1. Planning Meeting
November 4, 2010
Marv Landauer

2. Biennial Plan Comment on Ten Year Plan today
Need comments on ColGrid Transmission Plan by November 12
Draft Biennial Plan to be posted November 18
Comments through next Planning Meeting December 2 (not scheduled yet)
Public Review Draft for Board posted December 17

3. Biennial Plan Study areas => Potential Study Teams
Olympic Peninsula
Spokane Area
Okanogan Area

4. NMC Sensitivity Study
System Assessment was run with Alcoa Load at McKenzie 230 and Plan 3 (Rapids-Columbia 230 kV line)
Since System Assessment, Alcoa and Chelan PUD agreed that the new Alcoa load will be on McKenzie 115
NMCST is re-looking at feasibility of Plan 7 (upgrade of two RR-Col 230 kV lines)
A request was made to rerun the System Assessment outages modeling Plan 7 and compare to Plan 3.

5. NMC Sensitivity
Different generation assumptions between System Assessment and NMC studies
System Assessment modeled 4986 MW on Lower Columbia while NMC modeled 3066 MW
System Assessment modeled 2591 MW on Lower Snake while NMC modeled 1008 MW
System Assessment modeled 340 MW at Priest Rapids while NMC modeled 680 MW
All three assumptions decreased flows through area in base cases by about 12-15%

6. NMC Sensitivity
Ten year Summer case in System Assessment was run without Pangborn load so it was rerun
NMC Studies were compared to modified System Assessment studies:
Plans 3 and 7
Alcoa load at 230 and 115
2 worst outages for 3 critical facilities

7. NMC Sensitivity Conclusions
Lower stress in System Assessment cases reduces 230 kV outage loadings by about 10%
Shifting the load to the 115 kV system reduces loadings by about 5%

8. NMC Sensitivity Conclusions
Some minor overloads still existed in original NMC studies
Plan 3 requires redispatch
Plan 7 requires RAS
Only one overload occurred in System Assessment cases
Plan 7 and Pangborn load resulted in N-2 RR-C #1 & #2 outage overloading Val-Col #1 & #2 115), went away with Alcoa load shift.
No overloads for Plan 3

9. Expansion Planning
Planning process must address Economic Study Requests per Order 890
Further requirements in NOPR RM10-23
Subregional and regional studies
ColumbiaGrid process has relied on WECC for Prod/Cost Studies
Also includes provisions for developing projects that address congestion
Capacity Increase Projects

10. Expansion Studies Expansion Capacity Increase Project Studies
High level generic analysis of conceptual ideas with minimal system studies
Focus on cost estimates.
Document and post the results
No obligation to build with expansion studies
We will solicit study requests at December Planning Meeting
Coincide with WECC timeline

11. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
WRS1.1. Allowable effects on other systems: The NERC Category C.5 initiating event of a non-three phase fault with normal clearing shall also apply to the common mode contingency of two Adjacent Transmission Circuits on separate towers unless the event frequency is determined to be less than one in thirty years.
Common Corridor: Contiguous ROW or two parallel ROWs with structure centerline separation less than the longest span length of the two transmission circuits at the point of separation or 500 feet, whichever is greater, between the transmission circuits. This separation requirement does not apply to the last five spans of the transmission circuits entering into a substation.
Adjacent Transmission Circuits: Transmission circuits within a Common Corridor with no other transmission circuits between them. Transmission Lines that cross but are otherwise on separate corridors are not Adjacent Transmission Circuits.

12. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Progress
Although only two years of TRD data are available, the per mile outage frequency of double circuit lines is only about twice that for adjacent circuits.
No information available on actual tower separation in data.
Not enough evidence to support elimination of this criteria at this time.
Group is recommending that criteria be kept for now.
Group suggests that this issue be reviewed again in 3-5 years with more data available.
Group to re-examine definitions at this time.

13. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Thoughts so far:
Common Corridor: Contiguous ROW or two parallel ROWs with structure centerline separation less than the longest span length of the two transmission circuits at the point of separation or 500 feet, whichever is greater, between the transmission circuits. This separation requirement does not apply to up to ten the last five spans of the transmission circuits entering into a substation.
Adjacent Transmission Circuits: Transmission circuits within a Common Corridor with no other transmission circuits between them. Transmission Lines that cross but are otherwise on separate corridors are not Adjacent Transmission Circuits.

14. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Marv’s concerns:
Apply to facilities > 200 kV?
Apply only if it impacts other systems?
Impact of intermediate circuit seems inconsistent with 500 feet separation
Is 500 foot requirement to much?

15. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Circuits #1 and #3 are NOT Adjacent #3 #1 #2
150 feet
150 feet

16. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Circuits #1 and #3 ARE Adjacent #3 #1
150 feet
150 feet

17. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Circuits #1 and #3 are NOT Adjacent #1 #2 #1 #2 #3
150 feet

18. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Circuits #1 and #3 ARE Adjacent #1 #2 #1 #2 #3
150 feet

19. WRS1.1 Adjacent Circuit Criteria
Comments?