Entergy’s (NYSE:ETR) construction plan includes 31 projects that do not appear in the base plan developed by Southwest Power Pool (SPP) as the independent coordinator of transmission (ICT).
The finding was reported to FERC Feb. 27, in a filing intended to “inform interested government agencies of areas where the two plans diverge,” according to the filing. (Docket No. ER05-1065-000).
Entergy’s construction plan includes all transmission projects that Entergy expects to construct, or initiate to construct, during the 2012-2016 time period. The base plan is developed by the ICT and represents the set of transmission upgrades that the ICT has determined are required in order to meet Entergy’s planning criteria and the ICT planning criteria enhancements during the same time period.
Entergy amended its construction plan to reflect the change in the planning horizon from three years to five years. FERC accepted this change in October.
The 31 Entergy projects that are not included in the ICT plan are spread across five of Entergy’s six operating companies. Only Entergy New Orleans does not have a project on the list.
Eight of the supplemental projects are in Entergy Arkansas and range from reconfiguring a 500-kV bus to constructing a new substation. Four projects in Entergy Gulf States Louisiana range from installing a 5-ohm reactor at a substation to upgrading a 138-kV line. Eight supplemental projects in Entergy Louisiana range from upgrading a breaker to rebuilding and relocating a 115-kV line. Eight projects in Entergy Mississippi include the addition of capacitors at seven points in the system as part of the Grand Gulf Uprate Project and moving a 600-MVA auto. Three projects in Entergy Texas range from creating an emergency tie point with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to the construction of a new 230-kV line.
All projects in the Entergy construction plan that are not included in the ICT base plan are considered supplemental upgrades for cost allocation purposes.
In addition, there are 16 projects in which Entergy’s “in-service” date is later than the ICT’s “need-by” date. Because both Entergy and the ICT include these projects in their respective plans, they are not considered differences for the purpose of reporting.
Differences in the timing range from a matter of months – a delay to a winter in-service date instead of the summer – to a delay of four years for the construction of a new 115-kV line. Entergy must mitigate these reliability needs in some way until these projects are in-service, the report said.