Relationship-Based • Member-Driven • Independence...

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SPP-ITO LG&E/KU Stakeholder Meeting Agenda

November 16, 2010 Hyatt Regency Louisville, 320 W Jefferson Louisville, KY 40202

• A G E N D A • 8:30 AM (Breakfast 7:30 – 8:30)

Dial in Access: 1-877-937-6918 Participant Code: 5038185 7:30 - 8:30 Breakfast

Introduction & Overview ……….….………………..….David Kelley (Manager, Engineering Administration)

Action Items from Spring 2010 Stakeholders ………….….…………………………David Kelley (ITO)

ITO Operations …………………………………………………………………………..Chris Mann (ITO)

• Operation Data

• AFC/ATC

ITO Generator Interconnection (GI) Studies ……………….…………..……………………Doug Clark (ITO)

• GI Queue

Interim Generator Interconnection Service………………………….…………………Derek Rahn (LG&E/KU)

System Impact Study Agreement (SISA) Process …………………..……………………Matt Harward (ITO)

ITO System Impact Studies (SIS) ....……………………..………...………………………Chris Mann (ITO)

• SIS Metrics

ITO Update of 2009 TEP Review………….………………………………………..………Jason Robison (ITO)

LG&E/KU Expansion Plan Update……………….……………..………………….…..Tom Seeley (LG&E/KU)

Stakeholder Planning Committee Update …………………..………………….…..Dick Chapman (OMU)

Open Forum – Stakeholder Feedback & Wrap-Up ……………………..……………David Kelley (ITO)

Adjourn/Break

Stakeholder Planning Committee (SPC) Meeting………………………………..…..... Dick Chapman (OMU)

Relationship-Based • Member-Driven • Independence Through Diversity

Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary • Reliability & Economics Inseparable

Fall 2010 Stakeholders MeetingNovember 16, 2010

Prepared by:Independent Transmission Organization

Introductions & Overview

David KelleyNovember 16, 2010

3

Introduction

• Logistics– Safety

– Breaks/Lunch

– Restrooms

– Silence Cell Phones and Blackberries

– Name & Company when Speaking

• Introductions

Overview of Meeting

• Action Items from Spring 2010 Stakeholders

• ITO Operations Presentation

• ITO Generator Interconnection (GI) Studies

• Interim Generator Interconnection Service

• ITO System Impact Studies (SIS)

• ITO Update of 2009 Transmission Expansion Plan (TEP) Review

4

Overview of Meeting

• LG&E/KU Expansion Plan Update

• Stakeholder Planning Committee Update

• Open Forum

• Adjourn/Break

• Stakeholder Planning Committee (SPC) Meeting

5

6

Action Items from Spring 2010 Meeting

David Kelley

November 16, 2010

7

Action Items

• Form a DNR/NITS Task Force

• Submit requests for different statistics at future stakeholders meetings to David Kelley or Derek Rahn.

• ITO will check on and provide more information on the StLouis_East_Interface flowgate.

• ITO to check on the OATT Business Practices for the interpretation of a week (Sun – Sun or Mon –Mon)

8

Action Items

• LG&E/KU to check the proper flowgate name for the Ghent – Speed line and report back to the ITO and TVA.

• Chris Lax will follow up with Larry Monday on the possible double‐counting of monthly TSRs.

• ITO to change the ‘Type’ for LGE‐GIS‐2009‐004 Trimble Cty

• Form a GI Working Group potentially called ‘Generation Interconnection Working Group’

Relationship‐Based • Member‐Driven • Independence Through DiversityEvolutionary vs. Revolutionary • Reliability & Economics Inseparable

Contact SPPITO

[email protected]

http://www.spp.org/ito

General Inquiries: 501‐614‐3200

Questions?

mailto:[email protected]

Fall Stakeholders Meeting – ITO Operations

Chris Mann

November 16, 2010

ITO Operations

• Operational Data

– Tariff Administration

– Scheduling

– TLR Statistics

• Available Transfer Capacity

– Daily Firm Metrics

– Hourly Non‐Firm Metrics

• Stakeholder Questions

11

Tariff Administration

• Reservations

– 7826 Total Reservations processed

– 5852 TSRs Confirmed

– 4 TSRs in Study

– 1248 TSRs Refused or Declined

– 722 TSRs Withdrawn, Retracted, Annulled, Invalid, Displaced or Superseded

• Additional reservation statistics can be found at http://www.spp.org.

12

http://www.spp.org/

Scheduling

• The ITO processed 7238 e‐Tags from April 2010 through September 2010.

• 2,000,000+ MWH were scheduled

13

Path Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Grand TotalBREC-LGEE 910 906 1,089 1,051 992 640 5,588EEI-LGEE 3,286 7,200 24,977 11,388 6,966 7,178 60,995EKPC-LGEE 0 0 0 150 81 0 231LGEE-MISO 47,104 56,133 75,080 65,121 81,797 74,294 399,529LGEE-PJM 60,465 135,131 156,730 146,571 219,905 246,906 965,708LGEE-TVA 1,094 5,934 3,903 6,424 5,695 1,580 24,630MISO-LGEE 57,833 64,133 74,146 63,009 70,276 56,513 385,910OVEC-LGEE 89,876 84,749 108,199 92,904 113,913 102,872 592,513OVEC-MISO 13,946 13,831 16,460 14,582 29,991 17,007 105,817PJM-BREC 630 2,527 1,876 3,348 0 209 8,590PJM-LGEE 14,009 16,316 29,830 23,797 68,348 32,508 184,808TVA-LGEE 758 1,574 3,639 349 527 699 7,546Total 289,911 388,434 495,929 428,694 598,491 540,406 2,741,865

MWh Used from April 2010 through September 2010

TLR Statistics

14

• 215 TLRs called on LG&E flowgates; 176 TLR Level 3s

FLOWGATE TLRs CALLEDSmith – Green River Steel 138 KV (flo) Green River – Wilson 161 KV 108Smith Green River Steel 138 KV (flo) Smith 345/138 Xfmr 87Green River Steel – Green River 138 KV (flo) Green River – Wilson 161 KV 11Smith – Green River 138 KV (flo) Daviess – Coleman 345 KV 7Cloverport – New Hardinsburg 138 KV (flo) Cloverport – Hardinsburg 138 KV 2Total 215

TLRs per Flowgate ‐ April 2010 through September 2010

TLR LEVEL TLRs CALLED TLR 3A 160 TLR 3B 16 TLR 4 28 TLR 5A 10 TLR 5B 1Total 215

TLRs per LevelMONTH TLRs CALLEDApril 0May 129June 7July 0August 0September 79Total 215

TLRs per Month

* The TLR information was provided by the Reliability Coordinator (TVA).

Daily Firm Metrics

• Below are the most frequently limited (ATC ≤ 0) flowgates for Daily Firm

– Livingston‐Earlington North 161 (flo) Livingston‐Crittenden 161

– 10NEWTVL 161 14COLE 5 161

– Ohio County‐Shrewsbury (flo) Hardin Co‐Daviess Co 345 Kv

– Ohio County‐Shrewsbury (flo) Brown‐Hardin Co‐Daviess Co 345 kV

– Albion‐Crossville 138 (flo) Newton‐Xenia 345

• Analysis of the Daily Firm ATC Metrics can be found at http://www.spp.org.

15

http://www.spp.org/

Hourly Non‐Firm Metrics

• Below are the most frequently limited (ATC ≤ 0) flowgates for Hourly Non‐Firm

– Newtonville 138/161 Xfm T3 flo Newtonville 138/161 Xfm T5

– Albion‐Crossville 138 (flo) Newton‐Xenia 345

– Ohio County‐Shrewsbury (flo) Hardin Co‐Daviess Co 345 Kv

– Livingston‐Earlington North 161 (flo) Livingston‐Crittenden 161

– Trimble Co.‐Clifty Creek 345‐Rockport‐Jefferson 765

• Analysis of the HNF ATC Metrics can be found at http://www.spp.org.

16

http://www.spp.org/

Contact SPPITO

[email protected]



Questions?


GI Studies

Doug ClarkNovember 16, 2010

19

Topics

• Contact Information Update

• Current Active Study Queue

• Generation Interconnection Working Group (GIWG)

• Achievements

20

Contact Information Update

• Public info (Oasis) has been updated with new contact information for the GI studies & CEII

• New GI Studies contact: Charles Hendrix ([email protected] or (501) 614‐3546)

• Study Websitehttp://lgeestudies.spp.org/GenInterHomePage.cfm

• You will need an OATI digital certificate to access the website


http://lgeestudies.spp.org/GenInterHomePage.cfm

Active GI Study Queue Update Generation

InterconnectionNumber

Nearest Townor County

State CAIn‐Service Date(proposed)

Capacity(MW)

Type Study Status

LGE‐GIS‐2007‐004 Henderson Co KY LGEE 03/31/2011 640.0Coal/

Gasification*Impact Study In Progress

LGE‐GIS‐2008‐001 Wise Co VA EON 12/01/2011 128.8 Wind*Impact Study In Progress(Ad Hoc)

LGE‐GIS‐2008‐002 Ohio Co KY LGEE 08/01/2010 5.4 Small Sync Gen Feasibility Study Requested

LGE‐GIS‐2008‐003 Sulphur KY LGEE 08/01/2010 9.0 Small Sync Gen Feasibility Study Requested

LGE‐GIS‐2008‐004 Stanford KY LGEE 08/01/2010 5.4 Small Sync Gen Feasibility Study Requested

LGE‐GIS‐2009‐001 Paducah KY LGEE 05/01/2010 123.4 CT*Impact Study In Progress(AD HOC)

LGE‐GIS‐2009‐003 Central City KY EON 04/01/2017 690.0 CT/Steam Request Received

LGE‐GIS‐2009‐004 Bedford KY EON 10/01/2010 35.0 CT/Steam*Impact Study In Progress(Ad Hoc)

LGE‐GIS‐2010‐001 Louisville KY EON 01/01/2016 690.0 CT/Steam Feasibility Study Requested

21

* Study Report to be posted shortly

22

GIWG & Tariff Changes

• Generation Interconnection Working Group (GIWG)

• Met to discuss how to interconnect customers who are ready and willing

• A formal Interim Interconnection Process preferred rather than Ad Hoc

23

Achievements

• Ad Hoc Study completions

• GIWG and Interim Study Process

• 4 Impact Studies to be completed shortly

• Will transition to Interim Study Process

Contact SPPITO



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Questions?




25

ITO – System Impact Study Agreement (SISA) Process

Matt Harward

November 16, 2010

26

System Impact Study Agreement

• ITO sends the SIS Agreement within 30 days of request

• Customer has 15 days to return executed agreement

• Agreement Terms:– Study begins on the latter of the return of the

signed Agreement or Deposit

– Both Agreement and Deposit must be returned to begin the study

– The ITO will exercise due diligence to complete the study within 60 Days

27

Justification:

• Good utility and business practice– ITO needs mechanism to solve deposit and payment

issue

• Consistent with standard business practices of other utilities and RTOs/ISOs

• Consistent with other OATT provisions:– FAS requirements

– LGIP pro forma procedures and agreements

• Consistent with just and reasonable non‐discriminatory administration of the OATT– Same terms for all Eligible Customers

Contact SPPITO

[email protected]

[email protected]



Questions?



29

ITO – Tariff Studies

Chris Mann

November 16, 2010

30

Outline

• SIS Metrics• FS Metrics• Questions

31

SIS Metrics – 2010 Q2 and 2010 Q3

• New SISA delivered – 12• New SISA executed – 9• SIS Completed – 9• SIS Completed Late – 0• SIS Avg. Completion time – 55

32

FS Metrics – 2010 Q2 and 2010 Q3

• New FSA delivered – 5• New FSA executed – 4• FS Withdrawn ‐ 1• FS Completed – 3• FS Completed Late – 0• FS Avg. Completion time – 58

Contact SPPITO

[email protected]

[email protected]



Questions?



Transmission Expansion Plan

Jason Robison

11/16/2010

Overview

• 2009 TEP Project Overview

• Seasons Modeled

• Thermal and Voltage Limits

• Analysis Methods

• Voltage Limit Issues

• Thermal Limit Issues

• Summary

35

E.ON TEP Projects

Projects in 2008 TEP 168

Projects Completed ‐9

Projects Delayed or Eliminated ‐98

Projects Accelerated 23

Projects Added 39

Projects in 2009 TEP 123

36

TEP Seasons Modeled

37

• 2010 Summer Peak

• 2010‐11 Winter Peak





Thermal and Voltage Limits• Base Case (no outage):

• Voltage• 500kV: 1.10pu – 0.94pu

• Below 500 kV: 1.05pu – 0.94pu

• Thermal• Normal thermal rating

• N‐1 and N‐1‐1 (Category B Requirements)

• Voltage• 500kV: 1.10pu – 0.90pu

• Below 500 kV: 1.05pu – 0.90pu

• Thermal• Emergency thermal rating

38

Powerflow Analysis per Season• Contingency Analysis: Category B

• N‐1:Loss of generator with re‐dispatchLoss of lineLoss of transformer

• N‐1‐1:Loss of generator with redispatch – loss of lineLoss of generator with redispatch – loss of transformerLoss of two generators with redispatch

• 50 Generator‐Redispatch Scenarios were paired with:

• Nearly 2500 E.ON and EKPC Category B outages

• 385 ‘Outside World’ Contingencies which met or exceeded 10% threshold

• 52+ E.ON and EKPC Switching Procedures (some superseded single line outages)

• Results Organized According to Worst Case Generator Loss and Redispatch

39

Voltage Limit Issues

40

Contingency Worst Scenario Issues Season(s) Mitigation

Paddy’s Run – Lebanon JCT, Paddy’s Run Transformers, SW56

Various; including Base

Dispatch

High Voltage: Lebanon JCT,

All Models Load served by TVA. Coordinate solution.

Bonds Mill – Bonds Mill JCT

ty3_tc_cin Low Voltage: Bonds Mill Area

2014 Summer Mitigation shows thermal overloads on EKPC system.

Coordinate.

• Season Observed

• All Models

• Monitored Element

• Lebanon Junction 161kV

• Contingent Element

• Paddys Run to Lebanon Junction 161kV

• Paddys Run 161/138 kV transformers, SW56 ‐ don't reenergize other transformer if one fails

41

Voltage Issue #1

• Worst Case Scenario• Outage Trimble County 2, maximize Brown plant, scale down other

LG&E/KU units; 1.076 pu

• Appears in Base Dispatch; 1.062 pu

• Mitigation• Known issue. Load served by TVA from Summer Shade

• LG&E/KU is considering increasing the upper voltage limit in instances where load is disconnected from LG&E/KU

• Recommendation• Coordinate with TVA to develop a solution

• Reported to E.ON since 2008. (2007 TEP)

42

Voltage Issue #1

Voltage Issue #2

• Season Observed• 2014 Summer Peak

• Contingent Element• Bonds Mill – Bonds Mill Junction 69kV (LGE/KU tie)

• Causes Low‐Voltage Issues

• EKPC Switching Procedure

• Remedies Low‐Voltage but Causes Thermal Issue

• Monitored Elements• Low Voltage: (EKPC 69kV) Bloomfield, Bonds Mill Junction, Chaplin, Clay

Lick, Powell‐Taylor, Sinai, Vanarsdell (0.84 pu – 0.73 pu)

• Thermal: Bluegrass Parkway – Owens Junction

43

Voltage Issue #2

• Worst Case Scenario• Loss of Brown 3, generation replaced from Trimble County and Cinergy

• Mitigation• Switching Procedure: Overloads Line, Bluegrass Parkway – Woodlawn –

Fredericksburg – N. Springfield (EKPC line), worst 109.8%

• EKPC Switching Procedure, EKPC problem

• Recommendation• Outage of LGE/KU – EKPC tie requires EKPC Switching

• Coordinate with EKPC to develop an effective solution to the outage of this LGE/KU – EKPC tie

44

Thermal Limit Issues

45

Contingency Worst Scenario Thermal Overload Season(s) Mitigation

Pineville 722 –Pineville Station

br3_tva KU Park Plant –Pineville Station

2019 Summer Last minute rating change. Develop new project in 2010

TEP.Middletown TR 2 Transformer

cr6_br_tva cr6_tc_cin mtc_gh1

Middletown TR 2 –Middletown TR 6

2010 Summer 2014 Summer 2019 Summer

Close transfer bus between Middletown TR 2 and

Middletown TR 1. ReportGreen Co. TR 1 Transformer

mc4_br_aep Taylor Co. – Mile Lane 2010 Summer Switching procedure developed after 2009 TEP published.

Publish in 2010 TEP

Thermal Limit Issues (Cont.)

46

Contingency Worst Scenario Thermal Overload Season(s) Mitigation

Blue Lick 345/161TR, SW03

mbr_tc2 Bardstown Industrial –E. Bardstown

2014 Winter 2019 Winter

EKPC equipment, due to outage of E.ON transformer.

Coordinate. Nelson 138/69 TR, SW04

br3_lv_tc_cin Bullitt Co. TR 1 2019 Winter EKPC equipment, due to E.ON switching. Coordinate.

East Frankfort – West Frankfort, SW44

br3_lv_tc_cin Shelbyville –Shelbyville East

2019 Winter Did not occur with base dispatch. Will address in 2010

TEP. Bonnieville–Leitchfield – Ohio Co., SW54

gr4_tc_cin Hardin Co. –Stephensburg

2010 Winter EKPC facility effected by E.ON switching procedure. Initiate talks to develop a solution.

Thermal Issue #1

• Season Observed



• Pineville 722 – Pineville Station 69 kV


• KU Park Plant – Pineville Station 69kV, 101.2%

47

Thermal Issue #1

• Worst Case Scenario• Loss of Brown 3, generation replaced from TVA

• Mitigation• The rating for the monitored element was changed at the last

minute

• The overload does not occur in the 2010 Base Case Series due to a lower load forecast

• Recommendation• Verified

• Address this issue if it arises again due to load forecast changes

48

Thermal Issue #2

• Season Observed• 2010 Summer Peak, 2014 Summer Peak, 2019 Summer Peak

• Contingent Element• Middleton TR 2 (138kV/69kV)

• Monitored Element• Middletown Transformer #2 – Middletown Transformer #6 69

kV

• 2010 – 114.6%, 2014 – 101.4%, 2019 – 126.0%

49

Thermal Issue #2• Worst Case Scenario

• Loss of CR 6, generation replaced from Brown and TVA (10S)

• Loss of CR 6, generation replaced from Trimble Co. and Cinergy (14S)

• Loss of GH 1, maximize Trimble Co., scaling down other LGE/KU units (19S)

• Mitigation

• Close bus tie switch between Middletown Transformer #1 and Middletown Transformer #2

• A project was created to upgrade the overloaded facility ASAP

• Recommendation

• Document this as a new switching procedure or mitigation in 2010 TEP

• Verify model ratings for Middletown Transformer #1 – Middletown Transformer #2 bus tie switch

50

Thermal Issue #3

• Season Observed• 2010 Summer Peak

• Contingent Element• Green County Transformer 161kV/69kV (EKPC)


• Taylor County – Mile Lane 69 kV, 103.7%

51

• Worst Case Scenario• Loss of MC 4, generation replaced from Brown and AEP

• Mitigation• LG&E/KU has identified an effective switching procedure which

eliminates this issue

• Project #134 upgrades Taylor County to Mile Lane 69 kV in 2015

• Recommendation• Mitigation is effective

• Report this as a new switching procedure in 2010 TEP

52

Thermal Issue #3

• Season Observed• 2014 Winter Peak (103.73%), 2019 Winter Peak (112.71%)

• Contingent Element• Blue Lick 345kV/161kV Transformer, SW03 (open Shelby Co.

South – Shelby Co. N53)

• Monitored Element• Bardstown Industrial Tap – East Bardstown, 69 kV

53

Thermal Issue #4

• Worst Case Scenario• Loss of Trimble County 2 followed by maximization of Brown plant and

scaling down other E.ON units

• Mitigation• EKPC equipment is the limiting factor. E.ON equipment limit not

exceeded

• LG&E/KU’s Blue Lick Transformer serves only EKPC load. This is electrically equivalent to an EKPC outage

• Recommendation• Coordinate with EKPC to re‐evaluate this switching procedure and

determine if it is still an effective solution to this potential overload due to outage of LG&E/KU equipment

54

Thermal Issue #4

• Season Observed• 2019 Winter Peak

• Contingent Element• Nelson Co. 138kV/69kV Transformer, SW04 (open Bardstown

Industrial Tap – East Bardstown, 69 kV)

• Monitored Element• Bullitt Co. 161kV/69kV Transformer, 111.2%

55

Thermal Issue #5

• Worst Case Scenario

• Loss of BR 3, generation replaced from small CT’s, Trimble County, and Cinergy

• Mitigation

• Switching procedure #4 opens the free flowing interconnect at East Bardstown

• EKPC issue caused by outage of EKPC facility (Nelson 138/69)

• Recommendation

• This issue does not occur without LG&E/KU switching procedure (Bardstown Ind. Tap – E. Bardstown)

• Coordinate with EKPC to develop a solution to this potential issue due to LG&E/KU switching procedure

56

Thermal Issue #5

• Season Observed

• 2019 Winter Peak


• East Frankfort – West Frankfort 138kV, SW44 (do not re‐energize West Frankfort 138kV/69kV Transformer)


• Shelbyville – Shelbyville East 69kV, 103.3%

57

Thermal Issue #6

• Worst Case Scenario• Loss of BR 3, generation replaced from small CT’s, Trimble

County, and Cinergy

• Mitigation• This problem is not observed in the 2010 Base Case Series

• Recommendation• Verified

• Address this issue if it arises in future model series

58

Thermal Issue #6

• Season Observed• 2019 Winter Peak

• Contingent Element• Bonnieville– Leitchfield – Ohio Co. 69kV, SW54

(breaker – breaker)

• Monitored Element• Central Hardin – Stephensburg 69kV, 104.3% (EKPC)

59

Thermal Issue #7

• Worst Case Scenario• Loss of Green River 4 with power replaced by Trimble County

then Cinergy

• Mitigation• EKPC problem due to LG&E/KU outage

• EKPC must fix this problem and has been notified

• Recommendation• Continue coordination with EKPC to solve this problem

60

Thermal Issue #7

Summary

• 2 Voltage Issues• 1 Low Voltage: Mitigation could cause overloads in EKPC

• 1 High Voltage: Known issue reported since 2008

• Both issues require coordination

61

Summary

• 7 Thermal Issues• 3 Single‐element Issues, 4 Resulting from Switching Procedures

• 3 Issues Require Coordination

• 3 Overloads Above 110% (only 1 before 2019)

• 2 Mitigated by New/Ad Hoc Switching Procedures

• 2 Not Observed in 2010 Series

62

Contact SPPITO



Stakeholder Feedback

Jason Robison

[email protected]

501‐688‐1711


E.ON U.S. Stakeholder Meeting

SPC UpdateDick Chapman

November 16, 2010

2

What is the Stakeholder Planning Committee:

Attachment K of the E.ON U.S. OATT requires that transmission providers meet with and allow stakeholders input into the transmission planning process

Attachment K requires the formation of a Stakeholder Planning Committee (SPC) to act as a standing committee, providing a forum for stakeholders to provide input into the transmission planning process

Membership in the SPC is open to all interested parties (to include neighboring transmission systems and state commission representatives)

The Transmission Owner and the ITO are not formal members of the SPC, but will be invited by the SPC to participate in all SPC activities

3

SPC Objectives

Provide a forum for stakeholders to provide comments on the development of accurate data inputs for study simulations, the appropriateness of study simulations being performed, and the correctness of the execution of study simulations

Enable members to review study results as they are performed over the study development cycle

Provide members an opportunity to produce comments and reports

Be responsible for forming an Economic Expansion Planning Subcommittee (EPC)

4

SPC Development Process

SPC Kick-off meeting was held on July 14, 2009– Presentation by Keith Yocum of E.ON on Attachment K SPC requirements and

concept– Member questions were answered– Chairman was selected– Future Meeting Dates and Frequency (Monthly initially) were determined.

16 Stakeholders are members of the SPC • SPC Standard Agenda developed (8/26/09) and approved (9/30/09)• SPC Processes and Procedures document was developed (8/26/09) and

approved (9/30/09)• 11 SPC meetings held to date

5

Resolution of Issues

Issues before the SPC are to be resolved on a consensus basis whenever possible

Certain circumstances may require a vote. If so, Each SPC member’s designated representative shall have one vote, which shall be weighted based on the nature of the interest represented by that member as set forth tom the right:

SPC Member Weighted Vote

Current Transmission Customer

1.00

Current NITS Customer 1.00

Eligible Customer 1.00

Regulatory Body (KPSC, FERC, or similar)

1.00

Developers of Transmission

1.00

Developers of Generation 1.00

Developers of Demand Resources

1.00

General Public 1.00 divided bythe number ofGeneral Publicmembers inattendance

6

Economic Expansion Planning Subcommittee

The EPC Subcommittee is comprised of all SPC membersThe EPC evaluated and prioritized requests for economic studies 11 economic studies were submitted to the ITO via OASIS60 day window for submittal of EP studies on OASIS closed on 3/29/10The EPC approved 5 EP studies on March 30, 2010– TVA to LGEE Import 600MW – LGEE to MISO Export 200MW – Brown Redispatch – MISO/PJM Import to OMU and LGEE (200 MW each for a total

of 400MW) – OMU Smith Re-Dispatch with MISO Export

The 5 EP study results were presented by the TO on 09/14/10

7

Presentations and Major Discussion Items Held During Monthly SPC Meetings

E.ON-US Transmission Planning GuidelinesPlanning Study Process Information & System ConstraintsMonthly Firm ATC between Various E.ON Interconnections OASIS DemoMost Limiting Flowgates on E.ON Transmission SystemEconomic Planning Study Process & ParametersEIPC & SIRPP Transmission Planning ProcessEPC 5 Recommended Study Planning Results

8

Moving Forward

NITS/DNR SubcommitteeGenerator Interconnection Subcommittee Working Group Interconnection Agreement NOC joint meetingsOpen OASIS 60 day Queue for EP study Requests in January 2011Identification of 2011 Planning Cycle 5 EP Studies by May 2011 Stakeholders MeetingNew Chairman

9

Questions ?

Relationship-Based • Member-Driven • Independence...

Documents

Transcript of Relationship-Based • Member-Driven • Independence...