1 tag meeting december 4, 2008 ncemc office raleigh, nc
TRANSCRIPT
1
TAG MeetingDecember 4, 2008
NCEMC Office
Raleigh, NC
2
TAG Meeting Agenda1. Administrative Items – Rich Wodyka
2. 2008 Study Final Results – Joey West
3. 2009 Study Scope – Bob Beadle
4. Duke and Progress Attachment K Compliance Filings – Kendal Bowman
5. Update on Regional Studies – Bob Pierce
6. 2009 TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka
7. TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka
33
Joey West
Progress Energy
Report on Final Results of 2008 Study
44
Base Reliability Results
- 2013 and 2018
- Planned new generation units Sensitivity Cases
- Wind
- TPL Reliability Standards
Outline of 2008 Study Results
55
Base Reliability Screening - Three new projects identified:- Folkstone 230/115 kV Substation (Progress)- Durham-RTP 230 kV Line, Reconductor (Progress)- Sadler Tie-Glen Raven Main Circuit 1 & 2
(Elon 100 kV Lines), Reconductor (Duke)
2013S and 2018S Results
66
List of Units Included in Base Case- Cliffside Coal – 880 MW- Buck Combined Cycle – 620 MW- Dan River Combined Cycle – 620 MW- Richmond County Combined Cycle – 660 MW- Wayne County CT – 160 MW
Planned New Generation Units
77
Studied impacts of:- 250 MW of hypothetical wind in Progress Eastern
Region- 300 MW of hypothetical wind in Progress Western
Region- 200 MW of hypothetical wind in Duke service area
No significant impact in Duke or Progress
Wind Sensitivity Case – 2018S Results
88
Studied impacts of:- Loss of a 230 kV line, 500 kV line or 500/230 kV transformer,
then loss of another 230 kV line, 500 kV line, or 500/230 kV transformer
- Common tower and common breaker failure between two 230 kV or 500 kV elements
- No loss of non-consequential load allowed- The results of the contingencies were evaluated against the
applicable ratings and bus voltages below 0.91 per unit were identified
TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results
99
For Duke, the results did not indicate any impact on 230 kV and above (EHV) planned projects or require new projects during the 10 year planning horizon.
Acceleration of projects would be required on Duke 100 kV facilities to mitigate the impact of the EHV contingencies that were studied.
- 38 projects identified for acceleration- On average, 10 year acceleration required- NPV of acceleration is between $80 and $100 Million
TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results – Cont’d
1010
For Progress, the EHV results indicated only one significant impact, for which a solution is currently being developed
Acceleration of projects would be required on Progress 115 kV facilities to mitigate the impact of the EHV contingencies that were studied- 32 projects identified for acceleration- On average, 14 year acceleration required- NPV of acceleration is about $200 Million
TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results – Cont’d
111111
Comparison to Previous Collaborative Transmission Plan
2007Supplemental
Plan2008 Draft Results
Number of projects with an estimated cost of $10 million or more each
18 16
Total estimated cost of Plan $523 M $520 M
Planning horizon 2007-2017 2008-2018
Date Plan published 05/16/08 TBD
1212
Import ScenariosMajor Projects in 2008 Plan
Reliability Project TO Planned I/S Date
Rockingham-West End 230 kV line Progress June ’09
Richmond 500 kV sub, reactor Progress December ’09
Clinton-Lee 230 kV line Progress June ’10
Asheville-Enka 230 kV line, Convert 115 kV line; &
Asheville-Enka 115 kV, Build new lineProgress
December ’10
December ’12
Rockingham-West End 230 kV East line Progress June ’11
Harris-RTP 230 kV line Progress June ’11
Pleasant Garden-Asheboro 230 kV line, replace Asheboro 230 kV xfmrs
Progress
& Duke
June ’11
1313
Import ScenariosMajor Projects in 2008 Plan (Continued)
Reliability Project TO Planned I/S Date
Rockingham-Lilesville 230 kV line Progress June ’11
Richmond-Ft Bragg Woodruff Street 230 kV Line
Progress June ‘11
Jacksonville Static VAR Compensator Progress June ’12
Greenville-Kinston Dupont 230 kV line Progress June ’13
Folkstone 230/115kV Substation Progress June ‘13
Add 3rd Wake 500/230 kV xfmr Progress June ’13
Durham-RTP 230kV Line, Reconductor Progress June ‘ 14
Cape Fear-West End 230 kV West line, Install reactor
Progress June ’16
14
Import ScenariosMajor Projects in 2008 Plan (Continued)
Reliability Project TO Planned I/S Date
Sadler Tie-Glen Raven Main Circuit 1 & 2 (Elon 100 kV Lines), Reconductor
Duke June ‘11
151515
16
2009 NCTPC StudyScope
Bob Beadle
North Carolina EMC
17
1. Assumptions Selected2. Study Criteria Established3. Study Methodologies Selected 4. Models and Cases Developed5. Technical Analysis Performed6. Problems Identified and Solutions Developed7. Collaborative Plan Projects Selected8. Study Report Prepared
Steps the Study Process
18
Study years- Short term (5 yr) and long term (10 yr)
base reliability analysis- Alternate long term model scenarios
Thermal power flow analysis - Duke & Progress contingencies- Duke & Progress monitored elements
• Internal lines• Tie lines
Collaborative Study Process
19
LSEs provide:– Load forecasts and resource supply
assumptions– Dispatch order for their resources
Area interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems
Study Inputs
20
TAG request to be distributed in mid February, 2009
Requests can now include in, out and through transmission service
Enhanced Transmission Access Requests
21
2014 Summer base case (short term) 2019 Summer base case (long term)
– Additional sensitivities will be included in the study process: analysis of resource supply options from other control areas (Southern, SCE&G, SC, PJM, TVA)
– Updated review of the PEC Western area resources and transmission
2009 Study
22
23
Duke and Progress Attachment K Compliance
Filing
Kendal Bowman
Progress Energy
24
FERC Order – September 18, 2008 Duke / Progress Attachment K’s, with certain
modifications, adequately complied with the nine planning principles adopted in Order 890
Subject to compliance filing due in 90 days (December 16, 2008)
Filing changes address both the North Carolina Transmission Planning Collaborative Process (“NCTPC Process”) and the Southeast Inter-Regional Participation Process (“SIRPP”)
25
Order 890 Principles
September 18th Order 1. Coordination
2. Openness
3. Transparency
4. Information Exchange
5. Comparability
6. Dispute Resolution
7. Regional Participation
8. Economic Planning Studies
9. Cost Allocation
Duke/Progress Attachment K
Partially Complies
Partially Complies
Partially Complies
Partially Complies
Partially Complies
Partially Complies
Complies
Complies
Partially Complies
26
Coordination– Requires that stakeholders have an opportunity
for input into the development of the models used in the transmission planning process
– Previously NCTPC provided for stakeholder input into the development of the models by allowing stakeholders (i.e., Transmission Advisory Group (“TAG”) participants) to review the study assumptions
– Amending Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 to permit TAG participants, just like the Planning Working Group (“PWG”), to review whether the models represent the study assumptions approved by the OSC and to provide their input on these models
27
Openness - Participation
– The Commission found that the two-tiered (voting and non-voting) TAG membership that allowed only valid stakeholders to vote was unreasonable
– New open, Sector voting structure is proposed
28
Openness – ParticipationEight TAG Sectors: 1. Cooperative Load-Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC
footprint)
2. Municipal Load-Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC footprint)
3. Investor-Owned Load Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC footprint)
4. Transmission Providers/Transmission Owners that are not LSEs in the NCTPC footprint
5. Transmission Customers (a customer taking Transmission Service from at least one Transmission Provider in the NCTPC footprint)
6. Generator Interconnection Customers (a customer taking FERC- or state-jurisdictional generator interconnection service from at least one of the Transmission Providers in the NCTPC footprint))
7. Eligible Customers and Ancillary Service Providers (includes developers; ancillary service providers (including demand response resources), power marketers not currently taking transmission service)
8. General Public
29
Openness – Participation
– TAG Sector Entities such as corporations, partnerships, associations, government agencies, etc.
– Only organized groups (TAG Sector Entities) will have authority to vote; General Public sector is the only exception
– An entity cannot subdivide itself into subgroups in order to increase its number of TAG Sector Entities
– Persons not affiliated with any TAG Sector Entity can register as an unaffiliated “Individual” and vote in the General Public sector
30
Openness – Participation
– TAG Sector Entities can only join one TAG Sector– A TAG participant must be present in person or on the
phone to vote – An individual TAG participant may vote on behalf of
one or more TAG Sector Entity on any particular vote – There is no voting by proxy– A TAG participant may well be an agent, member, or
an employee of several TAG Sector Entities
31
Openness – Participation– ITP will determine how many TAG Sectors are
represented at the meeting for a vote– Each TAG Sector present shall be entitled to cast one
(divisible) vote worth 1.00 – Each TAG Sector Entity and each Individual shall be
entitled to cast one non-divisible vote – The votes of each TAG Sector Entity or Individual are
then weighted by multiplying them by one divided by the number of TAG Sector Entities (or Individuals and TAG Sector Entities in the case of the General Public Sector) voting in that TAG Sector
– These divisible votes of each TAG Sector are then multiplied by one divided by the number of TAG Sectors present.
32
Sector No. of
Voters
Yes Votes
No Votes
Sector Yes Vote
Sector No Vote
Weighted Sector
Yes Vote
Weighted Sector No Vote
Coop LSE 6 6 0 1.00 0 .20 0
Muni LSE 8 2 6 .25 .75 .05 .15
IOU LSE 2 1 1 .50 .50 .10 .10
TP/TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TCs 1 0 1 0 1.00 0 .20
GICs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ECs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GP 10 6 4 .60 .40 .12 .08
Total Vote 0.47 0.53
Voting Example
33
Openness – Access to Confidential Information
- Directed to remove the requirement that stakeholders obtain authorization from the Commission to access CEII contained in Form 715 reports before they are permitted access to confidential information and CEII related to the planning process
- Requested clarification whether persons seeking CEII not contained in Form 715 can nonetheless be required to obtain Form 715
- Section 9.4.3 has been amended to eliminate the Form 715 requirement only as related to non-CEII Confidential Information (pending clarification)
34
Transparency
- Commission objected to the proposal to restrict access to data and information necessary to replicate planning studies only to TAG Voting Members
- Given the elimination of the concept of TAG Voting Members, such restriction is being eliminated
- All TAG participants will be permitted access to Confidential Information as reflected in revised Section 9
35
Comparability- Comply with the requirement of Order No. 890-A
to treat resources on a comparable basis by identifying how they will determine comparability for purposes of transmission planning
– Amended Section 4.0 ensures that demand response resources are treated on a comparable basis by requiring Transmission Customers and Eligible Customers to accurately reflect demand response resources in the information they submit
– Sponsors of transmission solutions, generation solutions, and solutions utilizing demand resources can fully participate throughout the planning process
36
Dispute Resolution- Need to identify dispute resolution procedures to
be used “by other parties” involved in planning-related activities
– Any TAG participant has the right to seek assistance from the NCUC Public Staff to mediate an issue and render a non-binding opinion on any disputed decision concerning the NCTPC planning activities
– TAG participant may seek review from a judicial or regulatory body that has jurisdiction over the issue
– For disputes that arise under the Tariff, the Tariff’s dispute resolution process applies to all TAG participants (includes voluntary mediation)
37
Regional Participation - Commission requested more details to allow
customers and other interested stakeholders to understand how the NCTPC planning activities will be integrated into regional processes
- NCTPC is the “regional planning process” in which the Parties are participating
- Coordinates with neighbors outside the NCTPC footprint via two key coordination activities:
• SERC focuses on reliability
• SIRPP focuses on economics
38
Economic Planning Studies
– Commission found it unreasonable to limit full participation in the Enhanced Transmission Access Planning (“ETAP”) Process to TAG Voting Members
– Corrected by adoption of TAG Sector Voting Process
– Required to provide for stakeholder input (e.g., through the TAG) in the determination as whether to combine and/or cluster proposed scenarios
– Have provided this option in Section 4.2.3
39
Cost Allocation
– Commission requested a cost allocation methodology for non-RETP economic projects that involve the transmission systems of multiple NCTPC Participants
– Costs of any non-RETP project or any non-Regional Reliability Project that involves the transmission systems of multiple NCTPC Participants would be allocated pursuant to the OATT of each Transmission Provider
40
SIRPP Stakeholder Definition
- Concern that the definition of stakeholder in the SIRPP process may unduly restrict the ability of all interested parties to participate in the inter-regional economic planning process
- SIRPP Stakeholder Group (“SIRPPSG”) membership is now open to all affected parties in accordance with Order No. 890
- Proposed a Sector voting approach
41
SIRPP Access to Confidential Information- Commission required the Parties to revise their
Attachment Ks, to remove the requirement that stakeholders seeking non-CEII confidential information from SIRPP participants first request and obtain from the Commission the Form 715
- Requirement has been removed for non-CEII confidential information
- Clarify that resource specific data will not be made available if the data has been designated confidential by the data provider or if the data can be used to:
• Determine security constrained unit commitment or economic dispatch of resources; or
• Perform an economic evaluation of costs and benefits
42
SIRPP Dispute Resolution
- Ordered to establish a mechanism for resolving disputes that arise in planning activities performed by the SIRPP
- Dispute resolution provision has been added to Appendix 1 of Attachment K, which addresses this issue
43
SIRPP Cost Allocation
- Commission required that the allocation of costs for upgrades identified through the SIRPP economic planning process be addressed
- Appendix 1 has been clarified to reflect the intent of this approach to cost allocation and describe how it might work in more detail
- Section 7.4 of the Attachment K clarifies that for the portion of an Inter-Regional Economic Upgrade project that is located in the NCTPC footprint, the cost allocation principles set forth in Section 7 would apply
44
SIRPP Other Changes
- Clarified that information to be discussed will be made available in final draft form for stakeholder review prior to any such meeting by posting it on the SIRPP website and/or e-mails to SIRPPSG members
- Reasonable efforts to make such information available at least 10 calendar days prior to a particular meeting
- SIRPPSG may consider clustering similar Economic Planning Study requests
45
Duke / Progress believe that the proposed changes will fulfill their compliance obligations under Order 890 as requested by the Commission
464646
47
Update on Regional Studies
Bob Pierce
Duke Energy
48
Ongoing Studies- SCRTP- SIRPP- JCSP
Status Update Where to go for more information
Regional Processes
49
The South Carolina Regional Transmission Planning (SCRTP) process was established by South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) to meet the transmission planning requirements of FERC Order No. 890.
SC Regional Transmission Planning Process
50
NCTPC submitted 2 requests to study- 600 MW transfer from Santee-Cooper to CPLE- 600 MW transfer from SCE&G to Duke
Deadline for requests was 7/1/08 SCRTP selected 5 requests for study SCRTP accepted NCTPC requests
- Provided dispatch data and contingency files- Study process underway
SC Regional Transmission Planning Process
51
Initial results were reported at the 11/06/08 SCRTP meeting in Charleston
Stakeholder input on the initial results was requested, including study refinements and other solution options to consider
www.scrtp.com
SC Regional Transmission Planning Process
52
Sponsors PowerSouth
Dalton Utilities Georgia Transmission Corporation (GTC)
Duke Energy Carolinas Entergy Companies
E. ON U.S. Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG)
Progress Energy Carolinas Santee Cooper
South Carolina Electric & Gas South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA)
Southern Companies Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Southeast Inter-Regional Planning Process
53
NCTPC submitted requests to study- 3,000 MW from MISO to VACAR- 3,000 MW from SOCO to PJM (classic)- 3,000 MW from PJM (classic) to SOCO
5 of the 16 requests submitted were selected at 7/10/08 meeting
Southeast Inter-Regional Planning Process
54
Requests to be studied- 2,000 MW from Entergy to SOCO- 2,000 MW from PJM west to SOCO- 5,000 MW from SPP to SOCO- 3,000 MW from SOCO to PJM (classic)- 3,000 MW from PJM (classic) to SOCO
Preliminary study results expected by January 2009
www.southeastirpp.com
Southeast Inter-Regional Planning Process
55
MISO, PJM, SPP, TVA, ISO New England, New York ISO and the MAPP
Entergy is participating in the JCSP primarily through SPP
Joint Coordinated System Planning
56
Reliability assessment – 2018 Reference case
Economic assessment – 2024 Wind Integration case
Joint Coordinated System Planning
57
Main focus is the economic assessment
Performed in collaboration with the DOE’s Eastern Wind Integration Transmission Study
Objective to investigate both 20% and 30% wind energy penetration scenarios in the bulk of the Eastern Interconnection and the transmission required to support that level of wind penetration
The JCSP study adopted the DOE assumptions and added them to a Reference case that acts as a baseline for comparison
Joint Coordinated System Planning
58
59
60
61
Working to refine results to optimize the cost/benefit ratio based on the assumptions regarding wind integration
www.jcspstudy.org
Joint Coordinated System Planning
626262
63
Rich Wodyka
Independent Consultant
2009 TAG Work Plan Review
64 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter
Enhanced Access Planning Process
Coordinated Plan Development
Perform analysis, identify problems, and develop solutions
Review Reliability Study Results
Evaluate current reliability problems and transmission upgrade plans
Propose and select enhanced access scenarios and interface
Perform analysis, identify problems, and develop solutions
Review Enhanced Access Study Results
Reliability Planning Process
OSC publishes DRAFT Plan
TAG review and comment
Combine Reliability and Enhanced Results
2009 Overview Schedule
TAG Meetings
65
January - February
Finalize 2009 Study Scope of Work- Receive final 2009 Reliability Study Scope for comment- Review and provide comments to the OSC on the final 2009
Reliability Study Scope including the Study Assumptions; Study Criteria; Study Methodology and Case Development
- Receive request from OSC to provide input on proposed Enhanced Transmission Access scenarios and interfaces for study
- Provide input to the OSC on proposed Enhanced Transmission Access scenarios and interfaces for study
Proposed 2009 TAG Work Plan
66
April - May TAG Meeting
Receive feedback from the OSC on what proposed Enhanced Transmission Access scenarios and interfaces will be included in the 2009 study
Receive a progress report on the 2009 Reliability Planning study activities and results
67
June - July TAG Meeting 2009 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, PROBLEM
IDENTIFICATION and SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT– TAG will receive a progress report from the PWG on the 2009
study– TAG will be requested to provide input to the OSC and PWG
on the technical analysis performed, the problems identified as well as proposing alternative solutions to the problems identified
– Receive update status of the upgrades in the 2008 Collaborative Plan
– TAG will be requested to provide input to the OSC and PWG on any proposed alternative solutions to the problems identified through the technical analysis
68
August - September TAG Meeting 2009 STUDY UPDATE
– Receive a progress report on the Reliability Planning and Enhanced Transmission Access Planning studies
2009 SELECTION OF SOLUTIONS– TAG will receive feedback from the OSC on any alternative
solutions that were proposed by TAG members
69
December
2009 STUDY REPORT– Receive and comment on final draft of the 2009
Collaborative Transmission Plan report
TAG Meeting– Receive presentation on the draft report of 2009
Collaborative Transmission Plan – Provide feedback to the OSC on the 2009 NCTPC
Process– Review and comment on the 2010 TAG Work Plan
Schedule
70
71
TAG Open Forum Discussion