2017 OMS MISO Survey Results June 2017

Transcription

1 2017 OMS MISO Survey Results Furthering our joint commitment to regional resource assessment and transparency in the MISO region, OMS and MISO are pleased to announce the results of the 2017 OMS MISO Survey June 2017

2 The 2017 OMS MISO survey projects sufficient resources to manage resource adequacy risk In 2018, changes in resource commitment and decreased demand lead to a regional surplus The region is projected to have 2.7 GW to 4.8 GW resources in excess of the regional requirement, based on responses from over 96% of MISO load Decreases in demand forecast leads to a lower resource adequacy risk than previously projected 2018 summer peak forecasts decreased 2.5 GWs from 2017 projections Regional 5 year growth rate is 0.5%, down from 0.8% last year Beyond 2018, continued focus on load growth variations and generation retirements will reduce uncertainty in future resource adequacy assessments 2

3 Understanding Resource Adequacy Requirements Load serving entities within each zone must have sufficient resources to meet load and required reserves Surplus resources may be used by load serving entities with resource shortages to meet reserve requirements 3

4 Existing resources, potential retirements, and new resources create a range of resource balances Projected Regional Capacity Position in Installed Capacity (ICAP) GW (% Reserves) 6.6 (21.0%) 7.3 (21.6%) 7.0 (21.3%) Potential New Capacity Potentially Unavailable Resources Committed Capacity Projections 4.8 (19.6%) (20.0%) 1 day in 10 PRM (15.8%) (17.9%) (18.9%) (18.3%) (17.9%) (16.3%) Regional outlook includes projected constraints on capacity, including Capacity Export Limits and the Sub-regional Power Balance Constraint These figures will change as future capacity plans are solidified by load serving entities and state commissions. Potential New Capacity represents 35% of the capacity in the final stage of the MISO Generator Interconnection queue, as of May 11, Potentially Unavailable Resources includes potential retirements and capacity which may be constrained by future firm sales across the Subregional Power Balance Constraint 4

5 Regional capacity balances increased largely due to lower demand forecasts Regional 2018 Outlook Committed Capacity Projection Variations since 2016 OMS MISO Survey In GW (ICAP) Forecasted Regional Deficit: 2016 OMS-MISO Survey Forecasted Load Reductions Increased Reserve Requirement due to Higher Forced Outage Rates New Resources since 2016 Decreased Availability of Existing Resources since 2016 Increased Availability of Existing Resources since 2016 Forecasted Regional Surplus: 2017 OMS- MISO Survey 5 New resources include resources with newly signed Interconnection Agreements and new Load Modifying Resources Decreased availability results from new retirements and more binding transfer limitations Increased availability results from deferred retirements and internal resources with reduced commitments to non-miso load

6 Activity in Illinois resulted in much of the year-over-year regional change; continued action is required to achieve forecasted balances Zone 4 (Illinois) 2018 Outlook Committed Capacity Projection Variations since 2016 OMS MISO Survey In GW (ICAP) Forecasted Zone 4 Deficit: 2016 OMS-MISO Survey Forecasted Load Reductions Increased Reserve Requirement due to Higher Forced Outage Rates New Resources since 2016 Increased Availability of Existing Resources since 2016 Net Zonal Transfers to non-zone 4 loads Forecasted Zone 4 Surplus: 2017 OMS- MISO Survey 6 New resources include resources with newly signed Interconnection Agreements and new Load Modifying Resources Increased availability results from deferred retirements and internal resources with reduced commitments to non-miso load Positions include reported inter-zonal transfers, but do not reflect other possible transfers between zones

7 Demand forecast variation creates risk for forwardlooking resource adequacy projections Projected Capacity Position in ICAP GW (% Reserves) Potential Capacity Projections Committed Capacity Projections 1 day in 10 PRM 6.6 (21.0%) 7.3 (21.6%) 7.0 (21.3%) 4.8 (19.6%) (20.0%) (17.9%) 3.9 (18.9%) 3.2 (18.3%) 2.6 (17.9%) 0.7 (16.3%) 2017 Survey As Reported 1 day in 10 PRM (19.3%) 4.3 (19.3%) 3.9 (19.0%) 2.8 (18.0%) (17.5%) (16.1%) 1.7 (17.3%) 0.2 (16.1%) -0.5 (15.6%) -2.4 (14.1%) Potential Capacity includes potential new capacity and potentially unavailable resources 2017 Survey with 2016 Load and Requirement

8 Future resource ranges will shift as planned generation interconnections are firmed up Potential Generation Additions, in GW Not included in regional or zonal totals Not yet submitted Final studies not included in potential capacity Signed agreements Non-ready projects Final studies included in potential capacity Included in potential capacity Included in committed capacity 8 Wind and solar resources are represented at their expected capacity credit Non-ready projects will be deemed withdrawn, as of June 15th, with an option to move to final studies

9 In 2018, regional surpluses are sufficient to cover areas with resource deficits 2018 Outlook, ICAP GW (% Reserves) 4.8 (19.6%) 2018 Outlook (ICAP GW) to to 1.5 One day in ten PRM (15.8%) 2.7 (17.9%) 0.9 to to to to to 1.1 Potential Capacity Projection Committed Capacity Projection MN, MT, ND, SD, West WI East WI and Upper MI to -0.7 IA IL MO IN Lower MI and KY AR LA and TX 10 MS Regional surpluses and potential resources are sufficient for all zones to serve their deficits while meeting local requirements. Positions include reported inter-zonal transfers, but do not reflect other possible transfers between zones Exports from Zone 1 were limited by the zone s Capacity Export Limit to 0.6 GW Results include load, but not identified resources, from some non-jurisdictional load in Zone 5 Exports from Zones 8, 9, and 10 were limited by the Sub-regional Power Balance Constraint to 1.2 GW 9

10 Continued focus on load growth variations and generation retirements will reduce uncertainty around future resource adequacy assessments 2022 Outlook, ICAP GW (% Reserves) 2022 Outlook (ICAP GW) 5.4 (20.0%) to to to to to to to 1.5 One day in ten PRM (15.8%) 0.7 (16.3%) Potential Capacity Projection Committed Capacity Projection MN, MT, ND, SD, West WI East WI and Upper MI -0.2 to IA IL MO IN and KY -1.5 to -1.1 Lower MI AR LA and TX 10 MS Regional surpluses and potential resources are sufficient for all zones to serve their deficits while meeting local requirements Positions include reported inter-zonal transfers, but do not reflect other possible transfers between zones Results include load, but not identified resources, from some non-jurisdictional load in Zone 5 Exports from Zones 8, 9, and 10 were limited by the Sub-regional Power Balance Constraint to 1.5 GW in committed capacity projections and 1.9 GW in potential capacity projections 10

11 Appendix

12 Understanding Resource Projections Committed Capacity Projections include resources committed to serving MISO load Resources within the rate base of MISO utilities New generators with signed interconnection agreements External resources with firm contracts to MISO load Non-rate base units without announced retirements or commitments to non-miso load Potential Capacity Projections include resources that may be available to serve MISO load but do not have firm commitments to do so Potential retirements or suspensions 35% of new resources in the Definitive Planning Phase (DPP) of the MISO queue Unavailable resources are not included in the survey totals Resources with firm commitments to non-miso load Resources with finalized retirements or suspensions Potential new generators without a signed Generator Interconnection Agreement or generators which have not entered the DPP phase of the queue 12

13 All projected capacity is not available to serve load outside of its zone due to transfer limitations 2018 Committed Capacity projection available to Support Other Zones (ICAP) 0.6 GW 0.6 GW -1.0 GW 0.5 GW 0.4 GW -0.3 GW 0.7 GW Transfer Limited Capacity Projected surplus 1.2 GW Projected deficit 13 Regional surpluses and potential resources are sufficient for all zones to serve their deficits while meeting local requirements Results include load, but not identified resources, from some non-jurisdictional load in Zone 5

14 Planning Reserve Margin (PRM) Variance Percent (%) 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 0.13% 0.47% 8.0% 15.2% 15.8% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 16/17 PY Load Forecast Reduction Increase in Outage Rates 17/18 PY 14

15 OMS MISO Survey 2017 Improvements Inclusion of 35% of DPP Projects Using a sample set of gas projects that have gone through the Definitive Planning Phase (DPP) between 2012 through 2016, the following numbers apply: 37% withdraw rate (projects that entered the DPP and later withdrew) 26% success rate (projects that have completed GIAs) That leaves a potential success rate of somewhere in the middle (between 26% 63%) for those projects still in the DPP study Data focused on gas projects to represent expected base load capacity build After discussion with stakeholders, MISO added 35% of DPP projects into zonal and regional values as potential resources 15

16 Interconnection Requests in the MISO Queue from (Gas Resources Only) 16

17 Changes from 2016 Survey to the 2017 Survey for Planning Year 2018 Changes in Forecasted Load Changes (MW) Reserve Requirement Changes (MW) Planning Resources Changes (MW) Zone 1 (317.7) 54.2 (461.7) Zone 2 (129.8) Zone 3 (253.2) Zone 4 (441.0) (11.2) Zone 5 (431.1) (17.7) 40.6 Zone 6 (327.6) 54.0 (84.8) Zone 7 (366.7) 67.7 (776.94) Zone (95.4) Zone 9 (154.9) 93.9 (115.7) Zone 10 (159.9) Regional (2.5)

18 Zonal breakdown for retirements vs potential new resources for 2018 and 2022 Planning Year 2018 Planning Year 2022 LRZ Potential New Capacity (MW) Potentially Unavailable Resources (MW) LRZ Potential New Capacity (MW) Potentially Unavailable Resources (MW) Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Regional Rollup Zone Zone Zone MISO Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Regional Rollup Zone Zone Zone MISO * Potential Capacity Zones 8, 9, and 10 limited in regional rollups due to South North transfer limitations 18