MISO released a work plan last week detailing how it and PJM will use the next six months to improve coordination of generation retirements.

The RTOs’ cooperation on generator retirement studies was one of six directives mandated by FERC in an April order (EL13-88) that stemmed from a 2013 complaint from Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (See MISO, PJM Working to Comply with NIPSCO Order.)

At last week’s Planning Subcommittee meeting, MISO said it and PJM will develop a proposal on retirement studies coordination by July.

MISO said it would work on the issue in meetings of the subcommittee, Planning Advisory Committee, and the RTOs’ Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee and Joint and Common Market.

Neil Shah, MISO adviser of seams administration, said the RTOs would be starting from scratch. “The joint operating agreement doesn’t have any retirement coordination language,” he said.

The RTOs differ on retirement rules. MISO requires 26 weeks’ notice prior to retirement, giving it time for a 75-day reliability assessment; PJM requires a 90-day notice and only 30 days of reliability assessment. Further, MISO keeps retirement information confidential unless a reliability concern is identified. PJM has no such confidentially rules and makes retirement information publicly available.

Shah said MISO would submit its work plan to FERC with an informational status filing that is due June 20. Additional status filings are due Aug. 19 and Oct. 18.

He also said MISO plans to share draft JOA language with stakeholders at the RTOs’ Nov. 15 joint and common issues meeting in time to file proposed JOA revisions with FERC by Dec 15.

Pseudo-Ties to Require System Impact Studies; Would be Barred from Sink Switching

MISO wants to conduct system impact studies on all pseudo-tied units with transmission service requests and forbid them from switching sinks until the requests expire.

The RTO is proposing a system impact study be required for all pseudo-tie transmission service requests and that firm point-to-point transmission service be required for the life of the pseudo-tie.

MISO has also proposed that pseudo-tied exports be sourced from a designated generating facility in its commercial model and be modeled in the external balancing authority. Pseudo-tied imports must be sourced from the local balancing authority where the generating unit is physically located and must sink into the MISO local balancing authority where the unit is being pseudo-tied.

“Participants are changing pseudo-ties to another sink after they have a transmission service request,” MISO senior transmission planning engineer Ankit Pahwa said. “It’s a shortcoming in the existing process … and a gray area that has not been covered yet.”

Pahwa said the proposed changes have been coordinated with PJM. He added that participants with existing pseudo-tied transmission service requests would be grandfathered from an impact restudy.

Currently, transmission service requests are evaluated based on an OASIS available flowgate capability evaluation, with only long-term requests — 18 months or longer — requiring a system impact study. Neither long-term nor short-term requests require a source/sink analysis, Pahwa said.

“From MISO’s perspective, we want to be 100% sure that we capture the transmission service impacts if a pseudo-tie moves to a different [local balancing authority],” Pahwa said.

“I think what we’re wrestling here is, does there need to be different treatment for pseudo-ties … much like there are different evaluations for network resource interconnection service for reliability purposes? At the minimum, you need to be sure you have the appropriate type of analysis,” MISO’s Jeff Webb said.

Webb said more conversations with other RTOs were needed before a final proposal. Stakeholders have until July 15 to comment on MISO’s proposal.

MISO Delves into MTEP 16 Studies

MISO is in the midst of developing model scopes for the 2016 Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP 16), said Dave Ditner of the RTO’s system modeling department. The RTO’s modeling will include a 2017 summer peak with wind contributions of 15.6% and 2021 modeling of summer peak, summer shoulder and light load scenarios with wind contributions ranging from 15.6 to 90%.

William Kenney, an expansion planning engineer for MISO’s Southern Region, also presented the finalized MTEP 16 voltage study scope. The study will use nine 2021 power flow models, including summer, winter and a shoulder with wind at 40%. MISO will release the final MTEP 16 voltage stability study in October.

Additionally, seven transfers will be studied in model year 2021 under the MTEP 16 transfer analysis scope:

• MISO North to SPP;
• Two different paths from Manitoba Hydro to MISO North;
• PJM in Northern Illinois to PJM Ohio;
• Missouri and Illinois to PJM Ohio;
• SPP to Southern Co.’s territory; and
• MISO South to SPP.

MISO will finalize the transfer analysis in mid-August.

Storage May Be Removed from Non-Transmission Alternatives

MISO presented stakeholders with draft language on Business Practices Manual 020, continuing a nearly yearlong discussion on non-transmission alternatives.

The RTO is suggesting separating energy storage devices that could solve a transmission issue from BPM language on non-transmission alternatives. MISO is also recommending discussion on whether storage can serve as a non-traditional transmission alternative move to the Planning Advisory Committee, MISO’s Matt Tackett said.

In April, MISO proposed classifying storage as a non-traditional transmission alternative. (See “Energy Storage Prompts 2nd Transmission Alternative Category,” MISO Planning Subcommittee Briefs.)

Indianapolis Power & Light’s Lin Franks said storage provides frequency control and voltage control much like transmission.

MISO will present a second draft of the BPM language at the August Planning Subcommittee meeting.

— Amanda Durish Cook