1 / 11

Today’s Objectives

Texas Nodal CRR Optimization Trade-Offs Presentation to address trade-offs between different strategies to limit the Annual CRR auction scope based on recommendations from the CRR Vendor, Nexant (presented to TPTF in November 2006). Compiled by CRR Project Team February 6, 2007.

clive
Download Presentation

Today’s Objectives

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. Texas NodalCRR Optimization Trade-OffsPresentation to address trade-offs between different strategies to limit the Annual CRR auction scope based on recommendations from the CRR Vendor, Nexant (presented to TPTF in November 2006).Compiled by CRR Project TeamFebruary 6, 2007 http://nodal.ercot.com 1

  2. Today’s Objectives • Follow-up on optimization runtime resolution alternatives as discussed late last year. • Protocol defined annual auction is estimated to take 1300 hours to solve. • Requirement SR-1 specifies that the annual auction optimization complete within 80 hours. • Gain group understanding of the options and trade-offs available. • Receive input from TPTF. NOTE: Not asking for a formal recommendation or vote. http://nodal.ercot.com 2

  3. Optimization Runtime Description & Background • NPRR 005 clarified that the annual CRR auction should simultaneously optimize three Times-Of-Use (TOU) blocks across 24 months. • Combination is referred to as 72 periods (24 months x 3 TOU). • NPRR 005 became part of the August 2006 Nodal protocols. • CRR Team is not aware of another software solution that can optimize 72 periods simultaneously within the 80 hour timeframe. • PJM’s largest solution (using Nexant competitor software) solves 12 periods simultaneously and was thought to be pushing the envelope. • Note that comparison is not one-to-one due to differences in other elements, such as number of buses, branches, contingencies, etc. Time-of-Use WD = Week Day WE = Week End OP = Off-Peak On = On-Peak http://nodal.ercot.com 3

  4. Optimization Run-Time Approaches • Eliminating a Time-Of-Use block – each TOU acts as another period • Increasing Duration of Calendar Periods, such as seasonal models instead of monthly models • Decoupling Optimizations – separating groups of periods (e.g. year one and year two) NOTE: These approaches can be applied individually or in combination. http://nodal.ercot.com 4

  5. Approach Dimensions Approach Legend: A = Eliminate Time-Of-Use (TOU) B = Increase Duration of Calendar Periods C = Decouple Optimizations http://nodal.ercot.com 5

  6. Eliminate Weekend Time-Of-Use • Eliminating a TOU only does not reduce optimization runtime sufficiently. • Including a third TOU block increases the number of periods by 50% and optimization runtime exponentially. • 24-Hour product could still be made available. • All other markets only offer two TOU blocks. • Is differentiation in Weekend (WE) congestion costs enough to warrant a separate CRR product? http://nodal.ercot.com 6

  7. Changing from Monthly to Seasonal • Current planning model development activities transition easier as each season represented by one Network Model. • As seasons will not likely align with calendar quarters, annual auction timing would require modifications. • Example: A season could be December 1st through February 28th. • Will it be problematic for CRRs to be for terms that bridge calendar years? http://nodal.ercot.com 7

  8. Decoupling Years - Monthly • Results from Year 1 have no bearing on the results from Year 2. • Significant difference in how much network capacity is made available in Year 1 versus Year 2. • No previously awarded CRRs in the next annual auction • Separate auctions for each year will not allow the award of a 24 month strip. • What is more valuable -- Long term products (24 month CRRs) or access to CRRs in second year? http://nodal.ercot.com 8

  9. Decouple Time-Of-Use • Results from the auction of one TOU will have no bearing on the results from the auction of other TOUs. • 24-Hour product will not be available. http://nodal.ercot.com 9

  10. Decouple Time-Of-Use and Decouple Years - Monthly • The example described above is extreme. • 24-Hour product will not be available. • 24-Month product will not be available. • Six separate auctions will each solve well under the 80-Hour requirement. http://nodal.ercot.com 10

  11. Other Considerations • Multiple combinations of approaches are available. • Year 1 does not require the same dimensions as Year 2. • Any changes to annual auction dimensions will be reflected in allocations. In order to meet the 80-hour Requirement, the annual auction needs to be reduced from 72 periods to something in the range of 12-20 periods. http://nodal.ercot.com 11

More Related