1 / 118

TAG Meeting September 21, 2010

TAG Meeting September 21, 2010. NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC. 1. TAG Meeting Agenda Introductions and Agenda – Rich Wodyka FERC NOPR on Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation - Dani Bennett 2010 Study Scope Update and Status – Rick Anderson

verna
Download Presentation

TAG Meeting September 21, 2010

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 MeetingSeptember 21, 2010 NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC 1

  2. TAG Meeting Agenda • Introductions and Agenda – Rich Wodyka • FERC NOPR on Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation - Dani Bennett • 2010 Study Scope Update and Status – Rick Anderson • 2010 Study Preliminary Results – Joey West • Base Reliability • Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios • Climate Change Scenarios • Major Transmission Project Update – Joey West • Regional Studies Update – Bob Pierce • Report on EISPC Activities – Kim Jones • TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka • TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka 2

  3. FERC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking onTransmission Planning and Cost Allocation Dani Bennett Progress Energy 3

  4. Purpose of the NOPR • FERC proposes to require the regions to develop transmission plans and cost allocation methods that consider the benefits of new transmission facilities, including reliability, economics, and complying with state or federal laws or regulations (e.g. public policy). • FERC also proposes to require each pair of neighboring regions to coordinate transmission planning and cost allocation. 4

  5. Cost Allocation • Each region to propose its own cost allocation method • FERC would not require a one size fits all method for allocating costs of transmission facilities • Development of cost allocation proposals must start at the regional level • If region can’t decide on a cost allocation method, then FERC would decide based on the record 5

  6. Cost Allocation Principles • Regions would develop cost allocation methods based on the following principles: • Costs allocated “roughly commensurate” with estimated benefits • No involuntary allocation of costs to those receiving no benefit • Benefit-to-cost thresholds must not be excessive • No allocation of costs to other regions except pursuant to agreements • Cost allocation methods and identification of beneficiaries must be transparent • Different allocation methods could apply to different types of transmission facilities 6

  7. Benefits Regions would be required to consider benefits including reliability, economics, and enabling compliance with existing laws or regulations that may drive transmission needs. The proposal would not prevent regions from considering other public policy objectives. If a state has a law establishing a renewable electricity standard, then a region must consider transmission needs driven by that law. 7

  8. Who Gets to Build • Removal of federal rights of first refusal from FERC jurisdictional tariffs and agreements; but no preemption of states • Encourage competition and new entrants 8

  9. Merchants • Merchant transmission developers may continue to negotiate cost recovery from specific customers • Must comply with all relevant reliability requirements 9

  10. Coordination Between Regions • Evaluate benefits of transmission lines that begin in one region and end in a second region. • Identify method(s) for allocating the cost of lines that the regions decide are mutually beneficial. 10

  11. Timeline • Comments are due on September 29, 2010 • Regional compliance filings are due 6 months after final rule promulgated • Interregional transmission planning agreements and interregional cost allocation compliance filings are due 12 months after final rule promulgated 11

  12. Questions ? 12 12 12

  13. NCTPC 2010 Study Update and Status Rick Anderson Fayetteville PWC 13 13

  14. Purpose of Study Assess Duke and Progress transmission systems' reliability and develop a single Collaborative Transmission Plan Also assess Enhanced Access Study requests provided by Participants or TAG members 14

  15. Completed Steps and Status of 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 15

  16. Study Assumptions Selected Study Years for reliability analyses: Near-term: 2015 Summer, 2015/2016 Winter Longer-term: 2020 Summer LSEs provided: Input for load forecasts and resource supply assumptions Dispatch order for their resources Interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems 16

  17. Study Criteria Established NERC Reliability Standards Current standards for base study screening Current SERC Requirements Individual company criteria 17

  18. Study Methodologies Selected Thermal Power Flow Analysis – primary methodology Voltage, stability, short circuit, phase angle analysis - as needed Each system (Duke and Progress) will be tested for impact of other system’s contingencies 18

  19. Base Case Models Developed Latest available MMWG cases were selected and updated for study years Adjustments were made based on additional coordination with neighboring transmission systems Combined detailed model for Duke and Progress was prepared Planned transmission additions from updated 2009 Plan were included in models 19

  20. Resource Supply Options Selected Last year Hypothetical import/export scenarios Hypothetical new base load generation This year: Climate Change Legislation Scenarios Retire and replace existing coal generation Hypothetical NC off-shore wind 20

  21. Retire & Replace Coal Generation Retire 100% existing un-scrubbed coal by 2015, approximately 1,500 MW for Progress 2,000 MW for Duke Replace with hypothetical new generation and/or imports 21

  22. Hypothetical NC Off-Shore Wind Approximately 3,000 MW total capacity Injected at three locations on Progress system MW allocation – 60% Duke, 40% Progress 22

  23. NC Off-Shore Wind- Strawman Proposal FERC Order No: 630 The original slide contains Critical Energy Infrastructure Information and is not available to the Public 23

  24. Enhanced Access Requests 24

  25. Technical Analysis Conduct thermal screenings of the 2015 and 2020 base cases Conduct thermal screenings of the 2015 Resource Supply Options Scenarios Conduct thermal screenings of the 2015 Enhanced Access Requests 25

  26. Problems Identified and Solutions Developed Identify limitations and develop potential alternative solutions for further testing and evaluation Estimate project costs and schedule 26

  27. Collaborative Plan Projects Selected Compare all alternatives and select preferred solutions Study Report Prepared Prepare draft report and distribute to TAG for review and comment 27

  28. Questions ? 28

  29. 2010 Study Preliminary Results Joey West Progress Energy 29 29

  30. 2015 & 2020 Summer No new issues identified in Eastern or Western Areas Projects already in the Collaborative Plan to address network loadings 2015-16 Winter No new Issues identified in Western Area Preliminary Base Case Results – Progress Energy 30 30

  31. Contingencies and Year Upgrade Needed: Transformer replacement (loss of parallel bank) Sadler 230/100kV transformer, 2019 (presently scheduled for 2016) Upgrades needed for loss of parallel line: London Creek 230kV line, 2020 Operating guides needed for loss of parallel line: Norman 230kV line, 2018 Preliminary Base Case Results - Duke 31 31

  32. Projects now outside of planning window: Fisher 230 kV line (for loss of parallel line) Pushed back from 2017 Preliminary Base Case Results - Duke 32 32

  33. Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios 33 33

  34. Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios Request 1- Cleveland County- CPLE 1000 MW • Progress • Construct Lilesville-Rockingham 230 kV 3rd Line (14 Miles) • Accelerate Laurinburg 230/115kV Bank Replacement (2-3 yrs)scheduled for 2017 • Accelerate Falls 2nd- 230/115kV Bank Installation (1-2 yrs)scheduled for 2016 • Potentially Accelerate Durham-RTP 230 kV Reconductor scheduled for 2020 34 34

  35. Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios Request 1- Cleveland County- CPLE 1000 MW • Duke • Parkwood 500/230 kV transformer (for loss of parallel bank)Operating guide needed by 2020 35 35

  36. Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios Request 2- Cleveland County- DVP 1000 MW • Progress • Accelerate Laurinburg 230/115kV Bank Replacement (2-3 yrs)scheduled for 2017 • Accelerate Falls 2nd- 230/115kV Bank Installation (1-2 yrs)scheduled for 2016 • Construct Lilesville-Rockingham 230 kV 3rd Line (14 Miles) • Duke • No previously unidentified issues 36 36

  37. Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios Request 3- SOCO-DVP 1000 MW • Progress • Accelerate Laurinburg 230/115kV Bank Replacement (2-3 yrs)scheduled for 2017 • Duke • No previously unidentified issues 37 37

  38. Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios Request 4- SOCO-CPLE 1000 MW • Progress • Accelerate Laurinburg 230/115kV Bank Replacement (2-3 yrs)scheduled for 2017 • Accelerate Falls 2nd- 230/115kV Bank Installation (1-2 yrs)scheduled for 2016 • Potentially Accelerate Durham-RTP 230 kV Reconductor scheduled for 2020 • Potentially construct Lilesville-Rockingham 230 kV 3rd Line (14 Miles) 38 38

  39. Enhanced Transmission Access Scenarios Request 4- SOCO-CPLE 1000 MW • Duke • McGuire 500/230 kV transformer (for loss of Woodleaf - Pleasant Garden 500 kV line)Upgrade needed by 2020 39 39

  40. Climate Change Legislation Scenarios • Coal Generation Retirements • Hypothetical NC Off- Shore Wind Sensitivity 40 40

  41. Coal Generation Retirements Progress • Wayne County & Sutton Combined Cycles • Coal plant replacements were modeled • Scheduled for 2013 • Cape Fear & Weatherspoon Coal Plants • Retirements built into models • Exact retirement dates TBD 41 41

  42. Duke Retirements Buck Steam Station (256 MW) Lee Steam Station (370 MW) Riverbend Steam Station (266 MW) Coal Generation Retirements 42 42

  43. Duke - Preliminary No previously unidentified issues London Creek 230 kV line Pushed from 2020 to outside of planning window Norman 230 kV line No change Sadler 230/100 kV transformer No change Coal Generation Retirements 43 43

  44. Approximately 3,000 MW total capacity Injected at three locations on Progress system MW allocation – 60% Duke, 40% Progress NC Off- Shore Wind Sensitivity Scenario 44 44

  45. NC Off-Shore Wind- Strawman Proposal FERC Order No: 630 The original slide contains Critical Energy Infrastructure Information and is not available to the Public 45

  46. Hypothetical NC Off-Shore Wind Sensitivity Scenario • Original Strawman • NCTPC starting point in evaluating off-shore wind • Four Options were developed by PWG • Based on power flow results and analysis • Assessment of costs versus benefits • Solving transmission constraints for off-peak loads with wind capacity factor at 90% also solves on-peak transmission problems with lower wind capacity factors 46 46

  47. Hypothetical NC Off- Shore Wind: Option 1A Total Wind Output: 3000 MW 230 KV 500 KV Wake New Bern Wommack Bayboro1125 MW Jacksonville Cumberland Morehead 1500 MW Havelock Sutton Southport 375 MW 47

  48. Hypothetical NC Off- Shore Wind: Option 1B Total Wind Output: 3000 MW Wake 230 KV 500 KV Wommack New Bern Bayboro1125 MW Jacksonville Cumberland Morehead 1500 MW Sutton Southport 375 MW 48

  49. Hypothetical NC Off- Shore Wind: Option 2 Total Wind Output: 2500 MW Wake 230 KV 500 KV Wommack New Bern Bayboro875 MW Jacksonville Cumberland Morehead 1250 MW Havelock Sutton Southport 375 MW 49

  50. Hypothetical NC Off- Shore Wind: Option 3 Total Wind Output: 2000 MW Greenville West 230 KV 500 KV New Bern Bayboro625 MW Jacksonville Morehead 1000 MW Havelock Sutton Southport 375 MW 50

More Related