1. Issued on July 6, 2011, entitled: “Resolution Adopting the Amended Rules on the Definition and Boundaries of Connection Assets for Customers of Transmission.

1

Consolidated Presentation on

Proposed Amendments to Resolution 16 s. 2011

July 8, 2014

2

Issued on July 6, 2011, entitled:

“Resolution Adopting the Amended Rules on the Definition and Boundaries of Connection Assets for Customers of Transmission Provider” (“Resolution No. 16”)

Resolution No. 16, Series of 2011

3

PIPPA seeks the following amendments to Resolution 16:

◦First: Replacement of Diagram 4 of Annex C with Diagrams 4-A and 4-B (*Main amendment being sought)

◦Second: Revision of the definition of “Connection Assets” in Section 2.0 of Annex A

◦Third: Inclusion of the definitions of “Generator”, “Distribution Utility” and “Load Customer” in Section 2.0 of Annex A

Amendments Sought by PIPPA …

4

Replace Diagram 4 of Annex C with Diagrams 4-A and 4-B

PIPPA’s Reasons:

Proposed Diagrams 4-A and 4-B distinguish between assets that are shared with another Generator and those that are not, whereas Diagram 4 does not.

Unlike Diagram 4, the Proposed Diagrams are consistent with Section 4.2 of Annex A:

“Connection Assets for Generation Customers of Transmission Provider include those assets from the last Single Mechanical Connection of a User System or Equipment of a Generator, at its Connection Point, to the last Single Mechanical Connection which is not shared with another Generator within the Grid”.

First Proposed Amendment …

5

The Published Diagram erroneously classifies connection assets such as switchyard or related facilities as transmission assets if another customer of NGCP happens to be connected to those facilities, even if that other customer is merely a load customer of NGCP and is not itself a GenCo …


6

Proposed Diagrams 4-A & 4-B:


7

◦ “Connection Assets (CA): Those assets that are put in place primarily to connect a Customer/s to the Grid and used for purposes of Transmission Connection Services for the conveyance of electricity which if taken out of the System, will only affect the Customer connected to it and will have minimal effect on the Grid, or other connected Customers. For the avoidance of doubt, Connection Assets exclude a User System or Equipment or other Facilities owned by a Customer such as a Load Customer or a Generator, which User System or Equipment or other Facilities shall remain owned by such Customer.” (Proposed revisions underscored)

NGCP’s argument: “NGCP disagrees with the proposal of PIPPA. NGCP proposes that the existing

definition be retained.”

PIPPA’s counterargument: It is in the interest of all concerned that the boundaries of “Connection Assets”

are clearly defined, especially considering the significant investments required for the construction of new plants to address the country’s rapidly increasing energy requirements.

2nd Proposed Amendment …Revision of the definition of “Connection Assets” in Section 2.0 of Annex A

8

“Generator: Has the same meaning as Generation Company under the Philippine Grid Code, which is a person or entity authorized by the ERC to operate a facility used in the generation of electricity.”

“Distribution Utility: Has the same meaning given to this in the Philippine Grid Code, which is an Electric Cooperative, private corporation, government-owned utility, or existing local government unit that has an exclusive franchise to operate a Distribution System.”

“Load Customer: A Distribution Utility or other End User that receives electricity through the Grid.”

NGCP’s argument: “NGCP is in a position that it is best practice to cross reference the definition with the

primary document.”

PIPPA’s counterargument: Resolution 16 does not say which document should be cross-referenced for the definition

of these terms; not ideal considering the myriad ERC issuances existing

3rd Proposed Amendment … Add definitions in Section 2.0 of Annex A

9

NGCP’s proposed solution: revise the definition of “Connection Assets

for Generation Customers of Transmission Provider” to make it consistent with Diagram 4, Annex C of Resolution 16:

“Connection Assets for Generation Customers of Transmission Provider include those assets from the last Single Mechanical Connection of a User System or Equipment of a Generator, at its Connection Point, to the last Single Mechanical Connection which is not shared with another Generator Customer within the Grid.” (Section 4.2, Annex A)

PIPPA Counter: NGCP’s proposal is unusual. It is Diagram 4 that should be amended and

not the definition in Section 4.2, because the diagram was meant to illustrate the definition, and not the other way around.

The existing definition in Section 4.2 is consistent with the definitions contained in previous issuances of the ERC (Resolutions 25 as and 41) pursuant to which the GenCos have designed their Generation Plants.

NGCP’s “Counter-Proposal” (to 1st Amendment) …

10

Diagram 4 is “consistent with Section 9 of the EPIRA”, which provide:

“A generation company may develop and own or operate dedicated point-to-point limited transmission facilities that are consistent with the TDP : Provided, That such facilities are required only for the purpose of connecting to the transmission system, and are used solely by the generating facility, subject to prior authorization by the ERC ...” (Section 9 of EPIRA; emphasis supplied in NGCP presentation)

“With an End-user connected at the Generator’s switchyard, the Generator is already performing a Transmission Function”

NGCP’s Main Argument against Proposed Amendment…

11

o NGCP assumes that the switchyard facilities of a Generation Plant are “transmission facilities” -- but they are not

o The ERC’s Subtransmission Guidelines, as amended, provides:

‘Transmission Assets’ shall refer to the grid-wide electrical infrastructure through which electricity flows in large quantities between generators or generating plants consisting of several units or blocks of generators and the many more dispersed load centers. *** (Emphasis supplied)”

o Thus, functionally, an asset is not a “Transmission Asset” simply because it happens to connect one generation plant to a DU

PIPPA’s counter to NGCP’s Main Argument …

12

o The “dedicated point-to-point limited facilities” referred to in Section 9 of the EPIRA and its IRR refers to a line (composed of wires, poles or towers, insulators, line hardware) used to connect a Generation Plant to the grid or to a DU system without any entity connected in between

- They do not include the switchyard of the Generation Plant at which one end of the line happens to be connected.

o The switchyard of the Generation Plant forms part of the GenCo’s User System (Section 5.4.4.1 of the Amended Grid Code)


13


Dedicated Point-to-Point limited facilities (no tapping between end-points)

Transco/NGCP Switchyard or

Substation

Power plant/Customer-

ownedSwitchyard or

Substation (User System)

AECOM Report re Definition of Connection Assets in other jurisdictions …

The definition of “Connection Assets” in

Section 2.0, Annex A of Resolution 16 is consistent with the definition of connection assets in other jurisdictions

In practice, there is a broad diversity in connection assets, which depends on the intended operational and business purposes they will serve.

14

AECOM Report re Definition of Connection Assets in other jurisdictions …

In most jurisdictions connection assets are established through a connection process, pursuant to “grid investment agreement” between the grid asset owner and the connecting customer.

The type and complexity of the connection assets, and ownership “who provides what” is flexible - a matter of negotiation through the grid investment agreement.

The definition of “Connection Assets” is not a physical or a technical definition, but rather a term that signifies the assets that the connecting customer must provide for himself or, if provided by the grid owner, then assets to which full cost recovery will apply, as set out in the grid investment agreement.

15

AECOM Report – Different Approaches to Connection Assets

16

GRIDSHARED-USE ASSETS

G

CA

DEEP CONNECTION

CACA

CA

GRID SHARED-USE ASSETS

G

CA

SHALLOWISH CONNECTION


G

CA

SHALLOW CONNECTION

GRGR

GR

GR

CA CONNECTION CUSTOMER PAYS FOR

COST SHARED AMONG GRID USERS

AECOM Report - AEMC Recommendation for Classification & Ownership (Transmission Frameworks Review 11 April 2012)

17

AECOM Report - Types of assets or equipment considered “Connection Assets” in other jurisdictions …

Connection assets are links in the electricity network that are constructed to connect one grid customer at a location in the network.

There is a broad diversity in types of assets which serve as connection assets, ranging from entire switchyards and transmission lines, to as simple as the conductors that link a generator to a transmission switchyard. The form depends on the purpose they will fulfil.

18


For example, if the need to connect a new power plant to the grid causes the construction of a switchyard, then the purpose of that switchyard is that of a connection asset.

In contrast, if the grid company requires a new switchyard to be constructed to increase grid capacity or reliability, then that switchyard is a grid asset.

One cannot be assumed to be the other, because each is created to fulfil separate technical purposes.

Some customers want complex connection assets to provide more flexibility and reliability through redundant plant. Others want the absolute bare minimum because they are not so concerned about reliability/availability but more concerned about the initial cost.

19

AECOM Report - Types of assets or equipment considered “Connection Assets” for Generation Customers of Transmission Provider “ in other jurisdictions …

Is the definition of “Connection Assets for Generation Customers of Transmission Provider” in Section 4.2, Annex A of Resolution 16 consistent with the definition of connection assets in other jurisdictions?

o There is a wide diversity in the forms and the extent of connection assets of power plants in other jurisdictions.

o There is also wide diversity in the forms and extent of connection assets of distribution customers, which may in turn, connect generation with the grid.

20


21

NETWORK

POWER PLANTCONNECTION

ASSET

AECOM Report - Examples

The 500 kV Connection Assets of Nam Theun 2 Corporation - Laos

~ 320 km of 500 kV Transmission Line Connecting NT2 to EGAT RE2 Substation

22

115 kV Switchyard & Line

supplying local Distribution

Customer

AECOM Report - Captive Power Plant Built or Taken Over, By a Generation Company - Examples

At; Industry Parks - Steel Mills – Oil & Gas Facilities – Pulp & Paper Mills – Sugar Refineries – Mines – Port Facilities – Municipal Substations - - - - Etc.

23

G2G1

Transmission Grid

CAPTIVE POWER PLANTESTABLISHED OR TAKEN OVER BY IPP

INDUSTRY-OWNED SWITCHYARD

SUPPLYING LOCAL DEMAND

EXPORTING TO THE GRID


All of the power plant projects completed by my AECOM T&D Group in the last four or five years have been Hybrid and Embedded generation projects.

These were: NT2, Banpu, McKee, Mokai, Nga Awa Purau, Ngatamariki, Rotokawa, Condong, Broadwater, and Norske Skog.

None of these are direct connected generators. All these generators are connected to NO/NSP via HV Switchyard owned by either the Generator or the Industrial Customer.

No one questions that a Distribution Company “Grid User” owns switchyards for its distribution business purposes. Why should we question that a Generation Company would own switchyards?

24

1st NGCP Comment to the AECOM Report …

NGCP Comment:The Report does not consider NGCP’s main argument that … “Resolution 16 did not reclassify the Genco Switchyard and other related facilities into transmission assets”.

AECOM Reply: Energy law very young law and due for change, according to:

“not what is, but what could be”, i.e., music industry and national postal service vis-à-vis banking/financial services

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has in the

Transmission Frameworks Review ‐ Chapter 11, called for contestable ownership of power plant switchyards , to end the economic inefficiencies and the asymmetry in negotiating power between connection proponents and the Grid Company

25

26

The switchyards should be transferred to NGCP because of “Competitive Purposes”.

◦ “The generator is already competing with the transmission provider”; and

◦ DU’s connected to Grid via generator-owned asset cannot procure and compete for the lowest priced electricity”

• “Owner of generator-connection asset can deny access between competing generators/RES”;

• “No alternative source of supply if generator connection to the grid is unavailable”; and

• “The alleged ‘savings’ of the DUs can easily be wiped out by uncompetitive pricing.”

NGCP’s 2nd Argument vs PIPPA 1st Amendment …

27

GenCos are not in competition with NGCP

◦ “Competitive purposes” refers to competition among Generation Companies.

• reason for transferring ownership of the assets to a third party (i.e. NGCP) – so that a GenCo cannot control the ability of another GenCo to supply electricity to the Grid

• transferring ownership of these assets to NGCP unfairly favors one competitor (NGCP) against the other (GenCo)

GenCos do not compete with the DU’s

• No DU is compelled to purchase electricity from a particular GenCo, whether or not it is directly connected to the DU

• A direct connection to a GenCo benefits the DUs and their customers because of “cheaper electricity” - No PDS charges

• Frequently, DUs directly connected to a GenCo are also connected to the Grid via another line

PIPPA’s counter to NGCP’s 2nd Argument …

AECOM Report - With regard to a switchyard being an integral part of a power plant …

A switchyard is part of a power plant, if it has been built primarily for the purpose of conducting the business of power generation.

o New power plant is developed near its fuel source. It will have a switchyard – for its own operational & business purposes – reliability, maintenance, expansion, etc.

A switchyard is not part of a power plant if it has been built primarily for the purposes of the shared grid, even if power plant connects to it.

28


In a contestable generation environment, the purposes for which a power plant owner owns a switchyard, are his own. We can presume they are related to the way he wants to conduct his business.

His commercial art, must be private and confidential in

the normal commercial sense. We can just say the switchyard is a part of his business. If he no longer requires it, he could choose to sell it to a willing buyer.

In contrast, the grid owner would rightly construct a switchyard once it has completed a formal planning process, which demonstrates the need for a defined, least-cost augmentation of the system.

29


Before the deregulated electricity system, the Generation Development Group of the vertically integrated electricity company always specified and developed a switchyard as a part of a power station development.

The job of the Transmission Group was to develop only grid substations and switching stations in order to strengthen and increase grid capacity.

30

2nd NGCP Comment to the AECOM Report …

NGCP Comment: “We need to own the power station switchyards because we rely for grid security on the correct performance of equipment that is owned by NGCP”

AECOM Reply: this is a narrow view which is not in keeping with the

realities which underpin grid security. The continued maintenance of grid security is, and will

always be, utterly reliant on plant and equipment which is owned and operated by grid users

Rather than improving security, the modified facilities would increase the complexity and decrease the rationality of the systems,

31

AECOM Report - With regard acquisition by NGCP of a plant’s switchyard to ensure grid security…

“The acquisition of a power plant’s switchyard does not affect Grid Security.”

There are no means by which the acquisition of a grid-user customer’s assets could be justified under a regulated, grid investment process.

If there is a need for any asset, then the Grid

Investment Process ensures that grid company can fund its own asset.

32

AECOM Report - Taking over the Switchyards is expansion of the Grid

33


GR

CA CONNECTION CUSTOMER PAYS FOR


G

CA

G

CA

G CA

G CA

GCA

GCA

G

CA

G

CA

GRIDEXPANSION

AECOM Report - The process that a regulated grid company uses to justify Grid expansion involves a three-step process

1. Demonstration of the need for an addition to the grid through a process of engineering and economic assessment by valid means. For example, simulation.

2. Consideration of a range of valid alternative solutions, to determine the solution with the least cost.

3. Demonstrating that the cost of the proposed solution will return benefits to grid users that are in excess of the cost imposed by the proposed solution.

Investment proposals are subjected to a Regulatory Investment Test – (RIT).

34

AECOM Report - Regulatory Grid Investment Test:

35

AECOM Report: The Rationale for the RIT Rule Change

36

AECOM Report - “With regard NGCP’s acquisition of a power plant’s switchyard for Grid Security”

I know of no mandate by which it could disrupt its customers’ businesses by breaking them up.

I know of no cases wherein Power Plant switchyards have been compulsorily acquired from Power Plant Owners by the Grid Company. I have been Expert Witness in the break up of a Power

Generation Business wherein the High Court decided that:- “Any assets created as part of Power Plant are parts of the Power Plant and must remain with the Power Plant in the division of assets to be sold separately.”

Transferring ownership of power plant switchyards would DECREASE RELIABILITY and INCREASE THE COST of the grid for users and the public.

37

AECOM Report: Existing Systems Need to be Modified: – Loss of Reliability – Loss of production due to shut-downs

38

Mostly - the only effective approach is to undertake a Complete Rebuild.

39

AECOM Report

AECOM Report: Increased Cost - Existing Control Stations must undergo Detailed Modifications

40

AECOM Report: More effective ways to achieve grid security …

There are many and better ways of improving grid reliability other than increasing the number of assets

Better designs - better materials – more standardisation – Reliability Centred Maintenance – (FMECA) – clear and exacting systems performance requirements – better condition monitoring and testing – better in-service training of engineers – stricter compliance and reporting – proactive investigations of non-compliances – well developed codes and standards of performance – and also: “N-1 and “N-2”

41


For the Transmission Industry; the formal consideration of reliability centres on “N-1” and “N-2”, which is not efficient.

Other reliability techniques are not formally implemented within utilities. Grid reliability would benefit from any and all of the initiatives listed on the previous slide.

Current initiatives being undertaken by utilities include:

o Changing the utility’s culture from being “CAPEX-led” to being “Services-led” with “Asset Management” as the focus.

o Improving the quality of organisational function e.g., training and adopting PAS55, is the current target for leading utilities.

42


No effect on grid security if a power plant’s switchyard connects the plant to the grid and at the same time directly connects the plant to a distribution utility, if correctly engineered and adequate planning and operational processes are followed.

There is a recognised commercial problem - the reduction in Grid Company Revenues resulting from such connections.

o The commercial concerns of the grid company can be addressed, but not by restricting connections.

43

AECOM Report: Direct Connection and Operational Efficiency

Direct connection to a DU enhances a power plant’s operational efficiency.

o Serving local load reduces transmission losses and therefore increases power plant efficiency

Most System Operators formally practice “Locational Marginal Pricing” (LMP) to weight the bid-prices in favour of power plants that are closest to the load prior to determining the order of dispatch.

o The method of determining LMPs is to

consider the system losses.

44

AECOM Report: Direct Connection and Operational Efficiency Many technical advantages of connecting a

DU directly to the switchyard of a power plant

o The main advantage is an improvement the efficiency of the utilisation of the transmission grid assets.

o There is also a general improvement in the reliability of supply for the local distribution customers, if the facility is effectively engineered.

There are no disadvantages.

45

3rd NGCP Comment to the AECOM Report …

NGCP Comment:

“Institutional arrangements such as MOA’s recommended by AECOM as the least cost solution to grid reliability will not capture the peculiarities in the switchyard operations ”

AECOM Reply: (In my experience,) both power plant owners and grid

owners contract out this kind of work (O&M) to the same qualified third parties operating in the commercial services sector, with satisfactory results.

Conversely, the failure to do so, creates a poverty of ideas and points of view, promoting frailty in the approaches being practiced, which not only creates inefficiency, but can lead to a decrease in grid security

46

AECOM Report: Hybrid & Embedded Generation

Hybrid embedded generation (where a power plant is connected to a grid and at the same time directly connected to a distribution utility or other end user) is allowed in other jurisdictions

o In fact, it is very actively encouraged by governments, and actively facilitated by Electricity Regulators through preparation of suitable codes and standards for planning, connections and operations.

47

Re Hybrid & Embedded Generation

Issues in determining whether or not hybrid & embedded generation should be allowed:

o Precedent – they existed in isolation before the grid, and continue operation after grid connection

o Requirement for green energy, and energy efficiencyo Advances in technology have created many new formso Effective international standards have been prepared

allowing ease of connection and operation.

Issues in determining why they are not allowed:o Opposition from Grid Companies about loss of revenue and

increasing operational complexity of the grido Lack of grid planning processes that allow for the effects and

the needs of HG/EGo Poor technical administration of connection processeso Misplaced concerns about the security impacts on the grid

48

Impact of Embedded Generation on Network Company Profits

49


Hybrid & embedded generation is encouraged in –

All States of the European Union - The United Sates –Australia - New Zealand - The Pacific Islands - Parts of Asia – e.g. Singapore, Laos. It is the Future

50

TransmissionNetwork

Sub-transNetwork

DG

DG

LOAD

DistributionNetwork

DG

DG

LOAD

Low VoltageNetwork

DG

DG

LOAD

LV Load Bus

LV Distribution

BusMV Distribution

Bus

MV Load Bus

Sub-trans Load Bus

Transmission Load Bus

Sub-trans Distribution

Bus

CG LOAD

DMR

DMR

DMR

DA

DA

DA

DMR

Re Hybrid & Embedded Generation in EU States

51


Considerations for allowing hybrid embedded generation:

o Effective technical arrangements – and Least Cost!

o Negotiations between PP Owner and the Connecting Party. Less costly for the community than grid supply. Improves community support for the PP Development.

o Sometimes, there is a government agency requirement to offer supply to local communities.

52


How were hybrid embedded plants connected the grid and to a distribution utility or other end user?

o Preparation of Appropriate Codes of Practice for technical and commercial administration of the connections

o Current Best Practice in my opinion is according to IEEE Standard 1547 – 2003 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems.

53

Regulatory Roadmap for Development of Grid Services

54

Revie

w

6th NGCP Comment to the Report …

NGCP Comment: There is no such thing in the Philippines as “Hybrid Generator” as defined by the Report

AECOM Reply:

I agree with NGCP’s research on the definition of Hybrid Generation. However, this point was canvassed in full with PIPPA at the earliest stage of consultation, and the Hybrid generation being referred to in the report is fully applicable to the Philippine context.

In fact, we bracket the terms Hybrid and Embedded when

referring to generators in the Philippine context, and indeed, in the context of other countries’ power systems, as technically one and the same.

55

56

Diagram 4 Annex C effectively prevents DUs from directly connecting to a Generation Plant that also supplies electricity to the Grid -

DUs are allowed by the Distribution Code to connect to a generation facility and that in so doing it does not compete with transmission:

“Section 2.8.1 Interconnection and Operating Agreement of Distribution Service and Open Access Rules (DSOAR), states: "A generator shall execute an appropriate agreement with the DU governing the interconnection and operation of generating facilities“

Diagram 4 Annex C will make electricity in the Philippines even more expensive than it already is -

by unnecessarily requiring consumers to pay PDS charges even when they are directly connected to a generator

PIPPA: Additional Reasons for the Amendments …

57

Diagram 4 Annex C will not make electricity more expensive

It is not appropriate for Gencos to promote their power plants to local communities by not paying Power Delivery Services (PDS) Charges

o The PDS is only about 10% of the household cost of electricity. Savings can easily be achieved without “by-passing the grid”

o PECO has one of the highest electricity rates in the Philippines even though it “by-passes” the grid and remains a captive customer of PEDC

o VECO should have entered into a supply contract with a cheaper plant like KSPC

4th NGCP Comment to AECOM Report:

58

Summary of the increase and decrease to VECO’s customers bill in VECO’s application for the 138kv Connection Asset – a 36km 138kV line between CEDC and VECO’s Colon substation shows a net decrease of P0.0744/kwhr.

NGCP’s assertions on cost-savings are misplaced.• The DU should do BOTH: (a) reducing the PDS charges it passes

on to its customers, AND (2) procuring least-cost power supply• In approving supply contracts, the ERC already sets stringent

efficiency caps • Generators are already forced to be as efficient as they can

reasonably be by the efficiency caps• A 10% reduction in generation costs, simply by efficient

operations, is quite farfetched • Lastly, a savings of 10% is already very significant to

consumers, especially residential consumers. It should be encouraged

PIPPA Counter-arguments:

59

Diagram 4 Annex C will discourage construction of new Generation Plants with large generating capacities -

◦ new and large generation plants are necessary to address rapidly increasing electricity needs;

◦ larger plants produce more electricity at lower costs;

◦ local governments will hesitate to allow the construction of a large generation plant w/out direct benefit to constituents;

◦ no DU can fully absorb the entire output of a large Generation Plant

PIPPA: Additional reasons for the amendments …

60

Resolution 16 will not prevent large capacity power

projects

o NGCP receives several System Impact Study applications from prospective large capacity generation proponents

o it is NGCP’s position that all large generation plants with an aggregate connected capacity of more 20MW should be grid connected and not embedded to the DU’s system.

PIPPA’s Counter-Arguments:

At present there are power plants greater than 20MW and are embedded in a DU system. The operation of these plants did not cause any severe disturbance to the grid during normal operation. There should be proper ramping up/down to avoid disturbance in the frequency. A direct connection to the grid won’t solve the problem if they do not follow the proper procedures.

NGCP Arguments:

5th NGCP Comment to the AECOM Report …

NGCP Comment: It is not true that transmission cost will increase with certainty due

to unchallenged technical position of single owner who will have no opportunity or cause to optimize the way it provides its service (citing its VECO case analysis)

When a DU is directly connected to the switchyard where a grid connected generation plant also connects, such DU also directly benefits from the grid.

AECOM Reply: Based on experience, the contestable model for provision and

ownership of certain Grid assets has provided assets with lower capital costs and therefore, according to the remuneration models for grid owners, it should wash out as lower costs for grid users;

Grid Owners tend to promote capital/asset intensive solutions, and are generally backward in applying techniques which require fewer assets but would achieve the equivalent results

61

62

o “ensure and accelerate the total electrification of the country”;

o “ensure the quality, reliability, security and affordability of the supply of electric power”;

o “ensure transparent and reasonable prices of electricity in a regime of free and fair competition and full public accountability to achieve greater operational and economic efficiency”;

o “enhance the inflow of private capital and broaden the ownership base of the power generation ... sector”

o “protect the public interest as it is affected by the rates and services of electric utilities and other providers of electric power”;

o “provide for an orderly and transparent privatization of the assets and liabilities of the National Power Corporation”

Diagram 4, Annex C runs counter to the stated reasons of EPIRA to …

MOVING FORWARD: AECOM PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RES. 16

I. Resolution 16 be amended to convey the following intent: Assets constituting assets at the boundary of the shared transmission grid shall

be classified as either: a. Dedicated Connection Assets; orb. Identified User Shared Assets

WHERE:

Dedicated connection assets are transmission assets: developed and constructed for the purpose of connecting an Identified User Group to an existing transmission network used exclusively by the relevant identified user group and for which the costs of developing, constructing, operating and maintaining are not recoverable from the broader customer base as charges for prescribed transmission services.

63


Identified user shared assets are those parts of a substation which, while forming part of the shared network, are required solely for the connection of an identified user group. More precisely, identified user shared assets are shared assets developed and constructed for the purpose of connecting an identified user group to an existing transmission network, but not used exclusively by the relevant Identified User Group.

Wherein an Identified User Group shall refer to any group of transmission customers who have (entered into) an agreement to share a common grid connection point wherein they have contracted for transmission services as a single grid customer1. The Identified User Group shall be treated for grid planning and operational purposes as a single Hybrid Grid Customer.

1 Wherein a grid connection point may comprise a single or a multiple interconnection with the shared grid, with the security, reliability and capacity, considered appropriate under normal, prevailing grid planning criteria.

64


Illustration of the proposed categories of connection assets and the types of grid customers connected to each category

65

SHARED-USE TRANSMISSION ASSETS

GR

CONNECTION CUSTOMER CAN OWN


SHARED CONNECTION ASSETS

DCADCA

LARGE CENTRAL GENERATORS

EMBEDDED GENERATORS

Identified User Group

Distributor, or a Large Industrial Customer

CG

CG

DCA DEDICATED CONNECTION ASSETS

LOAD CUSTOMER

MOVING FORWARD: AECOM PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RES. 16…

II. The provision of the assets, rights to ownership, payment for costs of operations and maintenance, shall be:

Asset type Description Paid for by Contestability

Shared assets Used by the broad base of consumers.

All market customers (through Transmission Charges).

Built, owned and operated by Transmission Grid Owner or Franchisee.

Identified user shared assets

Required for connecting an Identified User Group.

Identified User Group and All grid customers, through Transmission Charges[1] .

Transmission Grid Owner or Franchisee accountable[1] for operation, control and maintenance. Construction and ownership contestable.

Dedicated connection assets

Required and used exclusively by connecting generator or load.

Connecting generator or connecting load.

Construction, ownership and operation contestable.

66

[1] The proportion to be assessed in proportion to the use of the shared assets by the Identified User Group relative to other customers of the Shared Network.[2] For avoidance of doubt “accountable” shall mean responsibility for ensuring adequate standards are met, but it shall not be taken to mean direct responsibility for carrying out operating ad maintenance services.

Wherein Contestable shall mean proponent party (or parties’) access to alternative means of construction, ownership, operation and maintenance which may be selected and/or negotiated with the Transmission Grid Owner or Franchisee, subject to the observance of standards set by the Transmission Grid Owner or Franchisee.

Benefits of the AECOM Suggested Approach:-

TO SIMPLIFY AND DIVERSIFY THE MEANS OF CONNECTING TO THE TRANSMISSION GRID, SO AS TO REDUCE COSTS AND IMPROVE COMPETITION, BY FACILLITATING THE COMPETITIVE ASPECTS OF THE SUPPLY AND CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY

TO IMPROVE THE BALANCE OF POWER IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR GRID SERVICES BETWEEN THE GRID COMPANY AND GRID USERS

TO ENSURE THAT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GRID SECURITY AND RELIABILITY REMAINS FIRMLY WITH A SINGLE IDENTIFIABLE ENTITY, NAMELY THE GRID COMPANY

67

68

Thank you

1. Issued on July 6, 2011, entitled: “Resolution Adopting the Amended Rules on the Definition and Boundaries of Connection Assets for Customers of Transmission.

Documents

connection assets ca

transmission assets

proposed diagrams

connection point

proposed amendments

single mechanical connection

proposed amendment revision

proposed revisions