UWIG Technical
Workshop
SSG-WI Transmission Report
October 23, 2003
SSG-WI
Planning Work Group
SSG-WI Organization Chart
RTO West
WestConnect
Principals in
Consultation
with RRG
CAISO
Interim
Committee
(Regional
Representatives Group)
Board
Seams Steering Group
Transmission
Planning
Chair:
Dean Perry
Chair – Bud Krogh
RTO West
WestConnect
CAISO
Charlie Reinhold
Frank Afranji
Cary Deise
Rich Bayless
Greg Miller
Yakout Mansour
Ed
Beck (Alt)
Syd Berwager (Alt)
Elena Schmid
Steve Greenleaf
Armie Perez
Congestion
Management
Alignment
Chair:
Wally Gibson
Market Monitoring
Chairs:
Kristi Wallis
Price Reciprocity
Chairs:
Phil Pettingill
Chris Elliott
Business
Architecture
Design
Chair: Jerry Smith
Common Systems
Interface
Coordination (CSIC)
Chair:
Don Watkins
SSG-WI Planning
• Looking West-wide, not Local
• SSG-WI identifies future needs, runs studies,
identifies solutions (transmission and nontransmission)
• Doing “congestion relief” planning (to expand
current capability), not “reliability” planning
(to maintain current capability). Utilize
reliability planning of individual entities as
input.
• Analyze historical congestion – Report on SSGWI Web Site
SSG-WI Planning
• SSG-WI does not sponsor projects or
implement projects
• SSG-WI will support state siting and
permitting processes as requested
• Plan to issue Annual Transmission
Reports – First report scheduled for
release October 31, 2003
Historical Path Flow
Analysis
PRINCE RUPERT
PEACE CANYON
SUNDANCE
MICA
LANGDON
LANGDON
VANCOUVER
AREA
3
SEATTLE
AREA
CANADA
CHIEF JOSEPH
UNITED STATES
8
4
HOT SPRINGS
6
FT. PECK
14
PORTLAND
AREA
5
HELLS
CANYON
BUCKLEY
COLSTRIP
6
BURNS
18
BOISE
MIDPOINT
19
MALIN
66
SHASTA
ROUND MTN
65
16
17
20
TABLE MTN
36
32
24
SAN FRANCISCO
AREA
DENVER
AREA
27
35
15
46
26
LOS ANGELES
AREA
30
SALT LAKE
CITY AREA
NAVAJO
HOOVER
51
LUGO
DEVERS
23
FOUR
CORNERS
31
22
PHOENIX
AREA
MOJAVE
45
34 PINTO
48
50
4
8
ALBUQUERQUE
AREA
47
49
EL PASO
AREA
MEXICO
Winter 98-99 thru 01-02 (Based on Heaviest Loading Year)
Actual Flow > 75% of OTC greater than 50% of time
Actual Flow > 75% of OTC between 25% and 50 % of time
Actual Flow > 75% of OTC between 0% and 25% of time
Path 8 – 2200 MW
Path 18 – 300 MW
Path 19 – 2200 MW
Path 36 – 1400 MW
Path Loading - % of Time > 75% of Path OTC during a Seasonal Period
Maximum Seasonal Loadings for each Path
Winter 98-99 thru Spring 2002
100
90
Paths out of
Montana &
Wyoming Areas
80
% Time > 75% OTC
70
60
W
50
50 %
Sp
Su
40
30
25 %
20
10
0
Path Number
2003 SSG-WI
Study Program
SSG-WI Study Objectives
1. To identify opportunities where the development of additional
power transmission facilities could further facilitate
competitive and efficient markets.
2. To provide policy-makers with information concerning
transmission impacts of various energy policies being
considered by State, Provincial and Federal entities.
3. To identify for generation developers major transmission
additions that could be necessary to deliver a wide range of
generation resources to load.
Study Program
• 2008 – Base Case
• 2013
– Gas – Assumes 86% of new generation is
fueled with gas near load centers
– Coal – Assumes 66% of new generation is coal
fired remote from load centers
– Renewable – Assumes 72% of new generation
is from renewable (wind, etc.) remote from load
WECC Capacity By Energy Source
Wind
SSG-WI Assumed Wind
150MW
800MW
1000MW
650MW
500MW
950MW
900MW
500MW
600MW
2300MW
800MW
200MW
Western
Resource
Advocates
2013 Base
(MW)
AZ
E of Tuscon
100
AZ
Navajo
100
CA Thch_Wd1
650
CA SnGrgnWd
350
CA AltmntWD
500
CA SolanoWd
250
CA Thch_Wd2
550
CO CO (E) Ft Collins
400
CO CO (E) Trinidad
400
CO CO (W)
100
ID
Burley
200
ID
Mtn. Home
200
ID
Pocatella
100
MT NW - Conrad/Shelb
400
MT SC - Livingston
400
NV N - Tonopah/Eureka 100
NV S - NW of Vegas
400
NM E- Tucumcari/Clovis
600
NM 4 Corners
200
NW Columbia Gorge
650
NW Bend
300
UT
Monticello
100
UT
St George
100
UT
NE Corner ???
400
NW Columbia Gorge
200
NW Ellensburg
500
NW Spokane
300
WY Casper/Rawlins
500
WY Laramie
150
CanadAlberta
150
9350
FINDINGS
Transm ission Infrastructure
Developm ent Process
Sub-regional
Planning:
NW Tx Assessm ent
Com m . (NT AC)
R TO
W EST
PW G Annual
TX Planning
Process
R . M tn Area
Sub-regional
Planning:
Rocky M ountain
Tx Planning
C aISO
Sub-regional
Planning:
Central AZ Tx
System (C ATS)
Sub-regional Planning:
SW Tx Expansion (STEP)
Resource Planning:
PUCs and Utilities—
Integrated Resource Planning
or
IPPs’ Planning
W estC onnect
Transm ission
Infrastructure
Construction
2008 Findings
• Identified paths that may be congested in the near
future
• In the 2008 study, identified approximately $110
million in unrealized production cost savings due
to path congestion (with planned facilities).
• In coordination with SSG-WI, STEP (subregional
group) is looking at new enhancements between
Arizona and California that could save $60 million
per year.
(Path#) and Name
Figure V-1: Transmission Constrained Generation
ALBERTA - BRITISH
C O LUMB IA
British
Columbia
Alberta
MO NTANA NO RTHWEST
East
WA
NO RTHW EST C ANADA
Rev Limit
blue
(1) ALBERTA - BRITISH COLUMBIA
-720
700 E toW
(3) NORTHWEST - CANADA
-3150
2000 S to N
(8) MONTANA- NORTHWEST
-1350
2200 E to W
(15) MIDWAY - LOS BANOS
Not Rated
3900 S to N
(19) BRIDGER WEST
0
2200 E to W
(22) SOUTHWEST OF FOUR CORNERS
(35) TOT 2C
Not Rated
-300
2325 E to W
300 N to S
(36) TOT 3
Not Rated
1424 N to S
(46) WEST OF COLORADO RIVER (WOR)
-10118
10118 E to W
(49) EAST OF COLORADO RIVER (EOR)
Not Rated
7550 E to W
Combined (66)PACI & (65)PDCI
Not Rated
7300 N to S
WA
note: zero axis - black
MT
Oregon
Orego
Vertical blue
bars - indicate
forward
capacity limits
& red bars
indicate reverseNorthern
capacity limits
of path. BlackCalifornia
bars indicate
zero axis
MIDW AY - LO S
BANO S
B RIDGER W EST
Snake
C om bi ne d PAC I &
PDC I
Idaho
SE
Idaho
Jim
Bridger
TO T 3
Wyoming
N.
Nevada
Histogram flow data
derived from
unconstrained average
Central
water- medium gas 2008
California
scenario
Note: data represent
theoretical upper bound
on where power “wants”
to flow if flows are
unconstrained
Utah
Colorado
East
Colorado
TO T 2C
S.
Nevada
Four
Corners
Southern
California
W ES T O F C O LO RADO
RIVER (WO R)
FWD Limit
red
SO UTHW EST O F FO UR
C O RNERS
EAST O F C O LO RADO
RIVER (EO R)
1
10/1003 Draft SSGWI Transmission Planning Report – Page
1
Arizona
2013 Findings
• Identified transmission facilities necessary
to alleviate path congestion for 3 bookend
resource scenarios
– Gas – 1325 miles - $2.6 billion
– Coal – 7605 miles - $16.7 billion
– Renewable – 3360 miles - $6.7 billion
Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection
Western Interconnect Transmission Paths
LANGDON
Alberta - British Columbia
SELKIRK
NELWAY
NW - Canada
C H IE F
JO S E P H
G R A N D
C O U L E E
Montana to NW
W. of
Broadview
N A N E U M
S E A T T L E /T A C O M A
AR EA
M ID W
T A F T
W. of Hatwai
A Y
G A R R IS O N
L O W E R
M O N U M E N T A L
W. of Cascade - North
H A N F O R D
PO RTLAND
AREA
D W
O R S H A K
T O W
Brownlee
East
C O L S T R IP
Id. to Mt.
NW to Idaho
Borah
Summer Lake West
G R IZ Z L Y
Tot 4b
G O S H E N
Bridger
West
B O R A H
B R A D Y
M E D F O R D
S U M M E R
PACI (COB)
PG&E to PP&L
O L IN D A
J IM
B R ID G E R
PDCI (NOB)
M A L IN
R O U N D
M T .
T A B L E
V A L M Y
Alturas
Id. to Sierra Path C
C A M P
W I L L IA M S
PG&E to SPP
Silver Peak/Inyo
to Control
T E S L A
B U T T E
A L L E N
M A R K E T P L A C E
G A T E S
Path 15
M ID W
M EAD
AREA
A Y
Tot 2b
Tot 2a
P IN T O
Northern NM
S A N
G L E N
C A N Y O N
D E V E R S
M IG U E L
J U A N
FO U R
CO R N E R S
C H O L L A
LOS
ANG ELES
AREA
S W of Four
Corners
C O R O N A D O
E. of
River
S P R IN G E R V IL L E
P A L O
V E R D E
Tot 7
Tot 5
N A V A JO
D IA B L O
C A N Y O N
N. Ca. to S. Ca.
D E N V E R
A R E A
B O N A N Z A
S IG U R D
H U N T E R /
E M E R Y
R E D
Tot 3
C R A IG
R IF L E
Tot 2c
L U IS
H A R R Y
Tot 1a
IPP DC
T R A C Y
S A N
Bonanza
West
IN T E R M O U N T A IN
M T .
L A R M IE
R IV E R S T A .
Tot 4a
B E N
L O M O N D
V A C A D IX O N
SAN
F R A N C IS C O
AREA
M ID P O IN T
L A K E
W. of Colstrip
B R O A D V IE W
B R O A D M A N
W. of Cascade - South
N S E N D
P H O E N IX
AR E A
W E S T
M E S A
B L A C K W
A R T E S IA
A M R A D
G R E E N L E E
N .G I L A
Cal ISO to CFE
Gas Scenario
+
+
++
W.of
River
Coal Scenario
DC
V A IL
Southern NM
C A L IE N T E
D IA B L O
+
+
Renewables
Scenario
A T E R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12-13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56-57
58
59
Alberta-BC
Alberta – Saskatchewan
Northwest – Canada
West of Cascades – North
West of Cascades – South
West of Hatwai
Blank
Montana to Northwest
West of Broadview
West of Colstrip
West of Crossover
Blank
Idaho to Northwest
Midway – Los Banos
Idaho – Sierra
Borah West
Idaho – Montana
Bridger West
Path C
Arizona to Calif
Four Corners 345/500
PG&E – SPP
PacifiCorp/PG&E 115 Intercon.
Northern – Southern Calif
Intermountain Power Project
Intermountain – Mona 345 kv
Intermountain – Gonder 230 kv
TOT 1A
TOT 2A
Pavant/Intermtn Gonder
Bonanza West
see paths 78 & 79
TOT 2C
TOT3
TOT 4A
TOT 4B
TOT 5
TOT 7
Sylmar to SCE
IID – SCE
North of San Onofre
South of San Onofre
SDG&E Comision Fed. de Elect.
West of Colorado River (WOR)
Southern New Mexico (NM1)
Northern New Mexico (NM2)
East of the Colrado River
Cholla – Pinnacle Peak
Southern Navajo
Silver Peak – Control 55 kv
Billings – Yellowtail
Coronado West
Brownlee East
Blank
Eldorado – Mead 230 kv Lines
WALC Blythe – SCE Blythe
Figure E-1: SSG-WI Study Results for 2013 Scenarios
Coal
Gas
Renewable
New Transmission (Miles)
New Transmission Costs ($B)
1325
2.64
7600
16.74
3360
6.71
New Generation (GW)
New Generation Costs ($B)
57
17.44
57
30.51
67
36.76
4.5-7.65
3.65-6.1
Range of Production Cost Savings ($B/yr) 1.53-2.83
Simple Payback Periods for 2013 Scenarios
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
Years
GAS
COAL
RENEWABLE
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Ave Water;
1
High Gas
Ave Water;
2
Medium Gas
Cases
Low 3Water;
High Gas
High4 Water;
Medium Gas
Other factors to consider before
investment decisions are made include:
fuel availability/resource diversity, construction lead time, transmission losses,
environmental impacts/benefits, benefits
to transmission/generation reliability,
impacts on market competition and
ancillary services impacts/benefits.
Other Considerations
• This SSG-WI study was a high level first
cut at identifying future transmission needs
for the Western Interconnection.
• Additional studies are required by SSG-WI
and/or Subregional Groups before specific
projects can be identified and proposed for
implementation.
Next Steps
• SSG-WI –
– Perform annual existing system utilization
reviews
– Perform annual studies of potential future needs
and expansion issues
– Identify modeling improvements to enhance the
usefulness of future studies
Next Steps
• Federal, State policymakers –
– address issues such as cost allocation and cost
recovery to encourage investment in
transmission and demand side alternatives.
• Subregional Planning Groups and SSGWI –
– Continue to build a close working relationship
to address planning and implementation issues.