STANDARD OFFER WORKING GROUP A

bugenigmaSoftware and s/w Development

Oct 30, 2013 (3 years and 9 months ago)

77 views

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

STANDARD OFFER
WORKING GROUP

A

November 14 Meeting Notes


a.

Introductions


went around
the room and passed around sign
-
up sheet.

See list

on final page
.



b.

Review
a
genda


No changes made
. Note: presentations from this meeting are posted at
http://goo.gl/JqbtP



c.

Clarity of Task

Deena

reviewed
introductory
power point slides.

1.

Today’s discussion will center
on

PSB
s
taff guidance in 10/18/2012 memo

and questions
asked in that memo
.

The group agreed this is fine for today, but
the group’s focus may
change in the future.

2.

Three projects are identified in the VELCO Long
-
Range Plan as being needed within the
4
-

to 10
-
year time horizon and having the potential to be resolved by non
-
transmission
alternatives
:

Central

Vermont, Rutland

and

Hartford

i.

Central Vermont is “labeled” transmission while Rutland and Hartford are
“labeled” as sub
-
transmission although
Rutland and Hartford can better be
described as “predominantly bulk,” in the parlance of Docket 7081.


d.

NTA Study Group Presentatio
n


Doug Smith

1.

Gr
oup presentation addresses for the Central VT issue the five

questions
proposed by
DPS and incorporated in the PSB staff guidance memo
.

2.

Potential deficiencies (transmission overload) can occur
in N
-
1
-
1 conditions
.

i.

Coolidge Autotransformer
(does not lend itself to NTA solution).

ii.

Coolidge


Cold River


iii.

Cold River


North Rutland

3.

Transmission solution reviewed.

i.

Can solve all problems

ii.

Cost is $100
-

$157 Million. VT’s share would be approximately

4%
-

5%, or $5
Million
-

$7.5 Million.

How muc
h should this differential be a part of the
decision?

iii.

NTA can only solve Coolidge
-
to
-
Cold River and Cold River
-
to
-
North Rutland, but
not Coolidge Autotransformer overload.

4.

Cold River

North Rutland is the most immediate concern with largest overload going
f
orward. Therefore it will be the focus of the bulk of the remaining discussion.

5.

N
-
1
-
1 conditions “defined
.
” See pg 7 of presentation.

6.

Reliability Requirements
/Characteristics of Solution
. See pg 8
-
13

of presentation.

i.

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.

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

ii.

Location of resource will have impact on how much help it provides. The closer
to th
e overload the better. Rutland area resources will have
biggest impact for
Cold River

North Rutland.

iii.

Some locations can solve NW VT problem to some degree simultaneously with
Central, others could make one problem worse.

iv.

Type of resource will also have an

impact on how much help it provides.

7.

Potential
Impact of Standard Offer projects not yet

built and other programs (for
example EE, net metering, time
-
of
-
use rates) will have on the problem. See pgs 14
-
18.

i.

Assumptions used are just that
, they should not b
e interpreted as what we
believe
will

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
projection.

8.

Questions(Response
s
):

i.

How may PV
-
20

-

play a role in the solut
ion?
(
It could and the group is working
on this with ISO
-
NE and the NYISO.
)

ii.

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
VELCO/ISO
-
NE are in violation
of new NERC standards and must work to solve
the problem.
)

iii.

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?
(No timeline
at this point)
.

iv.

Is anyone looking
at non
-
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.
)


e.

Hartford
/Ascutney Area Study


Postponed until next meeting.

Parking Lot/
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
-
year horizon?



When are refined estimates of
costs for the transmission solutions needed? expected to be
produced?



What are the r
amifications of other groups
’ work

for the scope of Group A
?

Next steps/open questions
:

a.

This group needs to finish its work by the end of 2012.

b.

NTA Study Group to report re
sults of
11/27
/12 meeting with

ISO
-
NE to discuss NTA solutions for
Central VT deficiency.

c.

Group B mtg on 11/20 will generate info that may influence the size of the gap.

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

d.

Group B will address definition of “sufficient benefit
.


e.

Group A work plan

1.

GMP to
draf
t


straw man


of answers to the five questions for review
/discussion at the
next meeting. Focuses will be (1) Central VT, (2) Hartford, (3) Rutland

2.

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.

3.

Next meeting:
Next meeting: 9
-
noon, 12/5.

Location Montpelier TBA.

4.

Subsequent meeting if needed: 12/13/2012 a.m.

f.

Keep in mind the implications of practical, present solutions for future process. Big picture:
l
asting process. Don’t lose the forest for the trees.


Attendees



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



Le
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

Partners



Bill Powell


WEC (by phone)



Gabe Selig


Vermont Energy Park (by
phone)



Deena Frankel, VELCO