New Richmond Load Serving Study Northern MAPP Subregional Planning Group August 16, 2006 Daniel Kline

3 Outline  Description of Area  Various Load Serving Problems  Study Methodology & Initial Alternatives  Final Alternatives Considered  Final Recommendation & Initial Project Schedule  Questions

4 Description of Area  Located in Western Wisconsin  St. Croix County  Just across Minnesota border, near I-94  Area fed by 161 kV sources and 69 kV subtransmission  Load belonging to Xcel and DPC  Lines belonging to Xcel and DPC

5 Description of Area  Area Xcel Loads (2011):  New Richmond (9.1 MW)  Somerset (7.7 MW)  Kinnickinnic (4.4 MW)  Osceola (15.4 MW)  River Falls (30 MW)  Area DPC Loads (2011):  New Richmond (15 MW)  Houlton (5.4 MW)  Farmington (8.1 MW)  Roberts (4.6 MW)  Hammond (3.2 MW)

6 Description of Area

7 Description of Problems  Low voltage at New Richmond during outage of Pine Lake – New Richmond 69 kV line  Low voltage at Osceola during outage of Osceola – Osceola Tap 69 kV line  Overload of River Falls 115/69 kV transformer during outage of Osceola – Osceola Tap 69 kV line  Overload of Pine Lake 161/115 kV transformer during outage of King – Willow River 115 kV line  Normal Overload of Pine Lake – Rush River 69 kV line

8 Description of Problems  High load growth throughout area  Installation of Chisago Line Project will require extended outage of Osceola – Osceola Tap 69 kV line  No room for expansion at New Richmond Substation  No room for expansion at Rush River Substation

9 Study Methodology  2006 MAPP Series Cases  2011 Near-Term  2016 Out-Year  Study Group Asked to Review:  Jerry Iverson, DPC  Bob Roddy, DPC  Dave Krause, KPE  Jeff Haas, Xcel  Walt Grivna, Xcel

10 Study Methodology  Assumptions and Adjustments made  Assumed Chisago Line Project not in service in 2011 (In-service in 2016)  New City of New Richmond Substation in service  Xcel’s Somerset Substation in service  Added DPC N-60 line upgrade (477 ACSR)

11 Study Methodology  Base Case Results

12 Study Methodology  Base Case Results

13 Initial Ideas  Multi-Faceted Approach  5.4 MVAR Capacitor at Osceola  10.0 MVAR Capacitor at New Richmond  New 69 kV switching station south of New Richmond that would tap DPC N-60 line  115/69 kV Transformer near Kinnickinnic Substation  161/69 kV Transformer at Clear Lake Substation  69 kV line from Somerset to new substation north of New Richmond  69 kV line from Cylon to new substation north of New Richmond

14 Initial Ideas  Options investigated with and without Chisago project  Necessity of Poplar Lake Substation and 161/69 kV transformer investigated

15 Final Alternatives  Three options tagged for detailed review  Alternative 1, Step 2A – Three Lakes 115/69 kV Substation, Stanton 69 kV Substation, & Somerset to Stanton 69 kV Line  Alternative 1, Step 2B – Three Lakes 115/69 kV Substation, Stanton 69 kV Substation, & Cylon to Stanton 69 kV Line  Alternative 2, Step 1 – 115/69 kV Substation south of New Richmond

16 Final Alternatives - 1

17 Final Alternatives - 1

18 Final Alternatives - 2

19 Final Alternatives - 2

20 Final Alternatives - 3

21 Final Alternatives - 3  Voltage Violations too numerous to mention

22 Final Recommendation  Alternative 1 Recommended  10 MVAR Cap Bank at New Richmond – ASAP  Three Lakes Substation – ASAP  5.4 MVAR Cap Bank at Osceola – May 31, 2009  Rebuild Osceola to Sand Lake 69 kV Line – May 31, 2009  Relocate Rush River Substation and cut over to 161 kV – May 31, 2010  Construct Somerset Sub – May 31, 2010  Construct Stanton Sub – December 31, 2010  Construct Somerset to Stanton 69 kV Line – May 31, 2011  Complete installation of Chisago Line Project – May 31, 2011  Construct Poplar Lake Sub & 161/69 kV Transformer – May 31, 2011

23 Next Steps  Currently compiling necessary information for business case  Will have more meetings with Study Group prior to any filings