415 N - Home - Southwest Power Pool



Southwest Power Pool

Economic studies working group MEETING

June 28th, 2010

Crowne Plaza Hotel Dallas Downtown

1015 Elm Street, Dallas, TX

• Summary of Action Items •

1. SPP Staff should poll the ESWG for the time to hold a conference call on July 8th or 9th to discuss the siting criteria that Black and Veatch should use to complete their resource plans.

2. Black and Veatch should provide energy information and outline their input assumptions in their final report.

3. SPP Staff will post the updated version of the Robustness White Paper to obtain stakeholder edits and comments.

4. SPP Staff will post the updated version of the ITP Manual to obtain stakeholder edits and comments.

5. In general, SPP Staff should add some background info, such as details about the analysis performed and acronym meanings, to the prototype presentations discussed at the ESWG meetings.

Southwest Power Pool

Economic studies working group MEETING

June 28th, 2010

Crowne Plaza Hotel Dallas Downtown

1015 Elm Street, Dallas, TX

• MINUTES •

Agenda Item 1 – Administrative Items

SPP Chair Alan Myers called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. The following members were in attendance:

Alan Myers ITC Great Plains

David Hudson Xcel Energy

Blake Elliott Board of Public Utilities-Kansas City, KS

Kip Fox American Electric Power

Leon Howell Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.

Bruce Walkup Arkansas Electric Cooperative Co

Bruce Merrill Lincoln Electric System

Greg Sweet Empire District Electric Co.

Al Tamimi Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

Jason Atwood Kelson Energy

Mark Loveless Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Jim Sanderson Kansas Corporation Commission

Mike Proctor Consultant to SPP Regional State Committee

It was noted that Bruce Merrill held a proxy for Doug Kallesen.

Motion: The minutes from the ESWG meeting in Irving, TX on May 25th, 2010 were reviewed. Kip Fox made a motion for the ESWG to approve the minutes. Leon Howell seconded the motion and it passed unopposed.

Next, the meeting agenda was reviewed and edited. Kip Fox recommended moving the robustness white paper up in the agenda. Also, the data review presentation was moved down.

In regard to future meetings of the ESWG, it was decided that there should be two face-to-face meetings in July.  At the meeting in Dallas on July 22nd (AEP Offices, 10:00am to 4:00pm), the ESWG will complete their revision of the ITP Manual.  At the meeting in Omaha on July 28th (Embassy Suites, 8:00am to 2:00pm), the ESWG will review and approve the resource plans and siting for all the futures.  The consensus was that it would take dedicated meetings to complete these key deliverables. Also, there will be a conference call on July 8th or 9th to discuss the siting criteria that Black and Veatch should use to complete their resource plans.

It was also noted that Tim Miller and Tim McGinnis are currently acting as co-secretaries of the ESWG. Charles Cates and Ben Roubique are still working closely with the ESWG on the ITP Year 20 Assessment.

Agenda Item 2 – Resource Planning

a. Final Base Case Plan

Debashis Bose gave his presentation about the final version of the base case resource plan that Black and Veatch developed. During the presentation, David Hudson asked about the uptick in lbs/MWh on the SPP emissions slide that was seen in 2028. Debashis said that uptick is when the new coal plant was added in the SPP South in 2028. Kip pointed out that the wind generation build out was complete by 2021 and so that is when the CO2 emissions started trending upwards. For the reserve margin graph, Gary Wilmes added that one input provided by the ESWG, was to plan for a capacity margin of 12% (reserve margin of 14%). On the Base Case Summary page, Debashis said that the simulations showed that a total of 8.2 GW of generation would need to be added, excluding the wind additions that counted 5% of their nameplate capacity to the resource plan. Gary added that after the input data adjustments were complete, the resulting resource plan was similar as before. Debashis pointed out that the existing unit retirements in the model were honored but there were not new retirements added. He also said there was a typo on slide 9 of the ITP-20 Generating Resources presentation. He said that bullet 4 should read “As wind resources are added in SPPN [SPPS] between 2013-2020, new baseload resources [are] not justified. Lower capital cost intermediate and peaking units are added in this period.”

Motion: Leon Howell made a motion to approve the base case resource planning results. Kip Fox seconded the motion asking for energy information and input assumptions to be included in the final report from Black and Veatch. The motion passed with one vote against it. Greg Sweet voted no against the motion, saying that he agreed that Black and Veatch completed the resource plan as directed. However, he felt he disagreed with the input assumptions that the ESWG provided. Specifically, he commented that he disagreed with the amounts of wind being added to the model and the timing of when the additional wind will be added.

b. Draft Futures Plan

Debashis Bose started his presentation by saying that he hoped to get feedback from the ESWG on how to modify the input assumptions for the Futures. During his presentation, Kip Fox pointed out that no new nuclear plants were seen in the resource plans. Debashis pointed out the reason for that may be that the cost of carbon emissions may not be low enough to trigger the addition of a nuclear unit. Mike Proctor felt that at least one of the futures should have had a carbon cap rather than just a carbon tax. Leon Howell said that a carbon cap would be a drastically different case where the existing coal plants would be replaced by new gas units and nuclear units. Kip said that the goal was to make sure the futures were sufficiently different so SPP is ready for a variety of scenarios. Adam McKinnie added that this goal would not be met if the futures were too similar.

Alan Myers reviewed the four futures described in the futures document that is posted in the ESWG Documents folder. Alan said the idea was that the inputs into the resource plan models for the futures could be modified without changing the essence of each future as described in the futures document.

Motion: David Hudson made a Motion to keep the carbon costs in futures 3 and 4 as they were and to remove the load reduction. Greg Sweet seconded the motion. After some discussion, David Hudson called a vote. The motion passed with five votes for, three against, and two abstentions. Bruce Merrill, who held a proxy that was counted in the three votes against, was one of the members who voted no. He said that he wanted a carbon cap, not only a carbon tax to be included as an input. Blake Elliott wanted to see further load reduction. Kip and Leon abstained.

Gary Wilmes reported that there was not much difference in fuel consumption per future so there would not be changes in fuel costs. He recommended that the initial results be used as an indicator that there would not need to be much change in the fuel prices used in the models. The consensus of the ESWG was to leave the fuel prices as they are based on the fuel consumption being similar between the futures.

c. Generation Siting Discussion

Alan Myers began by saying the ESWG needs to approve a siting strategy for Black and Veatch to use to complete the siting by the July 28th meeting. Gary Wilmes then went through his presentation on siting criteria. Mike Proctor said the wind generation siting criteria should also be developed. He said he had anticipating SPP staff starting with his wind placement document and developing a more detailed procedure. There will be phone call on July 8th or 9th to approve a strategy for siting both types of generation. Kip added that Combustion Turbine generators should be placed near the wind generation.

Agenda Item 3 – ITP20 Resource Plan Base Case Input Data Assumptions: Final

Tim McGinnis presented the finalized input data that Black and Veatch used in their models. Bruce Merrill asked if there was still an opportunity to review and update data for the production cost analysis. Tim confirmed that many of the data updates would be common to both the Strategist and PROMOD models but that there would be an opportunity to make further updates for the production cost analysis if necessary. He also noted that the final data review spreadsheet for the resource planning model was posted in the ESWG background materials folder.

Agenda Item 4 – Robustness White Paper: Final Review

Charles reviewed the updated version of the Robustness whitepaper. He said that much of the descriptions and examples on how to measure robustness would come when another consultant developed the calculation methods for certain metrics. Kip voiced his concern that the ESWG’s definition of robustness and the Strategic Planning Committee’s (SPC) definition seemed to be different. Mike Proctor said that the definition of robustness in the whitepaper was not clear. He read a different definition of robustness that refers to specific metrics and said he will follow up with some proposed edits in an email to staff. Charles said the plan was to collect comments over the next two months so that the ESWG can review and endorse the final version in August. Then the MOPC can approve the document in October.

Agenda Item 5 – Prototype Designs

Tim Miller presented the five prototype designs and stakeholders provided feedback. He said the delta plan uses fewer total miles while maintaining reliability during a contingency since the new EHV transmission is arranged in “triangles”. The delta plan was the only preliminary transmission expansion plan that extended into South Dakota. Mike Proctor pointed out that South Dakota is going to be exporting wind rather than importing it so that leg of the EHV might not be justified economically. Based on similar reasoning, he later said the “E” plan probably extends too far into Iowa because SPP wind will probably not be able to compete with South Dakota wind there. In general, Mike said there are cost allocation issues when AC lines cross boundaries.

Tim went on to add some additional information about each of the prototypes. For example, the “modified figure 8” was known as being deficient because the idev was missing a middle component, as shown on the map. However, it was studied anyway for comparison purposes. Also, he confirmed that the location labeled Lawrence Energy Center should be called Lawton Eastside. Another concept mentioned was that the 765 lines do not have to go all the way to the load centers, due to siting issues.

There was a variety of comments and recommendations provided during this presentation. Kip Fox said the North to South limits in Arkansas, Louisiana, East Texas, and Oklahoma were not being addressed in any of the prototypes. He said the Hugo-Valiant flowgate and Kiowa-Pittsburg flowgate would still need to be relieved in the long term. Kip added that the prototypes should be analyzed for deliverability. Adam McKinnie said that the Thomas Hill node in Missouri is often selected as a 765 kV node. Bruce asked if we are only looking at 765 kV. Tim answered that 345kV, 500kV, and 765kV all might be analyzed during the analysis. Kip pointed out that the members did not have spares for a 500 kV system.

Mike Proctor asked for an explanation of some of the terms in the prototype slides. Tim said the numbers represent the FCITC amounts in MW that was done on four of the prototypes. He added that TRI was short for triangular plan on the FCITC slides. In general, SPP Staff should add some background info, such as details about the analysis performed and acronym meanings, to the prototype presentations discussed at the ESWG meetings.

Agenda Item 6 – ITP Manual: Update

Time did not allow for the discussion of the ITP manual. However, Brett Hooton did say that edits and comments should be submitted to SPP Staff. The updated version of the ITP Manual will be posted as background material for the July 22nd ESWG meeting that will be primarily dedicated to editing this document.

Agenda Item 7 – ITP Update Presentations

Time did not allow for the discussion on the ITP Updates that are planned for the upcoming Markets and Operations Policy Committee and Strategic Planning Committee meetings.

Agenda Item 8 – Closing Items

The meeting was adjourned at 4:11 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tim McGinnis/Tim Miller

Secretaries

[pic]

[pic]

Phone Attendees

Jason Atwood Kelson Energy

Blake Elliott Board of Public Utilities-Kansas City, KS

Tom Hestermann Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

Jim Krajecki Customized Energy Solutions

Mark Loveless Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Tim Owens Nebraska Public Power District

Cary Frizzell Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Brett Hooton Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download