COMMON USE SYSTEM
TRANSMISSION COORDINATION
& PLANNING COMMITTEE
and
NETWORK OPERATING COMMITTEE
December 17, 2009
Black Hills Power Service Center
Rapid City, SD
TCPC Meeting Policies
• FERC Standards of Conduct
• Anti-Trust Policy
• Confidentiality
TCPC Overview
• FERC Order 890 – 9 Principles
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Coordination
Openness
Transparency
Information Exchange
Comparability
Dispute Resolution
Regional Participation
Economic Planning Studies
Cost Allocation for New Projects
LTP Study Process
Data Collection, Study Scope and Scenario Development
Load and Resource
Forecast, Point-to-Point
Projections, Demand
Resources
Identify Study Objective,
Define Assumptions,
Develop Study Scope
and Scenarios
TCPC / NOC Input
TCPC = Transmission Coordination and Planning Committee
NOC = Network Operating Committee
As Requested/Needed
WECC and/or SubRegional Entities
Technical Study
Develop Base
Cases and
Perform
Simulations
Identify Mitigation
or Solutions to
Reliability Criteria
Violations
Analyze Results and
Identify Reliability
Criteria Violations
YES
Another
Scenario?
Re-Run
Simulations with
Solutions
TCPC / NOC Input
NO
Document Solutions,
ID Advantages or
Disadvantages to
Each Solution
YES
Reliability
Criteria
Met?
Analyze Results
and ID Reliability
Problems
Sub-Regional Review,
WECC Project Review
Process
NO
Decision
And
Reporting
Identify Best Solution
a.Selection Criteria
b.Advantages/Disadvantages
Prioritize Into Company
Business and Strategic
Plan
Construction and Rate
Base Support
CUS Coordination
Committee and TP
Publish Report
TCPC / NOC Input
Timing of Other Public Input
Determined by TCPC / NOC
TCPC / NOC Input
Sub-Regional Review,
WECC Project Review
Process
LTP Study Cycle
Quarter
Planning Steps
Data Collection
TCPC Meetings
X
Q1
Study Scope & Scenario Development
Open
X
Optional
Q2
Technical Study
X
Q3
Closed
X
Q4
Decision & Reporting
LTP Study Scope
• 2014 and 2020 timeframes
• Analyze peak and off-peak scenarios
– Power flow (peak issues)
– Transient Stability (off-peak issues)
•
•
•
•
Use NERC/WECC planning criteria
Evaluate N-0, N-1, and N-1-1 scenarios (Category A-C)
Worst-case bus outages also evaluated (Category D)
Validate committed projects/recommend additional
solutions
COMMON USE SYSTEM
BLACK HILLS / BASIN ELECTRIC / POWDER RIVER
MONTANA
09
20
SHERIDAN
WYOMING
LEITER TAP
(2009)
2009
TONGUE
RIVER
(2009)
LOOKOUT
DRY
FORK
2009
9
200
CARR
DRAW
DRY FORK
(2011)
ST. ONGE
(2013)
WYODAK
BUFFALO
YELLOW
CREEK
HUGHES
WYGEN3
(2010)
20
09
BARBER
CREEK
DONKEY
CREEK
RENO
5
201
OSAGE
SOUTH
RAPID
4
201
PUMPKIN
BUTTES
TECKLA
32 MVAR DVAR (2009)
LANGE
MINNEKHATA
(2011)
RAPID CITY
DC TIE
100 MVAR
CAPS (2009)
WESTHILL
2010
YELLOWCAKE
SOUTH DAKOTA
SPENCE
NEBRASKA
CASPER
230 KV (EXISTING)
DAVE
JOHNSTON
MIRACLE
MILE
230 KV (FUTURE)
SUBSTATION
STEGALL
GENERATOR
2014 Baseline Cases
• 2014 Heavy Summer (peak)
–
–
–
–
Starting Case: CCPG 2013 HS Study Case (with updates)
CUS Total Load = 1172.0 MW
RC Area Load = 195.9 MW
CBM Load* = 264.2 MW
• 2014-15 Light Winter (off-peak)
–
–
–
–
Starting Case: WECC 2013 LW Case (with updates)
CUS Total Load = 930.1 MW
RC Area Load = 97.0 MW
CBM Load* = 239.6 MW
*CBM loads include BEPC/PREC loads at Wyodak, Carr Draw, Barber Creek, Teckla,
NSS2, Reno, Pumpkin Buttes, Decker, Wyomont, Tongue River, & Arvada (Leiter).
*CBM load modeled as 80% motors in transient simulations
2014 Baseline Cases
• Major Projects Included:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Hughes Transmission Project
Rapid City and Teckla Voltage Support
Wyodak-DJ Area Transmission Project
St. Onge 230:69 kV Substation
Minnekhata 230:69 kV Substation
Dry Fork Generating Facility
Wygen 3 Generating Facility
PacifiCorp DJ/Casper Upgrades
Teckla-Osage-Lange 230 kV Line
2014 Heavy Summer Results
(Steady State)
• Overloads on the Lookout or Yellowcreek 230:69 kV
transformers following various N-1-1 outages
¾ Fixed by adding Teckla-Osage-Lange 230 kV line
• Low voltages at Moorcroft and Hughes 69 kV buses
following Hughes transformer + Wyodak-Hughes 69
kV line outage
¾ Fixed by adding a 10 MVAR cap at Osage and Moorcroft
2014-15 Light Winter Results
(Steady State)
• Low voltages on Osage-Moorcroft-Hughes 69 kV
system following Hughes + Osage transformer outage
• Low voltages on Osage-Moorcroft-Hughes 69 kV
system following Hughes transformer +WyodakHughes 69 kV line outage
¾ Fixed by adding a 10 MVAR cap at Osage and a 12 MVAR cap at
Moorcroft
2020 Baseline Cases
• 2020 Heavy Summer (peak)
– Starting Case: CCPG 2019 HW Study Case (with updates)
– CUS Total Load = 1216.2 MW
– RC Area Load = 229.5 MW
– CBM Load* = 494.1 MW
• 2019-20 Light Winter (off-peak)
– Starting Case: CCPG 2019 HW Study Case (with updates)
– CUS Total Load = 885.9 MW
– RC Area Load = 102.7 MW
– CBM Load* = 425.0 MW
– *CBM loads include BEPC/PREC loads at Wyodak, Carr Draw, Barber Creek, Teckla,
NSS2, Reno, Pumpkin Buttes, Decker, Wyomont, Tongue River, & Arvada (Leiter).
– *CBM load modeled as 80% motors in transient simulations
2020 Baseline Cases
• Major Projects Included:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Hughes Transmission Project
Rapid City and Teckla Voltage Support
Wyodak-DJ Area Transmission Project
St. Onge 230:69 kV Substation
Minnekhata 230:69 kV Substation
Dry Fork Generating Facility
Wygen 3 Generating Facility
PacifiCorp DJ/Casper Upgrades
Teckla-Osage-Lange 230 kV Line
2020 Heavy Summer Results
(Steady State)
• Overloads on the Lookout 230:69 kV transformer following N-1-1
outage of St. Onge and Yellowcreek 230:69 kV transformers
¾ Fixed by reconfiguring 69 kV system and dispatching generation in
Rapid City
• Low 69 kV system voltages and overloads on the Yellowcreek
230:69 kV transformer following N-1-1 outage of St. Onge and
Lookout 230:69 kV transformers
¾ Fixed by adding transformation capacity
• Low voltages on the Hughes-Moorcroft-Osage 69 kV system
following outages involving the Hughes and/or Osage transformers
¾ Fixed by adding a 10 MVAR cap at Osage and a 15 MVAR cap at
Moorcroft
2019-20 Light Winter Results
(Steady State)
• Low voltages on the Hughes-Moorcroft-Osage 69 kV system
following outages involving the Hughes and/or Osage transformers
¾ Fixed by adding a 10 MVAR cap at Osage and a 10 MVAR cap at
Moorcroft
Dynamic Simulation Results
(All Scenarios)
– Under-frequency dips at Wygen, Wygen2, and Wygen3
13.8 kV buses due to a single Wyodak 230 kV fault
followed by the clearing of any of the 230 kV lines
terminated at Carr Draw, Osage, Hughes, or Donkey
Creek.
¾Fixed by replacing existing 230 kV breakers with
3.5-cycle total clearing time breakers
– First-swing low voltage violations at 230 kV buses on
Dryfork-Sheridan 230 kV line following Dryfork-Carr Draw
prior outage and Dryfork-Hughes 230 kV fault.
¾Fixed by runback of the Dryfork unit as identified in
the Dryfork System Impact Study
System Additions Summary
•
•
•
•
•
Replace 230 kV breakers at Wyodak (7)
Add 10 MVAR capacitor at Osage 69 kV bus
Add 15 MVAR capacitor at Moorcroft 69 kV bus
Add capacitor at Belle Creek 69 kV bus
Add 230:69 kV transformer at Lookout
LTP Next Steps
• Distribute Draft Study Report
• Solicit and Evaluate Comments/Proposals
• Finalize and Distribute Study Report by
12/31/09
Questions
Comments / Suggestions
Wes Wingen
wes.wingen@blackhillscorp.com
(605) 721-2268