WELCOME TO THE 2006 JPA PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

JPA AGENDA• Welcome/Introductions• Power Marketing Updates (Oretta)

– PD Remarketing– O&M Contracts

• Meter Testing Program (Radosevich)• Short Circuit Working Group Update (Field)• OATT NOPR Update (Moulton)• POISE Update (Steward)• 10 Year Studies & Maintenance/Construction Program (Johnston & Radosevich)• Right-of-Way Studies & Standards (Radosevich)• JPA 2006-2007 Goals (Moulton)• Next Meeting• Action Items

(602) 605-2639 [email protected]

POWER MARKETING UPDATES

• PD Remarketing

• O&M Contracts

[email protected]

Western’s Integrated Meter Validation Program

• Old procedure (standard) is to remove meter from service and bench test to provide an accurate validation of the meter

• New procedure being established provides an accurate validation and is preferred because:

1) Does not interrupt power metering or billing 2) Performed faster (costs less to do) 3) Same degree of accuracy 4) Meter is not removed from service 5) Validates meter under actual load conditions

Integrated Meter Validation Procedure

• New procedure utilizes an RD-33 reference standard to validate the accuracy of the revenue meter while still in service

1) It measures the actual voltage and current applied to the meter to calculate power

2) It also monitors the KYZ pulse output of the meter

3) It then compares the calculated MW to the pulses received, providing a percent error based on this

comparison


• Accuracy of the In-service Validation Test is the same as the bench test, since they both use the RD-33

• While the in-service validation is a single test, the bench test consists of several independent tests:

1) All four quadrants (Watts Fwd, Watts Rev, VARS Fwd, VARS Rev) are tested in a bench test

2) In each quadrant, three tests are performed:

Full Load (5A) at Unity PF

Light Load (0.5A) at Unity PF

Full Load (5A) at 0.5 PF


• Since the MW load and power factor vary from line to line, the maximum acceptable error for the in-service validation is set to the maximum error allowed in the bench test, 0.3%

• If the in-service validation fails to meet this tolerance requirement, a full bench test shall be conducted on the meter

• If the loading on the line is insufficient to perform an in-service validation test, a bench test is performed

Location: Meter #:Circuit: Manufacturer:Customer: Meter Type:Contract #: Meter S/N:Date: M Form # / W.O. #

Address KYZ Chan (Ke)Form Password Mass MemTest Amps Baud Rate Secondary KhClass Mass Memory Primary KhVolts CT Ratio (*/1) KWH MultElements PT Ratio (*/1) Dem MultScaler SW Comm Port KYZ Pulse MultOption SW Scada Mult

Dem Interval

WorkingTIME 00937.6

8:32:30 00000.012:21:0508:30:0004774.400000.412:16:0513:00:0008687.200000.607:00:0012:17:0500460.500000.012:21:0508:30:00

Meter Test

1 2 3 Average8:37:06 AM 8:39:18 AM 8:41:15 AM

Wh Wh Wh0.1 0.1 0.1 Ke 0.150 50 50 # Pulses 50

5.017971 5.01835 5.018002 Metric 5.018108% Registration 99.641861 99.626808 99.655067 % Registration 99.641245

-0.358135 -0.373185 -0.344932 % Error -0.358751

RESULT: FAIL

Model # Serial #

Tested By: DateRemarks:

0

Nameplate Data

00

1200Yes

2.62530

Register Reads

9J4W

120V3

00000

0

Test Run #

04 KVAR HRS FWD

05 MAX KVAR FWD

08 KW HRS REV

12 KVAR HRS REV

14 DATE MAX VAR REV

15 TIME MAX VAR REV

Input Sensor Used:

N/A

Storage

N/AN/AN/AN/A

N/AN/AN/AN/A

Meter tested out of tolerance. See Bench Test Sheet for additional test results.Matt Caldwell

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

RD-33-373 300110

12/21/2005

Radian Research Inc.

Standard Data

Manufacturer

Time

# Pulses

% Error

Ke

Metric

Test Function

09 MAX KW REV

10 TIME MAX W REV

11 DATE MAX W REV

13 MAX KVAR REV

44 TIME MAX VAR REV

41 KVAR HRS REV

42 MAX KVAR REV

43 DATE MAX VAR REV

07 TIME MAX VAR FWD

CL-20

06 DATE MAX VAR FWD 35 DATE MAX VAR FWD

36 TIME MAX VAR FWD

Station Print #

30175

1

Pilot Knob LineIID

12/21/2005

2.5

N/A

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATIONDESERT SOUTHWEST REGION

IN-SERVICE METER VALIDATIONWinterhaven

32 TIME MAX W FWD

33 KVAR HRS FWD

34 MAX KVAR FWD

00 KW HRS FWD

01 MAX KW FWD

02 DATE MAX W FWD

03 TIME MAX W FWD

2005-725 / 100065763

29 KW HRS FWD

37 KW HRS REV

38 MAX KW REV

39 DATE MAX W REV

40 TIME MAX W REV

WHV-551Transdata Inc

Mark V30207510

RR-KYZ Input Adapter

0.50.451.8

30 MAX KW FWD

31 DATE MAX W FWD

9,450525052502625


QUESTIONS??

[email protected]

JPA SWAT Short Circuit Study Group Update

July 12, 2006

Phoenix, AZ

Short Circuit Work affects System Reliability

• Relay Misoperations – Fail to Operate or Operate When They Shouldn’t

• Equipment Damage due to Failure to Operate Relays

• Circuit Breakers and Other Equipment Failure because not Properly Rated

Power System Operational Reliability

• Correct Relay Operation

• Correct Breaker Ratings

• Reliability Depends on Accurate Fault Current Calculations

Reasons to Form Regional Short Circuit Working Group

• The interconnected system requires cooperation between everyone for accurate short circuit data

• There was no formalized mechanism in place by WECC or other Arizona regional groups for coordination of the short circuit case

SWAT SCWG Footprint

4 Main Areas of Work

• Annual Operating Case

• Common Impedance Maps

• Common Study Methodologies

• Annual Standards Review

Annual Short Circuit Operating Case• Improved Short Circuit Data for Relay Settings

• Improved Short Circuit Data for Breaker Duty Evaluations

• Improved Short Circuit Data for Safety Grounding and Arc Flash Evaluation

• Improved Reliability of System Operation and Safety of Maintenance Personnel

Common Impedance Maps• Useful for seeing Short Circuit Case and Planning

Case Updates

• One set of maps reduces duplication of effort

• Easy to make changes for annual operating case by marking drawings

Common Methodologies

• One set of breaker methodologies chosen for the jointly owned stations

• Other methods, such as safety grounding, etc. developed as guidelines

• Information sharing forum

Annual Standards Review

• Breaker Duty Studies, TRV Studies, Switching Studies, and Safety Grounding Studies based on standards

• Standards can change without a change in study methodologies

• Annual review of standards changes to determine if study methodology changes required

SWAT SCWG Accomplishments

• Webpage setup and linked to SWAT Website

• Charter (Scope) Finalized

• All SWAT Transmission Owners joined

• 6 meetings held since starting in January

• Monthly meeting schedule

• Impedance Map Plan Developed

• Working on Combining First Case

SWAT Webpage

SWAT SCWG Webpage

SWAT SCWG Charter

SWAT SCWG Webpage

Impedance Maps Work• Most Impedance Maps Are Out of Date

• List of Items to be Placed On Maps Developed

• A Single Set of Impedance Maps to be Generated

• Requested SWAT to Develop WestConnect Funding of Impedance Map Generation

• Only 2 WestConnect Members not Members of SWAT SCWG

SWAT SCWG Webpage

Combined Case• Plan Developed

• Conversions Currently being Checked

• Zones for Members being Developed

• Equivalents to be Checked

• Cases to be Combined

Future Work

• Combine CCPG SCWG Case

• Combine STEP SCWG Case (if developed)

• Develop Common Methodologies

• Review of Standards

• Start on next Annual Case and Impedance Maps Update (refinements)

Future Refinements• Add Mutual Coupling

• Add Line Charging Capacitance

• Add Motors

• Check Transformer, Line, Shunt, Generator, and Load Data

Questions?

[email protected]

NOPR TIMELINE FOR FILING• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) was issued 5-18-

06• OATT NOPR Comments/Compliance Filing Team was

formed 6-1-06• Charter drafted 6-8-06• Conference Call 6-8-06 to determine issues for response

and develop Western’s approach• Regional representatives submit input to the team by COB

6-16-06• Technical and Legal Team Leads compile input into first

draft response by 6-30-06• Review by Team representatives by COB 7-7-06

NOPR TIMELINE (cont’d)• Technical and Legal Team Leads compile second draft for

review by PSOC by COB 7-12-06• PSOC review completed by 7-17-06 and coordinated with

BPA• Team representatives respond to PSOC comments by COB

7-24-06• Final draft response to DOE’s General Counsel for review

by COB 7-26-06• DOE’s General Counsel review completed by 8-2-06• Western will submit the completed response to FERC by

COB 8-7-06

TOP ISSUES• Transmission Planning• Imbalance Pricing• Capacity Reassignment• Redispatch Service• Conditional Firm Service• Hourly Firm Service• Reservation Priority• Secondary Network Service

[email protected]

JPA Meeting 2006POISE / OASIS

• What is POISE?

• Current Scheduling System

• Future Scheduling System

• OASIS Customer Support


• What is POISE?

P – PowerO – Operations I – IntegratedS – SystemsE - Environment

• Groups Comprising POISE- Information Technology- Interchange Scheduling- Transmission Planning & Industry Restructuring- Reliability Generation- Load and Resources

JPA Meeting 2006Current Scheduling System

E-Tag

Scheduling

OASIS

Customer Submit E-TagTransmission Request

After Tag is ImplementedIt becomes a schedule

Limited ValidationManual ProcessEffects

1. No Communication From OASIS to E-Tag and Scheduling to OASIS

2. Manual Processes In Place

JPA Meeting 2006POISE Scheduling System

E-Tag

Scheduling

OASIS

Customer Submit E-TagTransmission Request

Send Approved Tagsto Scheduling System

Full ValidationPotential to Automate ProcessEffects

1. Communications amongst all three systems

2. Automate some processes

3. Increase Non-Firm ATC

4. Industry Standardization

Send Schedule DataIncrease Non-Firm ATC

JPA Meeting 2006 POISE / OASIS

• Effective date– The date of implementation is December 1, 2006

• Who will be impacted– This will have an impact on OATT customers

• Issues– There are still many open issues that need to be decided


• OASIS/OATT Customer Support

– Open Access Transmission Tariff■ Questions and “What If” Scenarios

Please contact:John StewardEmail: [email protected]: (602) 605-2774

ORNancy WhitsonEmail: [email protected]: (602) 605-2667

JPA Meeting 2006 POISE / OASIS

QUESTIONS ?????

[email protected] (602) 605-2608 [email protected]

10 YEAR STUDIES & MAINTENANCE/CONSTRUCTION

PROGRAM

• Northwest Region (South of Mead)– Load Serving Capabilities (Johnston)

– Maintenance/Construction Program (Radosevich)

– Questions

• Central Region (South of Phoenix)– Load Serving Capabilities (Johnston)

– Maintenance/Construction Program (Radosevich)

– Questions

Ten Year Study

• Analyze the existing construction ten year plan using engineering planning criteria– Analysis will aid in prioritizing future proposed

construction projects– Results may re-shape existing construction plan– Results will approximate each proposed project

in potential increased MW to Western’s system capabilities

Ten Year Study

• Purposes– Benchmark DSW system 2006 to 2015– Identify capability of each project

• Results– Transmission line operating limits– Load-serving capabilities– Import capabilities

Study Methodology• WECC-approved power flow cases

– Study cases used for EOR rating studies– Arizona heavy summer cases

• Years 2006, 2008, 2012, 2015

• Coordinated by Arizona utilities

– DSW study cases• Started with 2006 contact loads

• Evaluated possible future transmission projects

Study Methodology• Divided DSW system into study regions

– Northwest– Southwest– Central– Southeast– All rest of DSW

Stu

dy R

egio

ns D

efin

ed

Study Methodology– For each study region, developed several generation

scenario base cases

– For each generation scenario case, increased regional load with corresponding increase in regional import to identify violations:

• Line thermal violations

• Bus voltage violations

– For particular generation scenarios, ran sensitivities:• Operation of Liberty and Perkins phase shifters

• Level of Central Arizona Project (CAP) pumping load

• Power factor of regional loads

Legend for Maps

Ten Year Projects in Northwest Study Area

PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST

IN

$1000

YRS STUDY

IMPACT

DAVIS SWITCHYARD

UPGRADE OLD 69-Kv EQUIPMENT

$1,069 09-11

NONE

BUCHANAN BLVD

REBUILD DEGRADED MEAD ACESS ROAD

$2,788 07-10

NONE

MEAD-BASIC 230kV RECONDUCTOR

RECONDUCTOR 12.76 MILES OF CU CONDUCT.

$1,955 15-17

NONE

CLARK TAP ADD CTS AND METERS $442 06-07

NONE

DAVIS-TOPOCK RECONDUCTOR

RECONDUCTOR USING 3M

$29,000 06-07

YES

DAVIS-MEAD RECONDUCTOR

RECONDUCTOR USING ACSS OR 3M

?? 07-08

YES

Northwest Study Region

• Study Results– Benchmarks

• Load-serving capability approx. 2100 MW

• Import capability approx. 2015 MW

• Current contracts approx. 950 MW (360 MW CAP)

– Path increases from Benchmarks• 50 MW on Path D TTC (Phoenix/west)

• 50 MW on Path G TTC (S. Nevada/Davis)

• Up to 80 MW on Path SS (Gene/Parker)

Path SS (Gene/Parker) 140 MW (80 MW increase pending)

Path BB 185 MW

Path D (Phoenix/west)775 MW(50 MW increase)

Peacock Transformer385 MW

Path G (S. NV/Davis)530 MW(50 MW increase)

Northwest Study Region

Study Results

Capability MW

Import 2015

Load 2100

Summary of Existing Regional Contracts

Total Contract 950

CAP 360 (Non-Growable)

*Net Growable 590 (Growable)

Northwest Study Region• Interconnection on Davis-Topock #1

– Re-conductor Davis-Topock #1 year 2007– Commission substation year 2008– MEC SIS Report published June 2005

• Re-conductor 60 miles Mead-Davis 230kV– In-service date 2008– Results in approx. increase 170 MW TTC Path G

Time Frames for Upgrades

• Additional system upgrades needed technically in approximately:– 10 years if load uniformly increases 10% per

year

• Actual projected peak loads from customers will provide greater certainty

QUESTIONS???

Ten Year Projects in Central Study AreaPROJECT DESCRIPTION COST

IN

$1000

YRS

CAG-EMPIRE 230kV TLINE

UPGRADE EXISTING LINE TO 230kV

$6,240 07-09

EMPIRE-ED5 230kV TLINE


$4,935 07-10

ED5-ED-4 230kV TLINE


$3,442 12-14

ED4-ED-2 230kV TLINE


$3,479 12-14

COOLIDGE -ED-2 230kV TLINE

UPGRADE TWO LINES TO 230kV

$9,58 13-15

EMPIRE TAP CHANGE MOI TO BKRS $6,345 7-09

CASA GRANDE UPGRADE TO 230kV $4,349 11-13

ED5 UPGRADE TO 230kV $5,295 7-10

ED-4 UPGRADE TO 230kV $6,469 10-12

ED-2 UPGRADE TO 230kV $8,789 9-11

COOLIDGE UPGRADE TO 230kV $3,419 10-11

SAGUARO-ORACLE

WOOD POLE REPLACEMENT

$1,866 7-8

COOLIDGE-ORICLE

WOOD POLE REPLACEMENT

$462 7-8

Central Study Region

• Study Results– 2006 Benchmarks

• Load-serving capability approx. 650 MW

• Current contracts approx. 375 MW

• Technical violations occur in this order1. Casa Grande - Empire - ED5 115 kV lines

2. ED5 - ED4 - ED2 - Coolidge 115kV lines

Central Study Region

• Load serving capability after reconductoring:– Casa Grande - Empire - ED5 115 kV lines

• Approx. 1120 MW

• Increase of 1120-650 = 470 MW

– ED5 - ED4 - ED2 - Coolidge 115kV lines• Approx. 1310 MW

• Increase of 1310-1120 = 190 MW

Time Frames for Upgrades• System upgrades needed technically in approximately:

– 6 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year

• After reconductoring Casa Grande - Empire – ED5– 11 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year

• After reconductoring ED5 – ED4 – ED2 - Coolidge– 13 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year

• Having actual projected peak loads from customers will decrease uncertainties

Order of Thermal Violations• Empire – ED5 (@650 MW)• Casa Grande – Empire (@810 MW)• Coolidge – ED2 (@1120 MW)• Voltage violations occur approx. 1200 MW• Saguaro – ED5 #1 (@1310 MW)• Saguaro – ED5 #2 (@1310 MW)• Tucson – Oracle (@1310 MW)• Coolidge – Valley Farms (@1330 MW)• Saguaro – Oracle (@1365 MW)• ED4 – ED5 (@1500 MW)• ED2 – ED4 (@1700 MW)

230kV System Upgrade

• 230kV planned upgrades do not increase system load serving capability significantly– Due to overloads of other existing 115kV lines– Does provide increased voltage support

Next Studies

• Study all study regions with customer-provided peak load projections for next 10 years

• Study Southwest study area

• Study Southeast study area

• Study rest of DSW system

QUESTIONS???

[email protected]

RW Studies and Standards

Line Voltage

(Kilovolts)

Type of

Construction (1)

Width of

Right-of-Way (feet)

Nominal

Span (feet)

Maximum

Span (feet)

46 or under Single Wood Pole (2) 30 300 375

46 or under H-Frame Wood Pole 65 700 875

69 Single Wood Pole (2) 30 300 375

69 H-Frame Wood Pole 75 700 875

115 Single Wood Pole (2) 40 300 375


115 Single Steel Pole (3) 80 1000 1200





230 Single Steel Pole (3) 150 1200 1375

345 Steel Tower 175 1200 1375

500 Steel Tower 200 1500 2000

T-Line Name kV ProjectIn Svs Date

PREFER WIDTH

TRACTS WIDTH TRACTS WIDTH TRACTS WIDTHHoover - Mead #1 230 BC 1942 150 1 125

3 200Hoover - Mead #2 230 BC 1942Hoover - Mead #3 230 BC 1939Hoover - Mead #4 230 BC 1960 150 11 200Hoover - Mead #5 230 BC 1938 150 11 200Hoover - Mead #6 230 BC 1940 150 12 185Hoover - Mead #7 230 BC 1936 150 14 200Hoover - Mead #8 230 BC 1936 150 14 250

BCFlagstaff - Pinnacle Peak #1 345 CRSP 1965 175 24 150 13 150 129 150Flagstaff - Pinnacle Peak #2 345 CRSP 1966 175 11 150 14 150 128 150Glen Canyon Dam - Glen Canyon #1 345 CRSP 1964Glen Canyon - Navajo 230 CRSP 1964 6 0 Kayenta - Navajo 230 CRSP 1964 5 125Kayenta - Shiprock 230 CRSP 1964Liberty - Peacock 345 INT 1968Mead - Peacock 345 INT 1968Griffith - Peacock 230 INT 2000 100

INTGriffith - McConnico 230 PD 2000 100 3 VAR 3 80

4 80Henderson - Mead #1 230 PD 42/04 150 2 125Henderson - Mead #2 230 PD 1969 150 4 0 16 200Lone Butte - Test Track 230 PD 2005 100Parker - Topock 230 PD 2000Peacock - Prescott 230 PD 1951Rogers - Coolidge 230 PD 1951 150 70 125 12 125 1 200

11 125Santa Rosa - Test Track 230 PD 2005South Point - Topock #1 230 PD 2000 100 7 >100South Point - Topock #2 230 PD 2000

PDGrand

150

175 150 150 150

FEDERAL/BIAPRIVATE STATE

110 57 175

232 125

WELCOME TO THE 2006 JPA PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Documents

Transcript of WELCOME TO THE 2006 JPA PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING