[California Energy Commission Letterhead]

Workshop Notice
Metcalf Energy Center
Transmission Issues



Purpose: The staff of the Energy Commission and San Jose City District 2 Metcalf Energy Center Advisory Committee will be conducting a joint workshop to discuss electric transmission system issues associated with the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (99-AFC-3). Staff from the Energy Commission and California Independent System Operator will present an overview of the electric transmission system and address the enclosed list of questions. Calpine/Bechtel (applicant) will also make a presentation on transmission system issues. This is one in a series of workshops to be held in the community. Public comments on the topic of the electrical transmission system are welcome. Other topics will be discussed at future publicly noticed workshops. This workshops will be held:

Monday, January 31, 2000
6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Coyote Grange Hall
412 Monterey Road
Coyote, Calif.
(the location is wheelchair accessible)

Project Summary: Calpine Corporation and Bechtel Enterprises, Inc. (Calpine/Bechtel) propose to develop the Metcalf Energy Center (MEC), a 600-megawatt, natural gas-fired, combined cycle power plant. The proposed site lies at the southern base of Tulare Hill in northern Coyote Valley of South San Jose to the west of Monterey Highway and south of the Metcalf Road intersection. The site is bordered by Fisher Creek to the north and west, the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the east, and Blanchard Road is to the south. If approved, the power plant would occupy approximately 14 acres.

Public Participation: For information on how to participate in the Commission's review of the proposed project please contact Roberta Mendonca, the Commission's Public Adviser, at (916) 654-4489, or toll free in California at (800) 822-6228, or by e-mail at PAO@energy.state.ca.us. If you require special accommodations, contact Robert Sifuentes, Equal Employment Officer, at (916) 654-5004, at least five days prior to the workshop.

Questions: General information on the proposed power plant is available on the Energy Commission's website at http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/metcalf. Inquiries about the project schedule or analysis should be directed to Paul Richins, Energy Commission Project Manager, at (916) 654-4074. News media inquiries should be directed to Claudia Chandler, Assistant Executive Director, at (916) 654-4989 or e-mail at cchandle@energy.state.ca.us.



DATE ON LINE: January 14, 2000




ROBERT A. LAURIE
Commissioner and Presiding Member



Enclosure

Mailed to lists 700, 701,and 702
File:s/projects/metcalf/notices/tsewkshop13100.doc




QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
AND THE METCALF ENERGY CENTER

  1. Please identify the major transmission lines that supply power to the South Bay Area. Please include lines that supply power to the Metcalf, Newark, and San Mateo substations. Please include lines from Moraga, Contra Costa, and Tesla substations, and from Pittsburg and Moss Landing power plants.

  2. Are any of these lines overloaded/congested now or projected to be overloaded/congested in the next five years? If so, please identify them.

  3. Please describe any electrical benefits that the proposed project would provide to the residents of the cities of a) San Jose, b) Morgan Hill, and c) Santa Clara. Please specify which of these benefits require the applicant's particular proposed interconnection to the electrical system.

  4. How much power would the proposed project supply to the Metcalf substation?

  5. How much power would the proposed project supply to the Monta Vista substation?

  6. How much power would the proposed project distribute to the South San Jose area?

  7. What customers would the proposed project serve?

  8. Will building Metcalf in South San Jose eliminate or lessen the potential for brownouts in the South San Jose Area?

  9. If Metcalf is not built here, will South San Jose receive reliable electricity in the future?

  10. The applicant provided initial modeling of the transmission system effects of the proposed project. Did the modeling include all of the recent projects that had been proposed to the Energy Commission at the time of the Metcalf AFC filing? These include Sutter, Pittsburg, La Paloma, Delta, Sunrise, Elk Hills, and Three Mountain.

  11. The applicant and PG&E are making changes to the modeling in response to comments from the Cal-ISO.

    1. Have we received the results?

    2. If so, do they include all of the projects referred to in Question 10, as well as Moss Landing? What, if any, important changes does the inclusion of Moss Landing cause?

    3. If not, do we expect them to include all of the projects referred to in Question 13, as well as Moss Landing?


  12. In comments on Energy Commission staff's proposed approach for alternative site analysis, ISO staff indicated that the project's objective of serving the South Bay could be achieved by supplying power to any of a total of five substations. In addition to Metcalf, they are Monta Vista, Newark, Ravenswood, and San Mateo. (ISO staff also stated that Metcalf might be slightly better than Monta Vista.) Please describe any system benefits that are unique to the Metcalf location vs. interconnection at the other four substations listed.

  13. If the Metcalf location would provide a greater degree of a particular benefit than interconnection at one of the other four substations, please estimate how much greater the benefit it would be (quantify if feasible).

  14. Please evaluate the importance of any unique or greater benefits due to the Metcalf location.

  15. Energy Commission staff has not identified any potential sites that could feasibly connect to the Monta Vista, Ravenswood, or San Mateo substations. However, staff has identified sites that could connect to the Newark-Metcalf 230 kV transmission lines, and some of those sites could connect to the Newark substation. Please provide a quantified evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of connecting to the Newark substation compared to the proposed project.

  16. If the project connected directly to the Newark substation, how much power would it provide (indirectly) to the Metcalf substation?

  17. In response to Energy Commission staff's statement that it appears to be feasible for a project at an alternative site to connect into one of a number of 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, ISO staff stated that Metcalf - Monta Vista 3 or 4 would probably be the only lines that could be interconnected to without causing either transmission reinforcements or congestion impacts.

    1. Please specify the capacity and existing load of the Newark - Metcalf 230 kilovolt (kV) lines.

    2. Please provide an estimate of the transmission reinforcements that would be required to connect the plant to the Newark - Metcalf 230kV lines, and an estimate of the cost of those reinforcements.


  18. If the project was at an alternative site and connected to the Newark - Metcalf 230 kilovolt (kV) lines, how much power would it supply to the Metcalf substation? How much power would it supply to the Newark substation?

  19. The applicant has considered siting a power plant adjacent to PG&E's proposed Los Esteros substation in northern San Jose. Assuming that PG&E builds the substation, please compare the advantages and disadvantages of placing the proposed project at El Estero substation instead of at the proposed location.

  20. How much power would a 600 megawatt (MW) plant at Los Esteros supply to the Metcalf substation, presumably via the Newark substation?

  21. How much power would such a project distribute to the South San Jose area?

  22. What customers would such a project serve?

  23. The applicant stated that to disperse plants throughout the Bay Area, potential MEC sites at the southern edge of San Jose, and further south along the U.S. 101 corridor, were considered. This implies either building a new 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from one of those sites to Metcalf, or connecting to the existing Moss Landing - Metcalf 230 kilovolt (kV) lines.

    1. Please provide a quantified evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of connecting to the Moss Landing - Metcalf 230 kilovolt (kV) lines compared to the proposed project.

    2. Please estimate the cost of any reinforcements required for connection to the Moss Landing - Metcalf 230 kV lines.


  24. If the project was at an alternative site and connected to the Moss Landing - Metcalf 230 kilovolt (kV) lines, how much power would it supply to the Metcalf substation?

  25. Members of the public have asked why the project could not be placed at Gilroy. The applicant has stated in a data response that such a location is not desirable. Please evaluate the feasibility of a site near Gilroy from a transmission line system perspective.

  26. Could system benefits similar to those that the proposed project would provide be achieved if the project were sited at a location remote from the Bay Area? Please specifically address the following locations:.

    1. In western Kern County.

    2. In the San Joaquin Valley, utilizing the 230 kilovolt (kV) Tesla - Newark lines.

    3. In the San Joaquin Valley, utilizing the 500 kilovolt (kV) Tesla - Metcalf line.

    4. In Alameda or Contra Costa County, utilizing the Contra Costa - Newark 230 kilovolt (kV) lines.

    5. South of Metcalf, using the 500 kilovolt (kV) Moss Landing - Metcalf line.


  27. Please describe any system upgrades that would be required if the project were to be built at these locations.

  28. Please estimate the cost of any such upgrades.

  29. Do bottlenecks/congestion exist in the 115 kilovolt (kV) system in the South Bay Area? If so, please describe them.

  30. What benefits would the proposed project provide to the 115 kilovolt (kV) system?

  31. Would interconnection to the Monta Vista, Newark, Ravenswood, Los Esteros or San Mateo substation provide similar benefits to the 115 kilovolt (kV) system?






| Back to Main Page | Homepage | Calendar | Directory/Index | Search |