Status Report
Committee / Working Group / Task Force: Supply Adequacy Working Group
Chair: Tom Parker
Vice Chair: Mark Volpe
Report Date: 10-15-13
Prepared by: Tom Parker
Last Meeting Date: 10-3-13
Next Meeting Date: October 31, 2013
Information for Committee:
1. Maintenance Limit
o MISO will bring a White Paper to present to stakeholders on MISO’s position.
Preliminary data should be available for review on the Spring 2014 schedule.
Stakeholders voiced concerns that they have not seen anything to either
support or not support the MISO methodology for outage scheduling.
2. MATS Capacity Credit Update
o Stakeholders asked how the IMM should be informed. Mike Chiasson stated
that an email would work with the explanation. Some stakeholders voice
concern that this becomes a “Catch 22” with the participant being unable to
recover costs.
o MISO reviewed 4 possible courses of action that could be taken:
1. Follow the Tariff: Text “forced outage” is not capitalized in the Tariff
See Section 69A.5
Basis of IMM disagreement rests on definition of Forced Outage (capitalized,
defined term in the Tariff).
Process:
a. Follow the Tariff Resource retirement date: May 31.
b. If resource cannot meet “must offer” for some weeks in the spring either:
1. Market Participant replaces capacity for period at issue. Or
2. Resource takes forced outage for period at issue.
c. If market participant takes option 2 then
d. IMM may report resource as violation.
e. FERC resolution
Action 1 & 2 can be done at the same time.
2. Pre-check with FERC: Market Participants, MISO, and IMM would
conference with FERC’s Office of Enforcement to determine FERC’s stance on
issue. Desired result would be to obtain clarity from FERC regarding their view
with enough advance time to enable other potential solutions for Market
Participant
Process:
a. Pre-Check w/FERC (Office of Enforcement) Resource retirement date: May
31
b. If resource cannot meet “must offer” for some weeks in the spring either: 1.
Market Participant replaces capacity for period at issue. Or
2. Resource reports that it cannot meet “must offer” because it has no permits
for period at issue.
c. IMM may report resource as violation
d. FERC resolution
3. Offer into PRA: Costs of compliance are reasonable costs to include in the
PRA offer for such resources. Discussion with IMM indicates that it would not
view such offers as withholding (physical or economic).
Process:
a. Offer resource into PRA at price reflective of cost of compliance
b. Resource retirement date: May 31.
c. If resource clears, MP obtains sufficient revenues to operate.
d. If resource does not clear, IMM would not find MP in violation due to
withholding (physical or economic).
Stakeholders voiced concerns that this was not a valid and could be
counterproductive.
4. Tariff filing: New Tariff language would be developed specifically related to
such environmental issues. Discussion with IMM has indicated it would have
no issues if Tariff language covered issue.
Process:
a.
MISO would file new Tariff language
b.
Tariff would specifically identify such situations and their treatment.
c.
Market Participant decisions based on new language.
Stakeholders supported this as the most viable option and recommended that
the language be narrowed to cover only MATS units.
This is open to long term solutions other than MATS.
Dave Johnston, IURC, stated that they supported this Option 4. State looks to
MISO to set guidelines.
3. Catastrophic Outage Provision:
o MP will have to notify MISO RA team in writing within 75 days of the
catastrophic outage occurring that includes description of catastrophic outage,
date of outage, etc.
o Under annual construct, if MP chooses not to replace Planning Resource that
suffers a catastrophic outage the XEFORd will be based on GADs submitted
o If MP chooses to replace the Planning Resource of a unit that suffers a
catastrophic outage, the EFORd will be based on class average when the unit
returns. Resource replacement is completed within 75 days of catastrophic
outage. Resource replacement must be from Planning Resources in the same
Local Resource Zone.
o Once unit returns from catastrophic outage, the Planning Resource
qualification requirements still apply. Stakeholders stated external resources
should be allowed. Stakeholders stated language should be changes to allow
external resources.
4. 2013 Post Summer Assessment
o Summer 2013 characterized by below average to average temperatures with
one moderate heat wave during the week of July 15th.
o Process improvements made relative to prior years summer season lessons
learned continue to improve our ability to manage summer operating
conditions
o Future market enhancements currently in progress will provide mechanisms to
achieve greater market efficiency and resource maximization.
o MISO stated that they are seeing more imports coming into MISO. This is a
change.
o A Maximum Generation Alert was declared on July 17th because MISO was
forecasting less than a 1% capacity surplus across the peak hour. Even
though peak load increased 1.2 GW the following day, supply conditions
improved mostly due to 4.9 GW of increased wind generation.
o MISO system worked extremely well with more than enough resources to
cover the peak demand. Around 7500 MWs additional capacity was available
from LMRs and DRs.
5. Module E-1, E-2 Auction Discussion:
o Capacity Deficiency Charge versus Shortage Auction Settlement Capacity
Deficiency Charge (CDC) – One business day after the completion of the
auction, the CDC will be imposed on a New LSE that has not demonstrated, at
the close of the offer window through MECT. Shortage Auction Settlement The Auction Clearing Price is set at CONE when there are insufficient ZRC
offers to cover zonal PRMR.
o Grandmother Agreement effectiveness - 2 Year effective period or longer
effective period
o E-1 (69A.7.7(a)) – “GMA shall remain effective for the length of the executed
contract or the owned resource status is changed...”
o FERC Filing Issued June 11, 2012 (Docket No. ER11-4081-000) –“ Order on
Resource Adequacy Proposal”. Directed MISO to modify its Tariff to phase out
the Grandmother Agreement provisions after two years, concluding at the end
of the 2014/2015 planning year.
o E-2 (69A.11.12) – For the next two full Planning Years following the transitional
period
o Stakeholders questioned MISO’s interpretation on the CDC being imposed on
stakeholder after the offer window, because the Tariff language states that it
will be done after the auction.
o Zonal Deliverability Charge (ZDC)
o E-1 (69A.7.6 b.i) – “the difference between the ACP for the LSE’s PRMR and
the ACP in the LRZ where the LSE’s ZRCs are located...”
o E-1 (69A.9.g (FRAP)) – An LSE that contains ZRCs from Planning Resources
that are not physically located in the same LRZ where the LSE has Demand
may be subject to a Zonal Deliverability Charge, which will be calculated as
described in Section 69A.7.6(b).
o E-2 (69A.11.11 & 69A.11.13(FRAP)) – “A New LSE that uses a FRAP will be
subject to applicable Zonal Deliverability Charges in accordance with Section
69A.7.6(b). ”
o Posted Tariff’s lack of Consistency with MISO’s July 2012 Compliance Filing.
MISO Legal Team is currently working on this issue for clarification.
o MISO will make a compliance filing impacting Module E-2 on October 14, 2013
to address items in FERCs September 12, 2013 Order granting clarification
and conditionally accepting compliance.
o If stakeholders want to get the latest version of the Tariff either go the FERC
website or send an email to MISO to with a request with the latest Tariff
language. Stakeholders raised concerns over not being able to trust what is
posted on the MISO website. MISO is using four color codes to distinguish
between language changes.
6.
PRMR/LCR Discussion T. Kuhn 1:10
o LSE Requirements (“demand”) Planning Reserve Margin Requirements
(PRMR) represent the amount of resource capacity (MW) that must be
procured by an LSE in order to meet the 1-in-10 standard for MISO as a
system, as well as in each Local Resource Zone (LRZ).
o
Resources (supply) Local Clearing Requirement (LCR) represents the amount
of resource capacity (MW) that must be cleared in a particular LRZ in order to
meet the 1-in-10 standard for that zone.
o Planning Reserve Margin Requirements (PRMR)
o PRMR for each LRZ is initially determined by examining MISO’s system
without transmission constraints (“copper sheet”)
o PRMR for each LRZ can be increased, depending upon the LCR for that zone
and its relationship to the initial PRMR
o For this presentation, we’ll refer to the initial PRMR as “PRMR”, and the
modified or final PRMR as “REQT”.
o This means that the PRMR is ultimately set at the initial PRMR or the LCR,
whichever is greater.
o MISO is proposing language designed to maintain 1-in-10 reliability both in the
LRZs and system –wide.
o Proposed changes are being made to make the market more efficient.
Proposed changes are more efficient, at less cost. Proposed changes continue
to pay resources the ACP. Those zones where transmission constraints result
in relatively high LCR continue to clear the same amount of resources as
under the current language, and Load in such zones continues to bear the cost
of any resulting higher capacity prices that result. LCR remains the amount of
resources that must be cleared in each zone, at a minimum, reflective of
meeting local zone resource adequacy.
7. Mock Auction Southern Region:
o Joe Milli reported that MISO accomplished their objective and resolved some
discrepancies.
8. GVTC Requirement New Units
o MISO combined proposal of the 2 options Stakeholders favored.
o Option 2:
o Allow the Asset Owner to receive “provisional UCAPs” for the unit for the
Auction based on its expected GVTC and class average EFORd.
o Asset Owner must submit GVTC by the last business day of May or May 30th
whichever is earlier
o If the UCAP based on the submitted GVTC is lower than the ZRCs that
cleared, the Asset Owner must replace the difference with ZRCs in the same
LRZ
o If the unit clears the auction but is unable to test prior to the above testing
date, the Asset Owner is required to replace the capacity with ZRCs in the
same LRZ that did not clear the PRA until such time as a GVTC can be
submitted
o Option 3
o Allow the Asset Owner to receive “provisional UCAPs” for the unit for the
Auction based on its expected GVTC and class average EFORd
o
o Asset Owner must submit GVTC by last business day of May or May 30th
whichever is earlier
o If the UCAP based on the submitted GVTC is lower than the ZRCs that
cleared, the Asset Owner does not receive ACP for the differential and CONE
will be charged daily for the difference.
o If the unit clears the auction but is unable to test prior to above testing dates,
the Asset Owner will not receive the ACP for the ZRCs until such time as a
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
GVTC can be submitted, with CONE being charge daily until such test is
submitted to MISO.
MISO Proposal: Combine Options 2 and 3
GVTC or resource replacement must be completed by May 30th or last
business day of May whichever is earlier. Applicable to existing Planning
Resources on catastrophic outage during the testing period. written notice of
GVTC delay must be received by officer of company by February 15th prior to
the Planning Year•
type of unit and MW size
estimated date of when testing will be completed
CONE applies if GVTC or replacement of Planning Resource not completed by
due date. Credit for CONE must be made by March 1st
New units must have executed interconnection agreement and registered in
June Commercial Model with June 1st effective date
Must offer requirement applies beginning June 1st of Planning Year.
MISO will file Tariff language by the end of the year to incorporate the testing
window modifications.
Key Decisions Made / Actions Taken:
Summary of Subgroup Reports (if any):
Next Steps/Future Agenda Items:









MISO Internal Group: Long Term RA Discussion
Maintenance Limit
Post Mock Auction Results
MISO Summer Peak
GVTC Requirement New Units
MATS Capacity Credit
Catastrophic Outage Provision
OMS- MISO RA Survey Update
Module E-1, E-2 Auction Discussion






PRMR/LCR Discussion
Mock Auction Southern Region
GVTC Requirement New Units
NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment
2013 Post Summer Assessment
LOLE Preliminary Study Results