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