south carolina regional transmission planning stakeholder ......nov 11, 2009 · vacar 2015 summer...

South Carolina Regional Transmission PlanningSouth Carolina Regional Transmission PlanningSouth Carolina Regional Transmission PlanningSouth Carolina Regional Transmission Planning

Stakeholder MeetingStakeholder MeetingStakeholder MeetingStakeholder Meeting

SCE&G Lake Murray Training CenterSCE&G Lake Murray Training Center

Lexington SCLexington SCLexington, SCLexington, SC

November 11, 2009November 11, 2009

Purpose and Goals of Today’s MeetingPurpose and Goals of Today’s Meeting• SCRTP Stakeholder Group will identify up to five Economic • SCRTP Stakeholder Group will identify up to five Economic

Power Transfers to be Studied• Modeling ActivitiesModeling Activities• Review Status of Assessment and Planning Study Activities

VACAR Studies– VACAR Studies– SERC Studies

ERAG Studies– ERAG Studies– Interchange Agreements

N T i i I t t i th S th t• New Transmission Investment in the Southeast

2

Overall Planning CycleOverall Planning Cycle

Clay YoungClay Young

7

Economic Transmission Planning ScenariosEconomic Transmission Planning Scenarios


9

Economic Transmission Planning PrincipleEconomic Transmission Planning PrincipleTh f O d 890’ E i T i i Pl i P i i l The purpose of Order 890’s Economic Transmission Planning Principle is to:• ensure that customers may request studies that evaluate potential ensure that customers may request studies that evaluate potential

upgrades or other investments that could reduce congestion or integrate new resources and loads on an aggregated or regional b ibasis

• allow customers, not the transmission provider, to identify those portions of the transmission system where they have encountered portions of the transmission system where they have encountered transmission problems due to congestion or whether they believe upgrades and other investments may be necessary to reduce congestion and to integrate new resources

10

Economic Transmission Planning PrincipleEconomic Transmission Planning Principle(continued)(continued)

• allow customers to request that the transmission provider allow customers to request that the transmission provider study enhancements that could reduce such congestion or integrate new resources on an aggregated or regional basis without having to submit a specific request for service

Thi h th t th i t di i d This approach ensures that the economic studies required under this principle are focused on customer needs and concernsconcerns

11

Economic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionEconomic Transmission Planning Scenario Selection

• All requested sensitivities will be considered exceptsensitivities that specify specific generation resources

• Up to 5 sensitivities will be identified for study. If morethan 5 are requested, Stakeholder voting members willvote to select the top five

• Sensitivities that are not selected by the voting processy g pas one of the 5 studied sensitivities will be studied onlyif the requestor(s) pays for the additional study efforts

12

Economic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionEconomic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionEconomic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionEconomic Transmission Planning Scenario Selection

• Economic power transfer sensitivities with sources or sinks• Economic power transfer sensitivities with sources or sinksoutside the SCRTP area will be advanced to the SoutheastInter-Regional Participation Process (SIRPP)g p ( )

13

Voting Stakeholder Group MembersVoting Stakeholder Group Members(*Carryover from last year)

• CooperativesJohn Boyt Central ElectricJohn Boyt, Central ElectricBob Beadle, NCEMC

• MunicipalsMunicipals*John Bagwell, Orangeburg DPU*Alan Loveless, City of Georgetown

• Network and PTP Transmission CustomersJ. W. Smith, Southeastern Power AdministrationC l i D i l ECGCalvin Daniels, ECG

4

Voting Stakeholder Group MembersVoting Stakeholder Group Members• Generation Owners / Developers

*Victor Shaw, Calpine, Columbia Energy CenterVacant

• MarketersEddie Folsom SCE&G Power MarketingEddie Folsom, SCE&G Power MarketingGlenda Horne, Santee Cooper

• Transmission OwnersTransmission OwnersEd Ernst, Duke Energy-Carolinas*Matt Pieper, Southern Company Transmission

5

V ti St k h ld G M bV ti St k h ld G M b• ISO / RTO

Voting Stakeholder Group MembersVoting Stakeholder Group Members

VacantVacant

6

2008 Economic Planning Scenarios2008 Economic Planning Scenarios2008 Economic Planning Scenarios2008 Economic Planning Scenarios

• SCE&G to Duke 600 MW – 2014 Summer Peak

• SCE&G to Duke 1200 MW – 2014 Summer Peak

• Santee Cooper to Progress-Carolinas 600 MW –

2014 Summer Peak

13

Economic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionEconomic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionggEconomic Transmission Planning Study Submittal Form

Date of SubmissionNameTitleCompanyAddressCity State ZipCity, State, ZipTelephoneEmail

14

Economic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionEconomic Transmission Planning Scenario SelectionggEconomic Scenario #1:Source Area:Sink Area:Transfer (MW):Study Year:Study Conditions:Other Information:

Benefits of Study and Other Comments:

15

2009 MMWG Series Base Cases

2010 Spring Peak 2011 Summer Peak2010 Light Load2010 Summer Peak2010 Summer Shoulder Peak

2011 Fall Peak2011/12 Winter Peak2015 Summer Peak

2010/11 Winter Peak2011 Spring Peak

2015/16 Winter Peak2020 Summer Peak

6

Model Development UpdateModel Development UpdateModel Development UpdateModel Development Update

Joe Hood

Planning ProcessPlanning ProcessNov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb MarNov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Marp y g p

Internal Model Updating SERC Regional Model Development

DA DB A

Final LTSG cases

Santee Cooper Transmission Planning Process

9/10/2007

p y g p

Internal Model Updating SERC Regional Model Development

DA DB A

Final LTSG cases

Santee Cooper Transmission Planning Process

9/10/2007

ERAG/MMWG Model Development

Sub-Regional Coordinated Studies

SERC Coordinated Regional StudiesC

BFinal ERAG/MMWG Cases

CStudy Results

StudyResults

ERAG/MMWG Model Development

Sub-Regional Coordinated Studies

SERC Coordinated Regional StudiesC

BFinal ERAG/MMWG Cases

CStudy Results

StudyResults

Local Planning Process

Perform Initial Assessment

Study Alternative Projects

Perform Additional Studies

Finalize Plan For Budgeting DCurrent

Transmission PlanD Current Transmission Plan

Local Planning Process

Perform Initial Assessment

Study Alternative Projects

Perform Additional Studies

Finalize Plan For Budgeting DCurrent

Transmission PlanD Current Transmission Plan

Stakeholder InteractionStakeholder Interaction

What is a Power Flow Model?What is a Power Flow Model?• Power Flow Data

• Nodes and branches• Generation and loads

• Power Flow Solutions• Power Flow Solutions• Nonlinear, iterative

solutions for bus voltages and branch currents

• Power Flow Analysis• Contingency analysisContingency analysis• Transfer analysis• Stability and Short Circuit

( ith dditi l d t )(with additional data)

• Load Forecast Internal Model DevelopmentInternal Model Development

• Load Forecast • Summer/Winter peak, off-peak and seasonal load levels• Wholesale loads modeled according to forecasts provided by customers

• Generation• Input from generation maintenance schedule

I t f ti i l• Input from generation expansion plan• Transmission Additions

• Input from planners and engineeringp p g g• Firm Transmission Service

• Input from OASIS, coordinated with neighbors

17

External Model DevelopmentExternal Model Development• SERC Regional Model Development

• SCE&G and others in Southeast submit versions of models to be linked together to create SERC regional modelslinked together to create SERC regional models

• Models are created for the next ten years• NERC Regional Model Development

• SERC and other NERC regions submit models to be linked together.

• Eastern Interconnection models are created for the next ten yearsEastern Interconnection models are created for the next ten years• These updated Eastern Interconnection models are sent back to

all participants and used to analyze, operate and plan our tsystems

18

NERC Regional Models

External Model Development CycleExternal Model Development Cycle

SCE&G ModelsDetailed Internal

SERC Regional ModelsLTSG (Long Term Study Group)

NERC Regional ModelsMMWG (Multi-regional Modeling Work Group)

ERAG (Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group)

ModelReduction

Updated Eastern Interconnect Modelsare used for the “Outside World”

in SCE&G’s Internal Models

Assessment and Planning StudiesAssessment and Planning Studies

Kale FordKale Ford

VACARVACAR VACARVACAR

VACAR VACAR Power Flow Working GroupPower Flow Working Group

• Dominion Virginia Powerg• Duke Energy• Progress Energy Carolinas• Progress Energy Carolinas• SCE&G• Santee Cooper

VACAR VACAR Power Flow Working GroupPower Flow Working Group

• Conduct joint studies as assigned by VACAR PTF• Exchange forecast loads, bulk power facility plans, and

systems conditionsA lt d th l li it• Assess voltage and thermal limits

• Publish report of the joint studies • Investigate improved study methods and procedures• Make recommendations to the PTF for future studies

VACAR 2015 Summer Study VACAR 2015 Summer Study ScopeScopeScopeScope

• Part one - Update 2009 Series MMWG 2015 Summer Peak Case Case

• Part two - Assess using merged monitor and n-1 contingency files concentrated on 230 kV and above facilities critical files concentrated on 230 kV and above facilities, critical facilities below 230 kV will be considered.

• Part three - Assess using n-2 contingency filePart three Assess using n 2 contingency file• Part four - Evaluate contingency/rating combinations

VACAR 2015 Summer StudyVACAR 2015 Summer StudyScheduleScheduleScheduleSchedule

• Study started October 2009Part one November 2009• Part one – November 2009

• Part two – December 2009P t th J 2010• Part three – January 2010

• Part four – March 2010• Final report – June 2010• The PTF has granted the PFWG more time if needed

VACAR StudiesVACAR Studies

Questions?Questions?

SERC LTSGSERC LTSGPurposePurposePurposePurpose

• Analysis of the performance of the members’ transmission y psystems that identifies limits to power transfers occurring non-simultaneously among the SERC members.

• Analysis of the performance of the members’ transmission systems under normal conditions and loss of a single element.

SERC LTSGSERC LTSGSi ifi t F ilitiSi ifi t F ilitiSignificant FacilitiesSignificant Facilities

• Facility is a limit below the test level and transfer factors are b th t ffabove the cutoff.

• The number of different transfers/companies impacted.• If the facility requires the use of an operating guide.• If the outage of the facility results in overloads of several

i i ltransmission elements.• If actual TLRs have been called on the facility.

SERC LTSGSERC LTSGV i bl F tV i bl F tVariable FactorsVariable Factors

• Load forecasts and generation availabilityg y• Anticipated drought conditions in the SERC area• Geographic distribution of load and generationg p g• Transmission system configuration• Simultaneous inter-system power transfersy p• Operation based on regional requirements to respect

additional contingencies

SERC LTSGSERC LTSG

2015 LTSG Summer Reliability Study2015 LTSG Summer Reliability Study

Forecast Future System Performance for theForecast Future System Performance for theProjected 2015 Summer Peak Period for SERC

Member Transmission SystemsMember Transmission SystemsDecember 2009

2015 LTSG Summer Reliability Study2015 LTSG Summer Reliability StudyPreliminaryPreliminary ResultsResultsPreliminaryPreliminary ResultsResults

• Two Facilities in South Carolina Electric & Gas’ system id tifi d li it ti i 2019were identified as limitations in 2019.

– McIntosh to Jasper Tap 230 kV Interconnection (Southern-SCEG)– Urquhart to Graniteville 230 kV (SCEG)Urquhart to Graniteville 230 kV (SCEG)

• One Facility in Santee Cooper’s system was identified as a limitation in 2019.– Pee Dee to Marion 230 kV (SCPSA)

2015 LTSG Summer Reliability Study 2015 LTSG Summer Reliability Study PreliminaryPreliminary ConclusionsConclusions

• No other Transmission Facilities in South Carolina Electric &

PreliminaryPreliminary ConclusionsConclusions

Gas or Santee Cooper identified as limits to individual member transfers studied.

• No other Transmission Facilities in South Carolina Electric & Gas or Santee Cooper identified as limits to sub regional Gas or Santee Cooper identified as limits to sub-regional transfers studied.

SERC StudiesSERC Studies


ERAG Future Year AssessmentsERAG Future Year Assessments

SERC EastSERC East--RFCRFC• SERC East

VACAR (Duke, DVP, PEC, SCE&G, SCPSA)Central (TVA, LGEE, EKPC, BREC)

• ReliabilityFirst Corporation y pPJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland)MISO (Midwest Independent System Operator)( p y p )

SERC EastSERC East--RFC RFC LongLong--Term StudiesTerm Studies

• Analysis of interregional system performance during regional and sub-regional power transfers

• Study of normal and contingency conditions• Effects of selected multiple outages and simultaneous p g

transfers on system performance


• Identify transfer limits from and to each study regiony y g• Transfer limits are not ATC or TTC as required in FERC

Orders 888 and 889 and posted on OASIS• Results are conditional, not absolute or optimal• Identify facilities having thermal or selected y g

voltage/reactive limits for regional and sub-regional transfers


• Analysis of FCITCs for simultaneous transfers among, or through study areas

• FCITCs and FCTTCs for non-simultaneous transfers• Appraisals for PJM, Midwest ISO and SERC East study pp , y

areas


• FCITC - First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability g y p yis the incremental transfer capability above the transfers modeled in the base case

• FCTTC - First Contingency Total Transfer Capability is the algebraic sum of the FCITC and the base case region-to-

i t fregion transfer


Reliability Assessment AssumptionsReliability Assessment AssumptionsReliability Assessment AssumptionsReliability Assessment Assumptions

• Load forecasts and generation availability• Load forecasts and generation availability• Geographic distribution of load and generation• Transmission system configuration• Transmission system configuration


Reliability Assessment AssumptionsReliability Assessment Assumptionsy py p

• Simultaneous inter-system power transfersSimultaneous inter system power transfers• Regional requirements for contingencies• Phase Angle Regulator control settings• Phase Angle Regulator control settings

SERC EastSERC East--RFC RFC SSScopeScope

• Reliability Analysis for selected transfers occurringsimultaneously among, or through the SER regions

• Identify Limiting facilities for non-simultaneous emergencytransfers among MISO, SERC East, and expanded PJM

• Appraisals for the PJM, MISO and SERC East study areas• The FCITCs reported in this study are based on simulated

system operationy p

FCITC values are based on the prediction of many factors that could change in daily

operation of the power system

43

SERC EastSERC East--RFCRFCFuture Reliability AssessmentsFuture Reliability Assessments

• 2014 Summer study – Due November 2009 – Study is complete– Final Draft to SC and EC – November 11– Final report published – November 23

SERC EastSERC East--RFC RFC 2014 Summer Long Term Study2014 Summer Long Term Study

ScopeScopeScopeScope• Develop 2014 summer base case with all scheduled firm

capacity backed transactionscapacity backed transactions• Determine thermal regional and sub-regional FCITCs• Determine FCTTCs for regional and sub-regional transfers• Determine FCTTCs for regional and sub-regional transfers

SERC EastSERC East--RFCRFC2014 Summer Long2014 Summer Long--Term Study Term Study

ObjectiveObjective• SERC East import and export with PJM

– Central (TVA) – 2500 MW Participation– VACAR – 2500 MW Participation

• CP&LE – 762.5 MW• Duke – 1212.5 MW• Santee Cooper – 212 MW• SCE&G 313 MW • SCE&G – 313 MW

SERC EastSERC East--RFCRFC2014 Summer Long2014 Summer Long--Term Study Term Study

ObjectiveObjective• SERC East import and export with MISO

– VACAR – 5000 MW Participation• CP&LE – 1525 MW• Duke – 2425 MW• Santee Cooper – 425 MW• SCE&G – 625 MW

SERC EastSERC East--RFCRFCInterregional Transmission S stemInterregional Transmission S stemInterregional Transmission SystemInterregional Transmission System

Reliability AssessmentsReliability Assessments


Interchange AgreementsInterchange Agreements

Reliability Studies ActivatesReliability Studies ActivatesInterchange AgreementsInterchange AgreementsInterchange AgreementsInterchange Agreements

• Interchange AgreementsLongstanding agreements that require SCE&G and each of its – Longstanding agreements that require SCE&G and each of its neighboring transmission owners to conduct coordinated assessments and to conduct local planning or joint planning to address and resolve any and all issues discovered as a result of Coordinated Assessments.

– SCE&G has Interchange Agreements with Santee Cooper Duke SCE&G has Interchange Agreements with Santee Cooper, Duke Energy, Progress Energy Carolinas and Southern Company.

Reliability Studies ActivatesReliability Studies ActivatesInterchange AgreementsInterchange AgreementsInterchange AgreementsInterchange Agreements

SCE&G is not currently conducting any Joint Planning under • SCE&G is not currently conducting any Joint Planning under guidance of Interchange Agreements.

• Santee Cooper is currently in an on going study with Progress Energy CarolinasEnergy Carolinas.

Interchange AgreementsInterchange AgreementsInterchange AgreementsInterchange Agreements


SERC Seasonal Operating AssessmentsSERC Seasonal Operating AssessmentsSERC Seasonal Operating AssessmentsSERC Seasonal Operating Assessments

William GaitherWilliam GaitherWilliam GaitherWilliam Gaither

31

Winter Operating Study ActivitiesWinter Operating Study Activities

SERC East-RFC (SER) Operating Studies Working Groupno study performedno study performed

Winter Operating Study ActivitiesWinter Operating Study Activities

2009/10 Winter Reliability Study of Projected Operating Conditions p g

November 2009

Participating Companies (SERC NTSG)Progress Energy-Carolinas

Duke Energy CarolinasTennessee Valley Authority

Big Rivers Electric CooperativeSantee Cooper

South Carolina Electric & GasDominion Virginia Power

East Kentucky Power CooperativeE. ON U.S. Services

EntergygAPGI-Yadkin

Southeastern Power Administration

gyAssociated Electric Cooperative, Inc.

AmerenColumbia MO Water & Light DepartmentAdministration

Southern Company ServicesGeorgia Transmission Corporation

Columbia, MO Water & Light DepartmentCity Water, Light & Power, Springfield, IL

Southern Illinois Power Cooperative

Purpose of Study• Assess the bulk transmission system performance within the SERC • Assess the bulk transmission system performance within the SERC

region for projected conditions for the 2009/10 Winter peak season• Reliability analysis for selected transfers occurring non-y y g

simultaneously among SERC members and through the SERC sub-regionsIdentify limiting facilities for non simultaneous transfers among • Identify limiting facilities for non-simultaneous transfers among SERC members and SERC sub-regions (base case and N-1 contingencies)

• Validate proper planning of SERC member transmission systems• The FCITCs reported in this study are based on simulated system

ti d t d i OASIS tioperation and are not used in OASIS posting

FCITC l b d th di ti f FCITC values are based on the prediction of many factors that could change in daily

operation of the power systemoperation of the power system.

Variable FactorsVariable Factors

• System load and generation availabilitygeographic distribution of load and generation• geographic distribution of load and generation

• transmission system configurationi lt i t t t f• simultaneous inter-system power transfers

• operation based on regional requirements to respect additional contingenciesadditional contingencies

• control settings of Phase Angle Regulators (PARs)

Significant FacilitiesSignificant Facilities• Facility is a ‘hard’ limit a transfer• The level at which it limits a transfer compared to the test

l llevel• The response of the facility to the transfer• The number of different transfers/companies impacted• If the facility requires the use of an operating guide• If the outage of the facility results in overloads of several

transmission elements• If actual TLRs have been called on the facility

ConclusionsConclusions2009/10 NTSG Wi t R li bilit St d2009/10 NTSG Wi t R li bilit St d2009/10 NTSG Winter Reliability Study2009/10 NTSG Winter Reliability Study

O T i i F ilit i S th C li El t i & G • One Transmission Facility in South Carolina Electric & Gas was identified as a limit to transfers studied

Denny Terrace Lyles 230 kV Line – Denny Terrace - Lyles 230 kV Line • Sensitive to outage of V.C. Summer Bus #3 – Lake Murray 230 kV Line• A project has been identified to alleviate this problem with ISD in 2011

ConclusionsConclusions2009/10 NTSG Wi t R li bilit St d2009/10 NTSG Wi t R li bilit St d2009/10 NTSG Winter Reliability Study2009/10 NTSG Winter Reliability Study

• One Transmission Facility in Santee Cooper was identified • One Transmission Facility in Santee Cooper was identified as a limit to transfers studied– Conway-Marion 115 kV Line Conway Marion 115 kV Line

• Sensitive to outage of Hemingway-Marion 230 kV Line• Only a limit for one transfer – SCPSA to Progress Energy Carolinas• Limit caused by this facility is not severe enough to warrant a reliability

concern

ConclusionsConclusions2009/10 NTSG Winter Reliability Study2009/10 NTSG Winter Reliability Study

• No additional Transmission Facilities in South Carolina Electric & Gas or Santee Cooper identified as limits to sub-

i l t fregional transfers.

New Transmission Investment in the SoutheastNew Transmission Investment in the SoutheastNew Transmission Investment in the SoutheastNew Transmission Investment in the Southeast

Jim PetersonJim PetersonJim PetersonJim Peterson

46

Transmission Investment in SERCTransmission Investment in SERC•• SERC Reliability Corporation requests transmission investment SERC Reliability Corporation requests transmission investment

information via yearly Transmission Development Survey information via yearly Transmission Development Survey ••Transmission Transmission ProvidersProviders••Actual Actual Expenditures for the Previous YearExpenditures for the Previous YearA ti i t d A ti i t d T i i I t t f t 5 T i i I t t f t 5 i di d ••Anticipated Anticipated Transmission Investment for next 5 year Transmission Investment for next 5 year periodperiod. .

•• Investment information included in SERC RRS Review to SERC Investment information included in SERC RRS Review to SERC •• Investment information included in SERC RRS Review to SERC Investment information included in SERC RRS Review to SERC Engineering Committee. Engineering Committee.

Transmission Investment in SERCTransmission Investment in SERC• Information Requested

• Total Planned Transmission Expenditures– 5 years of cost data– 100 kV and above

• Transmission Projects Only– New lines and substations– Line and substation rebuilds– Line reconductoring projectsLine reconductoring projects

Transmission Investment in SERCTransmission Investment in SERC

• Information Requested (cont’d)• Sub-categories of Expenditures

– Directly attributed to generator interconnections– Consisting of optional upgrades associated with

both generator interconnections and transmission i f service for generators

Transmission Investment in SERCTransmission Investment in SERC(Comparison of 2008 to 2009 Survey)(Comparison of 2008 to 2009 Survey)

Transmission Investment in SERC by subregionTransmission Investment in SERC by subregion

Contribution of Projected GeneratorContribution of Projected Generator--related Expendituresrelated Expenditures

Actual Transmission Expenditures by SubActual Transmission Expenditures by Sub--regionregion(2005(2005--2008)2008)

$1.49 BillionActual 2008 Transmission Expenditures:

Total Projected Transmission Expenditures Over the Subsequent Six Years:

2009 Survey: $8.801 Billion



2006 Survey: $6.759 Billiony $


2004 Survey: $6 209 Billion2004 Survey: $6.209 Billion

Transmission Investment in SERCTransmission Investment in SERC

Transmission Survey- Conclusions -

• Actual spending for 2008 was lower than projected spending reported in the 2008 survey ($1.49 B vs. $1.52 B)

• The total spending projected by the 2009 survey ($8.801 B over a projected 5-year period) is greater compared to the p j y p ) g p2008 survey ($8.66 B over a projected 5-year period)

• The percentage of total spending attributed to generation The percentage of total spending attributed to generation interconnections, optional upgrades, and transmission service-related upgrades is about 11%, up from 9% in the 2008 survey.

Southeast InterSoutheast Inter--Regional Participation Regional Participation Southeast InterSoutheast Inter Regional Participation Regional Participation Process (SIRPP)Process (SIRPP)

Kale FordKale Ford

SIRPPSIRPPOverview of ProcessOverview of ProcessOverview of ProcessOverview of Process

• Provides expanded Economic Planning StudiesP id T i i I f ti t k t ti i t• Provides Transmission Information to market participants

• Extends the Regional Participation principle to an Inter-Regional levelRegional level

• Additional coordination among transmission owners• Annual cycle of Economic Planning studiesy g

SIRPPSIRPPActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivities

• Stakeholder Group Meeting – August 18 – Charlotte, NC P t ti f 2008/09 E i S i R lt– Presentation of 2008/09 Economic Scenario Results

– Stakeholder Input– Report Finalization Discussionp– Develop Timeline for 2009/10 Economic Scenario Study

• 2008/09 Economic Sensitivity Step 1 Result – October 2009Stakeholder Group Meeting October 27 Atlanta GA• Stakeholder Group Meeting – October 27 – Atlanta, GA– Determination of 2009/10 Economic Studies

SIRPPSIRPPEconomic Transfer Scenarios 2009/10Economic Transfer Scenarios 2009/10Economic Transfer Scenarios 2009/10Economic Transfer Scenarios 2009/10

EES to GA ITS transfer of 2000 MW Step 2• EES to GA-ITS transfer of 2000 MW - Step 2• MISO to TVA transfer of 2000 MW

LG&E t GA ITS t f f 1000 MW• LG&E to GA-ITS transfer of 1000 MW• MISO & PJM West to SIRPP transfer of 3000 MW• SPP to SIRPP via HVDC transfer of 3000 MW

Southeast InterSoutheast Inter--regional Participation regional Participation ProcessProcessProcessProcess

• Entergy to Georgia ITSTransfer Amount: 2000 MW• Transfer Amount: 2000 MW

• Description: This transfer is a "Step 2" evaluation for the previously evaluated transfer from the 2008/09 processpreviously evaluated transfer from the 2008/09 process.


• MISO to TVATransfer Amount: 2000 MW• Transfer Amount: 2000 MW

• Description: The source will be either Individual existing substations within MISO or a load scale for the entire MISO substations within MISO or a load scale for the entire MISO footprint. The sink will be allocated amongst the SIRPP sponsors' footprint proportional to the load served by each of sponsors footprint proportional to the load served by each of the participating sponsors.


• Louisville Gas & Electric to Georgia ITSTransfer Amount: 1000 MW• Transfer Amount: 1000 MW

• Description: The source will be Individual existing substations within LG&E footprint or a load scale for the entire LG&E within LG&E footprint or a load scale for the entire LG&E footprint. The sink for this transfer will be generation within the GA-ITS. The amount of generation that will be reduced for GA ITS. The amount of generation that will be reduced for each participant of the GA-ITS will be based on their load serving ratio.


• MISO & PJM West to SIRPPTransfer Amount: 3000 MW• Transfer Amount: 3000 MW

• Description: This transfer is from sources defined in a joint study referred to as the Strategic Midwest Area Renewable study referred to as the Strategic Midwest Area Renewable Transmission ("SMART") study. The sink for this transfer will be allocated amongst the SIRPP sponsors' footprint be allocated amongst the SIRPP sponsors footprint proportional to the load served by each of the participating sponsors.


• SPP to SIRPP via HVDCTransfer Amount: 3000 MW• Transfer Amount: 3000 MW

• Description: Determine the impacts of delivering capacity from the source area via a single or multiple HVDC transmission the source area via a single or multiple HVDC transmission lines. The termination points (both sending and receiving) for the HVDC line(s) are to be determined by the stakeholder the HVDC line(s) are to be determined by the stakeholder group. The sink for this transfer will be allocated amongst the SIRPP sponsors' footprint proportional to the load served by each of the participating sponsors.

SIRPP WebsiteSIRPP WebsiteSIRPP WebsiteSIRPP Website

www southeastirpp comwww southeastirpp comwww.southeastirpp.comwww.southeastirpp.com

SCRTP WebsiteSCRTP WebsiteSCRTP WebsiteSCRTP Website

Clay YoungClay YoungClay YoungClay Young

57

SCRTP WebsiteSCRTP Website

• New Base Case Series will be posted soon

www.scrtp.com

58

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)(EIPC)(EIPC)(EIPC)

Clay YoungClay YoungClay YoungClay Young

59

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)EIPC)• Initiated by a coalition of regional Planning AuthoritiesInitiated by a coalition of regional Planning Authorities• Represent the entire Eastern Interconnection• Broad-based transparent collaborative process among:Broad-based, transparent collaborative process among:

– State and Federal policy makers– Consumer– Environmental Interests– Transmission Planning Authorities– Market participants

generating, transmitting or consuming electricity within the Eastern Interconnection.

64

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)EIPC)The EIPC illThe EIPC will:

– provide a grass-roots approach which builds upon the regional expansion plansexpansion plans

– conduct coordinated interregional analysis for the entire Eastern Interconnection guided by the consensus input of an

d k h ld open and transparent stakeholder process– model the impact on the grid of various policy options

determined to be of interest by state provincial and federal determined to be of interest by state, provincial and federal policy makers and other stakeholders

– build upon, rather than substitute for, the current local and regional transmission planning processes

64

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)EIPC)

DOE Funding Bid– EIPC bid submitted September 14– If selected, EIPC will receive funding for the initial 5 years– Expect DOE decision this month

www.eipconline.com

64

Next SCRTP Meeting ActivitiesNext SCRTP Meeting Activities


63

Next SCRTP MeetingNext SCRTP Meeting• SCE&G and Santee Cooper will present the results

of the Economic Transmission Planning studiesof the Economic Transmission Planning studies• Date / location not set• You will be notified by emailYou will be notified by email• Register online• Combined Meeting?• Combined Meeting?• If combined, will also present the current expansion

plansplans

64

South Carolina Regional Transmission PlanningSouth Carolina Regional Transmission PlanningSouth Carolina Regional Transmission PlanningSouth Carolina Regional Transmission Planning

Stakeholder MeetingStakeholder MeetingStakeholder MeetingStakeholder Meeting

SCE&G Lake Murray Training CenterSCE&G Lake Murray Training Center

Lexington SCLexington SCLexington, SCLexington, SC

November 11, 2009November 11, 2009

south carolina regional transmission planning stakeholder ......nov 11, 2009 · vacar 2015 summer...

Documents