Renewable energy proponents expressed frustration this week over what they perceived as MISO’s premature declaration that its planning studies are above reproach.
The source of concern came during the Planning Subcommittee meeting Tuesday, where MISO made a pre-emptive determination that its planning study objectives, methodologies and assumptions are “fair” in both its generator interconnection and annual Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP) studies. The grid operator said the separate processes don’t require significant alteration, despite stakeholder concerns that they should be better aligned.
MISO said any differences in the study approaches are appropriate.
The Planning Subcommittee had reviewed MISO’s generator interconnection queue and MTEP planning study processes as part of a larger endeavor to better align its annual transmission planning with necessary network upgrades identified in interconnection studies.
The effort, which could have included study process alterations, is meant to produce more multifunctional transmission projects and combat steeply rising interconnection costs that result in high dropout rates of proposed generation projects.
Multiple stakeholders questioned MISO’s stance on the issue.
“It doesn’t seem fair that MISO has made this determination that its process is fair without stakeholder discussion,” Clean Grid Alliance’s Natalie McIntire said.
“I don’t agree that the status quo is fair,” the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Sam Gomberg said. “We aren’t diving deep enough to figure out how reasonable these studies are. … I don’t feel that I’ve been convinced.”
“I think of the planning as ‘The Price is Right’s’ Plinko game,” Gomberg continued, likening proposed generation projects to the discs and the various assumptions in interconnection studies to the pegs — where any peg hit can derail a project. He said interconnection projects are subject to factors not assumed in MTEP studies, culminating in costs being shifted away from annual transmission investments and onto generation projects’ network upgrades.
Sustainable FERC Project’s Lauren Azar asked for the opportunity to submit written comments to rebut MISO’s conclusion.
McIntire said MISO’s assessment of its separate study processes does not address transmission owners’ unique local planning criteria, which are varied and possibly discriminatory, as they are applied to interconnection studies but not MTEP studies.
“At some point, we need to address that in the stakeholder forum,” McIntire said.
MISO plans to hold a discussion on TOs’ local planning criteria in spring.
But Xcel Energy’s Drew Siebnaler said that no stakeholder has demonstrated that interconnecting generators are bearing cost shifts because of inadequate transmission planning.
“I have yet to see that there is any harm caused to generators because of modeling assumptions,” he said.
MISO Senior Manager of Expansion Planning Edin Habibovic said the RTO has found that costs are being assigned appropriately between the queue and MTEP.
CGA’s Rhonda Peters said the fact that nearly all generation projects in MISO West’s 2017 cycle dropped out of the queue points to the “process being broken and something being wrong.” The West region has been routinely flagged by stakeholders as troublesome for interconnecting generation. (See MISO West Risks Becoming ‘Dead Zone,’ Stakeholders Warn.)
WEC Energy Group’s Chris Plante pointed out that MISO is also mounting a long-range transmission plan, which will most likely be a “substantial transmission overlay” to address some of the footprint’s generation interconnection constraints.
But McIntire said that the addition of a long-range planning effort still does not explain why the transmission issues found in generation interconnection queue studies do not show up in the annual MTEP economic studies.
Brattle Urges Look Beyond Reliability
Meanwhile, one consulting group has encouraged MISO to think outside of reliability and local needs for upcoming long-term transmission planning. (See MISO Outlines Early Long-term Tx Plan Details.)
Brattle Group Senior Fellow Johannes Pfeifenberger said that in general, current planning processes do not produce the most valuable transmission infrastructure because most projects only address reliability and local needs and exclude public policy or economic needs.
“A continued reliance on traditional transmission planning that is primarily focused on reliability and local needs leads to piecemeal solutions instead of developing integrated and flexible transmission solutions that enable the system to meet public policy goals will be more costly in the long run,” Pfeifenberger told MISO state regulators in November. “Substantial recent transmission investments focused too narrowly on reliability and local needs have resulted in missed opportunities.”
The Organization of MISO States has convened a special cost allocation committee to draw up principles on how the RTO should approach the cost sharing of its recently announced long-term transmission planning effort.
Pfeifenberger said most grid planners tend to default to the easiest method: developing necessary local and regional projects that do not have to be allocated.
He said that bickering over project cost allocation has “derailed many planning efforts and created barriers to the development of valuable transmission projects.” He asked MISO to consider the “full range of benefits” of new transmission projects and urged staff to do the difficult work of allocating the costs of beneficial economic and public policy projects.
Brattle notes that the U.S. is experiencing an investment cycle in transmission to replace the last large system buildout in the 1960s and 1970s. The firm said the rebuild coming due offers an opportunity for a modern rework that has lower incremental costs and makes use of existing rights of way for transmission.
