The meeting focused on several important topics concerning the transition to the NRIS Plus product, the effective system study review, and the planning process within SPP. The discussions were detailed and addressed both the procedural aspects and the concerns raised by stakeholders.
Key Definitions and Expedited Designation Process for NRIS: The meeting began with an explanation of the interconnected concepts of nameplate capacity, maximum injection capability, and network resource deliverability. It was clarified that while these values could be identical, they might also differ depending on the generator’s layout, configuration, and specific business needs. The expedited designation process for NRIS was then introduced. This process enables transmission customers to designate resources by submitting a Transmission Service Request (TSR) through OASIS, including the necessary NITS application and Z2 study agreement. The process was broken down into steps, from submission to verification by SPP, and outlined what happens if a request does not meet the expedited process requirements. This section also covered the calculation and notification of Z2 payments, along with the customer’s option to proceed or withdraw.
Transition to NRIS Plus Product: The discussion moved on to the transition of existing generators to the new NRIS Plus product. Generators were grouped into three categories: those included in the transition study, those in the GI study process but not in the transition study, and those not yet in the GI study process. For generators already in the transition study, their network resource deliverability amounts and areas will be documented and posted publicly. For generators outside the transition study but within the GI study process, deliverability will be based on their granted NRIS service but initially limited to the control area they were studied for. A future secondary transition study is planned to expand these deliverability areas. Additionally, generators not yet in the GI process will need to provide updated applications specifying the three key quantities discussed earlier.
Application Process Changes and Transition Procedures: Significant changes in the application process were highlighted. Customers must now specify nameplate capacity, maximum injection capability, and network resource deliverability in their applications. The SPP Business Practice 7250 and the GI manual have been updated to reflect the shift from studying NRIS on a control area basis to a deliverability area basis. Transition procedures were detailed, explaining how these changes will be phased in depending on the status of the application in the DICES process. GIAs will also be updated to include these new definitions, ensuring that every request specifies maximum injection capability and, if applicable, network resource deliverability and the associated deliverability area.
Impact on Planning Models and System Reliability: The meeting addressed how these changes will be incorporated into SPP’s planning models and their potential impact on system reliability. It was discussed that when NRIS deliverability is studied, the necessary upgrades to ensure deliverability across the entire area will be identified. These upgrades will then be incorporated into the planning models. The discussion also touched on the reliability planning process and how these changes might influence future planning within SPP. Participants raised questions about how deliverability areas differ from control areas and how these changes might impact future system upgrades and planning models.
Effective System Study Review: A comprehensive review of the effective system study process was provided, focusing on the need to reassess certain projects due to reliability concerns and changes in the status of higher queue projects. The review process involved checking whether any current or prior high-queue requests within a study group had been withdrawn, and if so, whether any upgrades assigned to these requests were needed for lower queue requests. Stakeholders expressed concerns about the timing of effective system study results, particularly when they are released after key decision points, affecting the ability to make informed decisions about penalty-free withdrawals. SPP acknowledged these concerns and noted ongoing efforts to improve the timeliness and accuracy of these studies.
Transition to Consolidated Planning Process (CPP): The discussion then shifted to the transition to the CPP, focusing on the challenges of integrating ongoing DICES studies into the new CPP framework. The objective is to facilitate the prompt interconnection of generation by providing study results and cost commitments under an entry fee-like structure. The transition plan is being developed with an eye toward accommodating projects that do not yet have Generator Interconnection Agreements (GIAs) while ensuring that baseline assumptions about generation capacity and transmission build-out are accurate. Two main options were discussed: conducting a standalone cutover study or incorporating the transition directly into the CPP transition study. The decision was made to focus on the latter, as it offers a more streamlined approach. The impact of potential DICES waivers on this transition, particularly for DICES 2024 and 2025, was also discussed, with a final recommendation expected by the October or January MOPC meetings.
Action Items and Future Steps: Several action items were identified, including improving transparency and communication regarding study timelines, particularly around holidays, and providing further clarification on the transition to CPP. The meeting concluded with a commitment to refine the process and address stakeholder concerns in future meetings. Participants also discussed the importance of coordinating meeting dates to avoid conflicts with other ISOs, emphasizing the need for clear and advance scheduling to facilitate broader stakeholder engagement.
