70 likes | 173 Views
PRR #409 Voltage Support Service from Generating Resources. Status of PRR. Timeline Date Received 4/25/2003 Date Posted 4/28/2003 Comments Due 5/19/2003 PRS Review Date 5/22/2003 May 22 nd PRS Action :
E N D
PRR #409 Voltage Support Service from Generating Resources Status of PRR Timeline Date Received 4/25/2003 Date Posted 4/28/2003 Comments Due 5/19/2003 PRS Review Date 5/22/2003 May 22nd PRS Action: Remanded to WMS for further clarification of settlement treatment
What the PRR Seeks to do with VSS-f-GR • Establish a realistic payment methodology for VSS based on an easily captured telemetry point/calculated value in ERCOT EMS (MVarh) “as delivered” • Maintain the existing proposed RCVC Standard requirement for unit testing and reactive capability (URL of .95) • Set trigger point for settlement for reactive delivery at a point that recognizes values of losses in generator and GSU (.98)
Existing Protocols Treatment • Generator must maintain voltage profile [limited to MVars delivered at Max. MW @ .95 Pf measured at MPT HV terminals] (6.5.7) • Generators must maintain voltage regulation schedule without compensation to .95 Pf (6.8.4) • Dispatch instructions that cause a reduction in MWs to produce more MVars paid at OOM-E Down price (6.8.4.(2)) • PIP-102 boxed language: “Compensated Reactive Support” pays for reactive delivery that exceeds URL at avoided cost of reactive resources on transmission network. [PIP-102 is to be implemented on ERCOT systems this year; 2.1 Priority]
What are the costs to producing Mvars? • Installed Capability Costs what is the appropriate value for those components of the generator equipment that make MVar production possible? • Lost Opportunity Costs what is the value of the next MVar vs. the next MW? • Heating Losses what is the cost in fuel to produce MVars?
Basis for these assertions • Installed Capability Costs American Electric Power Service Corporation 88 FERC ¶ 61,141 (“AEP”) [basis for numerous FERC-approved rate filings on OATT Schedule 2] ERCOT Protocols 6.8.4.(2) [“avoided cost of reactive support Resources on the transmission network.”]
Basis for these assertions (cont’d) • Lost Opportunity Costs ERCOT Protocols 6.8.4.(2) Numerous FERC rulings re: OATT Schedule 2 • Heating Losses Stray Loss Factor (per EPRI TR-107270-V3SI) accepted in numerous FERC rulings on OATT Schedule 2 filings Incremental heating loss = Stray LF * [3*Ra*[(Ia pf.85)2 -(Ia pf=1)2] + [Rf*[(If pf=.85)2-(If pf=1)2]]
WMS task from PRS • Determine a suitable settlement method for reactive delivered MVarh delivered beyond trigger (+-.98 Pf) can be calculated/integrated over an interval. Can Synchronous Condenser treatment in Protocols 6.8.3.4 be used as a proxy pricing mechanism? Can some portion of the MCPE/Zone of delivery be used as a suitable price proxy if Heating Losses principle is used? Can a “(MW losses from heating) X HSC Price for Gas X 10.5 HR (customary losses treatment in ERCOT)” approach be acceptable?