SWAT
Colorado River Transmission
Subcommittee Meeting
Overview of EPAct 2005 Section 1221
and National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridors
Robert Kondziolka
Manager Transmission Planning
Salt River Project
October 12, 2007
Phoenix, Arizona
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 1
Energy Policy Act (EPAct) 2005
August 2005
Section 1221 – Siting of Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities
Evaluation of criteria for evaluation of areas of possible National
Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC)
Evaluation of existing studies and congestion modeling the eastern
and western interconnection
Section 368 – Energy ROW Corridors on Federal Lands
Title III Oil and Gas, Subtitle F Access to Federal Lands
Applies to U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), U.S.
Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management), and U.S.
Department of Defense
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Fall 2006
PEIS in 11 Western states to be completed by August 2007
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 2
EPAct 2005 Section 1221
Title XII Electricity
Subtitle Transmission Infrastructure Modernization
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires DOE to issue a
national transmission congestion study for comment by
August 2006 and every three years thereafter.
Based on the study and public comments, DOE to
recommend and Secretary of Energy to designate selected
geographic areas as National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridors (NIETC). No time frame stipulated
for designating NIETC.
FERC Backstop Siting Authority - Authority to issue
construction permits in NIETCs when states do not
approve siting within one year of application or place
undue restrictions upon them.
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 3
EPAct 2005 Section 1221
After considering alternatives and recommendations from interested parties
(including an opportunity for comment from affected States), the DOE is required to
issue a report, based on the study, which may designate any geographic area
experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that
adversely affects consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor.
In determining whether to designate a national interest electric transmission
corridor, the DOE may consider whether:
1) the economic vitality and development of the corridor, or the end
markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack of
adequate or reasonably priced electricity;
2) economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets served by the
corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited sources of energy;
and
3) a diversification of supply is warranted;
4) the energy independence of the United States would be served by the
designation;
5) the designation would be in the interest of national energy policy; and
6) the designation would enhance national defense and homeland
security.
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 4
DOE Congestion Study
Background
DOE is not mandated to prescribe
solutions
DOE would like to see necessary steps
taken by the states and regions to
address problems in corridors that are
designated
DOE does not plan to prescribe solutions
that address congestion for a designated
corridor
DOE does not see new transmission
lines as the only solution to fix a
congested corridor
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 5
DOE Congestion Study
Issues
Definition of a transmission corridor
Definition of congestion
How is congestion measured
Granularity – how far down do you
measure
How can corridors be ranked by
importance
Criteria for designation of NIETC
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 6
National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridors
Notice of Inquiry
Corridor Definition
Expedited Designation
Chronic and Dynamic Congestion
Physical and Contractual Congestion
1) Action Needed to Maintain High Reliability
2) Achieve Economic Benefits for Customers
3) Ease Electricity Supply & Diversify Sources
4) Enhance Energy Independence
5) Further National Energy Policy
6) Reduce Vulnerability to Natural Disasters & Malicious Acts
7) Needs Not Unduly Contingent on Uncertainties in Assumptions
8) Alternatives Have Been Addressed Sufficiently
9) Consistent with Regional and Sub-Regional Planning
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 7
Western Congestion Assessment
Task Force Report Objectives
Identify congested areas
Identify major assumptions and
congestion drivers
Identify economic impact of
congestion
Identify sensitivity of congestion to
assumptions (gas prices, hydro
levels, etc)
Limitations of the analysis
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 8
Studies/Reports – Related to DOE Task 1
SSG-WI 2003 Study Program – SSG-WI Report
SSG-WI 2003 Path Utilization Study – SSG-WI Report
Canada – NW – California Transmission – NTAC Report
Colorado Long Range Transmission Planning Study – CCPG Report
Conceptual Plans for Electricity Transmission in the West – WGA Report
T4 Wind Project – Nevada State Office of Energy Report
Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study – RMATS Report
Puget Sound Upgrade Project – NTAC Report
Montana Northwest Transmission Equal Angle Report – NTAC Report
West of Hatwai System Upgrade Project – NTAC Report
Central Arizona Transmission Study – SWAT Report
Path 49 (East of River) Transmission Upgrades - STEP Report
CEC Strategic Transmission Investment Plan – CEC Report
Imperial Valley – San Felipe 500 kV Transmission Project – IID Report
Tehachapi Wind Integration Transmission Study – CPUC Report
Canada to Northwest Intertie Expansion – BCTC Report
Protecting and Managing an Increasingly Congested
Transmission System – BPA Report
Review of WECC Coordinated Phase Shifter Operation – 2001 to 2005 WECC Report
LEAPS and TE-VS Project – Nevada Hydro Company Report
Studies/Reports – Related to DOE Task 3
SSG-WI 2005 Study Program (2008 and 2015) – SSG-WI/WECC Report
W.I. 2006 Path Utilization Study – SSG-WI/WECC Report
Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative – WGA Report
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 9
Historical Path Flow Analysis
Actual physical flow based on hourly
MW average
1999 through 2005
Seasonal Analysis
– Spring (April & May)
– Summer (June through October)
– Winter (November through March)
Usage over peak season (one season
over all years)
Usage over peak season (highest
individual period)
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 10
Model Simulation Program
ABB GridView
Least cost dispatch
Transmission limitations
Startup costs, ramp rates and variable
O&M costs
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 11
Modeling Assumptions 2008 & 2015
Three gas prices ($5, $7, & $9 per MMBTU
Henry Hub)
Average losses
Hydro and Wind are hard wired into the model
Medium Hydro year
WECC 2005 Load & Resource load forecast
(modified)
Hourly load shapes were developed using
FERC 714
WECC path ratings and nomograms were
modeled
Unit forced outage rates are modeled, using
EIA data
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 12
2015 Modeling Assumptions
Incremental resources reflect utility
Integrated Resource Plans (IRP), state
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and
approved Load and Resource (L&R) plans
Incremental transmission was added to a
WECC 2008 case to represent 2015 network
topology
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 13
Basis of Congestion in Results
Historical Flow All top 10 ranked WECC Paths for U75 and U90
(U75>40% and U90>5%)
2008 Model Study All WECC paths or lines ranked in top 10 in one of
three categories for $5, $7, and $9 gas
U75 (>80%)
U90 (>50%)
Shadow Price Binding Hours
2015 Model Study All WECC paths or lines ranked in top 10 in one of
five categories for $5, $7, and $9 gas
U75 (>80%)
U90 (>60%)
ULimit (>50%)
Shadow Price (Average)
Congestion Rent
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 14
Origin of Congestion in Results
No. of WECC No. of Areas No. of Areas Identified
Paths/Lines Identified Sub-Regional Groups
Identified
Existing Studies 16 11 6
Historical Flows 13 10
2008 Study 17 10
2015 Study 12 8
Total 24 14 6
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 15
SSG-WI 2015 Reference Case -
Modeling Results - Path Usage
% Time Flow > 75 & 90% OTC and % Time Equal to Path Limit
120
Ranked by % of Time flow
exceeds 75% of OTC
2
4
100 8
11
10
1 9
5 Shadow Price (Annual
12 3
Average) Rankings - Top 12
80 @ $5 gas
7
% of Time
%T>75% OTC
50% of Time
60
%T>90% OTC
%T@Limit
40
25% of Time
20
6
0
45-SD-CFE
TOT2Sum
25-PAC-PGE
35-TOT2C
27-IPP
Has-NGil
8-MT-NW
38-TOT4B
48-NNM
65-DCI
66-COI
40-TOT7
NW-CEast
79-TOT2B2
16-ID-S
19-BRGW
17-BOR-W
31-TOT2A
30-TOT1A
37-TOT4A
20-PathC
HA-RB
55-BRL-W
3-NW-CA
WY-UT
32-PV-G
33-BZ-W
1-AL-BC
22-Wof4C
9-WofBrv
Path Name
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 16
Path Ranking
Maximum Seasonal U75 Values from 1999 through 2005
U75 - % of Time Path Actual Flow exceeds 75% of Path OTC
100
Bridger West (Generation
90 Integration)
Cholla - Pinnacle
Pk Represents the highest
80
Seasonal Loading for
SW of 4C each Path, from 1999
% Time Path Flow Exceeds 75% of OTC
thru 2005
70 S. New Mex.
TOT 1A (CO to Utah)
60
TOT 3 (WY to CO)
50% of Tim e W
50
Sp
Su
40
30
25% of Tim e
20
10
0
19 50 22 47 30 36 3 8 48 35 17 66 65 15 31 1 26 45 49 18 20 34 51 14
WECC Path Number
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 17
U90 - Maximum Seasonal Values from Spring 2004 through Summer 2005
% of Time Path Actual Flow Exceeds 90% of Path OTC
25
Ranking is based upon the
Bridger West (Generation
Maximum 90% value for the
five seasons between Spring
2004 and Summer 2005
20
U90 - % Time > 90% of Path OTC
NW to Canada (StoN)
U90 is the percentage of time
15 Alberta to BC the physical flow exceeds 90%
of the path OTC
Pacific DC Intertie
COI
TOT 1a (CO to Utah 90%
10
SW of 4Corners
5
0
19 3 1 65 66 30 22 36 45 15 35 18 31 48 26 20 14 17 47 8 50 49 34 51
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005Path Number and NIETC – R. Kondziolka
Section 1221 18
Key Caveats
Results are highly dependent upon gas prices,
hydro conditions and location of future
resources
The WCATF study focused on the identification
of transmission congestion; it did not
specifically identify resource/load Constraint
Areas (as defined by DOE)
The WCATF Congestion Areas were not ranked
due to the variability and inconsistency in the
alternative metric ranking methods
Additional studies are required to determine if it
is necessary or economical to add new or
upgrade existing facilities to reduce congestion
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 19
Northw
est to
Canad
a
Western Interconnect
Puget Alb to BC
Sound Transmission Congestion Areas/Paths
Area
North of
Hanford
Identified by the WCATF
Paul-Allston Montana to NW
For Submission to US DOE
Allston-Keeler
PNW
Internal West of Broadview May 8, 2006
NOTES:
West of Colstrip
1. See Table 4 for Congestion Area Criteria
2. Map identifies all Congestion Areas
Identified in DOE Tasks 1 and 3
Idaho-Montana
3. Many Congestion Areas are dependent
upon location of future W.I. resources
Borah West
COI PDCI
Congested WECC Path
Nev S. Id Wind Bridger West
Path C Congestion Area
(See Table 3)
Intermountain- Direction of Congestion
Gonder
TOT 1A TOT 3
Bonanza
West
Denver
Area
SF Bay
Area
TOT 2C
TOT 2A
WOR Southwest
of Four
Corners
S. Calif. Area
EOR
Cholla-Pinnacle Peak
Coronado – SKing -
IID - SCE Kyl N & S. New
Mexico
Phoenix Tucson
Areas
For Complete Report
www.wecc.biz
Congestion Study
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 20
Critical Congestion and Areas of Concern
in the Western Interconnection
Source:
Figures ES-3 & 5-2
U.S. Department of Energy
National Electric Transmission
Congestion Study
2006
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 21
Conditional Constraint Areas
Source: Figures ES-4 & 5-5, U.S. Department of Energy, National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, 2006
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 22
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 23
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 24
DOE Southwest Area National
Interest Electric Transmission
Corridor
2007 – 2019
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 25
FERC Siting Authority
Under FPA section 216(b)(2)-(6), FERC may issue a
permit only if all of the following conditions are met:
The facilities will be used for the transmission of
electric energy in interstate
The project is consistent with the public interest
The project will significantly reduce congestion in
interstate commerce and protect or benefit
consumers
The project is consistent with national energy policy
and will enhance energy independence
The project maximizes, to the extent reasonable and
economical, the transmission capabilities of existing
towers or structures
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 26
Clarification
With regard to the condition that a project must
“significantly reduce transmission congestion in
interstate commerce and protects or benefits
consumers,” FERC has stated that it interprets this to
mean that a project must significantly reduce the
transmission congestion identified by DOE
DOE has noted that the term “constraints or
congestion that adversely affects consumers” as
used in FPA section 216(a)(2) is ambiguous and stated
that while it was not attempting to define the complete
scope of the term, the term does include congestion
that is persistent.
10/12/2007 CRT Overview of EPACT 2005 Section 1221 and NIETC – R. Kondziolka 27