2016 SPP-MISO CSP Study Results SPP-MISO IPSAC 4/24/2017 Overview - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2016 SPP-MISO CSP Study Results

SPP-MISO IPSAC 4/24/2017

Overview

• Review Final Results of 2016 SPP-MISO CSP

Study

• Provide the IPSAC SPP & MISO Staff

Recommendations on Potential Interregional Projects

• Discuss Potential Interregional Project

Approvals & Next Steps

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MISO – SPP 2016 CSP Study

3 NEED CONSTRAINT LOCATION 1 Rugby WAUE-Rugby OTP Tie FLO Rugby – Balta 230 kV SPP-MISO Tie Line 2 Hankinson - Wahpeton 230kV FLO Jamestown - Buffalo 345kV MISO 3 Sub3 - Granite Falls 115kV Ckt1 FLO Lyon Co. 345/115 kV transformer SPP-MISO Tie Line 4 Sioux Falls - Lawrence 115kV FLO Sioux Falls - Split Rock 230kV SPP-MISO Tie Line 5 Northeast - Charlotte 161kV FLO Northeast - Grand Ave West 161kV SPP 6 Neosho - Riverton 161kV FLO Neosho - Blackberry 345kV SPP 7 Brookline 345/161kV Ckt 1 Transformer FLO Brookline 345/161kV Ckt 2 Transformer SPP

Potential Interregional Projects

• No beneficial projects were identified for Need 1

– Rugby WAUE-Rugby OTP Tie (Need #1)

• Model update reduced congestion in the joint model to lower

levels than were experienced in the regional models

Need Addressed Project Description 2 Rebuild Hankinson - Wahpeton 230kV line 3 2nd Lyon County Transformer 4 Loop One Split Rock - Lawrence 115kV Ckt into Sioux Falls 5 Northeast - Charlotte 2 ohm series reactor 5 Crosstown - Blue Valley 161 kV line 6 Lacygne - Blackberry 345 kV line plus 345/161 kV transformer and Blackberry - Asbury 161 kV line 7 James River - Brookine 345 kV line plus 345/161 kV transformer 7 Morgan 345/161 kV Transformer plus Morgan - Brookline 161 kV uprate

4

Interregional Project Criteria

• JOA Requirements – Section 9.6.3.1: Criteria for Project

Designation as an Interregional Project (accepted by FERC)

i. Estimated project cost is $5 million or greater ii. Project is evaluated as part of a CSP and recommended by the JPC iii. Benefits to MISO and SPP must each represent 5% or greater of the total benefits identified in the combined MISO and SPP region iv. Estimated in service date is within 10 years from the date the project is approved v. Project must be approved under the terms of the MISO OATT and SPP OATT vi. The project may interconnect to facilities in both the MISO and SPP regions or be wholly within the MISO or SPP region

5 5

Interregional Projects Passing JOA Criteria

*B/C Ratio : Takes the NPV of 20 years of benefits and project costs Need ID Location Project ID Project Description Project Cost (2016-M$) NPV Project Cost (2016-M$) NPV Project Benefit (2016-M$) B/C Ratio* % NPV Benefit MISO SPP 4 TIE LINE I-18 Loop One Split Rock-Lawrence 115 kV ckt into Sioux Falls 5.2** 6.22 27.83 4.42** 81% 19% 5 SPP SPP Staff Sol 2 Crosstown-Blue Valley 161 kV line 8.06 9.84 35.21 3.58 34% 66% 6 SPP I-24 Lacygne – Blackberry 345 kV line plus 345/161 kV transformer and Blackberry – Asbury 161 kV line 153.65 187.75 193.83 1.03 5% 95% 7 SPP I-28 James River-Brookline 345 kV line plus new 345/161 kV James River Transformer 25.0 30.54 62.49 2.05 20% 80% **Scoping level cost estimate (pending)

6

6 NPV: Net Present Value

I-18: Loop One Split Rock-Lawrence 115 kV ckt into Sioux Falls

7

• Project Details –
• Location: South

Dakota

• Loop One Split Rock -

Lawrence 115kV Ckt into Sioux Falls

• Congestion Analysis

–Completely relieves congestion on Lawrence – Sioux Falls 115 kV

• E&C Cost: $5.2M*
• 20-Year B/C Ratio: 4.42*
• SPP Benefit: 18.52%
• MISO Benefit: 81.48 %

Open an existing line Loop to existing substation

*Scoping level cost estimate (pending)

I-18: Loop One Split Rock-Lawrence 115 kV ckt into Sioux Falls cont.

• SPP and MISO staff were recently made aware
• f model updates and rating changes to

facilities directly affecting the area

• Updates resulted in changes to the overall

benefit and % benefit split of the project

– Increased rating reduced need 4 congestion

8

I-18: Loop One Split Rock-Lawrence 115 kV ckt into Sioux Falls cont.

• Project meets JOA criteria

– 81.48% Benefit to MISO (% of cost allocated to MISO) – 18.52% Benefit to SPP (% of cost allocated to SPP)

• Joint analysis shows substantial benefit

– 4.42 B/C Ratio – $27.83M NPV Project Benefit

• Completely relieves congestion from Need #4
• Minimal impact from resource plan units
• SPP and MISO staff recommend the approval of this

project from the CSP into the SPP and MISO regional review processes

9

SPP Staff Sol 2: Crosstown-Blue Valley 161 kV line

• Project meets JOA Criteria
• MISO’s regional analysis indicates this project

would likely not pass MISO’s regional review

• SPP prefers the regional solution approved in the

2017 ITP10 to address this need

– Northeast-Charlotte 2 ohm series reactor provides SPP more net 40 year NPV benefit – Project was evaluated in the 2017 ITP10 and was not found as beneficial as the 2 ohm series reactor

• SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this

project out of the CSP

10

I-24: Lacygne – Blackberry 345 kV line plus 345/161 kV transformer and Blackberry – Asbury 161 kV line

• Project meets JOA criteria

– Only 5% of the is benefit attributed to MISO – 1.03 B/C ratio

• SPP prefers the regional solution approved in the

2017 ITP10 to address this need

– Upgrade Butler – Altoona and Neosho – Riverton Terminals provides SPP more net 40 year NPV benefit – Project was evaluated in the 2017 ITP10 and did not pass the screening process

• SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this project
• ut of the CSP

11

I-28: James River-Brookline 345 kV line plus new 345/161 kV James River Transformer

• Project meets JOA criteria
• MISO’s regional analysis indicates this project

would likely not pass MISO’s regional review

• SPP prefers the regional solution approved in the

2017 ITP10 and SPP-AECI JCSP to address this need

– Morgan Transformer Project provides SPP more net 40 year NPV benefit

• SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this

project out of the CSP

12

Noteworthy Interregional Projects that Do Not Pass JOA Criteria

*B/C Ratio : Takes the NPV of 20 years of benefits and project costs

Need ID Location Project ID Project Description Project Cost (2016-M$) NPV Project Cost (2016-M$) NPV Project Benefit (2016-M$) B/C Ratio* % NPV Benefit MISO SPP 2 MISO I-11 Rebuild Hankinson-Wahpeton 230 kV line 26.0 31.09 160.32 5.16 97% 3% 3 MISO I-14 2nd Lyon County 345/115 kV Transformer 11.0 13.15 (21.09) (1.60) 102%

• 2%

5 SPP SPP Staff Sol 1 Northeast-Charlotte 2 ohm series reactor 0.5 0.61 25.89 42.38 17% 83% 7 SPP SPP Staff Sol 3 Morgan 345/161 kV Transformer plus Morgan-Brookline 161 kV uprate 9.25 11.3 51.09 4.52 4% 96%

13

Value fails JOA threshold

13

I-11: Rebuild Hankinson-Wahpeton 230 kV line

• Fails JOA threshold
• Only 3% benefit attributed to SPP
• MISO will continue to review as a potential

regional solution

• SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this

project out of the CSP

14

I-14: 2nd Lyon County 345/115 kV Transformer

• Fails JOA thresholds
• Model corrections related to resource

forecasting assumptions resulted in the project showing negative benefit

• SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this

project out of the CSP

15

SPP Staff Sol 1: Northeast-Charlotte 2

• hm series reactor
• Fails JOA threshold
• $500k project cost

– SPP and MISO agree the JOA cost threshold should be reviewed – Very low cost of this SPP regional project is the reason this project isn’t being pursued as an Interregional Project – SPP Regional Project

• SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this

project out of the CSP

16

SPP Staff Sol 3: Morgan 345/161 kV Transformer plus Morgan-Brookline 161 kV uprate

• Fails JOA threshold
• Only 4% benefit attributed to MISO
• SPP Regional Project
• SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this

project out of the CSP

17

SPP-MISO Staff Recommendation

• SPP and MISO staff recommend the IPSAC

approve project I-18 (Loop One Split Rock- Lawrence 115 kV ckt into Sioux Falls) out of the 2016 SPP-MISO CSP and into the respective regional review processes

18

Interregional Project Approval Process

• JOA requires an IPSAC vote to advise the JPC
• IPSAC vote is comprised of a MISO and SPP voting portion

– Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) voting sectors represent MISO – Seams Steering Committee (SSC) and non SSC interconnected TOs represent SPP

• MISO will request PAC voting sectors to vote on potential

interregional projects following the April 24th IPSAC meeting at a special PAC conference call on April 27th

• The SPP portion of the IPSAC vote will occur at their SSC

teleconference scheduled for May 3rd

19

2016 MISO-SPP CSP Progress and Updates

20

August 2016

Study Kickoff

Sep 7, 2016 IPSAC

Scope & Needs Finalized

Oct/Nov 2016

Solution Submittals & Model Development

Dec 2016 IPSAC

Solution Submittal Summary

Mar 9, 2017 IPSAC

Pre-Screening Analysis Results

Apr 24, 2017 IPSAC

Review Final CSP Results Apr / May 2017 SPP & MISO IPSAC Vote May 2017 SPP-MISO Joint Planning Committee Vote May 2017 SPP-MISO CSP Final Report (IPSAC Review via Email) May -Oct 2017 Potential Regional Review Process

20

Contact

Interregional Coordination

• Adam Bell – SPP
• Davey Lopez – MISO

Economic Studies

• Clayton Mayfield – SPP
• Ling Hua – MISO
• Ling Luo – MISO

21