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