1 / 72

September 03, 2013 | Westborough, MA

September 03, 2013 | Westborough, MA. Reliability Committee & Markets Committee Meeting #3. Considerations in the Design of Capacity Zones. Al McBride. MANAGER, AREA TRANSMISSION PLANNING. Presentation Objectives. Introduce the ISO proposal at a high level

fathia
Download Presentation

September 03, 2013 | Westborough, MA

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. September 03, 2013 | Westborough, MA Reliability Committee & Markets Committee Meeting #3 Considerations in the Design of Capacity Zones Al McBride MANAGER, AREA TRANSMISSION PLANNING

  2. Presentation Objectives • Introduce the ISO proposal at a high level • Briefly review the Stakeholder discussions so far • Discuss examples of the capacity zone models in place in PJM and NY • Discuss the objective criteria (trigger) for the creation of zones (with examples) • Discuss export constrained zones • Discuss the proposed process for the analysis of transfer limits and interfaces in the Regional System Planning (RSP) process • Describe what is proposed for FCA-9 and FCA-10 (and beyond) • Discuss next steps

  3. High Level Summary of the ISO Proposal • For FCA-9 capacity zones would be created by implementing an objective criteria (automatic trigger) using the existing 8 energy zones as the starting point • The 8 energy load zones will serve as an approximation of the real transmission operating boundaries • Energy load zones that do not exceed the automatic trigger will be merged into the Rest-of-Pool Capacity zone • The objective criteria for the automatic creation of zones would be based on the TSA-like analysis of the energy zone along with the security constrained import analysis • For FCA-10 and beyond, incorporate the analysis of appropriate zonal boundaries into the annual process used to calculate transfer limits for RSP and NERC statutory requirements • The automatic trigger would continue to define whether a zone is modeled

  4. Stakeholder Discussions • Al McBride • MANAGER, AREA TRANSMISSION PLANNING

  5. Summary/Highlights • At the July 7, 2013 RC meeting we discussed • The requirements of the FERC order • The constraints observed and expected on the New England system • The methodologies in place to calculate requirements • Considerations in the design of capacity zones • The timeline challenges associated with making changes for FCA-9 • At the July 22 and 23, 2013 Summer RC meeting we discussed • The possibility of making some changes in time for FCA-9 • On July 30, 2013, the ISO submitted the compliance timeline to FERC http://www.iso-ne.com/regulatory/ferc/filings/2013/jul/er12-953-002_7-30-13_fcm_zone_compliance_filing.pdf

  6. Summary/Highlights, continued • At the August 19, 2013 RC meeting we discussed • The capacity zone creation methodologies in place in PJM and New York • The Transmission Security Analysis (TSA) that has been performed in New England for the 8 Energy Zones • The transmission transfer capability analysis processes in place in New England • Possible ways forward

  7. Stakeholder ProcessAs defined by FERC • FERC has required the ISO to consider the following during the Stakeholder Process: “…(1) the appropriate level of zonal modeling going forward; (2) the appropriate rules to govern intra- and inter-zonal transactions; and (3) whether objective criteria by which zones may automatically be created in response to rejected delist bids, generation retirements or other changes in system conditions would be appropriate in New England, or if not, why not.”  Docket No. ER12-953-002: Order Issued May 31, 2013

  8. Subsequent FilingAs defined by FERC • FERC has required the ISO to make an additional filing at a later time to address: “…how it has addressed these items in its stakeholder process, and it must: (i) develop and file with the Commission revisions to the ISO-NE tariff that articulate appropriate objective criteria to revise the number and boundaries of capacity zones automatically as the relevant conditions change,or (ii) file with the Commission an explanation as to why such criteria are unnecessary.” Docket No. ER12-953-002: Order Issued May 31, 2013

  9. Capacity Zone Formation Methodologies in place in PJM and New York • Al McBride • MANAGER, AREA TRANSMISSION PLANNING

  10. PJM Methodology Summary • A starting list of Locational Deliverability Areas (LDAs) are defined in the PJM Reliability Assurance Agreement (RAA) • The RAA lists a number of zones, most of which align with the footprints of the member Transmission Owning utilities or aggregations thereof • Any changes to the list of LDAs are those areas that have a limited ability to import capacity due to physical limitations of the transmission system, voltage limitations or stability limitations • Identified by the load deliverability analyses conducted pursuant to the Regional Transmission Expansion Planning (RTEP) Protocol

  11. PJM Methodology Summary, continued • A new LDA is created if such new LDA is projected to have a capacity emergency transfer limit (CETL) less than 1.15 times* the capacity emergency transfer objective (CETO) of such area, or if warranted by other reliability concerns consistent with the Reliability Principles and Standards • A FERC filing is made to amend the LDA list *This trigger describes how capacity zones are automatically created in PJM

  12. Cleveland LDAAn Example of How a New Zone is Created in PJM

  13. Cleveland LDA, continuedAn Example of How a New Zone is Created in PJM • As part of the 2012 RTEP process, PJM analyzed the need to model an LDA in the Cleveland area • A number of recent generator deactivation notices and transmission reinforcements in the Cleveland area drove the need in 2012 to consider establishing a new LDA • Transmission facilities in the Cleveland metropolitan area have been historically constrained by voltage and stability limitations as transfers into the area have risen over time • These limitations have diminished the ability of Load Serving Entities (LSEs) to import power into the area

  14. Cleveland LDA, continuedAn Example of How a New Zone is Created in PJM • The peak load inside the interface is approximately 5,000 MW • Previously, Cleveland was part of the larger ATSI (formerly FirstEnergy) zone • The CETL/CETO ratio was actually found to exceed 1.15 • However, given that the “Cleveland Reactive Operational Interface” is an electrical area which PJM dispatchers already monitor to ensure reliability under real-time conditions, PJM selected it to become a new “Cleveland LDA” • The addition of the new zone was presented in the RTEP planning process and then filed at FERC • Approved by the FERC, effective January 4, 2013, the new LDA has been used for the first time in RTEP process studies in 2013 and for RPM activities in May 2013

  15. NY Methodology Summary • NYISO’s aligns the process for creating a new capacity zone with the triennial ICAP demand curve reset process • NYISO begins the new capacity zone process with a New Capacity Zone Study (NCZ Study) • If the NCZ Study identifies a Highway deliverability constraint (Highway constraint), NYISO will identify the boundary of a proposed new capacity zone • A locational minimum ICAP requirement is determined, followed by an analysis of a demand curve for the new capacity zone and submission to the Commission of tariff revisions to establish the new capacity zone

  16. Lower Hudson Valley ZoneAn Example of How a New Zone is Created in NY • In the recently completed NCZ study, NYISO identified the UPNY/SENY (Upstate New York/South East New York – located south of Albany) as a Highway deliverability constrained • The NCZ study was discussed in the NY planning process • NYISO filed with FERC the creation of a new downstate zone which merges Zones G, H, I & J • This leaves New York with three zones • Rest of State (approximately 13,000 MW) • “Lower Hudson Valley” (approximately 16,700 MW) • Long Island (Zone K, approximately 6,000 MW) • FERC approved the new zonal configuration in Docket No. ER13-1380-000

  17. Automatic triggers for the modeling/creation of zones • Al McBride • MANAGER, AREA TRANSMISSION PLANNING

  18. The Attributes of a Zone • The load in a zone is met by: • the addition of: • Resources in the Zone + Import Capability • Simplified Example Zone • In this case the load is exactly met Import Capability = 1,000 MW Load = 9,000 MW Resources = 8,000 MW

  19. Calculating Requirements • There are two ways to think about calculating requirements: • Resources: What amount of Resources are required for a given Import Capability? Or, • Import Capability: What amount of Import Capability is required for a given set of Resources? • Simplified Example Zone Import Capability = ? MW Load = 9,000 MW Resources = ? MW

  20. Which Import Capability? • It is required under the planning criteria to consider N-1-1 events • This discussion will focus on the N-1-1 Import Capability • This will be equivalent to the line-line calculations described in Transmission Security Assessments (TSA) • Simplified Example Zone N-1-1 Import Capability = ? MW Load = 9,000 MW Resources = ? MW

  21. Calculating a Transmission Security Requirement • A TSA Requirement is calculated as follows (simplified): • Assume resource unavailability of 5% • TSA Requirement = 5,263 MW • Simplified Example Zone (Load – Import Limit) (9,000 – 4,000) TSA Requirement TSA Requirement 1 - (resource unavailability factor) 1 - (0.05) N-1-1 Import Capability = 4,000 MW Load = 9,000 MW

  22. Designing a Resource-Based Trigger • TSA Requirement = 5,263 MW • Using a 15% automatic trigger for modeling zones: • If there is more than 1.15*5,263 MW = 6,052 MW of Existing Resources in the zone, then the zone would not be modeled • Note: If there is more than 5,263 MW remaining in auction, the zone would not bind in the auction • Simplified Example Zone N-1-1 Import Capability = 4,000 MW Load = 9,000 MW TSA = 5,263 MW

  23. A Resource-Based Trigger Considering Potential Retirements • TSA Requirement = 5,263 MW • The largest resource in the zone is 1,000 MW • Using a potential retirement automatic trigger for modeling zones: • If there is more than 5,263 + 1,000 = 6,263 MW of Existing Resources in the zone, then the zone would not be modeled • Simplified Example Zone N-1-1 Import Capability = 4,000 MW Load = 9,000 MW TSA = 5,263 MW The largest Resource is 1,000 MW

  24. A “Higher Of” Resource-Based Trigger • TSA Requirement = 5,263 MW • If the Existing Capacity of the Resources in the zone is greater than the higher of the [TSA*1.15] or the [TSA+the largest resource], then the zone would not be modeled • Simplified Example Zone N-1-1 Import Capability = 4,000 MW Load = 9,000 MW TSA = 5,263 MW The largest Resource is 1,000 MW

  25. Designing an Import Limit-Based Trigger (This approximates the PJM method) • What is the required Import Limit if the load is 7,000 MW and the Resources total 5,000 MW • The unavailability factor of the Resources should be considered (assume 5%) • Available Resources = 4,750 MW • “Required” N-1-1 Import Capability = 2,250 MW • If the import capability is greater than 1.15*2,250 = 2,587 MW, then the zone would not be modeled • Simplified Example Zone N-1-1 Import Capability = ? MW Load = 7,000 MW Resources = 5,000 MW

  26. An Import-Based Trigger Considering Potential Retirements • “Required” Import Capability = 2,250 MW • The largest resource in the zone is 1,000 MW • If the import capability is greater than 2,250 + 1,000 = 3,250 MW, then the zone would not be modeled • Simplified Example Zone N-1-1 Import Capability = ? MW Load = 7,000 MW Resources = 5,000 MW The largest Resource is 1,000 MW

  27. A “Higher Of” Import Limit-Based Trigger • “Required” Import Capability = 2,250 MW • If the import capability is greater than [1.15*Required Import Capability] or [Required Import Capability + the largest resource], then the zone would not be modeled • Simplified Example Zone N-1-1 Import Capability = ? MW Load = 7,000 MW Resources = 5,000 MW The largest Resource is 1,000 MW

  28. What if the Import Capability of a Zone has not been calculated? • A zone could be evaluated based on its load and resources • If there is enough Existing Capacity in the zone (considering no import capability) to meet the load, then the zone would not be modeled • If some import capability is needed, N-1-1 power flow analysis can be used to confirm that the load can be served • This analysis would consider the unavailability of one or more resources • Simplified Example Zone Load Resources

  29. Treatment of Export Constrained Zones • Al McBride • MANAGER, AREA TRANSMISSION PLANNING

  30. Modeling Export Constrained Zones • What is the required Export Capability if the load is 2,000 MW and the Resources total 4,000 MW • The unavailability factor of the Resources should be considered (assume 5%) • Available Resources = 3,800 MW • The Export Capability needs to be 3,800 – 2,000 = 1,800 MW to avoid locked-in capacity • If the export capability is greater than 1.15*1,800 = 2,070 MW, then the zone would not be modeled • Simplified Example Zone Export Capability = ? MW Load = 2,000 MW Resources = 4,000 MW

  31. Export Constrained Zones • Maine will continue to be evaluated for export constraint • North of Orrington South will not be added as a capacity zone • There is no reliability benefit or need to do this • For FCA-9, the smallest building block is the Load Zone

  32. Modeling SEMA/RI • SEMA/RI (Southeast Massachusetts/Rhode Island) has been identified as export constrained for many years • The only interface currently available to System Planning that could be associated with modeling the SEMA/RI zones is the SEMA/RI Export Limit • 3,000 MW through 2017 • 3,400 MW after 2017 • SEMA/RI SEMA RI

  33. Modeling SEMA/RI, continued • When Resource unavailability is considered, SEMA/RI does not appear to be export constrained at peak load • The ISO does not propose to consider evaluating SEMA-RI as export constrained in FCA-9 • SEMA/RI – FCA-5 Values • 90/10 Load = 6,235 MW • Resources = 9,360 MW SEMA RI

  34. Annual Planning process:Proposed Alignments, and enhancements • Al McBride • MANAGER, AREA TRANSMISSION PLANNING

  35. FAC-013-2 • NERC Standard FAC-013-2 ensures that Planning Coordinators have a methodology for, and perform an annual assessment to identify potential future Transmission System weaknesses and limiting facilities that could impact the Bulk Electric System’s ability to reliably transfer energy in the Near-Term Transmission Planning Horizon • In New England, when identifying potential future Transmission System weaknesses, consideration will be given to rejected delist bids, generation retirements or other changes in system conditions • Near-Term Transmission Planning Horizon = the transmission planning period that covers years one through five.

  36. Alignment of Planning Processes • NERC FAC-013-2 activities have been brought in alignment with • FERC 715 reporting of various aspects the transmission system and the transmission planning process • The calculation of future transmission limits needed for various activities and documented in the Regional System Plan • The following slide contains the most recent presentation of transfer capabilities that were provided to the Power Supply Planning Committee at their June 3, 2013 meeting

  37. RSP13 Base Interface Limits Notes are discussed in Appendix 1 of this presentation

  38. Assessment of New Interfaces • NERC FAC-013-2 activities will be further enhanced to incorporate the examination of future capacity zones and associated transfer capabilities • The transfer capability assessment will include the review of whether additional interfaces would be required in the case of submitted or potential resource retirements

  39. Attachment K • Attachment K of the ISO New England Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) describes the Regional System Planning (RSP) Process in New England • According to Attachment K, the RSP shall, among other things: • describe, in a consolidated manner, the assessment of the PTF system needs, the results of such assessments, and the projected improvements; • provide the projected annual and peak demands for electric energy for a five-to ten-year horizon, the needs for resources over this period and how such resources are expected to be provided; • specify the physical characteristics of the physical solutions that can meet the needs defined in the Needs Assessments and include information on market responses that can address them; and • provide sufficient information to allow Market Participants to assess the quantity, general locations, operating characteristics and required availability criteria of the type of incremental supply or demand-side resources, or merchant transmission projects, that would satisfy the identified needs or that may serve to modify, offset or defer proposed regulated transmission upgrades.

  40. Attachment K, continued • According to Attachment K, one of the triggers for a Needs Assessment is: • constraints or available transfer capability limitations that are identified possibly as a result of generation additions or retirements, evaluation of load forecasts or proposals for the addition of transmission facilities in the New England Control Area • In addition Needs Assessments are conducted for Rejected Non-Price Retirement Requests and De-List Bids • On-going Needs Assessments reflect Resources with Non-Price Retirement Requests or Permanent De-List Bids as unavailable for reliability • New Needs Assessments may be initiated

  41. Proposed addition to Attachment K • The annual Transfer Capability Assessment, conducted pursuant to NERC Standard FAC-013-2, and the identification of any new interfaces will be a part of the annual RSP process • The annual assessment will include the consideration of the addition of new interfaces that would result from submitted or potential retirements of resources

  42. Requirements Calculations • A new interface and associated zone will be included in the preparation for a given FCA if the transfer capability analysis is complete in time for the requirement calculation process for the FCA • Zones that do not trigger the automatic criteria are merged into the Rest-of-Pool zone • The requirements calculations for the new capacity zone will follow the normal stakeholder review process used for FCA requirements calculations • The LSR and MCL requirements calculations for import- and export-constrained zones will be unchanged • The higher of the Transmission Security Assessment and the Local Resource Adequacy will be used to set LSR

  43. FERC Filing • The zonal requirement of any new zone, along with the associated transfer capability will be included in the pre-FCA FERC filings

  44. Vermont ZoneExample of How a New Zone Could be Evaluated in the Planning Process • In response to repeated requests to de-list generation in Vermont, the ISO had begun the process of defining an interface and calculating a transfer capability into Vermont • The ISO will evaluate the modeling of a Vermont Zone in FCA-9 • In response to a request to retire generation • Will be discussed in the RSP process in 2014 • Vermont Zone

  45. SEMA/RIExample of How a New Zone Could be Evaluated in the Planning Process • SEMA/RI is a good example of why the load zone boundaries are not necessarily useful interfaces for modeling capacity zones • Some are perhaps counter-productive • For FCA-10 and beyond, the planning process can evaluate the addition of a more appropriate interface to manage the issues that could drive the need for a capacity zone • SEMA/RI – FCA-5 Values • 90/10 Load = 6,235 MW • Resources = 9,360 MW ? SEMA RI ?

  46. Other Issues

  47. Minimum Zone Size • The zones modeled in PJM and New York are relatively large (many 1,000s MW) • Many zones are merged together in the absence of triggering the objective criteria • ISO New England proposes to remain focused on the more significant load serving constraints • Interregional Operating Limits (IROLs) • Rule of thumb minimum IROL size is 1,200 MW of transfer capability or served load

  48. The Role of Market Resource Alternatives • Market Resource Alternatives (MRAs – also known as Non-Transmission Alternatives or NTAs) are, by definition, a consideration in the long-term transmission planning space • If NTAs become committed through the Forward Capacity Market or appropriate contract, they would be reflected in the zonal modeling process

  49. Listing of the iso proposal

  50. ISO Proposal for The Management of Capacity Zones • In Market Rule 1, Section 12 add automatic trigger(s) for the modeling and creation of zones • For FCA-9 capacity zones would be created by implementing the objective criteria (automatic trigger) using the existing 8 energy zones as the starting point • The 8 energy zones will serve as an approximation of the real transmission operating boundaries • Energy zones that do not exceed the automatic trigger will be collapsed into the Rest-of-Pool Capacity zone • The objective criteria for the automatic creation of zones would be based on the TSA-like analysis of the energy zone along with the security constrained import analysis • For FCA-10 and beyond, incorporate the analysis of appropriate zonal boundaries into the annual process used to calculate transfer limits for RSP and NERC statutory requirements • The automatic trigger would continue to define whether the zone would be created

More Related