Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an...

44
2016 SPP-AECI Joint & Coordinated System Planning Draft Report January 4, 2016 Joint Planning Committee 1

Transcript of Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an...

Page 1: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

2016 SPP-AECI Jo in t & Coordinated Sys tem

Planning Draf t Repor t

January 4, 2016

Joint Planning Committee

1

Page 2: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Revision History

Date Author Change Description

12/20/16 JPC Initial draft

1/6/2016 JPC Sent to IPSAC

2

Page 3: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Table of ContentsREVISION HISTORY.........................................................................................................................................................................................2

PART I: STUDY OVERVIEW.................................................................................4SECTION 1: OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1: Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................. 51.2: Study Objective............................................................................................................................................................................51.3: Regional Planning Coordination..........................................................................................................................................61.4: Steady State................................................................................................................................................................................... 61.5: Stakeholder Collaboration......................................................................................................................................................71.6: Solution Development..............................................................................................................................................................8

PART II: TARGET AREAS.....................................................................................9SECTION 2: NORTHEAST OKLAHOMA.....................................................................................................................................................10

2.1: Target Area................................................................................................................................................................................. 102.2: Data Inputs................................................................................................................................................................................. 122.3: Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................ 122.4: Results.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

SECTION 3: BROOKLINE............................................................................................................................................................................133.1: Target Area................................................................................................................................................................................. 133.2: Data Inputs................................................................................................................................................................................. 143.3: Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................ 153.4: Results.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

SECTION 4: NORTON & GEORGETOWN..................................................................................................................................................214.1: Target Area................................................................................................................................................................................. 214.2: Data Inputs................................................................................................................................................................................. 224.3: Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................ 224.4: Results.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

SECTION 5: WHEATON..............................................................................................................................................................................235.1: Target Area................................................................................................................................................................................. 235.2: Data Inputs................................................................................................................................................................................. 245.3: Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................ 245.4: Results.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

SECTION 6: MID-MISSOURI......................................................................................................................................................................256.1: Target Area................................................................................................................................................................................. 256.2: Data Inputs................................................................................................................................................................................. 266.3: Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................ 266.4: Results.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

PART III: RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................28SECTION 7: RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................................29

7.1: Recommended Projects........................................................................................................................................................29

PART IV: APPENDIX...........................................................................................30SECTION 8: PROJECTS ANALYZED...........................................................................................................................................................31

8.1: Brookline Area Projects........................................................................................................................................................318.2: Norton - Georgetown Area Projects.................................................................................................................................358.3: Wheaton Area Projects..........................................................................................................................................................358.4: Mid-Missouri Area Projects.................................................................................................................................................35

3

Page 4: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

PART I: STUDY OVERVIEW

4

Page 5: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Section 1: Overview

1.1: Introduction This document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power Pool (SPP) - Associated Electric Cooperative Inc., (AECI) Joint and Coordinated System Planning (JCSP) study. The SPP-AECI Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) requires a JCSP study be performed every other year to assure the reliable, efficient and effective operation of the transmission system along the SPP-AECI seam. The requirements and guidelines of the study can be found in Article 7 of the SPP-AECI JOA. SPP and AECI, along with stakeholders, collaborated throughout 2016 on the performance of a JCSP study with the goal of identifying potential joint transmission projects that are mutually beneficial to both entities.

1.2: Study Objective

The primary objectives of the 2016 JCSP study are to evaluate the reliability and robustness of the combined SPP and AECI transmission systems focusing on specific target areas identified by stakeholders and staff, collaborate on the development of mutually beneficial transmission projects, and identify potential transmission upgrades for approval and construction. The Study’s primary goal is identifying mutually beneficial joint solutions that provide benefits to both SPP and AECI’s transmission systems. The geographic region of the study was on the areas surrounding the SPP – AECI seam, specifically, the focused target areas identified by staff and stakeholders (Target Areas).

SPP and AECI focused the 2016 JCSP study on pre-determined Target Areas in order to concentrate study resources on the geographic areas along the SPP-AECI seam most likely to benefit from mutually beneficial transmission projects. These areas were determined based upon historical analysis, operational experience, recent regional planning efforts, and stakeholder feedback. Figure 1.1 below is a geographical representation of the five target areas.

5

Page 6: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Figure 1.1

1.3: Regional Planning Coordination

In addition to the analysis being performed on the identified Target Areas, SPP and AECI performed a coordinated evaluation of the needs identified in the 2016 ITPNT study and AECI’s 2015-2025 Long Range Transmission Plan (LRP). The purpose of this coordinated evaluation was to determine if any joint transmission solutions exist that would be beneficial to both SPP and AECI by solving needs identified in each respective regional study.

1.4: Steady State

The 2016 JCSP study determined system improvements that will provide the most practical and cost effective means of resolving chronic operational issues and serving future loads according to the following planning standards:

6

Page 7: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

no facility loaded above 100% for N-0 and N-1 contingencies; no voltages above 105% for N-0 and N-1 contingencies (110% maximum under light

load conditions for AECI facilities only); no voltages below 95% for N-0 conditions; no voltages below 90% for N-1 contingencies; local planning criteria as submitted by Transmission Owners (TO); and each region may utilize additional transmission benefits as evaluated by each region in

their respective regional processes.

The Target Areas along the SPP-AECI seam were monitored for voltages below 90% and above 105% and loadings above 100% on the 69 kV and above system. If specific TO-submitted local planning criteria was more restrictive, that criteria was used while monitoring the respective subsystem. All 69 kV and above contingencies were evaluated in the same areas and zones.

An initial steady state analysis was performed on the power flow models to determine applicable planning criteria violations. Additional analysis was performed if typical planning models and analysis did not recreate the known operational issues outlined in the Target Areas. Operational issues were evaluated using a combination of planning and operational analysis. Operational models that reflect real time conditions were evaluated to identify issues and also to determine if proposed mitigations were effective at resolving the identified issues. The analysis of the Brookline and Norton / Georgetown Target Areas incorporated operational models.

1.5: Stakeholder Collaboration

Assumptions and procedures for the JCSP study analysis were developed through SPP and AECI stakeholder meetings that took place throughout 2016. The process was open and transparent allowing for stakeholder input. The SPP-AECI Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee (IPSAC), comprised of SPP and AECI stakeholders, was the committee primarily responsible for overseeing the 2016 JCSP study. IPSAC meetings were held on the following dates:

April 1st, 2016 - Scope Development; May 20th, 2016 - Finalized Study Scope;

o 2016 SPP-AECI JCSP Study Scope Endorsed by the IPSAC October 4th, 2016 - Issues Reviewed / Solutions Requested; December 9th, 2016 –Solutions Set Review; and

Study updates were also provided to the following SPP working groups:

SPP Seams Steering Committee SPP Transmission Working Group SPP Cost Allocation Working Group SPP Transmission Planning Summit

7

Page 8: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

1.6: Solution Development Results from the analysis of each of the Target Areas were compiled and posted to SPP’s TrueShare site on October 4th, 2016. The posting included Target Area models, Target Area needs, and a request for stakeholder-submitted solution ideas. The request for stakeholder submitted solutions deadline was set for November 7th, 2016.

Stakeholders provided solutions for all of the Target Areas being evaluated in the 2016 JCSP study. In addition to stakeholder-developed solutions, SPP and AECI staff collaborated and leveraged their respective regional processes to develop staff-proposed solutions for evaluation. Table 1.1 below shows the breakdown of projects tested per target area.

90 unique solutions ideas were studied in the 2016 JCSP study (listed in the Appendix)o 52 SPP and AECI staff-proposed solutions o 38 stakeholder-submitted solutions

6 different entities submitted solutions

Target Area Number of Solution Ideas

Brookline Area 56

Norton – Georgetown Area 5

Wheaton Area 10

Mid Missouri Area 19

Table 1.1

8

Page 9: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

PART II: TARGET AREAS

9

Page 10: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Section 2: Northeast Oklahoma

2.1: Target Area

In the 2016 Integrated Transmission Planning Near-Term (ITPNT) Assessment, SPP identified both voltage and thermal violations located in the area of Northeast Oklahoma.  Specifically, thermal violations were identified at the Oologah to Northeast Station 138kV line, Collinsville to Skiatook Tap 69kV line, CPPTransf#2 to Wilgro 69kV line, and the Gore to Vian 69kV line.  Voltage violations in the area were also identified at the Sallisaw 69kV substation, Sallisaw City 69kV substation, and the Skiatook City 69kV substation. AECI identified additional thermal violations in the Skiatook area and an existing operating directive involving Zena that becomes ineffective beginning in 2021. Figures 2.1 thru 2.4 illustrate the potential violations identified in SPP and AECI’s respective regional processes. Due to this area’s relative proximity to the SPP-AECI seam and both SPP and AECI identifying potential issues in the area, this area was chosen as one of the Target Areas to be evaluated in the 2016 JCSP.

Figure 2.1: 2016

ITPNT Voltage Needs

10

Page 11: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Figure 2.2: 2016 ITPNT Thermal Needs

Figure 2.3: 2015-2025 AECI LRP Results

11

Page 12: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Figure 2.4: 2015-2025 AECI LRP Results

2.2: Data Inputs

The 2017 ITPNT models were used for initial analysis of the Northeast Oklahoma Target Area. The area was not fully evaluated due to changes of transmission ownership in the area in 2016, which resulted in there no longer being both SPP and AECI issues in the area. Therefore, this area would no longer benefit from a joint transmission project. Once this was recognized, the area was no longer evaluated as part of the 2016 JCSP study.

2.3: Analysis An initial N-1 contingency analysis was conducted and results were compiled using the study models described above. These results indicated that there were no joint needs in the area after taking into account the change in ownership of some of the transmission facilities along with a change in the power supplier for some load in the area This area was no longer seen as potentially benefiting from a joint transmission project, so no further analysis was conducted on this Target Area.

2.4: Results After discussion between the Joint Planning Committee and the IPSAC, this area was no longer considered in the 2016 JCSP study as a result of a change in ownership of some transmission facilities and a change in power supplier for certain loads

12

Page 13: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Section 3: Brookline

3.1: Target Area

The Brookline Area is the second of the five Target Areas SPP and AECI agreed to evaluate in the 2016 JCSP study. The Brookline Area is located in southern Missouri along the SPP-AECI seam. This area has experienced reoccurring thermal and voltage issues in real-time operations. Focusing on these reoccurring issues and attempting to mimic the operational circumstances causing them to arise was a specific goal of the 2016 JCSP study. This would provide the ability to test the effectiveness of potential transmission solutions to address these issues. Figure 3.1 below shows the Brookline Area.

Figure 3.1: Brookline Area

Brookline Area Voltages

During lightly loaded seasons, SPP chronically identifies high voltage issues in real time operations on the 345 kV transmission system around Brookline. A large amount of reactive power is produced due to lightly loaded high voltage lines in southwest Missouri. Currently the issue is addressed in real-time by agreements in place between AECI, City Utilities of Springfield (CU), and American Electric Power (AEP) to reconfigure the transmission system to

13

Page 14: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

avoid high voltage. In order to prevent exceeding the 1.05 per unit (pu) voltage limit in SPP’s operating criteria, SPP and AECI wanted to explore the effectiveness of permanent transmissions solutions.

Brookline Thermal Constraints

In high system loading conditions, CU’s Brookline 345/161 kV transformer has the potential to overload for the loss of KAMO/AECI’s Brookline 345/161 kV transformer. This issue is represented by SPP flowgate 5402, ‘BRKXF2BRKXF1’. Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) was called on this flowgate in real-time operations four times in 2015, and three times so far in 2016. In addition to the TLR process, the flowgate has been activated in the SPP market for over 1100 hours. The issue is aggravated by high north to south flows and/or generation in the CU footprint being offline. Permanent transmission solutions were evaluated to alleviate overloading issues across this path in the 2016 JCSP study.

Overloads in the Brookline area are also experienced in real-time operations during periods when no hydro generation is present in the area. During spring and summer peak scenarios, planning models assume Southwestern Power Administration’s (SPA) hydro generation will be dispatched in the area of northern Arkansas and southern Missouri. However, in morning and early afternoon hours, there is often no hydro generation present. This lack of anticipated hydro generation causes reoccurring overload issues on the system in the area around Brookline. Potential transmission solutions in the area were evaluated to determine their effectiveness at resolving these issues.

3.2: Data Inputs There are two main issues at Brookline that typically do not occur at the same time and are not typically replicated in the scenarios evaluated in planning models. Three different models were utilized to evaluate the Brookline area: one was used for the voltage issues and two for the overloading issues.

Brookline Area Voltages

SPP and AECI utilized an SPP operations’ Energy Management System (EMS) model from May 2nd, 2016 at 1:00am to create PSSE v32 & v33 planning models. These models were used to evaluate potential high voltage issues in the Brookline area. The May 2nd EMS model contains real-time system conditions when the chronic high voltage issues at Brookline were observed. This data set was chosen as it represented one of the most severe occurrences when this issue was recently seen in real-time operations. This data was exported from the EMS model into PSSE where it was used to test the effectiveness of potential transmission solutions.

Brookline Thermal Constraints

SPP and AECI utilized an SPP operations’ Energy Management System (EMS) model from January 5th, 2016 at 6:40am to create the PSSE v32 & v33 planning models. These models were used to evaluate potential overloads in the Brookline area. The January 5th EMS model contains real-time system conditions when the reoccurring overload issues at Brookline were observed.

14

Page 15: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

This data was exported from the EMS model into PSSE where it was used to test the effectiveness of potential transmission solutions.

SPP and AECI also utilized a modified 2017 ITPNT model that was used to evaluate the thermal issues at Brookline when certain hydro generation in the North Arkansas / South Missouri region is not dispatched during certain hours of the day. This generation is often present and dispatched in typical planning models as these models lack the intra-day, hourly granularity necessary to evaluate issues impacted by the dispatch of hydro generation in the area. To evaluate the potential overloads at Brookline, these generators were turned off in a 2018 summer peak PSSE v32 & v33 2017 ITPNT Model series planning model to best mimic the real-time issue. All of SPA’s Hydro Units and City Utilities’ coal-fired JTEC Unit 1 and JTEC Unit 2 were removed from service in the model. Table 3.1 below lists all the generators in the area that were not dispatched in the model.

Generators not dispatched in the No Hydro ModelGreers Ferry Lake unit 1 Harry Truman unit 2 Fort Gibson unit 3Greers Ferry Lake unit 2 Harry Truman unit 3 Fort Gibson unit 4Norfork unit 1 Harry Truman unit 4 Tenkiller Ferry unit 1Norfork unit 2 Harry Truman unit 5 Tenkiller Ferry unit 2Bull Shoals unit 1 Harry Truman unit 6 Eufaula unit 1Bull Shoals unit 2 Dardanelle unit 1 Eufaula unit 2Bull Shoals unit 3 Dardanelle unit 2 Eufaula unit 3Bull Shoals unit 4 Dardanelle unit 3 Robert S Kerr unit 1Bull Shoals unit 5 Dardanelle unit 4 Robert S Kerr unit 2Bull Shoals unit 6 Ozark unit 1 Robert S Kerr unit 3Bull Shoals unit 7 Ozark unit 2 Robert S Kerr unit 4Bull Shoals unit 8 Ozark unit 3 Denson unit 1Table Rock unit 1 Ozark unit 4 Denson unit 2Table Rock unit 2 Ozark unit 5 Keystone (OK) unit 1Table Rock unit 3 Clarence Cannon PS unit 1 Keystone (OK) unit 2Table Rock unit 4 Webbers Falls unit 1 Broken Bow (OK) unit 1Beaver (AR) unit 1 Webbers Falls unit 2 Broken Bow (OK) unit 2Beaver (AR) unit 2 Webbers Falls unit 3 JTEC (SPRM) unit 1Stockton (MO) unit 1 Fort Gibson unit 1 JTEC (SPRM) unit 2Harry Truman unit 1 Fort Gibson unit 2

Table 3.1

3.3: Analysis

Brookline Area Voltages

Analysis of the study models described above illustrated the real-time occurrences of the voltage issues in the Brookline area. The models resulted in high voltage issues occurring in the area

15

Page 16: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

using the selected real-time operating conditions. The results of the analysis were compiled and posted on SPP’s TrueShare site for stakeholder accessibility.

Brookline Thermal Constraints

Two different sets of analyses were performed on the Brookline thermal issues. The study models described above mimicked the real-time occurrences of the thermal issues in the Brookline area. The models resulted in thermal issues occurring in the area using the selected real-time operating conditions. The results were compiled and posted on SPP’s TrueShare site for stakeholder accessibility.

3.4: Results Analysis performed for the Brookline Target area as described above resulted in the needs shown below in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2

Brookline Area Voltage Needs

Table 3.2 below shows the high voltage needs identified in the analysis of the voltage needs in the Brookline area. These real-time issues are currently mitigated by the use of an operating guide.

2016 SPP-AECI JCSP

SPP Brookline High Voltages (pu)

AECI Huben 161 kV High Voltages (pu)

AECI Huben 345 kV High Voltages (pu)

AECI Morgan High Voltages (pu)

Ops-Based Model 1.051 1.057 1.057 1.054

Table 3.2

SPP and AECI evaluated 56 different potential transmission solutions to address these high voltage needs. Analysis of these projects indicated the best solution for these issues was a reactor in and/or around the SPP Brookline 345kV substation. Combinations of reactors at

16

Page 17: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

different locations and sizes were tested at the Franks, Brookline, Morgan, and Huben 345 kV substations. As outlined in section 1 of this report, SPP’s criteria for high voltages is 1.05 pu. AECI’s criteria is 1.10 pu for high voltage under light load conditions. Figure 3.3 below shows the resulting voltage values with different size reactors placed at Brookline.

No Project Brookline (50MVAR) Brookline (100MVAR) Brookline (150MVAR)1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1.05

1.06

1.07

Brookline Reactors

Brookline 345kV Franks 345kV Huben 161kVHuben 345kV Morgan 345kV

Figure 3.3

Brookline Reactor Project

Of the potential projects assessed in the 2016 JCSP study, the most cost effective project that addresses the high voltage issues at Brookline was the Brookline reactor project. The project includes the addition of a 50 MVAR reactor at SPP’s existing Brookline 345 kV substation. The analysis performed in the study showed significant benefit for the project by reducing the voltage levels to under SPP’s criteria of 1.05 pu. The analysis also demonstrated that voltage levels would be lower on three AECI buses located at the Huben 161 kV, Huben 345 kV, and Morgan 345 kV substations. Table 3.3 illustrates the results of the Brookline high voltage issues:

2016 SPP-AECI JCSP

Brookline High Voltages (pu)

Huben 161 kV High Voltages (pu)

Huben 345 kV High Voltages (pu)

Morgan High Voltages (pu)

17

Page 18: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

No Project 1.051 1.057 1.057 1.054

Brookline Reactor

1.039 1.054 1.052 1.046

Table 3.3

In addition to the benefit AECI sees in the reduced voltage levels on their system during these lightly loaded conditions, they also see benefit in the reduction of the implementation of the current operating guide used to mitigate the high voltages seen at Brookline. The initial conceptual cost estimate for the project being used is $1.1 million for engineering and construction cost. As the needs this project addresses are driven by real-time operational issues, the need date for this project is as soon as both SPP and AECI can come to agreement on the details of the project. Figure 3.4 below shows the proposed location of the Brookline Reactor Project.

Figure 3.4: Brookline Reactor

18

Page 19: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Brookline Thermal Needs

Table 3.4 below shows the thermal needs identified in the analysis of the overloads in the Brookline area in both the EMS derived model and the No Hydro model.

2016 SPP-AECI JCSP

Brookline Transformer %Overloaded (EMS Model)

Brookline Transformer %Overloaded (No Hydro Model)

No Project 102.8% 129.4%

Table 3.4

Only thermal needs on the SPP system were identified in both the No Hydro model and the model that leveraged the EMS data. No overloads were identified on the AECI transmission system, however AECI still sees potential value in solving these issues near their system. SPP and AECI evaluated 56 different transmission solutions to address these thermal needs. Solutions to address this need were narrowed down by SPP and AECI staff based on efficiency and cost effectiveness. These narrowed down solutions included projects in the Morgan, Flint Creek to Brookline, and Cassville Areas. The evaluation of these solutions was coordinated with SPP’s ITP10 regional process as the Brookline area was also a need being evaluated in that study.

Morgan Transformer Project

The project which both SPP and AECI had interest in was the Morgan Transformer Project. This project addresses the overloading issues evaluated around the Brookline area. The project includes the addition of a new 345/161 kV transformer at AECI’s existing Morgan substation in addition to an uprate of the 161 kV line between Morgan and Brookline. The analysis performed in the study showed significant benefit across multiple models used for the study described above. Table 3.5 illustrates the results of the Brookline overloading issues:

2016 SPP-AECI JCSP Brookline Transformer %Overloaded (EMS Model)

Brookline Transformer %Overloaded (No Hydro Model)

Base case 102.8% 129.4%

Morgan Transformer 84.2% 99.5%

Table 3.5

In addition to the benefit shown in the 2016 JCSP study, this project also is being recommended as an economic solution to address congestion to the Brookline area needs in the 2017 SPP

19

Page 20: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

ITP10 study. The initial conceptual cost estimate for the project is $9.2 million for engineering and construction cost. As the needs this project addresses are driven by real-time operational issues, the need date for this project is as soon as both SPP and AECI can come to agreement on the details of the project. Figure 3.5 below shows the location of the Morgan Transformer Project.

Figure 3.5: Morgan Transformer

Section 4: Norton & Georgetown

4.1: Target Area

Low voltage issues in the Norton and Georgetown area have shown to be likely to occur during peak loading conditions. These issues have been experienced in real-time operations and are expected to occur more often in the future. This issue is caused in part by limited reactive devices and sources to serve load on the 69 kV transmission system in central Missouri.  A standing operating directive currently exists that directs KCPL’s Norton, the City of Marshall’s,

20

Page 21: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

and potentially AECI/Central’s load to be shed post-contingent during specific multiple contingency events. SPP and AECI evaluated permanent transmission solutions to solve the issues in this Target Area in the 2016 JCSP study. Figure 4.1 shows the Norton and Georgetown area.

Figure 4.1: Norton and Georgetown Area

4.2: Data Inputs SPP and AECI utilized an SPP operations’ Energy Management System (EMS) model from May 10th, 2016 at 2:53pm to create the PSSE v32 & v33 planning models. These models were used to evaluate potential low voltage issues in the Norton and Georgetown area. The May 10th EMS model contains real-time system conditions when the chronic voltage issues around the Norton and Georgetown area were experienced. This data set was chosen because it represented one of the most severe occurrences when this issue was recently seen in real-time operations. This data was exported from the EMS model into PSSE where it was used to test the effectiveness of potential transmission solutions.

4.3: Analysis The study models described above mimicked the real-time occurrences of the voltage issues in the Norton and Georgetown Target Area. An N-1 contingency analysis was conducted, and upon the conclusion of the contingency analysis, results were compiled and the voltage needs were posted on SPP’s TrueShare site for stakeholder accessibility.

21

Page 22: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

4.4: Results An N-1 contingency analysis was conducted on the converted EMS model selected for analysis of this Target Area. After the initial analysis was complete, a few topology errors were discovered in the model. Correction idevs were implemented on the case, and the needs that were initially posted as in Figure 4.2 were no longer demonstrated in the case.

Figure 4.2

Of the five projects tested to address the voltage issues in the Norton and Georgetown area, no projects were determined to provide benefit to both SPP and AECI in the 2016 JCSP study. SPP has experienced these real-time issues less often over the past year and has not seen the issues in SPP’s regional planning processes. AECI still sees issues in the area in their planning processes with the model corrections described above included. Therefore, SPP and AECI will continue to evaluate the issues in this Target Area in future regional and interregional processes.

Section 5: Wheaton

5.1: Target Area

The Wheaton area is a load pocket area of about 142 MW in southwest Missouri being served from AECI’s Washburn 161kV station and Empire’s Neosho 161kV and Monett 161kV stations. The outage of any one of those stations’ transformers can result in overloading the remaining transformers and the connecting 69 kV lines. These issues have been identified as potential issues in AECI’s regional planning processes. Due to this area’s proximity to the SPP-AECI seam, this area was included as a Target Area in the 2016 JCSP study to determine if SPP could also benefit from potential transmission solutions. Figure 5.1 below illustrates the Wheaton area.

22

Page 23: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Figure 5.1: Wheaton Area

5.2: Data Inputs SPP and AECI utilized the 2017 ITPNT Model series to evaluate the Wheaton Target Area. A 2026 summer model was used as the base model for this evaluation. A 10 year out model was used because this issue is expected to be more prevalent in the future, and projects AECI is considering are being targeted in that time frame. AECI made updates to their system by removing the Miami-East Miami 69 kV line that was incorrectly duplicated in the SPP regional model.

5.3: Analysis An N-1 contingency analysis was conducted using the study models described above. Upon the conclusion of the contingency analysis, results were compiled, and thermal and voltage needs were posted on SPP’s TrueShare site for stakeholder accessibility.

5.4: Results An N-1 contingency analysis was conducted to determine needs in the Wheaton Target Area. Figure 5.2 below outlines the different thermal and voltage needs identified on the SPP and AECI transmission systems.

23

Page 24: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Figure 5.2

Of the 81 needs identified by the analysis, only two SPP facilities were approaching becoming overload needs. Both of these overloads were not to the point of being criteria violations for SPP as the facilities were loaded less than 100% in the analysis. As these needs were not planning criteria violations SPP would not consider building transmission to address them, therefore no projects were identified in the 2016 JCSP study as providing benefit to both SPP and AECI. AECI currently has a project they are evaluating in their regional process that addresses the needs on their system.

Section 6: Mid-Missouri

6.1: Target Area

Over the past eight years AECI has installed 78 MVAR of capacitor banks in order to support the voltage in the Lake of the Ozarks area in central Missouri. The voltage is heavily dependent upon the hydro generation in the area being on-line. AECI is currently evaluating robust solutions in the area to address this expected long term issue. SPP and AECI agreed to use the 2016 JCSP study to assess whether the transmission solutions AECI is evaluating would also provide benefit to SPP’s transmission system. The Mid-Missouri area is the fifth Target Area included in the 2016 JCSP study. Figure 6.1 below illustrates the area where these low voltage issues are experienced.

24

Page 25: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Figure 6.1: Mid-Missouri Area

6.2: Data Inputs SPP and AECI utilized the 2017 ITPNT Model series to evaluate the Mid-Missouri Target Area. A 2026 winter model was used as the base model for this evaluation. The ITPNT model was modified by removing all but one of the Ameren-Operated Osage generators from service, reducing the MW output of the last unit to zero to simulate synchronous condenser mode, and increasing the load of the CO-MO Electric Distribution Cooperative from the normal load forecast to the Optimistic Economic load forecast from AECI’s 2014 Electric Load Forecast Study for winter 2026. The changes in Osage generation created a plausible low-hydro scenario and CO-MO Electric’s loads are concentrated heavily around the Lake of the Ozarks. The resulting model created a realistic future worst-case scenario that was used to evaluate potential overloads and voltage issues surrounding the Lake of the Ozarks.

6.3: Analysis An N-1 contingency analysis was conducted using the Study models described above. Upon the conclusion of the contingency analysis, results were compiled, and thermal and voltage needs were posted on SPP’s TrueShare site for stakeholder accessibility.

25

Page 26: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

6.4: Results An N-1 contingency analysis was conducted to determine needs in the Mid-Missouri Area. Figure 6.2 below outlines the different thermal and voltage needs identified on the SPP and AECI transmission systems.

Figure 6.2

Of the 194 needs identified by the analysis, only two needs were identified on the SPP system. The SPP voltage need was invalidated once a model correction was identified after the needs had been posted. The SPP thermal need was not to the point of being criteria violations for SPP as the facility was loaded less than 100% in the analysis. As these SPP needs were no longer valid or not criteria violations, SPP would not consider building transmission to address them, therefore no joint projects were identified in the 2016 JCSP study as providing benefit to both SPP and AECI. SPP and AECI have committed to continue to explore the benefits of robust transmission solutions in this Target Area in future regional and interregional studies.

26

Page 27: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

PART III: RECOMMENDATIONS

27

Page 28: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Section 7: Recommendations

7.1: Recommended Projects Based on the results of the 2016 SPP-AECI JCSP Study the SPP-AECI Joint Planning Committee recommend two joint transmission projects:

Brookline Reactor Project Morgan Transformer Project

Cost allocation for these projects will be determined pursuant to section 7.4.3 of the SPP-AECI JOA.

28

Page 29: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

PART IV: APPENDIX

29

Page 30: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Section 8: Projects Analyzed

8.1: Brookline Area Projects Add 3rd Brookline 400 MVA 345/161 kV transformer Add Reactor at Huben 345 kV Bus 1 @ 50MVAR Add Reactor at LSCR 345 kV Bus 3 @ 50MVAR & Huben 1 @ 50 MVAR (200 MVAR

total) Add Reactor at LSCR 345 kV Bus 3 @ 50MVAR Taps the Morgan - Brookline 345kV line and connects the tap to the Summit sub with a

161kV line Taps the Morgan - Huben 345kV line and connects the tap to the Summit sub with a

161kV line Add 150MVAR reactor at Franks Adding a new 161kV line from Rolla Alferman substation to AECI's new Rolla North

Wye susbstation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to McCartney substation

Build new 2 mile 345 kV line from Brookline to Springfield, add Springfield 345/161 kV xfmr.

Tap the Brookline to Morgan 345kV line and create a new Republic 345kV sub. Add a 345/161kV xfmr at Republic and a new 161kV line from Republic to Sunset.

Build a new substation adjacent to the existing Brookline substation and connect the two stations via a short 345 kV transmission line. Additionally, a new 161 kV transmission line would connect at the new substation and connect to the existing Southwest Power Station. The line would be approximately 2 miles (straight line distance). The project also involves adding a 345/161 kV transformer at the new substation.

Add a new 161 kV transmission line that would connect the Brookline substation to the existing Southwest Power Station. The line would be approximately 2 miles (straight line distance). The project also involves adding a new 345/161 kV transformer Brookline.

Taps the Morgan-Huben 345kV line and adds a 345kV connection at Summit. Adds a 345/161kV xfmr at Summit.

Adds a 161kV line from Morgan to Summit. Adds a 345/161kV xfmr at Morgan Adds a 161kV line from Morgan to McCartney. Build new 2 mile 345 kV line from Brookline to Springfield add Springfield 345/161 kV

TRF Addition of new 'Republic' 345kV Substation in Republic, MO with 2 - 345/161kV

400MVA autos. The new substation will connect to the existing Brookline to Morgan 345kV line west of Springfield, MO and require 1 mile of new ROW. There will be a new 161kV line from the new Republic Substation to the existing JTEC Substation (bus 549954) approximately 4.85 miles. A new 161kV line will be constructed from Republic Substation to an existing Sunset Substation site (approximately 10.35 miles) where a new 161kV bus and two new 161/69kV autos will be added and tied into the existing Sunset 69kV bus. A new 161kV line will be built from Sunset to JRPS 161kV bus 549961, approximately 5.29 miles. (The new line construction for Sunset to JRPS will encompass

30

Page 31: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

the reconfiguration of two existing JRPS 69kV lines (JRPS to Seminole and JRPS to S. Hwy. 65). The 69kV terminal at JRPS for the Seminole line will be abandoned.) A new 50MVAR switched capacitor bank will be connected to the existing 161kV bus at McCartney substation (bus 549968).

Tap Blackberry to Sportsman 345kV line build 7.5 mile 345kV line from tap to Riverton build a new 345/161kV transformer at Riverton.

Add a new substation adjacent to the existing Brookline substation and connect the two stations via a short 345 kV transmission line. Additionally, a new 161 kV transmission line would connect at the new substation and connect to the existing Southwest Power Station. The line would be approximately 2 miles (straight line distance). The project also involves adding a 345/161 kV transformer at the new substation.

Add a new 161 kV transmission line that would connect the Brookline substation to the existing Southwest Power Station. The line would be approximately 2 miles (straight line distance). The project also involves adding a new 345/161 kV transformer Brookline.

Construct a new approximately 17.8 mile single circuit 161 kV transmission line between an expanded Jasper 161 kV station and the existing La Russell 161 kV station.

Construct a new approximately 23 mile single circuit 345 kV transmission line between the existing Morgan and a proposed 'NSUB' station.

Tap the Morgan - Brookline 345kV line and build a new 161kV line from the tap over to Summit.

Construct a new approximately 11 mile double circuit 345 kV transmission line from a tap point on the existing Morgan to Brookline 345 kV line to a proposed new 'NSUB' 345/161 kV station.

Tap the Morgan - Huben 345kV line and build a new 161kV line from the tap over to Summit.

Construct a new 14.4 mile double circuit 345 kV transmission line from a tap point on the existing Morgan to Huben 345 kV line to a proposed new 'NSUB' 345/161 kV station.

Add a new 98-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to AECI's new Rolla North Wye substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to McCartney substation.

Add a new 95-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to McCartney substation.

Add a new 128-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to AECI's new Rolla North Wye substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to McCartney substation to Morgan substation.

Add a new 125-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to McCartney substation to Morgan substation.

Add a new 93-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to AECI's new Rolla North Wye substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to Boliver Burns substation.

Add a new 90-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to Boliver Burns substation.

Add a new approximately 100-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to AECI's new Rolla North Wye substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to Huben substation to McaCartney substation.

31

Page 32: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Add a new approximately 97-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to Huben substation to McCartney substation.

Add a new approximately 108-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to AECI's new Rolla North Wye substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to Brookline substation.

Add a new approximately 105-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to Brookline substation.

Add a new approximately 33-mile 345 kV transmission line in MN connecting the Huntley and Wilmarth substations.

Add a new 345/161kV xfmr at Morgan Add a new approximately 30-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the

McCartney and Morgan substations. Tap the Brookline to Flint Creek 345kV line 6 miles from Brookline and build a new

345kV Substation called Republic. Build 345kV from Republic to a new 345kV substation near the James River 161kV Substation called Westerly. Add a 560MVA 345/161kV transformer and connect the existing James River to Westerly Add a new 161/69kV XFMR at James River.

Tap Brookline - Flint Creek 345kV cut in LaRussell - Springfield 161kV and build 161kV to James River 161kV

Tap the Brookline to Flint Creek 345kV line 6 miles from Brookline and build a new 345/161kV Substation called Republic. Install a 560MVA 345/161kV transformer. Cut in-and-out the LaRussell - Springfield 161kV line to the new Republic 161kV bus. Build a double circuit 161kV from Republic to a tap point of the JTEC - James River 161kV line. Add a new 161/69kV transformer at the existing James River Substation

Add a 3rd XFMR at Brookline Tap the Morgan - Huben 345kV line 24 miles from Morgan and construct an in-and-out

configuration to a new McCartney 345kV substation adjacent to the existing McCartney 161kV substation. Install a 345/161kV XFMR at the new McCartney 345kV station and build a 161kV line from XFMR to existing McCartney 161kV substation.

Build a new 345kV line from Huben to the existing McCartney 161kV substation. Install a 345/161kV XFMR at McCartney.

Tap the Morgan - Huben 345kV line 24 miles from Morgan and construct a 345/161kV substation. Install a 345/161kV XFMR at the new 345kV station and build a 161kV line from new sub to the McCartney 161kV substation. Build a 161kV line to a McCartney and a 161kV line to Summit. Build a 161kV line to Boliver.

Tap the Morgan - Huben 345kV line 24 miles from Morgan and construct a 345kV substation. Build a 345kV line from RH_Tap to McCartney. Install a 345/161kV XFMR at the new McCartney 345/161kV station and build a 345kV line from McCartney to James River. Build a new 345kV substation near the James River 161kV Substation called Westerly where the 345kV line will terminate. Add a 560MVA 345/161kV transformer and connect the existing James River to Westerly. Build a new 345kV line from Westerly to a new substation called Republic on the Brookline - Flint Creek 345kV line. Add a new 161/69kV XFMR at James River.

32

Page 33: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Tap the Morgan - Huben 345kV line 24 miles from Morgan and construct a 345kV substation. Build a 345kV line from RH_Tap to James River. Build a new 345kV substation near the James River 161kV Substation called Westerly where the 345kV line will terminate. Add a 560MVA 345/161kV transformer and connect the existing James River to Westerly. Build a new 345kV line from Westerly to a new substation called Republic on the Brookline - Flint Creek 345kV line. Add a new 161/69kV XFMR at James River.

Addition of new 'Republic' 345kV Substation in Republic, MO with 2 - 345/161kV 400MVA autos. The new substation will connect to the existing Brookline to Morgan 345kV line west of Springfield, MO and require 1 mile of new ROW. There will be a new 161kV line from the new Republic Substation to the existing JTEC Substation approximately 4.85 miles. A new 161kV line will be constructed from Republic Substation to an existing Sunset Substation site (approximately 10.35 miles) where a new 161kV bus and two new 161/69kV autos will be added and tied into the existing Sunset 69kV bus. A new 161kV line will be built from Sunset to JRPS 161kV, approximately 5.29 miles. (The new line construction for Sunset to JRPS will encompass the reconfiguration of two existing JRPS 69kV lines (JRPS to Seminole and JRPS to S. Hwy. 65). The 69kV terminal at JRPS for the Seminole line will be abandoned.) A new 50MVAR switched capacitor bank will be connected to the existing 161kV bus at McCartney substation

Build a 345kV line from Lacygne to Morgan to Thayer. Convert the Thayer - Gobbler Knob 161kV line to 345kV. Add a 345/161kV XFMR at Thayer

Loop in Brookline to Flint Creek 345 kV line into Monet 161 kV and add 345/161 kV transformer at Monet

Loop in Brookline to Flint Creek 345 kV line into Chesapeake 161 kV and add 345/161 kV line at Chesapeake. Loop in LA Russell to Springfield 161 kV into Chesapeake 161 kV

Add a new 98-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to AECI's new Rolla North Wye substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to McCartney substation. Build a new 345 kV station tapping the Morgan-Huben 345 kV line and build 20-mile 345 kV line from the new station to McCartney. The project also involves adding a 161/138 kV transformer at Alferman and adding a 345/161 kV transformer at McCartney. |

Add a new 95-mile 161 kV transmission line in MO connecting the Rolla Alferman substation to Waynesville substation to Lebanon substation to McCartney substation. Build new 345 kV station tapping Morgan-Huben 345 kV line and build 30-mile 345 kV line from the new station to McCartney. The project also involves adding a 161/138 kV transformer at Alferman and adding a 345/161 transformer at McCartney.

Add a new Morgan 345/161 kV autotransformer. Construct a new 23 mile single circuit 161 kV transmission line originating from the Morgan 161 kV straight bus and terminating at the existing Summit 161 kV station.

8.2: Norton - Georgetown Area Projects Add 2 @ 20 MVAR capacitors at Marshall 161 kV Connects the Norton - Georgetown 161kV line and the Sibley - Overton 345kV with a

345/161kV transformer

33

Page 34: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Add new 161kV line from Overton (Ameren) to Southeast (KCPL) Add new 161kV line between South Waverly and Lexington Add new 161kV line from Sedalia East to Georgetown

8.3: Wheaton Area Projects Add 2nd 7.2 MVAR cap bank at BRNSPG 69kV Add Washburn-Cassville 161 kV line with a Cassville 161 kV substation with 84 MVA

161/69 kV xfmr Upgraded 3 line segments from N Cassville-Washburn: CASSVL-2NCASVL 2 MILES

69KV 477 ACSR, CASSVL-SELIGM 9.2 MILES 69KV 477 ACSR, SELIGM-WASHBRN 2.3 MILES 69KV 477 ACSR

Upgrade Crane-Verona 17.2 miles 69 kV 477 ACSR Added switched caps to Jane 69 kV 2 @ 7.2 MVAR Added 2nd NEOSAC 161/69 KV 84 MVA Tx Upgraded NeoSAC-2SWTWT 11.6 Miles 477 ACSR Added switched cap at SWTWT 69 kV 1 @ 7.2 MVAR Added 2nd two winding WASHBURN 161/69 KV Tx 56 MVA Add new Anderson 345/161kV xfmr, new Cassville 161/69kV xfmr, new SW City

161/69kV xfmr, new Cassville – Anderson – SW City 161kV lines (44.4 miles)

8.4: Mid-Missouri Area Projects Add 2nd Holden 64 Mva 161/69 Kv Xfmr Added Ashlnd 69 Kv Switched Cap 2 @ 8.1mvar Add 2nd Butler 161/69 Kv 56 Mva Xfmr Added Etterv 69 Kv Switched Cap 1 @ 12.5 Mvar Upgrade Huntsdl-Overton 161 Kv Upgrade 7.6 Miles T2-477 Upgraded 3 Line Segments From J&7-Turkeycrk: Cofman-J&7 69kv Upgrade 6.5 Miles

477 Acrs, Cofman-Knobby 69kv Upgrade 4.4 Miles 477 Acsr, Knobby-2turkeycrk 69kv Upgrade 12.8 Miles 477 Acsr

Upgrade Lostvaly-Truman 161 Kv Upgrade 2.6 Miles T2-477 Added Meta2 138 Kv Switched Cap 4 @ 12.5 Mvar Add 3rd Moberly 78 Mva 161/69 Kv Xfmr Added Osage 161 Kv Switched Cap 3 @ 24 Mvar Overton-Overton2 161 Kv Upgrade To 1600a 445 Mva Add 2nd Rchftn 161/69 Kv 28 Mva Xfmr Upgrade Sedali-2sylvan 69kv Upgrade 7.1 Miles 477 Acsr Added Stmartins 69 Kv Switched Cap 1 @ 12.5 Mvar Tap the Loose Creek - Franks 345kV line near Freeburg, MO and adds a new 345kV line

to Barnett (AECI) substation. Adds a second 345kV line segment from Barnett (AECI) to Pleasant Hill (KCPL). Adds a 345/161kV xfmr at Barnett

Adds a second Truman - Lost Valley 161kV line. Replaces the Overton 161kV bus tie breaker

34

Page 35: Revision History - Southwest Power Pool spp-aeci jcsp... · Web viewThis document presents an overview of the assessment process and the final results of the 2016 Southwest Power

Adds a 345kV line from LooseCreek to Barnett and adds a 345/161kV xfmr at Barnett Adds a 345kV line from Mariosa to Osage and adds a 345/161kV xfmr at Osage

35