Power for Industry

Title

Power for Industry

Annual Large Customer MeetingMay 2011

8:30 - 9:00 Registration & Continental Breakfast

9:00 - 9:15 Introduction & Welcome Danny Kassis

9:15 - 9:45 Nuclear Project Alan Torres

9:45 - 10:15 Electric Rates, Fuel and Nuclear Project Kenny Jackson

10:15 - 10:30 Break

10:30 - 11:00 Natural Gas/Shale Gas Revolution Jimmy Nicholson/

Joe Phillips

11:00 - 11:30 Environmental Legislative Update Tom Effinger

11:30 - 12:00 Metering Upgrades Jerry Smith

12:00 - 12:30 Dispatch Center Automation Charles Moore

12:30 - 12:45 Concluding Remarks Bill Watkins

12:45 - Lunch

Columbia Agenda

May 12, 2011

Charleston Agenda

May 19, 20118:30 - 9:00 Registration & Continental Breakfast

9:00 - 9:15 Introduction & Welcome Bill Watkins

9:15 - 9:45Electric Rates, Fuel and

Nuclear ProjectKen Jackson

9:45 - 10:15 Natural Gas/Shale Gas RevolutionJoe Phillips

Jimmy Nicholson

10:15 - 10:30 Break

10:30 - 11:00 Dispatch Center Automation Charles Moore

11:00 - 11:30 Nuclear Project Kyle Young

11:30 - 12:00 Metering Upgrades Jerry Smith

12:00 - 12:30 Environmental Legislative Update Tom Effinger

12:30 - 12:45 Closing Remarks Danny Kassis

12:45 - Lunch

Power for Industry

New Nuclear Units Update

Alan Torres

General Manager, Nuclear Plant Construction

SCE&G Large Customer Seminar

Columbia, May 12, 2011

Power for Industry

New Nuclear Units Update

Kyle Young

Supervisor, Nuclear Plant Construction


Charleston, May 19, 2011

Progress of the New

Nuclear Units

Powering the Future of

South Carolina

Timeline

• February 2006 – SCE&G announced nuclear

plans

• March 2008 – SCE&G submitted Combined

Operating License Application (COLA)

• May 2008 – SCE&G signed contract with

Westinghouse and Shaw

• February 2009 – Public Service Commission

approved project

• March 2009 – Site pre-construction work started

November 2008 –Aerial View

8

VCS Unit 1

New Nuclear

Deployment

Office

VC Summer Units 2&3 - January 2011

Unit 3 Power Block Excavation and Mapping

03/02/11

Unit 2 CWS Flowable Fill Completion

BIGGE Heavy

Lift Derrick

(HLD)

6000 ton

counterweight

560 foot

twin boom

280 foot back

mastTension

column

Rail

Pendant

lines

SG Lower Assembly - Unit 2A

SG Channel Head - Unit 2B SG Intermediate Shell – Unit 2B

SG Upper Vessel – Unit 2A

Doosan Manufacturing

Update

16

China Progress

17

China Update

Sanmen AP1000 SiteImages are copyrighted and are courtesy of Westinghouse

Electric Company, LLCCA-20

Module

Containment

Vessel

CA20 (Auxiliary Building)

Images are copyrighted and are courtesy of Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

Sanmen Unit 1June 29, 2009

CA20 (Auxiliary Building)

Containment Vessel Bottom Head

Sanmen Unit 2

June 13, 2010

Images are copyrighted and are courtesy of Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

38 ft tall

130 ft diameter

650 tons

CA04 (Reactor Cavity)

Sanmen Unit 1

January 26, 2010

Haiyang Unit 1

May 2010

Sanmen Unit 2 CA04 – July 20, 2010

Haiyang Unit 2 CA04 – November 30, 2010

Images are copyrighted and are courtesy of

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

CA01 (Steam Generator & Refueling Canal Module)

Sanmen Unit 1

March 27, 2010

Haiyang Unit 1 CA01– July 31, 2010

Sanmen Unit 2 CA01– August 13, 2010

Haiyang Unit 2 CA01 – January 31, 2011 Images are copyrighted and are courtesy of Westinghouse Electric

Company, LLC

Sanmen Lifting 2nd

CV Ring into Place

Images are copyrighted and are courtesy of Westinghouse

Electric Company, LLC

22

Nuclear Energy in

Japan

• 54 operating nuclear reactors (49 gigawatts)

• Two nuclear plants under construction

• Tokyo Electric Power Co. produces 27% of Japan’s electricity

• 12,000 MW of nuclear energy capacity shut down

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Before the Accident

Unit 1

Unit 2

Unit 3

Unit 4

Units 5, 6

At the time of the earthquakeReactors 1, 2 and 3 operating

Reactors 4, 5 and 6 shutdown for maintenance, inspection, refueling

• Earthquake occurs at 2:46 p.m.– Power grid in northern Japan fails

– Reactors are mainly undamaged

– Reactors are automatically shutdown as designed

– Power generation stops - subcritical

– Diesel generators start, providing back-up power to emergency systems

– Emergency core cooling systems are running

– Plant is in stable condition

Timeline of Events

• Tsunami hits plant at 3:41 p.m. (less than 1 hour later)

– Plant reportedly designed for tsunami about 6 meters. Actual tsunami is approx twice that

– Flooding of diesel generators causes them to fail, resulting in station blackout

– Only batteries are still available

– Failure of emergency core cooling systems

Timeline of Events

(continued)

How Are We Different?

After the Accident

Unit 1

Unit 3

Unit 4

Unit 2

• Very large earthquakes occur at adjacent tectonic plates. We aren’t near one.

• There are no active or capable faults within the vicinity of the site which are capable of producing large earthquakes.

• Our site is 435 feet above sea level and more than 100 miles from the ocean.

Our Site Is Much Less

Likely to Have an

Earthquake or Tsunami

Power for Industry


Power for Industry

Electric Rates, Fuel and

Nuclear Plant

Kenny Jackson

Vice President

Rates and Regulatory Affairs

SCE&G Large Customer SeminarMay 2011

To be discussed . . .

• Rate Matters

• Meeting Load Growth

• New Nuclear Update

• Power Delivery

2011 SCE&G

Regulatory Schedule

Source: SCANA 1st Quarter Earnings Presentation - 4-27-11

Fuel Change

Class

2010-11

Fuel Factor

(cents/kWh)

2011-12

Fuel Factor

(cents/kWh)

Change

(cents/kWh)

Residential 3.606 3.6655 +0.0049

Small General Service 3.612 3.633 +0.0021

Medium General Service 3.611 3.624 +0.0013

Large General Service 3.613 3.602 -0.0011

Lighting 3.610 3.586 -0.0024

2010 Average Rate

Increase Impact

Property Taxes

• Aiken County: $8.24 million

• Allendale County: $1.11 million

• Bamberg County: $1.02 million

• Barnwell County: $1.47 million

• Beaufort County: $3.91 million

• Berkeley County: $5.65 million

• Charleston County: $11.2 million

• Colleton County: $4.6 million*

• Dorchester County: $4.05 million

• Edgefield County: $1.01 million

• Fairfield County: $22.35 million

• Hampton County: $2.02 million

• Jasper County: $6 million

• Lexington County: $26.13 million

• Orangeburg County: $10.74 million

• Richland County: $25.2 million

2010 Tax Bill – $142 million

More People . . .

Electric & Gas

Operating Statistics

Electric Natural Gas

2010 Generating

Resources

Source: 2011 SCE&G Integrated Resource Plan

SCE&G Sets New

Peak Demand

• During the 8 a.m. hour

Friday, Jan. 14, 2011

customers used 4,872

megawatts (MW) of

electricity,

• Broke previous record

of 4,720 MW on Jan.

11, 2010.

Peak Demand –

History & Forecast

The Need For

New Generation

Reserve Margin

Target:• 12% Target

Floor

• 18% Target

Ceiling

Need for base-

load by 2016

Boeing Opts for

100% Renewable• Power supply from:

– 2.6 MW thin-film solar

laminate panels owned,

installed and maintained by

SCE&G on the new Final

Assembly building roof.

– SCE&G will supplement the

solar generated energy with

power from its system

resources, coupled with

renewable energy

certificates from a

generating facility on its

system.

– One of the largest solar

rooftop installations of its

kind in the Southeast.Source: Boeing Corporation Press Release– 4/19/2011

Greenhouse Gas

Emissions

Source: Ex Parte Communication Briefing with SC PSC – 4/28/2011

CLEAN: Hydro, Nuclear

and Biomass Energy

SCE&G Clean Energy Plan

Energy Efficiency

• EnergyWise has

programs for lighting,

HVAC & Food Service

and High-Efficiency

Equipment

• 362 customers or

about 70% of industrial

customer load have

“opted-out”.

Some Influences on

Our Resource Plan

Why Nuclear?

• Favorable cost

structure and

capacity factors

• Advances goal of

fuel diversity

• Financially sound

in-state partner

• Positive public

support

• 2005 Energy Bill

Incentives

EPC Agreement

Agreement with Shaw/Westinghouse Group

• 7 EPC Cost Categories

– 4 Fixed / Firm with escalation

– 3 Variable Based on Actual Cost

– Risk Profile for Each Category

• 2 Owners’ Cost Categories

– Variable Risk Profile

• Price Escalation linked to Indices in BLRA

• 2/3 EPC Costs Fixed/Firm with escalation

Overview of Nuclear

Project Status

Schedule of Nuclear

Project Capital Costs

Source: SCANA 1st Quarter Earnings Presentation - 4-27-11

New Nuclear CAPEX

& Rate Increases

• Annual new nuclear CAPEX cost recovery is formulaic

• BLRA provides small year over year rate increases, thus mitigating rate

shock at commercial operation date

Partnership with

Santee Cooper• Partnership Strengths:

• Current Partners in VC Summer Unit 1

• Santee Owns 1/3 of Unit 1

• 35+ year Partnership

• State Political Support

• Investment Grade Credit Ratings

• Partners in VC Summer Units 2 and 3

• Joint Ownership

• SCANA (55%) = 1,229 MW

• Santee Cooper (45%) = 1,005 MW

Federal Loan

Guarantee Program

• Current Status:

– Filed Part I & II of application in late 2008

– May 2009 - Named 1 of 4 projects considered for additional due

diligence

– Submitted preliminary credit assessment in 3rd quarter 2009

• Next Step: www.lgprogram.energy.gov

– Current Rule Establishing Loan Guarantee Program (10 CFR part 609)

• Key Concerns:

– Allocation of $18.5 billion available funds / potential additional

authorization

– Determine up-front credit subsidy cost and other fee structures

– Collateral package & covenants / commercial terms

Combined Operating

License Status Timeline

2010 Transmission

Miles Cleared

2010 Distribution

Miles Cleared

2010 Transmission

Danger Trees

2010 Circuit

Inspections

Making Headway

on Right-of-Way• Keeping power lines clear of trees and

branches has resulted in an 89 percent

improvement in reliability (in vegetation-

related outages) in the past year.

• Based on ANSI A300, SCE&G’s tree-

trimming program directs future tree

growth away from power lines by

trimming only limbs that are growing

toward the wire.

• “I remember during a small storm in

December 2004, we were here for 24 to

48 hours straight, and it was half the size

of the January event. Trimming has made

a huge difference in customer reliability.”

– Josh Jackson, Metro Columbia

Hurricane Storm

Season Outlook

SCE&G will conduct its annual Hurricane preparation meeting on May 26th.

Power for Industry


Power for Industry

Shale Gas Revolution

Jimmy Nicholson

General Manager, Sales & Gas Supply


May 2011

• August 2010

The Shale Gas Revolution

NYSE: DVN www.devonenergy.com

#1 Innovation

Fortune’s Most

Admired

Source: Enterprise Value as stated on Yahoo! Finance on Aug. 12, 2010.

US$, Billions

Larger Than You Might

Think…Enterprise Value


0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Canadian Natural

Chevron

Shell

Anadarko

Chesapeake

BP

ConocoPhillips

EnCana

ExxonMobil (1)

Bcfd

Daily Natural Gas Production In North America – Q2 2010

Source: Based on company filings.

(1) ExxonMobil Q2 results are proforma for the XTO acquisition.

Shale Gas

Why the Revolution?

Technology’s Role:Why the Revolution

Traps vs. Shales

MigratingHydrocarbons Shale

Frack

Porous & Permeable

Reservoir Layer

Hydrocarbon Trap

Impermeable

Sealing Layer

Organic Rich

Source Layer

Fracture stimulation 5,000’ – 15,000’ below the surface


Typical Shale Gas Well Production Profile

Example

Average Supply Impact

2 to 15 MMCFD*

* Based on IP rates for various shale horizontal wells

First Production

40+ Years AfterFirst Production

Supply Stability

Devon Energy Announces

Successful Haynesville

Shale Well

(I.P. 30.7 MMCFD)

Dow Jones - 11.02.09

Apache Reports

Horn River

Shale Success

(I.P. 16 MMCFD)

Daily Oil Bulletin - 07.30.09

High initial production rates

Long and stable production lives


POROSITY – Storage capacity of a Rock. A

rock is porous when it has many tiny spaces,

voids or pores.

PERMEABILITY – Ability of a rock to

transmit a fluid. A rock is permeable when the

pores are connected.

Porosity & Permeability

Matrix - Sediment Particle

Porosity – Void Space


POROSITY – Storage capacity of a rock.

PERMEABILITY – Ability of a rock to transmit a fluid

SMALL SIZE GRAINS

“BB’s”

Porosity = 47.6%

Matrix - Sediment Particle

Porosity – Void Space

LARGE SIZE GRAINS

“GOLF BALLS”

Porosity = 47.6%

Porosity, Permeability & Grain Size


Source: Devon Energy Corporation

Dolomite CoreHigh Porosity & Permeability


Source: Devon Core Sample

Shale CoreLow Porosity &

Permeability


•In its natural state, shale has

low porosity and extremely

low permeability.

Hydraulic Fracturing Technology


Fracture

StimulationShale Reservoir

Frac BarrierWater Bearing Fm.

Horizontal Drilling Technology


Birthplace of Shale

Natural GasThe Barnett Shale

Ft. Worth Dallas

Denton

Barnett Shale

OKLAHOMA

TEXAS

HoustonAustin

Oklahoma City

Covers more than 20 counties

Play-wide production: > 4.9 BCFD

> 14,000 producing wells

Largest Gas Field in Texas


Barnett ShaleSuperior, First-Mover Advantage

Parker

Palo PintoHood

Tarrant

Johnson

Erath

Hill

JackWise Denton

Ft. Worth

Highly

Urbanized

Denton

Low average acreage cost: $2,800/acre

Low average royalty burden: 18%

Largest producer: 1.1 BCFED net

Most producing wells: 4,400

Significant midstream infrastructure

• Processing capacity: 750 MMCFD

• Ownership in > 3,000 miles of pipeline

2009 activity: Drilled 336 wells

2010 plans: Drill 425 wells

Primary504,000 Net Acres

Emerging85,000 Net Acres

Net risked resource: 18.0 TCFE

Risked locations: 5,900 Primary

1,600 Emerging

7,500 Total


Barnett Drilling

DensityJohnson County

Johnson county net acreage: 119,000

Drilled 700 horizontal wells to date

Devon WellDevon Acreage

Cities

Lakes

Industry Well

Cleburne

Alvarado

Venus

Burleson

Grandview

Devon WellDevon Acreage

Cities

Lakes

Industry Well

Johnson County net acreage: 118,000

Drilled 740 horizontal wells to date


Barnett ShaleRapid Growth

Barnett Shale Average Annual Production (BCFD)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Devon Other

Source: IHS Energy. Gross wellhead production by operator.

Currently

1.1

Total Field

Production

2009

> 4.9 BCFD

Barnett Recognized in 1981

Light Sand Fracture Technology

Horizontal Technology

Devon Acquires Mitchell

Devon alone has

increased its

estimated

resource base

approaching 5X

since 2002.


Barnett ShaleHistory of Resource Growth

2.1

2002

1.8

7.9

5.45.0

Total: 3.9 TCFE

2009

Total: 18.3 TCFE Risked4.7x

1.7 TCFE Produced

ContingentProved Probable & Possible

(Needs Updating)


Operations in

Oklahoma

Weatherford

McAlester

OKLAHOMA

TEXAS Oklahoma City

Arkoma-Woodford

Cana-Woodford


Cana Woodford ShaleFirst-Mover Yields Superior Position

Net risked resource: > 7.0 TCFE

Risked locations: > 3,500

Net acreage: 230,000

Low cost of entry: $2,200/acre

Low average royalty burden: 21%

Q2 ’10 net production: 105 MMCFED

Constructing gas processing plant

• Completion expected: Early 2011

2009 activity: Drilled 41 wells

2010 plans: Drill 100 wellsOKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City

TEXAS

Cana Woodford


Cana FieldHorizontal pilot drilling


North American Shale Gas PlaysImpact of Shale Gas Plays

Sources: EIA, Potential Gas Committee, Ziff Energy

• Shale play development has been the primary driver in U.S. Lower 48 supply.

ANGA Resource Evaluation

In Progress

Potential Gas Committee

Press Release (June 2009)

Potential US natural gas

resource base increases by

515 TCF or 39% as compared to

2006 assessment based on

reevaluation of shale plays


U.S. Shale Gas Production Potential

BC

FD

Source: Tristone Capital

Historical Forecast

NYSE: DVN www.devonenergy.com page 88

America’s “New” Natural Gas:Choice, Reliability, Competition, Price Stability

• 100+ years of natural gas supply – and growing with technology

• New shale gas resources:• Near-term supply impact

• Short well drilling times

• Very high initial production rates

• Long-term supply stability• Wells produce for 40 - 50 years or more

• New resources onshore are easier and less expensive to develop

Bottom line:

Greater energy and economic security; more stable, predictable prices

Power for Industry


Power for Industry

Natural Gas

Joe Phillips

Manager, Large Gas Accounts


May 2011

Elba

IslandTranscontinental

Gathering Systems

Southern Natural

Carolina Gas Transmission

SCE&G

On-Shore

Off-Shore

ELBA ISLAND LNG FACILITY

•Elba Terminal Expansion

–200,000 m3 tank (4.2 bcfe)–Three 180,000 Mcf/d

submerged combustionvaporizers

–Berth modifications to accommodate larger ships

–Simultaneous ship unloading

•Elba Express Pipeline–190 miles of 42”/36” pipeline–Capacity of 945 MMCf/d–In-Service: 3/1/10

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005

Hurricanes

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Curtailed Days by Category (9 ,8, 7, 6, 3F, 3E, 3D & 3C)

Cat 9 Cat 8 Cat 7 Cat 6 Cat 3F Cat 3E Cat 3D Cat 3C

U.S./EUROPE PRICING DIFFERENTIALS

INHIBITING ADDITIONAL LNG IMPORTS

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

$11.00N

ov

'10

Dec

Jan

'11

Feb

Mar

Apr

$/M

MB

tu

$4+ Spread

Working Gas in Underground Storage

For the Week Ending April 22, 2011

RegionStocks (Bcf) for Stocks (Bcf) for Implied Net Year Ago Stocks

22-Apr-11 15-Apr-11 Change (Bcf) (Bcf)

East 666 652 14 862

West 226 222 4 316

Producing 793 780 13 723

Total Lower 48 1,685 1,654 31 1,900

Region

5-YearDifference from5-Year Average

(Percent)

(2001-2005) Average Stocks

(Bcf)

5-Year Average(Percent)

East 760 -12.4

West 262 -13.7

Producing 674 17.7

Total Lower 48 1,696 -0.6

Baker Hughes Rig Count

4/29/2011

Current Year Prior Year

Increase

(Decrease)

over

Prior Year

U. S. Gas

Rigs 882 958 -76

U. S. Oil

Rigs 926 513 413

Total Rigs - North

America 1,951 1,591 360

FUEL COMPARISONS

Jul '10 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '11 Feb Mar Apr May

Gas Price $6.1200 $6.2000 $4.9800 $5.1900 $4.6100 $5.7100 $5.6600 $5.7500 $5.1600 $5.6100 $5.7700

No. 6 Price $11.6428 $11.6057 $11.6135 $11.7300 $12.0626 $11.8602 $12.9119 $13.1397 $14.6690 $15.9511 $15.9524

Propane Price $12.4290 $11.9651 $12.9378 $13.7871 $15.0349 $15.2336 $15.2620 $17.5109 $16.6725 $16.0164 $16.5666

No. 2 Price $17.0133 $16.4021 $16.3063 $16.9021 $17.5707 $18.5486 $19.0759 $20.8027 $21.5759 $23.8483 $25.1701

$0.0000

$5.0000

$10.0000

$15.0000

$20.0000

$25.0000

$30.0000

Power for Industry


Power for Industry

Environmental Compliance

Tom Effinger

Manager, Corporate Environmental Services


May 2011

Generation ~5800 MWe

Generation

Emerging Environmental

Rules

What’s the Big Deal?

• The North American Electric Reliability

Corporation (NERC) is an international

regulatory authority established to evaluate

reliability of the bulk power system in North

America.

• October 2010 NERC Study identified 4

potential EPA rules that could result in unit

retirements or forced retrofits between 2013

and 2018.

What’s the Big Deal?

• The rules have been in development for

years and are currently undergoing court-

ordered revisions that must be implemented

within mandatory timeframes.

• NERC predicts that these 4 rules will have a

significant potential impact to reliability should

they be implemented as proposed.

Four Important Emerging

Regulations

1. Clean Air Transport Rule – CATR

2. Mercury and Air Toxics Std. – MACT

3. Thermal Power Plant Cooling Water

Intake Structures Rule - 316(b)

4. Coal Combustion Residuals - CCR

Air Regulations

Clean Air Transport Rule - CATR

• Developed under the Clean Air Act

• Proposed in August 2010

• Final Rule due by June 2011

• Prohibits pollution of downwind states

Air Regulations

• Replaces the Clean Air Interstate Rule that

was remanded in 2008 (Greater emission

reductions)

• Seeks emission reductions of sulfur

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)

–Greatest impact on coal-fired generation

• Will result in shift from coal to other fuel

sources with less SO2 and NOx emissions

SO2 Emissions

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

To

ns

Year

SCE&G SO2 Emissions

Actual & Projected Annual SO2 Emissions Tons

Projected SO2 Emissions with Scrubbers Tons

Annual SO2 Allowances Ton Limit

EGU EPA CAIR SO2 Ton Limit

YTD SO2 Emissions

Annual NOx

Emissions

SCE&G NOx Emissions

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

Year

To

ns

Annual NOx EmissionsTons

EPA CAIR Annual NOxEmission Limit Tons

Actual & ProjectedOzone NOx EmissionsTonsOzone NOx EmissionTons Limit

YTD NOx Emissions

Mercury and Air

Toxics Standard

• Developed under the Clean Air

Act

• Proposed March 16, 2011

• Final Rule due by November 16,

2011

• Up to 4 year compliance timeline

• Directly affects coal and oil fired

electric generating units (approx.

1350 units nationwide)

Mercury and Air

Toxics Standard

• Seeks emission reductions of mercury and

air toxics (metals, acid gases and organics)

• Requires Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT)

– Wet or dry scrubbers

– Dry sorbent injection

– Activated carbon injection systems

– Baghouses

Mercury and Air

Toxics Standard

• Industry-wide costs estimated at

$10.9 billion annually

• Significant burden on small power

producers

• Older plants most affected

–Older technology

–Fewer air pollution controls

–Operate less

Cooling Water

Intake Rule

• Developed under the Clean

Water Act Section 316(b)

• Proposed March 28, 2011

• Final Rule due by July 2012

• Expected to have an 8 year

compliance timeline

• Estimated to impact 670 plants

Cooling Water

Intake Rule

• Designed to limit the impingement of fish and

entrainment of eggs and larvae

• New units must use closed-cycle cooling

• Existing units may have to retrofit closed-cycle

cooling towers -- Expensive

• Large facilities will have to conduct studies and

provide reports

Coal Combustion

Residuals Rule

• Developed under the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA)

• Initiated after the TVA Kingston spill – a structural

failure of an ash impoundment

• EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson committed to a

December 2009 deadline for regulation

• Proposed rule issued June 21, 2010

• Public hearings and comment period

Coal Combustion

Residuals Rule

• Rule to be finalized late 2012

• Coal combustion residuals (CCRs)

– flyash, boiler slag, bottom ash and

gypsum from scrubbers

• CCRs will be either:

– Regulated as a listed waste (hazardous

waste) under Subtitle C, or

– Regulated as non-hazardous waste

under Subtitle D

Coal Combustion

Residuals Rule

• Hazardous waste regulation will be expensive

– Capital cost of equipment retrofit

– Annual cost of material management

• No hazardous waste landfills in SC (AL is the closest)

• Insufficient capacity in existing hazardous waste landfills

– Beneficial reuse is expected to end

• Currently SCE&G recycles greater than 60% of its ash (300k –

500k tons per year)

– Compliance timeline is expected to be five to eight years

Summary

Pollutant Assumption

SO2 and NOx Transport rule effective in 2014

Limited trading between states and regions

Mercury and Air

Toxics

Technology-forcing regulations by 2015

? Wet scrubbing, selective catalytic reduction

(SCRs)

? Particulate control such as baghouses

Entrainment/

Impingement 316(b)

Closed Cycle cooling retrofit by 2020?

Increased compliance monitoring and reporting

Ash and other CCRs Hazardous Waste designation by 2020 ?

BONUS: CO2 and

GHGs

Market-based or technology forcing

Carbon Emissions

• Monitor and Report Carbon Emissions (CO2e)

starting in 2010

• GHG considered for permitting new sources

effective January 2, 2011

• Modifications to Existing sources - estimate net

GHG emissions increase to determine which

projects may trigger Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) review for GHGs

Carbon Emissions

• Regulations affecting existing power

plants have yet to be proposed– Carbon Tax or

– Cap and Trade Legislation?

• Renewables– Solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and geothermal

energy

How Much to Keep Existing

Coal Units Running?

$300

million?

$600

million?

$400

million?

$250

million?

$350

million?

Estimates of 50-100 GW of capacity “at risk” nationwide

Nuclear Yes!

No CO2

No SO2

No NOx

No Hg

No Particulate

Non-Fattening

Beyond NIMBY

• NOTE– Not Over There Either

• BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near

Anybody

• NOPE– Not On Planet Earth

Beyond NIMBY

• NIMBY STRIKES

–NIMBY Success Through Regulatory

Intervention Kills Energy Supply

Power for Industry


Power for Industry

Electric Metering Systems &

Technology

Jerry Smith

Manager, Electric Metering


May 2011

Electric Metering

• Metering is often referred as the “cash register”.

• Mechanism that is used to measure energy flow across the grid.

• Provides the information necessary to bill energy usage and monitor load.

• Metering is truly cross-functional, because it must work in conjunction with the applicable electrical systems, while also meeting the requirements of the rate structure, accounting systems, and meter reading systems.

Metering – Entire

Spectrum

Self-Contained

Metering

• All current passes directly through the meter• Constant = 1• All measurement is handled directly within the

meter• Small/Medium services

2 Stylesa) Socket style (0 – 200 amps)b) Bolt-In style (201 – 600 amps)

Transformer-Rated

Metering

• Used on services either > 600 amps or

> 480 volts

• Requires Current Transformers (CTs)

• May require Potential Transformers

(PTs)

• Constant > 1

Current

Transformers (CTs)

•Reduces current to a level that’s practical for a meter to handle.

•Reduces current that’s directed to the meter by a known ratio

•Typically expressed in terms of primary rating to 5 amps

•Voltage class typically determines the size of a CT

•Wide range of ratios available

•CTs are a component of the measurement system

•CT selection is very important to ensure overall accuracy

Potential

Transformers (PTs)•Reduces voltage to a level that’s practical and safe for a meter to handle

•Reduces voltage that’s directed to the meter by a known ratio

•Typically expressed in terms of primary rating to 1 volts

•Voltage class typically determines the size of a PT

•Wide range of ratios available

•PTs must be matched to the service voltage

•PTs are a component of the measurement system

Solid State Devices

Electro-Mechanical Devices

Metering Evolution

Meter Programming

Communications

AMR: Automatic Meter Reading

AMI: Automated Metering Infrastructure

Metering Revolution

AMR 101

• 1-Way communication

• Typically used solely for meter reading

• Semi-automation of manual reading

process

• SCE&G uses mobile RF

• One reading per meter per month

• Limited to single register applications

AMI 101

• AMI is a component of SmartGrid

• Two-way communication to meters

• Multi-register readings

• Interval data

• Real-time alarms

• Real-time diagnostics

SmartSynch - Applicable Meters

(See attached spreadsheet)

AMR/AMI at SCE&G

Meter Accuracy

• Electric meters are very accurate

devices, and will typically hold that

accuracy over their lifespan;

• Meters are factory-calibrated by

manufacturer;

• Utilities verify accuracy with various

testing procedures

Test Plans

• We use 6 plans to insure that we

have accurate meters on our system,

and insure that we are in compliance

with various regulations.

• Includes PSC Regulations and

Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Compliance

Sample Testing for

New Shipments

• Acceptance testing

– Applies to all shipments of meters;

– Random sample from each shipment

– Sample size determined by MIL-STD 414

tables

– Statistical analysis determines pass/fail

– Purpose: To confirm accuracy, proper

configuration, proper nameplate info,

and general inspection.

In-Service Sample

• Applies to all self-contained meters

• Performed annually

• Meters are segmented into groups that have similar design characteristics

• Currently have approximately 45 groups

• Random sample from each group

• Sample size determined by MIL-STD 414 tables

• Approx 1200 meters tested annually

• Statistical analysis determines pass/fail

• Results reported to PSC annually

• Purpose: Insure that the each group’s overall population is statistically accurate. Identify trends in meter performance.

New Installation

Testing/Check

• Applies to new CT services, and services

that have had CT/PT work;

• Purpose:

–Verify proper wiring of CT services

–General inspection

–Verify proper constant in CIS

Periodic Testing

• Applies to all CT meters

• Meters assigned a test schedule based on

meter constant ( 2- 4 yrs)

• Approx 3000 meters tested annually

• Purpose: Insure that all applicable meters

are accurate and have been tested within

test schedule period.

Vector Analysis

VaIa

Ic

Ib

Vb

Vc* Voltage vectors

spaced 120 degrees

•A-phase current

vector lags it’s voltage

vector

•B-phase current

vector leads it’s voltage

vector

•C-Phase current

vector lags it’s voltage

vectorABC Rotation

MV90 Metering

• LGS Accounts (Rates 23, 24, 27, 60s)

• AMI Technology

• Primary and backup meters

• Applicable points of service

– Single point of service with monthly demand

greater than 1500 KW

– Coincidental Demand

• Each point of service included in coincidental demand

must have monthly demand > 500 KW

MV90 Metering

• Record KWH load profile in 15 minute intervals

• Record KVARH load profile in 15 minute intervals

• All other values are calculated, including KVAH,

Power Factor, and all demand values

• Selected applications where values are recorded

in 5-minute intervals

• Primary and backup meters

• Time Synchronization (+/- 60 seconds)

Interval Data

MV90 Metering

- Data Validation• Data is validated monthly on billing cycleprior to posting data to CIS for billing• The following items are validated:

– Maximum KW Demand (+/- 10%)– Total KWH (+/- 10%)– PF @ time of peak (+/- 5%)– Average PF (+/- 5%)– Primary/Backup KWH & KVARH (+/-1%)– # Intervals– Interval data versus register data– Zero intervals– No gaps or overlaps

MV90 Metering -

Communication

• Analog phone line

• Wireless IP communication

• Nightly data interrogation

SmartSynch technology provides utilities with an economical

and efficient solution for advanced metering requirements.

The SmartMeter System delivers intelligence from selected

electric meters via public wireless networks (cell systems)

Allows targeted application of AMI

• Two-Way Communication

• Load Profile Data (EVERY METER)

• TOU and Demand Readings

• Scheduled and On-Request Reads

• Demand Resets

• Real-Time Meter Event and Alarm Retrieval

• Real-Time Power Outage & Restoration Alarms

• Ping Meter

• Diagnostics and Tamper Detection

• Remote Meter Configuration

• Multi-register meter reading– Demand meters

– Time-of-Use meters

– Net meters

– Load survey metering

• Real-time messaging from meter– Power outage

– Power restoration

– Meter diagnostics and errors

– Meter event log

• Manage distribution system– Power outage monitoring

– Ping meter to detect status

– Voltage monitoring

SmartSynch

Application at SCE&G

•Implement a production MDM system at SCE&G.

•AMI will create a tremendous increase in the amount

of metering data.

•Need a system to manage the vast amount of data

created by AMI technology.

•System will initially be used to handle the 9,000 AMI

meters covered by MV90 and SmartSynch.

•Includes a web portal to provide customers with

access to metering data

MDM:

Meter Data Management

Power for Industry


Power for Industry

Distribution Dispatch

Charles Moore

Manager, System Operation & Maintenance


May 2011

18,000 miles of

Distribution line

657,420 customers

One operation – Two

dispatch offices

(Charleston and Columbia)

Responsible for customers

fed from Distribution system

Standby redundant computer

hardware

Twenty-two dispatchers

Distribution Dispatch

OMS

SCADA

• Control of 714 Substation Breakers

• Control of 732 Field Switches

• 27 Data Points from each switch

• Auto Sectionalization to reduce fault

exposure

CIS

• Customer Information

• Service Point

• Outage Call

GIS

• Electric Grid

• Links customers to Grid

• Land base

• Normal Electrical

Configuration

SCE&G’s OMSOutage Management System

OMS

• Real time Model of Electric System

• Graphical representation of critical customers service

• Links outage calls to Electric Grid

• Predicts outage locations based on customer call patterns

• Links to SCADA to show confirmed outages

• Communicates estimated time of restoration to customer

• Tracks customer outage history

Customer reports

lights out

or

SCADA reports

opened device

Service

restored

OMS captures SCADA event

or predicts event assuming all

customers on same circuit

affected by single fault

Dispatcher analyzes SCADA event,

remotely sectionalizes, and remotely

restores portion of customers affected

if possible

Dispatcher analyzes outage volume

and available field work force,

activating additional resources

if needed – Restoration assignments

are dispatched and subsequent field

activity is coordinated and documented

according to defined operational

procedures

Customers who

reported outage

are contacted for

restoration confirmation

Field restoration is performed applying

a multitude of documented work

practices with a special focus on

employee and public safety

Distribution Customer Outage Resolution Process

Critical & Key Customer Outage Flags

OMS/SCADA Upgrade

• Load Flow Applications for predicted switching

• Automation of service restoration

• Recommended switching plan to support

service restoration

• Updates to Account Representatives for key

customers related to outages

• Improved tool for Account Representatives to

understand service restoration effort

Power for Industry

Documents

Transcript of Power for Industry