Wind and Solar Curtailment
Wind and Solar Curtailment
Wind and Solar Curtailment
Preprint
Debra Lew,1 Lori Bird,1 Michael Milligan,1 Bethany Speer,1
Xi Wang,1 Enrico Maria Carlini,2 Ana Estanqueiro,3 Damian Flynn,4
Emilio Gomez-Lazaro,5 Nickie Menemenlis,6 Antje Orths,7
Ivan Pineda,8 J. Charles Smith,9 Lennart Soder,10 Poul Sorensen,11
Argyrios Altiparmakis,11 and Yasuda Yoh12
1
Conference Paper
NREL/CP-5500-60245
September 2013
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308
NOTICE
The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US
Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of
this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy
and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov
Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx
Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL
16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.
Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
Nickie Menemenlis
Hydro Quebec, Quebec, Canada
Antje Orths
J. Charles Smith
Ana Estanqueiro
Lennart Soder
Damian Flynn
Emilio Gomez-Lazaro
Yasuda Yoh
Hannele Holttinen
VTT, Finland
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. Canada
Hydro Quebec (HQ) currently has 1,500 MW of installed
wind power capacity (5% energy penetration) and expects to have
3,000 MW of installed capacity (10% energy penetration) by
2016. Transnergie, the transmission system operator (TSO),
assumes responsibility for system security. The distributor
purchases power from wind developers, estimates the cost of lost
energy using wind resource data, and compensates the wind plant
operator.
To date, curtailments have been caused by technical faults,
and neither voluntary nor mandatory losses have occurred.
However, additional installed wind capacity is planned for the
Gaspsie Peninsula and will likely result in curtailment caused by
congestion. It may also result in increased voluntary curtailment
to ensure system stability.
Given the current projection for 2016 wind penetration levels,
HQ does not anticipate significant curtailments in the near future.
For similar reasons, HQ has not yet considered valuing curtailed
generation as a source of system operating reserve or strategized
how to reduce future losses.
B. Denmark
At the end of 2012, 4,443 MW of wind power was installed in
Denmark (3,280 MW onshore, 1,163 MW offshore), mostly in
the Western Danish system. These installations produced
10.3 TWh electricity (6.8 TWh onshore, 3.5 TWh offshore),
which is a 30.1 % share of Danish electricity consumption (peak
load in 2012 was 6,106 MW). According to Danish Energy
Policy, wind capacity is expected to increase by 44% by the year
2022, leading to 20.5 TWh annual production. Policy targets
include a 30% renewables share of Danish energy consumption in
2020 (heat and electricity), corresponding to 52% of 2020
electricity consumption sourced from wind.
Wind integration on this scale is supported by strong
interconnections to neighboring systems and functioning
international electricity markets, including negative price signals
to incentivize wind to dispatch down. All wind power is traded in
the markets (day-ahead and intraday power markets), either by
production balancing actors or by the Danish TSO. Wind owners
are compensated at slightly more than the market price.
Compensation for large offshore wind plants is negotiated during
the tendering procedure.
voltage level and located in the south of Italy. Most PV plants are
connected to the distribution grid at the medium- and low-voltage
level (more than 95% of the PV capacity, corresponding to
approximately half a million plants).
C. Ireland
In 2012, Ireland, with an installed wind capacity of 2.1 GW,
dispatched down 110 GWh (2.1% of available wind energy).
Approximately 80% of this was caused by systemwide reasons,
whereas the remainder was a result of local network constraints.
(See Fig. 3.)
CURTAILMENT IN ITALY
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total
wind
generation (GWh)
6,543
9,126
9,856
13,407
700
527
264
166
10.70%
5.77%
2.67%
1.24%
Curtailment (GWh)
Curtailment/Total
wind generation
E. Japan
In Japan at the end of 2011, the installed capacity of wind and
PV was 2.4 GW and 4.9 GW, respectively, with total energy
penetration at 0.9%. Even after the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Act (The
Act on Special Measures concerning the Procurement of
Renewable Electric Energy by Operators of Electric Utilities, Act
No. 108 of 2011) was enforced in July 2012, utilities can curtail
wind and solar for a maximum of 30 days (8% annual) without
compensation. These curtailment requirements are stipulated in
the Ministerial Ordinance for Enforcement of the FIT Act (No. 46
of 2012). Some utilities have required wind developers/owners to
install secondary batteries onsite to mitigate wind variability in
addition to the 30-day uncompensated curtailment.
D. Italy
In Italy at the end of 2012, the installed capacity of wind and
photovoltaic (PV) was 8.1 GW and 16.6 GW, respectively, with
total energy penetration at 9.8% in 2012. (In southern Italy, the
energy penetration was 31%.) Most wind power plants (more
than 95%) are connected to the transmission grid at the 150-kV
This report is available at no cost from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
at www.nrel.gov/publications.
F. Portugal
At the end of 2012, Portugal had 4,517 MW of wind power
capacity installed (20% energy penetration). Legislation restricts
curtailment of renewable energy generation except in the case of
technical problems. Despite several instances of excess wind (and
other nondispatchable plants) in recent years, the Portuguese TSO
has yet to invoke technical problems to curtail wind. For the
purpose of the current paper, excess generation in the Portuguese
control area that is transmitted to Spain at zero value is called
curtailment.
H. Sweden
In Sweden, the only curtailments that are currently performed
are those caused by grid limitations. If grid reinforcements are
needed when a wind power plant is installed, then the wind
power plant owner has to pay for these. The Swedish TSO may
curtail wind power plants, e.g., in a situation in which a wind
power plant is interconnected before needed grid reinforcements
have been completed and a line outage occurs. A signal is sent
directly to the wind power plant controller to decrease the output.
I. United States
The United States has many balancing areas, each of which
may have its own curtailment practices. Some key balancing
areas are discussed here. The areas with the greatest amount of
curtailment of wind and solar power to date include the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) balancing area, the
Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and Hawaii, which has struggled
primarily with excess wind at low-load periods and minimum
generation requirements. Both the Midcontinent Independent
System Operator (MISO) and the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas (ERCOT) have recently implemented market-based
solutions and have seen reductions in curtailment levels.
G. Spain
As of 2012, Spain had 22.6 GW of wind installed (18.1%
energy penetration). Red Elctrica de Espaa (REE) is the
Spanish system operator that manages the distribution and
transmission system. In Spain, wind curtailment typically occurs
when demand is low and wind production is high. Through most
of 2009, curtailments were primarily because of inadequate
transmission and distribution system capacity. However, since the
end of 2009, REE has also curtailed wind to give priority to
scheduled energy and to improve system stability. The need for
curtailment is somewhat reduced during high wind speeds
because many wind power plants are stopped to protect the
turbines from damage or are operating at lower production with
speed regulation controls in place.
market dispatch. This allows wind to set price and to choose not
to generate if prices are severely negative.
Grid-congestion events result in local curtailments, and
balancing-related events can, in principle, impact either all wind
and PV plants or part of them, depending also on possibilities to
control the output of the plants. First experience on using
curtailed plants for up or down regulation is emerging.
An example of a balancing-related event is shown for the
vertically-integrated utility of Xcel/Public Service of Colorado
(PSCO), which needs to balance its own load with its own
generators (mostly thermal) and long-term contracts with wind
power plant owners. At night, when winds are high and loads are
low, PSCO runs its thermal units down to minimum generation
levels and still needs to curtail wind at times to balance the load.
Fig. 4 depicts an example of this. At 02:45, the system operator
initiated a manual block curtailment of a wind power plant to 300
MW because of a high positive area control error (ACE). ACE
decreased but began to run too low in the negative direction, so at
4 a.m., the operator put the wind power plant on automatic
generation control (AGC), by which ACE signals are sent to the
wind power plant every 4 seconds to 6 seconds to keep ACE
within a prescribed band. This resulted in much better control of
ACE, as shown in Fig. 4. In fact, PSCO has gone a step further,
and when wind is curtailed, they have used wind to provide down
regulating reserves.
Figure 4. ACE during wind on block curtailment and wind on AGC [9].
IV.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Generation [MW]
7000
Demand
Wind & other IPPs
Wind
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Figure 5. Portuguese load and generation profiles for May 15, 2011 [3].
V. IMPLICATIONS OF CURTAILMENT
Curtailment is a growing concern in the wind and solar
industry. It has implications for wind and solar developers and
owners as well as utilities that purchase wind and solar power. In
markets or contracts in which curtailment is not compensated,
developers need to assess the risk and quantify the amount of
future curtailment, which depends on many factors (future
markets, future penetration levels of wind and solar, future
flexibility in the balance of generation, etc.). Even when
curtailment is compensated, developers need to assess the risk
that these rules may change. Utilities with renewable energy
targets also need to assess their risk and quantity of future
curtailment, which is likely to increase with increased
penetrations of wind and solar power. Utilities that are signing
long-term contracts for wind and solar may want to consider who
bears the curtailment risk during the lifetime of the contract. No
easy answers have been identified for how the curtailment risk
should be borne. Legal battles have already been fought about
how wind and solar are curtailed and how much has been
curtailed. This issue is ripe for future research.
In the United States, PSCO has examined in detail the tradeoffs between cycling their coal units and curtailing their wind in
high (2-GW to 3-GW) wind scenarios [11]. They conducted a
detailed analysis of their cycling costs for their coal units to
understand the costs of starts, shallow ramps (to economic
minimum generation levels), and deep ramps (to emergency
minimum generation levels). They determined that shutting down
a coal unit during low-load periods at night was uneconomic.
They then analyzed the trade-off in cycling cost for deep ramps
versus shallow ramps with wind curtailment. Costs were found to
be essentially the same with either mode of operation.
In Ireland, when priority dispatch generation must be
dispatched down, a specific ranking order has been defined with
the principle of preserving least-cost dispatch: the TSO may
perform countertrades on HVDC interconnectors after gate
closure, followed by set point reductions for peat plant, highefficiency CHP, biomass and hydro generation, and finally wind
generation. the output of the peat and CHP units is reduced to
their minimum stable generation levels, rather than decommitted, as such units represent the major source of negative
reserves for the system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
D.L. thanks the U.S. Department of Energy, which supported
this work under Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 with the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]