Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-21 IMC Meeting MinutesIMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 1 Alaska Intertie Management Committee (IMC) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Friday, March 21, 2025 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Dan Bishop called the meeting of the Alaska Intertie Management Committee to order on March 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 2.ROLL CALL FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS Members present: Dan Bishop (Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)); Tony Zellers (Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)); Andrew Laughlin (Chugach Electric Association (CEA)); and Bill Price (Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)). A quorum was established. 3.PUBLIC ROLL CALL Public present: Jennifer Bertolini (AEA); Mark Billingsley (AEA); Bryan Carey (AEA); Patrick Domitrovich (AEA); Pamela Ellis (AEA); Mark Ziesmer (AEA); Joel Paisner (Ascent Law Partners); Mike Miller (CEA); Nathan Minnema (GVEA); Keith Palchikoff (GVEA); Sarah Villalon (GVEA); Larry Jorgensen (HEA); Lance McKimson (MEA); David Pease (MEA); Jon Sinclair (MEA); Julian Jensen (Public); Bernie Smith (Public); and John Bell (Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC)). 4.AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Zellers to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Laughlin. Mr. Price requested to add to the agenda a discussion regarding the potential effects of volcanic ash. Chair Bishop suggested adding Item 7B. Volcanic Ash. There was no objection to the friendly amendment. The amended agenda, including Item 7B. Volcanic Ash, was approved without objection. 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS John Bell, Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC), commented that he is available to speak on issues that will be discussed during the Intertie Operating Committee (IOC) report related to a request the RRC made to the Systems Studies Subcommittee (SSS) and a request to join Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Power Simulation and Engineering (PSSE) license agreement. Mr. Bell indicated that he is available during this meeting to provide additional information, if requested by the Committee. IMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 2 Chair Bishop stated that he made note of Mr. Bell’s remarks, and looks forward to hearing his comments. There were no other public comments. 6. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MINUTES – January 17, 2025, February 14, 2025, and February 18, 2025 MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Price to approve the Minutes of January 17, 2025, February 14, 2025, and February 18, 2025, with clerical edits. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Zellers. The Minutes of January 17, 2025, February 14, 2025, and February 18, 2025, with clerical edits, were approved without objection. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7A. FY26 Budget Chair Bishop thanked the IOC members and AEA for submitting the budget in a timely manner. He requested comments from members. Vice Chair Zellers noted that he was happy to see that the budget has been reduced. He hopes that the budget reflects a more realistic vision of what can be accomplished during the year. Mr. Price commented on the schedule, and noted that the IMC has a little over a month to review the proposed budget. The plan is to publish the budget at the next IMC meeting on May 2, 2025, for the 30-day period, and to approve the budget at the following IMC meeting on June 20, 2025. Mr. Laughlin echoed Vice Chair Zellers’ comments of appreciation that the budget has been reduced. He indicated that there is typically a surplus at the end of the year, and that currently, there is a budgeted surplus. Mr. Laughlin asked if it is the will of the Committee to maintain that budgeted surplus or if the Committee thinks the budget is realistic to meet the target this year. Mr. Price asked Mr. Laughlin if he is referring to the projected surplus of $236,000. Mr. Laughlin agreed. Mr. Price indicated that particular number is calculated in the spreadsheet. It is not necessarily budgeting for a surplus. Mr. Price noted that Mark Ziesmer, AEA, could provide additional information regarding the spreadsheet calculations. Mr. Price explained that the spreadsheet balances the projected revenue and the projected expenses. The surplus is a function of the numbers, rather than a targeted number. Chair Bishop asked if consideration should be taken to eliminate the projected surplus. Mr. Price suggested there could be language to target a zero surplus. However, he does not know the level of difficulty to effectuate the spreadsheet reflecting a zero surplus, and he does not know IMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 3 the level of gain that would result from making the surplus line zero. Mr. Price noted that the surplus amount could be relabeled as contingency, rather than surplus. Chair Bishop invited Jon Sinclair, MEA and IOC, to comment. Mr. Sinclair noted that he would not recommend zeroing out the surplus. He explained there are currently two time-sensitive projects: Structure 616 and Douglas. Some funds were included for these projects in next year’s budget. However, depending on material, permitting, and other factors, the funding might overflow. Mr. Sinclair recommended keeping the small amount of surplus. Chair Bishop asked if the insulator and string replacement Teeland to Douglas for $350,000 under FERC 569 is reasonable to defer, considering the reduced Intertie transfers and the high wheeling rate next year. Mr. Sinclair noted he would not recommend removing that line item because it is expected to replace one or two of the structures that need to be replaced in order to install the insulators at 138 kV. There were no other questions. Mr. Price commented that the grant page does not affect the actual IMC budget. The two grants are for the snowload project and for the synchrophasor project. Additionally, a vegetation grant is being sought, and will be added for informational purposes. Mr. Sinclair agreed that the decision on the vegetation grant award is outstanding, which is why it was not included in the initial budget. The estimated cost could be added as pending until the decision is made. Chair Bishop asked for the timeline for the vegetation grant. Mr. Sinclair indicated that he does not have a specific date, and that the decision could take some time. He noted that the funding has not yet been provided for the snowload project grant and the synchrophasor project grant. Chair Bishop asked Mr. Price if he would like to add any comments regarding the status of the two grants. Mr. Price stated that notification has been received that the funding will advance for both of the projects. There were no other comments or questions. 7B. Volcanic Ash Chair Bishop requested Mr. Price address the volcanic ash agenda item. Mr. Price stated that an email from HEA was received recently regarding the ways the southern Intertie static VAR compensators (SVC) will be protected from harm from the consequences of ash. Mr. Price noted for the record that efforts will be made to protect the Intertie’s SVCs, and that additional steps will be taken if an ash cloud occurs. He requested discussion regarding the potential consequences of ash. Chair Bishop asked if it would be appropriate to assign the IOC to develop a plan for ash mitigation. Mr. Price expressed his understanding that if there is an ash cloud, the procedures are to shut down the SVCs, wait for the ash to stop falling, clean up the ash, and then turn the SVCs back on. Mr. Price explained that if no action is taken, there is a potential to fill the SVCs IMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 4 with ash, causing damage. Mr. Price indicated that if members feel this issue should be elevated to the IOC, he would agree. Chair Bishop stated that he cannot speak to the details of how to respond to an ash cloud, and he welcomes comments on the process. Mr. Laughlin recommended that the IOC is assigned to develop a procedural framework for the SVCs in the event of an ash cloud, and to review potential operational impacts. Chair Bishop noted his understanding that the Intertie Operating Procedures have restrictions well established in the case that one or more of the SVCs are shut down. Mr. Sinclair agreed, and noted that the IOC discussed this issue recently. The main factor is the concern that the cooling filters will get clogged and will fail or trip off if they are kept on during an ash event. The recommendation is to shut off the SVCs during the event. Once the event is over, then the SVCs can be cleaned and reactivated. Mr. Sinclair indicated there are limitations as multiple SVCs move offline. He believes if two SVCs are offline, there is a 70% to 80% reduction. Chair Bishop commented that based on his vague recollection of the 1992 eruption, he expects that there would not be much ash effects to the Healy SVC or to the Gold Hill SVC. He asked if the IOC has discussed the likely extent of an ash cloud impact on the Teeland SVC. Mr. Sinclair commented that nobody knows where an ash cloud will land. Yesterday, the Jetstream was blowing north, which prompted concern of continued northern travel. Mr. Laughlin asked Mr. Sinclair if the IOC discussed any other procedures beyond shutting down the SVCs, depending on the ash cloud, and operating the Intertie within the restrictions. Mr. Sinclair agreed there is general consensus of that procedure. Monitoring will also occur. He noted that the IOC did not quantify the amount of ash activity that would initiate the procedure. The SVCs will shut down if they do not have the filtered airflow, and the hope is to take action prior to a shut down. Flows would be reduced if more than one SVC shuts down. Mr. Sinclair informed that the SVCs were not turned off during the ash event in 1992. Mr. Price asked Mr. Sinclair to confirm that all air entering the SVCs is filtered and that the filters are fine enough to catch the ash. Mr. Sinclair commented that he does not know if all of the air is filtered, and he would provide that answer at a later point. Mr. Sinclair explained there are air filters for the cooling. Mr. Laughlin noted that there are two different modes of cooling for the northern and southern Intertie, and the cooling towers for the southern Intertie are outside. He discussed the importance of limiting the corrosive ash fall and taking protective steps to cover the cooling towers. Mr. Price said there seems to be value in the IOC reviewing the procedures and providing IMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 5 feedback. Chair Bishop gave the assignment to the IOC. There were no other comments or questions. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8A. Repairs to Structure 616 Chair Bishop noted that GVEA has issued a purchase order to Electric Power Constructors. Chair Bishop invited Nathan Minnema, GVEA, to report on the repair updates. Mr. Minnema was online, however, but was unavailable at the moment. Chair Bishop requested Mr. Sinclair to provide an update. Mr. Sinclair noted that the IOC discussed this issue. The current tentative plan is to coordinate any outages and construction for both the Douglas control enclosure and Structure 616 for a completion goal in this budget cycle in June. The main issue and contingency is acquiring the steel for the piles for Douglas and the steel base for Structure 616. Mr. Sinclair indicated that Mr. Minnema was back online. Mr. Minnema discussed that the contractor anticipates that the Intertie outage will occur for six to eight days north of Cantwell. The outages will not be coordinated. Cantwell will be serviced from the south during the Structure 616 repair. Separate coordination will occur to ensure power is provided to Cantwell. Mr. Minnema informed that the steel structure has been delayed, and will likely roll into the next fiscal year. Mr. Price commented that requests have been made to track the Structure 616 repair independent of the typical budgetary items. The costs should be charged to the line item entitled Extraordinary Maintenance of Structures. AEA will coordinate with GVEA and the Denali Borough to submit and pursue a request for a disaster declaration from the Governor for the reimbursement of the funds. There were no other comments or questions. 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9A. Budget to Actuals Mr. Ziesmer presented the Budget to Actuals report for the period of July 1, 2024 through February 28, 2025: • Actual revenues were less than budgeted by $341,233 due to lower than anticipated energy usage. • Energy usage reached 123,703 MWH by February 28, 2025, which is less than the budgeted amount by 25,608 MWH. • Interest earned for the period is $90,513. • Actual operating expenses were less than budgeted by $1,923,645. o Several categories have experienced little to no activity so far, resulting in significant underspend variances. o FERC 57000 - Maintenance of Station Equipment, Capacitor Spares had IMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 6 expenditures of $38,499 without an allocated budget. This is mostly due to materials that were ordered in FY24, but not received until the current fiscal year. o FERC 57000 – Maintenance of Station Equipment, Replace Healy Substation Breaker is currently over budget by $52,402, but anticipates that this variance will be offset by the remaining budget by the end of the fiscal year. o FERC 57100 - Maintenance of Overhead Lines.  The Northern Maintenance is over budget by $50,058. No budget was allocated for FY25 for the aerial patrols.  The Special Patrols item exceeded the budget by $9,982, primarily due to emergency line patrols. Expects this will end the year at approximately $4,900 over budget. o FERC 58401 Insurance Premiums exceeded the budget by approximately $11,618, primarily due to the inclusion of the second half of the year’s insurance payments and higher than anticipated insurance rates. No additional insurance costs are expected this year and hat this category will end the year at approximately $4,200 over budget. o Administrative Expenses are under budget by $29,286 primarily due to lower than anticipated payroll and indirect costs. • The current results of revenues and expenses indicate a surplus of $2,488,103. There were no comments or questions. 9B. IOC Report Mr. Sinclair, MEA and Chair of the IOC, presented the IOC Report included in the Committee packet. Mr. Sinclair highlighted that the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget has decreased, and is offset by the decreased estimated usage. The overall kilowatt hour (KWh) cost has increased primarily due to GVEA’s estimated reduction in usage. Mr. Sinclair noted that the FY26 budget was discussed at the previous meeting. Both the Structure 616 line item and the Douglas repairs line item have budgets and will roll into next year. The goal is for the outage at Douglas to occur in June. Updates will be provided as the project moves forward. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the IMC approved the Primary Frequency Response (PFR) policy, and the IOC has conducted several meetings regarding the considerable amount of record keeping associated with the implementation of the PFR. Significant changes have been made, and a rework of the documentation may be necessary after the RRC updates the policy. The IOC requests permission from the IMC to pause implementation until the RRC approve the updates to the policy. Additionally, the IOC requests that the RRC focus on the BAL-002 standard. Mr. Laughlin asked Mr. Sinclair to estimate the amount of time for the delay. Mr. Laughlin noted that there was a sense of urgency last year to pass the policy due to the number of underfrequency loadsheds experienced. Mr. Sinclair explained that the amount of primary frequency response being carried was not so much the concern of implementation, rather it was setting up and recording the performance of generation from the different SCADA departments. IMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 7 He noted that any changes to what needs to be documented will create rework. Participation from the utilities regarding implementation is lacking. Utility attendance at implementation meetings has been sporadic. The concern from the IOC is the rework. If the IMC wants to move forward without the pause, Mr. Sinclair requested that each utility direct their staff to attend the implementation meetings. Chair Bishop asked if his understanding is correct that one of the primary objectives was to give a recommendation to the RRC rather than adopting it into one of the existing reliability standards. Mr. Sinclair agreed that RRC would receive the recommendation to update the policy and the terminology that is referenced in BAL-002. He explained that the utilities are carrying the primary frequency response, but are not documenting how the units are responding. Chair Bishop indicated that he does not recall a motion or a suggestion to the IMC to incorporate this into the existing Railbelt Reliability standards. Vice Chair Zellers believes the current standard references that the IMC will have a policy. He asked Mr. Sinclair if the IMC standard has been filed with the RCA. Mr. Sinclair reported that the old standards were filed in 2012, and the policy had not been created until this effort. Vice Chair Zellers asked if the RRC has filed a standard. Mr. Sinclair indicated that the RRC has not filed a standard. The IMC and the BPMC filed the standard years ago. Vice Chair Zellers asked if his understanding is correct that the IOC is requesting a delay in implementation so that the RCA can approve the standard filed by the RRC. He noted that the docket time could potentially be 180 days, plus the one-year implementation time. Mr. Sinclair agreed, and explained that the current policy and standard are likely to be changed by the RRC and RCA. The request is to pause the implementation until the standard and policy is finalized. Mr. Price expressed his understanding that the policy will change when negotiations are finalized between HEA and others. The actual deadline will not begin until after the RRC approval. Mr. Price understands that the pause is requested for the documentation aspect. He asked Mr. Sinclair if the elevated spin level will remain in effect going forward. Mr. Sinclair agreed. The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) is in place and practically covers the spin by default. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Zellers that the primary frequency response continue forward, but the implementation of the generator recording equipment can be delayed until BAL-002 is approved. Motion seconded by Mr. Laughlin. The motion was approved without objection. Mr. Sinclair discussed that the System Studies Subcommittee (SSS) is expected to provide updates to the 230 kV study next month. The SSS is concurrently working on the inverter based resources (IBR) study, and updates are expected to be communicated in June or July. Mr. Sinclair informed that the RRC has requested to attend the SSS as a nonvoting member, and additionally, the RRC has requested a Power Simulation and Engineering (PSSE) key. The IOC IMC Meeting Minutes – March 21, 2025 8 does not recommend allowing either request, and does not recommend that the RRC is allowed to sit in on any of the IMC subcommittee meetings. Mr. Sinclair noted that the current PSSE key agreement contract is inexpensive. He does not recommend any modifications to the existing contract causing a possible increase in cost. Mr. Sinclair indicated there may be other ways to work with the RRC that does not interfere with the existing contract. Mr. Sinclair asked for feedback from the IMC. Chair Bishop requested Mr. Bell provide his comments. Mr. Bell discussed options regarding the request for the PSSE license. He noted one option is to ask for an additional PSSE key to be added to the license agreement. Another option is to amend the agreement to add the RRC as a party for purposes of allocating a PSSE key without increasing costs. Mr. Bell requested that the IMC allow the IOC to explore a draft amendment to understand the impact to the cost. The RRC’s goal for this request is to be cost efficient and to provide cost savings for the Railbelt utilities and other parties. Mr. Bell indicated that there is no presumption that model data would be given to the RRC in this process. Mr. Bell discussed that the RRC requests that they either attend the SSS meetings or be invited to attend select meetings or portions of some meetings, as needed. This request is a matter of efficiency with respect to related activities. Mr. Bell asked the IMC to consider these requests. Chair Bishop suggested that the IOC direct the SSS to evaluate the cost sharing or possible arrangements regarding the PSSE license, as requested by Mr. Bell. There was no objection. Chair Bishop invited Mr. Bell to the next meetings of the SSS Committee. There was no objection. Chair Bishop asked Council if the SSS meetings are public meetings. An unidentified speaker indicated the SSS meetings are typically not public meetings, unless there is a quorum of the Board attending. He recommended that any discussion at the next SSS meetings begin in executive session to discuss the condition of the attendance. There were no other comments or questions. 9C. Operator Report Mike Miller, CEA, indicated that he will present the Operator Report going forward, in the place of Russell Thornton, CEA. Mr. Miller stated the usage on the Intertie is maintaining its trends. There were no Intertie trips to report during February. The reliability report includes two generation trips during February. Both were EGS Unit Trips. The data points are similar. Mr. Miller noted that the pre-trip frequency on the February 14th trip was significantly higher than on the February 13th trip. Because of this, Mr. Miller suggested that the frequency response was less due to the dead band of the international battery, and responding deeper in the response. There were no other comments or questions. 10. MEMBERS COMMENTS Vice Chair Zellers expressed appreciation for the information during the meeting.