follows. The change in transmission losses caused by the CEERTS project will be determined by the FRCC PC. The FRCC PC will run simulations of the approved transmission plan with all projects, adjusted (if necessary) to include the alternative transmission projects that were identified that would have been needed to satisfy a transmission need for which no transmission projects are in the current transmission plan (see section 1.2.2.B), to establish base transmission losses for each enrolled transmission provider represented in the plan over the planning horizon. Base case losses will be determined for the years during which the CEERTS project is expected to be in service during the planning horizon, under both peak and off-peak conditions. The approved transmission plan will then be modified to (1) include a proposed CEERTS project; (2) remove all alternative transmission projects; and (3) adjust or remove any affected or avoided transmission projects in the approved transmission plan as well as add any additional projects that would be required (see section 1.2.7.A.4) (after verifying that all reliability requirements are met) with the appropriate in-service dates. The modified plan is then analyzed for losses. The CEERTS case losses are determined for each enrolled transmission provider represented in the plan for the years during which the CEERTS project is expected to be in service during the planning horizon, at both peak and off-peak conditions. Enrolled transmission providers with reduced losses are beneficiaries of the CEERTS project. The change in losses for year 10 of the planning horizon will be held constant for years 11-20 of the 20-year period. The change in losses (whether negative or positive) in each year that the CEERTS project is in service for the 20-year period is determined for each enrolled transmission provider. The value of the change in losses for each enrolled transmission provider will be determined by the independent consultant as follows: The independent consultant will use fuel cost and heat rate data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration ("EIA") to value losses. The net present value of the value of losses will be determined for each enrolled ransmission rovider using the
Transmission Provider B Estimated Avoided Project Cost Benefit = $200 M Total Estimated Alternative Project Cost Benefit = $0M Benefit to Cost Ratio: "Total Estimated Avoided Project Cost Benefit" ($300 M) divided by Estimated CEERTS Project Cost ($400 M) = 0.75, therefore this CEERTS project does not pass the benefit to cost ratio threshold. CEERTS Project Cost Allocation: N/A Example 3: Public Policy Project CEERTS project where LSEs within Transmission Provider A, B and C each receive benefits from the project The project developer is a non-incumbent developer Assumptions: Public policy CEERTS project enables access to a total of 600 MW of public policy resources Public policy CEERTS project enables LSEs within Transmission Providers A, B and C to access the public policy resources: Transmission Provider A = 100 MWs Transmission Provider B = 200 MWs Transmission Provider C = 300 MWs CEERTS Project Cost Allocation: Transmission Provider A = (100 MW / 600 MW) = 17% Transmission Provider B = (200 MW / 600 MW) = 33% Transmission Provider C = (300 MW / 600 MW) = 50%