MTEP15 Chapter 6.1: Planning Reserve Margin

MTEP15 Chapter 6.1: Planning Reserve Margin

The MISO Installed Capacity Planning Reserve Margin (PRMICAP) for the 2015-2016 planning year, spanning from June 1, 2015, through May 31, 2016, is 14.3 percent, decreasing 0.5 percent from the 14.8 percent PRM set in the 2014-2015 planning year (Figure 6.1-1).

The PRMICAP is established with resources at their installed capacity rating at the time of the system-wide MISO coincident peak load. The 0.5 percent PRMICAP decrease was the net effect of several modeling parameters such as changes to the modeling of external regions, changes to load forecast, load forecast uncertainty and resource characteristics.

Figure 6.1-1: Comparison of recent PRM

Figure 6.1-1: Comparison of recent PRM

As directed under Module E-1 of the MISO Tariff, MISO coordinates with stakeholders to determine the appropriate Planning Reserve Margin (PRM) for the applicable planning year based upon the probabilistic analysis of the ability to reliably serve MISO Coincident Peak Demand for that planning year. The probabilistic analysis uses a Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) study that assumes no internal transmission limitations within the MISO Region. MISO calculates the PRM such that the LOLE for the next planning year is one day in 10 years, or 0.1 days per year. The minimum amount of capacity above Coincident Peak Demand in the MISO Region required to meet the reliability criteria is used to establish the PRM. The PRM is established as an unforced capacity (PRMUCAP) requirement based upon the weighted average forced outage rate of all Planning Resources in the MISO Region.

The LOLE study and the deliverables from the Loss of Load Expectation Working Group (LOLEWG) are based on the Resource Adequacy construct per Module E-1. MISO performs an LOLE study to determine the congestion-free PRM on an installed and unforced capacity basis for the MISO system. In addition, a per-unit zonal Local Reliability Requirement (LRR) for the planning year is determined for each Local Resource Zone (LRZ) (Figure 6.1-2), which is defined as the amount of resources a particular area needs to meet the LOLE criteria of one day in 10 years without the benefit of the Capacity Import Limit (CIL). These results are merged with the CIL, Capacity Export Limit (CEL) and Wind Capacity Credit results to form the deliverables to the annual Planning Resource Auction.

.

Figure 6.1-2: Local resource zones (LRZ)

Figure 6.1-2: Local resource zones (LRZ)

2015-2016 Deliverables to the Planning Resource Auction

The PRM deliverables are needed for the Planning Resource Auction (PRA). These deliverables include the PRMUCAP, a per-unit zonal LRR, and CIL and CEL values (Table 6.1-1). The PRMUCAP decreased from 7.3 percent to 7.1 percent due to the modeling parameter changes. More information on the decrease is available in the LOLE report. Under the existing construct, the PRMUCAP is applied to the peak of each Load Serving Entity coincident with the MISO peak. A zonal CIL and CEL for each LRZ was calculated with the monitored and contingent elements reported (Tables 6.1-2 and 6.1-3; Figures 6.1-3 and 6.1-4). The ultimate PRM, CIL and CEL values for a zone could be adjusted within the PRA depending on the demand forecasts received and offers into the auction to assure that the resources cleared in the auction can be reliably delivered.

RA and LOLE Metrics LRZ 1 LRZ 2 LRZ 3 LRZ 4 LRZ 5 LRZ 6 LRZ 7 LRZ 8 LRZ 9
Default Congestion Free PRM UCAP 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1%
LRR UCAP per-unit of LRZ Peak Demand 1.111 1.151 1.137 1.214 1.211 1.108 1.142 1.270 1.112
Capacity Import Limit (CIL) (MW) 3,735 2,903 1,972 4,125 3,899 5,649 3,813 2,074 3,320
Capacity Export Limit (CEL) (MW) 604 1,516 1,477 2,353 0 2,930 4,804 3,022 3,239
Table 6.1-1: Deliverables to the 2015-2016 Planning Resource Auction (PRA)

 

Zone Tier 15-16 Limit (MW)[1] Monitored Element Contingent Element Figure 6.1-3 Map ID Initial Limit (MW)[2] Generation Redispatch Details 14-15 Limit (MW)
MW Area(s)
1 1 3,735 Worth County – Colby 161 kV Barton – Adams 161 kV 1 3,376 2,000 MEC, ITCM, XEL, GRE 4,347
2 1 2,903 Turkey River – Stoneman 161 kV Genoa 161/69kV AT5/AT7 2 2,104 694 WEC, ALTE, MGE, ALTW 3,083
3 1 1,972 Palmyra 345/161 kV transformer Hills – Sub T – Louisa 345 kV 3 727 2,000 XEL, ALTW, MEC 1,591
4 1 3,130 Tazewell 345/138 kV transformer 1 Tazewell 345/138 kV transformer 2 4 850 2,000 NIPS, BREC, AMMO, AMIL, ITCM, MEC 3,025
5 1 3,899 White Bluff – Keo 500 kV Sheridan – Mabelvale 500 kV 5 3,899 Not Applicable 5,273
6 1&2 5,649 Neoga – Holland 345 kV Xenia – Mount Vernon 345 kV 6 5,090 2,000 METC, AMIL 4,834
7 1&2 3,813 Clifty Creek – Trimble County 345 kV Rockport – Jefferson 765 kV 7 2,412 Not Applicable 3,884
8 1 2,074 Mt Olive – Vienna 115 kV Mt Olive – Eldorado 500 kV 8 482 2,000 CLEC, AMMO, EES 1,602
9 1 3,320 Junction City to Bernice 115 kV Mount Olive to El Dorado 500 kV 9 3,320 Not Applicable 3,585
Table 6.1-2: 2015-2016 Planning Year Capacity Import Limits
Figure 6.1-3: 2015-2016 Capacity Import Limit Map

Figure 6.1-3: 2015-2016 Capacity Import Limit Map

 

Zone 15-16 Limit (MW) Monitored Element Contingent Element Figure 6.1-4 Map ID Initial Limit (MW) Generation Redispatch Details 14-15 Limit (MW)
MW Area
1 604 Lakefield – Dickinson 161 kV Webster 345 kV Station 1 604 Not Applicable 286
2 1,516 Zion Station – Zion Energy Center 345 kV Pleasant Prairie – Zion 345 kV 2 1,167 1,188 WEC, MGE, ALTE, CE 1,924
3 1,477 Byron – Cherry Valley 345 kV Red Byron – Cherry Valley 345 kV Blue 3 648 1,610 MEC, NIPS, WEC 1,875
4 4,125 Hutsonville – Robinson 138 kV Newton – Robinson 138 kV 4 4,125 Not Applicable 1,961
5 0[3] Palmyra 345/161 kV Transformer Hills – Sub T – Louisa 345 kV 5 0 Not Applicable 1,350
6 2,930 Clifty Creek – Trimble County 345 kV Rockport – Jefferson 765 kV 6 2,930 Not Applicable 2,246
7 4,804 Benton Harbor 345/138 kV Transformer Benton Harbor – Cook 345 kV 7 4,799 53 METC, ITCT 4,517
8 3,022 Woodward – Stuttgart Ricusky 230 kV Keo – West Memphis 500 kV 8 2,767 2,000 EAI 3,080
9 3,239 White Bluff – Keo 500 kV Sheridan – Mabelvale 500 kV 9 951 2,000 EES, CLEC 3,616
Table 6.1-3: 2015-2016 Planning Year Capacity Export Limits
 Figure 6.1-4: 2015-2016 Capacity Export Limit Map

Figure 6.1-4: 2015-2016 Capacity Export Limit Map

MTEP and Capacity Import and Export Limit Alignment

The Capacity Import and Export Limits are deliverables to the PRM for the Planning Resource Auction and are considered in the development of the MTEP. The initial limits, the limits before applying additional generation redispatch, have been identified in the LOLE study for the 2015-2016 Planning Year and the 2016-2017 Near-Term planning horizon. Three MTEP projects are anticipated to mitigate or alleviate the constraint identified as a limiting element in the LOLE study (Table 6.1-6).

Year LRZ CEL or CEL Monitored Element Contingent Element MTEP Project ID Target Appendix Project Name Min Expected ISD
15-16, 16-17 7 CIL Battle Creek to Argenta 345 kV Argenta to Tompkins 345 kV 4509 A in MTEP15 Argenta – Battle Creek 345kV Sag Remediation and Station Equipment 12/31/2016
15-16, 16-17 5, 9 CIL & CEL White Bluff to Keo 500 kV Sheridan to Mabelvale 500 kV 8940 A in MTEP15 White Bluff – Keo 500 kV: Upgrade terminal equipment 12/1/2016
15-16, 16-17 2 CIL Turkey River to Stoneman 161 kV Seneca to Genoa 161 kV 3828 A in MTEP13 Lore-Turkey River-Stoneman 161kV Rebuild 12/31/2015
Table 6.1-6: Directly Impacting MTEP Projects 

LOLE study CIL and CEL constraints outlined have MTEP Projects near or at one of the facilities listed as a constraint. These projects are not expected to fully mitigate or alleviate the constraint, rather they may affect the identified constraint either positively or negatively (Table 6.1-7).

Year LRZ CEL or CEL Monitored Element Contingent Element MTEP Project ID Target Appendix Project Name Min Expected ISD
15-16, 16-17 7 CIL & CEL Battle Creek to Argenta 345 kV Argenta to Tompkins 345 kV 4149 A in MTEP13 Argenta – Tallmadge 345 kV Sag Remediation 12/31/2015
15-16, 16-17 7 CIL & CEL Battle Creek to Argenta 345 kV Argenta to Tompkins 345 kV 662 A in MTEP09 Weeds Lake 3/31/2016
16-17 1 CEL Briggs Road to Mayfair 161 kV La Crosse to Marshland 161 kV 4360 A in MTEP14 Rebuild Marshland-Briggs Road 161 kV 12/11/2015
16-17 1 CEL Briggs Road to Mayfair 161 kV La Crosse to Marshland 161 kV 7664 A in MTEP15 Rebuild Briggs Road-La Crosse Tap 161 kV 6/1/2016
16-17 1 CEL Briggs Road to Mayfair 161 kV La Crosse to Marshland 161 kV 4685 A in MTEP14 Install Tremval 2nd 161-69 kV Transformer 12/15/2016
16-17 7 CEL Dorr Corners Junction to Beals 138 kV Line Argenta to Talmadge 345 kV 8067 A in MTEP15 Beals Road 138 kV Station Equipment Replacement 6/1/2017
15-16 4 CEL Hutsonville to Robinson Marathon North Tap 138 kV Newton to Robinson Marathon 138 kV 7800 A in MTEP15 Newton-Robinson-1 138 kV Reconductoring 12/1/2015
15-16, 16-17 8, 9 CIL & CEL Montgomery to Clarence 230 kV Montgomery to Winnfield 230 kV 2996 A in MTEP14 Montgomery-Spencer Creek-Palmyra Tap-Sub T-Hills – Increase Ground Clearance 6/1/2015
15-16, 16-17 6 CIL Newton to Casey 345 kV Casey to Neoga 345 kV 4481 A in MTEP14 Casey, West Terminal Equipment 11/15/2015
15-16, 16-17 3, 4, 5 CIL & CEL Palmyra Transformer Montgomery to Spencer 345 kV 3017 A in MTEP11 Proposed MVP Portfolio 1 – Palmyra Tap -Quincy-Meredosia – Ipava & Meredosia-Pawnee 345 kV Line 11/15/2015
15-16 4 CIL Tazewell 138/345 kV Xfr 1 Tazewell 138/345 kV Xfr 2 7824 A in MTEP15 Tazewell 345 kV Breaker Replacements 9/15/2015
16-17 4, 6 CIL & CEL West Point to Lafayette 230 kV Eugene to Caysub 345 kV 4037 A in MTEP13 Lafayette 230 kV Ring Bus – Ph. 2 12/31/2016
16-17 4, 6 CIL & CEL West Point to Lafayette 230 kV Eugene to Caysub 345 kV 3561 A in MTEP14 Lafayette 230-W. Laf. 138 kV Rebuild 6/1/2015
15-16, 16-17 2, 7 CIL & CEL Zion Energy Center to Zion Station 345 kV Zion Station to Pleasant Prairie 345 kV 3898 A in MTEP13 Reconductor Pleasant Prairie-Zion 345 kV 12/31/2020
15-16, 16-17 2, 7 CIL & CEL Zion Energy Center to Zion Station 345 kV Zion Station to Pleasant Prairie 345 kV 8065 A in MTEP15 Construct Southeast Wisconsin – Northeast Illinois 345 kV transmission reinforcement 12/31/2020
Table 6.1-7: Potential Impacting MTEP Projects

Wind Capacity Credit

A wind capacity credit of 14.7 percent was established for the 2015-2016 planning year by determining the Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) of wind resources. The wind capacity credit increased 0.6 percent from the wind capacity credit of 14.1 percent established in the 2014-2015 Planning Year (Table 6.1-5). For more information, refer to the complete 2015 Wind Capacity Credit Report[4].

Table 6.1-5: MISO Local Resource Zones and distribution of wind capacity

For more information related to the LOLE study please refer to the Planning Year 2015 LOLE study report.


[1] The 15-16 Limit represents the limit after redispatch has been considered.

[2] The Initial Limit represents the limit before considering redispatch.

[3] Limit is initially determined by transmission constraint listed above, then is limited by generation