MISO Forecast Report 2019 - Purdue University
2019 MISO Energy and Peak Demand Forecastingfor System PlanningPrepared by:Douglas J. GothamLiwei LuFang WuDavid G. NderituTimothy A. PhillipsPaul V. PreckelMarco A. VelasteguiState Utility Forecasting GroupDiscovery ParkPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IndianaNovember 2019Prepared for:Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
CONTENTSContentsExecutive Summary 112Introduction 31.11.22.1OVERVIEW 52.3CONVERSION OF RETAIL SALES TO METERED LOAD AND BENCHMARKING TO 2018 LEVELS 52.42.52.62.72.8STATEWIDE ANNUAL ELECTRIC ENERGY FORECASTS 5LRZ ENERGY FORECASTS 6LRZ NON-COINCIDENT MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND FORECASTS 6MISO-LEVEL FORECASTS 7DATA SOURCES 7MODELING ENHANCEMENTS 8State-by-State Results 93.1ARKANSAS 93.3INDIANA 113.23.43.53.63.73.83.93.103.113.123.133.144REPORT STRUCTURE 4Forecasting Methodology 52.23OVERVIEW 33.15ILLINOIS 10IOWA 12KENTUCKY 13LOUISIANA 15MICHIGAN 16MINNESOTA 17MISSISSIPPI 18MISSOURI 19MONTANA 20NORTH DAKOTA 21SOUTH DAKOTA 22TEXAS 23WISCONSIN 24LRZ Forecasts 254.1ANNUAL LRZ ENERGY FORECASTS 252019 MISO Forecast - State Utility Forecasting GroupI
CONTENTS4.24.34.3.1LRZ NON-COINCIDENT PEAK DEMANDS 26LRZ FORECASTS 27LRZ 1 274.3.2LRZ 2 284.3.3LRZ 3 294.3.4LRZ 4 304.3.5LRZ 5 314.3.6LRZ 6 324.3.7LRZ 7 344.3.84.3.95LRZ 8 354.3.10LRZ 9 36LRZ 10 37MISO Forecasts 385.1MISO ANNUAL ENERGY FORECAST 385.3MISO SYSTEM HIGH AND LOW FORECASTS 415.2MISO SYSTEM COINCIDENT PEAK DEMAND FORECAST 39APPENDIX A State Electric Energy Forecasting Models 42APPENDIX B Allocation Factors 54APPENDIX C Peak Demand Models and Forecast Results 58APPENDIX D High and Low Forecasts 73II2019 MISO Forecast – State Utility Forecasting Group
TABLESTablesTable ES-1: State Retail Sales CAGR (2020-2039) (%) . 1Table ES-2: LRZ Metered Load CAGR (2020-2039) (%) . 2Table ES-3: MISO Annual Energy and July Coincident Peak Demand CAGR (2020-2039) (%) . 2Table 1: Data Sources. 7Table 2: Arkansas Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) . 9Table 3: Arkansas Allocation Factors . 9Table 4: Arkansas LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) . 9Table 5: Illinois Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .10Table 6: Illinois Allocation Factors.10Table 7: Illinois LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .10Table 8: Indiana Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .11Table 9: Indiana and Kentucky Allocation Factors .11Table 10: Indiana and Kentucky LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .11Table 11: Iowa Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .12Table 12: Iowa Allocation Factors .12Table 13: Iowa LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .12Table 14: Kentucky Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .13Table 15: Indiana and Kentucky Allocation Factors .13Table 16: Indiana and Kentucky LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .14Table 17: Louisiana Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .15Table 18: Louisiana Allocation Factors .15Table 19: Louisiana LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .15Table 20: Michigan Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%).16Table 21: Michigan Allocation Factors .16Table 22: Michigan LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .16Table 23: Minnesota Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .17Table 24: Minnesota Allocation Factors .17Table 25: Minnesota LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .17Table 26: Mississippi Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .18Table 27: Mississippi Allocation Factors .18Table 28: Mississippi LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .18Table 29: Missouri Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .19Table 30: Missouri Allocation Factors .19Table 31: LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%).19Table 32: Montana Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .20Table 33: Montana and North Dakota Allocation Factors.20Table 34: Montana and North Dakota LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .20Table 35: North Dakota Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .212019 MISO Forecast - State Utility Forecasting GroupIII
TABLESTable 36: Montana and North Dakota Allocation Factors.21Table 37: Montana and North Dakota LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .21Table 38: South Dakota Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .22Table 39: South Dakota Allocation Factors .22Table 40: South Dakota LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .22Table 41: Texas Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .23Table 42: Texas Allocation Factors (%) .23Table 43: Texas LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .23Table 44: Wisconsin Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .24Table 45: Wisconsin Allocation Factors.24Table 46: Wisconsin LRZ Forecast CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .24Table 47: Gross LRZ Energy Forecasts without EE Adjustments (Annual Metered Load in GWh) .25Table 48: July Non-Coincident Peak Demand without EE Adjustments (Metered Load in MW) .26Table 49: Gross MISO System Energy (Annual Metered Load in GWh) .38Table 50: MISO Monthly Coincident Factors .39Table 51: Gross MISO System July Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .40Table 52: Gross MISO System CAGR for Alternate Forecasts (2020-2039) .41Table 53: Dependent and Explanatory Variables .42Table 54: Explanatory Variable CAGR for the Period of 2020-2039 (%) .43Table 55: Gross State Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .44Table 56: MISO Local Balancing Authorities, 2018 .54Table 57: MISO Load Fraction at State Level (MWh), 2009-2017.55Table 58: MISO Load Fraction (Average % of State-Level Electricity Sales from 2009 to 2017) .55Table 59: State Level MISO Load Fraction by MISO LRZs .56Table 60: Allocation Factors to Convert State Sales to LRZ Metered Load.57Table 61: Selected Weather Stations for LRZs, Midwest Regional Climate Center .58Table 62: Normalized July Peak Load Factors and Weather Conditions (Fahrenheit) .59Table 63: Gross January Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .60Table 64: Gross February Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .61Table 65: Gross March Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .62Table 66: Gross April Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW).63Table 67: Gross May Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .64Table 68: Gross June Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .65Table 69: Gross July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .66Table 70: Gross August Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .67Table 71: Gross September Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .68Table 72: Gross October Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .69Table 73: Gross November Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .70Table 74: Gross December Non-Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .71Table 75: Gross MISO System Coincident Peak Demand by Month (Metered Load in MW) .72IV2019 MISO Forecast – State Utility Forecasting Group
FIGURESFiguresFigure 1: MISO 2018 Planning Year LRZ Map . 3Figure 2: Process Flow Chart . 5Figure 3: Structure and Logic Diagram for Allocation Factors . 6Figure 4: Structure and Logic Diagram for Peak Conversion Factors . 6Figure 5: Arkansas Energy Forecast (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) . 9Figure 6: Illinois Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .10Figure 7: Indiana Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .11Figure 8: Iowa Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .12Figure 9: Kentucky Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .13Figure 10: Louisiana Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .15Figure 11: Michigan Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .16Figure 12: Minnesota Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .17Figure 13: Mississippi Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .18Figure 14: Missouri Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .19Figure 15: Montana Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .20Figure 16: North Dakota Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .21Figure 17: South Dakota Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .22Figure 18: Texas Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .23Figure 19: Wisconsin Energy Forecasts (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .24Figure 20: Gross LRZ 1 Energy (GWh) .27Figure 21: Gross LRZ 1 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .28Figure 22: Gross LRZ 2 Energy (GWh) .29Figure 23: Gross LRZ 2 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .29Figure 24: Gross LRZ 3 Energy (GWh) .30Figure 25: Gross LRZ 3 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .30Figure 26: Gross LRZ 4 Energy (GWh) .31Figure 27: Gross LRZ 4 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .31Figure 28: Gross LRZ 5 Energy (GWh) .32Figure 29: Gross LRZ 5 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .32Figure 30: Gross LRZ 6 Energy (GWh) .33Figure 31: Gross LRZ 6 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .33Figure 32: Gross LRZ 7 Energy (GWh) .34Figure 33: Gross LRZ 7 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .34Figure 34: Gross LRZ 8 Energy (GWh) .35Figure 35: Gross LRZ 8 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .35Figure 36: Gross LRZ 9 Energy (GWh) .36Figure 37: Gross LRZ 9 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .362019 MISO Forecast - State Utility Forecasting GroupV
FIGURESFigure 38: Gross LRZ 10 Energy (GWh) .37Figure 39: Gross LRZ 10 July Non-Coincident Peak Demand (MW) .37Figure 40: Gross MISO System Energy Forecast (Metered Load in GWh) .39Figure 41: Gross MISO System July Coincident Peak Demand (Metered Load in MW) .40Figure 42: Gross MISO System Energy for Alternate Forecasts (Annual Metered Load in GWh) .41VI2019 MISO Forecast – State Utility Forecasting Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYExecutive SummaryThis report provides the sixth load forecast the State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG) has prepared for theMidcontinent Independent System Operator Inc. (MISO). These forecasts project annual energy demand for theten MISO local resource zones (LRZs) and the MISO system as a whole. Monthly peak loads 1 are also forecast atthe LRZ and MISO system-wide levels. This forecast does not attempt to replicate the forecasts that areproduced by MISO’s load-serving entities (LSEs).Previous forecast reports included projections on both gross (prior to adjustments for utility energy efficiencyprograms) and net (after those adjustments) bases. The energy efficiency (EE) adjustments were provided byMISO and were developed in the process of developing the annual MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP).With the temporary suspension of the MTEP process this year, no EE adjustments are available. Thus, allprojections in this report are on a gross basis.Econometric models were developed for each state to project annual retail sales of electricity. Forecasts ofmetered load at the LRZ level were developed by allocating the portion of each state’s sales to the appropriateLRZ and adjusting for distribution system losses, weather and existing EE programs. LRZ monthly peak demandprojections were developed using normalized monthly peak conversion factors, which translated annual energyinto monthly peak demand based on historical observations assuming normal peak weather conditions. TheLRZ monthly peak demand forecasts are on a non-coincident basis. 2 MISO system level monthly peakprojections were developed from the LRZ monthly peak forecasts using monthly coincidence factors by LRZ.The state econometric models were developed using publicly available economic data, namely annualelectricity sales, prices for electricity and natural gas, personal income, population, employment, gross stateproduct (GSP), and annual cooling and heating degree days. Economic and population projections acquiredfrom IHS Markit (formerly IHS Global Insight) and price projections developed by SUFG were used to produceprojections of future retail sales. Weather variables were held constant at their 30-year normal values. TableES-1 provides the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for each state energy forecast.Table ES-1. State Retail Sales CAGR (2020-2039) (%)STATE ARILINIAKYLAMIMNCAGR 1.00 0.62 1.09 1.75 0.91 0.59 0.87 0.82MS1.41MO0.95MT1.68ND1.54SD1.68TX1.67WI1.01LRZ level annual energy forecasts were developed by allocating the state energy forecasts to the individual LRZson a proportional basis. Additionally, adjustments for distribution losses, normal weather and existing EEprograms were made to produce a forecast at the metered load level. Table ES-2 provides the CAGR for eachLRZ energy forecast.This is the first forecast that includes monthly peak load projections (previous forecasts were done on asummer and winter seasonal basis). Due to the voluminous nature of including twelve monthly 20-yearforecasts for ten LRZs and the MISO system, only a representative month (July) is included in the main body ofthis report. The monthly forecasts are available in Appendix C.2 Throughout this report, coincidence is stated in reference to the overall MISO system. Thus, the LRZ peakdemand forecasts are for the highest level of demand for that particular LRZ, which would be coincident at theLRZ level but non-coincident at the MISO system level.12019 MISO Forecast - State Utility Forecasting Group1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTable ES-2. LRZ Metered Load CAGR (2020-2039) 90.84101.41LRZ monthly non-coincident peak demand projections were developed using peak conversion factors that aredetermined from historical relationships between average hourly load for the year, monthly peak levels for theyear, and weather conditions at the time of the peak demand. Since these conversion factors are held constantfor the forecast period, the LRZ monthly peak demand projections have the same growth rates as the energyprojections in Table ES-2. 3MISO system-wide energy and peak demand projections were developed from the LRZ-level projections. Sinceeach LRZ does not experience its peak demand at the same time as the others (or as the entire MISO system),the MISO monthly coincident peak demand is less than the arithmetic sum of the individual LRZ monthly noncoincident peak demands. The MISO system monthly coincident peak demand is determined by applyingmonthly coincidence factors to the individual LRZ monthly non-coincident peak demands and summing acrossLRZs. These monthly coincidence factors represent the ratio of the LRZ’s load at the time of the overall MISOsystem monthly peak to the LRZ’s monthly non-coincident peak. Since coincidence is not an issue for annualenergy, the MISO energy projections are found from the simple sum of the individual LRZs’ energy projections.Table ES-3 provides the compound annual growth rates for the MISO annual energy and July peak demandforecasts.Table ES-3. MISO Annual Energy and July Coincident Peak Demand CAGR (2020-2039) (%)MISO-SystemCAGREnergy0.97July Peak Demand0.963 It should be noted that if customer sectors grow at different rates, the assumption that energy and peakdemand will grow at the same rate is unlikely to hold true. However, t
3.4 IOWA_12 3.5 KENTUCKY _13 . Gross MISO System Coincident Peak Demand by Month (Metered Load in MW) .72. FIGURES 2019 MISO Forecast - State Utility Forecasting Group V . Arkansas Energy Forecast (Annual Retail Sales in GWh) .
SPP Seams Updates MISO-SPP Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee (IPSAC): MISO and SPP had an in-person IPSAC meeting at the MISO offices in Metairie, LA on March 9, 2017. The bulk of the meeting focused on the 2016 Coordinated System Plan
MISO Transmission Expansion Plan 2013 Chapter 1 – Executive Summary 7 Book 2 - Resource Adequacy In conjunction with transmission studies, MISO assesses the adequacy of generation for the current planning year and future planning horizons. The MISO regio
The Value Proposition benefit metrics convey the value of geographic, generat ion, and load diversity benefits that MISO membership brings . In 2021, this study show ed that MISO provide d between 3.0 and 3.8 billion in annual economic net benefits. To date, MISO has documented over 36 billion in cumulative
Jun 08, 2021 · Key takeaways and lessons-learned from the event, and actions for MISO and stakeholders to mitigate future risk, were codified in MISO’s event report Key Takeaways 1. Generation performance is critical, even when not experiencing extreme weather. 2. Resource adequacy planning needs to be refined. 3. Transmission is vital to moving
Purdue Printing Services The School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Purdue University Heine Pharmacy Building, Room 104 575 Stadium Mall Drive West Lafayette, IN 47904-2091 (765) 494-1361 (765) 494-7800 Fax www.pharmacy.purdue.edu The Purdue Pharmacist is published three times a year for alumni
BOOK 4 Regional Energy Information In this MISO Transmission Expansion Plan, MISO staff recommends 3.3 billion of new transmission enhancement projects for Board of Directors’ approval. misoenergy.org. Summary The MISO footprint is not a monolithic area, but a File Size: 1MBPage Count: 22
MISO). Although PSYOP has been repeatedly misunderstood and misrepresented, MISO, as a means of informing and influencing foreign audiences, remains as relevant in peace as in war and as vital to our nation’s defense as ever before. This discussion is intended
adventure tourism (ISO 21101 and TR 21102)2 addresses adventure travel specifically, and none of these standards or quality assurance systems cover all the aspects necessary for excellent adventure travel guiding. In the absence of a global qualification and performance standard, a variety of approaches to managing adventure travel guiding can be
