1 / 19

Alan Hockenson Chair - EPCWG

Alan Hockenson Chair - EPCWG. VGS-MWG Assignment on Product Codes March 31, 2011 Variable Generation Subcommittee. Energy Product Code Work Group. VGS-MWG made a request to MIC Determine if specific product codes are needed for variable generation tags. MIC formed the EPCWG in late 2011

hedwig
Download Presentation

Alan Hockenson Chair - EPCWG

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. Alan HockensonChair - EPCWG VGS-MWG Assignment on Product Codes March 31, 2011 Variable Generation Subcommittee

  2. Energy Product Code Work Group • VGS-MWG made a request to MIC • Determine if specific product codes are needed for variable generation tags. • MIC formed the EPCWG in late 2011 • Several web-calls held in January/February • First Draft White Paper was prepared • Tentative consensus was reached • Do we need new product code(s) for wind?

  3. Answer: NO

  4. Questions?

  5. Who Participated? Members Brenda Anderson Laura Bean Demetrios Fotiou Marilyn Franz Bob Harshbarger JJ Jamieson Doug Pochailo Jim Price David Schiada Casey Sprous Others Jennifer Hart (staff) Laura Hatfield Raj Hundal Matthew Hunsaker (staff) Caitlin Liotiris Robert Sullivan Dan Williams

  6. EPCWG Objectives • 1) determine the need for and appropriate uses of product codes • 2) determine if specific product codes are needed for variable generation tags. • 3) prepare a white paper to document results

  7. EPCWG Tasks • Track WSPP and other discussions on tagging issues with Wind and other variable generation • Explore need for white paper on regional criteria within the WECC region and recommend drafting a SAR as appropriate

  8. Do Product Codes work? • What information do product codes convey? • Do product codes indentify where load responsibility lies? • Are existing codes adequate for scheduling variable generation? • If existing product codes are adequate, what codes should be used? • Does the FERC NOI suggest alternatives?

  9. Reference Documents (2007) • Standard INT-014-WECC-CRT-1 (April) • WECC Interpretation of Load Responsibility (June) • NWPP response to WECC ILR (October) • INT-WECC CRT-018 (December)

  10. Reference Documents (2010) • BPA White Paper on Firm Contingent Product Codes (April) • FERC NOPR, Docket RM 10-11-000 (November) • Industry Comments on Docket RM 10-11-000 (December)

  11. Product Code Characteristics • Description – firm, firm contingent, interruptible • Product Code – G-F, G-FC, G-NF • CR Hydro – 5%, source or sink, 100% for int. • CR Thermal – 7%, source or sink, 100% for int. • CR VER – 5%, source or sink, 100% for int. • Hierarchy – G-F (source BA), G-FC (sink BA) • Non-qualifying events, no except interruptible • Generation Contingency, firm-no, others-yes

  12. So what are the problems? • Product codes generalize how the energy product is delivered to market • Responsibility Entity Field specifies the entity responsible for Contingency Reserves • Load Responsibility can be transferred between market participants but that is not shown on e-tags

  13. More problems? • Balancing Authorities look at: • Product Codes • Responsible Entity Fields • Maybe both • To determine Contingency Reserves and Load Responsibility • Practices are not consistent

  14. Even more problems? • There is not a clear practice for carrying Contingency Reserves for wind • For wind from BPA Balancing Authority • BPA holds 5% Contingency Reserves • CAISO holds 7% Contingency Reserves • BC Hydro holds 100% Contingency Reserves

  15. Furthermore • Contingency Reserves are intended to support equipment failure and forced outages (not swings in energy supply) • Balancing Reserves are necessary to properly integrate variable generation • Balancing Reserves are determined by individual Balancing Authorities • Produce Codes/E-tags provide no information on Balancing Reserves

  16. What else could go wrong? • Quantity of Balancing Reserves may be sufficient, but . . . • Response of Balancing Reserves (ramp rate) may not sufficient to meet needs • At some point, is it cost effective to shed generation to maintain reliability?

  17. Status of EPCWG work • Draft white paper is being reviewed • History/Background is pretty settled • Consensus issues, still evolving • If there are roadblocks, differing perspectives will be outlined • Do have consensus that just assigning a new product code doesn’t solve the problems for integrating wind • Overlying e-tag clarification issues would need to be solved first

  18. EPCWG seeks from the MIC • Comments • Additional Perspectives • Guidance

  19. Questions?

More Related