tag meeting december 9, 2009

11

TAG MeetingDecember 9, 2009

NCEMC Office

Raleigh, NC

22

TAG Meeting Agenda1. Administrative Items – Rich Wodyka

2. 2009 – 2019 Collaborative Plan Study Results – Joey West

3. 2010 Study Scope – James Manning

4. Regional Studies Update – Ed Ernst and Bob Pierce

5. 2010 TAG Work Plan – Rich Wodyka

6. TAG Open Forum – Rich Wodyka

333

Joey West

Progress Energy

2009 – 2019 Collaborative Plan Study Results

444

Base Reliability Results

• 2014 and 2019 Progress Collaborative Plan Project Delays Hypothetical Resource Supply Options

• Transfer Scenarios

• Nuclear Generation Scenarios

Outline of Results

555

Two new projects identified:• Brunswick 1 - Castle Hayne 230kV Line, Construct New Cape

Fear River Crossing (Progress)• Reconductor Pisgah Tie-Shiloh Switching Station 230 kV lines

(Duke)

Two Duke projects back in Plan:• Reconductor Central Tie-Shady Grove Tap 230 kV lines• Reconductor Peach Valley Tie- Riverview Switching Station

230 kV lines

2014S and 2019S Base Reliability Results

666

Progress Load Forecast RelatedCollaborative Plan Project Delays

Project2009

Plan In-Service Date

2008 Plan In-Service

Date

Clinton-Lee 230 kV Line 12/1/2011 (1.5 yrs) 6/1/2010

Harris Plant – RTP 230 kV Line 6/1/2014 (3 yrs) 6/1/2011

Greenville-Kinston Dupont 230 kV Line 6/1/2017 (6 yrs) 6/1/2011

Wake 500 kV Sub, Add 3rd 500/230 kV Transformer

6/1/2018 (5 yrs) 6/1/2013

Durham-RTP 230 kV Line, Reconductor 6/1/2019 (5 yrs) 6/1/2014

Cape Fear-West End 230 kV West Line 6/1/2019 (3 yrs) 6/1/2016

Rockingham-Lilesville 230 kV Line, Add 3rd Line

06/1/2019 (8 yrs) 6/1/2011

777

List of Units Included in Base Case• Cliffside Coal – 825 MW• Buck Combined Cycle – 620 MW• Dan River Combined Cycle – 620 MW• Richmond County Combined Cycle – 660 MW• Wayne County CT – 160 MW

Planned New Generation Units

888

Resource Supply Options 2019 Hypothetical Transfer Scenarios

Resource From Sink Test Level (MW) Estimated Cost ($M)

NORTH – PJM (AEP) Duke 600 0

SOUTH - SOCO Duke 600 0

SOUTH – SCEG Duke 600 129

SOUTH – SCPSA Duke 600 0

EAST – Progress Duke 600 0

WEST - TVA Duke 600 0

NORTH – PJM (AEP) Progress (CPLE) 600 0

NORTH – PJM (DVP) Progress (CPLE) 600 0

SOUTH – SCEG Progress (CPLE) 600 0

SOUTH – SCPSA Progress (CPLE) 600 0

WEST - Duke Progress (CPLE) 600 0

NORTH – PJM (AEP/AEP) Duke / Progress (CPLE) 600 / 600 0/0

NORTH – PJM (AEP/DVP) Duke / Progress (CPLE) 600 / 600 0/0

EAST - Progress PJM (Dominion) 600 0

999

Resource Supply Options 2019 Hypothetical Transfer Scenarios

Results Except 600 MW South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCEG)

to Duke Transfer Scenario• Upgrade Parr-Newport Tie (Parr) 230 kV Line: $89 M• Upgrade Bush River Tie-Clinton Tie (Clinton) 100

kV Line: $40 M All transfer resource supply options can be

accommodated without additional projects.

101010

Resource Supply Options 2019 Nuclear Generation Scenarios

Company Location (County) MW’S

Duke Cherokee, SC 1160

Progress Wake, NC 1125

111111

Progress can accommodate an 1125 MW unit at Harris Nuclear Station without additional transmission upgrades

Duke can accommodate an 1160 MW unit at Lee Nuclear Station with one additional transmission upgrade• Bundle Lee Nuclear Station-Pacolet Tie (Roddey West)

230 kV Line: $12 M

Resource Supply Options 2019 Nuclear Generation Scenarios Results

121212

Comparison to Previous Collaborative Transmission Plan

2008 Plan 2009 Draft Plan

Number of projects with an estimated cost of $10 million or more each

16 18

Total estimated cost of Plan $520 M $595 M

131313

Import ScenariosPreliminary Major Projects in 2009 Plan

Reliability Project TO Planned I/S Date

Rockingham-West End 230 kV line Progress In-Service

Richmond 500 kV sub, reactor Progress In-Service

Asheville-Enka 230 kV line, Convert 115 kV line; and

Asheville-Enka 115 kV, Build new lineProgress

December ’10

December ’12

Rockingham-West End 230 kV East line Progress June ’11

Pleasant Garden-Asheboro 230 kV line, replace Asheboro 230 kV xfmrs

Progress

& Duke

June ’11

Ft Bragg Woodruff Street-Richmond 230 kV Line

Progress June ‘11

Clinton-Lee 230 kV line Progress Dec’11

141414

Import ScenariosPreliminary Major Projects in 2009 Plan (Continued)


Brunswick 1 - Castle Hayne 230kV Line, Construct New Cape Fear River Crossing

Progress June ‘12

Jacksonville Static VAR Compensator Progress June ’12

Folkstone 230/115kV Substation Progress June ’13

Harris-RTP 230 kV line Progress June ’14

Greenville-Kinston Dupont 230 kV line Progress June ’17

Add 3rd Wake 500/230 kV xfmr Progress June ’18

Durham-RTP 230kV Line, Reconductor Progress June ‘ 19

Cape Fear-West End 230 kV West line, Install reactor

Progress June ’19

Rockingham-Lilesville 230 kV line Progress June ’19

151515

Import Scenarios

Preliminary Major Projects in 2009 Plan (Continued)


Elon 100 kV Lines (Sadler Tie-Glen Raven Main #1 & #2, Reconductor

Duke June ‘11

Caesar 230 kV Lines (Pisgah Tie-Shiloh Switching Station #1 & #2), Reconductor

Duke June ‘13

London Creek 230 kV Lines (Peach Valley Tie-Riverview Sw. Station #1 & #2), Reconductor

Duke June ‘15

Fisher 230 kV Lines (Central-Shady Grove Tap #1 & #2), Reconductor

Duke June ‘17

16161616

17

2010 NCTPC StudyScope

James Manning

North Carolina EMC

18

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

Study Process Steps

19

Study years- Short term (5 yr) and long term (10 yr)

base reliability analysis- Alternate model scenarios

Thermal power flow analysis - Duke & Progress contingencies- Duke & Progress monitored elements

• Internal lines• Tie lines

Collaborative Study Assumptions

20

LSEs provide:– Load forecasts and resource supply

assumptions– Dispatch order for their resources

Area interchange coordinated between Participants and neighboring systems

Study Inputs

21

TAG request to be distributed in early February, 2010

Requests can now include in, out and through transmission service

Enhanced Transmission Access Requests

22

Base reliability case analysis for 2015 summer and winter, and 2020 summer

An “All Firm Transmission” Case(s) will be developed which will include all confirmed long term firm transmission reservations with roll-over rights applicable to the study year(s).

Duke and Progress will each create their respective generation down cases from the common Base Case and share the relevant cases with each other.

Additional cases will be developed for different scenarios under a “climate change” legislation scenario

2010 Study

23

Proposed coal sensitivity scenario for 2015: Retire 100% of existing unscrubbed coal

generation plants (approximately 1,500MW in the PEC control area, 2,000MW in the Duke control area) by 2015, replace with new generation and/or imports

2010 Study

24

Proposed wind sensitivity scenarios for 2015:1. Coastal NC wind sensitivity with wind injections in the

following locations, based on information obtained from the UNC report:

– 2015 case, on peak:– Wilmington (30% capacity factor): 125 MW– Morehead City (40% capacity factor): 675 MW– Bayboro (35% capacity factor): 425 MW

2. 2015 case, off-peak (the final MW output studied at these locations will depend on a further assessment of loads during the off-peak case to verify operational limits and how much excess energy could be sold or exported):

– Wilmington (90% capacity factor): 375 MW– Morehead City (90% capacity factor): 1,500 MW– Bayboro (90% capacity factor): 1,125 MW

2010 Study

2626

Update on Regional Studies

2727

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)

Ed Ernst

Duke Energy Carolinas

2828

What is the EIPC? Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative

• an open approach to addressing transmission analyses with an interconnection scale

Began through discussions between regional Planning Authorities

Backdrop• Broad energy policy discussions on future renewable

resources and on transmission infrastructure

• Historical development and coordination of transmission plans on a regional and super-regional basis

2929

What are the Objectives of the EIPC?

1. Roll-up and analysis of approved regional plans

2. Development of possible interregional expansion scenarios to be studied

3. Development of interregional transmission expansion options

30

The Collaborative is a combination of: Regional Planning Authorities participating

in a joint agreement to form an Analysis Team to perform technical studies

Federal, State and Provincial representatives

Self-formed stakeholder groups (e.g. Regional TO groups, IPPs, etc.)

Individual stakeholder participants

31

Who are the Planning Authorities?

32

EIPC Structure

Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC)

(Open Collaborative Process)

EIPC Analysis TeamPrincipal InvestigatorsPlanning Authorities

Steering Committee

Stakeholder Work Groups

Executive LeadershipTechnical Leadership

&Support Group

Stake-holder Groups

States Provinces FederalOwners

OperatorsUsers

…

33

EIPC Analysis Team structure in place 24 Planning Authorities signed – approximately 95%

of customers covered DOE funding proposal submitted; awaiting DOE

response Stakeholder dialog - webinar on October 13 with a

repeat on October 16 – over 400 participants Continued stakeholder discussion through beginning

of DOE study cycle Website launched – www.eipconline.com EIPC analysis processes begin in early 2010

– DOE work begins (if awarded)

EIPC Status

http://www.eipconline.com/

3434

Other Regional Study Activities

Bob Pierce

Duke Energy Carolinas

3535

SCRTP 2010 study PJM interface meeting SIRPP SERC-RFC East VACAR studies SERC LTSG 2009 Study TPL-001-1

3636

Two NCTPC related requests were submitted for study:

600 MW transfer from SCE&G to CPLE; 600 MW transfer from SCE&G to Duke;

No other requests were submitted

SC Regional Transmission Planning Process

3737

NCTPC-PJM Seams Interface Meeting

3838

Trail Project - 2011

NCTPC-PJM

3939

Path Project - 2014

NCTPC-PJM

4040

OTHER DISCUSSIONS

Generation interconnection queue coordination and how to identify projects that may impact each party

Modeling of generation dispatch in PJM and NCTPC footprints and its impact on study results

Identified PJM contacts to be included when dealing directly with AEP and DVP

Future studies under consideration

NCTPC-PJM

4141

NCTPC did not submit requests for study

5 studies were selected at the 10/27/09 meeting

Southeast Inter-Regional Planning Process (SIRPP)

4242

Entergy to Georgia ITS – 2000 MW

(2014, Step 2 Evaluation)

Type of Transfer: Generation to Generation

Source: Same as utilized in the Step 1 evaluation.

Sink: Same as utilized in the Step 1 evaluation.

SIRPP

4343

Entergy to Georgia ITS

Step 2 Evaluation

Detailed evaluation of the requested transfer Identify the final transmission enhancements to

resolve the identified constraints Provides detailed cost estimates and timelines

associated with the identified transmission enhancements

SIRPP

4444

MISO to TVA – 2000 MW


Type of Transfer: Load to Generation

Source: Uniform load scale of the MISO area.

Sink: Generation within TVA’s area.

SIRPP

4545

Northern Kentucky to Georgia ITS – 1000 MW (2015, Step 1 Evaluation)

Type of Transfer: Generation to Generation

Source: Three existing substations in Kentucky.

Sink: Generation within the Georgia ITS.

SIRPP

4646

MISO/PJM West (SMART) to SIRPP - 3000 MW


Type of Transfer: TBD to Generation

Source: Strategic Midwest Area Renewable Transmission study

Sink: Generation within the SIRPP. Generation will be allocated to the Participating Transmission Owners by the ratio of their load to the total load of all of the Participating Transmission Owners.

SIRPP

4747

SIRPP

4848

SPP to SIRPP – 3000 MW via HVDC


Type of Transfer: TBD to Generation via single or multiple HVDC transmission lines

Source: TBD

Sink: Generation within the SIRPP. Generation will be allocated to the Participating Transmission Owners by the ratio of their load to the total load of all of the Participating Transmission Owners.

SIRPP

4949

SERC East-RFC Near-Term/Long-Term Working Group (SER NT/LT WG)

5050

Appraisal of the interregional transmission system performance during the 2014 summer period

Supports NERC reliability standard TPL-005-0 - Regional and Interregional Self-Assessment Reliability Reports

Transfers to/from PJM, the RFC portion of the Midwest ISO, and SERC East (Non-PJM-VACAR and CENTRAL)

The next NT/LT WG study will be performed in 2011 for the conditions expected during the 2021 summer period


5151

2014 Summer Long-Term Study

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


5252

2014 Summer Long-Term Study

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


5353

Key Facilities Index

Each of the facilities listed is key to the performance of the interregional transmission network. These facilities are most

responsive to the actions listed as change conditions.


5555

Appraisal of the VACAR company transmission systems’ performance for the conditions expected during the 2015 summer period

Done in support of the NERC TPL reliability standards

(N-1) and (N-2) contingency analyses performed across VACAR while monitoring all of VACAR for thermal and voltage impacts

Final report to be published Summer 2010

VACAR Powerflow Working Group

5656

Appraisal of the VACAR company transmission systems’ dynamic performance for the conditions expected during the 2014 summer period

Done in support of the NERC TPL reliability standards

Voltage stability analyses with emphasis on category C contingencies using dynamic load models

Final report to be published Summer 2011 (2 years to allow for development of dynamic load models)

VACAR Stability Working Group

5757

Performed analysis of 2015 summer conditions

Evaluated interregional and inter-balancing area transfers

Evaluated base case for N-1 contingency thermal and voltage performance

SERC LTSG 2009 Study

58

Duke Significant Facilities

Parkwood 500/230 kV transformers Export CPLE, DVP

Riverview-Peach Valley 230 kV Lines Export SOCO, GTC, SCPSA

McGuire-Riverbend 230 kV Lines Import CPLE, Ameren

All limits to transfer were greater than 1100 MW

59

PEC Significant Facilities

Asheville 230/115 kV Import CPLE,DUKE,TVA

All limits to transfer were greater than 700 MW

60

NERC TPL-001-1 Standard Update

Standards Involved• TPL-001-0.1 (NERC A, No Contingency)• TPL-002-0a (NERC B, Single Contingency)• TPL-003-0 (NERC C, Multiple Contingency)• TPL-004-0 (NERC D, Extreme Contingency)• TPL-005-0 (RRO Regional and Interregional Studies)• TPL-006-0.1 (RRO Data, Reports, as requested by NERC)

Applicable Entities Involved• Planning Authority (Planning Coordinator) • Transmission Planner• Regional Reliability Organization

61


Project ScopeCreate a new standard that:1. Has clear, enforceable requirements2. Is not a Least Common Denominator standard3. Addresses the issues raised in the SAR and issues raised by FERC and others

62


OverviewR1: Modeling DataR2: Assessments

• Near-term Steady-State• Long-term Steady-State• Short Circuit• Near-term Stability• Long-term Stability • Qualified Past Studies• Corrective Action Plans• Corrective Action Plans Short Circuit• Largest Load Drop N-1

63


Overview

R3: Steady-State StudiesR4: Stability StudiesR5: Voltage CriteriaR6: Cascade CriteriaR7: PC/TP ResponsibilitiesR8: PC/TP Peer Reviews

64


Planning EventsPlanning Events• P0: Normal System (N-0)

• P1: Single Contingency (N-1)

• P2: Single Contingency (N-1) [Lower probability, higher impact]

• P3: Generator + 1 (N-2)

• P4: Stuck Breaker (N-2+)

• P5: Protection System Failure (N-2+)

• P6: Overlapping contingencies (N-1-1) [Non-gens, Two P1 Events]

• P7: Common Structure (N-2+)

65


Planning EventsPlanning Events• Simulate the removal of all elements that Protection Systems

and other controls are expected to automatically disconnect for each event.

• Require Corrective Action Plans for inability to meet performance requirements

66


• Category (P0, P1, … P7)

• Initial system condition

• Event

• Fault Type (3-phase or Single Line to Ground)

• BES Level (EHV or HV)

• Interruption of Firm Transmission Service Allowed

• Non-Consequential Load Loss Allowed

Planning Events, Table Components (Columns)Planning Events, Table Components (Columns)

67


Planning EventsPlanning EventsConsequential Load Loss: All Load that is no longer served by the Transmission System as a result of Transmission Facilities being removed from service by a Protection System operation designed to isolate the fault.

Non-Consequential Load Loss: Non-Interruptible Load loss other than Consequential Load Loss and the response of voltage sensitive Load including Load that is disconnected from the System by end-user equipment.

68


Areas where “bar was raised” for EHV• Single contingency (P1 and P2)• Generator + 1 (P3)• Stuck Breaker (P4)• Protection System Failure (P5)

69


R1 (Modeling) and R7(Responsibilities) are effective 12 months after regulatory approval

All other requirements (R2 – R6 and R8) become effective 24 months after regulatory approval except for more stringent performance requirements

60 months before “raising the bar” performance becomes effective

70


Team is responding to Draft 4 Comments

Expect some adjustments to standard for clarity

Team plans to ballot Draft 5

Plan to ballot in early Q1 2010• 30 day pre-ballot period• 10 day ballot period• Need to achieve quorum (75% of Registered Ballot Body)• Approval requires 2/3 approval from ballot body

71

Rich Wodyka

Independent Consultant

2010 TAG Work Plan

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

Enhanced Access Planning Process

Coordinated Plan Development

Perform analysis, identify problems, and develop solutions

Review Reliability Study Results

Evaluate current reliability problems and transmission upgrade plans

Propose and select enhanced access scenarios and interface

Perform analysis, identify problems, and develop solutions

Review Enhanced Access Study Results

Reliability Planning Process

OSC publishes DRAFT Plan

TAG review and comment

Combine Reliability and Enhanced Results

2010 Overview Schedule

TAG Meetings

73

January - February

Finalize 2010 Study Scope of Work- Receive final 2010 Reliability Study Scope for comment

- Review and provide comments to the OSC on the final 2010 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

Proposed 2010 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 2010 study

Receive a progress report on the 2010 Reliability Planning study activities and results

75

June - July TAG Meeting 2010 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, PROBLEM

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

2010 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 2009 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 2010 STUDY UPDATE

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

2010 SELECTION OF SOLUTIONS– TAG will receive feedback from the OSC on any alternative

solutions that were proposed by TAG members

77

December

2010 STUDY REPORT– Receive and comment on final draft of the 2010

Collaborative Transmission Plan report

TAG Meeting– Receive presentation on the draft report of 2010

Collaborative Transmission Plan – Provide feedback to the OSC on the 2010 NCTPC

Process– Review and comment on the 2011 TAG Work Plan

Schedule

79

TAG Open Forum Discussion

tag meeting december 9, 2009

Documents

kv line612014

kv line612017

kv line1212011

kv lines2014s

kv sub

kv transformer612018

kv lines duke

kv west line612019