1. No category

CENSE REJECTS U.S.E.’S REPORT ON
ENERGIZE EASTSIDE
CENSE.org
May 4, 2015
SUMMARY
Members of the Coalition of Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy (CENSE) want to see an energy solution for
the Eastside that benefits everyone, and harms no one. To better understand the challenges and opportunities, we
have eagerly awaited the report of Bellevue’s Independent Technical Analyst, which we asked the City of Bellevue
to hire last June.
Now that we have read the report authored by Utility System Efficiencies, we find that it answers some of our
questions. But it leaves key questions unanswered. These omissions make it difficult for us to agree with U.S.E.’s
conclusion that Energize Eastside is reasonable and necessary.
Our response to U.S.E.’s report has been co-authored by CENSE and Richard Lauckhart, who served as VP of Power
Planning for Puget Sound Power & Light, the company that became PSE. Mr. Lauckhart has over 40 years of industry
experience, including over 20 years at Puget Power. We include Mr. Lauckhart’s bio in Appendix A.
CENSE finds significant flaws and omissions in the U.S.E. report that cast doubts regarding its conclusions:
1. Independent forecast missing. U.S.E. did not perform an independent load forecast, the most
critical question residents had about the need for Energize Eastside.
2. Updated demand map missing. U.S.E. admitted that PSE’s map of electricity demand “didn’t
make much sense,” but did not update the map as CENSE requested.
3. Cost-effective savings ignored. U.S.E. ignored savings identified by E3 totaling 56 MW.
4. Local generation turned off. U.S.E. rubber-stamped questionable assumptions made by PSE, such
as turning off all local generation west of the Cascades in power flow simulations.
5. Growth trends unexplained. U.S.E. did not explain how population and employment trends lead
to PSE’s projections of demand growth.
6. Mostly downtown growth. U.S.E. did not show a need for this project outside of the downtown
Bellevue and the Bel-Red corridor.
7. Substation loads missing. U.S.E. did not show peak load on Eastside substations, a key
requirement for transmission studies.
8. Canadian flow unexplained. U.S.E. did not provide sufficient information about Canadian flow to
settle this concern.
We include in Appendix B a copy of the questions we posed to U.S.E. in January, with annotations to
indicate whether U.S.E.’s report actually answers these questions.
1
1. INDEPENDENT FORECAST MISSING
CENSE asked for an independent forecast to validate the need for Energize Eastside, and to be sure that PSE isn’t
pursuing Energize Eastside to satisfy its own corporate goals. PSE has a strong incentive to build projects like this
one. In fact, due to outdated energy regulations in our state, infrastructure projects are the only way the company
makes money. We felt a truly independent forecast was necessary to settle these questions.
Our concerns are reinforced by PSE’s claim that the Eastside is experiencing demand growth at twice the rate
forecast for Seattle. Seattle is also experiencing rapid growth in population and employment. According to PSE,
vigorous growth on the Eastside nullifies conservation and efficiency trends that are well-documented at the
national and regional level. For more than a year, PSE provided no historical data to support their forecast.
Bellevue Mayor Claudia Balducci underscored the importance of an independent forecast with this statement at the
December 8 meeting authorizing the contract with U.S.E.: “I think that a kind of a truism about working with
consultants… is they tend to want to give you what it is they believe you want to receive… We expect them to
provide independent judgment.”
Instead of providing an independent judgment, U.S.E. essentially rubber-stamped PSE’s forecast, declaring it
“reasonable.” Their report contains little new analysis or careful examination of PSE’s forecast assumptions.
2. UPDATED DEMAND MAP MISSING
PSE created a map of electricity demand, shown at left,
which supposedly demonstrates why the entire Eastside
needs the new transmission line. According to this map,
every city and neighborhood that the transmission line
passes through is demanding the highest level of electricity.
To create this map, PSE used peak demand data from the
coldest and hottest days in 2009, both of which were
extreme. The map represents usage levels which would
only occur if customers ran their furnaces and air
conditioners simultaneously. Even with that explanation,
it’s hard to believe that downtown Bellevue and Mercer
Island are using the same level of electricity.
We criticized this map during our meeting with U.S.E. in
January, and they said it “didn’t make sense to us either.”
U.S.E. told us they would create a more accurate map.
On page 37 of the report, U.S.E. admits they didn’t have
enough information to create a better map. As a result, we
don’t know who this project benefits, or where
opportunities might exist for targeted conservation and
efficiency programs.
We are very disappointed with this outcome.
2
3. COST-EFFECTIVE SAVINGS IGNORED
During their own investigation of the need for Energize Eastside, PSE employed a consultant named E3 to study
alternatives to new poles and wires. E3 found 56 MW of cost-effective savings through increased Electrical
Efficiency, Distributed Generation, and Demand Side Resources. This amounts to 8% of the emergency system
capacity PSE uses for planning purposes, so it’s a significant amount. E3’s savings would save customers money and
benefit the environment.
Despite repeated questions from CENSE, PSE has refused to acknowledge E3’s findings. We asked U.S.E. to explain
how these savings might mitigate the need or timing of Energize Eastside. Unfortunately, we find no mention of the
E3 study in U.S.E.’s report.
4. LOCAL GENERATION TURNED OFF
To determine when and how their system might be stressed, PSE uses power flow simulations with the following
assumptions:
1.
2.
3.
An extremely rare emergency condition: 2 of the 4 transformers that serve the Eastside are offline.
Peak winter load: a 23-degree day and peak usage in the morning or evening.
All local generation turned off.
The third assumption adds stress to the system, but is not a realistic scenario. PSE could require these local
generators to be online when peak load is anticipated.
U.S.E. rubber-stamped PSE’s assumption without comment on page 51:
The ITA also confirmed the Northern Intertie (Path 3) transfers matched PSE’s modeling plan (Table 8.2),
and that PSE’s winter generation dispatch scenario of “no PSE and SCL generation west of the Cascades”
was modeled in the winter cases…
CENSE members explicitly asked about this assumption during our meeting with U.S.E. in January. U.S.E.’s lead
engineer, Gordon Gomegys, offered an explanation that involved renewable resources located east of the Cascades.
This explanation made little sense to us, but we expected to see more detail in the final report. Again, we are sorely
disappointed in this omission.
3
5. GROWTH TRENDS UNEXPLAINED
U.S.E. includes this chart of Eastside population and employment projections on page 20:
This graph shows population growing at slightly less than 1% per year, and employment growing at 1.7% per year.
We hoped U.S.E. would explain at a conceptual level how these growth trends lead to growth in electricity demand
of 2.4% per year. U.S.E. offers no explanation that might help the average person understand how these trends
relate to electricity demand.
6. MOSTLY DOWNTOWN GROWTH
U.S.E. lists 39 projects that are expected to be built in downtown Bellevue and the Bel-Red district during coming
years. The report implies that these developments will use more electricity than the buildings they replace.
However, U.S.E. did not list any projects in other Eastside cities. Should we conclude that the majority of the new
demand will come from downtown Bellevue?
We know that power poles as high as 13-story buildings will have a severe impact on dozens of neighborhoods,
schools, and parks along the 18-mile route of the transmission line. Are these neighborhoods being asked to sacrifice
their quality of life in order to subsidize development downtown? Would downtown developers demand better
solutions if the transmission line were coming through their property?
Our intent in asking these questions is not to start an argument between residents and businesses, but to work
cooperatively towards an energy solution that benefits everyone and harms no one. The Eastside is capable of
finding such a solution.
7. SUBSTATION LOADS MISSING
The U.S.E. report does not provide data on peak loads for individual substations. Expert transmission planners (such
as Mr. Lauckhart) view this data as key to transmission studies. This information would enable us to determine if
smaller, more targeted alternatives are feasible.
4
Lacking independent analysis of substation data, we must trust that PSE has fairly evaluated all alternatives and
reasonably concluded that a 230 kV transmission line is the only viable option. This is not the result we expected
from a truly independent analyst.
8. CANADIAN FLOW UNEXPLAINED
CENSE has repeatedly asked PSE and U.S.E. to provide the amount of Canadian electricity flow, in megawatts, that
is being simulated in their power flow studies. Neither has responded with a specific number.
PSE says the number is “5-8%” of system capacity, but we don’t know if they mean their normal system capacity
(1600 MW) or the “N-1-1” capacity modeled in power flow studies (706 MW). We don’t know if this “5-8%” value
represents normal everyday flow, or if it is a winter peak level. We believe it serves PSE’s strategic interests to keep
this number vague.
U.S.E. says they modeled a scenario with 0 MW of Canadian flow. On page 65, U.S.E. reveals that the number of
overloads is reduced from 5 to just one. This reinforces our suspicion that Canadian flow is having a significant effect
on overall system stress.
If Canadian flow were diverted from PSE’s lines, could the one final overload then be alleviated by other means?
Could a third transformer at Talbot Hill help to prevent overload? Could E3’s savings combined with lower Canadian
flow accomplish the same thing?
These questions are not academic, even though U.S.E. claims that it is not possible to reduce Canadian flow due to
U.S. treaty obligations. They fail to mention that this flow does not have to happen on PSE’s lines. The utility
consortium ColumbiaGrid previously endorsed a relatively inexpensive project to upgrade wires on Seattle City
Light’s 230 kV line through the Eastside. If that project were pursued, the amount of Canadian electricity on PSE’s
line would be significantly reduced.
CONCLUSION
U.S.E. declined to do the power flow simulation we are most interested in. It would include the following features:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Reconductor the Seattle City Light line to serve Canadian flow.
Reduce peak demand using E3’s recommendations.
Install a third transformer at Talbot Hill to eliminate an overload at that location.
Anticipate the impact of rapid developments in grid and residential battery storage such as those
announced by Tesla on April 30.
We suspect that such a study would not only delay the need for a new transmission line by many years (possibly
forever), it would save customers money, preserve neighborhoods and the environment, and enhance the Eastside’s
reputation as a forward-thinking, technologically-advanced, and environmentally supportive community.
We welcome the opportunity to work with policymakers and PSE to achieve this better outcome for the Eastside.
5
APPENDIX A: BIO OF RICHARD LAUCKHART
J. Richard Lauckhart has 40 years of experience in power supply planning, electricity price forecasting and asset
valuation. He began his career as a distribution engineer with Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and held various positions
at Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (now Puget Sound Energy) in power supply planning, culminating as vice president
of power planning.
For the last 12 years Mr. Lauckhart has performed consulting assignments related to power market analyses, price
forecasting services, asset market valuation, integrated resource planning, transmission line congestion analysis, and
management of strategic consulting engagements for clients in North America, including investor-owned and
municipal utilities, independent power producers, and lenders.
Mr. Lauckhart received a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from Washington State University in
1971 and a masters degree in business administration from the University of Washington in 1975
Representative Project Experience
Black & Veatch
September 2008 to October 2011
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Mr. Lauckhart oversees wholesale electricity price forecasting, project revenue analysis, consults regarding
wind integration matters electric interconnection and transmission arrangements for new power projects,
and other related matters in the electric power industry. In addition, he heads Black & Veatch’s WECC regional
power markets analysis team.
WECC Power Market Analysis and Transmission Analysis, Henwood/Global Energy Decisions/Ventyx
2000 - 2008
SENIOR EXECUTIVE
Mr. Lauckhart oversaw wholesale electricity price forecasting, project revenue analysis, consulted regarding
electric interconnection and transmission arrangements for new power projects, and other related matters
in the electric power industry. In addition, he headed Global Energy’s WECC regional power markets analysis
team.
Lauckhart Consulting, Inc.
1996 – 2000 President
Primary client - Puget Sound Energy (formerly Puget Sound Power & Light Company): Involved in power
contract restructuring, market power analysis, FERC 888 transmission tariffs, and other matters. Testified at
FERC regarding Puget’s 888 tariff. Testified for Puget in June, 1999 arbitration with BPA regarding
transmission capability on the Northern Intertie.
6
Northwest IPP
Under retainer with IPP from July 1996 through December 31, 1999. Involved primarily in merchant power
plant development activities including permitting activity, owner’s engineer identification, environmental
consultant identification, water supply arrangement, transmission interconnection and wheeling
arrangements, gas pipeline arrangements, economic analysis, forward price forecasting, marketing, and
related issues.
Levitan & Associates (Boston)
Participated in teams involved in electric system acquisition activities. Performed preliminary analysis for a
major retail corporation regarding possible participation as an aggregator in the California deregulated
electric market. Involved in the evolving discussions about deregulation in the state of Washington including
participant in HB 2831 report and ESSB 6560 report.
Member of advisory task force for Northwest Power Planning Council study of generation reliability in the
Pacific Northwest. Participating writer in a newsletter advocating electric deregulation in the state of
Washington.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company
1991 – 1996
VICE PRESIDENT , POWER PLANNING
Involved in all aspects of a $700 million per year power supply for a hydro/thermal utility with a 4,600 MW
peak and 2,200 aMW energy retail electric load. Included responsibility for a 22 person department involved
in power scheduling (for both retail and wholesale power activity), power and transmission contract
negotiation and administration, regulatory and NERC compliance, forward price forecasting, power cost
accounting, and retail rate activity related to power costs. Activity included matters related to 650 MW of
existing gas-fired, simple cycle combustion turbines. In addition, 660 MW of combined cycle cogeneration
“qualifying facilities” were developed by others for Puget during this time frame. Detailed understandings of
the projects were developed both for initial contractual needs and later for economic restructuring
negotiations. Mr. Lauckhart was the primary person involved in developing Puget’s Open Access transmission
tariff in accordance with FERC Order 888.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company
1986 – 1991
MANAGER, POWER PLANNING
The company’s key person in developing (1) a WUTC approved competitive bidding process for administering
PURPA obligations, and (2) a WUTC approved regulatory mechanism for recovery of power costs called the
Periodic Rate Adjustment Mechanism (PRAM).
7
Puget Sound Power & Light Company
1981 – 1986
DIRECTOR, POWER PLANNING
The company’s key person in developing a power cost forecasting model that was customized to take into
account the unique nature of the hydro generation system that exists in the Pacific Northwest.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company
1979 – 1981
MANAGER, CORPORATE PLANNING
Responsible for administering the corporate goals and objectives program.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company
1976 – 1979
FINANCIAL PLANNING
Improved and ran a computerized corporate financial forecasting model for the company that was used by
the CFO.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company
1974 – 1976
TRANSMISSION PLANNER
Performed transmission engineering to assure a reliable transmission system.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1971 – 1974
DISTRIBUTION ENGINEER
Performed distribution engineering to assure a reliable distribution system.
Other Relevant Experience
• Expert testimony for Montana Independent Renewable Generators related to avoided cost regulations and
pricing filed February 2009 at the Montana PSC
• Expert Testimony for LS Power in the SDG&E Sunrise Proceeding regarding economics of in-area generation
vs. the cost of transmission and imported power Spring 2007
• Expert Testimony for BC Hydro in the Long Term Resource Plan, February 2009 dealing with natural gas
price forecasts and REC price forecasting
• Expert Testimony for John Deere Wind in a proceeding in Texas in November 2008 related to avoided costs
and wind effective load carrying capability.
8
• Expert Testimony for Two Dot Wind before the Montana commission regarding wind integration costs
Spring 2008
• Expert Testimony in the BC Hydro Integrated Electricity Plan proceeding regarding WECC Power Markets.
November 2006.
• Expert Testimony for Colstrip Energy Limited Partnership before Montana PUC regarding administration of
QF contract prices. July 2006.
• Expert Testimony for Pacific Gas & Electric regarding current PURPA implementation in each of the 50
states. January 2006.
• Expert Testimony in CPUC proceeding regarding modeling procedures and methodologies to justify new
transmission based on reduction of congestion costs (Transmission Economic Analysis Methodology – TEAM).
Summer 2006.
• Expert Testimony for BC Hydro regarding the expected operation of the proposed Duke Point Power Project
on Vancouver Island, January 2005
• Expert Testimony for PG&E regarding the cost alternative generation to the proposed replacement of steam
generators for Diablo Canyon, Summer of 2004.
• Expert Testimony in an arbitration over a dispute about failure to deliver power under a Power Purchase
Agreement, Fall 2004.
• Integrated Resource Plan Development. For a large investor-owned utility in the Pacific Northwest, Global
Energy provided advanced analytics support for the development of a risk-adjusted integrated resource plan
using RISKSYM to provide a stochastic analysis of the real cost of alternative portfolios.
• Expert Testimony for SDG&E, Southern California Edison, and PG&E regarding IRPs, WECC markets and LOLP
matters before the California PUC, 2003.
• Miguel-Mission Transmission Market Analysis-San Diego Gas & Electric.
San Diego Gas & Electric retained
Global Energy to oversee an analysis of the economic benefits associated with building the Mission-Miguel
transmission line and the Imperial Valley transformer. Global Energy performed an analysis of the economic
benefits of the Mission-Miguel line, prepared a report, sponsored testimony at the CPUC, and testified at the
CPUC regarding the report.
• Valley-Rainbow Transmission Market Analysis-San Diego Gas & Electric.
San Diego Gas & Electric also
engaged Global Energy to analyze the economic benefits associated with building the Valley-Rainbow
transmission line and to respond to the CPUC scoping memo that “SDG&E should describe its assessment of
how a 500 kV interconnect, like Valley-Rainbow, will impact electricity markets locally, regionally, and
statewide.” Global Energy analyzed the economic benefits of the Valley-Rainbow line, prepared a report,
sponsored testimony at the CPUC, and testified at the CPUC regarding the report.
• Damages Assessment Litigation Support.
Global Energy was engaged by Stoel Rives to provide damages
analysis, expert testimony and litigation support in for its client in a power contract damages lawsuit. Global
Energy quantified the range of potential damages, assessed power market conditions at the time, and
provided expert testimony to enable Stoel Rives’ client to prevail in a jury trial.
• Expert
Testimony, Concerning the Economic Benefits Associated with Transmission Line Expansion.
Testimony prepared on behalf of San Diego Gas & Electric Company, September 2001.
9
• Expert Testimony, Concerning market price forecast in support of Pacific Gas and Electric hydro divesture
case, December 2000.
• Expert Testimony, Prepared on behalf of AES Pacific regarding value of sale for Mohave Coal project to AES
Pacific for Southern California Edison, December 2000.
• Expert Testimony, Prepared on behalf of a coalition of 12 entities regarding the impact of Direct Access of
utility costs in California. June 2002.
Mr. Lauckhart was Puget’s primary witness on power supply matters in eight different proceedings before the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
Mr. Lauckhart was Puget’s chief witness at FERC in hearings involving Puget’s Open Access Transmission Tariff
and testified for Puget in BPA rate case and court proceedings.
10
APPENDIX B: CENSE QUESTIONS FOR U.S.E.
Below are the questions that CENSE submitted to U.S.E. during our initial meeting in January. We added annotations
in red to indicate whether the U.S.E. report answers our questions.
Q1: UNDERSTANDING THE REAL NEED
To better understand the need for Energize Eastside, we would like to see a graph similar to this one from Seattle
City Light1 (orange annotations by CENSE):
-0.1% / year
We note that peak load (the same as “demand” in PSE’s graph) has been gradually declining in Seattle for the past
27 years, despite significant economic and population growth during that period. Also, Seattle’s forecast rate of
growth is less than half of PSE’s. Similar trends are occurring in Portland.
We ask the consultant to produce an analogous graph for the Eastside that shows the following data, with values
independently determined by the consultant using unfiltered, raw data from PSE or other sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1
Time period from 2000 to 2030 (15 years of historical data, and a forecast for the next 15 years).
Values for “One-Hour Peak Load (MW)” with grid outage (N-1-1 state in Q3 below).
Values for “One-Hour Peak Load (MW)” with no grid outage (N-0 state).
Values for “Annual Average Load (aMW)” with grid outage (N-1-1 state in Q3 below).
Values for “Annual Average Load (aMW)” with no grid outage (N-0 state).
A line showing existing “System Capacity” (which PSE shows as approximately 710 MW on its Forecast)
including any allowable increase for temporary loads. We would like the consultant to independently
verify PSE’s value.
A line showing the future “System Capacity” of Energize Eastside, including any allowable increase for
temporary loads, which we would like the consultant to independently verify.
A line showing the Total Transfer Capacity of Energize Eastside.
http://www.seattle.gov/light/news/issues/irp/docs/SCL_2012_IRP.pdf, p. 13
11
The graph should be accompanied by an explanation of the methodologies used and assumptions made to produce
each value on the graph so we can understand how they were determined and to what extent they are independent
of PSE’s values.
(None of the details requested above are included in U.S.E.’s report.)
Q2: DISTRIBUTION OF PEAK USE
PSE shows the following map that purports to demonstrate high electricity demand throughout the Eastside:2
Unfortunately, the methodology used to create this map is unsound. We have been told by PSE that it combines
peak use data from both summer and winter peaks which occurred over 5 years ago. The inclusion of summer peak
data is not relevant to the winter peak problem Energize Eastside seeks to address and makes the problem look
much worse.
Furthermore, the data was “scaled and smeared” to “protect consumers’ privacy.” The result of these manipulations
suggests that Mercer Island is using electricity at the same intensity as downtown Bellevue, which is hard to believe.
2
http://www.energizeeastside.com/need
12
We ask the consultant to create a more accurate map showing winter peak loads for the same area shown in PSE’s
map. The updated map should show data from a representative winter peak which occurred no more than 2 years
ago. To provide adequate detail, data should come from measurements of peak loads at the level of individual
distribution substations. An accurate map is important, because localized peaks might be addressed by localized
solutions. Some may represent prime opportunities for conservation.
(On page 37 of their report, U.S.E. states that their map was not clear
enough to warrant inclusion.)
Q3: EASTSIDE VS. REGIONAL NEEDS
The VP of Transmission Planning for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) tells us that Energize Eastside is part
of a regional transmission plan developed jointly by PSE, BPA, and Seattle City Light (SCL) to address three issues:
1.
2.
3.
Load for the Eastside
Load for Seattle
Reliability of the Northwest Washington Electric Grid
This is confirmed in planning documents from the Columbia Grid consortium and agreements signed by PSE, SCL,
and BPA.3 The role of Columbia Grid and BPA is illustrated in this diagram, which shows how Energize Eastside
(upgrades to the lines between Talbot and Sammamish) helps to address two outages on BPA lines indicated by
arrows near the Monroe station: 4
3
http://www.bpa.gov/news/newsroom/releases/Documents/20120124-PR-5-12-Joint-transmission-systemprojects-to-improve-system-reliability.pdf
4
https://www.columbiagrid.org/download.cfm?DVID=2168, p. 5
13
We believe this diagram is relevant to PSE’s Eastside Customer Demand Forecast, because PSE’s Needs Assessment
predicts no overload condition for Eastside infrastructure under extreme peak loads (13 degree winter weather) by
2022, even with very low conservation:5
6.1.1 N-0 Thermal and Voltage Violation Summary
For all cases, there are no thermal or voltage violations for the all lines in (N-0) state.
2017-18 – Case 2-Winter Peak, Normal Weather: For all elements in service (N-0), there were no thermal or
voltage violations for 2017-18 winter peak, normal weather, with all levels of conservation modeled (i.e.
100%, 75%, 50%, or 25%) conservation.
2017-18 – Case 3-Winter Peak, Extreme Weather: For all elements in service (N-0), there were no thermal
or voltage violations for 2017-18 winter peak, extreme weather, with all levels of conservation modeled (i.e.
100%, 75%, 50%, or 25%) conservation.
2021-22 – Case 2-Winter Peak, Normal Weather: For all elements in service (N-0), there were no thermal or
voltage violations for 2021-22 winter peak, normal weather, with all levels of conservation modeled (i.e.
100%, 75%, 50%, or 25%) conservation.
5
http://www.energizeeastside.com/Media/Default/Library/Reports/Eastside_Needs_Assessment_Final_Draft_1031-2013v2REDACTEDR1.pdf, p. 45
14
2021-22 – Case 3-Winter Peak, Extreme Weather: For all elements in service (N-0), there were no thermal
or voltage violations for 2021-22 winter peak, extreme weather, with all levels of conservation modeled
(i.e. 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25%) conservation.
In order to better understand this issue, we ask the consultant to produce a series of simple one-line diagrams that
illustrate the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Existing Eastside infrastructure and the direction and amounts of electricity flow during a normal winter
peak load event with no nearby grid outages (N-0 in industry parlance).
Using the diagram and peak scenario created in 1. above, show the effects on and amounts of electricity
flow during an N-1-1 outage of BPA’s transmission lines as indicated in the “Revised Plan” diagram above.
Diagram Eastside infrastructure if Energize Eastside is built as proposed, with the direction and magnitude
of electricity flow during a normal winter peak load event under N-0 conditions.
Using the diagram created in 3. above, show the effects on and amounts of electricity flow during the
same N-1-1 outage specified in 2. above.
If it’s not clear from these diagrams, we are especially interested to know what percentage of the electricity flowing
on Eastside transmission lines is flowing to Canada or points north in the normal and N-1-1 scenarios.
We would like the consultant to verify that the values used in PSE’s Eastside Customer Demand Forecast assume a
scenario in which a winter peak demand event occurs on the Eastside at the same time a major transmission outage
(an N-1-1 event) occurs nearby on the grid. We would also like the consultant to explain how likely it would be for
these events to occur simultaneously. How many hours per year is this worst-case scenario likely to happen in 2015,
2020, 2025 and 2030, assuming Energize Eastside were not built? How would these forecasts change if BPA
constructed the “Echo Lake-Monroe 500 KV Transmission Project” currently listed as “ON HOLD” in BPA’s 2014
Annual Progress Report to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council?6
(We find no answers to these questions in U.S.E.’s report.)
Q4: RELIABILITY
We are unsure that spending $200 million on Energize Eastside is the best way to improve the reliability of our
power. To better understand this, we ask the consultant to characterize all power outages for the years 2000-2015
by their causes. We are especially interested to know how the incidence of outages caused by system overload on
the equipment which Energize Eastside would replace compares to downstream outages caused by extreme
weather, tree strikes, accidents, downstream equipment failure, etc.
We ask the consultant to forecast how many outages in the next five years (2016 – 2020) would be avoided by
implementation of Energize Eastside.
(These questions remain mostly unanswered in U.S.E.’s report. On page 47, U.S.E.
estimates Energize Eastside will avoid one outage every 3-30 years.)
6
https://www.wecc.biz/Reliability/2014_BPA_APR.pdf, p. 8
15