South Region SPM2
May 29, 2019
MTEP19 Market Congestion Planning Study (MCPS)
Process Overview and Study Summary
• MTEP19 MCPS is a single study with different focus areas: North/Central, South, North-South interface, MISO-SPP and MISO-PJM
• Seven projects currently* identified for further evaluation
• MISO South: Two projects addressing a single issue to be reviewed through the MISO-SPP Coordinated System Plan (CSP) study
• MISO North/Central:
• Three project candidates addressing a single issue in Minnesota
• Two projects addressing an issue currently under consideration within the MISO-SPP CSP study
• Next steps: solution refinement, robustness and sensitivity analysis
2
Overview
*Identification of potential solutions ongoing for MISO-SPP, MISO-PJM, and North/South Interface focus areas
MTEP19 MCPS Scope
3
Top Congested FlowgateIdentification
Review Historical Congestion
Congestion Analysis
Coordination with Interregional Studies
Identify Top Congested Flowgates
Project Candidate Identification
Transmission Development
Screening Analysis
Full Present Value (PV) Analysis
Establish Project Candidate(s)
Robustness Testing
Robustness Analysis
Reliability Analysis
MISO Scoping Level Cost Estimation
Best Fit Solution(s)
Dec 2018 Dec 2018 - May 2019 May - Aug 2019
Focus of the presentation today - Screening analysis and project candidate identification
MTEP19 MCPS Top Congested Flowgates
4
ID Monitored Element Area Focus
N-A Raun to Tekamah 161kV MEC-NPPD MISO-SPP & N/C
N-B Wabaco to Alma 161kV DPC N/C
N-C Helena to Scott County 345kV NSP N/C
N-D Big Stone to Browns Valley 230kV OTP N/C
C-E Goodland to Reynolds 138kV NIPS N/C
C-F Marble Head N Transformer 161/138kV AMIL MISO-PJM & N/C
C-G Bosserman to Trail Creek 138kV NIPS-AEP MISO-PJM & N/C
C-H Hubble to Batesville 138kV HE-DUK-IN N/C
C-I Lallendorf to Monroe 345kVFE-ATSI -
DECOMISO-PJM & N/C
C-J Munster Transformer 345/138kV NIPS N/C
S-K Fulton to Patmos 115kV EES-AR MISO-SPP & South
S-L Bull Shoals to Midway Jordan 161kV EES-AR MISO-SPP & South
I-M Neosho to Riverton 161kV SPP MISO-SPP
I-N Kerr to Maid 161kV Ckt 2 SPP MISO-SPP
I-O South Shreveport to Wallace Lake 138kV SPP MISO-SPP
I-P Hugo to Valliant 138kV SPP MISO-SPP
I-Q Sioux City to Sioux City 230kV SPP MISO-SPP
I-R Marshall to Smittyville 115kV SPP MISO-SPP
RDT* North – South Interface MISO N-S Interface
* Constraint added to MTEP19 MCPS at April 2019 TSTF
Updates to MTEP19 Top Congested Flowgates
• N-D: Big Stone – Browns Valley 230kV
• Network upgrades associated with 2016 February West - MISO Generation Interconnection
Queue
• Reduces projected congestion below the threshold for inclusion in MCPS
• I-O: South Shreveport to Wallace Lake 138kV
I-Q: Sioux City to Sioux City 230kV
• Load and topology updates received from SPP eliminates all congestion on these flowgates
• Updates included in the MTEP19 PROMOD models posted on MISO FTP
5
Amite South Interface excluded from MTEP19 MCPS as congestion*
is driven purely by generation siting & retirement assumptions
• As a standard practice, MISO excludes flowgates from MCPS which cannot yield a robust solution
• Generation retirement and congestion* is minimal in 2023 (5-year out time frame)
• Emergency emergency* observed at higher retirement levels (non-replacement) and in year 2033 scenarios
• MISO will continue to monitor generation retirements and congestion* going forward within Amite South
6
* Amite South interface is represented as a “Commitment only” constraint but has been enabled for commitment and dispatch only for top congested flowgate identification;
Higher congestion represents higher VLR commitment requirement in the load pocket; emergency energy represents potential reliability violations
147
12
28
5
32
3
31
20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Base (Retirements not fully replaced) Sensitivity (Retirements replaced)
Tota
l S
hadow
Price in k
$/M
WH
MTEP19 Congestion on Amite South Interface – Forecast Year 2028
AFC
CFC
DET
LFC
MTEP Future:
MTEP19 MCPS Congestion Threshold**
**Congestion threshold is minimal amount of congestion for inclusion in the MCPS
Project Candidate Identification
• Project candidates are identified through a 2-step approach:
• Initial Screening (Step-1): All solutions evaluated under all futures in year +15 model to determine which have a
benefit to cost ratio > 0.9
• Final Screening (Step-2): Solutions passing Initial Screening further evaluated under all futures in years +5, +10
and +15 to determine which have a benefit to cost ratio > 1.0 (i.e. a Project Candidate)
• What are Project Candidates?
• Project Candidates are projects selected from the screening process for further fine-tuning through the MCPS
analysis
• Further evaluation on project candidates includes robustness testing, sensitivity analysis and Reliability “no-
harm” evaluation
• MISO to explore avoided reliability benefits and settlement cost savings on selected
project candidates
7
Overview of MCPS Projects
8
• Number of projects evaluated by focus areas
• Solutions addressing joint issues with SPP and PJM are
currently under review in the interregional study process
and will be further evaluated in the regional process
MCPS Overview
(Number of Solutions)North/Central MISO-SPP MISO-PJM
North/South
Constraint
Evaluated 31 25 10 2nd Solution
Window is open
and will close by
June 21, 2019
Passed initial screening 9 Will coordinate with PJM & SPP about the cost
share and B/C calculationProject candidates identified 3
Three project candidates addressing a single congested issue
identified in the North/Central focus area
9
Flowgate N-C: Helena to Scott County 345kV
• Sheas Lake to Chub Lake 345kV; B/C: 1.59; Estimated Cost: 85M$
• Second Helena to Hampton Corner 345kV; B/C: 4.73; Estimated Cost: 32M$
• Helena to Blue Lake 345kV; B/C: 2.19; Estimated Cost: 72M$
All 3 solutions are potentially eligible as a Market Efficiency Project
Note: 3 solutions are alternatives to address the issue identified
https://www.misoenergy.org/events/west-subregional-planning-meeting-spm-north-central-mcps---may-31-2019/
Four projects were identified in the MISO-SPP focus area and
will be explored in the MISO-SPP CSP study
10
Flowgate N-A: Raun to Tekamah 161kV
• Rebuild Raun to Tekamah 161kV; B/C: 0.64; Estimated Cost: $58M
• New 345/115kV substation tapping Raun to Hoskins 345kV and Emerson to Bancroft 115kV lines; B/C: 1.05; Estimated Cost: $20M
Flowgate S-K: Patmos to Fulton 115kV
• New Hope REA to Emmet 115kV; B/C: 0.37; Estimated Cost: $37M
• New Hope REA to Hope East 115kV; B/C: 0.38; Estimated Cost: $35M
Note: 2 solutions are alternatives to address the issue identified
Note: 2 solutions are alternatives to address the issue identified
Further evaluation will include interregional coordination,
robustness/sensitivity analysis and reliability “no-harm” check
Dec 2018
Jan 2019
Feb 2019
Mar 2019
Apr 2019
May 2019
June 2019
July 2019
Aug 2019
Sept 2019
Oct – Dec 2019
11
MISO-PJM
Interregional
Study
MCPS Regional
Study
MISO-SPP
Interregional
Study
Top
Congested
Flowgate
Identification
Project Candidate
Identification
Robustness Testing/
Project Justification
SPM1 SPM2 SPM3
Interregional
Issue(s)
Identified
Annual Issue(s) Review/
Flowgate Cdentification
Regional &
Interregional
Transmission
Development
Review Interregional Criteria & Coordination
(Benefits and Cost split)
Review Interregional Criteria & Coordination
(Benefits and Cost Split)
Project
Recommendation
MISO-PJM
Interregional Project
Recommendation
MISO-SPP
Interregional Project
Recommendation
Note: North-South interface will be included as part of the MCPS regional study in MTEP19
Appendix
Project Candidate Identification – Step 1: Screening analysis
• Step 1: Screening Analysis
• Utilized stakeholder submitted cost estimate
• Identified transmission solutions that meet screening criteria
and address the congestion needs identified
• Screening Criteria:
• Evaluate the one-year (15-year out model - 2033) weighted screening
index for all solution ideas
• 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 2032 𝐴𝑃𝐶 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ×𝑀𝐼𝑆𝑂 𝐴𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
• 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = σ(𝐹𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 × 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒)
• Solution ideas with a weighted screening index ≥ 0.9 were
further considered in the present value (PV) analysis
13
Project Candidate
Identification
Transmission Development
Screening Analysis
Present Value (PV) Analysis
Establish Project
Candidate(s)
Project Candidate Identification Step 2: Present Value Analysis
• Step 2: Present Value (PV) Analysis
• Determine benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio for each future using the present
value (PV) of benefits for the first 20 years of project life with a maximum
planning horizon of 25 years from the approval year for each individual
future
• 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 Τ𝐵 𝐶 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = σ(𝐹𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 × Τ𝐵 𝐶 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒)
• Transmission solutions with a weighted benefit-to-cost (B/C)
ratio greater than 1.0 are selected as project candidates
• Planning Level cost estimate was developed by MISO for all
projects selected as Project Candidates
• The MISO Planning level cost estimate will be utilized going forward for
Robustness Testing
14
Project Candidate
Identification
Transmission Development
Screening Analysis
Present Value (PV) Analysis
Establish Project
Candidate(s)
Updated MTEP19 Models Posted
• Models incorporating stakeholder feedback received after January along with internal revisions to the N-S Constraint Nomogram
• SFTP Location:• Host: misoftp.midwestiso.org• Port: 22• Folder: /MTEP19/MTEP19 PROMOD models/
15