Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrad Pro 3-1.0 PMC General Correspondence 1992ATER WYNNE Suir 1800 222 SW. S.sumbia HEWITT Portland, Oregon 97201-6618 (503) 226-1191 DODSON Fax (503) 226-0079 & SKERRITT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RECORD UOPY FILE NO VIA FAX uM MEMORANDUM TO: Railbelt Utilities Group FROM: Ron Saxton DATE: November 18, 1992 8 Railbelt Reserve Issues Over the past several months, a number of issues relating to the operating reserve requirements of the Alaska Intertie Agreement ("AIA") have been debated by the Intertie Operating Committee ("IOC") and the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee ("BPMC") and its subcommittees. This memorandum is an attempt to sort out the issues in order to clarify the differences and seek a non-adversarial resolution. Because there are so many possible variations of the questions discussed, I am presenting my summary of what I believe must be the starting point of the analysis. I understand that I am not addressing all the issues being debated and I am seeking clearer direction from you about what issues remain after you read the following discussion. I also want to be clear that I have not reviewed all related documents and the conclusions in this memo should be considered preliminary until we are able to discuss them. In preparing this analysis, I have reviewed the AIA, selected minutes and related documents of the IOC, the Bradley Lake Power Sales Agreement ("Bradley PSA"), the CEA-AEG&T/HEA Agreement for Bradley Lake Resource Scheduling and the CEA- AEG&T/MEA Net Billing Agreement. I have not examined any individual utility’s compliance with reserve requirements imposed by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (3 AAC 52.470(c)) or by any other contractual relationships. Seattle, Washington Washington, D.C. San Francisco, California Affiliated offices in (206) 623-4711 (202) 785-0303 (415) 421-4143 Anchorage, Fairbanks Fax (206) 467-8406 Fax (202) 785-8676 Fax (415) 989-1263 and Juneau, Alaska ATER WYNNE Railbelt Utilities Group November 18, 1992 Page 2 Questions Examined As a first effort, I have examined the following questions: 1. What does the AIA say about the operations of the IOC? 2. What does the AIA say about utility reserve obligations? 3 What is the role of the IOC relative to reserve requirements? 4. What is the relationship of the AIA to other utility agreements? 5S. What impact does the Bradley PSA, and its related agreements, have on reserve requirements? 6. Who must maintain reserves under the AIA? Discussion 1. What does the AIA say about the operations of the IOC? The IOC is composed of representatives of each Participant (e.g., AEA, ML&P, CEA, FMUS, GVEA and AEG&T are participants -- MEA, HEA and SES are not Participants). The IOC has no authority to modify any of the provisions of the AIA. The IOC may make decisions within its responsibility (further identified in Section 2) with the agreement of at least 75% of all Participants (not just those in attendance). As currently configured, the 75% requirement leaves room for no more than one dissenting vote. NOTE: Section 4.1.1 says AEA automatically becomes a Utility Participant "at such times as it sells Power to a party that is not a Participant and is connected to the Participants’ interconnected system." A literal reading of this would mean that the AEA became a Utility Participant when it signed the Bradley PSA with Seward, HEA, and MEA, and would now have reserve obligations and payment responsibility. ATER WYNNE Railbelt Utilities Group November 18, 1992 Page 3 2. What does the AIA say about utility reserve obligations? Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the AIA states that each Utility Participant is responsible for its own Reserve Capacity Obligation ("RCO") -- "The capacity which a Participant is obligated to reserve and use for the purpose of maintaining continuity of service" -- and for a portion of the interconnected system’s Operating Reserves (OR) -- "the sum of Spinning and Non- Spinning Reserves." The amount of OR for which each respective utility is responsible is its Operating Reserve Obligation (ORO). RCO AIA Section A-1.1 requires each Participant to "maintain or otherwise provide for" Accredited Capability sufficient to meet its respective RCO (in addition to meeting its System Demand). The IOC has the responsibility and authority to determine whether each utility has sufficient Accredited Capability (see below). This same section establishes an initial RCO of 30% of each Utility Participant’s Annual System Demand, but permits the RCO to be adjusted by the IOC (i.e., a change to RCO can be made by the IOC without amendment of the AIA). ORO The provisions of the AIA relating to each utility’s ORO are less straightforward than those relating to RCO. Section B-2.2 establishes the "total" ORO and Section B-2.3 provides a formula for allocation of the total ORO to individual Utility Participants. The confusion relates to the latitude the IOC has to change these terms. The AIA expressly refers to the "initial" RCO and the "initial" total ORO. Section B-2.3 does not use the word "initial" in reference to the formula for allocation of the ORO to individual utilities. Although Section B-2.3 does not use the word "initial" when setting out the ORO allocation formula, Section B-2.1.2 states that the IOC may modify or adjust the ORO and "Utility Participant’s Allocation." I believe this is confusing because it is ambiguous as to whether the IOC can change the allocation formula, or can only make whatever mathematical changes to each ATER WYNNE Railbelt Utilities Group November 18, 1992 Page 4 Utility Participant’s ORO result from applying the existing allocation formula to a revised total ORO. Therefore, I conclude initially that the IOC has broad discretion -- so long as its actions are consistent with Prudent Utility Practices -- in determining RCO and ORO, as well as Accredited Capability. Without further discussion and research, I am unable to determine whether the IOC’s discretion includes revising the formula for allocation of ORO. 36 What is the role of the IOC relative to reserve requirements? The AIA delegates broadly to the IOC on the issues of establishing reserve requirements. Along with a variety of other operational matters reserved to the IOC, the IOC can (by a 75% vote): v "Establish" criteria for automatic load shedding (§ 3.2.3). v "Adjust" RCO (§ A-1.1.2). v "Determine" annual Accredited Capability for each Utility Participant (§ A-1.1.3). v "Modify or adjust" ORO and Utility Participants’ Allocation (§ B-2.1.2). y, "Modify or change" total ORO, proportions of Spinning and Non-Spinning Reserves, and criteria for generating unit capability for OR (§ B-2.2.3). v "Determine" ORO of each Utility (§ B-2.3.1). v "Review and approve" each Utility’s load shedding program (§ B-2.4.2). y "Establish procedures" to assure that the OR is available on the systems of the Utilities at all times (§ B-2.4.3). ATER WYNNE Railbelt Utilities Group November 18, 1992 Page 5 4. What is the relationship of the AIA to other utility agreements? AIA Section 3.4 prohibits the parties from entering into any subsequent agreements that are "in conflict" with any terms of the AIA. I have not specifically reviewed any other utility agreements relating to reserve obligations, but AIA Section 3.4 casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of any other utility agreements that attempt to modify any reserve obligation governed by the AIA, unless such agreements included all the AIA parties. NOTE: Notwithstanding AIA Section 3.4, all Utility Participants except AEA and FMUS (and with the addition of HEA, MEA, and SES) entered into the "Services Agreement for Bradley Lake Energy," Section 12(m) of which states that the provisions of the Services Agreement relating to transmission "supersedes" the transmission provisions of the AIA. 5. What impact does the Bradley PSA, and its related agreements, have on reserve requirements? Bradley PSA Section 5(c)(i) states that nothing in the Bradley PSA changes any duties of the participants under the AIA. Under the Bradley PSA, each Utility purchased a share of Project Capacity (the amount of electric capacity capable of being produced by the Bradley Project at any time), together with associated energy. The Bradley PSA does not create any additional reserve obligation. The presence of the Bradley resource may impact a utility’s reserve obligations. Bradley PSA Section 5 provides that the BPMC shall adopt procedures regarding reserves for "Project power." The BPMC has taken no action on this to date. In November of 1991, the BPMC adopted the "Bradley Lake Allocation and Scheduling Procedures," Section 9 of which addresses Spinning Reserve. That provision states that the Bradley Operation and Dispatch Committee shall recommend to the BPMC (for BPMC approval) "a method for allocation of Spinning Reserves in each hour under various system operating conditions." This provision continues by stating that once the BPMC has approved the Allocation and Scheduling Committee recommendation, . ATER WYNNE Railbelt Utilities Group November 18, 1992 Page 6 "such Spinning Reserves shall be made available in accordance with such method as follows: (a) Spinning Reserves shall be allocated to each Purchaser on a pro rata basis based on its Percentage Share of Project Capability net of any Project Generation scheduled by the Purchaser. (b) Any additional Spinning Reserves that can be made and are available at the Project in addition to Spinning Reserves normally available in any hour as a result of operating other resources shall be allocated on a pro rata basis to each Purchaser in proportion to that Purchaser’s contribution of such other resources." The terms Spinning Reserve, Project, Capability, and Project Generation are all defined terms in the Allocation and Scheduling Procedures. Spinning Reserve is defined as "the amount of on-line capacity available from the Project from time to time which is available to meet Purchasers’ loads, minus actual Project output, in accordance with Section 9 of the Procedures." To the extent problems arise about scheduling or allocating Bradley Spinning Reserve, the Bradley PSA leaves that as a decision to be made by the BPMC, subject to whatever recommendation a BPMC subcommittee makes. Other than specifying each utility’s percentage entitlement to Project Capacity, there is no answer to these issues dictated by the PSA. 6. Who must maintain reserves under the AIA? Only Utility Participants (CEA, GVEA, AEG&T, ML&P, FMUS and AEA??) have reserve requirements under the intertie agreement. MEA, HEA, and SES have no direct responsibility under that agreement. In addition, only Participating Utilities with "on-line generation unit capability" have any actual obligations unless and until the ORO formula is revised. As discussed above, it is unclear whether the formula can be changed by the IOC or would require an amendment of the AIA. ATER WYNNE Railbelt Utilities Group November 18, 1992 Page 7 The key question relative to each utility’s obligation is whether the phrase "on-line generation unit capability" refers to ownership, control, or some combination. Under the respective agreements with CEA, it is clear that AEG&T continues to own the HEA and MEA shares of Bradley Lake power but has transferred various degrees of control over that power to CEA. When the AIA was executed, each of the parties owned and operated (or planned to operate) generation solely owned by that party. With the conclusion of the Bradley PSA and the agreements executed by CEA, HEA, and MEA, the original conditions have changed materially. Typically, "control" would be the deciding factor rather than "ownership," but I’m not sure whether that was the parties’ intent with the AIA. The question of ownership versus control is not within the authority of the IOC and is a matter of contract interpretation. Because it is ambiguous, a court would likely try to determine the "intent" of the parties at the time the AIA was executed. Section VII of the September 29, 1992 Agreement for Bradley Lake Resource Scheduling ("CEA-AEG&T/HEA Agreement") states that AEG&T/HEA retained "all rights and responsibilities of participation in the Bradley Lake project" except the scheduling rights transferred to CEA. The Net Billing Agreement between CEA and AEG&T/MEA states that for the duration of the agreement, CEA is entitled to "schedule the generation," and "receive . . . any power which is produced by the . . . Bradley Lake project and which AEG&T/MEA are entitled to receive ... ." With both the HEA and MEA shares of Bradley, there is a transfer of "control" but not of ownership. If "ownership" is the key, then AEG&T would have an ORO based on ownership of the Bradley shares. If "control" is the key, then AEG&T would not. Because HEA, MEA, and SES are not "Utility Participants" under the AIA, none of them have an ORO under that agreement. As discussed above, the Bradley PSA does not itself impose any reserve obligation on any of the Purchasing Utilities. Therefore, these three utilities have no reserve obligation established by the AIA, or the Bradley PSA. This memo does not explore what reserve obligations they may have from other legal obligations. A literal reading of the AIA would leave AEA potentially with a spinning reserve obligation ATER WYNNE Railbelt Utilities Group November 18, 1992 Page 8 (depending on whether ownership or control is the test for "on- line generation unit capability"). Conclusion The Bradley PSA and various other agreements between the utilities create a situation more complex than anticipated by the AIA. The reality is that many of the current questions are not squarely addressed by the AIA. Before I proceed to apply the AIA and the Bradley PSA to additional factual situations, I would like to discuss the implications of these first conclusions. Distribution: Paul Diener, Seward Kenneth E. Ritchey, MEA David L. Highers, CEA Norm Story, HEA Michael P. Kelly, GVEA Thomas R. Stahr, MLE&P Robert Hufman, AEG&T RLS\466der.mem wor 10" ve agror V~EH HUTINIDSIRHILUN Yor 451-3655 wu1 RECORD VOPY Me ia ~ GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION INC. Box 71249, Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-1249, Phone 907-452-1161 MEMORANDUM September 16, 1992 TOs Denise Burger, AEA ES FROM: Beth Stagdon for Mike Kelffy, GM, GVEA Please add Bob Orr to the distribution list for minutes of the Bradley PMC meetings. we 9/2 [ao AY ccs Bob Orr C U4. 406m PFXVM UNUVAUR BLBUINIL 1V 9015004 FUUI/UUZ RECEIVED AUG 2 4 1992 am ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, 5601 MINNESOTA DRIVE * PO BOX 196300 * ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99579:6300 © PHONE 907-563-7494 f FACSIMILE: 907-562-0027 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET RECORD VUOPY TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTING: __ c= (Includes Cover Sheet) IF TRANSMISSION IS INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL: (907) 762-4633 | | TIME/DATE OF TRANSMISSION: BY: ALAN OR JC CHUGACH PAX NO.: (907) 562-0027 MACHINE TYPE: DEX 740 OR CANON 850 4-Y2 UG:4oFM FXUM CHUGACH ELECTRIC 70 5619584 P002/002 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. DAVID L. HIGHERS General Manager August 24, 1992 Ronald A. Garzini Interim Executive Director Alaska Energy Authority 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 RE: August 7, 1992 Proposal Dear Ron: Thank you for your letter of August 7. I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with the other utility managers, as well as with Ron Saxton, our attorney. Although we appreciate this good faith effort to resolve this matter, we do not believe that your proposal represents a realistic basis for settlement of the litigation. The basic utility position is that the Power Sales Contract provides a very narrow standard for reimbursement of AEA costs and that this express contractual provision, and not a general notion of "reasonable" costs, must be the basis of the utility payment obligation. The AEA position over the last year has consistently been that the AEA proposed costs are “reasonable”. However, the question is not whether the costs are "reasonable" in some general utility sense, but rather whether they are consistent with the specific contractual terms which our lawyers negotiated with Bob LeResche. We believe the court will conclude that this contract language limits the utility payment obligation. Thank you for your efforts. If you would like to have additional discussions, I would propose that you meet with Ken Ritchey and Ron Saxton, who are the two people principally handling this issue for the utilities. However, | do not believe that such further meeting should be the basis for any delay in proceeding with the litigation. We would like to proceed as quickly as possible with obtaining a judicial resolution of this issue and ask that the Authority now file its response to the Complaint we filed in court. Sinc¢rely, vid L. Highe General Manager cc; Bradley Lake Managers Ron Saxton 5601 Minnesola Drive » PO. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99549-4300 Phone 907-563-7494 © FAX 907-564-8406 or 907-562-0027 SUBJECT: RECORD VCOPY FILE NO PRO 3-10 Alaska Energy Authority Vv MEMORANDUM August 21, 1992 Bradley Lake Project Management Committee Ronald A. Garzini Interim Executive Director Rac Alaska Energy Authority Bradley Lake Seismic Data Collection As requested by the Project Management Committee (PMC) during the July 23 meeting, the Alaska Energy Authority recently met with the University of Alaska Geophysical Institute regarding seismic monitoring at Bradley Lake. During our meeting of August 6, 1992, Larry Wolf and I discussed with University representatives, Dr. Niren Biswas and Syun Akasofu, the project's seismic i a requirements and how the Institute could continue to support those needs. For the benefit of the PMC members to better address this issue, I believe it would be helpful to first explain the various seismic monitoring requirements at Bradley Lake. Design/Construction Requirements During the design/construction period, the seismic monitoring requirements at the project site consisted of data collection and analysis for purposes of establishing baseline historical records and verifying engineering design criteria for the project features. This task was initially being accomplished by the USGS until 1987 when the USGS began scaling back its data ealisctioa efforts in Alaska. At that time the Energy Authority entered into a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) with the University's Geophysical Institute to continue these services. The University purchased and installed seismic motion monitoring equipment onsite and interfaced this equipment with their state-wide database in Fairbanks. Utilizing the information collected, the University then provided a summary report of this data annually to the Energy Authority. Operational Requirements Now that project construction has been completed, the seismic monitoring requirements have changed. The primary emphasis is to support operational needs which consist of two basic elements. First, is a FERC requirement that we monitor the dam site for seismic events of 5.0 Richter scale or greater. 92Q3\JD3409(1) . Page 1 Memorandum to Bradley Lake Project Management Committee Subject: Bradley Lake Seismic Data Collection August 21, 1992 (Whenever these occur, we must inspect the project features for damage and report to FERC). Second, is the desire to record ground motion data during such events so that the data would be available to support any future engineering/design analysis which may become necessary. In addition to these operational needs, but of a lesser importance, is the interest in continuous seismic monitoring and analysis for induced earthquakes caused by the variation in reservoir levels. Monitoring Alternatives Continued use of Geophysical Institute The Energy Authority's original plan to meet the seismic monitoring during construction and to support the long term operational requirements of the project, was to utilize the service of the University's Geophysical Institute. Although several factors (and in particular increased costs) induced us to re-evaluate this alternative, the University remains a possible option for accomplishing the work. The Institute can continue to record and store the Bradley Lake information in their state-wide data base, analyze the data, and report annually to the Energy Authority. Although this analysis would have the added benefit of identifying any reservoir induced earthquake activity, the report itself would be of little or no benefit to project operations unless there was a significant event over 5.0 on the Richter scale. In questioning the Institute regarding possible cost reductions, they advised us that analyzing data on an “as-needed basis only"' would not be feasible, because the data for Bradley would be difficult to retrieve from the Institute's computer data base after an extended period of time. The Institute's projected annual cost for providing the data collection and analysis service is $38,100 (see attached University of Alaska letter dated March 6, 1991). Technically, the University's onsite equipment could also be equipped to provide the alarm signal for earthquakes over 5.0. However, based on our experience to date, we would recommend the installation of a separate monitoring device for this purpose. This added device would be maintained by onsite project personnel and would therefore be much more reliable and immediately responsive to any significant events. Alarming via the Institute's equipment may not be responsive to our needs as their equipment is sometimes inoperable for extended periods of time due partly to the accessibility of their personnel. The fact that the Institute is not manned on a continuous basis, and the relatively complex nature of their equipment increases the system reliability problems. The estimated cost for purchase and installation of the additional monitoring device is approximately $10,000. Annual maintenance cost is projected to be approximately $1,000 per year. 92Q3\JD3409(2) Page 2 Memorandum to Bradley Lake Project Management Committee Subject: Bradley Lake Seismic Data Collection August 21, 1992 2. Project Maintained System An alternative means of fulfilling the project's seismic monitoring requirements would be the purchase and installation of seismic equipment which would be entirely operated and maintained by onsite personnel. The proposed monitoring system (see attached Stone & Webster letter dated June 5, 1992) would provide for operator alarm via the SCADA network for earthquakes over 5.0, and would also automatically record and store the seismic information. In the event this seismic data base was needed to support future engineer studies, it could easily be analyzed by the Geophysical Institute or through the use of an engineering consultant. This project data base could also be made available to the Institute for their state-wide research effort. The estimated cost for the initial equipment purchase, installation and operator training is $30,000. The subsequent annual maintenance of the system is estimated at $5,000 per year. The only additional cost would be the cost of data analysis if and when it became necessary. Summary The seismic monitoring requirements at Bradley Lake can be accomplished using either of the two methods outlined above. The Energy Authority's previous intent to discontinue the services of University's Geophysical Institute was based primarily on economics and system reliability. However, we recognize that beyond the operational requirements there may be additional scientific benefits in monitoring the site for induced earthquake activity during the initial years of operation and being part of the Institute's state-wide seismic data collection and research program. For this reason, the Energy Authority is willing to extend the RSA agreement with the University to continue seismic data collection services related to monitoring and analyzing seismic activities for a period of three years. The Energy Authority, for reliability reasons, will also be installing and maintaining a separate monitoring device for the operator alarm function. We recommend that after the three year period, the Bradley PMC review the University's seismic data collection program to determine whether or not continuation of program is in the project's best interest. I must also point out that the current FY93 budget allowance for seismic data collection is only $20,000. To fund the University's program and install the additional monitoring device, the total budget requirement for this year will be approximately $50,000. Therefore, with the PMC concurrence, a $30,000 increase in this budget item will be made. Unless I am advised otherwise, we will proceed as outlined above. DE:RAG;jd 92Q3\JD3409(3) Page 3 Loni £. RECORD COPY FILE NO . _. PRO 3-),0 Alaska Energy Authority Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Y Section 31 Costs Req. Date _| Number Amount Paid Chugach Electric Association August 1, 1991 Ul13 386.14 August 28, 1990 U7 409,684.00 December 15, 1990 U8 2,318.30 [eee eee Golden Valley Electric Association August 1, 1991 U5 997.68 March 15, 1991 BP169 1,181.69 March 15, 1991 U10 6,627.45 August 28, 1990 U2 450,247.00 September 3, 1991 November 15, 1991 March 16, 1992 May 1, 1992 U29 1,520.67 July 1, 1992 4,692.40 | Alaska Energy & Transmission | | a ES Homer Electric Association, Inc. nn a August 28, 1990 December 31, 1990 September 3, 1991 BPl2 {1826.25 643.80 November 15, 1991 U21 363.30 May 1, 1992 | U30 1,260.00 May 15, 1992 U32 360.00 July 1, 1992 EE ae Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. [| =| |] August 28, 1990 | eae |MunicipalLight& Power | ( tTC“(‘(‘‘CCidC | November 15,1991 CT S506 TC” ee ea eee eae |CityofSeward [March 15,1991 CC 826 |September3,1991 CT CB 8329.33 |Mayi,1992, 0 C“‘ti‘YS 860.52 [July1,1992, ti‘; S888 91Q3\TJ1322(1) Prepared by William J. Sobolesky, August 1, 1992 Amount Paid March 15, 1990 October 1, 1991 17,480.33 November 15, 1991 13,001.64 March 16, 1992 16,670.94 May 1, 1992 21,283.83 July 1, 1992 34,172.62 August 1, 1992 23,537.01 Total Costs to Date 1,650,752.26 Budget 000.00 Available Budget 4,247.74 91Q3\TJ1322(2) Prepared by William J. Sobolesky, August 1, 1992 RECORD COPY . “ILE NO ; Suite 1800 ATER WYNNE | PRES 1.0 ams cou 7 97201-6618 « HEWITT nin #4. dees’ vay ee DODSON 5 ee ef Fax (503) 226-0079 & SKERRITT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RECEIVED July 24, 1992 JUL 2 7 1992 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY VIA FACSIMILE Ron Garzini Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Re: Bradley Lake Dear Ron: I am writing on behalf of the Bradley Lake purchasing utilities to request your cooperation in preserving all available remedies for shortcomings at the Bradley project. As you are aware, the project has experienced control problems that have caused the Kenai to "go black" at times. At the July 23rd BPMC meeting, it was agreed that the Technical Standards Committee would work with the AEA and its consultants to explore the causes and possible remedies for the oscillation and response problems. Until that effort is completed, it would be premature for AEA to release any potential claims that AEA may have against any project contractors or vendors, and this letter requests that you take whatever actions are necessary to preserve any such potential claims. If there are any deadlines for warranties or claims periods, or statutes of limitation that will arise in the next several months, please notify me of these. To the extent the AEA is presently pursuing or considering claims relative to the Seattle, Washington Washington, D.C. San Francisco, California Affiliated offices in (206) 623-4711 (202) 785-0303 (415) 421-4143 Anchorage, Fairbanks Fax (206) 467-8406 Fax (202) 785-8676 Fax (415) 989-1263 and Juneau, Alaska ATER WYNNE Ron Garzini July 24, 1992 Page 2 project’s performance, please notify me and allow the utilities to consider providing input into that process. ccs Thank you for the Agency’s continued cooperation. Paul Diener, Seward Kenneth E. Ritchey, MEA David L. Highers, CEA Norm Story, HEA Michael P. Kelly, GVEA Thomas R. Stahr, ML&P Robert Hufman, AEG&T On: ales” ee. tory Cpeat Dawe Ub SON Sincerely, ml) |e { Ponald lo Saytry Ronald L. Saxton (aL Of Counsel to Bradley Lake Purchasing Utilities 07/31/92 10:37 99075620027 CHUGACH ELEC. 27 AEA 002/003 RECORD VLOPY FILE NO CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. 8/2/42 Anchorage, Alaska Al oes July 31, 1992 Peo a-y,/ TES of nfiECORD COPY TO; TCS Members ’ FILE NO FROM: David W. Burlingame, Manager, Power ce SUBJECT: Bradley Lake PMC Meeting Vv At the Bradley Lake PMC meeting, the problem of the severe frequency oscillations with Bradley Lake following islanding of the Kenai was discussed. As a result of the discussion, the PMC directed the TCS to do the following tasks: 1 - Interim Solutions The TCS is to outline all known interim solutions to mitigate the Kenai oscillation problem and bring all of the possible solutions with a short write up on the effects of each proposal in terms of any operating restrictions and costs associated with each option. This task is to be completed within 30 days 2 - Long Term Solution The TCS is to cutline all known long term solutions to mitigate the Kenai oscillations including a second line, batteries, tanks ect. A write up on each alternative a recommendation for implementation and an implementation schedule are to be completed within 60 days. I would assume SWEC is working on both short and long term solutions at the present time and that Dave Eberle will call a special TCS meeting upon his return from the SVC tests. PS - Atttached is a brief report from Dan Rogers about the svc tests. It would appear there is a fairly large discrepancy between the PTI digital studies and the analog simulations. For instance, without the SVCs (present configuration) Bradley goes unstable for a fault othe Daves Creek ~ Lawing line at 25 MW export even with a Berni: unit on-line ( I don't know if this is the stability limit or emly point they tested) whereas we are operating with the transfer lTimit set at whatever the system can handle in terazs of voltage support (ve have cperated up to 63 MW). None of the cases were able to achieve a 75 MW export under the voltage schedules used by PTI. Dan will prepare a formal report upon his return as I would assume will PTI. Xe: Woef rfalre, PETWE p SIEC ZT KIRK YALE 07/31/92 10:37 9075620027 CHUGACH ELEC, 2 AEA 003/003 “OO G09 Set -cozz ABS Prone: COM (802) #62--#H6g ABER EOWIN He AL Patter ee ee 80.04.92 es VASE of a 7 ier Bicam, 72 a if : Ss. Mase Une oe 6.08% 9 F.05% Pageort 2 WSens/, 3g Colt tp shem unsteble (10 74) Sie ever ‘@ Daya ol pertata sind, 190 Stcioss! Teme . digg Shport Pater. Srnaug “0 ee trieg F , seme eae. 2. as war, VO SO’, Stocur 9:/q a) 78 Mheltany & wamee dieeie % SW), Aner | nts Tae 19} asian. ii 07/31/92 10:37 9075620027 CHUGACH ELEC. 2227 AEA Boo1/o03 “7 £801 MINNESOTA ORIVE « RO, 2OX i$65C0 » ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 9519-6300 * FHONE S07-563-7494 z Ae : FACSIMILE; . : $07-362-C0Z7 '*! FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET aR CHIrtacm RAY.NA es serrn <e70m? | MACHINE TYPE: DEX 70 OR CANON 890 -