e=arial size=-1 color=black>Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
Here is a list of main items I took notes on yesterday: Cal-ISO Stakeholder Meeting
San Francisco Stakeholder Study Group

Meeting Agenda

Tuesday February 1, 2005
10 AM 12 PM
Conference Room 300
Pacific Gas & Electric Office
77 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA

Here is a list of significant notes related to the meeting:

1. The draft agenda was revised and is attached.

PG&E (Stan Nishioka) provided a handout and briefly presented the current status of
the various transmission projects needed to release Hunters Point Power Plant from
its RMR agreements. The Potrero SVC Project was installed and operational in
December 2004 allowing the RMR contract for Hunters Point Units 2 & 3 to not be
renewed for 2005. Hunters Point Units 2 & 3 were shut-down in January 2005. The
five remaining PG&E transmission projects needed to release Hunters Point Units 1
& 4 from its RMR agreements are on-schedule to be completed in 2005 and 1
st
or 2
nd

quarter of 2006.

2. Ty Larson (CAISO) expressed his appreciation to PG&E for completing a lot of work
over the last several months including completing all the 115 kV line reconductoring
work associated with the Ravenswood-Ames reconductoring project before the end of
January 2005.

3. Larry Tobias (CAISO) provided an update on the status of the CAISO Revised
Action to release Potrero Power Plant from its RMR agreements. . He stated that the
four transmission projects in the Action Plan are included in PG&Es 2004
Transmission Expansion Plan and are scheduled to be in operation by May 2007.
These four projects are expected to be approved by the CAISO as part of the
Expansion Plan approval

4. Larry Tobias (CAISO) stated that Interconnection Studies of the proposed DC Line
from Pittsburg to Potrero would be initiated this week with a kick-off meeting
between various parties scheduled for Feb. 2
nd
.

5. PG&E (Alex Bingtan) presented study results for two 230 kV transmission
alternatives for providing long-term load serving capability for the San Francisco
Area. The alternatives included:

1. Build a 230 kV AC line under SF Bay and across Oakland from Potrero to
Moraga Substation.
SArora/Ltobias CAISO

11/21/2005 2. Build a 230 kV AC line underground from Potrero to near San Mateo and across
SF Bay to East Shore Substation. Reconductor lines from East Shore to San
Ramon and install new line from San Ramon Substation to Tesla Substation.

Jeff Ellis & Sandeep Arora stated that for each AC option, PG&E has provided a list
of potential projects that solve the identified thermal overloads. They suggested that
PG&E identify what new projects on the list result from installing the new AC line,
and which ones result from load growth or generation retirement assumptions
(regardless of the new AC line). Jeff also asked about including pre-project
transmission facility loading in the study documentation. PG&E clarified that by
comparing the potential projects associated with each alternative (including the
Reconductor Option), one can determine which projects are common to the
alternatives and which projects are unique to an alternative. A comparison of
potential projects associated with each alternative would be included in a cost report.

Related to a SF Phase 2 report which would include the PG&E studies as well as
indicate a preferred long-term alternative for serving load in SF, Lindsay Martin
(Siemens) asked if the draft decision matrix handed out at the last stakeholder
meeting will be revised before deciding on what option to go forward with. Larry
Tobias said that he has received comments from one stakeholder so far and would
like to hear from others before proceeding. He encouraged stakeholders to submit
their thoughts and suggested revisions to the matrix.

Larry stated that as time permits, a draft of the report would be issued to stakeholders
one week before the March 15th SF Stakeholder Meeting. Steven Moss supported
obtaining a draft report as well as the ISOs economic evaluation analysis prior to the
next stakeholder meeting. Larry agreed that this is important, but if not possible, time
will be allowed after the next stakeholder meeting for review and submittal of
comments.

Les Pereira (NCPA) talked briefly about considering the following when selecting a
preferred long-term transmission alternative: loading margins are very small for most
study scenarios; proper identification needs to be done as to what projects are needed
for what option; economic analysis for all options needs to be done; and outage of the
DC line itself needs to be evaluated. He also stated that the ISO should use an AC
power flow model (and not DC) to perform economic studies. Larry Tobias
responded that he would consider the comments during completion of the technical
analysis, conducting the economic analysis and drafting the SF Phase 2 Report. Larry
also stated that, at this time, it has been determined that the economic analysis being
used within the SF Phase 2 activity will be consistent with the methodology
established and used in determining the economic viability of other major
transmission projects currently being planned.

Chuck Toney (DWR) stated that the ISO has previously said that about 200 MW of
generation is needed north of Martin to meet reliability standards. Does PG&E
studies now show this is no longer true? Does the ISO still need 4 new CCSF
SArora/Ltobias CAISO

11/21/2005 peakers? Will all reinforcement options be compared to the 4 new CCSF peakers in
the ISO's final version of the SF studies report?

Larry responded that the ISO fully supports the successful outcome of the ISOs
Revised Action Plan established in part to relieve reliance on existing old generator
units within the SF Area. To that extent, the SF Phase 2 activity for determining a
long-term reliable load serving capability plan for SF is based on the successful
completion of the ISO's Revised Action Plan which includes the successful permitting
and operation of the proposed new CCSF CT's.

Ty Larson (CAISO) asked about the status of voltage/dynamic stability studies
corresponding to the system conditions being analyzed within the SF Phase 2 study.
Larry responded that such studies would be outside of SF Phase 2 and that PG&E
needs to initiate a new Greater Bay Area study in the future and determine when and
how much dynamic and/or static new voltage support is needed considering potential
retirement of old generator units in combination with new transmission projects
CAISO direction on generation assumptions and the transbay DC cable would be
needed prior to starting such an analysis.

Steven Moss inquired about what will be covered/included in the economic analysis
of long-term alternatives? Will it include the economic consequences associated with
the routing of the proposed new transmission lines? On what parameters will various
options be compared? Will the impact of future demand response programs be
incorporated to show how they could defer transmission reinforcement proposals?
How will you factor in the net social impacts of various options into the economic
analysis? Larry responded that, for the most part, the topics would be included with
the permitting process for new transmission and generation within the CPUC and
CEC, but not in detail within the SF Phase 2 activity. It is expected that the SF Phase
2 report will include a discussion of the potential of increased demand response
programs to defer transmission system reinforcements.

6. The next SF Stakeholder Group meeting has been scheduled for March 15
th
at
PG&Es office on the third floor of their 77 Beale Street building.

SArora/Ltobias CAISO

11/21/2005 LSTobias / Cal-ISO Grid Planning

11/21/2005
Cal-ISO Stakeholder Meeting
San Francisco Stakeholder Study Group


Meeting Agenda

Tuesday February 1, 2005
10 AM 12 PM
Conference Room 300
Pacific Gas & Electric Office
77 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA


I. Welcome & Introductions 10 minutes
II. Meeting Arrangements 5 minutes
III. Meeting Minutes Assignment 5 minutes
IV. Additions and/or Changes to the Agenda 10 minutes
V. Project Status Reports 10 minutes
A. Jefferson Martin 230 kV Project
B. Potrero-Hunters Point (AP-1) 115 kV Cable
C. 3rd Martin-Hunters Point 115 kV Cable
D. Potrero Static Var Compensator
E. San Mateo 230 kV Insulator Replacement
F. Ravenswood-Ames 115 kV Reconductoring
G. Tesla-Newark #2 Completion of Bundling
VI. Status of the CAISO Action Plan for not requiring Potrero PP for RMR 10-20
minutes
VII. Discussion & Comments on Proposed DC Line CAISO Economic Study 10
minutes
10 minute Break
VIII. SF Phase II 230 kV Transmission Alternatives Analysis 30 minutes
IX. Review of Action Items 5 minutes
X. Next Meeting Date 5 minutes