1 / 13

Real-Time Congestion Analysis and Competitiveness Testing Results" (80 characters)

This presentation via WebEx to TAC on 9/22/2011 delves into the study, results, and discussions of congestion constraints competitiveness tests. The study examined the overloading scenario of SNCWMOS8, proposing constraints for testing based on economic impact. The CCT results highlighted failed constraints with detailed analysis, including analysis of market share and competitive factors. The proposal suggests maintaining current competitive constraints but initiating a review of the designation methodology. Gain insights into real-life competitive constraints with practical examples and discussions on the CCT procedure and results.

whytek
Download Presentation

Real-Time Congestion Analysis and Competitiveness Testing Results" (80 characters)

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. Presented via WebEx to TAC 9/22/2011 Constraints Competitiveness Tests (CCT) Results

  2. Agenda • Description of Study • Results • Discussion of SNCWMOS8 overloading ODNTH_AXFMR1 from 138 to 69kV • Proposal CCT

  3. Constraints Chosen for Testing Examined Real-Time congestion from 12/1/2010 to 8/14/2011 Ranked constraints in descending order of economic impact Chose highest impact constraints that accounted for 80% of the congestion CCT

  4. Tested Constraints (1 of 4) CCT

  5. Tested Constraints (2 of 4) CCT

  6. Tested Constraints (3 of 4) CCT

  7. Tested Constraints (4 of 4) CCT

  8. RESULTS CCT Failing CONSTRAINTS (14/11) All other constraints listed (except W-N and VALIMP) passed the CCT Constraints Highlighted in ORANGE passed CCT with CMWG suggested study parameters/data CCT

  9. How Does the CCT Work? Let’s step through an example • SNCWMOS8 overloading ODNTH_AXFMR1 from 138 to 69kV • $13,032,731.00 (#7 in monetary impact) • Binding 51 days • Violated 30 days • Only 4 plants have any appreciable negative shift factor (distributed reference) to the constraint • 9.1% No Trees Wind Farm (Wind) • 7.3% Delaware/Kunitz (Wind) • 5.2% Permian Basin • 3.2% Bull Creek (Wind) • No plants have an appreciable positive shift factor (>1%) CCT

  10. No Trees Odessa Delaware/Kunitz Permian Basin CCT

  11. The Result If time is available we can walk through the CCT procedure with test data The result is an Element Competitiveness Index (ECI) of 805 Well below the Non-Competitive threshold of 2000 Thus, as defined by the CCT, this constraint is competitive CCT

  12. Is this accurate?? Is this constraint competitive in real life? • Practical experience says that there are only five dispatchable units that can unload this constraint; they all have the same DME • Permian Basin • Essentially 100% market share CCT

  13. Proposal The CCT as written does not accurately test market concentration ERCOT proposes that TAC does not suggest changes to the current Competitive Constraints, but rather approves the same list that we currently have (CSCs and CREs from 2010) ERCOT further proposes that a review of the Competitive Constraint designation methodology be initiated CCT

More Related