Good afternoon, I'm Kai Holland. I am the representative for House District 9
Thank you for joining us today to learn more about the Railboat Reliability Council and the work that we're doing I
am
Representing House District 9, which is the area of South Anchorage,
that includes some of the higher communities like Glen Alps,
Bachelors, Suckin Heights, Bear Valley,
but also all the way down to Gerdwood and out to Whittier.
And that concludes the new transmission lines
that have been upgraded that we've been looking at
and a number of issues of concern to our district about energy
and how we're managing the energy challenges
and the future and affordability of energy.
Today, we have an opportunity to get an update
the rail belt, reliability council.
This work to me is really important because it's addressing two really fundamental issues
about the standards and the planning related to our rail belt utilities.
And it is a remarkable process that is bringing together all the utilities in order to
align the standard and to align some of the longer term planning.
That work is important not only for all of us who are rate payers and concerned about
down the road but this is also looking down
the Road towards the ensuring that we have
the energy that
we need it's affordable and this issue
while it might seem is strictly a
rail belt issue to me is
also a statewide issue because of how
our state is structured with energy
and energy policy around PCE where the
railbelt utilities go so does the impact
rural utilities through the transfer of that.
So it's important to all of us in the state
that we have a strong, reliable, affordable energy system.
It benefits all us to improve that coordination.
And this work has been instrumental in bringing
those utilities together to develop that foresight
of where we're going in future.
And we are also making sure that some
of the newer legislation that were working on
will be designed to complement this effort
so that the new legislation
newer energy sources and diversification.
will be layered on and complement the long-term planning and the capacity that's being created
by the utilities to work together through this planning process. So I hope you enjoy learning
about the process where it's at and look forward to your feedback on this session. And so I'd like
to turn it over now to Ed Jenkins who's leading the effort of the Rail Belt Reliability Council.
We also have some of our board members here who are available also if there are questions.
Thank you representative following and thank you for showing up for this little lunch and learn
Again, my name is at Jenkins CEO of the rebel reliability council
Also have a couple of board members with us today. We have
Lou Florence who's hiding around the corner
He is the chair of
the board of The Rebel reliability Council Katie Lister is here also who is also a board member. I also want to
introduce John Wind to you. John Win works with Black and Veach. He has more
years experience doing integrated resource plan than I do working in
utilities. So over 35 years working on integrated
resource plans with black and veach and he's managing that part of the contracting
to perform all the modeling and do all
the work associated with the development
and integrated resource plan.
He's down here as well.
So afterwards, if there's questions, he's available also.
So I'm at the head of the Red Heart Laboratory Council
after 35 years working with utilities.
We're the executive team with Matt news electric before that. I was on the execute team, but you got your electric
But I moved over into this position
specifically
Because this is a regional approach and having worked with the utilities for a number of years
It was apparent that as we work
Together to accomplish things regionally we can do things more efficiently
and create a more reliable system as we work together.
So I'm here because I really believe in the regional approach,
the region approach for the rail belt.
Sorry for The Fonts, they didn't part over quite as well,
but it's still all legible.
So the Rail Belt, 600 miles from Fairbanks to Homer in general.
If you care, that's about the same distance that you are.
If travel from Seattle to Sacramento.
Now there's a big difference between the distance,
between Fairbanks and Homer, the difference
between Seattle and Sacramento, which is very evident.
That's the whole lot less load.
There's whole a lot left between fairbanks
and homers than there is in that stretch between
Seattle in Sacramento There is a whole
There's a lot of parallel transmission lines to move power around that part of the United
States between Seattle and Sacramento that doesn't exist in the rail belt.
Which is to say, part the reason that regional planning is so important is because we don't
have a load which means we do not have as much use for the electricity for those people
And we have less infrastructure that needs improving,
so therefore we need to plan appropriately
across the whole region.
And that's why this regional approach
for the rail belt works,
and I think that that why legislatively,
hearing that message legislation was created
to form a regional organization
to do both integrated resource planning
and to develop standards for a railbelt.
specifically Senate Bill 123 back in 2020 said for standards all users owners and
operators shall comply with reliability standards from Fairbanks to Homer
we're developing standards it'll be uniform for everybody concerned the
integrated resource plan it says that an integrated research plan must meet
customers collective needs regardless of the location of ownership of new
So we can plan regionally to develop that infrastructure that's necessary to put generation where it's meets the need
regardless of who owns it or where is because
the thought is we'll be able to move it anywhere in the rail built and
The regulations emphasize that even more the integrated resource plan must include the entirety of the interconnected bulk electric system
Regardless of service territory boundaries. So as we plan we are planning
the rail belt as a region not as five separate utilities and the one thing we do have is an
advantage over the line from Seattle to Sacramento is we only have five utilities to deal with
and they were part of this process and part
of the team that worked together to create the legislation even recognizing that the need for
But we're not the only regional organization.
Legislation also created the Rail Belt Transmission Organization.
And the rail belt transmission organization is important to the Railroad Reliability Council.
Because as we do our planning, we are planning a regional approach to be able to move power
Is to have a tariff that removes impediments to competition and the wholesale bulk power marketplace to me what I'm saying is
They move those barriers to moving power
So power can move from Golden Valley to Homer or from
Anchorage to Fairbanks
However, it's necessary and most efficient to move it and their job is to make sure we can do that
without any impediment
Because they're going to reallocate transmission costs because transmission cost still have to be paid for
But they are going do it in the manner that it won't have an impact on the transaction
so
if Golden Valley running their coal and their wind plant both in Healy and
It's low load periods and they both maximum output
Rather than reducing one of those facilities down and making it less efficient
that they can reduce a combustion turbine's load in Anchorage or the Matsu and move that
power there, saving gas, running it more efficiently without having a barrier of having to pay
a wheeling cost to move across the transmission line that would stop that transaction from
happening as it can today.
So that's this regional approach that we're trying to accomplish.
We were legislatively established to be an electrical liability organization.
So you can think of the National Electrical Liability Corporation, NERC.
They develop and enforce standards in most of continental United States, even though we
are continent, but the lower 48.
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that oversees them, we have the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska that oversees us. So there's similarities between how we're setting it up,
how it's federally set up to develop standards for the railboat. And as far as long-term planning,
it also says we need to do this long term plan for
in order to efficiently move power.
So legislatively we were established,
we applied to the regulatory commission Alaska,
they accepted our application
to be the electric reliability organization
for the rail belt with a structure,
which I think is important,
that is very centered on stakeholder input.
We have a 12 member board
that represents stakeholders.
from utilities to IPPs, to consumer advocacy groups,
to environmental groups to have a balanced board between users
and suppliers of power, and really between utilities
and non-utilities.
In addition to those 12 members, we have another member
that is an independent member that's not associated
with anybody directly dealing with energy issues.
To give us 13 members on our board,
I don't want to forget that we also have two non-voting members.
One is a seat for the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and the other is
a Seat for RAPPA which represents customer interest before the regulatory commission.
They're both very important voices on our board, but they're not voting to avoid any conflict.
So how do we develop standards?
How do develop integrated resource planning?
We have a group the technical advisory committee. We call them the TAC we have lots of acronyms like everybody else
and
they're independent subject matter experts
That are specifically
Experts and standards and Standards enforcement integrated resource plan John is a member of our TACK that
oversees the development of the products that we do
So, they start there with attack, but then they go to working groups.
And working group are made up of individuals that represent the interests that are on the
board as far as consumer interests, environmental interests utility interests.
But also, if there's an interest that's not covered by the board, other individuals can
And also any member of the public can attend any working group meeting, they're all open
to the Public, and they are all recorded, so anybody can also follow up and listen in.
And the work products that are developed are debated in that working Group so that we can
bring things forward then to a recommendation by the Technical Advisory Committee up to
And to move something through the board to the regulatory commission there's 13 voting members
it takes nine voting member to pass anything. So it's a pretty high hurdle. We have to get to
consensus usually in order to remove anything forward to their regulatory commissioner of Alaska.
So we'll start with talking about standards. Standards are those things that dictate
Certain operation constraints that all utilities have to comply with
Generators trip all the time. I hate to say that
All the times probably an exaggeration, but more often than you think and you never should notice it
You should never see the impact of a single generator tripping offline
if the sensor fails or there's a vibration and it's
brings itself out for protection, there's a hiccup in fuel, and a generator trips offline,
no one should ever notice those things. And they shouldn't notice
those thing because there are certain operating rules that everybody operates by.
To maintain enough responsive reserves on the system at any time, so when a known
probable event happens, it doesn't interrupt service.
to make sure the system operates consistently in power
supplied and when events happen that are expected events,
transmission line trips, generator trips.
There's no impact to the members.
And in general, utilities do a pretty good job of that.
There has been a few instances, but that's why we have standards
and that is why all utilities have to agree on those standards
So, we developed those standards again.
We look at the standards that are developed by NERC and then in the lower 48.
We have standards developed for Alaska that have been voluntary in place since 2018.
We looked at standards from Australia where they have similar systems to some degree to
what we have in Alaska.
which also has is similarly situated to some of the system Alaska and we make recommendations to the working group the work in group then
debates those based upon their stakeholder interests and
We develop the standards
Across the region with input from all regional entities to ensure that once we're done
We in general have a consensus document that can go to The RCA
And we can walk through the approval process of the RCA knowing that it's been a well-developed product.
In fact, we brought stuff to the RSA for standards.
The first four they've got, they, uh,
we had a discussion, and they approved them,
and in the order of proving them I'm just going to read these things because I think it is important.
allowing many voices to be heard while ensuring that the resulting standard is technically sound and beneficial
to grid stability
They also said the RCA is the RC sorry robust development process for reliability standards gives us
Confident that to propose reliability. Standards are just and not unduly discriminatory or preferential
In other words, yes, we have a process we go through that
Sometimes takes a while to get consensus. Sometimes it takes awhile to
get agreement from utilities and IPPs and customers balancing how difficult it
is to implement with what's the reliability benefit and what is the cost as we move
standards through. But that process is as robust as any legal proceeding that the
RCA is going to have. And basically they recognize that and yes we spend time on
But in the end, we don't have to go through a legal proceeding in front of the RCA
because they recognize the value of
the process we bring to get to these standards.
And it is a significant time saving and cost saving at the
end of process when we
don t have do debate things and illegal hearing in
front the rca.
So what are we doing in 2026?
We presently have 14 standards in front of the RCA now,
which does not mean the RCAs having
is there's an issue we created for them.
And I'm just going to say we put in all 14
standards at once.
As one docket, as one not
suspended the dasket, I shouldn't use that word.
But as 1 filing.
So that means they have to review all
14 standard.
and have agreement on all 14 standards before they can approve that whole batch that we filed
in one filing. Since then we've worked with them, we won't do that again to them.
We put together, sat down with their staff, developed a schedule,
we have now scheduled how we file things with the RCA, how far apart we spread,
how much we give them at one time to ensure that the process is a little bit smoother
I know that's sitting there, that there's 14 in front of them.
I didn't want anybody to think that the RCA is causing issues for us.
They're not.
We're just learning through the process.
So 2026 standards priorities.
The attack in the working groups has started work on those standards associated with how
do we interconnect a new generator?
How do you inter-connect the new transmission line?
How we do inter connect a large load to the transmission system if one shows up?
And that was very important enough that legislation specifically called out that as one of our priorities, one
of the requirements.
To ensure that it doesn't matter who puts in the request, that they have an equivalent
manner by which it's reviewed and is subject to the same criteria, fees, timelines, and
processes.
Independent power producers had that when they talked to Fairbanks,
it was different than when we talked at Chugach,
which was a different one they talk to MEA.
And the requirement that as we work through these standards,
we develop standards that are uniform,
and everybody, whether you're a utility developing a generation project,
or whether an independent power producer developing the project
you go through the same procedures.
And those procedures are known and enforced and it's consistent with everybody.
So, that's our main priority for 2026, and that is going to take a while to go through
those processes, get agreement with everybody, develop not only the standards under which
they have to build things, but also it's required that they all have the same process.
So we're developing also the interconnection process to ensure that that also is the
So, at the same time, we will parallel that with other standards development.
We're scheduled besides those facilities, standards, and interconnection processes to
look at 11 other standard and get 11 others standards through the board to the RCA this
year.
Now, integrated resource planning.
How does the RRC do rail belt integrated resources planning?
Well, first of all it is regional. I mean if you're driving from Seattle to Sacramento and you got to
Sacramento, and when you went in, you'd find out, hey, they've got an integrated resource plan, because that's a municipal utility.
And that integrated resources plan serves Sacramento.
It doesn't serve any other area.
And you also find that it probably is just looking at their generation resources.
Because the transmission system to move power around Sacramento is in place and it doesn't need a lot of modifications
So they're probably just looking at generation resources they need to serve their future load within a well established electrical grid
Here the regional approach is necessary because they do it that way because
Their load is significant. The load grows. They don't have to consider about other entities
Where the efficiencies we gain by looking at it as a regional approach drives us to that
regional
approach
And our plan also is regional and it also encompasses transmission as well as generation
It also
encompasses
Those resources that might be on the distribution system it
Also encompasses those resources. That might behind the meter
Because, as we look at resources, there may be value in projects that actually are efficiency
projects, that reduce load, rather than building a new generator.
Or there maybe projects are distributed in smaller projects to provide enough value to
do them instead of a large central generation project.
And if you do do a larger central-generation project, well, we only have one line that
So, if you have any one central project, what's the impact on transmission in order to make
sure you can deliver that power reliably?
So we can't just look at generation, we have to look
at transmission as well, and model the transmission requirements besides just generation requirements
to ensure that when we develop a system, it not only meets the generation needs, but
it can be delivered in a reliable manner.
getting more common even in lower 48. California now has found out that they have to do this too.
Because so much of their generation in California is now in Arizona. And they
have make sure that there's actually transmission lines that can get it to California and not
be overloaded. So even Cal Isa now when they do their integrated resource plan, they
do a generation plan but then on top of that,
So, it's becoming more common as we have to move power over larger areas.
And honestly, if we're looking at how to do things efficiently in the rail belt, we don't
want to be constrained where we can't move the power from Fairbanks to the Matsu if
we need to, or the Fairbank Stankridge, our anchor is the matsu.
But like Sacramento ours does get approved by the regulatory body. So regulatory Commission of Alaska will be approving our
Integrated Resource Plan and that's important because that has impacts on how it gets
Developed in the future
how those projects get built and finally
yes, Sacramento has a
Has a plan where the public can provide input into the final document
I will say our stakeholder input process is significantly more robust.
Where we have stakeholders at the very beginning of the process in working groups reviewing
the foundational objectives and definitions that will be used in that integrated resource
plan to get consensus on that very foundational level even before we start running studies
and analysis.
This is pretty much approach you'll find most anywhere.
We know what our existing assets are.
We now what they'll do.
We don't know how they're affected by temperature.
We take limits on transmission lines, the limits
on generation.
So we bring all that existing resources into the model.
We forecast demand.
We say, how much load do we think we're going to have to serve in 20 years?
And when do think that load's going materialize?
And that involves the utilities in a stakeholder group and coming together and
coming with a unified load forecast and next we evaluate new resources what's
the most efficient resources in order to meet that load and if that most
efficient resource is a large generation facility somewhere how are we going to
move that power from that to everywhere else it needs to go. So we model those
And the scenarios as they're modeled, they come up with various results and we compare those results to come with a preferred portfolio that ends up before the public again for final comments and then on to the regulatory the board and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
When Compass is a Model Think software,
it looks at the economics of generation.
And it is an extremely powerful tool
because with the generation capacity that exists now,
you can plug in 20 different options.
And they don't have to be generation options,
they can be load reduction options
they could be transmission line options
increase the capacity between Fairbanks and Anchorage, what does that do for my
generation mix? So you can plug all those resources into the models John's team
is going to run and it's going look at every single combination of all
those resource is under the base conditions you've given it to tell you
what's your lowest cost option.
And it's not only going to give you the lowest cost option,
it is going give a list of option after option
after Option rated by where they fall on the economic scale.
And because they can do that, we can also test
what we think our beliefs are going
to be.
We can test what gas price is
going be based on whatever scenario for gas we end up with.
And we can test each of those scenarios and run that model based on each scenario.
If there's a standard that dictates a certain level of generation, it doesn't come from
natural gas.
We can pull that scenario into the model and it will drive a solution based upon those
things.
come to an agreement on what we think that base case is going to be and then we also develop
scenarios in case some of those base cases don't happen and honestly we update this thing every
two years. We're required by legislation to update it every two year to do a new one every four years
potential legislation could happen or as determination is made on how we're going to get gas in the
future and it changes. We'll develop a new plan that'll take that into account and put us on the
right direction. The other program that's used is PSSE and that is a modeling software. You put
all your generation and your lines in there and you model them and their electrical characteristics
I mean, just great economics, but what happens when I put it over here and actually try to
run it, and the model says, well, it's great,
but if you lose that generator, then you're going to have outages.
Or if we lose the transmission line, there's too much flow on it and
the other transmission lines can't take it.
So each generation scenario then that we look at and comes out of those scenarios, we then
move that over into the
run those through the transmission models to ensure that not only do we have the lowest cost,
but we also have one that meets the reliability requirements for the rail belt.
And in the end, we come up with what my regulations is called the preferred plan.
Comes out of those lowest reasonable cost scenarios that we ran, but then isn't dictated solely on
Consideration with by regulation we have to consider environmental impacts reliability resiliency
Not just can you survive a normal outage, but what happens if an earthquake happens or you lose all your ties between one region or another?
we to be able to look at those things and
Be able the know the impact of those events as we do this and
There's other
Items that we need to have look out and track
so that we can say, well, how does it impact this or that,
and come up with a best solution, that preferred plan.
Informed not only by the analysis associated
with that plan, but all the other analysis we've done,
looking at, what if scenarios change?
And once we have a preferred planned,
we develop an action plan to make it happen.
And I think that's something that is unique to this plan
IRP process. If you want, you can take a picture of that and you
can learn about the detailed process, but in general, we hired Black in
Veach in November to start the process they've been working us within. We're
presently developing definitions, objectives as they go into that.
We've got data requests out to the utilities.
signing non-disclosure agreements and doing those things to start moving things
forward. Once we have that accomplished we'll start running the model and out of
that model we will select a preferred portfolio which we expect to have done
in the fourth quarter of this year and from there we're moving on to developing
action plans so for those resources to be able to submit a final plan to the
Which brings us to the fact that
We've had IRPs before in Alaska
We have had this agency or that organization or do an integrated resource plan
Sometimes they include transmission sometimes they don't
sometimes it's because they
Have this great project they want to justify so they hire someone to
look at what the impacts would be.
So we've had integrated resource plans before,
and some of them have pretty good plans,
but there's always been a problem with what next.
And I think as well as developing a planner,
I have an answer to what happens next,
in other words, how do we move the plan forward
and actually build a system that is beneficial for the future?
It starts out with the action plan.
We not only have to develop a plan, but we have
to have an action plan that involves all entities
that may be involved in actually constructing it.
We have look at the process by which they would develop
and build the integrated resource plan out.
We need to look how is it going to get paid for.
And then we need put a timeline to it with activities.
and that has to be part of what gets filed
with the regulatory commission of Alaska.
So they're not only approving the plan,
they are also approving how we get from a plan to a project.
And then we have this thing called Project Approval,
which legislators also established
when they established the requirements for the RRC to exist.
Because they said, wait a second.
We want to pre-approve all projects we want the RCA the regulatory Commission of Alaska to
pre approve all Projects so if you have a project and it's more than 15 megawatts or a transmission
line that's More than 10 miles long you Have to take it to the rca to get prior approval
now before you can actually built it and get that paid for in your rates and you
How does it comply with reliability standards and is it the right thing to do as far as
cost for your members?
So you have this pre-approval process you now have to before you can build something.
And what's interesting is when they pass that legislation to say you're now a process to
get things pre approved, they have a little note on the bottom here.
The basically says, well I'm going to read it so you'll know exactly what it says.
Unless the Commission finds otherwise by clear and convincing evidence,
a large energy facility that was included in the most recent
integrated resource plan approved by the RCA is considered
to satisfy these requirements.
In other words, we have a robust process involving all stakeholders.
that comes together and develops not only a plan, but a timeline for that plan to be constructed.
And as long as we're doing that process right,
then the RCA looks at it and says, well, that project's pre-approved.
You don't have to go through a hearing before the RC-A to get that
project now into the queue.
Yes, we do a plan, but we also think we have a mechanisms in place that actually will help those regional projects get done to the benefit of the whole region.
Let's talk about the RTO one more time, at the very end.
Because they also have task.
And that task is to make sure the transmission cost is even including ancillary services are allocated.
Their job is to develop a mechanism
so that we know how projects are getting paid for in the future.
So we now if this is a regional project, who's going to pay for it?
And that's something that has never existed before. Well, it still doesn't exist.
They're now going through the process of standing up the RTO and getting the tariff approved.
But that is critical to us.
To make sure that if a project is the right project
that has a mechanism by which it not only can get built, but there's a known mechanism
by what you can be paid for.
I mean, there has been years where the state government funded transmission lines never
got built.
So we never spent the money.
Because we couldn't agree on how to pay for it.
We couldn�t agree, well, who does it really benefit and are they paying the right amount?
Now we don't have that process anymore to worry about as far as each project, now the RTO is going to develop a mechanism that
identifies how projects are paid for.
So RC, Rto, critical that they work together so that we can actually not only do the plan but have a
mechanism moving forward by which we actually get projects constructed.
If anybody has any questions, if I can't answer them, there's other people in this room,
or we know more about any greater resource planning than I do.
Go ahead.
I was going to say, I told you I wasn't going say anything, but could I say one thing?
Go head, Lou.
How can I turn down the chairman of the board?
for people
and these standards this is a ton of work to do the development of the plan that's a lot of
work-to-do it takes literally thousands of hours to facilitate these working groups and to go
through the process of getting it through The Technical Approval Council which is what John
sits on and then bring it to the board which has made up of 15 different stakeholder groups
and the board has to go through everything, and then to file it with the RCA and go
through the whole regulatory commission of Alaska adjudication process to get these things
approved.
And then, which I didn't even mention, there's a two-year implementation process that has
to going on with utilities, then there is an ongoing monitoring and enforcement process
that occurs.
And a lot of the work is being done by the individual stakeholder groups and some of those stake holder groups are represented by people who are in utilities.
There are also non-utility representatives.
So collectively it's a tremendous effort involving thousands of hours of work and we are pushing it.
at what feels like light speed if you're in the middle of the process.
So this was originally envisioned as taking at least four years,
and Ed's got us on a two-year track to get the integrated resource plan approved
and all the standards in place before the RCA.
So there's a tremendous amount of work being done and we're getting it done.
So I just wanted to say I think you are doing a good job and letting all these people know.
Yeah, we have four now. We start getting to compliance of standards and enforcement.
We might add some more people. Yeah. Sorry, go ahead.
Thank you so much for your excellent work.
And I was just wondering how much do you think in the future or now
that AI programs could help you with your modeling and your
It's computing technology is moving ahead rapidly.
And that's why we can do a lot of what we
can with the encompass.
Because it's taking advantage of all those things
to be able to run at the speed it runs
and accomplish what it has.
It also has to why the staff's so small.
Yeah, a lotta administrative stuff we
can get assistance from, to develop, you know,
At least on the administrative side,
as far as standing up the organization,
we don't have to reinvent that.
And there's a lot of stuff out there.
So there is some use of AI already,
but it's really on a staffing side.
The other thing really is just computing technology
in general is to just progress significantly enough
that it makes this type of analysis possible.
It wasn't possible 10 years ago to go through.
50 resources and take every single combination and just run them through a program to evaluate them
Anything else
Thank you
15 megawatts
You know, there's a lot of debate about that number when the utilities were developed, you know working with this legislation
It's really looking at what's the smallest size of
General utility generation that typically runs on the rail belt
so
Small units 40 megawatts
basically to 60 megawatts when you add the steam to them that runs through
SPP or sort of the base load units at two-gach but MEA has a plant that
runs 10 17 megawatt units and it's got room to expand to add more so the 15
on the rail belt as far as what's built there is recognition that what it wasn't intend to catch
was some of the distributed projects that utilities may install on
the distribution systems you know five megawatt solar project or something like that that can
run on a distribution MEA put in six and a half megiwatt well an IPP put
in a six-and-a-half megawatts facility on MEAs distribution system out in the valley
Those type of things we're not really supposed to get involved with
That's going to be seen as far as load projection
We're assigned
The bulk system generation and transmission resources
So I think it was designed to catch the main stuff that affects the bulk energy system
But still give the utilities the flexibility to install stuff on their distribution system small projects
that reduce their load, that serve local areas.
So I think really, I don't know that the number is critical.
The intent was, if it's going to be connected to the bulk energy system,
it should go through this process.
Just to clarify, what's the current number now,
and what is the numbers proposed by SB 32?
I don't know what the number is proposed by SP-32.
I heard 10 megawatts, but I also heard it was going to go down to five.
There's also something out there called the Power Pool Agreement between two-gatsh
and MEA, and that also has some restrictions.
I think those restrictions are five megawatts.
So again, where they have to collaborate if they're going
to do anything above five, so I
think it started at 10,
and I thing it's going
to drop down
to 5 to take into consideration.
that power pulling agreement to and I don't really have you know five megawatts
typically a distribution size project typically something that will sort of
model by looking at you can those projects at those costs reduce load that
the bulk system would see to avoid a transmission line or a new generator so
But really the flexibility was it was designed to give flexibility to utilities to do stuff on their side
and
You can't really put much bigger than
15 megawatts on a distribution system typically
So I think that's why how also sort of supports that where that 15 Megawatt came from
The 10 megawat transmission line limit that was so a utility could say I got a new load. I've got to serve
You know, I get
load in, well, I know MEAs expanding and building a couple of substations, so they got a new
substation they've got to build north of Palmer.
It was to give them the ability to run a transmission line to that and serve that load without
having to go run through this process because load constraint loads have to be served if
you need to built it, you've gotta build that to serve your load.
Building out your transmission system if it's only associated with serving your load
So I think that's where that number came from and that numbers seems reasonable
It's sort of answered your question
Anything else
Then I I'm done and I thing we're done, and we still have 10 minutes left, so thank you all again for attending