Interconnection Process Queue Reform BPM Feedback Discussion & Next Steps IPTF 02/11/16

Transcription

1 Interconnection Process Queue Reform BPM Feedback Discussion & Next Steps IPTF 02/11/16

2 Recap of the Action Items (BPM) Develop a study calendar for the future DPP cycles In Progress Revise Business Practice manual to align with the revised Tariff In Progress Discuss if there is a need to change the existing ERIS criteria (5%/20%) Complete Engage the IPTF to refine reliability analysis requirements Under Discussion Determine the need to revise existing study modeling assumptions, including discussions related to turbine change and repower scenarios Under Discussion Evaluate the potential for creating standard business practices to capture varying TO local planning criteria Under Discussion Develop templates for System Impact Study and Facilities Studies reports In Progress Work with the Transmission Owners to expedite all administrative steps related to Facilities Studies In Progress

3 Turbine Change/ Repower Requirements Should MISO treat Turbine replacement and Repower requests the same way as New Interconnection Requests get treated under the GI process? MISO received consensus from ICs and the TOs to not subject the generator to Attachment X procedures unless the change results in a Material Modification. Should Turbine replacement be studied for Steady State Thermal Analysis even if the new/revised Injection MW are lower than the existing Interconnection Rights? MISO received consensus from ICs and the TOs to skip the steady state analysis. Transient Stability, Reactive Power and Short Circuit analysis will be performed as necessary. Should Repower requests be studied for Steady State Thermal Analysis even if the new/revised Injection MW are lower than the existing Interconnection Rights? The ICs believe that repower requests should not be subject to additional analysis. The TOs support no additional analysis under Attachment X, but believe that the reduction in MW output should be subject to the Attachment Y(retirement) process. MISO is discussing this with the SSR group. Should MISO request M2, M3, and M4 for Turbine Change/Repower projects where there is no increase in MW compared to their existing Interconnection Rights? MISO received consensus from ICs and the TOs to not subject these units to milestone payments. The technical milestones(data) should still be required.

4 MISO BPM and TO LPC alignment TO Feedback Can MISO and Transmission Owners agree to using the same ERIS thresholds? The TOs support discussion of the development of some standardized components of an LPC; however, the TOs would only support the alignment of standardized components for all LPCs if the Transmission Owners unanimously agree to adopt the proposed standardized components of LPCs. A standardized component that the TOs would be willing to consider is 3% for DFAX in GI studies. What study models and scenarios should MISO study, in addition to Summer Peak and Shoulder Peak, that would make it consistent throughout the MISO footprint? The TOs recommend MISO to consider utilizing a light load case in both MTEP and Generation Interconnection studies. This light load case would model a low load (50% or lower) and dispatch wind and solar at PMAX (100%), and all other fuel types could be dispatched at some agreed upon reduced level. Ideally, this case would capture situations that summer and shoulder peak cases cannot. Do TOs have LPC just for Generator Interconnections that are different than what would be generally used for Reliability based Planning? Some TOs do, and others do not. TOs support flexibility in the ability to develop such criteria if they determine that there is a need to do so. Is 1% Steady State Voltage Deviation criteria really required? The TOs believe voltage degradation is a result of power transfers through the system. The only way to capture this phenomenon is by comparing the bus voltages in the pre-transfer case and posttransfer cases and report those which have been decreased greater than 1%.

5 Wind and Solar Generation Modeling From the TO Sector MISO has proposed to study shoulder peak conditions with solar generation dispatched at zero because shoulder peak represents system conditions at night, when solar resources would not be generating. This proposed approach is not appropriate because there are reasonably foreseeable shoulder peak conditions under which both solar and wind generating resources would be operating and dispatched at their full output (e.g. light load hours on windy and sunny days). In order to properly analyze the reliability impacts to the transmission system during the evaluation of solar PV interconnection requests, solar PV output should also be at 100% of nameplate during shoulder load conditions. From the IC Sector MISO has pursued the correct path for modeling solar resources for Generator Interconnection (GI) purposes. In accordance with Good Engineering Practice, and consistent with other RTOs, MISO models solar resources at 100% of nameplate capability in on-peak scenarios and 0% during off-peak scenarios. This is the correct way to model solar resources for GI studies and the practice should continue. If 100% output from both wind and solar generation is modeled during non-peak conditions, the accumulation of energy output from these resources across the entire MISO footprint will have the potential to create unrealistic regional transmission constraints or exacerbate existing regional stability problems during non-peak periods.

6 NRIS Modeling/Capacity Accreditation From the TO Sector The TOs strongly recommend that MISO adopt other approaches for resolving differences between the GI and Resource Adequacy study processes, rather than pursuing this proposal for a combined capacity accreditation/nris process. Use of capacity accreditation values would only study deliverability under ideal or typical conditions, which masks real time reliability issues that result in a higher likelihood of curtailments and congestion; therefore, the TOs recommend also studying generation deliverability under varying load levels, with worst case scenario dispatch scenarios and conditions, in order to ensure generation can make it to market without transmission constraints, under a wide variety of dispatch scenarios. Would the NRIS value entered into the MISO Generator Interconnection Service Workbook be the nameplate rating; or, for wind, just 13% of the nameplate rating? The NRIS value entered in the Service workbook will be the levels that have been granted through the DPP deliverability study process, this will not be limited to 13% Accreditation values. Are there any other study models, such as the MTEP Reliability Assessment models or TSR models, for which the unit would be dispatched greater than its Capacity Accreditation levels? Yes, the units may be dispatched greater that its Capacity Accreditation levels in the MTEP and TSR studies. From the IC Sector Resources in the NRIS analysis should be modeled at their accredited capacity value instead of 100%. Making this change will prevent NRIS service from being granted to resources above their maximum potential capacity accreditation and therefore reducing the NRIS available for other resources that have capacity available for accreditation.

7 Existing ERIS Analysis Thresholds The Transmission Owners support lowering the distribution factor threshold for ERIS studies The current MISO Generator Interconnection (GI) thresholds are designed to identify only injection constraints; however, in addition to injection, generators add network flow on preexisting thermal violations. MISO uses a PTDF cutoff for 5% and OTDF cutoff of 3% in generator retirement studies through MISO attachment Y (SSR) process, as well as in the evaluation of long term transmission service requests (TSR), where MISO uses to identify upgrades. Any thermal constraints identified on the system shall be fixed on the system irrespective of the distribution factor on the facility in TO s baseline reliability study processes, MISO s generator interconnection criteria only triggers upgrades on thermal constraints if and only if the generator meets the certain threshold (5%/20%) on the facility, irrespective of the thermal overload caused on the facility. The Interconnection Customers do not support lowering the distribution factor threshold for ERIS studies MISO Response : The intent of the ERIS analysis is to allow the Interconnection Customer to connect its Generating Facility to the Transmission System and be eligible to deliver its output using the existing capacity of the Transmission System on an "as available" basis. MISO s current injection constraint criteria(df, MW & Outlet) is adequate to meet this requirement while maintaining system reliability(identifying upgrades). MISO will not be implementing this change. ERIS generation can compete with existing generation in local area.

8 System Impact Study Alternative 1 MTEP alignment Perform SIS with MTEP dispatch assumptions MTEP uses an LBA type dispatch with firm Area Interchange The DPP study will dispatch all queued generation on this MTEP case while respecting Area interchange The generators will be responsible to fix any new overload on the system. NRIS units will still need to pass the deliverability test Pros Alignment with MTEP process. MTEP builds for base reliability, interconnections fix any overloads beyond base reliability Generators subjected to the same conditions as load. No generation specific LPC required DF cutoff can be as low as 3% and will be used only for cost allocation Cons Dispatch is static, generation profiles may not identify stressed scenarios ERIS/NRIS not segregated. NRIS may still be limited by energy in off peak Stricter criteria for ERIS Possibility of fuel type dispatch creating hypothetical constraints reduced.

9 System Impact Study Alternative 2 Energy Sensitivity Perform Deliverability style Flowgate analysis Use a dynamic dispatch that stresses the case on a Flowgate by Flowgate basis If a generator has a harmful impact on a Flowgate, it will be dispatched irrespective of fuel type. NRIS units will be dispatched for N-1 and will be responsible to mitigate constraints Both NRIS and ERIS will be dispatched for N-2 and will be responsible to mitigate constraints. Pros Cons Dispatch is dynamic in nature and will identify bottlenecks under varying conditions. No generation specific LPC required NRIS and ERIS segregated to a certain extent Independent of fuel type dispatch. All Impactful generators will be dispatched ERIS required to only mitigate multi element contingencies Flowgate sensitivity may create numerous base case overloads, thus limiting service for new generators and assigning additional upgrades Burden on NRIS to fix N 1overloads. High transfer sensitivities can be studied without significant variation in system load

10 Hybrid Interconnection Requests MISO is engaged in internal discussions regarding the process and requirements to evaluate Hybrid interconnection requests. Discussions will follow at the next IPTF.

11 Contact Swaraj Jammalamadaka Vikram Godbole Tim Aliff