Additional Transmission Lines - good or bad idea?
On this the state utility's plans are pretty good.
Adding additional transmission lines to neighboring states is not an unallowed good. But the benefits do outweigh the negatives.
I asked 4 AIs to do deep research on this and they came to somewhat similar conclusions. The biggest disagreement is some came to the conclusion running HVDC lines to the eastern or Texas grid is not worth it while others were in favor of the additional sources.
Gemini had the most conservative (and therefore lowest cost) conclusion so I use it below.
Trade-offs of Increased Transmission Capacity:
Advantages
Enhanced Grid Reliability
Reduced Reliance on Gas Turbines
Potential Economic Benefits (in some scenarios)
Facilitates Integration of More Renewables
Disadvantages
High Capital Costs
Permitting and Construction Delays
Potential for Price Volatility and Regional Spikes
NIMBY Opposition
Environmental Impacts
Risk of Overbuilding and Stranded Assets
Based on this analysis, a moderate and strategically targeted increase in transmission capacity between Colorado and the SPP region (Kansas/Nebraska) offers a net benefit for Colorado. This targeted expansion can enhance grid reliability, reduce reliance on gas turbines, and facilitate the integration of renewable energy, provided it is carefully planned and implemented.
Specific Recommendations:
Prioritize Moderate Expansion to SPP: Focus on increasing transmission capacity to the SPP region by 500-1000 MW initially, targeting areas with high wind generation potential.
Maximize Upgrades: Prioritize upgrades of existing transmission lines wherever technically and economically feasible to reduce costs and timelines.
Conduct Detailed Modeling: Perform comprehensive grid modeling and analysis to:
Quantify wind and solar correlation between Colorado and potential import regions.
Assess the availability of "excess" renewable generation in neighboring states.
Model price volatility risks and optimize transmission capacity sizing.
Phased Implementation: Adopt a phased approach, starting with a moderate expansion and monitoring performance before committing to larger-scale projects.
Combine with Storage and Demand Management: Recognize transmission as one component of a broader strategy. Invest aggressively in energy storage and demand-side management to complement increased transmission capacity.
Streamline Permitting: Work to streamline permitting processes for transmission line projects while ensuring environmental safeguards and stakeholder engagement.
Avoid Eastern Grid/ERCOT in Near Term: Defer consideration of extremely costly and complex HVDC connections to the Eastern Grid or ERCOT for the long term, focusing on more practical intra-WECC solutions in the near to medium term.
Final Statement: Increasing transmission capacity is not a silver bullet, and it carries risks and costs. However, a carefully planned and moderately sized expansion, targeted at the SPP region and combined with other grid modernization strategies, can be a valuable tool for enhancing Colorado's grid reliability and facilitating its transition to a cleaner energy future. Thorough analysis, careful planning, and proactive mitigation of potential risks are essential to ensure that increased transmission capacity delivers net benefits for Colorado and the region.
All of them were concerned about widespread low power instances where the transmission lines become a problem spiking prices across the region. They all stressed that this will happen about 30% of the time1 so we need gas turbines for that case.
They all stressed having a combination of resources and not being dependent on the transmission lines when our renewable generation tanks.
In addition they all suggested detailed modeling, before building anything, of the compatibility of Colorado’s wind/sun generation and the wind/sun generation in each neighboring ISO. After all, if we’re closely in sync with Arizona, it does neither of us any good to add capacity between Colorado and Arizona.
The other interesting tidbit is when they spoke of Colorado overbuilding our wind and solar so we have excess when other states need it and things are fine here, they all basically questioned the financial sense of doing so.2 And they’re right - there’s no advantage to Colorado in overbuilding. But if everyone takes that very logical approach - we’re not going to have excess power available from our neighbors.
My big take-away from all this is do the detailed modeling3 to determine what percentage of the time our lows are another region’s highs. Then compare the cost of running the new transmission line and the lower cost of power vs. generating it ourselves using a SCGT.
Eventually we should add a multiplier to favor remote renewable power over local gas power. But at present these other states, Pacific Northwest excepted, are heavy coal/gas generators. When we pull power from Kansas, that’s adding to their peak generation and that usually is a SCGT. No point in going to all that expense to run a SCGT in Kansas instead of in Colorado.
30% of the time we need backup power, not 30% of total 24/7/365 power generation time.
There’s always a profit in selling power. But if that excess is only being sold 20% of the time and otherwise is unused, that’s not profitable.
Maybe the state or NREL has already done this. If so, can someone please point me to it?
As a friend of mine is fond of saying "the longer the transmission line, the bigger the failure."
If you CAN generate energy locally, you should. You'll save tons of money and reduce pollution.