Improving Primary Frequency Response

1. Improving Primary Frequency Response Bob Green PDCWG August 3, 2011

2. Improvement Overview • Ensure that there is adequate capacity available for frequency response • Enhance compliance enforcement for significant events • Add protocol requirements for sustained response • Hold more joint workshops for QSE and Production staff

3. Adequate Capacity • One issue is that larger resources normally have the largest MW/0.1HZ rate of governor response [given that all resources have the same droop %], but the larger units are usually the most cost efficient and are fully loaded [no governor response capacity]. • For any market product to be developed that would reserve distributed capacity for governor response to a unit trip, we need to model frequency versus available capacity.

4. B Point Frequency vs Generation

5. Governor Response Model

6. Frequency Response Model Data

7. Compliance Enforcement • Great progress is being made regarding the definition and enforcement of adequate primary governor performance. • Droop is hard to measure if the resource if the capacity is limited; therefore, adequate reserve must be factored into the measurement. • We might need two tiers of enforcement. For instance, a 600 MW trip might result in warnings and fines issued for a 1,000 MW trip.

8. NPRR for Sustained Response • The PDCWG has been using the response terms that follow for many years, but these key parameters are not in the Protocols or Operating Guides. • ERCOT might need a requirement for sustained response more than larger interconnections. • Steam supply might not be sustainable after aggressive governor response, but the frequency bias must be applied to plant set points.

9. Governor Response Terms

10. Response Term Specifications

11. QSE/Production Joint Workshops • ERCOT engineering market participants are predominately electrical engineers [TSP and QSE representatives]. • ERCOT will have better primary frequency response if market participant mechanical engineers [Production representatives] are fully engaged in resolving issues leading to poor B point recovery. • ERCOT should sponsor annual workshops.

12. Demo of Governor Model • Governor Model starts with 3 units serving 360 MW of load at 60.000 HZ. • A 35 MW disturbance is simulated by changing load to 395 MW. B point=59.900 HZ • Simulate response with Unit #3 HSL=172 MW by adding 21 MW and then 14 MW of load. • Unit #3 reaches 172 MW @ 59.940 HZ • Restore 60 HZ by adding 21 MW to Setpt(MW) • Add 14 MW; with Units #1 and #2 responding, observe frequency B point=59.847 HZ.

13. Governor Response Model

14. Governor Response Model

15. Governor Response Model

16. Governor Response Model

17. Governor Response Model

18. Demo of Governor Curve Prototype • Key Governor Model parameters are transferred to the Governor Curve Prototype. • Observe Frequency at HSL for each unit and copy them into the Sort Freq field below. • The frequency vs generation curve will be linear with break points at the Sort Freq values. • Sort the Freq values in decending order and calculate total generation for each freq brk pt. • Enter New Gen for each section of the curve. • Observe New Freq calculated for each New Gen.

19. Frequency Response Model Data

20. B Point Frequency vs Generation

21. Possible Next Steps • Expand the EXCEL model with a subset of ERCOT data. • Work with a graduate student to create a study program that could handle the complete ERCOT system. • If results could be informative in real-time, investigate an on-line application. • Could be used for training of operations staff. • Might be used in the development of a market product for governor response to a unit trip.