lrtp future 1 reliability analysis
TRANSCRIPT
October 19, 2021
Long Range Transmission Planning Workshop
LRTP Future 1 Reliability Analysis
1
Agenda
• Updates on stakeholder communication
• Future 1 reliability solution testing results
• Transfer Analysis study scope for F1 models
• Ongoing efforts and next steps
2
MISO is continuing to engage with stakeholders on multiple
fronts for ongoing reliability analysis
3
MISO Sharefile location: https://misoenergy.sharefile.com/f/fof89d75-4353-4393-bcd2-f543bb3ce5f1
LRTP website: https://www.misoenergy.org/planning/transmission-planning/long-range-transmission-planning/
• Modeling and input files
• Comments on MISO posted filtered list of
reliability issues
• Proposed projects to mitigate the issues
seen on posted results
• Additional area specific system issues
• Provided feedback to LRTP indicative
roadmap
• Proposed alternative solutions
• Reliability study results
• Powerflow models and associated input
files to perform studies and study scope
• MISO proposed Indicative roadmap
projects list and associated parameter files
• Study results as they become available
• Near term and future study plans
• Focus area and important issues
• Technical support to Stakeholders
Feedback receivedInformation shared with Stakeholder
Reliability Assessment involves multiple iterative phases to
identify the issues and test the solutions
4
Solved?
Yes
Solution Testing
• Regionally focused
• Alternatives will draw from Indicative Roadmap and other proposed solution as appropriate to resolve the observed issues
• Compare and choose solutions
Base LRTP Models
• MTEP21 Futures
• Resource Forecast, Retirements, Load
• MTEP20 TA Topology*
• Dispatch Methodology
Issue Identification
• Contingency Analysis
• Impact of Generation siting on results
• Local/Regional
• Additional Scenarios
• Transfer Analysis
• Stability Analysis
Iterative
refinement
No
Synthesize
issuesMitigation
*Adjusted to MTEP21 based on stakeholder feedback
Multiple phases of reliability analysis for basecase powerflow
models for Future 1 model is ongoing
5
Year 20Year 10
Future 1 Future 2 Future 3 Future 1 Future 2 Future 3
Powerflow ModelsPosted for Stakeholder feedback
Contingency Analysis
Transfer Analysis Scope Part of today’s discussion
LRTP Solution refinement On-going
Transfer Analysis Scope and Analysis On-going
In-Progress In-Progress In-Progress In-Progress
Three candidate solutions in current focus resolve severe
reliability issues seen from F1 steady state analysis to date
6
• Reliability values provided by the set of candidate solutions for three areas are being presented today
• Analysis results for additional transmission solution ideas will be presented on next workshops before finalizing the projects
• Ongoing effort
• Issue identification
• Project refinement
• Additional area project justification on stakeholder submitted project ideas.
• Transfer Analysis scenarios scope for F1 models
Central Iowa candidate project mitigates multiple BES reliability issues
for this region Webster- Franklin – Marshalltown – Morgan Valley, Beverley – Sub 92 345 kV
7
Webster Franklin
MarshalltownBeverly
Sub 92
LRTP Solution
Mitigated Issue
• New 345kV line from Webster –
Franklin
• New 345 kV line from Franklin –
Marshalltown – Morgan Valley
• New 345 kV line from Beverly to
Sub 92 Morgan Valley
Existing Transmission
Central Iowa candidate project serves as a core project for this region
by providing numerous reliability values Webster – Franklin – Marshalltown – Morgan Valley 345 kV, Beverley – Sub 92 345 kV
8
• Effectively mitigates multiple 345 kV and 161 kV central Iowa thermal overloading issues for the loss of major West to East and North to South paths.
• Serves as a core project for Iowa region which independently resolves all issues related to NERC single initiating events on a large number of transmission facilities
• Relieves P1*, P2, P4, P5, and P7 loading on 29 branches with pre-project loadings up to 120%
• Relieves P3 and P6 loading on 37 branches with pre-project loadings of up to 127%
• Provides a path to collect and enable future resources sited on central and western Iowa and southern Minnesota region. Additionally, this project helps to deliver the power to South-east Iowa for transmission to further east.
• Options for sharing existing right of way along most of project path.
• Aligns with future regional LRTP expansion plans to extend this corridor out of central Iowa into adjoining states.
*Refer https://www.nerc.com/files/TPL-001-4.pdf for more details on different NERC P type contingencies
Central Iowa Area candidate project is needed to resolve multiple severe
steady state thermal issuesWebster – Franklin – Marshalltown – Morgan Valley 345 kV, Beverley – Sub 92 345 kV
9
No-Project
Case
With
LRTP
Project
Case
No. Limiting Element Max Cont
Loading %
Max Cont
Loading %
1 Emery - Floyd 161 kV 120 94
2 Beaver Creek - Grimes 345 kV 117 93
3 Lundquist - Deere NE 161 kV 114 < 90
4 Colby - Emery 161 kV 108 94
5 Deere Engine - Electrifarm 161 kV 107 < 90
6 Shaulis Rd - Electrifarm 161 kV 106 < 90
7 Blackhawk - Deere Foundry 161 kV 106 < 90
8 Deere NE - Washburn 161 kV 105 < 90
No-Project
Case
With
LRTP
Project
Case
No. Limiting Element Max Cont
Loading %
Max Cont
Loading %
1 Deere Engine - Electrifarm 161 kV 128 94
2 Shaulis Rd - Electrifarm 161 kV 127 92
3 Webster 345/161 kV xfmr 127 < 90
4 Webster - Sub T Ft Dodge 161 kV 122 93
5 Beaver Creek - Grimes 345 kV 117 92
6 Bremer County - Blackhawk 161 kV 116 85
7 Blackhawk - Hazleton 161 kV 115 86
8 Killdeer 345/161 kV xfmr 115 94
Single Contingency N-1-1 Contingency
*Table represents only eight limiting elements with highest loading by % Rate B which are relieved by candidate project. Additional details will be shared with
stakeholders through “Sharefile” posted spreadsheets
Bigstone Area candidate project resolves multiple severe BES reliability
issues in this regionBigStone South – Wahpeton – Fergus Falls 345kV
• New 345kV line from Big
Stone South to Fergus
Falls area
• 345/230 transformers at
Wahpeton and Fergus
Falls
• Tap CapX line near Fergus
Falls
10
LRTP LineMitigated Issue
Big Stone
South
WahpetonFergus Falls
Existing Transmission
Candidate Bigstone area solution resolves thermal and voltage issues
by strengthening the major EHV pathwaysBigStone South – Wahpeton – Fergus Falls 345kV
• Provides EHV pathway to mitigate excessive regional flows during high renewable output
• Mitigates heavy flows seen on 230kV and 115kV system around the Big Stone South Area
• Solves severe voltage issues for heavy loading cases on the Western Minnesota 230kV
• Allows transport of bulk power to the 345kV CapX line between Fargo and the Twin Cities
• Aligns with regional LRTP indicative roadmap solution ideas for further reliable expansion
11
Bigstone Area candidate project is needed to resolve multiple
severe steady state thermal issues
Limiting ElementMax Contingent Loading
Pre LRTP Project*
Max Contingent Loading
Post LRTP Project*
Hankinson – Wahpeton 230 kV 127% 80%
Johnson Junction – Morris 115 kV 164% 98%
Bigstone – Brownsville 230 kV 146% 78%
12
Limiting ElementBase Case
Voltage Pre LRTP
Project
Contingent Voltage
Pre LRTP Project
Base Case Voltage
Post LRTP Project
Contingent Voltage
Post LRTP Project
Wahpeton 115 kV 0.94 0.80 0.99 0.94
Fergus Falls 230 kV 0.95 0.86 0.99 0.96
Audubon 230 kV 0.99 0.87 0.99 0.92
*Table represents only top limiting elements with highest loading by % Rate B which are relieved by candidate project. Additional details will be shared with
stakeholders through “Sharefile” posted spreadsheets
South-east Minnesota candidate project resolves multiple severe BES reliability
issues Wilmarth – North Rochester – Tremval 345 kV
13
Wilmarth
North
Rochester
Tremval
LRTP Solution
Mitigated Issue
• New 345kV line from
Wilmarth to North
Rochester
• New 345 kV line from North
Rochester to Tremval
• Tap existing North Madison
to Briggs Road line at
Tremval
Existing Transmission
South-east Minnesota candidate project provides numerous reliability
values including relieving thermal loading across South Central MNWilmarth – North Rochester – Tremval 345 kV
14
• Parallels a beltline across the southern Twin Cities and provides a path for
West – East flow out of SW MN either to the load center or towards 345 kV
outlets
• Relieves overloads and low voltages mostly across South Central MN,
especially around Wilmarth and Scott County
• Building blocks for addressing MN-WI transfer and stability interface
South-east Minnesota area candidate project is needed to resolve
multiple severe steady state issuesWilmarth – North Rochester – Tremval 345 kV
15
No-Project
Case
With
LRTP
Project
Case
No. Limiting Element Max Cont
Loading %
Max Cont
Loading %
1 Riverwood - Burnsville 115 kV 130 88
2 Wilmarth 345/115 kV xfmrs 126 < 90
3 MN River - Chanhassen 115 kV 123 90
4 Chub Lake - Kenrick 115 kV 122 90
5 Dakota Hgt - Ritter Park 115 kV 121 89
6 Blue Lake - Scott County 345 kV 120 86
7 Shea's Lake 345 - Helena 345 kV 119 87
8 Helena - Chub Lake 345 kV 118 86
All Contingency Types
MISO is continuing to evaluate the effectiveness of the solutions and
will have additional information to share in upcoming workshops
• Solutions proposed today are the
working progress as of mid-October.
• Multiple iterations for different
combination of LRTP solution ideas
including stakeholder submitted ideas
and MISO Indicative roadmap projects
are being tested.
• Further reliability analysis and
additional study results will be shared
with stakeholders as they become
available.
16
Transfer Analysis
17
MISO is exploring transfer analysis scenarios to more fully
capture the variability in system conditions across the footprint
• Transfers capture dispatch patterns reflecting intermittency and geographic
diversity of high renewable scenarios
• Prevailing Weather Patterns
• Changing weather conditions across the footprint
• Future availability of dispatchable resources
• Complements the 7 basecase dispatch conditions
• Captures the increasing Intra-MISO area flow magnitude and frequency
• 5 transfer scenarios currently under review on future 1 models
18
Initial transfer scenarios target areas of concentration of renewables
and the need to import and export from those areas to respond to the
variable nature of these supplies
19
Bubbles represent max capacity of specific unit type in F1
Wind
Heavy Area
High Wind
Generation AreaHigh Wind
Generation Area
