OVERVIEW
Great draft. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please see below for feedback from BPA.
Grammar/Format/Technical Edits
Page 2, Line 10 – It seems odd to specifically name a single stakeholder and no others. Consider listing the major stakeholders that also includes “developers” or do not list any.
Page 2, Lines 12-22 – The process seems to include only Enrolled Party needs. Should it say Enrolled and Non-Enrolled party needs or NG member’s need?
Page 2, Lines 16-17 – It is not clearly stated where the “Alternative Projects” originated. Are they alternatives to the Baseline Projects received from the Enrolled Parties, are they produced at NG for the evaluation process, etc.?
Page 2, Line 27 – Assuming that “projected transmission” is referring to topology or projects, are there other things it could be referring to, so clarity would be good.
Page 3, Lines 14-15 – Assuming that generation retirements/additions are in max output MWs. Recommend to add wording for clarity.
Page 3, Lines 16-17 – Says that all 141 projects are line projects. Are all of them line projects? If not, the word “line” should be removed.
Page 3, Lines 37-38 – The footprint being big and over varied terrain seems like an incomplete description for why only winter and summer conditions are being modeled. Why would spring and/or fall not also be included based on that explanation? This sentence also fits better in the paragraph prior that discusses summer/winter peak loading.
Page 3, Lines 37-41/Entire Doc – Did not see anything about batteries in the generation sections. Are they not included in this study? Although there are several symbols shown on Figure 5 that look like a battery. However, the “Storage” icon referenced as a resource is not clearly seen anywhere on the map.
Page 8, Line 15 – add the word “above” to say 230 kV and above transmission additions.
Page 9, Line 7 – Include “load” in the observation.
Page 9, Line 13 – Not 100% sure where this observation is coming from but it seems like it is referring to the add/removed nameplate gen in the figure above. If it is referring to a net nameplate increase it is fine, but a lot of the replacement generation is non-dispatchable so I’m not sure if I would come to the same observation for net output. Extra wording to clarify would help
Pages 13 and beyond – Recommend using sub-headers for the project names to add distinction from descriptions.
Page 14, Line 23 – States Big Eddy and Troutdale. It should be Big Eddy and Harborton.
Page 14, Lines 33-34 – states “existing 500 kV Robinson Summit substation (in the WestConnect planning region)”. With NV Energy joining NorthernGrid, should this substation be in NorthernGrid region as indicated on page 15 lines 3-5?
Page 20, Line 1 – Should be southbound flows on COI/PDCI for a Cal export case
Figure
Page 9, Figure 4 – The summary number for NorthernGrid Regional transmission projects is 13, which is much lower than the sum of transmission projects shown for member submittals on the Figure. It may be good to separate the Local and Regional projects for member submittals in the Figure.
Pages 11-12, Figures 5-6 – The resource reference icons on the right were very faded and hard to differentiate. Is it possible to enlarge or add contrast?
Page 15, Figure 8 – Either there are no Summer Peak Load between 1,501-4,000MW seen on the map or it was very difficult to locate. If possible, consider adding more contrast to the colors to differentiate between the 1,501-4,000 MW and 4,000-10,000MW ranges
Table
Page 16, Table 2 – ABV of Enrolled Party names and % of changes are broken into two lines. Consider reducing size of font to keep the whole name and number on one line -OR- adjust to a horizontal layout just for that one page that includes Table 2.
Appendix
Page 23, Appendix B - BA and Year are broken into two lines. Consider reducing size of font to improve the look of the document by keeping the words and year together on the same line; improves overall readability.
General/Open Topic
No response submitted.
General/Open Topic the Second
No response submitted.
General/Open Topic the Third
No response submitted.
