By Rich Heidorn Jr.
MISO and its wind generators are having trouble getting along.
Just two days after FERC rejected allegations that MISO was blocking a wind farm from exporting power to PJM, the RTO was hit with a new complaint accusing it of giving special treatment to external generators seeking to deliver power into the Midwest.
The disputes have arisen as the RTO is attempting to close a capacity shortage that could arise as soon as 2020.
Acciona Wind Energy USA accused MISO in May of blocking it from selling power into PJM by improperly interpreting a process designed to streamline energy exports.
The company complained that MISO had excluded a portion of its 180-MW Tatanka wind farm’s capacity from participating in its pre-certified path study process, which allows interconnection customers to avoid lengthier studies when MISO evaluates their transmission service requests (TSRs). (See Acciona: MISO Blocking Access to PJM.)
MISO Acted ‘Reasonably’
But FERC ruled Sept. 2 that the claim was without merit, saying that MISO conducted Acciona’s system impact study in accordance with its Tariff and business practice manuals. “We find that MISO reasonably concluded that it was appropriate to deny the TSRs given the lack of available transmission capacity absent upgrades,” the commission ruled (EL15-69).
FERC also rejected the company’s claim that MISO was requiring it to make “several hundred million dollars” of upgrades, saying the estimate appears to include all of the costs of the N. LaCrosse-N. Madison 345-kV multi-value project rather than the “but for” upgrades required for Acciona’s service request.
Two days after FERC’s ruling, three wind generators filed a complaint asking the commission to block MISO from enacting rules that would exempt external generation from having to provide “cash at risk” deposits to enter the definitive planning phase, the final stage of the RTO’s study queue (EL15-99).
EDF Renewable Energy, E.ON Climate & Renewables N.A. and Invenergy said MISO’s external network resource interconnection service (E-NRIS) protocol is unfair to internal generation, which is required to make the M2 milestone payments. MISO won FERC approval for the milestone payments in 2012, arguing that they were necessary to weed out speculative projects, whose withdrawal from the queue results in time-consuming restudies.
‘No Safeguard’
The three companies sought fast-track status for their complaint, saying that MISO plans to add 7 GW of external generation into the queue, which it said could have an “enormous impact.”
“There is no safeguard to protect MISO’s queue management from further delay and restudies (and cascading restudies) if any of the 7 GW of [external projects] withdraws; nor is there any safeguard to protect interconnection customers from shifts in network upgrade costs if any [external] customer withdraws,” the complaint said.
The companies called the M2 milestone payment, which is based on generating capacity and transmission voltage, an “extreme burden,” saying a 150-MW project could be required to put up as much as $1 million.
They filed the complaint after MISO’s Planning Advisory Committee delayed a vote Aug. 19 on a proposal by Wind on the Wires that would have imposed the M2 costs on external generators. (See Interconnection Deposit Proposal Tabled.)
MISO and PAC members agreed to postpone the discussion to the Sept. 16 meeting, the companies said, but MISO later informed members that the E-NRIS protocol is final.
Capacity Worries
MISO is seeking to attract and retain capacity resources to offset retirements of coal-fired generation as a result of federal environmental rules and competition from low-cost natural gas.
In 2014, MISO projected it would face a 2.3-GW capacity shortfall beginning next year. In June, however, the RTO said its newest survey with the Organization of MISO States indicated it will have enough capacity to offset any zonal shortages until 2020. (See MISO Survey: No Shortfall Until 2020.)
