AF2-008 Phase III Study Report
v1.00 released 2025-09-18 16:29
Sullivan 345 kV
500.0 MW Capacity / 1000.0 MW Energy
Introduction
This Phase III System Impact Study Report (PH3) has been prepared in accordance with the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, Part VII, Subpart D, section 312 for New Service Requests (projects) in Transition Cycle 1. The Project Developer/Eligible Customer (developer) is Grain Belt Express LLC, and the Transmission Provider (TP) is PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). The interconnected Transmission Owner (TO) is AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc..
Preface
New Service Requests meeting the requirements of Tariff, Part VII, Subpart D, Decision Point II, were included in the Phase III System Impact Study. The Phase III System Impact Study is conducted on an aggregate basis within a New Services Request’s Cycle, and results are provided in both (i) a single Cycle executive summary format and (ii) an individual project-level basis. The Phase III System Impact Study Results (for both the executive summary and individual reports) will be publicly available on PJM’s website. Developers must obtain the results from the website.
In accordance with PJM Manual 14H, section 4.7, PJM takes the following actions during the Phase III System Impact Study:
- PJM will retool load flow, short circuit and stability results based on decisions made by Project Developers or Eligible Customers during Decision Point II.
- PJM will coordinate with Affected System Operators to conduct any studies required to determine the final impact of a New Service Request on any Affected System and will include the final Affected System Study results in the Phase III System Impact Study, if available from the Affected System.
- The Phase III System Impact Study Results will be publicly available on PJM’s website; Project Developers and Eligible Customers must obtain the results from the website.
- PJM will tender draft final agreements to Project Developers or Eligible Customers.
The Transmission Owner takes the following actions during the Phase III System Impact Study:
- Verify Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades required to accommodate the New Service Request.
- Perform a Facilities Study. The Facilities Study in Phase III System Impact Study phase will be for the System Reliability Network Upgrades. The Facilities Study requirements are outlined in Attachment C of PJM Manual 14H. The study will be conducted pursuant to Tariff, Part VII, Subpart D, section 307(A)(7).
Decision Point III Requirements
At the close of Phase III System Impact Study, PJM will initiate Decision Point III (DP3). During DP3, the Project Developer will have 30 days to decide whether to proceed with their project. If the Project Developer elects to proceed, they should provide the elements defined in the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, Part VII, Subpart D, section 313.A. Additional information on these elements is available in PJM Manual 14H sections 4.8, 6, and 7.
As stated in PJM Tariff, Part VII, Subpart D, section 313.C, New Service Requests may not be changed or modified in any way for any reason during Decision Point III. A New Service Request must be withdrawn and resubmitted in a subsequent Cycle to the extent a Project Developer or Eligible Customer wants to make any changes to such New Service Request at this point in the Cycle process.
Adverse Test Eligibility
This New Service Request meets the Adverse Study Impact Criteria and has the option to either move forward in the Cycle process or withdraw at DP3 with cumulative Readiness Deposits refunded. See Readiness Deposit calculation below.
This section details whether a Project Developer or Eligible Customer qualifies for the Adverse Study Impact clause outlined in the PJM OATT, Part VII, Subpart D, section 313.B and Manual 14H, section 6.2.2. In order to qualify for an Adverse Study Impact at Decision Point III, the Network Upgrade cost from Phase II to Phase III must:
- Increase overall by 35% or more
- Increases by more than $25,000 per MW (Includes Costs identified in Affected System studies)
If a New Service Request meets the criteria above and chooses to withdraw the request, PJM will refund the cumulative Readiness Deposit amounts paid at the Application Phase, Decision Point I, and Decision Point II (RD1, and RD2 and RD3, respectively).
The below calculations show the computation of this New Service Request's Adverse Study Impact
General
The Project Developer has proposed an uprate to a planned/existing Merchant Transmission facility located in the American Electric Power zone — Sullivan County, Indiana. This project is an increase to the developer’s AF1-088 project(s), which will share the same Point of Interconnection. The AF2-008 project is a 1000.0 MW (500.0 MW Capacity) uprate to Transmission Injection Rights and 0.0 MW (0.0 MW Firm) uprate to Transmission Withdrawal Rights to the previous projects.
Project Information
- New Service Request Number:
- AF2-008
- Project Name:
- Sullivan 345 kV
- Project Developer Name:
- Grain Belt Express LLC
- State:
- Indiana
- County:
- Sullivan
- Transmission Owner:
- AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc.
- FTIR:
- 500.0 MW
- NFTIR:
- 1000.0 MW
- FTWR:
- 0.0 MW
- NFTWR:
- 0.0 MW
- Basecase Study Year:
- 2027
Physical Interconnection Facility Study
The transmission owner has completed the Physical Interconnection Facilities Study. This report is available for download.
Point of Interconnection
AF2-008 will interconnect on the AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc. transmission system as a 525kV HVDC tie at the Sullivan 345 kV substation.
Cost Summary
The table below shows a summary of the total cost estimates for this New Service Request project. In Phase III SIS, the interconnected Transmission Owner has performed a facilities study for the required System Reliability Network Upgrades. The Facilities Studies for the Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities (TOIF) and Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades were performed by the Transmission Owner in Phase II and are available for download on PJM.com (see General Section for document links).
Based on the Phase III SIS results, the AF2-008 project has the following allocation of costs for interconnection. The Security amount required at DP3 is also shown below.
| Description | Cost Allocated to AF2-008 | Cost Subject to Security |
|---|---|---|
| Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities (TOIF) | $3,207,409 | $3,207,409 |
| Other Scope | $0 | $0 |
| Option to Build Oversight | $0 | $0 |
| Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades | ||
| Stand Alone Network Upgrades | $0 | $0 |
| Network Upgrades | $3,624,696 | $3,624,696 |
| System Reliability Network Upgrades | ||
| Steady State Thermal & Voltage (SP & LL) | $86,109,849 | $86,109,849 |
| Transient Stability | $0 | $0 |
| Short Circuit | $0 | $0 |
| Transmission Owner Analysis | ||
| SubRegional | $0 | $0 |
| Distribution | $0 | $0 |
| Affected System Study Reinforcements | ||
| AFS - PJM Violatons | $1,925,781 | $0 |
| AFS - Non-PJM Violations | $3,076,351 | $0 |
| Total | $97,944,087 | $92,941,954 |
* Contributes to calculation for Security. See Security Section of this report for additional detail.
Definitions
Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities: Facilities that are owned, controlled, operated and maintained by the Transmission Owner on the Transmission Owner’s side of the Point of Change of Ownership to the Point of Interconnection, including any modifications, additions or upgrades made to such facilities and equipment, that are necessary to physically and electrically interconnect the Generating Facility with the Transmission System or interconnected distribution facilities.
Stand Alone Network Upgrades: Network Upgrades, which are not part of an Affected System, which a Project Developer may construct without affecting day-to-day operations (e.g. taking a transmission outage) of the Transmission System during their construction.
Network Upgrades: Modifications or additions to transmission-related facilities that are integrated with and support the Transmission Provider’s overall Transmission System for the general benefit of all users of such Transmission System. Network Upgrades have no impact or potential impact on the Transmission System until the final tie-in is complete.
Notes
Note 1: PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), Part VII, Subpart D, section 307.5 outlines cost allocation rules. The rules are further clarified in PJM Manual 14H, section 4.2.6. PJM shall identify the New Service Requests in the Cycle contributing to the need for the required Network Upgrades within the Cycle. All New Service Requests that contribute to the need for a Network Upgrade will receive cost allocation for that upgrade pursuant to each New Service Request’s contribution to the reliability violation identified on the transmission system in accordance with PJM Manuals.
Note 2: There will be no inter-Cycle cost allocation for Interconnection Facilities or Network Upgrades identified in the System Impact Study costs identified in a Cycle; all such costs shall be allocated to New Service Requests in that Cycle.
Note 3: For Project Developers with System Reinforcements listed: If this project presents cost allocation to a System Reinforcement indicates $0, then please be aware that as changes to the interconnection process occur, such as other projects withdrawing, reducing in size, etc, the cost responsibilities can change and a cost allocation may be assigned to this project. In addition, although this project presents cost allocation to a System Reinforcement is presently $0, this project may need this system reinforcement completed to be deliverable to the PJM system. If this project desires to come into service prior to completion of the system reinforcement, the Project Developer will need to request PJM to perform an interim deliverability study to determine if they would be deliverable for all or a portion of their output for each delivery year until the system reinforcement is complete.
Security Requirement
Per Tariff Part VII, Subpart D, section 313 (Decision Point III) A.1.a and PJM Manual 14H, section 8.6.1, Project Developers and Eligible Customers are required to provide Security in a form acceptable to PJM at Decision Point III which runs concurrently with the projects' Final Agreement Negotiation Phase. Security may be in the form of cash, letter of credit, or other form of Security acceptable to PJM (see PJM M14H, Section 6.4).
Security is calculated for a New Service Request based on the Network Upgrade costs allocated pursuant to the Phase III System Impact Study results.
Note 1: "Network Upgrades" referred to in the calculation include both (i) the Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades and (ii) the System Reliability Network Upgrades as shown in the Cost Summary table.
Security Due for AF1-088/AF2-008
Security has been calculated for the AF1-088/AF2-008 project(s) based on the Phase III System Impact Study results and is shown in the table below. This Security must be provided at Decision Point III through either a wire transfer or letter of credit or other form of Security deemed acceptable by PJM per Manual 14H, Section 6.4.
Security Due for AF1-088/AF2-008
Transmission Owner Scope of Work
AF2-008 will interconnect with the AEP transmission system via a direct connection to the Sullivan 345 kV Station. The estimates provided in this report are preliminary in nature, as they were determined without the benefit of detailed engineering studies. Final estimates will require an on-site review and coordination to determine final construction requirements.
The total preliminary cost estimate for the Transmission Owner scope of work (including TOIF and Physical Interconnection Network Upgrades) is given in the table below. These costs do not include CIAC Tax Gross-up.
| Network Upgrades | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTEP ID | Description | Direct | Indirect | Total Cost ($USD) | Allocated Cost ($USD) | ||
| Labor | Materials | Labor | Materials | ||||
| n9532.0 |
Sullivan 345 kV Station: Expansion. • Installation of a new circuit breaker string with two (2) new 5000A 345 kV circuit breakers and associated control relaying and disconnect switches. • Expansion of the existing DICM by 18 feet. • Associated conductors (buswork, jumpers, etc.), insulators, arresters, foundations, and structures. • Review and revision of the protective relay settings for the remainder of the Sullivan 345 kV Station. |
$1,489,603 | $1,763,878 | $198,997 | $172,218 | $3,624,696 | $3,624,696 |
| Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTEP ID | Description | Direct | Indirect | Total Cost ($USD) | Allocated Cost ($USD) | ||
| Labor | Materials | Labor | Materials | ||||
| (Pending) |
AF2-008: • Installation of one (1) new A-Frame take off structure for the line exit to the AF2-008 converter station. • Installation of One (1) new steel, single pole, single circuit, tangent structure on a concrete pier foundation with an anchor bolt cage. • Installation of one (1) new steel, 120', single circuit, single pole dead end structure on a concrete pier foundation with an anchor bolt cage. • Installation of two (2) spans of double bundle aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) 1272 (Pheasant) transmission line conductor with 7#8 Alumoweld shield wire for the Merchant Transmission lead circuit extending from the Sullivan 345 kV station. • Extension of two (2) underground 48 count all dielectric loose tube (ADLT) fiber optic cables from the Sullivan 345 kV station control house to fiber demarcation splice boxes to support direct fiber relaying between the Sullivan 345 kV and Project Developer's converter station. The Project Developer will be responsible for the fiber extension from the splice boxes to the converter station. • Installation of a standard revenue metering package, including three (3) single phase current transformers (CT), three (3) single phase coupling capacitor voltage transformers (CCVT), associated structures and foundations, one (1) ethernet switch, and one (1) drop in control module (DICM)-installed metering panel for the Merchant Transmission lead circuit at the Sullivan 345 kV station. |
$1,755,065 | $1,002,934 | $295,747 | $153,663 | $3,207,409 | $3,207,409 |
Based on the scope of work for the Interconnection Facilities, it is expected to take a range of 30 to 60 month(s) after the signing of a Generator Interconnection Agreement (as this is a FERC connection) and construction kickoff call to complete the installation of the physical connection work. This assumes that there will be no environmental issues with any of the new properties associated with this project, that there will be no delays in acquiring the necessary permits for implementing the defined interconnection work, and that all system outages will be allowed when requested.
Note that the TO findings were made from a conceptual review of this project. A more detailed review of the connection facilities and their cost will be identified in a future study phase. Further note that the cost estimate data provided should be considered high level estimates since it was produced without a detailed engineering review. The Project Developer will be responsible for the actual cost of construction. TO herein reserves the right to return to any issues in this document and, upon appropriate justification, request additional monies to complete any reinforcements to the transmission systems.
Remote Terminal Work: During Phase 2 of the PJM interconnection process, TO’s System Protection Engineering Department will review transmission line protection as well as anti-islanding required to accommodate the new generation and interconnection substation. System Protection Engineering will determine the minimal acceptable protection requirements to reliably interconnect the proposed generating facility with the transmission system. The review is based on maintaining system reliability by reviewing TO’s protection requirements with the known transmission system configuration which includes generating facilities in the area. This review may determine that transmission line protection and communication upgrades are required at remote substations.
The minimum and maximum schedules reflect the amount of time (in months) that AEP projects their portion of the construction project scope elapsing from the time of agreement. Final agreements will reflect an "on or before" date, allowing all parties to complete their scope of work prior to the agreement date, should there be means to expedite. Any material ordering or construction work done prior to Engineering and Procurement or Generation Interconnection Agreements is done solely at the Project Developers risk. There is a potential that the work or materials ordered prior to agreements and the ensuing detailed engineering processes does not meet AEP specifications, resulting in rejection of the completed work.
Transmission Owner Analysis
No Transmission Owner impacts identified.
Developer Requirements
The developer is responsible for all design and construction related activities on the developer’s side of the Point of Change in Ownership. AEP interconnection requirements can be found here. Refer to AF2-008 Physical Interconnection Facilities Study for additional requirements found in the General Section of the report.
To the extent that these Applicable Technical Requirements and Standards may conflict with the terms and conditions of the Tariff, the Tariff shall control.
Revenue Metering and SCADA Requirements
The developer will be required to install equipment necessary to provide Revenue Metering (KWH, KVARH) and real time data (KW, KVAR) for their generating Resource. See PJM Manual 01, PJM Manual 14D, and PJM Tariff Part IX, Subpart B, Appendix 2, section 8.Transmission Owner Requirements
The Project Developer will be required to comply with all interconnected Transmission Owner’s revenue metering requirements located at the following link: PJM - Transmission Owner Engineering & Construction Standards and in the Physical Interconnection Facilities Study.
Summer Peak Analysis
The New Service Request was evaluated as a 1000.0 MW (500.0 MW Capacity) injection and 0.0 MW (0.0 MW Firm) withdrawal in the AEP area. Project was evaluated for compliance with applicable reliability planning criteria (PJM, NERC, NERC Regional Reliability Councils, and Transmission Owners). Potential summer peak period network impacts were as follows:
Note: The capacity portion of Merchant Transmission Requests are evaluated for single or N-1 contingencies. The full energy output of Merchant Transmission Requests are evaluated for multiple facility contingencies (double circuit tower line, fault with a stuck breaker, and bus fault).
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AEP/DEI |
05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243221 to 249504 ckt 1 |
AEP_P4_#4697_05DEQUIN 345_B_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P4_#4697_05DEQUIN 345_B_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 243878 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - 05MEADOW 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 963840 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - AG1-237 TP 345.0 END |
Breaker | AC | 111.81 % | 1374.0 | B | 1536.32 | 108.73 |
| AEP/DEI |
05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243221 to 249504 ckt 1 |
AEP_P7-1_#11014___SRT-A-1
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P7-1_#11014___SRT-A-1' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 247712 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - 05SULLIVAN 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 963840 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - AG1-237 TP 345.0 END |
Tower | AC | 122.0 % | 1374.0 | B | 1676.24 | 125.18 |
| AEP/DEI |
05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243221 to 249504 ckt 1 |
AEP_P7-1_#11014___SRT-A-2
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P7-1_#11014___SRT-A-2' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 247712 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - 05SULLIVAN 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 963840 TO BUS 963740 CKT 1 /*AG1-237 TP 345.0 - AG1-226 TP 345.0 END |
Tower | AC | 115.45 % | 1374.0 | B | 1586.22 | 125.18 |
| AEP |
05ROCKPT-05JEFRSO 765.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243209 to 243208 ckt 1 |
AEP_P7-1_#11042___SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P7-1_#11042___SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243878 TO BUS 255205 CKT 1 /*05MEADOW 345.0 - 17REYNOLDS 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243878 TO BUS 255205 CKT 2 /*05MEADOW 345.0 - 17REYNOLDS 345.0 END |
Tower | AC | 105.61 % | 4571.0 | B | 4827.21 | 334.5 |
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AEP/OVEC |
05JEFRSO-06CLIFTY 345.0 kV Ckt Z1 line
242865 to 248000 ckt Z1 |
AEP_P1-2_#709_546_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P1-2_#709_546_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 242924 TO BUS 243208 CKT 1 /*05HANG R 765.0 - 05JEFRSO 765.0 END |
Single | AC | 116.44 % | 2255.0 | B | 2625.64 | 84.36 |
| AEP/OVEC |
05JEFRSO-06CLIFTY 345.0 kV Ckt Z1 line
242865 to 248000 ckt Z1 |
AEP_P4_#1760_05JEFRSO 765_A_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P4_#1760_05JEFRSO 765_A_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 242924 TO BUS 243208 CKT 1 /*05HANG R 765.0 - 05JEFRSO 765.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243207 TO BUS 243208 CKT 1 /*05GRNTWN 765.0 - 05JEFRSO 765.0 END |
Breaker | AC | 144.19 % | 2255.0 | B | 3251.55 | 232.9 |
| AEP/OVEC |
05JEFRSO-06CLIFTY 345.0 kV Ckt Z1 line
242865 to 248000 ckt Z1 |
AEP_P4_#6189_05HANG R 765_D1_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P4_#6189_05HANG R 765_D1_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 242921 TO BUS 242924 CKT 1 /*05CORNU 765.0 - 05HANG R 765.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 242921 TO BUS 242934 CKT 1 /*05CORNU 765.0 - 05CORNU 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 242924 TO BUS 243208 CKT 1 /*05HANG R 765.0 - 05JEFRSO 765.0 REMOVE UNIT 1A FROM BUS 247245 /*05HRKG1A 18.0 REMOVE UNIT 1B FROM BUS 247246 /*05HRKG1B 18.0 REMOVE UNIT 1S FROM BUS 247247 /*05HRKG1S 18.0 REMOVE UNIT 2 FROM BUS 247249 /*05HRKG2B 18.0 REMOVE UNIT 2A FROM BUS 247248 /*05HRKG2A 18.0 REMOVE UNIT 2S FROM BUS 247250 /*05HRKG2S 18.0 END |
Breaker | AC | 128.54 % | 2255.0 | B | 2898.49 | 168.41 |
| AEP |
05JEFRSO-05JEFRSO 765.0/345.0 kV Ckt 2 transformer
243208 to 242865 ckt 2 |
AEP_P4_#1760_05JEFRSO 765_A_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P4_#1760_05JEFRSO 765_A_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 242924 TO BUS 243208 CKT 1 /*05HANG R 765.0 - 05JEFRSO 765.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243207 TO BUS 243208 CKT 1 /*05GRNTWN 765.0 - 05JEFRSO 765.0 END |
Breaker | AC | 107.32 % | 3039.0 | B | 3261.43 | 232.9 |
Summer Potential Congestion due to Local Energy Deliverability
PJM also studied the delivery of the energy portion of this interconnection request. Any problems identified below are likely to result in operational restrictions to the project under study. The developer can proceed with network upgrades to eliminate the operational restriction at their discretion by submitting an Upgrade Request into the New Service Request process.
Note: Only the most severely overloaded conditions are listed below. There is no guarantee of full delivery of energy for this project by fixing only the conditions listed in this section. With an Upgrade Request, a subsequent analysis will be performed which shall study all overload conditions associated with the overloaded element(s) identified.
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AEP/NIPS |
05MEADOW-17REYNOLDS 345.0 kV Ckt 2 line
243878 to 255205 ckt 2 |
AEP_P1-2_#8695_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P1-2_#8695_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243878 TO BUS 255205 CKT 1 /*05MEADOW 345.0 - 17REYNOLDS 345.0 END |
OP | AC | 146.83 % | 1868.0 | B | 2742.77 | 144.26 |
| AEP/NIPS |
05MEADOW-17REYNOLDS 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243878 to 255205 ckt 1 |
AEP_P1-2_#8807_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P1-2_#8807_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243878 TO BUS 255205 CKT 2 /*05MEADOW 345.0 - 17REYNOLDS 345.0 END |
OP | AC | 146.83 % | 1868.0 | B | 2742.77 | 144.26 |
| AEP |
AG1-237 TP-05DEQUIN 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
963840 to 243217 ckt 1 |
Base Case | OP | AC | 103.54 % | 1409.0 | A | 1458.95 | 57.12 |
| AEP |
05DEQUIN-05MEADOW 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243217 to 243878 ckt 1 |
AEP_P1-2_#6490_16000_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P1-2_#6490_16000_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 243878 CKT 2 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - 05MEADOW 345.0 END |
OP | AC | 102.25 % | 1958.0 | B | 2002.1 | 137.22 |
| AEP |
05DEQUIN-05MEADOW 345.0 kV Ckt 2 line
243217 to 243878 ckt 2 |
AEP_P1-2_#6472_15258_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P1-2_#6472_15258_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 243878 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - 05MEADOW 345.0 END |
OP | AC | 101.41 % | 1958.0 | B | 1985.55 | 136.07 |
| AEP |
AG1-237 TP-05DEQUIN 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
963840 to 243217 ckt 1 |
EXT_P1:345:DEI:CAYUGA GEN-CAYUGA 34535+CAYU 345/69XFR_SRT-S
CONTINGENCY 'EXT_P1:345:DEI:CAYUGA GEN-CAYUGA 34535+CAYU 345 CLOSE BRANCH FROM BUS 250595 TO BUS 250896 CKT 1 /*08INLNDC 69.0 - 08WROWJ 69.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 249504 TO BUS 249505 CKT 1 /*08CAYSUB 345.0 - 08CAYUGA 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 249504 TO BUS 250340 CKT 1 /*08CAYSUB 345.0 - 08CAYSUB 69.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 250340 TO BUS 250341 CKT 1 /*08CAYSUB 69.0 - 08CAY69 69.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 250340 TO BUS 250595 CKT 1 /*08CAYSUB 69.0 - 08INLNDC 69.0 END |
OP | AC | 100.2 % | 1868.0 | B | 1871.77 | 84.43 |
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
(No impacts were found for this analysis)
Winter Peak Analysis
PJM will start performing Winter Peak analysis in Transition Cycle 2.
Winter Potential Congestion due to Local Energy Deliverability
PJM will start performing Winter Peak analysis in Transition Cycle 2.
Light Load Analysis
The New Service Request was evaluated as a 500.0 MW injection and 0.0 MW withdrawal in the AEP area. Project was evaluated for compliance with applicable reliability planning criteria (PJM, NERC, NERC Regional Reliability Councils, and Transmission Owners). Potential light load period network impacts were as follows:
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AEP/OVEC |
06KYGER-05SPORN 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
248005 to 242528 ckt 1 |
AEP_P1-2_#7441_100545_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P1-2_#7441_100545_SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 242928 TO BUS 246999 CKT 1 /*05MARYSV 765.0 - 05SORENS 765.0 END |
Single | DC | 105.64 % | 1204.0 | B | 1271.86 | 31.9 |
| AEP/DEI |
05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243221 to 249504 ckt 1 |
EXT_249521 08SUGCRK 345 347340 7KANSAS 345 1 _SRT-L
CONTINGENCY 'EXT_249521 08SUGCRK 345 347340 7KANSAS 345 1 _SRT-L' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 249521 TO BUS 347340 CKT 1 /*08SUGCRK 345.0 - 7KANSAS 345.0 END |
Single | AC | 103.06 % | 1374.0 | B | 1416.03 | 46.36 |
| AEP/DEI |
05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243221 to 249504 ckt 1 |
AEP_P7-1_#11042___SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P7-1_#11042___SRT-A' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243878 TO BUS 255205 CKT 1 /*05MEADOW 345.0 - 17REYNOLDS 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243878 TO BUS 255205 CKT 2 /*05MEADOW 345.0 - 17REYNOLDS 345.0 END |
Tower | AC | 110.56 % | 1374.0 | B | 1519.03 | 57.89 |
| AEP/DEI |
05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243221 to 249504 ckt 1 |
AEP_P7-1_#11014___SRT-A-1
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P7-1_#11014___SRT-A-1' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 247712 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - 05SULLIVAN 345.0 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 963840 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - AG1-237 TP 345.0 END |
Tower | AC | 102.18 % | 1374.0 | B | 1403.98 | 61.46 |
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AEP/DEI |
05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
243221 to 249504 ckt 1 |
AEP_P1-2_#672_1713_SRT-A-1
CONTINGENCY 'AEP_P1-2_#672_1713_SRT-A-1' OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 243217 TO BUS 963840 CKT 1 /*05DEQUIN 345.0 - AG1-237 TP 345.0 END |
Single | AC | 101.15 % | 1374.0 | B | 1389.74 | 53.53 |
Light Load Potential Congestion due to Local Energy Deliverability
The following flowgates remain after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
| Area | Facility Description | Contingency Name | Contingency Type | DC|AC | Final Cycle Loading | Rating (MVA) | Rating Type | MVA to Mitigate | MW Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE |
AE1-172 TP-AD1-100 TAP 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
939400 to 934720 ckt 1 |
COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A' TRIP BRANCH FROM BUS 270853 TO BUS 270717 CKT 1 /*PONTIAC ; R 345.0 - DRESDEN ; R 345.0 END |
OP | AC | 127.51 % | 1528.0 | B | 1948.4 | 26.71 |
| CE |
LORETTO ; B-AE1-172 TP 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
270704 to 939400 ckt 1 |
COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A' TRIP BRANCH FROM BUS 270853 TO BUS 270717 CKT 1 /*PONTIAC ; R 345.0 - DRESDEN ; R 345.0 END |
OP | AC | 118.04 % | 1528.0 | B | 1803.7 | 26.71 |
| CE |
PONTIAC ; B-LORETTO ; B 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line
270852 to 270704 ckt 1 |
COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A
CONTINGENCY 'COMED_P1-2_345-L8014__R-S_SRT-A' TRIP BRANCH FROM BUS 270853 TO BUS 270717 CKT 1 /*PONTIAC ; R 345.0 - DRESDEN ; R 345.0 END |
OP | AC | 105.2 % | 1528.0 | B | 1607.53 | 27.6 |
The following flowgates were eliminated after considering the topology reinforcements required by the cycle.
(No impacts were found for this analysis)
Short Circuit Analysis
The Phase III Short circuit analysis was conducted for the following two study scenarios:
- Scenario 1 - TC1 Project Impacts;
- Scenario 2 - TC1 Topology-Changing Upgrade Impacts;
The starting TC1 Phase III short circuit case is an updated Phase II case that accounted for the DPII outcomes (project changes & withdrawals) and other pre-TC1 changes. The starting Phase III case was utilized for the Scenario 1 studies to determine the impact of TC1 projects without modeling any topology-changing upgrades required for TC1. To conduct the Scenario 2 studies, the required topology-changing upgrades from the latest Load Flow & Stability studies were incorporated into the Scenario 1 case and utilized for the Scenario 2 studies to determine the impact of the topology-changing upgrades on the short circuit results from Scenario 1. The result is detailed in the following table:
Short Circuit Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bus Name | Breaker | Interrupting Capability (Amps) | Duty Percent TC1 Phase 3 - Scenario 2 Topology Upgrades (%) | Duty Percent TC1 Phase 3 - Scenario 2 No Topology Upgrades (%) | Duty Percent Difference (%) | Reinforcement | Projected In Service Date (ISD) |
GOODING 345 kV | 270769 | 57267 | 100.77% | 98.71% | 2.06% | s3011 | 12/31/2028 |
Stability Analysis
Analysis Complete - No Issues
Executive Summary
New Service Requests AF1-088 and AF2-008 in PJM Transition Cycle 1, Cluster 52 are listed in Table 1 below. This report will cover the dynamic analysis of Cluster 52 projects.
This analysis is effectively a screening study to determine whether the addition of the Cluster 52 projects will meet the dynamics requirements of the NERC, AEP and PJM reliability standards.
The load flow scenario for the analysis was based on the RTEP 2027 summer peak load case, modified to include applicable projects. Cluster 52 projects have been dispatched online at maximum power output, with 1.0 voltage at the terminal bus.
Cluster 52 projects were tested for compliance with NERC, PJM, Transmission Owner and other applicable criteria. Steady-state condition and 769 contingencies were studied, each with a 20 second simulation time period. Studied faults included:
a) Steady-state operation (20 second run),
b) Three-phase faults with normal clearing time (and with unsuccessful high-speed reclosing);
c) Single-phase bus faults with normal clearing time,
d) Single-phase faults with stuck breaker,
e) Three-phase faults with loss of multiple-circuit tower line,
f) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Rockport – Jefferson 765 kV Line,
g) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan – Rockport 765kV,
h) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan T-1 765-345 kV Transformer,
i) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan T-2 765-345 kV Transformer,
j) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan – Snyder 345 kV Line,
k) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Snyder – Casey 345 kV Line,
l) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan – Petersburg 345 kV Line,
m) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan – Eugene 345 kV Line,
n) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan – Dequine 345 kV Line,
o) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Eugene – Cayuga 345 kV Line,
p) Three-phase Faults with Normal Clearing Time, Prior Outage of Sullivan – Dequine/Eugene Double-Circuit 345 kV Line.
There are no delayed (Zone 2) clearing faults due to dual primary relays being employed in the AEP 345 kV transmission system.
The outages of the circuits (P6 contingencies) were provided to PJM by the Transmission Owner (AEP) as potential generation curtailment scenarios. PJM has performed analysis of these contingencies in the study. These scenarios may result in operational restrictions to the project under study.
For all simulations, the queue project under study along with the rest of the PJM system were required to maintain synchronism and with all states returning to an acceptable new condition following the disturbance.
One of the Rockport Unit has been taken out when fault has been applied to Rockport to Jefferson 765 kV circuit .
For all of the fault contingencies tested on the 2027 peak load case:
a) Cluster 52 projects were able to ride through the faults (except for faults where protective action trips a generator(s)),
b) The system with Cluster 52 projects included is transiently stable and post-contingency oscillations were positively damped with a damping margin of at least 3% for interarea modes and 4% for local modes.
c) Following fault clearing, all bus voltages recovered to a minimum of 0.7 per unit after 2.5 seconds (except where protective action isolates that bus).
d) No transmission element tripped, other than those either directly connected or designed to trip as a consequence of that fault.
e) Since no tripping instances (protection schemes) were implemented, compliance with PRC-024 could not be tested. This does not cause instability in the system.
f) After the fault clears, the system shows an inverted power transient of up to 1600 MW per pole. This does not cause instability in the system.
g) For the scenario A: Prior Outage of Rockport – Jefferson 765 kV Line, one of the units at Rockport unit has been switched off in the basecase. For several contingencies, post fault bus voltage dropped below 0.95 per unit for Petersburg and Dequine substation.
h) For the scenario F: Prior Outage of Snyder – Casey 345 kV Line, P6F.55 contingency, leading to the tripping of Petersburg G2 unit.
i) For the scenario E, F, G, H, I, J, K: Post fault bus voltage for Rockport bus went above 1.05 for Contingencies P6.12 and P6.50.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the dynamic performance of the system following the addition of a new 345/765 kV transformer at the Jefferson substation and a new 345 kV circuit between the Jefferson and Clifty substations. The integration of the transformer did not introduce any system instability.
No mitigations were found to be required.
Table 1: TC1 Cluster 52 Projects
Cluster | Project | Fuel Type | Transmission Owner | MFO | MWE | MWC | Point of Interconnection |
52 | AF1-088 | Original HVDC facility | AEP | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | Sullivan 345 kV |
AF2-008 | Additional HVDC unit | AEP | 2000 | 1000 | 500 | Sullivan 345 kV |
Reactive Power Analysis
The reactive power capability of AF2-008 meet the 0.95 leading and lagging PF requirement
Steady-State Voltage Analysis
Steady State Voltage Analysis complete, no voltage issues found. N-1-1 Thermal and Voltage Analysis Complete, no issues found.
AF1-088
- 1000 MW Firm Injection
- 1000 MW NonFirm Withdrawal
AF2-008 Uprate
- 500 MW Firm Injection (total between both projects of Firm Injection: 1500 MW)
- 500 MW NonFirm Injection (total between both project of Firm+NonFirm Injection 2000 MW)
The following tests were performed:
- Voltage Summer Peak (N-1)
- Injection
- 2,000 MW (AF1-088+AF2-008) Injection for Common Mode Only (Non Firm)
- 1,500 MW (AF1-088+AF2-008) Injection at SP - Single & Common Mode (Firm)
- Withdrawal
- 1,000 MW (AF1-088+AF2-008) Common Mode Withdrawal only (Non Firm)
- Voltage Light Load (N-1)
- Injection
- 2,000 MW (AF1-088+AF2-008) Injection for Single Mode Only (Non Firm)
- Withdrawal
- 1,000 MW (AF1-088+AF2-008) Common Mode Withdrawal only (Non Firm)
- Thermal and Voltage Summer Peak (N-1-1)
- Injection
1,500 MW (AF1-088+AF2-008) Injection Singles (Firm)
New Service Request Dependencies
The New Service Requests below are listed in one or more dispatch for the overloads identified in this report. These projects contribute to the loading of the overloaded facilities identified in this report. The percent overload of a facility and cost allocation you may have towards a particular reinforcement could vary depending on the action of other projects. The status of each project at the time of the analysis is presented in the table. This list may change as other projects withdraw or modify their requests. This table is valid for load flow analyses only.
| New Service Requests Dependencies | ||
|---|---|---|
| Project ID | Project Name | Status |
| AA1-018 | Powerton-Goodings Grove | In Service |
| AB1-006 | Meadow Lake 345kV | In Service |
| AB1-087 | Sullivan 345kV #1 | Under Construction |
| AB1-088 | Sullivan 345kV #2 | Engineering & Procurement |
| AB2-047 | Brokaw-Pontiac Midpoint | In Service |
| AB2-070 | Mt. Pulaski-Brokaw | In Service |
| AC1-033 | Kewanee 138 kV | In Service |
| AC1-053 | Lanesville-Brokaw | Under Construction |
| AC1-168 | Kewanee-Streator | Suspended |
| AC1-214 | Crescent Ridge | In Service |
| AC2-157 | Sullivan 345 kV | Under Construction |
| AC2-176 | Jay 138 kV | In Service |
| AD1-100 | Loretto-Wilton 345 kV & Braidwood-Davis Creek 345 kV | Under Construction |
| AD1-148 | Brokaw-Lanesville | In Service |
| AD2-047 | Davis Creek 138 kV | Suspended |
| AD2-100 | Kincaid-Pana 345 kV | Suspended |
| AD2-131 | Kincaid-Pana 345kV | Suspended |
| AE1-172 | Loretto-Wilton Center | Active |
| AE1-205 | McLean 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AE1-209 | Desoto 345 kV | Suspended |
| AE1-210 | Desoto 345 kV | Suspended |
| AE2-172 | Mississinewa-Gaston 138 kV | Suspended |
| AE2-173 | McLean 345 kV | Active |
| AE2-223 | McLean 345 kV | Active |
| AE2-261 | Kincaid-Pana 345 kV | Active |
| AE2-276 | Sullivan 345kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-045 | Cedarville-Ford 138 kV | Suspended |
| AF1-088 | Sullivan 345 kV | Active |
| AF1-090 | Kincaid-Pana | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-092 | Huntington Jct. 138 kV | Suspended |
| AF1-118 | Sorenson-Desoto 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-119 | Keystone-Desoto 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF1-202 | Keystone-Desoto 345 kV | Under Construction |
| AF1-204 | Eugene 345 kV | Active |
| AF1-322 | Meadow Lake 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-032 | Kincaid 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-069 | Crescent Ridge 138 kV | Active |
| AF2-078 | Reynolds-Olive #1 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-177 | Sorenson-DeSoto #2 345 kV | Active |
| AF2-225 | McLean 345 kV | Active |
| AF2-226 | Katydid Road 345 kV | Active |
| AF2-252 | Blue Mound 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-305 | Brokaw-Lanesville 345 kV | In Service |
| AF2-317 | Hill Topper 345 kV | In Service |
| AF2-319 | Katydid Road 345 kV | Active |
| AF2-352 | Blue Mound 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-370 | Delaware-Royerton 138 kV | Active |
| AF2-388 | Keystone-Desoto 345 kV | Active |
| AF2-407 | Fall Creek 345 kV | Active |
| AF2-408 | Fall Creek 138 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AF2-441 | Burnham 138kV | Active |
| AG1-017 | Jay 138 kV | Under Construction |
| AG1-207 | Vandalia 69 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-226 | Dequine-Eugene 345 kV | Active |
| AG1-236 | Lanesville-Brokaw 345 kV | Active |
| AG1-237 | Dequine-Eugene 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-297 | Hanna-Tanners Creek 345 kV | Active |
| AG1-324 | Jay-Desoto 138 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-374 | Blue Mound 345 kV | Active |
| AG1-398 | Brokaw-Lanesville 345 kV | In Service |
| AG1-406 | Walnut Grove-Asahi 69 kV | Active |
| AG1-414 | Mississinewa 138 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-433 | Keystone-DeSoto 345 kV | Active |
| AG1-460 | Kincaid-Pana 345 kV | Active |
| AG1-478 | Wilmington 34.5 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| AG1-512 | University Park North 345 kV | Withdrawn |
| AG1-555 | Dequine 345 kV | Engineering & Procurement |
| V3-007 | Desoto-Tanners Creek #1 345kV | In Service |
| W2-048 | Brokaw-Lanesville | In Service |
| W4-005 | Blue Mound-Latham | In Service |
| X2-022 | Brokaw-Lanesville | In Service |
| Z2-087 | Pontiac MidPoint-Brokaw 345kV | In Service |
Affected System - PJM Identified Violations
As part of PJM's analysis, PJM evaluated the potential impacts on tie line facilities between PJM and an affected system entity, which were identified per PJM planning analysis criteria. This upgrade may be required on the affected system portion of the tie line along with cost allocation of such upgrade if applicable, in coordination with the affected system. Depending on the affected system, this project may not be contingent on upgrade based on PJM planning analysis criteria, but may be contingent on this upgrade based on the Affected System Operator's planning criteria, provided in the Affected Systems Study Section, herein.
| AF2-008 System Reinforcements: | TO | Trans Owner ID | Title | Category | Allocated Cost ($USD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEI | DEI_TC1_16079 | Reconductor Eugene to Cayuga 345kV #1 line with 4000A conductor. New rating 2430 MVA. | Cost Allocated | $1,925,781 | ||||||
| Grand Total: | $1,925,781 | |||||||||
System Reinforcement
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- DEI
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- (Pending) / DEI_TC1_16079
- Title
- Reconductor Eugene to Cayuga 345kV #1 line with 4000A conductor. New rating 2430 MVA.
- Description
- Reconductor Eugene to Cayuga 345kV #1 line with 4000A conductor. New rating 2430 MVA.
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $12,000,000
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $1,925,781
- Time Estimate
- 8 Months
Contributor
| Facility | Contingency | |
|---|---|---|
| 05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
| Project | MW Impact | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
AE2-223
⧉
McLean 345kV (ComEd): This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-223, AF2-225 |
11.3 MW | 1.4% | $173,898 |
|
AE2-261
⧉
Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-261, AG1-460 |
26.2 MW | 3.4% | $403,577 |
|
AF1-088
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
125.2 MW | 16.0% | $1,925,781 |
| AF1-204 | 135.4 MW | 17.4% | $2,083,172 |
|
AF2-008
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
125.2 MW | 16.0% | $1,925,781 |
|
AF2-225
⧉
McLean 345kV (ComEd): This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-223, AF2-225 |
11.3 MW | 1.4% | $173,898 |
| AF2-407 | 32.4 MW | 4.2% | $498,894 |
| AG1-226 | 238.9 MW | 30.6% | $3,675,742 |
| AG1-236 | 17.0 MW | 2.2% | $261,016 |
| AG1-297 | 31.1 MW | 4.0% | $478,742 |
| AG1-374 | 23.3 MW | 3.0% | $359,010 |
|
AG1-460
⧉
Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-261, AG1-460 |
2.6 MW | 0.3% | $40,490 |
Affected System - Non-PJM Identified Violations
In accordance with PJM Tariff Part VII, Subpart D, section 312.A.1.b and as outlined in PJM Manual 14H, Section 13, in Phase III of the Cycle, PJM coordinates with the Affected System Operators to conduct any studies required to determine the impact of the New Service Request on any Affected System and will include the Affected System Study results in Phase III System Impact Study, if available from the Affected System Operator.
If your project required an Affected System Study, the results are shown below from the Affected System Operator.
For more details, please refer to your Affected System Study report by the Affected System Operator. If the Affected System Operator identified the need for a system reinforcement on their system due to their planning criteria, Project Developer must follow the Affected System Operator Tariff for construction of the network upgrade. PJM will list any required network upgrades identified by the Affected System Operator in the PJM Project Developer’s GIA under Schedule F.
Affected System network upgrade costs are included in the Adverse Study Impact calculation for DP3. See the Adverse Test Eligibility section of this Phase III SIS report.
| Impacted Facility | Transmission Owner | Reinforcement | Cost | Cost Allocated to AF2-008 | Scenarios |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DEI |
MTEP Proj ID 50718: Cayuga Gen Yard to Nucor
MTEP Proj ID 50718: Rebuild with 954 ZTACSR @ 200C from Cayuga Gen Yard to Nucor. Upgrade terminal equipment accordingly. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
DEI |
DEI: Rebuild 1 mile of Wvrich - Rochester TP 69 kV
DEI: Rebuild 1 mile of 69kV with 477ACSR/VR2 @ 100/120C the ratings assume that NIPSCO terminal upgrades would not limit our T-Line rating. $1.5M NIPSCO: Rebuild line, NIPSCO owns 0.037 miles of 0.9 mile line. NIPSCO portion included in Argos to Rochester tap mitigation/cost. |
$1,500,000 | $94,633 |
|
|
NIPS |
Rebuild Argos - Plymouth 69 kV line
Rebuild line, approx 10 miles |
$12,654,948 | $780,553 |
|
|
NIPS |
Rebuild Argos - Rochester TP 69 kV
Rebuild line, approx 3.2 miles |
$4,049,583 | $255,481 |
|
|
NIPS |
NIPSCO: Rebuild line (.3miles)Wvrich - Rochester TP 69 kV
DEI: Rebuild 1 mile of 69kV with 477ACSR/VR2 @ 100/120C the ratings assume that NIPSCO terminal upgrades would not limit our T-Line rating. $1.5M NIPSCO: Rebuild line, NIPSCO owns 0.037 miles of 0.9 mile line. NIPSCO portion included in Argos to Rochester tap mitigation/cost. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
DEI |
Install 144 MVAR cap bank at Gallagher sub.
Install 144 MVAR cap bank at Gallagher sub. |
$3,000,000 | $614,206 |
|
|
DEI |
Install 28.8 MVAR cap bank at Shoals sub
Install 28.8 MVAR cap bank at Shoals sub |
$3,000,000 | $655,063 |
|
|
DEI |
Install 28.8 MVAR cap bank at Avon East sub
Install 28.8 MVAR cap bank at Avon East sub |
$3,000,000 | $676,415 |
|
|
NIPS |
LRTP-16: Morrison Ditch – Reynolds – Burr Oak
Install single circuit 345kV transmission line from the existing Morrison Ditch Substation, to the existing Reynolds Substation, to the existing Burr Oak Substation, to the existing Leesburg Substation, to the existing Hiple Substation. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
ITCT |
LRTP-33: Greentown - Sorenson - Lulu
Install single circuit 765kV transmission line from the existing Greentown Substation to the existing Sorenson Substation, to the existing Lulu Substation. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
DEI |
LRTP-35: Southwest Indiana-Kentucky
Install double circuit 345kV transmission line from the existing Petersburg Substation to the new Pike County Substation. Install single circuit 345kV transmission line from the new Pike County Substation to the existing Duff Substation, to the existing Culley Substation, to the existing Reid EHV Substation. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
NIPS |
Reynold 765/345 kV xfmr MISO MTEP LRTP-40 Project
2nd 765/345kV Transformer. MISO MTEP LRTP-40 Project. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
DEI |
LRTP-36: Southeast Indiana
Install single circuit 345kV transmission line from the new Madison County Substation to the existing Greensboro Substation. Install single circuit 138kV transmission line from the existing Decatur County Substation to the existing Greensburg Substation. Install double circuit 138kV transmission line from the existing Batesville Substation to the existing Hubbell Substation, to the existing Greendale Substation, to the existing Miami Fort Substation. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
AMIL |
LRTP-37: Maywood - Belleau - MRPD - Sioux - Bugle
Install single circuit 345kV transmission line from the existing Maywood Substation to the existing Belleau Substation, to the new MRPD Substation, to the existing Sioux Substation, from the new MRPD Substation to the existing Bugle Substation. |
$0 | $0 |
|
|
NIPS |
LRTP-42: Burr Oak - Schahfer
Install single circuit 345kV transmission line from the existing Burr Oak Substation to the existing Schahfer Substation. |
$0 | $0 |
|
System Reinforcements
Based on the Phase III analysis results, this project is contingent on and may have cost responsibility for the following System Reinforcements:
PJM evaluated the impact of topology changing reinforcements to mitigate the impacts driven by New Service Requests. PJM determined which reinforcements were eliminated as a result of modeling the topology changing reinforcements. PJM then grouped the topology changing and eliminated reinforcements by region and computed a discount factor to apply to reinforcements to reduce the cost of all these reinforcements down to the cost of contstructing only the topology changing reinforcements. For additional details, please click the icon below
Shown below are the details of the cost allocated, contingent, eliminated, topology and potential aggregate contributor reinforcements for this project. Please refer to the System Reinforcement table above and the information below for more detail.
System Reinforcement: n9243.0
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- AEP
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n9243.0 / AEPSERG13
- Title
- Expand Jefferson 345 kV station. Install a second 765/345 kV 750 MVA transformer. Install a second Jefferson - Clifty Creek 345 kV single circuit ~0.8 miles.
- Description
- At the Jefferson Station: • Expand the northeast corner of the station • Remove Circuit breaker C1 • Install one (1) new 765/345 kV transformer and associated equipment • Install one (1) new 765 kV circuit breaker with associated control relaying and breaker disconnect switches • Install one (1) new 345 kV circuit breaker with associated control relaying and breaker disconnect switches • Install a new station service center At the Clifty Creek Station: • Extend 345 kV bus 1 and 2 to make room for a new breaker string • Move a section of the 138 kV bus underground to make room for the new breaker string • Relocate circuit breaker S to the new string • Install two (2) new 345 kV circuit breakers on the new string •Remove the existing Jefferson – Clifty Creek 345 kV line •Construct a new Jefferson – Clifty Creek 345 kV double circuit line •Evaluate line settings for all appropriate lines •Install direct fiber relaying between the Jefferson and Clifty Creek station •Associated conductors (buswork, ground grid, jumpers), telecom terminal equipment, insulators, arresters, foundations, and structures
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $200,238,000
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $194,389,945
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $85,518,776
- Time Estimate
- 55 Months
ContributorTopology Changing Note: This topology changing reinforcement was developed by the transmission owner and modeled in PJM analysis to address cycle overload(s). A flowgate that this project contributed to was identified as requiring this topology reinforcement. Hence, this project is receiving a cost allocation based on its MW contribution to the need for this topology changing reinforcement but at a reduced amount considering the other reinforcements that were able to be eliminated. This project's cost allocation is based on the pro rata share of the MW impacts from all cost allocated contributors multiplied by the relevant regional discount factor listed in the executive summary report.
| Facility | Contingency | |
|---|---|---|
| 05JEFRSO-06CLIFTY 345.0 kV Ckt Z1 line | (Any) | |
| 05JEFRSO-05JEFRSO 345.0/765.0 kV Ckt 2 transformer | (Any) |
| Project | MW Impact | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
AE2-261
⧉
Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-261, AG1-460 |
23.9 MW | 2.3% | $4,388,040 |
|
AF1-088
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
465.8 MW | 44.0% | $85,518,776 |
| AF1-204 | 25.3 MW | 2.4% | $4,640,847 |
|
AF2-008
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
465.8 MW | 44.0% | $85,518,776 |
| AG1-226 | 75.6 MW | 7.1% | $13,883,252 |
|
AG1-460
⧉
Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-261, AG1-460 |
2.4 MW | 0.2% | $440,254 |
System Reinforcement: n9243.0
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- AEP
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n9243.0 / AEPSERG13
- Title
- Expand Jefferson 345 kV station. Install a second 765/345 kV 750 MVA transformer. Install a second Jefferson - Clifty Creek 345 kV single circuit ~0.8 miles.
- Description
- At the Jefferson Station: • Expand the northeast corner of the station • Remove Circuit breaker C1 • Install one (1) new 765/345 kV transformer and associated equipment • Install one (1) new 765 kV circuit breaker with associated control relaying and breaker disconnect switches • Install one (1) new 345 kV circuit breaker with associated control relaying and breaker disconnect switches • Install a new station service center At the Clifty Creek Station: • Extend 345 kV bus 1 and 2 to make room for a new breaker string • Move a section of the 138 kV bus underground to make room for the new breaker string • Relocate circuit breaker S to the new string • Install two (2) new 345 kV circuit breakers on the new string •Remove the existing Jefferson – Clifty Creek 345 kV line •Construct a new Jefferson – Clifty Creek 345 kV double circuit line •Evaluate line settings for all appropriate lines •Install direct fiber relaying between the Jefferson and Clifty Creek station •Associated conductors (buswork, ground grid, jumpers), telecom terminal equipment, insulators, arresters, foundations, and structures
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $200,238,000
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $84,156,895
- Time Estimate
- 55 Months
- Cost Alloc Type
- Cost Allocated
| Project | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|
| AE1-172 | 0.2057 % | $411,965 |
| AE2-173 | 0.0788 % | $157,736 |
| AE2-223 | 0.2363 % | $473,207 |
| AE2-261 | 2.3717 % | $4,749,102 |
| AF1-088 | 42.0284 % | $84,156,895 |
| AF1-204 | 2.2821 % | $4,569,572 |
| AF2-008 | 42.0284 % | $84,156,895 |
| AF2-225 | 0.2363 % | $473,207 |
| AG1-124 | 1.6178 % | $3,239,436 |
| AG1-226 | 6.8230 % | $13,662,162 |
| AG1-236 | 0.1693 % | $338,968 |
| AG1-374 | 0.4391 % | $879,283 |
| AG1-460 | 0.2380 % | $476,484 |
| AG1-494 | 1.2451 % | $2,493,090 |
System Reinforcement: n6497.4
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- AEP
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n6497.4 / AEPI0002e/f
- Title
- Replace line traps on the Jefferson - Rockport 765 kV line
- Description
- Remove three (3) existing 765 kV 3000A single phase line traps on the Jefferson 765 kV line at the Rockport 765 kV Station and replace with three (3) 765 kV 4000A single phase line traps. Remove three (3) existing 765 kV 3000A single phase line traps on the Rockport 765 kV line at the Jefferson 765 kV Station and replace with three (3) 765 kV 4000A single phase line traps.
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $1,212,000
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $1,212,000
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $541,797
- Time Estimate
- 35 Months
Contributor
| Facility | Contingency | |
|---|---|---|
| 05JEFRSO-05ROCKPT 765.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
| Project | MW Impact | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
AF1-088
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
334.5 MW | 44.7% | $541,797 |
|
AF2-008
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
334.5 MW | 44.7% | $541,797 |
| AG1-226 | 79.3 MW | 10.6% | $128,407 |
System Reinforcement: n4106.5
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- AEP
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n4106.5 / AEPI0045c
- Title
- Upgrade the 345 kV bus 2 towards Jefferson in the Clifty Creek Station
- Description
- Remove and replace ~ 100 ft of Clifty Creek 345kV Bus 2 towards Jefferson from 5" IPS SCH 40 to 5" IPS SCH 80
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $121,000
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $117,466
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $49,277
- Time Estimate
- 17 Months
ContributorEliminated Note: The topology changing reinforcements listed in the Cycle executive summary report eliminated the need for this reinforcement and it is no longer required by the Cycle. However, this project is receiving cost allocation based on its MW contribution to this eliminated reinforcement to fund the topology reinforcements which together alleviated the need for this reinforcement. This project's cost allocation is based on the pro rata share of the MW impacts from all cost allocated contributors multiplied by the relevant regional discount factor listed in the executive summary report. Since this project contributed to a violation with a reinforcement that was eliminated by the topology changing reinforcements, this project is contingent on all of the topology changing reinforcements within the region in which the eliminated reinforcement belongs.
| Facility | Contingency | |
|---|---|---|
| 05JEFRSO-06CLIFTY 345.0 kV Ckt Z1 line | (Any) |
| Project | MW Impact | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
AE2-261
⧉
Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-261, AG1-460 |
23.9 MW | 4.3% | $5,057 |
|
AF1-088
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
232.9 MW | 41.9% | $49,277 |
| AF1-204 | 25.3 MW | 4.6% | $5,348 |
|
AF2-008
⧉
Sullivan 345kV - AEP: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AF1-088, AF2-008, AH1-084 |
232.9 MW | 41.9% | $49,277 |
| AG1-226 | 37.8 MW | 6.8% | $8,000 |
|
AG1-460
⧉
Kincaid Pana Tap - ComEd: This project's cost allocation eligibility was based on the grouped impact of all New Service Requests which shared this POI within this cycle. The following project shared this POI:
AE2-261, AG1-460 |
2.4 MW | 0.4% | $507 |
System Reinforcement
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- AEP
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- (Pending) / AEP_TC1_13727
- Title
- AEP SE rating is 1868 MVA
- Description
- AEP SE rating is 1868 MVA
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Discounted Total Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $0
- Time Estimate
- 0 to 1 Months
Note: This reinforcement is fictitious and will not be cost allocated to projects. It is listed for information purposes only.
| Facility | Contingency | |
|---|---|---|
| 05EUGENE-08CAYSUB 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
System Reinforcement: b3788.1
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- AEP
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- b3788.1 / B3788.1
- Title
- Replace limiting station elements at Kyger Creek
- Description
- Upgrade existing 345 kV terminal equipment at Kyger Creek on the Kyger Creek-Sporn 345 kV line. Projected in-service date 6/1/2028 Replace AEP-owned station takeoff riser and breaker BB risers at OVEC-owned Kyger Creek station.
- Cost Information
- Time Estimate
- Nov 18 2027
Contingent Note: Although AF2-008 may not presently have cost responsibility for this upgrade, AF2-008 may need this upgrade in-service to be deliverable to the PJM system. If AF2-008 desires to come into service prior to completion of the upgrade, the Project Developer will need to request PJM to perform an interim study to determine if they would be deliverable for all or a portion of their output for each delivery year until the upgrade is complete.
| Facility | Contingency | |
|---|---|---|
| 05SPORN-06KYGER 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
System Reinforcement: b3788.2
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- OVEC
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- b3788.2 / B3788.2
- Title
- Replace limiting station elements at Kyger Creek
- Description
- Upgrade existing 345 kV terminal equipment at Kyger Creek on the Kyger Creek-Sporn 345 kV line. Projected in-service date 6/1/2028 Replace OVEC-owned breaker AA risers, bus work, and breaker AA disconnect switches at OVEC-owned Kyger Creek station.
- Cost Information
- Time Estimate
- Jun 01 2028
Contingent Note: Although AF2-008 may not presently have cost responsibility for this upgrade, AF2-008 may need this upgrade in-service to be deliverable to the PJM system. If AF2-008 desires to come into service prior to completion of the upgrade, the Project Developer will need to request PJM to perform an interim study to determine if they would be deliverable for all or a portion of their output for each delivery year until the upgrade is complete.
| Facility | Contingency | |
|---|---|---|
| 05SPORN-06KYGER 345.0 kV Ckt 1 line | (Any) |
System Reinforcement: n9195.0
AF2-008 did not load into this reinforcement directly however this project contributed to an topology or eliminated upgrade and therefore this project is responsible for relevant regional upgrades.
System Reinforcement: n9195.0
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- ComEd
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- n9195.0 / CE_NUN_STA12_345 NEW CB
- Title
- Install a new 345 kV circuit breaker at Station 12 Dresden.
- Description
- • Upgrade the existing substation STA 12 Dresden by adding 345kV BT 14-15 circuit breaker and associated disconnect switches. • Upgrade relay & protection at 345kV substation STA 12 Dresden to support installation of 345kV BT 14-15
- Total Cost ($USD)
- $3,357,627
- Allocated Cost ($USD)
- $1,411,158
- Time Estimate
- 45 Months
- Cost Alloc Type
- Cost Allocated
| Project | Percent Allocation | Allocated Cost ($USD) |
|---|---|---|
| AE1-172 | 0.2057 % | $6,907 |
| AE2-173 | 0.0788 % | $2,646 |
| AE2-223 | 0.2363 % | $7,934 |
| AE2-261 | 2.3717 % | $79,633 |
| AF1-088 | 42.0284 % | $1,411,157 |
| AF1-204 | 2.2821 % | $76,624 |
| AF2-008 | 42.0284 % | $1,411,157 |
| AF2-225 | 0.2363 % | $7,934 |
| AG1-124 | 1.6178 % | $54,320 |
| AG1-226 | 6.8230 % | $229,091 |
| AG1-236 | 0.1693 % | $5,684 |
| AG1-374 | 0.4391 % | $14,743 |
| AG1-460 | 0.2380 % | $7,991 |
| AG1-494 | 1.2451 % | $41,806 |
System Reinforcement: b3811.1
AF2-008 did not load into this reinforcement directly however this project contributed to an topology or eliminated upgrade and therefore this project is responsible for relevant regional upgrades.
System Reinforcement: b3811.1
System Reinforcement: s3011
AF2-008 did not load into this reinforcement directly however this project contributed to an topology or eliminated upgrade and therefore this project is responsible for relevant regional upgrades.
System Reinforcement: s3011
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- ComEd
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- s3011 / CE_S3011
- Title
- Replace 345kV straight bus at TSS 116 Goodings Grove with a gas insulated switchgear ("GIS") breaker and a half configuration.
- Description
- Replace 345 kV open air straight bus with GIS in a breaker and half configuration (34 Circuit Breakers) at Goodings Grove with 80kA capability.
- Cost Information
- Cost Alloc Type
- Contingent
System Reinforcement: b3775.1
AF2-008 did not load into this reinforcement directly however this project contributed to an topology or eliminated upgrade and therefore this project is responsible for relevant regional upgrades.
System Reinforcement: b3775.1
- Type
- Load Flow
- TO
- ComEd
- RTEP ID / TO ID
- b3775.1
- Title
- Swap the NIPSCO Green Acre Tap towers from the St. John-Green Acres-Olive 345 kV line
- Description
- Outside of the Green Acres substation, swap the NIPSCO Green Acre Tap towers from the St. John-Green Acres-Olive 345 kV line to the University Park N-Olive 345 kV line to create a University Park N-Green Acres-Olive and St. John-Olive 345 kV lines.
- Cost Information
- Cost Alloc Type
- Contingent
Attachments
AF2-008 One Line Diagram
[1]Winter load flow analysis will be performed starting in Transition Cycle 2.