Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntertie Managment Commitee Meetings 07-09-2013 3ATTENDANCE - |'Phone on™|COMMITTEE MEMBERSa"Brad Evans,Chairman " Y Gene Therriault,Secretary/T reasurerJamesPosey,Vice Chairman -Cory BorgensonaEvan"Joe”Griffith Public Members _ Don Zoerb _IMC Regular Meeting July 9,201359:00 amALTERNATE | Burke Wick Jeff Warner .Sara Fisher-GoadAllenGray COUNSELKirkGibson,McDowellRackner & aBrian Bjorkquist,Dept.of LawGibsonPC Pihon AEA Staff Kell-vescn- -Kirk-Warren ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Intertie Management Committee ne of .+SD se Je "ovyl?yet on cyle EX ttIMC:July 9,2013 h $uly aN TIQ Ut (oe onm luti 1 Railbel Roll Call Agenda Minutes 5/23/13 Minutes 6/11/13 Resolution 13-1 Railbelt Roll call from top to bottom ending with Chair Reliability &Reserves Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No .Le | Py |Solden Valley Electric Association Matanuska Electric Association uv 7,nd L.p*Z Go ICSI |we Alaska Energy Authority VA |'iH "|\7 |-_ Municipal Light&Power WA |\\|WV - Chugach Electric Association ||.nD U a C\" mw | Election of Officers prow Me rionRollcallfromtoptobottomendingwithChairfersohhon43-C_ Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Golden Valley Electric Association - Matanuska Electric Association Vial Alaska Energy Authority '_” Municipal Light &Power L Chugach Electric Association -TI CSE ACE |C= Next Meeting: aw pre T/7/1/3 "|Alan Oynsoens --HEA --- "|Bead bacns t HO Moe-|Coct Gibson -serridWebDasCO _C Nene paAditrpon -Hothon DPrMeOMBcormapPSoudMéep/vad -<rece P L fr vif Minutes Same 5 james prays MILTLS Ducl ac mord ,4ae uw -Deak Jur §%o rt KSS L2 paBondstioned-He f YOCSLIES CVE N metien 4 Oreck pp ea CX@ sess - -T7 HV eProV¥ce EMC WHF Freed beetie"Delo.-rte4 \OA ghee Pe<ckinSon_-\Phone_rahGieon pee fl CC fay tre HL Pp Ce move o 1) Cv J JIL -MA neutesALP-ComnenSsCox<+tct a)nS S/2sJ{[b =ps oF™m of ¢is Pare SW:SPCJof-eae thas junctuss,Tof © odtecbs lity covnc!YY Red belt b/li J1 3Cyoncis|-section Ss -et bson Wor Ys/oe<or Cen03ofi==r ied arg ort Motlon.-|Chewncpes Ss,co<ppot Varens +, Te solotlon -febled ME Pr Resolution /3-/MITIOn Fre fet Weoting.-urducctebleY vesolution -«clopted L bet not Vh-,Bacon Z Lxp Lye besfpeERvetoed7 New motou Frow Crepe 2 /MEA AGVER-Mede motion”te Ca.are TSmerpontofOCAscChenaesinWoching oeper?17 eel13-{['ECcom Sore approve ch |TohsehPChyna.New tes Fo /3=>7)Metc.tea quichedi me -euf ean=Poc For «<ach OMe nItAon 7weedofceoutiol (SR--E/<ction of SAFmeeffpyLEPSere 5 /akZ_-apiece vedSC-Yeyerv adAvatt B<ie-tlre lang Cheese ch MNLFSchicule"Loc adoption f GLi[[3 ©KH meeking,awe Avastyy)wy, ALASKA INTERTIE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Tuesday,July 9,2013 -9:00 AM **PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY** Organization/email fa( NAME Ashish Astowol/Ax wg,[ashesh on--ayfavaf/P2@ aot).oOLeeAp or L Na IN Bae CiUGerctbrCananLaYS7AGOBURKEurete)CHUGHACHY Denalr Daniels AA EA bernie Syypre SLC AV aeC Alaska Intertie Management Committee a DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Tuesday,June 11,2013 Anchorage,Alaska 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Brad Evans called the meeting of the Alaska Intertie Management Committee to order on June 11,2013 at 9:10 a.m.A quorum was established. 2.ROLL CALL Members present:Brad Evans (Chugach Electric);Jim Posey -Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P);Joe Griffith -Matanuska Electric Association (MEA);and Gene Therriault - Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 3.PUBLIC ROLL CALL Public participating:Sara Fisher-Goad,Kirk Warren,Kelli Veech and Sandie Hayes (AEA); Louis Agi and Jeff Warner (ML&P);Burke Wick and Brian Hickey (Chugach Electric);Denali Daniels (MEA);Bernie Smith -Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA);David Burlingame and Doug Hall (Electric Power Systems);John Burns -Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA); Brian Bjorkquist (Department of Law);Kirk Gibson (McDowell Rackner &Gibson);and Sunny Morrison (Accu-Type Depositions). 4.PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 5.AGENDA COMMENTS/MOTION FOR APPROVAL MOTION:Mr.Griffith made a motion to approve the agenda.Motion seconded by Mr. Posey.The motion was approved unanimously. 6.NEW BUSINESS 6A.Approval on FY14 Budget MOTION:Mr.Griffith made a motion to approve the FY14 Budget.Motion seconded by Mr.Posey.The motion was approved unanimously. 6B.Update from Project Managers on Static Var Compensator (SVC)Project Mr.Hall and Mr.Burlingame gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Static Var Compensator Replacement Project. Chair Evans asked if the battery can perform the function of the static var compensator and if there was a problem taking it out.Mr.Burlingame stated the battery can perform the function AIMC Draft Meeting Minutes-June 11,2013 Page 1 of 4 and there wasn't a problem taking it out electrically,but there was a problem with the physical work due to cold weather issues.Chair Evans asked for the scope of the replacement.Mr. Burlingame stated all the power electronics,thyristors and controls will be replaced.Chair Evans asked if there wasn't enough space in the current building.Mr.Burlingame stated there are issues with getting things in and out of the building. Mr.Hall stated Healy was scheduled after Gold Hill for March and the building needs to be sealed.Chair Evans commented Gold Hill would be the best one to start with because it is the least problematic to have out of service.Mr.Burlingame said they had the same opinion. Chair Evans stated he understood the contractor Alstom wanted to migrate their control platformandthisprojectgotcaughtinthattransition.Mr.Hall stated the contractor knew this project would use the newest platform,but they lost three of.their specialized programmers.ChairEvansaskedifAlstomcanrecoverfromthatloss.Mr.Hall stated Alstom has placed otherprogrammersonthisprojectalreadyandthehardwareisready.to be tested.He feels verystronglytheycancompletethisproject.we 5 Se %, Chair Evans asked Mr.Burlingame to explain how the thyristors are sized.Mr.Burlingame stated they are sized to the full rating of the SVC and to the current reactors and the capacitors.He said the control equipment has increased 'capability..-Mr.»Burlingame..stated if there areupgradesupnorth,a new SVC is required because of the range of the physical equipment. Mr.Griffith asked what kind of software documentation Alstom will provide.Mr.Burlingamebelievestheprogramwillalwaysbeproprietary:and the core platform will not be able to bechanged,but the implementation can be.changed.Mr..Griffith asked if there is a maintenanceplanforthesystem.-Mr.Burlingame "stated this system should have significantly lessmaintenanceproblemsthantheexistingsystembecause.it is digitally controlled.Chair Evansaskediftherewasatrainingrequirementinthecontract.Mr.Burlingame stated there are threeextensivetrainingrequirements;one in Anchorage,Healy,and Fairbanks.Mr.Griffith asked if this delay in'the project will cost additional money.Mr.Posey said it wouldnotcostmoremoney...Mr.Hall stated there will be an additional charge on insurance and Alstomhasbéenadvisedtheyageexpectedfocoverthatincreasedcost.Ne onMr.Hall stated it is about a $400,000 cost if the legacy system has to be installed before thewinteratTeeland.Alstom has indicated they would want financial help for that and Mr.Hallstatednofinancialassistance|would be given to Alstom.Mr.Hall stated the legacy systemwouldthenbereplacednext;year.Chair Evans asked if there is a firm schedule on thecompletionofthesoftwarepackage.Mr.Hall stated Alstom has given a verbal schedule of completion for the end ofSeptember,which would allow for the installation of Teeland to occurattheendofthisyear.*&s" Mr.Griffith asked Chair Evans regarding the status of the update on the SVCs at Soldotna and Dave's Creek.Chair Evans does not have the update yet. 6C._Railbelt Reliability and Reserves Criteria Resolution Mr.Therriault stated AEA requests more time to work through the document before voting on the resolution.He commented on the concerns regarding any authority the Railbelt Reliability Committee (RRC)has been given in the document.Chair Evans stated all references to the AIMC Draft Meeting Minutes-June 11,2013 Page 2 of 4 RRC need to be purged from the resolution.Chair Evans commented the reliability standards need to be in place before the open access language can be determined. Mr.Griffith objected to postponing the vote of this resolution.He believes it meets the standards for guidelines.Mr.Posey wants to know who else is interested in participating in the intertie and wants to know the details of their involvement. MOTION:Mr.Therriault made a motion to table the vote on the Railbelt Reliability and Reserves Criteria Resolution until 9:00 a.m.on July 9,2013.Motion seconded by Mr.=|Posey.The motion was approved.-[4 E fA ag *awe st &BeeklosMs.Fisher-Goad commented the additional 30 days is also to «ensure the integrity of the rules were appropriately and publicly vetted and any comments received will come to the IMC.Chair Evans respectfully does not agree it is a public process to vet technical operating rules and believes the public process is appropriate for the framework of open access. 6D.Open Access Dialogue "4 :€Ee "ey ,"es,Chair Evans commented all the operators in the system have to adhere to the rules and realizestherearedisagreementsregardingreservesthathavetobeaddressed,but does not believe theissuesarecomplex.Chair Evans believes congestion,will be the hardestissue to address.Mr.Griffith asked who the filteris for the open access 'heeds that these other parties have.HebelievesithastobetheIMC.Chair Evans commented there is a good framework withstandardizedprogramswhichprovides.a mathematical way .of determining congestion.He stated the agreement would Stipulate this process that has fo take place and everyone has toabidebytheoutcome."ch A ' Mr.Posey stated some of these types of issues were resolved when they worked with the RCAonthemeteringrules.Mr.Hickey commented there is no mystery on how independent powerproducerswouldpayforopenaccess,..but he believes their perception is different than whatreallyhappens.Mr...Hickey statedthe existing open access language throughout the UnitedStatesandmandatedbyFlFERCcanbecondensedintoadocumentthatworksforAlaska.Mr.Hall 'commented open'access is a joke because there is no transmission to have openaccesstoandfromapracticalpointofview,it is open access on paper only.Chair Evansdoesn't think it is fair to say it is a joke,but believes there could be congestion right away.Mr.Hall stated until improvements are made to the transmission system,it doesn't do any good to have open access tariffs because they can't use the system.He said the word "over-subscribed" is a better description than the word "joke.” Chair Evans suggested acknowledging in the open access preamble language that congestion currently exists in the railbelt.Mr.Burlingame agreed a statement like that should be included in any type of tariff or agreement. Mr.Therriault stated he now has a better understanding of the complications and frailty of the current system and believes part of AEA's role is educating the policy makers,including Board members and legislators.He stated Alaska does not have a system as robust as the Lower 48 and is not likely to have one any time soon. AIMC Draft Meeting Minutes-June 11,2013 Page 3 of 4 Chair Evans requested a framework for the language of open access be provided at the July 9th meeting.Mr.Griffith asked what happens if they pass the July 1 deadline.Mr.Bjorkquist stated the process would have to be followed to amend the amended Alaska Intertie agreement regarding the July 1 deadline for having the ates open access and push that date out.,050 Chair Evans requested Mr.Bjorkquist and Mr.WarrerT draft a one-paragraph amendment andsignaturepagewithfivedays'notice and hold a meeting before the end of the month to provide a 30-day extension in case approval on July 9th does not happen. 8.NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting date is Wednesday,June 26,2013,at 9:00 a.m. 9.ADJOURNMENT é yomfoSEs. Be aTherebeingnofurtherbusinessoftheAIMC,the meeting adjourned at 10:27 am."4 ON --s ae .-.hos ad 7 Me .Bradley Evans,Chairman :Ks Ae Moe €_°Sus x X '.\ Gene Therriault,Secretary MN es, ';'\; -\. °eo *'%Ne Pe ;;\.Ae weg ..KO "_Cs. .NS Ma ar &a wy on Se \¥NN : NY \- AIMC Draft Meeting Minutes-June 11,2013 Page 4 of 4 > av Alaska Intertie Management Committee DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Thursday,May 23,2013 Anchorage,Alaska 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Brad Evans called the meeting of the Alaska Intertie Management Committee to order on May 23,2013 at 10:04 a.m.A quorum was established. 2.ROLL CALL Members present:Brad Evans (Chugach Electric);Jim Posey -Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P);Allen Gray -Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA),Joe Griffith - Matanuska Electric Association (MEA);and Gene Therriault -Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 3.PUBLIC ROLL CALL Public present in Anchorage:Sara Fisher-Goad,Kirk Warren,Kelli Veech and Teri Webster (AEA);Jeff Warner and Louis Agi (ML&P);Burke Wick and Brian Hickey (Chugach Electric); Bernie Smith (Regulatory Commission of Alaska);Denali Daniels (MEA);Brian Bjorkquist (Department of Law);John Burns (GVEA);Kirk Gibson (McDowell Rackner &Gibson);and Sunny Morrison (Accu-Type Depositions). 4.PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 5.AGENDA COMMENTS/MOTION FOR APPROVAL Mr.Griffith proposed the introduction of a resolution for consideration entitled "Resolution of the IMC on Railbelt Reliability and Reserves Criteria,"to be set for action at some point in the future.Mr.Griffith also introduced a proposed fiscal '14 budget to be approved within the next 30 days.Mr.Warner stated it needs to be approved by July Ist,2013. Chair Evans stated discussion items can be put on the agenda,but action items have to be given public notice before they can be put on the agenda. MOTION:Mr.Griffith made a motion to approve the agenda as amended.Motion seconded by Mr.Therriault.The motion was approved unanimously. IMC Draft Meeting Minutes-May 23 2013 Page 1 of 6 ad 6.APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES-September 13,2012 The September 13,2012 minutes were approved as amended. 7.NEW BUSINESS 7A.Update on Budget,FY '14 Budget and Operations Mr.Warner stated the Intertie Operating Committee (OC)approved the amended proposed budget and suggested going through the budget line by line at the next meeting when it will beapproved.Mr.Griffith stated the biggest two line items are the cyber study and the Eva Creekstabilitystudytotaling$230,000.Loe em, Chair Evans requested someone speak about the Eva Creek stability study.Mr.Warner stated thestudywasbroughtforwardtoaddressissuesregardinghowtheintertiehaschangedovertheyearsanddetermineifanyoperationalchangesshouldbeimplemented.». Chair Evans asked Mr.Gray if the study will include the near-term anticipated changes.Mr. Gray assumes the Battery Energy 'Storage System (BESS)operations will be included in the study.Chair Evans asked the technical group to consider reaching out a couple of years when they scope the study to keep it from becoming stale.Mr.Warner stated the data is available for alotofthenewunitswhichcouldbeincludediinthestudy.He stated the focus has been a 2015systemstudy.sey,« '¢ae \os -Mr.Griffith requested the study recognizes Eva Creek,Healy Clean Coal and everybody else thatis hooking up to the system as factorsin the study.He suggested having a system stabilitystudy,rather than only Eva Creek's effects on the.system.Chair Evans stated this study isisa refresh ofthe prior*work and recommendations are made fromtheanalytics.He stated this iis not an asset management activity,but an activity of the reliabilitycouncil.Chair Evans said thereis a blurring of the lines in doing this study.He recommendssettingatimelymeetingdatetoapprovetheproposedbudget. Mr.Griffith commented there needs to be more than just a cyber-security study.He believes cyber security should be implemented across the control system,but first there needs to be an understanding of who the generating utilities are and how the control system is currently protected.Chair Evans and Mr.Griffith agreed $50,000 would probably be enough to scope out a study for this system. Mr.Therriault asked what the date was that the modified proposed budget was released because the requirement in the agreement is that the budget is available for comment for 30 days.Mr. Griffith stated April 18th,2013,was when the budget was approved by the OC to send to the IMC. IMC Draft Meeting Minutes-May 23 2013 Page 2 of 6 4lonon+hysoeOrrec[FCNC )Mr.Therriault asked Mr.Gray if the new numbers for GVEA's utilization of the intertie includes any additional negotiations regarding power sent to them from Southcentral.Mr.Gray stated the numbers only included Chugach Electric,ML&P and Bradley Lake receipts.He said if they end up buying power from Homer Electric Association (HEA),then the numbers will increase a little bit.Mr.Therriault asked Mr.Gray if the numbers in the budget will provide a solid basis.Mr. Gray believes that is an accurate statement.He stated they have not finalized purchasing of any other power. Chair Evans stated he will place the approval of the budget as an action item on the agenda for the next meeting.7 Chair Evans asked if the operators wanted to bring anything to the Committee's attention.Mr. Warner commented the OC is in the process of addressing the task associated with HEA given tothembytheIMC.He stated HEA is participating in the OC meetings.7B.Update on Static Var Compensator vo)ProjectsMr.Griffith asked if there are adequate funds in the budget to complete the SVC project andincorporateitintotheexistingcontrolsystemwiththeappropriatesecurity.Mr.Agi stated they have had problems with the contractor,including not being able to meet theirscheduledcommitmentswithintheyear2013.He said the contractor's new projection for the Teeland install is December 1,2014.He stated there is a possibility that a last generation machine could be used onsite as an interim solution before the start of winter.Mr.Agi stated the Teeland interim solution would cost approximately $450,000,creating a financial problem. Mr.Griffith asked if the problem 1was hardware delivery or software.Mr.Agi stated the problemisnothavingsufficientcontrollersoftwaredevelopment/writing capacity in place to make thedeadlines.He stated the consequences have not been decided,but they might insist on anincreasedsuretyarrangementtomeetthecontractcommitmentgoingforward.Mr.Agi stated theinterim°'solution will not be as adequate compared to what was contracted,but it should beenoughtokeepcurrentpowertransfersworkingthroughthewinter.Mr.Agi,said he is notcurrentlyaddressingwhowouldpayfortheinterimunit,but using it as a'o accelerategettingthecontractforthesvplaceontime.Chair Evans asked when the bid was put out on the street.Mr.Agi stated it was approximately two years ago.Mr.Griffith and Mr.Warner believe it was in 2011.Chair Evans asked when we first sat down with the awardees.Mr.Agi stated it was in the fall of 2011.Chair Evans asked if any of the bidders had a shelf-stable platform to do this job.Mr.Agi doesn't believe any of the bidders had a shelf-stable platform.Mr.Agi stated the only problem the contractor is having is getting the adequate programmers in place to address the software. Chair Evans asked what schedule was put out in the bid.Mr.Agi stated the bidders proposed schedules which were revised to reflect mid-year completion in 2013.The 2013 schedule wasn't met because of supplier constraints and internal problems.It was then revised to a third quarter completion in 2013. IMC Draft Meeting Minutes-May 23 2013 Page 3 of6 auTArsas@VeCorrection2AChairEvanssaidhewouldnotaskforallthedetailsaiyunctur Mr.Griffith stated he believesallthedetailsareneededtoassessthesituation.Chair Evans asked who the technical people are on this project.Mr.Agi stated Russ Thorton from Electric Power Systems is the construction manager. Mr.Warren commented this was a design/build contract and the first deadline date was extended for half a year.He stated the crux of the issue with the schedule is if the contractor will not have the originally designed SVC installed,then the contractor needs to provide a date they will have the temporary unit installed to get us through the winter without any damages to the participants of the intertie.Mr.Warren commented IMC should not participate in any additional costs that are incurred because of the contractor's delay.He recommends the next change order require thecontractorpaydamagesiftheydonotmeetthenewcompletiondate. Chair Evans stated the update on the SVC projects will be put on the next agenda.Mr.Agicommentedmoreinformationwillbeknownwithinacoupleofweeksregardingtheamended contract,the change order,commitments and the additional surety placed on the contractor.Mr. Griffith requested a current and complete status of the hardware for all three of the sites and acurrentandcompletestatusofthesoftware.. Chair Evans requested Mr.Warren 'give a project manager's report,including scope,budget, schedule and quality.Chair Evans stated there were other locations to perform the same kind offunctionandnewonesshouldhavebeenbuilt.: 7C.Generation,and Transmission Operations post.Chugach/Homer Electric PowerSalesAgreement%xChairEvansaskedMr.Warner if there is anything needed from the Committee regarding thisitem.Mr.Warner requested updates on 'the process of addressing the assignments.Chair Evansstated'it was strongly.suggested at the last-Bradley Lake Project Management Committee(BPMC)meeting that the IMC technical people are coordinating with the Bradley Lake peopleregardingpropercustodytransferandRailbeltReliabilityCouncil(RRC)issues.He requestedMr.Warner come up with the list of things that are necessary to incorporate a new load-balancing authority.Chair Evans also requested Mr.Warner give him evidence and clarity onprojectmanagerreportstoensurethedeadlineisbeingmet.He strongly suggested Mr.Warner use the operating guidelines as a structure to create the technical list of what has to happen andwhathastobeaccommodatedinthesoftware. Mr.Griffith requested an update on the status of the Soldotna and Dave's Creek SVCs.Chair Evans stated he will take care of that request. 7D.Open Access Language Chair Evans stated he has talked to all members regarding the activity on open access and expects to have the draft language within the next 10 days.Chair Evans stated the areas that need IMC Draft Meeting Minutes-May 23 2013 Page 4 of 6 full attention and critical thinking are preexisting rights,definition of congestion,recognition of congestion in a pool,operational cures for congestion,and the pre-usage cure process. Mr.Therriault asked if the draft language will be on the agenda at the next meeting.Chair Evans stated the draft language will be an item on the next agenda with the hope of getting the language out prior to that meeting date.Mr.Therriault commented the state will have some comments and is looking forward to starting that dialog.Mr.Therriault asked if there could be interim language that everybody agreed on.Chair Evans said that would have to be discussed after the product comes out. Mr.Griffith encouraged everyone read Article 6 and Article 16 of the amended and restated agreement,which directly influences thisissue.He stated the draft language should be for theoperationalcriteriaandthegoodofthewholesystem,not just the segment the state owns.ChairEvansfullyagrees.f Mr.Burns stated GVEA is satisfied with the progress.Mr.Warner state ML&P is lookingforwardtothedraftlanguageandbelievesthecommentsmadebyChairEvansandMr.Griffitharevalid.: 7E.Reliability Standards Se Mr.Griffith encouraged everyone to read the Operating &Reliability Standards the RRC has prepared.Mr.Griffith stated the document addresses both reliability standards and reserve criteria which the IMC must endorse for theentire railbelt.: Chair Evans asked for comments from members.Mr.Warner believes the IMC is the appropriatebodytoadoptreliabilitylanguagefortheentireRailbelt.Chair Evans requested the appropriate technical people from the IMC look at and clean up thematrixofinformationMr.Griffith providedin the email associated with his proposed resolution.He stated it can't be adopted the way it is because there's overlap,repetition,old informationfromgroupsthatarenotfunctional,which would create a great deal of confusion. Mr.Griffith stated he doesn't suggest the document be adopted as is,but believes all of the nodes of importance and the reliability of the railbelt have been addressed in the document.Mr.Griffith offered to begin cleaning up the document and will get somebody to act as an editor and come back to the Committee. Chair Evans stated it is a membership task to refresh the thinking on these standards and as the document gets cleaned up,which should happen well in advance of the meeting,they will be sent out and move for action at the next meeting.Chair Evans stated it is important to stabilize the atform because it has been awkward for the Railbelt to accommodate change with theilthatisburiedintoanassetmanagementagreement.He believes this step is a necessary interim solution,but the vehicle doesn't exist to make a natural transfer of responsibility.Chair Evans is supportive of getting the reliability standards fully out in the open and believes there is an obligation to firm up the RRC's ways and means of operating the system. IMC Draft Meeting Minutes-May 23 2013 Page 5 of 6 Mr.Griffith stated one of the issues discussed in another forum was acceptance by the individual utilities of the process and the reserve and reliability criteria.Mr.Griffith said his own utility has approved it formally,but does not recall if anybody else has.Chair Evans stated the IMC is signatory and doesn't know if that is necessary. Mr.Warner asked Mr.Griffith what it means to clean up the document.Mr.Griffith wants to make the document publishable,but doesn't know if he can totally deconflict some of the language.Chair Evans suggested to sit down with each member's technical representative and go through the document to determine what is and isn't going to be included in the resolution.Mr.Warner asked if this should be done by committee.Chair Evans stated Mr.Warner's group wouldbetheonescoordinatingwithallthemembersandmakingsuretheyparticipatefully. 8.NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting date is Tuesday,June 11,2013,at 9:00 a.m. &9.|ADJOURNMENT ae NF There being no further business of the IMC,the meeting adjourned at 11:44 am." Ne. Bradley Evans,Chairman - Gene Therriault,Secretary \.™1 ow y iia a Xe .o Ste & 7 &'&Shy,NG "Sy aS .:.a > a 7 .Se %'%& o \'Me _.\ %: IMC Draft Meeting Minutes-May 23 2013 Page 6 of 6 INTERTIE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ___---{Formatted:Font:12 ptResolutionNo.13-1 Backgrournd:-OrnWHEREAS,Section 3.1 of the Amended and Restated Alaska Intertie Agreement provides that the Intertie Management Committee ("IMC”)shall determine Reserve Capacity and Operating Reserves for the Intertie,and the IMC has the authority to adopt operating policies and procedures,reliability standards,and enforcement mechanisms,for the Intertie. WHEREAS,on November 18,2011,the Intertie Management Committee ("IMC”)approved Resolution 11-1 which resolved that all then-currently existing contracts,customs,and operating policies and procedures associated with the Alaska Intertie and recognized by the Alaska Energy Authority ('AEA')and the Intertie Operating Committee ("IOC”)were to remain in effect and be maintained by the IMC until such time as the IMC expressly addresses such contracts andid operating policies and Procedures relating to the operation of the Alaska Intertie (intertie) _----{Formatted:Font:11 pt iteria document dated April 4WHEREAS,«onSeptember 113 2012,propared by-the RRailbeltReliabilityCommittee(RRGIMC formally addressed and establish the Reserve Capacity and Operating Reserve responsibilities for all users of the Intertie- WHEREAS,by adopting Exhibit H of the Amended and Restated Alaska Intertie Agreement defines Reserve-Gapacity and Operating Reserveresponsibilities-and, WHEREAS -the-current,but Exhibit H is a 1985 document that does not reflect thecurrent syster-configuration er-of the Railbelt system nor current operating protocols;anrd;. WHEREAS-WHEREAS,it is in the best interests of the Railbelt system to establish operating standards and reliability criteria applicable to the entire interconnected Railbelt system,rather than to adopt standards and criteria solely for the Intertie. Page 1 of 2 -IMC Resolution 13-1 WHEREAS,the only entity establishingthat has established reliability criteria for the interconnected Railbelt system is the Alaska System Coordinating Council (ASCC)that has been defunct for 15 years;and;. WHEREAS,in 2005 the Railbelt Utilities formed the "Ad-Hoc Railbelt Reliability Committee ("RRC”),to work with the Alaska Energy Authority ("AEA)in an open public process to review the substantial NERC operating,reserve capacity,and reliability standards,and to adapt those standards to meet Railbelt conditions and practices. WHEREAS,the RRC-prepared the "Intertie Management Committee's Railbelt Operating and Reliability Standards,updated June 7,2013.” WHEREAS,the IMCis the entity in-the-in e opemmainiaine-repaire-andl improves the syetor-and.with authority to adopt ppolicies,criteria and standards for the !ntertie related to reserve capacity,operating reserves,operating policies, reliability,and enforcement mechanisms. WHEREAS,the IMC is fit-willing to work with other interested parties to establish and ablete undertakeimplement Railbelt wide policies,criteria and effectively accemplishstandards related to reserve capacity,operating reserves,operating policies,reliability,and enforcement mechanisms. WHEREAS,the tasks identified inpurpose of this Resolution No.13-1 is to adopt the aferementioned-clause."Intertie Management Committee's Railbelt Operating and Reliability Standards,updated June 7,2013”as a quideline for the IMC working with other interested parties to establish and implement Railbelt wide policies,criteria and standards related to reserve capacity,operating reserves,operating policies,reliability,and enforcement mechanisms. WHEREAS,to ensure that the Intertie and the Railbelt system have the same criteria and standards applied related to reserve capacity,operating reserves,operating policies,reliability, and enforcement mechanisms,this Resolution shall sunset on [***date***]unless extended by the IMC to allow for monitoring of progress,and the "sanctions”enforcement mechanisms shall not become effective until separately approved by the IMC. ol Formatted:Font:12 pt Resolution No.13-1 (Continued) Page 2 of 2 -IMC Resolution 13-1 BE IT RESOLVED THAT the system-+eliabiity-"Intertie Management Committee's Railbelt Operating and reserve-criteria-decumentdatedApril-4,2042,Reliability Standards,updated June 7,2013.”prepared by the RRCis hereby accepted as the Reserve Capacity and Operating Reserves for the Intertie,Exhibit H of the Amended and Restated Alaska Intertie Agreement:and,,and is accepted as the operating policies and procedures,reliability standards,and enforcement mechanisms,for the Intertie,with two modifications. First,this resolution shall sunset on [***date**"]unless extended by the IMC to enable the IMC to monitor progress on establishing Railbelt system wide standards and criteria and ensure uniformity with Intertie standards and criteria.If the sunset is implemented, the currently existing Exhibit H and standards and criteria for reserve capacity,operating reserves,operating policies,reliability,and enforcement mechanisms shall become effective. Second,the "sanctions”portions of the enforcement mechanisms in the "Intertie Management Committee's Railbelt Operating and Reliability Standards,updated June 7, 2013”shall not become effective until separately approved by the IMC. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution and the aforementioned cystem-+reliability andreserve-criteria document'Intertie Management Committee's Railbelt Operating and Reliability Standards,updated June 7,2013.”prepared by the RRC_shall be submitted as an informational filing to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). The Secretary hereby certifies that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.13-1 and that Resolution No.13-1 was approved by the IMC on July 9,2013. Print Name.Chairman Gene Therriault,Secretary Page 3 of 2 IMC Resolution 13-1 H Dale LLC Box 60173 Fairbanks,AK 99706 907-322-9228 Henri@HDaleLLC.com July 7,2013 H Dale LLC was retained in part to review the Railbelt Operating and Reliability Standards and provide written comments.This document provides the written comments.Of particular importance to AEA is its role as a Generator Owner (Bradley Lake),a Transmission Owner (the Alaska Intertie),and its participation within various committees of the above assets.The State also owns for the time being the HCCP coal plant and has an interest in ensuring that the Standards are not discriminatory. |had participated as Chairman of the RRC (the Railbelt Reliability Committee)for most of its existence. This is the committee that drafted these standards,primarily using NERC standards as a reference.| retired in March of 2013 and am not aware of what may have transpired within the committee for the last few months.My understanding is that the meetings have been limited.As such,when | reference something as being post March,there is a possibility that the new language has not been vetted by the utilities or by the RRC. Many of the GM's had concerns that the rules of the road were tied into agreements for the operation and maintenance of a single asset.To split the reliability aspects off from the AIA,and to take a modern look at aligning ourselves with current NERC standards,they had a group of their people form the RRC.The RRC (under various names)was first proposed as being an IOC subcommittee,but was almost immediately determined that it should be ad-hoc so as to allow the participation of non-IOC participants as well as allowing the two members of AEGT to voice their opinions independently.After a few years,the GM's were rightly concerned about an ad-hoc group that didn't particularly report to anyone,and put it under ARCTEC.It's not clear from the Standards to who and how the RRC now reports,but according to the Standards,the governing body is now the IMC for all reliability issues in the Railbelt.AEA may have concerns about this.In particular,the IMC in the ARAIA (Amended and Restated Alaska Intertie Agreement)was set up to be an asset manager for the Alaska Intertie. Although it clearly allows the IMC to create reliability rules and levy sanctions,such language is almost always limited to users of the intertie and reliability rules for the Intertie (for example,8.6.1 and definition #48 "Reliability Standards”).Much of the proposed standards have little effect on the reliability of the Intertie itself.One important exception where the ARAIA delves away from the Intertie is in the WHEREAS's which recognizes the requirement to adopt the old Addendum #1 as being required for "reliable operation of the Intertie and the interconnected Railbelt electrical system”and another in section 3.3 which requires adherence to the standards if you connect to a participant or users system.Of course,as long as it's not prohibited,anything that the parties agree to among themselves and agree to unanimously,is ultimately binding.The problem is how binding is it to a non-user or a minority party of a non-unanimous motion if the motion was not within the intents of the ARAIA. Similar questions arise within the Standards themselves.When the RRC drafted much of the language, the term "Railbelt Utilities”was often used as we were working largely to consensus.But what if a 1 utility dissented?Is the product still of the Railbelt Utilities?Section 120 of both the Generation Interconnect Standard and the Transmission Interconnect Standards have post March language that the IMC IS the Reliability Coordinator for the Railbelt Grid (color for emphasis).By whose authority were they put in that role?Further,the IMC is the "representative”body of the Railbelt Utilities with respect to Grid planning and Operations.Are they representative if there is a dissenting or a new utility?This has always been the thorny question,and the RRC wrote the standards assuming it would be taken care of higher up.We also see "The power to grant such interconnection authorization is delegated to the Intertie Management Committee”.If it's delegated,it begs the question -by who? |don't believe that the IMC is the right body due to the many limitations in the ARAIA (although I'm not proposing anything else at this time).The Standards require the IMC to react in a timely manner to a wide variety of issues.Presumably the IMC will delegate much of it,but for a group that meets quarterly,this will be a significant increase in activity.The RRC had always expected that the Standards would also have some sort of legal review prior to adoption since the expertise of most of the RRC members was in Engineering and Operations.I'm not aware any such review has been undertaken. The following are comments on the Standards in page number order.Many of the comments are editing and typos (which is not what |was tasked with,and not what |looked for),but as |came across them looking for other issues |thought it best to capture them along with the comments.They can be fixed ina new edition.Issues of greater importance will be highlighted. Introduction (grandfather paragraph got deleted,so no page number):The grandfather clause for units that were in late stages of planning got deleted post March.Reasoning was given that they would likely pass the interconnect requirements anyways.!'m not aware the RRC did such research. There are spinning reserve requirements for new units prior to commercialization that those who recently got their units commercialized didn't have to follow not to mention requirements to review plans and drawings.HCCP is one that has been deleted,although presumably it won't be a State asset by the time it goes on line. Table of Contents:This was set up as appendices with alphabet names.1!have concerns that as new standards are adopted,the IMC will either have to re-sequence the existing alphabet labels,or add the new standards at the end which could put them out of a logical order. AKBAL-005 R12.1 and AKBAL-006 R3:CEA is currently filing an OATT with the RCA where they require all metering (within and at their boundaries)to be CEA meters.They are also requiring a reciprocity clause such that everyone else must have a similar OATT (and presumably those utilities would have their own meters at their own boundaries).This violates this AKBAL standard which requires common metering equipment at boundaries. AKBAL-006 R4 last paragraph:Typo,reference to AKBAL-006 1D1-1.2 should likely be AKBAL-006 E1-1.2. AKFAC-001 R1.3:Requires End User facility connection requirements.The document appears to have been removed post March.AEA needs to discuss among itself what the possibility of an end user (think large mine)that's not in anyone's service territory.Would such an entity be allowed to connect 2 without being a member to any particular utility?If so,this document would be necessary.May also be necessary even if it were part of a utilities service territory if it were so large that it could affect the reliability of other utilities. AKFAC-002 B R1.4:When the RRC modified the original NERC language,we removed the reference to TPL 001,002,and 003 since we didn't expect to be adopting those anytime soon.Post March,those Standards have been included,so it would be appropriate to reinstate the reference to those Standards here. AKRES-001 R2.3:|would add "and approved by the IMC”or other such group at the end of this. (The paragraph has to do with setting the SRB via engineering studies.We wouldn't want dueling studies being used}. AKRES-001 RS.4:Requires carving out room for a Capacity Benefit Margin.This is new post March and likely has to do with Kenai transfer limits.I'm not particularly fond of the name (why use the word "Benefit”)but making room makes some sense.This is significant and needs to be vetted. Ultimately,it lowers the usable transfer capability of the Kenai tie which affects Bradley Lake Transfers. CEA needs to state what this margin is (size in MW)that they want to reserve to themselves. Apparently there is also supposed to be a document (Capacity Benefit Margin Implementation Document),but it wasn't included in the Standards. AKRES-001 R5.5:Refers to itself.Probably a typo and was intended for RS.4. AKRES-001 RS.6:This is the umbrella language which was a very controversial issue for the RRC. It was finally compromised to allow the total lease of a unit,but post March now includes shares of a unit. AKRES-001 R6.1:Yet another post March Margin that will reduce transfer capability on certain transmission lines,in particular the Kenai line.This may be in addition to that mentioned above in AKRES-001 RS.4.Needs to be vetted as it could significantly reduce Bradley Lake transfer capabilities. AKRES-001 R7.1:Here and several!other places,a term Largest Single Generating Contingency is used.But the definitions section uses the term Largest Single Generation Contingency.Need to do global searches to make sure the two terms are used consistently. AKRES-001 R7.1:Excludes RAS applications.If a RAS is designed to be quick enough,not sure of any good reasons to exclude them.It is likely that the Watana turbines combined with a BESS will ultimately be required,but this would seem to exclude counting the benefit of that. AKRES-001 R7.4:Awkward sentence "or an entity install new generation”. AKRES-001 R7.6:Clumsy sentence structure. AKRES-001 R7.7:Need to clarify that the 120 MW value is what is subject to change by the IMC. MUD is the delta between the new large unit and the 120 MW value. AKRES-001 R7.8:"obligated entity”is a defined term and should be capitalized. AKRES-001 R7.8:MUD should be MUDe. AKRES-001 R7.8:lower case "i”should denote "All Interconnected Entities”.(ie Other Interconnected Entities +the Obligated Entity e). AKRES-001 M8:"Absent a specifically appointed Compliance Monitor ...”Strange thing to say. Why not just make the IMC the Compliance Monitor in the entities matrix (which is how its checked off already). AKTPL-001 B R1 and AKTPL-002 B R1 and AKTPL-003 B R1:As a newly minted consultant |would have to admit that you can never have too many studies.Seriously,these two standards are requiring every two years a battery of studies over a several year forecast.The last couple of years have been very busy for the Railbelt,but historically,not many units or lines are built in any given decade.Also, may want to give some thought to who pays for all these studies,the entities that wheel on the Intertie? Also keep in mind that a whole slew of studies are required whenever someone files application to interconnect a generator or a transmission line in the interconnect standards. AKTPL-002 A 3 and AKTPL-003 A 3 last paragraphs:"Further system operators”is clumsy. AKTPL-002 A 4.3 and 4.4:These are not NERC defined entities.In general,the RRC tried to use NERC terminology so that as new standards were adopted,the body of interpretation and language was already out there nationwide. AKTPL-002 B R11:"The loss of no single element of the BES should result in the loss of firm load or firm transfers”.The current form of the Intertie violates this (Cantwell and Stevens)and most of the Railbelt Utilities have lines that would violate it also.This is a planning requirement,so no penalties, but it does require corrective plans be crafted biannually. AKTPL-003 A 4.3 and 4.4:Same terms as above. AKVAR-001 B R9:AEA's Healy SVS would violate this requirement (that SVS is a critical unit and must be in service). The Entity Matrix:There are errors throughout.All the entities have to declare what they volunteer to participate in,and be aware of what they are required to do via being an Obligated Entity. The ARAIA gives AEA veto power over any proposed standards.There probably isn't a NERC entity in the matrix that fits those powers. The Definitions:The RRC (at the CEA's representatives'insistence)went through the Standards and vetted each defined term from the Standards with its corresponding definition in the NERC Glossary.We renamed it AK_Glossary_of_Terms,changing definitions as required and adding an approval date.Any other terms were left alone as they would define the national interpretation,but wasn't necessarily vetted to work with the Railbelt.The definitions that are currently attached to the standards (and contains various post March defined terms)does not appear to be based on the one the RRC left off with. The Sanctions Matrix:This was mostly a place holder for the RRC.Not much though went into it other than to make the sanctions get bigger as the level got worse or the infractions were repeated.At least for those who "sign up for it”,we can fine ourselves as much as we please,but as the utilities are all mostly regulated,it's a different question if the RCA will allow us to pay those fines out of rates.It was the intent of the RRC to waive fines for the first year or so (but still report the violations)to get a better understanding of where we needed to improve.Presumably,if a bad apple is deemed to be in violation,they will contest it,and at some point,some group will need to rule on this.If the bad apple also is an IMC participant,will the normal voting rules prevail?Dispute resolution in this context has not been given any thought.Since it's under the auspices of the IMC,do the IMC dispute resolution language prevail? Exhibit D -Railbelt Reliability Planning Guidelines:A lower frequency of 58.8 Hz is probably a fact of life,but I'm not sure that we should "plan”to allow ourselves to go down that far.It is part of our existing ASCC guides. Exhibit E:FMUS stood for Fairbanks Municipal Utilities Systems.Also,should have the various utility engineering folks vet Table 1.Aspects of it doesn't quite seem right to me. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Generation 210:Typo top of page 7 "mayl”. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Generation 230,step 2,B f:|!have some concerns with this section.The "proof”of acquisition of ancillary services is rather premature as this is part of the application,construction could take years,and section 120 page 5 merely requires them to have the agreements in place prior to physical interconnection.Could also be somewhat discriminatory since a utility building a generator wouldn't necessarily (and probably wouldn't)do any of the agreements mentioned,so this is pointed particularly at IPP's.One would expect an IPP to want to have those agreements figured out on their own prior to dumping tens to hundreds of millions into a project. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Generation Section 3:Need to be careful here.This sections discusses the consequences for failing to meet the requirements,and these consequences don't appear to have any correlation with the sanctions matrix.The two sections were written independently. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Generation 351 last sentence:Typo,missing an "of”. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Generation 352:Clean up last sentence to "...shall meet the required quality of response as set forth by the IMC.” Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Generation 360:Typo,should be "...Category B and probable Category C...”. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Generation 524:Drop the "(fiber optic)”from the second bullet. We shouldn't be specifying the type of technology to be used,just the results we want. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Transmission 120:In the 3 paragraph,typo "will Producer will” should be "Provider will”. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Transmission 220:In the 2"?paragraph,typo "generation” should be "transmission”. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Transmission 230,step 2 B f:Same concern about having certain contracts finished during the application process for transmission as was noted above for the generation process. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Transmission Section 3:Need to be careful here also.This sections discusses the consequences for failing to meet the requirements,and these consequences don't appear to have any correlation with the sanctions matrix.The two sections were written independently. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Transmission:Inconsistent indentation in this document. Particularly noticeable in the 370/380 area. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Transmission 524:Drop the "(fiber optic)”from the second bullet.We shouldn't be specifying the type of technology to be used,just the results we want. Interconnection Standards for Railbelt Transmission Glossary:Drop the first definition of "Provider”at the top of the page.The correct one towards the bottom should remain.