resource adequacy reliability criterion workshop
Post on 12-Jan-2016
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Resource Adequacy Reliability Criterion Workshop
Philip A. FedoraDirector, Market Reliability InterfaceNortheast Power Coordinating Council
Sponsored by the NEPOOL Power Supply Planning Committee
Sheraton Springfield Monarch Place Hotel, Springfield, MA
November 18, 2004
NPCC November 18, 2004 2
Northeast Power Coordinating Council
NPCC
• One million square miles
• 54 million people
• 50% US 50% Canadian
• Represents 70% of Canadian Load
http://www.npcc.org/
NPCC November 18, 2004 3
NPCC Statistics
Relative Capacity by Fuel Mix
Dual Fuel
Gas
Oil
Hydro
Nuclear
CoalPumped Storage
Other
Projected 2004 Summer Coincident Peak Demand 104,520 MWProjected 2004 Summer Net Capacity 143,670 MW
Historically, the summer peak loads and temperatures between New England and New York can have a high degree of correlation; there is also some potential for the Ontario summer peak demand to be coincident.
The Canadian Provinces of Québec and the Maritimes experience their highest electricity demand in the winter.
NPCC November 18, 2004 4
NPCC November 18, 2004 5
NPCC November 18, 2004 6
NPCC Basic Criteria for Design and OperationOf Interconnected Power Systems
http://www.npcc.org/PublicFiles/Reliability/CriteriaGuidesProcedures/A-02.pdf
3.0 Resource Adequacy - Design Criteria
Each Area’s probability (or risk) of disconnecting any firm load due to resource deficiencies shall be, on average, not more than once in ten years.
Compliance with this criteria shall be evaluated probabilistically, such that the loss of load expectation [LOLE] of disconnecting firm load due to resource deficiencies shall be, on average, no more than 0.1 day per year.
NPCC November 18, 2004 7
NPCC Basic Criteria for Design and OperationOf Interconnected Power Systems
http://www.npcc.org/PublicFiles/Reliability/CriteriaGuidesProcedures/A-02.pdf
3.0 Resource Adequacy - Design Criteria
This evaluation shall make due allowance for demand uncertainty, scheduled outages and deratings, forced outages and deratings, assistance over interconnections with neighboring Areas and Regions, transmission transfer capabilities, and capacity and/or load relief from available operating procedures.
NPCC November 18, 2004 8
NPCC November 18, 2004 9
NPCC Guidelines for Area Review ofResource Adequacy
Purpose
The purpose of the presentation associated with a resource adequacy review is to ascertain that each Area's proposed resources are in accordance with the NPCC Basic Criteria for Design and Operation of Interconnected Power Systems (Document A-2).
By such a presentation, the Task Force will satisfy itself that the proposed resources of each NPCC Area will meet the NPCC Resource Adequacy - Design Criteria (as defined in Section 3.0 of NPCC Document A-2) over the time period under consideration. This review by the Task Force on Coordination of Planning does not replace Area and/or company responsibility to assess their systems in conformity with the NPCC Basic Criteria.
http://www.npcc.org/PublicFiles/Reliability/CriteriaGuidesProcedures/B-08.pdf
NPCC November 18, 2004 10
NPCC Triennial Reviews of Area Resource Adequacy
Objective:
As part of the NPCC Reliability Assessment Program, the Task Force on Coordination of Planning is charged, on an ongoing basis, with conducting reviews of resource adequacy of each Area of NPCC, in accordance with NPCC Document B-8, Guidelines for Area Review of Resource Adequacy.
http://www.npcc.org/resourceAdequacyReviews.asp?Folder=CurrentYear
NPCC November 18, 2004 11
NPCC November 18, 2004 12
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
Assumed Annual NPCC 2004 Peak Loads – MW (1995 Load Shape/2002 Load Shape)
Area Expected Peak Extreme Peak Peak Load
Month
1995 Load Shape
Peak Load Month
2002 Load Shape
Québec (Q) 34,587 37,824 January January
Maritimes Area (MT) 5,448/5,350 5,992/5,885 January February
New England (NE) 25,735 27,210/27,102 July August
New York (NY) 31,800 33,387 August August
Ontario (ON) 23,719 24,967 December December
NPCC November 18, 2004 13
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
2004 Projected Coincident Monthly Peak Loads - MW1995 Load Shape
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MW
Q MT NE NY ON
NPCC November 18, 2004 14
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
2004 Projected Coincident Monthly Peak Loads - MW2002 Load Shape
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MW
Q MT NE NY ON
NPCC November 18, 2004 15
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
2004 Projected Coincident Monthly Peak Loads - MW
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MW
NPCC MAAC ECAR
NPCC November 18, 2004 16
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
Per Unit Variation in Load Assumed for the Month of July 2004
Area Per-Unit Variation in Load
Q 1.0679 1.0679 1.0340 1.0000 0.9660 0.9321 0.9321
MT 1.1000 1.1000 1.0500 1.0000 0.9500 0.9000 0.9000
NE 1.0968 1.0573 1.0285 1.0000 0.9719 0.9427 0.9032
NY 1.0584 1.0499 1.0250 1.0000 0.9770 0.9660 0.9070
ON 1.1330 1.0886 1.0443 1.0000 0.9557 0.9114 0.8670
Prob. 0.0062 0.0606 0.2417 0.3830 0.2417 0.0606 0.0062
NPCC November 18, 2004 17
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
NPCC Capacity and Load Assumptions for July 2004 - MW Base Case - Expected Load
Q MT NE NY ON
Assumed Capacity 25,996 6,568 31,039 38,185 29,750
Purchase/Sale 2,541 -400 593 750 0
Peak Load 20,505 3,558 25,735 30,995 23,668
Reserve (%) 39 73 23 26 26
Annual Weighted Average Unit Availability (%)
98.54 86.17 87.81 82.32 81.12
Scheduled Maintenance
0 973 115 218 376
NPCC November 18, 2004 18
NPCC Transfer Limits – From CP-8 2004 Summer Assessment(Assumed Ratings)
A
C
D
F
G
JK
1,000 S1,100 W
440 S535 W
225
200
0
300
222
2,690
200
1,500
0
700
150
1,5000
1,800 S2,000 W
1,300 S1,500 W 400
1,000
1,500
1,600 S1,700 W
1,475 740 S760 W
500
500
800
800
Total NY-NE1,225 / 925 S
1,475 W(Excludes CSC)
286
550 2,000
1,100
01,000
ECAR
NBM
BEAU
LG2A
HQ
PEI
NB
NS
2,550
2,150
690
124
350
NOR
CT
W-MA
BHE
CMA
MINNE
MANIT
140 90
324
275
330 (CSC)
VT
1,100
65 S84 W
95 S110 W
NW
West
Niagara
NE
Ottawa
East750
750 400
400
Total Ontario4,050 In
5,550 Out
1,100
0
1,900 S2,000 W
330 S342 W
262 S274 W
West Cent. East
4,000 6,000
NPCC November 18, 2004 19
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
NPCC Operating Procedures to Mitigate Resource Shortages 2004 Summer Load Relief Assumptions - MW
Actions Q MT NE NY ON
1. Curtail Load / Utility Surplus LRP/SCR/EDRP Manual Voltage Reduction
0 0 0
0 0 0
45 331
0
0 785 2.6%
of load
450
0 0
2. No 30-min Reserves 500 229 564 600 441
3. Voltage Reduction or Interruptible Loads
300 464 1.42 % of load
1.59% of load
580
4. No 10-min Reserves General Public Appeals
1,000 0
420 0
960 0
0 213
939 0
5. General Public Appeals No 10-min Reserves
0 -
0 -
0 -
- 1,200
200 -
NPCC November 18, 2004 20
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL LOLE (DAYS/YEAR)
BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS
YEAR Q MT NE NY ON
2004 .0030 <.0005 .0030 .0115 .0005
2003 <.0005 .0020 .0150 .0030 .0010
2002 <.0005 <.0005 .0460 .0030 .0010
2001 <.0005 <.0005 .0010 .0050 .0010
2000 <.0005 <.0005 .0430 .1095 .0020
NPCC November 18, 2004 21
NPCC Summary - May - September 2004Potential Range of Use of Indicated Operating ProceduresBase Case Scenario – Preliminary Results
0
1
2
Estimated Number of
Occurrences (days/period)
NE NY ON MT HQ
Reduce 30-min Reserve Voltage Reduction Reduce 10-min Reserve Appeals Disconnect Load
Maximum values from Base Case, Extreme Load – 2002 Load Shape assumptions
Minimum values from Base Case, Expected Load – 1995 Load Shape assumptions
NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004
NPCC November 18, 2004 22
NPCC Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits
Estimate (on a consistent basis) the amount of interconnection assistance available to the NPCC Areas;
Review each NPCC Area’s current estimates of interconnection benefits used to meet the NPCC Resource Reliability Criterion;
Verify that the current levels of interconnection benefits assumed in each Area’s resource adequacy assessments are reasonable and do not result in overstating any Area’s reliability.
NPCC November 18, 2004 23
NPCC Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits
A
C
D
F
G
JK
TEWest
TEEast
1,000 S1,100 W
440 S535 W
225
200
0
300
222
2,690
200
1,500
100
700
150
1,5000
1,800 S2,000 W
1,300 S1,500 W 400
1,000
1,500
2,100 S2,200 W
1,700
1,385 740 S760 W
500
500
800
800
Total New York -New England1,550 / 950 S975 / 2,050 W
286
550
1,000
2,000
500
0
1,000
1,000
ECAR
MAAC
NBM
BEAU
LG2A
Q
MAAC-D
PEI
NB
NS
2,550
2,150
690
124
350
NOR
CT
W-MA
BHE
CMA
MN
MAN
14090
324
275
325
375
VT
1,100
65 S84 W
95 S110 W
NW
West
Niagara
NE
Ottawa
East700
700
400
400
Total Ontario4,050 In
5,550 Out
New England
Maritimes
Quebec
New York
Ontario
NPCC November 18, 2004 24
NPCC Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits
NPCC Area (Date of Review)
Assistance Reported in Recent NPCC Triennial Reviews of
Resource Adequacy
Range of EstimatedAnnual Tie Benefit
CP-8 Study Results for 2006
Québec (11/02) 0 2,720 – 3,380
Maritimes (12/01) 0 930 - 1,200
New England (11/02)
1,800 487 - 3,975
New York (06/02) 2,100 3,775 – 7,150
Ontario (07/03) 1,500 3,150 – 4,050
NPCC November 18, 2004 25
NPCC Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits
The methodology and assumptions used in this Review was consistently applied to all NPCC Areas, using the same multi-Area reliability model
NPCC Area estimates of interconnection benefits used to meet the NPCC Resource Reliability Criterion were reviewed on a consistent basis
The interconnection assistance values reported by NPCC Areas in their recent resource adequacy assessments appear to be reasonable and do not overstate interconnection benefits.
NPCC November 18, 2004 26
NPCC Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits
Announced Transmission projects in varying stages of the planning process:
Neptune ProjectTransEnergie Harbor Cable ProjectOntario – Québec TieSecond New Brunswick TieEmpire ConnectionThe Lake Erie Link Transmission ProjectNiagara Reinforcement Project
NPCC Major Project ListNE RTEP03
NPCC November 18, 2004 27
NPCC Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits
In light of these and other developments, the CP-8 Working Group recommends that NPCC’s Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits be updated once these developments (or their combination) are further quantified in order to identify the impact on the NPCC Area interconnection assistance estimated for the 2006 time frame.
NPCC November 18, 2004 28
NPCC November 18, 2004 29
NERC Reliability Assessments
NERC issues regular assessments of the reliability of North American bulk electric systems.
Ten-Year Reliability Assessments - Each year NERC prepares an assessment of the adequacy of the bulk electric system in the United States and Canada for a ten-year period. The report assesses projected electricity supply and demand, reviews transmission system adequacy, and discusses key issues and trends that could affect reliability. Summer and Winter Assessments - These annual reports assess the adequacy of electricity supplies in the United States and Canada for the upcoming summer and winter peak demand periods. Special Assessments - Special reliability assessments are conducted on a regional, interregional, or interconnection-wide basis as conditions warrant.
http://www.nerc.com/~filez/rasreports.html
NPCC November 18, 2004 30
NERC Resource and Transmission Adequacy Recommendations
The NERC Planning Committee (PC) approved the Resource and Transmission Adequacy Task Force’s (RTATF) report, “Resource and Transmission Adequacy Recommendations,” via mail ballot on May 27, 2004. The NERC Board of Trustees, at its June 15, 2004 meeting, also approved the RTATF report and associated recommendations for implementation. Subsequently, the PC approved the action plans related to the resource adequacy recommendations of the RTATF report at its July 20, 2004 meeting. Those action plans charged the RIS with the development and submittal of a Standard Authorization Request (SAR) on resource adequacy that recognized the elements of resource recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the RTATF report.
http://www.nerc.com/~filez/rtatf.html
NPCC November 18, 2004 31
NERC Gas/Electric Interdependency Task Force
The PC and the NERC board gave similar approvals to the Gas/Electricity Interdependency Task Force’s (GEITF) “Gas/Electricity Interdependencies and Recommendations” report at the same meetings. The PC also approved the implementation plan for the GEITF recommendations at its July 20, 2004 meeting. Recommendation 4 charged the RIS with developing a SAR that related fuel infrastructure reliability to resource adequacy. RIS has developed a SAR that incorporates the required elements of the RTATF and GEITF reports.
http://www.nerc.com/~filez/geitf.html
NPCC November 18, 2004 32
Draft NERC SAR on Resource Adequacy
1. a) Each NERC Regional Reliability Council (Region) to establish a resource adequacy criterion (or criteria) based on some metric (e.g., LOLE, LOLP, etc.), consistent with applicable state/province or multi-state/province resource adequacy criteria or requirements. The adequacy criteria should take into account operable capacity situations and reflect the impact of expected transmission constraints, fuel deliverability, environmental restrictions, and other relevant factors.
The state(s), province(s), RTO/ISO(s), generation reserve sharing pool(s) and/or other appropriate entity(ies) should establish resource adequacy requirements so as to comply with the resource adequacy criterion (or criteria) of the Region. The Region or subregions should establish assessment methodologies to determine whether the adequacy criteria are met.
NPCC November 18, 2004 33
Draft NERC SAR on Resource Adequacy
1. b) Each Region should be required to demonstrate periodically, through analysis, that Regional resource adequacy requirements (such as reserve margins, capacity margins, etc.) satisfy the applicable resource adequacy criteria (such as LOLE, LOLP, etc.). As a part of the demonstration, each Region should describe the expected resource capacity characteristics for the study period and demonstrate that possible fuel supply interruptions have no adverse impact on system reliability. Each Region should also describe available mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of fuel interruption(s) on its ability to serve load reliably. Other factors such as expected transmission constraints and/or environmental restrictions that may impact the Region’s resource adequacy should be examined. The demonstrations should include analyses supporting all critical assumptions.
NPCC November 18, 2004 34
Draft NERC SAR on Resource Adequacy
2. The results of all Regional resource adequacy assessments, whether performed by NERC or the Regions, should be made public with the understanding that some data which supports the assessment may be confidential and may not be made public. The Region will aggregate the supply/demand data within the Region and report an aggregate number, not individual electric utility supply/demand data if that data is not available in other public forums.
NPCC November 18, 2004 35
Draft NERC SAR on Resource Adequacy
3. NERC should perform periodic audits of the Regional resource adequacy assessment processes. Such audits should validate the compliance of the Regional adequacy requirements with the resource adequacy criteria and may include the performance of independent analysis by NERC. Such audits should also confirm the consistent application of standard resource adequacy assessment methodologies, including appropriate Regional variations.
NPCC November 18, 2004 36
Draft NERC SAR on Resource Adequacy
4. NERC, in conjunction with the Regions, should conduct periodic reviews of the respective Regional resource adequacy criteria and their methodologies for general consistency, interdependency and/or impact on adjacent Regions, the treatment of contract considerations, and the deliverability of resources to load.
NPCC November 18, 2004 37
Northeast Power Coordinating Council
?? QUESTIONS ??
Contact:
Phil Fedorapfedora@npcc.org
(212) 840-4909
top related