MISO 2016 Planning
Overview
Board of Directors
System Planning Committee
February 23, 2016
MISO Planning Objectives
The development of a comprehensive expansion plan that meets
reliability needs, policy needs, and economic needs
Fundamental
Goal
•
•
MISO
Board of
Directors
Planning
Principles
•
•
•
•
Make the benefits of an economically efficient electricity market available to
customers by identifying transmission projects which provide access to electricity
at the lowest total electric system cost
Develop a transmission plan that meets all applicable NERC and Transmission
Owner planning criteria and safeguards local and regional reliability through
identification of transmission projects to meet those needs
Support state and federal energy policy requirements by planning for access to a
changing resource mix
Provide an appropriate cost allocation mechanism that ensures that costs of
transmission projects are allocated in a manner roughly commensurate with the
projected benefits of those projects
Analyze system scenarios and make the results available to state and federal
energy policy makers and other stakeholders to provide context to inform
regarding choices
Coordinate planning processes with neighbors and work to eliminate barriers to
reliable and efficient operations
2
Planning Roles and Responsibilities
MISO
• Recommend
regional plan
• Conduct
regional
planning
analysis
• Ensure
compliance
with NERC
and FERC
requirements
Transmission
Owners
State
Regulators
• Own and
operate
transmission
lines
• Plan for local
needs
• Approval of
need and/or
siting of
specific
projects
(most states)
• Input into
policy and
other
planning
assumptions
FERC
• Oversees
MISO tariff
modules
dealing with
transmission
planning
• Sets
transmission
policy
Other
Stakeholders
• Input into
planning
process
3
MISO’s Value-Based Planning approach
drives regional plan development
STEP 1: MULTI-FUTURE
REGIONAL RESOURCE
FORECASTING
STEP 7: COST ALLOCATION
ANALYSIS
STEP 2: SITE-GENERATION
AND PLACE IN POWERFLOW
MODEL
STEP 6: EVALUATE
CONCEPTUAL TRANSMISSION
FOR RELIABILITY
STEP 3: DESIGN CONCEPTUAL
TRANSMISSION OVERLAYS BY
FUTURE IF NECESSARY
STEP 4: TEST CONCEPTUAL
TRANSMISSION FOR
ROBUSTNESS
Objective of value based
planning is to develop the
most robust plan under a
variety of scenarios – not
the least-cost plan under a
single scenario
STEP 5: CONSOLIDATE &
SEQUENCE TRANSMISSION
PLANS
4
Evolution of System Planning
2016+
2014-2015
2011-2014
2007-2011
Prior to
2003
Local
system
planning
• Reliability
focus
• Individual
Transmission
Owner local
planning
2003-2007
MVP and
Midwest
Wind
Regional
system
planning
• FERC Order
2000
compliance
• MISO MTEP
• Value-Based
Planning
• Economic
planning
• FERC Order 890
South
Region and
Order 1000
•
•
MVP
Portfolio
approved
Wind in
queue
•
•
•
Order 1000
Zonal resource
adequacy
Competitive
bidding
Emergence
of EPA
standards
• Generator
retirement
increase
• Mercury and
carbon impacts
• Resource
Adequacy focus
Addressing
EPA policy
changes
• Planning to
address new
policies
5
The MISO Transmission Expansion Planning (MTEP)
Process requires many inputs
Location of
Load and
Resources
Transmission
System
Resource
Mix
Demand and
Energy
Probabilistic
Policy
Planning
Models
Resource
Expansion
Production
Cost
Stakeholder
Review
Reliability
6
Comprehensive transmission plan requires
a wide variety of analysis techniques
Analysis
Type
Name
Description
Tools
Reliability
Steady-State
Ensures that transmission facilities
remain within safe design limits
(loading and voltage) following
disturbances
Powerflow (PSS/E,
TARA, POM)
Reliability
Stability
Ensures that the system will not
experience uncontrolled loss of load
following sever disturbances
Dynamics (PSS/E,
TSAT, VSAT)
Reliability
Transfer Analysis
Determines intra and inter regional
power transfer limits
Transfer Analysis
(PSS/MUST, TARA)
Economic
Production Cost
Identifies system wide congestion
costs
PROMOD and
PLEXOS
Economic
Regional
Resource
Forecast
Identifies the efficient future mix of
resources to meet demand
EGEAS
7
Project types match the business case with the
cost allocation method
Allocation Category
Driver(s)
Allocation to Beneficiaries
Participant Funded
(“Other”)
Transmission Owner identified project
that does not qualify for other cost
allocation mechanisms. Can be driven by
reliability, economics, public policy or
some combination of the three.
Paid by requestor (local Pricing Zone)
Transmission Delivery
Service Project
Transmission Service Request
Generally paid for by Transmission
Customer; Transmission Owner can elect to
roll-in into local Pricing Zone rates
Generation
Interconnection Project
Interconnection Request
Primarily paid for by requestor; 345 kV and
above 10% postage stamp to load
Baseline Reliability
Project
NERC Reliability Criteria
100% allocated to local Pricing Zone
Market Efficiency Project
Reduce market congestion when benefits
are 1.25 in excess of costs
345 kV and above: 80% distributed to Local
Resource Zones commensurate with
expected benefit, 20% postage stamp to
load
Multi-Value Project
Address energy policy laws and/or
provide widespread benefits across
footprint
100% postage stamp to load and exports
other than what is exported to PJM
8
Order 1000 Background
• Addressed:
– Inadequacies of Order 890
– Changing industry conditions
– Need for more efficient and
cost-effective planning
– Perceived opportunities for
undue discrimination
• Required two compliance
filings:
– Regional
– Interregional
Increase
competition in
transmission
development
Increase
interregional
coordination
Public Policy
Order
1000
Regional and
Interregional
Cost
Allocation
FERC, through Order 1000, seeks to promote
the above initiatives
9
Interregional Planning and Cost Allocation
Project Requirements
Seam
Transmission
Need
Benefit to
Cost
Interconnection
in both RTOs
Metrics Used
> $5
Million
PJM
>1.25





SERTP
Public Policy
Reliability
>1.25
Economic
>1.25
Public Policy
>1.25



SPP
Reliability
Economic
Public Policy
Adjusted
Production
Cost
Net Load
Payments



Reliability
Economic
Avoided
Cost
≥ 5% to
both
RTOs




10
MISO’s Competitive Transmission Process
Existing
Prequalification of Developers
Transmission
Planning Process
• Annual window to qualify new developers & recertify existing developers
• MISO’s Executive Oversight Committee oversees process & makes the decision
• MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP) determines transmission projects
to be built
New
Board Approval of Projects
• Board of Directors review & approve projects resulting from planning process
• MISO reviews approved Market Efficiency Projects & Multi-Value Projects for
Competitive Transmission Facilities - Issues Request for Proposals for those
projects
Request for Proposal
Evaluation of Developer
Proposals & Selection
• Developer Proposals evaluated for certainty, specificity, risk-mitigation & cost
• MISO’s Executive Oversight Committee oversees process & makes the
decision
Existing
Project
Reporting & Monitoring
Variance Analysis
(if triggered)
• Selected Developer(s) proceeds with project development & construction
•
activities and provides Project Reports to MISO
MISO monitors project progress & updates Board of Directors
• Intended to ensure transmission facilities are constructed in time to address
•
project need
MISO’s Executive Oversight Committee oversees process & makes the decision
11
Planning to Meet Public Policy Requirements
•
MISO continues to evaluate and plan for required policies such as the
EPA’s Clean Power Plan
Near-Term Modeling
Understanding compliance
pathways
Mid-Term Modeling
Preparing for transmission
overlay development
Long-Term Modeling
Developing transmission
overlay
12
Looking forward, policy changes and
customer needs will drive additional changes
in planning process
• Compression of planning timelines
• Increase in targeted analyses including
expedited approvals
• Modifications to cost allocation
• Increase in scale of competitive transmission
selection efforts
• Handling of new resource types in the
interconnection queue
13