1 / 19

WMS Report TO TAC

WMS Report TO TAC. March 2007. In Brief . Three Working Group Reports Three Task Force Reports EILS Discussion Two staff reports. Working Groups & Task Forces. Working Groups are standing and self directed Task Forces are ad hoc and take their assignments from the subcommittee

gage-pace
Download Presentation

WMS Report TO TAC

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. WMS Report TO TAC March 2007

  2. In Brief • Three Working Group Reports • Three Task Force Reports • EILS Discussion • Two staff reports

  3. Working Groups & Task Forces • Working Groups are standing and self directed • Task Forces are ad hoc and take their assignments from the subcommittee • Neither has a voting structure and may not speak for stakeholders • Minority positions are brought to the subcommittee • Have Antitrust responsibilities

  4. Working Group & TaskforceLeadership • QMWG – Gary Miller & Ron Wheeler • CMWG – Jerry Ward & Marguerite Wagner • DSWG – MaryAnne Brelinsky &Nelson Nease • MWG – Dotty Disanto & Mark Rollins • GATF – Malcom Smith & Henry Durrwachter  • RTTF – Mark Bruce

  5. Working Group ReportsQSEWG, CMWG & DSWG • QSE managers did not meet but the chairman is working with ERCOT staff to get more integrated with nodal project • Competitive Constraint determination draft NPRR is out • Updates on PUC Demand Side Project • Drafting a PRR on Laar Testing

  6. Task Force ReportsGATF • Addressing point by point the inputs to the ERCOT Reserve calculation • Will develop a revised methodology for the calculation • Will recommend changes in the format of the ERCOT CDR summary page

  7. Task Force ReportsRTTF • Met twice and has developed a matrix defining the universe of options regarding how to address differences between early movers and late comers to a CREZ.

  8. Discussion ItemNonSpin vs RPRS • RPRS market impacts • Dispatchablity of non-spin units • General trade offs • No action taken

  9. EILSCharge to WMS from PRS • The benefit. • The cost based on the EILS PRRs. • Changes in Market since April 17, 2006

  10. Benefit of EILS • Larry Gurley moved that the benefit be defined by the calculation as described in slide number 4 of the presentation, with the enumerated assumptions.  Clayton Greer seconded the motion.  The motion carried on a roll call vote, with five opposed and four abstaining.

  11. Calculation • The value provided by EILS is the avoided cost of the outage prevented: Value = Risk of outage * cost of outage = (1 event/15 yr) * ($6000/MWh * 1000MW * 4 hr) = $1.6M/yr

  12. EILS Benefit • EILS is to be used as the last step before firm load shed • Firm load shed historically has occurred at a rate of 1 event every 15 years • Assume that the firm load shed prevented would be 1000MW (the maximum size of the EILS program) • Assume that the value of lost load is $6,000/MWh (slightly under the DOE value calculated for the Northeast blackout) • Assume that an event lasts approximate 4 hours • Assume that EILS can be used in ALL firm load shed events • Assume that the performance of EILS is quick enough to prevent ERCOT from requiring firm load shed as well

  13. Discussed But not included In WMS motions Additional Benefit • May help avoid the ERCOT SHEDS FIRM LOAD headline** This is a real objective of the program. How do we put a value on it? ** ROS does not seem to think it will help. [ROS motion] ROS does not believe that EILS program as it has been defined in PRR705 is an effective reliability tool, and suggests that other tools that are more effective, or revisions to PRR705 that would make it effective, can be developed with further study as has been tasked for ROS to do.

  14. Costs of EILSLarry Gurley moved that the cost of the EILS PRR be defined at $100,000 (or less) for cost of implementation, with a $20 million annual cap ($17 million for the first year), with many unquantifiable costs associated with market inefficiencies.  Clayton Greer seconded the motion.  The motion carried on voice vote, with four opposed and one abstention (Investor Owned Utility segment.)

  15. Cost of the EILS PRRsTo ERCOT • 702: Assuming complexities removed, potentially $50K-$100K; otherwise, will require capital project for settlement changes. • 703: Assuming complexities removed, potentially $50K-$100K; otherwise, will require capital project for operational changes. • 704: Assuming complexities removed, potentially $50K-$100K; otherwise, will require capital project for settlement changes. • 705: $50K-$100K under O&M budgets of affected departments.

  16. Cost of the EILS PRRsTo Consumers • Comments filed on PRR 702 include a discussion of a $43.8 M Cap • PRR 705 has a $20M Cap

  17. Changes in the Market Since the April 17, 2006 EventLarry Gurley moved to accept the changes listed on slide number 8 of the presentation, and to add more effective use of the RPRS tool, including load participation, enhanced non-spin procurement procedures, passage of PRR 701, and elimination of MCSM and the shame cap.  Clayton Greer seconded the motion.  The motion carried on voice vote with one abstention (Municipal segment.)

  18. Changes in Market since April 17, 2006 • Forecasting Model refinements • Terminating Modified Competitive Solution Method and Shame Cap • Terminating CSC congestion constraint on BES MCPE • Revised EECP and Alert process and procedures • Raised offer cap • More effective use of RPRS tool • Load participation • Enhanced Non-Spin procurement procedures • Passed PRR 701, stranded capacity

  19. EILS • WMS understands that there is more to do to be responsive to PUC requests for solutions. • WMS is open to suggestions from TAC regarding how to proceed with developing long term solutions.

More Related