NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting. Salt Lake City, Utah December 13, 2016

Transcription

1 NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, Utah December 13, 2016

2 NTTG Planning Cycle

3 NTTG Draft Regional Transmission Plan Development 3

4 NTTG Q4 Stakeholder Meeting Agenda 10:30 10:45 WELCOME and AGENDA REVIEW 10:45 12:00 REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN DEVELOPMENT Draft Regional Transmission Plan Process Overview NTTG System Representation and Plan Assumptions Base Case Development and Change Case Selection NTTG Reliability and Stability Analysis 12:00 1:00 LUNCH BREAK 1:00 1:35 1:35 1:50 METRICS EVALUATION AND RESULTS Energy Loss Metric Change in Reserves Metric Capital Cost Metric NTTG DRAFT REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN Project Selection, Impacts on Neighboring Regions, and Cost Allocation Implications 4

5 NTTG Q4 Stakeholder Meeting 1:50 2:00 Agenda (Cont d.) TRANSMISSION USE COMMITTEE Updated POR/POD map 2:00 2:15 WECC ADS UPDATE 2:15 2:35 2:35 3:00 NEIGHBORING PLANNING REGION UPDATES CAISO Gary DeShazo ColumbiaGrid Paul Didsayabutra WestConnect Heidi Pacini NEXT STEPS AND OTHER BUSINESS Upcoming Opportunities for Stakeholder Input 3:00 ADJOURN 5

6 NTTG Draft Regional Transmission Plan Process Overview NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

7 Initial Regional Transmission Plan Evaluation NTTG goal is to select the most efficient or cost effective projects to meet the needs of the region Regional projects will be identified through reliability analysis (power flow) and benefit determination (changes in capital costs, losses, and reserves) Analysis performed on Initial Regional Transmission Plan (IRTP) IRTP without uncommitted projects Evaluation of Alternative Projects 7

8 Initial Regional Transmission Plan Evaluation Base cases for the evaluation have been developed using a production cost model to determine the hours when load and resource conditions are likely to stress the NTTG transmission system Power flow analysis of the Initial Regional Transmission Plan for the chosen hours has been performed to check compliance with the system performance requirements and transmission needs associated with Public Policy Requirements 8

9 NTTG System Representation and Plan Assumptions NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

10 Load Submissions SUBMITTED BY: 2015 Actual Peak Demand (MW) 2024 Summer Load Data Submitted in Q (MW) 2026 Summer Load Data Submitted in Q (MW) Difference (MW) Deseret G&T Included in PacifiCorp East Idaho Power 3,730 4,193 4, NorthWestern 1,790 1,774 1, PacifiCorp 12,634 14,002 13, Portland General 3,958 3,933 3, UAMPS Included in PacifiCorp East TOTAL 22,112 23,902 23,

11 Natural Gas Wind Solar Biomass Oil Geo-thermal Hydro-Electric Coal Nuclear Market* / Other TOTAL Resource Submissions

12 Transmission Additions by 2026 Sponsor From To Voltage Circuit Type Regionally Significant 1 Committed Projects Deseret G&T Idaho Power Bonanza Upalco 138 kv 2 LTP No No New Line Hemingway Boardman/ Longhorn 500 kv 1 LTP & prtp Yes No B2H Project Hemingway Bowmont 230 kv 2 LTP Yes No New Line (associated with Boardman to Hemingway) Bowmont Hubbard 230 kv 1 LTP Yes No New Line (associated with Boardman to Hemingway) Cedar Hill Hemingway 500 kv 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #9 (joint with PacifiCorp East) Cedar Hill Midpoint 500 kv 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #10 Midpoint Borah 500 kv 1 LTP Yes No (convert existing from 345 kv operation) King Wood River 138 kv 1 LTP No No Line Reconductor Willis Star 138 kv 1 LTP No No New Line Enbridge SE Alberta DC 1 LTP Yes No MATL 600 MW Back to Back DC Converter Aeolus Clover 500 kv 1 LTP & prtp Yes No Gateway South Project Segment #2 Aeolus Anticline 500 kv 1 LTP & prtp Yes No Gateway West Segments 2&3 Anticline Jim Bridger 500 kv 1 LTP & prtp Yes No 345/500 kv Tie PacifiCorp East PacifiCorp West Portland General Anticline Populus 500 kv 1 LTP & prtp Yes No Gateway West Segment #4 Populus Borah 500 kv 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #5 Populus Cedar Hill 500 kv 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #7 Antelope Goshen 345 kv 1 LTP Yes No Nuclear Resource Integration Antelope Borah 345 kv 1 LTP Yes No Nuclear Resource Integration Windstar Aeolus 230 kv 1 LTP & prtp Yes No Gateway West Segment #1W Oquirrh Terminal 345 kv 2 LTP Yes Yes Gateway Central Cedar Hill Hemingway 500 kv 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #9 (joint with Idaho Power) Wallula McNary 230 kv 1 LTP Yes Yes Gateway West Segment A Blue Lake Gresham 230 kv 1 LTP No No New Line Blue Lake Troutdale 230 kv 1 LTP No No Rebuild Blue Lake Troutdale 230 kv 2 LTP No No New Line Horizon Springville Jct 230 kv 1 LTP No No New Line (Trojan-St Marys-Horizon) Horizon Harborton 230 kv 1 LTP No No New Line (re-terminates Horizon Line) Trojan Harborton 230 kv 1 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton St Marys Harborton 230 kv 1 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton Rivergate Harborton 230 kv 1 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton Trojan Harborton 230 kv 2 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton 12

13 Gateway Project Submission Gateway Project has been split into 3 subprojects to better match regional plans 1. Segment D and F 2. Segment E.1 (Populus west to Midpoint/Cedar Hill) 3. Segment E.2 (Midpoint/Cedar Hill west to Hemingway) D & F 13

14 Transmission Service Obligations Submitted by MW (1) Start Date POR POD Idaho Power 500/ Northwest IPCo 250/ LaGrande BPASEID Antelope Network PacifiCorp East Miners, Point of Rocks Network (1) Summer/Winter 14

15 Public Policy Requirements Resources submitted to NTTG [or TEPPC] support the following state statutory targets for percentage of renewable energy generation: California 33% by 2020 Montana 15% by 2015 Oregon 25% by 2025 Utah 20% by 2025 Washington 15% by

16 Interregional Project Submissions NTTG received three Interregional Transmission Project (ITP) submittals Cross-Tie Great Basin (SWIP-North) TransWest Express Relevant Planning Regions coordinated and agreed on common ITP interfaces for each region s evaluation of the ITPs 16

17 Cross-Tie Transmission Project Submitted by TransCanyon Clover, UT to Robinson Summit, NV Sponsored Project 500 kv, AC Common ITP Assumptions: Phase Shifters in Gonder Area Series Compensated to Las Vegas Area 500 kv line extended from Harry Allen to Eldorado 1500MW of new wind resource in Wyoming (may test at 2000 MW to align with CAISO studies) 17

18 Cross-Tie 18

19 SWIP-North Transmission Project Submitted by Great Basin Transmission Midpoint, ID to Robinson Summit, NV Sponsored Project 500 kv, AC Common ITP assumptions include: Series Compensated to Las Vegas Area 500 kv line extended from Harry Allen to Eldorado Phase Shifters in Gonder Area 2000 MW of new wind resource in Wyoming 19

20 SWIP-North 20

21 TransWest Express Transmission Project Submitted by TransWest Express Sinclair, WY to Boulder City, NV Sponsored Project 600 kv, DC Common ITP Assumptions: kv interconnections to Wyoming system DC line rated for 1500/2000 MW 2000 MW of new wind resource in Wyoming with balancing CT 21

22 TransWest Express 22

23 Questions? 23

24 Base Case Development and Change Case Selection NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

25 Base Case Development Common Case posted on WECC website on 7/5/2016, Production Cost Modeling ONLY Technical review to improve load, interface definitions Power Flow case not available until mid-august Still needed tuning as it contained duplicate projects Generator mapping needed further massaging 25

26 A Base Case (At last!) August 25, had a power flow case that is workable Continued review of contingency definitions, fix of minor generator mapping errors and topology, load assumptions 26

27 Power Flow Cases Selected Selection of Base Cases A. Peak coincident Summer Load condition B. Peak coincident Winter Load condition C. High westbound Path 8 flows D. Boardman to Hemmingway (Longhorn) 1. High Import flows to Idaho 2. High export flows from Idaho E. Conditions with high flows across the Tot2 path F. High Wyoming Wind condition Conditions where persistent congestion observed 27

28 Change Case Selection Study plan presented a model Change Case matrix which was open to further development by TWG as the study cases were further developed A Modified Matrix was presented at the October Planning Committee meeting seeking comments No comments were received Further changes were identified by TWG 28

29 TWG Case Terminology Base Case Topology represented in PCM model (all CCTA facilities included) prtp Prior Regional Transmission Plan, includes: B2H, Eastern Portion of Gateway West and Gateway South Non-NTTG CCTA facilities irtp Initial Regional Transmission Plan, includes: B2H, McNary-Wallula, Gateway West, Gateway South, Antelope Projects, local Load serving projects Non-NTTG CCTA Facilities 29

30 Revised Change Case Matrix Gateway S* Gateway W* Antelope Projects Cross- Tie B2H* SWIP N TWE Case Case(s): null A B D1 D2 F prtp X X D A B D1 D2 F irtp X X X X A B D1 D2 F CC1 X A B D1 D2 F CC2 X X A D2 E F CC3 X X A D2 E F CC4 X X X A D1 D2 E F CC5 X A B D1 D2 F CC6 X A B D1 D2 F CC7 X A B D1 D2 F CC8 X E+RPS CC9 X X E+RPS CC20 X X X E+RPS CC10 X E+RPS CC11 X X E+RPS CC18 X X X E+RPS CC12 X E+RPS CC13 X X E+RPS CC19 X X X E+RPS CC14 X X X X E+RPS CC15 X X X E+RPS CC16 X X X E+RPS CC17 X X X X X E+RPS CC21 X X A D2 F CC22 X X B D2 F CC23 X X C F * B2H and Alternate P in the prtp are similar to B2H, Gateway S and Gateway W in the Q1 data submittals A B C D irtp without Midpoint-Hemingway #2 and Cedar Hill-Midpoint irtp without Borah-Midpoint Uprate and Populus-Borah irtp without Midpoint-Hemingway #2, Cedar Hill-Midpoint and Populus-Borah irtp without Midpoint-Hemingway #2, Cedar Hill-Midpoint, Populus-Cedar Hill- Hemingway, Populus-Borah and Midpoint-Borah Uprate The change case was run with and without B2H 30

31 NTTG Technical Analysis Once base cases were developed and change cases selected, the following analysis was performed: Reliability (power flow) Stability (dynamics) Economic Metrics (benefits) Energy Losses Change in Reserves Annual Capital Costs Impacts to Neighboring Planning Regions reviewed Further discussion of these analyses is summarized next 31

32 Questions? 32

33 NTTG Reliability/Stability Analysis NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

34 Reliability Analysis Power flow software is used to evaluate transmission reliability under N-0 and N-1 conditions, and Certain credible N-2 contingencies Dynamic analysis is based on selected Power flow cases and the availability of the dynamic models for the projects 34

35 Reliability Analysis Method Tune case to meet flow objectives Adjust reactive to meet voltage targets Testing each case with 418 contingencies Export elements (buses, Lines, transformers, Series Caps) whose limits may potentially be exceeded. Some limits may be exceeded for N-2 contingencies but for not N-1 Powerflow program doesn t distinguish between N-1s or N-2s - (manually reviewed) 100+ cases across the 6 powerflow conditions records where limits may be potentially be exceeded The sheer number of values and cases made comprehending the results difficult. Review methods: Pivot table of cases Graphical 35

36 Graphical Reliability Analysis Compress the data differently: Count the number of limit exceedances in each zone by: High Voltages (1x) Low Voltages (3x) Overloads (5x) Weight Overloads considered more severe than Low Voltages and Low Voltage considered more severe than High Voltages Map Zone labels to Latitude and Longitude Use a web browser application to create Heat Maps using the above data Using Java script and Google Maps 36

37 Graphical Reliability Analysis 37

38 Graphical Reliability Analysis How does the prior RTP perform? 38

39 Graphical Reliability Analysis How does the prior RTP perform? 39

40 Graphical Reliability Analysis How does the prior RTP perform with the High Wind case? 40

41 Graphical Reliability Analysis How does the irtp perform? 41

42 Graphical Reliability Analysis Heavy Summer Case Do the ITPs provide NTTG benefit? Added ITP without new resources TransWest Express Cross-Tie Great Basin 42

43 Graphical Reliability Analysis Heavy Idaho Import Do the ITPs provide NTTG benefit? Added ITP without new resources TransWest Express Cross-Tie Great Basin 43

44 Graphical Reliability Analysis Heavy Idaho Export Do the ITPs provide NTTG benefit? Added ITP without new resources TransWest Express Cross-Tie Great Basin 44

45 Graphical Reliability Analysis High Wyoming Wind Do the ITPs provide NTTG benefit? Added ITP without new resources TransWest Express Cross-Tie Great Basin 45

46 Powerflow Results Three change cases appear to meet NTTG requirements. These cases were evaluated to determine which case would be more efficient or cost effective*. irtp facilities submitted in Q1 Change Case CC21 Excludes Midpoint-Hemingway #2, Cedar Hill-Midpoint Change Case CC23 CC21 but also excludes Populus-Borah * for the requirements submitted in Q1 46

47 Stability Analysis TWG has developed a Dynamic dataset which will be used to test a selected number of powerflow contingencies. Developing the dynamic contingency switching files is under way and is expected to be complete in early Q5 47

48 Questions? 48

49 LUNCH BREAK

50 Metrics Evaluation and Results NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

51 Energy Loss Metric NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

52 Energy Losses Energy Losses The difference between power produced and power delivered at customer meter Primary sources of transmission system losses Resistive losses (heat) Corona discharge losses (noise) Energy Loss Metric Metric captures the change in energy generated to serve a given amount of load 52

53 Energy Loss Calculation Determine NTTG footprint incremental power losses for each Core Case Losses w/o project losses w/project Reduction in losses = benefit Take average of 6 Core Cases, annualize, and multiply by nodal energy price Result = Annual benefit in $ 53

54 Energy Losses: Projects Evaluated 1. irtp w/o Midpoint Cedar Hill and Midpoint Hemingway #2 segments (CC21) 2. irtp w/o Midpoint Cedar Hill, Midpoint Hemingway #2, and Borah - Populus segments (CC23) 54

55 Energy Loss Metric: Change Case 21 Benefit By BA Locational Marginal Price ($MWh) Avg. Δ Loss (MW) Annualized (MWh) Annualized Benefit ($) PacifiCorp $30.21 ($372,286) PGE $33.07 ($482) NorthWestern $25.16 ($303,401) Idaho Power $31.76 ($2,154,433) Total NTTG Benefit ($2,830,603) 55

56 Energy Loss Metric: Change Case 23 Benefit By BA Locational Marginal Price ($MWh) Avg. Δ Loss (MW) Annualized (MWh) Annualized Benefit ($) PacifiCorp $30.21 ($1,056,869) PGE 0 0 $ NorthWestern $25.16 ($326,909) Idaho Power $31.76 ($2,005,579) Total NTTG Benefit ($3,389,357) 56

57 Energy Loss Metric: Production Cost Analysis Production cost modeling software was also used to evaluate annual energy loss The production cost method resulted in lower annual losses when compared to power flow software The TWG will continue to review the differences between the methods in the following quarters 57

58 Energy Loss Metric: Summary and Conclusions TWG has quantified the energy loss benefit for Change Case 21 and Change Case 23 Removing the 500kV segments resulted in higher energy losses The increased energy losses is a negative benefit Magnitude of benefits are dramatically less than Annual Capital Related Cost metric 58

59 Questions? 59

60 Change in Reserve Metric NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

61 Change in Reserve Metric Metric identifies any potential benefit of transmission to lower the reserve capacity costs of two or more parties. Assumptions: incremental load and generation additions for the 10 year planning period Generation Capacity based on a Simple Cycle Frame F class machine ($800/kW) Reserve event energy costs based on the TEPPC 2026 case zonal gas prices 61

62 Change in Reserves Cont. In this study cycle four transmission upgrades were analyzed: Gateway (West & South) SWIP North Boardman to Hemingway Cross-Tie In order to evaluate these five projects, six zones where used: Bozeman, Boise, Portland, Salt Lake, Wyoming, Desert Southwest 62

63 Change in Reserves Cont. Montana-NW Bozeman Portland B2H Boise Gateway W Wyoming enabled by Gateway W Gateway S SWIP Cross-Tie Salt Lake Desert Southwest 63

64 Change in Reserves Cont. Analysis is spreadsheet based The analysis, the six zones create 180 combinations to consider Not all combinations are enabled by the transmission projects 64

65 Change in Reserves Cont. The combinations include: 30 two party/zones 54 three party/zones 60 four party/zones 30 five party/zones 6 six party/zones Factoring the uncommitted capacity of the transmission additions, the combinations drop to 122 viable sets 20 five party 22 two party 36 three party 40 four party 65

66 Change in Reserves Cont. Of the 122 viable combinations, only 34 provide a positive benefit Reserve location Receiving parties Net Annual Savings Source Party Receiving Party Boise Bozeman Portland Desert Southwest $ 2,896,974 $3,340,315 $( 518,088) $ 34,198 $ 40,549 Portland Bozeman $ 891,190 $ 265,373 $ 625,818 Bozeman Portland $ 891,774 $ 626,227 $ 265,546 Wyoming Boise $ 487,683 $1,154,121 $( 666,438) Desert Southwest Boise, Bozeman, Portland, Salt Lake $2,351,315 $2,480,116 $ 676,876 $( 314,778) $( 337,271) $( 153,629) Salt Lake Desert Southwest $ 756,086 $1,576,050 $( 819,964) 66

67 Change in Reserves Cont. If a connection to the Desert Southwest is not available, the number of viable combinations drops to seven. The top five are: Reserve location Receiving parties Net Annual Savings Source Party Receiving Party Boise Bozeman Portland $ 946,473 $2,039,780 $( 946,120) $( 147,187) Portland Bozeman $ 891,190 $ 265,373 $ 625,818 Bozeman Portland $ 891,774 $ 626,227 $ 265,546 Wyoming Bozeman $ 487,683 $1,154,121 $( 666,438) Salt Lake Bozeman $ 483,710 $1,302,563 $( 818,853) 67

68 Change in Reserves Cont. How does the Change in Reserve metric influence the project selection in this planning cycle? All the change cases under consideration are capable of enabling the viable economic reserve combinations for the NTTG footprint. Since the preferred case and alternative case could contain the same benefit value, the Change in Reserve metric does not factor in the decision process. 68

69 Questions? 69

70 Capital Cost Metric NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

71 Capital Cost Evaluation Estimate Project Cost TEPPC Transmission Capital Cost tool Validate Initial Regional Transmission Plan ( irtp ) project capital cost if submitted by project sponsor Attempt to resolve differences if sponsor estimate outside plus or minus 20% of the TEPPC transmission cost calculator estimate calculator Develop the project capital cost estimate if sponsor did not submit project capital cost 71

72 Estimate Project Cost Longhorn Hemingway Example Longhorn-Hemingway Example Estimated Capital Cost 2016$ $ per Mile Estimated Project Cost Line Cost $ 895,901,514 $ 3,036,954 ROW Cost $ 1,278,102 $ 4,333 Longhorn Sub $ 42,228,445 Hemingway Sub $ 29,912,827 AFUDC/Overhead Cost $ 169,631,155 Estimated All Costs $ 1,138,952,042 Miles

73 Validate Project Cost 2016$ Acceptable Range Longhorn-Hemingway Energy Gateway Project 80% $911,161,634 $3,922,453,544 TEPPC Calculator $1,138,952,042 $4,903,066, % $1,366,742,451 $5,883,680,317 irtp Total non- Committed Sponsor Cost Provided $1,220,625,000 Use TEPPC Cost Estimate Used $1,220,625,000 $4,903,066,931 $6,123,691,931 In-service Year

74 Change Case 21 Cost 2016$ CC21 Project Capital Cost irtp Capital Cost $6,123,691,931 Less EGW MidPt-Hemingway $351,384,130 EGW MidPt-Cedar Hill $96,849,280 Less Sum $448,233,410 CC21 Capital Cost $5,675,458,521 EGW Capital Cost 2016$ EGW Project Cost in irtp $4,903,066,931 Less Projects Cost from above $448,233,410 CC21 EGW Project Cost $4,454,833,521 74

75 Change Case 23 Cost 2016$ CC23 Capital Cost irtp Capital Cost $6,123,691,931 Less EGW MidPt-Hemingway $351,384,130 EGW MidPt-Cedar Hill $96,849,280 EGW Populus-Borah $244,421,657 Less Sum $692,655,066 CC21 Capital Costs $5,431,036,864 EGW Capital Cost 2016$ EGW Project Cost in irtp $4,903,066,931 Less Projects Cost from above $692,655,066 CC231 EGW Project Cost $4,210,411,864 75

76 Capital Related Cost ( CRC ) Develop annual CRC for each project in the case being considered irtp Change Cases Use TEPPC s simplified annual CRC model 76

77 Annual CRC Example Longhorn Hemingway Example Capital Cost 2022 Dollars $1,374,622,003 Revenue Requirement Fixed O&M $35,052,861 $35,753,918 $36,468,997 $37,198,377 $37,942,344 Property Tax $13,746,220 $13,402,565 $13,058,909 $12,715,254 $12,371,598 Insurance $7,010,572 $7,150,784 $7,293,799 $7,439,675 $7,588,469 Interest $41,238,660 $39,799,946 $37,627,288 $35,609,573 $33,730,492 Equity Return $75,604,210 $72,966,568 $68,983,360 $65,284,217 $61,839,235 Depreciation $34,365,550 $34,365,550 $34,365,550 $34,365,550 $34,365,550 Tax on Equity Return - before grossup $29,901,465 $28,858,278 $27,282,919 $25,819,908 $24,457,417 Tax Grossup - Equity $19,563,324 $18,880,809 $17,850,115 $16,892,926 $16,001,503 Total Revenue Requirement $256,482,863 $251,178,418 $242,930,937 $235,325,478 $228,296,609 77

78 CRC Process Step 1 Longhorn Hemingway Example Escalate Project Cost the in-service year 2016$ $1,220,625, Escalate $ $1,374,622,003 78

79 CRC Process Step 2 Longhorn Hemingway Example Estimate CRC Project Cost 40 Yr. Annual CRC NPV CRC 2022$ $1,374,622, $ $2,283,608, $256,482, $251,178, $242,930,937 NPV Annual CRC 2062 $128,279,127 79

80 CRC Process Step 3 Longhorn Hemingway Example NPV 2016$ $2,027,779, De-escalate $ $2,283,608,944 80

81 irtp Capital Related Cost irtp non-committed Projects Longhorn- Hemingway Energy Gateway Project irtp Capital Cost Estimate Used $1,220,625,000 $4,903,066,931 $6,123,691,931 Estimated NPV Capital Related Costs $2,027,779,390 $8,145,284,646 $10,173,064,037 81

82 Capital Related Cost Metric 2016$ irtp CC21 CC23 Capital Cost Estimate $6,123,691,931 $5,675,458,521 $5,431,036,864 NPV Cap. Related Cost $10,173,064,037 $9,428,430,369 $9,022,381,667 Diff from irtp -7.3% -4.3% Levelized Cap. Relate Cost $899,115,803 $833,303,586 $797,416,187 Difference from irtp M$ ($65.812) ($101,699,616) 82

83 Economic Assumptions IOU Financing Share Rate Wei Rate Equity 50.00% 11.00% 5.50% Debt 50.00% 6.00% 3.00% Wei Cost Capital Years Economic Life 40 (Discount Rate) 8.50% Annual Escalation U.S. GDP Percent Change 2013 H 1.7% 2014 H 2.4% 2015 H 2.6% 2016 F 1.5% > 2016 F 2.0% 83

84 Increment Cost Sum of 3 metrics for potential irtps Levelized NPV CRC monetized energy losses monetized reserves 84

85 Change Case Metric 2016 M$ Change Case Metric CC21 - irtp CC23 - irtp Levelized Cap. Related Cost ($65.81) ($101.70) NTTG Losses - Monitized $2.83 $3.39 NTTG Reserve - Monitized $0.00 $0.00 Total Difference ($62.98) ($98.31) 85

86 Incremental Cost 2016 M$ Case Difference from irtp Incremental Cost irtp $ CC21 ($62.98) $ CC23 ($98.31) $

87 Questions? 87

88 Draft Regional Transmission Plan Project Selection NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

89 Draft Regional Transmission Plan (DRTP) Based on the reliability and economic considerations previously discussed, the most efficient and costeffective plan based on the studies performed is the Change Case (CC23) plan consisting of: IRTP with the non-committed projects removed, and addition of the following transmission facilities: Boardman/Longhorn Hemingway 500 kv, Gateway West Segment D (Populus Windstar) and Gateway South Segment F (Aeolus Clover) Other selected portions of Gateway West Segment E.1 and E.2; specifically, Populus Cedar Hill 500 kv and Cedar Hill Hemingway 500 kv 89

90 Draft Regional Transmission Plan Impacts on Other Regions In developing the DRTP, using a system model representing the entire Western Interconnection, no negative impacts to other regions were identified. Technical studies indicated that the DRTP would support each of the Interregional Transmission Projects (ITPs) submitted; however, none of the ITPs satisfied a Northern Tier regional need 90

91 Draft Regional Transmission Plan Cost Allocation None of the projects selected into the DRTP will have costs allocated. 91

92 Transmission Use Committee Update NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

93 Transmission Use Committee Members: Michael Flanick - Chair, Northwestern Energy Matt Richard - Vice Chair, Portland General Electric Nathan Powell - Deseret Power Electric Cooperative Beth Ryan - Idaho Power Michael Manarovici - MATL Brian Fritz PacifiCorp 93

94 Purpose of Transmission Use Committee Established to: Increase efficiency of existing member utility transmission systems through commercially reasonable initiatives, and Increase customer knowledge of, and transparency into, the transmission systems of member utilities Membership consists of: Representatives from the transmission provider of each utility or utility cooperative that is a party to the NTTG funding agreement May be extended to include (1) appointed staff representatives from state regulatory utility commissions within the NTTG footprint and (2) representatives appointed by state customer advocacy groups within the NTTG footprint 94

95 POR / POD Map 95

96 NTTG POR/POD Map as of December 1,

97 NTTG POR/POD Common Names List as of December 1, 2016 Common Names List 97

98 Questions? 98

99 Anchor Data Set Development Update NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

100 Neighboring Planning Region Updates NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

101 Neighboring Planning Region Updates CAISO Gary DeShazo ColumbiaGrid Paul Didsayabutra WestConnect Charlie Reinhold 101

102 Next Steps and Opportunities for Stakeholder Input NTTG Quarter 4 Stakeholder Meeting Salt Lake City, UT December 13, 2016

103 Upcoming Q5 Opportunities for Stakeholder Input 103

104 Stakeholder Comments Other Business

105 Thank You!