UCAN DR6 CPUC Responses 10 12 06 by zCcBpI7

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 4

									UCAN DR6
QUESTION NO. 5:

Please provide the “assessment of the three transmission alternatives presented to us by
the Utility Consumers’ Action Network” which is referred to on p. 6 of Appendix I-1. If
you are not in possession of that assessment, please describe your understanding of what
that assessment contains.

RESPONSE NO. 5:

SDG&E does not have the CAISO assessment of the three transmission alternatives
presented to them by the Utility Consumers Action Network. It is our understanding that
the assessment concludes that these three alternatives, Mexico Light, SONGS Light and
SONGS Heavy do not increase SDG&E’s SIL or NSIL, absent additional upgrades (and
in some cases significant additional upgrades) by third parties.


QUESTION NO. 11:

Please provide all SDG&E documents regarding the study which resulted in Appendix I-
1, including but not limited to all communications between SDG&E and the CAISO,
SDG&E and other study participants, and internal SDG&E communications regarding
the study or its various components.

RESPONSE NO. 11:

The document entitled “GeneratorList_Sorted.xls”, attached below, may be responsive to
the request for all “SDG&E documents regarding the study which resulted in Appendix I-
1”.


GeneratorList_Sorte
       d.xls




QUESTION NO. 38:

Appendix I-1 says at p. 45 that “The CAISO performed an assessment of “ UCAN’s
SONG’s Light Transmission Alternative. Please indicate SDG&E’s understanding of:

         a. The date(s) on which the assessment was performed.
         b. The name(s) of the person(s) performing the assessment.
         c. All documents in SDG&E’s possession pertaining to the assessment.

RESPONSE NO. 38:
       a. SDG&E does not know the date(s) during which the assessment was
          performed.

       b. SDG&E does not know the name(s) of the specific person(s) performing the
          assessment.

       c.     All documents in SDG&E’s possession pertaining to the assessment have
       been provided under the response to UCAN DR6-11 above


QUESTION NO. 39:

Appendix I-1 asserts on p. 46 that the SONGS Light Alternative “does not increase the
South of SONGS path rating (2500 Mw under an N-1 of the IV-Miguel 500 kV line
contingency) unless SCE upgrades the Barre-Ellis 230 kV line for the loss of SCE’s Del
Amo-Ellis 230 kV line. Please indicate SDG&E’s understanding of:

        a. When was upgrading the Barre-Ellis line identified as the limiting factor on
south-of-SONGS deliveries after a SWPL outage?
        b. Were any studies performed in 2006 of the south-of-SONGS transfer capability
after a SWPL outage if there is a subsequent Del Amo-Ellis outage?
        c. In the studies leading to the conclusion that Barre-Ellis is the “current limiting
factor for the South of SONGS path,

               (i) What emergency line rating was assumed for Barre-Ellis?
               (ii) What generation level was assumed for the Huntington Beach 1-4
generators?
               (iii) What generation level was assumed for the SONGS 2-3 generators?

RESPONSE NO. 39:


       a. Path rating studies conducted in the year 2001identified the upgrading of the
          Barre-Ellis line as the limiting factor on south-of-SONGS deliveries after a
          SWPL outage.

       b. SDG&E has no knowledge of any studies performed in 2006 of the south-of-
          SONGS transfer capability after a SWPL outage if there is a subsequent Del
          Amo-Ellis outage.

       c. SDG&E and the CAISO discussed this alternative, prior to the CAISO’s
          CSRTP-2006 Alternative Studies. During those discussions SDG&E
          expressed the opinion based on a very preliminary look that Barre-Ellis
          remains the limiting factor for the South-of-SONGS Path. Subsequent to that
          discussion SDG&E and the CAISO had no discussions about this alternative
          or the CAISO’s CSRTP-2006 Alternative Studies. Therefore, SDG&E has no
          first hand knowledge of the specifics of the CAISO’s CSRTP-2006
          Alternative Studies.
               (i)    It is SDG&E’s understanding that the Barre-Ellis 230 kV has a
                      continuous rating of 988 MVA (2480 Amps), an emergency rating
                      of 1279 MVA (3210 Amps), which is also known as its N-2
                      contingency “B” rating, and an N-1 contingency “A” rating of
                      1135 MVA (2850 Amps).

              (ii)    SDG&E has no first hand knowledge of the generation level that
                      was assumed for the Huntington Beach 1-4 generators in the
                      CAISO’s CSRTP-2006 sensitivity studies. However, in the pre-
                      sensitivity scenario base cases the generation levels assumed for
                      the Huntington Beach generators were: Hunt 1 – 210 MW, Hunt
                      2-3 – 215 MW in 2010, and Hunt 1-4 – 210 MW in 2015.

              (iii)    SDG&E has no first hand knowledge of the generation level that
                      was assumed for the SONGS 2-3 generators in the CAISO’s
                      CSRTP-2006 sensitivity studies. However, in the pre-sensitivity
                      scenario base cases the generation levels assumed for the SONGS
                      2-3 generators were: SONGS 2 – 1070 MW, SONGS 3 – 1080
                      MW in both 2010 and 2015.


QUESTION NO. 40:

Appendix I-1 reports on p. 46 that, according to SCE, the Barre-Ellis line is “already
constructed with the maximum conductor size for 230 kV tower construction (1195 MVA
normal rating and 1613 MVA emergency rating.” Please explain SDG&E’s
understanding of why the power flow base case which the CAISO shared with UCAN (as
reported on p. 5 of App. I-1) shows the Barre-Ellis line with a normal capacity of 988
MVA and an emergency capability of no more than 1279 MVA.

RESPONSE NO. 40:

SDG&E has no knowledge of the 1195 MVA (3000 Amps) normal rating and 1613 MVA
(4050 Amps – 135%) emergency rating. See SDG&E’s response to question 39 of
UCAN data request #6.


QUESTION NO. 46:

Please explain SDG&E’s understanding of why looping a north of SONGS line into
Talega would require ownership of the line to be transferred from SCE to SDG&E?

RESPONSE NO. 46:
Looping a north of SONGS line into Talega involves terminating one entity’s
transmission line on the facilities owned by a different entity. This would require (a) that
many contractual/ownership issues be addressed, and (b) the performance of technical
studies.


QUESTION NO. 47:

Please confirm that CAISO did not conduct a separate analysis of the SONGS Heavy
Alternative. Note that the text simply repeats the conclusions already given for SONGS
Light. If there was a separate analysis of SONGS Heavy of which SDG&E is aware,
please provide it.

RESPONSE NO. 47:


Response to the first sentence of 47:

SDG&E does not know the answer to this question, because it seeks information related
to the CAISO’s work-product.

Response to the second and third sentences of 47:

SDG&E does not know whether the CAISO conducted a separate analysis of the SONGS
Heavy Alternative.

								
To top