Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

ICF energy digest collage thumbnail
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Subscribe now

Making sense of MISO’s recent capacity auction

Making sense of MISO’s recent capacity auction
Apr 27, 2022
7 MIN. READ

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Go to ICF

Exhibit 1: Differences between 2022/2023 PRA and 2021/2022 PRA results

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

Exhibit 2: Offered capacity in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2022/23 PRA vs. ICF expectations and 2021/22 PRA results

The latest Energy news, explained.

Subscribe to get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.

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 3a: Self-Scheduled and FRAP Capacity

Exhibit 3b: Merchant capacity as % of cleared capacity

Exhibit 3b: Merchant capacity as % of Cleared Capacity

Exhibit 4: Unconstrained offer curves for 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23 PRAs

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

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.