SPP s Regional Review of SPP-MISO Coordinated System Plan Recommended Interregional Projects

Transcription

1 SPP s Regional Review of SPP-MISO Coordinated System Plan Recommended Interregional Projects January 4, 2016 SPP Interregional Relations

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Introduction... 5 Stakeholder Involvement... 5 Assumptions Development... 6 Model Development...6 Economic Model...6 Power Flow Model...7 Constraint Assessment...7 Metrics... 7 APC...7 Avoided or Delayed Reliability Project Cost...8 Mitigation of Transmission Outage Costs...8 Wheeling Through and Out Revenue...8 Cost Estimates... 9 Analysis Results... 9 Alto Series Reactor...9 Metric Results Project Recommendations & Approvals Rebuild South Shreveport to Wallace Lake...11 Metric Results Project Recommendation and Approvals Elm Creek NSUB 345 kv...12 Metric Results Project Recommendation and Approvals Reliability Assessment Conclusion

3 Executive Summary In its Regional Review process, SPP evaluated three potential Interregional Projects which were recommended by the SPP-MISO Joint Planning Committee (JPC) from the SPP-MISO Coordinated System Plan (CSP) study. These potential Interregional Projects are: 1. Series Reactor on Alto-Swartz 115kV (Alto Series Reactor); 2. Rebuild Southwest Shreveport Wallace Lake 138 kv (Southwest Shreveport); and 3. Elm Creek NSUB 345 kv (Elm Creek). The purpose of the Regional Review is to utilize SPP s own regional planning models and benefit metrics to estimate the benefits to the SPP region from the potential Interregional Projects identified in the CSP. At their June 2015 meeting, the Economic Studies Working Group (ESWG) approved a study scope for the Regional Review for SPP staff to use a Business-as-Usual future. SPP utilized the 2015 ITP10 Future 1 model as the starting point for the Regional Review model. This model was then updated to include model enhancements that were identified in the latter stages of the 2015 ITP10, the CSP, and additional stakeholder review. The Regional Review scope described utilizing four benefit metrics to evaluate the potential Interregional Projects: Adjusted Production Cost; Avoided or Delayed Reliability Project Cost; 2

4 Mitigation of Transmission Outage Cost; and Increased Wheeling Through and Out Revenue. SPP performed a 40-year financial analysis of the potential Interregional Projects to determine the total present value of the estimated benefits that could be attributed to SPP. The cost for the two potential Interregional Projects within SPP, Southwest Shreveport and Elm Creek, were estimated using SPP s regional project cost estimation process. These costs were study level estimates with a plus/minus degree of accuracy of 30%. The cost for the project within MISO, the Alto Series Reactor, was estimated using MISO s regional project cost estimate process and also was an estimate of plus/minus 30%. Only the proportion of each project s cost that would be paid by SPP, as determined through the CSP analysis, was considered when comparing the costs to the estimated SPP benefits. Should the potential Interregional Projects be approved, SPP would be responsible for 14% of the cost of the Alto Series Reactor, 20% of Southwest Shreveport, and 80% of Elm Creek. Those percentages were calculated in the CSP. SPP s evaluation of the Alto Series Reactor determined that this potential Interregional Project does not provide benefit to SPP. While SPP was only projected to be allocated 14% of the cost, which amounts to $1.27 million over 40 years, SPP s 40-year APC benefit was estimated to be negative $8.73 million based on the results of SPP s Regional Review. Additionally this project does not provide benefits from the other three metrics: Increased Wheeling Through and Out Revenue, Mitigation of Transmission Outage Cost, and Avoided or Delayed Reliability Project. SPP staff recommended that the Alto Series Reactor not be approved as an Interregional Project. In October 2015 the SPP Board of Directors (Board) voted to not approve this project as an Interregional Project. SPP s evaluation of South Shreveport determined that this potential Interregional Project is estimated to provide significant benefits to SPP. SPP was projected to be allocated 20% of the cost, which amounts to $6.38 million over 40 years. SPP s 40-year APC benefit is estimated to be $39 million resulting in an APC-only B/C ratio of 6.2. This potential Interregional Project also was expected to provide Avoided or Delayed Reliability Project benefit of $31.9 million and Mitigation of Transmission Outage Cost benefits of $4.4 million, resulting in total 40-year benefits of $75.7 million and a B/C ratio of Categories Values APC $ 39,328,392 Wheeling $ - Trans Outages $ 4,444,108 Reliability $ 31,898, Yr PV Benefits $ 75,671, Yr PV Cost $ 6,379,772 NPV $ 69,291,589 B/C Ratio Even if SPP were responsible for a significantly higher percentage of the cost, this project would still be cost effective for SPP. Based on the results of the Regional Review, SPP staff recommended that this project be approved as an Interregional Project. In October 2015, the Board voted to approve South Shreveport as an Interregional Project. If this project were to be 3

5 approved by the MISO Board of Directors as well it would move forward as an Interregional Project. SPP s evaluation of Elm Creek determined that this potential Interregional Project is estimated to provide benefits to SPP. Benefits for this project are substantially less than what was calculated in the CSP. The primary driver for the benefit difference is the 2015 ITP10 approval of the voltage conversion for Iatan Stranger 161 kv to 345 kv. Due to the timing of when the Iatan Stranger voltage conversion was approved, this project was not included in the CSP study but was included in SPP s Regional Review. SPP s 40-year APC benefit is estimated to be $190 million. This potential Interregional Project also provides Mitigation of Transmission Outage Cost benefits of $21.4 million and Wheeling Through and Out Revenue benefit of $8.3 million. The total 40-year benefit to SPP is $219 million, resulting in a 40-year B/C ratio of Categories Values APC $ 189,646,497 Wheeling $ 8,335,167 Trans Outages $ 21,430,054 Reliability $ - 40-Yr PV Benefits $ 219,411, Yr PV Cost $ 193,479,100 NPV $ 25,932,619 B/C Ratio 1.13 While the estimated B/C ratio of 1.13 is greater than 1, SPP staff recommended that Elm Creek not be approved as an Interregional Project. This recommendation is based on SPP staff s analysis that most of the estimated benefit from the Elm Creek project is driven by an increase in coal generation, and given the uncertainty due to the Clean Power Plan, SPP staff was not confident that the benefits would have a high likelihood of materializing under a carbon constrained future. Additionally, SPP s Regional Review analysis shows that the Elm Creek project is not projected to have an annual B/C ratio greater than 1.0 until SPP staff s conclusion to not recommend approval of the proposed Elm Creek Interregional Project and continuing to evaluate this project until there is more certainty represents a noregrets approach. In October 2015 the Board voted to not approve this project as an Interregional Project. Of the three potential Interregional Projects resulting from the CSP, only South Shreveport was approved by the Board as an Interregional Project. In order for an Interregional Project to move forward it must also be approved by the MISO Board of Directors. MISO staff has informed SPP staff that the MISO Board of Directors does not plan to take any action on these projects at this time. 4

6 Introduction The purpose of the MISO-SPP Coordinated System Plan (CSP) study was to jointly evaluate seams transmission issues and identify transmission solutions that efficiently address the identified issues to the benefit of both MISO and SPP. This study incorporated an evaluation of economic seams transmission issues and an assessment of potential reliability violations. At the completion of the CSP study, the SPP-MISO Joint Planning Committee (JPC) produced a draft report. The report documented all aspects of the study including: transmission issues evaluated; analyses; potential transmission solutions; and the recommended Interregional Projects with the associated interregional cost allocation. Taking into consideration the recommendation of the Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee (IPSAC), the JPC met and voted to recommend three potential Interregional Projects. On the JPC s June 29, 2015 conference call, the JPC voted to recommend the following potential Interregional Projects: 1. Series Reactor on Alto-Swartz 115kV (Alto Series Reactor); 2. Rebuild Southwest Shreveport Wallace Lake 138 kv (Southwest Shreveport); and 3. Elm Creek NSUB 345 kv (Elm Creek). The SPP Regional Review officially began once the projects were recommended by the JPC. The SPP Regional Review methodology, posted on the SPP website 1, provides guidance on the development of the study scope. The study scope was drafted by SPP staff and approved by the ESWG at their June 2015 meeting. Stakeholder Involvement While stakeholder involvement in the CSP primarily occurred at the joint IPSAC meetings, SPP s Regional Review is driven by SPP s regional stakeholder process. Since the three recommended Interregional Projects were recommended to address economic issues, the Economic Studies Working Group (ESWG) was identified as being the primary group responsible for overseeing SPP s Regional Review study. The ESWG approved the scope for the Regional Review study at their June 2015 meeting. The model for use in the Regional Review study was approved by the ESWG at their August 2015 meeting after being reviewed and updated by stakeholders over the course of several weeks. While the ESWG was the primary SPP stakeholder group driving SPP s Regional Review study, the Transmission Working Group (TWG) was also involved. The TWG approved an updated constraint assessment at their July meeting to be used in SPP s Regional Review. The TWG also reviewed the results of the reliability no-harm analysis and the reliability benefit metric

7 Other SPP working groups were provided updates on the Regional Review study as it was in process, such as the Cost Allocation Working Group (CAWG), the Seams Steering Committee (SSC), and the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC). Both the ESWG and the TWG reviewed the final results compiled by SPP staff. The TWG voted to approve the results of the no-harm analysis and the reliability benefit metric at their September 2015 meeting. The ESWG was responsible for providing a recommendation to the MOPC and voted to recommend Elm Creek and Southwest Shreveport for approval as Interregional Projects at their September 2015 meeting. The SSC also voted to express their desire that Southwest Shreveport be approved as an Interregional Project. Assumptions Development The Regional Review methodology states that the latest or current ITP10 model(s) and assumptions from the business as usual future will be used unless the ESWG determines that adjustments are needed due to a significant change in expected conditions. The ESWG agreed with using Future 1 from the 2015 ITP10 as the base for all assumptions in the Regional Review 2. One deviation from those assumptions was that the ESWG directed SPP staff to use the hurdle rates identified in the CSP to perform the APC analysis. The transmission topology in SPP s Regional Review model was updated from what was used in the CSP and the 2015 ITP10 to include stakeholder feedback that was provided during the development of the 2017 ITP10 models. Additionally, SPP staff updated the models to include the transmission projects which were approved by the Board in January 2015 which were not included in the CSP models. Model Development The models used in the Regional Review differ from those used in the CSP. The Regional Review models are built under the purview of the SPP stakeholder process rather than the interregional process utilized in the CSP. Additionally, the Regional Review model is 12 months newer than the CSP model which resulted in the Regional Review model including updated topology and generation assumptions that were not known when the CSP model was built. These model updates contributed to the difference in results between the CSP and the SPP Regional Review. Economic Model Two economic models were used in the Regional Review study: a 2019 model and a 2024 model. Since 2024 is the study year for the CSP and 2024 is assumed to be the in-service date for the projects, the 2024 model was the primary model used in the project evaluation. The 2019 model 2 The 2015 ITP10 scope includes details on the assumptions. 6

8 was utilized for the Adjusted Production Cost (APC) 40-year financial analysis to extrapolate data points beyond the 2024 model year. The economic model was based upon what was used in the CSP. The CSP model already included the 2015 ITP10 data. Updates were made to this model based on the assumptions approved by the ESWG in the Regional Review Scope and other stakeholder feedback. Once the economic model for SPP s Regional Review was developed it was reviewed by the ESWG. The model was endorsed by the ESWG at their July 9, 2015 meeting. Power Flow Model A power flow model was utilized to perform a no-harm evaluation and to calculate the avoided or delayed reliability project cost and increased wheeling through and out revenues benefit metrics. The 2015 ITP power flow model was updated to include recently approved transmission projects and other enhancements as provided by stakeholders. Constraint Assessment The 2015 ITP10 constraint list was used as the starting point for SPP s Regional Review constraint list. Since the transmission topology in the power flow model was updated to incorporate transmission projects approved in January 2015, an additional constraint analysis was performed to determine if additional constraints should be modeled. Two hours, one peak and one non-peak hour, were evaluated, and the additional constraints that were identified were added to the constraint list. This revised constraint list was provided to stakeholders and approved by the TWG at their July 2015 meeting. Metrics The scope identified four metrics to be used to calculate SPP benefit: 1. Adjusted Production Cost (APC); 2. Avoided or delayed reliability project cost; 3. Mitigation of transmission outage costs; and 4. Increased wheeling through and out revenues. APC APC is a measure of the impact on production cost savings, considering purchases and sales of energy between each area of the transmission grid. The calculation, performed on an hourly basis, is summarized in the following figure. 7

9 APC captures the monetary cost associated with fuel prices, run times, grid congestion, and unit operating costs, energy purchases, energy sales, and other factors that directly relate to energy production by generating resources in the SPP footprint. Additional transmission projects aim to relieve system congestion and reduce costs through a combination of a more economical generation dispatch, more economical purchases, and optimal revenue from sales. To calculate benefits over the expected 40-year life of the projects 3, two years were analyzed, 2019 and 2024, and the APC savings were calculated accordingly for these years. The calculated APC benefits are extrapolated for the initial 20-year period based on the slope between the two points and assumed to grow at an inflation rate of 2.5% per each year after that up to year 40. Each year s benefit was then discounted to 2019 using an 8% discount rate and a 2.5% inflation rate from 2019 back to The sum of all discounted benefits was presented as the Net Present Value (NPV) benefit. Avoided or Delayed Reliability Project Cost To calculate the avoided or delayed reliability project cost benefit a power flow analysis is performed to determine whether the potential Interregional Project replaces an SPP regional reliability project. The value of this benefit metric is calculated as the 40-year cost of the replaced SPP regional reliability project(s). Mitigation of Transmission Outage Costs The standard production cost simulations used to estimate APC savings assume that transmission lines and facilities are available during all hours of the year, and thereby ignore the added congestion-relief and production cost benefits of new transmission facilities during the planned and unplanned outages of existing transmission facilities. To estimate the incremental savings associated with the mitigation of transmission outage costs, the production cost simulations can be augmented for a realistic level of transmission outages. Due to the significant effort that would be needed to develop these augmented models, and as was done in the 2015 ITP10, the findings from the SPP Regional Cost Allocation Review (RCAR) study were used to estimate this benefit metric for the potential Interregional Projects. In the RCAR analysis, adding a subset of historical transmission outage events to the production cost simulations increased the APC savings by 11.3%. This 11.3% is applied to the APC benefit to estimate the Mitigation of Transmission Outage Costs benefit. Wheeling Through and Out Revenue Increasing Available Transfer Capability (ATC) with a neighboring region improves import and export opportunities for the SPP footprint. Increased interregional transmission capacity that allows for increased through and out transactions may also increase SPP wheeling revenues. 3 The SPP OATT requires that the potential Interregional Projects be evaluated using a 40-year financial analysis. 8

10 The 2015 ITP10 analysis estimated the impact of ATC on selling wheeling services. Those results reflected that every MW of increased ATC would result in an annual benefit of $37,500. This analysis was leveraged to calculate the Wheeling Through and Out Revenue benefit for the potential Interregional Projects in SPP s Regional Review. Each potential Interregional Project was evaluated to determine its impact on ATC. The metric was calculated by multiplying the MW increase in ATC by $37,500. To determine the 40-year benefit of this metric an annual growth rate of 2.5% was used to account for inflation. Cost Estimates The project cost estimates from the CSP were used in SPP s Regional Review of the potential Interregional Projects. These cost estimates were developed utilizing the assumptions MISO and SPP use in their respective regional cost estimation processes. If the project was geographically located within MISO s footprint, MISO s project cost estimates were utilized. If the project was geographically located within SPP s footprint, SPP s project cost estimates were utilized. These cost estimates are study level estimates (+/-30%). SPP s portion of each potential Interregional Project were determined based on SPP s proportion of APC benefits identified in the CSP. Project Total E&C Cost SPP Portion of E&C Cost Alto Series $5,287,929 $740,310 Reactor Shreveport $18,553,018 $3,710,604 Elm Creek $140,664,160 $112,531,328 Alto Series Reactor Analysis Results The Alto Series Reactor project adds a 10% reactor on 100 MVA base in series with the Alto Swartz 115 kv line. The reactor is to be normally bypassed, and un-bypassed post-contingency for critical contingencies such as a loss of Baxter Wilson Perryville 500 kv. The Alto-Swartz 115 kv line with which the reactor would be placed in series is located in North Central Northwest Louisiana. In the CSP this project was proposed to relieve congestion on the Swartz Alto 115 kv flowgate. 9

11 Metric Results While the results of the CSP demonstrated that this project provided benefit to both SPP and MISO, SPP s Regional Review results show that the Alto Series Reactor is estimated to provide negative APC benefits to SPP. The benefit results when calculating the other three metrics also show that this project does not provide benefit to SPP. Categories 40-YR PV APC ($8,733,712) Wheeling $0 Trans Outages $0 Reliability $0 40-Yr PV Benefits ($8,733,712) 40-Yr PV Cost $1,272,841 Project Recommendations & Approvals Due to the negative benefit calculated for the SPP region, SPP staff recommended to the SPP Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) that this project not be approved as an Interregional Project. The MOPC made a recommendation to the Board to not approve the Alto Series Reactor as an Interregional Project. At the October Board meeting the Board voted in agreement with the MOPC to not approve the Alto Series Reactor as an Interregional Project. 10

12 Rebuild South Shreveport to Wallace Lake The South Shreveport project proposes rebuilding the existing 11 mile South Shreveport to Wallace Lake 138 kv line with CSRT/TW conductor along with upgrades at the South Shreveport and Wallace Lake substations. The South Shreveport Wallace Lake 138 kv line is located in Northwestern Louisiana. This project was proposed to relieve congestion on the South Shreveport Wallace Lake 138 kv flowgate. Metric Results APC The South Shreveport project s impact was primarily on congestion on the South Shreveport Wallace Lake flowgate. This reduction in congestion was the primary driver for the APC benefits. South Shreveport was estimated to provide significant APC benefits to SPP of almost $40 million over 40 years. Using only the APC benefit metric the B/C ratio would still be over 6. Transmission Outages The Transmission Outage benefit for South Shreveport is $4,444,108 which was calculated by multiplying the estimated APC benefit by 11.3%. 11

13 Avoided or Delayed Reliability Project Cost The South Shreveport project addresses a reliability issue identified in the 2015 ITP10. When Fort Humbug Trichel Street 138 kv is taken out of service, South Shreveport Wallace Lake 138 kv is forecast to be overloaded. The 2015 ITP10 identified the South Shreveport upgrade as being the most cost effective solution to address this potential reliability issue. Approving the Interregional Project South Shreveport would result in recalling the SPP regional version of the project. The avoided or delayed reliability project cost benefit is equal to the cost of the South Shreveport project, $31,898, Total Benefits The benefits estimated for SPP far exceed the cost assigned to SPP with a Net Present Value of over $69 million and a B/C ratio of These results also indicate that under any interregional cost allocation scenario SPP s B/C ratio would be greater than 1. Categories 40-YR PV APC $ 39,328,392 Wheeling $ - Trans Outages $ 4,444,108 Reliability $ 31,898, Yr PV Benefits $ 75,671, Yr PV Cost $ 6,379,772 NPV $ 69,291,589 B/C Ratio Project Recommendation and Approvals Due to the significant value this project provides to the SPP region, SPP staff recommended to the SPP Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) that this project be approved as an Interregional Project. The MOPC made a recommendation to the Board to approve South Shreveport as an Interregional Project. At the October Board meeting the Board voted in agreement with the MOPC to approve South Shreveport as an Interregional Project. This project would become an approved SPP-MISO Interregional Project if the MISO Board were to approve the project. Elm Creek NSUB 345 kv The proposed Elm Creek NSUB 345 kv transmission line is a new transmission project heading north from an Elm Creek 345 kv substation in North Central Kansas (Cloud County) to a new 345 kv substation that taps the existing Mark Moore Pauline 345 kv line. This 4 Note that this value is higher than the cost SPP would pay for this project as an Interregional Project since there would not be cost sharing of the regional version of the project. 12

14 project has an estimated length of 78 miles. The Elm Creek 345 kv substation is being built as a part of the SPP Elm Creek Summit 345 kv project that was approved in the 2012 SPP ITP10. That project has an expected in-service date of This project was proposed to relieve congestion on the Northeast to Charlotte 161 kv flowgate. Metric Results APC The Elm Creek project s impact was greater than just the congestion relief on the Northeast to Charlotte flowgate. In addition, Elm Creek also provided significant congestion relief on Gentleman to Redwillow, Tecumseh Hill Transformer, S1221 to S1255, Iatan to Stranger, and Cooper South flowgates. One major impact on the APC benefits of this project is the inclusion of the 2015 ITP10 Iatan to Stranger project, which is identified on the map above. That project is a voltage conversion from the current 161 kv to 345 kv. The Iatan to Stranger project also addresses congestion on Northeast to Charlotte and was not in the CSP models due to the timing of its approval by the Board in January Including this project in the model greatly reduces the benefits attributable to Elm Creek. Elm Creek is estimated to provide over $189 million in APC benefit over 40 years. 13

15 Transmission Outages The Transmission Outage benefit for Elm Creek is $21,430,054 which was calculated by multiplying the estimated APC benefit by 11.3%. Increased Wheeling Through and Out Revenues Elm Creek is the only potential Interregional Project recommended from the CSP that is estimated to provide increased wheeling through and out revenues benefit as it is the only project that increases ATC. Elm Creek increases SPP s ATC by 15.9 MW which results in an annual benefit value of $596,250. Over 40 years the present value is $8,335,167. Total Benefits The estimated benefits calculated for SPP exceed the cost assigned to SPP with a Net Present Value of almost $26 million and a B/C ratio of Categories 40-YR PV APC $ 189,646,497 Wheeling $ 8,335,167 Trans Outages $ 21,430,054 Reliability $ - 40-Yr PV Benefits $ 219,411, Yr PV Cost $ 193,479,100 NPV $ 25,932,619 B/C Ratio 1.13 Project Recommendation and Approvals While the 40-Year B/C ratio is greater than 1.0, SPP staff recommended to the SPP Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) that this project not be approved as an Interregional Project. This recommendation is based on SPP staff s analysis that most of the estimated benefits of the Elm Creek project is driven by an increase in coal generation, and given the uncertainty due to the Clean Power Plan SPP staff was not confident that the benefits would have a high likelihood of materializing under a carbon constrained future. 14

16 Generation Change (MWh) 150, ,000 50, , , , , , , ,000 CC ST Gas ST Coal CT Gas IC Gas Additionally, the Elm Creek project is not estimated to have an annual B/C ratio greater than 1.0 until 2035 which indicates that there is little to no harm in deferring approval of the project and reevaluating it in a later study. 15

17 The ESWG made an alternative proposal to MOPC which recommended the approval of Elm Creek as an Interregional Project. Ultimately the MOPC recommended to the Board to not approve Elm Creek as an Interregional Project. At the October Board meeting the Board voted in agreement with the MOPC to not approve Elm Creek as an Interregional Project. Reliability Assessment A no-harm reliability assessment was performed using an updated version of the 2015 ITP10 models. The updates to the model included adding the transmission projects approved by the Board in January The assessment concluded that the three potential Interregional Projects did not create any potential reliability issues. Conclusion SPP s Regional Review analysis results demonstrated that South Shreveport would provide significant benefits to SPP with an estimated B/C ratio of over 11. Even under alternative interregional cost allocation scenarios with MISO, SPP s B/C ratio is greater than 1 and would be considered cost effective. The Alto Series Reactor provided negative benefits to the SPP region in the Regional Review analysis and for this reason the SPP Board voted to not approve the Alto Series Reactor. While the B/C ratio for Elm Creek was greater than the required 1.0 SPP staff recommended, and the SPP Board voted in agreement, that this project should not be approved as an Interregional Project at this time but should instead be further evaluated in future studies. While the SPP Board approved South Shreveport as an Interregional Project the project will not move forward unless approved by the MISO Board of Directors. MISO has informed SPP that the MISO Board of Directors does not plan to vote on any of the three potential Interregional Projects. 16