slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Locational ICAP Methodology PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Locational ICAP Methodology

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24
yvonne-maynard

Locational ICAP Methodology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

80 Views
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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