Is Energize Eastside needed? 1
What is Energize Eastside? 2
Energize Eastside • PSE’s proposed 18 -mile transmission line through residential neighborhoods • Redmond • Bellevue • Newcastle • Renton • 230,000 volts • Poles from 85 - 130 feet high • Lifetime cost: $1.4 - $2.0 billion 3
Who is Richard Lauckhart? 4
George B. Lawrence (grandfather) Founded International Electric Company Stewart, BC (1922) 5
Donald W. Lauckhart (father) Worked at Puget Power’s Shuffleton power plant Manager, Grays Harbor PUD Aberdeen, WA 6
J. Richard Lauckhart Puget Power (22 years) Vice president of power planning (4 years) Industry consultant (20 years) 7
How did I get involved with CENSE? 8
In April 2015… You don’t know me, but could you look at this PSE project that is confusing us? 9
What is a “load flow study?” 10
Grids can get complicated. We use computer simulations to study how the grid reacts in different situations. Red lines show transmission lines not distribution lines. 11
Load flow study Inputs • Physical layout of grid • How much electricity is needed • How much electricity can be generated • Resistance in each wire Outputs • How much electricity passes through each part • Warning if any part overloads • Warning if voltage drops too much 12
Load flow study for Energize Eastside • PSE/Quanta did a load flow study to justify Energize Eastside (2013) • Scenario: two critical transformers fail during heavy winter consumption (WECC Base Case) • PSE added two more assumptions: • Triple flow to Canada (from 500 MW to 1,500 MW) • Six local generation plants out of service • Result: remaining infrastructure would overload • D escribed in “Eastside Needs Assessment” 13
Did PSE do the study correctly? • Did PSE model transformers correctly? • Did PSE modify line resistance? • Did PSE make sure voltage output was okay? • Did PSE look at both local and regional grid outputs? 14
Did PSE correctly model all area 230/115 KV transformers? 14 other transformers share the load. (discovered through simulation) 15
Our own load flow study I asked PSE for CEII clearance. (Sept. 2015) PSE said I didn’t have a “legitimate need.” (Oct. 2015) I recruited Roger Schiffman. (Nov. 2015) We got WECC Base Cases from FERC, licensed the software, and started the simulation. (Nov. 2015) 16
500 MW to Canada WECC Base Case 1,600 MW of Puget local generation Sound region 8100 MW from Columbia River hydro, coal, wind 200 MW to Portland 17
1,500 MW to Canada PSE’s scenario 260 MW of Puget local generation Sound region ? 200 MW to Portland 18
What’s going wrong? We tried to simulate PSE’s scenario. The computer couldn’t solve it. We ran the unmodified WECC Base Case. No problems. PSE’s scenario overloads 11 transmission lines that connect the Puget Sound to power sources in central Washington. The scenario is unworkable! 19
Another problem Relative transformer capacities PSE appears to be using 131% “summer normal” 115% 109% 100% capacity ratings for transformers in a “winter emergency” scenario. Summer Summer Winter Winter Normal Emergency Normal Emergency 20
Forecast discrepancy PSE used forecast growth of 2.4% per year to justify the project. PSE sent WECC a forecast of only 0.5% per year. Can this discrepancy be explained? 21
PSE must release data PSE must release its data to experts with appropriate clearance. We can verify how PSE solved problems in this scenario. Otherwise, we must conclude Energize Eastside is not needed. 22
23
Lines cross in 2058 System capacity (from transformer capacity) Customer demand (from simulation and WECC) 24
We have time to select the best alternative. No Action Alternative • Best alternative for the short term (2018) • Meets reliability standards • Saves dollars and trees 25
Alternative 2: Integrated Resource Approach • Can be significantly reduced in cost and scale in the near term • Improves reliability in the long term • Batteries and other technologies become more viable with longer timeline • Lowers carbon emissions 26
Alternative 3: New 230/115 kV transformers • Can be significantly reduced in scale • No new transmission lines • May be cheaper than Alternative 2 (short term) 27
New alternative: Replace Shuffleton • Find new location for gas generation plant to replace Shuffleton plant • Profits from sale of Shuffleton could offset cost for rate payers • PSE created shortfall of emergency power when Shuffleton was sold 28
PSE’s forecast is – • Not supported by data reviewed by stakeholders • Based on assumptions that cannot happen • Questionable due to mistakes (transformer capacities) • Apparently inconsistent (WECC vs. Energize Eastside studies) 29
Energize Eastside is – • Needlessly wasteful of ratepayer funds • Harmful to the Eastside and the environment • Not the best solution for reliability or safety • May be motivated to maximize investor returns 30
Alternative solutions are – • Less expensive • Lower impact for residents and scenery • A better way to leverage developing technology • More supportive of environmental goals 31
Recommend
More recommend
