Wind on the Wires1 - Smart Grid (R) Evolution: Electric Power Struggles - page 151

comprising a member from each state's PUC and one from the state governor's office,
along with multiple working groups. The executive team was tasked with coordinating
key stakeholders, including state regulators, transmission companies, electric utilities, and
independent power producers (National Wind Coordinating Collaborative 2008 ) .
Several critical questions - slightly different to those addressed in Texas - faced the
UMTDI, including: which zones had the best wind resources? Where should transmission
development be prioritized? How could regional economic development be promoted, and
should the transmission lines be sized for future large-scale export to other regions like the
neighboring RTOs? The UMTDI also studied how to ensure renewable resources would be
developed and examined optimal grid designs to promote access across all states. While
Illinois was not a member of the UMTDI consortium, it is such an important part of the
Upper Midwest electric system that it was included in all of the transmission analyses
(National Wind Coordinating Collaborative 2008 ) .
As in Texas, UMTDI plans were accompanied by detailed transmission analysis,
modeling power flows on the existing system and estimating how new transmission lines
would alter flows, as well as how they would influence future system costs, reliability, and
grid operations. The UMTDI worked with MISO to develop different future transmission
scenarios to estimate the effects of alternate configurations on system operation and
estimate the benefits and costs of the new lines.
The UMTDI scoped twelve different scenarios and integrated stakeholder comments
into the final selection of two scenarios. The UMTDI explored the possibilities of adding
25 GW of wind in the five study states, with twenty different energy zones, and nine
zones in Illinois. The analyses examined providing electricity to the study states as well
as exporting 10 GW of wind power and different configurations for transmission-line
and wind resource development. The UMTDI led to a larger MISO-coordinated effort
to identify and integrate “Unique Purpose Projects,” which were projects targeted at
fulfilling state RPS or low-carbon goals. This required a shift among MISO members,
from supporting lines to enhance reliability to embracing larger policy goals. Coming to
agreement on the future transmission scenario involved coordinating multiple different
stakeholder viewpoints, termed “turbulence” in the May 28, 2010 FERC filing.
Issues of cost allocation, uncertainties of benefit-cost calculations, and a group of
transmission owners who began a parallel analysis without informing other stakeholders
affected the study process. The Regional Generation Outlet Study II (RGOS II) led to
the region-wide transmission planning effort by the Midwest Governors' Association and
MISO which mapped, planned, and eventually approved the seventeen high-voltage lines
across the system (Figure 6.5). The resulting seventeen Multi-Value Project (MVP) lines,