November 14 Meeting Notes
the room and passed around sign
on final page
No changes made
. Note: presentations from this meeting are posted at
Clarity of Task
power point slides.
Today’s discussion will center
taff guidance in 10/18/2012 memo
asked in that memo
The group agreed this is fine for today, but
the group’s focus may
change in the future.
Three projects are identified in the VELCO Long
Range Plan as being needed within the
year time horizon and having the potential to be resolved by non
Central Vermont is “labeled” transmission while Rutland and Hartford are
“labeled” as sub
Rutland and Hartford can better be
described as “predominantly bulk,” in the parlance of Docket 7081.
NTA Study Group Presentatio
oup presentation addresses for the Central VT issue the five
DPS and incorporated in the PSB staff guidance memo
Potential deficiencies (transmission overload) can occur
(does not lend itself to NTA solution).
Transmission solution reviewed.
Can solve all problems
Cost is $100
$157 Million. VT’s share would be approximately
5%, or $5
h should this differential be a part of the
NTA can only solve Coolidge
Cold River and Cold River
North Rutland, but
not Coolidge Autotransformer overload.
North Rutland is the most immediate concern with largest overload going
orward. Therefore it will be the focus of the bulk of the remaining discussion.
1 conditions “defined
” See pg 7 of presentation.
/Characteristics of Solution
. See pg 8
Resources need to be able to respond
and be up to full load within 30 minutes.
Shorter response times are preferred. Longer response time resources may be
appropriate if they were on line for other reasons.
Location of resource will have impact on how much help it provides. The closer
e overload the better. Rutland area resources will have
biggest impact for
Some locations can solve NW VT problem to some degree simultaneously with
Central, others could make one problem worse.
Type of resource will also have an
impact on how much help it provides.
Impact of Standard Offer projects not yet
built and other programs (for
example EE, net metering, time
use rates) will have on the problem. See pgs 14
Assumptions used are just that
, they should not b
e interpreted as what we
happen because we need more analysis on what is in the queue and
at this time there is much we don’t have enough information on to make a solid
How may PV
play a role in the solut
It could and the group is working
on this with ISO
NE and the NYISO.
Why do we need to worry if 2013 is year of biggest need in next 10 years and
we are operating fine right now? (
Even though lights have not gone out
NE are in violation
of new NERC standards and must work to solve
When will w
e have a better estimate on the cost of the transmission solution, it
seems that it a big question regarding what will be cost effective?
at this point)
Is anyone looking
renewable capacity that could help solve the problem?
Because of surplus capacity in New England, there has been little to no interest
among developers to build in Vermont.
/Ascutney Area Study
Postponed until next meeting.
Things to do:
Do we need to choose a threshold level of effectiveness that constitutes “Sufficient benefit”?
Group B will address this.
To what extent does sufficient benefit include effect on issues beyond a 10
When are refined estimates of
costs for the transmission solutions needed? expected to be
What are the r
amifications of other groups
for the scope of Group A
Next steps/open questions
This group needs to finish its work by the end of 2012.
NTA Study Group to report re
/12 meeting with
NE to discuss NTA solutions for
Central VT deficiency.
Group B mtg on 11/20 will generate info that may influence the size of the gap.
Group B will address definition of “sufficient benefit
Group A work plan
of answers to the five questions for review
/discussion at the
next meeting. Focuses will be (1) Central VT, (2) Hartford, (3) Rutland
Draft out to Working Group A by COB 12/3/2012. Agenda to include presentations on
Hartford and Rutland and r
eview of draft answers to the five questions.
Next meeting: 9
Location Montpelier TBA.
Subsequent meeting if needed: 12/13/2012 a.m.
Keep in mind the implications of practical, present solutions for future process. Big picture:
asting process. Don’t lose the forest for the trees.
TJ Poor, PSD
Asa Hopkins, PSD
Tom Knauer, PSB
Craig Kieny, VEC
Randy Pratt, VEC
Kim Jones, GP
James Gibbons, BED
Jim Cater, GMP
Melissa Bailey, VPPSA
Patrick Michael, VESCO
Doug Smith, GMP
igh Seddon, REV
Hantz Présumé, VELCO
Rip Kirby, GMP
Matt Levin, VCE
Candice Callahan, IBM
Janet Doyle, IBM
Carole Hakstian, VEIC
David Funk, Enel Green Power
John Spencer, VEPP, Inc.
Carolyn Alderman, VEPP Inc.
Cleveland Richards, VELCO
Tom Garden, Triland
WEC (by phone)
Vermont Energy Park (by
Deena Frankel, VELCO