Glenn Spurlock June 10, 2013

1. FECA Engineers Conference SEMINOLE UPDATE Glenn Spurlock June 10, 2013 June 10, 2013

2. SEMINOLE UPDATE • 2013 – New General Manager • 2014 – LCEC exit • 2017 – Peaking needed (PPA vs. Build) • 2020s – Combined Cycle and Peaking needed (PPA vs. Build)

3. SEMINOLE UPDATENEW MEMBER INTERCONNECTS • CFEC – <2 MW Biogas (operational 2012) • TCEC – 2 MW Solar • CEC – 3.2 MW Landfill Gas • SECO – 5 MW Solar (removed from queue) • CEC – 12 MW Solar • GEC – 25 MW Co-Generation • TEC – 60 MW Solar • PRECO/SECI 160 MW IPP

4. SEMINOLE UPDATE • FERC Order 1000 • Regional & Interregional Transmission Planning • FERC Jurisdiction Entities Must Comply • Details: • Project Qualification Criteria • Cost Allocation Process • Project Justification: • Reliability • Cost Effective/Efficient • Public Policy • Implementation thru OATT Attachment K Process

5. OTHER INTERESTING FACTS • 2013 – Duke Crystal River 3 decommission announcement • 2016 – Duke Crystal River 1 shutdown • 2016 – Duke Crystal River 2 shutdown • FRCC does not have models available for utilities to perform transmission planning studies

6. QUESTIONS?

7. FECA Engineers Conference SWECKER VS. MIDLAND Glenn Spurlock June 10, 2013 June 10, 2013

8. Background In 1998, the Sweckers, retail customers of Midland Power Cooperative in Iowa, purchased a 65 kW wind generator for their farm. The wind generator was a renewable resource which met the requirements of a qualifying facility (QF). FECA Conference June XX, 2013

9. DISPUTES Almost immediately after being connected to Midland’s system, the Sweckers began to have disputes with Midland concerning: • What connection fee the Sweckers need to pay, as a qualifying facility (QF) or as a farm/residential connection; • What avoided cost amount Midland should pay the Sweckers for purchasing electricity; and • What venue certain legal actions must commence within, and more… FECA Conference June XX, 2013

10. Swecker POSITION The Sweckers argue that the avoided cost that Midland is paying the Sweckers for the electricity produced by their wind generator is too low, and that Midland owes the Sweckers money. The Sweckers stopped making payments for electric service to Midland, pending resolution of the issues. FECA Conference June XX, 2013

11. Swecker POSITION The Sweckers argue that because they have filed the avoided cost complaint, that the issue is still on going and thus Midland cannot disconnect the Sweckers until the issue has been fully vetted. FECA Conference June XX, 2013

12. MIDLAND ACTIONS In 2011: • FERC published its intent not to take action on the avoided cost dispute between the parties. • Midland disconnected the Sweckers due to non-payment of electric bills. • Midland stated that the Sweckers could be reconnected if the Sweckers paid their electric bill. FECA Conference June XX, 2013

13. PROPER DISCONNECT (?) On December 9, 2011, the Sweckers filed a complaint that Midland trespassed on their property and locked the Sweckers’ disconnect switch without permission, thereby shutting off electric service to the Sweckers’ QF and residence.

14. PROPER DISCONNECT (?) The Sheriff was called and Midland admitted that the disconnect switch was property owned by the Sweckers. Midland’s crew, in the presence of the Sheriff, removed the lock on the disconnect switch.

15. ISSUE Presented Can an electric utility unilaterally disconnect a QF for non-payment of past bills? FECA Conference June XX, 2013

16. EXPLANATION Answer: No FERC reasons that termination, even a temporary termination, may only be accomplished by following the FERC’s rules for termination, i.e., applying to FERC for the ability to terminate. FECA Conference June XX, 2013

17. Dec. 15, 2011 FERC Order Holding and Analysis “[W]e find Midland’s disconnection of the Sweckers’ QF to be inconsistent with its obligations under PURPA.” Under section 210(a) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA,) Midland has an obligation to purchase from QFs and to sell electricity to QFs. FECA Conference June XX, 2013

18. Dec. 15, 2011 FERC Order • Holding and Analysis Before the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), disconnection of QFs for non-payment of bills was left to State regulatory authorities. In implementing EPAct 2005, however, this issue was addressed, and provided specific FERC regulations on, how an electric utility may terminate its obligations to purchase from and sell to QFs. FECA Conference June XX, 2013

19. Dec. 15, 2011 FERC Order • Holding and Analysis The Sweckers receive retail service from Midland, which is usually beyond the reach of FERC authority to regulate. However, the Sweckers also own a QF onsite with certain FERC buying and selling requirements. PURPA does not allow services to a QF to be disconnected unilaterally by and at the sole discretion of the interconnected purchasing/selling electric utility, here Midland, merely because that electric utility also happened to be selling retail service. FECA Conference June XX, 2013

20. RECOMMENDATION • Seek legal advice prior to disconnection of a QF.

21. Questions FECA Conference June XX, 2013

22. FECA Engineers Conference LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS Glenn Spurlock June 10, 2013 June 10, 2013

23. LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS • Transmission facilities are deemed “integrated” if they meet any one of the Mansfield Test criteria AND • Integrated transmission facility capital costs are rolled-in to transmission Rate-Base

24. LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS • Mansfield Test for Integrated Trans. Facilities • Facilities are looped • Energy can flow in both directions • Transmission Owner provides services over the facility to other customers • Facility provides for higher system reliability • An outage of the facilities would have an adverse effect on the system and to other customers

25. LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS

26. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO US? • TDU cooperatives may want higher reliability that comes from looped Delivery Points • TOs are responsible for controlling their Rate Base charges and therefore determine when facilities are to be looped on their system (w/costs rolled into Rate Base) • FERC has no mechanism for TOs to accept CIAC for looping Delivery Points

27. Questions FECA Conference June XX, 2013

28. FECA Engineers Conference DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA Glenn Spurlock June 10, 2013 June 10, 2013

29. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA • Seminole has 60-65% of its Member load imbedded in the Duke Florida transmission system. • Some Seminole Members seek a higher level of reliability via looped delivery systems.

30. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA • Progress Energy Florida has permitted the looping of wholesale-customer Delivery Points under limited circumstances • Seminole is strongly encouraging Duke to permit looping of cooperative Delivery Points • Seminole is strongly encouraging Duke to develop a written Looping Criteria Guideline document to assure equity of treatment

31. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA • If Duke agrees to loop delivery points: • Duke must role the costs into the Rate Base • Duke must develop rules & regulations on how looping will be done

32. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA • Duke Risk • A transmission customer may challenge the looped facilities are “Gold Plated” reliability and should not be paid by all transmission customers. • If Duke were to lose such a challenge, Duke shareholders may be on the hook to pay for all such loop facilities

33. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA • Possible Duke requirements: • Ownership of transmission line continuity • Duke owned transmission circuits (in & out) • Duke owned substation facilities (in series with line) • Duke standards for design/construction • Duke Facility Ratings • Duke approves all future connections and modifications • Duke approves all maintenance and switching operations

34. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA • Under limited circumstances, Members may be permitted to perform necessary construction of Duke facilities (as a Duke contractor) • If existing cooperative owned line/substation facility is to be used to complete the transmission loop, Duke may buy facilities or pay credits for use of facilities

35. DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA

36. FECA Engineers Conference Looped Substation Configurations Glenn Spurlock June 10, 2013 June 10, 2013

37. Single Bus Configuration The single bus substation configuration is the simplest of configurations, but is also the least reliable. In the arrangement shown, the circuit must be de-energized to perform breaker maintenance, which can be overcome by the addition of breaker bypass switches, but this may then disable protection systems.

38. Single Bus ConfigurationAdvantages & Disadvantages Single Bus Advantages: • Lowest cost • Small land area • Easily expandable • Simple in concept and operation • Relatively simple for the application of protective relaying Single Bus Disadvantages: • Single bus arrangement has the lowest reliability • Failure of a circuit breaker or a bus fault causes loss of entire substation • Maintenance switching can

39. Sectionalized Bus Configuration The sectionalized bus configuration is merely an extension of the single bus layout. The single bus arrangements are now connected together with a center breaker that may be normally open or closed. Now, in the event of a breaker failure or bus bar fault, the entire station is not shut down. Breaker bypass operation can also be included in the sectionalized bus configuration.

40. Sectionalized Bus ConfigurationAdvantages & Disadvantages Sectionalized Bus Advantages: • Flexible operation • Isolation of bus sections for maintenance • Loss of only part of the substation for a breaker failure or bus fault Sectionalized Bus Disadvantages: • Additional circuit breakers needed for sectionalizing, thus higher cost • Sectionalizing may cause interruption of non-faulted circuits

41. Main & Transfer Bus Configuration A main and transfer bus configuration means there are two separate and independent buses; a main and a transfer. Normally, all circuits, incoming and outgoing, are connecting the main bus. If maintenance or repair is required on a circuit breaker, the associated circuit can be then fed and protected from the transfer bus, while the original breaker is isolated from the system.

42. Main & Transfer Bus ConfigurationAdvantages & Disadvantages Main and Transfer Bus Advantages: • Maintain service and protection during circuit breaker maintenance • Reasonable in cost • Fairly small land area • Easily expandable Main and Transfer Bus Disadvantages: • Additional circuit breaker needed for bus tie • Protection and relaying may become complicated • Bus fault causes loss of the entire substation

43. Ring Bus Configuration The ring bus configuration is an extension of the sectionalized bus. In the ring bus, a sectionalizing breaker has been added between the two open bus ends. Now there is a closed loop on the bus with each section separated by a circuit breaker. This provides greater reliability and allows for flexible operation. The ring bus can easily adapted to a breaker-and-a-half scheme, which will be looked at next.

44. Ring Bus Advantages & Disadvantages Ring Bus Advantages: • Flexible operation • High reliability • Double feed to each circuit • No main buses • Expandable to breaker-and-a-half configuration • Isolation of bus sections and circuit breakers for maintenance without circuit disruption Substation Configuration Reliability 7 Ring Bus Disadvantages: • During fault, splitting of the ring may leave undesirable circuit combinations • Each circuit has to have its own potential source for relaying • Usually limited to 4 circuit positions, although larger sizes up to 10 are in service. 6 is usually the maximum terminals for a ring bus

45. Breaker-and-a-Half Configuration A breaker-and-a-half configuration has two buses but unlike the main and transfer scheme, both busses are energized during normal operation. For every 2 circuits there are 3 circuit breakers with each circuit sharing a common center breaker. Any breaker can be removed for maintenance without affecting the service on the corresponding exiting feeder, and a fault on either bus can be isolated without interrupting service to the outgoing lines. If a center breaker should fail, this will cause the loss of 2 circuits, while the loss of an outside breaker would disrupt only one. The breaker-and-a-half scheme is a popular choice when upgrading a ring bus to provide more terminals.

46. Breaker-and-a-Half ConfigurationAdvantages & Disadvantages Breaker-and-a-Half Advantages: • Flexible operation and high reliability • Isolation of either bus without service disruption • Isolation of any breaker for maintenance without service disruption • Double feed to each circuit • Bus fault does not interrupt service to any circuits • All switching is done with circuit breakers Breaker-and-a-Half Disadvantages: • One-and-a-half breakers needed for each circuit • More complicated relaying as the center breaker has to act on faults for either of the 2 circuits it is associated with • Each circuit should have its own potential source for relaying

47. Double Breaker-Double Bus Configuration Like the breaker-and-a-half, the double breaker-double bus configuration has two main buses that are both normally energized. Here though, each circuit requires two breakers, not one-and-a-half. With the addition of the extra breaker per circuit, any of the breakers can fail and only affect one circuit. This added reliability comes at the cost of additional breakers, and thus is typically only used at large generating stations.

48. Double Breaker-Double Bus Advantages & Disadvantages Double Breaker-Double Bus Advantages: • Flexible operation and very high reliability • Isolation of either bus, or any breaker without disrupting service • Double feed to each circuit • No interruption of service to any circuit from a bus fault • Loss of one circuit per breaker failure • All switching with circuit breakers Double Breaker-Double Bus Disadvantages: • Very high cost – 2 breakers per circuit

49. Comparison of Bus Configuration Costs If one assumes that the Single Bus configuration costs $100k, then the math can easily be done by using the relative cost comparison.

50. Questions?