Special NERC Operating Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 5/21/2013 Special NERC Operating Committee Meeting Chairman s Opening Remarks May 15, 2013 Purpose of Meeting and Success Definition WORKING MEETING NO VOTING A Successful Meeting = Identify concerns with specifics as detailed concerns permit MISO to develop specific solutions Be open minded to new ideas for resolving concerns and willing to suggest a solution when raising a specific concern Develop a very clear road map (with specific deliverables) for MISO and the Parties work between the end of the May meeting and the upcoming June OC meeting 2 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY 1

2 5/21/2013 General Logistics and Perspective Respecting Time Allotments General Observers Engagement Leverage PARKING LOT We Will Circle Back Agenda Sequence Changes SERC Leadership and Engagement 3 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY Agenda Sequence Changes Items 3 & 5 SERC Certification moved to the end of Day 2 Need to Complete Item 7 in Day 1 Need to Move Quickly in the first few Agenda Items Respect Timing Leverage Parking Lot The material for the evening of Day 1 and the morning of Day 2 4 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY 2

3 5/21/2013 OC Charter Section 1. Purpose The OC s mission is to provide the ERO (stakeholders, BOT, and staff) with the collective and diverse opinionsfrom the expertsin interconnected systems operation to help the industry arrive at informed decisions Section 2. Functions 1. General forum. Provides a general forum for aggregating ideas and interests regarding the operations of the interconnected bulk power systems in North America. 2. Advice and recommendations. Provides NERC (stakeholders, BOT, and staff) with advice, recommendations, and the collective and diverse opinions on matters related to interconnected operations to help the industry arrive at informed decisions. 5 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY MISO Letter The MISO letter is nothing new just reaffirms the OC s commitment to matters of reliability. However, I would like parties to frame concerns related to particular NERC standards not to define compliance but to better frame the concern to the BES. 6 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY 3

4 5/21/2013 MISO Letter IRO (Coordination among RCs) requires that RCs have operating procedures, process and plans for activities that requirenotification notification, exchangeof information or coordination of actions that may impact other RC areas to support interconnection reliability. Reliability impacts, such as Loop flow activity, are the types of issue that requires coordination among RCs and is thus properly before the OC in approving MISO s Reliability Plan. 7 RELIABILITY ACCOUNTABILITY 4

5 NERC Operating Committee Coordination Study Scope and Study Process Timeline May 15, 2013 Topics Coordination Schedule Extensive Collaboration Premise Reliable Operations Coordinated Operations to Maintain Reliability Enhanced Coordination Remaining Questions 2 1

6 Coordination Schedule Extensive collaboration Great collaboration on studies and congestion management process from AECI, Entergy, Power South, SERC, Southern Company, SPP, and TVA. Many conference calls, face-to-face f meetings over the last several weeks: 4/1/13 MISO, NERC, Entergy, and NERC OC Leadership - discussed next steps and timing for MISO Reliability Plan approval. 4/9/13 3:00 PM-4:00 PM MISO, TVA, AECI, and Entergy. Reviewed the proposed scope and process for the studies. Also discussed agenda for the face-to-face meeting 4/25/13 in Atlanta. 4/10/13 MISO/SOCO call with Todd Lucas to discuss purpose of studies. Todd stated Southern Company would like to participate. p 4/11/13 2:30 PM-4:00 PM MISO call with SPP (Rew, Shipley, and Bressers) to review the proposed scope and process for the studies. Also, discussed possible additional day ahead and real time coordination. Great feedback on scope for studies. SPP provided ideas for real time coordination. 4/15/13 TVA s Tim Smith provided written comments on the scope. 3 Coordination Schedule Extensive collaboration 4/18/13 Send next draft of scope to TVA, AECI, SPP, SOCO, Entergy, and SERC. Request group calls for weeks of 5/6 and 5/13 4/19/13 MISO/SPP 11 AM EDT to noon call to discuss scope, forward/day ahead coordination, and real time congestion management 4/19/ PM MISO/SERC call to review BA integration coordinated study scope 4/23/13 MISO/SOCO 9:30 to 11:30 AM EDT - forward/day ahead coordination, and real time congestion management 4/23/ PM MISO/TVA/AECI/Entergy call - Scope, preliminary results, forward/day ahead coordination, and real time congestion management. 4/25/13 MISO/TVA/AECI/Entergy 10 AM 3 PM Atlanta: Scope, preliminary results, forward/day ahead coordination, and real time congestion management. Try to get understanding di on what can be agreed on to for TVA/AECI to support vote at NERC OC 4/26/13 MISO/SOCO/TVA Planning meeting in Atlanta to cover multiple items including comments on scope. 4 2

7 Coordination Schedule Extensive collaboration 5/3/2013 Call/web cast with TVA, AECI, SPP, SOCO, and SERC EC to review scope and preliminary study results. 5/8/2013 Call/web cast with TVA, AECI, SPP, SOCO, and SERC EC to finalized scope and review results. 5/13/2013 MISO/SOCO 10 AM 3 PM MISO/SOCO Birmingham Forward/day ahead coordination, and real time congestion management 5/15-16/2013 NERC OC Atlanta: Special OC meeting for MISO to address no votes on MISO Reliability Plan. 6/11 12/2013 NERC Operating Committee vote on MISO Reliability Plan 5 Premise Reliable Operations Bulk electric system is reliable and equitable today That is due to standards, tools, processes and procedures NERC TLR used in Eastern Interconnection for congestion management and equity Enhanced protocols (Market flows are provided to IDC, Congestion Management Process developed in early 2000 s to accommodate RTO expansion) Market flow calculations are more accurate than static IDC calculations Enhanced protocols have nearly a decade of demonstrated effectiveness for market to market and market to non-market coordination Coordinated operations will ensure that the bulk electric system continues to operate reliably and equitably post integration Parties have been participating in the coordination effort and answering reliability questions raised to ensure this remains true. 6 3

8 South-North Cut Set Map Current flows 7 Historical Flows- 1/1/2011 to 5/1/2013 South to North flows determined using cut set of major transmission lines from Nebraska to Virginia 8 4

9 Coordinated Operations to Maintain Reliability Identify Flowgates and Operate within Limits Planning coordinated per FERC Order 1000 Coordinated studies are being conducted to identify Coordinated Flowgates needed to maintain reliability - May add flowgates from seasonal studies, outage coordination analysis, next day security analysis, and real time (on demand within 4 hours) - Maintaining flows on Coordinated Flowgates within system operating limits on forward and real time basis maintains reliability. - Enhanced protocols have nearly a decade of demonstrated effectiveness Manages up to 6,000 MWs of flow across Indiana. - Will work well for Entergy/MISO South integration. 9 Coordinated Operations to Maintain Reliability respect limits day ahead Forward/Day Ahead Coordination on Coordinated Flowgates MISO day ahead unit commitment is designed to respect neighbors use of transmission system and system operating limits Recognizes AECI, TVA, and Southern Company generation to load is firm service (NNL). SPP s and MISO s Market Flow is not all firm. Feedback loop in place to reduce TLRs 10 5

10 Coordinated Operations Real Time Congestion Management Process TLR is Eastern Interconnection wide method to manage congestion when flows approach system operating limits. Permits reallocation to allow higher priority service (NNL and firm point-to-point) to be accommodated with lower priority of service (non-firm) to be reduced. Uses 5% Distribution Factor cutoff. MISO willing to work with entities on reciprocal agreements to collaborate on addressing local issues ( < 5% flowgates) that do not meet coordinated flowgate criteria 11 Enhanced Coordination Real Time back up Procedures and visibility Safe Operating Mode (SOM) May be used as backstop to TLR or if TLR is not working fast enough. Currently have SOM procedure with IESO, PJM, and SPP Auto Safe Operating Mode 2nd Backstop to TLR. Conduct annual review for need of Auto Safe Operating Mode Visibility and Situational Awareness MISO will provide in near real time via ICCP, the net MISO South to MISO Midwest flow (adjusted for interchange from MISO south). 12 6

11 Enhanced Coordination Safe Operating Mode Safe Operating Mode (SOM) procedure provides: Method to address a real-time or forecasted abnormal operating condition when normal procedures are not achieving adequate results in a timely manner. The parties jointly and immediately take action to prevent the abnormal operating condition from degrading into an emergency condition. Either party can declare SOM. Operators work together and take actions as if the same organization, operating under the same management and using the same procedures. Parties get together after-the-fact to determine lessons learned, if development of an operating guide is appropriate, or if other procedure changes are needed. 13 Enhanced Coordination Auto Safe Operating Mode As further backstop, MISO proposes automatic invoking of Safe Operating Mode at 110% of Coordinated Flowgate System Operating Limit. TVA, AECI, SPP, and SOCO each designate a flowgate on a day-ahead d basis (may change hourly in current day operations). MISO will activate designated Coordinated Flowgate in its SCED such that should flows reach 110% of SOL, SOM will automatically be initiated and MISO will constrain dispatch to current level. MISO and neighbor will take coordinated steps, per SOM, to return flowgate to < 100% of SOL. Coordinated flowgate should typically y be most limiting OTDF flowgate with actual SOL that flowgate owner uses and operates to. Any dynamic ratings for facility will be updated in near real time. Will require expansion of SOM procedure and regular review of use. 14 7

12 MISO s believes remaining questions are: Should MISO artificially limit its security constrained dispatch before real time system operating limits are approached or reached? Should MISO reduce its non-firm market flows before TLR is initiated and without neighbors non-firm point-topoint transactions being reduced pro rata? 15 8

13 MISO Forward Planning and Operations Seams Coordination MISO Process Objectives Coordination with Neighbors Transmission Service Reliability Forward Market Operation Real-Time TLR/Market Redispatch Inclusive processes with a focus on coordinating information and involvement from impacted parties/neighboring entities DA Unit Commitment, RT Dispatch, & Firm Transmission service based upon historical system use Utilization of existing Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) & market redispatch inherently ensures reliability and comparable treatment of Firm/Non-firm impacts 2 1

14 3 Seams Administration - Process Requests from internal MISO functions or Neighboring Entity initiates coordination with neighboring entities (parties under the CMP) to add new Reciprocally Coordinated Flowgate(s) to the flowgate allocation and market flow calculation processes. Market Flow MISO starts reporting Market Flow data to the IDC within 2 days of successful completion of flowgate allocation calculations. MISO reports market flow data every 5 minutes to IDC. Day-Ahead Market Operators are informed about newly added RCFs and applicable historical-based Firm Flow Limits/Entitlements. Real-Time Operators are informed when new RCFs will be active and available for use to manage congestion using TLR or market-to-market re-dispatch protocols. Transmission Service Total Flowgate Capacity (TFC) established and utilized in AFC calculations respects System Operating Limits ( SOLs ) and Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits ( IROLs ) identified on the Transmission System MISO includes all external Coordinated and Reciprocally Coordinated Flowgates in its AFC Process. Firm Service evaluation utilizes flowgate allocations (based on historic flows) on external Reciprocally Coordinated Flowgates 4 2

15 Outage Coordination - Process Coordinate Outage Schedules Discuss outages with planned start dates within next 30 days expected to impact other RC s. Discussions regarding possible outage schedule conflicts, constraints/overloads on facilities in any RC system, and constraint mitigation options Reliable Operating Plans To the extent a MISO outage creates an overload/constraint on another RC system, the impacted RC is notified. Collaborate on mitigation plans. If an Operating Guide is required for the mitigation, all impacted parties must review and approve the Operating Guide before the outage is approved. 5 ND Reliability Studies - Process Comprehensive analysis identifying internal/external transmission concerns Transmission i Security Analysis Review effectiveness of Operating Guides and Mitigation plans based upon next-day analysis Coordinate with internal/external parties to resolve any reliability concerns. May include additional external FG activation or cancelation of an outage. Reliable Operating Plans To the extent a reliability concern still exists, the Transmission Security engineer will work to resolve those concerns or potentially cancel an associated outage. Final reliability studies are posted Operational data, expected limitations/constraints, and Operating Guides are communicated to RT and Forward Operations 6 3

16 ND Market Operation- Process Day-Ahead Market The Day-Ahead Market is a financial market with voluntary bids as an input Security Constrained Unit Commitment (SCUC) & Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) limits commitment & dispatch to maintain internal transmission limits and external FGs historical-based Firm Flow Limits. Reliability Assessment & Commitment Forecasted inputs are utilized to capture expected load and wind impacts Security Constrained Unit Commitment (SCUC) limits commitment to maintain internal transmission limits and external FGs historicalbased Firm Flow Limits. Final Next-Day Unit Commitment posted 7 Day-Ahead Solution Benchmarking DA Solution RT Solution RT Model The Real-Time model is the basis for benchmarking Day-Ahead solutions (injections i and withdrawals) are checked for feasibility based upon the Real-Time models & sensitivities Solution divergences are identified, reviewed, and mitigated TLR impacts influence future assumptions minimizing future TLRs 8 4

17 External Flowgate Considerations in MISOs Forward Planning and Operations Transmission Service Respects operating limits of external coordinated FGs Outage Coordination/Reliability Studies Includes reliability analysis of internal/external facilities Next-Day Market Operation Limits commitment/dispatch to historical firm limits on external FGs Real-time Operations Subject to curtailment of Market Flow above historical firm limits during congestion/tlr Feedback Processes Ensures alignment with real-world ld observations TLR impacts accounted for and influence future assumptions 9 Appendix 10 5

18 ACRONYMS used in this presentation: 11 Seams Administration Under the Congestion Management Process (CMP), conduct studies, coordinate, and manage active Coordinated Flowgates (CFs) and Reciprocally Coordinated Flowgates (RCFs) required to maintain reliable operation Input/requests received from external neighboring entities and internal MISO groups (Outage Coordination, RT Ops) Calculate allocations to support HISTORICAL based Entitlements & Firm Flow Limits Pre-market integration Balancing Authority definitions - Freeze date of April 1,

19 Seams Administration - Deliverables Active CFs/RCFs and historical limits for use in System Planning and Coordination Transmission Service Analysis AFC process Market Operations Day-Ahead Market unit commitment and dispatch limits Real-time Operations Market Flows available in Interchange Distribution Calculator (IDC) for Transmission Loading Relief 13 Outage Coordination Outage Coordination considers both internal and external transmission facilities during its analysis. MISO RC, SPP RC, and TVA RC (which includes AECI footprint) are parties to the Interregional Outage Coordination Process Agreement which establishes required coordination Exchange outage information via the NERC System Data Exchange (SDX) Weekly conference calls to discuss, review, and coordinate outages planned to start within the next 30 days Operating Guides and other mitigation plans for an outage request should be developed and exchanged with all impacted parties. Must have mutual agreement before implementing an outage. 14 7

20 Outage Coordination - Deliverables Reliable Operating Plans Operating Guides Identified transmission and/or generation limitations Includes activation of new external Flowgates prior to beginning of outage Mitigation plans Congestion management protocols TLR, Market Dispatch Available switching options Commitments - Reliability Must Runs Reviewed and approved by impacted parties prior to approval of an outage. 15 Next-Day Reliability Studies Outage Coordination provides the following for input Operating Guides Potential ti Constraints t Mitigation Plans Next-Day Reliability study objective is to ensure reliable operation based upon expected operational factors. Considers both internal and external transmission facilities during its analysis Full contingency analysis at peak and valley Identify potential thermal & voltage constraints (AC analysis) Ensure existing Operating Guides and mitigation plans are effective 16 8

21 ND Reliability Studies - Deliverables Reliable Operating Plans Summary of planned transmission/generation outages Identified transmission and/or generation limitations (constraints) Operating Guides Mitigation plans Congestion management protocols TLR, Market Dispatch Available switching options Commitments - Reliability Must Runs 17 Next-Day Market Operation Operational inputs are considered sourcing from most recent reliability studies Transmission limitations include MISO & external FGs External FGs are limited to historical-based limits Next-day Unit Commitment & Dispatch performed in a two-step process Day-Ahead Market Voluntary, financial Reliability Assessment & Commitment t Forecasted inputs (Load & Wind), reliability 18 9

22 ND Market Operation - Deliverables Next-Day Unit Commitment plan Expected transmission limitations Planned Net Schedule Interchange Post Operational Review Continuous feedback focused on feasibility of plan with RT solution as a benchmark Modeling gaps and input assumption deviations measured and mitigated each day Daily coordination with Forward Planning and RT Operations (RT Scorecard review) 19 MISO Business Function Contacts Seams Administration Ronald Arness rarness@misoenergy.org Outage Coordination John Harmon; jharmon@misoenergy.org Next-Day Reliability Studies (Transmission Security Planning) Eric Swanson; eswanson@misoenergy.org Next-Day Market Operations (Day-Ahead Market & Reliability Assessment Commitment) Aaron Casto; acasto@misoenergy.org 20 10

23 Congestion Management Process May 15, 2013 Outline History and Background Congestion Management Process Loss of Granularity in IDC Significantly Impacted Facilities Basics: Flowgate Allocations and Market Flows Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Selling Transmission Service Forward Markets Entitlement Process Real Time Congestion Management Managing Impacts Below 5% 2 1

24 Outline History and Background Congestion Management Process Loss of Granularity in the IDC Significantly Impact Facilities Basics: Flowgate Allocations and Market Flows Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Selling Transmission Service Forward Markets Entitlement Process Real Time Congestion Management Managing Impacts Below 5% 3 History and Background When AEP, ComEd and DPL selected PJM as their RTO, this created a jagged seam between PJM and MISO. MISO and PJM were ordered by FERC to develop an operating agreement that would address loop flows caused by the integration of new companies into the PJM footprint. At the time, MISO was a non-market. The Congestion Management Process (CMP) was developed to manage loop flows on a non-market to market seam (i.e. hold MISO harmless from the effects of PJM loop flows). In 2005, MISO and PJM further enhanced the Congestion Management process between two entities with a Market to Market Re-dispatch Agreement Since then CMP has been used as part of the other seams s agreements e that MISO executed (MAPP members, SPP, TVA and Manitoba Hydro). This is also referred to as the Base-line Congestion Management Process In 2008, MISO also included the same Base-line Congestion Management Process as part of its Tariff services under Module F part II. 4 2

25 Congestion Management Evolution 2005 Prior to NERC TLR Seams Congestion Management NERC TLR Seams Congestion Management Market to Market Re-dispatch with compensation NERC TLR 5 Outline History and Background Congestion Management Process Loss of Granularity in the IDC Significantly Impacted Facilities Basics: Flowgate Allocations and Market Flows Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Forward Markets Entitlement Process Real Time Congestion Management Managing Impacts Below 5% 6 3

26 Loss of Granularity in the IDC Consolidation of BAs under market operation results in the loss of granularity in the IDC (transactions between BAs that were formerly tagged no longer appear in the IDC) Markets proposed to address this loss of granularity by reporting their generation-to-load flows (market flows) to the IDC effectively making them eligible for curtailment during TLR. The following issues involving the reporting of market flows are addressed in the CMP On which flowgates do markets have a significant impact and should report their market flows to the IDC (both flowgates under a coordination agreement and flowgates not under a coordination agreement). How the curtailment priority of these market flows are set, How market flows are calculated (there are a number of assumptions that go into the calculation). How markets respond to TLR relief obligations when they are directed to remove some market flow during TLR 3 of 5. 7 Loss of Granularity in the IDC 8 4

27 Significantly Impacted Facilities MISO reports market flows to the IDC where MISO has a significant impact on a flowgate. A significant impact is established through the four coordinated flowgate tests. t Where two or more reciprocal entities pass one of the coordinated flowgate tests, the flowgate is a reciprocally coordinated flowgate (RCF). Historic allocations are used to set the curtailment priority of market flows on RCFs (7-FN, 6-NN, 2-NH). MISO also reports market flows to the IDC where MISO has a significant impact on a flowgate owned edbyt third dpates( parties (non- reciprocal entities). Must still pass the coordinated flowgate tests. Day ahead projected usage is used to set the curtailment priority of market flows on CFs (7-FN, 6-NN). 9 Flowgate Coordination Tests Used to determine if the entity has a significant impact or not A Flowgate where one entity has an significant impact is called Coordinated Flowgate (CF) for that entity. If more than one entity has significant impacts then it is called Reciprocal Coordinate Flowgate (RCF). To determine whether a Flowgate is either a CF or an RCF, coordination tests are performed which include: Study 1) IDC Base Case (using the IDC tool) Study 2) IDC PSS/E Base Case (no transmission outages - offline MUST Study) Study 3) IDC PSS/E Base Case (transmission outages - offline study) Study 4) Control Area to Control Area (no outages included in the base case except for normally open facilities) 10 5

28 Flowgate Allocation Philosophy Conceptually, had the historic BAs (pre-market consolidation) not joined a market, they would have continued to dispatch firm resources to serve load within the BA and would have firm transmission service between themselves and other BAs. Loop flows caused by these uses were considered firm in the IDC and, had the markets never expanded/started, they represent a historic firm use of the system. This historic firm use of the system could be considered a firm entitlement to the markets in that if the markets had never expanded/started, these firm uses would still be on the system. The CMP establishes a benchmark Freeze date around which these principles are applied

29 CMP Basics: Flowgate Allocations Enhancement to the current Available Flowgate Capability calculations Recognize the impact of parallel flows associated with the bulk transmission system Recognize the impact of one party s transmission sales on another party s system Provide a mechanism to determine firm rights for flows from a consolidate wide area tariff Entities under this process respect Flowgate Allocations in the sale of new transmission service 13 Flowgate Allocation Determination Input Historical Firm Flow Calculation Allocation Calculation Selling Transmission Service Set Firm Flow Limit Historic Firm Flows are the Firm Flows that would have occurred if all Control Areas maintained their historic configuration and continued to: GTL: Serve their native load with their historical DNRs as of 4/1/2004 PTP: Import/Export energy at historical levels based upon Firm TSRs as of (6/1/2004 5/31/2005) Flowgate Allocation refers to splitting up the Flowgate capacity among all the impacting entities based on the Historical Firm Flows 14 7

30 CMP Basics: Market Flows Market Entities calculate and report market flows on each CF/RCF that represent the impact of generation in the market serving load in the market. These flows are equivalent to the NNL flows of the individual BAs as well as the tagged transactions between these BAs before the market started. Firmness of market flows is determined based on firm usage of the individual BAs (Flowgate Allocation) before the market start. Market flows above this firm limit are non-firm. The imports and exports to the market are tagged transactions. In the event of TLR, market flows are subject to TLR similar to the tagged transactions and NNL flows from other BAs. 15 Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Firm Flow Limit (for market flows) is determined as the firm allocation less the flows from the scheduled firm transactions. Active firm schedules from IDC are used to calculate impacts (flows) from scheduled transactions. MISO and PJM switched from using (current) Point-to-Point to firm reservations to using schedules in Dec ember Firm Flow Limits are calculated in real time every 15 minutes. This limit defines the firm portion of the market flows. Flows in excess of this limit are considered non-firm. 16 8

31 Outline History and Background Congestion Management Process Loss of Granularity In the IDC Significantly Impacted Facilities Basics: Flowgate Allocations and Market Flows Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Selling Transmission Service Forward Markets Entitlement Process Real Time Congestion Management Managing Impacts Below 5% 17 Selling Transmission Service Allocation for an entity represents the use for generation-to-load flows and firm transmission service. Therefore, the allocations are used in the evaluation of firm transmission i service by the Reciprocal Entities. Allocation represents the Share of the total Flowgate Capacity (STFC) Available Share of the Total Flowgate Capacity (ASTFC)* represents the available capacity to sell additional firm transmission service Each firm TSR goes through a AFC Check and ASTFC check: If AFC is negative, the TSR is refused and no need for ASTFC check If the AFC is positive, ASTFC check is performed before approving the request *ASTFC = Allocation (or STFC) current capacity usage CBM Where, current capacity usage = Gen-to-Load Impacts + Firm Confirmed Reservations Impacts 18 9

32 Outline History and Background Congestion Management Process Loss of Granularity in the IDC Significantly Impacted Facilities Basics: Flowgate Allocations and Market Flows Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Selling Transmission Service Forward Markets Entitlement Process Real Time Congestion Management Managing Impacts Below 5% 19 Forward Markets Entitlement Process: Overview Both the Financial Transmission Right (FTR) Market and Day-Ahead (DA) Market use Entitlement (or Flowgate Allocation) based limits. Constraint Type Internal Limit used in FTR Market Total (Actual Flowgate Limit) Limit used in Day- Ahead Market Total (Actual Flowgate Limit) External RCF MISO s Firm Flow Limit MISO s Firm Flow Limit (Market-to-non-Market) Internal M2M Total PJM s FFE* Total PJM s FFE (MISO monitored) External M2M (PJM monitored) MISO s FFE MISO s FFE *Firm Flow Entitlement (FFE) - The limit of net market flow that market entity can have on a constraint flowgate. In the M2M Coordination process that extra usage is subject to financial settlement

33 Forward Markets Entitlement Process FTR Process FTR process uses historical values to capture MISO s limit on external RCFs and market-to-market flowgates. DA Process DA Process uses Firm Flow Limits that are calculated on a day-ahead basis using current firm PTP reservations to capture MISO s limit on external non-market-to-market RCFs. DA Process uses Firm Flow Entitlements that are calculated on a dayahead basis using current firm PTP reservations to capture MISO s limit on external (PJM) market-to-market flowgates. 21 Outline History and Background Congestion Management Process Loss of Granularity in the IDC Significantly Impacted Facilities Basics: Flowgate Allocations and Market Flows Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Selling Transmission Service Forward Markets Entitlement Process Real Time Congestion Management Managing Impacts Below 5% 22 11

34 Real-Time Congestion Management TLR is the primary process to manage congestion on flowgates that meet the Coordinated Flowgate Criteria. Recognizes the priority of MISO market flows relative to tags and other generation-to-load impacts. Allows for full utilization of the transmission system on a non-firm basis with the ability to return to firm rights when congestion occurs. Provides transparency on constraints that should be considered for future upgrades. 23 Market Flows and TLR process Directional Market Flows are reported to IDC in 3 priority buckets: 7FN (Firm Market flows) ED6 (Non Firm Market flows) ED2 (Non Firm Market flows) ED2 NON-FIRM MF ED6 6-NN ALLOCATION LIMIT FIRM MF 7FN FIRM FLOW LIMIT (FFL) 12

35 Market Flows and TLR Process Based on relief requested by RC IDC calculates relief required from markets and from tagged transactions on a pro-rata share basis. IDC calculates Relief Required from the markets using 5% Forward Market Flows IDC sends Target Market Flow to the markets using 0% Net Market Flows MISO UDS uses Target Market Flow value from IDC to bind and provide relief TLR Levels: TLR Level 3 curtails Non-Firm market flows and tags TLR Level 5 curtails Firm market flows, Firm tags and Gen to load impacts from non-market entities 25 Simplified TLR Example Flowgate Owner : TVA Reciprocal Entities: TVA, MISO TLR Level : 3B Relief Request from RC : 50 MW Assuming Non-Firm ED2 Market Flow and < 6 NN Tag Impacts are zero Assuming Net MISO Market flows down to 0% = 200 MW Forward Impacts down to 5% Market flow Impacts Tag Impacts ED6 10 MW 7FN 15 MW 6-NN Non-Firm 90 MW Firm 100 MW Relief Required from MISO = 10*50/( ) = 5 MW Target MF for MISO = (200) 5 = 195 MW 26 13

36 Market Flows and TLR Process TLR Involving an External Flowgate MISO uses M2M to manage congestion on MISO and PJM flowgatess that are reciprocal between the two RTOs (RCFs). For all other external RCFs, MISO responds to TLR that is used to manage congestion on these flowgates. The IDC determines a relief obligation based on the priority of market flows relative to tags and generation-to-load flows. The IDC sends a target Market Flow that represents the actual market flow minus the relief obligation. MISO will bind its market in order to reach the target. MISO tracks its success at meeting its market flow relief obligations on a daily basis and has a metric that grades its performance on an after-the-fact the fact basis. Failure to meet its relief obligations in real time will result in MISO being assigned a sub-priority relief obligation in the next hour

37 Metrics MISO Uses to Grade Its Performance Meeting Its Relief Obligations The IDC issues after-the-factthe fact reports that indicate whether MISO, PJM and SPP were successful meeting their relief obligations. The criteria for claiming whether MISO was successful meeting its relief obligation comes from the Market Flow Threshold Field Test recommendations submitted to NERC in 2009: Evaluate actual MFs compared to target MFs 30 minutes after the start of TLR. For those relief obligations below 30 MW, MISO must remove the entire relief obligation within 30 minutes to be successful. For those relief obligations above 30 MW, MISO must remove 30 MWs within 30 minutes to be successful. The actual MFs must be within a 5 MW bandwidth of the target to be successful. MISO notifies the issuing RC if it is unable to meet its relief obligation within the first 30 minutes. MISO will ask the issuing RC whether non-market steps are needed (manual redipatch) in order to get the FG under control. 29 Flowgate-on-the-Fly Process Normal process for adding a flowgate requires two business days to add a new flowgate driven largely by the allocation process used to set the market flow limits. For routine flowgates identified in the outage coordination process in advance of the outage, this provides sufficient time to add a new flowgate and have MISO market flows reported to the IDC. For those occasions when a flowgate is needed in a much shorter time frame, a flowgate-on-the-fly process can be utilized that allows a new flowgate to be added in 2-4 hours. Pending the addition of these urgently needed flowgates to the.congestion management process, TLR can be called on a proxy flowgate with similar characteristics to the new flowgate or the TLR Network & Native Load (NNL) process can be used

38 Outline History and Background Congestion Management Process Loss of Granularity in the IDC Significantly Impacted Facilities Basics: Flowgate Allocations and Market Flows Market Flow Firm Limit Quantification Selling Transmission Service Forward Markets Entitlement Process Real Time Congestion Management Managing Impacts Below 5% 31 Managing Impacts Below 5% TVA has raised a concern that where MISO market flows have a significant impact on a flowgate but MISO does not meet the coordinated flowgate criteria, TLR will not be effective to manage congestion on these flowgates. The key driver of this issue is that the coordinated flowgate criteria uses the same 5% threshold as used in the TLR process. While the TLR curtailment threshold could be reduced below 5%, it would require industry approval and would impact tag curtailments as well as market flow/generation-to-load curtailments. As an alternative to changing the TLR curtailment threshold, MISO is willing to develop a redispatch process with TVA and other seams entities that would address the specific situation where MISO has significant market flow impacts on a flowgate but does not meet the coordinated flowgate criteria. This is not a new concept for MISO in that MISO and PJM use a redispatch process to manage market-tomarket flowgates that do not meet the coordinated flowgate criteria

39 MISO Redispatch Proposal Impacts below 5% are not subject to curtailment using the TLR process. MISO proposes p to use a manual redispatch process similar to MISO-PJM market-to-market process with an after-the-fact settlement based on MISO market flows compared to its Firm Flow Entitlement (FFE). Flowgates where MISO has a significant impact (above 25% of the flowgate rating) will be identified in-advance and will be eligible for the redispatch process. When congestion occurs on these flowgates, the managing entity will redispatch its system to manage the congestion and MISO will compensate the managing entity based on the settlement formula that appears in Module F, Part II Seams Service, Section ? 34 17

40 Market Flow Accuracy MISO Analysis NERC Operating Committee Meeting May 15-16, 2013 Background Concerns voiced by some stakeholders: Inaccuracy of MISO Market Flow calculations Unaccounted flows are driven by MISO Market Flow methodology and amount to up to 35% MISO Market Flow inaccuracy and resulting unaccounted flow is a driver for the NO vote on the reliability of the MISO proposed BA plan for some stakeholders 2 1

41 What are Market Flows? Energy flows calculated on a specified Flowgate as a result of dispatch of generating resources serving market load within a Market-Based Operating Entity s footprint Designed to address loss of granularity concern resulting from RTO expansions in (replaced NNL calculations) Currently reported by MISO, SPP & PJM Market flows are divided into Firm and Non-Firm market flows and are reported to IDC for congestion management under the TLR process Market flows are also used for Market-to-Market coordination between MISO and PJM Captures each entity s usage and is a key input to the Market-to-Market Settlement process 3 Market Flow Calculation Methodology for Markets (MISO, PJM & SPP) Native Transfer Export ~ Impact (Internal Gento-load ) Impact (Internal transfers) Import Native MF LBA 1 RTO Transfer MF LBA 2 Import* Export LBA 3 LBA 4 *Effective June 18 th based on FERC s recent approval of the MISO/PJM Filing 4 2

42 IDC Input Calculation Comparison MISO Market Flow (Dynamic Inputs) NNL (Static Inputs) Input- State Estimator Snapshot (5 mins) Frequency- Calculated/Reported every 5 mins Topology- Measured every 5 mins Generation- Actual Dispatch Input- Base IDC updated monthly (Generation and Load) Frequency- Calculated every 15 mins Outages (SDX)- Applied every 15 mins Generation- Scaled pro-rata (regardless of unit commitment status) 5 What Are Unaccounted Flows? Unaccounted Flows Measured Real Time Flows Market Flows & NNL Impacts Tag Impacts 6 3

43 Unaccounted flow claims not supported by data In , MISO in collaboration with the Congestion Management Working Group (PJM, SPP) performed extensive analysis to identify any errors in the Market Flow calculations No Market Flow calculation errors identified Identified import adjustment enhancement (improved MF accuracy) As of the last NERC OC meeting, no data was provided to support the following claims: 35% levels of unaccounted flows MISO Market Flow inaccuracies drive unaccounted flows Being responsive to the concerns voiced, MISO performed data analysis related to unaccounted flows 7 Scope of the Analysis: Measure the magnitude of unaccounted flows Calculation Unaccounted flows = Real Time Flow (NNL impacts Market Flows Tag Impacts) Performed the analysis using both the current market Flow methodology and the new FERC approved methodology (effective 6/18/2013) Data Gathering Real Time flows (From SPP) Market flows, Tag impacts and NNL impacts (From IDC/OATI) Scope 4 time periods over selected days in February and March 2013 FG6009 (Cooper South) and FG5228 (Iatan - Stranger Creek 345kV flo St. Joe Hawthorn 345kV and Lake Rd Alabama 161kV) 8 4

44 Cooper South 3/23/2013-3/26/2013 Impacts Breakdown 3/23/13 1:00 3/23/13 2:25 3/23/13 3:50 3/23/13 5:15 3/23/13 6:40 3/23/13 8:05 3/23/13 9:30 3/23/13 10:55 3/23/13 12:20 3/23/13 13:45 3/23/13 15:10 3/23/13 16:35 3/23/13 18:00 3/23/13 19:25 3/23/13 20:50 3/23/13 22:15 3/23/13 23:40 3/24/13 1:05 3/24/13 2:30 3/24/13 3:55 3/24/13 5:20 3/24/13 6:45 3/24/13 8:10 3/24/13 9:35 3/24/13 11:00 3/24/13 12:25 3/24/13 13:50 3/24/13 15:15 3/24/13 16:40 3/24/13 18:05 3/24/13 19:30 3/24/13 20:55 3/24/13 22:20 3/24/13 23:45 3/25/13 1:10 3/25/13 2:35 3/25/13 4:00 3/25/13 5:25 3/25/13 6:50 3/25/13 8:15 3/25/13 9:40 3/25/13 11:05 3/25/13 12:30 3/25/13 13:55 3/25/13 15:20 3/25/13 16:45 3/25/13 18:10 3/25/13 19:35 3/25/13 21:00 3/25/13 22:25 3/25/13 23:50 3/26/13 1:15 3/26/13 2:40 3/26/13 4:05 3/26/13 5:30 3/26/13 6:55 3/26/13 8:20 3/26/13 9:45 3/26/13 11:10 3/26/13 12:35 3/26/13 14:00 3/26/13 15:25 3/26/13 16:50 3/26/13 18:15 3/26/13 19:40 3/26/13 21:05 3/26/13 22:30 3/26/13 23:55 RATING: 1465 Real Time Flow Uncounted Flow Without Import Adj NNL IMPACT MISO MF PJM MF SPP MF tag impacts 1400 IASCLKNASJHA 3/23/2013-3/26/2013 Impacts Breakdown RATING: Real Time Flow Uncounted Flow Without Import Adj /03/23/01/ /03/23/02/ /03/23/03/ /03/23/05/ /03/23/06/ /03/23/08/ /03/23/09/ /03/23/10/ /03/23/12/ /03/23/13/ /03/23/15/ /03/23/16/ /03/23/18/ /03/23/19/ /03/23/20/ /03/23/22/ /03/23/23/ /03/24/01/ /03/24/02/ /03/24/03/ /03/24/05/ /03/24/06/ /03/24/08/ /03/24/09/ /03/24/11/ /03/24/12/ /03/24/13/ /03/24/15/ /03/24/16/ /03/24/18/ /03/24/19/ /03/24/20/ /03/24/22/ /03/24/23/ /03/25/01/ /03/25/02/ /03/25/04/ /03/25/05/ /03/25/06/ /03/25/08/ /03/25/09/ /03/25/11/ /03/25/12/ /03/25/13/ /03/25/15/ /03/25/16/ /03/25/18/ /03/25/19/ /03/25/21/ /03/25/22/ /03/25/23/ /03/26/01/ /03/26/02/ /03/26/04/ /03/26/05/ /03/26/06/ /03/26/08/ /03/26/09/ /03/26/11/ /03/26/12/ /03/26/14/ /03/26/15/ /03/26/16/ /03/26/18/ /03/26/19/ /03/26/21/ /03/26/22/ /03/26/23/ NNL IMPACT 200 MISO MF SPPMF 0 tag impacts

45 Key Observations MISO Market Flows has the best correlation to the measured RT Flows on these flowgates Levels of unaccounted flows seen on these facilities do not reach the levels being claimed 11 Unaccounted Flows on Cooper South (6009) - Unaccounted Flows not 35%, Improvements expected with new MISO Market Flow (MF) on this Flowgate Frequency 100.0% 90.0% Current MISO MF Calc 0.3% 12.0% 100.0% 90.0% 0% New MISO MF Calc (Effective 6/18/13) 0.3% 3.0% 80.0% 80.0% 70.0% 70.0% 60.0% 60.0% 50.0% 76.9% 100% 50.0% 92.9% 100.0% 40.0% 40.0% 30.0% 0% 30.0% 0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2.2% 8.5% <-10% -10% - 0% Unaccounted Flows in Respect to Rating 0% - 15% 15-25% >25% Total 10.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.4% <-10% -10% - 0% 0% - 15% 15-25% >25% Total Reflects the results from all 4 periods in 2013 RATING: 1465 studied: Feb 10 th, Mar 17 th -20 th, Mar 23 rd -26 th, Mar 29 th Apr 1 st 6

46 Frequency IASCLKNASJHA(5228) Unaccounted Flows % Frequency - Unaccounted Flows less than 15% of rating for 99% of the period studied 100.0% 90.0% Using Current MISO MF Calc 0.4% 100.0% 90.0% Using New MISO MF Calc (Effective 6/18/13) 23.1% 0.4% 80.0% 70.0% 33.7% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 47.2% 100.0% 50.0% 40.0% 61.9% 100.0% 30.0% 0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 3.5% 15.2% <-25% -25% % -15% - 0% 0% - 15% >15% Total 10.0% 0.0% 1.4% 13.2% <-25% -25% % -15% - 0% 0% - 15% >15% Total Unaccounted Flows in Respect to Rating Reflects the results from all 4 periods in 2013 studied: Feb 10 th, Mar 17 th -20 th, Mar 23 rd -26 th, Mar 29 th Apr 1 st RATING: 1195 Unaccounted Flows Drivers & Enhancement Opportunities Drivers Since flowgate impacts can not be directly measured, all impacts must be calculated (Market Flows, NNL, Tags) Static data used to calculate impacts is the more likely source of unaccounted flows due to divergence from measured topology/gen/load in real-time Assumptions used in modeling and in the calculations are inherent factors contributing to the unaccounted and over reported flows (Tags, NNL & Market Flows) Non linear nature of the power system being captured through linear calculations Enhancement Opportunities Expand use of online and dynamic inputs to impact calculations Parallel Flow Visualization 14 7

47 Conclusions Claims of unaccounted flows of 35% and driven by MISO are not supported by the data reviewed MISO analysis portrays a different picture Unaccounted flow is a byproduct of how impacts are calculated. This is industry wide reality and not specific to a particular seam System is operated reliably today even with the existence of unaccounted flows Parallel Flow Visualization should help reduce these unaccounted flows Inaccuracy claims of the MISO Market Flows are unsupported Calculated Market Flows as a key input to the congestion management process has proven to be an effective and reliable tool used to manage the complex MISO-PJM seam since 2004 Integration ti of MISO South will improve the effectiveness of the congestion management process with Market Flows accounting for impacts using dynamic inputs versus static inputs (MISO South NNL and internal tag impacts will be replaced by Market Flow impacts) 15 Appendix 16 8

48 Period 1: 02/10/ Cooper South 2/10/2013 Real Time Flow vs. Unaccounted Flow REAL TIME FLOW Uncounted Flow 0 2/10/13 1:00 2/10/13 1:35 2/10/13 2:10 2/10/13 2:45 2/10/13 3:20 2/10/13 3:55 2/10/13 4:30 2/10/13 5:05 2/10/13 5:40 2/10/13 6:15 2/10/13 6:50 2/10/13 7:25 2/10/13 8:00 2/10/13 8:35 2/10/13 9:10 2/10/13 9:45 2/10/13 10:20 2/10/13 10:55 2/10/13 11:30 2/10/13 12:05 2/10/13 12:40 2/10/13 13:15 2/10/13 13:50 2/10/13 14:25 2/10/13 15:00 2/10/13 15:35 2/10/13 16:10 2/10/13 16:45 2/10/13 17:20 2/10/13 17:55 2/10/13 18:30 2/10/13 19:05 2/10/13 19:40 2/10/13 20:15 2/10/13 20:50 2/10/13 21:25 2/10/13 22:00 2/10/13 22:35 2/10/13 23:10 2/10/13 23: Breakdown Cooper South 2/10/2013 Flows 2/10/13 1:00 2/10/13 1:30 2/10/13 2:00 2/10/13 2:30 2/10/13 3:00 2/10/13 3:30 2/10/13 4:00 2/10/13 4:30 2/10/13 5:00 2/10/13 5:30 2/10/13 6:00 2/10/13 6:30 2/10/13 7:00 2/10/13 7:30 2/10/13 8:00 2/10/13 8:30 2/10/13 9:00 2/10/13 9:30 2/10/13 10:00 2/10/13 10:30 2/10/13 11:00 2/10/13 11:30 2/10/13 12:00 2/10/13 12:30 2/10/13 13:00 2/10/13 13:30 2/10/13 14:00 2/10/13 14:30 2/10/13 15:00 2/10/13 15:30 2/10/13 16:00 2/10/13 16:30 2/10/13 17:00 2/10/13 17:30 2/10/13 18:00 2/10/13 18:30 2/10/13 19:00 2/10/13 19:30 2/10/13 20:00 2/10/13 20:30 2/10/13 21:00 2/10/13 21:30 2/10/13 22:00 2/10/13 22:30 2/10/13 23:00 2/10/13 23:30 REAL TIME FLOW NNL IMPACT MISO MF PJM MF SPP MF Tag impact 9

49 IASCLKNASJHA 2/10/2013 Real Time Flow vs. Unaccounted Flow :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 :00 :30 2/10/13 1 2/10/13 1 2/10/13 2 2/10/13 2 2/10/13 3 2/10/13 3 2/10/13 4 2/10/13 4 2/10/13 5 2/10/13 5 2/10/13 6 2/10/13 6 2/10/13 7 2/10/13 7 2/10/13 8 2/10/13 8 2/10/13 9 2/10/13 9 2/10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/ /10/13 23 Real Time Flow Uncounted Flow 1200 IASCLKNASJHA 2/10/2013 Flows /10/13 1:00 2/10/13 1:30 2/10/13 2:00 2/10/13 2:30 2/10/13 3:00 2/10/13 3:30 2/10/13 4:00 2/10/13 4:30 2/10/13 5:00 2/10/13 5:30 2/10/13 6:00 2/10/13 6:30 2/10/13 7:00 2/10/13 7:30 2/10/13 8:00 2/10/13 8:30 2/10/13 9:00 2/10/13 9:30 2/10/13 10:00 2/10/13 10:30 2/10/13 11:00 2/10/13 11:30 2/10/13 12:00 2/10/13 12:30 2/10/13 13:00 2/10/13 13:30 2/10/13 14:00 2/10/13 14:30 2/10/13 15:00 2/10/13 15:30 2/10/13 16:00 2/10/13 16:30 2/10/13 17:00 2/10/13 17:30 2/10/13 18:00 2/10/13 18:30 2/10/13 19:00 2/10/13 19:30 2/10/13 20:00 2/10/13 20:30 2/10/13 21:00 2/10/13 21:30 2/10/13 22:00 2/10/13 22:30 2/10/13 23:00 2/10/13 23:30 Real Time Flow NNL IMPACT MISO MF SPP MF Tag impact Period 2: 03/17/ /20/

50 Cooper South 03/17/ /20/2013 Real Time vs. Unaccounted Flow Real Time Flow uncounted flow /03/17/02/ /03/17/03/ /03/17/04/ /03/17/05/ /03/17/06/ /03/17/07/ /03/17/08/ /03/17/09/ /03/17/10/ /03/17/11/ /03/17/12/ /03/17/13/ /03/17/15/ /03/17/16/ /03/17/17/ /03/17/18/ /03/17/19/ /03/17/20/ /03/17/21/ /03/17/22/ /03/17/23/ /03/18/00/ /03/18/01/ /03/18/02/ /03/18/04/ /03/18/05/ /03/18/06/ /03/18/07/ /03/18/08/ /03/18/09/ /03/18/10/ /03/18/11/ /03/18/12/ /03/18/13/ /03/18/14/ /03/18/15/ /03/18/17/ /03/18/18/ /03/18/19/ /03/18/20/ /03/18/21/ /03/18/22/ /03/18/23/ /03/19/00/ /03/19/01/ /03/19/02/ /03/19/03/ /03/19/04/ /03/19/06/ /03/19/07/ /03/19/08/ /03/19/09/ /03/19/10/ /03/19/11/ /03/19/12/ /03/19/13/ /03/19/14/ /03/19/15/ /03/19/16/ /03/19/17/ /03/19/19/ /03/19/20/ /03/19/21/ /03/19/22/ /03/19/23/ /03/20/00/ /03/20/01/ /03/20/02/ /03/20/03/ /03/20/04/ /03/20/05/ /03/20/06/ /03/20/08/ /03/20/09/ /03/20/10/ /03/20/11/ /03/20/12/ /03/20/13/ /03/20/14/ /03/20/15/ /03/20/16/ /03/20/17/ /03/20/18/ /03/20/19/ /03/20/21/ /03/20/22/ /03/20/23/ Cooper South 3/17/2013-3/20/2013 Flows 3/17/13 2:00 3/17/13 3:55 3/17/13 5:50 3/17/13 7:45 3/17/13 9:40 3/17/13 11:35 3/17/13 13:30 3/17/13 15:25 3/17/13 17:20 3/17/13 19:15 3/17/13 21:10 3/17/13 23:05 3/18/13 1:00 3/18/13 2:55 3/18/13 4:50 3/18/13 6:45 3/18/13 8:40 3/18/13 10:35 3/18/13 12:30 3/18/13 14:25 3/18/13 16:20 3/18/13 18:15 3/18/13 20:10 3/18/13 22:05 3/19/13 0:00 3/19/13 1:55 3/19/13 3:50 3/19/13 5:45 3/19/13 7:40 3/19/13 9:35 3/19/13 11:30 3/19/13 13:25 3/19/13 15:20 3/19/13 17:15 3/19/13 19:10 3/19/13 21:05 3/19/13 23:00 3/20/13 0:55 3/20/13 2:50 3/20/13 4:45 3/20/13 6:40 3/20/13 8:35 3/20/13 10:30 3/20/13 12:25 3/20/13 14:20 3/20/13 16:15 3/20/13 18:10 3/20/13 20:05 3/20/13 22:00 3/20/13 23:55 Real Time Flow NNL IMPACT MISO MF PJM MF SPP MF tag impacts 1500 IASCLKNASJHA 3/17/2013-3/20/2013 Real Time vs. Unaccounted Flow Real Time Flow Uncouned Flow /03/17/02/ /03/17/03/ /03/17/04/ /03/17/06/ /03/17/07/ /03/17/09/ /03/17/10/ /03/17/11/ /03/17/13/ /03/17/14/ /03/17/16/ /03/17/17/ /03/17/19/ /03/17/20/ /03/17/21/ /03/17/23/ /03/18/00/ /03/18/02/ /03/18/03/ /03/18/04/ /03/18/06/ /03/18/07/ /03/18/09/ /03/18/10/ /03/18/12/ /03/18/13/ /03/18/14/ /03/18/16/ /03/18/17/ /03/18/19/ /03/18/20/ /03/18/21/ /03/18/23/ /03/19/00/ /03/19/02/ /03/19/03/ /03/19/05/ /03/19/06/ /03/19/07/ /03/19/09/ /03/19/10/ /03/19/12/ /03/19/13/ /03/19/14/ /03/19/16/ /03/19/17/ /03/19/19/ /03/19/20/ /03/19/22/ /03/19/23/ /03/20/00/ /03/20/02/ /03/20/03/ /03/20/05/ /03/20/06/ /03/20/07/ /03/20/09/ /03/20/10/ /03/20/12/ /03/20/13/ /03/20/15/ /03/20/16/ /03/20/17/ /03/20/19/ /03/20/20/ /03/20/22/ /03/20/23/ IASCLKNASJHA 3/17/2013-3/20/2013 Flows 2013/03/17/02/ /03/17/03/ /03/17/04/ /03/17/06/ /03/17/07/ /03/17/09/ /03/17/10/ /03/17/11/ /03/17/13/ /03/17/14/ /03/17/16/ /03/17/17/ /03/17/19/ /03/17/20/ /03/17/21/ /03/17/23/ /03/18/00/ /03/18/02/ /03/18/03/ /03/18/04/ /03/18/06/ /03/18/07/ /03/18/09/ /03/18/10/ /03/18/12/ /03/18/13/ /03/18/14/ /03/18/16/ /03/18/17/ /03/18/19/ /03/18/20/ /03/18/21/ /03/18/23/ /03/19/00/ /03/19/02/ /03/19/03/ /03/19/05/ /03/19/06/ /03/19/07/ /03/19/09/ /03/19/10/ /03/19/12/ /03/19/13/ /03/19/14/ /03/19/16/ /03/19/17/ /03/19/19/ /03/19/20/ /03/19/22/ /03/19/23/ /03/20/00/ /03/20/02/ /03/20/03/ /03/20/05/ /03/20/06/ /03/20/07/ /03/20/09/ /03/20/10/ /03/20/12/ /03/20/13/ /03/20/15/ /03/20/16/ /03/20/17/ /03/20/19/ /03/20/20/ /03/20/22/ /03/20/23/30 Real Time Flow NNL IMPACT MISO MF SPPMF tag impacts 11

51 Period 3: 03/23/ /26/ Cooper South 3/23/2013-3/26/2013 Real Time vs. Unaccounted Flow 3/23/13 1:00 3/23/13 2:25 3/23/13 3:50 3/23/13 5:15 3/23/13 6:40 3/23/13 8:05 3/23/13 9:30 3/23/13 10:55 3/23/13 12:20 3/23/13 13:45 3/23/13 15:10 3/23/13 16:35 3/23/13 18:00 3/23/13 19:25 3/23/13 20:50 3/23/13 22:15 3/23/13 23:40 3/24/13 1:05 3/24/13 2:30 3/24/13 3:55 3/24/13 5:20 3/24/13 6:45 3/24/13 8:10 3/24/13 9:35 3/24/13 11:00 3/24/13 12:25 3/24/13 13:50 3/24/13 15:15 3/24/13 16:40 3/24/13 18:05 3/24/13 19:30 3/24/13 20:55 3/24/13 22:20 3/24/13 23:45 3/25/13 1:10 3/25/13 2:35 3/25/13 4:00 3/25/13 5:25 3/25/13 6:50 3/25/13 8:15 3/25/13 9:40 3/25/13 11:05 3/25/13 12:30 3/25/13 13:55 3/25/13 15:20 3/25/13 16:45 3/25/13 18:10 3/25/13 19:35 3/25/13 21:00 3/25/13 22:25 3/25/13 23:50 3/26/13 1:15 3/26/13 2:40 3/26/13 4:05 3/26/13 5:30 3/26/13 6:55 3/26/13 8:20 3/26/13 9:45 3/26/13 11:10 3/26/13 12:35 3/26/13 14:00 3/26/13 15:25 3/26/13 16:50 3/26/13 18:15 3/26/13 19:40 3/26/13 21:05 3/26/13 22:30 3/26/13 23:55 Real Time Flow Uncounted Flow Cooper South 3/23/2013-3/26/2013 Flows 3/23/13 1:00 3/23/13 3:00 3/23/13 5:00 3/23/13 7:00 3/23/13 9:00 3/23/13 11:00 3/23/13 13:00 3/23/13 15:00 3/23/13 17:00 3/23/13 19:00 3/23/13 21:00 3/23/13 23:00 3/24/13 1:00 3/24/13 3:00 3/24/13 5:00 3/24/13 7:00 3/24/13 9:00 3/24/13 11:00 3/24/13 13:00 3/24/13 15:00 3/24/13 17:00 3/24/13 19:00 3/24/13 21:00 3/24/13 23:00 3/25/13 1:00 3/25/13 3:00 3/25/13 5:00 3/25/13 7:00 3/25/13 9:00 3/25/13 11:00 3/25/13 13:00 3/25/13 15:00 3/25/13 17:00 3/25/13 19:00 3/25/13 21:00 3/25/13 23:00 3/26/13 1:00 3/26/13 3:00 3/26/13 5:00 3/26/13 7:00 3/26/13 9:00 3/26/13 11:00 3/26/13 13:00 3/26/13 15:00 3/26/13 17:00 3/26/13 19:00 3/26/13 21:00 3/26/13 23:00 Real Time Flow NNL IMPACT MISO MF PJM MF SPP MF tag impacts 12

52 IASCLKNASJHA 3/23/2013-3/26/2013 Real Time vs. Unaccounted Flow 2013/03/23/01/ /03/23/02/ /03/23/03/ /03/23/05/ /03/23/06/ /03/23/08/ /03/23/09/ /03/23/10/ /03/23/12/ /03/23/13/ /03/23/15/ /03/23/16/ /03/23/18/ /03/23/19/ /03/23/20/ /03/23/22/ /03/23/23/ /03/24/01/ /03/24/02/ /03/24/03/ /03/24/05/ /03/24/06/ /03/24/08/ /03/24/09/ /03/24/11/ /03/24/12/ /03/24/13/ /03/24/15/ /03/24/16/ /03/24/18/ /03/24/19/ /03/24/20/ /03/24/22/ /03/24/23/ /03/25/01/ /03/25/02/ /03/25/04/ /03/25/05/ /03/25/06/ /03/25/08/ /03/25/09/ /03/25/11/ /03/25/12/ /03/25/13/ /03/25/15/ /03/25/16/ /03/25/18/ /03/25/19/ /03/25/21/ /03/25/22/ /03/25/23/ /03/26/01/ /03/26/02/ /03/26/04/ /03/26/05/ /03/26/06/ /03/26/08/ /03/26/09/ /03/26/11/ /03/26/12/ /03/26/14/ /03/26/15/ /03/26/16/ /03/26/18/ /03/26/19/ /03/26/21/ /03/26/22/ /03/26/23/55 Real Time Flow Uncounted Flow IASCLKNASJHA 3/23/2013-3/26/2013 Flows 2013/03/23/01/ /03/23/03/ /03/23/05/ /03/23/07/ /03/23/09/ /03/23/11/ /03/23/13/ /03/23/15/ /03/23/17/ /03/23/19/ /03/23/21/ /03/23/23/ /03/24/01/ /03/24/03/ /03/24/05/ /03/24/07/ /03/24/09/ /03/24/11/ /03/24/13/ /03/24/15/ /03/24/17/ /03/24/19/ /03/24/21/ /03/24/23/ /03/25/01/ /03/25/03/ /03/25/05/ /03/25/07/ /03/25/09/ /03/25/11/ /03/25/13/ /03/25/15/ /03/25/17/ /03/25/19/ /03/25/21/ /03/25/23/ /03/26/01/ /03/26/03/ /03/26/05/ /03/26/07/ /03/26/09/ /03/26/11/ /03/26/13/ /03/26/15/ /03/26/17/ /03/26/19/ /03/26/21/ /03/26/23/00 Real Time Flow NNL IMPACT MISO MF SPPMF tag impacts Period 4: 03/29/ /01/

53 Cooper South 3/29/2013-4/1/2013 Real Time vs. Unaccounted Flow Real Time Uncounted Flow /03/29/01/ /03/29/02/ /03/29/03/ /03/29/04/ /03/29/05/ /03/29/06/ /03/29/08/ /03/29/09/ /03/29/10/ /03/29/11/ /03/29/12/ /03/29/13/ /03/29/15/ /03/29/16/ /03/29/17/ /03/29/18/ /03/29/19/ /03/29/20/ /03/29/22/ /03/29/23/ /03/30/00/ /03/30/01/ /03/30/02/ /03/30/03/ /03/30/05/ /03/30/06/ /03/30/07/ /03/30/08/ /03/30/09/ /03/30/10/ /03/30/12/ /03/30/13/ /03/30/14/ /03/30/15/ /03/30/16/ /03/30/17/ /03/30/19/ /03/30/20/ /03/30/21/ /03/30/22/ /03/30/23/ /03/31/00/ /03/31/02/ /03/31/03/ /03/31/04/ /03/31/05/ /03/31/06/ /03/31/07/ /03/31/09/ /03/31/10/ /03/31/11/ /03/31/12/ /03/31/13/ /03/31/14/ /03/31/16/ /03/31/17/ /03/31/18/ /03/31/19/ /03/31/20/ /03/31/21/ /03/31/23/ /04/01/00/ /04/01/01/ /04/01/02/ /04/01/03/ /04/01/04/ /04/01/06/ /04/01/07/ /04/01/08/ /04/01/09/ /04/01/10/ /04/01/11/ /04/01/13/ /04/01/14/ /04/01/15/ /04/01/16/ /04/01/17/ /04/01/18/ /04/01/20/ /04/01/21/ /04/01/22/ /04/01/23/ Cooper South 3/29/2013-4/1/2013 Flows /03/29/01/ /03/29/02/ /03/29/03/ /03/29/04/ /03/29/05/ /03/29/06/ /03/29/08/ /03/29/09/ /03/29/10/ /03/29/11/ /03/29/12/ /03/29/13/ /03/29/15/ /03/29/16/ /03/29/17/ /03/29/18/ /03/29/19/ /03/29/20/ /03/29/22/ /03/29/23/ /03/30/00/ /03/30/01/ /03/30/02/ /03/30/03/ /03/30/05/ /03/30/06/ /03/30/07/ /03/30/08/ /03/30/09/ /03/30/10/ /03/30/12/ /03/30/13/ /03/30/14/ /03/30/15/ /03/30/16/ /03/30/17/ /03/30/19/ /03/30/20/ /03/30/21/ /03/30/22/ /03/30/23/ /03/31/00/ /03/31/02/ /03/31/03/ /03/31/04/ /03/31/05/ /03/31/06/ /03/31/07/ /03/31/09/ /03/31/10/ /03/31/11/ /03/31/12/ /03/31/13/ /03/31/14/ /03/31/16/ /03/31/17/ /03/31/18/ /03/31/19/ /03/31/20/ /03/31/21/ /03/31/23/ /04/01/00/ /04/01/01/ /04/01/02/ /04/01/03/ /04/01/04/ /04/01/06/ /04/01/07/ /04/01/08/ /04/01/09/ /04/01/10/ /04/01/11/ /04/01/13/ /04/01/14/ /04/01/15/ /04/01/16/ /04/01/17/ /04/01/18/ /04/01/20/ /04/01/21/ /04/01/22/ /04/01/23/30 Real Time NNL IMPACT MISO MF PJM MF SPP MF tag impacts IASCLKNASJHA 3/29/2013-4/1/2013 Real Time vs. Unaccounted Flow Real Time Flow Uncounted Flow /03/29/01/ /03/29/02/ /03/29/03/ /03/29/04/ /03/29/06/ /03/29/07/ /03/29/08/ /03/29/09/ /03/29/11/ /03/29/12/ /03/29/13/ /03/29/14/ /03/29/16/ /03/29/17/ /03/29/18/ /03/29/19/ /03/29/21/ /03/29/22/ /03/29/23/ /03/30/00/ /03/30/02/ /03/30/03/ /03/30/04/ /03/30/05/ /03/30/07/ /03/30/08/ /03/30/09/ /03/30/10/ /03/30/12/ /03/30/13/ /03/30/14/ /03/30/15/ /03/30/17/ /03/30/18/ /03/30/19/ /03/30/20/ /03/30/22/ /03/30/23/ /03/31/00/ /03/31/01/ /03/31/03/ /03/31/04/ /03/31/05/ /03/31/06/ /03/31/08/ /03/31/09/ /03/31/10/ /03/31/11/ /03/31/13/ /03/31/14/ /03/31/15/ /03/31/16/ /03/31/18/ /03/31/19/ /03/31/20/ /03/31/21/ /03/31/23/ /04/01/00/ /04/01/01/ /04/01/02/ /04/01/04/ /04/01/05/ /04/01/06/ /04/01/07/ /04/01/09/ /04/01/10/ /04/01/11/ /04/01/12/ /04/01/14/ /04/01/15/ /04/01/16/ /04/01/17/ /04/01/19/ /04/01/20/ /04/01/21/ /04/01/22/ IASCLKNASJHA 3/29/2013-4/1/2013 Flows Real Time Flow /03/29/01/ /03/29/02/ /03/29/03/ /03/29/04/ /03/29/05/ /03/29/06/ /03/29/08/ /03/29/09/ /03/29/10/ /03/29/11/ /03/29/12/ /03/29/13/ /03/29/15/ /03/29/16/ /03/29/17/ /03/29/18/ /03/29/19/ /03/29/20/ /03/29/22/ /03/29/23/ /03/30/00/ /03/30/01/ /03/30/02/ /03/30/03/ /03/30/05/ /03/30/06/ /03/30/07/ /03/30/08/ /03/30/09/ /03/30/10/ /03/30/12/ /03/30/13/ /03/30/14/ /03/30/15/ /03/30/16/ /03/30/17/ /03/30/19/ /03/30/20/ /03/30/21/ /03/30/22/ /03/30/23/ /03/31/00/ /03/31/02/ /03/31/03/ /03/31/04/ /03/31/05/ /03/31/06/ /03/31/07/ /03/31/09/ /03/31/10/ /03/31/11/ /03/31/12/ /03/31/13/ /03/31/14/ /03/31/16/ /03/31/17/ /03/31/18/ /03/31/19/ /03/31/20/ /03/31/21/ /03/31/23/ /04/01/00/ /04/01/01/ /04/01/02/ /04/01/03/ /04/01/04/ /04/01/06/ /04/01/07/ /04/01/08/ /04/01/09/ /04/01/10/ /04/01/11/ /04/01/13/ /04/01/14/ /04/01/15/ /04/01/16/ /04/01/17/ /04/01/18/ /04/01/20/ /04/01/21/ /04/01/22/ /04/01/23/30 Real Time Flow NNL IMPACT MISO MF SPPMF tag impacts

54 Coordinated Balancing Authority Expansion Reliability Study NERC Operating Committee Meeting May 15, 2013 May 15,2013 NERC OC Overview of Presentation Status of Coordination Effort Scope of Work Analysis Next steps/timeline May 15, 2013 NERC OC 2 1

55 Coordinated Study MISO and neighboring entities are collaborating on a coordinated study intended to identify facilities to which the proven congestion management processes (CMP) will be applied The scope of this coordination effort has three phases: Phase I Identify facilities from multiple sources for testing against Coordinated Flowgate Criteria Phase II Test facilities against Coordinated Flowgate (CF) Cit Criteria i and dmarket tflow impacts Phase III Discuss and develop as needed agreements to address facilities not passing the CF test but with significant market flow impact May 15, 2013 NERC OC 3 Coordinated Study Status Summary The scope document for this process has seen multiple iterations and incorporates input from all parties through May 10 th Market simulations under various agreed upon scenarios have been performed Analysis to date has identified 106 flowgates for testing and has completed testing on those flowgates Preliminary results shared with study participants on 5/3 and 5/8 May 15, 2013 NERC OC 4 2

56 Scope of Work Phase I The Phase I process gathered and tested the list of FG eligible for coordination via the CMP (703 to date) 472 Flowgates currently in the NERC Book of Flowgates where MISO, TVA, SPP or SOCO are listed as RC 79 Flowgates from TVA Study 46 Flowgates requested for coordination by AECI 106 Flowgates identified in the Phase I (assuming no application of CMP) SOCO and AECI have nominated several other facilities to be tested (~1600) May 15, 2013 NERC OC 5 Phase I Simulation Scenarios Identified flowgates from a range of system conditions identified by the participants: 2014 Spring load with high wind generation 2014 Summer peak with high natural gas fired generation due to low gas prices 2014 Summer case reflecting substantial temperature differences between MISO Midwest and MISO South regions Additional scenarios noted in scope for future review Study cases sent to AECI, SPP, TVA and PowerGem (consultant for TVA) for review Received updates from AECI, SOCO, SPP and TVA; some were received on 5/7. Results based on data received by Friday 5/3 May 15, 2013 NERC OC 6 3

57 Phase II Coordinated Flowgate Tests Apply 2 tests to determine eligibility of flowgates identified in Phase I for Coordinated Flowgate status Perform Flowgate Coordination Tests (5% test) Perform Market Flow Impact Test (25% Test) Performed analysis of the 25% test for all flowgates that did not meet the Flowgate Coordination Test (5% test) Analysis completed 5/10 Results based on information received by May 3 rd May 15, 2013 NERC OC 7 Phase II Coordinated Flowgate Tests Flowgates meeting criteria become input to MISO s Congestion Management Process Flowgates in NERC Book of Flowgates Additional flowgates nominated by adjacent parties Market flow impact test (Requires additional Agreement) Coordinated FG and Market flow impact criteria MISO Congestion Management Process May 15, 2013 NERC OC 8 4

58 Phase II 25% Market Flow Analysis Performed analysis on all three cases (Summer, Spring and Temperature Difference) to determine the MISO Market Flow on the following o Flowgates that did d not meet the Flowgate Coordination Test: 91 Phase I Flowgates 48 Passed the 25% Market Flow (MF) Test 12 AECI Flowgates nominated earlier this year for coordination 7 Passed the 25% MF Test 42 TVA Flowgates from the TVA study 18 Passed the 25% MF Test May 15, 2013 NERC OC 9 Congestion Managed Case Summary Total FG tested: 703 FG Passing the Coordinated Flowgates 5% test for automatic inclusion in CMP: 249 Simulations repeated with the Congestion management Process applied (market flow curtailment on all CF passing tests) Under all simulations all loadings are managed to within ratings or overloads are not due to market flows, with the exception of 4 facilities (bullet 3 on next slide) Simulation shows that t the MISO Congestion Management Process which works well today will continue to ensure reliability post-integration May 15, 2013 NERC OC 10 5

59 Congestion Managed Case Detailed Breakdown 42 facilities initially indicated loadings above ratings 4 of these were modeling anomalies The constraints were appropriately managed down to 100% of the rating during the SCED. Area interchange is not enforced during SCED to allow optimization on a pool basis. Following the SCED, the cases are re-solved with area interchange enforced and the local area interchanges updated to reflect the actual intra-miso flows while maintaining the overall MISO net interchange. This results in MISO area swings re-adjusting slightly to accommodate for losses, causing difference in flows (1% or less). 34 of these were overloaded in the reference pre-integration case 24 Base Case Overload where the MISO Flow results in less than 2MW of incremental flows 5 Base Case Overloads with minimal MISO Market Flow - less than 5% 1 Base Case Overload with MISO Market flow of 10% of the rating 4 loaded at 98% but with very low MISO market flows impact (5% ) These facilities appear to be highly loaded today and in any event have very little impact from MISO generation even with thousands of MW of transfer being modeled 4 facilities did not pass the 5% CF test, but did pass the 25% test These could be the subject of Phase III discussion on how to manage FG not passing the 5% test but with significant market flows as a percentage of rating May 15, 2013 NERC OC 11 Ongoing and Future Coordination Review and incorporate updates received from study participants in study cases as appropriate Perform additional studies as needed to identify facilities to be tested under congestion management processes Evaluate AECI and SOCO flowgates for CF criteria Received 1186 flowgates from Southern for evaluation; indicated that list not fully vetted and could change Received 487 flowgates from AECI Run coordinated flowgate and market flow tests on these facilities Parties can also nominate additional facilities as necessary for coordinated flowgate evaluation May 15, 2013 NERC OC 12 6

60 Timeline Projected milestones Ongoing coordination, studies By June 11, complete AECI and SOCO flowgate evaluation June 11 NERC OC review and vote September SERC BA Certification December 19 Operations as consolidated BA 13 May 15, 2013 NERC OC 7

61 MISO Reliability Plan Entergy Comments NERC OC May 15 16, 16, 2013 Atlanta, GA Jim Case, PE Background MISO is seeking to expand its current and approved reliability plan to include Entergy integration MISO s reliability plan is similar to that used by others including TVA, SPP, and other neighboring entities Propose to expand the proven reliability plan to include broader region On March 22, the NERC OC approved MISO s Reliability Plan for Reliability Coordination for additional entities in the Southern Region but at that time did not approve MISO s Reliability Plan for its Balancing Authority Area expansion to incorporate Entergy into the MISO market. Reasons provided d for previous No votes on Bl Balancing Authority Area expansion: Concerns regarding loopflows, which have also been raised in various FERC dockets Concerns regarding short time for review and need for additional studies given the size of Entergy s integration into MISO NERC OC will vote again on Balancing Authority Area expansion at June 11 meeting 1

62 Entergy s Perspective Entergy supports the Operating Committee process and the current schedule for allowing additional time for review, analysis and discussion of the Reliability Plan Concerns regarding additional studies and time for review are being addressed through the Operating Committee process and in time for the June 11 meeting MISO has worked diligently with interested parties to address these concerns MISO s Reliability Plan should be evaluated based on reliability considerations, not economic issues such as loopflows and compensation NERC OC jurisdiction over Reliability Plans is limited and will soon expire NERC responsibility is reliability, FERC jurisdiction over markets, loopflow, compensation Loopflow concerns are primarily economic issues not relevant to the Reliability Plan The Committee should not vote on loopflow issues pending at FERC While Entergy believes the loopflow concerns raised by some parties are primarily economic issues, Entergy has no objection to addressing those concerns through the additional studies and Operating Committee discussions being held prior to June 11 MISO Reliability Plan and Congestion Management Processes MISO s Reliability Plan uses same processes that have proven adequate over time NERC approved process uses TLR to manage congestion between regions Studies identifyadditionalcoordinated flowgatestoto be managed to ensure reliability No evidence that NERC TLR process has failed to maintain reliability or that the standard reliability processes are dependent on the size of integration Entergy would support development of one or more Congestion Management processes for flows not captured in TLR Less than 5%; Facilities below 100 kv Examples: Incorporating feedback from real time congestion into MISO day ahead commitment, consistentlyworking to reduce congestion, safe operating mode Entergy is willing to support modifications to the NERC TLR process that may address loopflow concerns, but such modifications must be applied equitably MISO has shown willingness to work with others to reach a reasonable compromise to satisfy concerns in an equitable manner 2

63 MISO Market Expansion TVA Reliability Concerns and Coordinated Study Preliminary Results May 15, 2013 NERC Operating Committee Nate Schweighart Tennessee Valley Authority 1 Background MISO 1000 MW tie MISO South Generation - 56,000 MW Load - 36,000 MW Deliverable from Entergy to MISO AccordingtoMISO: 48,500 MW 2 1

64 TVA s Reliability Concerns 1. Analysis shows significant impact on TVA facilities 40% of the new MISO transfers flow across the TVA system Majority of those cannot be mitigated by IDC and CMP 2. High risk of sudden and uncontrollable reliability issues MISO real time SCUC and SCED ignore neighboring system limits 3. Unlimited non firm market flow forces the Eastern Interconnect into TLR 3 or above All coordinated study cases showed overloaded facilities Non firm impact below 5% is considered firmer than firm 3 TVA s Reliability Concerns 4. The current transmission system was not planned to handle these large flows Historically the interconnection limit has been 1000 MW between Entergy and MISO Planners need time to analyze flow impacts greater than the historical limit 5. Unlimited, unknown, and uncoordinated market flow impacts create difficulty planning a reliable transmission system in the future Shouldwe be planningfor 3000or 5000MWtransfers? Are the transfers from MISO South to MISO or MISO to MISO South? 6. Current Data Coordination from MISO is inadequate Current industry models don t include a market wide dispatch MISO doesn t create a firm flow market dispatch case 4 2

65 Preliminary Results - Coordinated Study 2014 Spring 5600 MW flow MISO to MISO South 2014 Summer 1600 MW flow MISO South to MISO 2014 Temp Difference 4000 MW flow MISO South to MISO 105 Neighboring facilities over 100% loading 43 Overloaded neighboring facilities where TLR won t work Long term Transmission Service Requests and Generator Interconnection Requests would be required to fix these impacts in order to maintain system reliability. Shouldn t MISO be held to the same standard? 5 MISO Market Flow 4000 MW going from MISO South to MISO Sweet Gum Flats Pineville 161 kv (flo) Volunteer Phipps Bend 500 kv 223 MW Rating (Summer) >5% Impacts: 0 MW <5% Impacts: 97 MW 43% 97 MW MISO Market Flow No help from CMP or IDC processes Impact is firmer than firm 6 3

66 MISO Market Flow 4000 MW going from MISO South to MISO LaFayette Summer Shade 161 kv (flo) Bristow Tap Glasgow Tap 161 kv 228 MW Rating (Summer) 63% 143 MW >5% Impacts: 0 MW <5% Impacts: 143 MW MISO Market Flow No help from CMP or IDC processes Impact is firmer than firm 7 MISO s Congestion Managed Case MISO s study results show less impacts in their Congestion Managed Case. The study does not match what occurs on the system in realtime. In the congestion managed case, MISO puts neighboring system s RCF flowgates in its SCED process MISO does NOT include neighboring flowgates in its real time SCED In the congestion managed case, MISO redispatches all market flow impacts down to 0% MISO only responsible for redispatching market flow impacts greater than 5% and only when a TLR 3 or greater is called TVA made a proposal to MISO asking them to include our impacted flowgates in their real-time SCED process, such as the congestion managed case implies. MISO didn t agree to that solution. 8 4

67 NERC Reliability Processes Transmission system reliability is maintained through required NERC processes that are designed to: Analyze the changing transmission system Verify adequate equipment and processes are in place Provide multiple layers of reliability safeguards 10 year 1 year 2 day ahead Day ahead Real time Transmission Planning Operations Planning Operations Real time TPL Standards Long term TSR 1 Outage analysis Short term TSR 2 2 Hourly Non firm Next day analysis 3 4 TLR Process RC/TOp 5 1. Neighboring systems haven t planned for the large impacts 2. No Transmission Service Requests needed between MISO/MISO South 3. MISO doesn t limit non firm market flow impacts on neighboring entities 4. No firm market flow dispatch model available 5. TLR process does not catch the majority of impacts 9 Realistic Timelines Needed Current coordinated study is on a very accelerated time line Two days to look at starting cases One day to look at results summary Haven t received the current study cases and input files from MISO Seams agreements need to be developed True coordinated planning studies conducted Long term solutions need to be tested and implemented Enhanced data exchange needs to be established 10 5

68 Collaborative Solution Needed TVA desires to continue to work with MISO and other impacted entities such as: AECI, LGEKU, Power South, Southern, and SPP to resolve these reliability impacts. A process must be put in place such that all significant MISO market flow impacts can be: Predicted, Monitored, Limited, andmitigated in the planning, operations planning, next day and real time horizons in order to continue to maintain system reliability. 11 6

69 MISO Market Expansion Issues NERC Operating Committee May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. Chris Bolick 1 Major Points NERC OC should address the MISO Market expansion since it is a reliability plan issue Neighboring systems should not be operated in an unstudied state Current method of congestion management is not adequate for MISO s proposed market expansion May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 2 1

70 MISO Reliability Plan Issue MISO monitors internal constraints by: IDC look ahead for SOL s considering Interchange Transactions Real time Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) Other tools identified in the plan Reliability Plan relies on TLR being called by external non market entities to maintain reliability Issue: Is the proposed plan acceptable given the magnitude of uncoordinated transfers for MISO South integration? May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 3 Coordination Timeline April 2011 AECI and others asked MISO to evaluate integration November 2012 Additional conversations and request for study March 2013 NERC OC vote on reliability plan May 2013 First study results scope of study finalized May 10. Issue: Should the system be operated in an unstudied state with transfers >1000 MW? May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 4 2

71 Uncoordinated Transfers AECI data review shows that MISO transfers impact 487 AECI flowgates for consideration Example flowgate on AECI system: May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 5 Enon-Ethlyn 161 (Montg-Spencer345) May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 6 3

72 Results of 3000MW Transfer (S to N) Enon to Ethlyn 161 increases by 85MW (41% of the rating) MISO Transfer distribution tion factor is low 2.92% NO MISO Market Flows greater than 5% impact MISO Market Net Flow less than 5% impact 66% of the rating AECI Generation Net Flow 2% of the rating May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 7 Impact of Unstudied Transfers MISO transfers impact most AECI flowgates with less than 5% distribution factor 91% of AECI flowgates tested have more MISO market flow than AECI generation flow TLR and re dispatch of AECI generation ineffective RC s next directive? Conclusion: Transfers above today s limit of 1000MW must be studied and addressed in near term and long term horizons May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 8 4

73 Adequacy Reliability Tenets Maintenance Operations May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 9 Summary NERC OC should address the MISO Market expansion since it is a reliability plan issue Neighboring systems should not be operated in an unstudied state Current method of congestion management is not adequate for MISO s proposed market expansion May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 10 5

74 Questions? May 15, 2013 Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. 11 6

75 MISO Reliability Plan concerns NERC Operating Committee May 2013 Bruce Rew, PE 1 SPP and MISO Interface SPP and MISO have an existing Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) that provides terms and conditions ofadjacent operations and planning MISO and Entergy proposed consolidation has one tie equal to 1,000 MW, SPP has 6,000 MW of tie lines with MISO South MISO/Entergy study has shown that over 2,000 MW will be transferred with hurdle rates in place and; MISO has stated that over 4,000 MW expected to flow at times; 7,000 MW possible using SPP and MISO tie MISO and SPP have been working on improvements to flow impacts for some time prior to Entergy 2 1

76 SPP s Reliability Concerns (April 26 Letter) 1. High level of unreported flow on SPP flowgates 2. High risk of sudden and uncontrollable reliably issues due to large amounts of dispatchable generation across combined footprint 3. High levels of parallel flows with <5% impacts 4. Uncontrolled overloading could result in running out of ramping up/down causing over current situation 5. Increased utilization by MISO of SPP s transmission system will impact ability to properly plan reliability operations and utilization of the infrastructure investments 3 Real Time MW Flow gate loading A0 A1 A2 A3 Unaccounted Flows Other Tagged Impacts IDC (not SPP) GTL Non Markets PJM Market Availability of data to calculate the break down of the flow gate loading Manual gathered by SPP Staff Snapshots of NERC IDC A4 MISO Market A5 A6 SPP Market SPP Tagged Impacts Available in Real time Archived by SPP. Market flows calculated every 5 15 min Tagged impacts calculated every 15 min 48 2

77 Lake Road to Alabama Example Flowgate is LAKALASTJHAW 5382 Lake Road to Alabama is a 161 kv line in the Kansas City area with St. Joseph to Hawthorn a 345 kv line Recent examples show: High level of unreported flows Market dispatch effects Insufficient relief provided through IDC and dispatch capability of those that are getting relief assigned Need for improved flow impact identification Lake Road Alabama 161 kv 200 SOL= Unaccounted flows 60 70% Real Time Flow SPP MKT Total Accounted for Impacts 0 50 Accounted flows other than SPP Market; Only 1 2 MW curtailable

78 7 Cooper South Area Example Flows dramatically change in a short period of time Example shows a 300 MW swing in MISO flows in less than an hour; Rating is 1365 MW Significant coordination has taken place with MISO to improve ability to identify and respond to rapid changes on SPP but better results needed Following slide shows improvement that MISO has agreed to implement Improvement will, at times, account for over 100 MW of previously unaccounted for flow 8 4

79 COOPER_S UnaccountedFlows 15 30% Real Time Flow SPP MKT Total Accounted for Impacts (A1+A2+A3+A4+A5+A6) Accounted flows other than SPP Market. 0 SPP Cooper South Flowgate 10 5

80 Acceptable Solutions to Reliability Concerns From April 26 Letter 1. Improving accuracy of market flow calculations to reduce the amount of unreported flow on flowgates. 2. Permanent interface constraint should be established between MISO Midwest and MISO South in the MISO market solution. 3. SPP believes that MISO should report market flow impacts that are greater than 3% for selected SPP flowgates that have a high level of less than 5% impacts from the combined MISO and Entergy market dispatch 4. SPP believes that a permanent interface constraint should be activated between MISO Midwest and MISO South in the MISO market solution that will have Violation Relaxation Limits (VRL) set so that ramp up and ramp down does not have a higher priority than interface loading. 11 SPP and MISO s market flow calculations Each RTO submits its calculated market flow Market flow calculation methodologies are not the same which is permitted in the JOA At times Market flow calculations account for limited flows on constrained flowgates as shown by the Lake Road Alabama 161kV example Improvements e have been made but more is needed Two primary concerns in calculations explained 12 6

81 Market Flow Calculation Logic Import Tag Flow gate LBA1 Exporter Market Transfer flow LBA3 Exporter LBA2 Exporter LBA4 Importer Steps Market Flow Calculation 1. Adjust for Import Tags 2. Adjust for Export Tags 3. Cl Calculate l impact of GTL of all individual LBA s 4. Calculate impact of the transfer flow between LBA s SPP concerns Export Tag LBA5 Importer LBA6 Exporter a) Applied granularity Step 1 and Step 2 b) Accuracy of Step MW Import MISO Adjustment approach Prior to adjustment Market 1000 MW Import After adjustment Market Parallel Flow in Real Time LBA1_North 5000 Gen 5000 Load 1000 MW Transfer Little or No Parallel Flow captured in Market Flow LBA1_North 4500 Gen 4500 Load Little or No Transfer Flow captured in Market Flow LBA2_South 5000 Gen 5000 Load 1000 MW Export LBA2_South 4500 Gen 4500 Load 1000 MW Export 14 7

82 1000 MW Import SPP Adjustment approach Prior to adjustment Market 1000 MW Import After adjustment Market Parallel Flow in Real Time LBA1_North 5000 Gen 5000 Load 1000 MW Transfer Majority of Parallel Flow captured in Market Flow LBA1_North 5000 Gen 4000 Load 1000 MW Transfer Captured by Market Flow LBA2_South 5000 Gen 5000 Load 1000 MW Export LBA2_South 4000 Gen 5000 Load 1000 MW Export 15 MISO Transfer logic Parallel Flow not accurately captured LBA1 Exporter Transfer flow not accurately captured Market LBA3 Exporter LBA2 Importer Weighted LSF Importing LBA s LBA4 Importer The current MISO MFC logic will calculate the impact of the transfer flow within the BA Area by adding up the impact of individual resources to the weighted LSF of all importing LBA s. See blue dot on left in the graph. We believe this logic will not accurately capture the impact of the transfer flow from LBA1 to LBA5 and there for will not accurately represent the impact of the GTL of the BA area on the Neighboring flow gates. The current MISO logic is more accurate for flow gates close to exporting LBA s and not accurate for flow gates close to importing LBA s. Flow gate LBA5 Importer LBA6 Exporter SPP recommendation of using the higher of a calculation that is granular on the Exporting LBA side and a calculation that is granular on the Importing LBA side will improve the overall accuracy of Market Flow calculations 8

83 MISO Transfer logic Parallel Flow not accurately captured LBA1 Exporter Transfer flow not accurately captured Market LBA3 Exporter LBA2 Importer Weighted LSF Importing LBA s LBA4 Importer LBA6 Exporter MISO/Entergy BA consolidation will provide for greater external flowgate errors as flow calculations get performed Flow gate LBA5 Importer Violation Relaxation Limit Market solution engines prioritize ramping requirements over interface loading If a flowgate loads up when a market is running out of ramp, it will use units that could continue to load interface to supply required ramp needs If Cooper South loads up, units could continue to increase flows if only available for ramp needs Propose to have MISO recognize SPP flowgate that would prioritize interface loading at 110% 18 9

84 Next Steps Continue working with the NERC OC to ensure the reliability of the bulk power system Develop appropriate process that mitigates reliability impacts from the MISO/Entergy Balancing Authorities integration in the operations and planning time frames Appropriate time should be allowed to ensure system is adequately studied to resolve reliability concerns 19 10

85 MISO Market Expansion Issues Southern Company Perspective May 15, 2013 NERC Operating Committee Todd Lucas Southern Company Reliability Considerations Significant changes occurring in the near term MISO BA consolidations/control Centers/Processes Major transmission & generation resource changes Significant changes in power flows and reliability constraints in the region Disconnect between the way the system has been planned & constructed and which it would be operated in MISO s proposal. Dramatic shift from coordinated, scheduled transactions between BAs to uncoordinated/unstudied transfers in a large aggregated BA Essential for reliability that transitions are thoroughly assessed & managed in an orderly, coordinated fashion Experience with resulting power flows & constraints, as well as new reliability processes and responsibilities. 1

86 Reliability Considerations MISO South and MISO North are distinctly different electrical systems which have not been planned to reliably dispatch as a single BA The two areas are not directly connected, but share a 1000 MVA contract path Most interchange will flow through neighbors systems Proposed Operation differs dramatically from how these systems MISO (Ameren) have been planned, designed, & constructed AECI Entergy TVA Reliability Considerations Basis for coordinated planning & reliability assessments has been the dispatch of individual BA s network resources serving their respective network loads. Transmission planning, system design & construction have been based on these modeling & dispatch assumptions. Systems have not been planned or constructed t to operate with an aggregated MISO market dispatch 2

87 Reliability Considerations Losing detail & coordination Today All transactions from Entergy (MISO South) to other regions are coordinated and scheduled Transmission planners/grid operators assess reliability for their own systems, and coordinate with other activities and uses Proposed MISO South MISO North transfers not coordinated or scheduled with neighbors Leads to decreased situational awareness & increased burden on operators to react to unscheduled/unanalyzed transfers Today Both transfers coordinated and scheduled with TVA Proposed Not coordinated. Curtailments in real-time Reliability Considerations Extensive generation and transmission construction is currently underway in preparation for the implementation ti of EPA MATS rules in April Major changes in new transmission & generation will be implemented during this period which will alter historic power flow patterns and transmission capabilities. Extensive reliability assessments of MATS related activities have been performed, but these assessments have not considered aggregated operations within MISO South or with MISO North 3