©2005 PJM 1 Redispatch Credit NERC/NAESB TLR Task Force Feb 2-3, 2005 Houston, Texas Operations Reliability Subcommittee Feb 8-9, 2005 Scottsdale, AZ.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Bill Blevins Management of the West-North Stability Limit Under the Nodal Market.
Advertisements

You have been given a mission and a code. Use the code to complete the mission and you will save the world from obliteration…
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
1 Chapter 40 - Physiology and Pathophysiology of Diuretic Action Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Electricity and Natural Gas Supply, Reserves, and Resource Adequacy CMTA Energy Conference Energy: Growing Californias Economy William J. Keese California.
By D. Fisher Geometric Transformations. Reflection, Rotation, or Translation 1.
The Midwest ISO from a Transmission Owner Perspective.
1 Market Flow Threshold Field Test NERC ORS Meeting November 14 th and 15 th.
June 22, 2005 NAESB Board of Directors Meeting, San Antonio, Texas 1 North American Energy Standards Board Meeting of the Members NAESB Board of Directors.
Parallel Flow Visualization Data Requirements Parallel Flow Visualization Data Requirements NERC ORS Meeting Toronto, Ontario September 23-24, 2009 Jim.
Parallel Flow Visualization and Flowgate Allocations Equity Concerns of Non-Market Transmission Owners Equity Concerns of Non-Market Transmission Owners.
© 2004 Dominion Dominion Proposal January 24, 2005.
Interchange Distribution Calculator Working Group (IDCWG) Update NAESB BPS Yasser Bahbaz – IDCWG Chair May 17 th, 2012.
©2005 PJM 1 Development of Wholesale Electricity Scheduling and OASIS Determining the Future Needs of the Open Access Same-time Information System Andy.
Parallel Flow Visualization/Mitigation Proposal
Future NERC Congestion Management Tool Option 3A (Proposed by NERC/NAESB TLR TF) 5/11/2005.
Business Practices Subcommittee Update August 17, 2010.
©2004 PJM 1 OASIS Phase II Approaching the Problem General Discussion on Strategy and Philosophy Andy Rodriquez - PJM Presented to the NAESB ESS and ITS.
1 Credit for Redispatch Small Group Review of Unconstrained MFs NAESB BPS Meeting December 14-15, 2011.
Business Practices Subcommittee Update October 26, 2010.
White Paper on the Future of Congestion Management IDC Granularity Task Force Standing Committee Meetings July 20-22, 2004.
Business Practices Subcommittee Update February 2, 2010.
Business Practices Subcommittee Update February 1, 2011.
©2004 PJM 1 OASIS Phase II Approaching the Problem General Discussion on Strategy and Philosophy Andy Rodriquez - PJM Presented to the NAESB ESS and ITS.
Business Practices Subcommittee Update April 30, 2012.
Overview Seams Coordination Process. 2 Introduction Midwest ISO Non-profit organization that manages the reliable flow of electricity across much of the.
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
0 - 0.
1 1  1 =.
1  1 =.
DIVIDING INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
MULTIPLYING MONOMIALS TIMES POLYNOMIALS (DISTRIBUTIVE PROPERTY)
ADDING INTEGERS 1. POS. + POS. = POS. 2. NEG. + NEG. = NEG. 3. POS. + NEG. OR NEG. + POS. SUBTRACT TAKE SIGN OF BIGGER ABSOLUTE VALUE.
SUBTRACTING INTEGERS 1. CHANGE THE SUBTRACTION SIGN TO ADDITION
MULT. INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
FACTORING Think Distributive property backwards Work down, Show all steps ax + ay = a(x + y)
Addition Facts
Year 6 mental test 10 second questions Numbers and number system Numbers and the number system, fractions, decimals, proportion & probability.
Around the World AdditionSubtraction MultiplicationDivision AdditionSubtraction MultiplicationDivision.
£1 Million £500,000 £250,000 £125,000 £64,000 £32,000 £16,000 £8,000 £4,000 £2,000 £1,000 £500 £300 £200 £100 Welcome.
Richmond House, Liverpool (1) 26 th January 2004.
FERC Order minute Scheduling.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MIDWEST ISO By Bill Malcolm Manager-State Regulatory Affairs Pierre, South Dakota June 9, 2006.
1 Price Risk Management and the Futures Market Hedging.
© S Haughton more than 3?
Effects on UK of Eustatic sea Level rise GIS is used to evaluate flood risk. Insurance companies use GIS models to assess likely impact and consequently.
Linking Verb? Action Verb or. Question 1 Define the term: action verb.
Addition 1’s to 20.
25 seconds left…...
Test B, 100 Subtraction Facts
Week 1.
Number bonds to 10,
Partial Products. Category 1 1 x 3-digit problems.
Congestion Management Settlement Credits December, 2002.
Cost Ranges for the Development and Operation of a Day One Regional Transmission Organization PL
FEBRUARY 27, 2013 BY NARINDER K SAINI ED SKIBA BPS-CO-CHAIRS Parallel Flow Visualization Overview 1.
© 2006, François Brouard Case Real Group François Brouard, DBA, CA January 6, 2006.
Congestion Management in a Market Environment 2 nd CIGRE / IEEE PES International Symposium San Antonio, Texas October 5, 2005 Kenneth W. Laughlin.
NERC Congestion Management Congestion Management Option 3 Vendor Meeting Julie Pierce – NERC IDCWG Chair.
Reload PFV September 12, Reload PFV  Concern that need to be addressed:  The RC need to have an option in PFV to allow gradual reload of markets.
Flowgate Allocation Option Parallel Flow Visualization Business Practices Subcommittee Meeting June , 2010.
Parallel Flow Visualization Project NERC ORS Meeting May 4, 2011.
NAESB WHOLESALE ELECTRIC QUADRANT BUSINESS PRACTICES SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES UPDATE TO JOINT ELECTRIC SCHEDULING SUBCOMMITTEE JANUARY 5, 2012 BY ED SKIBA.
2013 Wind Conference. Congestion Management & Communication Processes CJ Brown.
1 Parallel Flow Visualization Goals NAESB BPS Meeting September 15-16, 2010.
Market Flow Threshold Field Test
PJM & Midwest ISO Market-to-Market Coordination (APEx Conference 2007)
Market Flow Threshold Field Test
NERC Congestion Management
Presentation transcript:

©2005 PJM 1 Redispatch Credit NERC/NAESB TLR Task Force Feb 2-3, 2005 Houston, Texas Operations Reliability Subcommittee Feb 8-9, 2005 Scottsdale, AZ

©2005 PJM 2 Background PJM implemented the joint PJM/MISO Congestion Management Process (CMP) in May 2004; MISO will implement March Due to limitations in the current process, it is difficult to acknowledge relief provided by redispatch in all situations PJM and MISO built their systems to address this limitation; however, the NERC community felt it appropriate to further investigate the issue to ensure both reliability and equitable treatment

©2005 PJM 3 What the IDC Sees 0MW 100MW -100MW FORWARD 60MW Firm-7 35MW ED-6 15MW ED-2 REVERSE 45MW Firm-7 15MW ED-6 10MW ED-2 110MW Forward, 70MW Reverse F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 4 How Actual Flows Behave 0MW 100MW -100MW NET 40MW Actual Flow COUNTERFLOW Neutralizes 70MW of Flow 110MW F - 70MW R = 40MW Net F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 5 How This Can Create a Problem 0MW 100MW -100MW Flowgate Limit is 40MW RTO wants to Reduce Flows by 20MW IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows Limit Target F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 6 How This Can Create a Problem 0MW 100MW -100MW RTO Provides 20MW Counterflow IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows 20MW CF Increase Resultant Decrease of 20MW Limit Target F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 7 How This Can Create a Problem 0MW 100MW -100MW RTO Provides 20MW Counterflow Actual Flows Change, but Forward IDC Flows do Not Change IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows 20MW CF Increase Resultant Decrease of 20MW Limit Target F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 8 How the IDC Handles this Today 0MW 100MW -100MW When TLR is called, the IDC monitors the RTOs net flow change from the time the TLR begins to see if relief has been provided, and applies it to the forward flow IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows 20MW Change = 20MW Relief 20MW Relief = 20MW Reduction Limit Target F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 9 Where the Problem Still Lies 0MW 100MW -100MW If PJM or MISO redispatch BEFORE calling a TLR, the IDC doesnt see any relief, and will determine their relief obligation using the full forward flow IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows 20MW Change = No Change in Forward Flow Limit Target F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 10 Troubles and Consequences Equity Concerns –Double Charging PJM Market Participants for redispatch –CAs are allowed credit for proactive redispatch in TLR; RTOs are not Reliability Concerns –Inaccurate data leads to inaccurate relief requests

©2005 PJM 11 Ensuring Equity and Enhancing Reliability With the specification of standard rules, equitable treatment can be assured –PJM and MISO can perform network service redispatch in TLR 3 and 5 per the CMP; other Control Areas are only exposed to redispatch requirements in TLR5 –Standard treatment of proactive actions will ensure reasonable allocation of relief responsibility Reliability will be enhanced –The IDC will have more accurate data; no ghost megawatts will be counted

©2005 PJM 12 Redispatch in Practice 8:00 AM - RTO determines flowgate is becoming constrained. Snapshot of flows is taken. –250 in the forward direction –190 in the reverse direction. 0MW 300MW -300MW IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 13 Redispatch in Practice 8:00 AM - RTO determines flowgate is becoming constrained. Snapshot of flows is taken. –250 in the forward direction –190 in the reverse direction RTO mitigates constraint by increasing counterflow 0MW 300MW -300MW IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 14 Redispatch in Practice 10:00 AM – RTO determines flowgate must go into TLR. Current flows are: –290 in the forward direction –265 in the reverse direction 0MW 300MW -300MW IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 15 Redispatch in Practice 10:00 AM – RTO determines flowgate must go into TLR. Current flows are: –290 in the forward direction –265 in the reverse direction Comparing Snapshot with Current shows 35MW relief provided between time of initial constraint control and TLR issuance 0MW 300MW -300MW IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows Snapshot F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 16 Redispatch in Practice RTO adjusts IDC Reported Flow to reflect 35MW relief already provided Forward and Reverse adjusted to keep net equal to real net flow 0MW 300MW -300MW IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows Snapshot F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 17 Redispatch in Practice Results –RTO non-firm = 35MW, not 50MW –IDC sees relief already provided by RTO, assigns more relief to CAs, who have not yet provided relief –Firm Service (for RTO and CAs) not touched until TLR5 0MW 300MW -300MW IDC Reported Flow Actual Flows Snapshot F R ED6 7FN MF ED2

©2005 PJM 18 Benefits to NERC, the IDC, and RTOs Number of TLRs will be reduced –Not giving credit for pre-TLR redispatch forces RTO to call TLR more often (to ensure equitable treatment under tariff) IDC has more accurate data –RCs do not have unrealistic expectations of available relief –IDC does not display ghost megawatts that dont exist RTO participants contribute equitable share of relief –Execution of Reliable Control Actions are recognized –Proactive Constraint Management is not penalized

©2005 PJM 19 Ensure Equity and Enhance Reliability PJM and MISO ask that you: –Resolve real-time proactive redispatch undertaken to avoid TLR be treated as relief already provided if a TLR must be issued PJM and MISO agree with NERC that more review must be done to determine how to consider actions taken in advance of real-time

©2005 PJM 20 Questions?