Should we build wind farms close to load or invest in transmission to access better wind resources in remote areas? A case study in the MISO region

Wind speeds in remote areas are sometimes very high, but transmission costs to access these locations can be prohibitive. We present a conceptual model to estimate the economics of accessing high quality wind resources in remote areas to comply with renewable energy policy targets, and apply the model to the Midwestern grid (MISO) as a case study. We assess the goal of providing 40 TWh of new wind generation while minimizing costs, and include temporal aspects of wind power (variability costs and correlation to market prices) as well as total wind power produced from different farms. We find that building wind farms in North/South Dakota (windiest states) compared to Illinois (less windy, but close to load) would only be economical if the incremental transmission costs to access them were below $360/kW of wind capacity (break-even value). Historically, the incremental transmission costs for wind development in North/South Dakota compared to in Illinois are about twice this value. However, the break-even incremental transmission cost for wind farms in Minnesota/Iowa (also windy states) is $250/kW, which is consistent with historical costs. We conclude that wind development in Minnesota/Iowa is likely more economical to meet MISO renewable targets compared to North/South Dakota or Illinois. - Highlights: •We evaluate the economics of building wind farms in remote areas in MISO. •We present a conceptual wind site selection model to meet 40 TWh of new wind. •We use the model to compare remote windy sites to less windy ones closer to load. •We show break-even transmission costs that would justify remote wind development. •Comparing break-even values to historical costs, MN/IA sites are most economical.