1 / 24

Locational ICAP Methodology

Locational ICAP Methodology. Presented To: NEPOOL Reliability Committee By: Wayne Coste, IREMM, Inc. June 10, 2003. Review of Previous Presentation. Discussed reliability indices Reviewed reliability indices What selected reliability index is and is not Showed application of indices

yvonne-maynard
Download Presentation

Locational ICAP Methodology

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. Locational ICAP Methodology Presented To: NEPOOL Reliability Committee By: Wayne Coste, IREMM, Inc. June 10, 2003 June 10, 2003

  2. Review of Previous Presentation • Discussed reliability indices • Reviewed reliability indices • What selected reliability index is and is not • Showed application of indices • Regional vs. Sub-Area • Illustrated criterion for locational reliability • Provided preliminary indications (New) • Detailed illustration of methodology (New) Review June 10, 2003

  3. LOLE Reliability Index • Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) • Has wide acceptance in electric power industry • LOLE index of 0.1 days per year accepted as threshold for generation adequacy • Index is calculated as “Expectation” • LOLE is cumulative daily probability of insufficient resources to meet customer loads • Transmission only included in inter-area reliability studies Review June 10, 2003

  4. Reliability Risk Measurements • Single bus resource adequacy assessment • Measures generation adequacy; and • Load response program (LRP) adequacy • Constrained Multi-Area assessment. • Includes locational component w/o additional T&D risk • Composite reliability assessment • Generation and LRP adequacy risks plus • Transmission and distribution risks • “Delivered-to-the-customer-terminal” reliability Review June 10, 2003

  5. Applicability of LOLE Index • LOLE Index (ISO-NE, NYISO and PJM): • IS a measure of resource adequacy • Can be applied to many interconnected areas • IS NOT a composite reliability assessment • Criterion is met when regions are inter-connected and LOLE less than, or equal to, 0.1 days/year Review June 10, 2003

  6. Inter-Regional Constraints Not Generally Constrained Imports or Exports can Dominate Inter-regional constraints leave exporting areas with low LOLE and importing areas with roughly equivalent indices. For minimum ICAP in both B and C (ie. maximum efficiency), both have 0.100 LOLE and interface is supportive of emergency flows because it is not constraining. Single contingency interface rating (ie. N-1) Determine the amount of capacity in each region so that both (all) areas meet reliability standard. B 0.099 C 0.100 Frequently Export Constrained Frequently Export Constrained A 0.02 Review June 10, 2003

  7. Sub-Area LOLE Risk • Extension of 0.1 days/year criterion to sub- areas without additional risk factors • If resource adequacy is the issue, LOLE index would be uniform across areas • Assumption underlying single bus model • No recognition of additional risks • If resource adequacy LOLE is not uniform across sub-areas • Certain customers would be targeted for blackouts while other New England customers won’t be interrupted • Interruption guided by ISO / satellite OP4 & OP7 needs Review June 10, 2003

  8. VT ME SME BHE NH BOST WEMA CMAN SEMA RI CT NOR SWCT Intra-Area Constraints Within New England there are many sub-areas. For all areas to see the same resource adequacy risk -- the supply resources and transmission must be balanced. Intra-area locational balance is an extension of the accepted NPCC inter-regional transmission limit framework. Internal interfaces are rated for single contingency (ie. N-1) and do not add to risk levels. ISO-NE 0.100 Review June 10, 2003

  9. Resource Adjustment Methodology Once the system is brought to NEPOOL reliability criterion: 1. Add/remove MW from sub-area 2. For Add/remove - Assume X MW change - Other areas reduced by X MW - Reduce according to peak load 3. Identify “Critical Points” - LOLE increases with less MW - LOLE decreases with more MW 0.100 -B MW 0.100 -C MW 0.100 -A MW 0.100 -E MW 0.100 -D MW 0.100 X MW Virtually Unconstrained Net MW adjustment is zero: 0 = X -A -B -C -D -E Review June 10, 2003

  10. Effect of Changing Capacity / Load Ratios ‘Import’ Constrained Area Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLE Import Constrained Area 2004 Less Capacity Higher LOLE Lower Capacity / Load Ratio 1.00000 0.90000 0.80000 0.70000 More Capacity No Impact on LOLE Higher Capacity / Load Ratio 0.60000 LOLE (Days Per Year) 0.50000 0.40000 0.30000 0.20000 0.10000 0.00000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Ratio of Area Capacity / Area Peak 2004 Existing Ratio Review June 10, 2003

  11. Effect of Changing Capacity / Load Ratios ‘Export’ Constrained Area Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLE Export Constrained Area - 2004 Less Capacity No Impact on LOLE Lower Capacity / Load Ratio 1.00000 0.90000 0.80000 0.70000 More Capacity Reduces LOLE Higher Capacity / Load Ratio 0.60000 0.50000 LOLE (Days Per Year) 0.40000 0.30000 0.20000 0.10000 0.00000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Ratio of Area Capacity / Area Peak 2004 Existing Ratio Review June 10, 2003

  12. RTEP03 Peak Load and Installed Capacity MW by Sub-Area - 2003 VT Load 1203 839 MW Under Construction RTEP LoadCapacity NB-NE - 700 Phase II - 1500 Highgate - 210 HQ NB Orrington South – 1050 Surowiec South - 1150 ME-NH – 1400 ME S-ME BHE Load 956956 MW Load 5331516 MW Load 312942 MW NH Load 16174006 MW Boston – 3600 East-West – 2400 BOSTON North-South – 2700 Load 52223613 MW NY-NE – 1550w/o Cross Sound Cable W-MA CMA/NEMA Load 19633681 MW Load 1634 206 MW NY SEMA/RI – 3000 SEMA RI CT Load 25503356 MW CSC -300 Load 22665140 MW Load 33504437 MW South West CT – 2000 SEMA – 2300 KEY: Connecticut Import– 2200 NOR Regional Transmission Expansion Plan Sub-area SWCT Load 1251444 MW Load 2263 2036 MW June 10, 2003 Priority Studies Required Norwalk-Stamford – 1100 Other Studies Required

  13. Effect of Adjusting Capacity in BOST Preliminary Indications Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLE BOST 2003 0.1 Days / Year Criterion 1.00000 Sub-Area LOLE 0.90000 Maximum Before Locked-in 0.80000 Minimum Before Import Constrained 0.70000 2003 Existing Ratio 0.60000 LOLE (Days Per Year) 0.50000 0.40000 0.30000 0.20000 0.10000 0.00000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area Review June 10, 2003

  14. Effect of Adjusting Capacity in SWCT Preliminary Indications Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLE SWCT 2003 0.1 Days / Year Criterion 1.00000 Sub-Area LOLE 0.90000 Maximum Before Locked-in 0.80000 Minimum Before Import Constrained 0.70000 2003 Existing Ratio 0.60000 LOLE (Days Per Year) 0.50000 0.40000 0.30000 0.20000 0.10000 0.00000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area Review June 10, 2003

  15. Effect of Adjusting Capacity in NOR Preliminary Indications Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLE NOR 2003 0.1 Days / Year Criterion 1.00000 Sub-Area LOLE 0.90000 Maximum Before Locked-in 0.80000 Minimum Before Import Constrained 0.70000 2003 Existing Ratio 0.60000 Driven by NOR Import LOLE (Days Per Year) 0.50000 0.40000 Driven by SWCT Import 0.30000 0.20000 0.10000 0.00000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area Review June 10, 2003

  16. Effect of Adjusting Capacity in N-CT Preliminary Indications Effect of Firm Load Shift on LOLE CT 2003 0.1 Days / Year Criterion Sub-Area LOLE 1.00000 Maximum Before Locked-in 0.90000 Minimum Before Import Constrained 0.80000 2003 Existing Ratio 0.70000 0.60000 0.50000 LOLE (Days Per Year) 0.40000 0.30000 0.20000 0.10000 0.00000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Existing+Adjustment Capacity in Sub-Area Review June 10, 2003

  17. Possible Solutions • PJM favors transmission solutions • Uses sub-area import and export criteria • Import Capability Emergency Transfer Objective (CETO) criteria of 0.04 days/year • Export limited areas trigger planning process • NYISO uses Locational Capacity approach • Import constrained areas have locational ICAP • Certain transmission eligible for “ICAP” if bundled with generation • ISO-NE is pursuing a Locational Capacity approach Review June 10, 2003

  18. Available Solutions • Locational ICAP requires minimum amount of local capacity for reliability • Increases in transmission capability can reduce the minimum local capacity requirement • Non-discriminatory solutions • Transmission solution • LSEs can foster LRP resources • Generation solutions Review June 10, 2003

  19. Additive Transmission Import Capability From all Areas May Not be Simultaneously Feasible RTEP Sub-Area Based Reqm’ts All Existing and New Resources (RTEP03) Available Preliminary Note: Existing Must Be Greater Than Required June 10, 2003

  20. Sub-Area Largest Unit June 10, 2003

  21. Additive Transmission Import Capability From all Areas May Not be Simultaneously Feasible Sub-Area w/o Largest Unit Preliminary Notes: Existing without Largest Unit must be greater than required Insufficient means short without resource attrition risk Vulnerable means short with resource attrition risk June 10, 2003

  22. Sub-Area PUSH Units June 10, 2003

  23. Additive Transmission Import Capability From all Areas May Not be Simultaneously Feasible Sub-Area w/o PUSH Units Preliminary Notes: Existing without PUSH Unit must be greater than required Insufficient means short without resource attrition risk Vulnerable means short with resource attrition risk June 10, 2003

  24. Next Steps • Continue finalizing and communicating to participants • Await NEPOOL Power Supply Planning Committee comments • Presentation given May 30th on technical issues • Technical approach perceived to be credible by PSPC • Comments due by approximately June 13th • Development of results for changes in transmission constraint values • Obtain comments from your Committee • Nesting of Sub-areas • Work with Amr Ibrahim to develop a web-based “FAQ” • Communicate responses to participants • Facilitate understanding of approach and basis for further analysis • UCAP translation • Extend analysis to include treatment of export constrained areas June 10, 2003

More Related