white paper on the future of congestion management idc granularity task force standing committee...

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