Large Generator Interconnection Procedures Reform 2 nd Stakeholder Meeting May 5, 2009.

Large Generator Interconnection Procedures

Reform

2nd Stakeholder Meeting

May 5, 2009

May 5, 2009

2

Agenda

• Background

• Review of Overall Process and Discussion of Comments

• Proposed Schedule

May 5, 2009

3

February Proposal

• Most of the changes adopted in January 2009 were retained.

• Interconnection process based on Load and Resource Study and related Transmission Study.

• New options for determining Network Upgrades.

• Biannual Interconnection Request Windows.

May 5, 2009

4

February Proposal

• Queue Management:– First Come-First Served through the System

Impact Study;– First Ready-First Served after the System

Impact Study.

• Multiple Customer options for proceeding to Facilities Study.

Customer Shows

Designation as Network Resource &

submits deposit

Review Published

Load & Resource

Trans-mission Study

LGIA100% Site

Control Required

Two month windows to

submit application.

IR Applications reviewed on semi-annual

basis.

Attend Information Session at Beginning

of IR Application

Window

Customer will have access to Base Case Data and may perform own

Optional Feasibility Studies

Facilities Study

Customer submits deposit & TSR or proceeds at own

risk

Defer up to 1 year

Submit IR

Network Upgrade Studies

Customer

TSR Path

At Risk Path

$250,000 Study Deposit for >75 MW ProjectsOR,

$125,000 Study Deposit for ≤ 75 MW Projects (Includes $25,000 non-refundable for both

generation levels)

Proof of 50% site control at time of application

SIS Scoping Meeting

Three levels of generation

allowed and specified for study at time of meeting

SIS After power flow portion

of SIS, customer is must select

one generation

level

SIS Review

(with cost estimates)

and FS

Scoping Meeting Verify 50% of

Site Control

A B C DIC Facilities & Unit Specific

Network Upgrades

Review Published Load & Resource

Transmission Study

Attend Information Session at beginning

of IR Application Window

Customer will have access to Base Case Data and may

perform Optional Feasibility Studies

Customer

A


$125,000 Study Deposit for ≤ 75 MW Projects

(Includes $25,000 non-refundable for both generation levels)

Two-month windows to submit application IR Applications reviewed on semi-annual basis.

Submit IR

B


SIS

After power flow portion of SIS, customer is asked to select one

generation level

SIS Scoping Meeting

Three levels of generation allowed and specified for study at time of meeting

IC Facilities and Unit-Specific

Network Upgrades

C

Customer shows designation as Network

Resource & deposits 50% of IC Facilities & unit-specific Network

Upgrades money

LGIA

SIS Review (with cost

estimates) and FS Scoping Meeting

Verify 50% of Site Control

Facilities Study

Customer deposits 50% of IC Facilities and unit-specific

Network Upgrades money and submits TSR or proceeds at own risk

Defer up to 1 year


TSR Path

At Risk Path

D

May 5, 2009

10

Network Resource Path• Network Customers submit Annual Load and

Resource Plan.• Tri-State prepares Load and Resource Plan and

related Transmission Plan.– Resource Zones identified

– Network Upgrades identified

– Tri-State funds the cost of Network Upgrades

• Customer demonstrates that it is a planned Network Resource within Resource Zone.

May 5, 2009

11

Network Resource Path• Facilities Study includes:

– Interconnection Facilities– Unit-specific Network Upgrades required to interconnect

the facility• Example: Ring Bus at Interconnection Substation is considered a

Network Upgrade

• Interconnection Customer will fund Interconnection Facilities and unit-specific Network Upgrades.

• Interconnection Customer will receive transmission credits for Network Upgrades.



Upgrades money

LGIA




Facilities Study



Defer up to 1 year


TSR Path

At Risk Path

D

May 5, 2009

13

Transmission Reservation Path• Customer’s Generating facility is not a

Network Resource within a Resource Zone.• Customer requests transmission under Tri-

State’s Open Access Transmission Tariff.• Tri-State performs Transmission System

Impact Study. – Identifies Network Upgrades required to deliver

power across the system, not unit-specific Network Upgrades.

May 5, 2009

14

Transmission Reservation Path

• Interconnection Facilities Study:– Studies Interconnection Facilities and unit-specific

Network Upgrades.– Incorporates results of Transmission System Impact

Study Interconnection Customer funds Network Upgrades.





Upgrades money

LGIA




Facilities Study



Defer up to 1 year


TSR Path

At Risk Path

D

May 5, 2009

16

At-Risk Path• Customer’s Generating facility is not a Network

Resource within a Resource Zone.• Customer chooses not to request transmission.• Interconnection Facilities Study:

– Studies Interconnection Facilities and unit-specific Network Upgrades



• Customer may use transmission system on an as-is basis, at its own risk for deliverability.

May 5, 2009

17

Facilities Study Deferral

• If Customer has not met all Facilities Study requirements, it may request one-time delay of up to 1 year.

• When Customer is ready for Facilities Study, it is scheduled behind any other request that has previously met Facilities Study milestones. – First Ready First Served

• Tri-State will use the original System Impact Study but may be required to update the study to reflect system changes during the deferral period.

Customer Shows

Designation as Network Resource &

submits deposit

Review Published

Load & Resource

Trans-mission Study

LGIA100% Site

Control Required

Two month windows to

submit application.

IR Applications reviewed on semi-annual

basis.

Attend Information Session at Beginning

of IR Application

Window

Customer will have access to Base Case Data and may perform own

Optional Feasibility Studies

Facilities Study

Customer submits deposit & TSR or proceeds at own

risk

Defer up to 1 year

Submit IR


Customer

TSR Path

At Risk Path


$125,000 Study Deposit for ≤ 75 MW Projects (Includes $25,000 non-refundable for both

generation levels)


SIS Scoping Meeting

Three levels of generation

allowed and specified for study at time of meeting

SIS After power flow portion

of SIS, customer is must select

one generation

level

SIS Review

(with cost estimates)

and FS

Scoping Meeting Verify 50% of

Site Control

A B C DIC Facilities & Unit Specific

Network Upgrades

May 5, 2009

19

Proposed Schedule

• May 15th—Tri-State will post draft LGIP.

• June 12th —Comments due on draft LGIP.

• 30 days prior to Effective Date—post final LGIP on OASIS.

• Late Summer 2009—LGIP is effective.

• 30 days after Effective Date—publish Load and Resource Transmission Study.

May 5, 2009

20

Addendum

• Summary of Comments and Tri-State responses

May 5, 2009

21

Key Comments and Responses

• Feasibility Studies—elimination of Feasibility Study has negative impact on applicants —Establish Pre-Application Queue process and make Feasibility Study optional.

• Experience for Tri-State is that Feasibility Studies provide little value.

• Encourage applicants to conduct own screening studies using available WECC base-case data.

May 5, 2009

22


• Deposits—request for reduced, staged deposits: $40,000 to $90,000

• Tri-State deposits are intended to cover the estimated cost of Interconnection Studies and administration costs.– The suggested deposits will not cover study costs.

– $25,000 will be non-refundable

• The deposits will be used for study costs plus cost of administering requests.

May 5, 2009

23


• Site Control—requirements are too burdensome and too soon in the process.

• Site Control is key to assessing the validity of interconnection requests.– Retain existing requirement for 50% of site control at

application.– Delay 100% site control until execution of LGIA.

• Strict site control requirements benefit both Tri-State and Interconnection Customers by helping to identify valid projects.

May 5, 2009

24


• Site Control—continued Tri-State expectations: At application Tri-

State expects the application to include documentation of lease or ownership rights as along with a GIS map of the entire site with the areas under contract or option highlighted on the map. Documentation would typically include copies of leases, deeds, or option agreements, which Tri-State will treat as confidential information.

May 5, 2009

25


• Cluster Studies will be more effective than stand-alone studies proposed by Tri-State.

• Tri-State does not agree that cluster studies will be more effective way of studying Interconnection Requests.

• However, Tri-State has retained the right to use cluster studies where it determines that they may be a more efficient way of studying Interconnection Requests.

• Tri-State is prepared to discuss this issue as part of the stakeholder process.

May 5, 2009

26


• Interconnection Studies should be linked to Long-Range Transmission Planning.

• Tri-State will continue to use WECC base-cases modified to meet the needs of the Interconnection process. – Facilities identified in long range plans are often

scheduled after the generators’ in service date.

– Long-Range projects do not have CPCNs and can not be counted out for planning Network Upgrades.

May 5, 2009

27


• Suspension—Tri-State should expand ability to suspend construction—developers need more flexibility.

• Suspension undermines certainty of planning process.• Customer has the ability to delay in-service date up to

5 years, but construction will proceed if it affects other requests.

• Option to delay Facilities Study for up to one year.

May 5, 2009

28

Key Comments and Responses• Proposal is discriminatory and may violate FERC

Order 2003• Tri-State, as a non-jurisdictional, is subject to

limited FERC jurisdiction – Tri-State must meet FERC’s comparability and non-

discrimination requirements

– Tri-State’s proposal meets those thresholds

• Tri-State proposes 3 paths for interconnection.– The paths are not intended to be equivalent but to

provide customers options to interconnect

Large Generator Interconnection Procedures Reform 2 nd Stakeholder Meeting May 5, 2009.

Documents

Transcript of Large Generator Interconnection Procedures Reform 2 nd Stakeholder Meeting May 5, 2009.