1 / 6

RC Meeting August 17, 2009 Marianne Perben Senior Engineer, FCM & Tariff Administration

Forward Capacity Market (FCM) Reliability Reviews Related Issues Follow-up Discussion . RC Meeting August 17, 2009 Marianne Perben Senior Engineer, FCM & Tariff Administration. Background.

tayte
Download Presentation

RC Meeting August 17, 2009 Marianne Perben Senior Engineer, FCM & Tariff Administration

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. Forward Capacity Market (FCM) Reliability Reviews Related Issues Follow-up Discussion RC Meeting August 17, 2009 Marianne Perben Senior Engineer, FCM & Tariff Administration

  2. Background • At the 07/13/09 and 08/04/09 Reliability Committee (RC) meetings, discussions were held that focused on the second item of the Issues List: 2) Reliability Reviews Related Issues • For the purpose of these discussions, the reliability reviews under consideration included annual reliability reviews performed by ISO-NE’s System Planning department for Forward Capacity Auctions, Annual Reconfiguration Auctions and annual bilateral transactions • As part of the discussions, to ensure consistency and transparency, assumptions related to annual reliability reviews were also compared to assumptions related to the analyses performed by ISO-NE’s System Planning department to set the system Installed Capacity Requirements (ICR) and local sourcing requirements (LSR/MCL) • Presentations on Reliability Reviews Related Issues and an accompanying matrix described the preliminary ISO position • The purpose of today’s discussion is to present the ISO’s proposal on the second item of the Issues List: 2) Reliability Reviews Related Issues

  3. ISO-NE’s Proposal on Reliability Reviews Related Issues • In its 06/15/09 presentation to the RC, the ISO described how the annual reliability reviews were performed using an array of tools and formats including • Power flow analysis tools such as Siemens/PSSE or PowerGEM/TARA • Transmission Security Analysis (TSA) • The ISO explained that using the TSA was a proxy analysis for a vast amount of load flow runs. The ISO also described how the TSA was used in the context of annual reliability reviews • The assumptions presented in the ISO’s proposal are not meant to be applied exclusively to the TSA but are rather meant to be applied consistently in the performance of annual reliability reviews, regardless of the tools or format of analysis that are being used

  4. ISO-NE Proposal on Reliability Reviews Related Issues, cont. • Assumptions that are currently used to perform annual reliability reviews are described in section 6 and Appendix A of New England Planning Procedure No. 10 – Planning Procedure to Support the Forward Capacity Market • In today’s proposal, the ISO is proposing to change current practice in two areas • The first change is related to the reliance on capacity from Real-Time Emergency Generators • As discussed at the 08/04/09 RC meeting, the ISO is now proposing to rely on Real-Time Emergency Generators in the reliability reviews • The second change is related to the peaking generation forced outage assumptions and is described in subsequent slides • The ISO’s proposal is detailed in the accompanying draft term sheet 4

  5. Peaking Generation Forced Outage Assumptions in Annual Reliability Reviews • At the 08/04/09 RC meeting, the ISO provided a definition for peaking generation, background information regarding the current 33% forced outage assumption and forced outage assumptions alternatives that had been researched by the ISO • The ISO cannot, at this point in time, provide statistical measures that would adequately capture the ability of peaking generators to start and remain on-line, even if infrequently called upon • However, the ISO recognizes that the 33% forced outage factor that has been used historically has disadvantages • It applies the same broad outage factor on all peaking generators regardless of their location and individual historical performance • It does not reflect potential improvements in the start-up ability of certain peaking generators participating in the Forward Reserve Market • Therefore, the ISO is proposing to include some element of individual historical performance in the determination of each peaking generator forced outage factor, while preserving some element of insight offered by operational experience 5

  6. Peaking Generation Forced Outage Assumptions in Annual Reliability Reviews, cont • The ISO’s proposal is to determine the peaking generation forced outage factor of each individual peaking generator using the following heuristic formula: • Peaking Generator Forced Outage Factor for Year N = (Peaking Generator EFORd for Year N + 33%) / 2 • Each peaking generator’s EFORd for year N is based on 5-year historical performance and is determined in accordance with the process currently used by the Power Supply and Reliability Committee • Using the above formula, based on data collected in 2009, the weighted average of all Peaking Generator Forced Outage Factors across the Connecticut or Boston area would be • Connecticut area: (7.8%+33%)/2 = 20.4% • Boston area: (8.4%+33%)/2 = 20.7% 6

More Related