MISO is requesting feedback on Advanced Stage Queue Projects with Uncertain Affected System Studies (PAC-2022-2).
Please provide feedback by June 30, 2022.
WEC Energy Group appreciates the concerns raised by CGA regarding the completion of Affected System Studies post-GIA execution. WEC Energy Group has experienced the same issue with substantial cost increases to Affected Systems Studies months or even years after execution of the GIA and in one case, more than a year after the project achieved commercial operation. Interconnection and deliverability cost certainty is of paramount importance at the time of the GIA execution, not only to the Interconnection Customer, but also to the regulatory agencies that are required to review the appropriateness of the generation project. We are encouraged with the progress that MISO and SPP have made with their JTIQ study and fully support a similar process for MISO and PJM. The generation interconnection seams issues are even more pronounced with PJM because MISO effectively surrounds the ComEd system of PJM.
In those cases where the Affected System Study is not yet complete at the conclusion of DPP Phase 3, WEC Energy Group recommends that MISO implement a procedure similar to "IC Path #2 (Election)" whereby the Affected System Study must be complete prior to the start of GIA negotiation. The Interconnection Customer should have the ability to decided whether or not to proceed with a GIA until the Affected System studies are complete.
In those cases where a GIA is executed based on a completed Affected System Study that subsequently changes, the Interconnection Customer should have the ability to withdraw consistent to Section 7.6.2.4 of Attachment X. When Affected System Study costs increase beyond a certain limit post-DPP Phase 3, the Interconnection Customer should have the ability to withdraw and receive refund of Milestone payments. We suggest the Affected System cost increase limit should mirror the limit for cost increases in MISO's Network Upgrade costs post-Phase 3 of 50% and more than $20,000 per MW from the Affected System Study cost at the time of the GIA execution.
MidAmerican Energy Company (MEC) supports MISO and stakeholder efforts to decrease generator withdrawals and resulting study delays in the soon-to-be-impacted study groups. Under current tariff, MISO should clarify if increased costs from restudies after DPP 3 results are treated as a substitution of Phase 3 costs in regards to BMM-015 6.2.11 for penalty free withdrawal. Moving forward, MidAmerican supports tariff changes to clarify penalty-free withdrawals resulting from restudies post-DPP. MidAmerican also supports COD extensions for all cycles to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis given Interconnection Customer can demonstrate that construction has been delayed by circumstance beyond their control.
Invenergy greatly appreciates MISO’s effort over the last several years to create an efficient and effective interconnection queue. To protect these improvements, MISO must act to provide relief for projects in DPP 2018 and 2019 cycles facing GIA execution deadlines without visibility into affected system studies.
The relative queue priority of DISIS 2017-002 and its substantial delay breaks a fundamental assumption in MISO’s GIP: the most vital cost information must be known prior to signing a GIA. At GIA execution, interconnection customers have every incentive to get their late-stage projects across the finish line, as each one is the product of years of time, labor and financial resources.However, under the current MISO rules, interconnection customers with projects in DPP 2018 and 2019 will be forced into signingGIAswith no visibility into what may be, and has in recent history been, a large project cost or affected system upgrades. This is a liability for project developerswithout reasonable protections, which many financial partners, rightfully, cannot accept.
The burden of insufficient information is not theoretical: stakeholders are already seeing the fallout of the unprecedented lack of visibility.Projects have been put on hold until SPP affected system study results are complete, clients have had their PPAs cancelled (exacerbating capacity shortages), and projects have been unable to finalize financing due to the tremendous amount of financial risk and uncertainty. If solutions are not sought now, we will undoubtedly see mass late-stage withdrawals, a historic amount of unexecuted GIAs filed, cascading upgrades and potential dropouts, and inefficiencies leading to a waste of staff and stakeholder resources. The fallout can be mitigated by the solutions outlined below.
Every project with a GIA tendered has a dedicated team and enthusiastic clients behind it. Just like MISO has a responsibility to maintain the effectiveness of the interconnection queue, interconnection customers have a responsibility to deliver high-value projects. Invenergy implores MISO to consider the solutions below, in hopes that a broadly beneficial solution could be implemented to avoid queue catastrophe.
1. Invenergy urges MISO to consider a one-time waiverwhich would extend the timeline for GIA execution for DPP-2018 and DPP-2019 projects to April 1, 2023 (expected timeline for SPP Affected Systems results for DISIS-2017-002). The limited waiver would only apply for projects that have not yet executed their GIAs.
Interconnection Customers are being asked to sign their GIAs without their Phase III System Impact Studies (part of which includes Affected Systems) complete, thus being left with the choice of terminating a likely profitable project to avoid unacceptable risk or embrace the risk by pushing forward with a project that may be financially infeasible.
For many, this is an impossible choice, and the GIA deadline will come and go without Interconnection Customer execution. Invenergy is raising the alarm that a wave of unexecuted GIA filings may be on the horizon. The process would undoubtably be time and labor intensive, placing unnecessary burden on MISO staff and interconnection customers, disrupting the interconnection process, and prolonging uncertainty for subsequent interconnection customers.
A one-time waiver would allow projects to sign their GIAs after the expected Affected System outcomes.Further, a waiver would decrease the risk of remaining in the queue and therefore decrease the number of late-stage withdrawals. While a broader narrative has framed IPPs as the sole beneficiaries of reduced late-stage withdrawals, IPP clients and states with renewable energy goals benefit from projects reaching COD as well.
While there is concern that pushing out the GIA for limited projects would “prolong uncertainty” for other interconnection customers, Invenergy would note that arbitration would promulgate far greater uncertainty while the proposed waiver would provide the certainty of better information at GIA execution.
2. If a waiver is not workable, a BPM clarification that Penalty-Free Withdrawals for substantial swings in Affected Systems results post-GIA would offer an increase in certainty and financial viability immediately.
The last few years have seen MISO’s queue transform into an example of efficiency. The thoughtfully designed process assumes that major costs are known when interconnection customers are asked to sign GIAs.
If all results from Phase III System Impact Studies were known for DPP 2018 and 2019, the above BPM clarification would not be necessary and rarely, if ever, used.
Invenergy reiterates that interconnection customers have every incentive to have their late-stage projects operational. Invenergy supports CGA’s proposal for a BPM clarification, which would allow for Penalty-Free Withdrawals post-GIA if Affected Systems results are substantial and cost prohibitive.
The reasoning behind why this proposal would not run counter to the Tariff is sound. Attachment X Section 7.6.2.4 states:
“Milestone payments will be refunded in the event the Interconnection Customer or MHVDC Connection Customer withdraws because the total Network Upgrade cost estimates in the DPP Phase III System Impact Study increased by more than twenty-five percent (25%) and more than $10,000 per MW over the DPP Phase II System Impact Study as the result of Transmission Provider, Affected System or Transmission Owner error.”
Affected systems results are part of the Phase III System Impact Study and are explicitly outlined in the tariff. Removing the Phrase III SIS protection after GIAwhile Interconnection Customers can still be hit with later Phase III SIS impacts does not seem consistent with the intent of having the protection in the first place.
If the language were clarified, this would save projects in DPP 2018 and 2019 from withdrawal due to financial uncertainty. Clarifying this cost cap would be a key provision to maintain partnerships with financial institutions and client contracts.
3. Regardless of BPM clarifications or Tariff Waivers, MISO should provide a non-binding confidence interval study or sign off on Interconnection Customers’ analyses for the reassurance of financial partners.
There is a minimum level of visibility needed to make sound business decisions. Though Interconnection Customers work with financial partners to provide financial estimates, a range of impact or an acknowledgement of reasonable assumptions from MISO could make or break financial support for projects.
While Invenergy understands that MISO does not have control over the speed of its neighbor’s Affected System Studies, MISO does have a responsibility to facilitate an efficient process for its stakeholders, especially considering negative impacts on its own queue due to compromises made on behalf of stakeholders. Thank you for your consideration of the above solutions. Invenergy looks forward to working with MISO to come to workable agreements for Interconnection Customers and their clients.
EDF Renewables appreciates the opportunity to provide stakeholder feedback on the Advanced Stage Queue Projects with Uncertain Affected System Studies (PAC-2022-2) as presented by Clean Grid Alliance (CGA). EDF Renewables supports reform that is directly connected to the status of MISO’s Affected System studies and restudies of advanced stage queue projects.
As stated in our comments filed at FERC in support of the MISO-SPP JOA revisions, EDF Renewables support the recommendation for MISO to review Affected Systems Studies and make changes to address older (2018-2019) queued projects. For projects in these impacted cycles, EDF Renewables is often faced with having to execute a generator interconnection agreement (GIA) 12 to 18 months prior to receiving final Affected System cost responsibility. While the FERC Order approving the MISO-SPP JOA filing between the two RTOs improves most issues around queue alignment between MISO and SPP for later cycles, continued effort is needed to fully solve this problem considering late and drastic finalizations to Affected Systems Studies.
EDF Renewables currently has projects in the MISO DPP-2018 and -2019 cycles that remain lower priority than the SPP DISIS-2017-002 cluster, resulting in the SPP Affected System study results being highly uncertain until the completion of the higher-queued SPP studies. For example, many interconnection customers in the MISO DPP-2018 West cycle have executed GIAs with highly uncertain SPP provided Affected System study results these interconnection customers must wait for SPP to complete the SPP DISIS 2017-002 project cluster before they will receive more realistic results, in many cases long after GIA execution. This restudy may result in increased network upgrade costs on the SPP transmission system and could make some or all of those projects uneconomic (through no fault of the interconnection customers). This scenario could force some interconnection customers to terminate their GIAs rather than risk forfeiting their payments due towards work done in their GIAs, FCAs, and MPFCAs. As a result of the Affected System restudy, EDF Renewables may be forced to pause the development of its impacted projects in these MISO DPP cycles to ensure funds are not committed prior to having affected system cost certainty.
In this effort to address this impact to projects in these affected DPP cycles, EDF Renewables recommends extending the three-year commercial operation deadline set forth in Article 2.3.1 of MISO’s pro forma GIA, and the milestones that correlate with that date when Affected System study results are subject to restudy after a GIA is effective. Second, EDF Renewables recommends revisions or clarification that section 7.6.4.2 in Attachment X of the MISO Tariff allow milestone payments to be refunded if the interconnection customer chooses to withdraw because Affected System upgrade costs exceed certain thresholds after DPP Phase III. For these reasons, EDF Renewables feels these changes would address the identified issues with the Affected System Study process and protect late stage queued projects in the 2018 and 2019 cycles to from significant cost and schedule impacts resulting from the compromise solution to queue priority addressed in the MISO-SPP JOA filing.
IPWG Item 04 LTRP Integration in Generation Interconnection
It was stated in the IPWG that for queues prior to 2022 to be able to use LRTP upgrades as a mitigation that it must be a like for like segment of the LRTP project. We recommend that the MISO modify the BPM to make it clear that LRTP projects may qualify as a mitigation for an upgrade identified as part of an interconnection study only if the LRTP project is identical to the mitigation identified in the interconnection study. Some stakeholders have argued that the LRTP mitigation could be similar to the interconnection upgrade but not identical and result in a similar effect on the constraint. We disagree with this approach and believe it would result in substantial restudies and study delays.
IPWG Item 07 Advanced Stage Queue Projects with Uncertain Affected System Studies
We desire restudies with all cycles that are applicable to SPP’s fuel type dispatch changes (2018 and onward cycles) to get more cost certainty.
MISO states they are opposed to penalty free withdrawal of post GIA cost increases due to Affected System Studies. We disagree with this approach because it is inconsistent with MISO’s practice of allowing penalty free withdrawal for restudies. Affected Systems Studies should be treated the same way as restudies. Under MISO’s described interpretation, a party may withdraw from the queue and increase affected system costs for other parties. In this case the party that caused harm would be refunded their milestone payments while the other customers would be required to pay increased costs. The increased cost could result in a project no longer being viable and hence it should have penalty free withdrawal.
Please see attached comments for Clean Grid Alliance