December
13 and 14, 2001
Thursday,
December 13
1:00
p.m. Introduction
and purpose of the meeting John
Carr
1:15
p.m. First
draft paper and summary of comments Alex
Brennan
Content of first paper; alternatives defined in the Conceptual
Transmission
Plan; range of comments receive.
1:30
p.m. Descriptions of the alternative models
Congestion cost savings
Others??
2:15
p.m. Actual Case Studies
Current BPA Investments (PowerPoint) Marv Landauer (BPA)
Path 15 Ed Chang (WAPA)
3:00
p.m. Key issues roundtable
·
Who
decides what transmission needs to be built and financed?
·
Utility
transmission planners? Project sponsors? Investors? State regulators?
FERC?
·
Do
they have any role in new generation project selection or siting?
Ø Which comes first,
generation or transmission?
Ø What is the role of the
RTOs, once in place?
·
What
criteria do they use to decide?
Ø Best transmission solution,
best overall solution considering non-transmission solutions?
Ø Would they potentially
refuse to build transmission to a badly sited generation project?
·
What
is a company buying with its investment?
Ø Exclusive rights to use the
line?
Ø Potential increased capacity
on parallel lines?
Ø FTRs that can be sold?
·
"Investment" implies ownership;
is that really what we mean?
Ø Is the "customer"
subscribing or contracting for service/capacity/inject&withdrawal rights without
ownership rights?
Ø With the contract approach
questions include initial term, renewal rights, assignment/sale, etc.
Ø How are these rights
protected in future expansions?
Ø Who "gets"
unintended capacity?
·
Under
the different models, what authority approves and enforces cost recovery?
Ø Spread the cost
Ø Open season
Ø Congestion cost savings
Ø Others?
·
Can
the different models be combined into a hybrid for certain projects?
·
Should
the transmission financing model be different for transmission that is
constructed for different purposes?
Ø Reliability
Ø Generator interconnection
Ø Fuel diversity
Ø Mitigating market power
Ø Enabling a robust
competitive wholesale market
Ø Other project differences
i.e. size, in-region vs. for-export?
·
How
does the financing alternative affect decisions on where to locate generation?
·
Is
capital available for new transmission construction under each model? If not,
what changes are needed to ensure capital is available?
·
Can
the “spread the cost” model that has been successfully used by individual
companies to expand transmission be used on a regional or interconnection-wide
basis?
·
What
are the consequences if investment does not occur?
·
Who
should have an opportunity to build selected projects?
·
Competition
through bids?
·
Right
of first refusal by incumbent?
·
If
3rd parties, how is incumbent compensated for use of existing capital; plant,
ROWs, etc.?
·
Can
the financing alternative be implemented before RTOs are in place?
·
Can
the financing alternative mesh with emerging RTOs?
·
Other
issues
3:30
p.m. Break
3:45
p.m. Roundtable Discussion (continued)
5:15
p.m. Recess
We
can keep a list of the key issues from the roundtable and make copies for use
on day 2.
Friday,
December 14
7:30
a.m. Continental breakfast
8:00
a.m. Summary of Financial Community View of
Transmission Investment
How is the current risk/reward equation perceived?
What are the important issues for third party
financing of transmission?
Is the traditional utility view now out of
date? -- Christine Uspenski
8:30
a.m. Round table discussion on the above
9:00
a.m. Telephone link with FERC Staff
Kevin Kelley, Don Gelinas, John Carson, Mike Coleman
FERC view on key issues
What could or should be done by FERC and other
parties to encourage appropriate transmission investment?
Discussion on key issues
emerging from day 1 discussion.
10:00
a.m. Break
10:15
a.m. What are the key issues with the
different models
“Spread the costs”
“Open season”
“Congestion cost
savings”
Others
Do different models
fit different circumstances?
11:00
a.m. Organization of the report to the
governors and assignments
12:30
p.m. Adjourn
It is intended that by the
end of the meeting we will have:
(1)
Decided on the outline of
the report
(2)
Assigned advocates of each
model to write up their model and describe its strengths and weaknesses on the
key issues identified
(3) Establish a schedule for completion of the report.
DATE |
TASK |
January 9 |
Drafting groups e-mail the draft
write-ups of their models to the group
|
January 9-15 |
Comments on the draft write-ups due
|
January 16 |
A draft of the remainder of the report
is prepared
(introduction, description of the
process used to develop the report, participants in developing the report,
conclusions/recommendations is prepared)
|
January 23 |
Complete draft report sent to the
Transmission Financing Committee
|
January 28 |
Comments due from the Transmission
Finance Committee members on complete draft report
|
February 13 |
Final report delivered to WGA |