SPP’s 2013 Energy Consumption and Capa

12% annual capacity margin requirement

Capacity Consumption

Total Capacity

66 GW

Total Peak Demand

49 GW
SPP’s Operating Region

Current• 77,366 MW of generating capacity• 46,136 MW of peak demand• 48,930 miles transmission:

− 69 kV – 12,569 miles

− 115 kV – 10,239 miles

− 138 kV – 9,691 miles

− 161 kV – 5,049 miles

− 230 kV – 3,889 miles− 345 kV – 7,401 miles− 500 kV – 93 miles

Future (October 2015)• Adding 3 new members (WAPA, 

BEPC, and HCPD)

• + 5,000 MW of peak demand• + 7,600 MW of generating capacity• 50% increase in SPP’s current hydro 

capacity
5,127

285

0

5,000

(MW)

Kansas

1,100

78

0

5,000

(MW)

Arkansas

SPP’s Current Coal Status for 2018

Derated CapacityRetired CapacityRemaining Capacity

LEGEND
2030 Goals for States in SPP

1771 1783 1714

1499

741

1479 1544

1048

910 895 

2439 2368 2331 2320 2256

2162

2010

1798

1722

1562 

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,000

Montana

N. Dakota

Wyoming

Kansas

S. Dakota

Nebraska

Missouri

New Mexico

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Final Goal Energy Efficiency Renewable Nuclear Redispatch CCs Heat R

*Includes Future States with IS Generation in SPP (N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming)

Fossil Unit CO2 Emission Rate Goals and Block Application (lbs/MWh)

SPP State Average 2012 Rate = 1,699

SPP State Average 2030 Rate = 1,045
% Emission Reduction Goals for States 

*Includes Future States with IS Generation in SPP (N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming)

0

1020304050607080

S. Dakota

Arkansas

Texas

Oklahoma

Louisiana

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Montana

Wyoming

Total CO

2 Emission Reduction Goals (%)

AS
NGCC Capacity Factors

(For SPP and Select Neighboring States)
EPA’s Renewable Energy Assumptio

(For SPP and Select Neighboring States)
• Initial analysis requested by SPP’s Strategic Planning 

– Reliability analysis– Use existing ITP 2024 models– Model EPA’s projected EGU retirements– Replace retired EGUs with a combination of increase

from existing CCs, new CCs, Energy Efficiency, and inc

renewables (with input from member utility experts)

– Assessment underway, initial results expected week 

• SPP’s Regional State Committee requested analysis 

both individual state and regional approaches

– Will discuss approach during their August 25th conferen

SPP’s CPP Impact Assessments
EPA Projected 2016-2020 EGU Retirem

(For SPP and Select Neighboring States)

*Extracted from EPA IPM data**THESE RETIREMENTS ARE ASSUMED BY EPA – NOT SPP!

0

100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000110001200013000

AR KS MO MT ND NE NM OK SD TX 

MW

Coal Steam Oil/Gas Steam CT
EPA’s Projected 2016-2020 EGU Retirem

(For SPP and Select Neighboring States)

*Excludes committed retirements prior to 2016**Extracted from EPA IPM data***THESE RETIREMENTS ARE ASSUMED BY EPA – NOT SPP!
• Before considering the impacts of contingencies, preli

results indicate increased thermal overloads and low due to EPA’s assumed retirements

• Summer peak cases are not solving under single conti

• Indicative of significant low voltages due to lack of reactiv

• Remaining steps to be taken

• Continue to take steps to get all cases to solve and note w

were required

• Determine the amount of reactive support required to ma

reliable voltages

• Identify the number and significance of overloads and low 

that would have to be solved to comply with NERC Standa

SPP Reliability Impact Assessment R
• Used current load forecasts supplied by SPP members

planned generator retirements, currently planned new generator capacity with GIAs, and EPA’s assumed retir

• SPP’s minimum required reserve margin is 13.6%• By 2020, SPP’s anticipated reserve margin would be 5

representing a capacity margin deficiency of approxim4,500 MW

• By 2024, SPP’s anticipated reserve margin would be -3

representing a capacity margin deficiency of approxim10,000 MW 

• Out of 14 load serving members assessed, 9 would be 

by 2020 and 10 by 2024

SPP Reserve Margin Assessment
• SPP is responsible to FERC and NERC

– Required to ensure reliability and perform in accordance with tariff

– Rules, behavior, pricing, and revenue distribution are subject to FER– Penalties may be levied by FERC/NERC for failure to comply (up to $1 

MM/day/violation)

• SPP operates regional security-constrained, economically dispat

– Considers both reliability and economics– Generation dispatch provides reliable and economic solutions to nee

multi-state area

• SPP plans and directs regional transmission construction 

– Addresses expected reliability, economic, and public policy needs– Generator interconnection and transmission service must be reques

processed by SPP

– Takes up to 8.5 years to perform applicable planning processes and c

transmission upgrades 

State Plans Need to Consider the Fo
Transmission Build Cycle

GI Study

(12 mo.)

NTC

Process

(3-12 mo.)

Construction

(2-6 yr.)

Planning Study

(12-18 mo.)

TS 

Study

(6 mo.)

NTC

Process

(3-12 mo.)

Constructio

(2-6 yr.)

3 1⁄4 yr.

3 1⁄2 yr.

Transmission Planning Process

GI and Transmission Service Process
Lanny Nickell

Vice President, Engineering501-614-3232lnickell@spp.org