Proposed New 33/11kV Zone Substation at Buranda (BDA)

5th November 2008

Disclaimer Whilst care was taken in the preparation of the information in this document, and it is provided in good faith, ENERGEX accepts no responsibility or liability (including without limitation, liability to any person by reason of negligence or negligent misstatement) for any loss or damage that may be incurred by any person acting in reliance on this information or assumptions drawn from it, except to the extent that liability under any applicable Queensland or Commonwealth of Australia statute cannot be excluded. This document has been prepared for the sole purpose of complying with ENERGEXs obligations under clause 5.6.2(f) of the National Electricity Rules and has been prepared using information provided by a number of third parties. It contains assumptions regarding, among other things, economic growth and load forecasts which may or may not prove to be correct. The forecasts included in the document involve subjective judgements and analysis which are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are out of the control of ENERGEX. ENERGEX makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose of the information in this document. All information should be independently investigated, reviewed, analysed and verified, and must not be relied upon in connection with any investment proposal or decision.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING NETWORK................................................................................................................................1

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 Approved Capex / Opex Works .........................................................................................4 Applied Service Standard ..................................................................................................4 Limitations of the Existing Network....................................................................................5

3.0 OPTIONS ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................9

3.1 3.2 3.3

Network Options ................................................................................................................9 Non-network Options / Demand Side Solution ..................................................................9 Comparison of Options ....................................................................................................10

4.0 RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT (OPTION 1) ....................................................................................13

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Scope of Proposed Works ...............................................................................................13 Impact of Proposed Works ..............................................................................................15 Project Timing Risk..........................................................................................................20 Future Network Development ..........................................................................................21

5.0 APPLICATION OF THE REGULATORY TEST.......................................................................................21 6.0 BUDGET PROVISION..............................................................................................................................22 7.0 DRAFT RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................22 8.0 CONSULTATION .....................................................................................................................................22

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Additional Network Data for Proposed Works

1.0

INTRODUCTION
Buranda, West End, Annerley and East Brisbane is an inner city area of Brisbane defined by large commercial; premises, residential dwellings and significant community infrastructure such as hospitals. Three existing zone substations at West End (SSWED), Annerley (SSALY) and Wellington Road (SSWRD) supply 25,032 customers including the Mater and PA hospitals, Gabba Cricket Ground, and commercial precincts. The area is being redeveloped with projects such as the Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, Gabba Central, Boggo Road development, Queensland Childrens Hospital, Southpoint Commercial Precinct and Translational Research Centre. Organic load growth and the addition of the block loads described above will generate load growth at the three existing zone substations of between 4% and 12% per annum over the next three years. There is residual load at risk (RLAR), after all load transfers, in 2010/11 at SSWED and SSSSALY and 2011/12 at SSWRD. Where Network Service Providers (NSPs), such as ENERGEX, propose to establish new large network assets to address such requirements, they are required to consult with registered participants, NEMMCO and interested parties under clause 5.6.2(f) of the National Electricity Rules (NER). This document has been prepared to comply with clause 5.6.2 of the National Electricity Rules (NER), which requires ENERGEX to: Identify future technical limitations to its network. Conduct an economic cost effectiveness analysis of possible solutions to the limitations in accordance with the Australian Electricity Regulators (AER) Regulatory Test version 3 (November 2007) for projects greater than $1 million. Consult with registered participants, NEMMCO and interested parties on possible options to address the projected limitations of ENERGEXs distribution system, where the cost of system augmentation is greater than $10 million. This project has been considered under the reliability limb of the regulatory test as per the service standards linked to the technical requirements of Schedule 5.1a of the NER. This project was previously identified in ENERGEXs Network Management Plan.

2.0

EXISTING NETWORK 2.1 Introduction

West End (SSWED), Annerley (SSALY) and Wellington Road substations (SSALY) supply 25,032 customers including the Mater and PA hospitals, Gabba Cricket Ground, and commercial precincts. The area is being redeveloped with projects such as the Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, Gabba Central, Boggo Road development, Queensland Childrens Hospital, Southpoint Commercial Precinct and Translational Research Centre. Figures 1, 2 & 3 below provide geographic and schematic views of the network area under study.

Page 1

WEST END SOUTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT QLD CHILDRENS HOSPITAL BOGGO RD PRECINCT PA UPGRADE PHARMACY AUST PROJECT TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE

SSWRD

EAST BRISBANE SSBDA SITE

BURANDA

ANNERLEY
F905

SSALY

F637 F 638

110kV Network 33kV Network SST142

Figure 1: Existing Subtransmission Network Arrangement (Geographic View)

F5 F5 8 4 79

SSWED
2 23 F7 231 F7

Page 2

H16 Rocklea

SST142 Tennyson

SSWED West End

F830 F614

SSCST Charlotte St

F7232 F7231

SSWRD Wellington Road

F7288 to H3 F7287 to SSH3

F584 F579A & F579B 33 kV

TR5

F7196
TR3 TR2 TR1 TR4 TR3 TR2 TR1

F615 33 kV
TR7 TR6 TR4

110 kV 33 kV

11 kV

11 kV

110kV Network 33kV Network 11kV Network

TR1

TR2

11 kV

SSALY Annerley

Figure 2: Existing Network Arrangement (Schematic View)

Figure 3: Existing 11kV Network Arrangement (Geographic View)

Page 3

2.2

Approved Capex / Opex Works

Approved works not yet commissioned within the study area include: WR44671 TSN TENNYSON - ALY ANNERLEY Replace Ageing 33 kV Cables F637, F638 and install 33kV Switchgear by October 2009. This project increases the NCC of feeders F637 and F638 to 40MV.A each and installs switchgear at SSALY i.e. prepares the network for the establishment of SSBDA.

2.3

Applied Service Standard

The service standards that are applicable to a consideration of supply constraints affecting this area of study are summarised below: Zone Substations o As per ENERGEX Supply Security Standard, for urban mixed/significant C&I zone substations having greater than or equal to 5 MV.A of load, there shall be no interruption of supply during N-1 conditions.

Distribution Network o As per ENERGEX Distribution Planning Guidelines, no distribution feeder is planned to be operated above 80% of its normal cyclic capacity for a forecast 10% POE load under network normal conditions.

Page 4

2.4

Limitations of the Existing Network

The existing network limitations are as follows:

2.4.1

Subtransmission Network Limitations

Substation Capacity
SSWRD
SSWRD is equipped with 2 x 60MV.A 110/11kV transformers. The substation capacity is limited by the transformers, providing a normal cyclic capacity of 126MV.A. SSWRD is also equipped with 2 x 25MV.A 33/11kV transformers on hot standby. The 10 year 10% POE and 50% POE load forecasts, and the existing normal cyclic capacity (NCC), emergency cyclic capacity (ECC), 2 hour emergency capacity (2HEC) and residual load at risk (RLAR) of SSWRD, are shown below:

SSWRD-Load Forecast 140 120 100

MV.A
2HEC Limitation

80 60 40 20 0
1 P OE Lo ad 0% Summer NCC 50% P OE Lo ad (SSWRD) Summer ECC (SSWRD) 2HEC RLA R 2008/09 57.40 1 26.00 54.93 69.00 75.00 0.00

ECC Limitation RLAR Limitation

2009/1 0 70.40 1 26.00 67.37 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 1 0/1 79.40 1 26.00 75.98 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 /1 1 2 81 .78 1 26.00 78.26 69.00 75.00 1 .51 201 3 2/1 84.24 1 26.00 80.61 69.00 75.00 3.86 201 4 3/1 86.76 1 26.00 83.03 69.00 75.00 6.28 201 5 4/1 89.37 1 26.00 85.52 69.00 75.00 8.77 201 6 5/1 92.05 1 26.00 88.08 69.00 75.00 1 .33 1 201 7 6/1 94.81 1 26.00 90.73 69.00 75.00 1 3.98 201 8 7/1 97.65 1 26.00 93.45 69.00 75.00 1 6.70 201 9 8/1 1 00.58 1 26.00 96.25 69.00 75.00 1 9.50

Figure 4: SSWRD Load Forecast.

As outlined above o o o ECC is exceeded by 7MV.A in summer 2010/11. 2HEC is exceeded by 1MV.A in summer 2010/11. RLAR is 1.5MV.A in summer 2011/12.

Page 5

SSWED
SSWED is equipped with 2 x 60MV.A 110/11kV transformers. The substation capacity is limited by the transformers, providing a normal cyclic capacity of 126MV.A. SSWED is also equipped with 2 x 15MV.A 33/11kV transformers on hot standby. The 10 year 10% POE and 50% POE load forecasts, and the existing normal cyclic capacity (NCC), emergency cyclic capacity (ECC), 2 hour emergency capacity (2HEC) and residual load at risk (RLAR) of SSWED, are shown below:

SSWED-Load Forecast 140 120 100

MV.A
2HEC Limitation

80 60 40 20 0
1 P OE Lo ad 0% Summer NCC 50% P OE Lo ad (SSWED) Summer ECC (SSWED) Summer 2HEC RLA R 2008/09 72.70 1 26 69.80 69.00 75.00 0.00

ECC Limitation RLAR Limitation

2009/1 0 75.61 1 26 72.35 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 1 0/1 78.63 1 26 75.25 69.00 75.00 1 .25 201 /1 1 2 81 .78 1 26 78.26 69.00 75.00 4.46 201 3 2/1 85.05 1 26 81 .39 69.00 75.00 7.69 201 4 3/1 88.45 1 26 84.64 69.00 75.00 1 .04 1 201 5 4/1 91 .99 1 26 88.03 69.00 75.00 1 4.53 201 6 5/1 95.67 1 26 91 .55 69.00 75.00 1 8.05 201 7 6/1 99.49 1 26 95.21 69.00 75.00 21 .71 201 8 7/1 1 03.47 1 26 99.02 69.00 75.00 25.52 201 9 8/1 1 07.61 1 26 1 02.98 69.00 75.00 29.48

Figure 5: SSWED Load Forecast.

As outlined above o o o ECC is exceeded by 0.8MV.A in summer 2008/09. 2HEC is exceeded by 0.25MV.A in summer 2010/11.

RLAR is 1.25MV.A in summer 2010/11.

Page 6

SSALY
SSALY is equipped with 2 x 25MV.A 33/11kV transformers. The substation capacity is limited by the transformers, providing a normal cyclic capacity of 55MV.A. The 10 year 10% POE and 50% POE load forecasts, and the existing normal cyclic capacity (NCC), emergency cyclic capacity (ECC), 2 hour emergency capacity (2HEC) and residual load at risk (RLAR) of SSWRD, are shown below:
SSALY-Load Forecast 60 50 40
MV.A
2HEC Limitation

30 20 10 0
1 P OE Lo ad (SSA LY) 0% Summer NCC (SSA LY) 50% P OE Lo ad (SSA LY) Summer ECC (SSA LY) Summer 2HEC (SSA LY) RLA R (SSA LY)

ECC Limitation RLAR Limitation

2008/09 32.1 2 55.00 30.30 28.75 31 .25 0.00 2009/1 0 33.08 55.00 31 .21 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 1 0/1 39.37 55.00 37.1 5 28.75 31 .25 3.73 201 /1 1 2 40.56 55.00 38.26 28.75 31 .25 5.35 201 3 2/1 41 .77 55.00 39.41 28.75 31 .25 6.74 201 4 3/1 43.03 55.00 40.59 28.75 31 .25 8.1 4 201 5 4/1 44.32 55.00 41 .81 28.75 31 .25 9.36 201 6 5/1 45.65 55.00 43.06 28.75 31 .25 1 0.61 201 7 6/1 47.01 55.00 44.35 28.75 31 .25 1 .90 1 201 8 7/1 48.43 55.00 45.68 28.75 31 .25 1 3.23 201 9 8/1 49.88 55.00 47.05 28.75 31 .25 1 4.60

Figure 6: SSALY Load Forecast.

As outlined above o o o ECC is exceeded by 1.55MV.A in summer 2008/09. 2HEC is exceeded by 5.9MV.A in summer 2010/11. RLAR is 3.73 MV.A in summer 2010/11

Page 7

2.4.2

Distribution Network Limitations

11kV Feeder Utilisation

The calculated worst case feeder utilisations based on 10% POE load forecast of the SSWRD, SSWED and SSALY 11kV feeders, along with the existing normal cyclic ratings are shown below:
11kV Feeder Forecast Exceeding 80% Utilisation - Existing (10% POE - 2010/11)

400 350 300 250 Amps 200 150 100 50 0 Rating (A) Target Utilisation (A) Load (A) % of rating WED6A 379 322 370 98

WED10 303 258 260 86

WED4B 277 235 235 85

ALY7 340 289 295 87

ALY11 379 322 370 98

WRD17A 277 235 249 90

WRD21A 277 235 255 92

Figure 7: 11kV Feeder Load Forecast (Existing Network) As outlined above, WED6A, WED10, WED4A, ALY7, ALY11, WRD17A and WRD21A exceed 80% utilisation.

Page 8

3.0

OPTIONS ANALYSIS
In the process of determining the most cost effective solution to addressing the identified network limitations, ENERGEX has sought to identify a range of technically feasible, alternative options that could satisfy the network requirements in a timely and efficient manner. Those options considered include network solutions, generation options, demand side initiatives and fuel substitution. As a result of this process, ENERGEX has identified a range of options that represent practical alternatives to addressing the network limitations. The alternative options identified through this process are examined below:

3.1

Network Options

The following options have been assessed as meeting the applied service standards.

3.1.1

Option 1: Establish Buranda Zone Substation (SSBDA).

This option involves establishing 2 x 33 kV feeders from SSALY, a standard double modular substation at Buranda with 2 x 33 kV switchboards, 2 x 25 MV.A 33/11 kV transformers, 2 x 11 kV switchboards, 1 x 5.4Mvar capacitor bank, 5 x 11 kV feeders and reconfiguration of existing SSWED, SSWRD and SSALY 11 kV network.

3.1.2

Option 2: Utilise 33/11kV Transformer at SSWED & SSWRD:

Disconnect 33/11kV transformers at SSWED from the 11kV bus and establish 2 x 11kV feeders from the 11kV terminals of TR1 & 2 at SSWED to Buranda substation site. Disconnect 33/11kV transformers at SSWRD from the 11kV bus and establish 2 x 11kV feeders from the 11kV terminals of TR4 & TR5 at SSWRD to Buranda substation site. Establish 11kV switchroom at Buranda substation site and reconfigure SSALY, SSWED & SSWRD 11kV distribution network.

3.1.3

Option 3: Establish Woolloongabba zone Substation.

Advance the construction of 110kV UG circuits from Rocklea to Woolloongabba, the Woolloongabba 110/11kV zone substation and reconfigure SSALY, SSWED & SSWRD 11kV distribution network.

3.2

Non-network Options / Demand Side Solution

In order to satisfy the Regulatory Test, ENERGEX sought to identify demand side solutions (or demand side/network combinations) that address the network limitations at a cost that was less than the proposed network solution. To be considered an alternative demand side option, the proposed solution was required to: have the capacity to defer the proposed network solution by reducing demand below the identified constraint limits, and cost less than the savings gained by deferring or removing the proposed network solution.

This analysis did not identify any feasible demand side alternative options. Options investigated were curtailable loads that are available at time of area peak customer backup generation which can be used at time of area peak installation of small scale generation

Page 9

3.3 3.3.1

Comparison of Options Technical Comparison

A summarised comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative development options is given in the following table: Option Option 1 Establish SSBDA Advantages Disadvantages

Network Options Higher losses than option 3. Defers subsequent augmentation (ie Woolloongabba project) by 2 years. Lower losses than option 2. Greatest operational flexibility. Is consistent with development plan. Utilises existing 33kV feeder cables currently energised at 11kV. Provides most additional transfer capability between bulk supply networks. Mitigates RLAR at SSWED, SSWRD and SSALY until Woolloongabba project is completed.

Option 2 Utilise SSWED & SSWRD 33/11kV Transformers.

Utilises 33/11kV transformers at SSWED and SSWRD. Delays SSBDA until 2012. Mitigates RLAR at SSWED, SSWRD and SSALY until Buranda project is completed Lowest losses. Delays SSBDA until 2017. Mitigates RLAR at SSWED, SSWRD and SSALY until 2017.

Limited operational flexibility i.e. loading on transformers dependant on 33kV network configuration. Highest losses. Not consistent with development plan. Not consistent with development plan. Not a likely alternative option as land is not presently available. Substation site incorporated in redevelopment site and dependant on developer progress.

Option 3 Establish Woolloongabba zone substation.

Table 1: Technical Comparison of Alternative Development Options Based on the above comparison of options, the recommended development is considered to provide the optimum solution to address the forecast ECC limitations at SSWED, SSALY and SSWRD.

Page 10

3.3.2

Cost Comparison

The Regulatory Test requires ENERGEX to identify the option that minimises the present value of costs when compared with alternative options in the majority of reasonable scenarios. Accordingly a base case net present value comparison of the alternative development options has been undertaken. The financial analysis contained anticipated costs of providing, operating and maintaining the options as well as expected costs of compliance and administration associated with each option. The costs of network losses were excluded from the analysis. The table below provides an overview of the initial capital cost and net present value cost over the period of study for each of the development options. Refer to the Net Present Value sensitivity analysis in Appendix 3 for further detail, including the parameters used to develop this base case.

Option

Description

Initial Capital Cost

Total Capital Cost

PV of Costs

Rank

NETWORK OPTION 1

Establish 33/11kV zone substation at Buranda Install 2 x feeders from WRD and 2 x feeders from WED Establish Woolloongabba 110/11kV zone substation and reconfigure 11kV Network.

$13,301,897

$93,612,526

$84,650,852

NETWORK OPTION 2

$15,315,113

$119,642,753

$101,610,45 9

NETWORK OPTION 3

$33,504,366

$93,612,526

$89,279,378

Table 2: Base Case Net Present Value Comparison The NPV comparison above includes all direct costs associated with constructing & providing the option. This includes the cost of land/easements currently owned, but not yet utilised for network augmentation.

Page 11

3.3.3

Sensitivity Comparison

Sensitivity analysis was then conducted on this base case to establish the option that remained the lowest cost option in the majority of cases considered. The table below provides the results of this analysis. Details of the parameters utilised in developing the base case and associated scenarios are included in Appendix 3. NETWORK OPTION 1 $79,169,003 ranking 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Low WACC ranking Network CAPEX overspend ranking Network CAPEX underspend ranking Network OPEX over budget ranking Network OPEX under budget ranking NDM options CAPEX overspend ranking NDM options CAPEX underspend ranking NDM OPEX over budget ranking NDM OPEX under budget ranking Low growth scenario ranking High growth scenario ranking 1 $98,047,929 1 $93,115,937 1 $76,185,766 1 $87,307,401 1 $81,994,303 1 $84,650,852 1 $84,650,852 1 $84,650,852 1 $84,650,852 1 $74,064,998 1 $90,781,441 1 NETWORK OPTION 2 $94,217,061 3 $119,874,082 3 $111,771,505 3 $91,449,413 3 $104,738,355 2 $98,482,563 2 $121,842,694 3 $101,610,459 3 $101,610,459 3 $101,610,459 3 $88,543,987 3 $109,177,649 3 NETWORK OPTION 3 $84,726,348 2 $100,818,186 2 $98,207,316 2 $80,351,441 2 $112,666,714 3 $106,977,432 3 $89,279,378 2 $89,279,378 2 $89,279,378 2 $89,279,378 2 $84,124,356 2 $92,728,888 2

Scenario 1 High WACC

Table 3: Sensitivity Analysis - Comparison of Options Option 1 is clearly the lowest cost option in the majority of options considered.

Page 12

4.0

RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT (OPTION 1) 4.1 Scope of Proposed Works

Description of Works
To address the limitations at SSALY, SSWED, SSWRD it is proposed to establish a new zone substation at Buranda. Works include: Extension and energisation at 33kV of existing 11kV feeders ALY7 & ALY11 (constructed at 33kV and energised at 11kV) to the new substation site at Buranda and connect to spare 33 kV CBs at SSALY. Establishment of a double modular Buranda zone substation (SSBDA) with 2 x 25 MV.A 33/11 kV transformers, 2 x 11 kV switchboards and 2 x 33 kV switchboards. Installation of 1 x 5.4Mvar capacitor bank. Establishment of 5 x 11 kV feeders at the proposed SSBDA. Reconfigure existing 11 kV network.

The network requirement date for completion of the recommended development is October 2010. Shown below is a geographic view of the proposed network on completion of the recommended works.

WEST END SOUTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT QLD CHILDRENS HOSPITAL BOGGO RD PRECINCT PA UPGRADE PHARMACY AUST PROJECT TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE SSBDA SITE
F3 F3 460 46 1

SSWRD

EAST BRISBANE

BURANDA

ANNERLEY
F905

SSALY

F637 F638

SST142

110kV Network 33kV Network New 33kV Network

Figure 8: Proposed Subtransmission Network Arrangement (Geographic View)

F5 F5 84 79

SSWED

Page 13

Shown below is a schematic view of the proposed network on completion of the recommended works.

Figure 9: Proposed Network Arrangement (Schematic View) Shown below is a geographic view of the proposed 11kV network on completion of the recommended works

Figure 10: Proposed 11kV Network Arrangement (Schematic View)

Page 14

4.2

Impact of Proposed Works

The recommended works will have the following impact:.

4.2.1
SSWRD

Subtransmission Network

The 10 year 10% POE and 50% POE load forecasts, and the normal cyclic capacity (NCC), emergency cyclic capacity (ECC), 2 hour emergency capacity (2HEC) and residual load at risk (RLAR) of SSWRD are shown below:

SSWRD-Load Forecast 140 120 100

MV.A

80 60 40 20 0
1 P OE Lo ad 0% Summer NCC 50% P OE Lo ad (SSWRD) Summer ECC (SSWRD) 2HEC RLA R 2008/09 57.40 1 26.00 54.93 69.00 75.00 0.00 2009/1 0 70.40 1 26.00 67.37 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 1 0/1 74.76 1 26.00 71 .54 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 /1 1 2 77.00 1 26.00 73.69 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 3 2/1 79.31 1 26.00 75.90 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 4 3/1 81 .69 1 26.00 78.1 7 69.00 75.00 1 .42 201 5 4/1 84.1 4 1 26.00 80.52 69.00 75.00 3.77 201 6 5/1 86.67 1 26.00 82.94 69.00 75.00 6.1 9 201 7 6/1 89.27 1 26.00 85.42 69.00 75.00 8.67 201 8 7/1 91 .95 1 26.00 87.99 69.00 75.00 1 .24 1 201 9 8/1 94.70 1 26.00 90.63 69.00 75.00 1 3.88

Figure 11: SSWRD Load Forecast (Proposed Network) As outlined above, SSBDA de-loads SSWRD to below 2HEC until 2012/13 (Project WR366224 will de-load SSWRD further).

Page 15

SSWED
The 10 year 10% POE and 50% POE load forecasts, and the normal cyclic capacity (NCC), emergency cyclic capacity (ECC), 2 hour emergency capacity (2HEC) and residual load at risk (RLAR) of SSWED are shown below:

SSWED-Load Forecast 140 120 100

MV.A

80 60 40 20 0
1 P OE Lo ad 0% Summer NCC 50% P OE Lo ad (SSWED) Summer ECC (SSWED) Summer 2HEC RLA R 2008/09 72.70 1 26 69.80 69.00 75.00 0.00 2009/1 0 75.61 1 26 72.35 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 1 0/1 68.63 1 26 65.68 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 /1 1 2 71 .38 1 26 68.30 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 3 2/1 74.23 1 26 71 .04 69.00 75.00 0.00 201 4 3/1 77.20 1 26 73.88 69.00 75.00 0.28 201 5 4/1 80.29 1 26 76.83 69.00 75.00 3.33 201 6 5/1 83.50 1 26 79.91 69.00 75.00 6.41 201 7 6/1 86.84 1 26 83.1 0 69.00 75.00 9.60 201 8 7/1 90.32 1 26 86.43 69.00 75.00 1 2.93 201 9 8/1 93.93 1 26 89.88 69.00 75.00 1 6.38

Figure 12: SSWED Load Forecast (Proposed Network) As outlined above, SSBDA de-loads SSWED to below 2HEC until summer 2014/15 (Project WR366224 will de-load SSWED further).

Page 16

SSALY
The 10 year 10% POE and 50% POE load forecasts, and the normal cyclic capacity (NCC), emergency cyclic capacity (ECC), 2 hour emergency capacity (2HEC) and residual load at risk (RLAR) of SSALY are shown below:

SSALY-Load Forecast (After SSBDA) 60 50 40

MV.A

30 20 10 0
1 P OE Lo ad (SSA LY) 0% Summer NCC (SSA LY) 50% P OE Lo ad (SSA LY) Summer ECC (SSA LY) Summer 2HEC (SSA LY) RLA R (SSA LY) 2008/09 33.81 55.00 31 .90 28.75 31 .25 0.00 2009/1 0 34.83 55.00 32.86 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 1 0/1 23.80 55.00 22.45 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 /1 1 2 24.51 55.00 23.1 3 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 3 2/1 25.25 55.00 23.82 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 4 3/1 26.01 55.00 24.53 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 5 4/1 26.79 55.00 25.27 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 6 5/1 27.59 55.00 26.03 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 7 6/1 28.42 55.00 26.81 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 8 7/1 29.27 55.00 27.61 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 9 8/1 30.1 5 55.00 28.44 28.75 31 .25 0.00

Figure 13: SSALY Load Forecast (Proposed Network) As outlined above, SSBDA de-loads SSALY to below 2HEC beyond 2018/19.

Page 17

SSBDA
The 10 year 10% POE and 50% POE load forecasts, and the normal cyclic capacity (NCC), emergency cyclic capacity (ECC), 2 hour emergency capacity (2HEC) and residual load at risk (RLAR) of SSBDA are shown below:

SSBDA-Load Forecast 60 50 40
MV.A

30 20 10 0
1 P OE Lo ad 0% Summer NCC 50% P OE Lo ad Summer ECC Summer 2HEC RLA R 2008/09 0.00 55.00 0.00 28.75 31 .25 0.00 2009/1 0 0.00 55.00 0.00 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 1 0/1 31 .53 55.00 30.1 7 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 /1 1 2 32.48 55.00 31 .08 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 3 2/1 33.45 55.00 32.01 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 4 3/1 34.45 55.00 32.97 28.75 31 .25 0.00 201 5 4/1 35.49 55.00 33.96 28.75 31 .25 0.21 201 6 5/1 36.55 55.00 34.98 28.75 31 .25 1 .23 201 7 6/1 37.65 55.00 36.03 28.75 31 .25 2.28 201 8 7/1 38.78 55.00 37.1 1 28.75 31 .25 3.36 201 9 8/1 39.94 55.00 38.22 28.75 31 .25 4.47

Figure 14: SSALY Load Forecast (Proposed Network) Project WR366224 will de-load SSBDA in summer 2012/13.

Page 18

4.2.2

Distribution Network

11kV Feeder Utilisation

The calculated worst case feeder utilisations based on 10% POE load forecast of the SSWED, SSWRD, SSALY 11kV feeders, along with the normal cyclic ratings are shown below:
11kV Feeder forecast - Option 1 (10%POE - 2010/11)
450 400 350 300 Amps 250 200 150 100 50 0 Rating (A) Target Utilisation (A) Load (A) % of rating WED6A 379 322 101 27 WED10 303 258 33 11 WED4B 277 235 119 43 WRD17A 277 235 110 40 WRD21A 277 235 173 62 BDA2A 400 340 275 69 BDA3A 400 340 177 44 BDA4A 400 340 106 27 BDA7A 400 340 208 52 BDA8A 400 340 222 56

Figure 15: 11kV Feeder Load Forecast (Proposed Network) As outlined above, the 11kV feeders are below target utilisation.

4.2.3

Network Reliability

The expected improvement to the urban network reliability is forecast to be 0.26 SAIDI minutes on an average 3 year basis.

4.2.4

Network Losses

To date ENERGEX has voluntarily reported its greenhouse gas emissions under the Greenhouse Challenge. Commencing in 2008/2009, ENERGEX is required, under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to compulsorily report its contribution to the national greenhouse inventory. Network losses have been identified by quantification of greenhouse gas emissions as one of the significant control opportunities associated with reducing these emissions. The expected savings in network losses are forecast to be negligible.

Page 19

4.3

Project Timing Risk

Project Timing
As the date of practical completion is consistent with the network requirement date, the level of network risk associated with this project can be managed using existing network contingency plans

Level of Risk Associated with the Date of Practical Completion

In accordance with the ENERGEX network risk based assessment framework, the level of risk associated with the deferment of the date of practical completion has been determined. The results of the analysis are shown in the table below: Scenario
Consequence Rating

2008/09 2 2 Low

2009/10 2 2 Low

2010/11 3 3

2011/12 3 3

Transformer failure at SSALY.

Likelihood Rating Risk

Moderate Moderate

Table 4: SSALY Risk Rating Scenario

Consequence Rating

2008/09 1 1 Low

2009/10 2 2 Low

2010/11 3 3

2011/12 3 3

110/11kV Transformer failure at SSWED.

Likelihood Rating Risk

Moderate Moderate

Table 5: SSWED Risk Rating Scenario

Consequence Rating

2008/09 1 1

2009/10 2 2

2010/11 3 3

2011/12 3 3

110/11kV Transformer failure at SSWRD.

Likelihood Rating Risk

Low Risk Low Risk Moderate Moderate

Table 6: SSWRD Risk Rating As outlined in the table above, it has been determined that it results in a Moderate risk to defer the date of practical completion beyond the network requirement date.

Page 20

Risk Mitigation Strategy

The network requirement date for completion of the recommended development is October 2010. The date of practical completion is consistent with this timing.

4.4

Future Network Development

The following projects that affect SSALY, SSWRD, and SSWED have been identified: WR366224 WOOLOONGABBA Establish 110/11kV 2x60MVA Zone Substation by 2013. This project will de-load the CBD East network in particular 110kV feeders F7288 & F7287 as well as de-loading zone substations SSBDA, SSWED and SSWRD. DP20459 ANNERLEY SSALY Establish new 11kV feeder to the west by 2010. This project will utilise 11kV feeder ALY7 or ALY11.

5.0

APPLICATION OF THE REGULATORY TEST

ENERGEX is required to apply a Regulatory Test in relation to new network augmentation investments estimated to require a total capitalised expenditure in excess of $1 million. The purpose of the Regulatory Test is to analyse and assess the efficiency of new network augmentation investments and non-network alternative options that address the projected network limitations. Where an investment is a new large distribution asset, clause 5.6.2(f) of the NER requires ENERGEX to consult with Registered Participants, NEMMCO and interested parties on the possible options, including demand side, generation and market network service options, to address the projected limitations of its distribution system. Where a proposed investment is a mix of augmentation and replacement, a Regulatory Test is required if the augmentation component is $1 million or above. Public consultation will be required if the augmentation component is $10 million or above. The recommended augmentation investment option has a total capitalised expenditure of $11,001,897 and as such it does require a Regulatory Test and public consultation on options to address the projected network limitations.

Page 21

6.0

BUDGET PROVISION
The Budget Provision is outlined in the following table in 2008/09 dollars: Budget Composition Cost Component (in 08/09 dollars) $9,824,939 Transmission Distribution TOTAL $1,176,958 $11,001,897 Financial Year Provision Cost FY (in 08/09 dollars) $53,187 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 20010/11 Total Project Cost Table 7: Budget Provision $60,414 $4,652,485 $6,235,811 $11,001,897

7.0

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the conclusions drawn from the analysis and the Rules requirements relating to New Large Distribution Network Augmentation, it is recommended that the following action be taken to address the future supply requirements of the Gympie area:
1.

Establish a 33/11kV 25MV.A double modular zone substation at Buranda (SSBDA) and reconfigure the 11kV network by October 2010, for a total estimated cost of $11,001,897 at 2008/09 prices.

8.0

CONSULTATION
In accordance with Rules requirements, ENERGEX invites submissions from Registered Participants and interested parties on this Consultation Report. Submissions are due by Friday 19 December 2008. Please address submissions to: Bevan Holcombe Network Performance Reporting Manager ENERGEX Limited GPO Box 1461 Brisbane QLD 4001 Tel: (07) 3407 4061 bevanholcombe@energex.com.au Following consideration of submissions, ENERGEX expects to publish a Final Report in January 2009.

Page 22

APPENDIX 1 Additional Network Data for Proposed Works

SUBTRANSMISSION NETWORK DATA

Subtransmission Network Load Transfers

The substation load transfers incorporated in the recommended development are shown in the following table: From Substation SSWRD SSWED SSALY To Substation SSBDA SSBDA SSBDA Estimated Load Transfer
(MV.A)

5 10 16

Table 8: Substation Load Transfers in 2010/11 (Proposed Network)

DISTRIBUTION NETWORK DATA Distribution Feeder Load Forecast and Ratings

The existing and proposed 11kV feeder load forecast and ratings are provided in the following tables: Feeder WED6A WED10 WED4B ALY7 ALY11 WRD17A WRD21A BDA2A BDA3A BDA4A BDA7A BDA8A Load Forecast (A)
SD SN WD WN SD

Rating (A)
SN WD WN

101 33 119 0 0 110 173 275 177 106 208 222

86 24 92 0 0 84 109 231 149 89 175 186

72 21 78 0 0 73 111 192 124 75 145 164

63 18 66 0 0 66 100 173 112 67 131 144

379 303 277 NA NA 277 277 379 379 379 379 379

379 303 277 NA NA 277 277 379 379 379 379 379

410 328 300 NA NA 300 300 410 410 410 410 410

410 328 300 NA NA 300 300 410 410 410 410 410

Table 9: 11kV Feeder Load Forecast and Ratings in 20010/11 (Proposed Network)

Page 23

Distribution Network Load Transfers

The 11kV load transfers incorporated in the proposed development are shown in the following table: From Feeder WED6A WED4B WED10 WRD21A WRD17A ALY11 ALY11 ALY11 ALY7 To Feeder BDA3A BDA2A BDA7A BDA2A BDA4A BDA7A BDA3A BDA2A BDA8A Estimated Load Transfer (A)
SD SN WD WN

126 101 184 104 167 22 51 70 222

107 84 155 80 140 17 42 59 186

86 71 131 70 118 15 35 49 155

79 60 115 66 105 13 33 42 139

Table 10: 11kV Load Transfers in 20010/11 (Proposed Network)

NETWORK LOSSES DATA

The network losses 110/33/11kV networks is expected to reduce with the commissioning of this project as shown in the table below: System
(kV)

Existing
(kW)

Proposed
(kW)

Saving
(kW)

110kV 33kV 11kV Total

255 700 423 1378

292 857 226 1374

-37 -157 198 4

Table 11: Comparison between Existing and Proposed Network Losses

Page 24