# Presentation: 611752

## Prepared by theDivision of Market DevelopmentOctober 24, 2001

_**Team Members**_
**Scott Miller, Director****	****	****Bryan Craig, Advisor ****	****	****Jim Caruso, Team Leader**
**David Bailey****	****	****Meesha Bond****	****	****Bob Czarick**
**Ken Kohut ****	****	****Lyle Hanagami****	****	****Brian Harrington****	**
**Bradley Johnson****	****	****David Lengenfelder****	****	****Than****h Luong **
**Camilla Ng****	****	****Cynthia Pointer****	**** **

- Western Infrastructure Assessment

## Table of Contents

- Part I – Demand
- Part II – Supply
- Electric
- Gas
- Part III – Markets
- Part IV – Transmission

## Table of Contents

**Part I – Demand**
- Part II – Supply
- Electric
- Gas
- Part III – Markets
- Part IV – Transmission

## State Population and Consumption Percentage within the United States WSCC Region for Year 2000

**State Population and Consumption Percentage within the United States WSCC Region for Year 2000**

**Total states’ electric consumption percentage within WSCC Region (total consumption for the WSCC region for the year 2000* = 615 GWhs).**

**Total states’ population percentage within the WSCC Region (total population for the WSCC region = 61.4m).**

- Sources: 1.  Electric Sales and Revenue; EIA Table 6 from 1990-1998 for Millions of Kilowatts Purchased (Consumption). 2.  *Data for 1999 and 2000; Electric Power Annual 2000 Volume I; EIA Tables A21, A22, A23, and A24 were used for preliminary totals for the year 2000 and actuals for 1999 (includes power marketing data). 3.  Electric Sales and Revenue Table C1 for 1997 and 1998 for power marketing data. 4.  Power market data for 1996 came from EIA Electric Sales and Revenue 1996, Table B1.  5.  US Census Bureau @ http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/statesst-99-3.txt for population figures. 6. EIA Most Recent Monthly Data, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_states_ng.html

**9.6%**

**15.1%**

**5.6%**

**8.6%**

**55.2%**

**40.1%**

**3.3%**

**4.6%**

**8.4%**

**10.0%**

**3.0%**

**3.1%**

**7.0%**

**7.0%**

**3.6%**

**3.8%**

**1.5%**

**1.9%**

**0.8%**

**2.1%**

**2.1%**

**3.7%**

**4.8%**

**3.3%**

**7.9%**

**3.5%**

**1.7%**

**7.9%**

**5.5%**

**57.7%**

**4.7%**

**1.4%**

**1.6%**

**Total states’ gas consumption percentage within WSCC Region (total consumption for the WSCC region for the year 2000* = 3,893 Bcf).**

**Notes:**
The purpose of this table is to show what percentage of the WSCC’s population and consumption each state has or consumes.  As the table shows, California has the largest population within the WSCC (55.2% of the total WSCC population) while Wyoming has the least (.8%).  
It follows that California consumes the most electricity within the WSCC (40.1% of all consumption within the WSCC) while Montana consumed the least (1.9%).  
The 2000 utility and gas figures for this table have not been finalized at this time.  This table will be updated when the 2000 figures are finalized .   
Gas
California accounts for the majority share of the west’s population and consumption, 55.2% of the west’s population and  57.7% of the west’s gas consumption.  
Montana consumed the least gas (1.4% of all consumption within the WSCC).  
Like the 2000 electric figures, the 2000gas figures have not been finalized.  This table will be updated when the 2000 figures become final.

## Western United States Population and Total Consumption Increases or (Decreases) from 1990 – 2000

**Western United States Population and Total Consumption Increases or (Decreases) from 1990 – 2000**

**State population increase (decrease) 1990 – 2000*.**
**State increase (decrease) in electric consumption from 1990 – 2000* (including residential, commercial, industrial, and other [street lights, etc.]).**
**State increase in gas consumption from 1990 – 2000  (including residential, commercial, industrial and electric utilities. **
**State electric consumption per capita for the year 2000 in KWhs (including residential, commercial, industrial, and other [street,lights, etc.]).**

- Total electric consumption from 1990 to 2000 in the WSCC region grew approximately 21.6% while population grew 19.9%.  Gas consumption grew 40.3%

- +21.1%

- +12.9%

- +2.2%

**15,786**

- (10.7)%

**12,988**

- +8.9%

- +8.8%

**25,937**

- +30.6%

- +40.7%

**10,072**

- +20.4%

- +23.6%

**15,520**

- +28.5%

- +27.0%

**17,668**

- +13.6%

- +16.8%

**7,282**

- +66.3%

- +71.8%

**14,057**

- +29.6%

- +50.3%

**10,367**

- +40.0%

- +48.2%

**11,978**

- +20.1%

- +37.1%

**10,419**

- Sources: 1.  Electric Sales and Revenue; EIA Table 6 from 1990-1998 for Millions of Kilowatts Purchased (Consumption). 2.  *Data for 1999 and 2000; Electric Power Annual 2000 Volume I; EIA Tables A21, A22, A23, and A24 were used for preliminary totals for the year 2000 and actuals for 1999 (includes power marketing data). 3.  Electric Sales and Revenue Table C1 for 1997 and 1998 for power marketing data. 4.  Power market data for 1996 came from EIA Electric Sales and Revenue 1996, Table B1.  5.  US Census Bureau @ http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/statesst-99-3.txt for population figures.   6. EIA Historical Natural Gas Annual-1930-1999 and Most Recent Monthly Data,                    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/nat_data_publications  and html http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_states_ng.html

**+23.3%**

**+84.1%**

**+33.5%**

**+43.9%**

**+43.0%**

**+184.0%**

**+48.8%**

**+44.8%**

**+59.0%**

**+112.5%**

**+93.9%**

**Notes:**
The purpose of this table is to show what impact population increases in the Western United States from 1990–2000 have had in regards to consumption, and what is the state per capita consumption in KWhs.  These figures include residential, commercial, industrial, and other (street lights, etc.) segments.  To read the table, the top or blue number represents the population increase from 1990-2000.  The red or middle number represents the state’s increase or decrease in consumption from 1990-2000.  The adjacent green number represents the estimated number of KWhs used per person within that state for the year 2000. The black or bottom number represents the state’s increase in gas consumption from 1990-2000. The gas consumption includes only residential, commercial, industrial and electric utility consumption and does not include pipeline fuel, vehicle use, lease and plant fuel.
Total electric consumption from 1990-2000 in the WSCC Region grew approximately 21.6% while population grew 19.9%.  Gas consumption grew 40.3%
As stated in the previous table, the 2000 figures for electric and gas have not been finalized.  This table will be updated when the figures become final.

## WSCC (U.S.) Electric Consumption by Sector from 1990-2000*

- Sources: 1.  Electric Sales and Revenue; EIA Table 6 from 1990-1998 for Millions of Kilowatts Purchased (Consumption). 2.  *Data for 1999 and 2000; Electric Power Annual 2000 Volume I; EIA Tables A21, A22, A23, and A24 were used for preliminary totals for the year 2000 and actuals for 1999 (includes power marketing data). 3.  Electric Sales and Revenue Table C1 for 1997 and 1998 for power marketing data. 4.  Power market data for 1996 came from EIA Electric Sales and Revenue 1996, Table B1.  5.  US Census Bureau @ http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/statesst-99-3.txt for population figures.

**Notes:**
The purpose of this graph is to show the increase in population and its relationship to consumption within the residential, commercial, and industrial, sectors in the WSCC Region.  
The population in the WSCC Region grew from 51.2m in 1990 to 61.4m in the year 2000 or 19.9%.  
Total consumption in the WSCC grew from 505,852 GWhs to an estimated 614,879 GWhs, or an estimated 21.6% between the years 1990-2000.  
Total per capita consumption increased within the WSCC from 9,884 KWhs per person in 1990 to 10,021 KWhs in 2000, or an increase of 1.4%.  
During the same time, the consumption in the WSCC residential sector increased approximately 27.6%.  The commercial sector had the largest increase in all sectors between 1990-2000 with an estimated 29.5% increase in consumption and the industrial sector’s consumption increased an estimated 10.4%.

## Gas Consumption in the WSCC (U.S.) by Sector 1990-2000(1990-1999 actual figures, 2000 figures to be finalized)

**Gas Consumption in the WSCC (U.S.) by Sector 1990-2000****(1990-1999 actual figures, 2000 figures to be finalized)**

**Notes:**
Total gas consumption in the 11 western states grew by 40.3% from 1990 to 2000.
Residential (grey) consumption in the west grew moderately by 15.3%.
Commercial (blue) consumption in the west did not grow significantly with only 3.6% growth over 10 years, 
Industrial (maroon) consumption showed the most significant growth by increasing 119.4%.  This increase in industrial consumption is mostly due to the sale and purchase of gas fired generation plants in California in 1998.  The new owners of the generation facilities (AES, Duke, Reliant, etc.) were reclassified under the “Industrial Sector”.  This also explains the majority of the decline in consumption for the “Electric Utilities” sector (yellow). 

## Monthly Electric Peak Total Capacity and Load in the WSCC (U.S.)(From 1990-2000 are Actual Figures; 2001-2005 Figures are Projected)

- Source:  NERC Electric Supply and Demand Database (EIA Form 411 Data).  1990-2000 are actual figures, year 2001-2005 are estimates.  Demand Projections from Peak Demand and Energy
- Bandwiths, 2001-2010 Projections, Load and Forecasting Working Group of the Planning Committee, NERC, July 2001.

**Notes:**
The purpose of this graph is to show the increase in actual and projected capacity from 1990-2005 vs. the increase in monthly peak load from 1990-2005 (using actual figures from 1990-2000 and projected from 2001-2005) for the WSCC region (U.S.).      
Total capacity (pink line) within the region from the years 1990-2000 remains relatively flat increasing only 4,251 MW, approximately 3%.
Summer Peak Demand (blue line) increased from 1990-2000 17,213 MW, approximately 17.7%.
Capacity is projected to increase between 2000-2005 52,328 MW, or  38.5%.  (Total increase from 1990 to the projected 2005 figure is 43%). 
Load is projected to increase between 2000-2005 16,713 MW or 14.5%.
We utilized NERC information in the creation of forecasted demand.  From the information in NERC’s paper titled Peak Demand and Energy Projection Bandwiths, 2001-2010 Projections, from NERC’s Load Forecasting Working Group of the Planning Committee, NERC, July 2001, we extrapolated the U.S. portion from the WSCC figures and applied the yearly percentages, creating a 10% Low Bound and a 90% High Bound.  What the 10% Low Bound is saying is that there is a 10% chance that demand will be BELOW this projection line (light blue line), and the 90% High Bound is saying there is a 10% chance demand will be ABOVE this projection line (orange line).  That means there is a 80% probability that actual demand will land somewhere in between those two lines.  The dark blue line is the actual NERC projection  

## Electric Reserve Margin in the WSCC Region (U.S.)(From 1990-2000 are Actual Figures, 2001-2005 are Estimates)

- Source:  NERC Electric Supply and Demand Database (EIA Form 411 Data).  1990-2000 are actual figures, year 2001-2005 are estimates.

**Notes:**
The purpose of this graph is to show and analyze the reserve margin in the WSCC region from 1990-2005 using actual and projected figures.  The years 1990-2000 are actual figures and the years 2001 to 2005 are projected.  
From the years 1990-1999, we see the reserve margin narrowing.  While the reserve margin between 1990-1991 increased to 29%, it decreases to 14% by 1998 (representing a loss of 14,711 MW).  In 1999, the reserve margin increased to 16% due to a milder summer in the region which created less demand and the reserve margin remained at 16% for the year 2000.
1.	From the year 1990-2000, the reserve margin dropped 12,962 MW or (37.9)%. 
The reserve margin forecast for the year 2001 to 2005 is expected to increase 35,697 MW or 153% over 2001s’ estimated reserve margin and 104% over 1990s’ reserve margin.  
At this point in time, hydro capacity remains flat through 2005 and will not increase or decrease the reserve margin.  

## Table of Contents

- Part I – Demand
**Part II – Supply**
**Electric**
**Gas**
- Part III – Markets
- Part IV – Transmission

## Net Generation U.S. West By StateBy Fuel Type

**Net Generation U.S. West ****By State****By Fuel Type**

_**Year 2000**_
**Demonstrated Capacity**
**U.S. West ****By State**
**By Fuel Type**

**Net Generation (Terawatt Hours****)        ****Demonstrated Capacity MW0**

**State**

**State**

**47,50 MW – 34%**

**25,400 MW – 18%**

**138,600 MW Total Western Capacity**

**178 TWh – 27%**

**107 TWh – 16%**

**89 TWh – 14%**

**650 TWh Total Western Net Generation**
**(1 Terawatt hour = 1,000,000 Megawatt hours)**

**Notes:**
The top graph depicts demonstrated capacity for the year 2000 for the Western states (which we’ve defined as those that comprise the WSCC).    TX and SD seem small, but that is because only a small portion of these states is part of the WSCC as defined by NERC.  The total capacity is roughly 139,000 MW.
The bottom graph depicts total Western generation output for the same Western states.  Total generation output was 650 terawatt hours for the year 2000.  Or another way of saying it, 650 million megawatt hours.  
Notice that 2 states (CA and WA) account for more than half of the capacity and 3 states (CA, WA and AZ) account for more than half of the generation output.  
Also, notice that nuclear and coal-fired units are larger in terms of their share of generation output than their share of capacity.  This is because they are base load units that are run continuously, while gas is run either when it is economically beneficial to do so or when it is imperative to do so, and hydro is run depending on water levels, which were below normal in 2000.

## Western States Capacity & Generation Output

**Just ****20 entities**** (10%) own ****73%**** of total western capacity and 20 entities produced ****71%**** of the generation**
**From 1996 through 2000, gas-fired generation increased ****221%****, while hydro decreased 17%, and all other generation increased only 20%, all this, while ****installed capacity changed very little**

**Notes:**
These are a couple of points that are not on the chart. 
10% of the entities in the Western states (most of them are holding companies) own 73% of the capacity and 10% of the entities produced 71% of the generation output.  
Also, from 1996 through 2000, generation output from gas-fired units increased a whopping 221%, while hydro decreased 17% and other types of generation increased only 20%, and all this, while installed capacity changed very little.  The increased output can be seen on the next graph.

## U.S. West (WSCC)Interrelationship of Hydro, Natural Gas & CoalAs Percentages of Their Combined Generation 

**U.S. West (WSCC)****Interrelationship of Hydro, Natural Gas & Coal****As Percentages of Their Combined Generation**

- Note:  We adjusted 1998 figures for gas-fired generation due to an EIA reporting problem.  See “Definitions, Assumptions & Other Information” at the end of Part II.

- SOURCE:  Resource Data International, Inc.
- POWERdat, Data Version P3.1, Data Set July 01
- RDI Modeled Production Cost–Ownership Based

**Year**

**    ****126%                118%                 110%                 85%                  82%**
**    ****119%                110%                 126%                 95%                  90%     **

**Notes:**
This graph is a way to visualize the interrelationship of hydroelectric generation to gas-fired and coal-fired generation.  As hydro decreases over the years due to decreasing precipitation, the gas-fired units are picking up the slack.  In actual numbers, coal also increased, but its 19% increase over five years does not compare with the 221% in gas-fired production.

## Current and New CapacityWestern States Projected to the Year 2003 (as of August 2001)

**   ****228 MW**
**4,889 MW**

**1,847 MW**
**9,272 MW**

| U.S. West Totals  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  | NEW
32,366 MW *

CURRENT *
150,581 MW
(Nameplate) |
|  |  |

**12,968 MW**
**56,218 MW**

**  ****8,324 MW**
**16,609 MW**

**   ****270 MW**
**2,869 MW**

**   ****600 MW**
**5,170 MW**

**1,997 MW**
**7,405 MW**

**  ****3,183 MW**
**24,564 MW**

**  ****1,951 MW**
**10,461 MW**

**   ****110 MW**
**5,773 MW**

**   ****390 MW**
**6,543 MW**

- * Includes 500 MW “New” and 809 MW “Current” of WSCC portions of South Dakota and Texas.

- SOURCE:  Resource Data International, Inc.
- POWERdat, Data Version P3.1, Data Set July 01
- Utility/Non-Utility Unit Ownership
- RDI Consulting, NEWGen Release: 8/2001

**Current and New Capacity****Western States Projected to the Year 2003 ****(as of August 2001)**

**Notes:**
Through the year 2003, the Western states plan to increase capacity more than 21% over August levels of this year.  
Most new capacity is planned for California, Arizona and Washington State.  Not surprisingly, these states have the most existing capacity.   
24,000 MW of the 32,000 MW of new capacity is either under construction or in the advanced development stage.  The remaining 8,000 MW is only in the early development stage, however, this 8,000 MW is only half of what was actually projected by the companies.  We adjusted the the reported figures for the sake of conservatism.  But who knows, with events like the recent economic downturn, this may not be conservative enough.

## Current and New Capacity

**21% increase in capacity from current levels (Aug 01) through 2003**
**Not surprisingly, the three states with the most capacity (CA, WA, AZ) are planning the most new capacity**
**24,000 MW is either under construction or in the advanced development stage**
**For the sake of conservatism, the 8,000 MW still in the early development stage represents only 50% of what was actually reported by the companies**

## Definitions, Assumptions & Other Information

**Advanced Development** indicates that two or more of the following criteria are met:
- A power purchase agreement (PPA) for a large portion of the output has been signed with a marketer that is not an affiliate of the developer.
- Financing has closed.
- Turbines for the project have been secured.
- The siting permit (often called the Certificate of Public Need and Necessity) and the air permit have been obtained, or the acquisition of these licenses is imminent.
- Strong local support is indicated.
- The project involves repowering with no emissions increase (such as nuclear repower projects or air inlet cooling).
**Early Development** covers a range of projects, from those that have been recently announced to those that have taken beginning steps in the permitting process.
- For purposes of analyzing planned capacity, it is assumed that **only 50%** **of planned capacity *****in the early development stage*** will actually be built.
**Nameplate Capacity** refers to the manufacturer’s capacity rating of generating equipment.
**Demonstrated Capacity** refers to the peak rating of generating equipment measured as the hourly output at which generating equipment is capable of supplying to system load.  In plain words, it is a unit’s highest hour of production for a given year.
**1998 Data Adjustment for Gas-fired Units.  **Complete plant statistics for the year 1998 were not available. This was because many Western utilities sold generating units in that year, especially gas-fired units in California, and the non-utility buyers of those units were not required to report plant statistics to EIA.  EIA subsequently required non-utility owners to begin reporting plant statistics, but not until 1999.  To correct for this reporting lapse, we adjusted 1998 capacity and net generation amounts for gas-fired units to reflect an average of the figures reported for the years 1997 and 1999.

## Table of Contents

- Part I – Demand
**Part II – Supply**
- Electric
**Gas**
- Part III – Markets
- Part IV – Transmission

## Material on this page is consider Non-Internet Public (NIP)

** ****Gas Supply Basins**
** ****Receipt/Delivery Pts.**
** ****Storage Facilities**
** ****Pipe Lines**

- Source:  RDI PowerMap

- Material on this page is consider **Non-Internet Public (NIP)**
- You would like a copy of this slide, please contact:
- Public Reference RoomTelephone: 202-502-8371Toll-free 1-866-208-3676Email: _[public.referenceroom@ferc.gov](mailto:public.referenceroom@ferc.gov)_

**Notes:**
This map depicts the Western gas infrastructure.  
The tan areas are the gas supply basins.  The dense area in the center of the map is the rocky mountain basin.  
The red and blue dots are the receipt and delivery points.  
And the green. triangles represent the storage facilities. 
The red lines of course are the gas pipelines themselves.  There are 20 major interstate pipelines that serve the West. 
With all the projects approved by or on file with the Commission, the West appears to have sufficient interstate capacity .  
(According to the California Energy Commission, there is not enough intrastate capacity to handle all of the gas flowing into the state by way of interstate pipelines.  California has several pipeline expansion projects in the works to fix this problem.)

## Slide 19

**Notes:**
The seasonal year for gas is April through March. 
Here we see the 2000 to 2001 year as a light blue line. 
The darker blue line is the 5-year average, so you can see that last year started out above the average and fell below the average for the last 5 months.
The red line represents this year, beginning in April.  Gas storage has quickly soared above the 5-year average and in August surpassed last year’s high level.

## Western U.S. Natural Gas Supply Resources and Basins

- Source:  California Energy Commission, California Energy Outlook, Staff Draft, Sep 2001

**Western U.S. Natural Gas Supply Resources and Basins**

**Proven reserves** are those located in basin where wells are currently in production.
**Potential reserves** are located in regions where analysis and testing indicate that natural gas can be economically produced but where there is no production underway.
**Reserve growth** accounts for changes in the economic recoverability of proven reserves.

**Notes:**
The map again shows the supply basins.  This map is expanded to show more states to the east and part of the Canadian basins.  
The  table in the right hand corner sums up the various natural gas resources shown on the map—
  83,000 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves
  351,000 trillion cubic feet of potential reserves, and 
  101,000 cubic feet of reserve growth
for a total of 535,000 trillion cubic feet of reserves for the regions.  
According to U.S. Geological Survey, the country’s reserves can be developed and produced economically to serve the nation for the next 50 years.  

## Table of Contents

- Part I – Demand
- Part II – Supply
- Electric
- Gas
**Part III – Markets**
- Part IV – Transmission

## Part III:  MARKETS

- Market Activity
- Western Market Hubs & Trading Volumes
- Western Electric & Natural Gas Prices
- NYMEX Electric Futures
- Estimated Cost of New Baseload Capacity
- Estimated Prices

**Notes:**
The Market Activity section is broken down into two parts.  The first part presents a historical perspective of  market prices in the West and the second part presents a forward market perspective.

The Market price section will:
identify the major electric/gas hubs in the West, 
show the electric and gas prices for these hubs for the period Jan 1998-July 2001
estimate electric prices using a cost of service approach for new baseload capacity
compare prices for two selected hubs

## Western Trading Hubs & Activity

- High prices persisted in the Western electric and gas markets from June 2000 through June 2001.
- Prices in both markets subsided significantly by August 2001.
- The decline in prices is attributable to
- Mild weather throughout the summer of 2001
- Plentiful generation
- Reduced demand
- Electric conservation programs
- Lower natural gas prices
- FERC imposed electric wholesale price mitigation
- Western electric  markets have lighter trading volumes when compared to PJM-West.
- Western electric markets have less liquidity and therefore prices are more susceptible to volatility.

**Notes:**
The top slide shows a map of the major electric (black) and gas (pink) hubs in the western U.S.  

The graph below the map shows the average monthly electric prices for five major electric hubs and the California PX for the period January 1998 through July 2001.  

Prior to the Summer of 2000, the graph illustrates low (< $50/MWh), stable, and uniform electric prices among these various hubs.  

Beginning in the summer 2000, the average monthly electric prices rose significantly to the $100-$200 MWh price range, but prices were fairly consistent among the various hubs.  

The winter of 2000/2001 saw electric prices skyrocket to be $400+ MWh price range, and wide price variances between the hubs.  Electric prices returned to moderate levels during the summer 2001 with the Commission’s issuance of its June 19th order.

## Electric & Gas Prices in the West

- Electric & Gas similarities
- Before Summer 2000:
- < $50/MWh
- < $3/mmbtu
- Minor variance between hubs, prices are very uniform
- Summer 2000:
- Prices begin to rise
- Hub prices higher but fairly uniform
- Winter 2000/2001
- Prices skyrocket in Dec 2000
- Significant price variances  between hubs
- Summer 2001
- < $60/MWh
- $5-$15/mmbtu
- Prices trending lower

**Notes:**
These graphs show a side by side comparison of electric and gas prices in West.  The top graph is the same graph as the previous slide, and the bottom graph shows gas prices shows in the West.

Both graphs show that prior to the Summer of 2000, gas prices displayed similar price movements as electric prices.  Prior to the Summer of 2000, gas prices were < $3/mmbtu, and remained relatively stable and uniform between hubs.  

Gas prices began to rise to the $5/mmbtu level during the Summer of 2000,  but hub prices remained fairly uniform between hubs.  Prices skyrocketed during the winter of 2000/2001 rising to $16.41/mmbtu average for the month of January 2001.  

During the summer of 2001, prices began to return to normal levels in the $5-$15 price range and finally to < 5 dollars by July 2001.

## NYMEX Electric  Futures 

- March 2001, COB 12-month futures index continued to reflect WSCC market conditions.
- COB 12-month futures index tracked seasonal patterns, but exhibited greater volatility versus PJM.
- August 2001, COB 12-month futures index subsided to reasonable levels, significantly lower than previous months.
- COB 12-month futures index currently exhibit less volatility and begin to converge with PJM Futures index in March 2002.

- SOURCE: Megawatt Daily, March 1, 2001 through April 2, 2001.

## Table of Contents

- Part I – Demand
- Part II – Supply
- Electric
- Gas
- Part III – Markets
**Part IV – Transmission**

## Material on this page is consider Non-Internet Public (NIP)

- Source: RDI PowerDat version 3.1, PowerMap

- Material on this page is consider **Non-Internet Public (NIP)**
- You would like a copy of this slide, please contact:
- Public Reference RoomTelephone: 202-502-8371Toll-free 1-866-208-3676Email: _[public.referenceroom@ferc.gov](mailto:public.referenceroom@ferc.gov)_

## WSCC Transmission Projects To Improve Interconnected System Operation

**Source:**  Western Interconnection Biennial Transmission Plan, July 2000

**Refer to next slide for key**

- Material on this page is consider **Non-Internet Public (NIP)**
- You would like a copy of this slide, please contact:
- Public Reference RoomTelephone: 202-502-8371Toll-free 1-866-208-3676Email: _[public.referenceroom@ferc.gov](mailto:public.referenceroom@ferc.gov)_

**Notes:**
The WSCC Transmission Projects To Improve Interconnected System Operation were selected based on the following criteria, per the Western Interconnection Biennial Transmission Plan July 2000:
 A Planning Review Group was formed for the project
	    The “Planning Review Group”:
facilitates regional planning activities
establishes a peer and outside stakeholder review process for proposed projects
identifies opportunities to enhance interconnected system operation

 A WSCC Project Rating Group was formed to obtain an Accepted WSCC Rating
The “Project Rating Group”:
resolves curtailment issues prior to the new facility or upgrade becoming operational. For example, existing facility owners could fault the new facility with degrading their transfer capability and place responsibility for curtailment on the new facility owner while new facility owners could argue that the new facilities improve interconnected efficiency and reliability and curtailments should be shared by all impacted systems.
The “Accepted WSCC Rating” is developed subsequent to Phase 2 of the the Project Rating Review Process.  At Phase 2, a open forum of interested non-project participants, the  “Project Review Group” is held to discuss and assess the impact of the new project on neighboring systems and provides a Rating Report.  Phase 1 is when the project participants reports the project to the WSCC Planning Coordination Committee and Technical Studies Subcommittee.  Phase 3 is the monitoring stage to ensure the “Accepted Rating” is maintained once the project has been placed in service. 
Key Point:
The sponsors of these projects had to meet 10 criteria to designate their project as a project of significant or regional interest.  Two of the 10 criteria used to make that determination deals with transmission constraint mitigation and operational constraints.   Not all heavily used or potentially congested paths are determined to be of significant interest because of economic considerations. 

## WSCC Transmission Projects to Improve Interconnected System Operation

| Project | Completion Date |
| --- | --- |
| Midpoint - Summer Lake 500kV Path Rating  | On Hold |
| Colorado - New Mexico Intertie | Q2/2002 |
| Public Service of CO - Southwestern Public Tie Line  | 2004 |
| Brownlee -  Boise Project  | 2001 |
| Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP), WSCC Phase 2  | 2005 |
| Sacramento Area Transmission Project  | Q3/2005 |
| Falcon - Gonder Project | 2003 |
| Valley - Rainbow | 2004 |
| South of San Onofre | 2000/2004 |
| Powder River - Denver Transmission Project | 2004 |

**Notes:**
This list details the name of the projects from the previous slide and a completion date.  The project number corresponds to the number on the map.

## The End