1 / 48

October ‘04 - April ‘05 Update Issue Date: March 30, 2005 Project Data Received as of February 9, 2005

October ‘04 - April ‘05 Update Issue Date: March 30, 2005 Project Data Received as of February 9, 2005. Contents. Page. Introduction / Background The Interim Update Process Requested Review Actions April ‘05 Change Highlights Selected Program Profiles Updated Project Listing . 3

daniel_millan
Download Presentation

October ‘04 - April ‘05 Update Issue Date: March 30, 2005 Project Data Received as of February 9, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. October ‘04 - April ‘05 Update Issue Date: March 30, 2005Project Data Received as of February 9, 2005

  2. Contents Page • Introduction / Background • The Interim Update Process • Requested Review Actions • April ‘05 Change Highlights • Selected Program Profiles • Updated Project Listing 3 5 6 7 24 44

  3. Introduction & Background • It is our objective in 2005 to formalize interim planning activity in order to improve the communication of progress, provide a process for interim approvals (should this be necessary), and maintain visibility of system needs. • We are pursuing an improvement to the quality of update information, enhancing the management of change associated with the Plan, and publishing updated information more frequently as a service to our stakeholders. • To facilitate the internal and external review of our April ‘05 Update, we have highlighted changes to the Project Listing, provided an analysis of changes since the October ’04 Update, and included progress summaries on high-profile projects.

  4. Introduction & Background (cont’d) • We will update and publish the system plan and associated project listing on a periodic basis in 2005 (shown below). This document represents our April ‘05 Update. RSP-05 ‘Board Draft’ RSP-05 PAC ‘Draft’ RSP-05 Approval Period 11/09/05 September Public Mtg 09/09/05 Apr ‘05 Jul ‘05 Oct ‘05 Apr ‘06 1st Update 2nd Update 3rd Update 1st ’06 Update 2005 2006 F M M J S N J A J A O D

  5. The Interim Update Process Update Request & Guideline to TOs Introduce Process To TOs ISO-NE Inte- grates Informa- tion & Analyzes Changes TOs Update Project Listing PAC & RC Review 01/20/05 01/20/05 ISO-NE Conducts Follow-up PAC & RC Forward any Major Issues to ISO-NE prior to meeting ‘Draft’ Provided to PAC/RC ISO-NE Prepares Draft Update Report System Operator Approval PAC & RC Review ‘Draft’ Update Report 02/28/05 02/18/05 Responses to PAC & RC Present at PAC & RC Mtgs ISO-NE Revises the Update as Necessary ISO-NE Prepares Responses Joint TO/ISO-NE Update Prior to meeting 03/02/05 Submit April ‘05

  6. Requested Review Actions TOs: Verifyproject information previously provided to ISO-NE staff. PAC & RC: Review this interim plan. Recognize system needs, and where applicable, identify market responses and/or transmission alternatives. System Operator: Gather feedback, revise as necessary, and publish.

  7. April ‘05 Change Highlights

  8. April ‘05 Change Highlights Summary of changes of Reliability Projects between the October ‘04 Update and this April ‘05 Update: Quantity 23 10 11 39 8 + $689.9 million New Projects (total projects now in the Plan = 276) Cancelled Projects Projects Advancing to ‘Planned’ Status (I.3.9-Approved) Projects Commencing Construction Projects Placed In Service System Plan Cost Estimate Change (RTEP04 total estimate: $2.3 billion)

  9. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Project count update and reconciliation between the July ’04 Update publication and this April ‘05 Update (cont’d) : July ’04 to October ‘04 October ‘04 to April ‘05 • 246 • +4 • +7 • +20 • 277 • 4 • -3 • -1 • 269 • 269 • 3 • 0 • +23 • 295 • 8 • 10 • -1 • 276 Reliability projects: July ’04 Update Reclassification Projects added as a result of further study and scope definition of previously identified projects New projects Projects placed in service Projects cancelled Local (non-PTF) project removed Projects as of October ’04 Update Reliability projects: October ’04 Update Reclassification Projects added as a result of further study and scope definition of previously identified projects New projects Projects placed in service Projects cancelled Local (non-PTF) projects removed Projects as of April ’05 Update

  10. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) PROJECT STATUS CHANGES BETWEEN THE OCTOBER ‘04 PUBLICATION AND THIS APRIL ’05 UPDATE:

  11. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) RELIABILITY PROJECT STATUS – April ’05 UPDATE: April ’05 Update of All Active Projects in the Plan: Note (1) 50 projects are in advanced stages of studies. (Southwest CT Phase II, Boston 115 kV Enhancements, North Shore, and Monadnock projects)

  12. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) COST ESTIMATE COMPARISONS OF RELIABILITY PROJECTS – OCTOBER ‘04 vs APRIL ’05:1 Notes (1) All costs provided by Transmission Owners. (2) Not included here are the costs of 88 reliability projects for which no estimates have been provided. Estimates for these projects are noted as ‘TBD’ in the Project Listing. Given the uncertainty of costs associated with these ‘TBD projects’, and the various stages of scope definition for identified projects, the combined cost estimate should be considered to be in the range of $2.2 to 4.0 billion. (3) One project (Temp. ID 03-61013) will likely contain no PTF costs. Thus, it has been re-categorized as a Local Project.

  13. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Make-up of the aggregate cost estimate change of Reliability Projects between the October ‘04 publication and this April ‘05 progress update: 1 October ‘04 ($ millions) Change ($ millions) Cause of Change Project Better defined cost estimates Better defined cost estimates Better defined cost estimates Better defined cost estimates Better defined cost estimates New to the Plan Re-categorized to Local Project Better defined cost estimates Southwest Connecticut Reliability Project Norwalk-Glenbrook Cable Project (3 projects) Central MA Reinforcements (12 projects) NSTAR 345 kV Transmission Reliability Project (15 projects) North Shore Upgrades (6 projects) New projects (9 projects) Ellsworth Area Reliability Improvement (1 project) Other (aggregate) (39 projects) 890.0 TBD 36.9 217.0 50.2 N/A 8.8 132.4 457.0 120.0 17.8 17.2 8.3 14.4 -8.8 64.0 change: + $689.9 Million 1All costs provided by Transmission Owners.

  14. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) AGGEGRATED COST ESTIMATES AND COUNTS BY PROJECT STAGE:1 For Reliability Projects . . . Notes (1) All costs provided by Transmission Owners. (2) Not included here are the costs of 88 reliability projects for which no estimates have been provided. Estimates for these projects are noted as ‘TBD’ in the Project Listing. Given the uncertainty of costs associated with these ‘TBD projects’, and the various stages of scope definition for identified projects, the combined cost estimate should be considered to be in the range of $2.2 to 4.0 billion. (3) One project (Temp. ID 03-61013) will likely contain no PTF costs. Thus, it has been re-categorized as a Local Project.

  15. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) AGGEGRATED COST ESTIMATES BY PROJECT STAGE WITH APPLIED ACCURACY RANGES:1 For Reliability Projects . . . Notes (1) All costs provided by Transmission Owners. (2) Not included here is the cost of 88 reliability projects for which no estimates have been provided. Estimates for these projects are noted as ‘TBD’ in the Project Listing. (3) One project (Temp. ID 03-61013) will likely contain no PTF costs. Thus, it has been re-categorized as a Local Project.

  16. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Twenty-three (23) New Projects and Corresponding Needs (*): New Transmission Lines Need Install 115 kV line from Long Hill to Reliability need – provide South Milford. capacity to supply load (New Hampshire) Install 115 kV line from Jackman to Reliability need – provide Petersborough. capacity to supply load (New Hampshire) Install 115 kV line from Petersborough to Reliability need – provide Fitzwilliam. capacity to supply load (New Hampshire) Build new 115 kV circuit from Kendall to Reliability need – provide Somerville. capacity to supply load (Boston) Transmission System Upgrades Need Add 345 kV regulating shunt reactor in BostonReliability need – provide area. capacity to supply load (Boston) (*) Projects may have some non-PTF components

  17. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Twenty-three (23) New Projects and Corresponding Needs (*): Transmission System Upgrades Need Separate the 115 kV line from Windsor LocksReliability need – provide to Enfield (1300 line). capacity to supply load (Connecticut) Add a 345 kV breaker at North Bloomfield. Reliability need – provide (Connecticut) capacity to supply load Upgrade bus work at Somerset Substation.Reliability need – provide (Southeast MA) capacity to supply load Install Tremont 115 kV bus tie circuit breaker.Reliability need – provide (Southeast MA) capacity to supply load. Install new 115 kV circuit breaker at Sandwich Reliability need – provide Substation. capacity to supply load. (Southeast MA) (*) Projects may have some non-PTF components

  18. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Twenty-three (23) New Projects and Corresponding Needs (*): Transmission System Upgrades (cont’d) Need Install new 115 kV circuit breaker at Hatchville Reliability need – provide Substation. capacity to supply load. (Southeast MA) Upgrade 115 kV circuit breakers at W. FarnumReliability need – provide Substation and add four new 115 kV circuit capacity to supply load. breakers at Woonsocket Substation. (Rhode Island) Reconductor 69 kV Y-25S line from HarrimanReliability need – provide to Deerfield 5. capacity to supply load (Western MA ) Additional 345/115 kV transformation in the Reliability need – provide Berkshire/Pittsfield area. capacity to supply load (Western MA) (*) Projects may have some non-PTF components

  19. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Twenty-three (23) New Projects and Corresponding Needs (*): Transmission System Upgrades (cont’d) Need Additional 345/115 kV transformation in the Reliability need – provide Springfield area. capacity to supply load. (Western MA) Build new Springfield area transmission circuitsReliability need – provide (OH or UG) in the area. capacity to supply load. (Western MA) Additional uprating or rebuilding of the existing Reliability need – provide 115 kV OH lines in the Springfield area. capacity to supply load (Western MA ) Additional capacitors in the Springfield area Reliability need – provide substations. capacity to supply load (Western MA) Install 115 kV capacitors at Montague Substation. Reliability need – provide (Western MA) capacity to supply load (*) Projects may have some non-PTF components

  20. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Twenty-three (23) New Projects and Corresponding Needs (*): Distribution Substation Work Need Expand Chelsea 115 kV Sub. to include four Reliability need – provide circuit breakers and install 3rd 115/13.8 kV capacity to supply load distribution transformer. (Boston) Replace 115 kV fuses at Ashfield Substation. Reliability need – provide (Western MA) capacity to supply load Install third distribution transformer at Pleasant Reliability need – provide Substation and ring bus. capacity to supply load (Western MA) Install a 115/13.8 kV substation at Jacks Hill. Reliability need – provide (Connecticut) capacity to supply load (*) Projects may have some non-PTF components

  21. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Eight (8) Projects Placed In-Service and Corresponding Needs (*): Cost Estimate (in million) Transmission System Upgrades Improvement/Need Re-tension C2 115 kV line from Auburn St. to TBDImprove thermal limitations. Dupont. (Southeast MA ) Upgrade A94 115 kV line from Auburn St. to TBDImprove thermal limitations. Parkview. (Southeast MA ) WMECO 115 kV circuit breaker replacements. 2.2Overdutied breakers. (Western MA ) Taft Corners Substation 1.9Increase capacity and (Vermont) reliability to supply load. (*) Projects may have some non-PTF components

  22. April ‘05 Change Highlights (cont’d) Eight (8) Projects Placed In-Service and Corresponding Needs (*): Cost Estimate (in million) Transmission System Upgrades Improvement/Need Add a second Rochester to Rochester Tap 4.2 Improve reliability to supply 115 kV line. load. (New Hampshire) Relocate OH/UG 115 kV & 345 kV transmission 1.6 Interstate Highway relocation Facilities in I-95 Highway Quinnipiac Bridge area. project and needed (Connecticut) maintenance. CL&P 115 kV circuit breaker replacements. 5.4Overdutied breakers. (Connecticut ) Hanover Substation – add new distribution 1.1Increase capacity and transformer and 115 kV improvements. reliability to supply load. (Connecticut) (*) Projects may have some non-PTF components

  23. Selected Program Profiles Page • Northeast Reliability Interconnection Project 24 • Northern New England Transfer Capability 27 • Northwest Vermont Reliability Project 30 • Monadnock Area Reliability 32 • NSTAR 345 kV Transmission Reliability Project 34 • North Shore Upgrades 36 • Central Massachusetts Reinforcements 38 • Southern New England Reinforcement Project 40 • Southwest Connecticut Reliability Project 42

  24. Northeast Reliability Interconnection Project PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: The Maritimes area of Canada is synchronously connected with the Eastern Interconnect by a radial 345 kV line originating in Maine at the Maine Yankee Substation and ending in New Brunswick Canada at the Keswick Substation. This line has two load taps on it, one at Orrington Substation in the Bangor Hydro Electric (“BHE”) service territory and the other at Maxcys Substation outside of Augusta in Central Maine Power (CMP) service territory. This 1970-vintage wood pole line has a total distance of around 231 miles with 150 miles being the length from Orrington to Keswick. Due to this electrically weak corridor, the transmission system is subject to a number of anomalies including separation of the two control areas. The corridor requires a number of Special Protection Systems (SPS) to allow the two control areas to operate in a reliable and secure manner. To help support the area there is also a Static Var Compensator (“SVC”) located in Chester Maine as a tap on the line. This SVC is necessary to allow the system to survive swings related to significant source loss in southern New England. The Keswick to Orrington section of the line is limited in its ability to transfer energy by the system stability response. This firm transfer limit is presently 700 MW. The existing system is not capable of providing firm transfer capability from New England to New Brunswick. The line sections south of the Orrington substation have parallel 115 kV paths that tend to serve local load but do allow for additional transfers. (cont’d)

  25. Northeast Reliability Interconnection Project(cont’d) PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT (cont’d): The combined ability of the system (parallel 345 and 115 kV lines) to transfer energy south of Orrington is limited to approximately 1,050 MW. This also creates an operating concern that if the MEPCO 345 kV facility trips, the underlying lines will be immediately overloaded necessitating action to prevent their damage. The primary specific goals are to address Keswick GCX SPS inadvertent operation and inter-Area impact violation, islanding of the Maritimes for the loss of the Keswick to Orrington line, economic benefits of increased New Brunswick to New England and Orrington South transfer capabilities, and reduction of system losses. In addition to these there are other lesser issues that are addressed as well. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): The Northeast Reliability Interconnect Project primarily consists of an approximately 144 mile, 345 kV transmission line from the Point LePreau Substation to the Orrington Substation, two additional 345 kV circuit breakers at the Orrington Substation, a 25 ohm series capacitor in the Orrington to Maxcys to Maine Yankee 345 kV line, 60 MVAr of shunt capacitors in western Maine. This project allows for the disarming of the Keswick GCX SPS for all lines in conditions, prevents the islanding of the Maritimes for the loss of the Keswick to Orrington line, increases the New Brunswick to New England and Orrington South transfer capabilities to 1,000 MW and 1,200 MW respectively. (cont’d) (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifier: 02-52002.

  26. Northeast Reliability Interconnection Project(cont’d) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ’04 UPDATE: • Presently in technical sessions. • Seeking Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) following hearings with the Maine PUC. Approval expected in 2nd Qtr. of 2005. • Other permits sought after: • MDEP – anticipating acquisition of permit in 3rd Qtr. of 2005. • DOE/Presidential Permit - anticipating acquisition of permit in 3rd Qtr. of 2005. • Engineering and procurement will begin in late 4th Qtr. contingent upon successful acquisition of permits. • ISSUE: • Some NEPOOL Participant concerns regarding OATT treatment of project related upgrades on MEPCO facilities.

  27. Northern New England Transfer Capability • PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: • The Maine-New Hampshire Interface can be restricted by voltage, thermal or stability limits. Usually the voltage limit for the interface is most constraining, followed by the thermal limit, and lastly the stability limit. The Maine-New Hampshire Interface transfer capability is very dependent on local generation dispatch. The criteria loss of both a transmission facility and a critical generating unit can result in an adverse reliability impact. The objectives of this study were to examine short term system enhancements that: • Reduce must-run generation requirements under normal operating conditions including units required for voltage regulation. • Evaluate the improvements in reliability performance of the Northern New England power system resulting from these upgrades and modifications. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): • The study assessed the thermal, voltage and stability limits for the Northern New England bulk power system to benchmark the existing system reliability performance and evaluated the impact of three transmission system upgrade alternatives. (cont’d) (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: 02-62003a and 02-62003b.

  28. Northern New England Transfer Capability(cont’d) • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (cont’d): • The three alternatives were: • Alternative 1 - Add a dynamic voltage control system at Deerfield with a 500-600 MVAR capability. • Alternative 2 - Interconnect Section 391 (Buxton-Scobie) at Deerfield and add three breakers at Buxton for the re-termination of Section 386 (Buxton-South Gorham). • Alternative 3 - Add a dynamic voltage control system at Deerfield with a 500-600 MVAR capability, interconnect Section 391 at Deerfield and add three breakers at Buxton for the re-termination of Section 386. • The Maine-New Hampshire Interface limits are shown in the table below for the existing system and the three alternatives:

  29. Northern New England Transfer Capability(cont’d) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ’04 UPDATE: • Study work continuing. • ISSUES: • Sensitivity analysis to other proposed projects in the region. • Identify the aggregate impact of projects.

  30. Northwest Vermont Reliability Project PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: Two 115 kV lines, a 115 kV interconnection with New York, and a back-to-back HVdc interconnection with TransEnergie, supply the northwestern portion of Vermont, which includes the city of Burlington. There are no major generating stations in the area and no extra high voltage transmission lines. The 115 kV transmission facilities connecting this area are long, old and have low capacity, resulting in a number of voltage and thermal loading concerns. The interconnection with New York has been unreliable due mostly to phase angle regulator (PAR) issues. Possible problems with the back‑to‑back converter station at Highgate could lead to an extended outage of the interconnection with Hydro‑Quebec. Load levels have been identified where a long term outage of a critical facility would create a major reliability problem. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): The solution includes a number of system reinforcements, centered on a new 345 kV line from West Rutland to New Haven (35.5 mi.) and a new 115 kV line from New Haven to Queen City (28.4 mi.). Additional autotransformers, phase angle regulating transformers, and dynamic and static VAR compensatory devices are also part of the plan. (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: 02-64006b through 02-64006i.

  31. Northwest Vermont Reliability Project (cont’d) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ’04 UPDATE: • Vermont Public Service Board approved modified version of project on January 28, 2005. • Certificate of Public Good has been acquired pursuant to VT PSB decision. • VELCO reviewing order to determine required I.3.9/TCA changes. • ISSUE: • None • CONDITIONS: • Required use of low reflective wire. • Re-location of many poles. • Reducing height of many poles. • Increase vegetative screening. • Use of low-noise equipment in some substations. • Placement of approximately 1.4 mi. of 115 kV transmission underground in area close to shore of Lake Champlain. • Re-location of proposed expanded substation near New Haven. • Submission of an improved VELCO proposal for its 115 kV transmission line near Ferry Rd.

  32. Monadnock Area Reliability PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: The Monadnock Region encompasses a three‑state area of southeastern Vermont, southwestern New Hampshire, and north central Massachusetts. In addition to supplying this localized load, the transmission facilities in this region are critical for supplying a much wider area, including most of Vermont and northern New Hampshire. The area is served by long, low capacity 115 kV facilities supplied by the Pratts Junction, Greggs, Webster, Hartford, Vermont Yankee and Coolidge Substations. The Flagg Pond to Pratts Junction 115 kV lines supplying this area are constructed on a double-circuit-tower. Testing has been performed at the 27,800 MW NEPOOL load level. The study consists of both thermal and voltage analyses. Specific goals are: to improve post-contingency voltage performance for the loss of the double-circuit-tower lines between Flagg Pond and Pratts Junction; eliminate under-voltage automatic load shedding schemes at Vermont Yankee, Ashburnham and Flagg Pond; and improve thermal/voltage performance for loss of the Vermont Yankee T‑4 autotransformer, the Vermont Yankee to Chestnut Hill 115 kV K-186 line, and the Coolidge to Vermont Yankee 345 kV 340 line. Contingency loss of the Coolidge to West Rutland 345 kV 350 line, or the Vermont Yankee to Amherst 345 kV 379 line, is also a problem at future, near-term load levels. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): The study assessed the thermal and voltage impact of a base line system that included some related 115 kV upgrades and five different Upgrade Plans. (cont’d) (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: 02-65001a through 02-65001i and 02-65001n.

  33. Monadnock Area Reliability(cont’d) • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (cont’d): • Of the five upgrade options analyzed, Upgrade Plan 1, which primarily consists of, but is not limited to, building a new 345/115 kV Substation at Fitzwilliam, NH, and re-conductoring the I‑135 115 kV line from Bellows Falls to Flagg Pond (52 miles), appears to provide the best overall (performance, cost and constructability) solution to the Monadnock Region problems. (Bellows Falls to Ascutney Tap 115 kV: 15 mi; re-conductor Garvins to Webster 115 kV: 23.4 mi; re-conductor Jackman to Greggs 115 kV: 20.4 mi; re-conductor Keene to Swansey 115 kV: 4.6 mi) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ’04 UPDATE: • Steady-state and sensitivity analyses have been completed and will be reviewed by TTF in February 2005. • Stability analysis on hold until March 2005. • Goal is to receive I.3.9 approval in the second quarter of 2005. • ISSUES: • None

  34. NSTAR 345 kV Transmission Reliability Project • PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: • The limited number of supply resources, proposed generation retirements, changing load and generation patterns, and continued load growth combine to create reliability problems for the system, including the Boston Import Area. The assessments included examinations of resource adequacy and operating reserve adequacy for the Boston Import Area as well as a detailed network analyses to examine potential line loadings and voltage performance for the Downtown Boston 115kV sub-area. These studies show the need for resources in the Boston area. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): • Short-Term (present – 2006): Retain the New Boston Unit 1 and the Salem Harbor plant to ensure the operating Reserve Adequacy of the Boston Import and ensure meeting first contingency coverage in the Downtown Boston 115kV sub-area. • Intermediate Term (2006): This project maintains the Boston Import Area’s reliability by increasing the Area’s import capability and eliminates the dependency on all generation requesting retirement by making the following upgrades: • Build a new 345kV substation (Stoughton) along the 316 Line corridor between West Walpole and Holbrook. • Install one pipe-type 345kV cable from Stoughton to Hyde Park (11.2 mi.). • Install a 345/115kV autotransformer at Hyde Park. • Install heat exchangers on the cables between Hyde Park and Baker St.   • Install two pipe-type 345kV cables between Stoughton and K St (2x15.4 mi.). • Install two 345/115kV autotransformers at K St. • Install 4-160MVAr shunt reactors at Stoughton and 2-160MVAr reactors at K St. (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: 02-71034a through 02-71034o.

  35. NSTAR 345 kV Transmission Reliability Project(cont’d) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ‘04 UPDATE: • EMTP Study has been completed, which was recommended by RC on December 13, 2004. • EMTP Study concluded that a Type III SPS was needed to mitigate transient over voltages for line out conditions. • MA EFSB approval on January 14, 2005. • ISO-NE I.3.9 approval on February 10, 2005. • ISSUES: • Initial analysis resulted in 2010 operating reserves need, but the retirement of generation advances the need for the proposed transmission facilities. Transmission need timing is between 2003 and 2010 depending on the amount of generation that retires. The Boston Import Area becomes deficient beyond 2007 (if Kendall does not re-activate) given the combination of proposed generation retirements and transmission upgrades. • Detailed Transmission Analysis has revealed thermal and voltage reliability criteria violations for the Downtown Boston Transmission System in 2006. Delaying the project implementation would result in dependence on Quick Start Generation to meet N-1 reliability criteria. • Any delays in the project completion would require longer retention of New Boston 1 and the Salem Harbor plant. • Integrating the project while concurrently maintaining the ability to operate large amounts of generation at the New Boston site is a significant technical challenge and will require 115 kV transmission upgrades within the Boston area.

  36. North Shore Upgrades Projects • PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: • The impact of the proposed retirement of the Salem Harbor units was evaluated for the existing transmission system for operating reserve adequacy, the potential for un-served energy, and a detailed network analysis to examine potential line loadings and voltage performance. The assessments showed dependency on the Salem Harbor units particularly the North Shore area. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): • Short-Term (present – 2006): Retain the Salem Harbor plant to ensure the operating Reserve Adequacy and to ensure meeting first contingency coverage in the North Shore sub-area. • Intermediate Term (2006): This project maintains the system’s reliability by increasing the North Shore area’s import capability, and eliminating the dependency on Salem Harbor generation, by making the following upgrades: • Re-conductor the 115 kV overhead lines B-154N and C-155N from Ward Hill to the King Street tap (5.6 mi.). • G-133 circuit upgrade (8.2 mi.). • Expand 345 kV at Ward Hill to a breaker and one half bus and split the 394 Line (Seabrook to Tewksbury) into two sections from Seabrook to Ward Hill (394N) and Ward Hill to Tewksbury (394S). • Install three additional 345-115 kV transformers (T4, T5, and T6) at Ward Hill. • Install two 115 kV 63 MVAR capacitors at Salem Harbor station. (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: 02-71028a through 02-71028f.

  37. North Shore Upgrades Projects (cont’d) • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (cont’d): • Long Term (Beyond 2006): • The North Shore import capability will need to be strengthened beyond 2006. At the 2006 load level and with maximum generation in the Downtown Boston sub-area, the Golden Hills transformers become overloaded. The long-term solution of creating a parallel path to the Golden Hills transformer requires the following upgrades: • Creation of a new 345-115kV substation at Wakefield Junction, connecting the 345 kV #339 line and the 115 kV S-145 and T-146 lines. • Modification and expansion of the 345 kV Golden Hills substation. • or • A preferred alternative may be to retire the aging Golden Hills 345 kV gas-insulated substation and combine functionality into the new Wakefield Junction station. • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ’04 UPDATE: • Massachusetts regulatory authorities continue to review applications for exemptions from local zoning requirements.. • ISSUES: • Delays in the ‘intermediate term project’ primarily due to finalizing design to meet local zoning requirements. • A delay in the ‘long term project’ would require some dependency on the Salem Harbor plant.

  38. Central Massachusetts Reinforcements • PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: • The existing transmission system in Central Massachusetts has several reliability problems. When tested for the 2003 summer peak load case with a NEPOOL load of 25200 MW, the existing transmission system in Central MA showed many thermal and voltage criteria violations. Specifically, the two 115-69 kV transformers at Millbury substation, the two 115-69 kV transformers at Ayer substation and the two 345-115 kV transformers at Sandy Pond substation show thermal overloads. The 230 kV substation at Pratts Jct, the 115 kV substations at Flagg Pd, Barre, Paxton, Webster St and some other 69 kV substations show voltage violations. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): • The following upgrades are proposed to address the identified problems: • Develop 345,115 kV GIS substation at Wachusett. • Install two new 345-115 kV (448 MVA) transformers at Wachusett. • Reconductor 115 kV lines (O141, O141N, W175, V174 – total 32.1 mi.) • Replace two 115-69 kV autotransformers at Millbury with 56 MVA autotransformers by 2004. • Transfer half of Prospect St load form V-22E to U-21S and add two 115-69 kV autotransformers at Pratts Jct. • Install second 115-69 kV autotransformer at Wachusett. • Other 69 kV work (11 mi.). (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: 02-71026, 02-71027a through 02-71027k.

  39. Central Massachusetts Reinforcements(cont’d) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ‘04 UPDATE: • Received TCA recommended approval from the RC on January 18, 2005. • The construction schedule remains unchanged. • ISSUE: • None

  40. Southern New England Reinforcement Project PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: Connecticut is at risk of operating deficiencies at its planned 2004 summer peak, from a load adequacy standpoint. There is also difficulty transferring supply from the Massachusetts generation bordering Rhode-Island to the rest of Western Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Connecticut. Finally, there is an interrelationship of the transmission interface limits between East/West, SEMA, SEMA/RI, NEMA/Boston and CT. The most practical upgrade to alleviate these issues would be the construction of a 345-kV transmission line, which would tie all three states: Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): A number of alternative configurations are still being explored in order to most effectively address the combined reliability needs of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The currently preferred solution is the construction of a 345-kV AC overhead line, which would ultimately tie the four 345-kV substations of Millbury, Sherman Road, Lake Road and Card St. Depending on the findings from the transmission planning analysis, in terms of cost and transmission reliability, this enhancement would be composed of at least three different line segments. One segment would tie Card St. to Lake Road (about 29 mi.). A second segment would tie Lake Road to Sherman (about 16 mi.). A third segment would tie Sherman to Millbury (as long as 31 mi., depending on route taken). Besides addressing resource adequacy in Southern New England, the entire project would improve the area’s reliability from a transient/voltage performance perspective and from a transient stability perspective. It would also provide for better East to West transfers of power within New England . (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: 02-73001a, 02-73001b, and 02-74036.

  41. Southern New England Reinforcement Project (cont’d) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ’04 UPDATE: • Extensive planning analysis has been performed during which additional study metrics and possible transmission upgrades have been identified and investigated. • An integrated and cross-functional team with representatives from National Grid and Northeast Utilities has been created. • Ranking of alternatives in terms of benefits to the transmission system is expected in the • 2nd Qtr. of 2005. • ISSUES: • Additional planning analysis needed for gathering comprehensive set of data for final evaluation of alternatives.

  42. Southwestern Connecticut Reliability Project • PROBLEM STATEMENT / ASSESSMENT: • The transmission system in southwest Connecticut, when tested at both the 25,800 and 27,700 MW New England load levels, proved to be inadequate. The results showed widespread thermal and voltage criteria violations for the existing SWCT system. This situation is compounded by the lack of infrastructure necessary to interconnect new generation and an uncertainty of existing local generation remaining available in light of environmental and economic factors. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION (*): • The recommended solution is a two-phase approach. Phase I consists of a new Plumtree to Norwalk 345kV line, half overhead and half underground, coupled with other related 115 kV projects. Phase II ties this new Norwalk 345kV Substation via underground cable to the new Singer (Pequonnock) Substation and on to the new East Devon (Devon) Substation. A new overhead 345kV line connects East Devon through to a new Beseck Substation that will be constructed at the intersection of existing 345kV lines in Middletown. Other related 115 kV projects are also included. (*) Related projects can be referenced on the attached ISO-New England Project Listing with the following project identifiers: For Phase 1: 02-74015a - 02-74015e and 02-74015g - 02-74015j. For Phase 2: 02-74017a through 02-74017ab.

  43. Southwestern Connecticut Reliability Project (cont’d) • PROGRESS SINCE OCTOBER ’04 UPDATE: • Phase I: Plumtree – Norwalk 345 kV (OH 8.6 mi., UG 11.8 mi.) • Detailed engineering/procurement in progress. • TCA application filed January 12, 2005. • Consultant doing final review of transient/harmonic analyses. • Phase II: Beseck - East Devon (33.4 mi.); Oxbow Junction - Beseck Junction (7 mi.); East Devon - Singer (7.8 mi.); Singer - Norwalk (15.5 mi.); Norwalk - Glenbrook 115 kV (2x8.1 mi.); Glenbrook - Norwalk Harbor 115 kV (9.2 mi.); Scovill Rock - Chestnut Junction (2.6 mi.); Black Pond - Beseck Junction (2x2.8 mi.). • Siting review in progress with ruling due in April 2005. • Final ROC Report complete; recommended proceeding with 24 miles of XLPE UG cable - considered to be the maximum “technologically feasible”, provided certain system improvements are made. • January 11th and 13th hearings on ROC Report completed. • Technical meeting before the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) heldFebruary 14th. • CSC consultant (KEMA) supported 24 miles as the maximum underground.

  44. Updated Project Listing (as of 02/09/05) • Column Definitions • Project Listing • Reliability Projects • Interconnection Projects • Economic Projects • Elective Projects • Projects In-Service • Cancelled Projects • Local Projects

  45. April ‘05 Project Listing – Column Definitions • Part Number (Part #): The Part #’s designate the ‘need’ category of the project. Original categories are not changed when a project is placed ‘In-Service’ or ‘Cancelled”. • Part 1 – These projects are reliability upgrades. • 1a: Planned or Under Construction • 1b: Conceptual or Proposed • Part 2 – These projects are generator interconnection upgrades. • 2a: Proposed (I.3.9 approval but without Generator Interconnection Agreement), Planned (I.3.9 approval with Generator Interconnection Agreement), or Under Construction • 2b: Conceptual or Proposed • Part 3 – These projects are economic upgrades. • 3a: Planned or Under Construction • 3b: Conceptual or Proposed • Part 4 – These projects may be promoted by any entity electing to support the cost of transmission changes. The entity sponsoring the changes will have their own justification for their actions. • 4a: Planned or Under Construction • 4b: Conceptual or Proposed • Part 5 – These projects are reliability upgrades with minimal or no associated PTF costs. • 5a: Planned or Under Construction • 5b: Conceptual or Proposed • Temporary ID • The first 2 digits indicate whether the project is an RTEP02, an RTEP03, or an RTEP04 project. • The next two digits indicate what Section of the RTEP03 Technical Report discusses the area where the project is located (These digits are ‘0s’ (zeros) for the RTEP04 projects.). • The last 3 digits are sequential within a Technical Report Section to differentiate between projects. As of April ‘04, these digits are sequential only. • Small letters are used to differentiate between the components of a larger overall project.

  46. April ‘05 Project Listing – Column Definitions (cont’d) • Equipment Owner • The company listed here is the responsible equipment owner / provider designated to design and implement the project. • Projected Month/Year of In-Service • The month/year entered is the date the project is expected to be placed in service. • Major Project • Name given to a project that consists of smaller subprojects. • Project Description • A brief, high-level description of the project is entered here. It will either include major pieces of substation equipment and/or types of line work to be performed. • Status (October ‘04 or April ‘05) • In Service: The project has been placed in operation. • Under Construction: The project has received necessary approvals and a significant level of engineering or construction is underway. • Siting: The project requires ISO-NE involvement in the siting process. This entry is in addition to the actual status of the project. • Planned: The project has received I.3.9 approval (if required), but may or may not have received TCA approval. The TCA approval may be applied for at a later date at the project owner’s risk. (Generator Interconnection projects are considered ‘planned’ when they have interconnection agreements filed with and accepted by FERC.) • Proposed: A significant degree of analysis is available to show potential need for the project, but I.3.9 approval has not been received yet. ISO New England has been provided with a copy of the analysis associated with the project.

  47. April ‘05 Project Listing – Column Definitions (cont’d) • Concept: There is little or no analysis available to support a specific project, but there is sufficient information to suggest a pending need for future study work and a remedial project. • Cancelled: Project has been cancelled. • I.3.9 Approval • A date in this column signifies when the project received approval pursuant to Section I.3.9 of the NEPOOL agreement. This approval indicates that the project will have no adverse impact on the stability, reliability, or operating characteristics of the system. A ‘no’ indicates that an approval is required, but has not been received yet. An ‘NR’ indicates that an I.3.9 approval is not required. An ‘N/A’ indicates that an I.3.9 approval is not applicable because the project has been cancelled. • ROW Required • A ‘yes’ in this column indicates that either new Right of Way (ROW) has to be obtained, or existing ROW widened. It might also indicate that substation property has to be obtained. A ‘no’ indicates that no additional ROW or property is required. An ‘N/A’ indicates that ROW needs are moot because the project has been cancelled. • TCA (15.5 / 12C) Approval • A date in this column signifies when the project PTF costs were reviewed and approved. This approval indicates that it has been agreed whether, and by how much, the scope of the project and associated costs exceed regional needs. An ‘N/A’ indicates that a TCA approval is not applicable either because the project has been cancelled or because PTF costs are not involved.

  48. April ‘05 Project Listing – Column Definitions (cont’d) • TCA Category (Transmission Cost Allocation Category) • This entry represents the most likely category for cost allocation, prior to TCA approval, and the • actual category, post TCA approval. • ‘GI’ – Generator Interconnection Related Upgrade • ‘EL’ – Elective Transmission Upgrade • ‘NM’ – NEMA Upgrade • ’02 – RTEP02 Upgrade • ‘RBU’ – Regional Benefit Upgrade • ‘LBU’ – Local Benefit Upgrade • Estimated Costs • The pool-supported project cost estimate presented here should be the best estimate available. It is understood that the estimate accuracy may vary dependent on the maturity of the project. • Accuracy tolerances for these estimates are targeted as follows: • Concept Project (-50%, +200%), • Proposed Project that has been reviewed and approved by ISO-NE (-25%, +50%), • I.3.9-Approved Project (+/-25%), and • TCA-Approved Project (+/-10%)

More Related