SPP Staff Proposal on TO Zonal Placement April 20, 2017
Outline • I. Background of the Staff’s Proposal – Paul Suskie • II. Examples of New TO additions – Carl Monroe • III. SPC Motion & Updated Staff Proposal – Charles Locke • IV . Staff’s Recommendation to Move Forward – Paul Suskie • V . Q&A – All • VI. Next Steps – Mike Wise 2
Background of the Staff’s Proposal Paul Suskie 3
Staff Internal Team • Carl Monroe , EVP & COO • Paul Suskie , EVP & GC • Pat Bourne , Director Transmission Policy • Mike Riley , Associate General Counsel • Charles Locke , Lead Regulatory Analyst 4
Zonal Placement Meetings Ad Hoc Stakeholder Meetings SPP Org Group Meetings March 1, 2017 – 1 st Draft June 2016 – RTWG March 10, 2017- 2 nd Draft October 2016 – SPC January 2017 – SPC SPC Special Meeting March 21, 2017 – Staff Proposal Individual Stakeholder Outreach by SPP Staff Additional Stakeholder Outreach by December 2016 – SPP Staff 2 calls with KCPL & MJMEUC April 3-10, 2017 – Contacts with OG+E; AEP; MJMEUC; Gridliance; NPPD; Basin; January 2017 – KPP; and KCP&L 4 calls with KCPL; MJMEUC; and Gridliance February 2017 – 8 calls with: KPP; KCPL; Gridliance; OG+E; AEP; MJMEUC; NPPD; Basin 5
Transmission Owner Changes Transmission Owner Placed in Tariff ETEC in AEP (1/1/2007) 1. ITC Great Plains in MKEC (8/18/2009) 2. OMPA in AEP (1/1/2010) 3. OMPA in OGE (1/1/2010) 4. Transcos in AEP (7/1/2010) 5. 18 Prairie Wind (4/1/2011) 6. Prairie Wind (4/1/2011) 7. Kansas Power Pool in Westar (12/20/2011) 15 8. 13 Tri-County in SPS (4/1/2012) 9. Coffeyville in AEP (7/1/2013) 7 10. 11 8 14 Transource MO (1/1/2014) 11. 6 2 16 Lea County in SPS (4/1/2014) 12. 10 CNPPD in NPPD (1/1/2015) 13. 4 17 5 12 City of Independence in KCPL (6/1/2015) 3 14. 9 Tri-State in NPPD (1/1/2016) 15. 16 1 AECC in AEP (7/1/2016) 16. AECC in OGE (7/1/2016) 17. 6 Integrated System (10/1/2015) 18. Stars do not indicate exact placement of Facilities
UMZ Additions Upper Missouri Zone – Total 19a Western-UGP 19b Basin Electric Power Cooperative 19c Heartland Consumers Power District 19d Missouri River Energy Services - Total 19d (i) Missouri River Energy Services 19d(ii) Moorhead Public Service 19d(iii) Orange City Municipal Utilities 19d(iv) City of Pierre, South Dakota 19d(v) City of Sioux Center, Iowa 19d(vi) Watertown Municipal Utility Department 19d(vii) Denison Municipal Utilities 19d(viii) Vermillion Light & Power 19e East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 19f Corn Belt Power Cooperative 19g NorthWestern Corporation (South Dakota) 19h Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative 19i Harlan Municipal Utilities 7 19j Central Power Electric Cooperative
Upper Missouri Zone Information Number from Zone Zonal Number Placement from Transmission Owner Effective Date Resolution Changes Attachment Map H Upper Missouri Zone – Total 19 16 19a Western-UGP 16 10/1/2015 As Filed 19b Basin Electric Power Cooperative 10/1/2015 Settled 16 19c Heartland Consumers Power District 16 10/1/2015 Settled 19d Missouri River Energy Services - Total 10/1/2015 Settled 16 19d (i) Missouri River Energy Services 16 10/1/2015 Settled 19d(ii) Moorhead Public Service 16 10/1/2015 Settled 19d(iii) Orange City Municipal Utilities 10/1/2015 Settled 16 19d(iv) City of Pierre, South Dakota 16 10/1/2015 Settled 19d(v) City of Sioux Center, Iowa 10/1/2015 Settled 16 19d(vi) Watertown Municipal Utility Department 16 10/1/2015 Settled 19d(vii) Denison Municipal Utilities 2/1/2107 In Settlement 16 19d(viii) Vermillion Light & Power 16 2/1/2017 In Settlement 19e East River Electric Power Cooperative, 16 10/1/2015 Settled 19f Corn Belt Power Cooperative 16 10/1/2015 In Settlement 19g NorthWestern Corporation (South Dakota) 10/1/2015 Settled 16 19h Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative 16 10/1/2015 Settled 19i Harlan Municipal Utilities 10/1/2015 As Filed 16 8 19j Central Power Electric Cooperative 10/1/2015 In Settlement 16
New Transmission Owner Information % Increase Requested Existing Zonal % Increase of FERC Existing Zonal ATRR Before from FREC New Transmission Owner (TO) Effective Requested Approved Zone ATRR New Approved Resolution & Docket Number Date Zonal Zonal ATRR Placement (Schedule Transmission Zonal ATRR ATRR to (Schedule 9) 9) Owner to the Zone Zone 1 ETEC ER07-396 AEP 1/1/2007 3,750,884 $88,681,579 0.47% no change no change As Filed 2 ITC Great Plains ER10-45 MKEC 8/18/2009 $673,368 $5,947,002 11.32% no change no change As Filed 3 OMPA ER10-273 AEP 1/1/2010 $748,647 $150,913,384 0.50% no change no change As Filed OMPA ER10-273 OGE 1/1/2010 $106,268 $81,045,221 0.13% no change no change As Filed 4 5 Transcos ER11-2198 AEP 7/1/2010 $6,400 $133,972,249 0.005% no change no change As Filed 6 Prairie Wind ER11-3455 Regional 4/1/2011 No Sch 9 N/A 0.00% No Sch 9 N/A As Filed 7 Prairie Wind ER11-3455 Regional 4/1/2011 No Sch 9 N/A 0.00% No Sch 9 N/A As Filed 8 Kansas Power Pool ER12-140 Westar 12/20/2011 $528,917 $122,022,353 0.43% $350,243 0.29% Settled 9 Tri-County ER012-959 SPS 4/1/2012 $1,982,840 $110,464,906 1.79% $0 0.00% Hearing Coffeyville ER14-418 AEP 7/1/2013 $391,790 $183,137,376 0.21% no change no change As Filed 10 Transource MO ER14-236 Regional 1/1/2014 No Sch 9 N/A 0.00% No Sch 9 N/A As Filed 11 12 Lea County ER14-1225 SPS 4/1/2014 $462,556 $109,581,048 0.42% $388,000 0.35% Settled 13 CNPPID ER15-279 NPPD 1/1/2015 $536,767 $47,541,737 1.13% $450,000 0.95% Settled Settled-Phase City of Indepedence ER15-1499 KCPL 6/1/2015 $7,237,454 $35,262,529 20.52% $3,000,000 8.51% In 14 Settled-Phase $38,973,963 * 1/1/2017 $3,750,000 9.62% In Settled-Phase $38,973,963 * 1/1/2018 $5,000,000 12.83% In 15 Tri-State ER16-204 NPPD 1/1/2016 $8,127,996 $45,213,710 17.98% Pending ??? In Settlement AECC ER16-1546 AEP 7/1/2016 $584,186 $218,568,931 0.27% Pending ??? In Settlement 16 17 AECC ER16-1546 OGE 7/1/2016 $433,586 $93,307,022 0.46% Pending ??? In Settlement 9 * The % increase is based on the Schedule 9 ATRR for the Existing Zone’s TO at the time of the Phased -In ATRR for the New TO
FERC Cases on Zonal Placement SPP Case: Tri-State/NPPD Case (Docket No. ER16-204): * FERC Administrative Law Judge’s order -- dated February 23, 2017. MISO Case: MISO/City of Rochester, MN/NPS-Xcel Case(Docket Nos. ER15- 277 & ER14-2134): * FERC order -- dated December 30, 2014; FERC conditionally approve a request by MISO and the City of Rochester “to make proposed revisions to . . . the MISO [Tariff] … subject to refund” and set the issues/dockets for hearing and settlement judge procedures. FERC 206 Docket (Docket No. EL17-44): * In a rehearing Order in MISO/Rochester Docket – dated February 3, 2017, FERC “institute[d] a proceeding pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to examine the Joint Pricing Zone Revenue Allocation Agreement (JPZ Agreement) for Zone 16 of the MISO Tariff.” * The first round of comments in the FERC investigation were due March 16 th . 10
Examples of New TO Additions Carl Monroe 11
3 Scenarios of New TO Additions (1) New Transmission Owner is already taking Network transmission service – Has Load in SPP . (2) New Transmission Owner is not taking Network transmission service – Adds New Load to SPP. (3) New Transmission Owner that will take no transmission service – Adds no load to SPP . 12
Scenario 1: New Transmission Owner is already taking Network transmission service Scenario can include a municipality or cooperative that is a Network transmission customer of SPP and requests to place its transmission assets under SPP tariff. Cost impacts in the following slide assume that the transmission facilities are placed in an existing zone where the entity is already taking Network Service. 13
(1) Example of New T.O. with Current Network Load Before Transfer After Transfer Cost Shift Tariff Revenue Requirement Existing $ 100,000,000 $ 100,000,000 Transferring Facilities $ - $ 4,000,000 Total $ 100,000,000 $ 104,000,000 Load Ratio Share Load of Existing TO 98% 98% Load of New TO 2% 2% Sch. 9 Charges Load of Existing TO $ 98,000,000 $ 101,920,000 Load of New TO $ 2,000,000 $ 2,080,000 Total $ 100,000,000 $ 104,000,000 Total Costs Load of Existing TO - Sch. 9 $ 98,000,000 $ 101,920,000 $ 3,920,000 Load of New TO Sch. 9 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,080,000 Transferring Facilities $ 4,000,000 $ - 14 Total $ 6,000,000 $ 2,080,000 $ (3,920,000)
Scenario 2: New Transmission Owner is not taking Network transmission service - Adds New Load to SPP . Scenario can include a municipality or cooperative that is not a Network transmission customer of SPP and requests to place its transmission assets under SPP tariff. Cost impacts in the following slide assume that the transmission facilities are placed in an existing zone and the entity begins taking Network Service at the time of asset transfer. 15
Recommend
More recommend
