1 / 12

Qualification Criteria for Demand-Side Resources to be Considered as a Reserve Margin Adjustment

Qualification Criteria for Demand-Side Resources to be Considered as a Reserve Margin Adjustment. Jay Zarnikau Frontier Associates March 18, 2005. Outline. Objectives Framework Approved by Generation Adequacy Working Group (GAWG) Issues Counting LaaRs (discussion led by Mark and Steve)

hanzila
Download Presentation

Qualification Criteria for Demand-Side Resources to be Considered as a Reserve Margin Adjustment

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. Qualification Criteria for Demand-Side Resources to be Considered as a Reserve Margin Adjustment Jay Zarnikau Frontier Associates March 18, 2005

  2. Outline • Objectives • Framework Approved by Generation Adequacy Working Group (GAWG) • Issues • Counting LaaRs (discussion led by Mark and Steve) • Degree of Control by ERCOT • Degree of Contractual or Technical Commitment • Availability During Summer Peaks • Verification of Deployments by ERCOT / Information Flow • Enforcement of Criteria by ERCOT • Processes and Procedures • Report to GAWG

  3. Objectives • Develop criteria for determining when a demand-side resource (e.g., a LaaR, a BUL, a load management program, direct load control, a NOIE interruptible tariff, or a group load curtailment program) is reliable enough to count as a reduction from firm demand in the calculation and (five year) forecast of ERCOT’s reserve margin. • Presumably, if we move toward an ICAP market or something similar, these qualification criteria might also be applied in order to qualify demand-side resources as ICAP resources. However, this is just speculation at this point. • In order to be “counted,” demand-side resources must meet various qualification criteria. GAWG has asked the DemandSideWG to refine these criteria. We need to report to GAWG tomorrow.

  4. Framework Approved by GAWG • At the GAWG, there appears to be agreement that any party (e.g., a TDSP, a REP, a NOIE, or an ESCO) should be permitted to ask ERCOT to qualify a demand-side resource as a reserve margin adjustment, provided the resource meets the criteria we establish. • The GAWG appears to have dismissed earlier proposals that reserve margin adjustments be tied to • LaaRs qualified (but not necessarily in providing an operating reserve during a peak period), • pre-restructuring interruptible tariff participation, or • potential demand response to price signals (e.g., voluntary load response or passive load response).  • Instead, we’ll develop criteria and see what meets it.

  5. Issue 1: Counting LaaRs • Strawman Position: Count 1150 MW of Responsive Reserve (RRS) LaaRs as a reserve margin adjustment. Even though there is no long-term contract, there is a surplus of LaaRs providing RRS. LaaRs can be OOMed. We have reasonable assurance that there will be 1150 MW available during peak periods in each of the next five years. • Alternative positions: • Don’t count anything, unless there is a long-term contract. • Add requirements onto LaaRs to make them more dependable (require stronger commitments) during peak periods. For example, require them to arm under-frequency relays or be available for an OOM deployment during the summer, regardless of whether they want to provide RRS.

  6. Issue 2: Degree of Control by ERCOT • Strawman Position: Either directly or indirectly, ERCOT needs to have some ability (but not an obligation) to deploy a demand-side resource during a peak. • Tying deployment to an EECP is fine. • If ERCOT has the ability to OOM the demand-side resource, that is fine. • Alternative Positions: • More direct control by ERCOT? • Less control?

  7. Issue 3: Degree of Contractual or Technical Commitment • Strawman Position: There must be either a contractual obligation for the load to deploy under qualifying conditions (and the contract must be available to ERCOT for verification) or deployment must be under the control of an under-frequency relay, a direct load control switch, or some other qualifying technology. A contract between a Market Participant (e.g., a REP) and an interruptible load that contains a “buy-through” provision should not be permitted. • Alternative Positions: • Only count contracts directly with ERCOT • Only count contracts with penalty provisions for non-compliance with dispatch requests • Adjust the quantity of the adjustment for the degree of interruptibility. Like in the old days, count an interruptible load with an underfrequency relay more than an interruptible load with a 30-minute notice requirement. Make a small adjustment for programs/contracts with buy-through provisions.

  8. Issue 4: Availability During Summer Peaks • Possible ways of counting/quantifying the demand-side resource: • The load’s billing demand • The load’s average demand • The load’s average demand during summer afternoons • Count the load as an adjustment based on its historical coincidence with summer peaks (Question: Would this penalize the load for any demand response to peak prices and provide the wrong signal?) • Some fraction of the load’s billing demand, with the fraction related to the degree of interruptibility.

  9. Issue 5: Verification of Deployments by ERCOT / Information Flow • Strawman Position: ERCOT needs to develop procedures and systems to enable it to monitor the deployment of demand-side resources that are not necessarily under ERCOT’s direct control. • Notes: • For some demand side resources (DLC) telemetry is impractical • Are IDR (or RIDR) readings collected a couple weeks following deployments OK?

  10. Issue 6: Enforcement of Criteria by ERCOT • Three strikes and you are out? • Adjustments to the quantity counted based on historical performance during deployment requests? • Beat up on the QSE?

  11. Issue 7: Processes and Procedures • Give more tasks to Mark and Steve? • Do we need a formal qualification process? • Would this include a review of contractual commitments made by the load? • If a contractual commitment is made, can we count the demand-side resource beyond the end of a contract with a REP? • Or, can the load contract with ERCOT (which might permit a contractual term longer than the load’s contract with its REP)? • How do we prevent any “double-counting” if a load participates in more than one program, tariff, etc. • Do interruptible loads served by dynamically-scheduled NOIEs present special problems? • How do we prevent double-counting in ERCOT’s future load forecasts?

  12. Report to the GAWG • Who wants the spend the evening writing up our recommendations?

More Related