1 / 71

TAG Meeting December 4, 2008

TAG Meeting December 4, 2008. NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC. TAG Meeting Agenda Administrative Items – Rich Wodyka 2008 Study Final Results – Joey West 2009 Study Scope – Bob Beadle Duke and Progress Attachment K Compliance Filings – Kendal Bowman Update on Regional Studies – Bob Pierce

suchi
Download Presentation

TAG Meeting December 4, 2008

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. TAG MeetingDecember 4, 2008 NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC

  2. TAG Meeting Agenda • Administrative Items – Rich Wodyka • 2008 Study Final Results – Joey West • 2009 Study Scope – Bob Beadle • Duke and Progress Attachment K Compliance Filings – Kendal Bowman • Update on Regional Studies – Bob Pierce • 2009 TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka • TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka

  3. Joey West Progress Energy Report on Final Results of 2008 Study 3

  4. Outline of 2008 Study Results • Base Reliability Results • 2013 and 2018 • Planned new generation units • Sensitivity Cases • Wind • TPL Reliability Standards 4

  5. 2013S and 2018S Results • 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) 5

  6. 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 6

  7. Wind Sensitivity Case – 2018S Results • 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 7

  8. TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results • 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 8

  9. TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results – Cont’d • 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 9

  10. TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results – Cont’d • 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 10

  11. Comparison to Previous Collaborative Transmission Plan 11 11

  12. Import Scenarios 12

  13. Import Scenarios 13

  14. Import Scenarios

  15. Questions ? 15 15

  16. 2009 NCTPC StudyScope Bob Beadle North Carolina EMC

  17. Steps the Study Process 1. Assumptions Selected 2. Study Criteria Established 3. Study Methodologies Selected 4. Models and Cases Developed 5. Technical Analysis Performed 6. Problems Identified and Solutions Developed 7. Collaborative Plan Projects Selected 8. Study Report Prepared

  18. Collaborative Study Process 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

  19. Study Inputs LSEs provide: Load forecasts and resource supply assumptions Dispatch order for their resources Area interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems

  20. Enhanced Transmission Access Requests TAG request to be distributed in mid February, 2009 Requests can now include in, out and through transmission service

  21. 2009 Study 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

  22. Questions ?

  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 Coordination Openness Transparency Information Exchange Comparability Dispute Resolution Regional Participation Economic Planning Studies Cost Allocation Duke/Progress Attachment K Partially Complies Partially Complies Partially Complies Complies Complies Partially Complies Partially Complies Partially 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 – Participation Eight TAG Sectors: • Cooperative Load-Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC footprint) • Municipal Load-Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC footprint) • Investor-Owned Load Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC footprint) • Transmission Providers/Transmission Owners that are not LSEs in the NCTPC footprint • Transmission Customers (a customer taking Transmission Service from at least one Transmission Provider in the NCTPC footprint) • 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)) • Eligible Customers and Ancillary Service Providers (includes developers; ancillary service providers (including demand response resources), power marketers not currently taking transmission service) • 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. 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

  46. Questions ? 46 46

  47. Update on Regional Studies Bob Pierce Duke Energy

  48. Regional Processes Ongoing Studies SCRTP SIRPP JCSP Status Update Where to go for more information

  49. SC Regional Transmission Planning Process 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.

  50. SC Regional Transmission Planning Process 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

More Related