Southwest Power Pool AQ IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE MEETING June 5, 2013, 9-11am Net Conference MINUTES

Similar documents
Southwest Power Pool BUSINESS PRACTICES WORKING GROUP Conference Call/Web Cast February 7, 2012

Feasibility Study on Load Flow and Short Circuit Project

Generation, Transmission, and End User Facilities

2009 SPP TransCanada Pipeline Study Report

Disturbance Monitoring and

Quarter 3, 2007 (2007Q3) Generation Deliverability Assessment Study Plan

NERC Relay Loadability Standard Reliability Standards Webinar November 23, 2010

Open Access Transmission Tariff of Southern Companies

ELECTIVE INTERCONNECTION FACILITIES

City of Grand Island Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Council Session

Memorandum. This memorandum requires Board action. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Superseding REVISED SHEET NO. 34D-8 REVISED SHEET NO. 34D-8 Effective May 27, 2010 Effective December 3, 2011

Modifications to TOP and IRO Standards

SMUD Model Data Requirements & Reporting Procedures MOD VERSION 1.2

Proposed Improvements for NERC MOD Standards July 10, 2012

Guidelines for Submitting NERC Reliability Standards Required Documents to the SPP Reliability Coordinator and the SPP Balancing Authority Version 1

ATTACHMENT F Form of Service Agreement for Wholesale Network Integration Transmission Service

NETWORK INTEGRATION TRANSMISSION SERVICE. Preamble

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE INVITING POST-TECHNICAL CONFERENCE COMMENTS. (June 3, 2016)

Generator Interconnection Process. Wholesale Transmission Overview

SPP Notification to Construct

Published: December 15, 2016 Revised: December 15, 2016

APPENDIX 4 to LGIP INTERCONNECTION FACILITIES STUDY AGREEMENT

Published: December 15, 2017 Revised: December 15, 2017

Concept White Paper. Concepts for Proposed Content of Eventual Standard(s) for Project : Real-Time Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities

SOUTH TEXAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

Order No Compliance Filing Related to Interconnection Issues Proposed Transmission Interconnection Process

Unofficial Comment Form 1st Draft of PRC-005-3: Protection System and Automatic Reclosing Maintenance (Project )

LORAIN-MEDINA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. NORTH CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

ATTACHMENT I: Generator Interconnection Procedures (GIP)

Industry Webinar. Project Single Points of Failure. August 23, 2018

2017 RTEP Assumptions for Western Sub-Region

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Transmission System Network Upgrades Policy Document

Unofficial Comment Form

Standards Authorization Request Form

Midwest ISO. Module B- Network Integration Transmission Service Overview. Vikram Godbole Lead, Transmission Service Planning October 20, 2010

Comment Form for 1 st Draft of Standard for Backup Facilities (Project )

Southwest Power Pool Independent Coordinator of Transmission RELIABILITY PLAN for Entergy in the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council September

The NYISO shall assign a Queue Position based upon the date and time of receipt of the

Bulk Electric System Definition Changes and Reporting

This section is maintained by the drafting team during the development of the standard and will be removed when the standard becomes effective.

Annex C. Developing New Engine Oil Performance Standards for API Certification Mark. C.1 General. C.2 Auto/Oil Advisory Panel

Standard Development Timeline

Specific topics covered in this brief include:

CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION FERC ELECTRIC TARIFF ORIGINAL VOLUME NO. III Original Sheet No. 977 METERING PROTOCOL

Project Consideration of Commission Directives in Order No. 693

BC Hydro Open Access Transmission Tariff Effective: January 26, 2018 OATT Attachment Q-1 First Revision of Page 1

Interconnection Standards for Delmarva Power & Light Company s Delaware Operating Territory

Designation and Termination of Network Resources

Transmission Service Reference Manual. May 08, 2017

Clean Power Call BC Transmission Corporation & BC Hydro Joint Information Session July 8, 2008

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT

Interconnection Feasibility Study Report GIP-IR377-FEAS-R1

Cisco Data Center Accelerated Deployment Service for Nexus 9000 (ASF-DCV1-NEX-ADS)

Service Description: Advanced Services- Fixed Price: Cisco UCCE Branch Advise and Implement Services (ASF-CX-G-REBPB-CE)

Cyber Security Reliability Standards CIP V5 Transition Guidance:

Standard Development Timeline

Internal Controls Evaluation (ICE) Tony Eddleman, P.E. NERC Compliance Manager Nebraska Public Power District

Stakeholder Comments Template

February 18, The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426

Grid Interconnection of Renewable Generation

Lusitania Savings Bank Retail Internet Banking Terms and Conditions

Colstrip Transmission System. Transmission Service and Interconnection Processes and Procedures

Public Service Company of New Mexico. Public Transmission Planning Meeting March 2, 2017 Albuquerque, NM

Comment Form Revised FRCC Regional Reliability Standard Development Process Document (FRCC-RE-STD-001)

Project Protection System Misoperations

Standards Authorization Request Form

STCP22-1 Issue 003 Production of Models for GB System Planning

Agenda Event Analysis Subcommittee Conference Call

APPENDIX LETTER CODE DESCRIPTION Appendix D2 Scheduled ENROL/ 3PENR

Unofficial Comment Form Project Real-time Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities IRO and TOP-010-1

PRC Coordination of Protection Systems for Performance During Faults

Service Description: Cisco Security Implementation Services. This document describes the Cisco Security Implementation Services.

Unofficial Comment Form Project Disturbance Monitoring

Procedures for cross-border transmission capacity assessments PROCEDURES FOR CROSS-BORDER TRANSMISSION CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS.

ITC Facility Connection Requirements for Generation, Transmission and End-User Facilities Connected to the ITC Holdings Transmission Systems

Service Description: Advanced Services Fixed Price Cisco WebEx Advise and Implement Service (0-5,000 Users) (ASF- WBXS-UC-PDIBSE)

Request for Qualifications for Audit Services March 25, 2015

Modifications to TOP and IRO Standards

Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet 1

ITC HOLDINGS, CORP. Edison Electric Institute 9

WECC Criterion MOD-(11 and 13)-WECC-CRT-1.1

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Transition Plan Technical Conference #1

Building Information Modeling and Digital Data Exhibit

STANDARD (PAY AS YOU GO) PRE-PAID SUPPORT PACKAGE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT

Agreements and Queue Management

First Federal Savings Bank of Mascoutah, IL Agreement and Disclosures

Peak Reliability. Reliability Coordinator Data Request and Specifications for Data Provision

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AN ORDER OF THE BOARD NO. P.U. 3(2018)

MISO-PJM Cross-Border Planning. February 19, 2014 MISO-PJM JCM

System Impact Study for Power Supply 400 MW Import on the EAL BCHA Path

Global Specification Protocol for Organisations Certifying to an ISO Standard related to Market, Opinion and Social Research.

Standard Authorization Request Form

Appendix I: LOAD OPERATING AGREEMENT

ERO Enterprise Registration Practice Guide: Distribution Provider directly connected Determinations Version 2: July 5, 2018

CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION FERC ELECTRIC TARIFF FIRST REPLACEMENT VOLUME NO. II Original Sheet No. 727 METERING PROTOCOL

Standard INT Dynamic Transfers

Appendix 1 Interconnection Request INTERCONNECTION REQUEST

Requests for Clarifications And Responses Order No. 754 Data Request The Study of Single Point of Failure

Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation. ICANN58 Working Meeting 11 March 2017

Transcription:

Southwest Power Pool AQ IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE MEETING June 5, 2013, 9-11am Net Conference MINUTES Agenda Item 1 Administrative Items AQITF Chairman Jim McAvoy called the meeting to order at 9:00 p.m. The following taskforce members were in attendance: Jim McAvoy, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority John Payne, Kansas Electric Power Co. Alan Ward, American Electric Power David Ruyle, Proxy for Travis Hyde Oklahoma Gas & Electric Jason Hofer, Nebraska Public Power District John Fulton, Southwestern Public Service Co. Nathan McNeil, Midwest Energy, Inc. The following stakeholders and staff were also in attendance: Jody Holland, SPP Staff Shaun Scott, SPP Staff Alex Watkins, SPP Staff William Mauldin, SPP Staff Bryce Bowie, SPP Staff Eric Barreveld, APX Power Geoffrey M. Rush John Shipman, OPPD Kevin Pera, Xcel Energy Kyle Drees, Westar Energy Pete Donaly, Sunflower Travis Hyde, OKGE Agenda Item 2 Recommendation of when Delivery Point Network Study (DPNS) should be performed using examples Jody gave a presentation with scenarios where a DPNS should be performed. (Attachment 1 AQITF Action Item 1) While discussing load additions, deletions, and modifications along TO seams there was some discussion about when to notify SPP. It was determined that this was addressed in the AQ Flowchart. During the dialogue on model differences there was some debate as to which models the TOs should be using for LCS. It was decided to leave it open for the TO to decide if they want to use the MDWG or ITPNT models, but will have to do a study with the ITPNT models to receive a NTC. If the MDWG models were used for LCS any changes that were made to the standard model have to be included in the LCS Report.

Agenda Item 3 Draft AQ business Practice Discussion There was some discussion on the current draft of the AQ Business Practice and some modifications were made. (Attachment 2 Delivery Point Addition Draft Business Practice 6-8-2013) There was lengthy discussion on attachment 2 of the Draft AQ Business Practice. Changes were made to the attachment to fully define the minimum LCS Requirements. Agenda Item 4 Next Steps for AQITF The business practice needs to be presented to the TWG, RTWG, and the BPWG for review. Tariff language development should begin soon. Staff will look into updating the RSC on the progress, and getting the AQ Business Practice presented to the TWG no later than the July 24 th net conference. Meeting was adjourned at 11:11 a.m.

DPNS rather than TO s LCS May 29, 2013

Possible situations where SPP performed DPNS may be preferred over TO s LCS Load addition, deletion, or modification along TO seam Model differences TC requests 3

Load addition, deletion, or modification along TO seam Multiple TOs may be performing LCS for same load Energy producers have confidential contracts Transmission systems of different TOs are integrated so SPP may need to study the impact on multiple TOs systems Member and nonmember loads may affect a study. Example: ITS between KAMO and GRDA contain member and nonmember loads 4

Model differences Per SPP processes, NTC are issued based on ITP models. MDWG models differ from ITPNT models in dispatch in some local areas such that DPNS may be needed. If localized models are used for the LCS, the ITPNT models may be necessary for the DPNS If models used for LCS report differs significantly from ITPNT model then DPNS may be required 5

TC requests If TC requests an independent study by RTO 6

Delivery Point Addition Draft Business Practice For purposes of this business practice, Host Transmission Owner is defined as the owner of that portion of the Transmission System to which such connection or modification is to be made and Transmission Customer is defined as the TC requesting the establishment or modification of a delivery point. Any capitalized terms not defined herein, shall have the meaning set forth in the SPP Tariff. The process outlined in Attachment AQ facilitates a Host Transmission Owner obtaining a Notification to Construct ( NTC ) outside the normal Integrated Transmission Planning ( ITP ) processes in Attachment O of the SPP Tariff, if the Host Transmission Owner determines that a NTC may be necessary for the addition of a delivery point to the Host Transmission Owner s transmission system. Please refer to the Attachment AQ process flowchart attached to this Business Practice as Appendix 1. A request to establish or change a delivery point must be made in writing to the Host Transmission Owner and/or SPP. Depending on the timing of a request and the need date for the load, a request may be included in the ITP process, which includes forecasted load. The following changes/modifications do not need to be included in the Attachment AQ process: 1. Any new or modified loads captured in the ITP process; 2. Any capacity changes at the delivery point without a corresponding change to the load at the delivery point; 3. Any Distribution Transformer changes without a corresponding load change; or 4. Modification to a delivery point facility rating, for example breaker replacement, bus or line termination equipment including protection equipment. The Host Transmission Owner shall determine whether the request can be included in the SPP Integrated Transmission Planning ( ITP ) processes within 10 business days of receiving the request from the Transmission Customer or in agreed upon timeframe. If the Host Transmission Owner determines that the request can be included in the ITP processes, the delivery point and necessary transmission facilities would then be migrated into the SPP planning models (TOs input data into Model on Demand tool) which then feeds into the annual Attachment O reliability planning processes. SPP will update any corresponding Network Integration Transmission Service Agreements ( NITSA ), as required. If the request involves a Network Resource change or a transfer of a delivery point, the request should be included in the SPP Aggregate Transmission Service Study process (Attachment Z2) and/or Delivery Point Transfer Screening Study process (Attachment AR), as applicable. Attachment AQ Process If the request cannot be included in the ITP process, Aggregate Transmission Service Study or Delivery Point Transfer Screening Study, then the request should be processed through the Attachment AQ process.

Upon notification of the request from Transmission Customer and receipt of application, SPP shall assign an AQ request number and post the request to the queue on the SPP website within 10 business days. The Host Transmission Owner will perform a screening study within 30 calendar days of receiving the request and determine whether a Load Connection Study (LCS) is required. Host Transmission Owner and Transmission Customer may discuss with SPP as needed. If a LCS is not required, Host Transmission Owner shall notify Transmission Customer and SPP within 10 business days of the completion of the screening study. Email is sufficient for the notification of the completion of the screening study. The delivery point and any necessary interconnection or sponsored facilities are then added to the SPP planning models (Transmission Owners input data into Model on Demand tool) which then feeds into the annual Attachment O reliability planning processes. At this point, the Transmission Owner and Transmission Customer can reach an agreement with regard to funding and construction of the facilities. SPP will update any corresponding NITSAs, as required. If the Host Transmission Owner determines that a LCS is required, the Host Transmission Owner shall tender the LCS Agreement to the Transmission Customer within 10 business days of receiving the request. A deposit to the Host Transmission Owner may be required for the LCS. The Transmission Customer must execute the LCS Agreement and provide the deposit, if required, within 30 calendar days. The Host Transmission Owner shall perform the LCS (see Appendix 2 for minimum LCS requirements) and provide the draft LCS Report to SPP and the Transmission Customer within 60 calendar days of the LCS Agreement execution. Following receipt of the draft LCS Report, SPP will perform an initial assessment based on the Host Transmission Owner s draft LCS Report to determine whether a Delivery Point Network Study (DPNS) is required. SPP and Host Transmission Owner will coordinate results of that assessment with the Transmission Customer. If SPP and the Host Transmission Owner agree to the results of that assessment, SPP will note such agreement in the LCS report. If SPP determines that a DPNS is required, or if the Transmission Customer requests a DPNS, SPP shall provide the DPNS Agreement to the Transmission Customer within 5 business days following SPP s determination or Transmission Customer s request. The DPNS Agreement shall commit the Transmission Customer to pay SPP for the actual cost to complete the study. The Transmission Customer shall execute the DPNS Agreement within 30 calendar days. If the Transmission Customer fails to return an executed DPNS Agreement within 30 calendar days, or at a later date as the Parties may mutually agree, SPP and Host Transmission Owner shall deem the request to be withdrawn. SPP will perform the DPNS and will post the DPNS Report within 60 calendar days of the receipt of an executed DPNS Agreement. If SPP is unable to complete the study in the allotted time, SPP shall provide an explanation to the Transmission Customer and Host Transmission Owner regarding the cause(s) of such delay and revised completion date and study cost estimate.

If SPP determines that a DPNS is not required, the Host Transmission Owner shall provide the final LCS Report to the Transmission Customer and SPP. SPP shall post the final LCS Report on the SPP website within 10 business days of receipt from the Host Transmission Owner. Any confidential information in the LCS Report will be redacted before the report is posted. The Host Transmission Owner or Transmission Customer shall notify SPP when an agreement has been reached on load connection upgrades. A NTC will only be issued if SPP accepts the LCS or performs a DPNS and Network Upgrades were identified by SPP. If a NTC is required, SPP will issue the NTC in accordance with Attachment O and the relevant SPP Business Practices. If no NTC is required, delivery point and necessary transmission facilities are added to the SPP planning models (TOs input data into Model on Demand tool) which is then included in the annual Attachment O reliability planning processes. SPP will update any corresponding NITSAs, as required.

Appendix 1 AQ Process Flowchart

Appendix 2 Minimum LCS Requirements Minimum Performed on the MDWG or ITPNT cases as appropriate for the next peak period as well as one year beyond. Typically this will be a summer peak but may be winter in some areas. Any changes to the models used will be documented in the LCS report so the results can be reproduced. If an NTC is desired, the ITPNT model results must be provided. Contingency analyses will be performed on the change case with the new load added. If violations occur compared to the base case. Compare results and determine violations, by applicable NERC standards, caused only by new load. Provide study solution to eliminate criteria violations Estimate cost of solutions to criteria violations +/- 30% Include tables for comparison of data Present report to requesting load serving entity, and to SPP if requesting out of cycle NTC or load serving entity requests The report should state what the customer request was for (load values), the requested ISD, the AQ request number, and the final statement as to when and the conditions under which the load can be served. Desired Provide multiple solutions, with estimated costs, to eliminate criteria violations. Make recommendation for upgrades with reasoning (ie cost, feasibility, timing, etc.) for the selection if applicable. Create one-line diagram with proposed options identified Any unique system protection requirements or system sensitivity that affects how much load can be added at various times should be stated in the report Optional Long term models may also be used in the study. Stability models or motor start studies should only be included if requested by the TO or customer. Effect on TPL-003 compliance if a solution seems to create a TPL-003 problem or has the potential to do so. Short circuit study and or capabilities at the point of interconnection, including the effects of any proposed network upgrades to support the request. Clear specification of the connecting equipment, responsibilities, and cost responsibilities for the customer and the TO

Assumptions of power factor at the load under study and any consequences of study effects of not meeting that power factor should also be made clear. If multiple load requests are being made in the same areas add all prior requests in that area to the model. Provide tables which show the incremental load being added to the models and customer load forecast over time, not just the final load at the buses.

Delivery Point Addition Draft Business Practice For purposes of this business practice, Host Transmission Owner is defined as the owner of that portion of the Transmission System to which such connection or modification is to be made and Transmission Customer is defined as the TC requesting the establishment or modification of a delivery point. Any capitalized terms not defined herein, shall have the meaning set forth in the SPP Tariff. The process outlined in Attachment AQ facilitates a Host Transmission Owner obtaining a Notification to Construct ( NTC ) outside the normal Integrated Transmission Planning ( ITP ) processes in Attachment O of the SPP Tariff, if the Host Transmission Owner determines that a NTC may be necessary for the addition of a delivery point to the Host Transmission Owner s transmission system. Please refer to the aattachment AQ process flowchart attached to associated with this Business Practice as Appendix 1. A request to establish or change a delivery point must be made in writing to the Host Transmission Owner and/or SPP. Depending on the timing of a request and the need date for the load, a request may be included in the ITP process, which includes forecasted load. The following changes/modifications do not need to be included in the Attachment AQ process: 1. Any new or modified loads captured in the ITP process; 2. Any capacity changes at the delivery point without a corresponding changes to the load at the delivery point; 3. Any Distribution Transformer changes without a corresponding load change; or 4. Modification to a delivery point facility rating, for example breaker replacement, bus or line termination equipment including protection equipment. The Host Transmission Owner shall determine whether the request can be included in the SPP Integrated Transmission Planning ( ITP ) processes within 10 business days of receiving the request from the Transmission Customer or in agreed upon timeframe. If the Host Transmission Owner determines that the request can be included in the ITP processes, the delivery point and necessary transmission facilities would then be migrated into the SPP planning models (TOs input data into Model on Demand tool) which then feeds into the annual Attachment O reliability planning processes. SPP will update any corresponding Network Integration Transmission Service Agreements ( NITSA ), as required. If request cannot be included in the ITP processes, then the Host Transmission Owner determines whether the request is a Network Resource change or a transfer of delivery point. If the request involves ais either a Network Resource change or a transfer of a delivery point, the request should be included in the SPP Aggregate Transmission Service Study process (Attachment Z2) and/or Delivery Point Transfer Screening Study process (Attachment AR), as applicable. Attachment AQ Process

If the request cannot be included in the ITP process, Aggregate Transmission Service Study or Delivery Point Transfer Screening Study, then the request should be processed through the Attachment AQ process. Upon notification of the request from Transmission Customer and receipt of application, SPP shall assign an AQ request number and post the request to the queue on the SPP website within 10 business days. The Host Transmission Owner will perform a screening study within 30 calendar days of receiving the request and determine whether a Load Connection Study (LCS) is required (see Appendix 2 for minimum LCS requirements). Host Transmission Owner and Transmission Customer may discuss with SPP as needed. If a LCS is not required, Host Transmission Owner shall notify Transmission Customer and SPP within 10 business days of the completion of the screening study. Email is sufficient for the notification of the completion of the screening study. The delivery point and any necessary interconnection or sponsored facilities are then added to the SPP planning models (Transmission Owners input data into Model on Demand tool) which then feeds into the annual Attachment O reliability planning processes. At this point, the Transmission Owner and Transmission Customer can reach an agreement with regard to funding and construction of the any facilities. SPP will update any corresponding NITSAs, as required. If the Host Transmission Owner determines that a LCS is required, the Host Transmission Owner shall tender the LCS Agreement to the Transmission Customer within 10 business days of receiving the request. A deposit to the Host Transmission Owner may be required for the LCS. The Transmission Customer must execute the LCS Agreement and provide the deposit, if required, within 30 calendar days. The Host Transmission Owner shall perform the LCS (see Appendix 2 for minimum LCS requirements) and provide the draft LCS Report to SPP and the Transmission Customer within 60 calendar days of the LCS Agreement execution. Following receipt of the draft LCS Report, SPP will perform an initial assessment based on the Host Transmission Owner s draft LCS Report to determine whether a Delivery Point Network Study (DPNS) is required. SPP and Host Transmission Owner will coordinate results of that assessment with the Transmission Customer. If SPP and the Host Transmission Owner agree to the results of that assessment, SPP will note such agreement in the LCS report. If SPP determines that a DPNS is required, or if the Transmission Customer requests a DPNS, SPP shall provide the DPNS Agreement to the Transmission Customer within 5 business days following SPP s determination or Transmission Customer s request. The DPNS Agreement shall commit the Transmission Customer to pay SPP for the actual cost to complete the study and to make an advance deposit equal to the estimated study cost or $25,000. The Transmission Customer shall execute the DPNS Agreement and provide the deposit within 30 calendar days. If the Transmission Customer fails to return an executed DPNS Agreement within 30 calendar days, or at a later date as the Parties may mutually agree, SPP and Host Transmission Owner shall deem the request to be withdrawn.

SPP will perform the DPNS and will post the DPNS Report within 60 calendar days of the receipt of an executed DPNS Agreement. If SPP is unable to complete the study in the allotted time, SPP shall provide an explanation to the Transmission Customer and Host Transmission Owner regarding the cause(s) of such delay and revised completion date and study cost estimate. If SPP determines that a DPNS is not required, the Host Transmission Owner shall provide the final LCS Report to the Transmission Customer and SPP. SPP shall post the final LCS Report on the SPP website within 10 business days of receipt from the Host Transmission Owner. Any confidential information in the LCS Report will be redacted before the report is posted. The Host Transmission Owner or Transmission Customer shall notify SPP when an agreement has been reached on load connection upgrades. A NTC will only be issued if SPP accepts the LCS or performs a DPNS and Network Upgrades were identified by SPP. If a NTC is required, SPP will issue the NTC in accordance with Attachment O and the relevant SPP Business Practices. If no NTC is required, delivery point and necessary transmission facilities are added to the SPP planning models (TOs input data into Model on Demand tool) which is then included in the annual Attachment O reliability planning processes. SPP will update any corresponding NITSAs, as required.

Appendix 1 AQ Process Flowchart Formatted: Centered, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Bold, Underline, Font color: Black Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman

Minimum Performed on the MDWG or ITPNT cases as appropriate for the next peak period as well as one year beyond. Typically this will be a summer peak but may be winter in some areas. Any changes to the models used will be documented in the LCS report so the results can be reproduced. If an NTC is desired, the ITPNT model results must be provided. Contingency analyses will be performed on the changebase case and with the new load added. If violations occur compared to the base case. Compare results and determine criteria violations, by applicable NERC standards, caused only by new load. Provide study solution to eliminate criteria violations Estimate cost of solutions to criteria violations +/- 30% Include tables for comparison of data Present report to requesting load serving entity, and to SPP if requesting out of cycle NTC or load serving entity requests If the study assumptions change this should be documented clearly in the report. Appendix 2 Minimum LCS Requirements Desired Provide multiple solutions, with estimated costs, to eliminate criteria violations. Make recommendation for upgrades with reasoning (ie. cost, feasibility, timing, etcct.) for the selection if applicable. Create one one-line diagram with proposed options identified Present all LCS reports to SPP Criteria Violations should include voltage and overload Study should cover TPL-001-R1 and TPL-002-R2 Provide tables which show the incremental load being added to the models and customer load forecast over time, not just the final load at the buses. Assumptions of power factor at the load under study should be made clear and any consequences of study effects of not meeting that power factor should also be made clear. Any unique system protection requirements or system sensitivity that affects how much load can be added at various times should be stated in the report If multiple load requests are being made in the same areas add all prior requests in that area to the model. Optional Long term Models models may also be used in the study.should be MDWG models that are in the near term and one long term model for compliance purposes. Stability models or motor start studies should only be included if requested by the TO or customer. Effect on TPL-003 compliance should be addressed if a solution seems to create a TPL-003 problem or has the potential to do so. Short circuit study and or capabilities at the point of interconnection should be provided, including the effects of any proposed network upgrades to support the request. Clear specification of the connecting equipment, responsibilities, and cost responsibilities for the customer and the TO are necessary Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline Formatted: Centered, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.25", Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt The report should state what the customer request was for (load values), the requested ISD, the AQ request number, and the

final statement as to when and the conditions under which the load can be served and under what conditions. Assumptions of power factor at the load under study and any consequences of study effects of not meeting that power factor should also be made clear. If multiple load requests are being made in the same areas add all prior requests in that area to the model. Provide tables which show the incremental load being added to the models and customer load forecast over time, not just the final load at the buses. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, No bullets or numbering Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman