Chapter 4.5 Generation Deliverability Analysis

Chapter 4.5 Generation Deliverability Analysis

MISO performs generator deliverability analysis as a part of the MTEP15 process to ensure continued deliverability of generating units with Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS). Results of the assessment are based on an analysis of near-term (five-year) and long-term (10-year) summer peak scenarios. Analysis results show a total of about 3,530 MW of deliverability is restricted due to constraints in the MTEP15 near-term scenario under MISO functional control and an additional 210 MW is

A total of about 3,530 MW of deliverability is restricted due to constraints under MISO functional control

restricted due to constraints identified on non-transferred transmission facilities and facilities subject to MISO Agency Agreement. More than 7,300 MW are restricted in the long-term 2025 planning scenario. Constraints observed that are restricting generation beyond the established network resource amounts in both scenarios will be mitigated (Figure 4.5-1).

Figure 4.5-1: MTEP15 2020 Generator Deliverability constraint requiring mitigation

Figure 4.5-1: MTEP15 2020 Generator Deliverability constraint requiring mitigation

This analysis revealed 48 constraints that restrict existing deliverable amounts (Table 4.5-1) in the 2020 scenario with 33 constraints requiring mitigation. MTEP projects will be created for the mitigation required to alleviate the constraints identified.

To understand Table 4.5-1:

  • “Overload Branch” is caused by bottling-up of aggregate deliverable generation
  • “Area” is the Transmission Owner of the facility
  • “Map ID” is the approximate location of the overloaded element (Figure 4.5-1)
  • “Mitigation Required” represents constraints that were observed in both the near-term (five-year) and long-term (10-year) analysis.
  • “MW Restricted” is the total amount of Network Resource Interconnection Service that is limited by the overloaded branch.

 

Overloaded Branch Area Map ID Mitigation Required MW Restricted
Ohio River – Iowa Junction 69 kV 210 SIGE 1 49.74
Iowa Junction – Pigeon Creek 69 kV 210 SIGE 2 Yes 34.17
Pigeon Creek – Heidelbach 69 kV 210 SIGE 2 Yes 15.96
Tuscola Bay 34.5/138 kV transformer 218 METC 3 Yes 126.95
Alcona – Alcona Dam 138 kV 218 METC 4 Yes 2.54
Page Avenue 138/46 kV transformer 218 METC 5 Yes 36.60
Felch Rd. three winding transformer 218 METC 6 15.24
Marshalltown Generator to Marshalltown 115/34.5 transformer 627 ITCM 7 Yes 92.75
Marshalltown to Marshalltown Generator 34.5/161 kV transformer 627 ITCM 7 Yes 12.50
Winthrop – Winthrop 69 kV 600 XEL 8 Yes 29.22
Buena Vista – Alta Municipal Tap 69 kV 635 MEC / 652 WAPA 9 74.74
Alta Municipal Tap – Aurelia Tap 69 kV 635 MEC / 652 WAPA 9 74.48
Aurelia Tap – Cherokee North 69 kV 635 MEC 9 73.53
Vinton Muni – Lindahl Tap 69 kV 627 ITCM 10 Yes 4.70
Beaver Channel 161/69 kV transformer 2 627 ITCM 11 Yes 140.35
Stoneman – Nelson Dewey 161 kV 680 DPC / 694 ALTE 12 84.37
Lancaster – Hurricane 69 kV 680 DPC 13 38.70
Hurricane – Mount Hope Tap 69 kV 680 DPC 13 16.95
Lafayette tap – Wissota Beach 69 kV 600 XEL 14 Yes 28.60
Wissota Beach – Cadott Interconnection 69 kV 600 XEL / 680 DPC 14 Yes 28.60
Wissota Hydro – Lafayette tap 69 kV 600 XEL 14 Yes 28.60
Bayfront 88/115 kV transformer 600 XEL 15 3.53
Cannon Falls to Colyville 115 kV 600 XEL 16 Yes 175.58
Maple Lake – Annandale 69 kV 600 XEL / 615 GRE 17 5.60
Cairo – Gibbon 69 kV 600 XEL 18 Yes 12.98
Pleasant Valley B1 34.5/161 kV transformer 600 XEL 19 Yes 75.06
Pleasant Valley B2 34.5/161 kV transformer 600 XEL 19 Yes 75.06
Bent Tree Wind Farm – Bent Tree Wind Farm Tap 34.5/161 kV transformer 1 627 ITCM 20 Yes 84.73
Bent Tree Wind Farm – Bent Tree Wind Farm Tap 34.5/161 kV transformer 2 627 ITCM 20 Yes 84.71
Fox Lake Generator to Fox Lake 13.8/161 kV transformer 627 ITCM 21 Yes 7.02
Cahokia 345 kV Bus 1 – Cahokia 138 kV Bus 4 357 AMIL 22 Yes 257.88
Trigen 13.8/138 kV transformer 356 AMMO 22 3.15
Grand Tower 13.8/138 kV transformer 357 AMIL 23 Yes 45.06
Grand Tower 13.8/69 kV transformer 1 357 AMIL 23 Yes 35.15
Grand Tower 13.8/69 kV transformer 2 357 AMIL 23 Yes 35.15
Ninemile Point – Derbigny 230 kV 351 EES 24 785.43
Ninemile Point – Napoleon 230 kV 351 EES 24 297.31
Nelson – Michigan 230 kV 351 EES 25 Yes 1034.80
Verdine – PPG 230 kV 351 EES 25 Yes 1034.80
Hoxie South AECC – Walnut Ridge 161 kV 327 EAI 26 137.31
Russellville North – Russellville East 161 kV 327 EAI 27 92.97
Grimes – Mt. Zion 138 kV 351 EES 28 Yes 98.19
Grimes 345/138 kV transformer – 2 351 EES 28 Yes 93.88
Grimes 345/138 kV transformer – 1 351 EES 28 Yes 84.69
Mt. Zion – Line 558 Tap 138 kV 351 EES 28 Yes 28.71
Tubular – Dobbin 138 kV 351 EES 28 Yes 22.73
Grimes – Bentwater 138 kV 351 EES 28 Yes 15.11
South Beaumont 138/69 kV transformer 351 EES 29 159.51

Additional 2025 constraints will be monitored in future MTEP studies to determine if mitigation is required through the MTEP generator deliverability process. Appendix D6 lists detailed results for the 2025 constraints and impacted Network Resource Interconnection Service projects.

FERC Order 2003 mandated that “Network Resource Interconnection Service provides for all of the network upgrades that would be needed to allow the Interconnection Customer to designate its Generating Facility as a Network Resource and obtain Network Integration Transmission Service. Thus, once an Interconnection Customer has obtained Network Resource Interconnection Service, any future transmission service request for delivery from the Generating Facility would not require additional studies or Network Upgrades”[1] to be funded by the Interconnection Customer. Constraints identified as needing mitigation were identified in both the near-term 2020 and long-term 2025 planning scenario or occur as a recurring constraint in the long-term planning scenario (Figure 4.5-2). Deliverability was tested only up to the granted network resource levels of the existing and future network resource units modeled in the MTEP15 2020 case.

[1] FERC Order 2003 Final Rule, paragraph 756 

Once an Interconnection Customer has obtained Network Resource Interconnection Service, any future transmission service request for delivery from the Generating Facility would not require additional studies or Network Upgrades

No new interconnection service is granted through the annual MTEP deliverability analysis. Changes to aggregate deliverability could be caused by changes in load and transmission topology.

Figure 4.5-2: MTEP deliverability study process overview

Figure 4.5-2: MTEP deliverability study process overview

The total MW restricted varies in the near term and is summarized by Local Resource Zone (Figure 4.5-3).

Figure 4.5-3: Local resource zones (LRZ)

Figure 4.5-3: Local resource zones (LRZ)

Since MTEP09, MISO has performed annual generator deliverability studies to better monitor the restricted megawatts and Network Resources. The 3,740 MW of restricted deliverability from MTEP15 compares to 3,800 MW in MTEP14, 500 MW in MTEP13, 1,000 MW in MTEP12, 350 MW in MTEP11, 900 MW in MTEP10 and approximately 3,000 MW of restricted deliverability in MTEP09 (Figure 4.5-4).

Figure 4.5-4: Restricted MW identified through MTEP cycles

Figure 4.5-4: Restricted MW identified through MTEP cycles

MTEP14 Constraints Upgrades and Mitigation

MTEP14 identified 3.8 GW of deliverable generation restricted in the near term and out year under MISO functional control and an addition 370 MW of deliverability restricted to 69 kV constraints identified on non-transferred transmission facilities subject to MISO Agency Agreements.

Planned upgrades were identified to mitigate 2,566 MW and MTEP projects were created to resolve an additional 410 MW (Table 4.5-3).

Overloaded Branch Area Percent Overload MW Restricted Mitigation (MTEP ID)
Hemphill – Sabine 1 138 kV  218 METC 104% 123.4 8460
Cobb White – Sternberg 138 kV  218 METC 127% 206.1 8461
Claremont – Layton 138 kV  218 METC 110% 220.2 8540
White Bluff – Keo 500 kV  327 EES-EAI 116% 805.0 8940
Moril – Delcambre Rural 138 kV  351 EES 105% 99.4 4602
Fancy Point – Port Hudson 230 kV 1 and 2  351 EES 101% 65.8 4605
Greenville – Greenville East 115 kV  351 EES 103% 71.2 7898
Cleveland – Tarkington 138 kV  351 EES 102% 25.2 7947
South Beaumont 138/69 kV Transformer  351 EES 110% 77.5 7947
South Beaumont 138/69 kV Transformer  351 EES 109% 77.5 7947
Sabine – Port Neches 138 kV  351 EES 110% 134.4 7947
Sabine 138 – Linde 138 kV  351 EES 106% 84.0 7947
Chlomal – Iowa 69 kV  351 EES 107% 12.0 7960
Rodemacher – East Leesville 230 kV  502 CLEC 106% 129.4 7993
Ottumwa – Bridgeport 161 kV  627 ALTW 107% 115.2 8020
Council Bluffs – Beacon 161 kV  627 ALTW 107% 105.7 8020
Hunter Creek – Tiffin REC 69 kV  627 ALTW 115% 22.0 8111
Tiffin REC – Heartland Tap 69 kV  627 ALTW 109% 22.0 8111
Tiffin – Hunter Creek 69 kV  627 ALTW 121% 40.8 8111
ALTW Tiffin – Tiffin 69 kV  627 ALTW 128% 54.0 8111
Albany – York 161 kV  627 ALTW 101% 30.6 8844
Burlington – South Burlington 69 kV  627 ALTW 127% 168.8 9100
Burlington 4th St – Agency 69 kV  627 ALTW 115% 74.0 9100
West Sub – Isett Ave 69 KV  633 MPW 111% 61.3 9001
Units 7/8/8A SUB 69 KV – Pine St 69 KV  633 MPW 111% 56.1 9021
Pine St – Isett Ave 69 KV  633 MPW 113% 50.2 9022
Tiffin – ALTW Tiffin 69 kV  635 MEC 142% 32.0 8111
Victoria – Rockland Junction 2 69 kV  698 UPPC 107% 2.7 8089
Victoria – Rockland Junction 1 69 kV  698 UPPC 106% 2.3 8089
Rockland Junction – Rockland 69 kV  698 UPPC 107% 2.7 8089
Rockland – Mass 69 kV  698 UPPC 107% 2.6 8089
Rockland Junction – UPPSCO TAP 69 kV  698 UPPC 106% 2.3 8089
Table 4.5-3: Mitigations identified for constraints requiring mitigation from MTEP14

After the MTEP14 report was posted, MISO continued to work with stakeholders for review of the MTEP14 deliverability constraints. Multiple constraints were relieved through submitted model corrections consisting of dispatch corrections and rating changes (Table 4.5-4).

Overloaded Branch Area
Connersville – Connersville 30Th 69 kV  208 DEI
Wisdom to Spencer 69 kV 652 WAPA
Pere Marquette – Lake County 138 kV  218 METC
Sabine 2 – Halsey 138 kV  218 METC
Arklahoma – Tigre SS 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Tigre SS – Panther SS 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Panther SS – Hot Springs – Fountain Lake 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Cheetah – Hot Springs Village 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Hot Springs – Fountain Lake – Cheetah 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Carpenter Dam – Hot Springs South 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Hot Springs East – Butterfield 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Butterfield – Haskel 115 kV  327 EES-EAI
Russellville East – Russellville South 161 kV  327 EES-EAI
Russellville North – Russellville East 161 kV  327 EES-EAI
Newport – Newport Industrial 161 kV  327 EES-EAI
West Memphis 500/161 kV Transformer  327 EES-EAI
Newport Industrial – Newport Air Base 161 kV  327 EES-EAI
Hoxie South AECC – Walnut Ridge 161 kV  327 EES-EAI
Marion Power Plant – Marion 69 kV  361 SIPC
Marion – Marion Power Plant 69 kV  361 SIPC
Layfield – Carroll 230 kV  502 CLEC
Table 4.5-4: Constraints Relieved through model corrections from MTEP14

Proposed Changes for MTEP16

MTEP16 proposes the incorporation of three modifications into the Baseline Generator Deliverability analysis to better align the process for granting Network Resource Interconnection Service through the queue process and the MTEP Baseline Generator Deliverability analysis. The changes were initially presented at the May 2015 Planning Subcommittee meeting. MTEP16 propose that:

  • Energy Resource with Transmission Service Requests mitigation will be specifically identified
  • The “Top 30” list will assign placeholders on a plant basis rather than unit basis
  • Base dispatch will not exceed the sum of the dispatch on a local balancing authority (LBA) basis

Energy Resource with Transmission Service Requests mitigation will be specifically identified. Transition deliverability studies identified deliverable MWs and the remaining were allocated to the non-deliverable bucket. Through transitional studies, MISO emphasized no loss of Transmission Service. In MTEP15 and previous years the TSRs were included in the base case. Mitigation and was not directly identified within Baseline Generator Deliverability process. In MTEP16 constraints identified due to Energy Resources with Transmission Service Requests will require mitigation. The change is being made to ensure that services granted are kept whole concurrently.

The “Top 30” list will assign placeholders on a plant basis rather than unit basis. Historically, through deliverability analysis, generators that contributed to constraints are limited to the most impactful 30 units (some caveat for remote offline generators). In MTEP15, and previously for Baseline Generator Deliverability analysis, the placeholder was assigned based on generators that had separate buses assigned, which is generally on a unit basis. In MTEP16 the placeholder assignment will be based on a plant, rather than a unit. The change is being made to capture generators at the same physical location that are expected to contribute to the same constraints. Previously, units at the same plant may have partially contributed and the remaining portion not participated.

Base dispatch will not exceed the sum of the dispatch on an LBA basis. The goal of deliverability analysis is to ensure that generators are not bottled up. The starting dispatch for deliverability studies is an LBA-level dispatch, which means that Network Resources within individual LBAs dispatched in merit order to serve LBA network load. To the extent that all of the Network Resources are not dispatched in the starting case; the base dispatch will be adjusted to model all Network Resources at the same percentage of output. The percentage may be different for each LBA. This adjustment will ensure that on an LBA basis, extreme exports are not applied causing a potential reduction in Network Resources in another LBA. The deliverability study will then ramp up the Network Resources simultaneously based on impacts to identified facilities. This ensures that the units are not bottled up and will continue to be studied on a footprint-wide basis to internal MISO load.