NESCOE News

Baseline Infrastructure

BI treated same as other futures T facilities in 3 scenarios 

Cost of BI included in T analysis in next phase 

In Phase II, BI facilities may be replaced by more optimal T for final scenarios.

EISPC Presentation on BI

BI will impact gen picked in Phase I

Goal: include infrastructure reasonably certain to be built. Initial include bucket - 12/31/15 - reliability and existing, under construction, state budget approved or planned.  Exclude others and subject to petition process. Beyond 2016 petition. Standard is reasonable certainty.  WECC used petition process. 

Advantages: apples to apples. increase confidence in results. 

Proposal B

2010 -2015 include all. 92% are reliability. 74% of gen projects are planned.

Results in a more manageable process according to its proponents. 

SSC would vote to include or exclude based on PA replies after a challenge session (what is purpose/need for project; what concern is raised re: transfers if project approved) 

Proposal C 

If take too much out, model won't solve. 2010- 2015 all in. But all subject to petition process. Can tak out if not reasonably certain to be built. 2016- 2020 all out unless put in by petition. 

Higher standard for gen. If in doubt, leave out. 

 

Public Power. include up to 2015. include after 2015 if reliability or planned or within a PA. no petitions. focus on interregional planning. 

TO: concern about petition process, concern about bottom up v. top down. all T and G reliability and planned til 2015 in. all reliability and planned T included to 2020 included but petitions for other types.  focus on interregional impacts of projects. PA should have role.

Gens: concern about getting to closure quickly. start with roll up. 1st five years frozen. for 2015-2020 discussion should be whether it should come out. do not want subjective process. 

NGO: want things in current law (RPS) facilitated. Starting point is current law. Do not want to spend alot of time in the weeds or on lengthy petition process.  Want to see costs of BI choices. 

Alt Suppliers: Besides PAs, others have not said why its important to be careful about whats in. 

States: admin ease cannot be more important to accuracy of baseline. ensure results we get from futures is not skewed by baseline infrastructure that is not reasonably certain. 

ROLL UP WG Update

See slides. Contain more info than in presentation. 

Updated report does not have a lot of new info about what projects are reasonably certain. Not much in revised roll up to answer whether a project is reasonably certain to go forward. WG asked for info on that and did not receive lots of information back.

Annual growth assumptions have changed between planning authorities. EE and DR are different between PAs. 

Most PAs do not model demand response. 

Conceptual projects as a category are now gone. More info on more T lines. Regions still have very different planning criteria, assumptions and processes so need for baseline infrastructure if you want to level things out or get some kind of consistency. 

Same with gen. 

This is still a draft report and it is still changing. 

Q & A 

Q: why are you not focusing more on gen. 

A: No gen project type (ie reliability or multi-value).  PAs need to provide more info on how they treated gen in roll up. 

 

Intro Remarks

Tilly: EISPC is an important part of SSC. Recognize their process and work with it but ultimately SSC has to come together to agree on its process. 

Azar: EISPC has 81 members. Consensus based. EISPC reps at SSC can only do what EISPC has agreed to to date. Will listen and take info back for subsequent direction. 

DOE: 16 m project. not more. same with delivery dates. 

Myer: Think long term. Do not burn resources on low level issues as it will have ramifications later. 

EIPC December 13, 14 2010 Meeting

Posts above this relate to the EIPC December 13, 14 2010 meeting in Charlotte, NC 

Futures Development as of October 2010

The followingmay be helpful to further consideration and discussion of futures to be identified by EISPC. 

I. The following six futures are those identified by the EIPC Scenario Planning Work Group to date. They are referred to as the "original six futures".  At this time, the EIPC Work Group is developing enhanced versions of each.  

1. Business As Usual 
2. Carbon Constrained National Implementation
3. Carbon Constrained Regional Implementation (see note below)
4. Aggressive EE/DR/DG/Smart Grid 
5. National RPS Top Down Implementation
6. National RPS Regional Implementation (see note below) 

Note that EISPC has not yet identified No. 3 an No. 6 - regional implementation of RPS and regional implementation of Carbon Constraint - above as stand alone futures.  Currently, regional implementation is a sensitivity in the EISPC RPS future.  

The states may want to consider: 1) a stand alone RPS Regional Implementation Future and 2) a stand alone Regional Implementation Carbon Future

 

II. EIPSC Possible Futures Identified as of Mid-October 

This document lists possible EISPC futures identified as of October 2010 set forth in EIPC-format.  Download EISPC Futures worksheet as of 10-18

See note above re: regional implementation. 

Also, the current EISPC RPS case does not include a low gas cost sensitivity (only a high gas cost sensitivity). The low gas cost sensitivity was struck to narrow the number of sensitivities. The states may want to reinsert a  low gas cost sensitivity to the RPS future. 

 

III. All Futures Submitted by EIPC Scenario Planning Work Group For Discussion as of October 29, 2010

This document sets out all futures that members of the EIPC Scenario Planning Work Group believe are worth consideration.  It may be helpful to thinking about potential futures. Download All Futures submissions as of 10-1.29

 

 

 

 

NERC Scenarios Based on Potential EPA Regs

This may be relevant to the Scenario Planning Work Group efforts 

Download EPA_Scenario_Final

October SSC Meeting Slide Deck, Including Futures Identification

Preliminary description of futures identified to date by Scenario Planning Work Group appear on pages 62-76.

Download SSC Oct Meeting Slide Deck [Read-Only]-1

Next Step

Governance: SSC selected Roy Tilly as Chair, Kevin Gunn as Vice for next 6 months. Next 6 months, they switch. In 10 months, SSC consider future leadership paths. 

Next SSC in Charlotte in December 13,14

New meeting dates March and September 2011

EIPC Critical Path

March 18 Futures Defined

 July 22 Model Runs done and back to SSc 

Mid Nov. SSC high level BAU outline considered

Late Nov. Joint WG meeting

 Dec Meeting - high level futures 

Feb Meeting MWG work on 3-4 futures 

March Meeting MWG work on remaining

Move March SSC meeting earlier in March? or move back due date for futures to CRA

Still need to sync with EISPC and RUWG

 

Work Group Reports

Work Groups met to decide ways forward on critical paths, timing, coordination points with other work groups.

Roll Up Group

Work cannot be done until they get roll up report. EIPC Analysis Team recognize this.  Report in December.

Discussed terminology discussion to enable roll up to be transparent (what is proposed, what is planned, what is approved? is it in long-term IRP or by PA? - need to be clear). Also will get from PA documentation to enable apples to apples comparison - not asking PAs to reconcile regions' roll ups but the differences will be documented. 

Analysis Team will pick one of the PAs report and get it to RUWG. RUWG made list of things they want to see in a report. 

RUWG wants spread sheet formats.

RUWG will compile questions from webinar that were answered verbally to be provided in writing. 

Sum of critical paths: need to get final draft of roll up from EIPC analysis team (need within a week or 2); list of common terms; mock up of at least one PAs input into roll up; answers to webinar questions provided verbally to be transcribed.

Scenario Planning Work Group

Background Review: 8 futures to be run thru model; each one has nine sensitivity; 3 of those will get more detailed study - may be one of 8 or a combination. 

Question: perhaps save one future to run after pick 3

Deliverables: work with RUWG to get baseline roll up (will be useful in implementing criteria); deliver to SSC 6-7 futures well specified at a high level - take the list and put more to it, although not as detailed as will be needed for modeling such as spread sheets, costs); work with MWG to on BAU; also work with RUWG on criteria for baseline infrastructure (this can be done now, do not need to wait for roll up. 

Would like joint WG meetings.

Work Approach - break into smaller groups to work on different futures; small group will develop detailed time line; looking for small group from other wgs to work together on some of this.

One question is what if there is no agreement on BAU future? TBD

May ID some common sensitivities across all seven futures. 

Modeling Work Group

Focus on two tasks (task 3 and 4,5).

Task 3. Focus on production cost analysis. Work to be done by March.  Need Roll Up plan first before production cost can be done.  Need to review production cost analysis CRA and EIPC is doing. Doing this analysis on Roll Up, not sure yet if doing it on baseline infrastructure. 

Task 4,5. Futures definition and modeling. Futures input by Dec? Need a future to set inputs around. Need a sample future modeling session with CRA. To do that, need sample scenario. 

Also need to ID modeling regions.  And, need to T costs in model. 

 

Discussion re: need for critical path schedule. 

If desire is to have 4 futures done in December, critical path schedule will show whether its doable. It is not necessary to have 4 done by December but its a goal. Due date is March.