spp three-phase interconnection study process three phase...2009/10 fast-track process cluster study...

SouthwestPowerPool SPPorg southwest-power-poolHelping our members work together to keep

the lights on... today and in the future.

SPP THREE-PHASE INTERCONNECTION STUDY PROCESSEDUCATION SESSION

19 SEPTEMBER 2019


the lights on... today and in the future. 2

WELCOME TO SPPJAY CASPARY

DIRECTOR - R, D & TARIFF SERVICES

3

MEET THE STAFF OF SPP GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION

Lanny Nickell

Senior Vice President

of Engineering

4

MEET THE STAFF OF SPP GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION

Jay Caspary

Director - R, D & Tariff Services

5

2019 STAFF ADDITIONS TO TARIFF STUDIES

Six additional staff to be added in 2019

• Generation Interconnection Engineers

• (2) Engineers

• (1) Principal Engineer

• Tariff Services Analysts

• (3) Analysts

• Additional head count planned for 2020

6

INTRODUCTION TOTHE SPP GI TEAMSGI ENGINEERING AND TARIFF SERVICES

7

GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION

Jon Langford

Sr. Engineer

Richard Robertson

Engineer I

Spencer Magby

Engineer I

William Holden

Sr. Engineer

Steve Purdy, Manager

Juliano Freitas, Transition Manager

Alyssa Anderson

Engineer II

Anthony Cook

Sr. Engineer

Caitlin Shank

Engineer II

Hannah Jones

Engineer II

8

TARIFF SERVICES

Andy Barton

Planning Analyst II

Bryce Bowie

Sr. Planning Analyst

Callen Boris

Planning Analyst II

Christi Pinkerton

Planning Analyst II

Deni Golden

Planning Analyst II

HweePing Won

Planning Analyst II

Katherine Rogers

Planning Analyst III

Mitchell Jackson

Sr. Planning Analyst

Vanessa Johnson

Planning Analyst II

Brad Finkbeiner, Supervisor

9

RULES OF ENGAGEMENTTHREE-PHASE GI STUDY EDUCATION SESSION

10

SPP ANTITRUST GUIDELINES

It is SPP policy and practice to obey the antitrust laws and

to avoid all conduct that unreasonably restrains

competition. This policy requires the avoidance of any

conduct that violates, or which might appear to violate,

the antitrust laws. Among other things, the antitrust laws

forbid any agreement between or among competitors

regarding prices, availability of service, product design,

terms of sale, division of markets, allocation of customers

or any other activity that unreasonably restrains

competition.

11

PROTOCOL FOR EDUCATION SESSION

• Tariff supersedes any Education Session discrepancies

• This is an Education Session for the Revised GIP

• Policy Matters addressed separately (Email / RMS)

• No discussion of specific Interconnection Requests

• Unable to discuss pending FERC Orders or Tariff Changes

• Covering relevant sections of Revised Attachment V, GIP

• End of Session Q&A

12

WALK THROUGH THE AGENDA



STATE OF THEGI QUEUEANTHONY COOK

SR. GI ENGINEER

14

STATE OF SPP GI QUEUE

• GI Queue

• Historical View

• 3-Phase View

• Impact of Prior GI Studies

• Current Status

• Timeline of Studies Completing

15

HISTORICAL VERSUS 3-PHASE

• Historical GIP Requests (pre July 1, 2019 GIP)

• DISIS-2012-001 thru DISIS-2016-002

• 3-Phase GIP Requests (July 1, 2019 GIP)

• DISIS-2017-001 and forward

16

GI QUEUE

3-Phase View

Initial Capacity Amounts:

• Conventional Fuel Types

• Renewable Fuel Types

• All Fuels Types

Historical View

Initial Capacity Amounts:



• All Fuels Types

17

HISTORICAL VIEW

18

INITIAL CAPACITY STUDIED FOR CONVENTIONALS

19

INITIAL CAPACITY STUDIED FOR RENEWABLES

20

INITIAL CAPACITY STUDIED FOR ALL FUEL TYPES

21

3-PHASE VIEW

22

INITIAL CAPACITY TO BE STUDIED FOR CONVENTIONALS

23

INITIAL CAPACITY TO BE STUDIED FOR RENEWABLES

24

INITIAL CAPACITY TO BE STUDIED FOR ALL FUEL TYPES

25

COMBINED VIEW

26

INITIAL CAPACITY FOR CONVENTIONALS

27

INITIAL CAPACITY FOR RENEWABLES

28

INITIAL CAPACITY FOR ALL FUEL TYPES

29

IMPACT OF PRIOR GI STUDIES

30

IMPACT OF PRIOR GI STUDIES

• Requests Withdrawing/Terminating/Modifying

• Count of Re-Studies Performed

• Initial Capacity vs. Current Capacity

31

Impacts of Changing Requests

Withdrawing/Terminating/Modifying of requests result in changing modeling assumptions creating uncertainty for GI Customers.

32

RE-STUDY DUE TO REQUEST CHANGES DETERMINE:

•Whether assigned Network Upgrades

are still needed.

•Cost allocation for Upgrades to

remaining GI Customers.

33

IMPACTS OF WITHDRAWING / TERMINATING / MODIFYING REQUESTS

34

EFFECTS ON EQUALLY QUEUED REQUESTS

Withdrawing/Terminating/Modifying may:

• Trigger a need to re-study if:

• Request(s) were assigned shared Network Upgrades

How GI Customers may be affected:

• For requests remaining:

• Increase in costs allocated if shared Network Upgrade is still required.

• Decrease in costs allocated if shared Network Upgrade is no longer required.

35

EFFECTS ON LOWER QUEUED REQUESTS

Withdrawing/Terminating/Modifying may:

Trigger a need to re-study if:

• Request(s) were assigned Network Upgrades

• Newly available capacity may remove Upgrades assigned to lower queues

How GI Customers may be affected:

• Changes in costs allocated if Upgrades no longer required for Prior Queue are deemed required for lower queue.

• Decrease in costs allocated if newly available capacity removes need for assigned Upgrade(s).

36

NUMBER OF RE-STUDIES PERFORMED(AS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2019)

37

DISIS RE-STUDY ITERATIONS

38

INITIAL VS CURRENT CAPACITY



• All Fuel Types

39

INITIAL VS CURRENT CAPACITY FOR CONVENTIONALS

40

INITIAL VS. CURRENT CAPACITY FOR RENEWABLES

41

INITIAL VS. CURRENT CAPACITY FOR ALL FUEL TYPES

42

TIMELINE OF QUEUES COMPLETING STUDY PROCESS

DISIS Study Queue START STOP Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Oc

t

No

v

De

c

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Oc

t

No

v

De

c

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Oc

t

No

v

De

c

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Oc

t

No

v

De

c

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Oc

t

No

v

De

c

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

DISIS-2017-001 1/15/2020 2/5/2021

Phase 1 1/15/2020 5/5/2020

Phase 2 5/5/2020 9/23/2020

Phase 3 9/23/2020 2/5/2021

DISIS-2017-002 10/30/2020 11/21/2021

Phase 1 10/30/2020 2/18/2021

Phase 2 2/18/2021 7/9/2021

Phase 3 7/9/2021 11/21/2021

DISIS-2018-001 8/15/2021 9/4/2022

Phase 1 8/15/2021 12/3/2021

Phase 2 12/3/2021 4/22/2022

Phase 3 4/22/2022 9/4/2022

DISIS-2018-002 5/29/2022 6/18/2023

Phase 1 5/29/2022 9/16/2022

Phase 2 9/16/2022 2/3/2023

Phase 3 2/3/2023 6/18/2023

DISIS-2019-001 3/12/2023 3/31/2024

Phase 1 3/12/2023 6/30/2023

Phase 2 6/30/2023 11/17/2023

Phase 3 11/17/2023 3/31/2024

DISIS-2020 12/24/2023 1/12/2025

Phase 1 12/24/2023 4/12/2024

Phase 2 4/12/2024 8/30/2024

Phase 3 8/30/2024 1/12/2025

2022 2023 2024 20252020 2021



OVERVIEW THREE-PHASEGI STUDY PROCESSBRAD FINKBEINERSUPERVISOR, ENGINEERING SUPPORT

AND TARIFF SERVICES

44

WHAT GOT US HEREOVERVIEW OF THE THREE-PHASE

GI STUDY PROCESS

45

PREVIOUS QUEUE REFORM MEASURES

2009

• 255 requests

• 57,000 MW

• 3,125 MW wind

in-service

• 17 requests /

3,544 MW on

suspension

2013

• 64 requests

• 9,601 MW

• 8,121 MW wind

in-service

• 9 requests / 846

MW on

suspension

2017

• 241 requests

• 37,600 MW

• 14,000 MW wind

in-service

• 12 requests /

2,082 MW on

suspension

2009/10 Fast-track process

Cluster Study Implementation

“First-ready, First-served”

Increased milestones required to enter DISIS

Financial milestone at execution of GIA

Addition of a performance obligation in a GIA

2013 ER10-681: Consolidation of SGIP and LGIP

Supplemental DISIS Stand Alone analysis

Added DISIS Security Deposit

Suspension reduced from 36 mo. to 18 mo.

Suspension security terms and conditions

Increased milestones to enter IFS

Increased milestone at execution of GIA

Limitations on extensions of in-service dates

46

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING RM17-8-000

• FERC issues NOPR 15 December 2016

• AWEA Petition (2015) and FERC Technical Conference (2016)

• Goal to remedy potential shortcomings in existing

interconnection processes

• FERC’s Concerns

• Queue Transparency for better decision making

• Reduce cost uncertainty

• Timely development of new generation

47

GI IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE (GIITF)

• GIITF Kick Off 3/17/2017

• Collaboration among 60+ across the SPP footprint

• Chaired by Al Tamimi (Sunflower)

• Staff Secretary, Steve Purdy (SPP)

• Three-Phase Process Approval Path

• GIITF Approved 3/29/2018 (Whitepaper)

• MOPC approved 4/10/2018

• Vetted Through RTWG, MOPC and SPP Board 10/2018

48

FERC TEMPERAMENT

”frustration…[over] repeated restudies and prolonged

queue times resulting from the withdrawal of higher-

queued interconnection requests.”

Cluster Studies Days Cluster Studies Days Cluster Studies Days

ICS-2008-001 7 1601 DISIS-2012-001 5 734 DISIS-2015-001 5 1210

DISIS-2009-001 7 1387 DISIS-2012-002 7 609 DISIS-2015-002 9* 1050+



DISIS-2011-001 9 1603 DISIS-2014-001 3 92

DISIS-2011-002 7 1379 DISIS-2014-002 7 406

49

13-1 13-2 14-1 14-2 15-1 15-2 16-1 16-2 17-1 17-2 18-1 18-2 19-1

All Other 416 983 850 659 435 65 332 20 0 0 2,304 1,334 2,837

Wind & Solar 1,213 1,231 1,361 6,396 4,931 9,963 10,975 15,502 15,631 28,856 9,117 10,927 5,489

Commercial Operation 481 1,114 94 1,839 1,138 1,570 99

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

MW

Impact Study

Annual GI Requests By Year

44

74

101

177

241

132

80*

50

NEW TARIFF IN TOWN1 JULY 2019

SPP TARIFF ATTACHMENT V “GENERATOR

INTERCONNECTION PROCEDURES” AND GIA

51

SPP TARIFF ATTACHMENT V, 1 JULY 2019

• Sixth Revised Volume No. 1

• 485 pages

• Planned Revision Request Changes 2020

52

WHAT HAS CHANGEDHIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES

53

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES

• No more Feasibility Studies and Preliminary Interconnection

System Impact Studies (PISIS)

• Combined Application Deposit and Study Deposits (8.2.b)

• Consolidated Study Agreement Form; Appendix 3 / A, B, C

• Clarity regarding Modification requests (4.4)

• Simplified Study Life Cycle (Three-phase with exit ramps)

• New Financial Security Deposit requirements

54

OLD GIP PROCESS (PRIOR 1 JULY 2019)

Feasibility Study and Preliminary Interconnection System Impact Study (PISIS) are OPTIONAL study phases. DISIS and Facilities Studies are MANDATORY.

Feasibility Cluster

# 1

Dec 1 to Feb 28

Feasibility Cluster

# 2

Mar 1 to May 31

Feasibility Cluster

# 3

Jun 1 to Aug 31

Feasibility Cluster

# 4

Sept 1 to Nov 30

PISIS/DISIS Cluster # 1

Dec 1 to May 30

PISIS/DISIS Cluster # 2

Jun 1 to Nov 30

• Four Feasibility Study Cluster Windows

• Two Interconnection Impact Study Cluster Windows

o Preliminary (PISIS) and Definitive (DISIS)

One Calendar Year

Interconnection Facilities Study and Generator Interconnection Agreements

Jan 1 to Dec 31

55

Feasibility PISIS DISIS Facilities

GIA

Negotiation

GIA

Entry Exit

Limited

Operation

Study

Fast-Track

Process

Interim GIA

Old SPP GI Study Process(simplified)

Re-studies• Turbine Change

• Material

Modification

• Suspension

DISIS

re-study

option

Mandatory

Process

Optional

Process



OVERVIEW OF THEREVISED GIPBRAD FINKBEINERSUPERVISOR, ENGINEERING SUPPORT

AND TARIFF SERVICES

57

OVERVIEW OF THREE-PHASE GI STUDY PROCESSSPP TARIFF ATTACHMENT V

EFFECTIVE DATE 1 JULY 2019

58

DISIS Phase 2Stability and

Short-Circuit

Entry

Withdraw

New SPP GI Study Process (Three-Phase)

DISIS Phase 1Steady-State

Analysis

Facilities

Study

Study Deposit*

and Financial

Security 1†

Financial

Security 2 †

Financial

Security 3 †

SPP

Generator

Interconnection

Agreement

Decision

Point 1

Decision

Point 2

Decision

Point 3

59

TRANSITIONING REQUESTS

• Section 5.1 Transition Procedures

• Any GIR that has not executed an FSA, GIA or filed unexecuted

by 1 July 2019 is subject to new GIP (5.1.1 and 5.1.2)

• Any active FBS or PISIS prior to 1 July 2019 will transition to new

GIP upon completion of the study (5.1.1.1)

• DISIS-2017-001 will transition upon posting of first study report (5.1.1.2)

• Subsequent DISIS Clusters, with no GIRS having executed an

FSA, will transition (20) Business Days after posting of DISIS

Phase Two results of immediately higher DISIS Queue (5.1.1.3)

60

ESTIMATED TRANSITION DATES (5.1.1.2 & 5.1.1.3)

If your DISIS is Dependent on DISIS Phase 2 Posting Date + 20 BD

DISIS-2017-002 DISIS-2017-001 9/1/2020 +20 Biz Days




*These dates are subject to change based on weekly evaluation

of GI Engineering Study workflow.

If your DISIS is DISIS Phase 1 Posting

DISIS-2017-001 4/14/2020

61

CHANGE IN CLUSTER WINDOW CYCLES (5.1.3)

DISIS-2020-001 (would have been DISIS-2019-002)

• Active during the 1 July 2019 Revision Date

• Window is extended to (11) Calendar Months

• DISIS-2020-001 Closes 30 April 2020

• DISIS Review Period, follows, for (1) Calendar Month

(11) Month + (1) Month vs (5) Month + (1) Month Window

• Until DISIS-2019-001 Phase One Study is posted

• DISIS Cluster open at that time will resume (5) Month + (1)

Month Cycle

62

DISIS STUDYDEFINITIVE INTERCONNECTION SYSTEM

IMPACT STUDY (DISIS)

63

DEFINITIVE INTERCONNECTION SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY (DISIS) CLUSTER

• Section 8 of GIP covers Definitive Planning Phase

• One form – Appendix 3 with Attachments A, B and C

“Generator Interconnection Study Agreement”

• Combined Application and Study Deposits

• Financial Security One increased to $2,000MW

• DISIS Review Period (1) Calendar Month

• DISIS Phases vs Decision Points

64

DISIS STUDY DEPOSIT SCHEDULE (8.2.B.1-4)

• $25,000 deposit for requests ≤ 2 MW

• $35,000 deposit for requests >2 MW and ≤ 20 MW

• $50,000 deposit for requests >20 MW and ≤ 75 MW

• $90,000 deposit for requests ≥ 75 MW

Study Cost Allocation Methodology (4.2.2)

• Per DISIS Phase 1 & 2

• 50% pro rata/count and 50% pro rata MW requests

• Facilities Studies and Specials Studies carry independent costs

65

DISIS PHASE ONE STUDY (8.4.2 & 8.5)

• Consists of power flow analysis and short circuit ratio

• Provide list of required facilities with +/- 30% costs

• Limited Operations Availability (8.4.3)

• Interconnection Facilities Analysis (8.4.4)

• Results no later than (90) Calendar Days after DISIS Review

Period

66

DISIS DECISION POINT ONE (8.5.1)

• Starts next Business Day after posting DISIS Phase One Study

• (15) Business Days in duration (Review, Discuss, Respond)

• Modification permitted per Section 4.4.1 (10 BD after DP1)

• Before DP1 ends, must provide:

• Written indication to Withdraw or Proceed to DISIS Phase Two

• Written indication to all changes permitted by Section 8.5.1

• Financial Security Two (10% of Cost Factor Less Previous Securities or

$2,000/MW going into DISIS Phase Two)

If no response before end of DP1, request is deemed Withdrawn

67

DISIS PHASE TWO STUDY (8.4.2 & 8.5)

• Consists of short circuit analysis and stability analysis, and

any refresh of power flow as a result of withdrawn requests

• Provide list of required facilities with +/- 30% costs (8.4.2)

• Limited Operations Availability (8.4.3)

• Results no later than (120) Calendar Days after end of

Decision Point One (DP1) (8.5)

68

DISIS DECISION POINT TWO (8.5.2)

• Starts next Business Day after posting DISIS Phase Two Study

• (15) Business Days in duration (Review, Discuss, Respond)

• Modification permitted per Section 4.4.1 (5 BD after DP2)

• Before DP2 ends, must provide:

• Written indication to Withdraw or Proceed to Facilities Study

• Written indication to reduce capacity per Section 4.4.1

• Written indication to extend COD or proceed under Limited Operation

• Financial Security Three (20% of Total Upgrades Less Previous Securities before going into Facilities Study)

If no response before end of DP2, request is deemed Withdrawn

69

FACILITIES STUDY PHASE THREE (8.11)

• Must satisfy all requirements of Section 8.5.2 (DP2)

• Must have Financial Security Three in place (DP2)

• DISIS Study Phase One and Phase Two MAY BE refreshed to

accommodate Withdrawn requests

• Transmission Owner has (90) Calendar Days

• Transmission Provider provides Draft no later than (135)

Calendar Days from close of DP2

• Facilities Costs Estimates +/- 20% contained in report

70

FACILITIES STUDY DECISION POINT THREE (8.11.C)

• DP3 will commence the next Business Day after posting of draft Facility Study Report

• DP3 is (15) Business Days in duration

• Interconnection Customer must tender comments on Draft Facilities Study within (30) Calendar Days of receipt of report.

• Transmission Provider posts Final within (15) Business Days of comments or promptly on statement of ‘no comments’ (8.11.c)

• Simultaneously with posting of Final Facility Study, Transmission Provider issues draft Generation Interconnection Agreement (GIA)

• GIA Negotiation Period is (60) Calendar Days

GIA Negotiations of Appendices may begin as early as fulfillment of DP2 (11.2)

71

LET’S TALK ABOUT SCOPING CALLS

• Under Section 8.6 the provision is made to ‘meet’ (scoping

call) with SPP.

• Reasonable Effort made during DP1 and DP2

• If mutually agreed, can be other date

• DP Days = 15 Business Days X 8 hrs = 120 hrs

• DISIS-2017 Clusters 100 to 120 GIRS

We’re gonna need your help !

72

FINANCIAL SECURITYREFUND ELIGIBILITY

SECTION 8.14 OF THE GIP

73

FINANCIAL SECURITY REFUND ELIGIBILITY (8.14)

• Allocated Costs include costs of Network Upgrades, Shared

Network Upgrades, Transmission Owner Interconnection

Facilities and any costs of upgrades required to mitigate

impacts of Affected Systems

• Financial Security One is refundable if Interconnection

Request is Withdrawn prior to the end of DP1, otherwise

subject to forfeiture (8.14.b)

• Financial Security Two and Financial Security Three are

refundable if Interconnection Request is Withdrawn prior to

the end of DP2, otherwise subject to forfeiture (8.14.c)

74

RISKS OF SECURITY FORFEITURE (8.14) PART I

Financial Security One, are at risk, if withdrawn after DP1 but

prior to end of DP2, unless BOTH conditions exist (8.14.d):

• If Total Allocated Costs for Withdrawn GIR increased by 25%

or more from the end of DP1 to DISIS Phase Two, and

• If the allocated cost per MW, based on requested capacity

increased by $10,000/MW or more from end of DP1 to DISIS

Phase Two

• If Transmission Provider determines no impacts to equally-

queued GIRS, then Financial Security One is refundable

75

RISKS OF SECURITY FORFEITURE (8.14) PART II

Financial Security One, Two and Three, are at risk, if withdrawn after the end of DP2, unless BOTH conditions exist (8.14.e):

• If Total Allocated Costs for Withdrawn GIR increased by 35% or more from the end of DP2 to Facilities Study, and

• If the allocated cost per MW, based on requested capacity increased by $15,000/MW or more from end of DP2 to Facilities Study.

• If Transmission Provider determines no impacts to concurrently- or lower-queued GIRS, then Financial Security One, Two and Three are refundable

76

RISKS OF SECURITY FORFEITURE (8.14) PART III

If Facilities Study is subsequently revised, including Affected

Systems study, if any that meet Total Allocated Cost exceptions

under 8.14.e, request may be withdrawn (8.14.f):

• Withdraw must be made within (15) Business Days after

posting revised study results

• Financial Security One, Two and Three would be refundable

77

RETAINING SECURITIES (8.14) PART IV

Any portion of Financial Security One, Two and Three that is

retained, due to harm upon equally- or lower-queued GIRS,

will be applied toward the increased cost of Network Upgrades

as a result of the Withdrawal (8.14.g):

• For Cash Securities, any available refunds will be provided,

with interest, after the adverse impact review is conducted

• For Securities provided under Letter of Credit, the

Transmission Provider will draw upon the Financial Institution

issuing the LOC for the funds

78

OPTIONAL STUDIESFLEXIBLE STUDY PLATFORMS FOR

BETTER DECISION MAKING

79

INTERIM AVAILABILITY GIA & STUDY (11A)

• Intended for Interconnection Requests with In-Service Dates prior to expected Interconnection Study completion

• Formally requests in writing for Interim Interconnection Service

• Meet all terms and conditions of Section 8.2 and Securities per Article 11.5 of Interim GIA

• If feasible, Transmission Provider tenders draft Interim GIA (11A.3.1)

• Interim GIA negotiation period is (30) Calendar Days (11A.3.2)

80

MODIFICATION TO INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS

• Section 4.4 covers Modification allowances

• Permitted Modifications during DP1 (4.4.1)

• MW decrease up to 50% original

• Modify technical parameters

• Modify interconnection configuration

• Change from NRIS to ERIS

• Permitted Modifications during DP2

• MW decrease up to 10% original

Any increases will be require new requests

81

MODIFICATION (PART 2)

• Transmission Provider may evaluation change request to

determine if modification is a Material Modification (4.4.2)

• Any Point of Interconnection changes are considered Material

Modifications

• Modification studies commence no later than (30) Calendar

Days from notification (4.4.3)

Interconnection Customers are responsible for all study costs

82

LIMITED OPERATION AVAILABILITY (8.4.3)

• If DISIS study determines that full amount of interconnection

capacity is not available (due to upgrades required to remedy

constraints) Transmission Provider shall quantify what

capacity is available

• Interconnection Customer may elect to proceed with Limited

Operation



FUTURE GIP CHANGESTHROUGH THE SPP RR PROCESS

84

SHARE YOUR IDEASPARTNER WITH US AT THE SPP

85

SPP REVISION REQUEST (RR) PROCESS

• Tariff changes may be proposed by any Qualified Entity*

• Completed RR Form

• Submitted through the SPP RMS Portal

• SPP Reviews and Routes to RTWG, RCWG and TWG

Qualified Entity includes: Any Market Participant; Transmission Customers or other entities that

are parties to transactions under the Tariff; Any Entity that is an SPP Member; Any staff member of

a governmental authority having jurisdiction over the SPP or any member company; SPP Staff; SPP

Market Monitor; Any rostered individual of an official SPP Committee, Task Force or Working

Group; Any entity designated by a Qualified Entity to submit a Revision Request “on their behalf”.



SUCCESS FOR FUTUREGI REQUESTSGETTING BETTER TOGETHER

87

PLAN FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS

Four leading causes of why Generation Interconnection

Requests are withdrawn:

• Submitting too close to DISIS Cluster Window Close

• Inadequate Demonstration of Site Control

• Application data incomplete

• Securities and Letters of Credit

88

EARLIER SUBMISSIONPLAN AHEAD

89

SUBMIT INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS SOONER

DISIS Cluster Study Window – DISIS-2020-001

• May 25, 2019 until April 30, 2020

• (11) Month + (1) Month Cycle (5.1.3)

• DISIS Review Period May 1, 2020 until May 31, 2020 (8.3)

DISIS Cluster Study Window – DISIS-2020-001

90

FULL AND COMPLETETECHNICAL DATANO BLANK FIELDS IN APPENDIX 3

OR ATTACHMENTS A, B AND C FORMS

91

GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION STUDY AGREEMENT

Let’s walk through the Appendix 3 and Attachments A, B & C

92

GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATES

• Line 5.a of Attachment A to Appendix 3

• SPP’s preference is DMS or DDM Coordinates

• Example of DMS: 37°25'19.07"N, 122°05'06.24"W

• Example of DDM: 32° 18.385' N 122° 36.875' W

93

COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATES

• Commercial Operation Dates (COD) are collected in the Appendix 3 and Attachment C form, also memorialized during the GIA Negotiation Period

• During Transition and Scoping Calls, COD will be evaluated with Interconnection Customer

• Prior to Effective Date of the GIA (4.4.4)

• Cumulative extensions ≤ 3 years not deemed Material Mod

• Cumulative extensions > 3 years deemed Material Mod

*Special conditions exists under Section 8.7 for Network Upgrades not being In Service prior to COD

94

SECURITIES AND LETTERS OF CREDITHANDLED BY SPP CREDIT / RISK

95

SECURITIES AND LETTERS OF CREDIT (LOC)

Work on Securities and LOCs well in advance of the DISIS

Cluster Window Close date

• Financial institution must meet Creditworthiness as defined by

Attachment X of the SPP Tariff.

• SPP Credit / Risk requires “Credit and Security Agreement”

(CSA) form for any new incorporated entity not already on file

• Work with SPP Credit / Risk Department (Phil McCraw Email:

[email protected] or RMS)

mailto:[email protected]

96

SITE CONTROL REQUIREMENTSATTACHMENT V, SECTION 8.2(A)

97

DEFINITION OF SITE CONTROL

Site Control: shall mean documentation reasonably

demonstrating: (1) ownership of, a leasehold interest

in, or a right to develop a site of sufficient size for the

purpose of constructing the Generating Facility; (2) an

option to purchase or acquire a leasehold site of

sufficient size for such purpose; or (3) an exclusivity or

other business relationship between Interconnection

Customer and the entity having the right to sell, lease

or grant Interconnection Customer the right to possess

or occupy a site of sufficient size for such purpose.

98

WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR

• Documentation must reasonably demonstrate that Site

Control exists and/or is in place.

• Site Control should defensibly show: ownership, right to

develop, purchase, acquire, possess or occupy through

an ‘exchange of real property’.

• SPP is unable to accept Letters of Intent or other

Agreements with exclusivity solely for discussions or

negotiations.

• Site Control should have an expiry date commensurate

with the project Commercial Operation Date or beyond.

99

WHAT IS NEEDED

• Reasonable Documentation that provides material control over real property.

Land Lease Agreements or Purchase Options, citing the actual acreage represented

• Completed and Signed Attestation Form

http://opsportal.spp.org/documents/studies/AttestationStatementForSiteControl.pdf

• Meet minimum acreage requirements, per SPP Site Control criteria or propose alternative site size based on final layout drawings under Section 8.2.a of the GIP and/or manufacturer’s specs.

http://opsportal.spp.org/documents/studies/AttestationStatementForSiteControl.pdf

100

RECOMMENDED ACREAGE

• Because of the unique geography of our region, SPP seeks

the minimum specifications for acceptable site control sizing

for new generation interconnection requests:

• Wind Generation – 30 acres per MW*

• Solar Generation – 6 acres per MW*

• Storage/Battery – 1 acre per MW*

• Conventional Generation – 40 acres (fixed)*

*Interconnection Customer may propose an alternative site size, subject to criteria in Section 8.2.a of Attachment

V. Changes to Site Control as submitted in the DISIS Cluster is subject to Material Modification evaluation.

101

SITE CONTROL PRECEDENCE

*SPP’s Site Control criteria is predicated on FERC Docket No.

ER09-1254-002, para 31, which reads in part: “{FERC} also declines

to require SPP to adopt features of the site control standards

establish by other RTOs/ISOs.” It further states: “The Commission

has found that the independent entity variation standard provides

the RTO and ISO with greater flexibility to customize its

interconnection procedures and agreements to fit regional needs.”

102

SITE CONTROL REFERENCES

• Typical discussions of Site Control may be found in SPP

Tariff Attachment V, in the following sections:

• Section 1 – Definitions

• Section 8.2.a – Demonstration of Site Control

• Section 11.3 – Execution and Filing

• Attachment A to Appendix 3, line 7 – Interconnection Request

• Other Sections not cited here



WHAT GOES INTO THE GENERATION INTERCONNECTION STUDY?CAITLIN SHANK

GI ENGINEER II

104

STUDY INPUTS

105

STUDY INPUTS

•All Active Prior Queued Requests

•All Assigned Prior Queued Upgrades

•All Study requests

•Current Queue in study

106

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS• BC MODELS

• TC MODELS

107

• All Prior Queued Requests are Dispatched Using Group

Dispatch Methodology

• All Prior Queued Upgrades

• Interconnection Upgrades

• Non-Shared Network Upgrades

• Shared Network Upgrades

BC MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

108

BC MODELEXAMPLE FOR DISIS-2016-002

• All Prior Queued requests are dispatched.

• Prior Queued requests and Upgrades create the foundation for the Study requests.

Study requests

ARE NOT

dispatched

109

TC MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

• All Prior Queued Requests are Dispatched Using Group

Dispatch Methodology

• All Prior Queued Upgrades

• Interconnection Upgrades

• Non-Shared Network Upgrades

• Shared Network Upgrades

• All Study Requests are Dispatched Using Group Dispatch

Methodology

110

TC MODEL EXAMPLE FOR DISIS-2016-002

• Study requests are studied using a cluster methodology.

• Study requests are dispatched with all prior queued requests.

Study requests

ARE dispatched

111

DISPATCHING MODELS• GROUPING

• GROUP DISPATCH METHODOLOGY

112

DISPATCHING MODELS:GROUPING

Requests are aggregated into regional groups based

on:

• Similar Geographical Impacts

• Electrical Impacts

113• Approximate Location of Current Regional Cluster Groups

DISPATCHING MODELS:GROUPING

114

DISPATCHING MODELS:GROUP DISPATCH METHODOLOGY

To simulate and analyze the variety of generation

and service types included in a study cluster, three

dispatch scenarios are created:

• HVER (High-Variable Energy Resources)

• LVER (Low-Variable Energy Resource)

• NR (Network Resource)

115

DISPATCHING MODELS:HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY

116

DISPATCHING MODELS:PENDING UPDATES TO METHODOLOGY

117

ACCC / TDF ANALYSIS

118

ACCC/TDF ANALYSIS

• For DISIS power flow models:

• The ACCC function of PSS®E is used to simulate:

• Single-element outages

• Breaker-to-breaker outages

• Using the standard contingency and monitored files

• An impact analysis is then performed using PSS®MUST to

determine the Transfer Distribution Factor (TDF) of each

request on the constraint / overload.

119

CONSTRAINT MITIGATION

120

CONSTRAINT MITIGATIONTDF CRITERIA

• Constraints are mitigated for requests that meet the

following TDF criteria for mitigation.

Service Type Constraint Type TDF %

ERIS System Intact 3

ERIS n-1 20

NRIS System Intact 3

NRIS n-1 3

121

CONSTRAINT MITIGATIONDETERMINING SOLUTION SET

For all constraints requiring mitigation, GI Staff will

perform multiple scenarios using multiple upgrade

options to determine the most effective and least

cost solution set.

122

CONSTRAINT MITIGATION

Coordination with Transmission Owner

Once the solution set has been determined, SPP

staff will work with the affected Transmission

Owner(s) (TO) to:

• Confirm Upgrade is viable

• Develop cost estimates

123

ALLOCATING COSTS

124

ALLOCATING COSTS

• The cost allocation of each needed Network Upgrade is

determined using the MW amount of each request and its

impact on the given project.

• This allows for the most efficient and reasonable mechanism for

sharing the costs of upgrades.

• Costs assigned to each request are generally listed in Appendix E

of each DISIS report.

125

ALLOCATING COSTS

Below is an example of the calculation:

1. Determine an Impact Factor on a given project for all responsible requests:

Request X Impact Factor on Upgrade 1 = PTDF (%)(X) * MW(X) = X1

Request Y Impact Factor on Upgrade 1 = PTDF (%)(Y) * MW(Y) = Y1

Request Z Impact Factor on Upgrade 1 = PTDF (%)(Z) * MW(Z) = Z1

2. Determine each request’s Allocation of Cost for that particular Upgrade:

𝑋′𝑠 Upgrade 1 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛($) = (𝑈𝑝𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 1 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ($) × 𝑋1) / (𝑋1+𝑌1+𝑍1)

3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each Upgrade on the requests that meet the TDF criteria.



WHAT WE’RE DOINGTO MAKE THINGSBETTERBRAD FINKBEINER

SUPERVISOR, TARIFF SERVICES

127

THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER

SPP Management and Staff are working to truncate the study

posting windows and shorten the DISIS Cluster Study Life

Cycle.

• Staff Additions and Team Reconfiguration

• Increased outsourcing

• (11) Month + (1) Month Window Cycle

• Automation (Dispatch, ACCC, TDF/Results Processing)

• Improved Study Model Availability

• SmartQ

128

DISIS AUTOMATION

• ACCC / TDF / Results Processing

• Dispatching Models

129

ACCC / TDF / RESULTS PROCESSINGMANUAL PROCESS

• Manual Process took about 12 to 16 hours per cycle:

Manually prepare ACCC

run parameters and

submit to Enfuzion runs

Manually prepare TDF run

parameters and submit to

Enfuzion runs

Wait for run

to complete

Wait for run

to completeManually combine results

for analysis and mitigation

Repeat until

all violations

mitigated

130

ACCC / TDF / RESULTS PROCESSINGAUTOMATED PROCESS

• Automated Process takes about 5 to 6 hours per cycle:

Automatically set up

ACCC run parameters

and send to Enfuzion

Automatically set up

TDF run parameters

and send to Enfuzion

All results

returned

All results

returned

Automatically combine

results and filter for

analysis and mitigation

Repeat until

all violations

mitigated

Python

Automation

131

DISPATCH PROCESSMANUAL PROCESS

• Manual Process takes about 3 to 4 weeks:

Manually prepare dispatch

parameters for all PQ/CQ

gen and submit to

Enfuzion

Manually prepare Local

Control Area run

parameters and submit to

Enfuzion

Solve all

Blown-

Up/Iterated

Models

Solve all

Blown-

Up/Iterated

Models

Manually prepare SPP

Footprint run parameters

and submit to Enfuzion

Repeat until all

SPP Swing buses

are within

Pmax/PMin range

Solving these

models is really

time consuming

because we

dispatch all units

at once

132

DISPATCH PROCESS(AUTOMATION IN DEVELOPMENT)

Automatically prepare

dispatch parameters for

increment(x) of PQ/CQ

gen and submit to

Enfuzion


Local Control Area run

parameters and submit

to Enfuzion

Solve all

Blown-Up /

Iterated

Models

Add

reactive

support

Incremental

dispatch

reduces

solve time

All

Swing

Buses in

Range?

All units

dispatched?

NOYES

NO

Remove

reactive

support


SPP Footprint run

parameters and submit

to Enfuzion

YESDONE!!

133

SmartQ

SmartQ will be SPP’s automation solution to gather, manage

and report Tariff Studies (GI, Transmission, DPA, etc)

• Concluding Business and Technical Requirements Oct 2019

• Projected Launch Date 30 March 2020

• Secure Online Submission Web Platform (two-factor authentication)

• Allows for rapid Validation and Acceptance

• Provides document uploads and auto alerts to customers

• Drives public Queue data and metric



QUESTIONS ANDANSWERSQ&A SESSION

135

Q & A TIME

Remember some ground rules

• Tariff rules all discussion discrepancies

• Educational session on the GI Three-Phase Study Process

• Unable to discuss Policy matters (Use Email / RMS)

• No discussion of specific Interconnection Requests



THANK YOU ANDBE SAFE IN YOUR TRAVEL HOMEEND OF SESSION

spp three-phase interconnection study process three phase...2009/10 fast-track process cluster study...

Documents