1 / 12

EILS Feb. 2-3 Fleet Level Event Performance Review

EILS Feb. 2-3 Fleet Level Event Performance Review. DSWG - April 29, 2011. EILS Fleet Load Reduction Methodology. For Loads on a default baseline, the estimate of load reduction is derived from the baseline (baseline load – actual load)

cianna
Download Presentation

EILS Feb. 2-3 Fleet Level Event Performance Review

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. EILS Feb. 2-3 Fleet LevelEvent Performance Review DSWG - April 29, 2011

  2. EILS Fleet Load Reduction Methodology • For Loads on a default baseline, the estimate of load reduction is derived from the baseline (baseline load – actual load) • Reductions for loads on the Alternate baseline cannot be derived directly from that baseline (drop-to not drop-by) • Alternate baseline loads were evaluated on Mid 8 of 10 baseline • Some loads were offered the opportunity for a default baseline, but QSE selected Alternate • Some loads were not offered a default baseline because of an absence of historical interval data • ERCOT requested January data and if provided used it for this analysis • Some loads were not offered a default baseline because their load shapes were too erratic to be useful • ERCOT created an average load shape for these loads based on consecutive weekday loads for January and February (excluding week of February event • All loads had their assigned / reassigned default baselines validated against all consecutive weekday pairs for the same intervals as the event for January 2011 • ERCOT validation found that the baselines were sufficient to provide accurate estimates of fleet level load reduction

  3. Fleet Actual vs Baseline Load for Jan 25 – 26, 2011 April 29, 2011 EILS Update

  4. HHS 14:37:08 Recall 10:01:00 VDI 2 8:53:17 VDI 1 5:48:59 Actual Load during event

  5. HHS 14:37:08 Recall 10:01:00 VDI 2 8:53:17 VDI 1 5:48:59 Estimate of what the load would have been

  6. HHS 14:37:08 Recall 10:01:00 VDI 2 8:53:17 VDI 1 5:48:59 Contracted Obligation (MWs)

  7. HHS 14:37:08 Recall 10:01:00 VDI 2 8:53:17 VDI 1 5:48:59 Load Response (MWs)

  8. Feb. 2-3 Fleet Event Performance Findings Average Load Reduction - Entire Event: 577.7 MW Max Load Reduction: 692.2 MW Average Fleet Obligation - Entire Event: 426.8 MW Average Over-Provision Percent: 35.7%

  9. Feb. 2-3 Fleet Event Performance Findings (continued) Fleet over-performed in all but the first full interval out of the 114 intervals of the event • Load reduction in first partial interval (5:59 – 6:00am) was 101.8 MW (obligation was 25 MW - 1/15th of 384.2) … a lot of load came less than 10 minutes after VDI • First full interval (6:00 – 6:15) load reduction 262.6 MW • Affected by communication issues for some QSEs related to the initial VDI • ERCOT and the affected QSES are working through the issues • NBH obligation for the involved QSEs was 122.9 • The QSEs’ NBH obligated loads provided load reductions of 239.0 MW at the time of the second VDI • Average load reduction for these NBH loads from the second VDI until the end of the event across the entire event was 171.4 MW Absent the QSE issues, the EILS fleet most likely would have over-performed throughout the event

  10. A Couple of Other EILS Related Items Item 1 • While running performance analysis for the February event we have identified issues with several Alternate baseline loads • Loads failed to reduce down to their Maximum Base Load while obviously dropping by substantially more than the obligated capacity • Some were identified as metering problems … meters calibrated for very large loads and producing insufficiently accurate light load measurements • Some appear to be poor choices of MBL on the offer • ERCOT has added two additional fields to the availability report provided during the ELID process • Minimum load 1st percentile load observed during each contract period / time period during the 12 months used for the availability analysis • QSEs should pay attention to these values and use caution if specifying a MBL lower than the values on the report April 28, 2011

  11. A Couple of Other EILS Related Items Item 2 • A topic for the EILS Improvement team to consider is to develop protocol language to allow (require?) ERCOT to evaluate loads on baselines other than the baseline assigned during procurement for test/event performance • A baseline other than the assigned one may be found to provide a more accurate estimate of load reduction, and should be used for the performance evaluation Item 3 • Should ERCOT extend the deadline for ELID submissions for the June September contract period? • Not anticipating changing the deadlines for offers April 28, 2011

  12. Questions? ON OFF

More Related