The Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council

1. The Eastern Interconnection States Planning Council Doug Nazarian March 12, 2010

2. In the beginning • “The objective of this Funding Opportunity Announcement is to facilitate the development or strengthening of capabilities in each of the three interconnections in the lower 48 states of the United States, to prepare analyses of transmission requirements under a broad range of alternative futures and develop long-term interconnection-wide transmission expansion plans.” Department of Energy, Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA0000068

3. The Eastern Interconnection • “[C]overs most of Eastern North America, extending from the foot of the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic seaboard, excluding most of Texas.” Id. • Includes 39 states and the District of Columbia and the City of New Orleans • Includes both restructured states and regulated states • Resources and needs and opportunities vary widely – e.g., North Dakota v. Maryland • Includes at least 24 planning authorities, including PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO, MISO, SPP • Includes RTOs, ISOs, companies and other smaller planning authorities

4. Transmission planning in the East • Regional • Especially in PJM, MISO and ISO-NE • Some planning authorities’ “regions” are a lot bigger than others • Each planning authority has its own planning process – e.g., PJM RTEP v. MISO • Transmission planning may be part of state integrated resource plans, but may not either • Restructured states like Maryland have no formal IRP anymore

5. The project • Two broad topics • Topic A – Interconnection-Level Analysis and Planning – the transmission engineering piece • The FOA requires the Topic A steering group to include at least one-third representation by state officials • The Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (“EIPC”) won the Topic A bid • Topic B – Cooperation Among States on Electric Resource Planning and Priorities – the policy piece • But: no existing structures or bodies in the Eastern Interconnection plan on an interconnection-wide basis • The West (WECC, WGA, TEPPC) and ERCOT have interconnection-wide organizations • DOE envisions two fundamental outcomes • planning deliverables over the funding period (2010-13) • a lasting planning structure

6. The EISPC (pronounced “icepick”) • Formed to bid on and win the Topic B funding for the Eastern Interconnection • We began with the “Five Families” – OPSI, OMS, NY, NECPUC and SPP RSC – but all Eastern Interconnection states joined • The Council consists of two designees from each state: one utility commissioner, one designated by the Governor’s office • Each state approaches energy and transmission policy issues differently • Governors’ designees include utility commissioners, Governor’s office staff, energy officials, or related state agencies

7. The workplan (as it currently stands) • Planning and deliverables • Reference Cases • EIPC will start with the planning authorities’ existing 10-year plans and roll them up into an interconnection-wide case • EISPC will review and offer input • A separate EISPC Reference Case may be necessary • Macroeconomic future scenarios • Broader array of possibilities, see what warrants further study • EISPC will select some portion of these, provide input on others • Full transmission scenario build-outs, including production cost modeling • EISPC will play a central, decision-making role in selecting these

8. Studies and workpapers • Studies – designed to facilitate refinement of the models • Locations for non-renewable low- and no-carbon resources • Renewables • Renewable energy zones • Carbon capture and storage • Demand-side management • Distributed generation • Storage • Waste-to-energy • White papers – designed to help policymakers understand the implications of different scenarios • Renewable energy credits • Market structures • Power purchase agreements for renewables • State, regional and federal policy analyses • Smart grid • Plug-in hybrid vehicles • Natural gas

9. Challenges • It’s a big Council • Vastly different needs and concerns, and the states’ varying policy viewpoints will be challenging to reconcile • A policy position of the Council requires a two-thirds vote • States need to maintain their independence as siting authorities – planning may or may not translate into projects • Coordination with EIPC • EIPC has even more constituencies and stakeholders than EISPC • Two large organizations needing to work closely creates challenges for both • Logistics and budget • Although DOE awarded $16 million to EIPC and $14 million to EISPC, both have already had to revise the planned scope • We all have day jobs • It’s one thing to plan for the future, another to pay for it