strawman proposal - misoenergy.org
TRANSCRIPT
Updated 2/24/20
Page 1 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Strawman Proposal
MISO Futures
February 13, 2020
Page 2 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................2
Table of Figures................................................................................................................................................................3
Table of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................4
Proposed Futures ............................................................................................................................................................5
Future I ...........................................................................................................................................................................6
Future II..........................................................................................................................................................................6
Future III ........................................................................................................................................................................6 Carbon Emissions Goals................................................................................................................................................7
Carbon Reduction Assumptions............................................................................................................................7
Retirement & Repowering Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 10
Base Retirement Assumptions............................................................................................................................ 10
Age-Based Retirement Assumptions................................................................................................................ 10 Peak Load (MW) & Energy (GWh) Forecasts...................................................................................................... 14
Base Forecast & Load Shapes .............................................................................................................................. 14
Future-Specific Forecasts and Load Shapes................................................................................................... 14
Demand & Energy Growth Assumptions......................................................................................................... 14
Natural Gas Price Forecast ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Electrification ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Heavy-Duty/Light-Duty Electric Vehicles ...................................................................................................... 19
Residential and C&I Electrification ................................................................................................................... 22
DERs and Demand-Side Additions ......................................................................................................................... 23
Generation Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Solar.............................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Wind ............................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Hybrid: Utility-Scale PV Solar + Storage ......................................................................................................... 24
Storage: Lithium-Ion Battery (4-hour) ............................................................................................................. 25
Natural Gas: Combined Cycle ............................................................................................................................. 25
Natural Gas: Combustion Turbine..................................................................................................................... 25 Capital Cost Assumptions ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Unit Operation Adjustments .................................................................................................................................... 27
Must-Run Designation ............................................................................................................................................... 27
Unit Seasonal Operation............................................................................................................................................ 27
Global Assumptions..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Study Period ................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Financial Variables for New Generation .............................................................................................................. 27
Discount Rate ................................................................................................................................................................ 28
EGEAS Study Areas ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Siting ................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Page 3 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Table of Figures Figure 1: MISO States, Cities, and Utilities with Decarbonization or Clean Energy Goals ...................7
Figure 2: Renewable Electricity Sourced by Fortune 500 Companies with 100% Renewable
Energy Goals .....................................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 3: CO2 Modeling Assumptions per Future ................................................................................................9
Figure 4: Total Retirements per Future (Cumulative by Year), Equal to Age-Based + Base .............. 11
Figure 5: Age-Based Retirements per Future (Cumulative per Year)........................................................ 11
Figure 6: Base Retirements per Future (Cumulative per Year).................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Future I Retirements Through 2040 ................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8: Future II Retirements Through 2040.................................................................................................. 13
Figure 9: Future III Retirements Through 2040 ................................................................................................ 13
Figure 10: Forecast High Level Process Flow Chart ........................................................................................ 15
Figure 11: Adjusted Load Shape Example............................................................................................................ 15
Figure 12: Henry Hub Natural Gas Price Forecast ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 13: Future-Specific Gas Forecast Potential Variation (Henry Hub) ............................................. 17
Figure 14: MTEP19 Gas Price Spread ............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 14: 30% Electrification by Sector.............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 15: 60% Electrification by Sector.............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 16: EV Growth per Future (MISO footprint)......................................................................................... 20
Figure 17: Future I EV Growth per LRZ................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 18: Future II EV Growth per LRZ .............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 19: Future III EV Growth per LRZ ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 20: Electrification Potential Map .............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 21: Solar + Storage Hybrid Profile ............................................................................................................ 24
Figure 22: Annual Capital Cost Assumptions by Fuel Type........................................................................... 25 Figure 23: Solar PV ITC .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 24: Wind PTC ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 25: MISO Footprint & Neighboring Systems ........................................................................................ 29
Table of Tables Table 1: MTEP21 Future Assumptions Summary ...............................................................................................5
Table 2: Selected State RPS Mandates & Goals....................................................................................................8
Table 3: Selected Announced Utility Plans.............................................................................................................9 Table 4: Age-Based Retirement Assumptions.................................................................................................... 10
Table 5: MTEP21 DER Technical Potential in MISO........................................................................................ 23
Table 6: EGEAS External Model Representation .............................................................................................. 28
Page 4 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Executive Summary The MISO landscape is moving forward and changing dramatically. These changes are driven by
developments in economics, energy policies, and customer preferences. Expectations reveal
continued trends toward the “3Ds” highlighted in the 2019 MISO Forward Report:
Decentralization from large stations to smaller distributed resources, Digitalization of electricity-
consuming devices and the Internet of Things, and De-marginalization of resource costs.
In light of these trends and the numerous company announcements around an evolving fleet mix, MISO initiated a public stakeholder process to “retool” the MISO MTEP Futures. MTEP Futures
are designed to accommodate uncertainty by bookending a wide range of potential scenarios.
MISO’s Value Proposition affirms its core belief that a collective, region-wide approach to grid
planning and management delivers the greatest value to our members and their customers.
This document represents the cumulative efforts of collaboration between MISO staff and stakeholders. It proposes three new Futures.
In Future I, the MISO footprint evolves as members’ plans are substantially met, carbon emissions
decline 40% from 2005 levels, and current trends of electric vehicle adoption persist.
In Future II, members’ plans are met or exceeded, carbon emissions decline 60%, an increasing
trend in electric vehicle adoption drives growth in demand and energy, and residential and commercial electrification reaches 39% of technical potential.
Future III sees members’ plans met or exceeded, carbon emissions decline 80%, a heightened
increase in electric vehicle adoption drives greater growth in demand and energy, residential and
commercial electrification reaches 77% of technical potential, and renewable penetration levels
reach a minimum of 50%.
The Futures in this document incorporate a footprint-wide perspective which includes company
announcements and plans, federal and state policies, impacts of electric vehicles and other types
of electrification, technological advancements, and more. Implementation of these Futures will
allow MISO to plan reliable, value-creating changes to the transmission system.
Page 5 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Proposed Futures MISO proposes three Futures: Future I, Future II, Future III; each weighted equally.
Variables / Futures
Future I Future II Future III
Percent of Goals Met
≥ 85% goals met ≥ 100% IRPs met
≥ 100% goals met ≥ 100% IRPs met
≥ 100% goals met ≥ 100% IRPs met
Carbon Emissions Reduction* (2005 baseline)
≥ 40% (currently at 22%)** ≥ 60% ≥ 80%
Retirements–Coal Retirements–Natural Gas- CC Retirements–Natural Gas-Other
46 years 50 years 46 years
36 years 45 years 36 years
30 years 35 years 30 years
Wind and Solar Penetration
No minimum No minimum ≥ 50%
EV Adoption & Charging Technology
Low-Base EV growth Uncontrolled charging
Base-High EV growth Uncontrolled 2020-2035 &
V2G 2035 and beyond
Extra-High EV growth Uncontrolled 2020-2030 &
V2G 2030 and beyond
Electrification (includes EVs and gas to electric appliances / heating / cooling)
None 39% of technical potential
realized representing a 30% energy growth
77% of technical potential realized representing a 60%
energy growth
Demand & Energy Growth
Future-dependent (based on “Merged” ILF forecast);
Awaiting Future-specific forecast from AEG
Future-dependent (based on “Merged” ILF forecast);
Awaiting Future-specific forecast from AEG
Future-dependent (based on “Merged” ILF forecast);
Awaiting Future-specific forecast from AEG
DER Technical Potential by 2040 (GW)^
DR: 5.2 EE: 13.3 DG: 14.7
DR: 5.9 EE: 14.5 DG: 14.7
DR: 5.9 EE: 14.5 DG: 21.8
Natural Gas Prices
Base starting price determined by GPCM;
Future-specific price input to PROMOD
Base starting price determined by GPCM;
Future-specific price input to PROMOD
Base starting price determined by GPCM;
Future-specific price input to PROMOD
External Modeling
Pick “more aligned” SPP Future and single PJM
Apply our assumptions to external areas (take their
sites though)
Apply our assumptions to external areas (take their
sites though)
Table 1: MTEP21 Future Assumptions Summary
* Entire footprint in aggregate
** 2005-2017; MISO calculation from EIA Form 860 data
^ Distributed Energy Resources (DER); Demand Response (DR); Energy Efficiency (EE); Distributed Generation (DG): Capacity, preliminary
approximation; final results pending AEG model-build/run and aggregation, expected March.
Page 6 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Future I The footprint will continue to develop in line with substantial achievement of company announcements and plans, along with state mandates, goals, or preferences, and an associated
carbon emissions reduction1 of 40%. This is applicable to both resource additions and retirements.
This Future assumes that demand and energy (D&E) growth are driven by existing economic
factors.
Coal age-based retirement2 is 46 years
Natural gas prices developed through GPCM forecasting
Wind and solar resources are built commensurate with announced plans
Demand-side management programs are included
EV growth is modeled from data from LBNL study, relative to the low rate case scenario with only uncontrolled
charging modeled in this Future
Future II Driven by a robust economy and changing federal, state, and local policies, the footprint
experiences increased D&E and an associated reduction in carbon emissions of 60%. Decreased costs, improved technology, and supportive policies drive high growth in wind, solar, hybrid, and
storage resources. Annual growth in distributed generation reaches 30% or more.
Coal age-based retirement is 36 years
Natural gas prices developed through GPCM forecasting
EV growth is modeled from data from LBNL study, relative to the base rate case scenario with uncontrolled
charging only capabilities until V2G integration in 2035 Energy increases 30% due to Electrification
Demand-side management programs increase
Future III Driven by a booming economy, supportive policies and investment, and D&E increases, DERs,
wind, and solar resources grow to comprise at least 50% of energy served in the footprint. Commercial and passenger light-duty vehicle fleets have largely electrified. Policy supports
carbon emissions reductions of 80% or more. Investments in R&D and continuing innovation
further decrease costs, improve technology, and advance development in power infrastructure,
generation, and storage.
Coal age-based retirement is 30 years
Natural gas prices developed through GPCM forecasting
EV growth is modeled from data from LBNL study, relative to the high rate case scenario with uncontrolled
charging only capabilities until V2G integration in 2030
Energy increases by 60% due to Electrification
Wind and solar generation and DERs are built commensurate with an 80% carbon emissions reduction
High energy demand and decarbonization policies drive DSM/DER development
DERs comprise 30% of energy served
1 Carbon emissions reduction in Futures narratives refers to power sector emissions, from 2005 baseline 2 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40212
Page 7 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Carbon Emissions Goals To ensure a reliable and economic Bulk Electric System (BES) in an ever-changing energy,
regulations, and economics environment, MISO will evaluate three different levels of carbon
reductions within the Futures. Internal analysis indicates the footprint has decarbonized 22% since 2005. Carbon-related modeling and analysis will support MISO’s preparation for a broad
range of future scenarios, enabling continual adaptation to the changing energy lan dscape while
ensuring better grid reliability.
Carbon Reduction Assumptions Goals in the Footprint Cities, states, large commercial and industrial corporations, and utilities are exploring and setting decarbonization goals that often include reaching 100% renewable energy supply by 2050.
Figure 1: MISO States, Cities, and Utilities with Decarbonization or Clean Energy Goals
Page 8 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 2: Renewable Electricity Sourced by Fortune 500 Companies with 100% Renewable Energy Goals
State Mandates & Goals Selected state mandates and goals publicly announced as of February 2020.
Selected State
Mandates & Goals
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
(as of June 2019, sources linked) Other State Goals
Illinois 25% by 2026
IL Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA): 100% C-free power by 2030, 100% RE by 2050; IL General
Assembly next in session Jan thru May 2020
Indiana 10% by 2025^ Voluntary clean energy PS (no participants as of
2018); 10% by 2025 for participants
Iowa 105 MW (completed as of 2007)
Michigan 15% by 2021^* 26-28% Carbon reduction by 2025
Minnesota 31.5% by 2020 (Xcel); 26.5% by 2025
(IOUs); 25% by 2025 (other utilities)
Carbon-free power by 2050 (Governor)
Missouri 15% by 2021
North Dakota 10% by 2015
Wisconsin 10% by 2015 Carbon-free power by 2050 (Governor)
Table 2: Selected State RPS Mandates & Goals
^: Includes non-renewable energy alternative resources
*: Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewable energy
Source: dsireusa.org
Page 9 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Utility Announced Plans
Goal Cohort Members
Carbon Emissions
Reduction (CER)
Goals
Goal
Year
Percent of MISO
Load Served
(Energy)*
Percent of MISO
Capacity
Served**
28% x 2030 Entergy 28% 2030 21.49% 15.28% 40% x 2030 Minnesota Power, Alliant,
Duke, WEC Energy Group 40% 2030 17.13% 12.96%
50% x 2040 Ameren 50% 2040 11.84% 9.29% 80% x 2030 NIPSCO, Xcel 80% 2030 9.80% 7.18% 80% x 2040 DTE, Hoosier Energy 80% 2040 7.94% 6.28%
90% x 2030 SMMPA 90% 2030 0.65% 0.46%
90% x 2040 Consumers Energy 90% 2040 7.18% 5.21% Total 76.03% 56.65%
Table 3: Selected Announced Utility Plans
* Estimate as of 2019 data. Sources: Reported Annual Loads from Load Forecast Survey / 712,836,003 (MWh) MISO Load, 2018 MISO
Value Proposition,3 slide 8
** Estimate as of 2019 data. Sources: Average of Reported Peak Loads from Load Forecast Survey / 146,028 (MW) required capaci ty
with MISO, 2018 MISO Value Proposition,4 slide 22
Modeling of Carbon Reductions Assumptions This cohort proposes system limits in terms of carbon emission reductions (CER) for each of the three Futures. In 2005, MISO emitted 539 million (M) tons of CO2. The Futures propose system
limits of 40% CER for Future I, 60% CER for Future II, and 80% CER for Future III. By the end of
the study period, emission limits will be 323 M tons, 215 M tons, and 108 M tons respectively. A
straight line from 2016 emission levels to the end of the study period system limit was made to
determine the CO2 emission limit for each year. MISO will input these system limits into the EGEAS model.
Figure 3: CO2 Modeling Assumptions per Future
3 https://cdn.misoenergy.org/2018%20MISO%20Value%20Proposition%20-%2015Feb2019(Final)321318.pdf 4 Ibid.
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
20
40
MIS
O C
O2
Emis
sio
ns
(M t
on
s)
CO2 Limits per Future Compared to MISO Historical Emissions
MISO Historical Future I 40% CER Future II 60% CER Future III 80% CER
323 M tons
203 M tons 215 M tons
108 M tons
Page 10 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Retirement & Repowering Assumptions
Base Retirement Assumptions Hydro retirements will be decided by the owner. Other resource retirements will be determined
by the resource type. Publicly announced retirements will be included in base retirements.
Age-Based Retirement Assumptions Future I Future II Future III
Coal 46 36 30 Natural Gas – CC 50 45 35
Natural Gas – Other 46 36 30 Oil 45 40 35
Nuclear License Expiration License Expiration License Expiration Solar – Utility-Scale 25 25 25 Wind – Utility-Scale 25 25 25
Table 4: Age-Based Retirement Assumptions
Nuclear The relicensing and retirement of nuclear units will be assumed to be dependent upon company
announcements, age, and operational costs.
Coal & Gas The retirement age of coal units progressively decreases in every Future. It is assumed that with changing policies and emission standards, coal usage will decline. The retirement ages modeled in
the three Futures respectively are: 46, 36, and 30 years. In doing so, complete retirement of coal
can be modeled within Future III.
Wind An age-based retirement assumption will be added for utility-scale wind along with assumptions
for repowering a wind resource. Currently, wind units are being retired between 20 and 25 years,
while repowering may occur once a unit reaches 15 years of age. The repowering assumptions for wind turbines will be a repowering at the age of retirement and replaced by a hub height
technology representative of the region (e.g. 100, 120m). Repowering is heavily influenced by
Production Tax Credits (PTC) and decarbonization policies.
Page 11 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 4: Total Retirements per Future (Cumulative by Year), Equal to Age-Based + Base
Figure 5: Age-Based Retirements per Future (Cumulative per Year)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040
Future I Future II Future III
MW
Total Retirements per Future
Coal Gas Nuclear Wind Solar Oil
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040
Future I Future II Future III
MW
Age-Based Retirements per Future
Coal Gas Nuclear Wind Solar Oil
Page 12 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 6: Base Retirements per Future (Cumulative per Year)
Figure 7: Future I Retirements Through 2040
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040
Future I Future II Future III
MW
Base Retirements per Future
Coal Gas Nuclear Wind Solar Oil
Page 13 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 8: Future II Retirements Through 2040
Figure 9: Future III Retirements Through 2040
Page 14 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Peak Load (MW) & Energy (GWh) Forecasts MTEP21 will utilize the 2019 Merged Load Forecast for Energy Planning as well as MISO’s 2018
load shapes. These base data points will be adjusted to meet Future-specific criteria as stated in
this proposal.
Base Forecast & Load Shapes The 2019 Merged Load Forecast for Energy Planning forecast was reviewed for updates by
stakeholders December 17, 2019 through January 10, 2020 and updates received will be incorporated. To accompany the forecast, MISO evaluated its 2018 load shapes for weather
anomalies and will use these shapes for MTEP Futures and the Market Congestion Planning Study
(MCPS). MISO’s 2018 load shape also aligns with wind and solar shapes that are based on the most
current data.
As a Futures retooling process improvement, MISO will use PROMOD to adjust each Load Balancing Authority (LBA) 2018 load shape to meet the annual Peak Load (MW) and Peak Energy
(GWh) requirements set by the updated 2019 Merged Load Forecast for Energy Planning
forecast. The benefit of this improvement will be to create 20 years’ worth of unique load shapes
for EGEAS analysis as well as to establish a common load shape for the EGEAS and MCPS
analyses.
Future-Specific Forecasts and Load Shapes Applied Energy Group (AEG) will use the updated 2019 Merged Load Forecast for Energy
Planning forecast and the unique load shapes as their base input assumptions. AEG will then modify the 2018 load shapes to achieve Future-specific assumptions (electric vehicle growth and
charging assumptions, residential electrification, and commercial and industrial electrification),
ultimately creating 20 years’ worth of load shapes for each future. These Future-specific load
shapes will be used to calculate new annual Peak Load (MW) and Peak Energy (GWh) forecasts to
be used in the EGEAS analysis.
Demand & Energy Growth Assumptions Demand and energy growth values will be based on Futures assumptions. These values will be
determined once the 20-year MTEP EGEAS analysis is complete and will be developed throughout the process.
Page 15 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 10: Forecast High Level Process Flow Chart
Figure 11: Adjusted Load Shape Example
MISO receives updated 2019 Merged Forecast
Review MISO's 2018 Market Load Shapes
Adjust 2018 Load Shapes to match 2019 Merged
Forecast (By Year)
AEG EV and Electrification
adjustments to load shapes (By Year and
Future)
AEG produces new annual Peak Load (MW) and Peak Energy (GWh)
forecast (By year and Future)
EGEAS Analysis (By Future)
Determine Demand and Energy growth rates (By
Future)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
GW
Composite Load Shape
60% CASEComposite Load Shape (GW)
30% CASEComposite Load Shape (GW)
ReferenceComposite Load Shape (GW)
Page 16 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Natural Gas Price Forecast MISO will use the GPCM base price forecast across the three Futures, instead of the locked-down
Henry Hub (HH) from past cycles (illustrated in Figure 12). The base forecast will be the same for
all Futures in EGEAS. After the capacity expansion is complete, the Futures will be implemented in
PROMOD. MISO will then export the resulting new gas burn in each individual Future into GPCM,
producing Future-specific gas prices. Examples of Future-specific gas prices resulting from this
method (using MTEP19 Futures as illustration only) are shown in Figure 13 and Table 5 below. GPCM outputs the gas price at a level of monthly granularity and based on past exploration
Future-specific prices can vary by 40% or more.
Figure 12: Henry Hub Natural Gas Price Forecast
Page 17 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 13: MTEP19 Future-Specific Gas Forecast Potential Variation (Henry Hub) Example
LFC CFC DET AFC Max 46% 42% 44% 16%
Min 0% 0% 0% -40%
Average 13% 8% 9% -10%
Table 5: MTEP19 Futures Gas Price Spread Example
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101 105 109
Test
HH
Ba
se F
ore
cast
Monthly (1 yr Before Model Year to 1 yr After)
Future-Specific Gas Forecast Potential Variation (Henry Hub)
Base HH Potential Max (LFC) Potential Min (AFC)
Potential Avg High Potential Avg Low
5-yr model10-yr model
15-yr model
Page 18 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Electrification MISO has contracted Applied Energy Group (AEG) to conduct an electrification study on the
MISO footprint. Electrification is the conversion of an end-use device to be powered with
electricity, such that it displaces another fuel, such as natural gas. The technical potential of the MISO footprint was evaluated in seven different sectors:
Residential – Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Residential – Domestic water heating (DWH) Residential – Appliances (APP) Residential/Commercial and Industrial – Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) Commercial and Industrial – Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) Commercial and Industrial – Domestic water heating (DWH) Commercial and Industrial – Other (process)
When incorporating results from AEG’s electrification technical potential study, MISO will be assuming current trends, 30% technical potential, and 60% technical potential respectively in the
three Futures. Percentages of technical potential reached align with the percentage of load
growth in each of the three scenarios. This growth is made up of the cumulative increases of the
seven different sectors evaluated.
Figure 14: 30% Electrification by Sector
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
GW
h
30% Case by End Use
Res - HVAC
RES - DHW
RES - APP
C&I - HVAC
C&I - DHW
C&I - Other
PEVs
Page 19 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 15: 60% Electrification by Sector
Heavy-Duty/Light-Duty Electric Vehicles Information was created with collaboration from MISO and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBNL) and then incorporated into the electrification study conducted by AEG.
The LBNL EV study categorized the projected growth of EVs in the MISO footprint into four
categories: low, base, high, and very high. Given there are only three Future scenarios being
evaluated, MISO will be using combinations of the data forecasted within each Future to
encompass both light-duty and heavy-duty EVs, this will include both passenger and fleet light-
duty EVs as well as heavy-duty EVs. Each of these cases explored a variety of EV growth and charging scenarios within every LRZ and projected data to produce a twenty-year outlook for the
footprint.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
GW
h
60% Case by End Use
Res - HVAC
RES - DHW
RES - APP
C&I - HVAC
C&I - DHW
C&I - Other
PEVs
Page 20 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 16: EV Growth per Future (MISO footprint)
Figure 17: Future I EV Growth per LRZ
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
EV
Po
pu
lati
on
in M
illio
ns
2019 2024 2029 2034 2039
Future I 0.135 0.53 1.33 2.57 4.19
Future II 0.26 1.205 3.47 7.455 12.49
Future III 0.435 2.42 8.25 20.915 36.32
EV Growth per Future (MISO Footprint)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
2019 2024 2029 2034 2039
EV
Po
pu
lati
on
in M
illio
ns
Year
Future I EV Growth per LRZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page 21 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 18: Future II EV Growth per LRZ
Figure 19: Future III EV Growth per LRZ
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2019 2024 2029 2034 2039
EV
Po
pu
lati
on
in M
illio
ns
Year
Future II EV Growth per LRZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2019 2024 2029 2034 2039
EV
Po
pu
lati
on
in M
illio
ns
Year
Future III EV Growth per LRZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page 22 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Residential and C&I Electrification The key elements that make up the residential electrification variables are heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC), domestic water heating (DWH), and appliances. Residential
appliances were assumed to be clothes dryers, dishwashers, and stoves. Dishwasher
electrification occurred when no existing dishwasher was seen to be present.
Similar to residential electrification components, commercial electrification was evaluated on
HVAC and DWH systems with the addition of industrial processes. All the variables evaluated in the study (EVs, Residential, and C&I) were then compounded upon each other with higher
adoption rates to better evaluate the footprint in a variety of electrification scenarios.
Within electrification there are three characteristics that allow a state to have a higher
electrification potential. These characteristics include latitude, gas infrastructure, and cooling.
Northern states (latitude) that have greater heating loads and states with more gas heating (gas infrastructure) have a high potential to be electrified. States with higher cooling loads (cooling)
primarily in the south, do not have high electrification potential.
Figure 20: Electrification Potential Map
Page 23 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
DERs and Demand-Side Additions As in previous MTEP cycles, MISO has commissioned Applied Energy Group (AEG) to develop new
demand-side addition technical potential, based on previous analysis for the MTEP20 Futures,
with updated utility information and Futures narratives for thi s cycle. These resources will be modeled in three main categories: Demand Response (DR), Energy Efficiency (EE), and Distributed
Generation (DG).
As expressed in the Futures assumptions, technical potential will represent feasible potential
under each scenario. Existing DR programs will be modeled as base assumptions. Only
economically viable programs will be implemented in the MTEP21 models (each program will be offered against supply-side alternatives). The following figures are draft approximations; final
results are pending AEG’s model-build and run, and aggregation of results.
MTEP21 DERs Future I Future II Future III
Capacity (GW)
Energy (GWh)
Capacity (GW)
Energy (GWh)
Capacity (GW)
Energy (GWh)
20
-Ye
ar
Te
chn
ical
P
ote
nti
al
Demand Response
(DR) 5.2 442 5.9 498 5.9 498
Energy Efficiency
(EE) 13.3 86,886 14.5 94,313 14.5 94,313
Distributed Generation
(DG) 14.7 26,119 14.7 26,119 21.8 36,934
Table 6: MTEP21 DER Technical Potential in MISO
Page 24 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Generation Resources
Solar Regional Resource Forecasted (RRF) unit representation of photovoltaic (PV) will be sized at
1,200 MW (on the AC side of the inverter) of capacity, consistent with the unit sizes of the other
supply-side resources. Vibrant Clean Energy (VCE) 2018 hourly profiles will be used as the base
data. Existing units will use a representative hourly profile and all solar units will assume 50%
capacity credit at the beginning of the study period and decrease 2% each year.
Wind RRF unit representation of wind will be sized at 1,200 MW of capacity, consistent with the unit
sizes of the other supply-side resources. Vibrant Clean Energy (VCE) 2018 hourly profiles will be used as the base data and RRF units. New RRF units will be built at 100m at the beginning of the
study period and will be 120m after 2030. Existing wind units will be grouped into the following
sections: North, Central, and South. Existing units will use a representative 80m hub height hourly
profile and all wind units will assume 15.6% capacity credit.
Hybrid: Utility-Scale PV Solar + Storage Hybrid units will be modeled 1200 MW inverter capacity with 1500 MW of solar panels, thus 300
MW of over-paneling. Excess energy produced from the solar panel will be used to power a 300
MW 4-hour battery behind the inverter. Hybrid solar profiles will use VCE 2018 hourly profiles that will then be modified to create a hybrid profile. Exact methodology for the calculation of
capacity credit will be ready during the next workshop. The losses in the battery will be 8%, thus
92% of the battery charge will be available energy for discharge.
Figure 21: Solar + Storage Hybrid Profile
Page 25 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Storage: Lithium-Ion Battery (4-hour) RRF unit representation of lithium-ion battery storage will be sized as 100 MW to be consistent
with battery units in MISO GI queue. Batteries will be 4-hour duration batteries.
Natural Gas: Combined Cycle RRF units representing Combine Cycle units be 1200 MW of capacity.
Natural Gas: Combustion Turbine RRF units representing Combustion Turbine units be 1200 MW of capacity.
Capital Cost Assumptions NREL ATB-2019 is used to calculate the capital costs of the non-battery storage resources. For
battery storage, Lazard5 4-hour Lithium-Ion battery at Wholesale level is considered. For wind units,
Participation Tax Credits (PTC) and Investment Tax Credits (ITC) are grossed up to reflect the impacts
on capital costs.
Figure 22: Annual Capital Cost Assumptions by Fuel Type
5 Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis, Version 5.0: https://www.lazard.com/media/451087/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-50-vf.pdf
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
Wind Solar Utility Geothermal Hydropower Gas CC Gas CT Coal Nuclear Biopower EnergyStorage
Ca
pit
al
Co
st $
/kW
Capital Cost MTEP ComparisionMTEP19 ($2018) MTEP20 ($2019) MTEP21
Page 26 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 23: Solar PV ITC
Figure 24: Wind PTC
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
$/k
W
Solar Capital Cost with ITC
Low 2020 w/ Grossed ITC Real 2020 w/Gross ITC Real 2020 No ITC
$300
$500
$700
$900
$1,100
$1,300
$1,500
$1,700
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
$/k
W
Wind Capital Cost with PTC
Low 2020 w/Gross PTC Real 2020 Mid w/Gross PTC Real 2020 No PTC
Page 27 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Unit Operation Adjustments
Must-Run Designation
The purpose of this is to determine which generation units will be used to provide security to the
grid under normal operating conditions. In a time where wind and solar generation is increasing, it
is critical to ensure that reliability criteria requirements are always met. The decision to use of a
unit depends on the compatibility with the system, runtime specifications, and shall be capable of
representing least-cost capacity planning with economic decisions for expansion, retirement, and
retrofits (EIA 2015).
MTEP21 Must-Run Designation Criteria Only co-generation (as identified in EIA-860), nuclear, and hydro units shall be assigned a Must-
Run designation. Coal units shall not be assigned a Must-Run designation. Future II and Future III
will have no thermal units designated as a Must-Run type so that economical units may be selected to meet high carbon reduction goals.
Unit Seasonal Operation
MISO footprint includes several of units with announced seasonal operations due to economic
conditions or operating limitations. Such units will be operated seasonally until their retirement.
Global Assumptions
Study Period
The study period of the MTEP21 EGEAS resource expansion analysis is 20 years, beginning in
2020 and ending in 2040. An extension period of 40 years is added to the of the simulation period, with no new units forecasted during this time. This additional study period ensures that the
selection of generation in the last few years of the forecasting period (i.e., years 15-20) is based on
cost of generation spread out over the total tax/book life of the new resources (i.e., beyond year
20) and does not bias to the cheapest generation in those final years.
Financial Variables for New Generation
The variables associated with financing new Regional Resource Forecasted (RRF) units, listed are averaged values sourced annually from data submitted by MISO’s Transmission Owners through
Attachment O of the MISO Tariff.
Page 28 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Discount Rate
The discount rate of 7.22% is based upon the after-tax weighted average cost of capital of the Transmission Owners that make up the Transmission Provider Transmission System.
EGEAS Study Areas There will be no proposed changes to MISO footprint and incremental changes to external-to-
MISO areas.
MISO Footprint The proposed study area for the retooled MTEP Futures continues to study the MISO footprint as
a single footprint.
External Areas
From an external-to-MISO (external areas) perspective, MISO proposes to increase the EGEAS
analysis granularity for external Areas/Pools represented in the MCPS by increasing the number
of representative models.
MISO to Create Regional Model with Associated Future Assumptions
EGEAS Models Future I Future II Future III
PJM No – Use PJM Model Yes Yes
SPP No – Use SPP “more aligned”
Future6 Results Yes Yes
TVA TVA Other Southeast
Yes Yes Yes
Manitoba Hydro No No No Table 7: EGEAS External Model Representation
MISO realizes system flows are dependent on external areas representations and the above
improvements are intended to help align MISO Future assumptions to MISO’s neighbors as well as provide one Future, Future I, that utilizes SPP and PJM Future assumptions. This Future will be
used to help bookmark projected external system flows as decided by external Future
assumptions.
6 https://www.spp.org/Documents/61365/2021%20ITP%20Scope%20MOPC%20Approved.docx
Page 29 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MISO Futures Strawman Proposal – Second Version
Figure 25: MISO Footprint & Neighboring Systems
Siting MISO proposes no changes to siting methodologies that were updated for MTEP19,7 but instead is
proposing some process enhancements.
Siting Enhancements The goal of the enhancements listed below is to reduce siting rework pre-MCPS and reduce siting adjustments during MCPS robustness testing.
SPP Sites: Use resource expansion sites determined by SPP in their Integrated Transmission
Planning siting process8.
Pre-Site Screening: Same sites will be used for each Future and site and site capacity differences will be
due to Future-specific wind and solar amounts Evaluating using TARA to calculate DFAX (Distribution Factor) and Total MW
Impact to compare to Powerflow model transmission element ratings
Post-Site Screening: Evaluating possibility of using generator bus transmission (MW) post PROMOD
simulation
7 MTEP19 Future Siting Improvements: https://cdn.misoenergy.org/MTEP19%20Futures%20Summary291183.pdf 8 ITP Resource Siting Process White Paper
Page 30 of 30 Version 2 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.