System Impact Study OASIS Reference #: 78644985 MISO ... · MISO Project A615 (TSR# 78644985) 3 2....

Copyright Notification No part may be reproduced except as authorized by written permission.

The copyright and the foregoing restriction extend to reproduction in all media.

© 2013, MISO All rights reserved.

System Impact Study

OASIS Reference #: 78644985

MISO Project: A615

November 8, 2013

MISO 720 City Center Drive

Carmel Indiana - 46032

http://www.MISOenergy.org

http://www.misoenergy.org/

MISO Project A615 (TSR# 78644985)

CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 2

2. STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 3

3. MODEL USED FOR STUDY .............................................................................................. 4

SCENARIO 1 (NEAR TERM 2014) ................................................................................................... 4 SCENARIO 2 (OUT YEAR 2018) ..................................................................................................... 5 SCENARIO 3 (OUT YEAR 2018 SHOULDER) ................................................................................... 7

4. CONTINGENCIES AND FLOWGATES .............................................................................. 8

5. STUDY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 9

NETWORK ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 9 FLOW-BASED ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 9

6. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 10

6.1 TRANSACTION SIMULATION – SCENARIO 1 (NEAR TERM 2014) .......................................... 10 6.2 TRANSACTION SIMULATION – SCENARIO 2 (OUT YEAR 2018)............................................. 11 6.3 TRANSACTION SIMULATION – SCENARIO 3 (OUT YEAR 2018 SHOULDER) .......................... 12 6.4 AFC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 12

7. CONCLUSION: ...................................................................................................................... 13


2

1. Summary

Yearly Firm transmission service has been requested under the MISO’s Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. The transmission service requests 78644985 seeks to reserve up to 525 MW of yearly, firm, point to point service from TVA to PJM.

MISO System Impact Study A615

Analysis has been performed for the near term and outer year conditions to assess the impact of the proposed transfer on the transmission system. The service cannot be granted as there are constraints found. Those constraints have to be mitigated before the service can be granted.

Transactions

Point of Receipt

Point of Delivery OASIS No. MW Begin End

TVA PJM MISO 78644985 525 6/1/2016 6/1/2024


3

2. Study Objectives

The objectives of this study are to:

Identify MISO system constraints created or aggravated by the requested service.

Identify non-MISO system constraints created or aggravated by the requested service, especially constraints on impacted systems that are not on the contract path.

Identify potential system upgrades to mitigate any identified MISO-system constraints.

The study procedure includes:

Use of Network Analysis to identify steady-state thermal and voltage violations on transmission facilities and flowgate violations.

The relevant MISO, Reliability Region, and Control Area reliability criteria are used to identify such violations.

The network analysis includes determining the availability of rollover rights.

Use of Flow based Analysis to determine negative AFC on constrained Facilities.


4

3. Model Used for Study

The models for this study are developed using Model on Demand (MOD). This model is modified to reflect the most current information available from an Ad Hoc Study Group of potentially affected Transmission Owners. The near term analysis was performed using a 2014 summer peak model. The out year analysis was performed using a 2018 summer peak model.

Scenario 1 (near term 2014)

Base Case With Confirmed + Study Reservations The 2014 summer peak model is used for this scenario. The Confirmed transmission reservations for the study period not already included in the base case were added to the model based on queue priority. The following Confirmed + Study reservations, not in any particular order, have been included for Scenario 1:

OASIS Ref# POR POD Capacity Service Class Start Time Stop Time

76503202 AECI CWLD 7 YEARLY FIRM 20070501000000ES 20270501000000ES

76613342 AMIL PJM 20 YEARLY FIRM 20120101000000ES 20170101000000ES















76624505 AMIL ALTW 2 YEARLY FIRM 20090101000000ES 20190101000000ES






76968727 AMMO PJM 50 YEARLY FIRM 20141001000000ES 20200501000000ES



5

76969558 EEI AMIL 50 YEARLY FIRM 20140101000000ES 20190101000000ES






78451513 EES PJM 500 YEARLY FIRM 20150601000000ES 20200601000000ES

76497231 HE AMIL 11 YEARLY FIRM 20070101000000ES 20160101000000ES


76926481 HE CONS 18 YEARLY FIRM 20130101000000ES 20180101000000ES

76823448 HE CIN 146 YEARLY FIRM 20100701000000ES 20150701000000ES

76949195 HE IPL 20 YEARLY FIRM 20130901000000ES 20180901000000ES






78208813 LGEE AMIL 91 YEARLY FIRM 20130501000000ES 20200101000000ES

76878710 LGEE CIN 1 YEARLY FIRM 20120801000000ES 20270501000000ES


76815173 LGEE NIPS 67 YEARLY FIRM 20101001000000ES 20151001000000ES

76960295 AECI MOWR 44 YEARLY FIRM 20130101000000ES 20180101000000ES


76966185 SIPC AMIL 115 YEARLY FIRM 20140101000000ES 20190101000000ES


76943682 SPA CWLD 66 YEARLY FIRM 20130601000000ES 20180601000000ES



Scenario 2 (out year 2018)

Base Case With Confirmed + Study Reservations The 2018 summer peak model is used for this scenario. The Confirmed transmission reservations for the study period not already included in the base case were added to the model based on queue priority. The following Confirmed + Study reservations, not in any particular order, have been included for Scenario 2:




6












































7










Scenario 3 (out year 2018 shoulder)

Base Case With Confirmed + Study Reservations The 2018 shoulder model is used for this scenario. The Confirmed transmission reservations for the study period not already included in the base case were added to the model based on queue priority. The following Confirmed + Study reservations, not in any particular order, have been included for Scenario 1:






















8


































4. Contingencies and Flowgates

The MISO contingency, monitored element and flowgate lists were used for the contingency analysis. These include SERC/RFC/MRO contingencies and flowgates. When evaluating these contingencies, all branches greater than 60kV were monitored in the following control areas: AECI, ALTE, ALTW, AMIL, AMMO, BREC, CE, CWLD,


9

CWLP, DEM, EEI, EES, EKPC, IPL, LAGN, LGEE, MWC, MPW, NIPS, SIGE, SIPC, SPA, SWPA, and TVA. Branch loadings were monitored using continuous ratings for normal conditions, and emergency ratings for contingencies. A 3% TDF cutoff was used for the OTDF flowgates and branch overloads. A 5% cutoff TDF was used for PTDF flowgates.

5. Study Methodology

Network Analysis

The study was conducted employing MISO Day 2 TSR Study Methodology. The study approach involves an N-1, AC contingency analysis and a flowgate analysis that examine the contingency and flowgate violations for the requested transfer. The main procedures in the Day-Two TSR study tool are as follows:

1. Filter potential constraints based on DC analysis.

2. For each pair of filtered Monitored Element (ME) and Contingency Element (CE),

Monitored Element Sensitivity Analysis (Sensitivity Analysis) is performed. Generating units that are contributing the most flows and those that are contributing to the most counter-flows on any potential constraint are identified.

3. Analyze generation redispatch for each filtered potential constraints with its

associated sensitive generators.

Flow-Based Analysis

OASIS Automation automatically processes requests for transmission service using flow-based techniques to determine AFC on constrained facilities. MISO reviewed the automation results to determine if the AFC on any of the constrained facilities is negative. Distribution factors are computed for MISO and non-MISO flowgates according to each flowgate’s defined type – PTDF or OTDF. A transfer distribution factor cutoff of 3% concerning OTDF flowgates and 5% concerning PTDF flowgates are used in the Flow-Base Analysis (AFC).


10

6. Results The results of the simulations are listed below.

6.1 Transaction Simulation – Scenario 1 (near term 2014)

The following “Source/Sink”, definitions were used to simulate the study request from POR TVA to POD PJM:

Source: MASKED

Sink: MASKED

Table 6.1: 2014 Summer Peak Violations

Monitored Element Contingent Element LBA Rating

Post Transfer, Post Cont MVA

Pre Transfer, Post Cont MVA

Impact MVA

DF (%) FCITC

270804 LATHAM ; T 345 270668 BLUEMOUND; B 345 1

270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 348847 7BROKAW 345 1

CE 1334 1424.9 1393.5 31.4 5.98 -994.82

270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 270717 DRESDEN ; R 345 1

270704 LORETTO ; B 345 270926 WILTON ; B 345 1

CE 1481 1591.8 1549.5 42.3 8.05 -850.17

345992 7SPENCER 345 345435 7PALM TAP 345 1

635680 BONDRNT3 345 635730 MNTZUMA3 345 1

AMMO 908 926 879.3 46.7 8.89 322.64

347946 4PANA 138 348306 4TAYLORVL 138 1

270797 KINCAID ; R 345 347945 7PANA 345 1

AMIL 264 364.2 347.7 16.5 3.14 -2663.18

347946 4PANA 138 348869 4MOWEAQUA TP 138 1

270797 KINCAID ; R 345 347945 7PANA 345 1

AMIL 364 377.2 361.9 15.3 2.91 72.05

348068 4RAMSEY CIPS 138 347946 4PANA 138 1

346895 7COFFEEN 345 347945 7PANA 345 1

AMIL 264 408.6 390.9 17.7 3.37 -3763.98

348306 4TAYLORVL 138 347963 4PAWNEE 138 1

270797 KINCAID ; R 345 347945 7PANA 345 1

AMIL 264 298.4 282.7 15.7 2.99 -625.31

348847 7BROKAW 345 270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 1

270668 BLUEMOUND; B 345 270804 LATHAM ; T 345 1

CE/AMIL 1528 1776.4 1735 41.4 7.88 -2624.99


270717 DRESDEN ; R 345 270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 1 270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 270852 PONTIAC ;2M 138 1

CE 1280 1545.8 1512.3 33.5 6.38 -3640.52

270852 PONTIAC ; B 345 270704 LORETTO ; B 345 1


CE 1241 1536.3 1505.1 31.2 5.94 -4443.99

324114 7TRIMBLE 345 248000 06CLIFTY 345 1

243209 05ROCKPT 765 243208 05JEFRSO 765 1

LGEE/OVEC 1414 1687.5 1644.7 42.8 8.15 -2829.84


11

255115 17AETNA 138 255188 17USS-W_MILL 138 1

255103 17DUNACR 345 255251 17GARYAV 345 1

NIPS 143 144.6 139.12 5.48 1.04* -676.45

255155 17MILLER 138 255186 17USS-COKE 138 1

255155 17MILLER 138 255185 17US TIN 138 1

NIPS 191 199..3 192.86 6.44 1.23* -153.26

*Note: This constraint has less than 3% distribution factor in MISO analysis. The constraint was added per NIPSCO new planning criteria that look at the final impact being larger than 3% of the rating.

6.2 Transaction Simulation – Scenario 2 (out year 2018)


Source: MASKED

Sink: MASKED

Table 6.2: 2018 summer peak case violations




Impact MVA DF (%) FCITC



CE 1481 1610.5 1563.1 47.4 9.02 -909.33

348068 4RAMSEY CIPS 138 347946 4PANA 138 1

346895 7COFFEEN 345 347945 7PANA 345 1

AMIL 264 357.2 340.3 16.9 3.21 -2370.3

348847 7BROKAW 345 270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 1

CWLP EXTERNAL KINCAID SPS 2102

CE/AMIL 1528 1790 1741.4 48.6 9.25 -2305.2



CE 1280 1602 1543.3 34.1 6.49 -4053.7



CE 1241 1542.2 1493.7 35.3 6.72 -3758.3

347830 7NEWTON 345 346809 7CASEY 345 1

346809 7CASEY 345 347821 7NEOGA 345 1

AMIL 1319 1335 1300.7 34.3 6.53 280.1

255127 17E_WINAMAC 138 255158 17MONTICELLO 138 1

243206 05DUMONT 765 243207 05GRNTWN 765 1

NIPS 138 210.2 204.33 5.87 1.11* -6457.96



12

6.3 Transaction Simulation – Scenario 3 (out year 2018 shoulder)


Source: MASKED

Sink: MASKED

Table 6.3: 2018 shoulder case violations




Impact MVA DF FCITC

324114 7TRIMBLE 345 248000 06CLIFTY 345 1

** Base Case ** LGEE/OVEC 1134 1248.5 1217.7 30.8 5.86 -1426.7

349740 7MAPLE RIDGE 345 349662 7TAZEWELL 345 1

** Base Case ** AMIL 766 826.4 790.1 36.3 6.91 -348.55



CE 1481 1782.4 1748.8 33.6 6.4 -4184.37

348847 7BROKAW 345 270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 1

270668 BLUEMOUND; B 345 270804 LATHAM ; T 345 1

CE/AMIL 1528 1634.3 1592 42.3 8.05 -794.32

349730 7FARGO 345 349650 4FARGO 138 1

349662 7TAZEWELL 345 349740 7MAPLE RIDGE 345 1

AMIL 560 602.8 582.1 20.69 3.94 -560.5



CE 1280 1781.3 1762 19.3 3.67 -13111.4



CE 1241 1574.8 1548.7 26.09 4.97 -6189.36

270700 CORDOVA ; B 345 270828 NELSON ; B 345 1

270864 QUAD 1 3-11 345 270890 ESS H471 ; 345 1

CE 1479 1522.9 1493.2 29.7 5.65 -251.01


243206 05DUMONT 765 243207 05GRNTWN 765 1

NIPS 138 214.1 208.85 5.24 0.99* -7617.62


6.4 AFC analysis

OASIS AFC analysis has found no flowgate constraints for this TSR.


13

7. Conclusion: Analysis has been performed for the near term and outer year conditions to assess the impact of the proposed transfer on the transmission system. The service cannot be granted as there are constraints found. Those constraints have to be mitigated before the service can be granted. A good faith estimated upgrade costs will be listed in the final report. A facility study is required to further define the detailed cost and construction schedule. Some high level cost estimates are list in the following table.

Table 7.1: Cost estimate to mitigate the constraint

Monitored Element LBA Rating (Normal/Contingency)

Minimum required rating for full transfer (Normal/Contingency)

Estimate upgrade cost (million)

345992 7SPENCER 345 345435 7PALM TAP 345 1

AMMO 908/908 908/926 Note*1

347946 4PANA 138 348306 4TAYLORVL 138 1

AMIL 240/264 240/364.2 Note*1

347946 4PANA 138 348869 4MOWEAQUA TP 138 1

AMIL 280/364 280/377.2 Note*1

348068 4RAMSEY CIPS 138 347946 4PANA 138 1

AMIL 240/264 240/408.6 Note*1

348306 4TAYLORVL 138 347963 4PAWNEE 138 1

AMIL 240/264 240/298.4 Note*1

348847 7BROKAW 345 270853 PONTIAC ; R 345 1

CE/AMIL 1334/1528 1334/1790 Note*1

347830 7NEWTON 345 346809 7CASEY 345 1

AMIL 1200/1319 1200/1335 110

349740 7MAPLE RIDGE 345 349662 7TAZEWELL 345 1

AMIL 766/939 826.4/939 Note*1

349730 7FARGO 345 349650 4FARGO 138 1

AMIL 560/560 560/602.8 Note*1

255115 17AETNA 138 255188 17USS-W_MILL 138 1

NIPS 143/143 143/145 Note*1

255155 17MILLER 138 255186 17USS-COKE 138 1

NIPS 191/191 191/200 Note*1


NIPS 138/138 138/215 Note*1

Note 1: The estimate is not available at the time of report posting. It will be updated during the following facility study stage.

Date post:	17-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

System Impact Study OASIS Reference #: 78644985 MISO ... · MISO Project A615 (TSR# 78644985) 3 2....

Documents