1. ElectriCities Office Raleigh, NC
TAG Meeting November 15, 2007
ElectriCities Office
Raleigh, NC

2. TAG Meeting Agenda Update on the Duke and Progress draft Attachment K
Discuss the proposed changes to the NCTPC Process document and the TAG Scope document
Update on the preliminary 2007 study results and the upcoming planned activities
Open Forum discussion

3. Duke / Progress Draft Attachment K Update
Jeff Trepel
Duke Energy

4. Order 890 requires Transmission Providers to file Attachment K on December 7th to meet the nine principles of transmission planning
Duke and PEC
5/31/07 - Posted strawman
9/15/07 - Posted draft Attachment K filing
9/17/07 - Reviewed and discussed draft Attachment K filing with TAG
11/13/07- Provided an updated draft
Today - Review and discuss updated draft with TAG
12/7/07- Plan to File Attachment K

5. Compliant Duke/Progress DRAFT Attachment K
Order 890 Principles & White Paper Recommendations
Coordination
Openness
Transparency
Information Exchange
Comparability
Dispute Resolution
Regional Participation
Economic Planning Studies
Cost Allocation
Duke/Progress
DRAFT Attachment K
Compliant
Today's Focus - This is going to be an update to the Attachment K draft since the September 17th TAG meeting. Not going to repeat all the elements we previously discussed. Going to focus primarily on the major areas of change.
Note that Duke and Progress believe that their latest draft Attachment K is fully compliant with the FERC Order 890 Principles and the recommendations clarified in the August FERC White Paper related to the Order. Improving the Attachment K compliance with the addition of the newly proposed Inter- Regional Participation Process.
We will also continue to solicit feedback from interested stakeholders on the recently developed Cost Allocation solution documented in the current draft Attachment K.

6. Major Areas of Change TAG
Enhanced Transmission Access Planning Studies
Regional Economic Transmission Paths
Data to Replicate Planning Studies
Other
Dispute Resolution
Local Planning
ETAP - Process for selection, number of studies, fit with SE IRPP

7. TAG Membership (Sec 2.3.2.3) TAG Meetings (Sec 3.3.3.3)
Open to Valid Stakeholders
Valid Stakeholders:
Eligible Customers; state or federal agencies; entities that can provide ancillary services under the OATT; Transmission Owner, Operator or Planner.
Transmission function of NCTPC Participant may not be TAG member, but a merchant function of NCTPC Participant may be a TAG member
TAG Meetings (Sec )
Open to TAG members, NCTPC Participants and interested 3rd parties
Membership criteria changed from open to all persons interested in coordinated transmission expansion plan to valid stakeholders
An entity is eligible to be a member

8. TAG Decision Making (Sec 2.4.3.2)
By consensus
If voting needed, each valid stakeholder will have one vote
To vote must be participating in meeting- in person on via phone.
Single person may represent more than one TAG member
Membership criteria changed from open to all persons interested in coordinated transmission expansion plan to valid stakeholders
An entity is eligible to be a member

9. TAG Responsibilities (Sec 2.4.3.1 and Sec 5)
Propose and select the ETAPs
Provide input on Annual study scope of Reliability and ETAP planning process
Study assumptions, criteria and methodology
Case development, technical analysis
Problem Identification, assessment and development of solutions (including proposal of alternative solutions for evaluation)

10. Enhanced Transmission Access Planning Studies Process (Sec 4.2)
TAG participants propose scenarios
Scenarios outside of NCTPC footprint: TAG members to submit to SE IRPP directly
PWG determines most effective way to study and provides study list to OSC
OSC approves study list
TAG members select up to five scenarios from approved study list.
Five studies at no cost
Studies beyond five will be done, if can be accommodated, at a charge to the requestor
Discuss Process for selection, number of studies, fit with SE IRPP
Question - <<<what about interested 3rd parties proposing scenarios???>>>

11. Regional Economic Transmission Paths (Sec 4.2.5)
RETP is study scenario that would facilitate regional Point-to-Point economic transactions
RETP could support designation of an external Designated Network Resource
RETP ensures Point-to-Point can be provided over Duke and/or PEC networks
Network customer to ensure delivery from Duke and/or PEC network to the network load
Cost allocation is Requestor Pays
If project is built, Requestor gets firm Point-to-Point and the amount they pay is used as a credit against their firm Point-to-Point bill

12. RETP Cost Allocation & Open Season Example:
Entergy to PJM 1,000 MW RETP requested for 20 year period.
PJM
$100 M
Entergy
$1 B
Southern
$500 M
Duke
$400 M
Note: Above dollars represent transmission investment needed by each Transmission Provider.
RETP would be identified and studied through the Southeast Inter-Regional Participation Process and coordinated with PJM.
If Transmission Customers determine that there is sufficient interest to move the RETP from “study” to “Open Season”, then the impacted Transmission Providers would hold a coordinated Open Season for the project (subject to impacted TPs’ adoption of this Open Season concept).
If there is sufficient subscriptions on the project, it would move forward.
Duke would use the NCTPC RETP cost allocation methodology.
Refinements made in this process:
DNRs
Network customers may seek to use an RETP as the source of firm PTP transmission service to designate a network resource external to the Control Area in which its load is located.
If a network customer sought to use the RETP to support a new external DNR subscribed, such subscription would have the effect of that customer queuing a DNR request.
Since the RETP would have to be fully subscribed to move forward to development, a Transmission Customer may not make a firm commitment to purchase a designated network resource until after it is clear that the RETP will move forward. The TC will be required to submit a statement that it owns or has committed to purchase a designated network resource to support its queued request within 120 days of its Service Agreement related to an RETP being executed or filed.
Network transmission service provided as described above would be subject to OATT pricing.
Recognized possibility for Off-Ramps

13. RETP Open Season Process:
established by
TPs
TCs
request
RETPs
amount
RETP fully
subscribed?
TPs
establish
queue
positions
for the
requests
and
perform
Facility
Study
TCs execute
Trans.
Service
Agreement
Yes No
Notify
TCs

14. Data to Replicate Planning Studies (Sec 5.3.8 and Sec. 9.4)
TAG Members may request such data
Requests are made to Independent Third Party
Requestor must show that they have:
Obtained Duke and PEC Form 715 data
Signed the SERC and NCTPC Confidentiality Agreement
Completed the NCTPC Data Request form

15. Other Areas of Change Dispute Resolution (Sec 6.1.3)
TAG Voting Member has right to seek assistance from NCUC Public Staff to mediate an issue and render non-binding opinion on any disputed decision
This is same process as what NCTPC Participants have had in place
Emphasize in the presentation that the NCUC Public Staff was asked about whether they would support our new change that allows a TAG Voting Member to "seek assistance from NCUC Public Staff to mediate an issue and render non-binding opinion..."
CONFIRMED --- NCUC Public Staff says that they are ok with the added Dispute Resolution provisions

16. Other Areas of Change Local Planning (Sec 12.)
Focuses on lower-voltage facilities and delivery of energy to customer locations
Customer meetings are held as needed
Local area plans developed by the Transmission Provider are rolled into the planning models used by the Transmission Providers and then into the NCTPC models

17. Next Steps
Please provide written comments to ITP by Friday - November 23rd
PEC and Duke to file with FERC on December 7, as required

18. Questions ?

19. Discuss Proposed NCTPC Document Changes
Rich Wodyka
Gestalt
At the September 17th TAG meeting, we discussed several potential NCTPC Process changes that were likely to be required as a result of FERC Order 890. It was agreed that the Participants would provide additional information to the TAG at this time and solicit feedback from the TAG on the proposed NCTPC Process changes. On October 15th, I sent out to the TAG clean and redlined versions of the TAG Scope and the NCTPC Process Document. Requested written comments on any or all the above items by October 24, 2007.

20. NCTPC Process Doc. - Oct. 15, 2007
Expands the transmission planning process to include analysis of through or out transactions
Updates the Enhanced Transmission Access Planning Studies Process to match the proposed Attachment K
Updates the Figure 1- Process Flowchart for the Enhanced Transmission Access Planning Studies Process
Updated version will be forwarded to the TAG after this meeting. No changes in substance - just conforming changes to TAG Scope document and Attachment K.

21. TAG Scope Document - Oct. 15, 2007
Updates TAG responsibilities for more direct involvement in the NCTPC Process
Updates the TAG Membership section to clarify who can be a TAG Member
Updates the TAG Voting section to clarify the voting process for the ETAP scenarios
Establishes a new Data and Information Release Protocol

22. TAG Scope Document - Nov.13, 2007
Expands TAG Membership section to now include Participation requirements for becoming a TAG Voting Member
Clarifies that portions of a TAG meeting may be closed and only available to TAG Voting Member representatives that are permitted to access confidential and CEII information
Updates the TAG Voting section to match the TAG Voting Member definition
Updates the Data and Information Release Protocol for the TAG Voting Member access
Invite your comments or questions.

23. Questions ?
One more Item - Interest of TAG members to receive study information and results from other Inter-Regional planning-related activities at future TAG meetings.

24. Update 2007 NCTPC Study & Report
At the last TAG meeting in September (September 17, 2007) we provided discussed the Scope of the study.
That and all presentations are posted on the TAG site
Also, the PWG’s 2007 Study Scope document is posted in the “Reference Document” section of the NCTPC website
James Manning
NCEMC

25. Update – Major Projects 2007 Collaborative Transmission Plan

26. Update on Major Projects 2007 Collaborative Transmission Plan
Presented preliminary list of major projects identified in 2007 NCTPC Study at the September 17th TAG meeting
Present update to list of major projects based on additional analysis and information at this TAG meeting

27. Preliminary (11/15/07) – Major Projects in 2007 Plan
Import Scenarios
Preliminary (11/15/07) – Major Projects in 2007 Plan
Reliability Project TO
Planned I/S Date
Marion-Whiteville 230 kV line
Progress
I/S 6/7/07
Reconductor Lee Sub-Wommack 230 kV South line
June ’08
Durham 500 kV sub
Durham-Falls 230 kV line
June ‘08
Rockingham-West End 230 kV line
June ’09
Clinton-Lee 230 kV line
June ’10
Richmond 500 kV sub, reactor
December ’09
Progress now indicates that they will be able to accelerate the reactor at Richmond 500 kV sub to meet a Dec ’09 in-service date.

28. Preliminary (11/15/07) – Major Projects in 2007 Plan (Continued)
Import Scenarios
Preliminary (11/15/07) – Major Projects in 2007 Plan (Continued)
Reliability Project TO
Planned I/S Date
Asheville-Enka 230 kV line, Convert 115 kV line; and
Asheville-Enka 115 kV, Build new line
Progress
December ’10
December ’14
December ’12
Greenville-Kinston Dupont 230 kV line
June ’11
Henderson-Kerr Dam 115 kV line
Rockingham-West End 230 kV East line
Harris-RTP 230 kV line
Pleasant Garden-Asheboro 230 kV line, replace Asheboro 230 kV xfmrs
&
Duke
Also, Progress reports now an earlier in-service date for Building a new 115 kV line from Asheville to Enka stations in the Progress-West area

29. Import Scenarios
Preliminary (11/15/07) – Major Projects in 2007 Plan (Continued)
Reliability Project TO
Planned I/S Date
Rockingham-Lilesville 230 kV line
Progress
June ’11
Add 3rd Wake 500/230 kV xfmr
June ’13
Cape Fear-West End 230 kV West line, Install reactor
June ’16
Replace Antioch 500/230 KV xfmrs
Duke
Dooley Tie
Location of fictitious generation drove need for upgrade, not system need
Reconductor Fisher 230 kV lines
Reconductor Steelberry 230 kV lines
(cost estimate < $10M)
Three projects from confirmed PEC 400 MW TSR
Need for Dooley tie was due to future Duke generator assumptions (2nd unit at Cliffside which now is NOT going to happen) to relieve 500/230 kV transformer loading at McGuire. Nov that the Cliffside #2 is out of the plan, then so is the need to Dooley tie.
Steelberry cost estimates have been more refined so that it is below $10M so it will be dropped out of the Collaborative Plan going forward.

30. Update – Resource Supply Option Results

31. 2016 Hypothetical Import Scenarios (RSOs)
Resource From
Sink
Test Level (MW)
Duke
Progress East
600
1,200
PJM
200
SCPSA
400
SCEG
100
SOCO
TVA
This is the same list shown from last time, listing the Hypothetical Import Scenarios provided by the LSE for possible studies including MW level to be studied in the 2007 study.
Some of these were looked at in 2006
Note: These are Hypothetical Imports of MW levels were tested independently not in combination(s) with others.

32. 2016 Hypothetical Generation Scenarios (RSOs)
Import Scenarios
2016 Hypothetical Generation Scenarios (RSOs)
Resource in (County)
Sink
Test Level (MW)
Scotland
Progress East
450
Cumberland
Wilson
Johnston
Robeson
600
Guilford
Duke
150
Davidson
Union
Gaston
Rockingham
800
Here’s the Hypothetical Generation scenarios again provided by LSE to be studied as a MW bus injection inserted at a 230 kV or 100 kV station within the listed county. Performed thermal analysis only.
For Duke, Rockingham is interconnected at the 230 kV. The other hypothetical generation scenarios in Duke are interconnected at 100 kV.
No guarantee of generation deliverability from these sites. You would still need to follow the OASIS Generation Interconnection process.
These are Hypothetical Generators were tested independently not in combination(s) with others.

33. Resource Supply Option Results Progress East
Hypothetical Imports
Duke, PJM, SCPSA or SCE&G
No new projects were identified within Progress East Control Area to support import resource supply option scenarios studied.
Preliminary results reported last time were confirmed that NO new projects beyond those in the 2007 Collaborative Plan are needed to support the Hypothetical Imports of MW levels tested & shown into the Progress East area.

34. Resource Supply Option Results Progress East
Hypothetical Generation
Wilson, Cumberland and Johnston County scenarios
No new projects needed
Scotland scenario
Problem: Thermal loading on Raeford-Wagram 115 kV line
Solution: Install series reactor at Weatherspoon on Wagram 115 kV terminal
Wilson, Johnston, and now Cumberland (450 MW each) also
No issues reported just as indicated last time
Scotland (450 MW)
Selected solution to address issue listed
Cost estimates with lead times to be provided next time

35. Resource Supply Option Results Progress East (continued)
Hypothetical Generation
Robeson scenario
Problem: Thermal loading on Fayetteville-Fayetteville East 230 kV line & Weatherspoon Plant-Fayetteville DuPont 115 kV line
Solution: Construct Weatherspoon-Cumberland 230 kV line and Cumberland-Fayetteville East 230 kV line
Problem: Thermal loading on Weatherspoon-Raeford 115 kV line
Solution: Install series reactors on Weatherspoon Plant-Fayetteville DuPont 115 kV line & on Weatherspoon-Raeford 115 kV line
Like Scotland, issues were found at Robeson (600 MW)
Selected Solution(s) to address issues are listed
Cost estimates with lead times to be provided next time

36. Resource Supply Option Results Duke
No new projects were identified within the Duke area to support the resource supply option scenarios (hypothetical imports and generation) studied.
In the Duke area, preliminary results reported last time were confirmed that NO new projects beyond those in the 2007 Collaborative Plan are needed to support either the Hypothetical Imports or Generation scenarios

37. Generator Interconnection Request Progress
New Richmond CC Generation Confirmed
Richmond CC – 2011 Summer
Construct new Richmond-Ft. Bragg Woodruff Street 230 kV line
Not part of 2007 NCTPC Study
Will be part of the 2008 NCTPC Study
Recent Progress Announcement for adding generation at Richmond
New development in Sept
Not a part of the 2007 study
Its impacts will be analyzed in the 2008 study
We told you last time that this is A CONTINUOUS PROCESS and the NCTPC will be affected by activity within the respective queues of Progress and Duke

38. NCTPC Schedule
Nov 15, ‘07
TAG Meeting - Update TAG on status of 2007 Study
Dec 13, ‘07
TAG Meeting - Present 2007 Plan & summary of draft report
Dec 17, ‘07
Distribute 2007 Plan & draft report to TAG for comment
Dec 31, ‘07
Comments due from TAG on 2007 Plan & draft report
Jan 16, ‘08
Distribute final 2007 Plan & report to TAG
Here is where we are today
As we stated before, our goal have been to have a DRAFT report to the TAG for comments in December and we plan to do that by about 1 week or so prior to the Dec 13th TAG meeting
Beyond that, we’ll look forward to your comments and issue a FINAL report in January

39. 2007 Supplemental Study & Report
NCTPC will perform a study of the Progress West Control Area
Target date for the completing the study and report is the end of the 1st quarter of 2008
We reported earlier that we didn’t need a West Area study for Progress…
Recent activity on both Progress’ and Duke’s OASIS queue has triggered the need for a Supplemental Report evaluated the 2011/12 Winter period for Progress’ West Control Area
Target to complete study and report out by end of 1st QTR ’08.

40. Questions ?

41. TAG Open Forum Discussion
Comments or Questions ?