Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023.07.28 IMC Executed Minutes IMC Meeting Minutes – July 28, 2023 1 Alaska Intertie Management Committee (IMC) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Friday, July 28, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Andrew Laughlin called the meeting of the Alaska Intertie Management Committee to order on July 28, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. A quorum was established. 2. ROLL CALL FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS Members present: Jon 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: Sunny Morrison (Accu-Type Depositions); Jennifer Bertolini (AEA); Bryan Carey (AEA); Pamela Ellis (AEA); Michael Korniczky (AEA); Mark Ziesmer (AEA); 9Joel Paisner (Ascent Law Partners); Mike Miller (CEA); Russell Thornton (CEA); Dan Bishop (GVEA); Nathan Minnema (GVEA) (arrived late); and David Pease (MEA). 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – None 5. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Burns to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Price. The agenda was approved without objection. 6. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MINUTES – June 23, 2023 Chair Laughlin requested that the following corrections are made to the Minutes; the first paragraph of 9B states “Chair Jenkin” and should be replaced with “Chair Laughlin”; the second paragraph of 9C has a typographical error that “censor” should be corrected as “sensor”. There were no objections to the amendments. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Burns to approve the Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2023. Motion seconded by Mr. Sinclair. The Minutes of June 23, 2023 were approved without objection. IMC Meeting Minutes – July 28, 2023 2 A member expressed sincere appreciation to the contractor responsible for preparing the comprehensive minutes. He highlighted that the references allow members to understand the data presented at the meeting and also provide an account of information that requires additional follow-up. He reiterated his gratitude for the great job. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7A. Annual Meeting and Election of Officers A member requested Joel Paisner, Ascent Law Partners, explain the process of officer elections. Mr. Paisner informed that the officer positions listed in the Bylaws are Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. By tradition and consent, AEA has always served as Secretary, and the Chair and Vice-Chair positions have rotated annually through the membership. The previous rotation was represented by MEA as Chair and CEA as Vice-Chair. Currently, CEA is Chair and GVEA will serve as Vice-Chair. Mr. Burns asked Chair Laughlin if he is willing and able to continue the position of Chair. Chair Laughlin agreed, and inquired likewise of him for serving as Vice-Chair. Mr. Burns agreed. Mr. Paisner informed that the nomination motion could be made individually or as a slate of nominees. MOTION: Mr. Sinclair made a motion to nominate and approve Mr. Laughlin, CEA, as Chair and Mr. Burns, GVEA, as Vice-Chair. Motion seconded by Mr. Price. The motion was approved without objection. A comment was made that the term of service aligns with the fiscal year (FY), which is through the end of June 2024. 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8A. Budget to Actuals Chair Laughlin requested Mark Ziesmer, AEA, to provide the Budget to Actuals Report for the period ending June 30, 2023. Mr. Ziesmer advised that the report presented today is a draft report. Accounts payable will be open until mid-August as a means to capture as many FY23 costs as possible. There are additional items that have been received that are not yet reflected in the report. Actual total revenues were less than budgeted by approximately $957,619, primarily due to lower than anticipated energy usage. Actual operating expenses were less than budgeted by $2,075,453, due to lower than anticipated costs for miscellaneous transmission expenses, maintenance of overhead lines, and right-of-way clearing. Actual total administrative expenses were less than budgeted by $39,219, due to lower than anticipated costs year-to-date. The IMC Meeting Minutes – July 28, 2023 3 result is a surplus of $1,351,936, which is an increase of approximately $307,451 from the final surplus of FY22. However, Mr. Ziesmer identified approximately $988,000 in invoices that have not been included in the report since it was drafted, thus decreasing the surplus amount. The invoices are from MEA of approximately $164,000, and from the maintenance of overhead lines Marker Ball Project of approximately $824,000. Additionally, there are expected costs from AEA that will be included in the final report. A member requested information regarding the items included in the Marker Ball Project invoice. Mr. Ziesmer advised there were a variety of items associated, including a study, FERC 571 costs, and other categories. Mr. Sinclair noted that the included inverter-based resources (IBR) study was approximately $125,000, and the marker balls were approximately $800,000. Mr. Ziesmer reiterated that the books will be open through July. He has asked for all invoices to be provided by the August 7th deadline. A member asked Mr. Ziesmer if he expects that the surplus will be approximately $200,000 in the final report. Mr. Ziesmer estimates the final surplus to be in the range of $350,000. Vice-Chair Burns stated that he is glad the expenses are being incurred, rather than having a large surplus associated with maintenance and other categories. Mr. Ziesmer agreed that the issue is with the timing of the invoices. Vice-Chair Burns expressed concern that the revenue was down 25% because the ability to receive energy at the intertie has been reduced, and not because it cannot be transmitted or that there are no buyers. He referenced a chart that shows the months of decreased purchases and noted that the energy was not available. Vice-Chair Burns commented that he believes the issue has been ameliorated and suggested that the Committee be actively aware of the issue going forward to ensure no deficits occur. Vice-Chair Burns expressed appreciation for the report and complimented staff’s efforts. There were no other comments or questions. 8B. IOC Report Chair Laughlin requested Mr. Sinclair present the Intertie Management Committee (IOC) Report. Mr. Sinclair gave an overview of the underfrequency load shed (UFLS) event that occurred on June 17. He indicated that Russel Thornton, CEA, will provide additional information in the Operator’s Report. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the IOC directed the Dispatch Subcommittee to prioritize and work with the System Studies Subcommittee (SSS) on the spin allocation and scheduling policies. The recent UFLS events indicate that the spin allocation and scheduling policies are unproductive. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the SSS is performing several studies, including the Synchrophaser IMC Meeting Minutes – July 28, 2023 4 Project, which will safely and securely move data from the SCADA systems to a cloud-based system. Integration with EPG is expected to occur in the first quarter of next year. Mr. Sinclair noted that the IBR study is in the data collection phase. The agreement for the communication upgrade between Anchorage and Douglas is expected to be signed today. Mr. Sinclair noted that the scope for the second phase of the project between Douglas and Healy is being led by GVEA. He believes that part of the project could partially be funded by AEA. Chair Laughlin asked if the draft policy is expected to be completed by the September IMC meeting. Mr. Sinclair agreed. Chair Laughlin asked if his understanding is correct that the policy will address the quality of the spin and the allocation of the spin among the operational units. Mr. Sinclair agreed and discussed the different components that will be considered, including batteries. Vice-Chair Burns asked if Homer Electric Association’s (HEA) battery will be included in the equation. Mr. Sinclair agreed. He noted that HEA’s battery has historically and consistently contributed approximately 10 MW of fast spin. Vice-Chair Burns inquired if the various ongoing studies are being synchronized and integrated so that there are not disparate pieces of information. Mr. Sinclair noted the legitimacy of that concern. He discussed that a shared site has been created for the modeling data information of all three studies to ensure that the input data and assumptions are the same and consistent throughout. If the assumptions are different, then an understanding of why the assumptions are different will be communicated. Monitoring will continue. Vice-Chair Burns asked if there is overlap between the studies. Discussion occurred regarding the importance of specific oversight of the clear objectives and critical factors of the studies to promote synergy and to address any gaps. Vice-Chair Burns suggested that the IOC or another appropriate committee develop consistent protocols for the studies to follow and to specifically identify overlapping information in order to maximize the value of each of the studies. Mr. Sinclair noted that the IOC’s SSS contracted with National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL) for the IBR study. The other two studies are outside of the IOC, and he has no official authority, however, he can discuss these considerations and request the data information that was utilized. Mr. Sinclair believes that request is reasonable, and he can include the information within the report provided to the IMC. Vice-Chair Burns emphasized the importance of sharing study information that regards the Intertie. He reiterated his request for the IOC to create protocols for the studies that include notification of the objectives and the assumptions of the studies. Vice-Chair Burns discussed that Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) is conducting a decarbonization study that could potentially have a significant impact, but there is no information regarding their objectives, assumptions, costs, or impacts. He expressed support for additional understanding at the onset of studies in order to contribute and to collaborate so that the final product is as useful as possible. Mr. Price echoed his support for the suggestion to have a standard procedure and description IMC Meeting Minutes – July 28, 2023 5 for the studies. He commented on the shared goal that the studies and the utilities are seeking accurate data. Mr. Price inquired specifically about the scope and status of the 230 kV impact study, which is not included in the report. Mr. Sinclair explained that the original focus for the study was upgrading the Alaska Intertie from Teeland to Healy to 230 kV. The study would include cost assessment and an understanding of the capacity and stability limits. The study group then presented the possibility of expanding the focus of the study to consider the effects of simultaneously upgrading the line to Homer to 230 kV. Mr. Sinclair noted that discussion occurred at the last study group meeting, and Homer Electric Association (HEA) presented concerns and was not willing to financially participate. No decision was made on expanding the scope of the study. He did not include the 230 kV in his report since the study has not been finalized. Mr. Sinclair will update the IMC as developments are made. Vice-Chair Burns asked if the 230 kV line upgrade was part of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) applications. Mr. Sinclair explained that the 230 kV study is a technical study that analyzes capacity and stability related to spin and considers the impacts the upgrades would have on the system. Vice-Chair Burns asked for additional explanation regarding how HEA, who is not a member of the IMC, can impede the 230 kV study. Mr. Sinclair noted that if the study includes the southern portion of the line that is within HEA’s service territory, then additional discussions would have to occur requesting HEA’s contribution. Vice-Chair Burns commented that the 230 kV impact study from Teeland to Healy needs to occur irrespective of the decision of HEA. He suggested focusing on the issues within the northern section of the Intertie first, and considering additional upgrades at a later point. Mr. Sinclair agreed, and noted the IOC discussed those scenarios at their previous meeting. The IOC meeting time concluded before a decision was made on how to move forward. Mr. Price explained that there are three different options to consider regarding the HEA debate. He discussed that many of the GRIP proposals lack the technical and engineering studies to support the decision, and the 230 kV study will help address those issues. There were no other comments or questions. 8C. Operator’s Report Chair Laughlin invited Mr. Thornton, CEA, to discuss the Operator’s Report. Mr. Thornton informed that the loading on the Intertie for FY23 increased by 13.47%. This was led by GVEA’s increase in usage over the same period of 14.5%. No trips have occurred on the Alaska Intertie since the last meeting. However, there have been several generation trips and oscillation events, as shown in the report, which are most likely due to a control interaction. Mr. Thornton discussed that CEA identified that one of the participants in the oscillation event on June 22 was the SPP plant, and in order to mitigate this, Sullivan Unit 7 was started. On June 24, Sullivan Unit 7 tripped and caused the UFLS event. Subsequently, there have been three other trip events and substantive responses. Mr. Thornton gave a detailed review of the sequence of events related to the Sullivan Unit 7 trip and discussed the information shown in the frequency plots. Mr. Thornton noted that the Intertie was open during the event. All of CEA’s spin, which includes the IMC Meeting Minutes – July 28, 2023 6 spin for what would have been ML&P’s share, was allocated to Unit 7. The loss of spin was substantial. The remaining units online were EGS, Plant 2A, Nikiski, and the HEA battery. Within the arrest period, the battery provided its expected 10 MW. The remaining units underperformed their spin requirement, which indicates quality of spin issues. Mr. Thornton discussed the issues and recommended that a review is conducted from an allocation perspective. Chair Laughlin asked Mr. Thornton if he believes the previous discussion regarding the IOC and the Dispatch Subcommittee addressing policy for spin allocation and responsiveness of the units will address the issues that occurred during the June 24 event. Mr. Thornton agreed. He explained that the Quality of Spin Study conducted by the SSS is driving the policy that is being developed. That study examined quality of spin and certain conditions, such as the Intertie being open. The study did not examine allocation of spin or the impacts of changes to the Railbelt. The study did not consider whether modifications should be made and under what conditions they should be made. Vice-Chair Burns asked if these matters, including the quality of the spin and the amount of the spin, are being addressed through the IOC and will be included in the next report. Mr. Thornton informed that he recently spoke to a member of the SSS Committee and to the Chair of the Dispatch Committee and they are making progress on a draft report. Vice-Chair Burns requested Mr. Thornton discuss the potential impacts and risks to the Railbelt from these increasing events. Mr. Thornton commented that the worst case risk is going dark across the Railbelt, especially since the new group of workers have not experienced going dark and such a significant event. Chair Laughlin agreed that a cascading failure and a Railbelt-wide blackout is the worst case scenario. He recognized that the protection controls have made progress. He noted that these events have become more frequent in the last year. Chair Laughlin reiterated the request to the IOC, SSS, and Dispatch Subcommittee to bring to the September meeting a draft policy that will help manage the assets and allocate spin reserve. Mr. Sinclair commented on another factor that not only are the units smaller, but the units do not provide inertia. The step function shown in the report illustrates the result of light units that have no inertia. The events are sudden, with no time for recovery because there are no larger units with inertia that can handle the initial event. Vice-Chair Burns asked if the study would include the IBR event. He assumed that the quality of spin is also dependent on what units are available. Mr. Thornton discussed that the main thrust of the IBR study is to establish the net impact. It will review the further loss of inertia from additional inverter generation sources and ways to mitigate the loss of inertia. Mr. Thornton added to Mr. Sinclair’s comments that the generators are capable of far less than the spin that is on them. He gave the example that an SPP unit may be online with 15 MW of spin, but the response within a two-second arrest period is only about 5 MW. The draft policy will convey the capability and response of each generator and how to allocate fast spin. Mr. Thornton noted