1 TAG Meeting December 4, 2008 NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC.

1

TAG MeetingDecember 4, 2008

NCEMC Office

Raleigh, NC

2

TAG Meeting Agenda1. Administrative Items – Rich Wodyka

2. 2008 Study Final Results – Joey West

3. 2009 Study Scope – Bob Beadle

4. Duke and Progress Attachment K Compliance Filings – Kendal Bowman

5. Update on Regional Studies – Bob Pierce

6. 2009 TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka

7. TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka

33

Joey West

Progress Energy

Report on Final Results of 2008 Study

44

Base Reliability Results

- 2013 and 2018

- Planned new generation units Sensitivity Cases

- Wind

- TPL Reliability Standards

Outline of 2008 Study Results

55

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)

2013S and 2018S Results

66

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

77

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

Wind Sensitivity Case – 2018S Results

88

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

TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results

99

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

TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results – Cont’d

1010

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

TPL Standards Sensitivity – 2018S Results – Cont’d

111111

Comparison to Previous Collaborative Transmission Plan

2007Supplemental

Plan2008 Draft Results

Number of projects with an estimated cost of $10 million or more each

18 16

Total estimated cost of Plan $523 M $520 M

Planning horizon 2007-2017 2008-2018

Date Plan published 05/16/08 TBD

1212

Import ScenariosMajor Projects in 2008 Plan

Reliability Project TO Planned I/S Date

Rockingham-West End 230 kV line Progress June ’09

Richmond 500 kV sub, reactor Progress December ’09

Clinton-Lee 230 kV line Progress June ’10

Asheville-Enka 230 kV line, Convert 115 kV line; &

Asheville-Enka 115 kV, Build new lineProgress

December ’10

December ’12

Rockingham-West End 230 kV East line Progress June ’11

Harris-RTP 230 kV line Progress June ’11

Pleasant Garden-Asheboro 230 kV line, replace Asheboro 230 kV xfmrs

Progress

& Duke

June ’11

1313

Import ScenariosMajor Projects in 2008 Plan (Continued)


Rockingham-Lilesville 230 kV line Progress June ’11

Richmond-Ft Bragg Woodruff Street 230 kV Line

Progress June ‘11

Jacksonville Static VAR Compensator Progress June ’12

Greenville-Kinston Dupont 230 kV line Progress June ’13

Folkstone 230/115kV Substation Progress June ‘13

Add 3rd Wake 500/230 kV xfmr Progress June ’13

Durham-RTP 230kV Line, Reconductor Progress June ‘ 14

Cape Fear-West End 230 kV West line, Install reactor

Progress June ’16

14

Import ScenariosMajor Projects in 2008 Plan (Continued)


Sadler Tie-Glen Raven Main Circuit 1 & 2 (Elon 100 kV Lines), Reconductor

Duke June ‘11

151515

16

2009 NCTPC StudyScope

Bob Beadle

North Carolina EMC

17

1. Assumptions Selected2. Study Criteria Established3. Study Methodologies Selected 4. Models and Cases Developed5. Technical Analysis Performed6. Problems Identified and Solutions Developed7. Collaborative Plan Projects Selected8. Study Report Prepared

Steps the Study Process

18

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

Collaborative Study Process

19

LSEs provide:– Load forecasts and resource supply

assumptions– Dispatch order for their resources

Area interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems

Study Inputs

20

TAG request to be distributed in mid February, 2009

Requests can now include in, out and through transmission service

Enhanced Transmission Access Requests

21

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

2009 Study

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 1. Coordination

2. Openness

3. Transparency

4. Information Exchange

5. Comparability

6. Dispute Resolution

7. Regional Participation

8. Economic Planning Studies

9. Cost Allocation

Duke/Progress Attachment K

Partially Complies

Partially Complies

Partially Complies

Partially Complies

Partially Complies

Partially Complies

Complies

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 – ParticipationEight TAG Sectors: 1. Cooperative Load-Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC

footprint)

2. Municipal Load-Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC footprint)

3. Investor-Owned Load Serving Entities (serving load in the NCTPC footprint)

4. Transmission Providers/Transmission Owners that are not LSEs in the NCTPC footprint

5. Transmission Customers (a customer taking Transmission Service from at least one Transmission Provider in the NCTPC footprint)

6. 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))

7. Eligible Customers and Ancillary Service Providers (includes developers; ancillary service providers (including demand response resources), power marketers not currently taking transmission service)

8. 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

Sector No. of

Voters

Yes Votes

No Votes

Sector Yes Vote

Sector No Vote

Weighted Sector

Yes Vote

Weighted Sector No Vote

Coop LSE 6 6 0 1.00 0 .20 0

Muni LSE 8 2 6 .25 .75 .05 .15

IOU LSE 2 1 1 .50 .50 .10 .10

TP/TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TCs 1 0 1 0 1.00 0 .20

GICs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ECs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GP 10 6 4 .60 .40 .12 .08

Total Vote 0.47 0.53

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

464646

47

Update on Regional Studies

Bob Pierce

Duke Energy

48

Ongoing Studies- SCRTP- SIRPP- JCSP

Status Update Where to go for more information

Regional Processes

49

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.

SC Regional Transmission Planning Process

50

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


51

Initial results were reported at the 11/06/08 SCRTP meeting in Charleston

Stakeholder input on the initial results was requested, including study refinements and other solution options to consider

www.scrtp.com


52

Sponsors PowerSouth

Dalton Utilities Georgia Transmission Corporation (GTC)

Duke Energy Carolinas Entergy Companies

E. ON U.S. Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG)

Progress Energy Carolinas Santee Cooper

South Carolina Electric & Gas South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA)

Southern Companies Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Southeast Inter-Regional Planning Process

53

NCTPC submitted requests to study- 3,000 MW from MISO to VACAR- 3,000 MW from SOCO to PJM (classic)- 3,000 MW from PJM (classic) to SOCO

5 of the 16 requests submitted were selected at 7/10/08 meeting


54

Requests to be studied- 2,000 MW from Entergy to SOCO- 2,000 MW from PJM west to SOCO- 5,000 MW from SPP to SOCO- 3,000 MW from SOCO to PJM (classic)- 3,000 MW from PJM (classic) to SOCO

Preliminary study results expected by January 2009

www.southeastirpp.com


55

MISO, PJM, SPP, TVA, ISO New England, New York ISO and the MAPP

Entergy is participating in the JCSP primarily through SPP

Joint Coordinated System Planning

56

Reliability assessment – 2018 Reference case

Economic assessment – 2024 Wind Integration case


57

Main focus is the economic assessment

Performed in collaboration with the DOE’s Eastern Wind Integration Transmission Study

Objective to investigate both 20% and 30% wind energy penetration scenarios in the bulk of the Eastern Interconnection and the transmission required to support that level of wind penetration

The JCSP study adopted the DOE assumptions and added them to a Reference case that acts as a baseline for comparison


61

Working to refine results to optimize the cost/benefit ratio based on the assumptions regarding wind integration

www.jcspstudy.org


626262

63

Rich Wodyka

Independent Consultant

2009 TAG Work Plan Review

64 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter

Enhanced Access Planning Process

Coordinated Plan Development

Perform analysis, identify problems, and develop solutions

Review Reliability Study Results

Evaluate current reliability problems and transmission upgrade plans

Propose and select enhanced access scenarios and interface

Perform analysis, identify problems, and develop solutions

Review Enhanced Access Study Results

Reliability Planning Process

OSC publishes DRAFT Plan

TAG review and comment

Combine Reliability and Enhanced Results

2009 Overview Schedule

TAG Meetings

65

January - February

Finalize 2009 Study Scope of Work- Receive final 2009 Reliability Study Scope for comment- Review and provide comments to the OSC on the final 2009

Reliability Study Scope including the Study Assumptions; Study Criteria; Study Methodology and Case Development

- Receive request from OSC to provide input on proposed Enhanced Transmission Access scenarios and interfaces for study

- Provide input to the OSC on proposed Enhanced Transmission Access scenarios and interfaces for study

Proposed 2009 TAG Work Plan

66

April - May TAG Meeting

Receive feedback from the OSC on what proposed Enhanced Transmission Access scenarios and interfaces will be included in the 2009 study

Receive a progress report on the 2009 Reliability Planning study activities and results

67

June - July TAG Meeting 2009 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, PROBLEM

IDENTIFICATION and SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT– TAG will receive a progress report from the PWG on the 2009

study– TAG will be requested to provide input to the OSC and PWG

on the technical analysis performed, the problems identified as well as proposing alternative solutions to the problems identified

– Receive update status of the upgrades in the 2008 Collaborative Plan

– TAG will be requested to provide input to the OSC and PWG on any proposed alternative solutions to the problems identified through the technical analysis

68

August - September TAG Meeting 2009 STUDY UPDATE

– Receive a progress report on the Reliability Planning and Enhanced Transmission Access Planning studies

2009 SELECTION OF SOLUTIONS– TAG will receive feedback from the OSC on any alternative

solutions that were proposed by TAG members

69

December

2009 STUDY REPORT– Receive and comment on final draft of the 2009

Collaborative Transmission Plan report

TAG Meeting– Receive presentation on the draft report of 2009

Collaborative Transmission Plan – Provide feedback to the OSC on the 2009 NCTPC

Process– Review and comment on the 2010 TAG Work Plan

Schedule

71

TAG Open Forum Discussion

1 TAG Meeting December 4, 2008 NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC.

Documents

Transcript of 1 TAG Meeting December 4, 2008 NCEMC Office Raleigh, NC.