Post on 02-Feb-2016
description
White Paper on the Future of Congestion Management
IDC Granularity Task Force
Standing Committee Meetings
July 20-22, 2004
2
Special Thanks to…● Pat Shanahan – ATC● Alan Mok – Cinergy● Ryan Prejean – EES● Dave Robitaille – IMO● Julie Novacek – MISO● Dave Mabry – PJM● Paul Graves – Progress Energy Florida● Lanny Nickell – SPP● Rick Stegehuis – WE Energies● Bob Cummings – NERC
3
Background● June 2000 - IDCGTF formed by the SCS (now
ORS) to investigate and propose technical solutions to existing inaccuracies in the IDC
● June 2002 - ORS endorsed moving toward full granularity in the IDC
● October 2002 - ORS provided further direction on combination of every generator to load and electrically cohesive zone methods
● February 3, 2004 - RCWG requested white paper on congestion management be prepared
4
How the IDC Works Today● IDC calculates CA to CA Transaction Distribution
Factors (TDFs)● A CA to CA TDF represents the impact of increasing
generation in one control area and decreasing generation in another
● TDFs are calculated using on-line generation● Impact of a tagged transaction on a flowgate is
determined by the TDF associated with the Source CA and Sink CA
● IDC CO 114 incorporate more TDF granularity for the MISO/PJM footprints
5
Problem Statement● IDC does not correctly recognize ultimate
source/sink impacts of tagged transactions
● IDC does not adequately address market dispatch of evolving balancing areas
● TLR takes at least 30 mins to implement● Industry needs consistent and global
application of granularity
6
Options Developed
● IDCGTF developed three options for consideration
● Options vary in complexity, paradigm shift, difficulty and timeliness of implementation
● May implement all three in phases or any one or more on a standalone basis
7
Options Developed - Summary● Option 1
increases impact calculation granularity by incorporating TP zones
relief responsibilities assigned per existing methods relief achieved per existing methods
● Option 2 relief responsibilities assigned to BAs based on
distributed impacts of a BA’s net interchange relief achieved through transaction curtailment and/or
redispatch, uses increased impact calculation granularity of Option 1
8
Options Developed - Summary
● Option 3 relief responsibilities assigned to BAs based
on distributed impacts of a BA’s net interchange
relief achieved through most effective/efficient re-dispatch, uses ultimate granularity
9
Option 1 - Zones Modeled in IDC● Used by TPs in their service evaluation● Must be properly linked to tagged source/sinks● Generation zones must contain one or more
generators● Load zones must contain meter-able load pockets● Zone participation factors and generation block
loading order must be provided● CAs may contain one or more zones● Zones may not cross CA boundaries
10
Option 1 - Zones Modeled in IDC● FERC to provide regulatory review of TP zones● NERC to provide reliability review of TP zones
Verify that sources/sinks on the schedule match those identified on the reservation
Verify that sources/sinks on the schedule can be dispatched as scheduled
Ensure that source/sink generators associated with curtailed schedules will be re-dispatched
● CA modeling remains for purposes of NNL calcs● Will use block loading order data submitted to
determine a more accurate NNL dispatch
11
Option 1 - Tagging Changes
● TPs required to register OASIS sources/sinks
● OASIS sources/sinks will be mapped to IDC zones and tagging sources/sinks
● TP responsible for those sources/sinks within their transmission footprint
12
Option 1 - Pros● Doesn’t require extensive IDC changes● Improves impact calculation granularity● Can be implemented quickly● FERC ensures comparability● Granularity used for estimating schedule
impacts same as that used for provision of transmission service
● Process is manageable
13
Option 1 - Cons● May not be uniform for all TP ATC/AFC
methodologies
● Perpetuates the myth of contract path flow-ability
● Doesn’t incorporate counter-flows
14
Option 1 - Data Requirements
● Block loading merit order and participation factors for all generation zones
● OASIS sources/sinks registered by TPs
● IDC model changes as necessary
● IDC software changes
● Eventual incorporation of real-time data
15
External / Internal Relief Responsibility
● Applicable to both Options 2 and 3
16
IRR/ERR Calculations● IRR = Internal Relief Responsibility
● IRR – calculated like NNL is calculated today GLDFs down to zero percent used Specific generators supporting transactions
removed Contribution based on real-time and
projected data (generators and area load)
17
IRR/ERR Calculations● ERR = External Relief Responsibility● ERR – captures transactional impacts of a
balancing authority’s net interchange distributed across interconnection
● For exporters: ERR ~ (GSFwba minus LSFw) * Net Interchange
● For importers: ERR ~ (GSFw minus LSFwba) * Net Interchange
● Will need to deal with over-counting ERRs
18
Example ERR Calculation
CA “A”Load = 1000 MWGen = 1100 MWExport = 100 MW
GSF = 9%LSF = -9%
CA “B”Load = 600 MWGen = 200 MW
Import = 400 MWGSF = -8%LSF = 10%
FlowgateLimit 150 MVA
186 MVA
CA “C”Load = 400 MWGen = 700 MW
Export = 300 MWGSF = 10%LSF = -6%
CA “A”
ERR = (GSFA – LSFWTAVG) * ExportA
ERR = (.09 + .10) * 100 = 19 MWs
CA “B”ERR = (GSFWTAVG – LSFB) * ImportB
ERR = (.098 + .10) * 400 = 79 MWs
CA “C”ERR = (GSFC – LSFWTAVG) * ExportC
ERR = (.10 + .10) * 300 = 60 MWs
19
Option 2● Uses zonal impact calculation granularity
introduced in Option 1● Uses External/Internal relief responsibility
(ERR/IRR) methodology to assign responsibilities to balancing authorities
● Fulfillment of relief responsibilities accomplished through curtailment of tagged transactions and/or redispatch
20
Option 2● First determines ERR for each area based on
untagged net interchange BAs with untagged ERR must curtail If sufficient relief is obtained, no further action
● Uses tagged interchange to determine ERR at each priority level
● IRRs determined at appropriate level● BAs may fulfill ERRs through curtailment of
tagged transactions and/or redispatch
21
Option 2 - Pros● IDC curtailment algorithm stays the same● Introduces improved granularity both in
determination of relief responsibility and through usage of TP zones in transaction impact calculation
● Adds the option of generation re-dispatch to meet the ERR based on tariff requirements
● Complements CO 114 impact calculation methodology
22
Option 2 - Cons● ERRs for remote BAs could result● May be differences between ERRs assigned
and relief obtained through transaction curtailments
● Perpetuates the myth of contract path flow-ability
● May increase complexity of coordination due to lack of curtailment prescription
● May result in untimely results
23
Option 2 - Data Requirements● Block loading merit order and participation
factors for all generation zones
● OASIS sources/sinks registered by TPs
● IDC model changes as necessary
● IDC software changes
● Real-time and projected output for all generators
● Real-time and projected demand for each BA
24
Option 3● Uses ERR/IRR methodology for assigning
relief responsibilities● Relief achieved through re-dispatch
prescribed by RCs● Provider of re-dispatch compensated
through a settlement process that would charge BAs based on their relief responsibilities
25
Option 3● Each BA will determine and document how it
allocates re-dispatch costs to PtP and NITS customers
● Resource availability and bid prices will be made available to RCs
● Re-dispatch could take many forms Unit pairs within same BA Unit sales/purchases across BAs Multiple units across multiple flowgates Voluntary load curtailments
26
Option 3 - Issues● Re-dispatch would take place regardless
of priority of transactions impacting constraint
● Regulatory requirements
● Responsibility for relief is transferred from PSEs to net importing/exporting BAs
27
Option 3 - Pros
● Reduces amount of transactions curtailed
● Improves effectiveness of relief
● Relief is obtained quickly
● More cost effective relief solutions
● More likely to minimize potential impact on other flowgates
● Can provide useful market signals
28
Option 3 - Cons● Major paradigm shift
● Requires NERC commitment to address policy and regulatory issues
● Requires sophisticated tools
● BAs need to agree on settlement process
29
Option 3 - Data Requirements● IDC software changes● Real-time and projected output for all
generators● Bid information for generators● Real-time and projected demand for each BA● Real-time telemetry, or state-estimated values,
of all flowgates and OTDF flows● SDX data to include quick-start, min run times,
min and max generator output, etc.
30
Recommendations to RCWG / ORS● Adopt and implement Option 1
immediately
● Adopt and implement Option 3 as the long-term strategy for the IDC
● Form appropriate team(s) to develop business case for implementation of these options
31
RCWG / ORS Resolution● Accept Option 1 — Implement by June 1,
2005 Coordinate with NAESB
● For Option 3 long-term solution further work—Ask the MC and IDCWG to develop by September 2005: Functional design specification Business case for congestion management tools Coordinate with NAESB