1

TAG MeetingApril 23, 2009

NCEMC Office

Raleigh, NC

2

TAG Meeting Agenda1. Introductions and Agenda – Rich Wodyka

2. Enhanced Transmission Access Requests – Rich Wodyka

3. 2009 Study Activities – Denise Roeder

4. NCTPC TAG Sector Structure – Rich Wodyka

5. Regional Studies – Bob Pierce

6. TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka

7. TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka

3

Rich Wodyka

ITP

Enhanced Transmission Access Requests

4

TAG memo was distributed on February 6, 2009 requesting input

The deadline for input was February 27, 2009

No requests were received for 2009

Enhanced Transmission Access Requests

5

NCTPC 2009 Study Activities

Denise Roeder

Electricities

6

Assess Duke and Progress transmission systems' reliability and develop a single Collaborative Transmission Plan

Also assess Enhanced Access Study requests provided by Participants or TAG members

Purpose of Study

7

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

Steps and Status of the Study Process

Co

mp

lete

d

8

Study Year – near term reliability analysis:– 2014 Summer, 2014/2015 Winter– High load summer import sensitivity to CPLW

Study Year – longer term reliability analysis:– 2019 Summer

LSEs provided:– Input for load forecasts and resource supply

assumptions– Dispatch order for their resources

Interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems

Study Assumptions Selected

9

Study Criteria Established

NERC Reliability Standards- Current standards for base study screening- SERC Requirements

Individual company criteria

10

Study Methodologies Selected

Similarities to previous studies:– Thermal Power Flow Analysis– Voltage, stability, short circuit, phase

angle analysis - as needed

Sensitivity to examine the use of high temperature conductor on the DEC Caesar (Shiloh-Pisgah) 230kV line

11

Latest available MMWG cases were selected and updated for study years (change made from previous studies to incorporate latest PJM transmission upgrades)

Combined detailed model for Duke and Progress was prepared

Planned transmission additions from updated 2008 Plan were included in models

Base Case Models Developed

12

Hypothetical imports– To Duke– To Progress– To Duke and Progress

Hypothetical export: CPLE to PJM Hypothetical base load generation

Resource Supply Options Selected

13

Hypothetical Import/Export ScenariosResource From Sink Test Level (MW)

NORTH – PJM (AEP) Duke 600

SOUTH – SOCO Duke 600

SOUTH – SCEG Duke 600

SOUTH – SCPSA Duke 600

EAST – Progress Duke 600

WEST – TVA Duke 600

NORTH – PJM (AEP) Progress (CPLE) 600

NORTH – PJM (DVP) Progress (CPLE) 600

SOUTH – SCEG Progress (CPLE) 600

SOUTH – SCPSA Progress (CPLE) 600

WEST – Duke Progress (CPLE) 600

NORTH – PJM (AEP/AEP) Duke / Progress (CPLE) 600 /600

NORTH – PJM (AEP/DVP) Duke / Progress (CPLE) 600 /600

SOUTH – SCPSA (VC Summer) Duke / Progress (CPLE) 600 /600

East-Progress PJM (Dominion) 600

14

Technical Analysis

Conduct thermal screenings of the 2014 and 2019 base cases

Conduct sensitivity analysis on 2014 base case for high temperature line and CPLW area high import

Conduct thermal screenings of the 2019 Resource Supply Option cases

15

Problems Identified and Solutions Developed

Identify limitations and develop potential alternative solutions for further testing and evaluation

Estimate project costs and schedule

16

Collaborative Plan Projects Selected Compare all alternatives and select

preferred solutions

Study Report Prepared Prepare draft report and distribute to

TAG for review and comment

17

18

Rich Wodyka

ITP

NCTPC StakeholderSector Structure

19

TAG Sector Voting Process Participant must register at least 2 weeks prior to the

first meeting at which the TAG participant intends to vote.

Web-based registration Indicate whether the TAG participant is registering as

an “Individual” or as an agent or employee of a “TAG Sector Entity.”

If the TAG participant registers as an agent, member, or employee of a TAG Sector Entity, s/he must identify such TAG Sector Entity.

An individual TAG participant may register as an agent, member, or employee of more than one TAG Sector Entity.

20

TAG Sector Voting Process

A TAG Sector Entity may be any organized group (e.g., corporation, partnership, association, trust, agency, government body, etc.)

A TAG Sector Entity may be a member of only one TAG Sector.

A TAG Sector Entity and its affiliates or member organizations all may register as separate TAG Sector Entities, as long as such affiliates or member organizations meet the definition of TAG Sector Entity.

21

TAG Sectors:

1. Cooperative LSEs that serve load in the NCTPC footprint; 2. Municipal LSEs that serve load in the NCTPC footprint; 3. Investor-Owned LSEs that serve load in the NCTPC footprint; 4. Transmission Providers/Transmission Owners that are not

LSEs in the NCTPC footprint; 5. Transmission Customers (a customer taking Transmission

Service from at least one Transmission Provider in the NCTPC); 6. Generator Interconnection Customers (a customer taking

FERC- or state-jurisdictional generator interconnection service from at least one of the Transmission Providers in the NCTPC);

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

8. General Public. An Individual is only eligible to join the General Public Sector.

22

Only one individual TAG participant that has registered as an agent or employee of a TAG Sector Entity may vote on behalf of a particular TAG Sector Entity with regard to any particular vote.

An individual TAG participant may vote on behalf of more than one TAG Sector Entity, if authorized to do so.

Questions to be voted on will be answerable with a Yes or No.

23

Sector Voting Process

Each TAG Sector that has at least one TAG Sector Entity representative, or at least one Individual or TAG Sector Entity representative in the case of the General Public Sector, present will receive a Sector Vote with a worth of 1.00.

A Sector Vote is divisible. The vote of each TAG participant eligible to vote in a Sector Vote is not divisible.

The vote of each TAG participant in a TAG Sector will be multiplied by 1.00 divided by the total number or TAG participants voting in such Sector to determine how the Sector Vote with a total worth of 1.00 will be allocated.

24

Sector Voting Process

Allocation of votes is between “Sector Yes Votes” and “Sector No Votes.” That is, each Sector Vote will be allocated such that the Sector Yes Vote and Sector No Vote totals 1.00.

The Sector Yes Vote and Sector No Vote for each TAG Sector will then each be weighted by multiplying each of them by 1.00 divided by the number of TAG Sectors participating in the relevant vote.

The results will be called “Weighted Sector Yes Vote” and “Weighted Sector No Vote.”

The winning position will be the larger of the Weighted Sector Yes Vote and Weighted Sector No Vote.

25

Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sector No. of Voters

Yes Votes No Votes Sector Yes Vote

Sector No Vote

Weighted Sector Yes Vote

Weighted Sector No Vote

Coop LSE 6 6 0 1.00 0 .20 0

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

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

TP/TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TCs 1 0 1 0 1.00 0 .20

GICs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ECs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Total Vote 0.47 0.53

Sector Voting Example

26

27

Bob Pierce – Duke Energy

Regional Studies Reports

2828

JCSP and EWITSJCSP and EWITS

Joint Coordinated System Plan (JCSP) activities have been suspended

Eastern Wind Integration & Transmission Study (EWITS) plans to do more detailed economic evaluations using JCSP input

29

Objectives of EWITS

Evaluate the power system impacts and transmission associated with increasing wind capacity to 20% and 30% of retail electric energy sales in the study area by 2024;

Impacts include operating due to variability and uncertainty of wind reliability;

Build upon prior wind integration studies and related technical work;

Coordinate with JCSP and current regional power system study work;

Produce meaningful, broadly supported results through a technically rigorous, inclusive study process.

30

Study area includes:

• PJM

• Midwest ISO

• Mid-Continent Area Power Pool

• Southwest Power Pool

• TVA

• New York ISO

• ISO New England

• Other interested parties

EWITS Region Definition

31

32

Why 20% and 30% Wind?

33

EWITS Scenario 3 Generation Siting

34

JCSP reference future and 20% wind and 30% wind scenarios• Builds on JCSP work

Analyze different transmission alternatives for different wind scenarios• 765 AC and HVDC• High in-state wind versus

high wind exports

Key Tasks- Develop Transmission Plan

35

Use JCSP 20% wind scenario transmission overlay as the starting point to develop initial plans for EWITS four scenarios

Determine type, size and route of transmission lines

Determine costs and land requirements Determine potential substation and DC

terminal locations

Development of Preliminary Transmission Plans

36

Joint Coordinated System Plan Overlay – 20% Wind Scenario

37

EWITS Schedule

Nov 07 – Feb 08 Study Development

March 2008 Award Wind Mesoscale Modeling Contract

July 2008 Award Wind Integration Contract

April – Oct 2008 Develop Wind Data Sets

Sept 08 – June 2009 Evaluate Operating & Reliability Impacts;

Develop Transmission Plan

August 2009 Complete Study

38

EWITS Website - http://wind.nrel.gov/public/EWITS/

Suggestions on questions to address in study or other

comments/input

Contact Dave Corbus at David_Corbus@nrel.gov (303-384-6966)

or Matt Schuerger at MattSchuerger@earthlink.net (651-699-

4971)

JCSP Website reference - http://www.jcspstudy.org/

Message from EWITS ---- Your Input is Important!

39393939

Special Report: Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation

Reliably integrating high levels of variable resources — wind, solar, ocean, and some forms of hydro — into the North American bulk power system will require significant changes to traditional methods used for system planning and operation.

This report builds on current experience with variable resources to recommend enhanced practices, study and coordination efforts needed to lay the foundation for this important integration effort.

NERC Special Report

404040

Power system planners must account for the impacts of variable generation on powersystem planning and design and develop the necessary practices and methods to maintainlong-term bulk power system reliability (NERC’s Planning Committee)

NERC Special Report

414141

Operators will require new tools and practices, including enhanced NERC Standards tomaintain bulk power system reliability (NERC’s Operating Committee)

NERC Special Report

424242

Planners and operators would benefit from a reference manual which describes thechanges required to plan and operate the bulk power and distribution systems toaccommodate large amounts of variable generation.

NERC Special Report

434343

Stakeholders requested the following studies:Entergy to Georgia ITS (2000 MW)SPP to SIRPP footprint (5000 MW)PJM “classic” to Southern (3000 MW)PJM west to Southern (2000 MW)Southern to PJM “classic” (3000 MW)

Southeast Inter-Regional Participation Process (SIRPP) Status Update

444444

Refined study underway to look at transfers impact on reliability of SIRPP participants

Will build models with large bulk transfers and each TO will run TPL type analysis to determine impacts and possible solutions

Website Link : www.southeastirpp.com

Southeast Inter-Regional Participation Process (SIRPP) Status Update

4545

New effort across Duke/Progress/PJM seams

Model and Data exchange

Planning practices

LGIP and TSR study practices

Planning Issues

Major projects scope/schedule

PJM Planning Coordination Agreement

46

Approved PJM Backbone 500 kV and 765 kV Facilities Since 2006, the PJM Board

has approved six new major 500 kV and 765 kV backbone upgrades, as shown on this map:

1.502 Junction – Loudoun 500 kV line, also known as the TrAIL Line (2006 RTEP)

2.Carson – Suffolk 500 kV line (2006 RTEP)

3.Lackawanna – Roseland 500 kV line (2007 RTEP)

4.Amos – Kemptown 765 kV line, also known as the PATH line (2007 RTEP)

5.Possum Point – Salem 500 kV line, also known as the MAPP line (2007 RTEP)

6.Branchburg – Roseland – Hudson 500 kV line (2008 RTEP)

The right-of-way routes shown on this map are for illustrative purposes only and may not depict the actual routes that may eventually be chosen. Substation locations may also be modified if more beneficial connections are determined by PJM.

1.

2.

3.

4.5.

6.

1.

4.5.

Source: PJM 2008 RTEP Report, Feb 27, 2009

474747

Building 2009 Series models- Coordinated tie lines and interchange- Submitted 10 years of model data for each

control area- Models to be complete in early June and

submitted to the MMWG process

2009 LTSG Study Scope

SERC LTSG (Long-term Study Group)

484848

LTSG 2019S Study

Accomplish the objectives of the various reliability agreements among SERC member systems, and

Meet the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) requirements for a Long-Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA) for both a 10-year reference case and a scenario case.

2008 Study Scope

494949

LTSG 2019S Study

Base case analysis of bulk energy transfers

Scenario case assessment of the impact of potential new large generating sites

505050

LTSG 2019S Scenario Case

Plant BA MW Type

Bellefonte TVA 2426 Nuclear

Callaway Ameren 1706 Nuclear

North Anna 3

DVP 1594 Nuclear

Grand Gulf 3 EES 1644 Nuclear

Harris 2 PEC 1125 Nuclear

River Bend 2 EES 1644 Nuclear

Lee Duke 2320 Nuclear

JK Smith EKPC 278 CFB

Metcalfe EKPC 375 CT

515151

Duke Significant Facilities

Parkwood 500/230 kV transformers Export CP&LE/DVP

Antioch 500/230 kV transformers Import DVP

Riverview - Peach Valley 230 kV Export SOCO/CPLW/SCPSA

52525252

PEC Significant Facilities

Wake - Rolesville Tap 230 kV Import DVP

535353

LTSG 2019S StudySignificant Issues

New generation at VC Summer will affect the interface between SCPSA/SCEG/

PEC/Duke

545454

SCPSA New Projected Capacity

• Pee Dee 609 MW (Jan 2014)

South Carolina RegionalTransmission Planning (SCRTP)

Meeting Highlights

555555

SCE&G New Projected Capacity

2 Nuclear Units (1117 MW/ea)– Shared with SCPSA– June 2016– January 2019

6 Combustion Turbines Total ~2800 MW

SCRTP

565656

SCRTP

V.C. Summer Unit #2 Related Projects

Santee Cooper

VCS Sub #1- Winnsboro-Richburg-Flat Creek 230kV 12/01/2015 Winnsboro 230/69kV Construct 12/01/2015 Richburg 230/69kV Construct 12/01/2015

575757

SCRTP

V.C. Summer Unit #2 Related Projects

SCE&G

Denny Terrace-Lyles 230kV Line Upgrade 12/01/2015 Denny Terrace Add 3rd 336 Autotransformer 12/01/2015 Lake Murray Add 3rd 336 Autotransformer 12/01/2015 Lake Murray-McMeekin 115kV Line Upgrade 12/01/2015 Lake Murray-Saluda 115kV Line Upgrade 12/01/2015 Saluda-McMeekin 115kV Line Upgrade 12/01/2015 VCS2-Lake Murray #2 230kV Line Construct 12/01/2015 VCS2-Winnsboro-Killian 230kV Line Construct 12/01/2015

585858

SCRTP

V.C. Summer Unit #3 Related Projects

Santee Cooper

VCS Sub2-Pomaria-Sandy Run-Orangeburg- 12/01/2018 St George-Varnville230kV Sandy Run 230/115kV Construct 12/01/2018 St George 230/115kV Construct 12/01/2018

595959

SCRTP

V.C. Summer Unit #3 Related Projects

SCE&G

Saluda-Duke 115kV Tielines Upgrade 12/01/2018 South Columbia 230/115kV Construct 12/01/2018 South Lexington 230/115kV Construct 12/01/2018 St George 230kV Switching Station Construct 12/01/2018 St George-Canadys 230kV Line Upgrade 12/01/2018 St George-Summerville 230kV Line Upgrade 12/01/2018 VCS Sub #2-St George 230kV Double Circuit Construct 12/01/2018

60

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)

61

Challenge to the Industry

New energy policies are driving the need to create a framework to analyze transmission scenarios on a broad multi-regional and interconnection-wide scale

Transmission expansion plans in the eastern interconnection are developed today and coordinated on a regional and super-regional basis, but are not fully coordinated on an interconnection-wide basis

Expanding this process to cover the entire eastern interconnection and reach consensus will require a “bottom-up” approach with broad stakeholder involvement, in particular, ensuring a role for federal, state and provincial officials

62

Industry Proposal Create an Eastern Interconnection Planning

Collaborative (EIPC) process that includes:– Major transmission entities in the east with Planning

Authority responsibility– Utilities, cooperatives, municipal systems, and public

power authorities– Utilities in Canada (include Quebec)– States and Provinces– Administration (DOE, FERC, …) – A forum where stakeholders from all regional

planning processes can effectively participate

63

EIPC Objectives EIPC will provide an integrated, interconnection-wide view

of regional plans and provide analysis identifying any gaps relative to state, provincial, regional or federal policy goals.  This analysis may extend to examining the effectiveness and system impacts of a variety of transmission alternatives

EIPC will use an open and transparent process with a grass-roots approach to the roll-up of regional plans, consistent with FERC Order 890 principles and existing processes

EIPC will not determine cost allocation, will not deal with siting or permitting issues, and will not set or influence energy policy

64

Publishes Annual Interconnection

Analysis

Regional/state compliant plans

provided as input

Study gaps relative to national, regional

and state policy

Regional Plans and Projects

Annual interconnection

analysis

States•Regional Policy

recommendations•State energy policies

•Rate Policies

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative •Rolls-up regional plans

•Coordinates with Canada, Western Interconnect and Texas•Receives stakeholder input and holds public meetings•Performs studies of various transmission alternatives

against national, regional and state energy/economic/environmental objectives

•Identifies gaps for further study

DOE/FERC

ISO / RTOs & Order 890 Entities•Produce Regional Plan through

regional stakeholder process

FERC

Provides policy direction,assumptions &

criteria

• Review/direction• Order adjustments• Cost recovery

States•Policy recommendations

•State energy plans 64

65

EIPC Scope - 1 of 2 Includes all Planning Authorities and their

represented transmission owners in the east Interface w/ Hydro Quebec, WECC, and ERCOT Develop coordinated roll-up of existing Regional

Plans Analyze and identify system impacts of

integrating regional plans and policy directives Ultimately, identify potential interconnection-wide

alternatives for addressing transmission needs that meet policy directives

66

EIPC Scope - 2 of 2

205 filing rights and obligations remain with individual systems and ISOs/RTOs

Order 890 processes continue unchanged and existing queues are respected

Will not attempt to resolve cost allocation issues Initial effort to demonstrate concept – expand on

existing Regional Planning efforts and other on-going study processes

Permanent structure depending on results of demonstration

67

EIPC Benefits – 1 of 2 Ensure that state, provincial and national energy

policies are cooperatively analyzed in an interconnection-wide collaborative approach

Integrate regional plans into an interconnection-wide view, with supporting technical analysis

Coordinate with WECC and Texas efforts Identify gaps relative to achieving national, regional,

and state or provincial requirements and energy, economic, and environmental objectives

Expand coordination on interties between regional planning authorities

68

EIPC Benefits – 2 of 2 Provide a full, open and transparent stakeholder

process that could potentially include public meetings Publish an annual interconnection analysis report to

provide government and administration policy makers with an overview of planning efforts across the eastern interconnection

Provide policy makers feedback on the potential impacts on transmission system requirements to achieve national, regional and state or provincial energy, economic, and environmental objectives

Provide the analysis and a description of system impacts and alternatives to FERC

69

EIPC Status Representatives from 17 planning authorities from the

U.S. and Canada met in Atlanta on April 8 to discuss interconnection-wide transmission planning in the east

There is broad agreement to work together and to involve interested parties, in particular federal, state and provincial officials, in achieving an interconnection-wide analysis in the east

The initial participants are sharing the concept with stakeholder bodies in their regions, seeking a commitment to the process from all Planning Authorities in the east, and continuing to develop the structure and processes necessary to begin work

7070

71

Rich Wodyka

ITP

2009 TAG Work Plan Review

72 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter

Perform analysis, identify problems, and develop solutions

Review Reliability Study Results

Evaluate current reliability problems and transmission upgrade plans

Reliability Planning Process

Coordinated Plan Development

OSC publishes DRAFT Plan

TAG review and comment

Finalize Reliability Results

2009 Overview Schedule

TAG Meetings

73

January - February

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

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

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

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

2009 TAG Work Plan

74

April - May TAG Meeting

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

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

75

June - July TAG Meeting 2009 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, PROBLEM

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

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

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

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

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

76

August - September TAG Meeting 2009 STUDY UPDATE

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

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

solutions that were proposed by TAG members

77

December

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

Collaborative Transmission Plan report

TAG Meeting– Receive presentation on the draft report of 2009

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

Process– Review and comment on the 2010 TAG Work Plan

Schedule

78

79

TAG Open Forum Discussion