SPP.org 1

Draft Business as Usual Plan

SPP.org 3 Wind - Business as Usual

SPP.org 4 Wind Requirement Per State Futures 1 & 3 Wind in GW State (in SPP) Existing & Construction WindAdditional WindWind Requirement AR KS LA000.4 MO NE NM0.2 OK TX121.7 SPP Total

SPP.org Transfers to Meet Requirements 5 6 intra-State Transfers 3 inter-State Transfers

SPP.org 6 Satisfying the Future’s Requirement The expected wind energy must be achieved while maintaining voltage  Each state’s capacity and wind requirement modeled as a source-sink transfer  PV analysis  Transfer increased until near voltage collapse

SPP.org 7 Satisfying the Future’s Requirement The expected wind energy must be achieved while maintaining thermal limits  Each state’s capacity and wind requirement modeled as a source-sink transfer  Limitations to the transfers due to 345 kV contingencies identified  Focuses upon regional issues rather than local issues

SPP.org 8 Issue Areas & Corridors Voltage  No major issues encountered, up to expected business-as-usual levels  Results in-line with the latest Generation Interconnection Study Thermal  230 & 345 kV in the Texas panhandle  345 kV corridor in mid-Kansas  230 & 345 kV corridor in east Kansas

SPP.org 9 Satisfying the Future’s Requirement SPP system with NTC projects

SPP.org 10 Limiting Corridors

SPP.org 11 Least Cost Planning Approach Installation cost & design simplicity  Shortest distances  Lowest Cost  Existing termination points  Only 345 kV and above projects considered  Emphasis given to previously studied projects

SPP.org Least Cost Plan Components Texas panhandle  Tolk – Potter Co  Potter Co – Stateline East Kansas  Jeffrey – Iatan Mid-Kansas  Spearville – Wichita  Wichita – Rose Hill Oklahoma  Stateline – Anadarko 12

SPP.org 13 Business as Usual Least-Cost Plan

SPP.org 14 Lease Cost Plan Meets Requirements With proposed projects, limits are eliminated

SPP.org Balanced PortfolioPriority ProjectsSTEP 345 kV projectsITP20 identified 345 kV lines

SPP.org Potential projects for further study Texas panhandle  Frio Draw – Tolk  Tolk – Tuco  Tuco – Potter Co. East Kansas  Jeffrey – Swissvale  Jeffrey – Auburn Mid-Kansas  Medicine Lodge – Viola  Viola - Wichita  Knoll – Summit  Spearville – Reno Co. 16

SPP.org 17 Correlation to State of the Market Flowgates Top 10 flowgates for July 2009 – July Osage Switch - Canyon East (115) ftlo Bushland - Deaf Smith (230) 2 Lake Road – Alabama (161) ftlo Iatan to Stranger Creek (345) 3 Randall County - Palo Duro (115) ftlo Amarillo – Swisher (230) 4 Lone Oak to Sardis (138) ftlo Pittsburg – Valiant Shamrock XFR (115/69) ftlo Tuco – Oklaunion (345) 6 El Paso – Farber (138) ftlo Wichita – Woodring (345) 7 Kelly – Seneca (115) ftlo E Manhattan – Concordia (230) 8Gentleman to Redwillow (345) 9 Holcomb – Plymell Switch (115) ftlo Holcomb - Spearville (345) 10 Mansfield – Int. Paper (138) ftlo Dolet Hills – Swisher (345) 1 &

SPP.org 18 Seams Integration Expectation of thermal limitations in other futures’ least cost designs  Nebraska – Iowa border near Omaha  Kansas City area  Ft. Smith area  East Texas

SPP.org 19 Stakeholder Feedback Comments regarding study approach Alternative project suggestions Areas for development

SPP.org 20 Futures Staff will begin development of least-cost plans for these three futures Same process as business as usual case

SPP.org 21 Timeline for Futures August 2010  Least-cost plans for futures September 2010  Single, flexible plan for all futures  Cost-effective transmission analysis October 2010  Robustness evaluation  Limited reliability assessment

Ben Roubique Lead Engineer, Technical Studies & Modeling