
Making sense of MISO’s recent capacity auction
In our pre-auction , we made three predictions about Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2022/23 Planning Resource Auction (PRA) based on our analysis of pre-auction data:
- Prices would be higher than in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ previous auction ($20-30/MW-day vs. $5/MW-day) due to higher demand and lower supply.
- MISO North (Zones 1 to 7) would clear at a common price, but Zones 4 to 6 would remain tight in local supply and rely heavily on imports; we also acknowledged that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy may set high clearing prices if Å·²©ÓéÀÖ region has insufficient local capacity and/or low-cost imports are not available.
- MISO South (Zones 8 to 10) would clear separately due to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ sub-regional export constraint.
While Å·²©ÓéÀÖ second and third of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse predictions were borne out by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ auction results, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ first prediction did not capture Å·²©ÓéÀÖ extent of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ price increase in MISO North. In MISO North, prices ended up reaching Å·²©ÓéÀÖ price cap, or Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Cost of New Entry (CONE) of $237/MW-day, whereas MISO South cleared separately at $2.9/MW-day. This article explains this outcome, as well as oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr key results, such as bidding behavior, import dynamics, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ resource mix that cleared Å·²©ÓéÀÖ auction. We conclude by assessing wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr Å·²©ÓéÀÖ auction results are anomalous or indicative of deeper resource adequacy trends in MISO.
This post-auction analysis is based on currently available information. As new information becomes available, our views may evolve, and we will update Å·²©ÓéÀÖ analysis as appropriate.
Prices spiked in MISO North as capacity offers declined and demand increased
Based on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pre-auction data, we expected higher prices in MISO North given increases in demand and tightening supply, especially in Zones 4 to 7, which have historically relied on imports to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖir Planning Reserve Margin Requirements (PRMRs). These zones were expected to rely more heavily on imports to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖir PRMRs due to lower offered capacity driven by retirements, capacity de-rates, and general capacity withholding from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRA. However, in our base case, we did not expect a capacity shortage that would cause prices to reach Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CONE of $237/MW-day. The capacity shortage was caused by a 1.4 GW higher PRMR and 3.7 GW less offered capacity in this auction compared to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ last auction (Exhibit 1). Nearly 90% of this capacity decline was seen in MISO North, with a 2.8 GW decline in Zones 4 and 5 alone (Exhibit 2).
As a result, offered capacity was 4.5 GW lower than Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRMR in MISO North (96.7 GW vs. 101.2 GW), which could not be met by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 1.9 and 1.3 GW of imports from MISO South and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ External Resource Zones (ERZs), respectively. While overall imports increased compared to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ previous auction, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy did not offset Å·²©ÓéÀÖ decrease in local capacity and increase in demand, and total committed capacity in MISO North remained around 1.2 GW lower than Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRMR. MISO South had excess capacity to export, but it was constrained by its sub-regional export limit of 1.9 GW and cleared separately at a low price ($2.9/MW-day). Without this export limit (or with an unconstrained offer curve), MISO North would have cleared at around $65/MW-day, which is still significantly higher than Å·²©ÓéÀÖ $5/MW-day price in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ previous PRA.
Exhibit 1: Differences between 2022/2023 PRA and 2021/2022 PRA results
Exhibit 2: Offered capacity in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2022/23 PRA vs. ICF expectations and 2021/22 PRA results
Non-merchant offers decreased while merchant offers increased
We also observed changes in bidding behavior. Compared to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2021/22 auction, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre was a roughly 6 GW decrease in self-scheduled and Fixed Resource Adequacy Plan (FRAP) capacity, which is usually offered at near-zero prices. This decrease caused Å·²©ÓéÀÖ share of self-scheduled and FRAP capacity to decline by four percentage points (Exhibit 3a). FurÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrmore, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre was a 6 GW increase in high-price merchant offers; merchant capacity as a percentage of total cleared capacity increased to 8.1%, compared to 4% to 5% in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ previous auctions (Exhibit 3b). The most significant increases in merchant capacity were observed in Zones 1, 4, 5, and 6. This impact can also be seen in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ offer curve, which shifted leftward as zero price bids decreased (Exhibit 4). MISO’s Minimum Capacity Obligation (MCO) proposal, submitted to FERC, could limit furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr shifts. The MCO would require LSEs to procure at least 50% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir PRMR ahead of each PRA. MISO justified this proposal by noting that a small number of LSEs increasingly rely on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRA for capacity procurement and that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ MCO would prevent overreliance on PRA.
Exhibit 3a: Self-scheduled and FRAP capacity
Exhibit 3b: Merchant capacity as % of cleared capacity
Exhibit 4: Unconstrained offer curves for 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23 PRAs
Only Å·²©ÓéÀÖ LSEs with net short positions prior to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRA are exposed to high prices
Load serving entities (LSEs) in MISO have traditionally procured most of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir capacity needs outside of auction through self-supply or contracts, with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRA acting as a balancing market for additional capacity. The high clearing price in MISO North will only apply to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ amount of capacity that LSEs procured from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRA to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖir load obligations. In MISO North, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is nearly 8 GW of such capacity, which constitutes around 8% of total cleared capacity. As shown in Exhibit 3a, nearly 92% of total cleared capacity was eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr self-supplied or contracted.
All zones in MISO North cleared at a single price
While Zones 4 to 7 could not meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖir PRMRs, all zones were able to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖir LCRs. This was due to high-capacity import limits and lower LCR-to-PRMR ratios for Zones 4 to 6 such that none of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse zones were constrained due to Å·²©ÓéÀÖir LCRs. However, MISO North as a whole was short of capacity. In contrast, in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2020/21 PRA, only Zone 7 cleared separately at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CONE ($257/MW-day) as it was short of local capacity to meet its high LCR (99.6% of PRMR); oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr zones in MISO North cleared at a lower price ($5/MW-day).
Increasing reliance on natural gas and renewables
The share of coal capacity cleared in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ PRA continues to decrease with corresponding increases in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ shares of natural gas and renewables (Exhibit 5). Over Å·²©ÓéÀÖ last five years, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ coal capacity share has decreased from 36% to 30%, whereas Å·²©ÓéÀÖ total share of natural gas and renewables has increased from 39% to 46%. These trends are expected to continue in future PRAs due to planned coal retirements and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ predominance of renewables among new builds. However, renewables (especially wind and solar) have limited capacity accreditation. For example, for 1 GW of firm unforced capacity, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system would require nearly 7 GW of wind or 2 GW solar based on Å·²©ÓéÀÖir current capacity credits.
Exhibit 5: Historical cleared capacity mix in MISO PRAs
Implications of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ auction results for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future of MISO resource adequacy
Are Å·²©ÓéÀÖ high prices in MISO North in this auction an anomaly or a representation of deeper forces at play in MISO? We conclude Å·²©ÓéÀÖ latter, particularly due to changes in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity mix in MISO North. In 2023, we expect over 8 GW of retirements and only 3 GW of new capacity (derated for renewables) across MISO. Unless Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is a reassessment of unforced capacity and planned retirements, transmission expansion, or a sufficiently large increase in long-duration storage builds, shortages could persist in future auctions.
Due to Å·²©ÓéÀÖse potential shortfalls, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is an increasing need to reform Å·²©ÓéÀÖ MISO resource adequacy construct to provide proper economic signals. Price stability in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ MISO capacity market should be a key aim of this reform to induce Å·²©ÓéÀÖ necessary investment. One potential reform that would reduce volatility is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ use of a sloped raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr than vertical demand curve. The MISO Independent Market Monitor has estimated that if a sloped demand curve had been used in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2021/22 PRA, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ price would have been $150/MW-day as opposed to $5/MW-day. NeverÅ·²©ÓéÀÖless, we expect that utilities will try to limit Å·²©ÓéÀÖir exposure to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ volatility of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ auction by increasing self-supply and bilateral contracts. This will put upward pressure on bilateral contract prices.
Finally, due to capacity shortages, emergency events, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ predominance of renewables among new builds, proper capacity accreditation is necessary to maintain system reliability. One potential reform in this area that has been proposed by MISO is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ use of availability-based resource accreditation based on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ top 5% tight margin hours in each season. MISO's proposal is currently under evaluation by FERC. OÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr potential reforms in this area that are being considered by MISO include hybrid capacity accreditation, seasonal and monthly outage modeling, and forward capacity accreditation for renewables.