
19
To minimize excess spill, hydropower generation was maximized. However, BPA could not
generate at maximum capacity due to the cool weather and corresponding low demand for
electricity, even when electricity was provided at zero cost or sold for less than the cost of
associated transmission. Total dissolved gas levels below Lower Granite Dam reached 130
percent saturation, as flows were approximately twice the capacity of the Lower Snake River
projects’ powerhouses. BPA reduced wind balancing reserves on June 5 and from June 9
through June 13 to minimize spill resulting from unscheduled electricity generation by wind
generators in an attempt to protect endangered salmon and steelhead species. BPA primarily
reduced decremental reserves so wind over-generation would not cause reductions in
hydropower generation that would result in additional spill. Further, reducing wind balancing
reserves only affected wind generation that exceeded its schedule and wind generation that was
scheduled but not generated (BPA 2010c).
Unfortunately, the conditions that occurred during early June 2010 are not expected to be
uncommon as “there is a one-in-three chance of flows at least as high as those of early June 2010
occurring in any year and lasting for one month or more” (BPA 2010c pg. 3). In the last decade,
the Columbia River Basin has had only one above-average water year. The last water year
significantly above average occurred in 1999 when there was very little commercial wind power
development within BPA’s BAA (BPA 2010c). “The June high-water event was likely a
preview of situations BPA and the region will face again and for longer periods, particularly
during years of heavy snowpack” (BPA 2010c pg. 1).
20
High-water events like June 2010 and wind balancing reserve requirements demanded by
continued wind power development are approaching the limits of the FCRPS. June 2010
demonstrates that the FCRPS may not be able to supply the balancing reserves required by
existing wind power development under certain weather conditions. Modeling conducted by
BPA has also shown that, assuming current forecasting accuracy, the FCRPS is unable to
consistently hold the 1,564 MW of incremental reserves and 2,063 MW of decremental reserves
required for the 7,322 MW nameplate wind capacity forecasted for 2014 (BPA 2010a). As a
result, either new protocols that reduce the balancing reserves required for wind power or new
resources that provide incremental and/or decremental reserves are needed to facilitate the
integration of wind power into BPA’s transmission system beyond 2013.
Potential Resources and Procedures to Allow Additional Wind Power Development
Overview of Potential Resources and Procedures for the Bonneville Power Administration
Numerous potential solutions have been identified by BPA to both provide wind integration
services for additional wind power development and restore flexibility to the FCRPS. Wind
integration solutions fall into two categories: non-energy storage solutions and energy storage
solutions. Potential non-energy storage solutions include improving wind forecast and schedule
accuracy, developing sub-hourly transmission scheduling procedures, dynamically scheduling
wind generation across the interties to California and Canada, promoting more geographically
diverse wind power development, assigning utilities receiving wind energy balancing
responsibility, implementing new wind generation controls, developing demand-side
management, and obtaining balancing reserves from third-party resources, such as natural gas-
fired power plants (BPA 2008). Potential energy storage solutions include flywheels,
21
compressed air, batteries, and pumped storage. Pumped storage is a commercially viable option
that has significant potential to provide wind integration services in the near-term (BPA 2010a).
Operation of Pumped Storage for Wind Integration
Explanation of Pumped Storage
Pumped storage systems consist of an upper and lower reservoir. During times of excess
electricity generation, energy is stored by pumping water from the lower reservoir into the upper
reservoir. During times of high electricity demand, electricity is generated by allowing water to
flow from the upper reservoir back into the lower reservoir. While pumped storage incurs net
energy losses of approximately 20 to 25 percent, storing excess energy until times of high energy
demand can be economically feasible. Pumped storage may save as much as 75 to 80 percent of
the energy that might be wasted by hydro or wind spill (BPA 2010a).
Pumped storage can provide both incremental and decremental reserves for wind integration.
Incremental reserves can be provided two different ways. First, pump load can be reduced below
its scheduled level, which effectively provides additional electricity for other loads. Second,
generation can be increased above its scheduled level. Decremental reserves can also be
provided two different ways. First, generation can be reduced below its scheduled level.
Second, pump load can be increased above its scheduled level, which effectively consumes the
excess electricity. BPA has a unique opportunity to operate its existing pumped storage project,
BLK, to provide wind integration services.
22
Banks Lake and the John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant
BLK, owned and operated by the USBR, pumps water 280 feet uphill out of Lake Roosevelt
behind Grand Coulee Dam into Banks Lake to supply irrigation water to approximately 670,000
acres of farmland in Central Washington’s Columbia Basin Project (Figure 2.7). Banks Lake is
a 27-mile-long equalizing reservoir with 715,000 acre-feet of active storage capacity. Six
pumping units were installed in BLK from 1951 to 1953. Later in 1973, three pump-generator
units were installed so that BLK could be used for pumped storage. Three more pump-generator
units were installed by 1984. In total, BLK has a 600 MW pumping capacity and 314 MW
generating capacity (USBR 2009).
Figure 2.7. Cross-section diagram of the John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant (USBR 2009).
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Revised April 2009
for irrigation and also provides important recreational
benefits to the region.
The pump-generating plant began operation in 1951.
From 1951 to 1953, six pumping units, each rated at
65,000 horsepower and with a capacity to pump 1,600
cubic feet per second, were installed in the plant.
In the early 1960s, investigations revealed the potential
for power generation. Reversible pumps were installed
to allow water from Banks Lake to flow back through
the units to generate power during periods of peak
demand. The first three generating pumps came online
in 1973. Two more generating pumps were installed in
1983; the final generating pump was installed in Janu-
ary 1984. The total generating capacity of the plant is
now 314,000 kilowatts.
In 2008, the pump-generating plant was renamed in
honor of John W. Keys III. Keys was Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation from 2001 to 2006 and
Pacific Northwest Regional Director from 1986 to
1998. He was killed in a plane crash in 2008.
The John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant pumps
water uphill 280 feet from Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake
to Banks Lake. This water is used to irrigate approxi-
mately 670,000 acres of farmland in the Columbia
Basin Project. More than 60 crops are grown in the
basin and distributed across the nation.
Congress authorized Grand Coulee Dam in 1935, with
its primary purpose to provide water for irrigation.
When the United States entered World War II in
1941, the focus of the dam shifted from irrigation to
power production. It was not until 1943 that Congress
authorized the Columbia Basin Project to deliver water
to the farmers of central Washington State.
Construction of the irrigation facilities began in 1948.
Components of the project include the pump-generat-
ing plant, feeder canal, and equalizing reservoir, which
was later named Banks Lake.
Banks Lake was formed by damming the northern 27
miles of the Grand Coulee, and has an active storage
capacity of 715,000 acre-feet. The lake stores water
John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant
Pipe to theFeeder Canaland Banks Lake
Pump-Generating Plant
Lake Roosevelt
Trash Racks
Generator
Crane
Wing Dam
Pipe
Pipe
23
The primary use of BLK has been to supply irrigation water to the Columbia Basin Project.
BLK pumped storage operations have been limited historically because supplying the full
amount of irrigation water demanded by the Columbia Basin Project takes precedence.
Recreation expectations and the protection of resident warm water fish populations have also
limited the utilization of BLK for pumped storage. The pump and pump-generator units
installed, which are not designed for frequent or rapid dispatch, have also limited BLK pumped
storage operations. Irrigation water is supplied by generally operating the pumps only at night
and on weekends when electricity prices are low to minimize cost. Further, Banks Lake is
typically operated near full pool for most of the year (HDR 2010). While BLK has not
historically been utilized to provide balancing reserves, modernization and upgrades of pump
and pump-generator units as well as different operational protocols could allow BLK to provide
a significant portion of BPA’s wind integration services.
Estimates of Wind Integration Costs
Modernization and upgrades of pump and pump-generator units could allow BLK to provide
wind integration services. However, whether BLK is operated to provide wind integration
services will ultimately be determined by the relative cost of BLK providing these services
compared to the cost of other resources providing these services. Figure 2.8 summarizes wind
integration cost estimates from seven integration studies and five resource plans. Wind
integration cost estimates vary widely among resource plans. For example, Avista, a Northwest
utility with considerable hydropower resources, estimates its wind integration cost to be from $2
per megawatt-hour (MWh) to $18 per MWh at a five percent wind penetration level (Bolinger
and Wiser 2005).
24
Figure 2.8. Wind integration cost estimates from utility resource plans and broader integration cost literature (Bolinger and Wiser 2005).
Operating natural gas combustion turbines for wind integration services sets an upper limit on
wind integration costs. As a result, wind integration cost estimates by utilities with mostly
thermal resources help identify the upper limit to wind integration costs. Public Service
Company of Colorado (PSCo), a utility with mostly coal- and natural gas-fired power plants,
estimates its wind integration costs to be $2.50 per MWh and $7.00 per MWh at 9 percent and 14
percent wind penetration levels, respectively (Bolinger and Wiser 2005). These wind integration
cost estimates are several years old and are continually updated as new information is available
and new analyses are completed. Regardless, the cost of BLK-supplied wind integration services
must be competitive with other utilities’ wind integration cost estimates to make BLK
modernization, upgrades, and operations for wind integration services economically feasible.
costs assumed among our sample of resource plans (where data is available) is shown to the right of that line. Still other utilities, however, have assumed that such costs are negligible, and exclude these possible costs from consideration in their plans.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
CA BPA PJM WI
(We)
South-
west
MN
(GRE)
MN
(Xcel)
PSE
2005
Pacifi-
Corp
PSCo PGE*
(Supp.)
Avista
Win
d In
teg
ratio
n C
ost ($
/MW
h)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Win
d P
en
etr
atio
n (
% o
f p
ea
k lo
ad
)
Integration Costs (left scale)
Wind Penetration (right scale)
Resource PlansIntegration Studies $18
Figure ES-5. Comparison of Integration Costs in Resource Plans and Integration Studies *PGE estimates the cost of creating a flat, base-load block of power out of variable wind production, rather than simply the cost of integrating variable wind production. As such, its cost estimate is not directly comparable to the others.
! Some utilities cite uncertainty over integration costs as a reason to cap the amount of
wind power allowed into candidate or preferred portfolios. These caps are sometimes established at low, and somewhat arbitrary, levels, and highlight the need for more integration cost studies conducted at higher wind penetration levels. Until such studies are available, uncertainty over integration costs might be best modeled just like any other uncertain variable, using scenario and/or stochastic analysis, rather than through exogenous wind penetration caps.
! In some cases, assumptions about wind’s capacity value appear to be too low. Virtually all of the IRPs that explicitly assigned a capacity value to wind calculated that value in a different way, and only two utilities in our sample used effective load carrying capability (ELCC), viewed by many to be the most analytically rigorous way of quantifying capacity value. Perhaps as a result, assumptions about wind’s capacity value range widely, from 0% to 33% (as shown by the arrows along the right-hand axis of Figure ES-6). Some of these assumptions are lower than warranted based on recent studies of wind’s ELCC (as shown by the grey bars in Figure ES-6). Further examination of wind’s capacity value, focusing on the use of ELCC, is warranted in future IRPs.
! Geothermal costs are assumed to be competitive with wind in some cases, though the
range of assumed costs is wide. The wide range of assumed levelized costs for geothermal – from $35 to $100/MWh – is striking, and suggests that geothermal costs either vary significantly by region or site, or alternatively are poorly understood by utilities. If costs at the low end of the range are to be believed, however, then geothermal arguably deserves a second look by more western utilities.
vi
25
CHAPTER THREE
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. BANKS LAKE AND JOHN W. KEYS III
PUMP-GENERATING PLANT PUMPED STORAGE STUDY
Purpose
Few publically-available studies exist that analyze the benefits, costs, and operational impacts of
utilizing BLK as pumped storage for wind integration. In 2010, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR)
completed a BLK modeling study for BPA to address three specific areas of interest:
• Ability of BLK to hold balancing reserve requirements that, without pumped storage, would
be held on the FCRPS;
• Interactions and scheduling impacts at BLK from providing balancing reserves and meeting
Columbia Basin Project irrigation withdrawal requirements from Banks Lake; and,
• Impacts of conventional hydropower and pumped storage dispatch on power market prices
and depth.
HDR utilized the existing Columbia Vista (CV) modeling tool to quantify the impacts of
operating BLK pumped storage to meet balancing reserve requirements. CV is a reservoir
optimization model that has been utilized by BPA since 2005 to support real-time, short-term,
and mid-term FCRPS operations planning and represents the best available tool BPA has to
assess the value of utilizing BLK for pumped storage. While the HDR study is considered
preliminary, it provides many important insights into using BLK to provide wind integration
services (HDR 2010).
26
Methodology
HDR explicitly modeled the hydrology and generation of the “Big Ten” FCRPS hydropower
projects plus BLK. The “Big Ten” consist of the ten largest Federal projects in the Columbia
River Basin: Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph, Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, Ice
Harbor, McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville (HDR 2010). All remaining BPA
generating resources were treated as external resources to simplify the modeling effort while also
maintaining “a reasonably accurate balance of loads and resources in the model” (HDR 2010 pg.
44). BLK was modeled under three scenarios consisting of a base case reflecting existing
conditions and two potential future conditions based on combinations of different upgrade
options (HDR 2010). Each BLK scenario was fed low (90 percent exceedance), median (50
percent exceedance), and high (10 percent exceedance) water year scenarios to indentify “critical
periods of system reliability and seasonal reserve requirements for each type of water year”
(HDR 2010 pg. 43).
Conclusions
Many important conclusions, although preliminary, were obtained through HDR’s BLK pumped
storage study. First, BLK could provide up to 900 MW of operating flexibility. This level of
flexibility assumes investments are made in modernization and upgrades that make all of the
pumps and pump-generators dispatchable. The level of flexibility provided will also depend on
the operating constraints established for each pump and pump-generator and the overall project.
The additional flexibility provided by BLK pumped storage has the potential to reduce wind
integration costs, restore flexibility to the FCRPS, and increase the ability of BPA to integrate
additional wind power development (HDR 2010).
27
Second, BLK, if modernized and upgraded, will enhance the capability of BPA to integrate wind
power without impacting the delivery of water to the Columbia Basin Project. Further, including
irrigation commitments and Banks Lake elevations in daily and seasonal operations planning can
maximize unit efficiency and reserve availability. Third, HLH and LLH price differentials must
significantly increase for BLK to provide a temporal arbitrage opportunity. Fourth, the cost of
supplying wind balancing reserves from BLK is estimated to be $8.00 per kilowatt-month (kW-
month), slightly above the current BPA wind balancing reserve cost of $6.75 per kW-month for
providing 585 MW of balancing reserves for a 3,053 MW nameplate wind capacity. Thus, the
cost of wind integration services from BLK is estimated to be comparable to the current marginal
cost of providing wind integration services from conventional hydropower projects in the FCRPS
(HDR 2010).
Limitations
HDR considered its analysis a preliminary study due to limitations with CV’s modeling
capability. First, wind penetration in the BPA BAA is not explicitly modeled within CV.
Instead, CV simulates the revenue effects of increasing the reserve requirements needed to
integrate a specific nameplate wind capacity in the BPA BAA. Consequently, CV does not
model the dispatch of reserves; it only models the holding of incremental and decremental
reserves. Further, CV cannot directly model the decremental reserves provided by the dispatch
of pump load at BLK. As a result, HDR recommended that BPA develop tools that are more
capable of evaluating the impacts of wind integration on the FCRPS and the value provided by
operating BLK to provide wind integration services (HDR 2010).
28
CHAPTER FOUR
DYNAMIC SIMULATION USING THE BLK WIND
INTEGRATION AND IRRIGATION SIMULATOR
System Dynamics and the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator uses the system dynamics modeling
paradigm as explained by Ford (2010) to simulate BLK operations for wind integration and
irrigation. Pioneered by Forrester (1961), system dynamics is a causal mathematical modeling
approach that simulates the dynamic pattern of a system resulting from its underlying structure.
System dynamics provides a realistic simulation of systems based on real-world limitations of
imperfect understanding of systems and knowledge of the future. Thus, system dynamics is used
to find good or creative solutions through conducting several simulations with alternative
policies (Simonovic and Fahmy 1999; Ahmad and Simonovic 2000).
System dynamics models are generally implemented in object-oriented, visual software. System
dynamics modeling allows diverse groups of people with no modeling experience to explore and
understand a comprehensive and integrated view of complex systems through a user-friendly
graphical interface, transparency provided by object-oriented software, and highly interactive
viewing of results through rapid simulation (Ford 1996; Simonovic and Fahmy 1999; Ahmad
and Simonovic 2000; Tidwell et al. 2004). Further, the enhanced transparency, efficient and
iterative model development with stakeholder involvement, and investigation and visualization
of different policy scenarios facilitated by object-oriented system dynamics software increases
29
stakeholder, policymaker, and public understanding and confidence in the model (Simonovic and
Fahmy 1999; Ahmad and Simonovic 2000; Tidwell et al. 2004).
Figure 4.1a shows a simple, illustrative model of stocks and flows to account for the pumping of
water into Banks Lake and the outflow of water to the Columbia Basin Project. System
dynamics models are constructed by starting with the stocks, adding the flows, and then adding
converters to explain the flows and create feedback within the system. The flow of water
through the system is represented by the direction of the arrows associated with the double lines.
The accumulation of water in Banks Lake is represented by the rectangle. While the custom in
system dynamics is to use long, descriptive names, Figure 4.1b shows the same model with short
names that correspond to the equivalent differential equation in Figure 4.1c. System dynamics
models are comprised of coupled first-order differential equations, with each differential
equation representing one stock. Each differential equation in the model is “solved” through
numerical integration (Ford et al. 2007). The system dynamics approach is applied to a broad
range of environmental and economic systems (Ford 2010).
System dynamics has been effectively utilized in modeling power and water systems. First,
system dynamics has been used to evaluate energy storage for utility-scale wind power projects
(Ingram 2005). Second, this modeling approach has been utilized over short temporal scales to
quantify the benefits of expanding reservoir facilities and changing reservoir operations at
multipurpose reservoirs in Canada (Ahmad and Simonovic 2000). Finally, system dynamics has
been used to study multiple-use river systems (Ford 1996; Tidwell et al. 2004) and electricity
markets (Ford 2008) in the western United States.
30
(a)
(b) (c) Figure 4.1. (a) Model including one stock to keep track of the water stored in Banks Lake. (b) Same model with short names. (c) Same model shown in the form of a differential equation.
BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator
Simulation Software and Parameters
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator was created using STELLA software (isee
systems, inc. 2009). Simulations use a one-minute time step to simulate a one-week time
horizon. A one-minute time step is implemented to accurately model the incremental demand
for load following and generation imbalance reserves associated with wind integration while still
providing sufficiently rapid simulation. A one-week time horizon is employed as it is long
enough to simulate current BLK pumping operations for irrigation and the impacts of generation
imbalance over multiple days while still providing adequate simulation speed using the short
time step needed to accurately model load following reserves. Simulations begin Monday
morning and end Sunday night consistent with the BPA planning and operations week.
Water Stored
in Banks LakeInflow from
Lake Roosevelt
Outflow to Columbia
Basin Project
Pumping Needed
to RefillIrrigation
Demand
Fraction of
Irrigation Supplied
Fraction of
Pumping Conducted
PNRI D
SIO
F IS F P C
!
dS
dt= I "O
where I = PNR #FPC O = ID #FIS
31
Stock and Flow Diagrams
The model is comprised of three main sectors: wind generation and scheduling, pumped storage
hydrology, and pumped storage energy. Fundamentally, the wind generation and scheduling
sector drives the dynamics of the pumped storage hydrology sector, which in turn drives the
dynamics of the pumped storage energy sector.
Wind Generation and Scheduling Sector
The wind generation and scheduling sector of the model (Figure 4.2) simulates the scheduling
process for wind generators. One hour in advance, an hourly energy schedule is posted that
reflects the forecasted wind generation for the coming hour. At the beginning of the hour, the
posted hourly energy schedule becomes operational. The wind station control error is
determined by the difference between the actual wind generation and the hourly wind schedule in
operation. The actual wind generation is determined by the wind fleet’s total nameplate capacity
and the wind generation capacity factor at that time. The wind generation and scheduling sector
is an important part of the model as it determines the incremental and decremental reserves
demanded for wind integration.
32
Figure 4.2. Wind generation and scheduling sector of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator.
Pumped Storage Hydrology Sector
The pumped storage hydrology sector of the model (Figure 4.3) simulates the movement of
water into and out of the two reservoirs: Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt. Lake Roosevelt
receives water from the Columbia River and other tributaries and loses water through regulated
outflow from Grand Coulee Dam. Pumping water from Lake Roosevelt into Banks Lake is
conducted to supply irrigation water to the Columbia Basin Project and decremental reserves.
Water is allowed to flow from Banks Lake back into Lake Roosevelt to provide generation for
incremental reserves. Finally, irrigation flow to the Columbia Basin Project removes water from
Banks Lake.
MW Wind
Scheduled
MW Wind Scheduled
in OperationMW Wind
Posted
MW Wind
Scheduled Starts
MW Wind Reduction
at End of Hour
Wind Station
Control Error
T IT I T IStart of
New Hour?
Wind Fleet Nameplate
Capacity in GW Wind
Generation
Wind
Generation CF
Start of
New Hour?
Wind
Schedule
Megawatts
per Gigawatt
Start of
New Hour?
33
Demand for incremental and decremental reserves are determined exogenously by the wind
station control error calculated in the wind generation and scheduling sector of the model.
Irrigation pumping and outflow are also determined exogenously by the demand for irrigation
water. Lake Roosevelt inflow and outflow are also determined exogenously. Hydrology is an
important component of the model as the current primary use of BLK is to supply irrigation
water for the Columbia Basin Project. Further, the elevations of Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt
directly impact the ability to operate BLK as pumped storage and significantly affect the
recreational value of the reservoirs.
!
!
34!
F
igure
4.3
. P
um
ped
sto
rage
hydro
logy s
ecto
r of
the
BL
K W
ind I
nte
gra
tion a
nd I
rrig
atio
n S
imula
tor.
Wate
r S
tore
d
in B
anks Lake
Wate
r S
tore
d
in Lake R
oosevelt
Pu
mp
Flo
w
Generato
r
Flo
w
Irrig
ati
on
Flo
w
Win
d S
tation
Contr
ol Err
or
In
crem
en
tal
Reserves
Dem
anded
Decrem
en
tal
Reserves
Dem
anded
Desir
ed
Dec
Pum
pin
g
Desir
ed
Inc
Pum
pin
g
Maxim
um
Genera
tor
Flo
w
Schedule
d
Irri
gati
on Pum
pin
g
Desir
ed
Pum
pin
g
Maxim
um
Pum
p Flo
w
Tota
l D
ec
Lake
Roosevelt
Ele
vati
on
Banks
Lake
Ele
vati
on
Pum
p
Inta
ke
Ele
vati
on
Banks
Lake
Min
imum
Ele
vati
onBanks
Lake
Maxim
um
Ele
vati
on
Lake
Roosevelt
Maxim
um
Ele
vati
on
Inches
Belo
w
LR
M
ax Ele
vati
on
Fr
of
Gen Allow
ed
Based on LR
Ele
vati
on
~In
ch
es
per
Foot
Inches
Above
BL M
in Ele
vati
on
Inches
per
Foot
Fr
of
Gen Allow
ed
Based on B
L Ele
vati
on
~
Inches
Belo
w
BL M
ax Ele
vati
on
Inches
per
Foot
Fr
of
Pum
pin
g Allow
ed
Based on B
L Ele
vati
on
~
Inches A
bove Pum
p
Inta
ke
Ele
vati
on
Inches
per
Foot
Fr
of
Pum
pin
g Allow
ed
Based on LR
Ele
vati
on
~
Inc
Reserv
es
from
Pum
pin
g
Resid
ual
Inc
Desir
ed
Generati
on
Tota
l In
c
!
Desir
ed
Inc
Genera
tion
MW
Load
per
KCFS
Irri
gati
on
Dem
anded
Inc
Reserv
es
from
G
enera
tion
Pum
p Flo
w
in
KC
FS
Irri
gati
on Flo
w
in
KC
FS
Min
imum
Irri
gati
on
Ele
vati
on
Inches
Above
Min
imum
Irri
gati
on
Ele
vati
on
Fr
of
Irri
gati
on W
ithdra
wal
Allow
ed B
ased on B
L Ele
vati
on
~
Genera
tor
Flo
w
in
KC
FS
Lake
Roosevelt
Infl
ow
Lake
Roosevelt
Outf
low
Lake R
oosevelt I
nflow
in K
CFS
Lake R
oosevelt O
utf
low
in K
CFS
Supply
R
eserv
es
with B
anks L
ake?
KC
F
per
CFS
H
KCF
per
CFSH
Supply
R
eserv
es
with B
anks L
ake?
MW
Genera
ted
per
KCFSMW
Load
per
KCFS
Bala
ncin
g
Reserv
es
Opera
ting
Range
!
35
Pumped Storage Energy Sector
The pumped storage energy sector of the model (Figure 4.4) simulates the storage and generation
of energy from Banks Lake associated with the pumped storage hydrology dynamics described
above. Energy is stored by pumping water from Lake Roosevelt into Banks Lake. Conversely,
energy is generated when water is allowed to run from Banks Lake back through the pump-
generators into Lake Roosevelt.
Figure 4.4. Pumped storage energy sector of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator.
Further, as with all energy storage projects, a net energy loss is associated with BLK pumped
storage. The net energy loss is accounted for by subtracting the difference between the amount
of energy required to pump the water into Banks Lake and the amount of energy generated from
MW Load
per KCFS
MW Generated
per KCFS
Minutes
per Hour
MWm Stored
in Banks LakeEnergy
Pumped
Energy
Generated
Pump Flow
in KCFS
Balancing
Interval
MWh Stored
in BL
Generator Flow
in KCFS
MW Load
per KCFS
MW Generated
per KCFS
Irrigation
Energy Loss
Efficiency
Energy Loss
Generator Flow
in KCFSIrrigation Flow
in KCFS
!
36
allowing the water to run back into Lake Roosevelt. When water is released to the Columbia
Basin Project for irrigation, the associated potential energy is lost from BLK pumped storage.
As a result, this energy is removed from the amount stored in Banks Lake, as it is no longer
available to run through BLK pump-generators. The pumped storage energy sector is an
important component of the model as it accounts for the balance between the energy stored
during times of wind over-generation and the energy generated during times of wind under-
generation.
Causal Loop Diagram
The overall causal structure of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator is shown in
Figure 4.5. The model is driven by three variables that determine the flow of water through the
system: irrigation demand, wind generation, and wind scheduled. Irrigation demand results in
scheduled irrigation pumping which increases pump flow. Further, irrigation demand results in
irrigation outflow from Banks Lake. The wind station control error is determined by the
difference between wind generation and wind scheduled. If wind generation is below its
schedule, incremental reserves are demanded. The model first attempts to supply incremental
reserves through reducing pump load by decreasing pump flow. The model then attempts to
increase generation through increasing pump-generator flow to meet any residual demand for
incremental reserves. If wind generation is above its schedule, the model attempts to increase
pump load by increasing pump flow to meet the demand for decremental reserves.
As pump flow from supplying irrigation water and decremental reserves adds water to Banks
Lake and removes water from Lake Roosevelt, the elevation of Banks Lake rises while the
!
37
elevation of Lake Roosevelt drops. When the maximum elevation of Banks Lake is approached,
pump flow is reduced so Banks Lake is not overfilled. Similarly, when the pump intake
elevation is approached, pump flow is reduced as the pumps become inoperable.
As pump-generator flow from supplying incremental reserves removes water from Banks Lake
and adds water to Lake Roosevelt, the elevation of Banks Lake drops while the elevation of Lake
Roosevelt rises. Further, irrigation outflow removes water from Banks Lake, which causes the
elevation of Banks Lake to drop. When the minimum operating elevation of Banks Lake is
approached, pump-generator flow and irrigation outflow are reduced so Banks Lake is not over
drafted. Similarly, when the maximum elevation of Lake Roosevelt is approached, pump-
generator flow is reduced so Lake Roosevelt is not overfilled.
The causal structure explained above and shown in Figure 4.5 includes five negative feedback
loops. Negative feedback loops act to stabilize the system by working to negate change imposed
from outside of the loop and often demonstrate how a system attempts to reach a goal (Ford
2010). The negative feedback loops within the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator
involving the maximum and minimum elevations of Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt stabilize
the hydrology of the system by limiting the incremental reserves, decremental reserves, and
irrigation outflow provided by the system.
!
38
Figure 4.5. Causal loop structure of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator. Banks
Lake and Lake Roosevelt elevations represent the accumulation of water in Banks Lake and
Lake Roosevelt, respectively. Causal loop diagram created using Vensim PLE software
(Ventana Systems, Inc. 2010).
Wind Station
Control Error
Decremental
Reserves Demanded
Incremental
Reserves Demanded
Pump FlowGenerator Flow
Irrigation Demand
Banks Lake Elevation
Scheduled
Irrigation Pumping
Lake Roosevelt
Elevation
Fraction of
Pumping Allowed
Fraction of
Generation Allowed
Fraction of Irrigation
Withdrawal Allowed
- +
+ +
- +
+ -
+-
+
+ +
-
Wind Scheduled Wind Generation
-
+
+
Irrigation Outflow
++
-
+
Lake
Roosevelt
Reaches
Maximum
Elevation
Lake
Roosevelt
Reaches
Pump Intake
Elevation
Reduced
Irrigation
Outflow
BanksLake
ReachesMinimumElevation
BanksLake
ReachesMaximumElevation
!
39
BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator Results and Discussion
Introduction
Five simulations of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator are conducted to
illustrate current irrigation operations, demonstrate the ability of BLK to supply incremental and
decremental reserves, examine the impact of BLK wind integration operations on meeting
irrigation withdrawal requirements, and show how modifying current irrigation operations could
benefit BLK wind integration operations. First, an irrigation operations base case simulation is
conducted to recreate the reference mode of current BLK operations for supplying irrigation
water to the Columbia Basin Project. Second, a wind integration operations base case simulation
is conducted to demonstrate BLK wind integration operations as well as to serve as a benchmark
for the potential wind integration capability of BLK. Third, the wind integration and current
irrigation operations simulation is conducted to demonstrate the impacts of operating BLK for
both wind integration and irrigation on the ability of BLK to adequately perform both functions.
Fourth, the wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation is conducted to
demonstrate how modifying current BLK irrigation operations could benefit the wind integration
capability of BLK without compromising its ability to meet irrigation withdrawal requirements
over the week. Finally, the wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind
schedules simulation is conducted to assess the potential wind integration services BLK could
have provided during the June 2010 high-water event if it were modernized, upgraded, and
operated for wind integration during this time period.
All wind integration simulations attempt to represent operations that would have occurred during
the June 2010 high-water event as this period represents the time in which the flexibility
!
40
provided by BLK-supplied balancing reserves would have been most valuable. However, 30-
minute persistence wind schedules are utilized in lieu of actual wind schedules in all but one
wind integration simulation to be consistent with BPA 2010 Resource Program and 2012 BPA
Initial Rate Proposal Generation Inputs Study analyses. Thirty-minute persistence wind
schedules are utilized as they are approximately equivalent to current wind schedule forecasting
accuracy (BPA 2010a; BPA 2010b). Further, the historical seven-day peak irrigation demand is
used in all irrigation simulations to determine whether BLK can provide wind integration
services while also meeting peak irrigation withdrawal requirements. The utilization of peak
irrigation demand is important as irrigation withdrawal requirements take precedence over other
BLK operations. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the irrigation water, incremental reserves, and
decremental reserves provided in each simulation of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation
Simulator. Each simulation is described and explained in the following sections.
Table 4.1. Summary of irrigation water, incremental reserves, and decremental reserves supplied
in each simulation of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator, in percent.
Simulation Irrigation Water
Supplied
Incremental
Reserves
Supplied
Decremental
Reserves
Supplied
Irrigation Operations
Base Case 100 ! !
Wind Integration Operations
Base Case ! 90 99
Wind Integration and Current
Irrigation Operations 100 92 63
Wind Integration and Modified
Irrigation Operations 100 99 90
Wind Integration and Modified
Irrigation Operations with
Actual Wind Schedules
100 99 89
!
41
Irrigation Operations Base Case
An irrigation operations base case simulation is conducted to verify that the BLK Wind
Integration and Irrigation Simulator can recreate the reference mode of current BLK operations
for supplying irrigation water to the Columbia Basin Project. Results of the irrigation operations
base case simulation are shown below in Figures 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8.
In the irrigation operations base case simulation, the irrigation demand is 9.8 kcfs, the historical
seven-day peak irrigation demand occurring from June 3 through June 9, 1992. Irrigation
withdrawals from Banks Lake are assumed to be constant (green line in Figure 4.6). Eighty
hours of pumping at maximum capacity is needed per week to meet the historical seven-day peak
irrigation demand. Pumping is scheduled and dispatched (red line in Figure 4.6) from 10 p.m. to
7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday to minimize the cost of meeting irrigation
withdrawal requirements1. During these hours 100 percent of BLK’s pumping capacity is
dispatched as pumping is scheduled for 80 hours in the week. No water flows from Banks Lake
back through the pump-generators into Lake Roosevelt (blue line in Figure 4.6) as BLK does not
provide balancing reserves for wind power, and thus no generation for incremental reserves is
needed.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Bonneville Power Administration light load hours (LLH) are from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday
through Saturday and all day Sunday. Pumping is also scheduled from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. Monday
through Saturday, outside of BPA LLH, to provide the minimum of 80 hours of pumping needed
per week to meet the historical seven-day peak irrigation demand. As a result, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday are hereafter referred to as LLH. Consequently, 7
a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday are hereafter referred to as heavy load hours (HLH).
!
42
Figure 4.6. Irrigation operations base case simulated Banks Lake inflows from pumping and
outflows from generating and irrigation withdrawals, in kcfs.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator successfully simulated the Banks Lake
elevation reference mode associated with current irrigation operations (Figure 4.7). Monday
through Saturday, Banks Lake is drafted during HLH when electricity prices are high to supply
irrigation water to the Columbia Basin Project without pumping. Pumping from 10 p.m. to 7
a.m. Monday through Saturday partially refills Banks Lake during LLH when electricity prices
are low. These operations to provide irrigation water and minimize cost result in Banks Lake
being drafted in a sawtooth pattern over the week from a maximum elevation of 1567.8 feet at 7
a.m. on Monday to a minimum elevation of 1566.4 feet at 10 p.m. on Saturday. Pumping all day
Sunday when electricity prices are low refills Banks Lake to an elevation of 1567.5 feet.
Banks Lake Inflows and Outflows
Page 4
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
10
21
1: Pump Flow in KCFS 2: Generator Flow in KCFS 3: Irrigation Flow in KCFS
1
1 1 12 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
!
43
Figure 4.7. Irrigation operations base case simulated Banks Lake elevation, in feet.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator shows that the historical seven-day peak
irrigation demand can be met by BLK assuming current irrigation operations (Figure 4.8). The
cumulative irrigation demand of 69 thousand second foot days (ksfd)2 of water is supplied (green
line in Figure 4.8) as demanded (blue line in Figure 4.8) through current BLK irrigation
operations. As a result, 100 percent of the historical seven-day peak irrigation demand is met by
current BLK irrigation operations.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 A thousand second foot day is the water volume equivalent to the flow of one thousand cubic
feet per second flowing over a period of one day.
Banks Lake Elevation
Page 5
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
1565.0
1567.5
1570.0
1: Banks Lake Elevation
1
11
1
!
44
Figure 4.8. Irrigation operations base case simulated cumulative irrigation water demanded and
delivered, in ksfd.
Wind Integration Operations Base Case
A wind integration operations base case simulation is conducted by the BLK Wind Integration
and Irrigation Simulator to demonstrate BLK wind integration operations as well as to serve as a
benchmark for the potential wind integration capability of BLK. Results of the wind integration
operations base case simulation are shown below in Figures 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13.
Figure 4.9 shows BPA wind fleet generation and hourly wind schedules over the week simulated.
Nameplate wind capacity is assumed to be the approximate 2010 capacity of 3,000 MW. Wind
generation capacity factors reflect actual BPA wind fleet five-minute capacity factors recorded
June 7 through June 13, 2010. Wind generation capacity factors from this period are used as
they represent wind generation occurring during the peak of the June 2010 high-water event.
Cumulative Irrigation Water Demanded and Supplied
Page 10
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
0
35
70
1: Irrigation Water Demanded in KSFD 2: Irrigation Water Delivered in KSFD
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
!
45
Consequently, the period chosen represents when the flexibility provided by BLK-supplied
balancing reserves would have been most valuable. Wind generation (green line in Figure 4.9)
fluctuates dramatically from a minimum of zero to a maximum of approximately 2,700 MW
during the week simulated. The time period also includes two very large up ramps and down
ramps in wind generation. Overall, the period has a wind generation capacity factor of 33
percent.
Figure 4.9. Wind integration operations base case simulated wind generation and hourly wind
schedules, in MW.
The hourly wind schedules (black line in Figure 4.9) reflect 30-minute persistence forecasting
accuracy. Thirty-minute persistence wind schedules are used consistent with BPA 2010
Resource Program and 2012 BPA Initial Rate Proposal Generation Inputs Study analyses.
Thirty-minute persistence wind schedules are utilized in BPA analyses as they are approximately
Actual Wind Generation vs. Wind Generation Schedule in MW
Page 1
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
0
1500
3000
1: Wind Generation 2: MW Wind Scheduled in Operation
1
1 1
1
2 2
2
2
!
46
equivalent to current wind schedule forecasting accuracy (BPA 2010a; BPA 2010b). The
difference between wind generation and wind scheduled at any time represents the wind station
control error, and thus determines the demand for incremental and decremental reserves from
BLK.
The wind integration operations base case simulation shows that BLK switches rapidly between
pumping and generating modes to provide decremental and incremental reserves, respectively
(Figure 4.10). Inflows to Banks Lake occur when pumping is dispatched (red line in Figure
4.10) to provide decremental reserves when wind generation exceeds its schedule. Outflows
from Banks Lake occur when generation is dispatched (blue line in Figure 4.10) to provide
incremental reserves when wind generation falls short of its schedule. Because no pumping for
irrigation is scheduled in this simulation, incremental reserves cannot be provided by reducing
pumping below the level scheduled for irrigation. Irrigation withdrawals from Banks Lake do
not occur (green line in Figure 4.10) as this simulation assumes that BLK is not operated to
supply irrigation water for the Columbia Basin Project.
Both the maximum pumping and generating capacities are reached in the wind integration
operations base case simulation (Figure 4.10). The maximum pumping capacity is 20.72 kcfs,
equivalent to 600 MW. The maximum pump flow is reached four times in the simulation (red
line in Figure 4.10). The maximum generating capacity is 14 kcfs, equivalent to 314 MW. The
maximum generator flow is reached approximately 10 times in the simulation (blue line in
Figure 4.10). The maximum pumping and generating capacities are generally reached during the
large up and down ramps in wind generation.
!
47
Figure 4.10. Wind integration operations base case simulated Banks Lake inflows from pumping
and outflows from generating and irrigation withdrawals, in kcfs.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator demonstrates that BLK wind integration
operations minimally impact the elevation of Banks Lake (Figure 4.11). While pumping
dispatched to supply decremental reserves filled Banks Lake and generation dispatched to supply
incremental reserves drafted Banks Lake, neither had a large impact on Banks Lake elevation.
The maximum and minimum Banks Lake elevations simulated are 1567.8 and 1567.2 feet,
respectively. This change in elevation is less than the elevation change in the irrigation
operations base case simulation.
Banks Lake Inflows and Outflows
Page 4
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
10
21
1: Pump Flow in KCFS 2: Generator Flow in KCFS 3: Irrigation Flow in KCFS
1
1 1 12
2
2
23 3 3 3
!
48
Figure 4.11. Wind integration operations base case simulated Banks Lake elevation, in feet.
The wind integration operations base case simulation ended with a lower Banks Lake elevation
of 1567.2 feet than the starting Banks Lake elevation of 1567.5 feet (Figure 4.11). The lower
ending Banks Lake elevation is caused by the efficiency loss associated with BLK pumped
storage. Based on BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator model assumptions, BLK has
a round-trip efficiency of approximately 77 percent. This round-trip efficiency indicates that the
water flow through pump-generators for a given amount of generation is approximately 129
percent of the water flow through pumps or pump-generators for the equivalent amount of load.
BLK supplied fewer incremental reserves (blue line in Figure 4.12) than decremental reserves
(red line in Figure 4.13) during the wind integration operations base case simulation even though
the simulation has an overall positive wind schedule bias of 379 MWh. A positive wind
Banks Lake Elevation
Page 5
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
1565.0
1567.5
1570.0
1: Banks Lake Elevation
11
1 1
!
49
schedule bias indicates that the wind energy scheduled during the simulation exceeded the wind
energy generated during the simulation, resulting in a higher cumulative demand for incremental
reserves than decremental reserves. Although a larger amount of incremental reserves is
demanded, fewer incremental reserves are supplied during the simulation due to the smaller
maximum generating capacity of 314 MW compared to the maximum pumping capacity of 600
MW. Even so, outflows for generation exceed inflows from pumping due to the round-trip
efficiency loss of BLK pumped storage, resulting in a lower Banks Lake ending elevation.
Figure 4.12. Wind integration operations base case simulated cumulative incremental reserves
demanded and supplied, in MWh.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator demonstrates that a high percentage of
incremental and decremental reserves can be supplied through operating BLK for wind
integration. BLK supplied 9,267 (blue line in Figure 4.12) of the 10,311 MWh (green line in
Cumulative Inc Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 7
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Inc Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Inc Reserves Supplied 3: MWh Inc Reserves from Pumping
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3 3 3 3
!
50
Figure 4.12) of incremental reserves demanded for wind integration during the simulation. No
incremental reserves were supplied by redispatching scheduled pumping (red line in Figure 4.12)
as no pumping was scheduled during the simulation. Further, BLK supplied 9,812 (red line in
Figure 4.13) of the 9,932 MWh (orange line in Figure 4.13) of decremental reserves demanded
for wind integration during the simulation. Thus, BLK provides approximately 90 and 99
percent of the incremental and decremental reserves demanded for wind integration in the wind
integration operations base case simulation, respectively.
Figure 4.13. Wind integration operations base case simulated cumulative decremental reserves
demanded and supplied, in MWh.
Wind Integration and Current Irrigation Operations
The wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation conducted by the BLK Wind
Integration and Irrigation Simulator demonstrates the impacts of operating BLK for both wind
Cumulative Dec Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 8
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Dec Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Dec Reserves Supplied
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
!
51
integration and irrigation on the ability of BLK to adequately perform both functions. This
simulation uses the same irrigation demand and pumping schedule as the irrigation operations
base case simulation and the same wind generation and schedules as the wind integration
operations base case simulation. Consequently, the wind integration and current irrigation
operations simulation effectively combines the two previous base case simulations. Results of
the wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation of the BLK Wind Integration
and Irrigation Simulator are shown below in Figures 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, and 4.17.
The irrigation withdrawals from Banks Lake in the wind integration and current irrigation
operations simulation are constant at 9.8 kcfs (green line in Figure 4.14), demonstrating that the
historical seven-day peak irrigation demand is met by Banks Lake. Further, the inflows to Banks
Lake from pumping (red line in Figure 4.14) follows the same pattern as in the irrigation
operations base case simulation. However, pumping is redispatched below the irrigation
pumping schedule at any time wind generation falls below its schedule. Pumping is also
dispatched during HLH to provide decremental reserves when wind generation exceeds its
schedule. Similarly, generation (blue line in Figure 4.14) is dispatched to provide incremental
reserves when wind generation falls short of its schedule and incremental reserves from reducing
pumping, if any, have been exhausted.
The wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation produced significantly different
results than the wind integration operations base case simulation. The main difference is due to
the ability of BLK to supply incremental reserves by redispatching pumping below the irrigation
pumping schedule. During LLH, when irrigation pumping is scheduled, 914 MW of incremental
!
52
reserve capacity is available from redispatching 600 MW of pumping and subsequently
dispatching 314 MW of generation. However, during LLH no decremental reserve capacity is
available as all pumping capacity is utilized for irrigation. Conversely, during HLH, when no
irrigation pumping is scheduled, 314 and 600 MW of incremental and decremental reserve
capacity is available, respectively. The ability to use pumping to provide incremental reserves
results in less generation during LLH when irrigation pumping is scheduled. While the
maximum generator flow is reached approximately seven times, there is significantly less
switching between pumping and generating modes in this simulation compared to the wind
integration operations base case simulation.
Figure 4.14. Wind integration and current irrigation operations simulated Banks Lake inflows
from pumping and outflows from generating and irrigation withdrawals, in kcfs.
Banks Lake Inflows and Outflows
Page 4
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
10
21
1: Pump Flow in KCFS 2: Generator Flow in KCFS 3: Irrigation Flow in KCFS
1
1 1 12
2 2 2
3 3 3 3
!
53
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator shows that the elevation of Banks Lake
(Figure 4.15) follows a trend in the wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation
similar to the irrigation operations base case simulation. While Banks Lake is drafted to provide
irrigation water from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday when electricity prices are high
and there is no scheduled pumping for irrigation, Banks Lake is sometimes further drafted during
these hours when generation is dispatched to supply incremental reserves when wind generation
falls short of its schedule. Conversely, scheduled irrigation pumping from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Monday through Saturday partially refills Banks Lake during LLH when electricity prices are
low. Pumping cannot be increased during these hours to provide decremental reserves when
wind generation exceeds its schedule as scheduled irrigation pumping utilizes all pumping
capacity. However, pumping is reduced during these hours when pumping is redispatched to
provide incremental reserves, reducing refill.
The wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation shows that Banks Lake is being
drafted in a sawtooth pattern over the week, ranging from a maximum elevation of 1567.8 feet to
a minimum elevation of 1565.9 feet (Figure 4.15). However, the sawtooth pattern is not as
uniform and Banks Lake is not refilled by the end of the week as in the irrigation operations base
case simulation due to the dispatch of pumping and generation for wind integration. At the end
of Sunday, Banks Lake has only refilled to an elevation of 1566.9 feet, lower than both the
irrigation operations base case and wind integration operations base case simulations.
!
54
Figure 4.15. Wind integration and current irrigation operations simulated Banks Lake elevation,
in feet.
Banks Lake does not refill to an elevation of 1567.5 feet in the wind integration and current
irrigation operations simulation for three reasons. First, as in the wind integration operations
base case simulation, this simulation has a positive wind schedule bias of 379 MWh. Second,
unlike the wind integration operations base case simulation, more incremental reserves (blue line
in Figure 4.16) are supplied than decremental reserves (red line in Figure 4.17). More
incremental reserves are supplied in this simulation due to the increased incremental reserve
capacity provided by the redispatch of scheduled irrigation pumping. Conversely, less
decremental reserves are supplied due to the decreased decremental reserve capacity resulting
from scheduled irrigation pumping. Third, supplying incremental reserves through generation
further reduces the elevation of Banks Lake due to the approximate 77 percent round-trip
efficiency of BLK pumped storage. Because all three factors contribute to lower water levels in
Banks Lake Elevation
Page 5
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
1565.0
1567.5
1570.0
1: Banks Lake Elevation
1
1
1
1
!
55
Banks Lake, the wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation has a lower ending
Banks Lake elevation than the wind integration operations base case simulation. The lower
ending Banks Lake elevation represents a limitation of how pumping schedules are determined
in the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator. BLK capacity and operating constraints
are not responsible for Banks Lake not refilling by the end of the simulation.
Figure 4.16. Wind integration and current irrigation operations simulated cumulative
incremental reserves demanded and supplied, in MWh.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator demonstrates that operating BLK for wind
integration while continuing current irrigation operations significantly impacts the incremental
and decremental reserves supplied by BLK. BLK supplied 9,488 (blue line in Figure 4.16) of the
10,311 MWh (green line in Figure 4.16) of incremental reserves demanded for wind integration
during the simulation. BLK supplied 4,781 (red line in Figure 4.16) of the 9,488 MWh of total
Cumulative Inc Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 7
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Inc Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Inc Reserves Supplied 3: MWh Inc Reserves from Pumping
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
!
56
incremental reserves supplied by redispatching pumping below the irrigation pumping schedule.
Further, BLK supplied 6,259 (red line in Figure 4.17) of the 9,932 MWh (orange line in Figure
4.17) of decremental reserves demanded for wind integration during the simulation. Thus, BLK
provides approximately 92 percent and 63 percent of the incremental and decremental reserves
demanded for wind integration in the wind integration and current irrigation operations
simulation, respectively.
Figure 4.17. Wind integration and current irrigation operations simulated cumulative
decremental reserves demanded and supplied, in MWh.
The percentage of incremental reserves supplied slightly increased compared to the wind
integration operations base case simulation due to the increased incremental reserve capacity
provided by redispatching scheduled irrigation pumping during LLH. Conversely, the
percentage of decremental reserves supplied significantly decreased compared to the wind
Cumulative Dec Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 8
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Dec Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Dec Reserves Supplied
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
!
57
integration operations base case simulation due to scheduled irrigation pumping reducing
decremental reserve capacity to zero during LLH. As a result, decremental reserves could only
be provided from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, significantly limiting BLK’s
ability to provide decremental reserves for wind integration. Because Banks Lake remained
within its operating range for irrigation withdrawals throughout the simulation, 100 percent of
the 69 ksfd of irrigation water demanded by the Columbia Basin Project is supplied by Banks
Lake. Thus, the wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation suggests that BLK
can provide wind integration services without compromising its ability to supply the historical
seven-day peak irrigation demand over one week.
Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations
The wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation is conducted by the BLK
Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator to demonstrate the impacts of modifying the irrigation
pumping schedule to a constant rate equal to the irrigation demand. A flat irrigation pumping
schedule is used as it provides additional benefits through providing decremental reserve
capacity during LLH and increasing incremental reserve capacity during HLH. This simulation
uses the same wind generation and schedules as the wind integration operations base case
simulation and the same historical seven-day peak irrigation demand as the irrigation operations
base case simulation. Results of the wind integration and modified irrigation operations
simulation are shown below in Figures 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, and 4.21.
The irrigation withdrawals from Banks Lake in the wind integration and modified irrigation
operations simulation are constant at 9.8 kcfs (green line in Figure 4.18), demonstrating that the
!
58
historical seven-day peak irrigation demand is being met by Banks Lake. Irrigation pumping is
also scheduled at 9.8 kcfs (red line in Figure 4.18). However, pumping is redispatched above the
irrigation pumping schedule to provide decremental reserves when wind generation exceeds its
schedule, resulting in additional pump flow. Conversely, pumping is redispatched below the
irrigation pumping schedule to provide incremental reserves when wind generation falls short of
its schedule, resulting in reduced pump flow. Only when pumping is reduced to zero to supply
incremental reserves is generation dispatched to supply additional incremental reserves (blue line
in Figure 4.18), resulting in water flowing from Banks Lake back through the pump-generators
into Lake Roosevelt.
Figure 4.18. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulated Banks Lake inflows
from pumping and outflows from generating and irrigation withdrawals, in kcfs.
Banks Lake Inflows and Outflows
Page 4
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
10
21
1: Pump Flow in KCFS 2: Generator Flow in KCFS 3: Irrigation Flow in KCFS
1
1
1 12 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
!
59
Due to the flat irrigation pumping schedule, the maximum pumping capacity is reached more
frequently (red line in Figure 4.18) than in the wind integration operations base case simulation.
However, up to 316 MW of decremental reserves can be provided at all times, not only during
HLH as in the wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation. Generation provides
less of the cumulative incremental reserves supplied by BLK (blue line in Figure 4.18) as
irrigation pumping can be redispatched at any time to provide up to 284 MW of incremental
reserves. In the wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation, BLK has 598
MW of total incremental reserve capacity at all times from both decreasing irrigation pumping
and increasing generation. As a result, the maximum generating capacity is reached less
frequently than in the wind integration operations base case and wind integration and current
irrigation operations simulations.
The wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation shows that changing
irrigation operations can reduce BLK’s impact on the elevation of Banks Lake (Figure 4.19)
compared to the wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation. Because a flat
irrigation pumping schedule replaces water lost through irrigation withdrawals from Banks Lake
concurrently, irrigation pumping and withdrawals do not affect the elevation of Banks Lake.
Banks Lake is filled when pumping is redispatched above the irrigation pumping schedule to
supply decremental reserves. Conversely, Banks Lake is drafted when either pumping is
redispatched below the irrigation pumping schedule or generation is dispatched to supply
incremental reserves. However, wind integration operations in this simulation do not have a
large impact on the elevation of Banks Lake. The maximum and minimum Banks Lake
elevations simulated are 1567.8 and 1567.3 feet, respectively. This change in elevation is
!
60
significantly less than the change simulated in the wind integration and current irrigation
operations simulation and is approximately equivalent to the fluctuations observed from the wind
integration operations base case simulation.
Figure 4.19. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulated Banks Lake
elevation, in feet.
Banks Lake does not refill to an elevation of 1567.5 feet in the wind integration and modified
irrigation operations simulation (Figure 4.19), similar to the two previous simulations including
wind integration operations. Like the wind integration and current irrigation operations
simulation, three factors contribute to Banks Lake not refilling in the wind integration and
modified irrigation operations simulation. First, this simulation has a positive wind schedule
bias of 379 MWh. Second, more incremental reserves (blue line in Figure 4.20) than
decremental reserves (red line in Figure 4.21) are supplied. More incremental reserves are
Banks Lake Elevation
Page 5
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
1565.0
1567.5
1570.0
1: Banks Lake Elevation
11
1 1
!
61
supplied due to the positive wind schedule bias resulting in a higher demand for incremental
reserves as well as the higher incremental reserve capacity provided by scheduled irrigation
pumping over all hours. Conversely, less decremental reserves are supplied due to the decreased
decremental reserve capacity caused by scheduled irrigation pumping over all hours. Third, the
dispatch of generation to supply incremental reserves further reduces the elevation of Banks
Lake due to the approximate 77 percent round-trip efficiency of BLK pumped storage. Because
all three factors contribute to lower water levels in Banks Lake, the wind integration and
modified irrigation operations simulation ends with a lower Banks Lake elevation. Similar to the
wind integration and current irrigation operations simulation, the lower ending Banks Lake
elevation represents a limitation of how pumping schedules are determined in the BLK Wind
Integration and Irrigation Simulator. Again, BLK capacity and operating constraints are not
responsible for Banks Lake not refilling by the end of the simulation.
The wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation demonstrates that a
replacement irrigation pumping schedule reduces both the fluctuation in Banks Lake elevation
and the deviation between the starting and lower ending Banks Lake elevations. Fluctuations are
reduced because Banks Lake is not drafted through Saturday by irrigation withdrawals in order
to minimize pumping costs as under current irrigation operations. Banks Lake refills to a larger
extent using replacement irrigation pumping than under current irrigation pumping operations
because replacement irrigation pumping results in more decremental reserves being supplied due
to the availability of decremental reserve capacity during all hours. The dispatch of pumping for
decremental reserves helps to offset the reduction in Banks Lake elevation caused by reducing
!
62
scheduled irrigation pumping, outflow for generation, and the round-trip efficiency loss resulting
from supplying incremental reserves.
Figure 4.20. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulated cumulative
incremental reserves demanded and supplied, in MWh.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator demonstrates that a high percentage of
incremental and decremental reserves can be supplied through operating BLK for wind
integration and irrigation using a replacement irrigation pumping schedule. BLK supplied
10,195 (blue line in Figure 4.20) of the 10,311 MWh (green line in Figure 4.20) of incremental
reserves demanded for wind integration during the simulation. BLK supplied 9,019 (red line in
Figure 4.20) of the 10,195 MWh of total incremental reserves supplied by redispatching
pumping below the irrigation pumping schedule. Further, BLK supplied 8,972 (red line in
Figure 4.21) of the 9,932 MWh (orange line in Figure 4.21) of decremental reserves demanded
Cumulative Inc Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 7
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Inc Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Inc Reserves Supplied 3: MWh Inc Reserves from Pumping
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
!
63
for wind integration during the simulation. Thus, BLK provides approximately 99 percent and
90 percent of the incremental and decremental reserves demanded for wind integration in the
wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation, respectively.
Figure 4.21. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulated cumulative
decremental reserves demanded and supplied, in MWh.
More incremental reserves are supplied using a replacement irrigation pumping schedule than the
current irrigation pumping schedule, 99 percent and 92 percent, respectively. A replacement
irrigation pumping schedule supplies more incremental reserves because additional incremental
reserve capacity is available at any time as irrigation pumping is scheduled during all hours.
Further, dramatically more decremental reserves are supplied using a replacement irrigation
pumping schedule than the current irrigation pumping schedule, 90 percent and 63 percent,
respectively. A replacement irrigation pumping schedule supplies more decremental reserves
Cumulative Dec Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 8
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Dec Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Dec Reserves Supplied
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
!
64
because decremental reserve capacity is available during all hours as pumps are not operated at
their full capacity for irrigation pumping at any time.
Because Banks Lake remained within its operating range for irrigation withdrawals throughout
the simulation, 100 percent of the 69 ksfd of irrigation water demanded by the Columbia Basin
Project is supplied by Banks Lake. Thus, the simulation suggests that BLK can provide wind
integration services without compromising its ability to supply the historical seven-day peak
irrigation demand over one week. This simulation also suggests that modifying irrigation
pumping schedules can increase BLK’s ability to supply both incremental and decremental
reserves for wind integration. Finally, the wind integration and modified irrigation operations
simulation demonstrates that Banks Lake elevation fluctuations can be minimized and refill of
Banks Lake can be improved through modifying the irrigation pumping schedule to a flat
schedule that concurrently replaces water lost through irrigation withdrawals for the Columbia
Basin Project.
Wind Integration and Modified Irrigation Operations with Actual Wind Schedules
The wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation
conducted by the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator attempts to recreate BLK
operations over the week of June 7 through June 13, 2010, if BLK were modernized, upgraded,
and operated for wind integration during this time period. This simulation uses the same wind
generation as the wind integration operations base case simulation. However, this simulation
uses actual wind generation schedules from June 7 through June 13, 2010, to represent the actual
wind station control error during the period rather than a strict 30-minute persistence forecast.
!
65
The wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation
uses the same historical seven-day peak irrigation demand as the irrigation operations base case
simulation. Further, this simulation uses the same replacement irrigation pumping schedule as
the wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation. Results of the wind
integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation are shown
below in Figures 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, and 4.26.
Figure 4.22 shows BPA wind fleet generation and hourly wind schedules over the one-week
period simulated. Wind generation and hourly wind schedules during this one-week period of
the June 2010 high-water event are used as this period represents the time in which the flexibility
provided by BLK-supplied balancing reserves would have been most valuable. Wind generation
(green line in Figure 4.22) fluctuates dramatically from a minimum of zero to a maximum of
approximately 2,700 MW during the week simulated, including two very large up ramps and
down ramps in wind generation. Overall, the period has a wind generation capacity factor of 33
percent. The hourly wind schedules (black line in Figure 4.22) reflect the actual hourly wind
schedules from June 7 through June 13, 2010. Again, the difference between wind generation
and wind scheduled at any time represents the wind station control error, and thus determines the
demand for incremental and decremental reserves from BLK.
!
66
Figure 4.22. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules
simulated wind generation and hourly wind schedules, in MW. Compare to Figure 4.9 that
shows actual generation and 30-minute persistence wind schedules.
The wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation
shows that irrigation withdrawals from Banks Lake are constant at 9.8 kcfs (green line in Figure
4.23), demonstrating that the historical seven-day peak irrigation demand is being met by Banks
Lake. Like the wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation, irrigation
pumping is also scheduled at 9.8 kcfs (red line in Figure 4.23). Pumping is redispatched above
the irrigation pumping schedule and pump flow exceeds 9.8 kcfs to provide decremental reserves
when wind generation exceeds its schedule. Pumping is redispatched below the irrigation
pumping schedule and pump flow is below 9.8 kcfs to provide incremental reserves when wind
generation falls short of its schedule. Similar to previous simulations, generation is only
Actual Wind Generation vs. Wind Generation Schedule in MW
Page 1
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
0
1500
3000
1: Wind Generation 2: MW Wind Scheduled in Operation
1
1 1
1
2 2
2
2
!
67
dispatched (blue line in Figure 4.23) to provide additional incremental reserves when pumping
has already been reduced to zero to maximize incremental reserves from pumping.
Figure 4.23. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules
simulated Banks Lake inflows from pumping and outflows from generating and irrigation
withdrawals, in kcfs.
The actual hourly wind schedules in the wind integration and modified irrigation operations with
actual wind schedules simulation produce wind station control errors smaller in magnitude than
previous simulations using 30-minute persistence wind schedules. The reduction in the
magnitude of wind station control errors is shown in Figure 4.23 as the maximum pumping and
generating capacities are not reached as frequently as in the wind integration and modified
irrigation operations simulation. Generation is infrequently dispatched to provide incremental
reserves (blue line in Figure 4.23) as the 284 MW of incremental reserve capacity provided by
Banks Lake Inflows and Outflows
Page 4
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
10
21
1: Pump Flow in KCFS 2: Generator Flow in KCFS 3: Irrigation Flow in KCFS
1
1
1 12 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
!
68
redispatching pumping can supply the incremental reserves demanded throughout most of the
simulation. The maximum pumping capacity is reached more frequently than the maximum
generating capacity as the scheduled irrigation pumping leaves only 316 MW of decremental
reserve capacity available while 598 MW of total incremental reserve capacity is available from
reducing pumping and increasing generation.
The wind station control errors resulting from the actual hourly wind schedules impact the
elevation of Banks Lake (Figure 4.24) more than the wind station control errors resulting from
30-minute persistence wind schedules.
Figure 4.24. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules
simulated Banks Lake elevation, in feet.
Banks Lake Elevation
Page 5
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
1565.0
1567.5
1570.0
1: Banks Lake Elevation
11
1
1
!
69
Like the wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation, because irrigation
pumping is scheduled to concurrently replace irrigation withdrawals from Banks Lake, irrigation
pumping and releases do not affect the elevation of Banks Lake. Only additional pumping
dispatched to supply decremental reserves and reduced pumping and generation dispatched to
supply incremental reserves fill and draft Banks Lake, respectively. The maximum and
minimum Banks Lake elevations simulated are 1567.8 and 1566.7 feet, respectively (Figure
4.24). The elevation change in this simulation is significantly larger than the elevation change
simulated in the wind integration and modified irrigation operations simulation as the elevation
of Banks Lake is over a half-foot lower at the end of this simulation.
Banks Lake does not refill to an elevation of 1567.5 feet in the wind integration and modified
irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation (Figure 4.24), similar to all
simulations including wind integration operations. Again, there are three factors resulting in
Banks Lake not refilling; however, each factor is larger in magnitude than in previous
simulations. First, this simulation has a positive wind schedule bias of 5,001 MWh, over 13
times greater than the wind schedule bias resulting from 30-minute persistence wind schedules.
Second, more incremental reserves (blue line in Figure 4.25) than decremental reserves (red line
in Figure 4.26) are supplied. However, due to the larger positive wind schedule bias in this
simulation, the difference between incremental and decremental reserves supplied is significantly
larger. Third, the use of generation to supply incremental reserves further reduces the elevation
of Banks Lake due to the approximate 77 percent round-trip efficiency of BLK pumped storage.
Because more incremental reserves are supplied in this simulation, the impact of the round-trip
efficiency loss of BLK pumped storage reduces the elevation of Banks Lake further. Given that
!
70
all three factors contribute to lower water levels in Banks Lake, and each factor is larger in
magnitude than in previous simulations, the wind integration and modified irrigation operations
with actual wind schedules simulation ends with a lower Banks Lake elevation. Similar to
previous simulations, the lower ending Banks Lake elevation represents a limitation of how
pumping schedules are determined in the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator.
Again, BLK capacity and operating constraints are not responsible for Banks Lake not refilling
by the end of the simulation.
Figure 4.25. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules
simulated cumulative incremental reserves demanded and supplied, in MWh.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator demonstrates that a high percentage of
incremental and decremental reserves could have potentially been supplied during the high-water
event in June 2010 through operating BLK for wind integration and irrigation using a
Cumulative Inc Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 7
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Inc Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Inc Reserves Supplied 3: MWh Inc Reserves from Pumping
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
!
71
replacement irrigation pumping schedule. BLK supplied 13,182 (blue line in Figure 4.25) of the
13,274 MWh (green line in Figure 4.25) of incremental reserves demanded for wind integration
during the simulation. BLK supplied 11,962 (red line in Figure 4.25) of the 13,182 MWh of
total incremental reserves supplied by redispatching pumping below the irrigation pumping
schedule. Further, BLK supplied 7,357 (red line in Figure 4.26) of the 8,272 MWh (orange line
in Figure 4.26) of decremental reserves demanded for wind integration during the simulation.
Thus, BLK provides approximately 99 percent and 89 percent of the incremental and
decremental reserves demanded for wind integration in the wind integration and modified
irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation, respectively.
Figure 4.26. Wind integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules
simulated cumulative decremental reserves demanded and supplied, in MWh.
Cumulative Dec Reserves Demanded and Supplied
Page 8
0 2520 5040 7560 10080
Minutes
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
0
7500
15000
1: MWh Dec Reserves Demanded 2: MWh Dec Reserves Supplied
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
!
72
Although this simulation ended with a lower Banks Lake elevation than the wind integration and
modified irrigation operations simulation, BLK supplied the same percentage of incremental
reserves and only one percent less of decremental reserves. Thus, this simulation suggests that
the difference in wind station control errors caused by using either 30-minute persistence or
actual wind schedules may significantly impact the amounts of reserves supplied and the
elevation of Banks Lake, but the percentage of reserves supplied will remain approximately the
same.
Banks Lake remained within its operating range for irrigation withdrawals throughout the
simulation, resulting in Banks Lake supplying 100 percent of the 69 ksfd of irrigation water
demanded by the Columbia Basin Project. Thus, this simulation suggests that BLK can provide
wind integration services without compromising its ability to supply the historical seven-day
peak irrigation demand over one week.
Conclusion
The five simulations of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator described above
illustrate current irrigation operations, demonstrate the ability of BLK to supply incremental and
decremental reserves, examine the impact of BLK wind integration operations on meeting
irrigation withdrawal requirements, and show how modifying current irrigation operations could
benefit BLK wind integration operations. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the irrigation water,
incremental reserves, and decremental reserves provided in each simulation of the BLK Wind
Integration and Irrigation Simulator.
!
73
All four simulations of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator that include irrigation
operations supplied 100 percent of the historical seven-day peak irrigation demand. Thus, BLK
can provide balancing reserves for wind integration without impacting its ability to meet the
irrigation withdrawal requirements for the Columbia Basin Project over one week. Further,
meeting irrigation withdrawal requirements with modified BLK irrigation operations suggests
that utilizing alternative irrigation operations to improve wind integration operations will not
adversely impact the ability of BLK to meet irrigation withdrawal requirements over one week.
All four simulations of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator that include wind
integration operations supplied at least 90 percent of the incremental reserves demanded. The
wind integration operations base case simulation supplied the lowest percentage of incremental
reserves demanded, 90 percent, because incremental reserve capacity is only available from
dispatching generation as no pumping for irrigation is scheduled. The wind integration and
current irrigation operations simulation supplied 92 percent of the incremental reserves
demanded. More incremental reserves are supplied in this simulation because an additional 600
MW of incremental reserve capacity is available during LLH when scheduled irrigation pumping
can be redispatched to supply incremental reserves. The wind integration and modified irrigation
operations simulation supplied 99 percent of the incremental reserves demanded. Even more
incremental reserves are supplied in this simulation because 598 MW of incremental reserve
capacity is available during all hours as 284 MW of incremental reserves can be supplied at any
time by redispatching the flat irrigation pumping scheduled. The wind integration and modified
irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation also supplied 99 percent of the
incremental reserves demanded. This high percentage of incremental reserves is supplied even
!
74
though the actual wind schedules used in this simulation result in a significantly higher demand
for incremental reserves than the 30-minute persistence wind schedules used in the three other
simulations that included wind integration operations.
The percentage of decremental reserves provided in each of the four simulations of the BLK
Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator that include wind integration operations varied widely.
The wind integration operations base case simulation supplied the highest percentage of
decremental reserves demanded, 99 percent, because 600 MW of decremental reserve capacity is
available during all hours as no pumping for irrigation is scheduled. The wind integration and
current irrigation operations simulation supplied the lowest percentage of decremental reserves
demanded, 63 percent, because 600 MW of decremental reserve capacity is only available during
HLH when no irrigation pumping is scheduled. During LLH no decremental reserve capacity is
available because of scheduled irrigation pumping. The wind integration and modified irrigation
operations simulation supplied 90 percent of the decremental reserves demanded. More
decremental reserves are supplied in this simulation than the wind integration and current
irrigation operations simulation because 316 MW of decremental reserve capacity is available
during all hours by dispatching pumping beyond the flat irrigation pumping schedule. The wind
integration and modified irrigation operations with actual wind schedules simulation supplied 89
percent of the decremental reserves demanded. The percentage of decremental reserves supplied
in this simulation is slightly lower than the wind integration and modified irrigation operations
simulation because this simulation used actual wind schedules instead of the 30-minute
persistence wind schedules used in the other three simulations that included wind integration
operations.
!
75
The results summarized above suggest that BLK could supply the majority of incremental and
decremental reserves demanded by the BPA wind fleet if modernized, upgraded, and operated
for wind integration. Figure 4.27 illustrates the reduction in FCRPS operational flexibility from
holding wind balancing reserve requirements as well as the amount of FCRPS operational
flexibility restored through BLK pumped storage absorbing wind balancing reserve requirements
from the FCRPS conventional hydropower fleet. The FCRPS incremental and decremental wind
balancing reserve requirements are currently 850 and 1,050 MW, respectively. If BLK were
operated only for wind integration, as in the wind integration operations base case simulation, the
FCRPS incremental and decremental wind balancing reserve requirements would be reduced to
536 and 450 MW, respectively. If BLK were operated for wind integration and irrigation using
current irrigation protocols, as in the wind integration and current irrigation operations
simulation, the FCRPS incremental and decremental wind balancing reserve requirements would
be 0 and 1,050 MW during LLH, respectively. However, the FCRPS incremental and
decremental wind balancing reserve requirements would be 536 and 450 MW during HLH,
respectively. Finally, if BLK were operated for wind integration and irrigation using new
irrigation pumping protocols, as in the wind integration and modified irrigation operations
simulation, the FCRPS incremental and decremental wind balancing reserve requirements would
be 252 and 734 MW, respectively.
!
76!
F
igure
4.2
7.
Com
par
ison o
f F
eder
al C
olu
mbia
Riv
er P
ow
er S
yst
em o
per
atio
nal
fle
xib
ilit
y r
esult
ing f
rom
alt
ernat
ive
Ban
ks
Lak
e an
d
John W
. K
eys
III
Pum
p-G
ener
atin
g P
lant
win
d i
nte
gra
tion a
nd i
rrig
atio
n o
per
atio
ns.
M
inim
um
flo
w r
equir
emen
ts i
s in
tended
to b
e
illu
stra
tive,
and t
hus
does
not
nec
essa
rily
rep
rese
nt
the
rela
tive
const
rain
t im
pose
d b
y m
inim
um
flo
w r
equir
emen
ts.
1,0
50
450
1,0
50
450
734
850
536
0
536
252
0
22,5
00
Fed
eral
Colu
mbia
Riv
er P
ow
er S
yst
em
Only
BL
K W
ind I
nte
gra
tion
Oper
atio
ns
Bas
e C
ase
Lig
ht
Load
Hours
H
eavy L
oad
Hours
B
LK
Win
d I
nte
gra
tion
and M
odif
ied
Irri
gat
ion O
per
atio
ns
BL
K W
ind I
nte
gra
tion a
nd C
urr
ent
Irri
gat
ion
Oper
atio
ns
Megawatts
Min
imum
Flo
w R
equir
emen
ts
Dec
rem
enta
l R
eser
ve
Cap
acit
y
Oper
atin
g R
ange
Incr
emen
tal
Res
erve
Cap
acit
y
!
77
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
Summary of Findings
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator simulations provide three key findings
consistent with the HDR analysis on operating BLK for both wind integration and irrigation
(HDR 2010). First, the simulations suggest that BLK can provide significant incremental and
decremental reserves for wind integration assuming BLK is modernized and upgraded. Second,
BLK can provide balancing reserves for wind integration without impacting its ability to meet
the irrigation withdrawal requirements for the Columbia Basin Project over one week. Third,
modifying irrigation operations so incremental and decremental reserves are held over all hours
improves the ability of BLK to provide balancing reserves for wind integration and reduces
switching between pumping and generating modes.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator simulations also provide three additional
important findings regarding operating BLK for both wind integration and irrigation. First,
supplying incremental and decremental reserves for wind integration solely from BLK will result
in the continual rapid dispatch of pumping and generation. Second, supplying incremental and
decremental reserves for wind integration will always slowly draft Banks Lake due to the round-
trip efficiency loss associated with BLK pumped storage, assuming equal amounts of
incremental and decremental reserves are supplied. Third, incremental and decremental reserve
capacities and wind schedule bias can further exacerbate drafting of Banks Lake caused by
providing wind integration services. As a result, the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation
!
78
Simulator shows that system dynamics can be effectively utilized in studying the operations and
benefits of pumped storage for wind integration.
Limitations and Future Work
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator has limitations that significantly influence
the results and conclusions derived from its simulations. However, solutions exist for most
limitations through expansion of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator. The
limitations and solutions can be categorized into the following groups: pumps and pump-
generators, scheduled pumping operations, and other Banks Lake flows. Another limitation of
the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator is the treatment of wind station control error.
Further, a possible future addition to the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator is the
calculation of BLK wind integration and irrigation costs.
Pumps and Pump-Generators
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator aggregates the maximum flow and power
capacities of the BLK pump and pump-generator units. As a result, delays in dispatching
pumping and generation to supply incremental and decremental reserves are not included in the
model. This simplification in the model may overestimate the incremental and decremental
reserves supplied by BLK under some circumstances. However, including delays for dispatching
individual pumps and pump-generators in a unitized model would be more important as most
delays result from changing between modes on pump-generator units. To resolve this limitation,
pump and pump-generator units could be modeled at the unit level. Constructing the model at
!
79
the unit level would allow the delays caused by switching between pumping and generating
modes to be simulated.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator also assumes that the pumps and pump-
generators are variable speed in both pumping and generating modes. While generation is
currently variable, neither type of unit is expected to be capable of variable speed pumping.
Again, this simplification in the model may overestimate the incremental and decremental
reserves supplied by BLK as pumping is dispatched to perfectly meet the demand for
incremental and decremental reserves, not unit by unit as required with fixed speed units. While
this is a limitation if BLK is operated in isolation, actual BLK operations will be in coordination
with the FCRPS. In coordinated operations, BLK’s fixed speed units will be dispatched to
provide “blocks” of incremental and decremental reserves and variable generators at FCRPS
conventional hydropower projects will be dispatched to provide the residual incremental and
decremental reserves demanded to maintain load-resource balance. To resolve this limitation,
the pumping operations conducted by pumps and pump-generators could be modeled to reflect
fixed speed units. Including fixed speed pumping operations in the model would make the
model better represent real-world operations and would allow for the investigation of alternative
dispatch protocols for fixed speed pumping operations.
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator also assumes a constant head for both
pumping and generation. While the change in the elevation of Banks Lake (a few feet) has a
minimal effect on head during the simulation, the elevation of Lake Roosevelt (tens of feet) may
significantly impact head during the simulation. Changes in head between Banks Lake and Lake
!
80
Roosevelt will impact the round-trip efficiency loss of BLK pumped storage, and thus will
influence the ending Banks Lake elevation. To resolve this limitation, pump and pump-
generator curves could be included in the model to better represent the impacts of variable head.
Alternatively, Lake Roosevelt elevation could be converted into pump and pump-generator
efficiencies within the model to represent the impacts of variable head.
Scheduled Pumping Operations
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator also has limitations regarding how it models
scheduled pumping operations. Irrigation pumping schedules are exogenous inputs to the model
that are equivalent to the irrigation withdrawal requirements for the Columbia Basin Project over
the week. Supplemental pumping to refill Banks Lake is not scheduled or dispatched during the
simulation, resulting in a lower ending elevation in each wind integration simulation. While the
simulations demonstrated that BLK can provide balancing reserves for wind integration without
impacting its ability to meet the irrigation withdrawal requirements for the Columbia Basin
Project over one week, the lower ending Banks Lake elevation at the end of each week illustrates
that irrigation withdrawal requirements may not be met if operations are continued for multiple
weeks. Actual operations at BLK would likely include scheduling additional pumping to offset
the drafting of Banks Lake caused by positive wind schedule biases, supplying more incremental
reserves than decremental reserves, and pumped storage round-trip efficiency losses, resulting in
ending Banks Lake elevations closer to the starting Banks Lake elevation. This additional
pumping may impact the amount of incremental and decremental reserves BLK can provide for
wind integration.
!
81
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator could be expanded to solve the limitations
associated with scheduled pumping operations by making these operations endogenous to the
model. Constructing the model to endogenously determine pumping schedules according to
operating protocols as the simulation progresses would make the model better reflect real-world
pumping operations. Banks Lake could be refilled to its starting elevation by the end of the week
by accounting for the cumulative water losses from positive wind schedule biases, supplying
more incremental reserves than decremental reserves, and BLK pumped storage round-trip
efficiency losses. The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator could be expanded to
schedule additional pumping each night equal to the prior day’s cumulative water loss. Pumping
additional water into Banks Lake to replace water losses caused by supplying balancing reserves
will reduce or eliminate the issue of lower Banks Lake ending elevations caused by wind
integration operations. This expansion of the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator
would provide better information regarding how wind integration operations will impact meeting
irrigation withdrawal requirements over multiple weeks. Further, because this expansion better
reflects real-world operations, the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator would provide
better information regarding the incremental and decremental reserves provided by BLK wind
integration operations.
Other Banks Lake Flows
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator has additional limitations resulting from any
flows other than those associated with pumping, generation, and irrigation withdrawals being
excluded from the model. One excluded Banks Lake flow that may be significant over the one-
week time horizon simulated is evaporation, particularly during the summer. Evaporation from
!
82
Banks Lake results in a lower Banks Lake elevation, further lowering the ending Banks Lake
elevation. Other flows into Banks Lake, such as from small streams, are likely not significant as
the large flows associated with pumps, pump-generators, and irrigation withdrawals dominate
the hydrology of Banks Lake. The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator could be
expanded to include other significant inflows and outflows from Banks Lake. Evaporation from
Banks Lake could be added to the model. The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator
could also be expanded to schedule additional pumping each night equal to the prior day’s
cumulative water loss from evaporation. Scheduling additional pumping equal to the loss from
evaporation would negate the reduction in Banks Lake elevation caused by evaporation over the
week.
Treatment of Wind Station Control Error
The BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator has limitations regarding how the demand
for incremental and decremental reserves are modeled. The model determines the demand for
incremental and decremental reserves solely from the wind station control error. However, in
actual operations the demand for incremental and decremental reserves are determined by the
total system control error. The total system control error is the net difference between the actual
and forecasted BAA load and the actual and scheduled hydro generation, thermal generation, and
wind generation. Thus, if wind station control error is negatively correlated with any of the other
determinants of total system control error listed above, the actual net incremental and
decremental reserves demanded for wind integration will be lower. Because the BLK Wind
Integration and Irrigation Simulator does not model load or operations of non-BLK generators,
other modeling tools need to be utilized to address this limitation.
!
83
Wind Integration and Irrigation Costs
Expanding the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation Simulator to include BLK operating costs
would improve the model in three ways. First, irrigation pumping schedules could be produced
endogenously that minimize the cost of supplying water to the Columbia Basin Project. Second,
the cost of modifying irrigation pumping schedules to improve the ability of BLK to provide
incremental and decremental reserves for wind integration could be estimated. Finally, the cost
of supplying incremental and decremental reserves using BLK pumped storage could also be
estimated. The above cost estimates would provide valuable information regarding the tradeoffs
associated with different operational protocols for supplying wind integration services and
meeting irrigation withdrawal requirements.
!
84
REFERENCES
Ahmad, Sajjad and Slobodan P. Simonovic. 2000. System Dynamics Modeling of Reservoir
Operations for Flood Management. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 14(3): 190-198.
Bolinger, Mark and Ryan Wiser. 2005. Balancing Cost and Risk: The Treatment of Renewable
Energy in Western Utility Resource Plans. LBNL-58450. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2008. Balancing Act: BPA Grid Responds to Huge
Influx of Wind Power. DOE/BP-3966. U.S. Department of Energy/Bonneville Power
Administration: Portland, OR.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2010a. 2010 Resource Program. DOE/BP-4190.
U.S. Department of Energy/Bonneville Power Administration: Portland, OR.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2010b. 2012 BPA Initial Rate Proposal. BP-12-E-
BPA-05. Bonneville Power Administration: Portland, OR.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2010c. Columbia River High-Water Operations [June
1-14, 2010]. DOE/BP-4203. U.S. Department of Energy/Bonneville Power Administration:
Portland, OR.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2011. Wind Generation Capacity in the BPA
Balancing Authority Area. U.S. Department of Energy/Bonneville Power Administration:
Portland, OR. Available at http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/windpower/.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1993. Power System Coordination: A Guide to the Pacific
Northwest Coordination Agreement. DOE/BP-1992. U.S. Department of Energy/Bonneville
Power Administration: Portland, OR.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1994. Daily/Hourly Hydrosystem Operation: How the
Columbia River System Responds to Short-Term Needs. DOE/BPA-2000. U.S. Department of
Energy/Bonneville Power Administration: Portland, OR.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2001. The Columbia River System Inside Story. Second
Edition. DOE/BP-3372. U.S. Department of Energy/Bonneville Power Administration:
Portland, OR.
!
85
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2003. Federal Columbia River Power System. Bonneville
Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Boise,
ID and Portland, OR.
Brooks, Daniel, Key, Tom, and Larry Felton. 2005. Increasing the value of wind generation
through integration with hydroelectric generation. Power Engineering Society General Meeting,
2005 (IEEE). 2: 1923-1925.
Ford, Andrew. 1996. Testing the Snake River Explorer. System Dynamics Review. 12(4): 305-
329.
Ford, Andrew. 2008. Simulation scenarios for rapid reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in
the western electricity system. Energy Policy. 36: 443-455.
Ford, Andrew. 2010. Modeling the Environment. Second Edition. Island Press: Washington,
D.C.
Ford, Andrew, Vogstad, Klaus, and Hilary Flynn. 2007. Simulating price patterns for tradable
green certificates to promote electricity generation from wind. Energy Policy. 35: 91-111.
Forrester, Jay W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Pegasus Communications: Waltham, MA.
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). 2010. Hydroelectric Pumped Storage for Enabling Variable
Energy Resources within the Federal Columbia River Power System. Final Report. HDR:
Issaquah, WA.
Ingram, Allan E. 2005. Storage Options and Sizing for Utility Scale Integration of Wind Energy
Plants. ASME Conference Proceedings 2005. 843-851.
isee systems, inc. 2009. STELLA. Version 9.1.3.
North Carolina State University (NCSU). 2010. Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit
(PTC). Available at http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC). 2007. Northwest Wind Integration
Action Plan. WIF Document 2007-01. Northwest Power and Conservation Council: Portland,
OR. Available at http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/wind/library/2007-1.htm.
Simonovic, Slobodan P. and Hussam Fahmy. 1999. A new modeling approach for water
resources policy analysis. Water Resources Research. 35(1): 295-304.
Tidwell, Vincent C., Passell, Howard D., Conrad, Stephen H. and Richard P. Thomas. 2004.
System dynamics modeling for community-based water planning: Application to the Middle Rio
Grande. Aquatic Sciences. 66: 357-372.
!
86
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2009. John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant. U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation: Boise, ID. Available at
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/pubs/powergeneration.pdf.!
!
Ventana Systems, Inc. 2010. Vensim PLE. Version 5.10a.!
!
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION OF MODEL INPUTS
!
88
The following tables and graphs document the inputs to the BLK Wind Integration and Irrigation
Simulator utilized in this thesis. Further documentation can be found within the BLK Wind
Integration and Irrigation Simulator, which is available upon request from the author.
! !
89!
Tab
le A
.1. V
alues
for
init
ial
var
iable
s in
the
BL
K W
ind I
nte
gra
tion a
nd I
rrig
atio
n S
imula
tor.
Vari
ab
le N
am
e V
alu
e U
nit
s E
xp
lan
ati
on
for
Valu
e
Init
ial
Ban
ks
Lak
e E
levat
ion
1567.5
fe
et a
bove
sea
level
(fee
t)
Pla
usi
ble
as
Ban
ks
Lak
e el
evat
ion i
s in
the
mid
dle
of
the
bal
anci
ng r
eser
ves
oper
atin
g r
ange
Init
ial
Lak
e R
oose
vel
t
Ele
vat
ion
1,2
81
feet
above
sea
level
(fee
t)
Fro
m B
PA
Colu
mbia
Riv
er H
igh-W
ate
r
Oper
ati
ons
[June
1-1
4, 2010]
Init
ial
MW
Win
d S
ched
ule
d
CF
If a
ctual
sch
edule
then
0.0
102
4735;
if 3
0-m
inute
per
sist
ence
sched
ule
then
0.0
12720848
dim
ensi
onle
ss
Act
ual
sch
edule
cal
cula
ted f
rom
BP
A b
asep
oin
ts
dat
a; 3
0-m
inute
per
sist
ence
sch
edule
cal
cula
ted
from
BP
A w
ind g
ener
atio
n d
ata
! !
90!
Tab
le A
.2. V
alues
for
const
ant
var
iable
s in
the
BL
K W
ind I
nte
gra
tion a
nd I
rrig
atio
n S
imula
tor.
Vari
ab
le N
am
e V
alu
e U
nit
s E
xp
lan
ati
on
for
Valu
es
Bal
anci
ng I
nte
rval
1
min
ute
s M
odel
has
one-
min
ute
tim
e st
ep
Bal
anci
ng R
eser
ves
Oper
atin
g R
ange
5
feet
F
rom
BP
A p
roje
ct d
ata,
ref
lect
s cu
rren
t B
PA
oper
atin
g r
ange
Ban
ks
Lak
e M
axim
um
Ele
vat
ion
1,5
70
feet
above
sea
level
(fee
t)
Fro
m B
PA
pro
ject
dat
a
Inch
es p
er F
oot
12
inch
es p
er f
oot
Unit
co
nver
sion
Irri
gat
ion D
eman
d
9.8
thousa
nd c
ubic
fee
t
per
sec
ond
(kcf
s)
Fro
m B
PA
irr
igat
ion d
ata,
ref
lect
s hig
hes
t se
ven
-
day
pum
pin
g o
n r
ecord
KC
F p
er C
FS
H
3.6
thousa
nd c
ubic
fee
t
per
cubic
fee
t per
seco
nd-h
our
Unit
co
nver
sion
KC
F p
er K
SF
D
86,4
00
thousa
nd c
ubic
fee
t
per
thousa
nd
seco
nd f
oot
day
Unit
co
nver
sion
KC
F p
er M
AF
43,5
60,0
00
thousa
nd c
ubic
fee
t
per
mil
lion
acre
-fee
t
Unit
co
nver
sion
Lak
e R
oose
vel
t M
axim
um
Ele
vat
ion
1,2
90
feet
above
sea
level
(fee
t)
Fro
m B
PA
pro
ject
dat
a
Lig
ht
Load
Hour
Mult
ipli
er
2.1
143
dim
ensi
onle
ss
Appro
xim
ate
rati
o o
f to
tal
hours
to l
ight
load
hours
in a
wee
k
Max
Gen
erat
ion
314
meg
awat
ts
(MW
)
Fro
m B
PA
know
ledge
of
pum
p-g
ener
ator
capac
ity
Max
Pum
pin
g
600
meg
awat
ts
(MW
)
Fro
m B
PA
know
ledge
of
pum
p a
nd p
um
p-
gen
erat
or
capac
ity
Max
imum
Gen
erat
or
Flo
w
14
thousa
nd c
ubic
fee
t
per
sec
ond
(kcf
s)
Fro
m B
PA
pro
ject
dat
a
! !
91!
Tab
le A
.3. V
alues
for
const
ant
var
iable
s in
the
BL
K W
ind I
nte
gra
tion a
nd I
rrig
atio
n S
imula
tor
(conti
nued
).
Vari
ab
le N
am
e V
alu
e U
nit
s E
xp
lan
ati
on
for
Valu
es
Max
imum
Pum
p F
low
20.7
2
thousa
nd c
ubic
fee
t
per
sec
ond
(kcf
s)
Fro
m B
PA
pro
ject
dat
a
Meg
awat
ts p
er G
igaw
att
1,0
00
meg
awat
ts p
er
gig
awat
t U
nit
conver
sion
Min
imum
Irr
igat
ion
Ele
vat
ion
1,5
65
feet
above
sea
level
(fee
t)
Fro
m B
PA
know
ledge
of
min
imum
ele
vat
ion f
or
whic
h t
her
e is
no s
ignif
ican
t im
pac
t on i
rrig
atio
n
Min
ute
s per
Hour
60
min
ute
s per
hour
Unit
conver
sion
Pum
p I
nta
ke
Ele
vat
ion
1,2
08
feet
above
sea
level
(fee
t)
Fro
m B
PA
irr
igat
ion d
ata,
ref
lect
s el
evat
ion o
f
pum
ps
wit
h t
he
low
est
inta
kes
Sec
onds
per
Min
ute
60
seco
nds
per
min
ute
U
nit
co
nver
sion
Win
d F
leet
Nam
epla
te
Cap
acit
y i
n G
W
3
gig
awat
ts
Fro
m B
PA
win
d g
ener
atio
n c
apac
ity d
ata,
refl
ects
appro
xim
ate
2010 B
PA
win
d f
leet
nam
epla
te c
apac
ity
!
92
Figure A.1. Graph representing the impact of Banks Lake elevation on the fraction of generation
allowed. Relationship represents the plausible case that as the elevation of Banks Lake
approaches its minimum elevation, the fraction of generation allowed is decreased until the
minimum elevation is reached at which no generation is allowed.
Figure A.2. Graph representing the impact of Lake Roosevelt elevation on the fraction of
generation allowed. Relationship represents the plausible case that as the elevation of Lake
Roosevelt approaches its maximum elevation, the fraction of generation allowed is decreased
until the maximum elevation is reached at which no generation is allowed.
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Fra
ctio
n o
f G
ener
ati
on
All
ow
ed
Inches Above Banks Lake Minimum Elevation
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Fra
ctio
n o
f G
ener
ati
on
All
ow
ed
Inches Below Lake Roosevelt Maximum Elevation
!
93
Figure A.3. Graph representing the impact of Lake Roosevelt elevation on the fraction of
pumping allowed. Relationship represents the plausible case that as the elevation of Lake
Roosevelt approaches the pump intake elevation, the fraction of pumping allowed is decreased
until the pump intake elevation is reached at which no pumping is allowed.
Figure A.4. Graph representing the impact of Banks Lake elevation on the fraction of pumping
allowed. Relationship represents the plausible case that as the elevation of Banks Lake
approaches its maximum elevation, the fraction of pumping allowed is decreased until the
maximum elevation is reached at which no pumping is allowed.
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Fra
ctio
n o
f P
um
pin
g A
llow
ed
Inches Above Pump Intake Elevation
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Fra
ctio
n o
f P
um
pin
g A
llow
ed
Inches Below Banks Lake Maximum Elevation
!
94
Figure A.5. Graph representing the impact of Banks Lake elevation on the fraction of irrigation
withdrawal allowed. Relationship represents the plausible case that as the elevation of Banks
Lake approaches the minimum irrigation elevation, the fraction of irrigation withdrawal allowed
is decreased until the minimum irrigation elevation is reached at which no irrigation withdrawal
is allowed.
Figure A.6. Graph of the current irrigation operations irrigation pumping schedule. Irrigation
pumping is scheduled from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday when
electricity prices are low to minimize cost.
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Fra
ctio
n o
f Ir
rigati
on
Wit
hd
raw
al A
llow
ed
Inches Above Minimum Irrigation Elevation
0
1
0 1440 2880 4320 5760 7200 8640 10080
Irri
gati
on
Pu
mp
ing S
ched
ule
Minutes
!
95
Figure A.7. Graph of Lake Roosevelt daily inflow from June 7 through June 13, 2010. Lake
Roosevelt inflows obtained from BPA project data.
Figure A.8. Graph of Lake Roosevelt daily regulated outflow from June 7 through June 13,
2010. Lake Roosevelt regulated outflows obtained from BPA project data.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 1440 2880 4320 5760 7200 8640 10080
Lak
e R
oose
vel
t In
flow
(th
ou
san
d c
ub
ic f
eet
per
sec
on
d)
Minutes
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 1440 2880 4320 5760 7200 8640 10080
Lak
e R
oose
vel
t O
utf
low
(th
ou
san
d c
ub
ic f
eet
per
sec
on
d)
Minutes
!
96
Figure A.9. Graph of the BPA wind fleet generation capacity factors from June 7 through June
13, 2010. Capacity factors determined by dividing 5-minute wind generation by the wind fleet
nameplate capacity of 2830 MW. Five-minute wind generation data obtained from Data for
BPA Balancing Authority Total Load & Total Wind Generation: 2010 spreadsheet retrieved
from http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/. Wind fleet nameplate capacity
obtained from Columbia River High-Water Operations [June 1-14, 2010].
Figure A.10. Graph of the BPA wind fleet 30-minute persistence wind schedule capacity factors
from June 7 through June 13, 2010. Thirty-minute persistence wind schedule determined by the
wind generation capacity factor 30 minutes prior to the schedule becoming operational. Wind
generation capacity factors determined by dividing 5-minute wind generation data by the wind
fleet nameplate capacity of 2830 MW. Five-minute wind generation data obtained from Data for
BPA Balancing Authority Total Load & Total Wind Generation: 2010 spreadsheet retrieved
from http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/. Wind fleet nameplate capacity
obtained from Columbia River High-Water Operations [June 1-14, 2010].
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1440 2880 4320 5760 7200 8640 10080
Win
d G
ener
ati
on
Cap
aci
ty F
act
or
Minutes
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1440 2880 4320 5760 7200 8640 10080 Win
d S
ched
ule
Cap
aci
ty F
act
or
Minutes
!
97
Figure A.11. Graph of the BPA wind fleet actual wind schedule capacity factors from June 7
through June 13, 2010. Actual wind schedule determined by dividing 5-minute wind basepoints
by the wind fleet nameplate capacity of 2830 MW. Five-minute wind basepoint data obtained
from Data for BPA Balancing Authority Total Load & Total Wind Generation: 2010 spreadsheet
retrieved from http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/. Wind fleet nameplate
capacity obtained from Columbia River High-Water Operations [June 1-14, 2010].
Equation A.1. Elevation of Banks Lake based on the amount of water stored in thousand cubic
feet. Equation obtained from BPA project data was rearranged to yield the equation shown
below.
!
Banks Lake Elevation =Water Stored in Banks Lake
KCF per CFSH
"
# $
%
& ' +
39654000
95010
"
# $
%
& '
1
1.1692
"
# $
%
& '
+1349.1
Equation A.2. Elevation of Lake Roosevelt based on the amount of water stored in thousand
cubic feet. Equation obtained from BPA project data was rearranged to yield the equation shown
below.
!
Lake Roosevelt Elevation =Water Stored in Lake Roosevelt
KCF per CFSH
"
# $
%
& ' +
43036000
21.795
"
# $
%
& '
1
2.7145
"
# $
%
& '
+ 999.49
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1440 2880 4320 5760 7200 8640 10080 Win
d S
ched
ule
Cap
aci
ty F
act
or
Minutes
