SPP.org 1

Draft Business as Usual Plan

SPP.org 3

Wind - Business as Usual

SPP.org 4

Wind Requirement Per State

Futures 1 & 3 Wind in GW

State (in SPP)Existing &

Construction Wind Additional Wind Wind RequirementAR 0 0.2 0.4KS 1 2.6 2.4LA 0 0 0.4MO 0 0.7 1.1NE 0.4 1.4 1.1NM 0.2 0.2 0.2OK 1.6 3.6 3.3TX 1 2 1.7       

SPP Total 4.2 10.6 10.6

SPP.org

Transfers to Meet Requirements

5

6 intra-State Transfers

3 inter-State Transfers

SPP.org 6

Satisfying the Future’s Requirement

• The expected wind energy must be achieved while maintaining voltage

Each state’s capacity and wind requirement modeled as a source-sink transfer

PV analysis

Transfer increased until near voltage collapse

SPP.org 7

Satisfying the Future’s Requirement

• The expected wind energy must be achieved while maintaining thermal limits

Each state’s capacity and wind requirement modeled as a source-sink transfer

Limitations to the transfers due to 345 kV contingencies identified

Focuses upon regional issues rather than local issues

SPP.org 8

Issue Areas & Corridors

• Voltage

No major issues encountered, up to expected business-as-usual levels

Results in-line with the latest Generation Interconnection Study

• Thermal

230 & 345 kV in the Texas panhandle

345 kV corridor in mid-Kansas

230 & 345 kV corridor in east Kansas

SPP.org 9

Satisfying the Future’s Requirement

SPP system with NTC projects

SPP.org 10

Limiting Corridors

SPP.org 11

Least Cost Planning Approach

• Installation cost & design simplicity

Shortest distances

Lowest Cost

Existing termination points

Only 345 kV and above projects considered

Emphasis given to previously studied projects

SPP.org

Least Cost Plan Components

• Texas panhandle

Tolk – Potter Co

Potter Co – Stateline

• East Kansas

Jeffrey – Iatan

• Mid-Kansas

Spearville – Wichita

Wichita – Rose Hill

• Oklahoma

Stateline – Anadarko

12

SPP.org 13

Business as Usual Least-Cost Plan

SPP.org 14

Lease Cost Plan Meets RequirementsWith proposed projects, limits are eliminated

With proposed projects, limits are eliminated

SPP.org

Balanced PortfolioPriority ProjectsSTEP 345 kV projectsITP20 identified 345 kV lines

SPP.org

Potential projects for further study

• Texas panhandle

Frio Draw – Tolk

Tolk – Tuco

Tuco – Potter Co.

• East Kansas

Jeffrey – Swissvale

Jeffrey – Auburn

• Mid-Kansas

Medicine Lodge – Viola

Viola - Wichita

Knoll – Summit

Spearville – Reno Co.

16

SPP.org 17

Correlation to State of the Market Flowgates

Top 10 flowgates for July 2009 – July 2010

1Osage Switch - Canyon East (115) ftlo Bushland - Deaf Smith (230)

2Lake Road – Alabama (161) ftlo

Iatan to Stranger Creek (345)

3Randall County - Palo Duro (115)

ftlo Amarillo – Swisher (230)

4Lone Oak to Sardis (138) ftlo

Pittsburg – Valiant 345

5Shamrock XFR (115/69) ftlo

Tuco – Oklaunion (345)

6El Paso – Farber (138) ftlo Wichita – Woodring (345)

7Kelly – Seneca (115) ftlo E

Manhattan – Concordia (230)

8 Gentleman to Redwillow (345)

9Holcomb – Plymell Switch (115) ftlo Holcomb - Spearville (345)

10Mansfield – Int. Paper (138) ftlo

Dolet Hills – Swisher (345)

1 & 3

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SPP.org 18

Seams Integration

• Expectation of thermal limitations in other futures’ least cost designs

Nebraska – Iowa border near Omaha

Kansas City area

Ft. Smith area

East Texas

SPP.org 19

Stakeholder Feedback

• Comments regarding study approach

• Alternative project suggestions

• Areas for development

SPP.org 20

Futures 2 - 4

• Staff will begin development of least-cost plans for these three futures

• Same process as business as usual case

SPP.org 21

Timeline for Futures 2 - 4

• August 2010

Least-cost plans for futures

• September 2010

Single, flexible plan for all futures

Cost-effective transmission analysis

• October 2010

Robustness evaluation

Limited reliability assessment

Ben RoubiqueLead Engineer, Technical Studies & Modeling501-614-3331broubique@spp.org