seminole electric cooperative incorporated integrated

Report
FECA Engineers Conference
SEMINOLE UPDATE
Glenn Spurlock
June 10, 2013
1
June 10, 2013
SEMINOLE UPDATE
2

2013 – New General Manager

2014 – LCEC exit

2017 – Peaking needed (PPA vs. Build)

2020s – Combined Cycle and Peaking
needed (PPA vs. Build)
SEMINOLE UPDATE
NEW MEMBER INTERCONNECTS







3

CFEC –
<2 MW Biogas (operational 2012)
TCEC –
2 MW Solar
CEC –
3.2 MW Landfill Gas
SECO –
5 MW Solar (removed from queue)
CEC –
12 MW Solar
GEC –
25 MW Co-Generation
TEC –
60 MW Solar
PRECO/SECI 160 MW IPP
SEMINOLE UPDATE

FERC Order 1000
–
–
–
Regional & Interregional Transmission Planning
FERC Jurisdiction Entities Must Comply
Details:



Project Qualification Criteria
Cost Allocation Process
Project Justification:
–
Reliability
– Cost Effective/Efficient
– Public Policy
4

Implementation thru OATT Attachment K Process
OTHER INTERESTING FACTS




5
2013 – Duke Crystal River 3 decommission
announcement
2016 – Duke Crystal River 1 shutdown
2016 – Duke Crystal River 2 shutdown
FRCC does not have models available for
utilities to perform transmission planning
studies
QUESTIONS?
6
FECA Engineers Conference
SWECKER VS. MIDLAND
Glenn Spurlock
June 10, 2013
7
June 10, 2013
BACKGROUND
In 1998, the Sweckers, retail customers of Midland
Power Cooperative in Iowa, purchased a 65 kW wind
generator for their farm. The wind generator was a
renewable resource which met the requirements of a
qualifying facility (QF).
8
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
DISPUTES
9
Almost immediately after being connected to Midland’s
system, the Sweckers began to have disputes with
Midland concerning:
(1) What connection fee the Sweckers need to pay, as a
qualifying facility (QF) or as a farm/residential
connection;
(2) What avoided cost amount Midland should pay the
Sweckers for purchasing electricity; and
(3) What venue certain legal actions must commence
within, and more…
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
SWECKER POSITION
The Sweckers argue that the avoided cost that
Midland is paying the Sweckers for the electricity
produced by their wind generator is too low, and that
Midland owes the Sweckers money.
The Sweckers stopped making payments for electric
service to Midland, pending resolution of the issues.
10
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
SWECKER POSITION
The Sweckers argue that because they have filed the
avoided cost complaint, that the issue is still on going
and thus Midland cannot disconnect the Sweckers
until the issue has been fully vetted.
11
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
MIDLAND ACTIONS
In 2011:
 FERC published its intent not to take action on the
avoided cost dispute between the parties.
 Midland disconnected the Sweckers due to nonpayment of electric bills.
 Midland stated that the Sweckers could be
reconnected if the Sweckers paid their electric bill.
12
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
PROPER DISCONNECT (?)
On December 9, 2011, the Sweckers filed a
complaint that Midland trespassed on their
property and locked the Sweckers’ disconnect
switch without permission, thereby shutting off
electric service to the Sweckers’ QF and residence.
13
PROPER DISCONNECT (?)
The Sheriff was called and Midland admitted that
the disconnect switch was property owned by the
Sweckers.
Midland’s crew, in the presence of the Sheriff,
removed the lock on the disconnect switch.
14
ISSUE PRESENTED
Can an electric utility unilaterally disconnect a QF for
non-payment of past bills?
15
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
EXPLANATION
Answer: No
FERC reasons that termination, even a temporary
termination, may only be accomplished by following
the FERC’s rules for termination, i.e., applying to FERC
for the ability to terminate.
16
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
DEC. 15, 2011 FERC ORDER
HOLDING AND ANALYSIS
“[W]e find Midland’s disconnection of the Sweckers’
QF to be inconsistent with its obligations under
PURPA.”
Under section 210(a) of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act (PURPA,) Midland has an obligation to
purchase from QFs and to sell electricity to QFs.
17
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
DEC. 15, 2011 FERC ORDER
HOLDING AND ANALYSIS
Before the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005),
disconnection of QFs for non-payment of bills was left to
State regulatory authorities.
In implementing EPAct 2005, however, this issue was
addressed, and provided specific FERC regulations on,
how an electric utility may terminate its obligations to
purchase from and sell to QFs.
18
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
DEC. 15, 2011 FERC ORDER
HOLDING AND ANALYSIS
The Sweckers receive retail service from Midland, which is
usually beyond the reach of FERC authority to regulate.
However, the Sweckers also own a QF onsite with certain FERC
buying and selling requirements.
PURPA does not allow services to a QF to be disconnected
unilaterally by and at the sole discretion of the interconnected
purchasing/selling electric utility, here Midland, merely
because that electric utility also happened to be selling retail
service.
19
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
RECOMMENDATION

20
Seek legal advice prior to disconnection of a
QF.
QUESTIONS
21
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
FECA Engineers Conference
LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS
Glenn Spurlock
June 10, 2013
22
June 10, 2013
LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS

Transmission
facilities
are
deemed
“integrated” if they meet any one of the
Mansfield Test criteria
AND

23
Integrated transmission facility capital costs
are rolled-in to transmission Rate-Base
LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS

Mansfield Test for Integrated Trans. Facilities
–
–
–
–
–
24
Facilities are looped
Energy can flow in both directions
Transmission Owner provides services over the
facility to other customers
Facility provides for higher system reliability
An outage of the facilities would have an adverse
effect on the system and to other customers
LOOPED DELIVERY POINTS
25
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO US?



26
TDU cooperatives may want higher reliability
that comes from looped Delivery Points
TOs are responsible for controlling their Rate
Base charges and therefore determine when
facilities are to be looped on their system
(w/costs rolled into Rate Base)
FERC has no mechanism for TOs to accept
CIAC for looping Delivery Points
QUESTIONS
27
FECA Conference
June XX, 2013
FECA Engineers Conference
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
Glenn Spurlock
June 10, 2013
28
June 10, 2013
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA


29
Seminole has 60-65% of its Member load
imbedded in the Duke Florida transmission
system.
Some Seminole Members seek a higher
level of reliability via looped delivery
systems.
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA



30
Progress Energy Florida has permitted the
looping of wholesale-customer Delivery
Points under limited circumstances
Seminole is strongly encouraging Duke to
permit looping of cooperative Delivery Points
Seminole is strongly encouraging Duke to
develop a written Looping Criteria Guideline
document to assure equity of treatment
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA

If Duke agrees to loop delivery points:
–
–
31
Duke must role the costs into the Rate
Base
Duke must develop rules & regulations on
how looping will be done
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA

Duke Risk
–
–
32
A transmission customer may challenge
the looped facilities are “Gold Plated”
reliability and should not be paid by all
transmission customers.
If Duke were to lose such a challenge,
Duke shareholders may be on the hook to
pay for all such loop facilities
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA

Possible Duke requirements:
–
Ownership of transmission line continuity


–
–
–
–
33
Duke owned transmission circuits (in & out)
Duke owned substation facilities (in series with line)
Duke standards for design/construction
Duke Facility Ratings
Duke approves all future connections and
modifications
Duke approves all maintenance and switching
operations
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA


34
Under limited circumstances, Members may
be
permitted
to
perform
necessary
construction of Duke facilities (as a Duke
contractor)
If existing cooperative owned line/substation
facility is to be used to complete the
transmission loop, Duke may buy facilities or
pay credits for use of facilities
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA
35
FECA Engineers Conference
Looped Substation Configurations
Glenn Spurlock
June 10, 2013
36
June 10, 2013
Single Bus Configuration
The single bus substation configuration is the simplest of configurations, but is also
the least reliable.
In the arrangement shown, the circuit must be de-energized to perform breaker
maintenance, which can be overcome by the addition of breaker bypass switches, but
this may then disable protection systems.
37
Single Bus Configuration
Advantages & Disadvantages
Single Bus Advantages:
• Lowest cost
• Small land area
• Easily expandable
• Simple in concept and operation
• Relatively simple for the application of protective relaying
Single Bus Disadvantages:
• Single bus arrangement has the lowest reliability
• Failure of a circuit breaker or a bus fault causes loss of entire substation
• Maintenance switching can
38
Sectionalized Bus Configuration
The sectionalized bus configuration is merely an extension of the single bus layout.
The single bus arrangements are now connected together with a center breaker
that may be normally open or closed.
Now, in the event of a breaker failure or bus bar fault, the entire station is not shut
down. Breaker bypass operation can also be included in the sectionalized bus
configuration.
39
Sectionalized Bus Configuration
Advantages & Disadvantages
Sectionalized Bus Advantages:
• Flexible operation
• Isolation of bus sections for maintenance
• Loss of only part of the substation for
a breaker failure or bus fault
Sectionalized Bus Disadvantages:
• Additional circuit breakers needed for
sectionalizing, thus higher cost
• Sectionalizing may cause interruption of non-faulted circuits
40
Main & Transfer Bus Configuration
A main and transfer bus configuration means there are two separate and
independent buses; a main and a transfer. Normally, all circuits, incoming and
outgoing, are connecting the main bus.
If maintenance or repair is required on a circuit breaker, the associated
circuit can be then fed and protected from the transfer bus, while the original
breaker is isolated from the system.
41
Main & Transfer Bus Configuration
Advantages & Disadvantages
Main and Transfer Bus Advantages:
• Maintain service and protection during circuit
breaker maintenance
• Reasonable in cost
• Fairly small land area
• Easily expandable
Main and Transfer Bus Disadvantages:
• Additional circuit breaker needed for bus tie
• Protection and relaying may become complicated
• Bus fault causes loss of the entire substation
42
Ring Bus Configuration
The ring bus configuration is an extension of the sectionalized bus. In the ring bus,
a sectionalizing breaker has been added between the two open bus ends.
Now there is a closed loop on the bus with each section separated by a circuit
breaker. This provides greater reliability and allows for flexible operation. The ring
bus can easily adapted to a breaker-and-a-half scheme, which will be looked at
next.
43
Ring Bus
Advantages & Disadvantages
Ring Bus Advantages:
• Flexible operation
• High reliability
• Double feed to each circuit
• No main buses
• Expandable to breaker-and-a-half configuration
• Isolation of bus sections and circuit breakers for maintenance without circuit disruption
Substation Configuration Reliability 7
44
Ring Bus Disadvantages:
• During fault, splitting of the ring may leave undesirable circuit combinations
• Each circuit has to have its own potential source for relaying
• Usually limited to 4 circuit positions, although larger sizes up to 10 are in service. 6 is
usually the maximum terminals for a ring bus
Breaker-and-a-Half Configuration
A breaker-and-a-half configuration has two buses but unlike the main and transfer
scheme, both busses are energized during normal operation. For every 2 circuits
there are 3 circuit breakers with each circuit sharing a common center breaker.
Any breaker can be removed for maintenance without affecting the service on the
corresponding exiting feeder, and a fault on either bus can be isolated without
interrupting service to the outgoing lines. If a center breaker should fail, this will
cause the loss of 2 circuits, while the loss of an outside breaker would disrupt only
one. The breaker-and-a-half scheme is a popular choice when upgrading a ring bus
to provide more terminals.
45
Breaker-and-a-Half Configuration
Advantages & Disadvantages
Breaker-and-a-Half Advantages:
• Flexible operation and high reliability
• Isolation of either bus without service disruption
• Isolation of any breaker for maintenance without service disruption
• Double feed to each circuit
• Bus fault does not interrupt service to any circuits
• All switching is done with circuit breakers
46
Breaker-and-a-Half Disadvantages:
• One-and-a-half breakers needed for each circuit
• More complicated relaying as the center breaker has to act on faults for either of
the 2 circuits it is associated with
• Each circuit should have its own potential source for relaying
Double Breaker-Double Bus
Configuration
Like the breaker-and-a-half, the double breaker-double bus configuration has two
main buses that are both normally energized. Here though, each circuit requires
two breakers, not one-and-a-half.
With the addition of the extra breaker per circuit, any of the breakers can fail and
only affect one circuit. This added reliability comes at the cost of additional
breakers, and thus is typically only used at large generating stations.
47
Double Breaker-Double Bus
Advantages & Disadvantages
Double Breaker-Double Bus Advantages:
• Flexible operation and very high reliability
• Isolation of either bus, or any breaker without disrupting service
• Double feed to each circuit
• No interruption of service to any circuit from a bus fault
• Loss of one circuit per breaker failure
• All switching with circuit breakers
Double Breaker-Double Bus Disadvantages:
• Very high cost – 2 breakers per circuit
48
Comparison of Bus Configuration
Costs
If one assumes that the Single Bus configuration costs $100k, then
the math can easily be done by using the relative cost comparison.
49
Questions?
50

similar documents