Evaluation of Different
Voltage Thresholds
Regional Expansion Criteria and Benefits Working Group
April 20, 2017
1
Overview
Objectives:
•
Facilitate a discussion on lowering the
345 kV voltage threshold for MEPs
Key Takeaways:
2
•
MISO has proposed to lower the MEP
345 kV voltage threshold in its strawman
•
The replacement voltage threshold has
yet to be determined & is the subject of
this discussion
December 2016 Strawman Proposal
•
Lower MEP voltage threshold from 345kV to ???
− Options to evaluate: 200kV, 100kV, each Transmission Owners
system’s next voltage class less than 345kV
− Discuss potential rule set on which lower voltage solution ideas should
be tested/screened against the MEP criteria due to risk around the
increased production cost simulation efforts
− Discuss the impact of a lower voltage threshold on MISO’s
Competitive Developer Selection Process due to the time, effort, and
expense associated with that process
3
Voltage Thresholds Impacts
pros & cons of various threshold options
100kV Voltage Class
 Uniform across the footprint
 Allows consideration of lower voltage
200kV Voltage Class
 Uniform across the footprint
 Allows consideration of some lower
Each TOs next voltage
class > 345kV
 Allows consideration of some lower
facilities to be considered as a MEP
voltage facilities to be considered
−
 Aligns with PJM’s lowest threshold
− Would not align with PJM threshold
−
 Aligns with SPP’s lowest threshold
− Would not align with SPP threshold
 Aligns FERC directed voltage threshold − Would not align with the 100 kV voltage −
for MISO-PJM seam in Order EL13-88
threshold directed by FERC for MISO−
− More solution ideas will need to be
PJM in Order EL13-88
−
tested against the MEP criteria; likely to − More solution ideas will need to be
increase study time & effort
−
4
tested against the MEP criteria which is
likely to increase study time & effort
May create uneven allocation of costs
as some areas do not utilize 230kV
−
voltage facilities to be considered
Non-uniform across the footprint
Increases the complexity in
administering the planning process
Would not align with PJM threshold
Would not align with SPP threshold
Would not align with the 100 kV voltage
threshold directed by FERC for MISOPJM in Order EL13-88
More solution ideas will need to be
tested against the MEP criteria which is
likely to increase study time & effort
RECB Working Group Discussion
What should the voltage threshold be for Market Efficiency Projects (MEPs)?
•
What value should be the voltage threshold for MEPs?
− 200 kV? or 100 kV? or each TOs next voltage class less than 345kV?
− Should there be a single cost-allocation method for MEPs or perhaps a
different cost-allocation associated with each voltage classification?
•
5
Open discussion on voltage threshold value for MEPs
RECB Working Group Discussion
Which lower voltage solution ideas should be tested/screened against the MEP criteria?
•
As the MEP voltage threshold is lowered, more & more solution
ideas will need to be tested/screened against the MEP criteria;
increasing the study effort & time
•
Which lower voltage solution ideas should be tested/screened
against the MEP criteria?
−
6
All 100kV solution ideas? All 200kV solution ideas? Some subset of those solution ideas?
RECB Working Group Discussion
What are the impact of a lower voltage threshold on the Competitive Developer Selection Process?
• If more projects are subject to competition and MISO’s Competitive
Developer Selection Process, what impacts should be accounted for?
•
7
−
The time & cost to complete the Competitive Developer Selection Process
−
MEPs addressing reliability issues & needed for reliability standard compliance
−
Are any additional rules necessary for lower voltage projects potentially eligible
for the Competitive Developer Selection Process
Open discussion on competitive transmission impacts
Next Steps
Project schedule and upcoming action items
• Continue discussions during the May RECBWG meeting
8
Questions?
Contact
Information
Jesse Moser:
[email protected]
Tony Hunziker:
[email protected]
10