1. Lessons from the 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case Mary Johannis, SSG-WI Generation Subgroup Lead Tom Carr, WIEB Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection

2. February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case2 SSG-WI Transmission Expansion Planning 10/2003 Plan: Framework for Expansion of the WI Transmission System Objectives: Identify Tx needed to facilitate competitive markets Provide feedback to policy-makers re: Tx impacts of state, provincial and Federal policies Identify for generation developers, Tx additions Book-end Scenarios: Gas, Coal and Renewables 2005 Program: 2008 Base Case & 2015 Reference Case identify Tx additions needed for case with most likely future resources

3. Load Forecasting Sub-Group SSG-WI Modeling Roles Generation Sub-Group Transmission Sub-Group Modeling Team - Topology - Transmission path ratings & nomograms - Transmission solutions to relieve congestion - Validate modeling - Presentation & reporting - Topology - Load forecast (2008) - Load growth (2015) - Load mapping to the bus level - Planning margin - Resources & resource attributes - Fuel prices - Validate modeling - Presentation & reporting Determine: - Congestion and congestion costs - Economic implications for resource and transmission expansion - Validate modeling - Presentation & reporting SSG-WI Organization

6. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case6 Incremental Generation 2008 Base: WGA Comparison of Data Bases; Starting Point = Western Gas Study Generation from CEC Dependable MWs shown 1253 1012 340 7525 571 216 193 0 461 631 124 651 131

7. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case7 2015 SSG-WI Reference Case Goal to construct case depicting the most likely mix of future resources Information collected from utilities, state energy offices and PUCs, NREL, WECC and subregional planning groups Tom Carr, WIEB, was liaison with state energy offices in collecting/verifying information

8. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case8 Other Plans, e.g. IPP Projects States Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) or other State Requirements, e.g. resource adequacy 2015 Reference Case Principles Minimal Interregional Transfer Case Incremental 2008-2015 resources from IRPs, to satisfy RPS and be consistent with other formal plans Incremental resources primarily to meet load growth in sub-areas, i.e. CA, NTAC, RMATS, SWAT & CCPG If existing through 2008 resources are for export to other sub-areas, then assume same level of export for 2015 Integrated Resource Plans (IRP)

10. Challenge of Conforming Transmission Topology to Resource Planning Topology NTAC = Alberta + BC Hydro + PNW ((NW East + NW West) + Idaho (Oxbow/Hells Canyon + Midpoint Boise & Snake + KGB + JB) ) + Montana Nevada = Sierra + Nevada Utah = Utah North + Utah South + Bonz Wyoming = Ywtl + BHB + Wyo + SW Wyo + Bhills + LRS Colorado = Col W + Col E New Mexico = New Mexico Arizona = Arizona + WAPA L.C. California = PG&E + Bay Area + So. Calif. + San Diego + Imperial CA + LADWP + IPP + Mexico CFE

11. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case11 Alberta Incremental Generation 2008 - 2015

13. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case13 Alberta: Principles Compliance Check 1/ AESO's peak load forecast is over 13,000 MW in 2015 and about 10,000 MW in 2008. There appears to be a mismatch in loads and resources; oil sands resources included, but not the associated loads. Therefore, 2007 MW were subtracted from the resources. They are still shown on this worksheet because, in the future, the better solution is to add the load into the forecast. 2015 Load and Resource Balance 2008 Load and Resource Balance LOADS 21% Planning Margin (%) 35% Plant Factor (%) 65% Plant Factor (%) 59%

14. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case14 Arizona Incremental Resources 2008-2015

15. Arizona: Principles Compliance Check

16. British Columbia Incremental Resources 2008-2015

18. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case18 British Columbia: Principles Compliance Check

19. California Incremental Generation 2008 - 2015

21. California: Principles Compliance Check

22. Colorado Incremental Generation 2008 - 2015

23. Colorado: Principles Compliance Check

24. Montana Incremental Generation 2008 – 2015 & Principles Check

25. Nevada Incremental Generation 2008 - 2015

26. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case26 Nevada Incremental Generation 2008 - 2015

27. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case27 Nevada: Principles Compliance Check

28. New Mexico Incremental Generation 2008 - 2015

29. New Mexico: Principles Compliance Check

30. Pacific Northwest Incremental Generation 2008 - 2015

32. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case32 Pacific Northwest: Principles Compliance Check No RPS Requirements at the time Resource Adequacy Standard: one-hour peak Planning Capacity Margin is not good metric for hydro-dominated PNW; the average plant factor, which is around 50%, aligns with hydro under median water conditions

33. Utah Incremental Generation 2008 – 2015 & Principles Check

34. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case34 Wyoming Incremental Generation 2008 – 2015 & Principles Check

35. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case35 Observations from the trenches Need to get the existing generation database right. Despite the IRP/RPS guidelines, we added too much generation. Need close review of RPS compliance.

36. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case36 Database Comparison Compared data on existing generation from WECC, CEC and SSG-WI 2003, and Genesys databases. Found discrepancies among the databases across states & provinces. Need for close review of generation by Data WG.

37. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case37

38. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case38 Problem of Adding Incremental Generation IRP/RPS guidelines provided framework to plan for the future generation additions. Aggregate planning margin of 29% suggests we added too much generation. Market would not support/finance excessive capacity Difficult to impose fixed planning margin for each region because of import/export patterns. Maybe we need an aggregate cap?

39. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case39

40. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case40

41. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case41

42. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case42 Identifying RPS Compliance Among RPS states, requirements vary Capacity v. energy Specific resource requirements e.g. solar Provisions for energy efficiency Helpful to rely on expertise in utility or state

43. Seams Steering Group of the Western Interconnection February 12, 2007 TEPPC Webinar--Lessons from 2015 SSG-Wi Reference Case43 Lessons Learned Obtaining information from utility IRPs, state energy offices, sub- regional planning groups provides a cross-check on load and resource data Both transmission and resource planners are needed to identify resources, approximate location of resources on grid and identify transmission interconnection needs In most, cases there are a number of options for meeting state/regional/provincial policy requirements: Demand-side Management Build in-state Import The aggregation of resources from utility IRPs or even state/sub- regional plans will likely result in the addition of too many resources since the sum of individual plans is almost always suboptimal to a regional plan. However, is a regionally integrated resource and transmission plan feasible, given restructuring of electrical utility industry and SOC?