Power from the Prairie

​Q:  What is the Power from the Prairie Project?​

 

A:   Power from the Prairie (PftP) is a proposed, nominal 4,000 Megawatt (MW) 600 kV class, high voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission line.  Its purposes are to facilitate the integration of massive quantities of new renewable energy (wind and solar) into the grid, to reliably and economically enable higher levels of renewable energy than would otherwise be possible, and to support jobs and economic development in the states it touches. See the “About PftP” tab for more details.

 

Q:  Why is high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission involved, rather than alternating current (AC)?

 

A:   Compared to AC lines, HVDC lines:

• Have lower losses when used over long distances (i.e., they are more efficient).

• Can be used to interconnect asynchronous AC systems (such as crossing the     seam between the Western and Eastern Interconnections of the national grid).

• Enables the power flow on them to be throttled (compared to AC lines where the electricity flows over the path of least resistance, whatever that may be.).

• Uses far less right of way land per MW of capacity.

 

Q:  Who will own the Power from the Prairie project?

 

A:  That remains to be determined.  Power from the Prairie LLC, who is the originator and is sponsoring the project will not be the owners.  PftP LLC is a source for objective, neutral due diligence on HVDC projects like PftP.  The eventual owners will likely come from private and public power investment; not the government.

 

Q:  What will the Power from the Prairie project cost?

 

A:   The PftP transmission line (600 miles) and its associated AC transmission interconnections will cost about $8 Billion.  The renewables enabled by PftP would represent about $4.5 Billion investment—some would be existing facilities, but much of them would be new.  The viability of all such investments and how to accomplish the project were evaluated in the Stage 1 Concept Development Study (CDS).

 

Q: What studies of the PftP project have been performed, and what studies are planned?

 

A:  PftP developed and led a Stage 1 Concept Development Study (CDS) with nine utility Participants. It was done over one year and cost $800,000.

 

A follow-on, Stage 2 Proof of Concept (POC) Study is planned to extend the due diligence effort and support a go/no-go decision by the Participants.  It will take 18 months and cost $4 to $6 million (or $1.00/kW to $1.50/kW of project capacity), depending on the needs of the Participants.

 

Q:  What was the purpose of the Power from the Prairie Stage 1 Concept Development Study (CDS)?

 

 A:  The CDS joined, for the first time, a “coalition of the willing” of nine diverse utility, transmission developer, renewables developers, environmentalists and others to examine the strategic potential of using interregional high-voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission to lower customer electricity costs, achieve higher levels of renewable energy in multiple regions, and lower carbon emissions than could NOT be done otherwise.

 

       In the absence of a coherent federal energy policy, or initiative by the legacy utility industry, or cooperation between their wholesale electricity markets, the CDS was designed to be “productively disruptive” by showing the way toward a lower carbon future. In the meantime, it would enable utilities' states and corporations to achieve their 100% clean energy goals that cannot be done without such interregional initiatives.

 

Q:  How can a transmission study do this?

 

A:  Although the CDS used the Power from the Prairie and other proposed and exiting HVDC lines as examples, the CDS was not a transmission study.  It was broader than that.  Instead, the CDS was a strategic business and policy initiative to demonstrate a New Way of viewing and operating the electric system for the future.  A New Way that is only enabled by interregional transmission.

 

       Accordingly, the CDS did not just include technical modeling of the transmission system.  Importantly, it included considerations for technology, coordination with existing RTO/ISO markets, project organization, and regulatory affairs.  The result is a repeatable road map for how to do such interregional projects nationwide.  A pathfinder, if you will.

 

 

 

Q:  Who owns the CDS and POC?

 

A:   Power from the Prairie LLC has invested significant time and expense to bring the PftP project and its studies to this point.  PftP LLC owns the CDS, and the CDS Participants subscribed to it. A similar model will be used for the Stage 2 POC Study.

 

       Via the CDS Participation Agreement, the CDS Participants were provided the perpetual and confidential right to use the results of the CDS for their own business purposes.  Again, the POC process will be similar.

​

 

Q:  Many utilities, and how they relate to data centers, may be unfamiliar with high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission.  How did the PftP Concept Development Study (CDS) handle this?

 

A:  The CDS Participants included a combination of utilities who have HVDC experience and those who do not.  Regardless, the CDS process engaged Subject Matter Experts (SME) from industry and national laboratories regarding HVDC and cybersecurity to advise and instruct the CDS Participants as may be appropriate to supplement the CDS Participants’ expertise.  In addition to their modeling services, CDS subcontractor Hitachi ABB is a supplier of HVDC transmission equipment and services. The PftP CDS was a good opportunity for CDS Participants to familiarize themselves with HVDC.

 

Q:  Who managed the CDS process?

 

A:  The PftP LLC Team manages day-to-day operation of the studies.  But the Participants’ Review Committee provides input, assumptions, review and governance of the study activities.  The Participants receive the study results and deliverables.

 

Q:  If wind energy in Wyoming costs the same as wind energy in Illinois, what is the value of an HVDC transmission connection between them?

 

A:   Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas and Iowa generally have higher wind speeds than Illinois.  But even if they were similar and cost the same, their wind speeds do not happen at the same time.  There is significant temporal (i.e., time) diversity between their outputs across the geographic distance of the PftP HVDC line and related HVDC developments to its West and East.  That means renewable wind energy would be available to PftP participants more often, at a higher total capacity factor, than looking at a single state alone. 

 

      Unlike a transmission line built to transmit wind energy from a single state, which is limited in its use to the capacity factor of the wind output there, an interregional HVDC line has the advantage of temporal (time) diversity between the outputs of multiple wind fields.

 

Q:  Wind energy and natural gas energy currently cost about the same in $/MWh.  What would be the advantage of an interregional HVDC line in such a situation?

 

A:  The PftP development would provide more, diversified and therefore higher capacity factor wind and solar energy to its participants.  Even if wind and natural gas prices stayed similar, it would be desirable to displace fossil fuels with additional clean energy if it is economically available. Consumers will expect that.

 

       Natural gas prices are currently modest and projected to stay inexpensive.  But Utility Resource Planning “101” reminds us to keep a diversified energy portfolio and not put all of our resource eggs in one basket.  What if the current natural gas price forecasts turn out to be wrong?  An investment in HVDC, renewables, and perhaps energy storage as well is a hedge against increasing natural gas prices and its associated carbon emissions.  In other words, this project would entail fixed costs based on investment today versus the risk of commodity price increases in the future.

 

Q:  Has PftP done initial research on the time diversity and long duration storage topics?

 

A:   Yes.  Our team has done extensive research on the topics of time diversity, interregional transmission and grid-level, long duration storage.  This “thought capital” has been baked into the design of the CDS and POC.  See the Publications page for details.

 

Q:  How do the studies capture time diversity in renewables output across large distances?

 

A:  PftP’s subcontractor, Hitachi Power Grids whose facilities and capabilities the CDS use and the POC will use, has extensive time-domain data sets of renewable energy potential across the entire U.S.  This data from NLR and other sources captures the time diversity between wind speeds and solar insolation across distances.  Hitachi’s GridView modeling capability captures the economic and operational outcomes of this diversity as part of the studies.

 

Q:   Can interregional transmission act like long duration energy storage?

 

A:   Yes.  Storage is the act of sending energy to a medium when there is too much of it and retrieving it back from the medium when it is needed at a later time.

 

       With interregional transmission, a utility that is over-generating with its own renewables compared to its load can export the over-generation to other areas.  Later, it can receive contractually guaranteed renewable energy (not fossil energy) back.  Did actual physical storage happen?  Not necessarily.  The renewable energy coming back could be time-diversified renewable energy from another region. 

 

      We call this capability of interregional transmission “virtual storage”.  And it is not limited in duration to the size of a battery or a water reservoir.

 

Q:  Aren’t the potential renewable energy resources in the Upper Midwest too far from markets? 

 

A:   That is the perspective that has kept them underutilized to-date.  The Upper Midwest has more potential renewable energy production capability than can be used there.  The PftP project proposes to change that by enabling HVDC transmission from those underutilized resources to markets to the East and West that can use them.  This involves using similar existing and proposed HVDC transmission reaching from California to Chicago.

 

Q:  The draft CDS Statement of Work stated that the Eastern end of the PftP line may be located in Northwest Iowa, or Sioux Falls, or Omaha.  Why these destinations, and who decides which will be examined?

 

A:  These location options were stated in the interest of potential CDS Participants, who will decide what option(s) they want.  A location in Northwest Iowa would directly connect the Iowa wind fields and allow integration with the proposed Rock Island Soo Green HVDC development from there eastward to Indiana.  An Omaha location would make the project primarily Nebraska-oriented.  A Sioux Falls or Brookings connection would facilitate integration of the recently completed CapX2020 345 kV facilities in Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas, and the proposed MISO Tranche 2.1, 765 kVAC projects. 

 

Q:  Is collecting renewable energy across a large geographic area the primary goal of a PftP development?

 

A:  It is one important goal.  Another goal is to take advantage of the time diversity between utility customer loads across regions to share generation capacity, which would potentially reduce installed capacity reserve requirements and result in cost savings.  Yet another goal is to provide a clean-energy based alternative to legacy fossil and nuclear generation facilities as they are retired.

 

Q:  The CDS talked primarily about wind energy. Was solar included in the study too?

 

A:   Yes.  While the Midwest is an outstanding wind resource, the modeling capabilities and data sources we used included large solar developments in the Midwest in the study. 

 

Q:  Our utility is considering a goal of 100% renewable electric energy for our customers.  How would a PftP development relate to that?

 

A:  Accomplishment of such an aggressive goal cannot depend upon the use of a single state’s intermittent renewable energy resources alone.  They simply do not operate 100% of the time.  Such a goal would require access to diversified renewable energy sources over several states like a PftP development would provide, or large amounts of energy storage, or both.   The CDS would look at both; individually and together.

 

Q:  Our utility’s service area is some distance from the potential route of PftP.  Isn’t that a barrier to our participation?

 

A:  It is a consideration, but not a barrier.  A national HVDC transmission grid build-out means the potential reach of a PftP development as an element in the build-out is a wide geographic swath from Los Angeles to Chicago and farther East.  Additionally, there already are several individual HVDC facilities in the Upper Midwest that could eventually be part of such an interconnected build-out to the North and South, to the benefit of their current customers and utility participants.

 

       The CDS examined and the POC will examine the generic opportunities and challenges of interregional transmission.  The lessons-learned would apply to multiple HVDC projects located elsewhere in the country.

 

Q:  If our utility chose not to participate, could we review the results of the CDS and potentially join the POC later?

 

A:   CDS Participants have the advantages of directly participating in the CDS process and thereby affecting the direction and content of the study and the PftP HVDC project.  While the PftP Team would disseminate and publicize the high-level results of the effort, the Participants would also receive the detailed results and deliverables of the studies.  Portions of the CDS are proprietary, and such results are expected to only serve the interests of the CDS Participants.   

 

 

Q:   If a PftP transmission line were built as a result of the CDS, could an independent developer own the line or portions of it?

 

A:   Yes, subject to applicable state laws requiring public ownership or incumbent utility Rights of First Refusal (ROFR).

 

 

Q:  What are the products and benefits of the Concept Development Study (CDS) for the CDS Participants?

 

A:  The CDS provided the Participants information in the following areas related to the PftP HVDC transmission line and the additional renewable energy it would enable:

 

      1.   Cost savings for the Participant utilities’ customers.  How a PftP development would provide additional, high-capacity factor renewable energy to the Participants, as well as access to additional conventional generation sources from other markets.

​

      2.   Additional markets for Participant utilities’ generation.  How a PftP development would provide access to additional markets for the Participants                to sell their surplus generation outright, including renewables, when it occurs.

 

      3.   Achieve higher levels of renewable energy.  The CDS examined the use of widely distributed renewable resources whose output is diversified                    over time, thereby providing very high capacity factor renewables along the expanse of the PftP line.  And it examined how grid-level storage                    combined with HVDC might further support additional renewable energy not otherwise possible.

 

      4.   Reduce carbon emissions.  Regardless of the federal government’s stance on such topics, utility customers now expect reductions in carbon                      emissions, the kind that would be made possible by the implementation of the PftP project.

 

      5.   Examine the potential for importing low-cost solar energy over-generation from California when it occurs.  Adding PftP will make HVDC                              transmission links bi-directional from Chicago to Los Angeles, enabling daily renewable energy swaps between regions.

 

      6.   Enable retirement of legacy generation resources when it is time to do so.  Conventional generation capacity in the region is not

            getting any younger.  CDS provided information on how high-capacity factor renewable energy might be used to help enable its

            replacement when the time is right.

 

      7.   Identified other regional entities who would potentially benefit from such a project.  This is the first step in securing additional                  

            transmission line project participants and thereby achieve critical mass for such a project.

 

      8.   Economic Development.  Citizens and landowners in Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Colorado and Wyoming stand to gain from the                              additional renewable energy development that would be enabled by PftP.  These states could benefit from a national transition to

            clean energy.

 

      9.   Demonstrate leadership.  Involvement in the CDS featured the Participants as forward-thinking leaders in grid development, including renewable              energy.

 

    10.   Importantly, the CDS found that PftP would be economically beneficial to utility customers; even without the presence of datacenters.  And the                  positive economic benefits accrue to customers in multiple states, not just the PftP project owner customers.  This argues for cost recovery over              multiple states.

 

 

See the CDS Products tab for more details.

 

 

Q:  What is the relationship between the CDS and the National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL, now called Energy Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR)) Interconnections Seam Study?

 

A:  The Seam Study was an important advancement in the discussion of a national HVDC electric transmission overlay.  It found that such a development would be cost-effective, enable large quantities of renewable energy, and help replace existing fossil-fired generation as it is retired.

 

      Encouraged by the results of the Seam Study, the CDS was designed to take the topic further toward reality.  The Seam Study was conceptual.  The         CDS was project- and utility-specific.  The Seam Study was technical.  The CDS examined not just technical issues, but organizational, market rules        and regulatory issues as well.

 

      PftP and its CDS were designed from the beginning to be the first practical and specific project instantiation of the Seam Study vision.  And to show         the way for similar projects elsewhere.

 

Q:  Please describe the rationale for using GridView model, rather than PROMOD in the PftP Studies.  Our utility uses PROMOD, and we have no experience running Grid View.

 

A: By definition, a study like CDS that crosses from one Balancing Authority or RTO to another requires selection of some common tools.  The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) including Wyoming uses GridView.  MISO and SPP uses PROMOD.  We had to call it a ball or a strike regarding which should be used for the entire span of the study.

 

   Our modeling vendor, Hitachi, is the purveyor of both GridView and PROMOD.  So the choice of modeling vendor does not affect the choice of model to       be used.  According to Hitachi, the underlying structure of PROMOD cannot accommodate the very large dataset size or running time requirements for     the PftP studies like GridView can.

 

   As part of the CDS effort, Hitachi converted standard Hitachi/MISO PROMOD model datasets into GridView datasets.  So, the underlying data was from     PROMOD—not a dataset unique to GridView.   GridView and PROMOD are just different security-constrained production cost models, or calculators.           The study Participants do not need to know how to run GridView themselves.  Hitachi and the PftP team present changes in production costs,                      renewables output carbon emissions, conventional generation output, and other key measures when comparing the Base Case and the study                   scenarios.  Participants who understand PROMOD are easily able to review corresponding outputs from GridView.

 

Q:  Does the Stage 1 CDS Participant Agreement and Stage 2 POC Participant Agreement obligate the Participants to procede in a PftP transmission project?

 

A:  No.  It only addressed the process of accomplishing the studies.  Individual study Participants can decide later whether they want to move on to a              transmission project, based on results of the studies.  That is a separate decision.

 

Q:  The CDS examined the PftP transmission line in coordination with similar HVDC lines to the West and East of PftP.  How real are these additional lines?

 

A:  In addition to the PftP line, the CDS examined the following HVDC lines, which are in advanced development:

 

• The Southern Transmission System (STS) HVDC line (2400 MW), which already exists. It extends from Southern California to Delta, Utah.

 

• The TransWest Express HVDC line (3,000 MW), which has secured all its right of way and permits. It extends from Delta, Utah to Southeastern Wyoming.

 

• The Soo Green HVDC line (2300 MW) that is currently in the process of formal solicitations for shippers, customers and renewable developers.

 

Two-thirds of the study route from Southern California to Chicago is already existing or under advanced development.  The PftP line is the missing link to make these lines “bi-directional”.

 

Q:  How is Confidential Information handled during the PftP LLC studies?

 

A:  That is a topic addressed in the Participant Agreements.  The study results for individual Participants (i.e., economic benefits, generation changes, carbon emissions, etc.) are held confidential to each Participant.   Individual Participants may, at their sole option, elect to share their own Confidential Information with others.

 

     Results that are not unique to individual Participants, including aggregated total impacts and benefits to the region identified by the studies are not           confidential but are subject to non-compete agreements.  In addition, study results of potential benefits for individual non-Participant utilities are             shared with the Participants in the interest of identifying potential partners for next steps in the PftP process to achieve critical mass, but would not         be released publicly outside the PftP Team and Participants.

​

​

Q:  What is planned for the PftP Stage 2, “Proof of Concept” Study?

​

A:  The Stage 2 Study will further extend and expand the results of the Stage 1 CDS.  Among other things, it will include:

• Expanded production cost studies.

• Consideration of additional potential benefits including capacity, reliability and resiliency savings.

• Conceptual potential transmission routes.

• Costs and feasibility for undergrounding the project, potentially on railroad or Interstate highway rights of way.

• Stakeholder input from states, landowners, tribes and datacenter developers to support a needed Public-Private Partnership.

• Consideration of the effects and benefits of adding large-scale datacenters at the PftP converter stations, collocated with generation to serve them.

• Interactions with Balancing Authorities, RTOs and ISOs on interconnection requirements and processes.

• Additional regulatory consideration of the effects of Rights of First Refusal (ROFR), datacenter ownership of facilities, and payment of infrastructure costs.

• Relative benefits between utility customers and datacenters.

• Rate design methods to avoid subsidization by other electric customers of costs to serve datacenters.

• Determination of the relative costs and benefits to utility customers and datacenter owners.

 

Q:  What is the estimated cost of the Stage 2 Study?

 

A:  Approximately $4 to $6 million, or between $1/kW and $1.50/kW of Project capacity, depending upon Participant needs and requirements.  This is a reasonable cost for due diligence for a project that would eventually cost more than $2,000/kW.

 

Q:  Who would manage and lead the Stage 2 Study?

 

A:  The PftP LLC team and its subcontractors, including engineering, regulatory affairs, legal and public private partnership experts, with input from and review by the Stage 2 Participants.

 

Q:  What does our company get from Participation in the Stage 2 POC Study?

 

A:  Each POC Participant gets a seat on the Study Review Committee, and ability to affect the design and details of the project and Study. It gets the benefit of learnings about how to do interregional transmission.  And importantly, each Participant is allocated rights to own a share of the capacity of the 4,000 MW PftP project pro rata to the portion of POC Study cost they contribute.

 

Q:  Datacenter projects are impatient. Do we have time to do an 18-month POC Study?

 

A:  Yes. 18 months is a relatively short time to do thoughtful due diligence on a multi-Billion-dollar project.  And this timeframe could enable multiple datacenter sites: not just one.

 

Plus, the supply chains for generation resources (renewables and conventional) are now crowded, delaying delivery of them for years. In the meantime, due diligence can be accomplished on this extraordinary opportunity.  Plus, doing the POC Study does not obligate the Participants to do the project if conditions change over time.