Coordinated vs. Sequential Transmission Planning
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917444367417344 |
|---|---|
| author | Domeshek, Maya Graf, Christoph Ünel, Burçin |
| author_facet | Domeshek, Maya Graf, Christoph Ünel, Burçin |
| contents | Coordinated planning of generation, storage, and transmission more accurately captures the interactions among these three capacity types necessary to meet electricity demand, at least in theory. However, in practice, U.S. system operators typically follow a sequential planning approach: They first determine future generation and storage additions based on an assumed unconstrained (`copper plate') system. Next, they perform dispatch simulations of this projected generation and storage capacity mix on the existing transmission grid to identify transmission constraint violations. These violations indicate the need for transmission upgrades. We describe a multistage, multi-locational planning model that co-optimizes generation, storage, and transmission investments. The model respects reliability constraints as well as state energy and climate policies. We test the two planning approaches using a current stakeholder-informed 20-zone model of the PJM region, developed for the current FERC Order No. 1920 compliance filing process. In our most conservative model specification, we find that the co-optimized approach estimates 67% lower transmission upgrade needs than the sequential model, leading to total system costs that are .6% lower and similar reliability and climate outcomes. Our sensitivities show larger transmission and cost savings and reliability and climate benefits from co-optimized planning. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2509_24959 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Coordinated vs. Sequential Transmission Planning Domeshek, Maya Graf, Christoph Ünel, Burçin Systems and Control Coordinated planning of generation, storage, and transmission more accurately captures the interactions among these three capacity types necessary to meet electricity demand, at least in theory. However, in practice, U.S. system operators typically follow a sequential planning approach: They first determine future generation and storage additions based on an assumed unconstrained (`copper plate') system. Next, they perform dispatch simulations of this projected generation and storage capacity mix on the existing transmission grid to identify transmission constraint violations. These violations indicate the need for transmission upgrades. We describe a multistage, multi-locational planning model that co-optimizes generation, storage, and transmission investments. The model respects reliability constraints as well as state energy and climate policies. We test the two planning approaches using a current stakeholder-informed 20-zone model of the PJM region, developed for the current FERC Order No. 1920 compliance filing process. In our most conservative model specification, we find that the co-optimized approach estimates 67% lower transmission upgrade needs than the sequential model, leading to total system costs that are .6% lower and similar reliability and climate outcomes. Our sensitivities show larger transmission and cost savings and reliability and climate benefits from co-optimized planning. |
| title | Coordinated vs. Sequential Transmission Planning |
| topic | Systems and Control |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24959 |