1 / 22

PCC/TEPPC Project Coordination and Path Rating Task Force Report to TSS

PCC/TEPPC Project Coordination and Path Rating Task Force Report to TSS. April 22, 2011. Topics. Progress to Date Progress Report: Procedure for Project Rating Review (Phases 1-3) Next Steps. 2. Progress To Date. Since January 2010:

tad
Download Presentation

PCC/TEPPC Project Coordination and Path Rating Task Force Report to TSS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PCC/TEPPC Project Coordination and Path Rating Task Force Report to TSS April 22, 2011

  2. Topics Progress to Date Progress Report: Procedure for Project Rating Review (Phases 1-3) Next Steps 2

  3. Progress To Date Since January 2010: Obtained PCC approval (March 2011) and the WECC Board approval (March 2011) of the Proposed Procedures for Project Coordination Review Phases 1-3 sub-team continued work on modifying and streamlining the Procedure for Project Rating Review – Many issues were identified. Consolidate and resolved some issues 3

  4. Progress Report: Procedure for Project Rating Review (Phases 1-3) Expanded membership: • Kent Bolton (WECC) • David Franklin (SCE) • Tom Green (Xcel Energy) • Brian Keel (SRP) • Kyle Kohne (BPA) • Peter Mackin (USE) • Bill Pascoe (TransWest Express) • Craig Quist (PacifiCorp) • Joe Seabrook (PSE) • Chifong Thomas (BSE) 4

  5. Progress Report: Procedure for Project Rating Review (Phases 1-3) • Since last TSS meeting in January 2010 • 6 conference calls • 27 issues were identified and consolidated into 4 categories • Developing consensus recommendations to bring back to the Task Force 5

  6. Issue Category 1: Relationship and linkages to other processes: • Annual Progress Report (APR) process • Sub-regional Planning Groups and other joint planning groups • Operating Transfer Capability Policy Committee (OTCPC) 6

  7. Issue Category 2: Allowable time duration and requirements to remain in a Phase • The length of time a project can remain in Phase 1 or Phase 2 without further activity beyond providing APR submittals • The qualification and requirements for a project to stay in Phase 2 or remain in the Rating Process • Clarification on what facility is being rated when a project is a subset of a Path • Question on whether a proposed project, which is a subset of an established path, can/should be rated independent of the path • Clear up the requirements for providing modeling data to WECC 7

  8. Issue Category 3: Study Assumptions • “Fictitious devices” Vs. “planned devices” that did not materialize Vs. projects that support individual ratings w/ the same resources – Leverage work already done in TSS (RAPRS) • Restrictions on facilities that can be modeled to support a Phase 2 Path Rating • Proposed project, which “morphs” into a different project(s) during Process (and impact on projects entering the Process after this “morphed” project) • “Similarly situated” projects when there are multiple projects entering phase 2 at the same time 8

  9. Issue Category 4: Process • Procedures to remove inactive projects from the Rating Process • Clarify “Expediting the Process” • Obligation of modeling and studying for the projects that follow a project that has gone through morphing process • If the Project Rating Review Group cannot agree and the Phase 2 Report cannot be issued, need procedure for PCC intervention before going to ADR. • In which Phase should mitigation of identified potential problems be studied and determined. • Treatment of Paths with Existing Ratings, which cannot be supported in more recent path rating studies. • Treatment of projects, which rely on projects/Paths with Ratings that cannot be supported based on studies. 9

  10. Some Thoughts on Resolution • Develop a template with check lists on requirements to help project sponsor(s) with the Processes • Further refine the Phase 2 Process into Phase 2A and 2B: • Only sensitivity studies on concurrent (“similarly situated”) Projects in Phase 2A • Simultaneous analysis will be required on those concurrent Projects in Phase 2B. 10

  11. Demarcation criteria between Phases 2A and 2B Based on study progress: Phase 2 can be broken down into 4 major milestones – • Study plan accepted • Base cases accepted • Sharing results with PRG • Draft Report released. Sub team believes that the demarcation should be drawn between Steps 2 and 3 11

  12. To Remain in Phase 2A or 2B • A proposed project needs to demonstrate progress. • Time line/mile stones to demonstrate progress. 2 options: • Fixed time line/mile stone for all phases of study. if a time line/mile-stone is missed, the project sponsor can request and PRG to decide whether to grant an extension • Fixed time line for development of the study plan only. Remaining time lines/mile stones will be in the study plan agreed to by project sponsor and PRG. Any deviation will need agreement from the PRG, • Sub team to develop and recommend time line/mile-stones. • Time line/mile stones are to be approved by the PCC • The decision can be appealed to TSS or PCC. 12

  13. Consequence of Inactivity 13

  14. Fictitious Devices • Based on TSS paper on “Resources Acceptable for Project Rating Studies” • Major changes: • Resources can be modeled, as agreed to by the SRG, as long as it is feasible for these resources to be on-line during the timeframe for which the path rating is being sought. • The resource assumptions will be clearly listed in the study report. 14

  15. Examples of Fictitious Devices • Generators (e.g., a generator that does not exist at time of rating or not feasible to be on-line during the timeframe for which the path rating is being sought, as determined by the study review group) • Load (e.g., unrealistic load conditions, such as load projections unsupported by those used in planning resources in the same time frame, or, modeling off-peak load in one area and on-peak load in another area under similar system conditions in the same study case) • Lines (e.g., change to the impedance of a line unless such changes are part of plan of service for the new project undergoing the Facility Rating Review Process) • Phase shifters (e.g., unplanned phase shifter or operation beyond its physical capability) • Shunt elements (e.g., add a non-existent or unplanned SVC) • Series elements (e.g., add unplanned series capacitors to a line) • Opening/switching lines (e.g., open a line that is normally closed) • Remedial action schemes (e.g., institute a scheme with no agreement from the provider) 15

  16. Test for Subset of a Path • Issue: when a project is added to an existing path • Typically, combined Path incremental capability < (proposed project + existing path) • Studies cannot create a nomogram where there is no nomogram relationship. • May lead to scheduling power at a level that is above the combined path transfer capability => adversely impact system reliability. 16

  17. Test 1 • Start with a pre-project WECC base case.  • Add the proposed project to the case. • Schedule a fixed amount of power on the proposed project. • If more than X% of the scheduled power flows on the existing path being tested, then the proposed project is deemed to be a subset of the existing path. For more information see draft test 17

  18. Test 2 • Start with a pre-project WECC base case.  • Add the proposed project to the case to create a post-project base case.  • Do not schedule any flow on the new project. • If the new project picks up more than Y% of the power that was flowing on the existing path being tested, then the proposed project is deemed to be a subset of the existing path. For more information see draft test 18

  19. New Projects with flow control devices • If flow control devices are part of a new project, they may be used to control flow on the new path to the schedule on that path • But, the flow control devices cannot be used to artificially create "loop flow" on other paths. • If the flow control devices have enough control range, the new path will be independent of all other paths. 19

  20. Application • Test will be part of the Comprehensive Progress Report. should be done early in Phase 1 of the Project Rating Process => no surprises in Phase 2. • If the proposed project is part of an existing path => proposed project must re-rate the existing path as part of rating review studies • Project rating = incremental path rating with and without the proposed project • If the sponsor of a project that is part of an existing path elects to rate the proposed project as part of an existing path, then this test is not required. 20

  21. Next Steps • Bring recommendation to the Task Force for consideration • Incorporation into the Project Rating Review Process • Expectation: post the proposed modification by May 2011 for comments and guidance by PCC and stakeholders 21

  22. Questions? ? 22

More Related