Wind advocates and other stakeholders predicted last week that MISO’s proposed changes to the interconnection queue process will face challenges before FERC.
The stakeholders made their comments at the Oct. 19 Planning Advisory Committee meeting, two days before MISO’s filing Friday.
Omar Martino, director of transmission strategies with EDF Renewable Energy, said the new three-phase queue could make the process even longer.
Great River Energy engineer Michael Steckelberg said the three-phase approach guarantees “built-in restudies.”
Tim Aliff, MISO’s director of reliability planning, said the majority of stakeholders preferred the three-phase queue over a shorter, two-phase queue.
Rhonda Peters, a consultant to Wind on the Wires, said more discussion could have resolved some of her clients’ concerns, such as the timing of the site control deposit. The deposit is required at the queue’s second decision point, roughly 200 days into the queue, and becomes nonrefundable if interconnection customers cannot provide a site map and proof of land-use agreements for the project area.
Aliff noted that the deposit was reduced to $100,000 from the proposed $1 million, but he said MISO would not consider wind advocates’ request to delay the deposit until projects enter the definitive planning phase.
He also said it was an exaggeration that MISO’s entire wind industry opposed the deposit timing — an unexpected response to a claim no one at the meeting had made.
Interconnection Process Task Force Chair Randy Oye pointed out that MISO worked for more than a year on the new rules.
“I think we really worked hard to address the issues,” Oye said. “Site control was a late issue; it came up late.”
Aliff said that while the proposed 460-day queue sounds long, MISO is only now getting to siting projects proposed in August 2015. “We’re already a year behind on the current process,” Aliff said.
MISO Proposes Joint Functional Control Agreement
MISO plans to file a joint functional control agreement with FERC to codify the process that would be used should it award a competitive transmission project to multiple entities in separate RTOs.
The agreement would be signed by all developers and makes clear that MISO will “maintain undivided functional control of all competitive transmission facilities associated with … project[s] once they are placed into service.”
“One RTO couldn’t do 60% of congestion management while the other does 40% control of congestion management,” explained Brian Pedersen, MISO’s senior manager of competitive transmission.
Once accepted by FERC, Pedersen said similar language will be included in MISO’s Tariff. He also said he would return in November to present any adjustments to the agreement based on stakeholder comments. MISO is eyeing a finalized agreement by February or March and said it would be filed with FERC in either the second or third quarter of 2017.
Duff-Coleman Selection Near; MISO Contemplates Rule Changes
Pedersen said MISO is close to selecting a developer for the Duff-Coleman 345-kV project, its first competitive transmission project. (See 11 Developers Vie for MISO Duff-Coleman Project.)
He said after the project is awarded, he would continue to return to the PAC with project status reports and updated cost estimates. Beyond that, he said MISO would take time in the first few months of 2017 to identify possible improvements to the competitive developer selection process.
“Even though there might not be a competitive project in 2017, there’s a lot to contemplate,” Pedersen said.
After MISO announces the Duff-Coleman winner, Pedersen said he expects there are going to be 10 developers “wanting to know why they weren’t chosen.”
“In January and February, what we’re contemplating is having one-on-one meetings with the 10 entities that were not selected,” Pedersen said.
MISO is already considering changes in the minimum project requirements for competitive transmission projects. The RTO announced at Oct. 18’s Planning Subcommittee meeting that the second version of Business Practices Manual 029, which governs the requirements, will move to the PAC for approval. MISO principal adviser Matt Tackett said the BPM language will be presented and reviewed at the Nov. 16 PAC meeting. He said he anticipates final language by January with the revision implemented next spring.
“I think the general thought among stakeholders was that it was a good starting point,” Tackett said of the first version of BPM 029, which was used for Duff-Coleman. The revision includes a more detailed set of ratings that projects must meet. (See “MISO Releases Minimum Requirements for Competitive Tx Projects,” MISO Planning Subcommittee Briefs.)
PAC Could Hold IPSAC Vote Outside of Interregional Meetings
Eric Thoms, MISO manager of planning coordination and strategy, revisited the PAC to soften his stance on whether the committee sectors’ in the MISO-SPP Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee (IPSAC) can take place outside of the interregional meetings.
Thoms said MISO is proposing holding its end of the IPSAC stakeholder vote through either conference call or email shortly after the IPSAC to give sectors time to huddle up on issues.
“A majority of the stakeholders did not support voting at the SPP-MISO IPSAC. I think people wanted sufficient time to discuss MISO’s own regional details,” Thoms said.
In August, Thoms said the PAC’s seven voting sectors should use MISO-SPP IPSAC meetings to decide the RTO’s nonbinding IPSAC vote on study approvals or whether potential interregional projects should proceed to regional review. (See “MISO to Give PAC More Consideration in Interregional Process; Stakeholders Wary of PAC Vote in IPSAC,” MISO Planning Advisory Committee Briefs.)
Thoms said MISO staff would advise the MISO-SPP Joint Planning Committee on the stakeholder preference to conduct voting outside of the IPSAC.
PAC Chair Bob McKee said voting changes should be memorialized in the committee’s charter.
Thoms added that stakeholders’ IPSAC confusion spawned in large part from FERC’s directives in the Northern Indiana Public Service Co. order (EL13-88), with stakeholders not knowing if they should attend the PAC or the MISO-PJM IPSAC to get the latest details. MISO said it noticed an increase in involvement by its stakeholders at recent MISO-PJM IPSACs.
Stakeholders also asked for increased notice, updates and follow-up on IPSAC items at the PAC and the ability for PAC sectors to present their positions in the IPSACs.
MISO said it is looking for “alternative opportunities to communicate interregional planning status,” including PAC presentations, newsletters and quarterly reports.
Long-Term Tx Study Scoped
MISO has finalized the scope of a study that will determine the RTO’s long-term transmission needs using futures from the 2017 Transmission Expansion Plan. The RTO said in addition to the MTEP 17 futures, the study will include “economic indicators” such as historically congested flowgates.
The first detailed study evaluation will take place in MISO’s Economic Planning Users Group on Nov. 11 at its Eagan, Minn., offices. (See “Long-Term Overlay Study Scoped; MISO Asks for More Responses,” MISO Planning Advisory Committee Briefs.)
Lynn Hecker, MISO manager of expansion planning, said she would revisit the PAC with five separate updates over 2017 until the study is wrapped up in December 2017.
— Amanda Durish Cook
