MEAN Wind Project at Kimball

1. MEAN Wind Project at Kimball Scheduling and Operations Impacts on MEAN and Western Presented by: John A. Krajewski, P.E. Manager of Planning & Engineering

2. Background • Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) • Wholesale electric provider to 46 total requirements participants in three states • 13 participants located on LAP transmission system • Third largest purchaser of power and energy from LAP

3. Background • MEAN Wind Project at Kimball • 10.5 MW nameplate capacity • Class IV-V wind site • Interconnected to City of Kimball distribution system • Low cost renewable energy resource

4. Background • MEAN developed Wind Project at Kimball to • Serve load • Meet obligations under Western’s Energy Planning and Management Program “Describe efforts to minimize adverse environmental effects of new resource and acquisitions.” • Prepare for renewable portfolio standards (if implemented)

5. Regulation & Frequency Response Rate • MEAN’s objections • Excessive compared to nationally accepted study work • 300% higher than other regions • Incremental rate as opposed to embedded cost rate • Discriminatory against intermittent renewable resources • All resources impact regulation and frequency at some time • Provided no bandwidth to coincide with scheduling requirements

6. MEAN Operations • Scheduling • MEAN submits a pre-schedule for the Wind Project at Kimball every day • Sometimes the pre-schedule is submitted up to 4-5 days in advance • MEAN uses best efforts based on multiple forecasting techniques • Many wind forecasts only 1 day in advance • MEAN generally submits schedule changes as circumstances warrant

7. MEAN Operations • Wind scheduling realities • MEAN does not just submit a flat schedule for all hours and leave it • MEAN does not make unrealistic forecasts to match loads • MEAN is not purposely leaning on the system

12. MEAN Operations • MEAN’s scheduling accuracy for wind has improved over time • When combined with load schedule, imbalance outside of the bandwidth has improved • MEAN incorporates diversity of wind and loads into scheduling • Impact to control area is the same • Illustrates importance of looking at entire system rather than individual pieces of the system

13. Impacts on Western • An intermittent renewable resource looks no different to the system than an intermittent load • Both impacted by weather and human factors • Irrigation, industrial loads, residential • Both require unloaded resources to respond to changes • Scheduling accuracy impacts need for regulation service for both

14. Impacts on Western • Differences in rate treatment (as proposed) • Wind was singled out while the load is “socialized” and diversity impacts are considered • Load serving entities with wind could be paying twice for same service • Methodology completely inconsistent with accepted methodologies used elsewhere • Xcel North, Bonneville, Iowa

15. Impacts on Western • Large merchant wind farms • MEAN recognizes potential for large wind farms serving load outside control area to impact WACM • Western should address these projects on case-by-case basis rather than a “one size fits all” approach • Require telemetering to control area being served • Require developer to procure its own load following resource

16. MEAN Recommendations • Western should develop guidelines that treat load and all resources serving load within the control area comparably • Renewable and conventional resources should be charged the same • Load serving entities shouldn’t pay for same service twice (on load and resource) • Use nationally accepted methodologies

17. MEAN Recommendations • Large wind farms that do not serve load in the control area should be evaluated independently as part of the interconnection and transmission request process • Requirement to telemeter resource to control area being served or procure load following resource elsewhere may be necessary

18. QUESTIONS?? For a copy of this presentation, contact jkrajewski@nmppenergy.org