Decision 23105-D01-2019 Alberta Electric System Operator Rycroft 730S Substation Voltage Support Needs Identification Document May 3, 2019 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 23105-D01-2019 Alberta Electric System Operator Rycroft 730S Substation Voltage Support Needs Identification Document Proceeding 23105 Application 23105-A001 May 3, 2019 Published by the: Alberta Utilities Commission Eau Claire Tower, 1400, 600 Third Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0G5 Telephone: 403-592-8845 Fax: 403-592-4406 Website: www.auc.ab.ca The Commission may, within 30 days of the date of this decision and without notice, correct typographical, spelling and calculation errors and other similar types of errors and post the corrected decision on its website. Contents Decision summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction and background .............................................................................................. 2 Legislative framework .......................................................................................................... 5 Procedural overview ............................................................................................................. 8 Weight to be given to the CCA’s evidence ........................................................................ 10 5.1 Views of the AESO ...................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Views of the CCA ........................................................................................................ 11 5.3 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 11 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 12 6.1 Need for transmission development ............................................................................. 12 6.1.1 Views of the AESO ......................................................................................... 12 6.1.2 Views of the CCA ........................................................................................... 13 6.1.3 Commission findings ...................................................................................... 15 6.2 Use of a load curtailment remedial action scheme and the Transmission Regulation and Transmission Planning Standards ........................................................................ 17 6.2.1 Views of the AESO ......................................................................................... 17 6.2.2 Views of the CCA ........................................................................................... 19 6.2.3 Commission findings ...................................................................................... 21 6.3 The CCA’s other alternatives ....................................................................................... 22 6.3.1 Views of the CCA ........................................................................................... 22 Alternatives ........................................................................................ 22 CCA cost estimates ............................................................................ 25 6.3.2 Views of the AESO ......................................................................................... 27 Alternatives ........................................................................................ 27 CCA cost estimates ............................................................................ 29 6.3.3 Views of the Commission ............................................................................... 29 6.4 System cost classification ............................................................................................ 30 6.4.1 Views of the AESO ......................................................................................... 31 6.4.2 Views of the CCA ........................................................................................... 31 6.4.3 Commission findings ...................................................................................... 33 6.5 Landowner concerns .................................................................................................... 33 6.5.1 Views of the AESO ......................................................................................... 33 6.5.2 Views of Dennis Woronuk.............................................................................. 34 6.5.3 Commission findings ...................................................................................... 35 Public interest ...................................................................................................................... 35 7.1 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 36 Decision ................................................................................................................................ 38 Appendix A – Proceeding participants ..................................................................................... 39 Appendix B – Oral hearing – registered appearances ............................................................. 40 Decision 23105-D01-2019 (May 3, 2019) • i List of tables Table 1. Total cost to consumers under AESO load forecast, millions ....................................... 26 Table 2. Total cost to consumers under flat load forecast, millions ............................................ 26 List of figures Figure 1. Existing transmission network in the study area (simplified single-line diagram) .......... 2 ii • Decision 23105-D01-2019 (May 3, 2019) Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta Alberta Electric System Operator Decision 23105-D01-2019 Rycroft 730S Substation Voltage Support Proceeding 23105 Needs Identification Document Application 23105-A001 Decision summary 1. In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission determines whether to approve a needs identification document (NID) application filed by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) for voltage support at the Rycroft 730S Substation. 2. The AESO stated that voltage support was needed to alleviate identified constraints on the 144-kilovolt (kV) and 72-kV networks in the Peace River and Grande Prairie planning areas. The AESO determined that dynamic reactive power enhancements were required and the preferred development option was to add a 144-kV dynamic reactive power support device of approximately 50-megavolt ampere reactive (MVAR) at the Rycroft 730S Substation. The AESO stated that the existing Rycroft 730S Substation could be expanded to accommodate this device or the proposed components could be located at a new site within approximately two kilometres of the Rycroft 730S Substation. 3. The Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta (CCA) opposed the application, stating that the need in the study area was driven by insufficient transmission capacity to bring power into the area to serve loads. The CCA argued that the AESO did not fully or adequately consider lower cost options that addressed the need. The three lower cost options presented by the CCA were the following: (1) utilizing a remedial action scheme (RAS) to curtail loads and reduce flows into the Rycroft area; (2) relying on the RAS from option (1) and restoring loads by dispatching existing distribution-connected generation; (3) utilizing energy storage and distribution-connected generation to reduce flows into the area. The CCA stated that each of its options addressed the need in the Rycroft area while complying with reliability standards and the requirements of the Transmission Regulation. The CCA stated that its second and third options had significantly lower overall costs than the voltage support device proposed by the AESO. 4. Dennis Woronuk owns the land on which the Rycroft 730S Substation is located and he was opposed to expanding the size of the substation. He stated the substation is located at a major highway intersection and he was concerned that expanding the substation would increase the risk of an accident, thereby interrupting electricity supply in the area and further interfering with lines of sight for motorists, and also that road salt thrown from vehicles would exacerbate maintenance issues within the substation. He was also concerned that future expansion of the village of Rycroft might expose new residents to noise from the substation, and that the affect of that noise and measures to mitigate it had not been addressed in the proceeding. Mr. Woronuk did not challenge the AESO’s need assessment. Lastly, he submitted that the MVAR device proposed by the AESO should not be located at the existing substation. 5. After considering the record of the proceeding, and for the reasons provided in this decision, the Commission has found that no party demonstrated that the AESO’s assessment of the need for the proposed development is technically deficient or that approving the NID would Decision 23105-D01-2019 (May 3, 2019) • 1 Rycroft 730S Substation Voltage Support Needs Identification Document Alberta Electric System Operator not be in the public interest. The Commission also concluded that the alternatives proposed by the CCA were adequately considered by the AESO when it conducted its assessment and the AESO reasonably concluded they were not viable solutions that