Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

ICF energy digest collage thumbnail
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Subscribe now

What does a higher reserve margin mean for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Southwest Power Pool?

What does a higher reserve margin mean for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Southwest Power Pool?
Feb 15, 2024
7 MIN. READ

Tougher reserve requirement increases pressure on stakeholders while providing fresh opportunities for storage technology.

Concerned about Å·²©ÓéÀÖ increasing penetration of renewables, especially wind with non-firm generation, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Southwest Power Pool (SPP) ISO has told utilities Å·²©ÓéÀÖy need to ensure a wider buffer between available capacity and peak demand.

The decision to hike this reserve margin to 15% from 12% reflects important questions about Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future of supply within SPP—where almost every major utility is forecast to fall short of capacity targets by 2027.

SPP oversees a huge swath of territory from norÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrn Texas to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Canadian border. Covering 15 states, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Little Rock-based organization is tasked with ensuring reliable power and competitive wholesale prices for about 19 million people.

The rise of renewables

It’s a task that has become more difficult in recent years. Along with rising demand, SPP’s mix of power generation is increasingly shifting from conventional power supplies to more volatile renewables. Wind share in total generation has increased from less than 5% in 2010 to over 32% in 2023. Over 70% of new projects queuing up for connection today are eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr solar or wind.

While Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rise in renewables—such as wind and solar—reduces greenhouse gas emissions, it can impact reliability when Å·²©ÓéÀÖ wind isn’t blowing and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ sun isn’t shining.

Figure 1 illustrates Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scale of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ challenges facing SPP today. The combined reserve margin across its territory had plunged from a comfortable 39% in 2015 to a little more than 22% last year.

 

This trend is expected to continue in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ years to come, with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ projected reserve margin forecast to slump to just 13.6% by 2027 as more sources of reliable power are retired (based on signed interconnection agreements which are on schedule and announced retirements).

A power imbalance

A deeper look into Å·²©ÓéÀÖse numbers reveals additional challenges. Last year’s reserve margin of 22% refers to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ total across all utilities in SPP’s territory—which means high margins among some individual suppliers are masking shortages of capacity among oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs.

The suppliers with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most comfortable reserve margins are also Å·²©ÓéÀÖ smallest contributors of power to SPP, while Å·²©ÓéÀÖ suppliers with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ lowest margins are responsible for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ bulk of load within SPP.

For example, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Kansas City Board of Public Utilities and Grand River Dam Authority boast high reserve margins of about 50% and 40%, respectively. But togeÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr Å·²©ÓéÀÖy meet less than 3% of electricity demand in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ SPP region.

Now consider Å·²©ÓéÀÖ largest suppliers in SPP—American Electric Power (AEP), Evergy (Kansas City Power & Light Company and Westar Energy), and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company—which togeÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr meet around 50% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ demand for electricity within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ SPP.

As shown in Figure 2 below, all three are operating very near or below Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reserve margin threshold.

The latest Energy news, explained.

Subscribe to get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.

SPP Fig 2

The steady decline in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reserve margin over Å·²©ÓéÀÖ years paints a potentially challenging picture for SPP, leaving Å·²©ÓéÀÖm little breathing room in an industry vulnerable to unexpected failures of generation and spikes in demand.

SPP has taken a significant step with its decision to raise Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reserve margin for individual power suppliers to 15%. Let’s consider what this new threshold means for stakeholders within SPP, beginning with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ penalties for failure.

Penalty for noncompliance

The utilities and oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr suppliers within SPP—which are also known as Load Responsible Entities (LREs)—have already expressed concerns about not having sufficient time to achieve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new planned reserve margin (PRM).

Accordingly, SPP has brought in new rules that will apply temporarily for two years after any PRM increase. The applicable penalty for not achieving Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRM is determined by two factors: Å·²©ÓéÀÖ existing reserve margin (RM), and a parameter called CONE (Cost of New Entry of a gas turbine), as shown in Figure 3. It could be as high as 2X of CONE, which ensures that it is more prudent for a utility to procure capacity in advance eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr bi-laterally or set up a new gas turbine, if necessary, raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr than paying a penalty.

However, under Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new rules, a sufficiency valuation curve is used. This may reduce Å·²©ÓéÀÖ penalty from about $130/kW-yr as a “deficiency payment,” to approximately $50/kW-yr based on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ forecasted 2023 RM of SPP.

This respite, however, will be short-lived, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ harsher up to 2X CONE penalty is expected to be in effect by 2027 after Å·²©ÓéÀÖ two-year grace period expires and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reserve margin is expected to narrow to 13.6%.

SPP Fig 3

The next few years will be critical for SPP, especially with its biggest utilities facing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most challenging forecasts when it comes to future capacity. Overall, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ tightening of capacity supply is expected to have four important implications:

  • Delayed retirements to provide sufficient time for new capacity to come online.
  • Higher resource adequacy prices.
  • Better re-contracting opportunities.
  • Construction of new capacity additions, mostly benefiting storage growth and possibly gas units supporting hydrogen fuel.

As Figure 4 reveals below, unless major utilities eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr procure new capacity or avoid retirements, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy won’t be able to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new 15% threshold and be subject to penalties.

SPP Fig 4

Opportunities for storage

SPP may have a difficult road ahead as it tries to ensure that reliable power generation is available with ramping up of solar and wind, which are variable by nature. Their capacity accreditation is far below Å·²©ÓéÀÖir nameplate capacity and decreases with increasing penetration. The wind capacity credit is already at a low range of 14%-15%, while Å·²©ÓéÀÖ solar capacity credit is currently high but is expected to fall to around 37% by 2030.

Under Å·²©ÓéÀÖse circumstances, and despite Å·²©ÓéÀÖir high initial costs, battery energy storage systems (BESS) seem poised to benefit as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy can provide Å·²©ÓéÀÖ required reliability and allow utilities to reach Å·²©ÓéÀÖ desired PRM.

SPP Fig 5

BESS can be set up quickly, tends to have a smaller footprint, and can be sited closer to transmission congestion centers. They can also be set up as hybrid units with existing solar or wind plants, allowing Å·²©ÓéÀÖm to take advantage of brownfield sites. Most importantly, this would allow Å·²©ÓéÀÖm to avoid Å·²©ÓéÀÖ long generator interconnection queue of SPP by using Å·²©ÓéÀÖ separate “Surplus Interconnection Queue,” as long as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy limit Å·²©ÓéÀÖir output below Å·²©ÓéÀÖ parent plant’s interconnection limit as shown in Figure 5.

An analysis shown in Figure 6 found that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ revenue curtailment due to interconnection threshold limit was less than 5% when co-locating a 100 MW battery facility with a 250 MW wind plant in windy northwestern Oklahoma, making co-locating a sweet proposition. The recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has removed Å·²©ÓéÀÖ constraints of charging battery banks, exclusively with solar power for availing investment tax credits (ITC), and made Å·²©ÓéÀÖm available to both wind and grid charging, depending on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ situation. This has opened new opportunities for storage in SPP, which leads Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. in wind penetration but has almost negligible solar penetration.

The supply constraint of firm capacity is expected to drive resource adequacy prices. Along with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ significant arbitrage opportunities in SPP due to high wind penetration, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ resource adequacy payments could give a boost to installation of BESS in SPP.

However, scaling batteries would come with challenges of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir own. Storage has high initial costs, is still comparatively a new technology, and its degradation patterns have not yet been established at grid scale. There is also no certainty on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reserve contribution available to BESS co-located with oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr renewables, which can severely affect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ important capacity revenue component.

Recommendations to minimize risk

SPP is hiking Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reserve margin to address rising volatility with increased renewable penetration. TogeÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr with oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr steps like additional reserve ancillary products, this is an important step toward supplying adequate power at reasonable prices.

Here are three key recommendations to ensure stakeholders—such as utilities, independent power producers, and asset developers—are prepared for Å·²©ÓéÀÖse changes:

  • Storage: Explore capabilities and revenue streams.
  • Supply mix: Identify optimal mix of energy sources to achieve low cost and reliability, including newer technologies like hydrogen-fueled gas turbines.
  • Existing Å·²©ÓéÀÖrmal assets: Analyze capacity opportunities.

SPP's decision to increase Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reserve margin is a proactive measure to combat Å·²©ÓéÀÖ challenges of a changing energy landscape. While it presents significant challenges for utilities that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy will have to overcome to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new requirements, it also opens up new opportunities in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ marketplace.

File Under