Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023.03.24 IMC Executed MinutesAlaska Intertie Management Committee (IMC) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Friday, March 24, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ed Jenkin called the meeting of the Alaska Intertie Management Committee to order on March 24, 2023, at 9:02 a.m. A quorum was established. 2. ROLL CALL FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS Members present: Ed Jenkin (Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)); Andrew Laughlin (Chugach Electric Association (CEA)); John Burns (Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)); and Bill Price (Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)). 3. PUBLIC ROLL CALL Public present: Collette Grower (Accu-Type Depositions); Joel Paisner (Ascent Law Partners); Jennifer Bertolini (AEA); Bryan Carey; Pamela Ellis (AEA); Mark Ziesmer (AEA); Mike Miller (CEA); Eugene Ori (CEA); Russell Thornton (CEA); Dan Bishop (GVEA); Keith Palchikoff (GVEA); Sarah Villalon (GVEA); David Pease (MEA); Jon Sinclair (MEA); Bernie Smith (Public). 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None 5. AGENDA APPROVAL Chair Jenkin requested to move Item 8. before Item 7. There was no objection. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Burns to approve the agenda, including the amendment to move Item 8. before Item 7. Motion seconded by Mr. Price. The agenda, including the amendment to move Item 8. before Item 7., was approved without objection. 6. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MINUTES — January 20, 2023 MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Burns to approve the Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2023. Motion seconded by Vice -Chair Laughlin. The Minutes of January 20, 2023 were approved without objection. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8A. Railbelt Synchro-Phasor Project IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 1 Chair Jenkin requested Jon Sinclair, MEA, to summarize the discussion of the Intertie Operating Committee (IOC) regarding the synchrophaser project. Mr. Sinclair informed that the IOC discussed the contract negotiations for the synchrophaser project. The cost/benefit analysis is included in the report. The IOC discussed concerns related to implementation capability with internal labor and security. He noted that MEA could not provide implementation this year. Mr. Sinclair discussed that when the implementation occurs, the infrastructure will need to remain online and will be considered critical. The infrastructure is not currently considered critical. Mr. Sinclair informed that the discussion in the IOC meeting resulted in the request for continued review of the project. Two of the four utilities are not ready for implementation. In the IOC meeting, they considered a motion to recommend approval of the project to IMC. The motion to recommend approval of the project to IMC failed. Mr. Sinclair stated that the IOC will continue discussion at their next meeting to better understand the labor, security, and technical needs for implementation and the possibility of a phased approach to implementation. The intent is to ensure the utilities have the staff and equipment to be successful in moving forward. Additional review is needed before the IOC brings a recommendation to the IMC. Chair Jenkin asked if the synchrophaser project is in the budget under miscellaneous expense. Discussion occurred that the FY23 budget lists the Proposed Synchrophaser System at $230,000. The SSS Committee met yesterday, and CEA and MEA reported they are not ready to implement the synchrophaser system. The proposal is to develop a phased implementation plan that would carry the FY23 budget amount to the FY24 budget. The new proposed budgeted amount for FY24 is $250,000. Phase One is budgeted for $100,000 and Phase Two is budgeted for $150,000. The Proposed Synchrophaser System line item is not currently within the FY24 budget. A member commented that review of the annual costs also needs to occur. He noted the possibility that the annual costs could be equivalent to or higher than the implementation costs and wanted to ensure that the benefits would equal the annual costs. A member commented that he appreciates moving forward in a prudent manner. He believes that linking the utilities on a unified Railbelt is the goal and efforts to achieve that should continue. Mr. Price discussed that the SSS Committee proposed to continue the project this year. He stated that the ongoing budget amount will be approximately $280,000 each year. The cost/benefit analysis is subjective and includes losses from shutdowns. The ROI is promising within millions of dollars of returns per year. Mr. Price stated that an optimistic scenario is for the four utilities to complete connection early next year. Chair Jenkin indicated that review would continue and a decision would be made during the budget discussion since it is not yet within the budget. He asked Vice -Chair Laughlin to comment from CEA's perspective. Vice -Chair Laughlin aligned with Mr. Sinclair's comments regarding the need for a consolidated implementation plan to understand the impacts of the existing system, integration, and how it will be supported into the future. The effort represents an expense to the IMC and to the utilities. IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 2 Chair Jenkin asked if the synchrophaser project assumes that communication is active between GVEA and other high-speed Railbelt users. Mr. Sinclair commented that his understanding is that the existing communication infrastructure will be utilized. He has not seen any proposal for the build -out of additional infrastructure. Jennifer Bertolini, AEA, indicated that Russel Thornton, CEA, would like to comment. Mr. Thornton expressed support for the project. He explained that a dedicated connection will be necessary, but he does not believe that a significant bandwidth channel will be needed. CEA's system is implemented over ethernet. The proposed pilot has a conservative amount of data and data points. The question was asked if the current communication infrastructure will support the system. Keith Palchikoff, GVEA, responded that the communication path from the substations to the utilities is established. The devices are communicating to each of the utilities. The project will take the data from the utilities and send it to a secured government data center via a secured internet connection through the utilities' existing IT infrastructure. Mr. Palchikoff commented that the project does not envision adding Railbelt communication infrastructure. There were no additional comments or questions. 8B. Intertie Vegetation Management Plan Chair Jenkin requested members to comment on the Intertie Vegetation Management Plan. Mr. Burns informed that much discussion on the plan occurred at the previous meeting and modifications were requested. He asked for a high-level overview of the progress and the prioritization based on the LIDAR analysis. Mr. Sinclair directed members to page 36 of the report showing the requested delineation of the costs associated with the seven-year plan. He discussed that the IOC made recommendations to approve an updated vegetation plan that includes the Teeland to Douglas section and the related costs. Mr. Sinclair explained that the costs vary in the plan because there are both five-year clearing cycles and seven-year clearing cycles. The total clearing costs for the seven-year plan range between approximately $450,000 to $1 million per year. Detailed cost estimates per utility is included in the information. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the IOC made recommendations to approve the seven-year remote sensing costs, which includes LIDAR, ortho-photography, heat measurements, vegetation growth rate, and danger tree assessment. The total remote sensing costs for the seven-year plan range between approximately $600,000 to $1 million per year. The remote sensing plan will provide for a more accurate and focused clearing schedule, including information on the rate of growth and the location of vegetation growth. After the seven-year cycle, the remote sensing data will be evaluated to determine a clearing plan going forward. Additionally, after the seven years, utilization of remote sensing will decrease significantly, only to be used every three to five years, to ensure the plan remains on track. Mr. Sinclair explained that remote sensing reduces clearing costs by approximately 20% to 40% after the initial data is collected. The savings is due to clearing only in locations where vegetation growth has occurred. IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 3 Vice -Chair Laughlin asked for additional information regarding why the clearing costs in 2024 are significantly higher than the costs each year from 2025 through 2030. Mr. Sinclair explained that the costs in 2024 include clearing of the access paths to get to the right-of-ways. The access path clearing is not included in the out -years. Mr. Burns inquired if the current LIDAR data has been taken into account within this plan to address the areas of highest priority and risk. Mr. Sinclair commented that he does not believe the LIDAR data was taken into account in the proposed plan. He explained that the LIDAR data provided a 3D image, but it was not focused on vegetation management. It was focused on the structures through an engineering and technical evaluation. Mr. Sinclair indicated that the remote sensing will focus on the vegetation specifically. The crews who were in the field provided information, which was useful in creating the clearing cycle plan. He explained that clearing is generally conducted on a time -based rotation. Mr. Burns asked if the remote sensing will fly over the entire Intertie on an annual basis. Mr. Sinclair agreed. Mr. Burns inquired as to the advantages for collecting the data every year, rather than every other year. Mr. Sinclair explained the intent of the seven-year cycle is that each section will be cleared and the data points will be collected annually to show the growth rate, health of the trees, and impending danger trees for each section. He noted that the cost scenario presented is the highest range and there is a possibility that the actual costs could be lower. After the data is collected, the vendor will provide a report of their recommendation. Mr. Burns suggested the consideration of conducting the remote sensing every other year. A determination could be made later if it is best to conduct the remote sensing annually. Mr. Sinclair explained that a certain number of data points need to be collected over time in order to compile the report. Mr. Price requested information regarding additional benefits that the data could provide beyond the vegetative aspects. Mr. Sinclair informed that the data will assist with inspections and assessments of possible structural issues, including insulators and low wires. He noted that the LIDAR provides positioning of the structures and the remote sensing would also provide the positioning of structures. Mr. Burns asked if the annual remote sensing replaces the current LIDAR. Mr. Sinclair informed that there is currently a complete LIDAR model of the line. The only time the LIDAR would need to be updated is if a structure is replaced. Mr. Sinclair does not believe that remote sensing has the point density to be utilized for the design aspect of the line. Mr. Burns asked if any action needs to be taken at today's meeting. Chair Jenkin asked for the will of the Committee on how to move forward. He discussed that the intent is to approve a formal clearing plan. He does not see any issues with the clearing cycles presented in the proposed plan. Chair Jenkin noted that further discussion will occur while reviewing the budget to decide how much of the technology to use, at what cost, and at what frequency. He suggested the possibility of approving the clearing cycle and the budget, and then working over the course of the year to answer further questions regarding the flyover, frequency, identification of the health of the trees, and width of the identification span within or outside of the right-of-way. IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 4 MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Burns to adopt the Intertie Vegetation Management Plan, as submitted, for placement in the budget this year and to request the IOC to evaluate best practices in assessment and effective clearing. Motion seconded by Vice -Chair Laughlin. Mr. Burns expressed concerns regarding the plan, but he wants to move the process forward and include the plan in the budget this year. He shared GVEA's experience that adhering to a clearing cycle does not make sense because growth rates are dramatically different in certain areas. GVEA assesses the areas and realigns the clearing efforts to address the highest priority issues first. Mr. Burns requested that the IOC evaluate best practices regarding the assessment of the Intertie and regarding the most effective manner of clearing. Chair Jenkin informed that MEA sees growth rates that are significantly lower in the northern part of the system than in other parts of the system. MEA's clearing cycles vary from five to seven years based upon the physically observed growth rates by the clearing inspectors and arborists. He expressed support for a more scientific approach. Chair Jenkin noted that the majority of MEA's tree outages are from outside the easement. He would like additional information regarding the significance of the issue based upon the clearing width and the height of the vegetation on the side. Chair Jenkin expressed support for the motion, with an understanding that continued updates will be given and that more clarity will be provided prior to approving the next budget cycle and the next flyover. Mr. Burns explained that the motion does not approve the plan for seven years. It provides a good start and a good basis. The expectation is that evaluation will continue to determine best practices and improvements. Vice -Chair Laughlin echoed Chair Jenkin's sentiments regarding clearing and following annual cycles. He highlighted the surprise occurrences of danger trees falling in from outside the cleared right-of-ways. Vice -Chair Laughlin believes there is value in taking the scientific approach in identifying danger trees and implementing early mitigation. He is supportive of the motion and of reviewing the approach and benefits annually within the budget. Mr. Price asked if an overall width was identified as to how far beyond the right-of-way the cameras can view. Mr. Sinclair noted that he will verify the actual span width and provide the information. He explained that the usual width is a couple hundred feet on either side of the right-of-way. Mr. Price expressed support for the budgeted amount. He discussed the importance of ROI. The higher the cost/benefit, the easier the funding will be in the future. Mr. Burns commented on the importance of understanding the danger trees and the magnitude of the impact of the trees falling from outside of the right-of-way into the line. He noted that type of information and data would be valuable for current legislation under review. Understanding what percentage of the trees are falling from outside of the right-of-way is useful because there should be no liability for those occurrences. A roll call was taken, and the motion to approve the Intertie Vegetation Management Plan, as submitted, was approved unanimously. IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 5 7A. FY24 IMC Budget Mark Ziesmer, AEA, gave a high-level review of the proposed FY24 IMC Budget. Total expenses for FY24 are $3,724,200. This is an increase of about $1.2 million from FY23. Much of the increase can be explained within two sections of the budget. The first section is FERC 569 of $740,000 related to reinsulation of structures. The second section is FERC 571 and the increases related to the listed maintenance, repairs, and clearing. To counter the increases, there is a reduction under FERC 571 for equipment repair and replacement related to the completion of the marker ball project in the summer. Mr. Ziesmer informed that there is a reduction in administrative expenses of approximately $50,000. The Miscellaneous Transmission Expense was less for FY24. The potential increase for the synchrophaser discussed at today's meeting is not included in the budget. Mr. Ziesmer emphasized that revenues are a function of expenses. One of the drivers of calculating the revenues for FY24 is the level of operating expenses. Operating expenses have increased; therefore, the required revenue has increased as well. He reviewed the summary of the revenue, including usage, capacity, and admin, totaling $4,724,189. Mr. Ziesmer noted that the amount of usage projected for FY24 is less than FY23 by approximately 180 MWH, but because the operating expenses are higher, the total cost increases, which increases the total revenues. The total expenses, including both operating and administrative, is $4,440,200. The planned surplus is $283,989. Mr. Price indicated that there was an error on the Miscellaneous Transmission Expense line item. The total of $466,000 should be approximately $254,000. He provided supporting documents to members that summarize the three planned studies that were requested by the IOC to the SSS Committee. There is an additional $12,000 that should be included within the line item for SSS travel expenses to the Lower 48 for a trip related to research on best practices. Mr. Price explained that the $230,000 amount included for the Proposed Synchrophaser System in FY23 would move to FY24, and the total amount would be $250,000, as discussed earlier. If approved, the new total for all line items within Miscellaneous Transmission Expense is $516,000, rather than $466,000. Mr. Burns commented that the FY24 budget increased approximately $1.2 million from FY23. He asked to know the MWH rate increase that corresponds to the budget increase. Chair Jenkin indicated that the capacity rate is 3.94. Mr. Price explained that the capacity rate and the usage rate will remain the same because the operating expenses are not changing. The admin expenses have increased. Chair Jenkin indicated that the rate is about 12.4 cents per MWH. Chair Jenkin requested Dan Bishop, GVEA, provide updated cost estimates from the project engineer. Mr. Bishop discussed the additional cost estimate details for the Cantwell switch replacement line item under FERC 570 Maintenance of Station Equipment. The $156,000 cost has increased to approximately $320,000. Chair Jenkin veriAed that all of the projects within the budget have been vetted by the IOC as necessary. Mr. Burns explained that the budget, as presented today, is for posting for public IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 6 comment. He noted that additional discussion will occur regarding line items related to re - insulating the 115 kV section of line to 138 W. Mr. Jenkin gave a brief history of the issue and he read the concluding statement by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) indicating there is no requirement to reinsulate. He informed that there is a Topic One application for federal funding which includes the reconstruction of the 115 kV line to a 230 kV line. The recommendation from the utilities is for the line to operate at 230 W. Mr. Burns suggested that a budget amount is proposed for the cost of reconstruction of the 115 kV line to a 230 kV line, rather than reinsulating the 115 kV section to 138 W. The SSS has been tasked to review how a 230 kV line affects transfer limits on the Intertie. The SSS will not be involved with design of the 230 kV line. A cost estimate for the design is expected to be acquired and presented by the next meeting. Vice -Chair Laughlin requested additional information regarding the federal application. The process was reviewed. The concept paper was submitted and accepted. The application phase is underway. If the application is selected, then the negotiation process will begin. The determination of grant funding is expected by the end of the year. Joel Paisner, Ascent Law Partners, was requested to advise on the action that needs to be taken today regarding the budget. Mr. Paisner recommended that the IMC consider a motion to authorize the posting of the budget. It is not a final budget, and it is appropriate to continue the discussions. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Burns to post the budget, as submitted. Motion seconded by Vice -Chair Laughlin. Mr. Burns commented that he understands that this is not a final budget and additional discussion will continue regarding the best course of action moving forward. Mr. Paisner explained that the budget will be posted and will receive comments for 30 days. He informed that Chair Jenkin's comments will be incorporated into the general comments and will be addressed in the final adoption of the budget. This is the beginning of the budget process. Chair Jenkin noted that the budget will go out for public comment, as presented. Before finalization of the budget, the IOC will discuss the comments, including the line items of the Cantwell breaker amount, synchrophasers funding, and reinsulation of the necessary portions of the 138 kV line. No special meetings need to be called. A roll call was taken, and the motion to post the budget, as submitted, was approved unanimously. 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS Chair Jenkin requested to postpone Committee Reports until the next meeting. There was no objection. IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 7 9A. Budget to Actuals Report 9B. IOC Report 9C. Operator's Report 10. MEMBER COMMENTS Vice -Chair Laughlin expressed appreciation for the reports. He looks forward to the next meeting and to the additional information regarding the reinsulation. Mr. Burns acknowledged the effort in preparing and providing the reports as soon as possible for review in order to engage in meaningful dialog. He recognized the importance of the issues discussed. He suggested the possibility of extending the meeting time longer than an hour when significant items are up for approval. Mr. Price commented that the synchrophaser ROI information is included in the provided report. Chair Jenkin expressed appreciation for the efforts in reviewing the issues to develop the best and most reasonable budget for the operation of the Intertie. 11. NEXT MEETING DATE — May 5, 2023 Chair Jenkin informed that the next meeting is May 5, 2023. There were no questions. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the IMC, the meeting adjourned at 10:14 a.m. /Zt- Ed Jenkin, Chdir (;Bill4Pce, A §8cretary IMC Meeting Minutes — March 24, 2023 8