mbpc study stakeholder meeting preliminary & partial

ERSC

MBPC Study – Stakeholder meetingPreliminary & Partial Results for Review & Discussion

Entergy Regional State Committee (ERSC)Southwest Power Pool (SPP)

May 3, 2011

ABB Inc. , Electric System Consulting Dept.

ERSC

© ABB Group May 3, 2010 | Slide 1

ERSCAgenda

1. Study Overview

Study Status

Task List and Study Approach

2. Reference Case - Production Costing & Power Flow

3. Results for Western Region - Production Costing & Power Flow

4. Results for WOTAB Region - Production Costing & Power Flow

5. Economic Comparison – Method and Metrics


ERSCStudy Status

Study assumption document submitted for review

Completed development of production costing and

power flow models for 2013 Reference Case

(nomograms enforced)

Analysis for Western and WOTAB Regions under way

Development of production costing and power flow

models for year 2022 conditions – on-going


ERSC Task ListTask 1 – Develop Data base and System Models

Task 2 – Transmission Analyses with High Cost Unit

Task 3 – Transmission Analyses w/o High Cost Unit & no Transmission Change

Task 4 – Transmission Analyses w/o High Cost Unit & Transmission Change

Task 5 – Production Cost Simulation with High Cost Unit

Task 6 – Production Cost Simulation w/o High Cost Unit & no related Transfer Limit

Constraint

Task 7 – Production Cost Simulation w/o High Cost Generation Unit & with

Transmission Changes

Task 8 – Economic Comparison of Benefits and Costs

Task 9 – Collate results by Units, Plants and Groups.

Task 10 – Congestion Analysis

Task 11 – Fuel Price Elasticity

Task 12 – Sensitivity Analysis

Task 13 – Perform ATC Calculations

Task 14 – Study Report Preparation, Discussion and Presentation

Task 15 – Additional Transmission Upgrades required for Flexible Capacity

(Optional)© ABB Group May 3, 2010 | Slide 4

ERSC Study Approach - Overview


ERSCReference Case Development

Reference case provides a base for determining the

impact of removing any nomograms for the study units

Nomograms are enforced in the reference case

Modeling assumptions described in Study

Assumptions Document


ERSCReference Case (Production Costing) Benchmarked with Entergy units, using following

statistics for 2007, 2008, 2009:

Annual energy production

Annual service hours

Nomogram guidelines modeling was verified

Operating reserve modeling was verified

Entergy generation units data were checked


ERSCReference Case (Power Flow)

Reference case represents system conditions at the Entergy system

peak hour (Aug. 26, 2013 @ 3 pm)

Started from 2013 power flow case prepared by SPP-ICT

Synchronized Loads in the Power Flow and Production Costing at the

peak hour

Synchronized dispatch of generating units within Entergy footprint

based on Production Costing dispatch (SCED) at the peak hour

Also ensured interchange between Entergy footprint and Tier 1

matches Production Costing interchange

Entergy footprint totals at the peak hour:

Load + losses: 33,827 MW

Generation: 32,945 MW

Import from Tier 1: 882 MW


ERSC

© ABB Group

August 23,2010 | Slide 9

Reference Case (Power Flow)


ERSCReference Case (Power Flow)

DESCRIPTION GENERATION

(MW) LOAD (MW)

LOSSES (MW)

IMPORT (MW)

WESTERN 712.8 1934.0 48.4 1269.6

WOTAB 6343.6 6721.8 172.3 550.5

DSG 1457.6 2984.5 16.8 1543.7

AMS 5197.2 7327.1 62.7 2192.6

EMI 3311.4 4321.3 94.9 1104.8


ERSCReference Case Results (Power Flow)

Ran power flow analysis on Reference Case to check steady-

state performance in Entergy footprint for following conditions:

System intact

N-1 contingencies

G1N1 contingencies (WOTAB and Amite South)

Power flow results show several post-contingency thermal and

voltage violations in the Entergy footprint

Western Region Violations:

o Several 138 kV facilities became overloaded for two 230

kV Double Contingencies

o Several G1N1 violations


ERSC Reference Case Results (Power Flow): N-1

RATING % LOADING

(MVA) (ON RATE-B)

BUS # NAME KV BUS # NAME KV CKT RATE-B Ref. Case

334023 4NAVSOTA 138 334024 4SOTA 1 138 1 143 334021 4COLSTAJNCT 138 334026 4GRIMES 138 1 106

334026 4GRIMES 138 334040 4WALDEN 138 1 191 230kV Double Contingency 1 102.4

334112 4HICKORY 138 334113 4EASTGAT 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 2 112.7

334113 4EASTGAT 138 334115 6L533TP8 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 2 121

334115 6L533TP8 138 334210 4ADAYTON 138 1 271 230kV Double Contingency 2 104.5

334120 4NU LJON 138 334211 4BDAYTON 138 1 99 230kV Double Contingency 2 108.2

334151 4MENARD 138 334152 4BRAGG 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 1 118.1

334152 4BRAGG 138 334193 4HONEY 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 1 118.9

334193 4HONEY 138 334319 4CYPRESS 138 1 239 230kV Double Contingency 1 121.2

334194 4RYE 13 138 334195 4HIGHTWR 138 1 206 230kV Double Contingency 1 123.1

334194 4RYE 13 138 334319 4CYPRESS 138 1 206 230kV Double Contingency 1 126.8

334195 4HIGHTWR 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 206 230kV Double Contingency 1 116.2

334214 4DEVERS 138 334215 4CHINA 138 1 216 230kV Double Contingency 2 101.3

334218 5L541T43 138 334219 4SHILOH 138 1 109 230kV Double Contingency 1 100.6

334219 4SHILOH 138 334220 4BRKSCRK 138 1 109 230kV Double Contingency 1 105.5

334220 4BRKSCRK 138 334221 4BAYSHOR 138 1 109 230kV Double Contingency 1 107.3

334226 4BYUFARM 138 334227 4BIGHILL 138 1 151 230kV Double Contingency 1 102.1

334226 4BYUFARM 138 334228 4MEMORIL 138 1 151 230kV Double Contingency 1 104.3

334228 4MEMORIL 138 334412 4MID CO 138 1 151 230kV Double Contingency 1 108.5

MONITORED ELEMENT

CONTINGENCY

FROM BUS TO BUS


ERSCReference Case Results (Power Flow): G1N1 Wotab

RATING % LOADING

(MVA) (ON RATE-B)

BUS # NAME KV BUS # NAME KV CKT RATE-B

303202 3GRENWD 115 336033 3TEREBN 115 1 229 21180 106.5

334023 4NAVSOTA 138 334024 4SOTA 1 138 1 143 140 119.1

334026 4GRIMES 138 334028 7GRIMES 345 1 525 1805 102.9

334026 4GRIMES 138 334028 7GRIMES 345 2 525 1800 102.9

334026 4GRIMES 138 334040 4WALDEN 138 1 191 11025 101.1

334026 4GRIMES 138 334060 4MT.ZION 138 1 206 11860 107.4

334043 4TUBULAR 138 334044 4DOBBIN 138 1 112 30793 103.1

334319 4CYPRESS 138 334320 8CYPRESS 500 1 750 12735 114.8

334333 4NEWTONB 138 334334 4LEACH 138 1 141 11860 105.3

334334 4LEACH 138 334335 4TOLEDO 138 1 134 11860 113.2

334413 4PNEC BK 138 334430 4SABINE 138 1 288 12100 104.8

334414 4LINDE 138 334430 4SABINE 138 1 288 12095 101.1

MONITORED ELEMENT

CONTINGENCYFROM BUS TO BUS


ERSCReference Case Results (Power Flow): G1N1 AMS

RATING % LOADING

(MVA) (ON RATE-B)

BUS # NAME KV BUS # NAME KV CKT RATE-B

336037 3VLNTIN 115 336080 3CLOVEL 115 1 115 4140 101.9

336525 3SMTHD* 115 336526 3ARLGTN# 115 1 120 5905 100.5

335569 6POLSCAR 230 335573 6A.A.C. 230 1 685 4895 105.7

335573 6A.A.C. 230 335574 6LICAR 230 1 685 4895 105.1

335574 6LICAR 230 335575 6BELL HE 230 1 685 4895 102.7

336069 6TEZCUCO 230 336154 6WATFRD 230 1 641 4140 100.8

MONITORED ELEMENT

CONTINGENCYFROM BUS TO BUS


ERSC Western Region Analysis – Production Costing

The following cases were simulated:

Case Name Definition

West_0 Western study unit- reference case

West_1 Nomogram(s) off

West_2 Nomogram(s) off + no Western area transmission limit

West_3 Nomogram(s) off + Lewis Creek plant turned off

West_4Nomogram(s) off + Lewis Creek plant turned off + no Western area transmission limit

West_5 Same as West 3 with Trans Solution 1

West_6 Same as West 3 with Trans Solution 2


ERSC Western Region Analysis – Production Costing

Production costing and power flow analysis performed in parallel

Western Region generation dispatch (MW) and import (MW) at

Entergy System peak load hour (Aug. 26, 2013 @ 3 pm) are shown

below:

West_0 West_2 West_3 West_4

Total Generation 712 850 451 483

Lewis Creek 468 520 0 0

Frontier 245 330 281 330

Pelican Road 0 0 170 153

Import into Western 1270 1125 1546 1513


ERSC

Changes in Entergy’s footprint production cost and import cost

Without Crockett – Grimes 345 kV hourly flow limit as in West_0 case

Western Region Analysis – Production Costing

Sensitivity Runs


Case Name

Production Cost

Change (M$)

Import Cost

Change (M$)

Adjusted

Production Cost

Change (M$)

West_0 0 0 0

West_1 0 0 0

West_2 -39 30 -10

West_3 2 -5 -2

West_4 -55 52 -3

West_5 -1 0 -1

West_6 -2 -1 -3

ERSC

Lewis Creek plant annual dispatch change

Without Crockett – Grimes 345 kV hourly flow limit as in West_0

case

Western Region Analysis – Production Costing

Sensitivity Runs

Case Name Annual Summary

Lewis Creek

Total Plant

Annual Production (MWh) 0

Number of Hours Dispatched

Annual Production (MWh) -28,826




West_0

West_1

West_2


-3,443

-234

ERSC Western Region Analysis – Power Flow

West_1 Case

When applicable nomograms are turned off (Case West_1), generation

dispatch is identical to that in the Reference Case (West_0 with

nomograms on) at the peak load hour

Hence, there was no need to repeat power flow for the West_1 Case

West_2 Case

Same as West_1 case with no Western area transmission limits and no

limits on tie-lines between Western & WOTAB in production costing

analysis

Similar steady-state performance compared to West_0 case


ERSC

West_3 Case

The same as West_0 with Lewis Creek plant turned off

Further degradation in steady-state performance compared to West_0

and West_2 cases

Voltage collapse for the double contingencies

Also voltage collapse for several G1N1 contingencies

Voltage collapse is due to erosion of reactive capability in Western

Region

Western Region Analysis – Power Flow


ERSC

West_4 Case

Same as West_3 with no Western area transmission

limits and no limits on tie-lines between Western &

WOTAB in production costing analysis

Voltage collapse for the same double contingencies

as in West_3

Also, voltage collapse for several G1N1 contingencies

Western Region Analysis – Power Flow


ERSCConsolidated Power Flow Results

for Western Region (N-1)

RATING

(MVA)

BUS # NAME KV BUS # NAME KV CKT RATE-B Ref. Case West2 West3 West4

334023 4NAVSOTA 138 334024 4SOTA 1 138 1 143 334021 4COLSTAJNCT 138 334026 4GRIMES 138 1 106 104.5 111.1 123.5

334026 4GRIMES 138 334040 4WALDEN 138 1 191 230kV Double Contingency 1 102.4 -

334112 4HICKORY 138 334113 4EASTGAT 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 2 112.7 109.3

334113 4EASTGAT 138 334115 6L533TP8 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 2 121 117.6

334115 6L533TP8 138 334210 4ADAYTON 138 1 271 230kV Double Contingency 2 104.5 101.6

334120 4NU LJON 138 334211 4BDAYTON 138 1 99 230kV Double Contingency 2 108.2 106.9

334151 4MENARD 138 334152 4BRAGG 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 1 118.1 107.2

334152 4BRAGG 138 334193 4HONEY 138 1 233 230kV Double Contingency 1 118.9 108.1

334193 4HONEY 138 334319 4CYPRESS 138 1 239 230kV Double Contingency 1 121.2 110.5

334194 4RYE 13 138 334195 4HIGHTWR 138 1 206 230kV Double Contingency 1 123.1 110.3

334194 4RYE 13 138 334319 4CYPRESS 138 1 206 230kV Double Contingency 1 126.8 114.1

334195 4HIGHTWR 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 206 230kV Double Contingency 1 116.2 103.4

334214 4DEVERS 138 334215 4CHINA 138 1 216 230kV Double Contingency 2 101.3 -

334218 5L541T43 138 334219 4SHILOH 138 1 109 230kV Double Contingency 1 100.6 100.9

334219 4SHILOH 138 334220 4BRKSCRK 138 1 109 230kV Double Contingency 1 105.5 105.7

334220 4BRKSCRK 138 334221 4BAYSHOR 138 1 109 230kV Double Contingency 1 107.3 107.5

334226 4BYUFARM 138 334227 4BIGHILL 138 1 151 230kV Double Contingency 1 102.1 103.3

334226 4BYUFARM 138 334228 4MEMORIL 138 1 151 230kV Double Contingency 1 104.3 105.6

334228 4MEMORIL 138 334412 4MID CO 138 1 151 230kV Double Contingency 1 108.5 109.8

Voltage

Collapse

Voltage

Collapse

MONITORED ELEMENT

CONTINGENCY

% LOADING

FROM BUS TO BUS (ON RATE-B)


ERSCWestern Region Study Summary

Lewis Creek plant lower cost displacement generation

was limited due to transmission constraints

Additional analysis (production costing and power flow)

required to determine :

The production cost savings by replacing Lewis Creek

units with more economical generation from elsewhere

in the Entergy Foot print

New transmission to ensure reliability criteria is met

when with such replacement


ERSC Transmission Solution(s) for Western Region

Option 1: New, Cypress to Jacinto 230 kV + Jacinto to Porter 230 kV

Option 2: New, Cypress to Lewis Creek 230 kV + Lewis Creek to Porter 230 kV


ERSC

Step-1: Obtain economic dispatch without the Lewis

Creek units (transmission limits within and into Western

Region relaxed in GridView)

Step–2: Apply the dispatch from Step–1 to power flow;

Perform N-1, G-1_N-1 (preliminary evaluation)

Step–3: Re-run production cost with the transmission

solution from Step-2; however now all the relevant

transmission constraints enforced in GridView.

Step–4: Re-run power case, N-1 and G-1_N-1 with

dispatch from Step–3; ensure reliability criteria are met

Transmission Solution(s) for Western Region


ERSCTransmission Solution(s)

for Western Region - AnalysisN-1 Results

RATING

(MVA) West3 West3

BUS # NAME KV BUS # NAME KV CKT RATE-B Option 1 Option 2

334113 4EASTGAT 138 334115 6L533TP8 138 1 233 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 2 121 - - 108.9

334113 4EASTGAT 138 334115 6L533TP8 138 1 233 334203 6CHPTSR1 230 334204 6CHINA 230 1 - 103.1 - -

334118 4SPLENDR 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 206 3Wnd: OPEN B$1308 PORTER 1 - - 107.1 -

334118 4SPLENDR 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 206 334200 6PORTER 230 334202 6CHPTSR2 230 1 - 103.7 - -

334120 4NU LJON 138 334211 4BDAYTON 138 1 99 334084 4CLVELND 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 - 109.2 102.6 -

334120 4NU LJON 138 334211 4BDAYTON 138 1 99 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 2 108.2 Voltage Collapse -

334069 6LEWISCREEK 230 334072 4LEWIS 138 1 450 3Wnd: OPEN B$1308 PORTER 1 - - - 124.9

334112 4HICKORY 138 334113 4EASTGAT 138 1 233 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 2 112.7 - 100.4

334115 6L533TP8 138 334210 4ADAYTON 138 1 271 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 2 104.5 - -

334226 4BYUFARM 138 334228 4MEMORIL 138 1 151 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 104.3 - 100.9

334226 4BYUFARM 138 334227 4BIGHILL 138 1 151 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 102.1 - -

334228 4MEMORIL 138 334412 4MID CO 138 1 151 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 108.5 - 105

334026 4GRIMES 138 334040 4WALDEN 138 1 191 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 102.4 - -

334151 4MENARD 138 334152 4BRAGG 138 1 233 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 118.1 - -

334152 4BRAGG 138 334193 4HONEY 138 1 233 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 118.9 - -

334193 4HONEY 138 334319 4CYPRESS 138 1 239 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 121.2 - -

334194 4RYE 13 138 334319 4CYPRESS 138 1 206 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 126.8 - -

334194 4RYE 13 138 334195 4HIGHTWR 138 1 206 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 123.1 - -

334195 4HIGHTWR 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 206 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 116.2 - -

334214 4DEVERS 138 334215 4CHINA 138 1 216 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 2 101.3 - -

334218 5L541T43 138 334219 4SHILOH 138 1 109 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 100.6 - -

334219 4SHILOH 138 334220 4BRKSCRK 138 1 109 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 105.5 - -

334220 4BRKSCRK 138 334221 4BAYSHOR 138 1 109 230KV DOUBLE CONTINGENCY 1 107.3 - -

334023 4NAVSOTA 138 334024 4SOTA 1 138 1 143 334021 4COLSTAJNCT 138 334026 4GRIMES 138 1 106 118.6 113 111.7

Voltage Collapse

MONITORED ELEMENT % LOADING (ON RATE-B)

FROM BUS TO BUS

CONTINGENCY Ref. Case West3


ERSC

G-1_N-1

Transmission Solution(s)

for Western Region – Analysis (Cont’d)

RATING

(MVA) West3 West3


334113 4EASTGAT 138 334115 6L533TP8 138 1 233 28935 - 105.7 - -

334113 4EASTGAT 138 334115 6L533TP8 138 1 233 32557 - - 102.9 -

334118 4SPLENDR 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 206 32557 - - 117.3 -

334118 4SPLENDR 138 334208 4JACINTO 138 1 206 710 - 103.7 - -

334120 4NU LJON 138 334211 4BDAYTON 138 1 99 30877 - 118.6 110.5 101.2

334069 6LEWISCREEK 230 334072 4LEWIS 138 1 450 32557 - - 105.9 140.5

334117 4APOLLO 138 334118 4SPLENDR 138 1 206 32557 - - 103.7 -

334119 4TARKING 138 334120 4NU LJON 138 1 99 30877 - 104.2 - -

334193 4HONEY 138 334319 4CYPRESS 138 1 239 31261 - 105.6 - -

334152 4BRAGG 138 334193 4HONEY 138 1 233 31261 - 103 - -

334151 4MENARD 138 334152 4BRAGG 138 1 233 31261 - 102.1 - -

334069 6LEWISCREEK 230 334085 6PEACHCREEK 230 1 501 32557 - - 101.4 -

334085 6PEACHCREEK 230 334206 6JACINTO 230 1 501 32557 - - 103.6 -

334320 8CYPRESS 500 334326 6CYPRESS 230 1 750 12720 - - 112.1 103.5

334319 4CYPRESS 138 334320 8CYPRESS 500 1 750 12735 114.8 104.2 113.2 107.1

334326 6CYPRESS 230 334328 6BEVIL 230 1 685 12740 - 104 - -

334229 4COLEYCREEK 138 334231 4PELCNRD 138 1 206 31207 - - 101.1 -

334204 6CHINA 230 334434 6SABINE 230 1 685 31261 - 110.7 - -

334204 6CHINA 230 334327 6AMELIA 230 1 797 31267 - 107.3 - -

334327 6AMELIA 230 334328 6BEVIL 230 1 685 11975 - 100.3 - -

334360 6HELBIG 230 334361 6MCLEWIS 230 1 681 11860 - 107.6 106 105.9

335070 6CARLYSS 230 335190 6NLSON 230 1 405 12320 - 106.9 - -

335070 6CARLYSS 230 335073 6BOUDIN 230 1 405 21735 - 101.1 101.6 -

335072 6ROSEBF 230 335136 6PPG 23 230 1 470 12315 - 109.9 - 102.1


FROM BUS TO BUS



ERSC

G-1_N-1

Transmission Solution (s)

for Western Region – Analysis (Cont’d)

RATING

(MVA) West3 West3


335072 6ROSEBF 230 335136 6PPG 23 230 1 470 11860 - - 100.6 -

334023 4NAVSOTA 138 334024 4SOTA 1 138 1 143 10990 - 130.1 123.2 122.6

334023 4NAVSOTA 138 334024 4SOTA 1 138 1 143 140 119.1 - - -

334026 4GRIMES 138 334028 7GRIMES 345 1 525 1805 102.9 - - -

334026 4GRIMES 138 334028 7GRIMES 345 2 525 1800 102.9 - - -

334026 4GRIMES 138 334028 7GRIMES 345 1 525 12655 - 112.2 105.1 106.1

334026 4GRIMES 138 334028 7GRIMES 345 2 525 12650 - 112.2 105.1 106.1

334026 4GRIMES 138 334060 4MT.ZION 138 1 206 11860 107.4 - 110.8 109.2

334026 4GRIMES 138 334060 4MT.ZION 138 1 206 11020 - 112.9 - -

334058 L558T485 138 334060 4MT.ZION 138 1 206 11020 - 104.9 - -

334058 L558T485 138 334060 4MT.ZION 138 1 206 11860 - - 102.7 101.2

334026 4GRIMES 138 334040 4WALDEN 138 1 191 11025 101.1 108.9 - 102.9

334043 4TUBULAR 138 334044 4DOBBIN 138 1 112 30793 103.1 - - -

334333 4NEWTONB 138 334334 4LEACH 138 1 141 11860 105.3 - - -

334334 4LEACH 138 334335 4TOLEDO 138 1 134 11860 113.2 101.9 102.9 101.3

334413 4PNEC BK 138 334430 4SABINE 138 1 288 12100 104.8 105.8 104.9 105.3

334414 4LINDE 138 334430 4SABINE 138 1 288 12095 101.1 102 101.1 101.6


FROM BUS TO BUS



ERSC

WOTAB Region Analysis


ERSC WOTAB Region Analysis The following cases were simulated:

Case Name Sudy

Units

Nomograms Transmission

Limits

Definition

WOTAB_0 Available ON ON WOTAB - reference case

WOTAB_1 Available OFF ON Same as WOTAB_0 with nomogram rules turned off

WOTAB_2 Available OFF OFF No WOTAB & Western area transmission limits

Nomogram(s) off

WOTAB_3 OFF OFF ON Nomograms(s) off

Sabine 1-5, Nelson 3&4, Lewis Creek 1&2 turned off

WOTAB_4 OFF OFF OFF Nomograms(s) off

Sabine 1-5, Nelson 3&4, Lewis Creek 1&2 turned off

No WOTAB & Western area transmission limits


ERSCWOTAB Region Analysis (Cont’d)

Study Units and Dispatch

Ref. Case WOTAB1 WOTAB2 WOTAB3 WOTAB4

G1LEWIS_1 234 234 0 0 0

G2LEWIS_1 234 234 0 0 0

G4NELSON_1 200 0 0 0 0

G1SABIN_1 158.8 158.8 0 0 0

G2SABIN_1 126.88 126.88 0 0 0

G3SABIN_1 204.05 232 420 0 0

G4SABIN_1 477 477 530 0 0

G5SABIN_1 199.04 252.14 0 0 0

Dispatch (MW)

Generating Unit


ERSC Results for WOTAB Region –

Production Costing

Changes in Entergy’s footprint production cost and import cost

Without Crockett – Grimes 345 kV hourly flow limit as in

WOTAB_0 case


Case Name

Production Cost Change

(M$)

Import Cost

Change (M$)

Adjusted

Production Cost

Change (M$)

Wotab_0 0 0 0

Wotab_1 -4 2 -3

Wotab_2 -102 26 -75

Wotab_3 68 99 167

Wotab_4 -127 33 -95

ERSC

Lewis Creek plant annual dispatch change


WOTAB_0 case

Results for WOTAB Region –

Production Costing


Lewis Creek

Total Plant







WOTAB_0

WOTAB_1

WOTAB_2


0

-303

-7,907

ERSC Results for WOTAB Region –

Production Costing

Sabine plant annual dispatch change


WOTAB_0 case


Sabine

Total Plant



Annual Production (MWh) 49,095


Annual Production (MWh) -2,377,053


WOTAB_1

WOTAB_2

WOTAB_0


0

-437

-17,009

ERSC

Nelson plant annual dispatch change


WOTAB_0 case

Results for WOTAB Region –

Production Costing

Case Name Annual Summary Nelson Total Plant







WOTAB_0

WOTAB_1

WOTAB_2


0

-495

-2,367

ERSC Metrics - Overview


ERSC

Based on one year and extrapolate to other

years, as necessary

Entergy Footprint’s Adjusted Production Cost =

Entergy Footprint’s units production cost

+ import cost

Import Cost =

hourly import flow * area simple average LMP

(?)

Adjusted Production Cost


ERSC

Capital Cost for Transmission Projects – C1,C2,….

Annual Fixed Charge Rate(s) – F1, F2,….

Total Annual Transmission Cost = Ci*Fi

Annual Transmission Cost


ERSC

B/C = 0

B/C = 0.5

B/C = 1

B/C = 1.5

B/C = 2

B/C = 2.5

B/C = 3

B/C = 3.5

Starting B/C of 0.41

T2: B/C of 0.61

T1: B/C of 0.58

T5: B/C of 0.69

T3: B/C of 1.19

T4: B/C of 1.78

T6: B/C of 2.57

T14: B/C of 3.63

Add Project#6

Delete Project#7

Delete Project#5

Delete Project#6

Delete Project#4Incremental B/C = -0.02

(-) Delete Project#3

Incremental B/C = 0.74

Delete Project#2

Incremental B/C = 1.54

Delete Project#1

Incremental B/C = 2.50 T15: B/C of 3.34

1. Each trial is depicted as a

node with red nodes denoting

trials with B/C <1, and green

with B/C>1.

2. A red arrow denotes that

the B/C ratio decreased

implying that more benefit

than cost was removed, not a

good outcome.

3. A green arrow denotes the

reverse, that more cost than

benefit was removed, a good

outcome.

An Example of (B/C) Comparison


ERSC

Perform 2022 evaluations for Western and fine tune transmission solution

Develop and Test Transmission Solution(s) for WOTAB

Proceed with Study for DSG and Amite South (2013)

Study WOTAB, DSG and Amite South for year 2022

Next Steps


ERSC Q & A

Thank you!


mbpc study stakeholder meeting preliminary & partial

Documents