Locational ICAP Methodology
-
Upload
yvonne-maynard -
Category
Documents
-
view
40 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Locational ICAP Methodology
June 10, 2003 1
Locational ICAP Methodology
Presented To: NEPOOL Reliability CommitteeBy: Wayne Coste, IREMM, Inc.
June 10, 2003
June 10, 2003 2
Review of Previous Presentation• Discussed reliability indices
• Reviewed reliability indices – What selected reliability index is and is not
• Showed application of indices– Regional vs. Sub-Area
• Illustrated criterion for locational reliability• Provided preliminary indications (New)
• Detailed illustration of methodology (New)
Review
June 10, 2003 3
LOLE Reliability Index• Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE)
– Has wide acceptance in electric power industry– LOLE index of 0.1 days per year accepted as
threshold for generation adequacy
• Index is calculated as “Expectation”– LOLE is cumulative daily probability of
insufficient resources to meet customer loads
• Transmission only included in inter-area reliability studies
Review
June 10, 2003 4
Reliability Risk Measurements
• Single bus resource adequacy assessment– Measures generation adequacy; and – Load response program (LRP) adequacy
• Constrained Multi-Area assessment.– Includes locational component w/o additional T&D risk
• Composite reliability assessment– Generation and LRP adequacy risks plus– Transmission and distribution risks– “Delivered-to-the-customer-terminal” reliability
Review
June 10, 2003 5
Applicability of LOLE Index
• LOLE Index (ISO-NE, NYISO and PJM):– IS a measure of resource adequacy– Can be applied to many interconnected areas– IS NOT a composite reliability assessment
• Criterion is met when regions are inter-connected and LOLE less than, or equal to, 0.1 days/year
Review
June 10, 2003 6
Inter-Regional ConstraintsInter-regional constraints leave exporting areas with low LOLE and importing areas with roughly equivalent indices.
For minimum ICAP in both B and C (ie. maximum efficiency), both have 0.100 LOLE and interface is supportive of emergency flows because it is not constraining.
Single contingency interface rating (ie. N-1)
Determine the amount of capacity in each region so that both (all) areas meet reliability standard.
Frequently Export Constrained Frequently
Export Constrained
B0.099 C
0.100
Not Generally Constrained Imports or Exports can Dominate
A0.02
Review
June 10, 2003 7
Sub-Area LOLE Risk
• Extension of 0.1 days/year criterion to sub- areas without additional risk factors– If resource adequacy is the issue, LOLE index would be
uniform across areas• Assumption underlying single bus model• No recognition of additional risks
– If resource adequacy LOLE is not uniform across sub-areas
• Certain customers would be targeted for blackouts while other New England customers won’t be interrupted
• Interruption guided by ISO / satellite OP4 & OP7 needs
Review
June 10, 2003 8
Intra-Area ConstraintsWithin New England there are many sub-areas. For all areas to see the same resource adequacy risk -- the supply resources and transmission must be balanced.
Intra-area locational balance is an extension of the accepted NPCC inter-regional transmission limit framework.
Internal interfaces are rated for single contingency (ie. N-1) and do not add to risk levels.
SME ME BHE
SEMARI
WEMA CMAN
NH
BOST
CT
SWCTNOR
VT
ISO-NE0.100
Review
June 10, 2003 9
Resource Adjustment Methodology
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Once the system is brought to NEPOOL reliability criterion:
1. Add/remove MW from sub-area
2. For Add/remove
- Assume X MW change
- Other areas reduced by X MW
- Reduce according to peak load
3. Identify “Critical Points”
- LOLE increases with less MW
- LOLE decreases with more MW
Virtually UnconstrainedX MW
-D MW
-E MW
-B MW
-A MW
-C MW
0.100
Net MW adjustment is zero:0 = X -A -B -C -D -E
Review
June 10, 2003 10
Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLEImport Constrained Area 2004
0.00000
0.10000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50000
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Ratio of Area Capacity / Area Peak
LO
LE
(D
ays
Per
Yea
r)
Less Capacity Higher LOLELower Capacity / Load Ratio
More Capacity No Impact on LOLEHigher Capacity / Load Ratio
2004 Existing Ratio
Effect of Changing Capacity / Load Ratios ‘Import’ Constrained Area
Review
June 10, 2003 11
Effect of Changing Capacity / Load Ratios ‘Export’ Constrained Area
Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLEExport Constrained Area - 2004
0.00000
0.10000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50000
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Ratio of Area Capacity / Area Peak
LO
LE
(D
ays
Per
Yea
r)
2004 Existing Ratio
Less Capacity No Impact on LOLELower Capacity / Load Ratio
More Capacity Reduces LOLEHigher Capacity / Load Ratio
Review
June 10, 2003 12
NY-NE – 1550w/o Cross
Sound Cable
SEMA – 2300
Norwalk-Stamford – 1100
Surowiec South - 1150ME-NH – 1400
North-South – 2700
Boston – 3600
SEMA/RI – 3000
NBOrrington South – 1050
NB-NE - 700HQHighgate - 210 Phase II - 1500
CSC -300
S-MELoad 5331516 MW
MELoad 956956 MW
BHELoad 312942 MW
SEMALoad 25503356 MW
RILoad 22665140 MW
W-MALoad 19633681 MW
CMA/NEMA
RTEP03 Peak Load and Installed Capacity MW by Sub-Area - 2003
VTLoad 1203 839 MW
NY
NHLoad 16174006 MW
BOSTON
CTLoad 33504437 MW
SWCTLoad 2263 2036 MW
NORLoad 1251
444 MW Under Construction
Other Studies Required
RTEPLoad
Capacity
KEY:Connecticut Import– 2200 Regional Transmission
Expansion Plan Sub-area
Priority Studies Required
South West CT – 2000
East-West – 2400
Load 52223613 MW
Load 1634 206 MW
June 10, 2003 13
Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLEBOST 2003
0.00000
0.10000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50000
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area
LO
LE
(D
ay
s P
er
Ye
ar)
Effect of Adjusting Capacity in BOSTPreliminary Indications
2003 Existing Ratio
Minimum Before Import Constrained
Maximum Before Locked-in
Sub-Area LOLE
0.1 Days / Year Criterion
Review
June 10, 2003 14
Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLE SWCT 2003
0.00000
0.10000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50000
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area
LO
LE
(D
ay
s P
er
Ye
ar)
2003 Existing Ratio
Effect of Adjusting Capacity in SWCTPreliminary Indications
Minimum Before Import Constrained
Maximum Before Locked-in
Sub-Area LOLE
0.1 Days / Year Criterion
Review
June 10, 2003 15
Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLENOR 2003
0.00000
0.10000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50000
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area
LO
LE
(D
ay
s P
er
Ye
ar)
Driven by SWCT Import
Driven by NOR Import
Effect of Adjusting Capacity in NORPreliminary Indications
2003 Existing Ratio
Minimum Before Import Constrained
Maximum Before Locked-in
Sub-Area LOLE
0.1 Days / Year Criterion
Review
June 10, 2003 16
Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLECT 2003
0.00000
0.10000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50000
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area
LO
LE
(D
ay
s P
er
Ye
ar)
Effect of Adjusting Capacity in N-CTPreliminary Indications
2003 Existing Ratio
Minimum Before Import Constrained
Maximum Before Locked-in
Sub-Area LOLE
0.1 Days / Year Criterion
Review
June 10, 2003 17
Possible Solutions• PJM favors transmission solutions
– Uses sub-area import and export criteria• Import Capability Emergency Transfer Objective (CETO) criteria of
0.04 days/year
• Export limited areas trigger planning process
• NYISO uses Locational Capacity approach– Import constrained areas have locational ICAP– Certain transmission eligible for “ICAP” if bundled with generation
• ISO-NE is pursuing a Locational Capacity approach
Review
June 10, 2003 18
Available Solutions• Locational ICAP requires minimum amount of
local capacity for reliability• Increases in transmission capability can reduce
the minimum local capacity requirement• Non-discriminatory solutions
– Transmission solution– LSEs can foster LRP resources– Generation solutions
Review
June 10, 2003 19
RTEP Sub-Area Based Reqm’ts
2003 RTEP Area Only - Not Aggregated
RTEP Sub Area Peak
Direct Import
Capability CapacityLICAP
MinimumExisting
Ratio Reqd StatusBHE 370 1750 981 132 2.651 0.357 BOST 5222 3600 3726 3555 0.714 0.681 CMAN 1634 n/a 211 0.129 CT 3350 4200 4558 3966 1.361 1.184 ME 1008 2250 990 252 0.982 0.250 NH 1617 n/a 4048 2.503 NOR 1251 1100 466 591 0.373 0.473 InsufficientRI 2266 n/a 5177 2.285 SEMA 2550 2300 3399 2474 1.333 0.970 SME 563 2550 1537 2.730 SWCT 2265 3100 2019 1936 0.891 0.855 VT 1211 n/a 874 0.722 WEMA 1963 n/a 3715 1.893
Note: Existing Must Be Greater Than Required
All Existing and New Resources (RTEP03) AvailablePreliminary
Additive Transmission Import Capability From all Areas May Not be Simultaneously Feasible
June 10, 2003 20
Sub-Area Largest Unit
Sub AreaExcludes Nuclear and
New CC Units
Largest Unit "At Risk"
BHE Maine-Independence 493BOST Salem 4 400CMAN UAE Lowell 75CT New Haven Harbor 461ME Rumford 244NH Newington 1 400NOR Norwalk 2 168RI Brayton 4 435SEMA Canal 1 558SME Wyman 4 609SWCT Wallingford 214VT Mc Neil 52WEMA Northfield Mt. 1080
June 10, 2003 21
Sub-Area w/o Largest Unit2003 RTEP Area Only - Not Aggregated
RTEP Sub Area Peak
Direct Import
Capability CapacityLICAP
MinimumExisting
RatioLargest Unit
"At Risk"
Existing Ratio
without Largest Unit Reqd Status
BHE 370 1750 981 132 2.651 493 1.319 0.357 BOST 5222 3600 3726 3555 0.714 400 0.637 0.681 VulnerableCMAN 1634 n/a 211 0.129 75 0.083CT 3350 4200 4558 3966 1.361 461 1.223 1.184 ME 1008 2250 990 252 0.982 244 0.740 0.250 NH 1617 n/a 4048 2.503 400 2.256 NOR 1251 1100 466 591 0.373 168 0.238 0.473 InsufficientRI 2266 n/a 5177 2.285 435 2.093 SEMA 2550 2300 3399 2474 1.333 558 1.114 0.970 SME 563 2550 1537 2.730 609 1.648 SWCT 2265 3100 2019 1936 0.891 214 0.797 0.855 VulnerableVT 1211 n/a 874 0.722 52 0.679 WEMA 1963 n/a 3715 1.893 1080 1.342
Notes: Existing without Largest Unit must be greater than required Insufficient means short without resource attrition risk Vulnerable means short with resource attrition risk
Preliminary
Additive Transmission Import Capability From all Areas May Not be Simultaneously Feasible
June 10, 2003 22
Sub-Area PUSH Units
DCA Peaking Unit Name Rating (MW) DCA Peaking Unit Name Rating (MW) DCA Peaking Unit Name Rating (MW) DCA Peaking Unit Name Rating (MW)Framingham Jet 1 9 Bridgeport Harbor 2 152 Norwalk Harbor 1 162 Franklin Drive 10 16Framingham Jet 2 10 Bridgeport Harbor 4 10 Norwalk Harbor 2 168 Middletown 10 17Framingham Jet 3 9 Branford 10 16 Cos Cob 10 19 Middletown 4 400
Kendall J et 1 15 Devon 11 31 Cos Cob 11 18 Montville 10 And 11 5Kendall J et 2 15 Devon 12 31 Cos Cob 12 19 Montville 5 81L Street J et 13 Devon 13 33 Montville 6 410M Street J et 50 Devon 14 30 Norwich Jet 15
Mystic 4 100 Rocky River 29 So. Meadow 11 37Mystic 5 92 PPL Wallingford Unit 2 171 So. Meadow 12 38Mystic 6 107 PPL Wallingford Unit 3 So. Meadow 13 38
Mystic J et 8 PPL Wallingford Unit 4 So. Meadow 14 37Waters River J et 1 14 PPL Wallingford Unit 5 Torrington Terminal 10 16Waters River J et 2 30 Tunnel 10 17West Medway Jet 1 39West Medway Jet 2 36
Kendall Steam 65
Area Total 612 Area Total 503 Area Total 386 Area Total 1127
CONNS W CONN - NORS W CONNNEMASS_BOST
June 10, 2003 23
Sub-Area w/o PUSH Units2003 RTEP Area Only - Not Aggregated
RTEP Sub Area Peak
Direct Import
Capability CapacityLICAP
MinimumExisting
Ratio"PUSH"
Units
Existing Ratio
without "PUSH"
Units Reqd StatusBHE 370 1750 981 132 2.651 0 2.651 0.357 BOST 5222 3600 3726 3555 0.714 612 0.596 0.681 VulnerableCMAN 1634 n/a 211 0.129 0 0.129 CT 3350 4200 4558 3966 1.361 1127 1.024 1.184 VulnerableME 1008 2250 990 252 0.982 0 0.982 0.250 NH 1617 n/a 4048 2.503 0 2.503 NOR 1251 1100 466 591 0.373 386 0.064 0.473 InsufficientRI 2266 n/a 5177 2.285 0 2.285 SEMA 2550 2300 3399 2474 1.333 0 1.333 0.970 SME 563 2550 1537 2.730 0 2.730 SWCT 2265 3100 2019 1936 0.891 503 0.669 0.855 VulnerableVT 1211 n/a 874 0.722 0 0.722 WEMA 1963 n/a 3715 1.893 0 1.893
Notes: Existing without PUSH Unit must be greater than required Insufficient means short without resource attrition risk Vulnerable means short with resource attrition risk
Preliminary
Additive Transmission Import Capability From all Areas May Not be Simultaneously Feasible
June 10, 2003 24
Next Steps• Continue finalizing and communicating to participants
– Await NEPOOL Power Supply Planning Committee comments• Presentation given May 30th on technical issues
• Technical approach perceived to be credible by PSPC
• Comments due by approximately June 13th
• Development of results for changes in transmission constraint values
– Obtain comments from your Committee
• Nesting of Sub-areas• Work with Amr Ibrahim to develop a web-based “FAQ”
– Communicate responses to participants– Facilitate understanding of approach and basis for further analysis
• UCAP translation• Extend analysis to include treatment of export constrained
areas