345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC August 4, 2011 Appendix H SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY FINAL REPORT 345 kV Cluster Study Prepared for: El Paso Electric Company Prepared by: TRC Engineers, LLC 249 Western Avenue Augusta, ME 04330 (207) 621-7000 November 2010
177
Embed
SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY FINAL REPORT - El Paso Electric
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC August 4, 2011
Appendix H
SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY FINAL REPORT
345 kV Cluster Study
Prepared for:
El Paso Electr ic Company
Prepared by:
TRC Engineers, LLC 249 Western Avenue Augusta, ME 04330
(207) 621-7000
November 2010
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
FOREWORD
This report was prepared for the project Interconnection Customer, by System Planning at El Paso Electric Company. Any correspondence concerning this document, including technical and commercial questions should be referred to:
Dennis Malone Manager – System Planning Department
El Paso Electric Company 100 North Stanton
El Paso, Texas 79901 Phone: (915) 543-5757 Fax: (915) 521-4763
Or
David Gutierrez Principal Engineer
El Paso Electric Company 100 North Stanton
El Paso, Texas 79901 Phone: (915) 543-4083 Fax: (915) 521-4763
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
2.2.1 Development and Description of Cases ................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Contingency List .................................................................................................................................... 9
3. STEADY STATE POWER FLOW ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 10
3.1 BASE CASE POWER FLOW EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Pre-Project N-0 Flow Violations ......................................................................................................... 10 3.1.2 Pre-Project N-1 Flow Violations ......................................................................................................... 10
6.1 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS MODELING .......................................................................................................... 44 6.2 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................... 47 6.3 RESULTS OF THE SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 47 6.4 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 50
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: N-0 345 kV Transmission Reinforcements ................................................................ 16 Figure 3-2: Upgrade recommendation with new 345 kV Corona station ..................................... 24 Figure 3-3: Picante to Vista 115 kV Diagram .............................................................................. 28 Figure 3-4: 345 kV System Upgrades ........................................................................................... 31 Figure 7-1: EPE 345 kV Bus Voltages for Non-Disturbance 20 Second Start ............................. 52 Figure 7-2: EPE 345 kV Bus Voltages for Non-Disturbance 20 Second Start After 2nd NM805W-
Corona 345 kV Transmission Line ....................................................................................... 53 Figure 7-3: EPE 345 kV Bus Frequencies for Fault at Corona and Loss of Both NM805W -
Corona Lines ......................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 7-4: EPE Local Generation Angles for Fault at Corona and Loss of Both NM805W -
Corona Lines ......................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 8-1: Cost Details per Element ............................................................................................ 62 Figure 8-2: ART320W POI Oneline ............................................................................................. 64 Figure 8-3: AA100W POI One-line .............................................................................................. 67 Figure 8-4: NM805W POI and Corona Station One-line ............................................................. 70 Figure 8-5: HL198W POI and Hidalgo Station One-line ............................................................. 73 Figure 8-6: Amrad 345 kV Substation One-line ........................................................................... 75 Figure 8-7: Luna System Upgrade One-line ................................................................................. 77 Figure 8-8: Afton System Upgrade One-line ................................................................................ 79 Figure 8-9: Arroyo System Upgrade One-line .............................................................................. 81 Figure 8-10: South System Upgrade One-line .............................................................................. 83
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
List of Tables
Table 0-1: Cost estimates ................................................................................................................ 4 Table 1-1: EPE and New Mexico Performance Criteria ................................................................. 6 Table 2-1: Breakdown of 345 kV Study Cluster ............................................................................ 9 Table 3-1: Pre-Cluster Projects 2011 N-1 Flow Violations .......................................................... 11 Table 3-2: Pre-Cluster Projects 2012 N-1 Flow Violations .......................................................... 12 Table 3-3: Pre-Cluster Projects 2013 N-1 Flow Violations .......................................................... 13 Table 3-4: Pre-Cluster Projects 2015 N-1 Flow Violations .......................................................... 14 Table 3-5: New 345 kV Transmission Reinforcements for N-0 Flow Violations ........................ 15 Table 3-6: Post-Project N-0 115 kV Flow Violations – Existing Infrastructure .......................... 17 Table 3-7: 2011 N-1 Flow Violations ........................................................................................... 18 Table 3-8: 2012 N-1 Flow Violations ........................................................................................... 19 Table 3-9: 2013 N-1 Flow Violations ........................................................................................... 20 Table 3-10: 2015 N-1 Flow Violations ......................................................................................... 21 Table 3-11: Unsolved contingencies ............................................................................................. 22 Table 3-12: Arroyo – Newman – Luna upgrades ......................................................................... 25 Table 3-13: Remaining 2013 N-1 Flow Violations for all Upgrade Options ............................... 26 Table 3-14: Remaining 2015 N-1 Flow Violations for all Upgrade Options ............................... 26 Table 3-15: Power Flow Analysis Related Network Upgrades .................................................... 32 Table 3-16: Interconnection Transmission Lines ......................................................................... 33 Table 3-17: Recommendation for 345 kV Transmission Line Upgrades ..................................... 33 Table 3-18: Recommendation for 115 kV Transmission Line Upgrades ..................................... 33 Table 4-1: Power Factor at AA100W POI .................................................................................... 35 Table 4-2: Power Factor at AWRT320W POI .............................................................................. 36 Table 4-3: Power Factor at NM805W POI ................................................................................... 37 Table 4-4: Power Factor at HL198W POI .................................................................................... 38 Table 5-1: N-0 Voltage Violations ................................................................................................ 39 Table 5-2: Voltage regulation due to loss of generation at NM805W .......................................... 40 Table 5-3: Voltage regulation due to loss of generation at ART320W ........................................ 41 Table 5-4: Voltage regulation due to loss of generation at LEF ................................................... 42 Table 5-5: System VAR reinforcements ....................................................................................... 42 Table 6-1: Interconnection Transmission Lines ........................................................................... 44 Table 6-2: Proposed 345 kV Transmission Network Upgrades ................................................... 44 Table 6-3: Proposed 115 kV Transmission Network3455 Upgrades ........................................... 45 Table 6-4: Proposed 345/115 kV Transformer Network Upgrade ............................................... 45 Table 6-5: 345 kV Cluster Generator Short Circuit Modeling Data ............................................. 46 Table 6-6: Cluster Study Short Circuit Summary Results ............................................................ 47 Table 7-1: Generator Models Used for Studies ............................................................................ 51 Table 7-2: Stability Base Case Scenarios ..................................................................................... 52 Table 7-3: Contingency List for Stability Studies for both Peak and Off-Peak Cases ................. 55 Table 8-1: Estimated Costs by Interconnection Project ................................................................ 60 Table 8-2: Estimated Costs by Element ........................................................................................ 61 Table 8-3: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for ART320W POI .......................................... 63 Table 8-4: Network Upgrades Costs for ART320W POI ............................................................. 65 Table 8-5: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for AA100W POI ............................................. 66
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
Table 8-6: Network Upgrades Costs for AA100W ....................................................................... 68 Table 8-7: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for NM805W POI ........................................... 69 Table 8-8: Network System Upgrades Costs for Corona 345 kV Switching Station ................... 71 Table 8-9: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for HL198W POI ............................................. 72 Table 8-10: Network Upgrades Costs for Hidalgo 345 kV Station .............................................. 74 Table 8-11: Network System Upgrades Costs for Amrad 345 kV Substation ............................. 76 Table 8-12: Network System Upgrades Costs for Luna Substation ............................................. 78 Table 8-13: Network System Upgrades Cost for Afton Substation .............................................. 80 Table 8-14: Network System Upgrades Cost for Arroyo Substation ........................................... 82 Table 8-15: Network System Upgrades Cost for South Substation .............................................. 84 Table 8-16: Network System Upgrades Cost for Picante Substation ........................................... 86 Table 8-17: Transmission Network System Upgrades Costs ....................................................... 87
Appendices
Appendix A 345 KV Cluster Study Statement of Work Appendix B EE 205 Waiver Appendix C Power Flow Contingency List Appendix D Ft. Craig Phase Shifting Transformer – Contingency Analysis Appendix E Worst Case Stability Analysis Results Appendix F Stability Analysis PDF Plots Appendix H 345 kV Cluster Study Network Upgrades - Project Schedule
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC
November 17, 2010 1
345 kV Cluster project System Impact Study
Executive Summary
On June 12, 2009, El Paso Electric (EPE) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a request for a waiver of the first-come, first-serve study order and permission to study the current interconnectors in the EPE queue1 in two cluster studies. On August 12, 2009, FERC issued an approval of the request waiver2. Therefore, as per the Interconnection Customer request and the approved FERC waiver, EPE and the Interconnection Customers initiated a Feasibility Study to study the impact of the proposed generation on the EPE transmission system. Upon the completion of the Feasibility study, four Interconnection Customers agreed to proceed further and to be included in the 345 kV Cluster System Impact Study (“345 kV Cluster Study”). This report is the result of the 345 kV Cluster Study to examine the impact of interconnecting four Interconnection Customers totaling 1423 MW to the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems. The following Interconnection Customers are part of the 345 kV Cluster Study:
1. ART320W: 320 MW Wind powered project interconnecting on the Artesia/Eddy County 345 kV bus via a 70-mile 345 kV radial line.
2. AA100W: 60 MW and 40 MW wind powered projects interconnecting to the Amrad-Artesia 345 kV Line 65 miles East of Amrad.
3. NM805W: 805 MW wind powered project interconnecting to the Newman/Corona Station 345 kV bus via a 300-mile radial 345 kV line.
4. HL198W: 198 MW wind powered project interconnecting to the Hidalgo 345 kV substation via a 6-mile radial 345 kV line.
Two interconnector projects ahead of these in the EPE queue were included in the study. These interconnectors are:
1. WA495W: 495 MW wind powered project interconnecting on the West Mesa – Arroyo 345 kV line near Ft. Craig.
2. SL99W: 99 MW wind powered project interconnecting on the Springerville – Luna 345 kV line 30 miles from Luna.
The addition of these Interconnection Customers to the model was required to create the base power flow case for the 345 kV Cluster Study. The generation from these two projects was modeled as being delivered to all entities in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), while the generation from the 345 kV Cluster was modeled as being delivered to all WECC entities except EPE and those in New Mexico. Therefore, no specific transmission path
1 www.epelectric.com, “Transmission”, “Interconnection Requests” 2 See Appendix B for this Waiver.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC
November 17, 2010 2
for energy sales has been defined, nor does this study guarantee that a transmission path will be available when the Interconnection Customer is placed in service. All proposed reinforcements were required to eliminate the adverse impact of the 345 kV Cluster generation on the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems. El Paso operational issues, practices and standards were considered for every proposed system upgrade. This Study Area was limited to the area between El Paso, TX and Tucson, AZ. Steady State Results Power flow results showed thermal/overload and voltage criteria violations existing on the system before the Cluster Projects were added. These are mainly in Arizona, outside of the study area. Initial power flow analysis, with the Cluster Projects in service, suggested a need for new 345 kV transmission facilities in order to provide secure and reliable power transfer and delivery. With Cluster Projects in service El Paso system has strong tendency for east to west power transfer. Total of 686.2 miles of 345 kV transmission line reinforcements start with one new line from the Eddy County/Artesia HVDC terminal running through the foothills of the Guadalupe and Sacramento Mountains in New Mexico paralleling an existing 345 kV line and terminating at the EPE AMRAD substation. From the AMRAD 345 kV station, one new line would run parallel to the existing Caliente-AMRAD 345 kV line and White Sands Missile Range to a new Corona Switching Station; existing Newman-Picante and Amrad-Caliente 345 kV lines would loop in and out at Corona. New lines would be built from new Corona station to EPE’s Arroyo and from Arroyo to Afton station. Also, two new lines would be built from Luna to South via Hidalgo station. Furthermore, a new 345/115 kV transformer at Picante station, two new115 kV lines from Picante towards Vista station, 105.4 miles of 115 kV transmission line upgrades and voltage support through the system are part of system upgrades. The power flow analysis, with Cluster Projects in service and proposed 345 kV and 115 kV transmission network upgrades in place, showed that thermal, voltage and power factor at Point at Interconnection criteria violations will not occur on the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems. The power flow analysis was conducted for peak and off peak 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 cases. Pre-existing and post-project criteria violations still occur in the Arizona area and were not addressed in this study. Short Circuit Results The short circuit analysis was performed without the 345 kV Cluster Study projects modeled and with all other third-party generation projects senior to the 345 kV Cluster Study projects in the study queue in service. This identified the “base case” fault duties of the circuit breakers. The short circuit analysis was performed again with the 345 kV Cluster Study projects and proposed network upgrades modeled in the case. The incremental difference between these two analyses shows the impact of the new Interconnection Customers on the existing current interruption devices in the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC
November 17, 2010 3
Interconnection of 345 kV Cluster Projects, with the recommended reinforcements, will not cause short-circuit currents to exceed the maximum interruption ratings of any existing circuit breaker on the EPE or New Mexico transmission systems. Stability Results System stability was analyzed for contingencies relevant to the Projects POI and Study Area, with and without the 345 kV Cluster Project for peak and off peak base case load conditions. The Interconnectors remained on-line for all system fault simulations, satisfying FERC Order No. 661 Low Voltage Ride Through criteria. The 345 kV Cluster Project addition to the system with proposed transmission reinforcements in place does not pose any concern to Study Area system stability performance. Cost Estimates Good faith cost estimates are presented. The cost estimates are in 2010 dollars (no escalation applied) and are based upon typical construction costs for previously performed similar construction. These costs include all estimated applicable labor and overheads associated with the engineering, design, and construction of these new EPE facilities. These estimates did not include the Generator Interconnection Costs3 for any other Interconnection Customer owned equipment or associated design and engineering except for the Point of Interconnection (POI) interconnection facilities. The estimated total cost for the required upgrades is $929.16 Million. This breaks down to $7.86 Million for the EPE Interconnection Costs4 at the POIs and $921.30 Million for Network Upgrade Costs5. Generator Interconnection Costs have not been estimated as part of this study. Table 0-1 shows the cost breakout per project. Detailed cost estimates are found in Section 8 of this report.
3 Generator Interconnection Costs: cost of facilities paid for by Interconnection Customer and owned and operated by the Interconnection Customer from the generator facilities to the Change of Ownership Point, which is typically at Point of Interconnection substation first dead-end. Not subject to transmission credits. 4 EPE Interconnection Costs: cost of facilities paid for by Interconnection Customer but owned and operated by EPE from the Change of Ownership Point to the Point of Interconnection. Not subject to transmission credits. 5 Network Upgrades Costs: cost of facilities from the Point of Interconnection outward, paid for by the interconnector but owned and operated by EPE. Subject to transmission credits
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC
November 17, 2010 4
Table 0-1: Cost estimates
Project Name
Size
(MW)
In Service
Date
Point of Interconnection
EPE Interconnection
Facilities (Millions)
Network Upgrades Pro Rata (Millions)
Total Cost
(Millions)
ART320W 320 9/2011 Artesia (Eddy County HVDC) 345 kV West bus
$0.70 $207.18 $207.88
AA100W 60 40
12/2010 6/2011
65 miles east of Amrad substation on Amrad-Artesia 345 kV line
$0.71 $64.75 $65.46
NM805W 805 12/2011 Corona 345 kV bus
$5.60 $521.18 $526.78
HL198W 99 99
5/2013 5/2015
Hidalgo 345 kV Substation
$0.85 $128.19 $129.04
TOTAL MW
1423 Total Costs $7.86 $921.30 $929.16
The estimated time frame for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction of Network Upgrades is 5 years upon notice to proceed with construction from the Interconnection Customers. The estimated time frame for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction is 2 years for any new POI Substations or expansion at existing substations. Therefore it is not feasible to meet the requested Commercial In-Service Dates as requested by the Interconnection Customers. The cost responsibilities associated with these facilities were handled as per current FERC guidelines and El Paso Electric’s FERC approved Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), specifically defined in sections 1.27 (Network Upgrades), and further defined in Section 1 (Definitions) of Attachment M (Large Generator Interconnection Procedures) and per the FERC study request waiver. Conclusion
The system impact study shows that the proposed 345 kV Cluster projects will have an adverse impact on the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems, unless the Network Upgrades are constructed. Additional reinforcements might be needed in Arizona beyond the South station termination point of the 345 kV Network Upgrades. These will have to be addressed by the Interconnection Customers should they continue with the interconnection process.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
5
1. Introduction
The Interconnection Customers are proposing to construct 1423 MW of generation that will interconnect to the EPE 345 kV transmission system. EPE requires that a System Impact Study (SIS) be performed for generation facilities desiring to connect to the El Paso Electric Transmission System. The proposed in-service dates are between December, 2010 and May, 2015.
1.1 Performance Criteria
WECC and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards, as well as the EPE local reliability criteria standards were used to perform this Study. The EPE local reliability standards can be found in Section 4 of EPE’s FERC Form No. 715. The steady state and stability analysis was performed using the GE PSLF Version 17.8 program.
For steady state pre-contingency solutions, transformer tap phase-shifting transformer angle movement and static VAR device switching was allowed. For each contingency studied, all regulating equipment, transformer controls and switched shunts, were fixed at pre-contingency positions. All flows and voltages within the El Paso, New Mexico and Arizona control area, with base voltages of 0.5 kV and above, were monitored.
Pre-contingency flows on lines and transformers are required to remain at or below the normal rating of the system element, and post-contingency flows on system elements must remain at or below the emergency rating. Flows above 100% of an element’s rating, either pre- or post-contingency, are considered violations.
Post-project voltage criteria violations that either exacerbate or improve an existing pre-project violation are not considered an adverse impact to the system.
The performance criteria utilized in monitoring the study area are shown in Table 1-1.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
6
Table 1-1: EPE and New Mexico Performance Criteria
* Taiban Mesa and Guadalupe 345 kV bus voltage must be between 0.95 and 1.10 p.u. under normal and contingency conditions. ** For PNM buses in southern New Mexico the allowable N-1 voltage drop is 7%.
0.925-1.05 6 %** 46 kV to 115 kV 0.90 – 1.05 6 %** 230 kV and above
Contingency N-2
Emergency Rating
0.90-1.05 10 % 46 kV and above*
Tri- State
Normal ALIS
Normal Rating 0.95-1.05 All buses
Contingency N-1
Emergency Rating
0.90 – 1.10 6 %
Tri-State buses in the PNM Service Area (list provided by
Tri-State)
0.90-1.10 7 % Tri-State buses in southern and northeastern New Mexico (list
provided by Tri-State) Contingency
N-2 Emergency
Rating 0.90-1.10 10%
All buses
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
7
2. Study Methodology
2.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions are consistent for all study scenarios unless otherwise noted.
This study assumes that all system expansion projects as planned by area utilities by the year under analysis are completed and that any system improvements required by the interconnections senior to the 345 kV Cluster projects are implemented.
This study did not analyze any transmission service from the interconnection point to any specific point on the grid for the interconnections senior to the 345 kV Cluster projects. It will determine Network Upgrades, if necessary, to deliver the proposed 345 kV Cluster projects generation output into the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission grid.
2.2 Procedure
The analyses in this study included Steady State, Short Circuit and Stability, as stated in 345 kV Cluster Study Statement of Work in Appendix A. A detailed discussion for each is included in this report. A description of the procedures used to complete the analyses is presented below.
2.2.1 Development and Description of Cases
A 100% peak summer load 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 WECC power flow cases were used and modified as listed below to establish a 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 benchmark cases without the 345 kV cluster study interconnection projects. In addition, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 off-peak cases were modified to determine any off-peak violations. These cases were loaded to 60% of the peak cases, with the generation dispatched for the load. The Ft. Craig Phase-Shifter set at 10 MW N-S, 60 MW N-S and 201 MW N-S in the peak and 60 MW N-S and 201 MW N-S in the off-peak cases, with Eddy County DC tie operational flows at 200 MW and 0 MW. In all cases, peak and off-peak, all the Cluster Project generation was load dispatched avoiding specific delivery point issues which have not been determined at the time of the study.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
8
Benchmark Cases - 2011 through 2015: The 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 benchmark cases included the following existing third party generation:
1. 570 MW of generation (Luna Energy Facility) interconnected at the Luna 345 kV bus and scheduled to the WECC grid.
2. 141 MW of generation (Afton CT) interconnected at the Afton 345 kV Substation and scheduled to PNM through the EPE/PNM control area at the West Mesa 345 kV bus.
3. 160 MW of generation (Pyramid) interconnected at PNM’s Hidalgo 115 kV Substation and scheduled to the WECC grid.
4. 80 MW of generation (Lordsburg) interconnected at PNM’s Lordsburg 115 kV Substation and scheduled to the WECC grid.
5. 94 MW of generation (Afton ST) interconnected at the Afton 345 kV Substation and scheduled to PNM.
6. 495 MW of generation (WA495W) interconnected at FT. CRAIG on the West Mesa – Arroyo 345 kV transmission line and delivered to WECC. Please note that this project is in the SIS study phase and is not included in the FERC approved cluster study waiver.
7. 99 MW of generation (SL99W) interconnected on the Luna – Springerville 345 kV line 30 miles from Luna. Please note that this project is in the SIS study phase and is not included in the FERC approved cluster study waiver.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
9
345 kV Cluster Study Cases - 2011 through 2015: The 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 345 kV Cluster Study cases, as shown in Table 2-1, utilized the benchmark cases, described above, with the following generation in service: The ART320W generation output was modeled at a net output of 320 MW with point of interconnection (POI) at Artesia 345 kV bus (in-service 2011). The HL198W generation output was modeled at a net output of 198 MW with POI 4 miles east of Hidalgo 345 kV substation (99 MW in-service 2013; additional 99 MW in-service 2015). The AA100W generation output was modeled at a net output of 100 MW with POI 65 miles east of Amrad 345 kV substation on Amrad-Artesia 345 kV line (100 MW in-service 2011). The NM805W generation output was modeled at a net output of 805 MW with POI at Newman/Corona 345 kV substation (in-service 2011).
Table 2-1: Breakdown of 345 kV Study Cluster
Project Size (MW) In-service 2011 2012 2013 2015
ART320W 320 09/2011 x x x x
AA100W 60 12/2010 x x x x 40 06/2011 x x x x
NM805W 805 12/2011 x x x
HL198W 99 05/2013 x x 99 05/2015 x
2.2.2 Contingency List
All outages (115 kV and above) were modeled in the subsystem files. The list of contingencies used to perform this study can be found in Appendix C. Based on engineering judgment, these contingencies were selected because they represent a good cross section of potential contingencies that would stress the EPE and PNM’s southern New Mexico and southern Arizona systems. Double contingencies were not analyzed in this study.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
10
3. Steady State Power Flow Analysis
3.1 Base Case Power Flow Evaluation
This section documents overloaded facilities prior to the addition of the Cluster projects. The analysis was performed under both normal and contingency conditions.
3.1.1 Pre-Project N-0 Flow Violations
Power flow study results for the EPE and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) areas showed that no overloaded transmission facilities are present under non-contingency system conditions without the 345 kV Cluster Study projects connected.
3.1.2 Pre-Project N-1 Flow Violations
Power flow results for contingency scenarios covering PNM or EPE area show that in many of the scenarios overloads existed prior to the addition of the Cluster projects, as shown in Table 3-1through Table 3-4.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
15
3.2 Cluster Case Power Flow Evaluation
This section documents the facilities most directly affected by the Cluster projects and provides a high-level understanding of the Cluster project’s impact on the transmission line and transformer loading in the Study Area. The analysis was performed under both normal and contingency conditions.
3.2.1 Post-Project N-0 Flow Violation
Power flow study results for the EPE and PNM areas showed that addition of 1423 MW of generation from 345 kV Cluster projects to the existing system would cause various facilities to overload under non-contingency system conditions. New 345 kV transmission infrastructure, listed in Table 3-5, is necessary to eliminate 345 kV overloaded transmission facilities that are present under non-contingency system conditions after addition of the 345 kV Cluster Study projects.
Table 3-5: New 345 kV Transmission Reinforcements for N-0 Flow Violations
Furthermore, in order to maintain system at its acceptable criteria VAR support was added at: Hidalgo 345 kV, Newman 345 kV, Amrad 345 kV through 345/115/13.2 transformer, NM805 345 kV and 1/3 and 2/3 along the Newman-NM805W 345 kV line.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
EL_BUTTE 115 PICACHO 115 1 40.0 10 x x x x DONA_ANA 115 PICACHO 115 1 159.4 10 x x x NE1 115 NEWMAN 115 1 117.7 11 x x MILAGRO 115 NEWMAN 115 1 211.0 11 x x x LAS_CRUC 115 ARROYO 115 1 156.6 11 x x x NEWMAN 115 SHEARMAN 115 1 117.7 11 x x SOL 115 VISTA__# 115 1 117.7 11 x x LANE 114 SOL 115 1 117.7 11 x x x DYER 115 AUSTIN_N 115 1 117.7 11 x x SOCORROP 115 EL_BUTTE 115 1 60.0 10 x
Note: Flow violations from the base cases were omitted from this table. x – Denotes overload.
3.2.2 Post-Project N-1 Flow Violation
The 2011 through 2015 power flow analysis results, shown in Table 3-7 through Table 3-10, show several elements being overloaded under contingency conditions; with the 345 kV Cluster Study projects added to the system and suggested N-0 345 kV and 115 kV transmission reinforcements in place.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
18
Table 3-7: 2011 N-1 Flow Violations
Post-Project and N-0 Transmission Reinforcements in service
2011 N-1 Flow Violations After 345 kV and 115 kV N-0 Transmission Reinforcements With Cluster Projects
Notes: 1. Results in the table above demonstrate transmission facilities (over)loading comparison among the off peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S and 60 N-S) and
peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S with Afton generation off, 60 N-S and 10 N-S) cases; all cases studied with Eddy County DC tie operational flows at 200 MW and 0 MW.
2. NM805 MW is dispatched only in the off peak cases. Hidalgo-South Ckt.1&2, Luna-Hidalgo Ckt.2, and Newman-NM805 transmission additions are present only in the off peak cases.
3. Overloaded elements identified as post-project N-0, as well as pre-project N-1, 2011 flow violations were not included in this table. 4. Overloaded elements which have operating procedure in place were not included in the table.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
19
Table 3-8: 2012 N-1 Flow Violations
Post-Project and N-0 Transmission Reinforcements in service
2012 N-1 Flow Violations After 345 kV and 115 kV N-0 Transmission Reinforcements With Cluster Projects
Notes: 1. Results in the table above demonstrate transmission facilities (over)loading comparison among the off peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S and 60 N-S) and
peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S with Afton generation off, 60 N-S and 10 N-S) cases; all cases studied with Eddy County DC tie operational flows at 200 MW and 0 MW.
2. Overloaded elements identified as post-project N-0, as well as pre-project N-1, 2012 flow violations were not included in this table. 3. Overloaded elements which have operating procedure in place were not included in this table.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
20
Table 3-9: 2013 N-1 Flow Violations
Post-Project and N-0 Transmission Reinforcements in service
2013 N-1 Flow Violations After 345 kV and 115 kV N-0 Transmission Reinforcements With Cluster Projects
Notes: 1. Results in the table above demonstrate transmission facilities (over)loading comparison among the off peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S and 60 N-S) and
peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S with Afton generation off, 60 N-S and 10 N-S) cases; all cases studied with Eddy County DC tie operational flows at 200 MW and 0 MW.
2. Overloaded elements identified as post-project N-0, as well as pre-project N-1, 2013 flow violations were not included in this table. 3. Overloaded elements which have operating procedure in place were not included in this table.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
21
Table 3-10: 2015 N-1 Flow Violations
Post-Project and N-0 Transmission Reinforcements in service
2015 N-1 Flow Violations After 345 kV and 115 kV N-0 Transmission Reinforcements With Cluster Projects
1. Results in the table above demonstrate transmission facilities (over)loading comparison among the off peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S and 60 N-S) and peak (Ft. Craig pst at 201 N-S with Afton generation off, 60 N-S and 10 N-S) cases; all cases studied with Eddy County DC tie operational flows at 200 MW and 0 MW.
2. Overloaded elements identified as post-project N-0, as well as pre-project N-1, 2015 flow violations were not included in this table. 3. Overloaded elements which have operating procedure in place were not included in this table.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
22
The system was unable to solve for contingencies, listed in Table 3-11, in most of the cluster cases. This is an indication that additional reinforcements are needed to address the loss of NM805 MW, relief stress on Neman 345 kV station due to the power transfer push towards the West, and address loss of a Caliente-Amrad 345 kV line.
Table 3-11: Unsolved contingencies
Contingency
Tran AMRAD 115.0 to AMRAD 345.0 Circuit 1 AMRAD_A 13.20 Line CALIENTE 345.0 to AMRAD 345.0 Circuit 1 Line LUNA 345.0 to AFTON 345.0 Circuit 1 Line FT CRAIG 345.0 to VL-TAP 345.0 Circuit 1 Line NEWMAN 345.0 to ARROYO 345.0 Circuit 1 Line NM805W 345.0 to NM805RS2 345.0 Circuit 1 Gen NM805W_G_1-4 34.5 (Loss of 644 MW at NM805W) Gen NM805W_G_1-5 34.5 (Loss of 805 MW at NM805W)
Note: NM805RS1 and NM805RS2 are two reactor stations located 1/3 and 2/3 along the NM805W POI – NM805W 345 kV line.
3.3 Network Upgrades Recommendations
3.3.1 Post-Project Power Flow System Response Assessments
Analysis showed a need for 3rd circuit between Luna and Hidalgo 345 kV stations. Loss of proposed Ckt.2 causes overload of the existing Ckt.1. Furthermore, the analysis showed two major weaknesses as a result of the Cluster projects addition to the system. One is unsatisfactory steady state power flow system response for the loss of parts of the Artesia - Amrad – Caliente 345 kV corridor. Neither Amrad 345 kV is capable of absorbing approximately 400 MW for the loss of Amrad - Caliente 345 kV line nor Amrad – Artesia – Caliente 345 kV corridor is capable of provide sufficient VAR support for the loss of VAR support at Amrad 345 kV bus. Addition of VAR support at Amrad 345 kV bus does not mitigate identified problems. The other is unsatisfactory system response for the sudden loss of 600+ MW coming from NM805W as well as loss of the Newman – Arroyo 345 kV line or parts of the Newman – Afton – Luna 345 kV corridor. Further network upgrades screening analysis was performed on the cases that showed the most severe flow violations as a result of addition of Cluster projects to the system.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
23
3.3.2 Amrad – Artesia 345 kV Corridor Existing Amrad – Artesia corridor, single 345 kV line, is suppose to deliver 620 MW to Amrad 345 kV bus from Eddy County HVDC (existing) tie and ART320W and AA100W (proposed) Interconnectors. Analysis show that system cannot solve for the loss of Amrad – Artesia 345 kV (Ckt 1) line or VAR support at Amrad 345 kV. It is not recommended to have significant radial supply of power, in this case 620 MW. Therefore, recommendation is to have two circuits between Amrad and Artesia 345 kV buses, one of them to be looped in and out at AA100W.
3.3.3 Corona Station
After addition of ART320W and AA100W, Amrad – Caliente single 345 kV line delivers approximately 400 MW to Caliente 345 kV station. Amrad 345 kV is not capable of absorbing those 400 MW for the loss of this line. Recommendation is to have two circuits from Amrad delivering those 400MW. New Corona 345 kV station is proposed to be built 39.7 miles from Amrad 345 kV (16.3 miles from Caliente 345 kV) station, separating existing Amrad – Caliente 345 kV line in two parts: Amrad - Corona and Corona - Caliente. There will be two 345 kV circuits (one new to be built) from Amrad 345 kV station ending at Corona station. Existing Newman – Picante 345 kV line will be looped in and out at new Corona station.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
24
Figure 3-2: Upgrade recommendation with new 345 kV Corona station
black – existing infrastructure; blue – existing infrastructure modified; green – new construction
3.3.4 Arroyo – Newman – Luna upgrades
Several options were explored to address unsatisfactory system response for the sudden loss of 600+ MW coming from NM805W via Newman 345 kV bus as well as loss of the Newman – Arroyo 345 kV line or parts of the Newman – Afton – Luna 345 kV corridor. In order to find the most cost effective solution, the system response was tested by applying one system upgrade at the time and combination of multiple upgrades. Considered upgrades were:
Arroyo – Afton 345 kV line Afton – Luna 345 kV line Ckt.2 Arroyo – Luna 345 kV line Arroyo – Corona 345 kV line Newman – Corona 345 kV line NM805W POI at Corona instead of Newman 345 kV bus Luna – Hidalgo 345 kV line Ckt.3
Analysis showed four most cost-effective upgrade options as possible solutions, as shown in Table 3-12.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
Line length 57 miles 63.5 miles 94.0 miles 62.0 miles
*NRW – new right of way Taking into consideration station upgradeability, length of lines needed to be constructed and ability to get a right of way access the recommended option is Option 4. Screening analysis showed that there almost identical flow violations regardless which option was chosen, as shown in Table 3-13 and Table 3-13. Salopek – Arroyo 115 kV line showed slight overload for option 4 in 2013 but no overloads in 2015 so it was omitted from the list of overloaded facilities.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
26
Table 3-13: Remaining 2013 N-1 Flow Violations for all Upgrade Options
Post-Project and all above mentioned upgrades in service
Remaining 2013 N-1 Flow Violations for the peak case with Ft. Craig pst at 60 MW With Cluster Projects
Notes: 1. Results in the table above demonstrate impact on remaining flow violations for all upgrade options (Ft. Craig pst at 60 N-S) 2. Overloaded elements identified as post-project N-0, as well as pre-project N-1, 2013 flow violations were not included in this table. 3. Overloaded elements which have operating procedure in place were not included in this table.
Table 3-14: Remaining 2015 N-1 Flow Violations for all Upgrade Options
Post-Project and all above mentioned upgrades in service
Remaining 2015 N-1 Flow Violations for the peak case with Ft. Craig pst at 60 MW With Cluster Projects
Notes: 1. Results in the table above demonstrate impact on remaining flow violations for all upgrade options (Ft. Craig pst at 60 N-S) 2. Overloaded elements identified as post-project N-0, as well as pre-project N-1, 2015 flow violations were not included in this table. 3. Overloaded elements which have operating procedure in place were not included in this table.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
27
3.3.5 Caliente 345/115 kV Transformers
Loads fed off of Lane and Vista 115 kV stations are electrically very close to the Caliente 345 kV station causing one of Caliente 345/115 kV transformers to overload for the loss of the other one. Recommendation is to add a 2nd 345/115 kV transformer to Picante 345 kV station, which is fairly new and also electrically very close to the mentioned load centers. Furthermore, two brand new 115 kV 556.5 ACSS lines need to be built from Picante 115 kV station towards Vista 115 kV station. Line 1 – To start at Picante and end at Vista station following existing Picante – Biggs – GR – Vista right of way. This line will be 115 kV line with 556.5 ACSS conductor rated at 262 MVA. Line 2 - To start at Picante station, go all the way to Vista station following existing Picante – Biggs – GR – Vista right of way, and be tapped into the existing Scottsdale -Vista 115 kV line where the line heads south into Scottsdale Substation. This will eliminate the existing Vista – Scottsdale 115 kV line (rated at 117 MVA), and create new Picante – Scottsdale 115 kV line. This new line will be down-rated to 117 MVA because of the rating of the existing Vista – Scottsdale line. Figure 3-3 demonstrates proposed 115 kV Picante – Vista upgrades.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
28
Figure 3-3: Picante to Vista 115 kV Diagram
Picante
Caliente
Vista Scottsdale
Sol
GR
Briggs
Pipeline/ Newman
Vista
New Double Circuit 5.5
Reconductor 3.9 Miles
Reconductor 1.7 Miles
Existing Double Circuit 1.7
Reconductor 2 Miles
Reconductor 2.1 Miles
Bring new double circuit from Picante and tap Vista Scottsdale line with one circuit going to Scottsdale and the other terminating at Vista for the following new circuits:
1. Picante - Vista 2. Picante - Scottsdale
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
29
3.3.6 Salopek –Arroyo 115 kV Line
The analysis results show that Salopek – Arroyo 115 kV line overloads (to up to 106% of its emergency rating) for the loss of Las Cruces – Arroyo 115 kV line in all 2012 peak cases. This overload shows again in 2013 but only in the peak case when phase shifting transformer is at 60 MW (north to south) and Eddy County HVDC tie supplying 200 MW to the Artesia 345 kV bus. In 2015 results, Salopek – Arroyo 115 kV line does not show overloads for any of the contingencies. Therefore, Salopek – Arroyo line was omitted from the list of overloaded facilities impacted by Cluster projects.
3.3.7 Lane 115/69 kV Transformer
Analysis showed that Lane 115/69 kV transformer, with normal and emergency rating at 100 MVA, overloads for the loss of Afton – Luna 345 kV line, Pendale – Lane 115 kV line, Sparks – Felipe 69 kV line or proposed Scottsdale – Picante 115 kV line to up to 114% of its emergency/normal rating. Lane 115/69 kV transformer showed overloads regarding the proposed solution for the transformer overloads at Caliente. Recommendation is to reevaluate the emergency rating or add another 115/69 kV transformer.
3.3.8 Newman 345/115 kV Transformer
The analysis results show that after all 2011 transmission reinforcements placed in service Newman 345/115 kV transformer overload is still present in off-peak cases when Eddy County HVDC tie in service. The transformer overloads to 102% of its emergency rating for the loss of Luna – Afton 345 kV line. However, this violation is not present in 2012, 2013 and 2015. Therefore, no further actions were taken to mitigate this violation.
3.3.9 Ft. Craig 345 kV Phase Shifting Transformer
2011 base case analysis showed that the existing Ft. Craig 345 kV phase shifting transformer phase angle displacement limit (+34/-34) cannot maintain 201 MW flow from north to south for the loss of Ft. Craig - VL-TAP 345 kV line; planned replacement with the increased lower limit to -50 degrees would be insufficient since it limits flow to 156 MW north to south for the above mentioned contingency. Addition of Cluster projects requires even lower limit. Recommendation is to install a new phase shifting transformer with the angle limit of -80/ +50.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
30
Appendix D demonstrates results for the 2011 peak base case and 2011 through 2015 peak cases with Cluster projects in service for various contingencies; phase shifter controls 201 MW flow north to south.
3.4 Power Flow Analysis Conclusion
Addition of each of the Cluster Projects was carefully monitored during the power flow analysis. Few options were explored in order to find the most suitable and cost-effective solution to address power flow concerns for 345 kV Cluster Study. Recommended system upgrades that eliminate flow violations caused by addition of 1423 MW to the El Paso System are shown in Figure 3-4 and Table 3-15. Recommended 345 kV and 115 kV transmission line reinforcements are shown in Table 3-17 and Table 3-18, respectively. List of Interconnection Transmission Lines with in service dates is shown in Table 3-15. .
Table 3-17: Recommendation for 345 kV Transmission Line Upgrades
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
34
4. POI Power Factor Assessment
The objective was to test if Cluster projects with all proposed facilities in service would be able to maintain power factors at the Point of Interconnection (POI) within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging at their respective POI’s as required by FERC 661A order. The results showed that all Cluster projects under proposed reinforcements would satisfy FERC power factor design criteria. The results by study year for each of the Cluster projects can be found in Table 4-1 through Table 4-4.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
35
Table 4-1: Power Factor at AA100W POI
Power factor at AA100W POI
2011 Peak cases Off peak cases
Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off
Peak cases Off peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on
Peak cases Peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on
Peak cases Peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
36
Table 4-2: Power Factor at AWRT320W POI
Power factor at ART320W POI
2011 Peak cases Off peak cases
Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off
Peak cases Off peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on
Peak cases Peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on
Peak cases Peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
37
Table 4-3: Power Factor at NM805W POI
Power factor at NM805W POI
2011 Peak cases Off peak cases
Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off
Peak cases Off peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on
Peak cases Peak cases Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
38
Table 4-3: Power Factor at NM805W POI (Continued)
Power factor at NM805W POI
2015 Peak cases Off peak cases
Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off
Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 10 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 60 n-s HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off HVDC on HVDC off
Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s Ft. Craig Pst @ 201 n-s HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on HVDC on
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
39
5. Steady State Voltage Analysis
A bus voltage delta comparison was performed using the contingency results with and without the 345 kV Cluster Study projects implemented. The established voltage Performance Criterion found in Table 1-1 was used for evaluating voltage impacts. If the acceptable bus voltage criteria under contingency conditions were not exceeded, then the bus voltages monitored were found to be acceptable.
In reviewing the Base Cases, a few voltage violations were found under the steady state N-0 condition and were consistent for all base cases 2011-2015. Worst Base (Pre-Cluster) Case voltage violations were documented in Table 5-1. After reviewing the Post- Cluster Project Cases, no additional N-0 voltage violations were found, while voltage levels at the buses previously identified N-0 pre-project voltage violations stayed very close to or were improved over the pre-project cases values, as shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: N-0 Voltage Violations
Bus Name Voltage Area
Pre-Cluster Project
(pu)
Post-Cluster Project
(pu) FARMER 69 kV 11 0.946 within limits
RGC_LOBO 69 kV 11 0.941 within limits
MIMBERS 115 kV 10 1.051 within limits
MORIARTY 115 kV 10 0.942 0.944
ESTANCIA 115 kV 10 0.942 0.945
TAIBANS 345 kV 10 1.060 1.060
BUFORD_T 115 kV 10 0.944 0.945
BUFORD 115 kV 10 0.943 0.945
SOCORRO 69 kV 11 1.051 within limits
VALLEY 69 kV 11 1.054 1.051
VANBUREN 69 kV 10 0.941 0.941
LA_JARA 115 kV 10 1.053 1.054
YORKCANY 115 kV 10 0.943 within limits
LB_INT 115 kV 10 1.059 1.051
ALAMO 69 kV 11 1.061 1.062
FABENS 69 kV 11 1.054 1.054
FELIPE 69 kV 11 1.051 1.051
GUADALUPE 345 kV 10 1.055 1.056
OJO 345 kV 10 1.051 1.051
TAOS 345 kV 10 1.052 1.052
ARRIBA_T 115 kV 10 1.051 within limits
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
40
For contingency (N-1) conditions with the 345 kV Cluster Study projects and transmission reinforcements implemented, bus voltages were monitored for all peak and off peak cases 2011-15. The results show that all bus voltages remained within Criteria EXCEPT for:
Elephant Butte 115 kV bus for the loss of San Juan – Rio Puerco 345 kV line. Recommendation is to install 15 MVAR cap.
Various buses (as shown in Table 5-2) for the partial or entire loss of generation at NM805W, ART320W or LEF; voltages exceeded the acceptable limit specified in Table 1-1. List of affected buses and recommendations to eliminate voltage violations caused by the loss of generation are showed in Table 5-2 through Table 5-4. Necessary transmission reinforcements to maintain system voltage performance within acceptable ranges is shown in Table 5-5.
Table 5-2: Voltage regulation due to loss of generation at NM805W
Contingency Affected
345 kV buses Affected
115 kV buses Recommendation
Loss of 3 or more units (322+ MW) at
NM805W (Cluster project)
Hidalgo HL120W Luna Newman ART320W LEF Amrad B South
Hermanas Hondale Luna Mimbres Hermanat Kindromor Demtap 1 Demgoldt Demtap 2 Amrad Arroyo Joranda Largo Mar Oro Gran Appollos LE 1 Hondale Luna Mimbres
Switch in Luna-Hidalgo 3 x 50 MVAR shunts
Switch in Hidalgo-South 2 x 54 MVAR shunts
Switch in South-Hidalgo 2 x 50 MVAR shunts
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
41
Table 5-3: Voltage regulation due to loss of generation at ART320W
Amrad Biggs Coyote Caliente Hatch Holloman Loranda Lane Largo Las Cruces Mar Montwood Pelocano Oro Gran RGC_DC Salopek Scottsdale Pendale Sol Spark Appollos LE 1 White Sands Wrangler Picante Hermanas Hondale Luna Mimbres Alampogpg Alampogcp Dona Ana Hollywood# Picacho Gavilan Ruidoso Hermanas Kindromor Demtap 1 Demgoldt Demtap 2 Airpor_t C-canyon Cox Appolo
Switch in ART320W-Artesia 54 MVAR shunt
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
42
Table 5-4: Voltage regulation due to loss of generation at LEF
Location Controlling kV MVAR In Service Shunts Hidalgo – South Ckt.1 Hidalgo 345 54 2011 Hidalgo – South Ckt.2 Hidalgo 345 54 South – Hidalgo Ckt.1 South 345 50 2011 South – Hidalgo Ckt.2 South 345 50 Luna – Hidalgo Ckt.2 Luna 345 50 2011 Luna – Hidalgo Ckt.3 Luna 345 50 Corona – NM805RS1 Corona 345 54 2011 NM805W – NM805RS2 NM805W 345 54 2011 ART320W – Artesia ART320W 345 54 2011 Artesia – AA100W Artesia 345 50 2011 Artesia – AA100W HVDC terminal 345 2 × -30 2011 El Butte El Butte 115 10 2011 SVDs Hidalgo Hidalgo 345 +50/-100 2011 NM805RS1 NM805RS1 345 +125/-300 2011 NM805RS2 NM805RS2 345 +125/-300 2011 Corona Corona 345 +150/-250 2011
Addition of ART320W causes low voltages at Hidalgo and Greenlee. Therefore, an SVD at Hidalgo 345 kV station is needed. Furthermore, temporary VAR support addition of 50 MVARs at Amrad 345 kV station might be needed if ART320W in service, Eddy County HVDC off and Corona station (Corona-Amrad Ckt. 1&2) NOT built. It is to be expected that voltages at some points along the Corona – NM805W 345 kV line to reach or go slightly above 1.05 p.u. due to extremely long length of the Corona – NM805W line (300 + miles). All the equipment should be carefully selected and to be accounted for such possibilities.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
43
AA100W and ART320W 345 kV station equipment is expected to experience voltages close to 1.05 p.u. since Artesia 345 kV station voltage level is around 1.05 p.u. For all Cluster Projects, it is recommended to keep scheduled voltages on the GSUs low side at 1.0 p.u. Voltage Analysis Conclusions Recommended transmission system reinforcements for the 345 kV Cluster Project resulted in EPE/Cluster Study area transmission network voltage levels within Criteria and/or without significant changes from the pre-project voltage levels.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
44
6. Short-Circuit Analysis
The interconnection of new generating units into a transmission system increases the fault current contribution into the system. Therefore, as part of this “345 kV Cluster SIS”, (SIS) a short circuit analysis was performed to determine if the additional fault current contribution from the new Interconnection Customers into the EPE transmission system will cause any of EPE’s or relevant neighboring transmission system’s existing substation circuit breakers to exceed their interrupting capability ratings.
6.1 Short Circuit Analysis Modeling
Two cases were developed to perform this analysis, one with and one without the “345 kV Cluster Generation”. Any planned or proposed third party generation listed in EPE’s study queue ahead of the 345 kV Cluster Generation were also modeled in the two cases.
A study case that combines projects with interconnection points in the same vicinity within the EPE transmission system that are listed in the EPE Generation Interconnection queue was developed. The SIS case also contains the 345 kV and 115 kV transmission lines and transformers of the proposed system reinforcements which are described below in Table 6-1 through Table 6-4. The modeling data of the Cluster Generation is described in Table 6-5.
The projects included in this SIS were analyzed at their maximum MW output levels. This analysis evaluated the impact of the new generation interconnection projects by comparing fault current levels in the benchmark system (without the Cluster projects) to fault current levels in the system modeling the Cluster Projects at their maximum output level.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
46
Table 6-5: 345 kV Cluster Generator Short Circuit Modeling Data
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
47
6.2 Short Circuit Analysis Procedure
The initial short circuit analysis was performed without the 345 kV Cluster Generation projects modeled and with all other third-party generation projects ahead of the 345 kV Cluster Generation projects in the study queue in service. This identified the “base case” fault duties of the circuit breakers. The short circuit analysis was performed again with the 345 kV Cluster Generation projects actively modeled in the case.
Three phase, two phase, and single-phase line-to-ground faults were simulated at select buses in the El Paso Electric Co. System with terminal voltages at 69 kV and above. The difference between the fault current values in the two cases shows the impact of the Cluster generation on the existing circuit breakers in the EPE system.
Fault currents were monitored at select buses of the EPE Transmission System and relevant buses of the nearby local transmission systems. The resulting fault currents were then compared to the circuit breaker interruption ratings of the breakers at each of the substations.
6.3 Results of the Short Circuit Analysis
The highest short circuit fault currents for the selected buses monitored for impacts are shown below in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6: Cluster Study Short Circuit Summary Results
Bus Fault On:
Lowest Breaker
Rating (kA)1 Fault
Pre Project Current
(Amperes)2
Pre X/R2
Post Project Current
(Amperes)
Post X/R
Delta (Amperes)
% Change
AA100W 345 kV
40
3LG * * 6476.5 22.7
2LG 5831.3 23.2
1LG 5062.7 24.1
Afton 345 kV 40
3LG 9740.1 29.8 13363.6 26.8 3623.5 37.2%
2LG 9593.3 29.0 12796.1 26.1 3202.8 33.4%
1LG 9058.2 27.8 11496.3 24.6 2438.1 26.9%
AMRAD 345 kV
40
3LG 3893.4 10.9 9710 15.9 5816.6 149.4%
2LG 3742.5 14.3 9073 17.7 5330.5 142.4%
1LG 3425.4 16.4 7819 20.3 4393.6 128.3%
AMRAD 115 kV
40
3LG 7664.2 13.7 10608.7 23.1 2944.5 38.4%
2LG 7259 18.6 10111.3 27.6 2852.3 39.3%
1LG 6555.5 21.6 9279.8 31.6 2724.3 41.6%
ARROYO 345 kV
40
3LG 7911.8 14.1 13093.3 20.8 5181.5 65.5%
2LG 7853.6 14.3 12595.8 19.5 4742.2 60.4%
1LG 7543.5 14.5 11464 16.8 3920.5 52.0%
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
48
Bus Fault On:
Lowest Breaker
Rating (kA)1 Fault
Pre Project Current
(Amperes)2
Pre X/R2
Post Project Current
(Amperes)
Post X/R
Delta (Amperes)
% Change
ARROYO 115 kV
22
3LG 16858.9 16.8 21252.2 25.7 4393.3 26.1%
2LG 16206.2 17.5 20118.7 25.0 3912.5 24.1%
1LG 15121 18.4 18222.5 23.7 3101.5 20.5%
ART320W 345 kV
40
3LG * * 5881.7 38.1
2LG 5413.1 38.8
1LG 4993.2 39.6
ARTESIA 345 kV
40
3LG 1642.5 9.7 5969.4 15.5 4326.9 263.4%
2LG 1510.5 9.1 5309.4 14.0 3798.9 251.5%
1LG 1048 6.2 4105.6 7.7 3057.6 291.8%
CALIENTE 345 kV
40
3LG 7606 14.9 11205.9 17.4 3599.9 47.3%
2LG 7747.4 18.7 10864 20.1 3116.6 40.2%
1LG 7794.1 19.6 10193.8 22.3 2399.7 30.8%
CALIENTE 115 kV
40
3LG 17949.2 15.6 19659.4 18.6 1710.2 9.5%
2LG 19503.6 18.8 20266.7 21.4 763.1 3.9%
1LG 20200.9 19.0 20509.9 22.4 309 1.5%
CORONA 345 kV
40
3LG * * 13520.3 23.4
2LG 13250 21.2
1LG 12515.3 17.3
DIABLO 345 kV
40
3LG 6304.9 17.6 6691.5 16.7 386.6 6.1%
2LG 6140.2 22.9 6449.5 21.8 309.3 5.0%
1LG 5895.1 25.2 6107.8 24.4 212.7 3.6%
DIABLO 115 kV
31
3LG 21876.9 16.7 23167.1 15.9 1290.2 5.9%
2LG 21967.5 20.8 23001.7 19.9 1034.2 4.7%
1LG 22010.9 22.1 22817.5 21.4 806.6 3.7%
FT CR PST 345 kV
40
3LG 5903.2 17.2 6059.8 17.4 156.6 2.7%
2LG 5792.5 14.8 5933.9 15.1 141.4 2.4%
1LG 4130.1 4.1 4191.3 4.0 61.2 1.5%
FT CRAIG 345 kV
40
3LG 8714.9 13.9 9334.7 13.7 619.8 7.1%
2LG 8134.8 12.5 8658.4 12.4 523.6 6.4%
1LG 5776 6.0 5983.1 5.9 207.1 3.6%
HIDALGO 345 kV
40
3LG 9411 12.4 17653.6 19.8 8242.6 87.6%
2LG 8898.6 19.3 16664.4 29.2 7765.8 87.3%
1LG 7932.5 21.5 14718.3 33.4 6785.8 85.5%
LUNA 345 kV
40
3LG 14093.6 29.9 18693.5 26.9 4599.9 32.6%
2LG 14245.6 37.9 18391.3 34.3 4145.7 29.1%
1LG 14210.4 40.1 17727.4 37.4 3517 24.7%
LUNA 115 kV
20 3LG 10782.7 23.2 11258.2 22.6 475.5 4.4%
2LG 12207.3 30.4 12661.9 29.8 454.6 3.7%
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
49
Bus Fault On:
Lowest Breaker
Rating (kA)1 Fault
Pre Project Current
(Amperes)2
Pre X/R2
Post Project Current
(Amperes)
Post X/R
Delta (Amperes)
% Change
1LG 12538.2 29.3 12980.6 28.8 442.4 3.5%
NEWMAN 345 kV
50
3LG 9940.6 24.3 13334.4 25.0 3393.8 34.1%
2LG 10063.9 23.1 13078.8 23.4 3014.9 30.0%
1LG 9809.4 21.4 12312.9 20.8 2503.5 25.5%
NEWMAN 115 kV
50
3LG 33708.8 53.5 37266 50.8 3557.2 10.6%
2LG 39078.0 49.2 42417.5 47.1 3339.5 8.5%
1LG 40821.2 47.6 44061.4 45.6 3240.2 7.9%
NM805W 345 kV
40
3LG * * 11104.5 39.5
2LG 10425.4 39.3
1LG 9614.4 39.2
PICANTE 345 kV
40
3LG 8233.4 17.0 11804.5 18.0 3571.1 43.4%
2LG 8365.5 18.3 11425 20.7 3059.5 36.6%
1LG 8255.5 19.3 10766.5 22.9 2511 30.4%
RIO GRANDE
115 kV 40
3LG 24011.5 20.9 25511.3 19.8 1499.8 6.2%
2LG 24613 21.9 25886.8 20.9 1273.8 5.2%
1LG 25052.7 22.6 26052.6 21.7 999.9 4.0%
RIO GRANDE 69
kV 40
3LG 21656.5 27.8 22283.1 27.0 626.6 2.9%
2LG 24614.7 35.5 25189.5 34.7 574.8 2.3%
1LG 25614.1 34.2 26156.9 33.5 542.8 2.1%
SLPOI 345 kV
40
3LG 9341.1 16.0 10363.2 14.8 1022.1 10.9%
2LG 8680.9 14.5 9538.2 13.6 857.3 9.9%
1LG 6541.6 8.0 6903.3 7.6 361.7 5.5%
SLPOICAP 345 kV
40
3LG 17029.0 8.4 25106.2 5.8 8077.2 47.4%
2LG 15241.4 8.1 21729.8 5.7 6488.4 42.6%
1LG 9201.9 5.5 10534.2 4.8 1332.3 14.5%
SOUTH 345 kV
40
3LG 10353.3 11.5 13812.2 12.6 3458.9 33.4%
2LG 10571.3 15.9 13735.6 17.7 3164.3 29.9%
1LG 9897.7 16.1 12325 18.7 2427.3 24.5%
VL-TAP 345 kV
40
3LG 9558.1 11.4 9912.6 11.2 354.5 3.7%
2LG 8718.0 10.6 9007.6 10.4 289.6 3.3%
1LG 5493.1 5.6 5576.7 5.6 83.6 1.5%
Z345 345 kV 40
3LG 4995.3 57.1 5064.1 56.5 68.8 1.4%
2LG 5169.2 54.7 5227.4 54.2 58.2 1.1%
1LG 5300.8 52.6 5351 52.2 50.2 0.9% Notes: 1) Any NEW circuit breakers required the results of QP1, QP2, or the Cluster Generation will have a 'lowest
breaker ratings' were assumed to be 40kA (highlighted/ RED text). 2) * Faulted bus not available Pre-project.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
50
6.4 Short Circuit Analysis Conclusions
The results of this short circuit study show that the maximum fault current with the Cluster Study projects active do not exceed the breaker interrupting capability of any breaker in the EPE or neighboring transmission system. Therefore no replacement of existing circuit breakers on the EPE transmission systems will be required.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
51
7. Stability Analysis
Stability analysis was performed for peak and off-peak load conditions to determine the impact of the 345 kV Cluster Project on the EPE Transmission System. This analysis evaluated the performance of the system for selected contingencies, provided by EPE, and addressed issues including, but not limited to, transient stability, dynamic stability (i.e. damping) and low voltage ride through. The simulations were conducted with the PSLF power flow and dynamic simulation software, General Electric, Inc. PSLF load flow software package, Version 17.8. Dynamic stability simulations were conducted on peak and off-peak load conditions with the Cluster projects units off and on at full capacity.
7.1 Dynamics Modeling
EPE provided a list of contingencies along with the base cases and dynamic file data base for this part of the study. The Interconnection Customers provided the detailed model data sheets or the parameters to be used. If the parameters were not provided, typical values were then used. Table 7-1 below shows the models used.
Table 7-1: Generator Models Used for Studies
Project Turbine Type Notes PSLF Generic
ART320W GE 2.5 MW Full Converter Model
standard GEWTG
AA100W GE 1.5 MW DFIG Model standard with
PSLF Assume LVRT II
GEWTG
NM805W Siemens
VS 2.3 MW
Full Converter Generator Interconnection Customer
has provided modeling data for PSLF/WECC Generic
Model.
WT4G
HL198W GE 1.5 MW DFIG Model standard with
PSLF Assume LVRT II
GEWTG
Four base cases were used to simulate Peak and Off-Peak conditions and to simulate the time frame for Commercial In-Service Dates (CID). These were modified to include the 345 kV Cluster generation projects and are the same cases that were used for the Steady State Analysis. The analysis compares the system fault simulations before and after the Cluster generation projects are added. The bases cases used are found in Table 7-2.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
52
Table 7-2: Stability Base Case Scenarios
Descriptions
Year Peak Case OFF- Peak Case
Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S Eddy County HVDC ON Eddy County HVDC ON
2012 X X 2015 X X
7.2 NM805W Initial Issues
The stability analysis showed distinct wave form distortion that was consistent for N-0 or non-disturbance conditions. Figure 7-1 documents the distortion.
Figure 7-1: EPE 345 kV Bus Voltages for Non-Disturbance 20 Second Start
All cluster generation was then load netted and then brought back to the system one project at a time to determine the project responsible for this distortion.
It was determined the generation for NM805W was responsible for the distortion. A number of mitigations were studied and the only solution that will provide satisfactory results is to add second 300-mile 345 kV line from the NM805W Project Site to the POI at Corona. The reason for the distortion is that a resonant RLC circuit is setup by the 300-mile transmission line and the most effective AC solution to correct this is to reduce
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
53
the impedance between the NM805W project and the POI. Therefore a second line is added. Figure 7-2 documents the EPE 345 kV bus voltages after the second 345 kV line added. Because of the long length of interconnection transmission lines at Corona, an SVC or STATCOM will be required to mitigate voltage violations due to contingencies. Also the SVC/STACOMS at the two reactor stations need to be sized at +200/-300 MVAR.
Figure 7-2: EPE 345 kV Bus Voltages for Non-Disturbance 20 Second Start After 2nd NM805W- Corona 345 kV Transmission Line
Another solution, that was not studied, is to make the transmission line from NM805W to Corona an HVDC transmission line. This will require an HVDC converter station and the POI and at the NM805W project site. HVDC solution would not only be better technical solution but it might make more economical sense for the Interconnection Customer.
Loss of all the generation whether to a fault or sudden drop in wind speed was carefully studied. Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4 show the 345 kV bus frequencies and local EPE generator angles for a fault at the proposed Corona Switching Station, clearing in 4 cycles with a trip of both NM805W 345 kV lines. Running the PSLF Worst Case Analysis module on these faults also show that there are not any criteria violations.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
54
Figure 7-3: EPE 345 kV Bus Frequencies for Fault at Corona and Loss of Both NM805W - Corona Lines
Figure 7-4: EPE Local Generation Angles for Fault at Corona and Loss of Both NM805W - Corona Lines
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
55
7.3 Stability Analysis Results
System stability was analyzed for seventy-one contingencies, relevant to the Projects POI and Study Area, with and without the 345 kV Cluster Project for peak and off peak base case load conditions. Table 7-3 lists the contingencies studied as well as the results of being stable or unstable. The results show that the area remains stable for all contingencies and for all cases listed in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3: Contingency List for Stability Studies for both Peak and Off-Peak Cases
67 No Fault HL198W 345 kV 4 cycles Loss of all Generation Stable Stable
68 3-Phase TEP South 345 kV 4 cycles South – Hidalgo 345 kV #1 Stable Stable
69 3-Phase TEP South 345 kV 4 cycles South – Pinal West 345 kV Stable Stable
70 3-Phase TEP South 345 kV 4 cycles South - Vail Stable Stable
71 No Fault ART320W 345 kV 4 cycles Loss of all generation Stable Stable
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
57
The stability plots of these faults can be found in Appendix F. Worst Condition Analysis did not reveal any frequency or voltage criteria violations as the result of the Cluster generation. This output can be found in Appendix E
7.4 Low Voltage Ride Through Analysis
All wind generating plants subject to FERC Order No. 661 must meet the following Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) criteria: Wind generating plants are required to remain in-service during three-phase
faults with normal clearing (which is a time period of approximately 4-9 cycles) and single line to ground faults with delayed clearing, and subsequent post-fault voltage recovery to pre-fault voltage unless clearing the fault effectively disconnects the generator from the system. The clearing time requirement for a three-phase fault will be specific to the wind generating plant substation location, as determined and documented by the Transmission Owner for the Transmission District to which the wind generating plant will be interconnected. The maximum clearing time the wind generating plant shall be required to withstand for a three-phase fault shall be 9 cycles, after which, if the fault remains following the location-specific normal clearing time for three-phase faults, the wind generating plant may disconnect from the transmission system. A wind generating plant shall remain interconnected during such a fault on the transmission system for a voltage level as low as zero volts, as measured at the high voltage side of the wind GSU.
This requirement does not apply to faults that would occur between the wind generator terminals and the high side of the GSU.
Wind generating plants may be tripped after the fault period if this action is intended as part of a special protection system.
Wind generating plants may meet the LVRT requirements of this standard by the performance of the generators, or, by installing additional equipment (e.g., Static Var Compensator) within the wind generating plant, or, by a combination of generator performance and additional equipment.
Existing individual generator units that are, or have been, interconnected to the network at the same location at the effective date of the FERC Order No. 661 Appendix G, LVRT Standard, are exempt from meeting the FERC Order No. 661 Appendix G, LVRT Standard, for the remaining life of the existing generation equipment. Existing individual generator units that are replaced are required to meet FERC Order No. 661 Appendix G LVRT Standard.
The fault clearing times used in the stability analysis include relay operating time, breaker operating time, channel time, and breaker failure time, as necessary.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
58
7.4.1 LVRT Results
The ability of the Cluster generation to stay on-line due to contingencies at the Cluster generation POI is a requirement of both the FERC and EPE. From the contingency list in Table 7-3, faults were simulated at all POI’s. The results show that all Cluster Generation remain on-line for faults at their respective POI’s.
7.5 Stability Analysis Conclusion
The study area remains stable and well damped for all the contingencies analyzed. The Cluster Generation remains on-line for all system fault simulations, satisfying FERC Order No. 661 Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) criteria.
The 345 kV Cluster Project addition to the system with proposed transmission reinforcements in place does not pose any concern to system stability performance.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
59
8. Cost Estimates
Good faith cost estimates have been determined. The cost estimates are in 2010 dollars (no escalation applied) and are based upon typical construction costs for previously performed similar construction. These estimated costs include all applicable labor and overheads associated with the engineering, design, and construction of these new facilities. These estimates did not include the cost for any other Interconnection Customer owned equipment or associated design and engineering except for those located at the POI’s.
The estimated total cost for the required upgrades is $929.14 Million. This breaks down to $7.86 Million for the EPE Interconnection Cost6 and $921.30 Million for Network Upgrades Cost7. The Generator Interconnection Cost8 estimates are not included. Figure 8-1 shows the cost per element.
The estimated time frame for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction of Network Upgrades is 5 years upon notice to proceed with construction from the Interconnection Customers. The estimated time frame for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction is 2 years for the POI Substations or expansion at existing substations. Therefore; it is not possible to meet the requested Commercial In-Service Dates as requested by the interconnection customers. Appendix H shows the project schedules of all projects. It is assumed that all projects for Network upgrades will start at the same time. Any sequencing will delay the overall completion date. A time frame for permitting all projects assumed best case scenarios. Should the NEPA process be delayed on any section, this will also delay the final completion date.
At this time it is not possible to meet the requested 2011 In-service dates based upon typical times frames allowed in the EPE OATT. Other means of accelerating these projects will have to be discussed during the Facility Study Process. Therefore it is not feasible for Network Upgrades to meet the requested in-service of the Cluster Study Interconnection Customers.
The cost responsibilities associated with these facilities shall be handled as per current FERC guidelines, EPE OATT, and the FERC Waiver.
Tables and one-line diagrams in this section of the report show the 345 kV Cluster Study interconnection projects, their POI, associated EPE Interconnection facilities, Network Upgrades, and estimated costs.
Table 8-1 and
6 EPE Interconnection Cost: Cost of faculties paid for by interconnector but owned and operated by EPE
from the Change of Ownership Point to the Point of Interconnection. Not subject to transmission credits. 7 Network Upgrades Cost: Cost of facilities from the Point of Interconnection outward, paid for by the
interconnector but owned and operated by EPE. Subject to transmission credits. 8 Generator Interconnection Cost: Cost of facilities paid for by interconnector and owned and operated by the
interconnector from the generator faculties to the Change of Ownership Point, which is typically at the Point of Interconnection substation first dead-end. Not subject to transmission credits.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
60
Table 8-2 summarize the costs allocated for each interconnection project and element, respectively. The responsibilities for Network Upgrades are assigned based upon the MW pro rata share of the total 1423 MW injected onto the system. For example if an Interconnection Customer is proposing a 100 MW project, the Interconnection Customer’s Network Upgrades cost will be ratio of 100/1423 times the total cost of Network Upgrades. Table 8-3 through Table 8-16 detail the individual project costs for Network Upgrades.
Table 8-1: Estimated Costs by Interconnection Project
Project Name
Size (MW)
IN-SERVICE
DATE
INTERCONNECTION POINT
EPE Interconnection
Facilities (Millions)
Network Upgrades Pro Rata (Millions)
Total Cost
(Millions)
ART320W 320 9/2011 Artesia (Eddy County HVDC) 345 kV West bus
$0.70 $207.18 $207.88
AA100W 60 40
12/2010 6/2011
65 miles east of Amrad substation on Amrad-Artesia 345 kV line
$0.71 $64.75 $65.46
NM805W 805 12/2011 Corona 345 kV bus $5.60 $521.18 $526.78
HL198W 99 99
5/2013 5/2015
Hidalgo-Luna 345 kV line 4-miles east of Hidalgo Substation
$0.85 $128.19 $129.04
TOTAL MW
1423 Total Costs $7.86 $921.30 $929.16
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
61
Table 8-2: Estimated Costs by Element
EPE Interconnection
$ Million
Network Upgrade $ Million
Total
$ Million Artesia Station 0.70 16.42 17.12 Amrad Station - 12.00 12.00 AA100W Station 0.71 9.90 10.61 Corona Station 5.60 71.38 76.98 Picante Station - 13.17 13.17 Afton Station - 4.25 4.25 Arroyo Station - 13.87 13.87 Luna Station - 13.10 13.10 Hidalgo Station 0.85 50.16 51.01 South Station 13.94 13.94 345 kV Line Construction - 694.27 694.27 115 kV Line Construction - 2.62 2.62 115 kV Line Reconductoring - 6.20 6.20
Cost Summary 929.14 Note: Cost estimates differ due to rounding error.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
62
Figure 8-1: Cost Details per Element
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
63
Table 8-3: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for ART320W POI
Element Description Cost Est. Millions
Artesia/Eddy County POI
EPE Interconnection Facilities located at Artesia/Eddy County POI:
One Set of 345 kV 3-Phase Metering Units and structures
One lot switch and metering structures One lot, grounding, concrete transmission line relaying, communication, and
testing One set of Transmission Line Dead-end Assemblies
for Substation Dead-end
$0.70
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
28 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
64
Figure 8-2: ART320W POI One line
Interconnection Customer’s
Point of Interconnection
Interconnection Customer’s 345 kV Transmission Line
70 Miles
Revenue Metering
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades EPE Interconnection Facilities Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
N S
E
W Eddy County/Artesia 345 kV Substation
ART320W (320 MW)
160 MW
34.5/345 kV 227 MVA (Typical)
To 200 MW Eddy County
HVDC Tie
To AA100W
POI 59 Miles
160 MW
M
50 MVAR REACTOR
50 MVAR REACTOR
2 x 30 MVAR CAPACITORS
To AMRAD
124 miles
54 MVAR REACTOR
30 MVAR CAPACITOR
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
65
Table 8-4: Network Upgrades Costs for ART320W POI
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions Artesia/Eddy County POI 345 kV Substation
New 345 kV two section Breaker and a half bus Substation at the Artesia/Eddy County 345 kV HVDC Station bus. The new equipment required includes:
Six 345 kV 3000 Amp circuit breakers Twelve 345 kV 3000 Amp disconnect switches One 50 MVAR Shunt Reactor One 30 MVAR Shunt Capacitor Two 345 kV 2000 Amp Line Switches w/Grounding
Switch Two 345 kV 2000 Amp circuit breakers Two 345 kV, 2000 Amp disc. switches Twelve CCVT’s and Structures Four 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps Twenty-one Lightning arresters and Structures Four sets of Transmission Line Dead-end Assemblies
for Substation Dead-end One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$16.42
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
28 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
66
Table 8-5: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for AA100W POI
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions AA100W POI Radial Interconnection Facilities located on the Amrad-
Artesia 345 kV Line:
One Set of 345 kV 3-Phase Metering Units and structures
One lot switch and metering structures One lot, grounding, concrete transmission line relaying, communication, and
testing One set of Transmission Line Dead-end Assemblies
for Substation Dead-end
$0.71
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
25 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
67
Figure 8-3: AA100W POI One-line
Interconnection Customer’s
Point of Interconnection
To AMRAD Substation
65 Miles
34.5/345 kV 125 MVA
Interconnection Customer’s 345 kV Transmission Line
500 Feet
Revenue Metering
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades Required for Interconnection EPE Interconnection Facilities Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
N S
E
W Guadalupe Mountain
POI 345 kV Substation
60 MW
40 MW
M
AA100W
Optional Connection of new 345 kV
Line if studies require this.
Otherwise line will pass through
substation on way to Amrad
To Artesia
59 miles
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
68
Table 8-6: Network Upgrades Costs for AA100W
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions AA100W 345 kV Substation
New two section Breaker and a half bus 345 kV Substation on the Amrad-Artesia 345 kV Line. The new equipment required includes:
Five 345 kV 3000 Amp circuit breakers Ten 345 kV, 3000 Amp switches Three 345 kV 2000 Amp Line Switches w/Grounding
Switch Nine CCVT’s and Structures Two 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps Three sets of Transmission Line Dead-end
Assemblies for Substation Dead-end Nine Lightning arresters and Structures One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$9.90
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
25 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
69
Table 8-7: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for NM805W POI
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions NM805W POI at Corona Station 345 kV Bus
Radial Interconnection Facilities located at Corona 345 kV Station:
Two Set of 345 kV 3-Phase Metering Units and structures
Two 54 MVAR Reactor shunts Two 345 kV 2000 Amp circuit breakers Two 345 kV, 2000 Amp disc. switches Six Lightning arresters and Structures One lot switch and metering structures One lot, grounding, concrete transmission line relaying, communication, and
testing
$5.60
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
45 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
70
Figure 8-4: NM805W POI and Corona Station One-line
Switch Twenty six CCVT’s and Structures Eight 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps Thirty-three Lightning arresters and Structures Eleven sets of Transmission Line Dead-end
Assemblies for Substation Dead-end One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$71.38
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
45 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
72
Table 8-9: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for HL198W POI
Element Description Cost Est. Millions
HL198W POI at Hidalgo 345 kV Substation
Radial Interconnection Facilities at Hidalgo 345 kV station:
One Set of 345 kV 3-Phase Metering Units and structures
One lot switch and metering structures One lot, grounding, concrete transmission line relaying, communication, and
testing
$0.85
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
44 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
73
Figure 8-5: HL198W POI and Hidalgo Station One-line
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades Required for Interconnection Interconnection Customer Equipment Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
345 kV
345 kV
345/115/13.8 kV
To 115 kV Yard
Line #3 to Luna
50 MVAR REACTOR
50 MVAR REACTOR
EXISTING65 MVAR
REACTOR MOVED TO THIS
POSITION
345/115/13.8 kV
Line #2 to Luna
Line #1 to Luna
M
198 MW Total
Generation
TWO 34.5/345 kV
100/167 MVA
HL198W
Interconnection Customer’s 345 kV Transmission Line
6 Miles
TO GREENLEE
Lines #1 & #2 to TEP South Substation
Revenue Metering
Interconnection Customer’s Point
of Interconnection
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
74
Table 8-10: Network Upgrades Costs for Hidalgo 345 kV Station
Element Description Cost Est. Millions
Hidalgo 345 kV Substation
Expand to 345 kV five bay breaker and a half switching station. The new equipment required includes:
Ten 345 kV 3000 Amp circuit breakers Twenty-two 345 kV 3000 Amp switches Five 345 kV 2000 Amp Line Switches w/Grounding
Switch Fourteen CCVT’s and Structures Five 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps Two 345 kV, 50 MVAR Shunt Reactors Two 345 kV 2000 Amp circuit breakers Two 345 kV, 2000 Amp switches Thirteen sets of Transmission Line Dead-end
Assemblies for Substation Dead-end One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$50.16
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
44 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
75
Figure 8-6: Amrad 345 kV Substation One-line
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades EPE Interconnection Facilities Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
EPE AMRAD Switching Station
To Corona
345 kV To
AA100W POI
345 kV
345 kV
345/13.2/115 kV To 115 kV Yard
FUTURE
S
E
W
N
Rebuild the 345 kV Ring Bus Station to a New 345 kV Breaker and a half Station on
the North side
Existing 345 kV
To Artesia 80 MVAR
Reactor
80 MVAR Reactor
Existing 345 kV
To Caliente
SVC +25/-50 MVAR
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
76
Table 8-11: Network System Upgrades Costs for Amrad 345 kV Substation
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions AMRAD 345 kV Substation
Expand existing 345 kV Yard to three bay Breaker and a Half Scheme The new equipment required includes:
Five 345 kV 3000 Amp circuit breakers Ten 345 kV, 3000 Amp switches Two 345 kV 2000 Amp Line Switches w/Grounding
Switch Nine Lightning arresters and Structures One 80 MVAR Shunt Reactor, with breaker and
disconnect switch Nine CCVT’s and Structures Two 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps Three sets of Transmission Line Dead-end
Assemblies for Substation Dead-end One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$12.00
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
45 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
77
Figure 8-7: Luna System Upgrade One-line
To LEF
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades Required for Interconnection Interconnection Customer Equipment Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
345 kV
345 kV
345/115/13.8 kV
To 115 kV Yard
To Afton
To SL99W
(Springerville) To
Diablo
Line #1 To Hidalgo
Line #2 To Hidalgo
Line #3 To Hidalgo
50 MVAR REACTOR
50 MVAR REACTOR
50 MVAR REACTOR
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
78
Table 8-12: Network System Upgrades Costs for Luna Substation
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions Luna Substation
Expand the existing 345 kV yard for connections of two new Luna-Hidalgo 345 kV lines w/ reactor shunts to a new four bay breaker and a half 345 kV yard. The new equipment required includes:
Three 345 KV 3000 Amp Circuit Breakers Three 345 KV Substation Dead-end Structures Six Lightning arresters and Structures Six 345 kV 3000 Amp Switches Two 345 kV 3000 Amp Line Switches with Motor
Operator and ground Switch Two 345 kV, 50 MVAR Shunt Reactors Two 345 kV 2000 Amp circuit breakers Two 345 kV, 2000 Amp switches Six 345 kV CCVT’s and Structures Two 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$13.10
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
32 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
79
Figure 8-8: Afton System Upgrade One-line
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades EPE Interconnection Facilities Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
Afton Station
One-line
345 kV
345 kV
S
E
W
N
Existing 345 kV To NEWMAN NEW
345 kV To ARROYO
TO AFTON GENERATION
Existing 345 kV To
LUNA
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
80
Table 8-13: Network System Upgrades Cost for Afton Substation
Element Description Cost Est. Millions
Afton Substation
Expand the existing 345 kV yard for connections of a new Arroyo-Afton 345 kV lines a new three bay breaker and a half 345 kV yard. The new equipment required includes:
Two 345 KV 3000 Amp Circuit Breakers Two 345 KV Substation Dead-end Structures Three Lightning arresters and Structures Four 345 kV 3000 Amp Switches One 345 kV 3000 Amp Line Switch with Motor
Operator and ground Switch Three 345 kV CCVT’s and Structures One 2000 Amp Line Wave Trap One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$4.25
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
22 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
81
Figure 8-9: Arroyo System Upgrade One-line
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades EPE Interconnection Facilities Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
ARRYO Switching
Station
To 345/115 kV
XFMRs
345 kV
345 kV
S
E
W
N
Rebuild the 345 kV Ring Bus Station to a New 345 kV Breaker and a half Station on
the North side
Existing 345 kV To NEWMAN
NEW 345 kV To
Corona
NEW 345 kV To
Afton
Existing 345 kV To Ft. Craig
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
82
Table 8-14: Network System Upgrades Cost for Arroyo Substation
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions Arroyo Substation
Expand the existing 345 kV yard for connections of two new Corona-Arroyo and Arroyo-Afton 345 kV lines to a new four bay breaker and a half 345 kV yard. The new equipment required includes:
Six 345 KV 3000 Amp Circuit Breakers Eight 345 KV Substation Dead-end Structures Nine Lightning arresters and Structures Sixteen 345 kV 3000 Amp Switches Four 345 kV 3000 Amp Line Switches with Motor
Operator and ground Switch Fourteen 345 kV CCVT’s and Structures Two 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$13.87
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
32 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
83
Figure 8-10: South System Upgrade One-line
To Pinal West
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades Required for Interconnection Interconnection Customer Equipment Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
345 kV
345 kV
345/138/13.8 kV
To 138 kV Yard
To VAIL
LINE #1 To HIDALGO
Line #2 To Hidalgo
68 MVAR REACTOR
50 MVAR REACTOR
To 138 kV Yard
50 MVAR REACTOR
345/138/13.8 kV
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
84
Table 8-15: Network System Upgrades Cost for South Substation
Element Description Cost Est. Millions
South Substation
Expand the existing 345 kV yard for connections of two new Hidalgo-South 345 kV lines w/ reactor shunts to a new three bay breaker and a half 345 kV yard. The new equipment required includes:
Six 345 KV 3000 Amp Circuit Breakers Four 345 KV Substation Dead-end Structures Twelve Lightning arresters and Structures Four 345 kV 3000 Amp Switches Two 345 kV 3000 Amp Line Switches with Motor
Operator and ground Switch Two 345 kV, 50 MVAR Shunt Reactors Two 345 kV 2000 Amp circuit breakers Two 345 kV, 2000 Amp switches Six 345 kV CCVT’s and Structures Two 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$13.94
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
27 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
85
Figure 8-10: Picante System Upgrade One-line
Color Code Existing Facilities Network Upgrades EPE Interconnection Facilities Located at POI Interconnection Customer Equipment
EPE PICANTE Switching Station
To Corona
345 kV
345 kV
S
E W
N
To Caliente
115/345 kV T1
115/345 kV T2
To NEWMAN/PIPELINE
To Global Reach To
Biggs To
Vista
To Scottsdale
115 kV
115 kV
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
86
Table 8-16: Network System Upgrades Cost for Picante Substation
Element Description Cost Est.
Millions Picante Substation
Add a 2nd 345/115 kV 224 MVA Autotransformer and Expand the existing 115 kV yard for connections of two new Picante-Vista and Picante-Scottsdale 115 kV lines to a new four bay breaker and a half 115 kV yard. The new equipment required includes:
One 345 KV 3000 Amp Circuit Breaker Seven 115 KV Circuit Breakers One 345 KV and three 115 kV Substation Dead-end
Structures Three 345 kV and twelve 345 kV Lightning arresters
and Structures Sixteen 345 kV 3000 Amp Switches Fourteen 345 kV 3000 Amp Switches One 345 kV and one 115 kV 2000 Amp Line
Switches with Motor Operator and ground Switch Three 345 kV and twelve 115 kV CCVT’s and
Structures Three 115 kV 2000 Amp Line Wave Traps One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural
supports One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA,
communication, and testing One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete,
conduit, cable trench, and fencing One Control Building including batteries Yard work and driveway
$13.17
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
24 Months
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
87
Table 8-17: Transmission Network System Upgrades Costs
Element Description Total miles
Cost Est. Millions
345 kV Transmission
One 345 kV Circuit from Artesia to Amrad Station 124 $105.11
One 345 kV Circuit from Amrad to a New Corona Switching Station
39.7 $33.65
One 345 kV kV Circuit from Corona to Arroyo Station 36.9 $42.34
One 345 kV kV Circuit from Arroyo to Afton Station 25 $28.77
Two 345 kV Circuits from Luna to a Hidalgo Station 100 $116.21
Two 345 kV Circuits from Hidalgo to South Station 320 $368.19
115 kV Transmission
One double circuit 115 kV line from Picante to tapping point towards Vista and Scottsdale
5.5 $2.62
Reconductor Socorrop to Elephant Butte 115 kV line with 477 ACSS 70 $3.85
Reconductor Hot Springs to Cuchillo 115 kV line with 477 ACSS 4.4 $0.24
Reconductor Dona Ana to Picacho 115 kV line with 556.6 ACSS 5.0 $0.32
Reconductor Newman-Sherman 115 kV line with 556.6 ACSS
7.3 $0.47
Reconductor NE1-Newman 115 kV line with 556.6 ACSS
2.2 $0.14
Reconductor Vista tap point to Vista 115 kV line with 556.6 ACSS
1,7 $0.11
Reconductor Sol to Vista 115 kV line with 556.6 ACSS 2.0 $0.13
Reconductor Lane-Sol 115 kV line with 556.6 ACSS 2.0 $0.13
Reconductor Milagro-Newman 115 kV line with 556.6 ACSS
6.2 $0.40
Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning
5 Years
Total Estimate for Transmission Network Upgrades $703.09
all cross country route; Ruling Span = 1,000 ft.; Loading: NESC Medium, NESC Extreme Wind; Maximum operating Temperature 100 deg. Celsius; Access roads includes grading and 5% rock for low spots and paved road crossing access;
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
88
OPGW 48 pair centrum design with stainless steel tubes, 0.502 in diameter, 0.3310 lbs/ft, RBS 15,000, design tension 20% RBS under NESC medium initial;
Conductor: 954 kCMIL 54/7 “Cardinal” ACSR, design tension 25% RBS under NESC medium initial;
Steel monopole design with vee-string insulators; Tangent and Angle structures are 105’ AGL, Dead-end Structures are 115’ AGL; Estimate considers 8% of the structures to be dead-end structures between 30
degrees and above, 4% angled structures between (5-30 degrees) and 88% of the structures to be tangent structures between (0-5 degrees);
All structures are galvanized and the estimated cost per pound for steel is $2.00/lb.; Tangent structures are direct buried with concrete backfill. All other structure
types utilize reinforced drilled piers with anchor bolt cages; Geotech includes concrete testing; New construction and no outages associated with any other facilities. Engineering and construction support based on 6% of material and line labor for
345kV single circuit 1-bundled conductor. 90 degree and above dead-end structure types to increase cost by 10%.
all cross country route; Ruling Span = 800 ft.; Loading: NESC Medium, NESC Extreme Wind; Maximum operating Temperature 100 deg. Celsius; Access roads includes grading and 5% rock for low spots and paved road crossing access; (1) OPGW 48 pair centrum design with stainless steel tubes, 0.502 in diameter, 0.3310 lbs/ft,
RBS 15,000, design tension 20% RBS under NESC medium initial; Conductors: 556 kCMIL 26/7 “Dove” ACSS, design tension 25% RBS under NESC medium
initial; Double Circuit: Steel monopole design with tangents (100’ direct embed concrete backfill) with
post insulators, running angles (85’ drilled pier foundations) 15-30 degs. with suspension insulators, dead-ends (90 deg.) (85’ drilled pier foundations) suspension insulators on pole;
Estimate considers 8% of the structures to be dead-end structures between 30 and 90 degrees, 4% angled structures between 5 and 30 degrees and 88% of the structures to be tangent structures between 0 and 5 degrees;
All structures are galvanized and the estimated cost per pound for steel is $2.00/lb.; Geotech includes concrete testing; New construction and no outages associated with any other facilities.
Not Included in Transmission Network Upgrade Estimate:
Any right-of-way clearing costs; Hydrology analysis or scour calculations for construction within a flood plain or
adjacent to any washes, rivers, etc.; Permitting for road or railroad crossings; Siting costs, land acquisition, environmental permitting, biological
assessments/permits, archeological assessments/permits; Temporary construction offices and material lay down yard;
Fencing or access gate materials.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
89
General Cost Assumptions
1. The cost estimates provided are good faith “scoping estimates”.
2. Estimates do not include land or permitting.
3. Interconnection Customer to secure POI site and transfer ownership to EPE.
4. Permitting time frames are not included.
5. Estimates are in 2010 Dollars.
6. Where applicable, the Interconnection Customers are responsible for funding and construction of all transmission facilities from the proposed generator substation to the Points of Interconnection.
7. The Interconnection Customer will supply enough transmission conductor from their last structure outside the POI substation for Termination into the POI substation bus.
8. Interconnection Customers are responsible for Engineering, Procurement, and
Construction for all and any FACTs and other transmission compensation devices at their generation site or along their long interconnecting transmission lines to just outside the POI sites.
9. Special outages will be required for Network Upgrade installation at Artesia/Eddy
County, Luna, Hidalgo and South.
10. 345 kV Transmission lines from Artesia to Amrad to Corona to Newman follow existing line corridors and parallel the existing lines.
11. Costs do not include any requirements beyond South 345 kV station.
12. All transmission line reconductoring is assuming all existing structures are in
good condition and able to support the new conductors.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
90
9. Disclaimer
If any of the project data provided by Interconnection Customers and used in this study varies significantly from the actual data once the 345 kV Cluster generation equipment is installed, the results from this study will need to be verified with the actual data at the Project Interconnection Customer's expense. Additionally, any change in the generation in EPE’s Interconnection Queue that is senior to the 345 kV Cluster Generation may require a re-evaluation of this Study.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
91
10. Conclusions
This 345 kV Cluster Study consisting of Steady State, Short Circuit and Stability Analyses for a net 1423 MW of generation interconnecting on the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems has determined that the Cluster Project will have an adverse, or negative, impact on the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems unless proposed Network Upgrades are constructed. The estimated cost for integrating the 345 kV Cluster Project onto the EPE and Southern New Mexico transmission systems is $935.30 Million and the good faith estimate of the time frame to Engineer, Procure, and Construct all facilities is 5 years. Therefore it is not feasible to complete the Network Upgrades Required for Delivery before the requested in-service dates.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
Appendix A
Appendix A 345 KV Cluster Study Statement of Work
1
345 kV CLUSTER SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY STATEMENT OF WORK
All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the definitions specified in EPE’s most current Open Access Transmission Tariff (the “OATT”). This Statement of Work is pursuant to the May 5, 2009 MSA between EPE and TRC for additional studies to be conducted.
EPE W/O# TS7600201048 TRC Project # 177451 1. Use PSLF to perform load flow analyses for a System Impact Study (as specified under EPE’s
OATT) on the EPE and affected utilities in the WECC transmission system (“System”) as follows:
1.1. Base case scenarios: 1.1.1. Develop 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, base case power flows for each year that will
be studied. Base cases will include heavy (100% peak load) and light load (60% of peak load) scenarios.
1.1.2. Base case scenarios will incorporate variations in the EPE system such as Ft. Craig
phase shifter settings (60 MW N-S, 10 MW N-S , 201 MW N-S for Peak Cases, 201 MW N-S, 60 MW N-S for Off-Peak), Eddy County DC tie operational flows (200 MW or 0 MW), local generator and third party generator configurations. A list of base case scenarios are as follows in Table 1:
Table 1: Base Case Scenarios
Descriptions
Year
Peak Case OFF- Peak Case
Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S
Ft Craig PST = 10 MW N-S
Ft Craig PST = 201 MW N-S
(AFTON OFF)
Ft Craig PST = 201 MW N-S
Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S
Eddy County HVDC
ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County HVDC
ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County HVDC
ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County HVDC
ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County HVDC ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
2011 X X X X X X X X X X 2012 X X X X X X X X X X 2013 X X X X X X X X X X 2015 X X X X X X X X X X
1.1.3. Incorporate in the base case system data all generators and required facilities in the
Study queue that are senior to the projects in the Study Cluster. Projects senior to the Study Cluster projects are WA495W and SL99W.
1.1.4. Perform all lines in service and contingency analyses for the base case scenarios to
determine if there are any existing EPE/WECC criteria violations. 1.1.5. Perform stability analyses as required in the SIS using the peak and off peak cases
listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Stability Base Case Scenarios Descriptions
Year Peak Case OFF- Peak Case
Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S Eddy County HVDC ON Eddy County HVDC ON
2012 X X 2015 X X
2
1.1.6. Perform short circuit analyses as required in SIS using a 2015 ASPEN case or
appropriate case as provided by EPE. Faults studies will be at EPE’s Newman 115 kV, Rio Grande 115 kV, and Rio Grande 69 kV buses, and all other 345 kV buses on the EPE system.
1.1.7. Document the violations and report back to EPE.
1.2. Proposed 345 kV Cluster Study Cases
Develop generation interconnection Cluster Study heavy load and light load power flow cases that combine projects with interconnection points in the same vicinity within the EPE transmission system that are listed in the EPE Generation Interconnection Study queue. 1.2.1. The Cluster cases with the new generators to be developed are defined as follows
as shown in Table 3: 1.2.1.1. 2011 CLUSTER STUDY GENERATORS:
a. ART320W (320 MW) b. AA100W (100 MW) c. NM805W (805 MW light load only)
1.2.1.2. 2012 CLUSTER STUDY GENERATORS: a. ART320W b. AA100W (100 MW) c. NM805W (805 MW)
1.2.1.3. 2013 CLUSTER STUDY GENERATORS: a. ART320W b. AA100W (100 MW) c. NM805W (805 MW) d. HL198W 1 (99 MW)
1- HL198W will be constructed in 2 phases 99 MW in 2013 and 99 MW in 2015
1.2.1.4. 2015 CLUSTER STUDY GENERATORS: a. ART320W b. AA100W (100 MW) c. NM805W (805 MW) d. HL198W 1 (99 MW)
1- HL198W will be constructed in 2 phases 99 MW in 2013 and 99 MW in 2015.
1.2.1.5. All generation dispatched to Areas 14-73, that is all areas except New Mexico (Area 10) and El Paso (Area 11)
3
Table 3: 345 kV Cluster Case Scenarios Case Descriptions
Year
Peak Case OFF- Peak Case
Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S Ft Craig PST = 10 MW
N-S
Ft Craig PST = 201 MW N-S
(AFTON OFF)
Ft Craig PST = 201 MW S-N
Ft Craig PST =60 MW N-S
Eddy County HVDC ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County
HVDC ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County
HVDC ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County
HVDC ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
Eddy County
HVDC ON
Eddy County HVDC OFF
2011 ART320W AA100W
ART320W AA100W
ART320W AA100W
ART320W AA100W
ART320W AA100W
ART320W AA100W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
2012 ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
2013
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
1- 99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W1
99MW Only
2015
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
4
1.2.2. Perform all lines in service and contingency analyses for the cluster cases and
compare the cluster to base case results to determine the EPE/WECC criteria violations due to the study cluster projects.
1.2.2.1 Perform sensitivity analysis by removing each Cluster generator to
determine impact on other remaining Cluster generators. 1.2.3. Perform stability analyses as required in the SIS using the peak and off-peak cases
listed in Table 4.
1.2.3.1. Fault locations for stability analyses for Cluster Generators will be at each POI and no more than 2 buses away to verify Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT).
1.2.3.2 Study loss of generation for the NM805W and ART320W projects (no fault). 1.2.3.3. Study loss of generation for fault on each generator bus or low voltage side
of transmission step up transformer for projects listed above. 1.2.3.4 Study faults on all new lines required for Network Upgrades as determined
by power flow analysis.
Table 4: 345 kV Cluster Stability Case Scenarios
1.2.4. Perform short circuit analyses as required in SIS using a 2015 ASPEN case or
appropriate case as provided by EPE Case will be modified for Cluster Generation and any Network Upgrades. Faults studied are at EPE’s Newman 115 kV, Rio Grande 115 kV, and Rio Grande 69 kV buses, all other 345 kV buses on the EPE system, and all POI buses of the projects participating in this Cluster SIS.
1.2.5. Begin analysis of the 345 kV Cluster Study with the last year to determine all
required system upgrades. Then proceed to the previous year and remove any interconnection projects not in-service for the year to be studied. This procedure will determine the timing of the required Network Upgrades.
1.2.6. If procedure in 1.2.5. above does not identify which Network Upgrade is responsible
for correcting criteria violations found to be caused by the interconnection projects in the study cluster, sensitivity analyses will be performed by turning generation on and off to determine which project is responsible.
1.2.7. Monitor and document all violations due to the Study Cluster projects. 1.2.8. Work with EPE to determine facilities required to mitigate violations.
Descriptions
Year
Peak Case OFF- Peak Case
Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S Ft Craig PST = 60 MW N-S
Eddy County HVDC ON Eddy County HVDC ON
2012 ART320W AA100W NM805W
ART320W AA100W NM805W
2015
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
ART320W AA100W NM805W HL198W
5
Violations external to the EPE/New Mexico system will be noted and included in the Report, but not mitigated.
1.3. Re-Studies: 1.3.1. If a Re-Study is required to be performed as per Section 7.6 of the LGIP, perform a
Re-Study with the withdrawn generator and its required facilities removed from the case(s). EPE will notify TRC as soon as possible if this occurs so that TRC can stop work on the initial study and begin work on the Re-Study.
1.3.2. As per Section 7.6 of the LGIP, the Re-Study must be completed within 60 calendar
days of the Interconnection Customer being notified. Any cost of the Re-Study will be borne equally by the remaining Interconnection Customers being re-studied in the study cluster.
2. Prepare a non-binding, good faith estimate of cost for Projects in the study cluster to interconnect to
the EPE transmission system, including any required Network Upgrades. 2.1. Assign costs based upon MW pro-rata share as per the FERC Waiver.
3. Prepare a non-binding, good-faith estimate of the estimated time to construct any Network Upgrades
required for Interconnection and Delivery onto the System. This should be in a bar chart form. 4. Data Required:
4.1. Load flow base cases for peak and off peak, from EPE for the time frames required in PSLF
format.
4.1.1. Generator and transmission transformer impedance data as provided by the Developers for use in load flow and short circuit studies.
4.2. Queue table with In-service dates and Points of Interconnection. 4.3. Stability base cases for peak and off-peak, from EPE for the time frames required in PSLF
format.
4.3.1. Generator stability model data sheets in PSLF format for entry into PSLF data base as provided from Developers.
4.4. Short circuit data base for the time frames required in ASPEN format.
5. Deliverables: 5.1. During the Study process, TRC will send EPE a progress report on a regular basis, but no
less than once each week. If the Study time appears to exceed the Study time limit as given in EPE’s OATT in the Large Generator Interconnection Procedures, TRC will notify EPE in a timely manner and give an estimate of completion of the Study.
5.2. A detailed report including:
5.2.1. Executive summary. 5.2.2. The required Network Upgrades for Network Resource Interconnection Service. 5.2.3. Description of the Project load flow analyses. 5.2.4. Short circuit analyses with fault duties and Network upgrades. 5.2.5. Description of Stability analyses.
6
5.2.6. Explanation of Network upgrades. 5.2.7. Explanation of non-binding, good-faith costs for interconnections and any required
Network upgrades. 5.2.8. Estimated time frame for full integration of the Study Cluster projects onto the
system. 5.3. Original and final Cluster Study base cases, with appropriate “EPC” change files, will be sent
upon completion of Final Report.
6. Cost: 6.1. TRC will perform this Cluster Study on a time and expense basis totaling $360,000. Included
in the cost estimate are travel expenses for two trips to El Paso, if needed. Table 5 lists the estimated time to complete each task.
Table 5: Itemized 345 kV Cluster SIS Time Frames
6.2. Time frame to complete the study will be approximately 16 Weeks. 6.3. If the Study appears to have become difficult and, therefore increasing the Study costs, TRC
will inform EPE immediately with an estimated increase in cost so that approval can be obtained.
7. Billing:
TRC will provide a monthly bill showing detailed hours and expenses charged to each study based on that studies work order number, such work order number to be provided by EPE. Once received, EPE will have 30 days to process and send payment.
345 kV Cluster System Impact Study TRC November 17, 2010
Appendix B
Appendix B EE 205 Waiver
100 North Stanton Street El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 543-5776
June 12, 2009 The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Re: El Paso Electric Company, Docket No. ER09-______
Request for Waiver Authorization Pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act
Dear Secretary Bose:
Pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act,1 El Paso Electric Company (“EE”) respectfully requests waiver of the first-come, first-served study order for interconnection requests currently in its queue to allow for two study clusters. A waiver of this type will allow EE to reduce the time required for the study of projects currently in the queue in a manner that will permit it to timely satisfy the State of New Mexico’s diversified renewables portfolio requirement. EE is also working on changes to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) to improve queue processing in favor of a more workable and efficient long-term alternative. This waiver request is the first step in the process and is necessary to allow EE to take immediate action so that it may comply with New Mexico law. EE offers it as the initial phase towards resolution of its queue issues, but one that is intended to be implemented independently from future implementation of a revised tariff.2 At present, EE’s interconnection queue consists of generators requesting the interconnection of almost 5,000 MW of resources, while EE’s total peak load is less than one-third that amount (approximately 1,500 MW).3
1 16 U.S.C. § 824d.
2 The cluster studies proposed here are to apply to existing interconnection requests in the queue as of the date of this filing. Future interconnection requests are to be processed pursuant to the terms of EE’s OATT. As stated above, EE is in the process of developing revised queue-related tariff provisions. 3 EE’s current generator interconnection queue is posted online at www.epelectric.com, “Transmission,” “Interconnection Requests.”
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission P a g e | 2
I. APPLICANT
EE is a vertically integrated electric utility whose primary business is serving native load in far west Texas and southern New Mexico, providing retail electric service to about 350,000 customers in an area of approximately 10,000 square miles. EE is a publicly traded company that is directly owned by its shareholders. It has no parent, subsidiary or affiliate engaged in the energy sector. EE employs approximately 1,000 people who are involved in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity at retail and wholesale. EE owns distribution facilities through which it provides service to its customers at retail rates and owns transmission facilities over which it offers service under its OATT.
II. STATE-IMPOSED RENEWABLE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
The State of New Mexico has enacted laws and regulations setting forth minimum requirements for renewable energy.4
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WAIVER
Utilities are required to supply increasing percentages of their retail energy sales through a diversified portfolio of renewable energy resources (through a state procurement process). EE is acting under such rules and regulations currently. Effective January 2011, the minimum percentage tiers increase such that 10 percent of utilities’ retail energy sales must come from renewable energy resources, with solar energy comprising at least 20 percent of the renewable mix. EE has conducted a procurement process for its January 2011 renewable obligation, all within the parameters approved by the state. If EE were to study the project chosen and approved through the New Mexico process to satisfy EE’s January 2011 solar requirement within its tariff’s currently-effective first-come, first-served interconnection study approach, the January 2011 deadline will not be met. It is this January 2011 deadline that has triggered EE to seek a waiver from the first-come, first-served processing order set forth in its tariff. EE also is looking at ways it can secure more long-term improvements in its queue processing and management through future tariff changes. The instant filing does not seek any tariff revisions at this time.
EE seeks waiver of the provisions of its Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) and associated study agreements5
4 New Mexico Renewable Energy Act (NMSA 1978, Section 62-16-1 et seq), and the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission’s Rule 572, “Renewable Energy as a Source of Electricity” (NMAC 17.9.572).
to study the projects currently in its queue by means of a cluster approach, as follows:
5 EE’s LGIP and associated agreements are found in Attachment M of its OATT. Pursuant to Section 4.1 of EE’s LGIP, the queue position of each interconnection request is to be used to determine the order of performing interconnection studies. Interconnection studies consist of interconnection feasibility studies, interconnection system impact studies and interconnection facility studies. The instant waiver request is a request to waive the “first-come first-served” study order under the tariff. Although EE’s LGIP contains clustering provisions (at Section 4.2) and permits EE to allocate the cost of common upgrades for clustered interconnection studies (at Section 4.1), the tariff does not provide for the type of cluster studies proposed here. EE’s proposed clusters are based upon the nature of the facilities on which interconnection is sought, and is not based upon Queue Position and “Queue Cluster Windows” within the meaning of EE’s currently-effective LGIP. Accordingly, tariff waiver authorization is sought to permit EE to study its interconnection requests within the two types of clusters identified here, and to allocate the
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission P a g e | 3
• Projects seeking interconnection on EE facilities will be studied in one of two clusters,
based on the nature of the EE facilities on which the interconnection is sought: Projects seeking to interconnect on EE’s local system of 115 kV will be studied separately from projects seeking to interconnect on EE’s 345 kV system. This division is practical, efficient, and equitable because the interconnection of projects to EE’s local 115 kV system and the interconnection of projects to EE’s 345 kV transmission have little, if any, impact on one another. Thus, the studies for both clusters will begin at the same time.
• Because projects on EE’s 345 kV system are targeting markets outside of EE’s service
territory (for example, Arizona and California to the west, Colorado to the north), EE will perform the interconnection studies for this cluster in an east-to-west direction, starting with the eastern-most projects (i.e., those in the Amrad-Eddy area), then layering on top the projects to the immediate west (i.e., those in the WestMesa-Arroyo area), then the projects to the far west (i.e., those in the Luna-Hildalgo area). In proceeding in this east-to-west direction, EE will be able to more effectively identify the system impacts of the projects in this cluster because EE’s analysis will move in the same direction as the anticipated power flow from such resources.
• In performing the cluster studies, EE will study all projects in each cluster solely for Network Resource Interconnection Service, and requests that the Commission grant a waiver of the provisions of its LGIP that would otherwise require EE to “concurrently study” each interconnection request for Energy Resource Interconnection Service, upon request, up to the point when an Interconnection Facility Study Agreement is executed. An Energy Resource Interconnection Service study would be meaningless under the circumstances present, where the resources in the queue for interconnection so far surpass the total load on the system (in EE’s case, by over 300 percent). In order for a generator in a cluster to make a meaningful decision on whether to proceed with a project based on the results of the cluster studies, the resource will need to be studied for Network Resource Interconnection Service. Indeed, all projects currently in the queue have requested that EE perform a Network Resource Interconnection Service study.
• Projects subject to the clusters will be accorded a one-time election to affirmatively opt out of the cluster. The election date will be 10 Business Days6 following Commission approval of the instant waiver request.7
cost of common upgrades for such clustered studies. As part of the cluster studies proposed here, EE will not perform optional studies under Section 10 of the LGIP.
For purposes of this waiver, any generator that opts out will retain its queue ranking relative to any other generators that opt out of the
6 “Business Days” as defined in EE’s LGIP. 7 Specifically, the 10 Business Day period will begin to run when EE notifies its Interconnection Customers of Commission approval. Such notification will be made by email and/or fax. This will avoid any complications from the potential that an Interconnection Customer may not learn of the Commission’s issuance until after the 10 Business Day period has lapsed.
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission P a g e | 4
clusters, and will be studied upon completion of the cluster studies. For example, if generators holding queue positions of 5, 10 and 15 opt out of the clusters, they will be studied after the clusters, but will retain their relationship relative to each other such that the generator at queue position 5 will be studied before the generators at queue positions 10 and 15. To be clear, however, by extending an opt-out right under the instant proposal, EE is not committing to immunize such generators from changes to queue processing in the future that may stem from the possible application of future tariff changes.
• Projects for which EE has already completed an Interconnection Feasibility Study for the
resource will continue to be processed according to EE’s OATT, and not clustered under this waiver request. Such projects are far enough along in the study process that to cluster them at this stage would not serve the goal of improving the timeliness and efficiency of the queue process. In implementing this approach, EE is taking into account the Commission’s stated desire to see transmission providers appropriately address differences between existing interconnection requests that are still at an early stage in the interconnection process versus those that are in later stages of the process.8
In making this clustering request, EE is mindful of the Commission’s eagerness to see transmission providers look for ways to address long queues and the lengthy processing times that they create, particularly with the unprecedented demand for new types of generation (namely, renewable generation) and the added stress that such resources have placed on interconnection queues. Interconnection Queuing Practices, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 at PP 3, 5 (2008). As the Commission as previously stated in approving queue waiver requests, “[W]here good cause for a waiver of limited scope exists, there are no undesirable consequences, and the resultant benefits to customers are evident, we have found that a one-time waiver is appropriate.” California Independent System Operator, 118 FERC ¶61,226 at P 24 (2007), clarified, 120 FERC ¶ 61,180 (2007) (the “Tehachap” case). See also California Independent System Operator, 124 FERC ¶ 61,031 (2008), reh’g denied, 124 FERC ¶ 61,293 at PP 18-21 (2008) (where FERC makes clear that to meet the Tehachap standard of “no undesirable consequences,” the transmission provider need not show that each individual generator in the queue will not experience delay or potential harm as a result of a cluster approach, recognizing that any form of line drawing “would likely satisfy some customers at the expense of others,” and emphasizing that the overriding goal is to address queue backlog through fair criteria.) Good cause exists to grant EE’s waiver request under the circumstances present. EE has developed this one-time waiver request with the standards of Tehachap in mind. There are no undesirable consequences within the meaning of Tehachap; the resultant benefits to customers are evident; and the waiver also serves the important goal of permitting a timely satisfaction of state-imposed diversified renewables portfolio requirements. Further, EE’s proposed clusters are fair and equitable, and are developed based on non-discriminatory factors. The clusters provide
8 Interconnection Queuing Practices, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 at P 11(2008), and California Independent System Operator, 124 FERC ¶ 61,031 at P 20 (2008) (finding that the CAISO appropriately identified a category of interconnection requests that can be processed efficiently under its existing LGIP process, while waiving the tariff’s queue management process for other earlier-stage interconnection requests).
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission P a g e | 5
for an opportunity for projects in the queue to be processed beginning immediately, within one of two cluster groups, with the goal of improving efficiency and processing time. In addition, the proposal’s protection against undue discrimination is enhanced through the opt-out right provided to all. In short, the cluster proposal satisfies the just and reasonable under Section 205 of the FPA because it would create results that are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory, while also serving important Commission policy goals intended to advance the public interest overall. IV. COMMUNICATIONS AND SERVICE
EE requests that all communications regarding this filing be directed to the following individuals and that their names be entered on the official service list maintained by the Secretary: Mary E. Kipp Robin M. Nuschler, Esq. Assistant General Counsel P. O. Box 3895
& Director of FERC Compliance Fairfax, VA 22038-3895 El Paso Electric Company
EE has served a copy of this filing on all of its transmission customers, interconnection customers and state commissions. V. CONCLUSION EE respectfully requests Commission approval of its waiver request as proposed herein.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mary E. Kipp (e-filed) ______________________________
Robin M. Nuschler, Esq. Mary E. Kipp P.O. Box 3895 Assistant General Counsel & Fairfax, VA 22038-3895 Director of FERC Compliance Tel: (202) 487-4412 El Paso Electric Company Fax: (703) 323-0614 100 N. Stanton Street E-mail: [email protected] El Paso, Texas 79901