ATC has and is continuing to develop processes that allow us to identify system needs and opportunities, to develop proper project scope and schedule and to assess project value and priority. These processes include the following.

• Project justification (system needs and opportunities assessments)
• Project development
• Project Prioritization

All of these processes are being enhanced to include appropriate stakeholder input.

Project justification

The system needs and opportunities assessments are the key drivers for the project creation and justification process. They are also one of the major subjects of the 10-Year Assessment. ATC has planning criteria and is developing stakeholder input processes to help determine which projects bring value and have appropriate justification.

Project development

There are four possible stages in the Planning portion of a project’s development – Solution Option Evaluation, Provisional Project Request, Preferred Alternative Identification, and Proposed Project Request.

Solution Option Evaluation

After one or more future transmission system needs are identified, Solution Options that may solve address the identified needs are solicited within ATC and from external Customers. Each Solution Option is subject to sufficient evaluation to determine whether it would work to mitigate the identified needs. The results of the Solution Option evaluation are recorded in a project development document.

Provisional Project Request

If a Proposed Project Request is not needed until a future date, a Provisional Project Request is prepared for one of the Solution Options that works. Preliminary project scope and cost estimates are developed for the selected Solution Option. The Provisional Project description is recorded in a project request document and is submitted to add the project to the ATC capital budget.

Preferred Alternative Identification

All of the Solution Options that work are classified as Alternatives. Preliminary project scope and cost estimates are prepared and documented for each Alternative. Any other relevant Alternative considerations are also identified and documented. The Alternatives is compared to each other to determine which one is the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative selection is reviewed and approved within ATC and by any pertinent Customers. The comparisons and conclusion are recorded in a Project Scoping Document.

Proposed Project Request

Detailed project scope and cost estimates are developed for the Preferred Alternative. The Proposed Project is reviewed and approved within ATC and by any pertinent Customers. The project description is recorded in the Project Scoping document and a Proposed Project Request is submitted to add the project to the ATC capital budget.

Project prioritization

The following discussion presents an description of the prioritization index tool that ATC is using and developing to properly value and prioritize projects. Project prioritization is a process to help resolve capital budget and human resource constraint issues. It may also assist company employees in the prioritization of their work and provide guidance for scheduling pre-certification activities. The project prioritization index is being used as a screening tool to identify projects that are candidates for capital budget deferral. However, the final decision of whether a candidate project can be deferred is still reached by considering the specific details of each project, including appropriate stakeholder input.

The present prioritization index methodology generates a composite priority index value for each project based on several weighted factors. Seven of the factors are drawn from ATC’s Forming Party Agreement (FPA). The FPA factors have been used since 2001. In addition, four threshold factors were introduced in 2005 to enhance the prioritization method. The methodology assigns a weighting to each FPA factor and threshold factor and then computes a deterministic index value. Emergency and blanket (bucket) projects are initially assigned a default value of 999 or 1, respectively.

Forming party agreement factors

Each of the seven FPA factors is assigned a weighted index value and a driver designation. The weighted index values are given below and the driver designations are Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, or None.

The FPA factors and their driver designations are applied to a project in the following way. Each project is considered to determine which of the FPA factors are drivers for the project. The Primary designation assigns the full (100 percent) applicable index value. The Primary designation should always be used and only used once. Secondary designation assigns 2/3 (67 percent) of the applicable index value. The Secondary designation is optional, but should not be used more than two times. The Tertiary designation assigns 1/3 (33 percent) of the applicable index value. The Tertiary designation is optional and may be used multiple times. For example, a strategic expansion project [Primary] that also provides verifiable system reliability benefits [Secondary] and updates infrastructure that is in poor condition [Tertiary] would get a FPA score of (100 percent x 3.4) + (67 percent x 10.3) + (33 percent x 1.7) = 10.9.

The FPA factors are defined as follows:

Safety or service restoration

The project will significantly reduce or remove a safety hazard to employees, contractors, or the general public. Safety examples include obtaining acceptable line clearance and replacing high safety risk equipment with lower risk equipment. The project will restore sudden, unplanned equipment damage or failure. Service Restoration examples include repairing or replacing equipment due to snowstorm, tornado, thunderstorm, or vehicle collision induced outages.

System reliability or security

The project will achieve or preserve acceptable operational reliability (i.e. meet ATC planning criteria, meet NERC reliability standards). System reliability or security examples include fixes for emerging equipment overloads, bus undervoltages, bus overvoltages, system voltage instability, and generating unit instability. Reliability factors have been given further definition as shown in the following table.

Regulatory mandates 

The projects will fulfill a regulatory agency (i.e. state public service commissions, municipals) requirement. Regulatory mandate examples include line relocations for road widening, CA stipulation beyond ATC proposed project scope, or CPCN stipulations beyond the ATC proposed project scope.

Load serving or generation interconnection

The project will establish a new or revised distribution load serving interconnection or generation facility interconnection. Load serving Interconnection examples would include new distribution substations and transformer additions at existing distribution substations, as well as transmission system upgrades needed to support the load interconnection. Generation interconnection examples include a new generation facility, generator additions at existing generation facilities, or uprates to existing generator units.

Transaction limit alleviation 

The project will reduce or eliminate transmission service request rejections or curtailments. Transaction limit alleviation also includes transmission system upgrades to support transmission service from new or revised generation interconnections.

Strategic expansion

The project will create or enhance transmission interconnections (i.e. transmission import or export capability) with other transmission systems, such as Commonwealth Edison, Xcel Energy, Consumers Power, Dairyland Power Cooperative, etc.

Infrastructure update

The project will provide routine maintenance, repair, or replacement of equipment. Infrastructure update projects may be triggered by poor equipment condition (e.g. near end-of-life), equipment that requires excessive maintenance, or equipment for which replacement parts are no longer available.

Threshold factors

Somewhat similar to the FPA factors, each of the four threshold factors is assigned a weighted index value and a level designation. The weighted index values are given below and the level designations are High, Medium, Low, or None.

The High designation assigns the full (100 percent) applicable index value. The Medium designation assigns 2/3 (67 percent) of the applicable index value. The Low designation assigns 1/3 (33 percent) of the applicable index value. For example, a project with a High level in-service date, a Medium level of equipment damage, a Low level of cascading outage impact, and no redispatch/TLR impact would get a threshold score of (100 percent x 12.0) + (67 percent x 6.0) + (33 percent x 9.0) = 19.0.

Following are threshold factor definitions.

In-service date

The In-Service Date (ISD) factor is a measure of the criticality and flexibility of the ISD. The ISD criticality can be affected by the importance and urgency of the project, including whether the ISD is related to safety or necessary for NERC compliance. The ISD flexibility refers to how easily the project ISD can be changed, especially deferred. Flexibility would depend on whether the ISD is part of a legal contract, there are interdependencies with other projects, and the project implementation plan has critical path issues. Use “High” when the ISD should not be changed. Use “Medium” when the ISD could be moved by one year. Use “Low” when the ISD could be moved by two years. Use “None” when the ISD could be moved by more than two years.

Cascading outage

The Cascading Outage factor is a measure of how much the project may limit or prevent cascading outages. Use “High” when the project would prevent or limit widespread (regional) system disturbance/collapse. Use “Medium” when the project would prevent or limit significant ATC system disturbance or collapse. Use “Low” when the project would prevent or limit local (up to several buses) system disturbance/collapse. Use “None” when the project does not address cascading outages.

Equipment damage/loss of load

This factor is a measure of how much the project may limit or prevent equipment damage and/or contained loss of load. Use “High” when the project would limit or prevent several million dollars of equipment damage or loss of several hundred MWs of load. Use “Medium” when the project would limit or prevent several hundred thousand dollars of equipment damage or loss of several tens of MWs of load. Use “Low” when the project would limit or prevent several tens of thousands of dollars of equipment damage or loss of less than 10 MW of load. Use “None” when the project does not address equipment damage or loss of load.                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Reduced redispatch/congestion

This factor is a measure of how much the project may reduce or eliminate redispatch or congestion. The measure depends on the frequency, duration, and magnitude of redispatch or congestion. Use “High” when the project would reduce or eliminate redispatch or congestion that occurs more than 50 times/year or more than 500 hours/year or more than 50,000 MWh/year. Use “Medium” when the project would reduce or eliminate redispatch or congestion that occurs more than 10 times/year or more than 100 hours/year or more than 10,000 MWh/year. Use “Low” when the project would reduce or eliminate redispatch or congestion that occurs more than 2 times/year or more than 20 hours/year or more than 2,000 MWh/year. Use “None” when the project does not address reduction or elimination of redispatch or congestion.

Note on Index Use

ATC re-emphasizes that the prioritization index by itself can not cause a project to be delayed. It is only a tool for screening projects that seem to have less urgency than other projects. If limited resources require ATC to trim its budget, ATC will take the projects with the lowest indices and review them manually with appropriate input from stakeholders. The review will assess the impact of delaying the project. If a project is found to be truly delayable albeit at some increased risk or cost, only then can it truly be delayed.