Framework for Evaluating High Value Utility Applications of HTS
Navigant Consulting, Inc.
August 4, 2009
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Navigant Consulting, Inc.
77 South Bedford St, Ste 400
Burlington, MA 01803
(781) 270‐0101
www.navigantconsulting.com
Table of Contents
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
1
Background
2
Scope of Present Work
3
Framework Methodology and Approach
4
Summary of Progress and Next Steps
2
Table of Contents
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
1
Background
2
Scope of Present Work
3
Framework Methodology and Approach
4
Summary of Progress and Next Steps
3
Background » Summary
Navigant Consulting assisted DOE’s Office of Electricity in characterizing three high value HTS utility applications.
• 2006 – Completed a market survey for DOE OE that indicated that high temperature superconductivity (HTS) cable and HTS fault current limiters (FCLs) were most promising technologies in the near term for electric utilities.
• 2007/2008 – Tasked by DOE OE to identify the best utility value propositions for HTS cable and FCLs.
— Developed analytical framework to assess utility challenges and solutions.
— Interviewed 10 utilities to understand potential applications and barriers.
• The three best value propositions identified through this process include:
— VP # 1 ‐ Use HTS FCL to reduce short circuit duty on transmission or distribution systems.
— VP #2 ‐ Use HTS cable to maximize the use of existing right‐of‐ways to increase transmission capacity.
— VP #3 ‐ Interconnect substations with HTS cable to maximize substation capacity and avoid the need for new substations.
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
4
Background » HTS Value Propositions
Value Proposition #1 (VP1): Use HTS FCLs to reduce short circuit duty at transmission or distribution substations
Challenge
Challenge ‐ New generation and/or transmission capacity could cause fault current to exceed the fault duty ratings of equipment.
Value Drivers of HTS Solution
Control fault currents within the fault duty equipment rating, maintain system stiffness, enhance reliability, minimize equipment damage, and avoid negative operational issues.
TRADITIONAL SOLUTIONS
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
HTS BASED SOLUTION
5
Background » HTS Value Propositions
Value Proposition #2 (VP2): Use HTS cable to maximize the use of existing right‐of‐ways to increase transmission capacity.
Challenge
New transmission corridors are difficult to obtain due to space and permitting issues.
Value Drivers of HTS Solution
Provide capacity upgrade in a smaller footprint and therefore offer the opportunity to minimize infrastructure, permitting, real estate and other soft costs. EXISTING
1350 A, 138 kV
323 MVA
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
TRADITIONAL SOLUTION
The traditional solution would require a larger duct bank or the use of a different ROW.
1800 A, 138 kV,
430 MVA
6
HTS BASED SOLUTION
2700 A, 138 kV,
645 MVA
Background » HTS Value Propositions
Best Value Proposition #3 (VP3): Interconnect substations with HTS cable to maximize capacity and avoid the need for new substations.
Challenge
Substation capacity is insufficient to meet load growth
Value Driver of HTS Solution
Allows more of the transformers’ nameplate capacity to be utilized to meet load without violating (n‐1) contingency criteria. Increases reliability and defer the need for new transformers or substations. TRADITIONAL SOLUTIONS
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
HTS BASED SOLUTION
7
Table of Contents
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
1
Background
2
Scope of Present Work
3
Framework Methodology and Approach
4
Summary of Progress and Next Steps
8
Scope of Present Work » Situation and Challenge
HTS solutions can become much more competitive when secondary benefits and savings are considered in the analysis.
Situation
• Utility have recognized value in HTS applications.
• HTS high value propositions can provide concrete benefits and savings.
• HTS solutions are not typically considered broadly by utilities.
Challenge
• The typical initial analysis performed by utilities is limited to “primary benefits” (e.g. technical suitability, first cost).
• Financial calculations used to compare alternatives may not be suited to HTS solutions (e.g. first cost comparison, solutions with same benefit life).
• Secondary benefits, infrastructure, and soft cost savings consideration could improve the comparison but planning engineers do not have a framework available.
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
9
Scope of Present Work » Project Goals
The overarching goal of this work is to provide a method to fairly evaluate high value HTS applications at a screening level.
Highlight High Value Applications of HTS
• Present scenarios to utilities in which HTS solutions meet their challenge and can favorably compete with conventional solutions.
Create a User‐
Friendly Framework that compares HTS VPs to conventional solutions
• Guide a user painlessly through the analytic process. Educate the User
• Explain unique applications and values of HTS technology.
−Identify, organize, and quantify secondary benefits and savings
−Utilize the appropriate financial calculations to compare on an even footing
• One of the first steps towards adoption is familiarity.
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
10
Scope of Present Work » Summary
Navigant Consulting is creating a framework to compare HTS and conventional solutions on an equal footing.
• The framework analyzes the three value propositions identified earlier.
• The framework development involved:
— Identifying infrastructure and “soft” cost savings.
— Identifying secondary benefits and developing calculation methodologies.
— Identifying other qualitative benefits of HTS applications.
— Developing appropriate financial calculations.
— Interviewing utilities to understand their project selection and new technology adoption process.
— Collaborating with utilities to refine the framework and develop case studies.
— Interfacing with HTS stakeholders to solicit feedback and comments.
• During this process, NCI reached out to 13 utilities including: NSTAR, National Grid, AEP, ConEd, SCE, Xcel Energy, FPL, Entergy, Seattle City Light, Pepco, Progress Energy, First Energy, and PG&E.
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
11
Table of Contents
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
1
Background
2
Scope of Present Work
3
Framework Methodology and Approach
4
Summary of Progress and Next Steps
12
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
The flow of the framework can be summarized by the following block diagram.
1
Initial Inputs:
Identify Challenge
Collect System Parameters
2a
Identify Conventional Solution
3a Estimate Infrastructure and Soft Cost Savings
3b
Collect Infrastructure Parameters
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
2b
Framework Selects HTS
Solution
13
Perform Benefits
Analysis
4
Perform Financial Calculation
5
Generate Output
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
14
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
15
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
16
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
17
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
18
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
19
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
2b
The details of the HTS solution are determined by the framework logic based on parameters collected in Step 1.
2a
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
20
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
21
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
22
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
4
Financial Calculation
Financial Calculation
5
Output
• Takes into consideration:
• The net present value (NPV) of the conventional solution,
• The HTS infrastructure and soft cost savings,
• The secondary HTS benefits,
• The lifetimes of the HTS and conventional solutions.
• Calculates the target parody cost at which the two solutions have the same NPV. Output
• Infrastructure and soft cost savings of the HTS solution
• Value of secondary HTS benefits • Description of other qualitative benefits
• Target Parody Cost of HTS Solution and HTS Equipment
− If conventional solution costs X then given the savings and benefits of HTS, the parody cost of an HTS solution is Y.
− A High target cost indicates a competitive HTS application.
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
23
Framework Methodology and Approach » Framework Architecture
The Framework is…
• A screening tool that compares high value HTS applications to conventional solutions.
• A tool that calculates the target parody cost for HTS solution relative to the conventional solution by analyzing the cost of conventional solutions and the corresponding HTS benefits and savings.
The Framework is not…
• An HTS design tool
− Framework does not generate or present HTS design specifications.
−Encourages user to consult HTS vendors on design issues.
• An HTS solution quote generator
−The goal is to present information to a user that will assist in the decision to investigate the HTS solution at a design level.
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
24
Table of Contents
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
1
Background
2
Scope of Present Work
3
Framework Methodology and Approach
4
Summary of Progress and Next Steps
25
Summary of Progress and Next Steps
• Progress to date:
— Completed the development of the framework for the three HTS value propositions.
— Interfaced with representatives from the HTS community ƒ Helped refine the framework and provided us with comments and feedback. — Worked with several utilities to help refine framework and test with actual grid parameters.
ƒ NSTAR, Consolidated Edison, AEP, National Grid, SCE.
• Next Steps:
— Finalize collaboration with utilities and case studies.
— Finish reviewing the framework and case studies with HTS stakeholders.
— Finalize deliverables of this project:
ƒ Final Framework (software)
ƒ User Guide for the Framework
ƒ Documentation of logic and sources
ƒ Paper case studies from utility collaborations
©2009 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
26