By Amanda Durish Cook
MISO officials on Tuesday signaled their willingness to entertain a request by state regulators to develop a long-term transmission package to accommodate growth of policy-driven generation resources.
But they also made clear they’re not ready commit to the idea.
MISO and its stakeholders late last year opened a debate on whether the RTO should launch a second regional transmission package similar to 2011’s multi-value project portfolio. Clean energy supporters argued a coordinated approach to transmission development would ensure that proposed renewable projects could be built in a cost-effective manner. (See MISO Stakeholders: New Blueprint Needed for Tx Planning.)
The Organization of MISO States has been clear for months that it wants the RTO to begin analyzing another long-term transmission package. In June, it released a set of principles intended to advise MISO on its long-term planning. In a letter accompanying the principles, OMS President Daniel Hall said several drivers, including “many ongoing state-level activities related to investments in future generation, energy efficiency and distribution systems” precipitate the need for MISO to examine its long-term transmission needs.
“Given the timeline associated with infrastructure planning and development, and the need to cost-effectively maintain reliability in light of the rapidly evolving fuel mix, the OMS finds value in moving forward in a timely manner to assess system needs and identify potential solutions,” Hall wrote to MISO CEO John Bear.
OMS’ principles include fostering a transparent stakeholder process to identify cost-effective projects and heeding the changing resource mix, reliability requirements and viable non-transmission alternatives. (See OMS Outlines Long-term Tx Planning Principles.) However, some MISO South members said the principles were too obvious to be helpful.
MISO took a first step to address the issue when it convened a workshop Wednesday to discuss its current long-term planning processes. While RTO officials gave little indication whether they are considering mounting a second regional package, staff did touch on what has changed after eight years.
MISO Executive Director of System Planning Aubrey Johnson clarified that the workshop was not meant to discuss specific long-term project proposals.
“We don’t have any lines on any maps. We don’t have any projects in mind today,” he said.
Currently, MISO’s long-term transmission planning is not developed on a routine cycle but performed on an as-needed basis “in response to major changes in public policy or the industry,” RTO adviser Joe Reddoch said.
MISO principal adviser Matt Tackett said electricity flow patterns are getting more difficult to predict year to year as central baseload generators retire and distributed resources pick up slack.
“I think we might be entering an era where dispatch and availability are more volatile,” he said, noting that distributed resources and electric vehicles can become mobile supply and loads, making them challenging to pin down
He said it’s no longer necessarily the case that MISO will know “where generation is and where the energy is coming from.”
Tackett also said the shifting resource mix also means that MISO shouldn’t simply assume that aging transmission lines need to be rebuilt in their original locations.
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission staff member Hwikwom Ham asked MISO to begin quantifying the costs of not pursuing transmission projects that exhibit long-term benefits.
“I think not doing something is not an answer because that has clear economic effects,” he said.
In response to stakeholders’ questions on whether MISO’s ongoing renewable impact study might spur long-term transmission investments, Johnson said the study shouldn’t be considered a “lead-in” to a long-term transmission package. Instead, he said the study might be used to inform inputs should MISO independently decide it needs a long-term planning cycle.
