Locational ICAP Methodology

24
June 10, 2003 1 Locational ICAP Methodology Presented To: NEPOOL Reliability Committee By: Wayne Coste, IREMM, Inc. June 10, 2003

description

Locational ICAP Methodology. Presented To: NEPOOL Reliability Committee By: Wayne Coste, IREMM, Inc. June 10, 2003. Review of Previous Presentation. Discussed reliability indices Reviewed reliability indices What selected reliability index is and is not Showed application of indices - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Locational ICAP Methodology

Page 1: Locational ICAP Methodology

June 10, 2003 1

Locational ICAP Methodology

Presented To: NEPOOL Reliability CommitteeBy: Wayne Coste, IREMM, Inc.

June 10, 2003

Page 2: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 3: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 4: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 5: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 6: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 7: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 8: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 9: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 10: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 11: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 12: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 13: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 14: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 15: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 16: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 17: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 18: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 19: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 20: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 21: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 22: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 23: Locational ICAP Methodology

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

Page 24: Locational ICAP Methodology

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