ATTACHMENT Y STUDY REPORT

Transcription

1 Attachment Y Study Presque Isle 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9: 344 MW Coal Retirement, Effective 10/15/2014 ATTACHMENT Y STUDY REPORT August 15, 2014

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to the Tariff, an Attachment Y Notification submitted by We Energies was received by MISO on April 15, The request was for the Retirement of Presque Isle Units 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 effective October 15, Previously, We Energies had provided an Attachment Y Notice to Suspend Presque Isle Units 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 from February 1, 2014 until June 1, The Suspension request was denied by MISO and the units were designated System Support Resources (SSRs) due to the identification of transmission reliability issues that could not be mitigated prior to the requested change of status date, February 1, The units have continued to operate under an SSR agreement filed by MISO January 31, MISO performed a transmission system reliability assessment that was reviewed and discussed with stakeholders at five Technical Studies Task Force (TSTF) meetings consistent with MISO s FERC Order 890 planning practices as provided for in Attachment FF to the Tariff, and with section of the Tariff (System Support Resources). Through this analysis, and stakeholder discussions, MISO determined that all five Presque Isle units are required to be System Support Resources for the requested Retirement date. These results are consistent with current operating practices that require the availability of all of the Presque Isle units for reliability commitments. Reliability analysis was performed for both summer peak and shoulder peak load conditions (representative of spring and fall period loading levels). NERC Transmission Planning (TPL) standards were applied to determine whether system performance was within equipment design voltage and thermal limitations, and whether the system remained stable for applicable contingencies within these standards. The results of the reliability analysis show system instabilities (voltage instability) for the following contingencies resulting from the change in status of Presque Isle generation for both summer peak and shoulder peak load levels: NERC Category B Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] 2. [CEII REDACTED] 3. [CEII REDACTED] 4. [CEII REDACTED] 5. [CEII REDACTED] NERC Category C Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] 2. [CEII REDACTED] Additionally, for summer peak load conditions voltage instability would occur due to the change in status of Presque Isle for: NERC Category B Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] NERC Category C Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] There are additional contingencies and conditions that are less severe which are further detailed in this report. 2

3 MISO reviewed the reliability analysis and potential alternatives to the operation of Presque Isle with stakeholders. The alternatives considered include known new generation interconnection requests, commitments for demand response, system operational steps including reconfigurations, special protection schemes, and transmission system additions. No feasible alternatives have been identified to alleviate the reliability issues that would result in substantial and sustained loss of load without the continued availability of the Presque Isle plant considering the requested Retirement date. After being reviewed for power system reliability impacts and feasible alternatives as provided for under Section of the MISO s Open Access Transmission, Energy & Operating Reserve Markets Tariff ( Tariff ), MISO has determined that Presque Isle Units 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 should enter into an SSR agreement until sufficient mitigation measures are completely developed and implemented. MISO continues to work with stakeholders in regularly scheduled Technical Study Task Force meetings to evaluate alternatives to the SSR designation. 3

4 Contents I. Introduction... 5 II. Study objectives... 6 III. Models and Assumptions... 7 a. Study Models... 7 b. Study Assumptions... 7 IV. Study Criteria and Methodology... 8 a. Powerflow Analysis Tools... 8 b. Transmission Owner Planning Criteria... 9 c. MISO Transmission Planning BPM SSR Impacted Facility Criteria d. Monitored Areas e. Contingencies f. Number of Units Required V. Reliability Study Results a. Contingency Analysis Results b. Voltage Stability Results c. Number of SSR Units Required VI. SSR Agreement Cost Allocation VII. Alternatives Analysis a. System Reconfiguration and Operation Guidelines b. Generation Redispatch c. New Generation d. Demand Response Generic Demand Response Empire Mine Demand Response e. New Generation + Demand Response f. Transmission Projects Transmission Projects to eliminate Presque Isle SSR need: VIII. Conclusion IX. List of Tables and Figures X. Appendices

5 I. INTRODUCTION We Energies submitted an Attachment Y Notice to MISO on August 1, 2013 to provide notification of the planned Retirement of Presque Isle Units 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 per MISO s Tariff. The generating units are connected to the 138 kv American Transmission Company (ATC) transmission system. The load shape for this area is much flatter than normal with a shoulder peak load that is approximately 85% of the summer peak. Area load is primarily served by 6 sources: the Generation at Presque Isle, the Mackinac VSC, a flow control device, and the Highway 22 Morgan Plains 345 kv, Pulliam Stiles 138 kv, Pulliam Little Suamico - Stiles 138 kv, and Cranberry Lakota Road 115 kv transmission lines. Table 1: Presque Isle Unit Capabilities Unit Nameplate (MW) Module E Net Capacity (MW) Total

6 Figure 1: ATC Transmission map including the Presque Isle Generators in Marquette, MI II. STUDY OBJECTIVES Under Section of MISO s Tariff, SSR procedures maintain system reliability by providing a mechanism for MISO to enter into agreements with Market Participants (MP) that own or operate Generation Resources or Synchronous Condenser Units (SCUs) that have requested to either Retire or Suspend, but are required to maintain system reliability. The principal objective of an Attachment Y study is to determine if the unit(s) for which a change in status is requested is necessary for transmission system reliability based on the criteria set forth in the MISO Business Practices Manuals. The study work included monitoring and identifying the steady state branch/voltage violations on transmission facilities due to the unavailability of the Generation Resource or SCU. The relevant MISO Transmission Owner and/or regional reliability criteria are used for monitoring such violations. If reliability issues are identified during the study MISO will also conduct an open stakeholder planning process to evaluate feasible alternatives to an SSR agreement. The evaluation of alternatives will also be included in this report, if conducted. 6

7 III. MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONS a. Study Models Corresponding to the anticipated Retirement of Presque Isle Units 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 the following power system analysis models were used for the study: 2015 Summer Peak 2015 Shoulder Peak 2015 Shoulder Peak with future Mackinac VSC (flow control device) The Attachment Y study models were created from the MTEP13 SCED reliability analysis models. The before model was created by fully dispatching the Presque Isle units and incorporating the modelling assumptions below. There are no other dispatchable generating units in the area to replace Presque Isle generation, therefore the after model was manually dispatched with Presque Isle units 5-9 offline. Replacement generation was sourced from remote generators in the MISO footprint. A comparison of the generation dispatch between the models with Presque Isle generation online and offline is included in Appendix C of this report. b. Study Assumptions 1. Load a. Upper Peninsula shoulder peak load is modelled at 85% of summer peak i. ATC supplied load forecast b. Upper Peninsula Mine Load i. Empire Substation: MW, 21.2 Mvar ii. Tilden Substation: MW, 5.7 Mvar iii. Total Load: MW, 26.9 Mvar iv. From ATC supplied load forecast c. City of Marquette, Michigan net load: 15 MW i. Was enforced by adjusting the City of Marquette generation (non-market) 2. Generation a. Approved Attachment Y Units were excluded from the model b. Escanaba Generation (SSR Agreement) i. Summer Peak: 2 of 2 units fully dispatched (25 MW) ii. Shoulder Peak: 2 of 2 units fully dispatched (25 MW) c. Escanaba CT i. Summer Peak: fully dispatched (13 MW) ii. Shoulder Peak: fully dispatched (13 MW) d. White Pine Generation i. Summer Peak: 2 of 2 units fully dispatched (36 MW) ii. Shoulder Peak: 2 of 2 units fully dispatched (36 MW) e. West Marinette Generation i. Summer Peak: 4 of 4 units fully dispatched (213 MW) ii. Shoulder Peak: 1* of 4 units fully dispatched (71 MW) 1. *Due to air permit limitations confirmed by WPS f. Adjacent Wind Units offline: i. Garden g. The numerous and small run of river units in the local area are not capable of redispatch and were not adjusted in the model 3. System Configuration 7

8 a. In models without the Mackinac VSC project (P2846), the transmission system is normally split between the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan. The system split is currently at [CEII REDACTED] which has the following lines out of service for construction: i. [CEII REDACTED] ii. [CEII REDACTED] iii. [CEII REDACTED] 4. Transmission Projects a. Included based on expected In-Service Date (ISD): i. Indian Hiawatha 138 kv line, P333, ISD 10/1/2013 ii. Mackinac Flow Control Project, P2846, ISD 7/19/ The Mackinac VSC project will be included in a variation of the 2014 shoulder model with a 40 MW N -> S flow 2. The UP will be closed-in for this case 3. The adjacent Straits Pine River 69 kv line rebuild, P3108, ISD 6/1/2014 will be included in this variation b. Excluded based on expected In-Service Date (ISD): i. Arnold 345/138 kv transformer # 1, P3125, ISD 5/1/2015 ii. Bay Project, P3679, ISD 12/31/2016 iii. North Appleton Morgan 138 kv line, P3952, ISD 12/31/2016 iv. Berryville T-D, P4358, ISD 6/1/2017 v. Pulliam Glory Rd Conversion, P3841, ISD 12/1/ Operating Guides referenced: a. Presque Isle Generation Operating Guide R10 (2010-S-011-E) b. Flow South Standing Op Guide R08 (2010-S-012-E) Table 2: Table of Models System Topology Dispatch Source Model Att Y Gen VSC U.P. Split 2014 SP MTEP13 Off N/A Yes 2015SP 2014 SP MTEP13 On N/A Yes 2015SP 2014 SH MTEP13 Off N/A Yes 2018SH 2014 SH MTEP13 On N/A Yes 2018SH 2014 SH MTEP13 Off 40 MW N -> No 2018SH S 2014 SH MTEP SH On 40 MW N -> S No IV. STUDY CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY a. Powerflow Analysis Tools Siemens Power System Simulator (PSS/E) was used to perform AC contingency analysis. Models were solved with automatic control of LTCs, phase shifters, DC taps, and switched shunts enabled. Contingency analysis was performed on before and after models. The results were compared to find if there were any criteria violations due to the unit(s) change of status. 8

9 Powertech s Voltage Security Assessment Tool (VSAT) was used to perform voltage stability analysis. Models were solved with automatic control of LTCs, phase shifters, switched shunts enabled pre-contingency. Using the before model, a transfer was created by decreasing Presque Isle generation, one unit at a time, starting with the smaller units (5, 6, then 7 ). Generation was replaced by increasing Concord and Paris generation. Using MISO-wide generation to replace Presque Isle generation yielded the same result. The maximum transfer step size was 10 MW and the minimum was 1 MW. Contingencies that produced criteria violations during the contingency analysis were selected for simulation in the voltage stability analysis. Thermal and voltage criteria limits were both respected and ignored to determine the steady state operating limits (the first and most limiting thermal or voltage criteria violation that causes system insecurity) as well as the voltage stability limit. The system security limits for this analysis included in this report indicate thermal loadings at 100% of the emergency rating or voltages at emergency limits (0.9 and 1.1 p.u.). V&R Energy s Physical and Operational Margins (POM) and Optimal Mitigation Measures (OPM) powerflow analysis software was used to calculate the optimal load shed. Optimal load shed was calculated using the after model and the contingencies that produced criteria violations during the contingency analysis. b. Transmission Owner Planning Criteria ATC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for thermal analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the normal rating For Category B and C contingencies, all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the emergency rating ATC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for voltage analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all substation voltages less than 95% or above 105% For Category B and C contingencies, all substation voltages less than 90% or above 110% DPC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for thermal analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the normal rating For Category B and C contingencies, all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the emergency rating DPC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for voltage analysis: For System Intact (Category A), >100 kv substation voltages less than 90% or above 105% For System Intact (Category A), <100 kv substation voltages less than 95% or above 105% For Category B and C contingencies, all substation voltages less than 90% or above 110% XEL Transmission Planning Criteria applied for thermal analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the normal rating For Category B and C contingencies, all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the emergency rating 9

10 XEL Transmission Planning Criteria applied for voltage analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all substation voltages less than 95% or above 105% For Category B and C contingencies, all non-generator substation voltages less than 92% or above 105% For Category B and C contingencies, all generator substation voltages less than 95% or above 105% For Category C3 contingencies, all generation substation voltages less than 92% or above 105% ITC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for thermal analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the normal rating For Category B and C contingencies, all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the emergency rating ITC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for voltage analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all substation voltages less than 97% or above 107% For Category B and C contingencies all substation voltages less than 92% or above 107% ITC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for Load Shed analysis: C1 Contingencies: Facilities > 300 kv, 0 MW; Facilities < 300 kv, 100 MW C2 Contingencies: Facilities > 300 kv, 0 MW; Facilities < 300 kv, 300 MW C3 Contingencies: 500 MW, after the second contingency C5 Contingencies: 300 MW WPSC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for thermal analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the normal rating For Category B and C contingencies, all thermal loadings exceeding 100% of the emergency rating No cascading outages WPSC Transmission Planning Criteria applied for voltage analysis: For System Intact (Category A), all substation voltages less than 95% or above 105% For Category B contingencies, all substation voltages less than 92% or above 106% For Category C contingencies, all substation voltages less than 90% or above 106% Under category C contingencies, for the valid thermal and voltage violations as specified above, generation re-dispatch, system reconfiguration, and/or load shedding was considered, if applicable. c. MISO Transmission Planning BPM SSR Impacted Facility Criteria As specified in the MISO BPM-020-r6, the System Support Resource criteria for determining if an identified facility is impacted by the generator change of status will be: Under system intact and category B contingencies, branch thermal violations are only valid if the flow increase on the element in the after retirement scenario is equal to or greater than: 10

11 a) 5% of the to-be-retired unit(s) MW amount (i.e. 5% PTDF) for a base violation compared with the before retirement scenario, or b) 3% of the to-be-retired unit(s) amount (i.e. 3% OTDF) for a contingency violation compared with the before retirement scenario. Under system intact and category B contingencies, high and low voltage violations are only valid if the change in voltage is greater than 1% as compared to the before retirement voltage calculation. d. Monitored Areas In the analysis, voltage and thermal loadings were monitored in the Wisconsin Electric (WEC), Alliant East (ALTE), Wisconsin Public Service (WPS), Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC), and Michigan Electric Transmission Company* (METC) Control Areas from kv. The Xcel Wisconsin Zone was also monitored from kv. *The METC Control area, including the Wolverine Zone, was only monitored in models where the VSC was in-service, due to the system configuration (split at Straits). e. Contingencies A subset of the MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP) contingencies in the ATC, DPC, and Xcel areas were used for AC contingency analysis. The following NERC Categories of contingencies were evaluated for all models: 1. Category A when the system is under normal conditions. 2. Category B contingencies resulting in the loss of a single element. 3. Category C contingencies resulting in the loss of two or more (multiple) elements. Maintenance outages with a forced outage were also evaluated in shoulder peak models. f. Number of Units Required Throughout this report there are references to both the number of units operating at Presque Isle and the number of units that would be needed in an SSR contract. Due to the system topology and the fact that Presque Isle is the largest plant in the region, there are no other generators that can be used to supplement power to support planned and/or forced outages of one of the Presque Isle units. The number of units operating at Presque Isle represent the number of units running pre-contingent, in order to meet post-contingent NERC reliability criteria. For shoulder load conditions, where unit maintenance is typically performed, it would be necessary to have one additional unit on an SSR contract, in order to meet NERC reliability criteria while one unit is out of service for planned maintenance (TPL-002-0b R1.3.12). 11

12 V. RELIABILITY STUDY RESULTS Significant voltage stability, thermal, and voltage criteria violations associated with the Retirement of Presque Isle 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were identified when compared to the continued availability of the units. a. Contingency Analysis Results Thermal Results Table 13a in Appendix A shows numerous NERC Category B and C contingencies causing thermal criteria violations without Presque Isle 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 operating and the improvements resulting from the operation of Presque Isle 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. A majority of the constraints identified are along the high voltage transmission path that serves Eastern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Voltage Results Table 13b in Appendix A shows a few NERC Category C contingencies causing voltage criteria violations without Presque Isle 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and the improvements resulting from the operation of Presque isle 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. There were several contingencies which did not solve and appeared to result in voltage instability that were further studied. The results of the voltage stability analysis are included below in Sections V.b and V.c. b. Voltage Stability Results Voltage stability analysis indicates that several NERC Category B and C contingencies would result in voltage instability for both Summer Peak and Shoulder Peak load conditions if Presque Isle generation is offline: NERC Category B Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] 2. [CEII REDACTED] 3. [CEII REDACTED] 4. [CEII REDACTED] 5. [CEII REDACTED] NERC Category C Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] 2. [CEII REDACTED] Additionally, there are several contingencies that would result in voltage instability only for Summer Peak load conditions if Presque Isle generation is offline: NERC Category B Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] NERC Category C Contingencies 1. [CEII REDACTED] The voltage stability limits were determined using the methodology in Section IV.a. The minimum generation limits and the most severe contingencies are included below in Section V.c. 12

13 c. Number of SSR Units Required MISO performed voltage stability analysis to determine the most limiting constraints and the number of Presque Isle units required in order to meet transmission system reliability criteria. The detailed methodology of this analysis is included in Section IV.a. The voltage stability analysis indicates that all five Presque Isle units will be needed as System Support Resource (SSR) units. Four units operating are necessary due to both the steady state and voltage stability operating limits. One additional unit would be needed at Presque Isle to ensure unit maintenance and necessary environmental retrofits. The highlighted row in the following tables indicates the number of Presque Isle units that would need to be operating to prevent the most limiting contingency constraint pair. The minimum step size (Section IV.a) of 1 MW indicates that if Presque Isle Generation were decreased by 1 MW from what is shown in the table, the first security violation would occur due to the indicated contingency. The most limiting contingencies identified in this analysis were also shown to cause voltage instability if all generation at Presque Isle were offline. If the generation at Presque Isle continued to decrease from the value indicated in the table, additional thermal and voltage violations are expected occur until the voltage stability limit is reached. Most Limiting Contingency Table 3: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs Shoulder Peak Con Type Most Limiting Element Mead Load a Min. PSQI Generation [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] 40 MW 295 MW 5 PSQI Units Operating [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 253 MW *4* [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 40 MW 181 MW 3 [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 128 MW 2 a Mead Load is non-firm load that can be curtailed to reduce flows 13

14 Most Limiting Contingency Table 4: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs Summer Peak Con Type Most Limiting Element Mead Load a Min. PSQI Generation [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] 40 MW 343 MW 5 PSQI Units Operating [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 277 MW *4* [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 40 MW 181 MW 3 [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 156 MW 3 a Mead Load is non-firm load that can be curtailed to reduce flows The voltage stability limits require 4 Presque Isle units to be operating in order to maintain system stability for the C5 loss of the [CEII REDACTED] and [CEII REDACTED] transmission lines. Load shed cannot be taken in advance of this event, so the load at Mead is not considered in this case. Table 5: Voltage Stability Limits Summer Peak Most Limiting Contingency Con Type Min. PSQI Generation [CEII REDACTED] C5 276 MW *4* PSQI Units Operating [CEII REDACTED] B 163 MW 3 VI. SSR AGREEMENT COST ALLOCATION MISO utilizes a load shed methodology to determine the reliability benefits to each MISO Local Balancing Area (LBA) of operation, without the retired or suspended unit(s). The LBA shares that are calculated in this analysis are used for cost allocation if an SSR agreement is necessary. Although load shed is not permitted for NERC Category A or B events, this methodology determines the load shed amount needed to resolve the reliability issues identified due to the unit change of status, as a proxy for the reliability benefit of SSR unit operation. The load shed values for each contingency are organized by LBA and accumulated to determine the total load shed for each LBA along with the corresponding share ratio. The hypothetical SSR agreement shares that were calculated for this Attachment Y study are included below in Table 6. 14

15 Table 6: SSR Agreement LBA Shares LBA Load Shed (MW) Share WEC % WPS % UPPC % We Energies announced its intention to create a new MIUP LBA that will be comprised of a subset of loads presently contained within the existing WEC LBA. The effective date for this change is currently targeted for December 1, The load shed calculation itself is not changed due to the creation of or assignment of buses to the MIUP LBA. However, new share ratios would result from the creation of the new MIUP LBA. VII. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS MISO s System Support Resource Tariff (Section c) provides for an open stakeholder planning process to assess feasible alternatives to an SSR agreement. The reliability assessment of this Attachment Y request resulted in SSR eligibility. As provided for in the Tariff, MISO disclosed the Attachment Y Notice on the MISO OASIS and scheduled a stakeholder meeting to review the reliability issues identified in the Attachment Y reliability analysis. MISO solicited alternatives from stakeholders that were reviewed at subsequent meetings. The following is a summary of the alternatives that were reviewed for this study and the impact each may have towards reducing or eliminating the need for SSR status for the subject Attachment Y units. a. System Reconfiguration and Operation Guidelines No other tie-ins to the rest of the transmission system exist in this area for loss of critical elements. Any system switching would island or disconnect load. b. Generation Redispatch Available units at Escanaba, White Pine, and West Marinette were included in the models. The availability of West Marinette is limited, due to air permit restrictions. The other dispatchable units, Gladstone and Portage, are Emergency Run Only units due to air permit restrictions and require a Local Transmission Emergency declaration to run. They cannot be used to support planned maintenance or construction outages. Emergency cannot be called on pre-contingency to prevent voltage instability. c. New Generation Presently there are three generator interconnection requests in the MISO queue. At the time of this report, none of the generators have met their milestones to move forward to the Definitive Planning Phase (DPP), a required step prior to an Interconnection Agreement (IA) can be executed. Under the Attachment Y process, only future generators with signed interconnection agreements can be considered as alternatives to an SSR contract. Although it is not required, MISO may evaluate proposed generation in the queue that has not yet entered into an Interconnection Agreement to provide an indication of the potential benefits to the reliability issues caused by the unavailability of the units in an Attachment Y request. 15

16 The following analysis indicates how the addition of proposed generators may reduce or eliminate the need for the Attachment Y units to remain designated SSR units. This analysis does not determine what new issues may arise from the interconnection of new generation or any network upgrades that would be needed to support such an interconnection. The issues caused by an interconnection and any needed upgrades would be determined within a generator interconnection study. Generator interconnection request J317 is for 112 MW of proposed natural gas fueled generation interconnecting to the Empire 138 kv substation. The requested in service date is June 1, The developer of this project indicated that it may be possible to accelerate the unit in-service date of the proposed unit so that it would be in-service prior to the MATS compliance deadline faced by Presque Isle (April 16, 2016). For the purposes of this study, this hypothetical unit was assumed to have a 118 MVA base, with a 0.95 power factor giving it MW and ± 36.8 Mvar capabilities. Given the expected in-service date of the unit, both the Arnold 345/138 kv transformer and Holmes Old Mead Road 138 kv transmission line projects were assumed to be in service. The addition of this proposed generator at Empire did not affect the number of units required in order to meet system reliability criteria. The limits were determined through a voltage stability analysis, reducing the generation at Presque Isle until the first constraint was identified. The limits determining the number of units required are highlighted in the tables below. Load Most Limiting Contingency Table 7: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs with J317 Con Type Most Limiting Element Min. PSQI Generation SP [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] 246 MW *4* PSQI Units Operating SP [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 153 MW 2 Table 8: Voltage Stability Analysis with J317 Load Most Limiting Contingency Con Type Min. PSQI Generation SP [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] SP [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] PSQI Units Operating *2* 2 MISO received two interconnection requests after the Attachment Y Notice for Retirement was submitted by WEC. These two projects are J352 and J353 for a 342 and 690 MW, respectively, generating facility connecting to the 345 kv substation at Arnold, the 345 kv substation at Plains, or the 138 kv substation at Plains. The requested in-service date of both of these 16

17 generator proposals is August 1, MISO is still evaluating the effectiveness of these two proposed generator alternatives and will include the details of that analysis in future revisions of this report. d. Demand Response Generic Demand Response Using optimal powerflow analysis software, MISO determined the optimal and minimum amount of load shed necessary to eliminate all voltage stability, thermal, and voltage criteria violations for 2014 summer peak and shoulder peak load conditions. This provides an indication of the minimum amount of demand response that would be necessary to alleviate all system constraints with all Presque Isle generating units offline. The amount of demand response indicated is for the most severe contingency for each NERC category. Table 9: Generic Demand Response Values NERC Category 2014SP Model 2014SH Model B 237 MW 311 MW C 287 MW 323 MW Empire Mine Demand Response In addition to the generic demand response, MISO also analyzed a theoretical load reduction at the Empire mine at the request of stakeholders. The Empire mine presently has firm transmission service. No demand side management options have been proposed by a Load Serving Entity (LSE) to date. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that this load would be entirely offline or disconnected. If this load were to be disconnected, only 4 Presque Isle units may be needed for an SSR contract, to ensure that 3 may remain operating. The steady state limits require only 2 Presque Isle units to be operating, as shown in the following table. 17

18 Table 10: Empire Mine Demand Response - Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs Load Most Limiting Contingency Con Type Most Limiting Element SP [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] Mead Load a 39 MW Min. PSQI Generation 225 MW 3 PSQI Units Operating SP [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 150 MW *2* SH [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 136 MW 2 SP [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 39 MW 79 MW 2 SP [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 61 MW 1 SH [CEII REDACTED] B [CEII REDACTED] 0 MW 12 MW 1 a Mead Load is non-firm load that can be curtailed to reduce flows The voltage stability limits require 3 Presque Isle units to be operating in order to maintain system stability for the C5 loss of the [CEII REDACTED] and [CEII REDACTED] transmission lines. Load shed cannot be taken in advance of this event, so the load at Mead is not considered in this case. Table 11: Empire Mine Demand Response Voltage Stability Limits Load Most Limiting Contingency Con Type Most Limiting Element SP [CEII REDACTED] C5 Voltage Stability Min. PSQI Generation 157 MW *3* PSQI Units Operating SP [CEII REDACTED] B Voltage Stability 78 MW 2 e. New Generation + Demand Response A combination of 116 MW of theoretical demand response at Empire (complete removal of load) was also studied in conjunction with the proposed generator J317. With both of these alternatives in place, only the 3 largest units at Presque Isle (7, 8, & 9) may be required for SSR status. 18

19 Table 12: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs with J317 and Empire Demand Response Load Most Limiting Contingency Con Type Most Limiting Element SP [CEII REDACTED] C5 [CEII REDACTED] Min. PSQI Generation 129 MW 2 PSQI Units Operating f. Transmission Projects MISO asked ATC to identify a set of transmission projects that would eliminate the SSR need for any units at Presque Isle. ATC reviewed several transmission projects, including previously approved projects and proposed projects that support multiple system needs, in developing a high-level proposal. The projects considered are a stand-alone proposal that do not include other potential alternatives. ATC s analysis indicates that the approved projects P3679 and P3952 may eliminate the need of 1 SSR unit (4 on SSR contract). The expected in-service dates for both of these approved projects are still several years away. The incremental set of transmission projects is expected to take 5-7 years to implement. ATC and MISO are continuing to evaluate and determine the transmission upgrades necessary to eliminate the SSR need of Presque Isle. Transmission Projects to eliminate Presque Isle SSR need: 1. Previously Approved Projects a. P3679, estimated in-service date 12/31/2016 i. North Appleton Morgan 345 kv line ii. North Appleton 345 kv substation iii. De-bifurcate Morgan Stiles 138 kv lines iv. Benson (near Amberg) 150 Mvar 138 kv SVC v. Holmes Old Mead Road 138 kv line b. P3952, estimated in-service date 12/31/2016 i. North Appleton Morgan 138 kv line ii. North Appleton 345/138 kv transformer 2. Projects with multiple potential need drivers a. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] b. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] 3. Additional Projects to eliminate SSR a. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] b. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] c. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] d. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] e. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] f. [PRIVILEGED REDACTED] 19

20 VIII. CONCLUSION The reliability study for the Retirement of all 5 units at Presque Isle identified reliability issues that cannot be mitigated prior to the unit change of status and thus qualifies Presque Isle for SSR designation. MISO has reviewed these reliability issues and potential alternatives with stakeholders at several Technical Study Task Force (TSTF) meetings from November 2013 until August The analysis of the proposed alternatives identified no near term solutions that would eliminate or reduce the number of units needed to address the reliability issues that are caused by the Retirement of Presque Isle 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Until such time any sufficient alternative can be contracted and implemented, all 5 units at Presque isle should be included in the SSR agreement to ensure that 4 units may be in operating condition at any time, with one unit able to be inoperable for maintenance, retrofit, or other planned outages. 20

21 IX. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1: Presque Isle Unit Capabilities... 5 Table 2: Table of Models... 8 Table 3: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs Shoulder Peak Table 4: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs Summer Peak Table 5: Voltage Stability Limits Summer Peak Table 6: SSR Agreement LBA Shares Table 7: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs with J Table 8: Voltage Stability Analysis with J Table 9: Generic Demand Response Values Table 10: Empire Mine Demand Response - Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs Table 11: Empire Mine Demand Response Voltage Stability Limits Table 12: Most Limiting Contingency-Constraint Pairs with J317 and Empire Demand Response Figures Figure 1: ATC Transmission map including the Presque Isle Generators in Marquette, MI

22 X. APPENDICES Appendix A: Steady State Contingency Analysis Results Table 13a: Table 13b: Thermal Results Voltage Results Appendix B: Model Generation Dispatch Comparison Appendix C: Area Transmission System Maps 22

23 Appendix A: Steady State Contingency Analysis Results

24 MISO Attachment Y Study Results - Presque Isle 5,6,7,8,9 - CONFIDENTIAL Table 13a: Compare Thermal Results Model VSC Contingency From Bus From Bus Name From kfrom ATo Bus To Bus Name To kv To AreCkt Rating Off MVA Off Pct. On MVA On Pct. OTDF MISO Comments 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] ARPIN B ARP Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] ROCKY RN B ROCKY RN BV Z Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] ROCKY RN B ROCKY RN B Z Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] ROCKY RN B ROCKY RN B Z Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] IRONRIV DAHLBRG Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] MAINE HILLTP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] MAINE PINE Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] SUMMITLK VENUS Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] ANTIGO BLACK BK Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BUNKERHL BLACK BK Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] LACROSS MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] IRONRIV DAHLBRG Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation caused by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH N [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] ARPIN B ARP Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] ROCKY RN B ROCKY RN BV Z Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] ROCKY RN B ROCKY RN B Z Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] ROCKY RN B ROCKY RN B Z Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] IRONRIV DAHLBRG Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] MAINE PINE Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] MAINE HILLTP Violation made worse by suspension

25 MISO Attachment Y Study Results - Presque Isle 5,6,7,8,9 - CONFIDENTIAL Table 13a: Compare Thermal Results Model VSC Contingency From Bus From Bus Name From kfrom ATo Bus To Bus Name To kv To AreCkt Rating Off MVA Off Pct. On MVA On Pct. OTDF MISO Comments 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] WERNER W B ROCKY RN B Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] SUMMITLK VENUS Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] ANTIGO BLACK BK Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BUNKERHL BLACK BK Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] LACROSS MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] IRONRIV DAHLBRG Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD LAC TAP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] STONEMAN TRK RIV Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] BRIGGS RD MAYFAIR Violation made worse by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] LENA WPS PNR TAP Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] MAINE HILLTP Violation made worse by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] MAINE PINE Violation made worse by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] SUMMITLK VENUS Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] ANTIGO BLACK BK Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] BUNKERHL BLACK BK Violation caused by suspension

26 MISO Attachment Y Study Results - Presque Isle 5,6,7,8,9 - CONFIDENTIAL Table 13b: Compare Voltage Results Presque Isle Off Presque Isle On Model VSC Contingency Bus Bus Name kv Area Vmin Vmax Contingent Voltage Contingent Voltage Voff-Von MISO Comments 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SH Y [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] TILDEN Violation caused by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] GRT LKS Violation made worse by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] MINE RD Violation made worse by suspension 2014SP N [CEII REDACTED] GOGEBIC Violation made worse by suspension

27 Appendix B: Model Generation Dispatch Comparison PUBLIC VERSION

28 Presque Isle Attachment Y Study Model Dispatch Comparison PUBLIC VERSION 2014 SP Unit Dispatch Comparison Bus Name MW On MW Off Delta MW % 6033 G ZELND SIOUX GOSCK GOSCK BR FERRY N SBAYP 1G BOSWE44G TAC HBRG GENESEO PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G SH Unit Dispatch Comparison Bus Name MW On MW Off Delta MW % BR FERRY N BOSWE43G BIGSTN1G NEAL 3G COYOTE1G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G SH_VSC Unit Dispatch Comparison Bus Name MW On MW Off Delta MW % BR FERRY N PNM DC BOSWE43G BIGSTN1G NEAL 3G COYOTE1G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G PSQI G

29 Appendix C: Area Transmission System Maps PUBLIC VERSION

30 Keweenaw K e w e e n a w Copper City Laurium Osceola Linden Hubbell H o u g h t o n Elevation St Hancock Atlantic MTU Portage (UPPCO) South Range Henry St. (UPPCO) C A N A D A Toivola White Pine Mine White Pine Vlg Stone Container UPSCO Ontonagon Ontonagon O n t o n a g o n Rockland (UPP) Victoria Hy Winona Mine Mass Twin s (UPP) Old Winona M-38 Baraga Vlg Baraga JH Warden L'anse B a r a g a M a r q u e t t e L a k e S u p e r i o r Woodmin G o g e b i c Clear (WPS) St Germain O n e i d a Rhinelander Paper Rhinelander Hodag Land O s Eagle River Cranberry Eagle River Bruce Crossing Watersmeet Conover Lakota Rd Twin V i l a s Venus Three s F o r e s t Crandon Metonga I r o n Mansfield head Iron River Crystal Iron River Falls Crystal Mansfield Iron Grove Lincoln Ave (UPPCO) Falls Stambaugh Gaastra Alpha Peavy Falls Hy F l o r e n c e KINGSFORD Pine Hy Bass Kingsford Grede Foundries Marquette Presque Isle SW YD North Big Bay Marquette Diesel Greenstone Negaunee Freeman Humboldt Mine Barnum Harvey Ishpeming Perch National Empire Mine Tilden Sagola Michigamme Aspen Falls Hy Brule Florence SW STA Goodman Randville Nordic Niagra Paper Of Wisconsin Mich Transmitter Facility Felch Mountain Plains Aragon Norway Nathan Sawyer Lumber Gwinn Gwinn Powers Arnold M e n o m i n e e Carney Forsyth Watson Powers Harris K I Sawyer Cornell-UP Chandler Perkins North Bluff Chatham head Rapid River Gladstone Mead Paper Mead Pump Delta Escanaba (UPPCO) Escanaba Steam Plant Forest Masonville (UPPCO) D e l t a A l g e r Munising Munising Alger Shingleton Hiawatha (AD-REA) Garden Timber Products Star Siding Garden Corners Pines (UPPCO) S c h o o l c r a f t Indian Valley (ESE) Manistique Seney (UPPCO) Seney (AD-REA) Blaney Park SW STA Mich Western Limestone Loading Dock Sub Curtis L u c e Newberry Gould City SW STA Newberry Vlg Lou Pac Roberts SW STA Engadine Hiawatha (ESE) head Naubinway Hulbert Rexton Eckerman Brevort Trout (CEC) Trout (ESE) C h i p p e w a M a c k i n a c Raco Pine River Brimley St Ignace Mackinac Straits Mackinac Island McGulpin Us Hydro 9 & 10 Dafter 3 Mile M I C H I G A N Portage St Hy Sault Ste. Marie Sault Pine Grove 9 Mile SW STA Tone Kincheloe Housing Kincheloe Main Pickford Rudyard Limeston Rockview Talentino SW STA L a k e H u r o n C h i p p e w a Goetzville De Tour Village Detour Tomahawk Eastom Tomahawk - ATC 115kV Merrill L i n c o l n Summit (WPS) L a n g l a d e O c o n t o Silver Cliff Fox Hills SW STA Daves Falls Wausaukee Caldron M a r i n e t t e Falls Hy Thunder Sandstone Rapids Hy Crivitz Chalk Hills Hy Amberg Holmes Daggett Stephenson Grand Rapids Hy Ingalls D o o r L a k e M i c h i g a n Miles M I C H I G A N ZONE 2 E l e c t r i c T r a n s m i s s i o n N e t w o r k & S u b s t a t i o n s P L A N N I N G Z O N E 2 Currently, ATC owns or operates transmission facilities in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Facilities include: * Approximately 9440 miles of transmission lines * 109 wholly owned substations * 410 jointly owned substations * ATC offices in Madison, Cottage Grove, Pewaukee, De Pere, and Kingsford, MI Transmission Line Voltage 69 kv 69 kv Double Circuit 115 kv 115 kv Double Circuit 138 kv 138 kv Double Circuit 230 kv 230 kv Double Circuit 345 kv 345 kv Double Circuit Non-ATC Line Last Revision: January 2014 Transmission Related Facilities 69 kv Underground Substation or Switchyard ATC Office Location 115 kv Underground 138 kv Underground Tap or Switching Structure Generation The information presented in this map document represent the most current and accurate georeferenced compilation of ATC owned and operated transmission facilities available - some facility locations may be approximate. This map is advisory and intended for reference purposes only. Please direct any revisions or corrections to ATC Asset Applications and GIS Group. Base Map Information: ATC, PSCW, MiDNR, WDNR W I S C O N S I N ZONE 1 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 G:\GISDATA\WORKSPACE\ArcMap Templates\Zone Maps\Zone2 11x17.mxd Modified: March 7, 2012

31 X-30 X-5 Y-95 Y-24 F-318 Y-133 X-96 L-CYP F Y-51 F-84 F o r e s t Silver Cliff Fox Hills SW STA J-88 Caldron Falls Hy Wausaukee G-INS11 Grand Rapids Hy Stephenson R-18 Ingalls Y-123 Deer Trail Polar L a n g l a d e White M e n o m i n e e Mountain Suring Y-77 High Falls Hy O c o n t o Thunder U-99 D-30 Sandstone Rapids Hy Crivitz CRIY621 Pound Pound Coleman B-2 M a r i n e t t e Lena Crivitz F-58 L-142 Bay De Noc Menominee Menominee Scott 30th Ave Paper Co 2nd St (WPS) West Marinette Bayshore SW YD Ogden St Peshtigo Peshtigo Sherwood G-WEM23 M-117 H-60 MENG21 WPS_X24 Egg Harbor Egg Harbor Ephraim Sister Bay Sister Bay Bowler Tigerton Big Falls Ogdensburg Waupaca Y-44 N-118 U-13 Marion W a u p a c a Manawa Y-56 WERWL41 White (WE) Weyauwega W a u s h a r a Fountain Valley Fox River HW22L31 Manawa River Run Berlin Berlin Y-93 Marion Fremont Gresham Caroline WERWG31 Y-80 J Clintonville WERWL61 Bear Creek Hintz New London W i n n e b a g o Winneconne Winneconne Y-103 Omro Omro West Shawano Belle Plaine HW22L21 Embarrass Clintonville WERWG51 Werner West Highway 22 Badger Hortonville Y-311 Omro Industrial Park Fitzgerald W-101 Ellinwood East Shawano Cloverleaf Shiocton MCRG21 Cecil White Clay S h a w a n o Nichols Bonduel Black Creek O u t a g a m i e Ellington NAPL71 E Neevin Woodenshoe Pearl Ave Butte Des Morts Progress Aviation 6843 Neenah Mears Corners 6853 Bowen St Oshkosh Oshkosh W-75 Casaloma Appleton Park Tayco Melissa Menasha Gillett HW22L21 Lawn Rd North Appleton Apple Hills Seymour K11 Sherwood C a l u m e t Stockbridge Pulaski K-37 I L51 Oconto Falls Morgan Maplewood Cypress SW YD Howard Nicolet Paper Co Red Maple De Pere Mystery Hills Rockland (WPS) Wrightstown 728K21 Kiel B r o w n St. Nazianz Oconto Wesmark Denmark G r e e n B a y Luxemburg Luxemburg 24.9 Maribel Kellnersville Francis Creek K e w a u n e e Casco Mishicot D o o r Forestville Sturgeon Bay Industrial Beardsley St Kewaunee Glenview Brillion Shoto Two Rivers Iron Works M a n i t o w o c Brillion Reedsville Columbus St Whitelaw Hilbert Northeast Mirro Manrap Potter Custer Revere Dr Mpu Plant Manitowoc Valders Dewey Gravesville St Nazianz Chilton Falls Lost Dauphin T-98 Howard Mason St Glory Rd Kaukauna North Fox River Maes Kaukauna SW YRD Kaukauna Central Combined Locks E L71 971K31 E-57 J-140 Meyer Rd 971K91 971K X-76 LSOG21 Suamico Velp Ave Potts Avenue Ashland Ave Z-26 Tecumseh Rd Ryan St Stiles SW STA Bayport SW STA Greenleaf Forest Junction Ford Drive Pioneer (WPS) Sobieski Little Suamico H-112 R FIRY11 New Holstein SW STA Oconto O G-85 Danz Ave SW STA University (WPS) Preble Ontario Bluestone 971K51 P-68 L-90 Dyckesville M-39 Kellnersville R A-101 Cleveland C-55 DYKY Rosiere Booster East Krok Q-303 H-86 Kewaunee SW YD Mishicot Brusbay Point Beach SW YD M-143 Algoma Barnett B-28 I-87 Z-130 J-10 Algoma Algoma City Dunn Rd Michigan St K-89 Canal L a k e M i c h i g a n Green SW STA Green X-3 Y-26 G r e e n L a k e North Randolph Fox Randolph X-47 Dartford Northwest Ripon Markesan Mackford Prairie Markesan Fox (ALTE) C o l u m b i a Fairwater Y-59 Center St Ripon Fairwater Ripon Ind Park Y-157 Metomen Y-92 Brandon Y-27 Brandon W-5 Alto North Beaver Dam Waupun X-4 Beaver Dam East Beaver Dam 3rd St Waupun Main Rosendale Rosendale D o d g e X-77 G-111 North Fond Du Lac Forest South Fond Du Lac SW YD Koch Oil Oakfield Y-25 Kekoskee Y-68 Hickory St Mayville Theresa Horicon Spring Brook Ind Park Horicon Mayville Hubbard Horicon East Scott St Lomira F o n d d u L a c Ohmstead Martin Rd Willow Lawn Oakfield Forward Energy Center Butternut Eden Ledgeview G-BTB52 L-CYP31 Mount Calvary Cedar Ridge Wind Generation Campbellsport Glacier Kewaskum 9752 Auburn St. Cloud W-1 S h e b o y g a n W a s h i n g t o n 8032 West Bend Elkhart Glenbeulah X L-SEC31 Elkhart Kettle Morraine (ALTE) Plymouth Muncipal Barton Newburg Cascade Random Plymouth Sub 3 Y-50 Plymouth Bemis Mullet River Waldo Lyndon Adell Random Fredonia 8241 Howards Plymouth Grove Sub 4 Erdman X Fredonia 796L41 796L41 HOLG21 Holland Cedar Grove Belgium Howards Grove Northside (sfm) (ALTE) O z a u k e e X-48 X-1 Oostburg Port Washington X-64 South Huebner Sheboygan Falls North Gate Sheboygan Riverside (ALTE) Edgewater SW YD W I S C O N S I N ZONE 1 ZONE 3 M I C H I G A N ZONE 2 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 E l e c t r i c T r a n s m i s s i o n N e t w o r k & S u b s t a t i o n s P L A N N I N G Z O N E Miles Currently, ATC owns or operates transmission facilities in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota,and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Facilities include: * Approximately 9440 miles of transmission lines * 109 wholly owned substations * 410 jointly owned substations * ATC offices in Madison, Cottage Grove, Pewaukee, De Pere, and Kingsford, MI G:\GISDATA\WORKSPACE\ArcMap Templates\Zone Maps\Zone4 11x17.mxd Modified: March 7, kv 115 kv 138 kv 230 kv 345 kv Transmission Line Voltage 69 kv Double Circuit 115 kv Double Circuit 138 kv Double Circuit 230 kv Double Circuit 345 kv Double Circuit Revised: January kv Underground 138 kv Underground Non-ATC Line Transmission Related Facilities Substation or Switchyard ATC Office Location Tap or Switching Structure Generation The information presented in this map document represent the most current and accurate georeferenced compilation of ATC owned and operated transmission facilities available - some facility locations may be approximate. This map is advisory and intended for reference purposes only. Please direct any revisions or corrections to ATC Asset Applications and GIS Group. Base Map Information: ATC, PSCW, MiDNR, WDNR