The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Curtailment, Negative Prices Symptomatic of Inadequate Transmission

Michael Goggin, Electric Industry Analyst
September 19, 2008  |  16 Comments

Negative electricity prices and wind energy curtailment are occurring with increasing frequency in several regions of the country, a telltale sign that expansion of the nation's electricity transmission infrastructure is lagging behind the rapid growth of wind energy.

Negative electricity prices typically occur because there is excess electricity supply that cannot reach demand due to constraints on the transmission grid. In some cases, prices may fall low enough that wind plants are forced to curtail, or reduce, their output even though consumers in an adjacent area are simultaneously paying high prices for electricity due to high demand. Wasting large quantities of low-cost, emissions-free electricity at a time of rising electric rates and increasing concern about climate change and energy security should be troubling to consumers, wind plant owners and policymakers alike.

What is most troubling is that negative prices and curtailment are likely to continue increasing in scope, frequency and severity into the near future, given the long lead time required to build new transmission infrastructure. On the more positive side, while policymakers in many parts of the U.S. are already working to implement policies that will allow new transmission to be built, the increasing occurrence of negative electricity prices and curtailment could add urgency to these efforts.

Data from the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the grid operator for that state, shows that occurrences of negative prices in the western part of Texas have rapidly increased in frequency as wind development has soared in the area while transmission links to other parts of the state have failed to keep up. Prices fell below US -$30/MWh (megawatt-hour) on 63% of days during the first half of 2008, compared to 10% for the same period in 2007 and 5% in 2006. If prices fall far enough below zero that the cost for a wind plant to continue operating is higher than the value of the US $20/MWh federal renewable electricity production tax credit plus the value of other state incentives, wind plant operators will typically curtail the output of their plants.

All the more frustrating from the perspective of both electricity consumers and wind plant owners in Texas, many of these instances of negative prices and curtailment have occurred simultaneously with record high electricity prices in other parts of the state. For example, on June 7 and June 8, average wholesale prices were US $103 per MWh in the North Zone of ERCOT, compared to US -$3 per MWh in the adjacent, wind-rich West Zone. If adequate transmission capacity were in place at that time, excess wind energy from West Texas could have been transported to the rest of the state to alleviate high electricity prices. For the first half of 2008, the average wholesale price of electricity in the North Zone of ERCOT was US $71 per MWh, compared to US $55 per MWh in the West Zone.

Based on the large price differential between these adjoining areas, it is not surprising that in an April 2008 study ERCOT concluded that building US $4.9 billion worth of transmission lines from West Texas to the rest of the state would save electricity consumers US $1.7 billion per year by replacing the use of expensive natural gas-fired power plants with wind energy. With such large savings, the transmission lines would pay for themselves in less than three years. Recognizing the economic, environmental and energy security benefits of building transmission for wind, on August 15th the Texas Public Utilities Commission voted to proceed with building these transmission lines.

Similar instances of negative electricity prices and wind energy curtailment are beginning to emerge in other parts of the country. According to the New York Independent System Operator, electricity prices in the largest wind producing region of the state fell below US -$30 about 2% of the time over the last year. As in Texas, average wholesale electricity prices in this region of northern New York are US $20 per MWh lower than in the adjacent Capital Zone, which contains Albany and Schenectady.

Thus far, Texas has been one of only a handful of states that have taken pro-active steps to build the transmission infrastructure that will be required to access the U.S.'s bountiful wind resources. Colorado and California have followed Texas's lead in adopting cost allocation policies that recognize the broadly distributed benefits of transmission for renewables by spreading the cost of this infrastructure to all electricity users, solving the largest barrier to building new transmission.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Representative Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) have introduced similar legislation at the federal level to promote the construction of transmission to designated "national renewable energy zones." Given that it can take five years or more to build new transmission infrastructure, adopting such policies as soon as possible will be critical to accessing our country's wind resources in a timely and economically efficient way. Without these policies, wind energy curtailment will become even more widespread.

Michael Goggin is electric industry analyst at AWEA.

This article first appeared in Wind Energy Weekly, and was republished with permission from the American Wind Energy Association.

16 Comments

Register To Comment
Sterling Ingwers
Sterling Ingwers
January 20, 2010
Michael,
I am an energy Analyst at ZGlobal in Folsom CA. We found your article interesting because it directly relates on an HVDC converter project we are working on that will link ERCOT, WECC, and the East. We pulled hourly real time ERCOT West Prices to verify the following statement:

"that occurrences of negative prices in the western part of Texas have rapidly increased in frequency as wind development has soared in the area while transmission links to other parts of the state have failed to keep up. Prices fell below US -$30/MWh (megawatt-hour) on 63% of days during the first half of 2008, compared to 10% for the same period in 2007 and 5% in 2006."

I was disappointing that our findings differed dramatically from your published percentages. Here were our results for % hrs below -$30/MWh in the first half of 06, 07, 08, and 09: 2006: 0.3%, 2007: 0.2%, 2008: 11.9%, and 2009: 5%

Please tell us your data source and method so that we can resolve this discrepancy. Thank you for the interesting article
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 30, 2008
----------------"Although I sympathize with your egalitarian views, this is not the forum for political argument. Please help keep this site from becoming another "harangue hangout" by keeping it relevant and nonpartisan."------------Don Pfau

Rationally, I agree with your view. However, everywhere I look, it seems to me that I see conclussive evidence that the governmental process become nothing more than a corporate service to the fossil fuel/nuclear and financial industries. Bought and paid for. The accussations of subsidy arguements to alternative energies research and production seem laughable to me in comparison to the enormous amounts poured out to the petroleum and coal industries in the form of payments , special favors, exemptions and so on.

I'd love to keep politics out of the energy debate---but it seems to me to be inextricably bound up in it by the Oil/Coal/Nuclear industry trying to maintain their own financial goldmine and status quo by buying political influence, propaganda, and political corruption.

The debate HAS to become political at some point it seems to me.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
September 29, 2008
I read somewhere that there are new ways to drill horizontally with lasers, a technology spurred on by high oil prices and peaking demand.

I would feel better about transmission lines if they were buried and disguised, and the ground is a great insulator, so less risk.

You can protect the turbines, but protecting a long line through lonely territory is a different thing. Drilling is expensive, but new methods are supposed to be making it less so. Earthquakes are one of the few risks to underground, but they are probably more of a risk to above-ground, and rare in Texas. Tornadoes and other weather events and humans are big risks to above-ground.

In a high-lawyer-per-capita neighborhood in Portland, when their electronics blew out from a spike, they cost a power company so much money by threats of lawsuits that the utility offered to bury their lines so it would not happen again. Or maybe it was just they didn't want to deal with those people again, but whatever. There are difficult-to-deal-with people in lots of neighborhoods.

I'm afraid of congresspeople, but not because they would cut lines. I'm afraid of people mad at congresspeople, based on history.

You can move the power to the people or the people to the power. Google located in one of the windiest river gorges in the world, which was an example of people to power. It does get done this way when you have a critical mass of something people want.

The Columbia Gorge draws serious windsurfers and turbines the way MIT draws brains.
Jon Seehafer
Jon Seehafer
September 29, 2008
RT, you really did us a disservice by casting this as a 'socialism'/'capitalism' issue. I could explain why that whole debate is empty BS, but why bother; you either get it or you refuse to.

The point you are overlooking is that ERCOT manifestly failed to do the one job it was created to do: to plan and manage the grid. It appears that Texas could have replaced ERCOT's grid planning with blindfolded beauty contestants throwing darts at a map; it would have been cheaper, just as effective, and a lot more fun.
Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt
September 29, 2008
"Because transmission is a public good, even the most free-market economist will tell you that the government has an important role in planning transmission."
Weeee! Spin me some more Michael, I not dizzy enough yet.
Seriously though Michael, maybe things will get better for RE, if the U.S. government votes to loan the American taxpayers $700,000,000,000 to invest in Wall Street. As you already know thats several thousands of dollars of yours as well. Plus intrest of course.
Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt
September 29, 2008
Certain large scale wind genny farms are making more electricity than what???
People are demanding? Or, more power than what the existing high voltage transmission lines can handle? The people responsible for creating these certain wind genny farms want better high voltage transmission lines but they want somebody else to pay for it?
So, does this mean that there are certain wind genny farms that are not paying for themselves at a rate predicted in a production cost analysis?
Huh. Imagine that. Maybe whats needed is, new analysts. Did they not know the existing grid was insufficient before the farms where constructed and put online?
I am just a little confused with this article. Could you "spell" it out for me in plain simple english?
Michael Goggin
Michael Goggin
September 27, 2008
Thanks to all who took the time to comment. I have a few responses:

First, I strongly share your support for decentralized power generation, and you should know that AWEA strongly advocates for policies to increase the use of distributed wind turbines. You are correct that distributed renewable resources have many benefits and that they can play a role in addressing our climate change and energy problems.

However, opposing a renewed investment in the transmission grid will only help ensure the failure of vitally urgent efforts to significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Given the enormity of the energy and climate problems facing our society, insisting that the largest near-term solution to these problems be taken off the table hardly seems like a step in the right direction.

Because of the fact that the energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of wind speed, there are huge disparities in the productivity and thus economic viability of wind power production between areas with good wind resources and those with poor wind resources. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans live in areas with poor wind resources. Unless you are going to forcibly relocate people to areas with better renewable resources, making use of our renewable energy resources in a way that is economically feasible will require a means of transmitting energy from where it is produced to where it is used.

Because transmission is a public good, even the most free-market economist will tell you that the government has an important role in planning transmission. A high-voltage transmission grid is the most cost effective and environmentally benign way to move energy from one place to another. The amount of power a transmission line can carry increases with the square of the voltage, which is why a 765-kV line can carry as much power as six 345-kV lines, using one-fourth as much land and with one-tenth of the electricity losses.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
September 27, 2008
I've re-read the thread, and there's something I want to add to my post, above.

It's not only big panics I'm sick of. I'm also sick of big corruption, on the order of Enron. Little corruption is so much more attractive and less damaging.

Small power sources close to the point of use are more accountable on a human scale.

Anyone who had to take psych 101 has probably heard of the experiment with the executive monkey, who administers shocks to the peon-monkeys. Guess which monkey gets ulcers?

It's not like the chocolate trade is going to stop if we do things locally. I'm still addicted, and I'm still going to buy chocolate. I'm not going to fly in my personal jet to get it (don't have a jet), but I do want to know that the cacao was grown in a reasonable way.

Under the radar, it seems to me that this is what is happening. The mainstream media is kind of antique and can't report on this stuff well yet, but anybody who knows creative twenty-thirty-forty-fifty-sixty-seventy-eighty-ninety-somethings knows what is going on.

Paul Hawken has said the buggy makers didn't know what hit them until it was over. Advanced adopters are going to make a difference in the power industry, and the people in the industry who get that before the wave are going to be better off the closer we get to the tipping point.

At the end of the financial mess, I may only have two cents, but there you are.
John Spagnoli
John Spagnoli
September 26, 2008
I guess I'll add a third to Kent. No matter what large scale energy projects provide, the best of all plans involves homeowners use of power made on their own property. NO natural disaster can wipe out all the small systems, and surely the advantage of smaller utility bills for the life of the house has to mean something.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
September 26, 2008
I second Kent Secor.

Anything we can do to help homes pay for themselves seems a good direction to go in, given our present situation.

To make massive change in reasonable time, putting incentives where people live seems more sensible than most government programs I know of.

Local governments take property by condemnation or for back taxes. It looks as if the feds are wanting to get into the field in a bigger way these days as well.

If taxpayers are going to be responsible for more and more homes, at least home power plants can be sold on E-Bay, if a government decides to take a house to put a favored corporation on the property.

The vulnerability of big transmission lines to acts of man and God makes distributed energy appealing.

There is an initiative in Portland to do a ground-source/solar project on a school and its grounds, to make a mini public utility.

If lots of neighborhoods do this, a neighboring neighborhood with power down could help those close-by, making fewer large-scale crises and panics.

I can't do as much about far-away panics as I might be able to do about local ones. Also large-scale panics seem more overwhelming and depressing. I would like to see us scale down our level of crises and panics. Offhand, I can't put a dollar figure on that reduction, but I think it would be great if I could.
Kent Secor
Kent Secor
September 26, 2008
While reading this article I was comparing the problems of not having enough grid capacity from the wind farms to the consumers, with consumer based generation.

With solar/wind generators based on the residential and commercial properties using the power, instead of fields far removed, there is not the need for beefed up transmission lines.

I'm not saying that wind fields and solar fields are not a good idea. But as this article points out, there are economic factors in play too, they have to turn a profit or they we may well find it impossible to build more generating fields.

Home based production does not have that limiting factor. It does turn a profit for the owners and users. They can also be built a bit larger than just that home or business needs to help supply the local grid during the peak day periods.

Kent Secor
In Ft. Myers, FL
Fred Widicus
Fred Widicus
September 26, 2008
I second that.
David Schlottenmier
David Schlottenmier
September 26, 2008
This editorial shows you just how far we are from capitalism. The wind energy producers are being so heavily subsidized by state and federal laws it is profitable for them to push electricity into the grid and pay for that privilege. So in essence, some of the subsidies are bypassing the wind energy industry and are ending up where - in the hands of the guys who own/control the grid - with exclusive license to do so from the government. Bigger is not better. Small capitalism is beautiful. Big capitalism, just like big government, ultimately corrupts the people and the system.
Don Pfau
Don Pfau
September 26, 2008
Although I sympathize with your egalitarian views, this is not the forum for political argument. Please help keep this site from becoming another "harangue hangout" by keeping it relevant and nonpartisan.
F. Berry
F. Berry
September 26, 2008
Once we pull out of the war that is "not even in the category of winable or loseable", we'll have another 10 billion a month to get our national and Canadian infrastructures to coincide.

The new candidates will battle and NOT answer how the war will end or how the troops will be pulled out; it's not to their' campaign benefits to be "straight forward" in answering-if they even know!

Let's get the grid "plump" for electron delivery,...then, how much less pressure will North America have to defend and sanction 400,000 troops around the world for an "unwinable" battle where all or our financial resources get depleted.

We're spending 700 billion a year on imported oil with countries that we would "rationally" rather not be dealing with. After this "war" with terrorism is over, as with all American involved wars, we will pay billions in reparations to get "other" countries up to snuff with r/t infrastructure.

When does America take care of it's own 10,000,000 homeless and powerless. The solution starts with "power itself". We must build up our infrastructure which will begin to allow us to 'rebuy' our own companies stock. We can't keep selling America, we can't keep moving jobs out of this country.

Everyone in the US should have the ability to make a sustainable living, with or without a Masters Degree. The people that do the R&D, shouldn't be making 10x's the income of the people that actually do the "installations work" either. Good paying jobs by mandate, good infrastructure, good lives begin to become evident.

Unfortunately in this world, a good existance depends on one's economic status; we all have something to add and appreciate by being an American.

The second Manhattan Project is now here,..the only difference- all Amercans are watching government, there is total accountability and much more transparency. We are all adding our collective thoughts. We're not building a bomb, we're building our future existence.

All the Best,
R t
R t
September 26, 2008
"Negative electricity prices typically occur because there is excess electricity supply that cannot reach demand..."

I can only presume you mean the price is lower than some calculated production value - the company is operating 'in the red'. "Negative" implies the electricity generator is is being billed for puting MwHrs on the grid.
Any company operating at a loss needs to rethink its business plan. If people don't live where wind blows perhaps low electric prices will induce them to move there.

If the people operating the transmission lines get a fee then they should be able to make the business decision whether to add another line. It sounds socialistic to expect government to perform central planning. Socialism doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to large scale implementation.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Michael Goggin

Michael Goggin

Michael Goggin joined AWEA in February 2008. He represents the wind industry on transmission and grid integration matters, coordinates member input on the development of policy positions, facilitates the exchange of information between...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 9
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 5
    Ireland Keen to Hit 2030 Renewable Targets, Says EU Ambassador
  • 1
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Fairtrade-Messe
  • Second Wind Inc.
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Renewables Academy AG (RENAC)
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • AltE
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information