Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023.06.23 IMC Executed MinutesIMC Meeting Minutes – June 23, 2023 1 Alaska Intertie Management Committee (IMC) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Friday, June 23, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Andrew Laughlin called the meeting of the Alaska Intertie Management Committee to order on June 23, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. A quorum was established. 2. ROLL CALL FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS Members present: John Sinclair (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: Betty Caudle (Accu-Type Depositions); Joel Paisner (Ascent Law Partners); Jennifer Bertolini (AEA); Bryan Carey (AEA); Pamela Ellis (AEA); Ryan McLaughlin (AEA); Michael Korniczky (AEA); Mark Ziesmer (AEA); Russell Thornton (CEA); and Dan Bishop (GVEA). 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – None 5. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Price to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Sinclair. The agenda was approved without objection. 6. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MINUTES – May 5, 2023 MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Sinclair to approve the Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2023. Motion seconded by Mr. Price. The Minutes of May 5, 2023 were approved without objection. 7. NEW BUSINESS – None 8. OLD BUSINESS – None IMC Meeting Minutes – June 23, 2023 2 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9A. Budget to Actuals Report Chair Laughlin requested Mark Ziesmer, AEA, to discuss the Budget to Actuals Report for the period ending May 31, 2023. Actual total revenues were less than budgeted by approximately $867,000, primarily due to lower than anticipated energy usage. Actual operating expenses were less than budgeted by $1,856,621, mostly due to lower than anticipated costs for miscellaneous transmission studies, maintenance of overhead lines, Marker Ball Project, and right-of-way clearing. Actual total administrative expenses were less than budgeted by $59,505, due to lower than anticipated costs for administrative efforts year-to-date. Mr. Ziesmer explained that the highlighted sections are revisions to the report submitted to the Budget Subcommittee. The revisions include costs that should have been included in the Maintenance Section. Mr. Ziesmer discussed that the current surplus is $1,315,179, which is an increase of approximately $271,000 over last year. There is one month remaining in the fiscal year and there is at least one outstanding invoice. Mr. Ziesmer believes the surplus will be in line with last year’s surplus of $1,044,485. Mr. Burns asked for staff insight regarding the reasons for the surpluses year-over-year. He noted that the intent of budget planning is to budget as closely as possible to the anticipated costs, rather than carrying large surpluses. Mr. Ziesmer believes the surpluses relate to the work budget and the timing of the completion of the projects. He gave the example that work completed in early summer is invoiced later in the summer through the fall, which is the next fiscal year. Mr. Ziesmer discussed the possibility of treating the large and long-term O&M efforts similar to large capital projects so that the planning process occurs, and the costs are placed in the year that matches the fiscal year. Mr. Burns requested staff to consider ways to shape the budget that is more in line with anticipated expenses. Mr. Ziesmer agreed. Mr. Sinclair noted that the Marker Ball Project is underway and has not yet been expensed in the budget. Additionally, the study on inverter-based resources (IBR) is open and has not been expensed in the budget. Mr. Price asked for the historical average of IMC’s budget surpluses over the years and what amount of surplus would Mr. Ziesmer consider healthy. Mr. Ziesmer believes the surplus in the last four to five years has averaged about the same as last year. He discussed that it is best to have a low surplus amount. Mr. Burns inquired as to how the IMC can help the process of the long-term O&M or capital projects without micromanaging the utilities. Mr. Sinclair gave an example that currently, MEA is working with GVEA on a joint clearing for the entire line to maximize cost savings. The plan went before the Intertie Operating Committee (IOC) and was assigned to the Operations IMC Meeting Minutes – June 23, 2023 3 Subcommittee, who has authorization to move forward under the specific utility’s procurement process. Mr. Burns recommended that the IMC urge the IOC to review their protocols to ensure project schedules are managed as best as possible. He noted that the Marker Ball Project delays, for instance, have a significant impact. Mr. Burns suggested that any project lag is immediately reported to the IMC and explanations are provided. He highlighted that his comments are not criticism and thanked the IOC. Chair Laughlin noted that Mr. Sinclair is the Chair of the IOC. He recommended that the IOC review the protocols. Mr. Sinclair agreed, and noted that the subcommittees are aware of project timelines and provide updates regarding project activity. He explained that the Marker Ball Project was delayed due to operation reasons and constraints on the system that would not allow for the outage. The project was divided into two portions. Mr. Sinclair commented that there is an active effort to achieve the budget targets and timeline. There were no other comments or questions. 9B. IOC Report Chair Laughlin requested Mr. Sinclair present the IOC Report. Mr. Sinclair advised that an underfrequency load shed event occurred on May 16. He indicated that Russel Thornton, CEA, will provide additional information in the Operator’s Report. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the System Studies Subcommittee (SSS) is moving forward with the Synchrophaser Project. Coordination with the utilities is ongoing regarding the integration with EPG’s cloud-based platform. The project will continue beyond this budget year and infrastructure will be installed at the utilities. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the IBR study will review the effects of any inverter-based resource on the Railbelt. The budget for that study spans 2023 and 2024. An additional study is being finalized regarding the impacts of upgrading the Northern Intertie to 230 kV. Mr. Sinclair informed that the SCADA and Telecommunications Subcommittee is reviewing a communication infrastructure project between Anchorage and Douglas. A proposal has been submitted and an agreement is pending. The capital costs will be funded by AEA. The annual maintenance is estimated at $20,000, and will be included in IMC’s budget. There is a proposal for a Phase II communication infrastructure project from Douglas to Healy that would have its own annual maintenance costs. Mr. Sinclair will provide additional information as the project develops. He expressed support for both of the initiatives. Mr. Sinclair reiterated that the Marker Ball Project installation is ongoing and is expected to continue through the middle of July. This project is overseen by the Operations, Maintenance & Scheduling Subcommittee. A member asked for the timeline for the SCADA and telecom work for Douglas. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the hope was for the work to be completed this calendar year. Once the agreement is signed, the completion time is estimated at six months, depending on availability IMC Meeting Minutes – June 23, 2023 4 of materials. Mr. Price commented that both parties are present, and he is hopeful that the agreement can be signed today. The procurement process and timeline would then begin. He gave the caveat that AEA may only be able to fund Phase 1 and the funding for Phase 2 will be sought elsewhere. Chair Laughlin commented that one of the parties may need another week of review. Mr. Burns expressed appreciation to Mr. Price for AEA’s efforts and collaboration on the study. Mr. Burns complimented Jennifer Bertolini, AEA, and staff on the robust minutes regarding the synchrophaser dialog. He commented that he did not participate in the dialog, but was able to glean an understanding of the tensions and the overall benefits of the program by reading the minutes. Mr. Burns is excited the program is moving forward. Regarding the IBR study, he requested more information on the timeline of the scope of work. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the expectation is to execute the contract of the multi-year phased project before the end of the 2023 budget year, which is next week. He explained that next year’s funding will produce a draft report describing the current system and the system stability at 60% penetration of inverter- based resources, including wind and solar. Funding to complete the study that will examine the system stability at up to 80% penetration will be authorized annually. Mr. Burns commented on the sense of urgency regarding the study in understanding the physics and the parameters of the system, in light of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) bills that are incurred each year. He highlighted the benefits of accelerating the completion of the study. Mr. Sinclair agreed. There were no other comments or questions. 9C. Operator’s Report Chair Laughlin invited Mr. Thornton to discuss the Operator’s Report. Mr. Thornton noted that both the Operator’s Report and the draft report of the underfrequency load shed event are included in the packet. The draft report will be updated and revised as additional understanding of the event is gained. Through May of this year, energy usage has increased 16.62% compared to the same time period last year. No trips have occurred on the Alaska Intertie within the last quarter. There have been several system reliability and reportable events within the last quarter, including atypical oscillations on the southern end of the system and a Bradley Lake trip at 54 MW. The report includes a graphic of the oscillation event. Mr. Thornton explained that the precipitating event for the underfrequency load shed was the unit trip of Healy 2, due to a loss of a sensor in the combustor. He gave a detailed review of the system response data. Mr. Thornton discussed that GVEA has taken corrective action to replace the sensor. He noted that MEA is reviewing potential ways to mitigate the overload tripping that occurred. Mr. Thornton commented that this event highlights the need to complete the study regarding the effects of allocating spin to the generation. Chair Laughlin asked if his understanding is correct that the unique response noted at 4.8 MW/0.1 Hz was caused by the quality of the spin from the units that were online. Mr. Thornton agreed. He emphasized the importance of completing the policy work that allows utilities to IMC Meeting Minutes – June 23, 2023 5 measure the capability of the generation on the Railbelt and to include a rest period spin within the dispatch schedules. Chair Laughlin requested Mr. Sinclair comment on the assignment of the proposed draft standard. Mr. Sinclair reviewed that the SSS has been assigned to review and draft a policy. He agreed with the assessment of Mr. Thornton on the importance of a policy to understand what units can provide the spin in the time that it is needed. Mr. Sinclair explained that the system is a light inertia system. It is necessary to either have units online that can recover quickly or to have an energy source that can provide a quick response to ensure adequate and quality spin. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the study assessments and efforts will be ongoing as the system changes and new units, such as wind, solar, or battery are brought online. A member commented that the occurrence was a good example of an N-1-1 event, in that the precipitating event of the loss of the censor at Healy was disparate to the failure at Eklutna that occurred within seconds. He reiterated the importance of restoring the system as quickly as possible to prepare for other events. Chair Laughlin asked Mr. Sinclair to discuss the timeline of the proposed draft standard. Mr. Sinclair indicated the assignment was recently made and there is not a prescribed timeline. He will provide additional information at the next meeting. Mr. Burns expressed appreciation for the report and suggested that page numbers are added. He requested that the report contain a section providing recommendations based on the findings. Mr. Burns asked if this study is connected to the IBR study. A member agreed. Mr. Burns requested that the report include a holistic view of the expected standards and protocols for the Railbelt as a whole as new generation sources are being considered. Mr. Thornton discussed that CEA performed the analysis in response to a request by the IOC. He expects that the IOC will work to provide a recommendation and finalize the report. Mr. Sinclair agreed. He noted that the initial study will concentrate on the immediate needs of the current system. Additional studies will occur when other sources such as wind or solar are brought on. Mr. Thornton continued the report and discussed that the typical oscillation mode has a period of about one second. He noted that the plot provided in the report shows that the power flow is not a sinusoid, and the period is five seconds long, which is five times longer than normal. Mr. Thornton noted that five seconds is one second longer than the SCADA controls. He informed that CEA has commissioned EPS to examine the oscillation mode and they determined that it is an interaction of control systems between units in the Anchorage area and Bradley Lake. Mitigation steps are currently being taken to resolve the short-term issue and analysis will continue to provide a long-term solution. Mr. Burns requested that updates related to the progress of the studies are given at each IMC meeting. There was agreement.