By Suzanne Herel
FERC last week ordered MISO and PJM to make changes in their interregional transmission planning process, granting in part a 2013 complaint by Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (EL13-88).
NIPSCO, which operates on the seams of the RTOs, pointed to “significant congestion costs [and] operating issues” along the seam and noted that no transmission project had ever been approved under the RTOs’ joint operating agreement.
The company said that although market-to-market redispatch had helped day-to-day operations, the RTOs had not developed solutions to long-standing congested flowgates. It proposed several changes that it said would incent cross-border transmission projects. (See FERC Considering NIPSCO Proposals on PJM-MISO Seam.)
First, it recommended the RTOs run their cross-border transmission planning process at the same time as their regional transmission planning cycles, rather than after them.
FERC said it agreed with NIPSCO that the existing open-ended planning process can delay the “identification, analysis and potential approval of beneficial interregional economic transmission projects.”
The commission gave MISO and PJM 60 days to revise the JOA “to include timely, specific deadlines for each step in the coordinated system plan study process” and establish a deadline for how much time it should take from proposal to approval.
“We also find that … it is unclear how the coordinated system plan study in the JOA interacts and aligns with the [MISO Transmission Expansion Plan] and the [PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan],” FERC ruled. “A clear process laid out in the JOA may resolve these disagreements and help provide a consistent understanding of the process for all stakeholders.”
FERC denied NIPSCO’s request that the MTEP, RTEP and JOA processes follow a common timeline. But it asked MISO and PJM to submit an informational filing within 120 days describing how it could do so and what impacts that would have on the RTOs’ planning process as well as interregional coordination with neighboring regions.
The commission also denied NIPSCO’s suggestion that MISO and PJM be required to conduct a coordinated system planning study on a regular basis. Requiring that “even when the RTOs’ annual review of transmission issues finds it unnecessary would not be an efficient use of MISO’s, PJM’s and stakeholders’ time and resources,” FERC said.
NIPSCO also recommended that the RTOs develop a single model using the same assumptions in the cross-border transmission process. FERC rejected that suggestion but directed MISO and PJM to “explore the potential use of a joint model with the same assumptions and criteria” and submit an informational report on the issue.
Finally, NIPSCO asked that the RTOs use a common set of criteria in evaluating cross-border efficiency projects.
FERC agreed with NIPSCO that the current cost and voltage thresholds can remove from consideration certain projects that could benefit both regions. It ordered MISO to reduce its minimum voltage threshold for interregional economic transmission projects from 345 kV to 100 kV and eliminate the $5 million cost threshold for such projects. (See PJM, MISO to Scrap $20M Threshold for Joint Tx Projects.)
It also ordered the removal of the requirement for a third, separate benefit-cost analysis for the combined regions.