Transcript Interconnections Educational Workshop

Interconnections
Educational Workshop
February 9, 2006
Welcome & Introductions
1. Welcome
2. Introduce Interconnections Team
3. Workshop Objective
•
Provide a high level overview of the OATT Standard Generator
Interconnection Process (SGIP) and the grandfathering
processes;
•
Provide an explanation on the applicability of each
interconnection process on various types of projects;
•
general instructions to navigate through the OATT SGIP.
4. Agenda
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 2
Workshop Agenda
1. Welcome & Introductions – Doug Little (8:30 – 8:45)
2. Background & Transition – Jim Ko (8:45 – 9:15)
3. Key Differences – Matt Good (9:15 – 9:45)
4. Break (9:45 – 10:00)
5. OATT SGIP Process – Ryan Hefflick (10:00 – 10:45)
6. Q & A – Jim Ko (10:45 – 11:45)
7. Wrap-Up – Janet Fraser (11:45 – 12:00)
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 3
Interconnections
Educational Workshop
Background & Transition
Jim Ko
Background & Transition
1. Generator Interconnections Process
2. Existing Process
3. F2006 CFT Process
4. SGIP Process
5. Transition Rules
6. Q&A on the Processes and Transition Rules
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 5
Generator Interconnections Process
• Interconnecting Generators to the Transmission
System
• Basic elements in all processes:
• Preliminary or Feasibility Study (Optional)
• Impact Study and Facilities Study
• Facilities Agreement
• Facilities Design and Construction
• Interconnection Agreement
• Commissioning and Commercial Operation
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 6
Existing Process
• Comprehensive presentation on BCTC web
http://www.bctc.com/generator_interconnection/transmission
_generator_interconnection_process_chart.htm
• Used by BCTC since its formation
• Interconnection studies
• Facilities agreements and Interconnection agreements
• Will be replaced by OATT SGIP on March 1, 2006
• Will continue to be used for projects that are
grandfathered from the OATT SGIP process
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 7
F2006 CFT Process
• BCTC is currently conducting preliminary studies for CFT participants
under this process
• Grandfathered from the OATT SGIP process by BCUC order - as
published in the BC Hydro F2006 Call for Tenders and on BCTC website
• For the exclusive use of projects participating in the F2006 CFT - valid
for as long as a project is a part of this CFT and not valid outside this
CFT
• Projects unsuccessful/withdrawn from the F2006 CFT will need to
pursue interconnection under the OATT SGIP process
• Projects that are selected by the CFT must execute a Combined Study
Agreement and pay associated deposit within 60 days of the EPA award.
• A new and different interconnection process will apply to CFT issued by
BC Hydro subsequent to 2006. BC Hydro and BCTC are developing the
process under BCUC directions in the OATT decision.
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 8
OATT SGIP Interconnection Process
• Approved by BCUC in the OATT decision
• Standard Generator Interconnections Procedures
(SGIP)
• Effective 1 March 2006
• Different than the existing process
• Details of the process and implementation will be
covered in later slides
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 9
Transition Rules
• All Interconnection Agreements executed prior to the effective
date of OATT SGIP will be grandfathered.
• A new Interconnection Request under OATT SGIP may be
required for modifications to existing generating facilities
• Projects responding to existing BCH CFT will follow the
interconnection process published in the CFT (F2006 CFT
Interconnection Process)
• Projects that have executed an Combined Study Agreement prior
to the effective date of OATT SGIP may choose the existing
process or the OATT SGIP process during March 2006.
• Projects that have not executed a Combined Study Agreement
prior to the effective date of OATT must use the OATT SGIP.
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 10
Processes and Transition Rules
• Q and A on the Processes and the Transition Rules
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 11
Interconnections
Educational Workshop
Key Differences – Current & OATT
Matt Good
Introduction
•This presentation is just an overview,
the new tariff is the best reference for
details.
•Found at http://www.bctc.com/generator_interconnection/
• Standard Generation Interconnection
Procedures (SGIP)
• Standard Generator Interconnection Agreement
(SGIA)
• Recovery of New Facilities Costs (Attachment K)
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 13
Key Differences
• Application
• Interconnection Types – multiple
• Timelines
• Facilities – definition and funding
• Clustering
• Request Queue / Public Info
• Third Party Use
• Study Scope
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 14
Application Deposit
Difference: a $15K deposit is required along with the
Interconnection Request
OATT Reference: Section 3.3.1
Key Terms: Site Control – show the right to “develop a site
for the purposes of constructing the Generation Facility”
*note*
Demonstrating Site Control within 15 business days of the
Interconnection Request makes the deposit refundable.
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 15
Interconnection Types
Difference:
NRIS – used when selling to BCH. Integrates generator
facilities on same basis as BCH generation.
ERIS – used when planning to market energy
independently
OATT Reference: Section 3.2
Note:
• can request to be studied for both for greater flexibility
• NRIS study potentially identifies more NU’s than ERIS
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 16
Specific Timelines
Difference: prescribed timelines for responses
(Interconnection Customer and Transmission Provider)
OATT Reference: Section 3.6, 6.3, 7.4, 8.4 etc
• Current process — requests can sit at a given stage
• SGIP — a continuous process from start to finish
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 17
Facilities - Definitions
Difference: current definition of Network upgrade is based on sole use and
benefit, OATT SGIP definition is based on location relative to the Point-ofInterconnection (POI)
OATT Reference:
SGIP — Sec 1
SGIA — Sec 1, 5.10 & 11
Key Terms:
• Network Upgrades (NU) – Sec 11.3 of SGIA
• Point of Interconnection (POI)
• Point of Change of Ownership (POCO)
• Interconnection Facilities (IF)
• Transmission Provider Interconnection Facilities (TPIF) – 5.11, 11.2
• Interconnection Customer Interconnection Facilities (ICIF) – 5.10
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 18
Facilities – Definitions Diagram
Generator
POCO
Current
Process
SGIP
POI
Transmission
System
Upgrades for the
“sole use” of the
Generator.
Transmission
System
Upgrades that
also benefit
others.
DA
Direct Assignment Facilities
Transmission
Provider
Interconnection
Facilities
IPP Educational Workshop
NU
Network
Upgrades
Feb 9, 2006
Page 19
Facilities – Funding & Security
OATT Reference: OATT Attachment K, 11.4 of SGIA
• Customer funds the Interconnection Facilities and
Transmission Provider funds the Network Upgrades (NU).
• Customer provides security for NU.
• Release / reduction of NU security
• ERIS – reduction equal to LTF PTP charges.
• NRIS – annually reduced for an amount equal to the
annual output times the LTF PTP rate.
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 20
Request Clustering
Difference: allows for the study of multiple Interconnection
Requests concurrently instead of serially
OATT Reference: Section 4.2
Key Terms: Queue Cluster Window
• for efficient planning and sharing of facilities costs
• after the Feasibility Study stage
• Benefits to be investigated as SGIP comes into use
• No surprises – 180 day notice prior to window opening
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 21
Queue Position / Public Posting
Difference: SGIP features a queue to establish explicit priority and
makes the list of Interconnection Requests public
OATT Reference: Section 3.4, 4.1
Key Terms: Queue Position
Posted info: type of generator, size, ISD, location, POI, study reports
Queue establishes order for performing studies and cost responsibility
for facilities.
Customer name will be held confidential until an interconnection
agreement is signed.
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 22
Third Party Use
Difference: Interconnection Customer is entitled to pro-rata
compensation for TPIF used by a third party.
Via TPIF – Third parties cannot be unreasonably prevented
from connecting to the Transmission Provider
Interconnection Facilities. Capital and ongoing expenses
will be shared by users.
Via ICIF – IC can negotiate the new interconnection
directly.
Use of NU – no entitlement or reimbursement.
OATT Reference: Section 9.9 of SGIA / 11.4.4 of SGIA
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 23
Facilities – Definitions Diagram
Generator
POCO
Current
Process
SGIP
POI
Transmission
System
Upgrades for the
“sole use” of the
Generator.
Transmission
System
Upgrades that
also benefit
others.
DA
Direct Assignment Facilities
Transmission
Provider
Interconnection
Facilities
IPP Educational Workshop
NU
Network
Upgrades
Feb 9, 2006
Page 24
Study Scope
Difference:
SGIP Interconnection Feasibility Study has a more
restricted scope than the current Preliminary Study.
OATT Reference: Section 6
Note:
• Quicker – 45 calendar days
• Simpler – powerflow and short circuit analysis only
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 25
Key Differences – Summary
• Explicit queue
• Information posted
• Specific timelines
• New allocation of upgrades & costs
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 26
Key Differences – Q & A
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 27
Interconnections
Educational Workshop
OATT SGIP Process
Ryan Hefflick
Overview
• Current Generator Interconnection Process
• OATT SGIP Process: High Level
• IR Submission, Feasibility Study & System Impact
Study Process
• Deposit Requirements and Study Timelines
• Generator Interconnection Queue
• Q&A
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 29
Current Generator Interconnection Process
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 30
OATT SGIP Process: High Level
IR Submission
Interconnection Feasibility
Study
Interconnection System Impact Study
Interconnection Facilities Study
SGIA
Construction and Commissioning
Optional
Studies
Clustering
IPP Educational Workshop
Re-studies
Feb 9, 2006
Page 31
IR – Interconnection Request
• Interconnection Request shall mean an Interconnection
Customer’s request…to interconnect a new Generating
Facility, or increase the capacity of, or make a Material
Modification to the operating characteristics of, an existing
Generating Facility that is interconnected with the
Transmission Provider’s Transmission System.
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 32
IR Submission Process
OATT SGIP
IC
IR Submission Process
IC submits IR along
with $15K deposit.
Deposit becomes
refundable if IC has
demonstrated site
control within 15
Business Days.
Reference:
Section 2/3.1/3.2/
3.3.1
Within 5 Business
Days following
Scoping Meeting, IC
to specify POI(s).
IC to supply
missing data
within 10
Business Days or
IR is Withdrawn
Reference:
6.1
Reference:
3.3.3/3.6
Scoping Meeting to
be scheduled within
10 Business Days
and held within 30
Calendar Days of
valid IR.
BCTC
N
TP acknowledges
receipt of IR, and
reviews IR for
deficiencies within 5
Business Days. IR
is posted to queue
with status of
“Under Review”
Reference:
3.3.4
Is the IR
submission
complete?
Reference:
3.3.2/3.3.3/3.4/4.1
Y
To:
Feasibility
Study
Process
TP assigns queue
position to IR, and
sends
acknowledgement to
IC that IR os valid.
Reference:
3.3.4/3.4/4.1/6.1
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 33
Feasibility Study Process
OATT SGIP
Feasibility Study Process (FES)
IC shall execute and
deliver the FES
Agreement along
with $15K study
deposit within 30
Calendar Days.
IC
N
Does
the IC
opt to forgo the
FES?
Does
IC request a
meeting to discuss
study
results?
Reference:
6.1
BCTC
Y
TP to deliver FES
report to IC within 45
Calendar Days along
with a signed
Combined Study
Agreement.
Within 5 Business
Days of POI
designation, TP to
tender a signed
FES Agreement.
Reference:
6.1
N
Y
Reference:
6.2/6.3/6.5/7.1
To:
TP to hold study results meeting
within 10 Business Days (after
report is delivered).
System
TP will post the FES report after
the meeting or deadline for such
meeting had it not been declined.
Study
Impact
Process
Reference:
6.4/3.4
TP to provide signed Combined
Study Agreement to IC. Initial
$15K deposit to be applied to
SIS.
Reference:
6.1 / 4.4
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 34
System Impact Study Process
OATT SGIP
IC
System Impact Study Process (SIS)
IC to return
executed
Combined Study
Agreement within
30 Calendar
Days from receipt
along with $75 K
deposit.
Reference:
6.1 / 4.4.1
IC to supply
missing data
within 10
Business Days
or IR is
Withdrawn.
Reference:
7.2 / 3.6
N
Does
IC request a
meeting to
discuss study
results?
Y
To:
N
Facilities
BCTC
Study
TP to review
Agreement and
data forms
(Attachment A, B
& C) for
deficiencies and
respond to IC
within 5 Business
Days.
Are the
data forms
complete?
Y
TP to complete
and deliver the
SIS report to IC
within 90
Calendar Days.
Reference:
7.4/4.4
Reference:
7.2
TP to hold study results
meeting within 10
Business Days (after
report is delivered).
Process
TP will post the SIS
report after the meeting
or deadline for such
meeting had it not been
declined.
Reference:
6.1 / 4.4.1
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 35
Noteworthy Deposit Requirements and
Study Timelines
• IR Submission: Initial $15K deposit
• Feasibility Study: $15K study deposit. BCTC to
complete study in 45 Calendar Days
• System Impact Study: $75K study deposit. BCTC to
complete study in 90 Calendar Days
• Facilities Study: $150K study deposit. BCTC to
complete study in 90 Calendar Days if IC requests a
+/- 20% cost estimate or, 180 Calendar Days for a +/- 10%
cost estimate
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 36
Queue Position
• Transmission Provider shall assign a Queue Position
based upon the date and time of receipt of the valid
Interconnection Request.
• The Queue Position of each Interconnection Request will
be used to determine the order of performing the
Interconnection Studies and determination of cost
responsibility…
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 37
Generator Interconnection Queue
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 38
Generator Interconnections Home Page
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 39
SGIP Process – Q&A
• Questions?
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 40
Wrap-Up – Janet Fraser
1. Thank you for your attendance
2. For More Info
•
Visit www.bctc.com/generator_interconnection/
•
E-mail: [email protected]
•
Talk to:
•
Jim Ko – 699-7389
•
Ryan Hefflick – 699-7382
•
Matt Good – 699-7434
IPP Educational Workshop
Feb 9, 2006
Page 41