20180329PAC to Staff WY NTTG RTP_Summary_Report_Final.pdf

44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 Plan Assumptions and Caveats
4 THE NORTHERN TIER TRANSMISSIONGROUP
NTTG MISSION 4 NorthernTierMembers
6 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
To ensure efficient,7 PLANDEVELOPMENTPROCESS
8 Biennial Cycleeffective,coordinated 9 Biennial Study Plan
use and expansion of the 10 Study Methodology
11 Production-Cost Modelingmembers'transmission 11 Power-Flow Cases
systems in the Western 11 Data Submission
13 Forecasted Loads
Interconnection to 15 PublicPolicyConsiderationScenarioRequests
best meet the needs 16 Regional Economic Study Requests
16 Initial Regional Transmission Plan Development
of customers and 17 InterregionalProjectCoordination
stakeholders.18 Stress-conditioned Case Study Results
18 Stressed Hours for Study with Production-Cost Modeling
20 Development of Change Cases
20 Change Case Results
23 High Southern Idaho Import Case
23 High Southern Idaho Export Case
23 High Wyoming Wind Case
23 Interregional Transmission Projects
24 Reliability Conclusions
24 Economic Evaluations
24 Capital-related Cost Metric
Northern Tier 24 Energy-loss Metric
Transmission Group 25 Reserve Metric
25 Economic Metric Analysis Conclusion
Www.nttg.biZ 26 Planning Process Flow Map
[e-mail] 26 Final Regional Transmission Plan
28 Cost Allocation
28 Next Steps
28 NTTG 2016-2017 Regional Transmission Plan
Supporting Materials
29 Glossary
FRONT COVER
Idaho Powerdouble
circuit 230-kVtower.
PhotocourtesyofldahoPower
Repair of insulator on 345-kV
tower Bonanza-Mona line.
Photocourtesy of DeseretPower
ElectricCooperativeINDEXOFFIGURES
AND TABLES
3 Figure 1 NTTG Final 2016-2017 Regional Transmission Plan
8 Figure 2 Eight-quarter Biennial Planning Cycle
13 Figure 3 2026 NTTG Forecasted Loads
14 Figure4 Comparison of Forecasted Resources
15 Figure 5 Transmission Service Obligations
16 Figure 6 Prior RTPfrom 2014-2015
17 Figure7 2016-2017 Initial RTP
18 Figure 8 Three Interregional Transmission Projects
21 Figure 9 Change Case Matrix
22 Figure 10 Heat map of D2-Null Case
22 Figure 11 Heat map of High Southern Idaho export case with initial RTPfacilities included
25 Figure 12 Change Case 23
26 Figure 13 Transmission Line Segments from Initial RTP not included in Final RTP
27 Figure 14 NTTG Final RTP
12 Table 1 January 2016 Data Submittal-Transmission Additions by 2026
17 Table 2 Three Interregional Transmission Projects Submitted for Consideration
19 Table 3 Hours Selected from 2026 WECC TEPPC Case to Represent NTTG
System Stresses
EXECUTNE MARY
Would it be more efficient or cost-effective to
meet future transmission needs in the Northern
Tier Transmission Group (NTTG)footprint through Hemingway and portionsof Energy
Gateway),was not fully reliablearegionalplanningframeworkratherthanthewiththe2026loadandresourceaggregateoflocalplanningprocesses27projections.Thestudythenevaluated
23 Change Cases that explored ways
The NTTG 2016-2017 Regional Transmission Plan (RTP)to reliably meet the transmission
poses this question and seeks to answer it.Developed in system needs through various combinations of the Non-
accord with NTTG Transmission Providers'Attachment K,Committed Projects in the Initial RTP or three proposed
which includes FERC Order 1000 regional and interregional InterregionalTransmission Projects,or both.These Change
transmission planning requirements,the plan analyzes Cases were created to explore the relationship of a build-out
whether NTTG's transmission needs in 2026 could best be of wind generation in Wyoming to meet NTTG load with its
satisfied with projects of a regional or interregional scope.impact on the transmission system west of Wyoming and
a potential expansion of the transmission system (i.e.,the
To arrive at a conclusion,NTTG used a two-yearprocess Gateway West and Gateway South projects).
of identifying transmission requirements and performing
reliabilityand economic analyses on several collections of The study also examined three Interregional Transmission
transmission projects,or plans:the prior (2014-2015)RTP,Projects as Alternative Projects to determine whether
an Initial RTP2made up of projects from the prior RTP and these projects would yield a more efficient or cost-effective
projects included in the Full Funders'Local Transmission regional transmission plan for NTTG and as a part of
Plans,and a number of Change Case plans.interregional coordination and planning.
A null Change Case (null case),which
tests the NTTG footprint's current The analysis found,however,that none of thetransmissionsystemstressedby
the addition of loads and resources interregÎOnal Transmission Projects could replace
projected for 2026,showed that the Or enhance the Non-Committed Projects more
NTTG system performed acceptably ..>efficiently or cost effectively to satisfy NTTG sinonlyoneofsevenstressedregionaltransmissionneeds.conditions studied.All the other
conditions suffered performance
issues that required correction.Reliability analyses narrowed the potentially acceptable
A technical study found that the 2014-2015 prior RTP,solutions to the Initial RTP and two Change Cases.
which included two Non-Committed Projects (Boardman to Subsequent economic analyses identified one of the
1NTTG's regionaltransmission planningprocess is not intended to be a replacementfor local transmission or resource planning.2Terms are capitalized to be consistent with Attachment K.All capitalizedterms are defined in the glossary.
2 |NTTG 2016-2017
Change Cases as the more-efficient or cost-effective case.Known in the study
as Change Case 23,this case includes Boardman to Hemingway,Gateway
South,portions of Gateway West,and the Antelope projects.See the figure
below for a map of those projects.
Idaho
ANTELOPEPROJECTs Wyoming
GATEWAYOregonWEST
GATEWAY WEST
(FROM 345KVTO 500KV)
Utah These projects
comprise
GATEWAY NTTG's 2016-Nevada soUTH 2017 Regional
Transmission Plan.
Stakeholder input on the RTP was accepted and evaluated throughoutthe biennial
planning cycle.NTTG posted the Draft RTP in December 2016 (Quarter 4)for
stakeholder comment and the Draft Final RTP in Quarter6 for public comment.
The revised Draft Final RTPwas made available for public comment in Quarter7.
The Planning Committee recommended submittal of the RTP to the NTTG Steering
Committee in Quarter8.The Steering Committee approved the RTP in Quarter8.
The NTTG 2016-2017 Regional Transmission Plan (RTP)a reliable and cost-effective portfolio of transmission around
is meant to inform local transmission planning processes the inputs of NTTG Members.The RTP is the result of the
and is not a construction plan.NTTG relies on the load assumptions outlined in the report and solely represents
and resource data submittals of its members and does not a lower-cost transmission plan than one represented by
consider the re-dispatch or re-optimizationof resource a rollup of the combined Transmission Provider's plans.
assumptions.The RTP studies are completed pursuant
to the NTTG Transmission Provider's Attachment K.To the degree that those NTTG Transmission Providers'
inputs are not realistic or cost-effective,the resulting
NTTG's transmission plan assumes that its members'NTTG Transmission Plan will likely be affected.However,
submissions are reasonable and cost-effective.The NTTG regards correcting such potential errors as work
transmission plan is not an attempt to design an optimal to be undertaken in the context of integrated resource
portfolioof resources to meet the expected demand of plans conducted by individual load-serving entities in
the region's consumers.Instead,it is an attempt to design their respective states.
NTTG 2016 2017 |3
THE NORTHERN TIER TRANSMISSION
The Northern Tier Transmission Group (NTTG)was formed in 2007 to providea forum where all
interested stakeholders,including Transmission Providers,customers and state regulators,can
participate in an open,transparent,coordinated regional transmission planning process.The process
is intended to promote effective planning and use of the multi-state electric transmission system
within the NTTG footprint.
NTTG fulfills requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)Order 1000 for each
public utility transmission providerto participatein a regional transmission planning process that
produces a regional transmission plan and,if appropriate,includes a regional cost-allocation method.
NTTG evaluates transmission projects that move power across the regional bulk electric transmission
system,serving load in its footprint and deliveringelectricity to external markets.The transmission
providers belonging to Northern
Tier serve more than 4 million
retail customers with more than NORTHERN TIER MEMBERS29,000 miles of high-voltage
transmission lines.The NTTG Deseret Power Electric Cooperative
footprint covers portions of seven Idaho Power Company
Western states.These members Idaho Public Utilities Commissionprovideserviceacrossmuch
of Utah,Wyoming,Montana,MATL LLP
Idaho and Oregon,and parts of Montana Consumer Counsel
Washington and California.Montana Public Service Commission
NTTG works with other NorthWestern Energy
entities-the Western Electricity
.Oregon Public UtilityCommissionCoordinatingCouncil(WECC)for
reliabilitydata and neighboring PacifiCorp
Planning Regions (e.g.,Portland General Electric
ColumbiaGrid,WestConnect Utah Associated Municipal Power SystemsandCaliforniaIndependent(UAMPS)
System Operator(CAISO))for
interregional project coordination.Utah Office of ConsumerServices
Utah Public ServiceCommission
Wyoming Office of ConsumerAdvocates
Wyoming Public Service Commission
4 |
NTTG 2016 2017
GROUP
Montana
a
in y
Idaho .omi g
ife
Nevada Colorado
Arizona
NTTG MEMBERS'
TRANSMISSIONFACILITIES
NTTG
Other Western U.S.and
Canada Transmission
The NTTG footprint covers portions of seven Western states.
NTTG 2016 2017
|5
PURPOSE OF THÈ PLAN
The NTTG Regional Transmission Plan (RTP)aims to produce,if possible,a more
efficient or cost-effective regional plan to transmit energy compared with a plan
that rolls up the local Transmission Providers'transmission plans and other Change
Case transmission plans studied.This study process complies with FERC Order
No.1000,Attachment K-RegionalPlanning Process.This planning cycle marks
the first time that NTTG implemented FERC Order 1000 interregionalproject
coordination with the other western regional transmission planning organizations.
Journeyman lineman prepares equipment
for upgradeof NorthWestern Energy's
Jack Rabbit-BigSky Project.
Photocourtesy ofSusan Ma lee,
NorthWestern Energy
6 |NTTG 2016 2017
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN IS
DEVELOPED THROUGH A TWO-YEAR PROCESS:
1.Identification of the transmission
requirement for the NTTGfootprint,
derived from the data submissions
AChinookhelicoptertransportsa 2.Reliabilityanalysis and evaluation of the
steeltransmissiontowerabovethe Initial RTP and Alternative Projects
Gallatin River south of Bozeman,..(including interregional projects)throughMont.,as part of NorthWestern
Energy's Jack Rabbit-Big Sky project.Cha nge Cases
PhotocourtesyofSusanMalee,
NorthWesternEner 3.Economic analysis and evaluation comparing
the annualized incremental costs of the
Initial RTP and the ChangeCases that perform
acceptably (two cases this study cycle)
4.Selection of the project or projects that yield
a regional transmission plan that is more
efficient or cost-effective than the other
regional transmission plans studied Line crew installs
single-polestructures for
NorthWestern Energy's5.Any projects that were submitted for the new 100-kVtransmission
purposes of cost allocation and selected line north of Reed Point,
into the RTP will go through the cost Mont.,with Beartooth
allocation process if they are deemed Mountainsinthebackground.
PhotocourtesyofSusanMalee,to be eligible for cost allocation NorthWestern Energy
BIENNIAL CYCLE
NTTG follows a two-year,eight-quarterplanning cycle to produce the 10-year
Regional Transmission Plan.In the first step,the Planning and Cost Allocation
Committees pre-qualify3 Transmission Developers who properlysubmit their
transmission project to be considered for regional cost allocation (should the
sponsor's project be selected in the Regional Transmission Plan for cost allocation).
The biennial cycle includes steps to collect,evaluate and analyze transmission and
non-transmission data,produce and publish a draft plan,gather stakeholder and
public input,update the plan and complete the cycle with the publishing of a RTP.
NORTHERN TIER TRANSMISSION GROUP
EIGHT-QUARTER BIENNIAL PROCESS
Q1
Regional Q4
Transmission Q2 Draft RegionalQ1-Q4 Plan Data Study Plan Q3-Q4 Transmission
20 16 Gathering Development Run Studies Plan and
and Economic and Approval Economic
Study Request Study Results
Window
Q8Q5Q6Project SponsorStakeholderCostPre-qualificationQ5-Q8 Review,Data Allocation,for Next CycleUpdatesandDraftFinal2017EconomicRegionalRegionalTransmissionStudyRequestTransmissionPlanApprovalandWindowPlan(DFRTP)EconomicStudyResults
FIGURE2
NTTG uses an eight-quarter biennial planningcycle.
3Pursuant to Attachment K,Section Pre-qualify for Cost Allocation,a ProjectSponsor that intends to submit a project for cost allocation
must be pre-qualified before the beginningof the 2016-2017 biennial planningcycle (i.e.,the last quarter of the prior planningcycle).
8 |
NTTG 2016-2017
BlENNlALST LN
The biennial study plan outlines the process that NTTG follows to develop its 10-
year RTP.It provides the framework to guide plan development.It also describes
NTTG's process to determine if a properly submitted InterregionalTransmission
Project (ITP)would yield a transmission plan that is a more cost-effective or
efficient solution to NTTG's regional transmission needs.
The NTTG Planning Committee manages the study plan.The Planning Committee
establishes the Technical Work Group (TWG)subcommittee to develop the study
plan.The TWG also performs the necessary technical evaluations for the RTP
and assesses any projects,including ITPs,submitted to NTTG.TWG members are
NTTG Planning Committee members or their designated technical representatives.
They have access to and expertise in power-flowanalysis for power systems or
production-cost modeling,or both.
Developed during Quarter2 of the biennial planning cycle,the study plan
establishes the:
Study methodology and criteria
Study assumptions based on the loads,resources,
point-to-point transmission requests,desired flows,constraints
and other technical data submitted in Quarter 1and updated in
Quarter 5 of the regional planning cycle
Software analysis tools
2026 production-cost-model database and hoursto be selected
for reliability analysis
Evaluation criteria for reliability and transmission
service obligations
Capital cost,energy losses and reserve-sharing metric calculations
Public Policy Requirements and Public Policy Considerations
The study plan was posted for stakeholder comment,recommended for approval
by the Planning Committee and approved by the Steering Committee during
Quarter2 of the biennial cycle.Due to data submission updates provided in
Quarter5,the study plan was revised in Quarter6.Any differences between
what is stated in the study plan and the process stated in the NTTG Transmission
Providers'FERC Order 1000 Attachment K defer to Attachment K.
NTTG 2016 2017 9
STUDY METH D LOGY
To determine the more efficient or cost-effective transmission plan,the TWG
subcommittee conducted reliabilityand economic studies in accordance with
the 2016-2017 Study Plan.The Study Plan and ultimatelythe RTP reflect
the NTTG Transmission Providers'Attachment K requirements to satisfy its
transmission needs.NTTG's regional transmission planning does not investigate
local transmission planningorgeneration decisions related to integrated resource
planning.Rather,NTTG's methodology uses a regional perspective to question the
Initial RTP's roll-up of Non-Committed regional transmission project(s)to identify,
if possible,a regional transmission plan that is more efficient or cost effective than
the aggregated Full Funder's transmission plans.In conducting its regional studies,
NTTG uses regional transmission and non-transmission alternatives (if any)to
honor the local transmission needs.As part of the study,NTTG assumed that the
local existing and new generation additions have (or will have)firm transmission
rights to move their power from the generator to load.NTTG's reliabilitystudies
did not re-dispatch existing generation down to relieve congestion such that the
new generation additions could move their power to load without potentially
creating congestion.
The reliabilitystudies used production-cost modeling and power-flowstudies.
The production-cost and power-flowmodels represent data for the western
interconnection load,resource and transmission topology.In developing the data
for these two models,NTTG started with a WECC production cost model (version
TEPPC CC1.3)and WECC power-flowmodel (version 25hs1a)and modified the
modeling data in NTTG's footprint for its regional studies.For the studies including
one or more interregionaltransmission projects that relied on increased wind
generation within NTTG's footprint (e.g.,adding new wind resource in Wyoming),
NTTG adjusted generation levels down in the region receivingthe power.The
goal of the adjustments was to ensure western interconnection load and resource
balance.NTTG consulted with the planning region receiving the power (i.e.,
California ISO)for their generation reductions.
The results of the production-cost modeling were used to identifyseven hours of
high stress on the transmission system.These seven hours were then subjected to
reliabilityanalysis using a power-flowmodel.The input and output data for these
selected hours were transferred from the production-cost model (i.e.,GridView)
to a power-flowmodel (i.e.,PowerWorld)to performthe technical reliability
analysis.By taking these steps,a consistent set of analysis tools and data can
be engaged to evaluate the reliabilityperformance.
Next,economic studies employed the Attachment K's three metrics-capital-
related costs,energy losses,and reserves-to analyze Change Case plans that
were deemed reliable to further determine the cost effectiveness of the NTTG
transmission plan.
10 |
NTTG 2016-2017
Production-Cost Modeling
The TWG examined 8,760 hours of data using GridView4 prOduction-cost software
to establish stressed conditions within the NTTG footprint.To set the stressed
conditions,the TWG used and modified a dataset from the Transmission Expansion
Planning Policy Committee (TEPPC)of the WECC.The TEPPC case included a
representation of the load,generation and transmission topology of the WECC
interconnection-wide transmission system 10 years into the future.
The study plan identified seven stressed conditions that affect the NTTG area
for study.After all hours of data were run through the GridView production-
cost program,the results were analyzed and the hours representativeof the
seven stressed conditions were identified.For a more detailed discussion of the
conditions and hours,see the section on stress-conditioned case study results.
Power-Flow Cases
For the next step in the process,the TWG used PowerWorld6 simulation software
to convert the production-cost model for the seven stressed hours into power-flow
cases.Each of the stressed cases was then reviewed by the TWG to ensure that the
case met steady-state system performance criteria (no voltage issues or thermal
overloads).Bubble diagrams showing the inter-area flows for each of the stressed
cases are included in the Draft Final RTP,available on the NTTG website.
DATA SUBMISSION
Information flows into NTTG during Quarter 1 and Quarter 5 of the biennial
cycle.Transmission Providers and stakeholders may supply data on forecasted
firm energy obligations and commitments requiredto support the transmission
system within the NTTG footprint.The data may include load forecasts,
resources,transmission topology,transmission service and Public Policy
Requirements submissions.Regional transmission projects submitted in Quarter
1are shown in Table 1and include those from the prior Regional Transmission
Plan,Transmission Provider Local Transmission Plans (LTP),Sponsored Projects,
unsponsored projects and Merchant Transmission Developerprojects.No
projects that were eligible for cost allocation were submitted into NTTG's
2016-17 regional planning process.
230-kV double-circuit transmission line between idaho
Power's Oxbow and Hells Canyon hydroelectric projects.
Photocourtesyof IdahoPower
4GridViewis a registered ABB product6PowerWorldisaregisteredtrademark of PowerWorld Corp.
\NTTG 2016 2017 11
SPONSORED TRANSMISSION PROJECTS
SPONSOR S I
NCL
a COMMITTED PROJECTS
DESERET
G&T Bonanza Upalco 138 kV 2 LTP No No New Line
Longhorn Hemingway 500 kV 1 Yes No Boardn a2n oH mingway
Hemingway Bowmont 230 kV 2 LTP Yes No New Line (associated with
Boardman to Hemmgway)
Bowmont Hubbard 230 kV 1 LTP Yes No New Line (associated withBoardmantoHemingway)
O R Cedar Hill Hemingway 500 kV 1 LTP Yes No GatewaLWeascSeCgmentæ#9(joint
Cedar Hill Midpoint 500 kV 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #10
Midpoint Borah 500 kV 1 LTP Yes No (convert existing from 345 kV
operation)
King Wood River 138 kV 1 LTP No No Line Reconductor
SE I rta
Star 138 kV 1 P Neo
MATL 6D
ve
tcekrtoBack
Aeolus Clover 500 kV 1 LTP &Yes No Gateway South Project -Segment
pRTP #2
Aeolus Anticline 500 kV 1 RT Yes No Gateway West Segments 2&3
Anticline Jim Bridger 500 kV 1 R Yes No 345/500 kV Tie
Anticline Populus 500 kV 1 R Yes No Gateway West Segment #4
PAA FICORP Populus Borah 500 kV 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #5
Populus Cedar Hill 500 kV 1 LTP Yes No Gateway West Segment #7
Antelope Goshen 345 kV 1 LTP Yes No Nuclear Resource Integration
Antelope Borah 345 kV 1 LTP Yes No Nuclear Resource Integration
Windstar Aeolus 230 kV 1 LpTR Yes No Gateway West Segment #1W
Oquirrh Terminal 345 kV 2 LTP Yes Yes Gateway Central
Cedar Hill Hemingway 500 kV 1 LTP Yes No Gateway WesdaShegmoenet#9 (joint
PACIFICORPWEST Wallula McNary 230 kV 1 LTP Yes Yes Gateway West Segment A
Blue Lake Gresham 230 kV 1 LTP No No New Line
Blue Lake Troutdale 230 kV 1 LTP No No Rebuild
Blue Lake Troutdale 230 kV 2 LTP No No New Line
Horizon Sprinctville 230 kV 1 LTP No No New Line (Trojan-St Marys-Horizon)
PORTLAND
GENERAL Horizon Harborton 230 kV 1 LTP No No New Line (re-tLerminates Horizon
Trojan Harborton 230 kV 1 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton
St Marys Harborton 230 kV 1 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton
Rivergate Harborton 230 kV 1 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton
Trojan Harborton 230 kV 2 LTP No No Re-termination to Harborton
6Regionally significant transmission projects are generally those that effect transfer capability between
areas of NTTG.Projects that are mainly for local load service are not regionallysignificant.Projects that January 2016 data submittal-transmissionarenotregionallysignificantwillbeplacedintoallchangecasesandnottestedforimpactontheRegional
Transmission Plan.Thefuture facilities submitted in the LTP'swill be removed in the null case.additions by 2026.
'Prior RTP.
12 T
Forecasted Loads
Participating load-serving entities provide forecasts of loads for balancing
authorityareas internal to the NTTG footprint.These loads are generally the
same as those found in the participants'official load forecasts (such as those
in integrated resource plans)and are similar to those provided to the Load and
Resource Subcommittee of the WECC Planning Coordination Committee.
Figure 3 summarizes the load forecast used in the 2016-2017 planning cycle.
2026 NTTG FORECASTED LOADS
TOTALMW
2015 CU sgm 22,122
2024 SUMMERLOADDANTAS1U41M5(M 23,902
2DASUA
U ML 23,637
2026SUMMERLOAD
DATASUBMITTED US 23,620
IN Q5 2017 (MW)
DIFFERENCE (MW)-2822024-2026
Idaho NorthWestern PacifiCorp Portland
Power Energy -588 General
147 218 -59
NTTG received 3,200 MW of proposed new generation resources from its funding FlGURE3
2026 NTTGforecasted loads.Transmission Providers for consideration in the RTP.Figure 4 displays these Loads for Deseret G&T and UAM PS
incremental resources within the NTTG footprint and compares submissions from are included in PacifiCorp East.
the prior RTP with submissions for Quarter1and Quarter5 of the current cycle.
NTTG 2016 2017
|13
COMPARISON OF FORECASTED RESOURCES (MW)
NATURALGAS
WIND
|60BIOMASS4
4
0 2024
GEO-THERMAL 10
|10 2026 Q1
-81 |2026 QS-133-124
NUCLEAR EiEi!
EillMARKET/OTHER
In the 2014-15 study cycle,Power Company of Wyoming (PCW)submitted 3,000 MW of wind resources
Comparison associated with the TransWest Express project.PCW asked that those resources not be included in the NTTGofforecasted
resources.2014-15 Regional Plan,and those resources have been shown separately in Figure 4.For the 2016-17 study
cycle,the 3,000 MW has been excluded from the NTTG totals.Those resources,to serve loads outside the
NTTG footprint in California,have been submitted with an Interregional Transmission Project in the 2016-
17 study cycle.
In Quarter 5,NorthWestern submitted 550 MW of new Montana wind generation.Also PacifiCorp indicated
that its recently submitted integrated resource plan increased the amount of Wyoming wind power from
887 MW to 1,100 MW.As shown in Figure 4,the total resource forecast of 3,200 MW submitted this cycle
was reduced by 1,516 MW,or 32.1 percent,from the 4,716 MW forecast in 2024.Following the Quarter 1
data submittal,the owners of the Colstrip 1and 2 coal-fired plants announced a plan to retire the units
before 2026.The owners of the Valmy 1and 2 coal plants in Nevada also plan to decommission the plants
by 2025,a decade earlier than originally planned.Both sets of retirements were assumed in the 2016-2017
studies and are reflected in Quarter 5 values shown in Figure 4.
14 |
N 016 01
In support of the proposed transmission additions or upgrades,NTTG received four firm transmission-
service-obligation submissions (contractual requirements to provide service)-twoeach from Idaho Power
and PacifiCorp.These are shown in the following map.
Washington
e Montanae4O
Idaho Wyoming
Nevada
FIGURE5
Transmission
Service Obligations.
PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATION
SCENARIO REQUESTS
In Quarter 1,Renewable Northwest (RNW)and the Northwest Energy Coalition (NWEC)jointly submitted
a Public Policy Consideration request for a scenario analysis study.The group asked NTTG to study a faster
phase-out of coal plants while developing utility-scale renewable resources and replacing Colstrip units 1,
2 and 3 with either wind only or a combination of wind and natural gas simple/combined cycle resource.
Members of the TWG and representatives from RNW and NWEC reviewed the request and agreed to
some modifications.These modifications,and the associated study assumptions,are documented in the
NTTG 2016-2017 Study Plan,Attachment 3 of the Draft Final RTP.
The study results suggested that a replacement of wind or a combination of wind and gas for coal
may be feasible.This study,however,neither constituted a path study nor conveyed or implied
transmission rights.Additional analysis would be required to understand the full impacts of
coal plant decommissioning.
Public Policy Considerations are considered to be relevant factors not established by local,state or
federal laws or regulations.The results of PPC analysis may inform the RTP but do not result in the
inclusion of additional projects in the RTP.
A full reportof the study can be found in Appendix D of the NTTG 2016-2017 Draft Final RTP.
NTTG 2016 2017 |15
REGIONAL ECONOMIC STUDY
REQUESTS
NTTG received no regional economic study requests.
INITIAL REGIONAL TRANSMISSION
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The starting point for the biennial planning process was development of the Initial RTP.This exercise
used a bottom-up approach to merge the projects in the prior RTP (2014-2015)and the NTTG
Transmission Providers'local transmission plans into a single regional transmission plan.Next,the
TWG analyzed the Initial RTP throughChange Case plans,which included or excluded Non-Committed
regional projects and InterregionalTransmission Projects.These Change Case plans helped to determine
whether Alternative Projects could be added or substituted,or if one or more Non-Committed Projects
could be deferred,or both,to yield a regional transmission plan more efficient or cost effective than the
Initial RTP.The results of this analysis led to the formation of the Draft RTP.
FIGURE6
2014-2015 Prior Regional Transmission Plan:
The turquoise and green lines represent the Washington
projects comprising the prior RTP from 2014-
2015.These include Boardman to Hemingway,
in the northwest sector of the map,and an
Alternative Project with four transmission
elements across four states.
Idaho
Wyoming
Nevada
16|NTTG 2016 2017
Montana
IdahoOregon Wyoming
Map showing Non-Committedregional
projects comprising the 2016-2017 Initial RTP.
UtahNevada -Boardman to Hemingway
Gateway WestColorado-Gateway South
-Antelope
As part of interregional coordination,NTTG and the other regional entities in the Western
Interconnection collaborate during their transmission planning processes to coordinate their
interregional transmission planning data.These coordination efforts inform each planning region's
transmission plans.A properly submitted InterregionalTransmission Project is evaluated as an
Alternative Project in NTTG's regional planning process.The set of uncommitted projects (regional,
interregional or both)that result in the more efficient or cost-effective plan forms the Regional
Transmission Plan.
SUMMARYOF Q1-2016 INTERREGIONAL
PROJECTS SUBMITTED TO NTTG
PROJECTNAME TER NAMTIONTERMINATIONTO IN SDERVEICE
CROSS-TIE NTTG Robinson Summit,TransCanyon,LLC 'Clover,UT Conceptual 2024TRANSMISSIONPROJECTWestConnectNV
Great Basin NTTG .Robinson Summit,.SWIP-NORTH 'Midpoint,ID Permitted 2021TransmissionLLCWestConnectNV
TRANSWESTEXPRESS TransWest Express,WesNTC
nect Sinclair,WY Boulder City,NV Conceptual 2020TRANSMISSIONPROJECTLLCandCAISO
Three Interregional Transmission Projects were submitted for
consideration during formation of the initial RTP in Quarter 1
of the biennial cycle.
|17
Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP)
Idaho
Wyoming Great Basin Transmission,LLC (GBT),an affiliate of LS Power,
submitted the 275-mile northern portion of the Southwest
Intertie Project (SWIP)as an ITP.SWIP-North would connect
the Midpoint 500-kV substation in NTTG's planning area to
the Robinson Summit 500-kV substation in the WestConnect
cm TIE area with a 500-kV single-circuit AC transmission line.
The SWIP is expected to have a bi-directional WECC-
TRANSWEST approved path rating of approximately 2,000 MW.If GBT
EXPRESS ÍS Selected to build SWIP-North,development,final design
Utah and construction activities could be completed to supportColoradoenergizingtheprojectwithinanestimated36-42 months.
-Cross-TieTransmission Line
Arizona
TransCanyon submitted the 213-mile Cross-Tie Transmission
Line for consideration as an ITP.TransCanyon proposes
to build a 1500-MW,500-kV high-voltage alternating
FIGURE8 current (HVAC)line between central Utah and east-central Nevada.The line would connect PacifiCorp's
Three Interregional proposed 500-kV Clover substation with the existing 500-kV Robinson Summit substation.TransCanyonTransmissionProjects
wereevaluatedduring expects the project to be in-service by the end of 2024.
the planningcycle.
TransWest Express Transmission Project
TransWest proposed a 730-mile,phased 1,500/3,000 MW,±600 kV,high-voltage direct current
(HVDC)transmission system with terminals in south-central Wyoming and southeastern Nevada.
The federal Bureau of Land Management and Western Area Power Administration published
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)for the TWE Project in May 2015.
STRESS-CONDITIONED CASE
STUDY RESULTS
Stressed Hours for Study with Production-Cost Modeling
The TWG used GridView production-cost software to review 8,760 hours of data to identify stressed
conditions within the NTTG footprint.A case representing the year 2026 was obtained from the WECC
TEPPC.This case included a representation of the load,generation and transmission topology of the WECC
interconnection-wide transmission system 10 years in the future.The TWG identified corrections to the data
needed to align with data submitted in the first quarter of the biennial planning cycle.The TWGshared these
changes with the other regional planning entities and WECC to include in their future studies.The TWGthen
agreed to use this modified TEPPCcase in creating the stressed cases discussed below.
After processing all 8,760 hours through the production-cost program,the TWG analyzed the data and
identified seven stressed conditions to study,as shown in Table 3.
18 |NTTG 2016 2017
2026 SELECTED HOURS
STRESSED CONDITION DATE HOUR TWG LABEL
MAX.NTTGSUMMER PEAK July 22,2026 16:00 A
MAX.NTTGWINTER PEAK December8,2026 19:00 B
MAX.MT TO NW September 10,2026 Midnight C Hours selected
HIGHSOUTHERNIDAHO IMPORT June 11,2026 14:00 D1 from 2026 WECC
HIGHSOUTHERNIDAHO EXPORT September 17,2026 2:00 D2 TEPPCcase
to representHIGHTOT2FLOWSNovember11,2026 17:00 E different NTTGHIGHWYOMINGWINDSeptember17,2026 2:00 F system stresses.
HIGH MONTANA-NWHIGHSUMMERPEAKHIGHWINTERPEAK
(NTTG CASE A)(NTTG CASE B)(PATH 8)FLOWS
(NTTG CASE C)
This case showed a need to import A few local system violations This case tested transmission system
energy duringhigh summer air-occurred when tested against the capabilities with high electricity flows
conditioning loads.The transmission transmission projects comprising from Montana to the Northwest.
projects inthe Initial RTP performed the Initial RTP.This case puts less Thisscenariowas usedfor the Public
reasonablywell;however,system stress on the NTTG system than Policy Consideration study,which
performance proved inadequate did the summer peak.This case also analyzed the impact of an accelerated
withouttransmissionsystemadditions accountedforwindresourcesof phase-outofColstripunits1,2and3
by2026 to meet NTTG's summer peak 2,175 MWto check the performance with either wind only or a combination
load.This case accountedfor wind of the Draft RTP projects.of wind and gas.Seethe Public Policy
resources of 2,175 MWtocheck the ConsiderationScenario Requests
performance of the set of projects section for results of the study.
comprising the Draft RTP.
HIGH SOUTHERN HIGH SOUTHERN HIGH NE-SE HIGH WYOMINGIDAHOIMPORTIDAHOEXPORT(PATH TOT2)FLOWS WIND PRODUCTION
(NTTG CASE D1)(NTTG CASE D2)(NTTG CASE E)(NTTG CASE F)
Under conditions with the eastbound In this export scenario,with the Thiscaseevaluatedtheperformanceof Thiscase,as others,was studied atthe
path from the Northwest to Idaho Idaho to Northwest Path 8 flow at the InterregionaiTransmission Projects 2,175-MWwind level,which includes
operating at a 2,244 MW deficit,3,391 MW,the existing NTTG system in supporting transfers between regions.the addition of 1,100 MW of wind
and the NTTG system importing would be incapable of supporting Theseadditionalinterregionaltransfers capacity.Thethermal dispatch inthis
7,223 MW,the NTTG transmission expected transfers and meeting were not identified in Q1to meet or case wasat a typical high levelof 3,580
topology could not import enough transmission requirements in 2026.defer NTTG's 2026 footprint resource MW.The added wind generationin the
power to support load service Adding in the projectsfrom the Initial requirements.Thecaseshowed near Wyoming area worsened reliability
obligationsin southern Idaho.With RTP,the system performed well,balance in the NTTGfootprint between issues observed in Wyoming and
the additionof transmission projects with one contingency that caused a loads and resources,with a small 5 MW confirmed the need for additional
comprisingthelnitialRTP,however,seriescapacitorbanktooverload.import,alongwithaTot2flowof1,566 transmissiontousetheseresourcesto
the NTTG system would perform Thatbank,however,has reached the MW.This case accounted for wind their fullest extent.The RTP addresses
well,with a few local violations,end of its useful life and is likely to be resourcesof2,175 MWtocheck the these reliability concerns and relieves
replaced before 2026.performanceof the Draft RTP.the transmission constraints.
19
DEVELOPMENT OF CHANGE CASES
For each of the seven stress-conditioned cases,the TWG prepared a null Change Case and analyzed
reliabilityresults.The null case represents roughly today's transmission topology made to serve
loads and resource requirements in 2026.Only the HeavyWinter case performed acceptably.All the
other conditions revealed performance issues that required varyingdegrees of correction,with the
heavy summer case needing the least correction and the high Wyoming wind case needing the most.
In instances where the transmission system was not adequately stressed to historical norms,the
TWG slightly modified system conditions to ensure that the transmission system was studied under
reasonably stressed conditions.
CHANGE CASE RESULTS
To efficientlystudy the wide range of potential combinations of Non-Committed Projects,the TWG
proposed a Change Case matrix in the study plan.Once the stressed power-flowcases had been
Trucks haul wind selected and developed,the TWG modified the matrix to better reflect the recommended analysis.turbine blades to
PacifiCorp's111-MW The TWG provided stakeholders with the opportunityfor input on whether a particular combination
DunlapWind Project of uncommitted regional or interregional projects should be analyzed.No comments were received.
near Medicine The matrix was subsequently vetted through the Planning Committee and the Steering Committee.Bow,Wyo.
Photocourtesyof
PacifiCorp Figure 9 is the Change Case matrix used by the TWG.
CHANGE CASE MATRIX
GATSEWAYGAT AY A PSE SWIP N CROSS-TIE
STRESSEDCASECONDITIONS
ABD1D2F
X X d ABD1D2F
X X X X ABD1D2EF
X ABD1D2F
X X AD2EF
X X ABD1D2EF
X X X ABD1D2EF
X ABD1D2F
X ABD1D2F
X ABD1D2F
X E+RPS
X X E+RPS
X X X
X E+RPS
X X
X X X E+RPS
X E+RPS
X X
X X X E+RPS
X X X X
X X X E+RPS
X X X E+RPS
X X X X X E+RPS
X X a X
X X b X
X X c X ABD1D2EF
*B2H and Alternate Project in the pRTP are similar to B2H,Gateway S and Gateway W in the 2016-17 Q1data submittals
The change case does not include the non-Committed Project
Change CaseXThechangecaseincludesthenon-Committed Project matrix used in the
Gateway West without Midpoint-Hemingway #2 and Cedar Hill-Midpoint development of
the RTP.
b Gateway West without Borah-Midpoint Uprate and Populus-Borah
Gateway West without Midpoint-Hemingway #2,Cedar Hill-Midpoint and Populus-Borah
d Gateway West without Midpoint-Hemingway #2,Cedar Hill-Midpoint and Populus-CedarHill-Hemingway,Populus-Borah and Midpoint-Borah Uprate
The change case was run with and without B2H
21
In all,the TWG performed more than
100 reliabilitystudies with more than Washington Montana410contingenciesineachstudy.To
better communicate the results of
these studies,the TWG created heat
maps,which present a weighted3
graphical performance of a Change
Case on a specific flow condition.
A full heat map analysis of the Change Oregon Idaho
Cases is included in the final Draft RTP.
Figure 10,for example,shows the -Wyoming
general location where performance
issues (e.g.,an overloaded transmission
line)occurred for a contingency.The Nevada Utah
accumulation of overloads and voltage Colorado
issues are represented by the color
spectrum from blue to red,or "cooler"Californiato"hotter."These violations occur when
transmission systems cannot handle
anticipated transfers across that area's Heat map of the D2-Null Case.
transmission lines.In particular,this
heat map,using existing Wyoming wind
resources dispatched at about 600 MW,
indicates that transmission additions Washington Montana
are necessary to integrate the projected
wind resources.
The heat map in Figure 11shows how
the addition of the Initial RTP projects Oregonproducedadramaticimprovement Idaho Wyoming
of transmission performance when
compared with the null case.
California
Nevada
Utah
Colorado
Heat map of the High Southern Idaho export
case with the Initial RTP facilities included.
"High voltage conditions had a weighting of 1;low-voltage conditions had a weighting of 3;and overloads of branches had a weighting of 5.For example,a zone in
which 10 contingenciescaused an overload of one branch in that zone would receive a total weight of 50 (i.e.,10 x 5),whichwould then be translated into a color on
the map.A blue color represents a weighted total of about 10,green is a count up to 30,yellow is a count up to 50 and red is for a weighted count exceeding about70.
22 To 2016 2017
High Southern Idaho Import Case
Combining the Boardman to Hemingway projectwith the Gateway West and Gateway South Non-
Committed Projects eliminated violations in flow conditions visible in the null case.Change Case
3 tested whether Gateway West or Gateway South,or both,could replace or compare with the
Boardman to Hemingway line.They couldn't.The projects contained in the prior RTP also failed to
alleviate the violations.
High Southern Idaho Export Case
Adding the Boardman to Hemingway project relieved stress across the Idaho-Northwest cutplane,
but significant issues remained east of Hemingway.Adding the eastern portion of Gateway West and
Gateway South outlined in the prior RTP eliminated the performance issues in Wyoming and between
Idaho and Montana,but those additions increased the stress across southern Idaho.The Initial RTP
and Change Cases 21and 23 resolved these issues.
HighWyoming Wind Case
Without significant reinforcements,the transmission system in Wyoming could not handle both existing
and future planned wind resources while maintaining all other Wyoming area generating resources at
their typical high capability in an export scenario.
With wind production at the 1,300-MW level in the null case (no new transmission supporting 2026
loads),the system performed poorly.Nor did the projects in the prior RTP solve problems.Adding the
Initial RTP projects resolved all violations except for a series capacitor bank.That bank has reached the
end of its useful life,however,and is due for replacement.
In Quarter6,the case was tested to see if Change Cases 1through4 would support the increased level
of Wyoming wind.The null case (no new transmission)was unable to be solved with wind above 1,800
MW.Testing Change Case 4 requiredadding the Aeolus-Anticline 500-kV line (Case 4a)to eliminate
a number of contingencies that failed to solve in Wyoming.Change Case 23,which is essentially Change
Case 4a with GatewaySouth added,performed well with Wyoming wind modeled at 2,175 MW.
Interregional Transmission Projects
Change Cases 5 through 20 tested whether the three InterregionalTransmission Projects (ITP)-alone,
in combination with other ITPs or in combination with the Non-Committed Projects-could satisfy
NTTG's transmission needs on a regional or interregional basis more efficientlyor cost effectivelythan
through local planning processes.The ITPs were added to the null cases without any additional resources
to serve NTTG load beyond those resources identified in the Quarter 1and Quarter 5 data submittals.
Testing showed the ITPs did not provide the NTTG footprint with regional benefits either by significantly
reducing performance issues or by displacing NTTG Non-Committed Projects.
The Initial RTP also was analyzed to determine whether it would be capable of supporting
the interregional resource transfers proposed by the ITPs.Given the relativelylong distances
of the ITPs,the local integration performance issues identified in Wyoming were solvable.
|23
RELIABILITY C NCLUSI NS
Based on the above study results,the TWG concluded that the Initial RTP shown in Figure 7 and two
variants,Change Cases 21and 23,satisfy NTTG reliabilitycriteria.In Quarter5,the TWG tested Change
Case 23 and the wind resource additions at various load and flow levels on the Heavy Summer,Heavy
Winter,High Tot2 and High Wyoming wind cases.The TWG study found the NTTG area would be reliably
served in the year 2026 only by including the followingNon-Committed regional projects:
Boardman to Hemingway The EnergyGateway AntelopeTransmission
projects including segments:Project including:
Windstar-Aeolus 230 kV Antelope-Borah345 kV
Aeolus-Clover 500 kV Antelope-Goshen345 kV
Aeolus-Anticline 500 kV Antelope345/230 kV
Anticline-Populus 500 kV transformers and
Populus-Cedar interconnection
Hill-Hemingway500 kV facilities
Borah-Midpoint345 kV
uprate to 500kV
The ITPs were evaluated to determine whether one or more of them could defer or replace NTTG's Non-
Committed Projects.The TWG concluded that none of the ITPs resolved NTTG's reliability performance
issues and,thus,were not included in the Draft Final NTTG RTP.
EC N MlC EVALUATI NS
To determine whether the Initial RTP or a Change Case transmission plan was more cost effective,
the TWG used three economic metrics,as determined in the biennial study plan.The three metrics-
capital-related costs,power flow losses and reserves-and results are discussed below.
Capital-related Cost Metric
Development of the capital-related cost metric required three steps.The first step validated the
capital cost of the Project Sponsor's Quarter 1submitted project.The second step used those results
to estimate the annual capital-related costs.The third step levelized the net present value annual
capital-related costs for the Initial RTP and the Change Case plans.
Energy-loss Metric
The energy-loss metric captures the change in energy generated,based on system topology,to serve
a given amount of load.A reduction in losses for a Change Case would represent a benefit,since less
energy would be required to serve the same load.The two Change Cases with fewer Gateway West
transmission segments-Change Cases 21and 23-had losses higher than,or in some cases equal to,
the Initial RTP.Losses were higher in the two Change Cases because the electrical flows in the Initial
RTP were redistributed to fewer lines.From a loss perspective alone,the Initial RTP case had fewer
losses and as such was the more efficient case.
24 |NTTG 2016 2017
Reserve Metric
The reserve metric evaluates the opportunitiesfor two or more parties to save money by sharing a
generating resource that would be enabled by transmission.The metric is a 10-year look at the increased
load and generation additions in the NTTG footprint and the incremental transmission additions that
may be included in the RTP.
In the study cycle,the TWG analyzed GatewayWest,Gateway South,Boardman to Hemingway,SWIP
North and the Cross-Tie projects.To evaluate these projects,the NTTG footprint was segmented into
five zones,and a sixth external zone was included to study the SWIP North and the Cross-Tie projects.
The six zones produced 122 viable sharing combinations.Of those,the analysis of the annual net savings
over each theoretical participant's standalone alternative suggested that only 34 viable combinations
were economic.
Note that this metric includes generation capital costs in its evaluation and,as such,may only be
appropriate for cost allocation purposes.It should not drive the selection of a RTP.Whether these
cost savings warrant jointly sharing the costs of reserve capacity is up to the parties to decide.
For the NTTG metric analysis,the Initial RTP and the two alternative Change Cases each supported
viable economic combinations.Since these Change Cases could contain the same benefit value,the
Change in Reserve metric did not factor into the RTPselection decision.
Economic Metric Analysis Conclusion
The sum of the annual capital-relatedcost metric,joss metric (monetized)and reserve metric
(monetized)yielded an incremental cost for the Initial RTP and the Change Case plans.The set
of projects with the lowest incremental cost,after adjustment by the plan's effects on neighboring
regions-ChangeCase 23 (see Figure 12,below)-wasthen incorporated into the RTP.Note that the
incremental cost was computed as the levelized annual capital-related cost,minus NTTG loss benefit,
minus monetized reserve benefit.
INCREMENTAL COST
$1,000 $801 $836 $899
$800
Change Case
$600 23,comprising
Boardman to
Hemingway,$400 Gateway South,
portions of
$200 Gateway West,
and the Antelope
$0.0 projects,produced
the lowest
MILLIONs CC23 CC21 IRTP incremental cost.
CHANGECASES CONSIDERED
---EEE1---
INITIAL REGIONALPLAN (IRP)
NON-COMMITTED PROJECTS X X d
x x x x-II-×
x x
x xgg-x x xggg xgggxgggx-E--×-E--× ×INTERREGlONAL-E--× × ×
TRANSMISSIONPROJECTS REME *----× ×Egg-x x x-El--×EEI--× ×gg||x x xgggg-x x x xgggg-x x xgggg-x x x
x x x x x
X X a X
X X b X
x x c x
Based on the study assumptions and reliability and economic conclusions discussed above,the more
efficient or cost-effective plan is Change Case 23.Change Case 23 is a staged variant of the Initial RTP.
For the transfers submitted in Quarter 1and Quarter 5,the facility segments shown in Figure 13,below,
were not necessary for the transfers studied in the Change Cases.These segments would likely be
necessary at higher transfer levels.
I
IdahoMIDPOINT-HEMINGWAY#2
500KV
CEDAR HILL-MIDPOINT500KV
POPULUS-BORAH
These transmission line segments from the sooKv
Initial RTPwere not included in thefinal RTP.
26 |
NTTG 2016-2017
REGIONAL
ANALYSIS TRANSMISSIONPLAN
MODELING
NTTG's final RTP emerged after a rigorous reliabilityanalysis of the NTTG Transmission Providers'rollup
of their local area plans and assumption of Non-Committed regional transmission projects,augmented
with stakeholder InterregionalTransmission Projects.This technical analysis was followed by an
economic metric analysis that selected NTTG's more efficient and cost-effective regional transmission
plan,shown below in Figure 14.
Montana
Idaho
GATEWAY Wyoming
Oregon WEST
GATEWAY WEST
(FROM345KVTO500KV)
Nevada
Utah
o
peripsre
G's
final RTP.
NTTG 2016 2017
|27
C ST ALL CATI N
The SWIP-North Project Sponsors were the only Project Sponsors to request cost allocation;however,
they failed to comply with the requirement to submit pre-qualification data by Oct.31,2015.As a result,no
projects that were eligible for cost allocation were submitted into NTTG's 2016-17 regional planning process.
N EXT STE PS
Publication of the NTTG Regional Transmission Plan completes the two-yearplanning process begun
with pre-qualification of Project Sponsors in Quarter 8 2015 and continued with project data submittal
in Quarter1of 2016.The NTTG 2016-2017 RTP identified a need for new transmission capacity to
serve forecasted load in 10 years.The plan also identified a set of transmission projects known in this
reportas Change Case 23 as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission plan to meet that need.
While the RTP is not a construction plan,it provides valuable regional insight and information for all
stakeholders (including developers)to consider and use in their respective decision-making processes.
The next biennial regional transmission planning cycle for NTTG started Oct.1,2017 with Project Sponsor
pre-qualification and will culminate with the publication of the 2018-2019 RTP in December 2019.
NTTG 2016-2017
REGl NAL TRANSMISSI N PLAN
SUPP RTING MATERIALS
The supporting materials referenced in this report have been posted on the NTTG website and can be
found using the followinglink:
https://www.nttg.biz/site/index.php?option=com docman&view=list&slug=supporting-documents-
regional-transmission-plan&ltemid=31
A list of each of the individual supporting documents is also provided below:
1.Amended Ouarter 6 NTTG 2016-17 Biennial Study Plan Approved -08-02-2017
2.NTTG Draft Final Regional Transmission Plan -06-30-2017
3.NTTG 2016-2017 Public Policv Consideration Scenario Report
28 |
NTT
Note:This Glossary is for the benefit of readers and neither supplements nor modifies any defined terms
contained in any entity's filed Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT),including the Attachment K to
that tariff.To the extent that a term diverges from any entity's OATT,the OATTtakes precedence.
Alternative Project refers to An Interregional
Sponsored Projects,projects submitted by stakeholders,Transmission Project is a proposed new transmission project
projects submitted by Merchant Transmission Developers that would directly interconnect electricallyto existing
and unsponsored projects identified by the Planning or planned transmission facilities in two or more planning
Committee (if any).regions and that is submitted into the regional transmission
planning processes of all such planning regions.
A Change Case is a scenario where one or
more of the Alternative Projects is added to or replaces Merchant
one or more Non-Committed projects in the Initial RTP.Transmission Developer refers to an entity that assumes
The deletion or deferral of a Non-Committed Project all financial risk for developingand constructing its
in the Initial RTP without including an Alternative transmission project.A Merchant Transmission Developer
Project can also be a Change Case.recovers the costs of constructing the proposed transmission
project through negotiated rates instead of cost-based rates.
A Committed Project is a project that
has all permits and rights of way required for construction,A project that is not
as identified in the submitted developmentschedule,by a Committed Project
the end of Quarter10f the current regional planning cycle.
A Project Sponsor is a Nonincumbent
Draft Regional Transmission Provider or Incumbent Transmission Provider
Transmission Plan refers to the version of the Regional intending to develop the project that is submitted into the
Transmission Plan that is produced by the end of Quarter 4 planning process.
and presented to stakeholders for comment in Quarter5.
Those public policy
Draft Final considerations that are not established by local,state,
Regional Transmission Plan refers to the version of the or federal laws or regulations.
Regional Transmission Plan that is produced by the end
of Quarter6,presented to stakeholders for comment in Those public policy
Quarter 7 and presented,with any necessary modifications,requirements that are established by local,state or federal
to the Steering Committee for adoption in Quarter8.laws or regulations,meaning enacted statutes (i.e.,passed
by the legislature and signed by the executive)and regulations
Initial Regional promulgated by a relevant jurisdiction.
Transmission Plan comprises projects included in the prior
Regional Transmission Plan and projects included in the A Sponsored Project is a project
Full Funders Local Transmission Plans and accounts for proposed by a Project Sponsor.
future generation additions and deletions (e.g.,announced
coal retirements).
BACKCOVER
PhotocourtesyofldahoPower
|29
F
19
-