Overview Seams Coordination Process. 2 Introduction Midwest ISO Non-profit organization that manages...
-
Upload
gabriella-wyatt -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Overview Seams Coordination Process. 2 Introduction Midwest ISO Non-profit organization that manages...
Overview Seams Coordination Process
2
IntroductionMidwest ISO
• Non-profit organization that manages the reliable flow of electricity across much of the Midwestern United States
• Operational since December 15, 2001
• Generation Capacity
– 127,000 MW (market)
– 156,000 MW (reliability)
• Peak Load (set July 31st, 2006)
– 109,157 MW (market)
– 129,647 MW (reliability )
• Registered PA, TSP, MO, RC, Soon to be BA
3
Why Seams Coordination ? • Ensuring reliability
by managing congested path in a coordinated manner
• Ensuring equitable treatment for all customers and Transmission Service Providers
4
The Reliability Side
– We look beyond our boundaries at external facilities– We quantify the impact of all of our flows (both tagged
interchange schedules and internal dispatch) on these external facilities
– We leverage our real-time systems – which use fresher and more accurate data
– We redispatch our internal generators to protect these external facilities
Congestion Management has been a paradigm shift:Congestion Management has been a paradigm shift:
Congestion Management Process is a big part of Seams CoordinationCongestion Management Process is a big part of Seams Coordination
5
Congestion Management Process Background
• Loop Flows and Resulting Congestion exist today as part of interconnected operations
• Each Control Area’s dispatch has an impact on other neighboring control areas’ facilities
• One of the FERC appointed responsibilities of RTO’s was to improve the management of parallel flows
6
• Reduces the overselling of firm transmission service• Provides a mechanism where market and non-market entities
can control parallel flows in an economic manner that consistently ensures system reliability
• Improves response time of markets when a curtailment is called
Respecting Your Neighbors’ SystemsRespecting Your Neighbors’ Systems
Congestion Management Process Benefit
7
Participation
Multi-Party CMP Meeting
MISO/PJM JOA
CMP Structure
Agreements
2004 2005 2006Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2003Q3 Q4
Q3 Q4
2007Q1 Q3
Q1 Q2
MISO/MAPP SOA
MISO/PJM /TVA JRCA
MISO/SPPJOA
MISO/MH SOA
MISO/PJM Mkt – Non-Mkt
Implementations
MISO/PJM Mkt--Mkt
TVASPP
MAPP LGEE
CMPC CMPWG CMPIT CPWG
OCTF
SPPMarket
PJM/CPL JOA
BREC EKPC
8
Participation
Note: TVA agreement for CMP has been extended to include Big River Electric Cooperative, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, and Louisville Gas & Electric.
9
The Equity Side
– Market Entities (such as PJM, MISO and SWPP)– Non-market Entities (such as MAPP and TVA)
There are multiple transmission providers in the areaThere are multiple transmission providers in the area
Each Entities have historical rights and allocations that need to be respectedEach Entities have historical rights and allocations that need to be respected
10
Three Scenarios
– Non-Market to Non-Market• Coordinated AFC and Allocation Calculations
• Congestion Management through NERC TLR process curtailing transactions based on priority
– Market to Non-Market• Coordinated AFC and Allocation Calculations
• Market Entities Redispatch for Congestion on an External Flowgate
• Non Market Entities Congestion Management through NERC TLR process that curtail transactions
– Market to Market• Coordinated External Dispatch to Address Flowgate Responsibilities
• Example: MISO and PJM market-to-market dispatch
11
Non-Market to Non-Market – Overview • Addresses a cause of many TLR’s – an oversubscribed
transmission system• RESPECT each other’s flowgate limitations during the
determination of AFC/ATC and the calculation of “firmness”
• Flowgates identified upon which COORDINATION shall occur.
• Reciprocal Entities implement a process for SHARING or transferring unused allocation.
Coordination – Wide Area ViewCoordination – Wide Area View
12
Non-Market to Non-Market – Process • Reciprocal Entities conduct tests on flowgates
to determine which flowgates will be coordinated.
• Transmission service request evaluation:– Check for available AFC/ATC– Check for available Allocations– Request allocations from another Reciprocal Entity
• Approve/deny request
Coordination – Bridges the SeamsCoordination – Bridges the Seams
13
Non-Market to Non-Market – Benefits • Reciprocal Entities consider available allocation as
well as AFC on a flowgate when selling firm-transmission service.
• Reduces over-selling firm transmission service.• Provides entities requesting firm service higher
level of confidence approved transmission service will not be curtailed.
Reduces the number of TLR eventsReduces the number of TLR events
14
Market to Non-Market – Overview• Processes define what portions of a BA’s dispatch should be considered
FIRM or Non-Firm
Total
Market
Flow on
Flowgate
Non-Firm Market Flows
Firm Market Flows
From dispatch
Note: Market flows equal generation to load flows in market areas.
15
Market to Non-Market – Process
Redispatch
CurtailSchedules
Non-MarketReciprocal
Entity
MarketBased
ReciprocalEntity
ReliabilityCoordinator
InterchangeDistributionCalculator
TLR
Relief Obigation
Relief Obligations
16
Market to Non-Market – Benefits
– Greater granularity in the IDC– More granular calculation based on real-time telemetered
data versus static model– More “surgical” solution– Redispatch is far faster than TLR– Does not require multiple requests for TLR when initial
requests failed to resolve the constraint
A more reliable solution than TLR for addressing congestionA more reliable solution than TLR for addressing congestion
17
Market to Market – Purpose• Provides a mechanism whereby Market-Based Operating
Entities can economically dispatch their systems, respecting transmission constraints in each other’s footprints.
• Redispatch by each Market-Based Operating Entity is based on the most economic solution for the combined system.
• Uses market flow calculations to proactively manage congestion.
“M to M” Currently implemented between Midwest ISO and PJM.
Process enables neighbors to help solve the other’s obligationsProcess enables neighbors to help solve the other’s obligations
18
Market to Market – Benefits
• Builds on Market-to-Non-market Coordination and retains features for other Non-market Operating Entities.
• More effective and economic interregional control of transmission congestion
• Less reliance on individual transaction curtailments• Provides equity through preservation of entitlements on RCFs.• Maintains process for sharing or transferring of unused
allocations• Provides consistent price signals and incentives for market
behaviors that augments reliable system operations
19
Impact of CMP – Market to Market
If we coordinate dispatch on the top 10 congested flowgates we may solve 75% of the problem
If we coordinate dispatch on the top 10 congested flowgates we may solve 75% of the problem
Market to Market Redispatch: Number of Hours By Constraint (2006)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Constraint by Flowgate
Nu
mb
er o
f H
ou
rs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Per
cen
t
Hours Jointly Managed Cumulative Percent Hours
Few Constraints: Big BenefitsFew Constraints: Big Benefits
20
Impact of CMP - TLRsTransmission Line Relief Procedures by Reliability Coordinator
(Level 2 or Above)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
TL
R P
roc
edu
res
(Lev
el 2
or
Ab
ove
) AEP
APS
EES
FRCC
IMO
MAIN
MAPP
MECS
MISO
ONT
PJM
SOCO
SPP
TVA
VACN
VACS
MISO
PJM
21
Impact of CMP – Market to Market As market to market redispatch continues there has been a trend in the reduction of MWH that are being curtailed.
Midwest ISO TLR Information
TLR Level 3 and Higher
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Nu
mb
er
of
TL
Rs
2005
2006
MWH Curtailed
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
MW
H C
urt
ailed
2005
2006
22
Impact of CMP – Market to Market TLR Level 5 events have increased in some months, which were in part related to specific outage events.
Midwest ISO TLR Information
TLR Level 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Nu
mb
er
of
TL
Rs
2005
2006
Firm MW Curtailed
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Months
MW
H C
urt
ailed
2005
2006
23
Summary
The parties have implemented methodologies that have allowed each party to identify their respective flows on external parties and respond in a proactive and reliable manner to alleviate congestion and enhance reliability.
Questions and Discussion