While MISO and SPP continue to search for joint transmission projects that might ease crammed interconnection queues, they’re opening the floor to stakeholder suggestions on allocating the projects’ costs.

The RTOs surprised some stakeholders during a Wednesday teleconference by not coming equipped with a draft cost-sharing plan for seams projects that might result from their ongoing joint targeted interconnection queue study. The grid operators are trying to identify interregional transmission projects that could lighten their interconnection queues.

As part of the study, MISO and SPP late last month zeroed in on two expensive project clusters that would eliminate most flowgate congestion. The $424 million and $728 million options traverse South Dakota, Minnesota and Missouri. (See MISO, SPP Name Projects to Help Queue Troubles.)

SPP Vice President of Engineering Antoine Lucas said the novel study is an opportunity to wipe out “common barriers” to generation projects along the MISO-SPP seams. He also said the RTOs don’t yet have a detailed proposal on how new transmission construction will be funded.

“We’re not here today to discuss design-level ideas on cost allocation,” Neil Robertson, SPP’s interregional relations senior engineer, said.

Robertson said MISO and SPP could devise other benefit metrics beyond adjusted production costs, such as increased voltage support, accomplished renewable goals, heightened reliability beyond constraint relief, and greater interregional transfer capability.

“The transfer capability is a critical component of maintaining reliability,” LS Power’s Pat Hayes said. “I think the benefits are clearly measurable.”

Apex Clean Energy’s Richard Seide said he was disappointed the RTOs didn’t bring possible cost allocation proposals to the table.

David Kelley, SPP’s director of seams and tariff services, said MISO’s and SPP’s existing FERC-approved cost allocations haven’t yet yielded any project construction on the seams.

“What we are looking for are stakeholders to come with their cost allocation ideas in a manner that would be acceptable to both generation and load,” Kelley said. “We’re not going to drive the discussion and tell you how projects are going to be allocated.”

“What we’d really like is to develop a proposal … with the interests of those who will be sharing the costs,” Lucas added.

Other stakeholders said the cost allocation discussion failed to address that the RTOs are still accepting project suggestions to ease their three most congested 345-kV flowgates on the Kansas-Missouri border near Kansas City. The three constraints are not addressed in the two project clusters.

MISO and SPP asked stakeholders to submit written ideas on cost allocation approaches.

“Any idea that can be thrown into the mix would be helpful,” Robertson said.