White Paper on the Future of Congestion Management

1
White Paper on the Future of Congestion Management

• IDC Granularity Task Force
• Standing Committee Meetings
• July 20-22, 2004

2
Special Thanks to

• Pat Shanahan ATC
• Alan Mok Cinergy
• Ryan Prejean EES
• Dave Robitaille IMO
• Julie Novacek MISO
• Dave Mabry PJM
• Paul Graves Progress Energy Florida
• Lanny Nickell SPP
• Rick Stegehuis WE Energies
• Bob Cummings NERC

3
Background

• June 2000 - IDCGTF formed by the SCS (now ORS) to
  investigate and propose technical solutions to
  existing inaccuracies in the IDC
• June 2002 - ORS endorsed moving toward full
  granularity in the IDC
• October 2002 - ORS provided further direction on
  combination of every generator to load and
  electrically cohesive zone methods
• February 3, 2004 - RCWG requested white paper on
  congestion management be prepared

4
How the IDC Works Today

• IDC calculates CA to CA Transaction Distribution
  Factors (TDFs)
• A CA to CA TDF represents the impact of
  increasing generation in one control area and
  decreasing generation in another
• TDFs are calculated using on-line generation
• Impact of a tagged transaction on a flowgate is
  determined by the TDF associated with the Source
  CA and Sink CA
• IDC CO 114 incorporate more TDF granularity for
  the MISO/PJM footprints

5
Problem Statement

• IDC does not correctly recognize ultimate
  source/sink impacts of tagged transactions
• IDC does not adequately address market dispatch
  of evolving balancing areas
• TLR takes at least 30 mins to implement
• Industry needs consistent and global application
  of granularity

6
Options Developed

• IDCGTF developed three options for consideration
• Options vary in complexity, paradigm shift,
  difficulty and timeliness of implementation
• May implement all three in phases or any one or
  more on a standalone basis

7
Options Developed - Summary

• Option 1
• increases impact calculation granularity by
  incorporating TP zones
• relief responsibilities assigned per existing
  methods
• relief achieved per existing methods
• Option 2
• relief responsibilities assigned to BAs based on
  distributed impacts of a BAs net interchange
• relief achieved through transaction curtailment
  and/or redispatch, uses increased impact
  calculation granularity of Option 1

8
Options Developed - Summary

• Option 3
• relief responsibilities assigned to BAs based on
  distributed impacts of a BAs net interchange
• relief achieved through most effective/efficient
  re-dispatch, uses ultimate granularity

9
Option 1 - Zones Modeled in IDC

• Used by TPs in their service evaluation
• Must be properly linked to tagged source/sinks
• Generation zones must contain one or more
  generators
• Load zones must contain meter-able load pockets
• Zone participation factors and generation block
  loading order must be provided
• CAs may contain one or more zones
• Zones may not cross CA boundaries

10
Option 1 - Zones Modeled in IDC

• FERC to provide regulatory review of TP zones
• NERC to provide reliability review of TP zones
• Verify that sources/sinks on the schedule match
  those identified on the reservation
• Verify that sources/sinks on the schedule can be
  dispatched as scheduled
• Ensure that source/sink generators associated
  with curtailed schedules will be re-dispatched
• CA modeling remains for purposes of NNL calcs
• Will use block loading order data submitted to
  determine a more accurate NNL dispatch

11
Option 1 - Tagging Changes

• TPs required to register OASIS sources/sinks
• OASIS sources/sinks will be mapped to IDC zones
  and tagging sources/sinks
• TP responsible for those sources/sinks within
  their transmission footprint

12
Option 1 - Pros

• Doesnt require extensive IDC changes
• Improves impact calculation granularity
• Can be implemented quickly
• FERC ensures comparability
• Granularity used for estimating schedule impacts
  same as that used for provision of transmission
  service
• Process is manageable

13
Option 1 - Cons

• May not be uniform for all TP ATC/AFC
  methodologies
• Perpetuates the myth of contract path
  flow-ability
• Doesnt incorporate counter-flows

14
Option 1 - Data Requirements

• Block loading merit order and participation
  factors for all generation zones
• OASIS sources/sinks registered by TPs
• IDC model changes as necessary
• IDC software changes
• Eventual incorporation of real-time data

15
External / Internal Relief Responsibility

• Applicable to both Options 2 and 3

16
IRR/ERR Calculations

• IRR Internal Relief Responsibility
• IRR calculated like NNL is calculated today
• GLDFs down to zero percent used
• Specific generators supporting transactions
  removed
• Contribution based on real-time and projected
  data (generators and area load)

17
IRR/ERR Calculations

• ERR External Relief Responsibility
• ERR captures transactional impacts of a
  balancing authoritys net interchange distributed
  across interconnection
• For exporters ERR (GSFwba minus LSFw) Net
  Interchange
• For importers ERR (GSFw minus LSFwba) Net
  Interchange
• Will need to deal with over-counting ERRs

18
Example ERR Calculation
19
Option 2

• Uses zonal impact calculation granularity
  introduced in Option 1
• Uses External/Internal relief responsibility
  (ERR/IRR) methodology to assign responsibilities
  to balancing authorities
• Fulfillment of relief responsibilities
  accomplished through curtailment of tagged
  transactions and/or redispatch

20
Option 2

• First determines ERR for each area based on
  untagged net interchange
• BAs with untagged ERR must curtail
• If sufficient relief is obtained, no further
  action
• Uses tagged interchange to determine ERR at each
  priority level
• IRRs determined at appropriate level
• BAs may fulfill ERRs through curtailment of
  tagged transactions and/or redispatch

21
Option 2 - Pros

• IDC curtailment algorithm stays the same
• Introduces improved granularity both in
  determination of relief responsibility and
  through usage of TP zones in transaction impact
  calculation
• Adds the option of generation re-dispatch to meet
  the ERR based on tariff requirements
• Complements CO 114 impact calculation methodology

22
Option 2 - Cons

• ERRs for remote BAs could result
• May be differences between ERRs assigned and
  relief obtained through transaction curtailments
• Perpetuates the myth of contract path
  flow-ability
• May increase complexity of coordination due to
  lack of curtailment prescription
• May result in untimely results

23
Option 2 - Data Requirements

• Block loading merit order and participation
  factors for all generation zones
• OASIS sources/sinks registered by TPs
• IDC model changes as necessary
• IDC software changes
• Real-time and projected output for all generators
• Real-time and projected demand for each BA

24
Option 3

• Uses ERR/IRR methodology for assigning relief
  responsibilities
• Relief achieved through re-dispatch prescribed by
  RCs
• Provider of re-dispatch compensated through a
  settlement process that would charge BAs based on
  their relief responsibilities

25
Option 3

• Each BA will determine and document how it
  allocates re-dispatch costs to PtP and NITS
  customers
• Resource availability and bid prices will be made
  available to RCs
• Re-dispatch could take many forms
• Unit pairs within same BA
• Unit sales/purchases across BAs
• Multiple units across multiple flowgates
• Voluntary load curtailments

26
Option 3 - Issues

• Re-dispatch would take place regardless of
  priority of transactions impacting constraint
• Regulatory requirements
• Responsibility for relief is transferred from
  PSEs to net importing/exporting BAs

27
Option 3 - Pros

• Reduces amount of transactions curtailed
• Improves effectiveness of relief
• Relief is obtained quickly
• More cost effective relief solutions
• More likely to minimize potential impact on other
  flowgates
• Can provide useful market signals

28
Option 3 - Cons

• Major paradigm shift
• Requires NERC commitment to address policy and
  regulatory issues
• Requires sophisticated tools
• BAs need to agree on settlement process

29
Option 3 - Data Requirements

• IDC software changes
• Real-time and projected output for all generators
• Bid information for generators
• Real-time and projected demand for each BA
• Real-time telemetry, or state-estimated values,
  of all flowgates and OTDF flows
• SDX data to include quick-start, min run times,
  min and max generator output, etc.

30
Recommendations to RCWG / ORS

• Adopt and implement Option 1 immediately
• Adopt and implement Option 3 as the long-term
  strategy for the IDC
• Form appropriate team(s) to develop business case
  for implementation of these options

31
RCWG / ORS Resolution

• Accept Option 1 Implement by June 1, 2005
• Coordinate with NAESB
• For Option 3 long-term solution further workAsk
  the MC and IDCWG to develop by September 2005
• Functional design specification
• Business case for congestion management tools
• Coordinate with NAESB