TEAC20

1. TEAC20 Thursday, March 4, 2004 Sheraton Hotel Springfield, Massachusetts REDACTED VERSION FOR POSTING

2. TEAC20 Agenda • Welcoming Remarks • FDWG Update • Transmission Planning Study Updates • CT Area Issues • ME-NH issues • NB-NE Tie Performance • Generator Clutch Technology • NEPOOL Project List Process • ISO/RTO Planning Coordination Protocols • RTEP04 Planning Assumptions • RTEP04 Resource Adequacy Analysis • Assessment Cases • Preliminary Case Results

3. Fuel Diversity Working Group TEAC20 Presentation March 4, 2004 Mark Babula ISO-NE Power Supply & Reliability

4. Fuel Diversity Working Group • In response to the events of January 2004, ISO-NE is proposing to reconstitute the FDWG with respect to changing: • Name change to address specific gas & electric issues • Existing Mission Statement & Charter • Broaden the Scope • Requesting increased participation from: • New England utility and environmental regulators • Natural gas industry • Interested stakeholders & market community • The newly transformed Electric Gas Working Group (EGWG) will address both near and long term issues.

5. Electric Gas Working Group • The newly transformed Electric Gas Working Group (GEWG) will address: • The results and findings of ISO-NE’s Cold Snap report • Short-term issues – Resolve by Winter 2004/05 • Long-term issues – TBD and coordination with RTEP • Additional areas of investigation as suggested from stakeholders • Liaison to regional and national committees on changing existing or developing new policy thru regulatory means • NERC GEITF (Gas/Electricity Interdependency Task Force) • NAESB GECTF - North American Energy Standards Board – (Gas Electric Coordination Task Force)

6. Electric Gas Working Group • The Electric Gas Working Group (GEWG) should work to coordinate the education and understanding of both gas & electric systems through: • Cross training of electric & gas system operators • Establishing emergency communications protocols & procedures • Assess and address system restoration issues • Assess coordination of electric & gas system maintenance requirements • Address other common issues

7. Announcement • FDWG next meeting Mass Electric Auditorium, Northborough, MA – March 19th - 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

8. Transmission Planning Study Updates Rich Kowalski ISO-NE System Planning

9. Eastern Connecticut System Performance Concerns

10. Area Characteristics • Existing Area Load: 700 to 750 MW • Basically three feeds into area: • Montville Substation – two 345-115kV autotransformers and approximately 750 MW of generation • Card Substation – one 345-115kV autotransformer • 115kV tie to Rhode Island • About 90 MW of local generation

11. Performance • Several probable contingencies result in severe thermal overloads and unacceptable voltages (bordering on voltage collapse) • SPS currently in place for loss of the Sherman Road to Lake Road 345kV line • Issues surrounding the location ‘electrically’ of the Lake Road Plant

12. CIRCUIT DIAGRAM REDACTED

13. Alternatives Studied • Various line taps, line reconductorings and 69 to 115kV conversions • 345kV breaker additions • Various 115kV line additions • Various autotransformer additions – Brooklyn, Tracy and/or Lake Road

14. Preferred Plan • Add 345-115kV autotransformer at Tracy • Add 345kV circuit breaker at Card • Benefits: • Relieves all thermal overloads • Acceptable voltages for all contingencies but one borderline consideration • Quick fix without requiring line additions

15. Current Status • Draft Thermal / Voltage report in Task Force review stage • Transfer Analysis to be completed

16. Connecticut ImportReinforcement Study

17. Background • Previous analyses have shown: • Interdependence of transfer capabilities for SEMA/RI Export, East-West & CT Import Interfaces • Transfers through these 3 interfaces contribute to heavy loadings on the same key transmission facilities • The resource-rich area to the east of Connecticut is currently the best source for Connecticut.

18. System Performance • RTEP03 • With respect to CT Import Area Capacity, “… Connecticut is at risk in 2003. Operating deficiencies could occur as a result of a higher than normal peak load. It also shows the likelihood of this deficiency occurring for more typical ‘reference’ load as early as 2006.”

19. RTEP03 Recommendation • “Transmission planning studies should be completed to support the development and implementation of a 345kV line from Millbury to Card.”

20. Connecticut Import Reinforcement Project GEOGRAPHICAL AREA: CIRCUIT DIAGRAM REDACTED

21. Study Plan & Status • ISO / TO Working Group established • Scope of work / Schedule developed • Various meetings and teleconferences held • Comprehensive list of alternatives developed • Target completion August 2004

22. Summary Of Alternatives • Marine ties from Long Island, SEMA or RI through the Sound • Ties from New York State – Pleasant Valley area • Different over land routes from SEMA/RI (both AC and DC) • Western Mass to CT

23. Maine – New HampshireTransmission System Studies

24. ME-NH Transmission Technical Issues List • Heavy load growth in Maine and NH Seacoast areas • Central and southern New Hampshire reliability assessment • Complex operating limits/dependencies for voltage and stability on Maine-New Hampshire Interfaces • Maine and NH reliability assessments for long-term autotransformer outages

25. ME-NH Transmission Technical Issues List • Closing Y138 between Western Maine and Central New Hampshire • Poor performance for several stuck breaker contingencies in Maine (Buxton and Surowiec) • Western Maine stability limit definition • Seabrook Uprate - reduction in generator reactive capability and new excitation system

26. Need to Coordinate the Studies of ME-NH Issues • Interdependence of issues and solutions • Comprehensive analysis of larger area • Development of coordinated plans

27. Need to Coordinate the Studies of ME-NH Issues • Broader range of ideas, solutions, and approaches • Enhancements for future reliability for load and generation in this region • Support effective use of transmission facilities across all Northern New England (NNE) interfaces

28. First Priority Studies • Maine Reliability Assessment – Schedule TBD • Long-term autotransformer outages • Address seacoast area • New Hampshire Reliability Assessment – Schedule TBD • Long-term autotransformer outages • Address seacoast and central/southern areas • Additional transformation possibly at Deerfield, Newington, etc. • Impact of Seabrook Up-rate

29. Second Priority Studies • Maine-New Hampshire Reliability Project– In progress • Address complex operating limits/dependencies for ME-NH • Address performance concerns associated with ME stuck breakers • Currently three alternatives tested • Is being coordinated with the Closing Y-138 Project • Impact of Seabrook Up-rate

30. Second Priority Studies • Closing Y-138 Project– In progress • Address central New Hampshire reliability • Should improve Western Maine stability/voltage performance • Some increase in Maine-New Hampshire transfer capability • Alternative development almost complete, reactive needs outstanding • Is being coordinated with Maine-New Hampshire Reliability project • Will be coordinated with Western Maine Stability assessment

31. Second Priority Studies • Western Maine Stability Assessment– Schedule TBD • Assess the stability performance of the western Maine transmission system • Will be coordinated with the Closing Y-138 Project.

32. NNE Transmission Corridor • CIRCUIT DIAGRAM REDACTED

33. Maine-New Hampshire Reliability ProjectReport on 2003 Studies Investigated three alternatives: • Add a dynamic voltage control system (SVD) at Deerfield S/S with a 500 – 600 MVAr capability. • Interconnect Section 391 at Deerfield S/S and add three breakers at Buxton for the re-termination of Section 386. • Add a dynamic voltage control system (SVD) at Deerfield S/S with a 500 – 600 MVAr capability and interconnect Section 391 at Deerfield S/S and add three breakers at Buxton for the re-termination of Section 386.

34. Conclusions of Maine – New Hampshire Reliability Project Alternative Assessments Alternative #1 • Insufficient benefit for Maine and NH system reliability to justify its high cost. Alternative #2 • Increases transfer limits as well for a much lower cost. • Elimination of stuck breaker contingencies is significant benefit to NNE reliability. • Looping Section 391 into Deerfield increases electrical performance of bulk power system. Alternative #3 • Best method to mitigate reliability issues but high cost. • Significant improvement in voltage, thermal, and stability transfer limits; mitigation of dependencies • Provides dynamic voltage support along NNE 345kV corridor.

35. Transfer Limits from Maine – New Hampshire Reliability Project Analysis

36. Closing Y138 Report on 2003 Studies Studies have concluded the following system upgrades are required for closing Y138: • Phase Shifter on B112 • Re-tension Section 214 • Beebe B112 Terminal Upgrades • Add 2 breakers at Saco Valley • Add 50 MVar at Kimball Road • Add 22 MVar at White Lake (7 and 15 MVar)

37. Status of Y138 Closing Project • Final design studies being conducted • Local area impacts on sub-transmission networks being analyzed • Preparing to conduct 18.4 Level III Steady-state and Stability Assessments • 18.4 approval estimated for 3rd quarter 2004

38. Example of Benefits to Coordinating Studies In 2003, two studies were completed with different individual objectives.Maine-New Hampshire Reliability Project • ME-NH transfer capability improvement • Eliminate complex operating guides for voltage and stability Closing Y138 • Improve central New Hampshire reliability • Relieve congested Maine transmission interfaces

39. Combination of Projects from each Study Analyzed Together Maine-New Hampshire Reliability Project Alternative #2 and Closing Y138 Study were analyzed together for voltage limits based on operating criteria. Preliminary increases to Maine-New Hampshire transfer are shown below:

40. Coordinated Solution • Need to assess S. New Hampshire requirements • Assess impact of potential combined solutions • Develop a comprehensive plan

41. New Brunswick-New England/MEPCO Area System Performance Concerns

42. Region Characteristics • The Maritimes are synchronously connected to the Eastern Interconnection by only the 150 mile long, 345 kV Orrington to Keswick Line. • There is a single 345 kV path from Orrington to Maine Yankee with a limited number of 115 kV parallel paths. • This electrically weak corridor requires 8 SPS. (MY DCT, Maxcy’s Cross-trip, Bucksport Over-current, Bucksport Reverse Power, 396, GCX, Loss of Export on 396, KPR (if Chester SVC is OOS))

43. Region Characteristics • New Brunswick–New England transfer capability is 700 MW. • New England-New Brunswick transfer capability ranges from +/-250 MW. (Some conditions require a minimum import from NB) • Orrington South transfer capability is approximately 1,050 MW.

44. CIRCUIT MAP REDACTED

45. New England System Concerns • Consequences of large Maritime Provinces load loss (reason for Keswick GCX SPS) • Keswick GCX SPS inadvertent operation • L/O 1200+ MW due to trips/inadvertent trips of Keswick-Orrington 345 kV (NB-NE tie Section 396), Orrington-Maxcys 345 kV (Section 388), Maxcys-Maine Yankee 345 kV (Section 392) • L/O 396 SPS (trips Maine Independence Station) (contributes to L/O 1200+ MW)

46. New England System Concerns • Orrington-So. 1050 MW limit • MY DCT outage • CMP transient voltage response • NB-NE tie losses • Limited access of MPS/EMC to New England resources (no direct ties to the New England transmission system)

47. New Brunswick System Concerns Consequences of large Maritime Provinces load loss (reason for Keswick GCX SPS) New Brunswick Power desires a more secure inter-Area interconnection with New England. New Brunswick Power desires a firm import capability from New England.

48. New Brunswick System Concerns • NB-NE tie losses • New Brunswick Power is interested in improved market access between NPCC/NEPOOL and the Maritime Control Area. • The Maritimes are winter peaking while New England is summer peaking. Improved transfer capability would allow for better utilization of existing generation resources.

49. Alternatives Under Consideration(None individually address all concerns) • Replace/Redesign GCX SPS [$?] (Mar. Prov. l/o ld) • Northeast Reliability Interconnect Project (2nd NB tie: LePreau-Orr. 345 kV) [$80M] (MP l/o ld, GCX, 396 trip, 396-MIS SPS (?), CMP t.volt, NB-NE tie losses, impr. MPS/EMEC access, NB benefits) • Thyr.-Contr. Series Comp. (TCSC) in Keswick-Orrington 345 kV [~$25M] (MP l/o ld, GCX (?), 396-388-392 trip, 396-MIS SPS (?), CMP t.volt (?)) • Orrington-Maxcys 345 kV fixed series compensation* [$13.5M] (Or-S 1050MW) • Reconductor Bucksport-Highland 115 kV Line, western Maine capacitors [$5M] (Or-S 1050MW)

50. Alternatives Under Consideration(None individually address all concerns) • Split MY DCT [~$12M] (MY DCT outage) • MY DCT SPS to trip NB generation* [~$0.5M] (MY DCT outage) • MEPCO SPS redesign [$0.5M-$5M] (CMP t.volt) • Northern Maine Interconnection Project – 115 kV [$13.6M] (MPS access) *Part of 2nd NB tie project