RSC Workshop on the Integration of WAPA, Basin, Heartland April 4, 2014
AGENDA I. Impact of IS Joining SPP II. Cost Allocation III. Potential Clarification to RSC Bylaws IV. SPP Bylaw and Membership Agreement Changes V. Tariff Changes VI. Other Business and Closing Comments/Adjournment 2
Western, Basin, and Heartland OVERVIEW OF THE IS 3
R35ESTYP 4
Basin Electric • Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) is one of the largest electric generation and transmission (G&T) cooperatives in the United States. They are the parent company of eight subsidiaries. • A not-for-profit generation and transmission cooperative incorporated in 1961 to provide supplemental power to a consortium of rural electric cooperatives • Diverse energy portfolio: coal, gas, oil, nuclear, distributed, and renewable energy, including wind power • Consumer owned by 137 member cooperative systems • Members' service territories comprise 540,000 square miles in nine states • By end of year 2013 Basin Electric will operate 4,824 megawatts (MW) of wholesale electric generating capacity and have 5,289.2 MW of capacity within its generation portfolio • Owns 2,165 miles and maintains 2,250 miles of high-voltage transmission, and owns and maintains equipment in 70 switchyards and 149 telecommunication sites • 5 Serves 2.8 million electric consumers
Basin Electric Power Cooperative • Consumer owned by 137 Member Cooperatives • 11 Districts in 9 states • Service Territories Comprise 540,000 square miles • Serves 2.8 million electric consumers • 5,289 MW of capacity within its generation portfolio • 2,000 employees • 8 subsidiaries 6
Generation Portfolio 7
Transmission Systems IS IS CUS US BEPW PW 8
MT ND Burke- North Williston Sheridan Divide Central Mountrail- Central Basin Williams Verendrye Power Lower Yellowstone McLean McKenzie McCone Northern Plains Roughrider 1300 MW Capital Goldenwest Upper Missouri Slope Dakota Valley Southeast SD Grand 9
Wheelock 2012 Pioneer 2013 Blaisdell 2012 2011 2014 2013 Culbertson 2010 2016 2014 Lonesome Prairie Winds 2009 Creek 2013 2012 2015 2010
Heartland Background • Non-profit public power district headquartered in Madison, South Dakota – Staff of 12 • Public corporation and political subdivision of the State of South Dakota – Formed in 1969 under South Dakota’s Consumers Power District statutes – Title 49, Chapters 35-40 – Similar in structure to Nebraska public power entities • Wholesale power supplier to 29 municipal system in SD, MN and IA, five South Dakota state institutions and one cooperative – mostly supplemental to WAPA • Minority owner of the Integrated System • Most assets jointly owned with other public entities
Heartland Customers and Resources 35 Customers ( 140 MW, 900 GWh) Primary Resources Wessington Springs Wind Energy Center Laramie River Station Unit 1 Whelan Energy Center Unit 2
Heartland’s Governance • Powers of the district are vested in the Board of Directors – Ultimate decision-making authority – Not state PUC or FERC jurisdictional • Board of Directors – 10 directors from subdivisions in eastern South Dakota – Elected during general elections – Six-year staggered terms – Non-partisan positions
15
16
Western Area Power Administration 17
Western Area Power Administration 18
Where We Get The Power Western-UGP Congressionally Authorized Project Purposes: • Flood Control • Navigation • Irrigation • M&I Water Supply • Hydropower • Recreation • Fish & Wildlife (includes endangered species) 19
Western-UGP Stats: • 378,000 square miles of service area • 118 substations and 7,920 miles of transmission lines (Federal owned) • 360+ power and transmission customers • 2,675 MW installed capability (2 BOR, 6 COE facilities) • Approx. 10,000 Gwh’s of energy produced in median year. • Operate 2 Balancing Authorities (East and West systems) 20
Integrated System Members 21
History • 1963 – Missouri Basin Systems Group Pooling Agreement signed, – The Joint Transmission System (JTS) created • 1998 – JTS was modified to become the Integrated System providing service under Western’s OATT • 1995-2010 – Western and other IS transmission owners transmission facilities were a part of the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) Schedule F tariff for short-term point-to-point service 22 22
Basin / Western / Heartland Integrated System (IS) W/E W/E And Other Facility Owners: Missouri River Energy Services NorthWestern Energy 23
Western, Basin, and Heartland IS PROCESS OF EVALUATING RTO MEMBERSHIP 24
IS PROCESS FOR EVALUATING RTO OPTIONS • 10-15 years of study and discussions about any advantages for wider coordination • September 2011 – Charles River Associates high level study showed RTO participation was beneficial. • March 2013 – Brattle Study looking at: – Standing alone – Joining MISO – Joining SPP • SPP was best option 25
26
SPP SPP PROCESS OF EVALUATING IS MEMBERSHIP IN SPP 27
Strategic Planning Committee • Members adopted process within the SPC to assist SPP Staff with process of working with interested parties to explore membership in SPP. • Used with all prospective members since Nebraska entities joined SPP. • SPC appoints sub-group to assist Staff with regular reports to the SPC. • Used during negotiations with Entergy on prospective membership 28
IS Interest and SPC Role • SPC chair appointed a sub-group in September, 2012 to assist SPP Staff with interest expressed by IS. This sub- group has met 10 times. • SPP Staff reviewed progress with SPC in all meetings since then including three meetings (May 1, 2013, October 17, 2013 and January 16, 2014) that were in executive session including State Regulatory staff. • In all these SPP Staff received comments and adjustments to the proposals in negotiations with the IS entities. • SPP Staff validated with SPC the proposals provided to the IS parties in the negotiations. 29
Integration Study • As part of the discussions at the SPC, SPP Staff provided two analyses needed for the SPP members – Cost/Benefit Analysis for SPP from IS joining SPP – Transmission Analysis to insure that IS transmission facilities were up to SPP standards (SPP Criteria and SPP interpretation of NERC Standards) (See below) Any facilities needed to upgrade to those standards would be the IS parties cost responsibility (some were identified that they were already planning to construct). Additional the analysis provided the need-by dates for all IS construction expansion plans. 30
February 24, 2014 SPP Stakeholder Workshop • After the public announcements of the IS parties about pursuing joining SPP, SPP Staff scheduled a meeting for all stakeholders to review the proposed changes to SPP governing documents. • The IS parties introduced themselves and SPP Staff walked through the SPP Bylaws, Membership Agreement and Tariff changes that were in the process of being edited for integrating the IS. Presentation material is attached. 31
IS Inclusion in the ITP Process • The ITP 10-Y Assessment currently being considered includes the IS transmission facilities and generation • IS transmission facilities will be included in all subsequent iterations of the ITP process 32
WAPA/Basin/Heartland Transmission Integration Study January 27, 2014
Purpose • Perform an evaluation of the Western/Basin/Heartland IS transmission system in the event a decision was made to join the SPP RTO. – There were two main objectives of the Integration Study: Evaluate the IS transmission system to determine whether it satisfies SPP’s Planning Criteria and NERC TPL Standards Identify the SPP “need - by” dates of the transmission projects provided by the IS in relation to the assumed October 2015 integration date 34
Stakeholder Involvement • Seams Steering Committee (SSC) reviewed the study scope on September 5, 2013 • Transmission Working Group (TWG) reviewed the study scope on September 18, 2013 • Preliminary draft study report sent to TWG on September 30, 2013 • TWG reviewed final draft study report on October 23, 2013 – TWG endorsed the study as having been conducted in accordance with SPP’s planning criteria • The IS provided input and information as needed throughout the process 35
SPP and the Integrated System 36
Study Process and Methodology SPP started with 2014, 2015 and 2019 ITPNT models for the study – 2014 winter peak, 2015 summer and winter peak, 2019 light-load, summer and winter peak Data Inputs Generation Model Transmission Demand Load Study Model Resources Topology Service Response 37
Study Process and Methodology Cont. • Non-contingency (base case), N-1, and select Category C contingency analysis was performed on the IS transmission system – Facilities in the IS 69kV and above were monitored for potential violations of SPP Criteria and NERC TPL standards • The IS provided mitigations and/or operating guides for the potential violations identified 38
Recommend
More recommend
