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
MISO – SPP 2016 CSP Study NEED CONSTRAINT LOCATION 1 Rugby WAUE-Rugby OTP Tie SPP-MISO Tie 2 1 FLO Rugby – Balta 230 kV Line Hankinson - Wahpeton 230kV 3 2 FLO Jamestown - Buffalo MISO 4 345kV Sub3 - Granite Falls 115kV SPP-MISO Tie 3 Ckt1 FLO Lyon Co. 345/115 kV Line transformer Sioux Falls - Lawrence 115kV 5 FLO Sioux Falls - Split Rock SPP-MISO Tie 4 230kV Line 6 7 Northeast - Charlotte 161kV 5 FLO Northeast - Grand Ave SPP West 161kV Neosho - Riverton 161kV FLO 6 SPP Neosho - Blackberry 345kV Brookline 345/161kV Ckt 1 7 Transformer FLO Brookline SPP 345/161kV Ckt 2 Transformer 3
Potential Interregional Projects Need Addressed Project Description 2 Rebuild Hankinson - Wahpeton 230kV line 3 2nd Lyon County Transformer Loop One Split Rock - Lawrence 115kV Ckt into Sioux 4 Falls 5 Northeast - Charlotte 2 ohm series reactor 5 Crosstown - Blue Valley 161 kV line Lacygne - Blackberry 345 kV line plus 345/161 kV 6 transformer and Blackberry - Asbury 161 kV line James River - Brookine 345 kV line plus 345/161 kV 7 transformer Morgan 345/161 kV Transformer plus Morgan - 7 Brookline 161 kV uprate • 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 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 $5 million or greater ii. Project is evaluated as part of a CSP and recommended by the JPC iii. Benefits to MISO and SPP must each represent 5% or greater of the total benefits identified in the combined MISO and SPP region iv. Estimated in service date is within 10 years from the date the project is approved v. Project must be approved under the terms of the MISO OATT and SPP OATT vi. The project may interconnect to facilities in both the MISO and SPP regions or be wholly within the MISO or SPP region 5 5
Interregional Projects Passing JOA Criteria NPV Project % NPV Benefit Need Project Cost NPV Project Cost B/C ID Location Project ID Project Description Benefit (2016-M$) (2016-M$) Ratio* (2016-M$) MISO SPP Loop One Split Rock-Lawrence 115 kV 4 TIE LINE I-18 5.2** 6.22 27.83 4.42** 81% 19% ckt into Sioux Falls SPP Staff 5 SPP Crosstown-Blue Valley 161 kV line 8.06 9.84 35.21 3.58 34% 66% Sol 2 Lacygne – Blackberry 345 kV line plus 6 SPP I-24 345/161 kV transformer and 153.65 187.75 193.83 1.03 5% 95% Blackberry – Asbury 161 kV line James River-Brookline 345 kV line plus 7 SPP I-28 new 345/161 kV James River 25.0 30.54 62.49 2.05 20% 80% Transformer *B/C Ratio : Takes the NPV of 20 years of benefits and project costs **Scoping level cost estimate (pending) NPV: Net Present Value 6 6
I-18: Loop One Split Rock-Lawrence 115 kV ckt into Sioux Falls • 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* Loop to existing substation • SPP Benefit: 18.52% Open an existing line • MISO Benefit: 81.48 % *Scoping level cost estimate (pending) 7
I-18: Loop One Split Rock-Lawrence 115 kV ckt into Sioux Falls cont. • SPP and MISO staff were recently made aware of 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 – $27.83M NPV Project Benefit • Completely relieves congestion from Need #4 • Minimal impact from resource plan units • SPP and MISO staff recommend the approval of this project from the CSP into the SPP and MISO regional review processes 9
SPP Staff Sol 2: Crosstown-Blue Valley 161 kV line • Project meets JOA Criteria • MISO’s regional analysis indicates this project would likely not pass MISO’s regional review • SPP prefers the regional solution approved in the 2017 ITP10 to address this need – Northeast-Charlotte 2 ohm series reactor provides SPP more net 40 year NPV benefit – Project was evaluated in the 2017 ITP10 and was not found as beneficial as the 2 ohm series reactor • SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this project out of the CSP 10
I-24: Lacygne – Blackberry 345 kV line plus 345/161 kV transformer and Blackberry – Asbury 161 kV line • Project meets JOA criteria – Only 5% of the is benefit attributed to MISO – 1.03 B/C ratio • SPP prefers the regional solution approved in the 2017 ITP10 to address this need – Upgrade Butler – Altoona and Neosho – Riverton Terminals provides SPP more net 40 year NPV benefit – Project was evaluated in the 2017 ITP10 and did not pass the screening process • SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this project out of the CSP 11
I-28: James River-Brookline 345 kV line plus new 345/161 kV James River Transformer • Project meets JOA criteria • MISO’s regional analysis indicates this project would likely not pass MISO’s regional review • SPP prefers the regional solution approved in the 2017 ITP10 and SPP-AECI JCSP to address this need – Morgan Transformer Project provides SPP more net 40 year NPV benefit • SPP and MISO Staff do not recommend this project out of the CSP 12
Noteworthy Interregional Projects that Do Not Pass JOA Criteria NPV Project % NPV Benefit Need Project Cost NPV Project Cost B/C ID Location Project ID Project Description Benefit (2016-M$) (2016-M$) Ratio* (2016-M$) MISO SPP Rebuild Hankinson-Wahpeton 230 kV 2 MISO I-11 26.0 31.09 160.32 5.16 97% 3% line 2 nd Lyon County 345/115 kV 3 MISO I-14 11.0 13.15 (21.09) (1.60) 102% -2% Transformer SPP Staff Northeast-Charlotte 2 ohm series 5 SPP 0.5 0.61 25.89 42.38 17% 83% Sol 1 reactor SPP Staff Morgan 345/161 kV Transformer plus 7 SPP 9.25 11.3 51.09 4.52 4% 96% Sol 3 Morgan-Brookline 161 kV uprate Value fails JOA threshold *B/C Ratio : Takes the NPV of 20 years of benefits and project costs 13 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: 2 nd 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 ohm 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 24 th IPSAC meeting at a special PAC conference call on April 27 th • The SPP portion of the IPSAC vote will occur at their SSC teleconference scheduled for May 3 rd 19
2016 MISO-SPP CSP Progress and Updates May 2017 May 2017 August 2016 SPP-MISO Joint SPP-MISO CSP Final Planning Committee Report (IPSAC Study Kickoff Vote Review via Email) Sep 7, 2016 IPSAC Apr / May 2017 May -Oct 2017 Potential Regional SPP & MISO IPSAC Scope & Needs Review Process Finalized Vote Oct/Nov 2016 Apr 24, 2017 IPSAC Solution Submittals & Review Final CSP Model Development Results Dec 2016 IPSAC Mar 9, 2017 IPSAC Solution Submittal Pre-Screening Summary Analysis Results 20 20
Contact Interregional Coordination • Adam Bell – SPP • Davey Lopez – MISO Economic Studies • Clayton Mayfield – SPP • Ling Hua – MISO • Ling Luo – MISO 21
Recommend
More recommend
