report of the resource adequacy working group serc 2010...

IEEE LOLE Working Group

1

Report of the

Resource Adequacy Working Group

SERC 2010 LOLE/PRM Study

November 7-8, 2011

Austin, TX

A.E. (Butch) Kimble, Southern Company

SERC Resource Adequacy Working Group Chair


RAWG Activity Updates

• October 2010 – RAWG approved to work with GE (MARS model) to revise

its initial summer 2010 study to include the following:

Include the SERC portions of the PJM and MISO areas

Utilize more accurate modeling of transmission import capabilities from

areas outside SERC

Utilize more accurate modeling of transmission import/export capabilities

between SERC Metric Reporting Areas (MRAs)

SERC MRAs: SERC-N, SERC-E, SERC-W, SERC-SE

Model in greater detail the operating procedures of each SERC MRA

2


3

SERC LOLE/PRM Study Summary Results 2011

Selected Reliability Metrics

Isolated Interconnected

DLOLE

(days/yr)

LOLH

(hrs/yr)

EUE

(MWh/yr)

EUE

(MPM)

DLOLE

(days/yr)

LOLH

(hrs/yr)

EUE

(MWh/yr)

EUE

(MPM)

SERC-N 0.435 4.233 6115.7 25.92 0.000 0.001 0.5 0.00

SERC-SE 0.000 0.001 0.3 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.00

SERC-E 0.012 0.882 824.7 3.81 0.000 0.007 5.0 0.02

SERC-W 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.00

Gateway 3.678 13.262 8899.0 84.37 0.000 0.001 0.4 0.00

VACS-PJM 0.015 0.349 168.5 1.70 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.00


4

SERC LOLE/PRM Study Summary Results 2014

Selected Reliability Metrics

Isolated Interconnected

DLOLE

(days/yr)

LOLH

(hrs/yr)

EUE

(MWh/yr)

EUE

(MPM)

DLOLE

(days/yr)

LOLH

(hrs/yr)

EUE

(MWh/yr)

EUE

(MPM)

SERC-N 0.255 2.929 3890.2 15.41 0.000 0.003 1.7 0.01

SERC-SE 0.000 0.006 3.7 0.01 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.00

SERC-E 0.010 0.581 556.5 2.46 0.000 0.004 3.5 0.02

SERC-W 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.00

Gateway 0.077 0.161 73.9 0.69 0.000 0.001 0.1 0.00

VACS-PJM 0.198 3.870 2642.3 24.43 0.000 0.002 1.1 0.01


5

SERC LOLE/PRM Study

Major Conclusions

• SERC system easily meets a 0.1 day/year LOLE level at today’s reserve

margins, while respecting import and internal transfer limits for both study

years, 2011 and 2014.

• Only in an isolated reporting area scenario, which precludes any imports,

did SERC-N and SERC-Gateway exceed the 0.1 day/year LOLE level.


6

Report Recommendations

• SERC to continue data collection coordination efforts with MISO and PJM.

Coordination of Gateway data with MISO

Continue coordination efforts to model outside of SERC with PJM

• Collect multiple years of historical demand data for calculating load

forecast uncertainty (SERC-W and Gateway, prior to 2006).

• Study the impact of historical load shapes on metrics and PRM (2008 vs.

2002).

• Continue ongoing transfer capability collaboration efforts with the SERC

Near-Term Study Group/Long-Term Study Group.


7

Reliability of SERC As-Found

“The as-found system was demonstrated to have reserves well in excess of the reserves needed to meet the 0.1 days/year LOLE Level.”


8

Reliability Indices Development

• Reliability indices were developed for the as-found system in two distinct

manners:

Each MRA is fully interconnected relying on assistance from neighboring

SERC MRAs and external areas.

Each MRA is completely isolated from its neighbors and receives no

external assistance.

• Indices were calculated for:

LOLE – loss-of-load expectation in days per year

LOLH – loss-of-load hours per year

EUE – expected unserved energy in MWh per year

EUE (MPM) – expected unserved energy per million MWh per year

• The PRM result is for information only, and is not suggested as a long-

term planning criterion.


9

Isolated Subregion LOLEs 2011

if each area stands alone

“On an isolated basis, with no non-firm emergency assistance between the areas…”

Average EFORd (%)

SERC-N 8.00

SERC-W 6.09

SERC-SE 5.91

SERC-E 6.35

Gateway 6.76

VACS-PJM 5.13

SERC 6.49

• Higher average forced-

outage rates in SERC-N

contributes to its higher risk.

• High exports from Gateway

leads to its higher risk.

0 d/y

19%17%

30%

0 d/y

53%

.01

d/y

.44 d/y

11%

3.7 d/y 14%

.01 d/y


10

Isolated Subregion LOLEs 2014

if each area stands alone

“On an isolated basis, with no non-firm emergency assistance between the areas…”

• Higher average forced-outage

rates in SERC-N contributes to

its higher risk.

• Increased reserves and

lowered exports from Gateway

leads to its reduced risk.

• Lower reserves in VACS-PJM

leads to increased risk.

0 d/y

19%18%

27%

0 d/y

53%

.01

d/y

.26 d/y

23%

.08 d/y 6%

.2d/yAverage EFORd (%)

SERC-N 8.00

SERC-W 6.09

SERC-SE 5.91

SERC-E 6.35

Gateway 6.76

VACS-PJM 5.13

SERC 6.49


11

Planning Reserve Margin Analysis

• The PRM analysis finds the reserve margin for each MRA that

corresponds with 0.1 days/year LOLE.

• Since the as-found system has very low LOLE, this requires removing

capacity from the system.

• PRM was investigated for several scenarios:

As-found (base case)

No internal constraints – no interface constraints within SERC

No emergency assistance from external SERC neighbors

No load forecast uncertainty – load forecast is perfect

• The PRM result is for information only, and is not suggested as a long-

term planning criterion.


12

“Planning Reserve Margin”

Base Case

2011 2014

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

SERC-N 19.1 -4,598 9.1 19.1 -4,957 8.6

SERC-SE 30.7 -10,427 9.2 26.9 -9,800 8.1

SERC-E 17.4 -4,458 7.2 18.5 -5,061 7.5

SERC-W 53.5 -11,224 6.3 53.2 -11,293 8.1

Gateway 10.9 -1,148 5.2 23.3 -2,949 9.2

VACS-PJM 13.7 -13,861 -56.8 6.2 -9,760 -39.4


13


No Internal Constraints

2011 2014

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

SERC-N 19.1 -6,435 5.2 19.1 -6,261 5.9

SERC-SE 30.7 -13,296 3.3 26.9 -10,405 7.0

SERC-E 17.4 -10,336 -6.1 18.5 -9,706 -2.5

SERC-W 53.5 -13,833 -4.7 53.2 -14,371 -4.2

Gateway 10.9 536 13.6 23.3 -2,526 11.2

VACS-PJM 13.7 -3,795 -5.6 6.2 -2,145 -3.8


14


No External Emergency Assistance

2011 2014

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

SERC-N 19.1 -1,837 15.1 19.1 -2,777 13.2

SERC-SE 30.7 -9,098 12.0 26.9 -8,450 10.7

SERC-E 17.4 -3,876 8.5 18.5 -4,533 8.7

SERC-W 53.5 -10,937 7.5 53.2 -11,171 8.6

Gateway 10.9 1,073 16.3 23.3 -2,070 13.5

VACS-PJM 13.7 -9,876 -36.5 6.2 -7,995 -31.1


15


No Load Forecast Uncertainty

2011 2014

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

Base RM

(%)

MW

Adjustment

Resulting

PRM (%)

SERC-N 19.1 -10,441 -3.5 19.1 -11,229 -4.7

SERC-SE 30.7 -12,547 4.8 26.9 -12,494 3.0

SERC-E 17.4 -6,311 3.0 18.5 -6,919 3.5

SERC-W 53.5 -13,008 -1.2 53.2 -13,162 0.6

Gateway 10.9 -2,510 -1.6 23.3 -4,022 4.0

VACS-PJM 13.7 -15,178 -63.5 6.2 -10,472 -42.7


16

Questions?

[email protected]

report of the resource adequacy working group serc 2010...

Documents