REVISION TO DEFINITION OF TRANSMISSION OPERATOR NOGRR 149 ( APPEAL ) Small Public Power Group of Texas (SPPG) Presentation to ERCOT Reliability and Operations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NAESB Measurement and Verification Model Business Practice Retail Electric Demand Response 5/29/09 update.
Advertisements

Distributed Generation (DG)
DOD Microgrids The Missing Link: Microgrid Applications Michael Dempsey P.E. Burns & McDonnell June 12, 2013 © 2013 Burns & McDonnell. All Rights Reserved.
Unresolved Issues in NPRR 555 Texas Steel Companies July 9, 2013.
NERC Functional Model AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE ERCOT REGION
Enhancing Interruptible Rates Through MISO Demand Response: WIEG Annual Meeting June 19, 2008 Presented by: Kavita Maini, Principal KM Energy Consulting,
Susan Covino Senior Consultant, Emerging Markets March 31, 2015
June 6, 2007 TAC Meeting NERC Registration Issues Andrew Gallo, Assistant General Counsel, Litigation and Business Operations ERCOT Legal Dept.
1 FRCC Compliance Organization and Entity Registration 2008 FRCC Compliance Workshop.
ERCOT Compliance Audits Robert Potts Sr. Reliability Analyst March 23, 2005.
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 1 Network Operating Committee (NOC) June 12 th, 2014.
Entity Registration Under EPAct 2005 Public Power Council April 6, 2006 Louise McCarren Chief Executive Officer WECC.
1 Arizona Corporation Commission BTA Workshop Presenter: Steven Cobb May 23, 2008.
NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE | Association for Financial Professionals March 2012.
APPA RELIABILITY STANDARDS & COMPLIANCE SYMPOSIUM Case Study: City Utilities of Springfield, MO January 11, 2007.
Other Binding Documents Ann Boren ERCOT TAC/TAC Subcommittee Structural and Procedural Review ERCOT Public August 27, 2014.
Demand Response in Midwest ISO Markets February 17, 2008.
November 10, 2009 NOIE DRG Settlements TF update to COPS Settlement Discussion for ALL DG < or = 1 MW Don Tucker on behalf of the NOIE DRG Settlements.
April 23 rd OWG UFLS Survey & Power Factor Review.
POWER SYSTEM PLANNING CHARTER AND PROCESSES Presentation to TAC 10/09/2003 KENNETH A. DONOHOO, P.E. Manager of System Planning Transmission Services
FERC’s Role in Demand Response David Kathan ABA Teleconference December 14, 2005.
Overview of WECC and Regulatory Structure
1. 2 NERC Bulk Electric System (BES) Definition (NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards) FERC Order 693 FRCC Handbook Review Task Force.
ERCOT Demand Side Working Group Mary Anne Brelinsky Eagle Energy Partners.
Status Report for Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Group
March 11, 2011 RPG Meeting Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) Import.
1 Compliance Update May Control Performance Highlights  NERC CPS1 Performance Performance further declined in March  March performance comparison.
Bill Lewis, Compliance Team Lead NERC Reliability Working Group May 16, 2013 Texas RE Update Talk with Texas RE April 25, 2013.
Long Term Solution Task Force TAC Report 5/5/07 Presented by: Bob Wittmeyer - LTSTF Co-Chair.
Project Cyber Security Order 706 Version 5 CIP Standards Potential to Adversely Impact ERCOT Black Start Capability.
Demand Response in Energy and Capacity Markets David Kathan FERC IRPS Conference May 12, 2006.
COMPLIANCE ROLLOUT Vann Weldon Compliance Training Administrator March 23, 2005 NERC FUNCTIONAL MODEL REVIEW.
PJM© Demand Response in PJM 2009 NASUCA Mid-Year Meeting June 30, 2009 Boston, MA Panel: Price Responsive Demand – A Long-Term Bargain.
Demand Response: What It Is and Why It’s Important 2007 APPA National Conference San Antonio, Texas June 26, :00 a.m. to Noon Glenn M. Wilson Director.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations May 8, 2012 – COPS Meeting May 9, 2012 – WMS.
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) A Success Story… In Progress Ingmar Sterzing United States Association of Energy Economics (USAEE) Pittsburgh.
Page 1 of 13 Texas Regional Entity ROS Presentation April 16, 2009 T EXAS RE ROS P RESENTATION A PRIL 2009.
Overview of Texas RE Reliability Standards Process and 2008 Year in Review Judith James Manager, Reliability Standards.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Legal Disclaimers and Admonitions PROTOCOL DISCLAIMER This presentation provides a general overview of the Texas Nodal.
May 11, 2012 RPG meeting YTP Scope and Process – RPG Comments.
01/17/ CP Discussion October 16,2002 Retail Market Subcommittee Austin, Texas.
ERS Update – DSWG Presentation September 21, 2012.
RMS Update to TAC October 5, RMS Activity Summary 2008 Test Flight Schedule Update on TAC directive relating to identifying issues with net metering.
Distributed Generation Registration June 30, 2008.
Operating Guide and Planning Guide Revision Requests Blake Williams, ROS Chair September 13, 2012.
1 Texas Regional Entity Report November Performance Highlights  ERCOT’s Control Performance Standard (NERC CPS1) score for September –
Texas Regional Entity ROS Presentation January 15, 2009 T EXAS RE ROS P RESENTATION J ANUARY 2009.
RiversidePublicUtilities.com Arts & Innovation RiversidePublicUtilities.com MOD GENERATOR TESTING REQUIREMENTS RESOURCE PLANNERS LeeAnne Uhler, Regulatory.
October 29, 2012 RARF Workshop 2 Introduction to ERCOT Modeling Process Jay Teixeira Manager, Model Administration.
February 3, 2011 TAC ERCOT Planning Go-Live Update Jay Teixeira Manager, Model Administration.
ERCOT ROS Planning Working Group (PLWG) Scope Approved at ROS Meeting.
© CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC. THE OFFERING DESCRIBED IN THIS PRESENTATION IS SOLD AND CONTRACTED BY CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY, INC., A SUBSIDIARY.
Role of Account Management at ERCOT 2006 TAC Subcommittee Review ERCOT Board February 21, 2006.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Market Rules Overview Topics in this lesson...  Introduction to Market Rules Public Utility Regulatory Act PUCT Substantive.
ERCOT DYNAMICS WORKING GROUP Report to ROS August 16, 2007 Vance Beauregard, American Electric Power.
Capacity, Demand and Reserves Report Bill Bojorquez May 4, 2007.
Current Nodal OS Design 1.The NMMS database will have an OWNER and an OPERATOR designation for each piece of equipment in the model. The OWNER and OPERATOR.
AES NewEnergy To The Institute For Regulatory Policy Studies May 18, 2000 By David L. Townley.
Generation Adequacy Task Force Meeting April 10, 2014.
Voltage Reduction Task Force Update September 25, 2014 Presentation to ERCOT TAC.
ROS Meeting – 06/12/081Texas Nodal Program - TPTF Update Texas Nodal Transition Plan Task Force ROS Meeting Stacy Bridges, ERCOT Thursday, 06/12/08.
Nodal Planning Go Live Austin, TX February 3, 2011
ERCOT Update on UFLS Annual Survey with TSP/DSP Gene Lowrie Reliability & Compliance Eng Sr. July 2016.
UFLS Survey Explanation
Nodal COMS Additional Items Update
NOGRR-169 OWG discussion Bill Blevins June 28, 2017.
UFLS Workshop Discussion #3
NERC Entity Registration and Certification in the ERCOT Region
Clarification of the Resident Load Definition
The Need for Compensatory Standby Rates
Presentation transcript:

REVISION TO DEFINITION OF TRANSMISSION OPERATOR NOGRR 149 ( APPEAL ) Small Public Power Group of Texas (SPPG) Presentation to ERCOT Reliability and Operations Task Force (ROS) March 3, 2016

N ODAL O PERATING G UIDES – S ECTION 1, S UBSECTION 1.4T (D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR ) E XISTING D EFINITION T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (TO) Entity responsible for the safe and reliable operation of its own portion or designated portion of the ERCOT Transmission System. Every Transmission Service Provider (TSP) or Distribution Service Provider (DSP) in the ERCOT Region shall either register as a TO, or designate a TO as its representative and with the authority to act on its behalf. T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (TO) Entity responsible for the safe and reliable operation of its own portion or designated portion of the ERCOT Transmission System. Every Transmission Service Provider (TSP) in the ERCOT Region shall either register as a TO, or designate a TO as its representative and with the authority to act on its behalf. Every Distribution Service Provider (DSP) in the ERCOT Region with an annual peak load exceeding 25 MW shall either register as a TO, or designate a TO as its representative and with the authority to act on its behalf. Every DSP in the ERCOT Region with an annual Peak load of 25 MW and below which is required by North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to be registered as a distribution provider, or any other applicable NERC registration, shall either register as a TO, or designate a TO as its representative and with the authority to act on its behalf. P ROPOSED D EFINITION R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

GOAL To develop and maintain an ERCOT-compliant Transmission Operations Plan which:  Meets applicable requirements and obligations contained within the ERCOT Operating Guides and Protocols; and  Is technically feasible, operationally practical, and within the Cities’ financial ability.

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL ) SPPG PARTICIPATING MOU’S  City of Seymour  City of Bridgeport  City of Robstown  City of Sanger  City of Farmersville  City of Hearn

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

DSP SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS – SUMMER PEAK LOAD ( 2015 )  City of Seymour - 9 MW  City of Bridgeport - 14 MW  City of Robstown - 21 MW  City of Sanger - 13 MW  City of Farmersville - 9 MW  City of Hearn - 12 MW Average Size – 13 MW

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL ) DSP SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS – RETAIL REVENUE METERS ( 2015 )  City of Seymour - 1,600  City of Bridgeport - 2,250  City of Robstown - 4,500  City of Sanger - 2,200  City of Farmersville - 1,400  City of Hearn - 2,500 Average Number of Meters – 2,400

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL ) DSP SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS – FACILITIES OWNED Generation Owned Transmission Owned Distribution Substation Owner Distribution Feeder Breaker Owner Distribution Feeder Breaker Operator SeymourNone BrazosCity (8)City RobstownNone CityCity (9)City FarmersvilleNone SharylandSharyland (2)Sharyland BridgeportNone BrazosBrazos (3)City SangerNone BrazosBrazos (4)City HearneNone CityCity (3)City

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL ) DSP SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS – WHOLESALE POWER SUPPLIER AND POI Wholesale Power Supplier Transmission Service Provider (Point of Interconnection) SeymourAEPBEPC RobstownAEP FarmersvilleGarland P&LSharyland Utilities BridgeportAEPBEPC SangerAEPBEPC HearneBEPC

Impact of SPPG on % Load Shed R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

LOAD SHARE - % - W/ SPPG

Impact of SPPG on MW Load Shed R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

LOAD SHARE - MW - W/ SPPG ( WITH H YPOTHETIC 4,000 MW EEA D EPLOYMENT )

Load Shares ( % ) After Loss of 600 MW Of Exempted DSP Load R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

LOAD SHARE - % - W/ 600 MW EXIT

Load Shares ( MW ) After Loss of 600 MW Of Exempted DSP Load R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

LOAD SHARE - MW - W/ 600 MW EXIT

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL ) OPERATING GUIDES – SECTION ( 1 ) – AUTOMATIC FIRM LOAD SHEDDING

 Individual SPPG Load Shares for UFLS are VERY Small  Individual SPPG Load Shares for EEA are VERY, VERY Small ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EEA AND UFLS OBLIGATIONS - CONCLUSIONS QUESTION RAISED: “DOES SIZE MATTER”? R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

OPERATING GUIDES – SECTION LOAD SHED SHARE ( WITH AND WITHOUT SPPG ENTITIES )

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL ) LOAD SHED SHARE ( WITH AND WITHOUT SPPG ENTITIES, 1350 MW LOAD SHARE )

 Will EEA participation be operationally practical?  Will EEA and UFLS participation collide with voluntary curtailment of Critical Customer loads?  Will SPPG participation have any colorable positive impact upon the ERCOT Transmission System?  Will this rule change have a colorable positive impact upon the Reliability and Operations of the ERCOT gird, by the way of the shrinkage of ERCOT’s management tasks required for emergency operations success (training, drills, administration, live deployment)? ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

TRANSMISSION OPERATIONS PLANS CONSIDERED  TO Service Agreement  Bright-Line (Rule Change)  Self-Designated TO  UFLS-Only (Rule Change)

R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL ) ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Operationally Practical Technically Feasible Financially Able Lead Time for Deployment 1. TO Service Agreement Questionable, due to size of entities Stable, Standard Technology Significant Recurring Costs and Start-up Costs days 2. Self-Designated TO Questionable, due to size of entities Stable, Standard Technology Modest Recurring Costs and Start-up Costs days 3. Bright-Line (rule change)N/A No Recurring Costs or Start-up Costs More than 180 days 4. UFLS-only (rule change) Highly practical due to automatic operation, no intervention required. Stable, Standard Technology Modest Recurring Costs and Start-up Costs More than 180 days

 The six SPPG entities’ load shares would add low to no value to an ERCOT emergency operations event.  The load shares of the fifty-three ERCOT entities with peak loads of 25 MW or less will be low value to an ERCOT emergency operations event.  The reallocation of the aggregate 600 MW representing the fifty-three ERCOT entities with peak loads of 25 MW or less does not appear to place an unreasonable additional burden on existing TSPs.  The prospect of exempting up to fifty-three ERCOT entities from TO responsibilities would arguably have a positive impact on ERCOT reliability and efficient operations by virtue of having fewer entities to manage during an emergency operations event and less non-emergency recurring training, drills, etc. CONCLUSIONS R EVISION TO D EFINITION OF T RANSMISSION O PERATOR (NOGRR 149, A PPEAL )

QUESTIONS?