JPA AGENDA • • Welcome/Introductions Power Marketing Updates (Oretta) – PD Remarketing – O&M Contracts • • • • • • • • • Meter Testing Program (Radosevich) Short Circuit Working Group Update (Field) OATT NOPR Update (Moulton) POISE Update (Steward) 10 Year Studies & Maintenance/Construction Program (Johnston & Radosevich) Right-of-Way Studies & Standards (Radosevich) JPA 2006-2007 Goals (Moulton) Next Meeting Action Items (602) 605-2639 oretta@wapa.gov POWER MARKETING UPDATES • PD Remarketing • O&M Contracts (602) 605-2605 RADOSEV@wapa.gov Western’s Integrated Meter Validation Program • Old procedure (standard) is to remove meter from service and bench test to provide an accurate validation of the meter • New procedure being established provides an accurate validation and is preferred because: 1) Does not interrupt power metering or billing 2) Performed faster (costs less to do) 3) Same degree of accuracy 4) Meter is not removed from service 5) Validates meter under actual load conditions Integrated Meter Validation Procedure • New procedure utilizes an RD-33 reference standard to validate the accuracy of the revenue meter while still in service 1) It measures the actual voltage and current applied to the meter to calculate power 2) It also monitors the KYZ pulse output of the meter 3) It then compares the calculated MW to the pulses received, providing a percent error based on this comparison Integrated Meter Validation Procedure • • Accuracy of the In-service Validation Test is the same as the bench test, since they both use the RD-33 While the in-service validation is a single test, the bench test consists of several independent tests: 1) All four quadrants (Watts Fwd, Watts Rev, VARS Fwd, VARS Rev) are tested in a bench test 2) In each quadrant, three tests are performed: Full Load (5A) at Unity PF Light Load (0.5A) at Unity PF Full Load (5A) at 0.5 PF Integrated Meter Validation Procedure • • • Since the MW load and power factor vary from line to line, the maximum acceptable error for the in-service validation is set to the maximum error allowed in the bench test, 0.3% If the in-service validation fails to meet this tolerance requirement, a full bench test shall be conducted on the meter If the loading on the line is insufficient to perform an inservice validation test, a bench test is performed WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION DESERT SOUTHWEST REGION IN-SERVICE METER VALIDATION Location: Circuit: Customer: Contract #: Date: Winterhaven Pilot Knob Line IID N/A 12/21/2005 Meter #: Manufacturer: Meter Type: Meter S/N: M Form # / W.O. # WHV-551 Transdata Inc Mark V 30207510 2005-725 / 100065763 Nameplate Data Form Test Amps Class Volts Elements Scaler SW Option SW Station Print # 0 9J4W 2.5 CL-20 120V 3 0000 0 02 DATE MAX W FWD 03 TIME MAX W FWD 04 KVAR HRS FWD 05 MAX KVAR FWD 06 DATE MAX VAR FWD 07 TIME MAX VAR FWD 08 KW HRS REV 09 MAX KW REV 10 TIME MAX W REV 11 DATE MAX W REV 12 KVAR HRS REV 13 MAX KVAR REV 14 DATE MAX VAR REV 15 TIME MAX VAR REV Working 00937.6 00000.0 12:21:05 08:30:00 04774.4 00000.4 12:16:05 13:00:00 08687.2 00000.6 07:00:00 12:17:05 00460.5 00000.0 12:21:05 08:30:00 Input Sensor Used: Test Run # Time Test Function Ke # Pulses Metric % Registration % Error 0 0 1200 Yes 30 175 1 0 Register Reads TIME 00 KW HRS FWD 8:32:30 01 MAX KW FWD Meter Test Address Password Baud Rate Mass Memory CT Ratio (*/1) PT Ratio (*/1) Comm Port 1 8:37:06 AM Wh 0.1 50 5.017971 99.641861 -0.358135 2 8:39:18 AM Wh 0.1 50 5.01835 99.626808 -0.373185 29 KW HRS FWD 30 MAX KW FWD 31 DATE MAX W FWD 32 TIME MAX W FWD 33 KVAR HRS FWD 34 MAX KVAR FWD 35 DATE MAX VAR FWD 36 TIME MAX VAR FWD 37 KW HRS REV 38 MAX KW REV 39 DATE MAX W REV 40 TIME MAX W REV 41 KVAR HRS REV 42 MAX KVAR REV 43 DATE MAX VAR REV 44 TIME MAX VAR REV KYZ Chan (Ke) Mass Mem Secondary Kh Primary Kh KWH Mult Dem Mult KYZ Pulse Mult Scada Mult Dem Interval Storage N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RR-KYZ Input Adapter 3 8:41:15 AM Wh 0.1 50 5.018002 99.655067 -0.344932 Average Ke # Pulses Metric % Registration % Error RESULT: Standard Data Manufacturer Radian Research Inc. Tested By: Remarks: Model # 0.5 0.45 1.8 9,450 5250 5250 2625 2.625 30 RD-33-373 Serial # Matt Caldwell Date Meter tested out of tolerance. See Bench Test Sheet for additional test results. 0.1 50 5.018108 99.641245 -0.358751 FAIL 300110 12/21/2005 Integrated Meter Validation Procedure QUESTIONS?? (602) 605-2517 field@wapa.gov JPA SWAT Short Circuit Study Group Update July 12, 2006 Phoenix, AZ Short Circuit Work affects System Reliability • Relay Misoperations – Fail to Operate or Operate When They Shouldn’t • Equipment Damage due to Failure to Operate Relays • Circuit Breakers and Other Equipment Failure because not Properly Rated Power System Operational Reliability • Correct Relay Operation • Correct Breaker Ratings • Reliability Depends on Accurate Fault Current Calculations Reasons to Form Regional Short Circuit Working Group • The interconnected system requires cooperation between everyone for accurate short circuit data • There was no formalized mechanism in place by WECC or other Arizona regional groups for coordination of the short circuit case SWAT SCWG Footprint 4 Main Areas of Work • Annual Operating Case • Common Impedance Maps • Common Study Methodologies • Annual Standards Review Annual Short Circuit Operating Case • Improved Short Circuit Data for Relay Settings • Improved Short Circuit Data for Breaker Duty Evaluations • Improved Short Circuit Data for Safety Grounding and Arc Flash Evaluation • Improved Reliability of System Operation and Safety of Maintenance Personnel Common Impedance Maps • Useful for seeing Short Circuit Case and Planning Case Updates • One set of maps reduces duplication of effort • Easy to make changes for annual operating case by marking drawings Common Methodologies • One set of breaker methodologies chosen for the jointly owned stations • Other methods, such as safety grounding, etc. developed as guidelines • Information sharing forum Annual Standards Review • Breaker Duty Studies, TRV Studies, Switching Studies, and Safety Grounding Studies based on standards • Standards can change without a change in study methodologies • Annual review of standards changes to determine if study methodology changes required SWAT SCWG Accomplishments • Webpage setup and linked to SWAT Website • Charter (Scope) Finalized • All SWAT Transmission Owners joined • 6 meetings held since starting in January • Monthly meeting schedule • Impedance Map Plan Developed • Working on Combining First Case SWAT Webpage SWAT SCWG Webpage SWAT SCWG Charter SWAT SCWG Webpage SWAT SCWG Webpage Impedance Maps Work • Most Impedance Maps Are Out of Date • List of Items to be Placed On Maps Developed • A Single Set of Impedance Maps to be Generated • Requested SWAT to Develop WestConnect Funding of Impedance Map Generation • Only 2 WestConnect Members not Members of SWAT SCWG SWAT SCWG Webpage Combined Case • Plan Developed • Conversions Currently being Checked • Zones for Members being Developed • Equivalents to be Checked • Cases to be Combined Future Work • Combine CCPG SCWG Case • Combine STEP SCWG Case (if developed) • Develop Common Methodologies • Review of Standards • Start on next Annual Case and Impedance Maps Update (refinements) Future Refinements • Add Mutual Coupling • Add Line Charging Capacitance • Add Motors • Check Transformer, Line, Shunt, Generator, and Load Data Questions? (602) 605-2668 moulton@wapa.gov NOPR TIMELINE FOR FILING • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) was issued 5-1806 • OATT NOPR Comments/Compliance Filing Team was formed 6-1-06 • Charter drafted 6-8-06 • Conference Call 6-8-06 to determine issues for response and develop Western’s approach • Regional representatives submit input to the team by COB 6-16-06 • Technical and Legal Team Leads compile input into first draft response by 6-30-06 • Review by Team representatives by COB 7-7-06 NOPR TIMELINE (cont’d) • Technical and Legal Team Leads compile second draft for review by PSOC by COB 7-12-06 • PSOC review completed by 7-17-06 and coordinated with BPA • Team representatives respond to PSOC comments by COB 7-24-06 • Final draft response to DOE’s General Counsel for review by COB 7-26-06 • DOE’s General Counsel review completed by 8-2-06 • Western will submit the completed response to FERC by COB 8-7-06 TOP ISSUES • • • • • • • • Transmission Planning Imbalance Pricing Capacity Reassignment Redispatch Service Conditional Firm Service Hourly Firm Service Reservation Priority Secondary Network Service (602) 605-2774 steward@wapa.gov JPA Meeting 2006 POISE / OASIS • What is POISE? • Current Scheduling System • Future Scheduling System • OASIS Customer Support JPA Meeting 2006 POISE / OASIS • What is POISE? P – Power O – Operations I – Integrated S – Systems E - Environment • Groups Comprising POISE - Information Technology - Interchange Scheduling - Transmission Planning & Industry Restructuring - Reliability Generation - Load and Resources JPA Meeting 2006 Current Scheduling System Transmission Request Customer Submit E-Tag E-Tag OASIS Effects 1. No Communication From OASIS to ETag and Scheduling to OASIS 2. Manual Processes In Place Limited Validation Manual Process After Tag is Implemented It becomes a schedule Scheduling JPA Meeting 2006 POISE Scheduling System Transmission Request Customer Submit E-Tag E-Tag OASIS Effects Full Validation Potential to Automate Process 1. Communications amongst all three systems 2. Automate some processes 3. Increase Non-Firm ATC 4. Industry Standardization Send Schedule Data Increase Non-Firm ATC Send Approved Tags to Scheduling System Scheduling JPA Meeting 2006 POISE / OASIS • Effective date – The date of implementation is December 1, 2006 • Who will be impacted – This will have an impact on OATT customers • Issues – There are still many open issues that need to be decided JPA Meeting 2006 POISE / OASIS • OASIS/OATT Customer Support – Open Access Transmission Tariff ■ Questions and “What If” Scenarios Please contact: John Steward Email: steward@wapa.gov Phone: (602) 605-2774 OR Nancy Whitson Email: nwhitson@wapa.gov Phone: (602) 605-2667 JPA Meeting 2006 POISE / OASIS QUESTIONS ????? (602) 605-2634 jjohnston@wapa.gov (602) 605-2608 RADOSEV@wapa.gov 10 YEAR STUDIES & MAINTENANCE/CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM • Northwest Region (South of Mead) – Load Serving Capabilities (Johnston) – Maintenance/Construction Program (Radosevich) – Questions • Central Region (South of Phoenix) – Load Serving Capabilities (Johnston) – Maintenance/Construction Program (Radosevich) – Questions Ten Year Study • Analyze the existing construction ten year plan using engineering planning criteria – Analysis will aid in prioritizing future proposed construction projects – Results may re-shape existing construction plan – Results will approximate each proposed project in potential increased MW to Western’s system capabilities Ten Year Study • Purposes – Benchmark DSW system 2006 to 2015 – Identify capability of each project • Results – Transmission line operating limits – Load-serving capabilities – Import capabilities Study Methodology • WECC-approved power flow cases – Study cases used for EOR rating studies – Arizona heavy summer cases • Years 2006, 2008, 2012, 2015 • Coordinated by Arizona utilities – DSW study cases • Started with 2006 contact loads • Evaluated possible future transmission projects Study Methodology • Divided DSW system into study regions – – – – – Northwest Southwest Central Southeast All rest of DSW Study Regions Defined Study Methodology – For each study region, developed several generation scenario base cases – For each generation scenario case, increased regional load with corresponding increase in regional import to identify violations: • Line thermal violations • Bus voltage violations – For particular generation scenarios, ran sensitivities: • Operation of Liberty and Perkins phase shifters • Level of Central Arizona Project (CAP) pumping load • Power factor of regional loads Legend for Maps Ten Year Projects in Northwest Study Area PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST IN $1000 YRS STUDY IMPACT DAVIS SWITCHYARD UPGRADE OLD 69-Kv EQUIPMENT $1,069 0911 NONE BUCHANAN BLVD REBUILD DEGRADED MEAD ACESS ROAD $2,788 0710 NONE MEAD-BASIC 230kV RECONDUCTOR 12.76 MILES OF CU CONDUCT. $1,955 1517 NONE CLARK TAP ADD CTS AND METERS $442 0607 NONE DAVIS-TOPOCK RECONDUCTOR RECONDUCTOR USING 3M $29,000 0607 YES DAVIS-MEAD RECONDUCTOR RECONDUCTOR USING ACSS OR 3M ?? 0708 YES RECONDUCTOR Northwest Study Region • Study Results – Benchmarks • Load-serving capability approx. 2100 MW • Import capability approx. 2015 MW • Current contracts approx. 950 MW (360 MW CAP) – Path increases from Benchmarks • 50 MW on Path D TTC (Phoenix/west) • 50 MW on Path G TTC (S. Nevada/Davis) • Up to 80 MW on Path SS (Gene/Parker) Northwest Study Region Path G (S. NV/Davis) 530 MW (50 MW increase) Peacock Transformer 385 MW Study Results Path SS (Gene/Parker) 140 MW MW increase pending) Capability MW Import 2015 Load 2100 (80 Path D (Phoenix/west) 775 MW (50 MW increase) Summary of Existing Regional Contracts Path BB 185 MW Total Contract 950 CAP 360 (Non-Growable) *Net Growable 590 (Growable) Northwest Study Region • Interconnection on Davis-Topock #1 – Re-conductor Davis-Topock #1 year 2007 – Commission substation year 2008 – MEC SIS Report published June 2005 • Re-conductor 60 miles Mead-Davis 230kV – In-service date 2008 – Results in approx. increase 170 MW TTC Path G Time Frames for Upgrades • Additional system upgrades needed technically in approximately: – 10 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year • Actual projected peak loads from customers will provide greater certainty QUESTIONS??? Ten Year Projects in Central Study Area PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST IN $1000 YRS CAG-EMPIRE 230kV TLINE UPGRADE EXISTING LINE TO 230kV $6,240 0709 EMPIRE-ED5 230kV TLINE UPGRADE EXISTING LINE TO 230kV $4,935 0710 ED5-ED-4 230kV TLINE UPGRADE EXISTING LINE TO 230kV $3,442 1214 ED4-ED-2 230kV TLINE UPGRADE EXISTING LINE TO 230kV $3,479 1214 COOLIDGE -ED-2 230kV TLINE UPGRADE TWO LINES TO 230kV $9,58 1315 EMPIRE TAP CHANGE MOI TO BKRS $6,345 7-09 CASA GRANDE UPGRADE TO 230kV $4,349 11-13 ED5 UPGRADE TO 230kV $5,295 7-10 ED-4 UPGRADE TO 230kV $6,469 10-12 ED-2 UPGRADE TO 230kV $8,789 9-11 COOLIDGE UPGRADE TO 230kV $3,419 10-11 SAGUAROORACLE WOOD POLE REPLACEMENT $1,866 7-8 COOLIDGEORICLE WOOD POLE REPLACEMENT $462 7-8 Central Study Region • Study Results – 2006 Benchmarks • • • Load-serving capability approx. 650 MW Current contracts approx. 375 MW Technical violations occur in this order 1. Casa Grande - Empire - ED5 115 kV lines 2. ED5 - ED4 - ED2 - Coolidge 115kV lines Central Study Region • Load serving capability after reconductoring: – Casa Grande - Empire - ED5 115 kV lines • Approx. 1120 MW • Increase of 1120-650 = 470 MW – ED5 - ED4 - ED2 - Coolidge 115kV lines • Approx. 1310 MW • Increase of 1310-1120 = 190 MW Time Frames for Upgrades • System upgrades needed technically in approximately: – 6 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year • After reconductoring Casa Grande - Empire – ED5 – 11 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year • After reconductoring ED5 – ED4 – ED2 - Coolidge – 13 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year • Having actual projected peak loads from customers will decrease uncertainties Order of Thermal Violations • • • • • • • • • • • Empire – ED5 (@650 MW) Casa Grande – Empire (@810 MW) Coolidge – ED2 (@1120 MW) Voltage violations occur approx. 1200 MW Saguaro – ED5 #1 (@1310 MW) Saguaro – ED5 #2 (@1310 MW) Tucson – Oracle (@1310 MW) Coolidge – Valley Farms (@1330 MW) Saguaro – Oracle (@1365 MW) ED4 – ED5 (@1500 MW) ED2 – ED4 (@1700 MW) 230kV System Upgrade • 230kV planned upgrades do not increase system load serving capability significantly – Due to overloads of other existing 115kV lines – Does provide increased voltage support Next Studies • Study all study regions with customerprovided peak load projections for next 10 years • Study Southwest study area • Study Southeast study area • Study rest of DSW system QUESTIONS??? (602) 605-2605 RADOSEV@wapa.gov RW Studies and Standards Line Voltage (Kilovolts) Type of Construction (1) Width of Right-of-Way (feet) Nominal Span (feet) Maximum Span (feet) 46 or under Single Wood Pole (2) 30 300 375 46 or under H-Frame Wood Pole 65 700 875 69 Single Wood Pole (2) 30 300 375 69 H-Frame Wood Pole 75 700 875 115 Single Wood Pole (2) 40 300 375 115 H-Frame Wood Pole 80 700 875 115 Single Steel Pole (3) 80 1000 1200 138 H-Frame Wood Pole 80 700 875 161 H-Frame Wood Pole 85 700 875 230 H-Frame Wood Pole 100 700 875 230 H-Frame Wood Pole 100 1000 1200 230 Single Steel Pole (3) 150 1200 1375 345 Steel Tower 175 1200 1375 500 Steel Tower 200 1500 2000 T-Line Name kV Project In Svs PREFER Date WIDTH PRIVATE TRACTS WIDTH STATE Hoover - Mead #1 230 BC 1942 150 TRACTS 1 3 WIDTH 125 200 Hoover - Mead #2 Hoover - Mead #3 Hoover - Mead #4 Hoover - Mead #5 Hoover - Mead #6 Hoover - Mead #7 Hoover - Mead #8 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 1942 1939 1960 1938 1940 1936 1936 150 150 150 150 150 11 11 12 14 14 200 200 185 200 250 Flagstaff - Pinnacle Peak #1 Flagstaff - Pinnacle Peak #2 Glen Canyon Dam - Glen Canyon #1 Glen Canyon - Navajo Kayenta - Navajo Kayenta - Shiprock Liberty - Peacock Mead - Peacock Griffith - Peacock 345 345 345 230 230 230 345 345 230 129 128 150 150 232 125 175 150 Griffith - McConnico 230 BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC CRSP CRSP CRSP CRSP CRSP CRSP INT INT INT INT PD 3 80 Henderson - Mead #1 Henderson - Mead #2 Lone Butte - Test Track Parker - Topock Peacock - Prescott Rogers - Coolidge 230 230 230 230 230 230 PD PD PD PD PD PD 16 200 1 11 200 125 Santa Rosa - Test Track South Point - Topock #1 South Point - Topock #2 230 PD 230 PD 230 PD PD Grand 7 >100 1965 1966 1964 1964 1964 1964 1968 1968 2000 175 175 24 11 150 150 150 6 5 0 125 175 110 150 2000 100 42/04 1969 2005 2000 1951 1951 150 150 100 3 4 2 4 VAR 80 125 0 70 125 2005 2000 2000 TRACTS 13 14 57 WIDTH FEDERAL/BIA 150 150 150 100 150 100 12 125