November 24, 2024
MISO Proposes 3 New MTEP 17 Futures
MISO proposed the adoption of three new future scenarios intended to inform the development of MTEP 17.

By Amanda Durish Cook

MISO last week proposed the adoption of three new future scenarios intended to inform the development of the 2017 Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP 17).

Jenell McKay, a MISO senior analyst, told participants at a March 30 workshop that stakeholders are seeking a “range of modeling futures and some form of carbon reduction modeling” to assist in the planning cycle.

The three retooled “futures” include:

  • miso mtep17An “existing fleet” narrative in which MISO’s generation fleet is largely unchanged because of low demand and no carbon regulations are modeled. Already-planned coal retirements are factored into the scenario, and remaining coal units retire only after reaching their 65-year age limits. MISO also assumes renewable tax credits will expire in 2022, existing nuclear units will stay online and low natural gas prices and a stagnant economy curb renewable growth. As a result, gross aggregate demand grows at just 0.3 to 0.4%, and the energy growth rate is similarly low at 0.4 to 0.5%.
  • A “policy regulation” future based on the final Clean Power Plan rule, with a 25% reduction of carbon emissions across MISO, which drives 16 GW of coal retirements and increased reliance on mid-range-priced natural gas. MISO also assumes that nuclear units remain online and non-nuclear, non-coal generators retire according to 55-year age limits. Aggregate demand grows at the current 0.8 to 0.9% rate, while energy growth hovers around 0.7 to 0.9%.
  • An “accelerated alternative technologies” future in which a “robust” economy propels expanded demand, leading to a 35% carbon reduction and steering MISO to 24 GW worth of coal retirements. This future assumes high natural gas prices, retirement of non-nuclear, non-coal generators at 55-year age limits, license renewals for nuclear units and continuation of renewable tax credits beyond 2022. Aggregate demand and energy consumption growth rates both surpass 1% under the scenario.

To address stakeholder concerns about price volatility, all future scenarios assume a 30% variance between high and low natural gas prices during the study period. McKay said assumptions about storage technologies were not included in any of the narratives but could be inserted during an “R&D phase” over the next few months.

In response to several questions about why MISO is not modeling a business-as-usual case for MTEP 17, McKay responded that industry uncertainties about carbon regulation, coal retirements and renewable penetration made a definite BAU scenario elusive. “We didn’t feel comfortable calling anything business-as-usual,” she said. “For instance, if the CPP is upheld [following court challenges], the policy regulation future will be the business-as-usual case.”

Matt Ellis, MISO manager of policy studies, said stakeholders can still weigh in on the futures. “Do they pass a smell test? Are they reflecting what’s already happening on your factory floors?” he asked.

MISO hopes to continue discussion about the futures at an April 20 Planning Advisory Committee before putting them to a vote at the May PAC meeting.

OMS Asked to Back Modeling Allowance Auction

Meanwhile, the Organization of MISO States could urge MISO to model a carbon emissions allowance auction after being approached by the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers about the issue last week.

miso mtep17

Coalition representative Robert Weishaar told a March 31 OMS meeting that he raised the issue with MISO staff, who he said were “reluctant” to model the net cost of CPP CO2 allowances that are auctioned rather than allocated.

Weishaar said he was not advocating an auction over an allocation but wanted to see both hypotheticals in MISO’s CPP modeling. “We’ve taken a particularly critical interest in MISO CPP modeling to date,” he said.

Calling the omission a “gap in the MISO modeling approach,” Weishaar asked for OMS’ support in endorsing a future letter on the matter.

Libby Jacobs of the Iowa Utilities Board said she would support such a letter, but other OMS members expressed indifference.

Texas Public Utility Commissioner Ken Anderson said an auction may affect generator dispatches and the fuel mix, but those points were moot. “Because we’re in the ‘just say no’ camp to the CPP, we’re not particularly interested in MISO modeling,” Anderson said.

Energy StorageEnvironmental RegulationsMISO Regulatory Organizations & CommitteesTransmission Planning

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *