By Tom Kleckner

SPP and MISO are inching closer to agreement on a second joint transmission study on their seams, though they continue to disagree how “targeted” a targeted study should be.

The two grid operators have agreed to conduct another transmission study this year, using the carbon-constrained scenarios in SPP’s 2017 Integrated Transmission Planning 10-Year Assessment and MISO’s 2016 Transmission Expansion Plan as starting points.

The study, to be completed in the first quarter of 2017, will use the needs identified in the regional studies to develop solutions that benefit both RTOs. It will model the years 2020, 2025 and 2030; SPP will have to create a model for 2030, which is not included in the 2017 ITP10.

MISO prefers limiting the study to the seams between it and the Integrated System, which joined SPP last October, while SPP favors looking at a broader geographic area.

Staff shared the draft scope with the RTOs’ Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee on Aug. 2, with SPP’s Seams Steering Committee again taking up the issue Aug. 3.

MISO staff said it preferred to focus on process improvements this year, but it did propose that a set of five needs — three belonging to SPP, two to MISO — be included in the joint study. SPP suggested 10 regional needs, eight in its footprint and two in MISO’s, that it said would “provide the most value to be evaluated” in the Coordinated System Plan study.

Time Best Spent

MISO agreed to a joint study this year only after a May meeting of its Planning Advisory Committee. (See “MISO Rethinks Coordinated Study with SPP,” MISO Planning Advisory Committee Briefs.)

“We have to ask ourselves, where is our collective time best spent?” said MISO’s Eric Thoms, manager of planning coordination and strategy, in arguing against a broader study. “The 2014-15 [study] took three extra months. It took a herculean effort to finish … that’s the most diplomatic way to define it.”

“My impression was [MISO has] already decided what they want to do, and it’s up to us to convince them otherwise. I don’t like that position,” SSC Chair Paul Malone, of the Nebraska Public Power District, said at Wednesday’s meeting.

The IPSAC conference call also left some SPP stakeholders questioning the stakeholder meeting process. The Wind Coalition’s Steve Gaw expressed concern that the decision to use a targeted scope was made prior to the joint stakeholder meeting.

“I thought the [IPSAC] call was about defining the scope,” Gaw said at the SSC meeting. “It confused me that a decision has already been made about [the scope] being targeted.”

David Kelley, SPP’s director of interregional relations, agreed with Gaw. “The way you described it should have been the way to work,” he said. “We bring issues to the table, [and] we decide if they’re enough to warrant a study.”

Staff set an Aug. 24 deadline for stakeholders to submit comments on the draft scope. MISO has another PAC meeting scheduled Aug. 17 that could further clarify the study’s final scope.

The IPSAC has tentatively selected Sept. 7 to finalize the scope with stakeholders.

Task Force to Look at Non-Order 1000 Regional Cost Allocation

In a related matter, the SSC voted 8-5 to create a task force to revise a proposed business practice for regional cost allocation of seams projects outside FERC’s Order 1000 process. The task force will use a white paper that has already been through the stakeholder process to document the policy. The group will be chaired by Oklahoma Gas & Electric’s Jake Langthorn.

In November, FERC rejected SPP’s proposal to create a new class of seams transmission projects; staff has been trying to determine how best to respond ever since. (See FERC Rejects SPP Proposal for Seams Transmission Projects.)