No November 1, 1, 201 2018 Reli liabil ilit ity Sub ubcommit - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Resource Avail ilabilit ity and Need (RAN)

No November 1, 1, 201 2018 Reli liabil ilit ity Sub ubcommit ittee

1

Purpose & Key Takeaways

Key Tak akea eaways:

• RAN is developing solutions for the efficient

conversion of committed capacity to energy

• Feedback has stressed the value of near term

action; MISO agrees and will pair near term improvements with longer term holistic solutions

• MISO is proposing a multi-phase approach with a

goal of implementing short term fixes in early 2019

• Purpose: Review Resource Availability and

Need (RAN) timeline and potential near term solutions

2

Reduced reserve margins and increased forced outages rates have increased risks in real time operations . . .

3

*Note: Forced outage rate includes full and partial (derate) outages

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Act ctua ual l Mar argin in mi minu nus s PRM (%) %) MISO SO

Growing dependence on LMRs increases emergency likelihood . . .

4

• Committed LMRs equal to 9.1% of coincident

peak load cleared the last PRA

• This is larger than the current 8.4% UCAP

PRM which falls to 7.9% in June

Plan lan Yea ear 201 2016-17 17 201 2017-18 18 201 2018-19 19 BTM TMG 3.5 3.5 4.1 DR DR 5.8 6.0 7.0 UCAP clea leared 9.3 9.5 11.1 Uncleared 1.0 1.2 0.7

Emergency-

• nly

Metered BTMG Targeted Reduction DR Firm Service Level DR DR BTMG 12 hrs 4.25 to 8 hrs 1.5 to 4 hrs 0 to 1 hrs 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Lead Time Product Type Meas. Method Resource Type

11.8 GW UCAP of Registered LMRs LMR commitments in recent PRAs (GW)

This stress on current real time operations illustrates sense of urgency to enhance capacity sufficiency

5

MISO increasingly reliant on interchange (NSI) and wind to meet load

Black circles represent footprint scarcity represent subregional scarcity

Themes in stakeholder advice, in combination with MISO’s potential solution whitepaper, lead to a series of options and today’s discussion

6

Goal 1 : Improve outage scheduling and expectations Forward outage transparency Outage classification Roles Market solutions Historical information Goal 2: Link resource accreditation and requirements Reporting Requirements Accreditation Incentives Goal 3: Align PRA commitments New market Seasonal auction Auction inputs Goal 4: Ensure flexible resource availability Essential Reliability Services Economic demand response Scarcity price formation

Issue assignment January 2018 Issue Identification March 2018 Potential Solution Whitepaper September 2018 Near term straw proposal

Focus on near term improvements with desired impact by Spring 2019

7

Associated MaxGens

• June 2016 Alert South
• July 2016 Event Step 1 for footprint
• August 2016 Alert Central and North
• April 2017 Warning and Alerts in South
• September 2017 Multiple Events up to Step 1b/c
• May 2018 Alert footprint

(5,000)

• 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000

Avg. last two PY June 20-26 2016 July 18-24 2016 Aug. 1-7 2016 Sep. 19-25 2016 Apr. 24-30 2017 Jul. 17-23 2017 Sep. 18-24 2017 May. 14-20 2018 May. 21-27 2018 May. 28-31 2018 Weekly Average Margins, MW

Ass ssocia iated Max axGen Ev Events

Tightest Weekly Average Margins since 2016/17 PY

Nea Near Term Obje bjective: :

Improved availability to 5 – 10 GWs will reduce risks

Typical High Risk

Forward Pla lan: Staged solution filing and implementation

provides near term relief; supports future holistic solution

8

PH PHASE 1: 1: Improve Resource Transparency and Performance for Spring 2019 and subsequent Planning Year

LMRs

• Create transparency and better align

LMR obligations to other resources Outage Coordination

• Improve forward-looking

transparency for stakeholders and MISO

• Increase early outage notification and

flexibility during emergencies

PH PHASE 2: 2: Continued refinements for 2020 PRA, movement toward holistic solution(s)

Expected focus on Improved Planning Resource Auction (PRA) inputs, include resource accreditation

PH PHASE 3: 3: Holistic solution(s)

Expected focus on Improved market incentives for resource availability to meet daily and variable energy needs Seasonal resource adequacy

File 1H 2020 IM IMPLEM EMENT T 2021 2021 File Q2-3 ’19 IM IMPLEM EMENT T 2020 2020 File Q4 18 IM IMPLEM EMENT T 2019 2019

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

DRAFT – For Discussion

Potential near te term LMR im improvements ts: Cre reate tr transparency and d be better ali lign LMR obl bligations to to oth ther re resources

9

St Stakeholder r Voices:

• Change procedures to call

LMRs in expectation of an emergency

• Limit notification times for

LMRs with an exception process

• Mixed views on testing
• Look into accreditation and

incentives

• Grandfather or provide long

transition for any changes

• Focus should be expanded to

all unit types

De Defin fined Lim Limit its

LMRs must meet defined minimum requirements e.g. 2 hour response time, etc

Be Best st Capa pabil ility

• Response notice and

seasonal availability set to physical and

• perational capability
• Testing

requirements for DR set equal to other resources

• LMRs called in

anticipation of Emergency declaration

LM LMR Ac Accre reditatio ion

LMR accreditation adjusted by performance characteristics

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

Pot

• tential

l Sol Solutions

Recom

commend nded

10

Potential near te term Outa tage Coordination improvements: Im Improving fo forward-looking tr transparency fo for sta takeholders and MISO

Hist istori rica cal Repo port rtin ing

Produce historical average actual

• utages

Regi gional l Fore reca cast

Produce a region by region (North, Central, South) forward rolling forecast of planned

• utages

Impro rove Tools ls

Improve use and capabilities of current outage tracking and impact analysis tools

Sta Stakeholder Voi

• ices
• Increase transparency
• Changes classifications

and/or lead time

• Mixed opinions on

roles

• Short lead outages

should reduce accreditation

• Combine Resource

Adequacy and/or market approaches

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

Recom

commend nded

Pot

• tential

l Sol Solutions

Recom

commend nded

Recom

commend nded

11

Potential near te term Outa tage Coordination im improvements: In Increase early outa tage sch cheduling and d fl flexibility du during emergencies

De Defin finitive Outage Cla lass ssif ifica cation

All outages submitted inside 30 days are forced

High igh Risk isk Outa tage Rati ting

All outages during times with low reserves are considered forced, with an exemption for outages scheduled ‘well in advance’

Total l Outage Rati ting

Create outage rates inclusive of all outages Sta Stakeholder Voi

• ices
• Increase transparency
• Changes classifications

and/or lead time

• Mixed opinions on roles
• Short lead outages should

reduce accreditation

• Combine Resource

Adequacy and/or market approaches

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

Recom

commend nded

Pot

• tential

l Sol Solutions

Committee Recommendations: MISO recommends assigning ownership to specific committees while maintaining transparency through coordinated updates

Nea ear ter erm solu solutions wil ill l con

• ntinue thr

hrough the he RS RSC For

• r mid

id-term and nd hol holistic sol solutions, MIS ISO re recommendations:

• RSC

SC

• Refinement of processes to reliably use energy to serve near term needs (e.g., operating procedures, outage coordination studies)
• RAS

ASC

• Improved Planning Resource Auction (PRA) inputs, include resource accreditation
• Seasonal Resource Adequacy
• MSC

MSC

• Improved market incentives for resource availability to meet daily and variable energy needs
• MISO will publish a strawman proposal in Q1 2019

PH PHASE 1: 1: Improve Resource Transparency and Performance for Spring 2019 and subsequent Planning Year PHA PHASE 2: 2: Continued refinements for 2020 PRA, movement toward holistic solution(s) PH PHASE 3: 3: Holistic solution(s)

Questions?

13

File 1H 2020 IM IMPLEM EMENT T 2021 2021 File Q2-3 ’19 IM IMPLEM EMENT T 2020 2020 File in Q4 ’18 IM IMPLEM EMENT T IN IN 2019 2019

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

Appendix

14

15

Load Modifying Resources

LMR feedback: Key themes Stakeholder feedback focused on procedures, testing, and accreditation

• Change procedures to call LMRs earlier in expectation of an emergency
• Limit notification times for LMRs with exception process based on characteristics
• Mixed views on testing
• Don’t pursue LMR testing due to large expense, especially to C&I customers
• Annual testing is essential to ensuring the reliability of DR resources
• Look into accreditation and incentives
• Develop simple solutions such as economic DR before costly market-based products
• Perform statistical modeling of resource availability, including LMRs
• Break LMRs down into sub-categories and incent LMR’s to shift from emergency only to

economic dispatch

• Grandfather or provide long transition for any changes
• Focus on LMRs is misplaced and should be expanded to all unit types

16

LMRs – Additional Feedback

17

Sum ummary of

• f sta

takeholder comm

• mments

Ini nitial MIS MISO Res esponse Focus on simple solutions before costly market-based products. Support economic DR. Phased approach will combine near term improvements with a longer-term holistic approach Conduct statistical modeling of availability, including LMRs MISO should break down the current LMR’s into sub-categories Change procedures to call LMRs outside of emergency Penalties for LMRs that don’t meet their M&V criteria may increase reported notification times MISO is working on improvements to increase transparency around LMR capability and enhance our situational awareness to make more effective use of all available LMRs. Near-term focus should be on all resources rather than on LMRs Near term goals are to align LMR requirements with other resources There should be a demonstrated test requirement, scheduled by the customer. With a clearly defined, feasible exception process. Due to the risk of significant lost revenue, an LMR testing requirement should not be pursued. MISO is considering the costs and benefits of periodic testing for LMRs comparable to the testing requirements for other capacity resources. Recommend updates to MISO Communication System’s LMR deployment process to create a better interface These improvements are being explored.

LMRs may only be accessed in emergencies, with limited transparency around non-summer availability

18

For more information - MISO Operating Procedures One-Pager and Appendix

Defined Lim imits ts: LMRs would be required to conform to specific response times to participate

• Current reported LMR performance may

default to requirements in Tariff

• Performance has implied some units may

have quicker response times or non- summer availability

• Have the possibility of limiting valuable

resources from participating

• Potential documentation required
• Requirements for LMRs / Module E-1

Tariff

19

• 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 10min 30min 1 hour 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.25 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 12.0

LMR Capacity (MW) Notification Times

Cur Current LM LMR Not

• tification Tim

Times

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

Best t Capa pability: LMRs would be required to operate to their physical and contractual capabilities

• Combined set of changes to focus on transparency

and appropriate use of varied fleet of resources

• Resources will be required to report non-summer and

response time

• DR testing will be aligned with other units
• MISO processes to call emergency only resources will

be refined

• External and internal transparency will improve

expectation and use of resources

• Transparency will be imported into operational tools
• Potential documentation required
• Operating processes
• Emergency Operating Procedures
• Requirements for LMRs / Module E-1 Tariff
• Measurement and verification procedures / Attachment

TT

20

LM LMR Res esponse Dur Durin ing Sept eptember 15 15th

th Ev

Event

LMR availability during non-summer emergencies has been limited, with little forward transparency

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

LMR Accreditation: Solution would focus on incenting desired behaviors

• Sliding LMR accreditation which

varies depending on the availability impacts of characteristics

• Solution merits further discussion,

resulting in a 2019 potential filing to resolve

• Potential documentation required
• Operating processes
• Emergency Operating Procedures
• Requirements for LMRs / Module E-

1 Tariff

• Measurement and verification

procedures / Attachment TT

21

Capacity Accreditation Notifi- cation Seasonal

• utput

Emergency

• nly

Outages and derates Historic perform- ance

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

22

Outage Coordination

Outage Coordination Feedback: Key Themes Sta takeholder fe feedback fo focused on tr transparency and outa tage cla classification

• General support for increased transparency
• Majority of commenters suggested changes to classifications and/or lead time
• Increase Planned Outage lead time (currently 48 hours)
• Align CROW and GADS outage classifications
• Base accreditation on a total availability rate which considers all outages
• Mixed opinion on MISO’s role
• Majority favored no modification of MISO’s role or authority
• Some comments favored enhanced reliability or economic based authority
• Short lead time outages should reduce accreditation
• Address issues with combined Resource Adequacy and/or market approach

23

Outage Coordination – Additional Feedback

24

Sum Summary of f sta stakeholder com

• mments

Initial MIS ISO Response Any changes should be technology neutral Proposed changes will impact both LMRs and outage scheduling, with expected impacts on all Capacity Resources regardless of technology Opposed to outage penalties, don’t think it will change behavior Believe there is near term benefits in creating ‘soft’ incentives to schedule

• utages in advance and provide some incentives for flexibility

Consider economic factors Reducing the prevalence and severity of capacity scarcity will help avoid expensive outages Economic factors will be considered as part of longer term holistic solutions Align CROW and GADS classifications; increase Planned Outage lead time More data is needed on short lead time outages to identify any commonalities Recommendation includes options that provide alignment and adjusted lead time Any changes should apply footprint wide to all members Produce regional Maintenance Margin signals Exercise right of moving outage to forced if generators are unable to reschedule for Maintenance Margin concerns Improvements needed in forecasting and transparency of scarcity periods, including Maintenance Margin Improvements are being considered within current authority level on both

• utage scheduling and general operational transparency.

Changes will be reviewed in the stakeholder process Consider transparency for transmission outages and changes to that process as well More detail regarding the how transmission data will be used will be helpful MISO has more authority over transmission outages; RAN has not identified issues specific to transmission outage scheduling

Forced outa tage rates are re tr trending up p in in MISO, wit ith st stro rong co correlation in in th the tim timing of f pla planned outa tages acr cross th the fo footprint

25

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MI MISO 5-year ave verage Pl Planned & Ma Maintenance Ou Outa tages

Monthly Outage Volume as % of installed MW

* Outage data as reported in GADs software

Currently, outages may be scheduled just prior to their implementation, providing little notice for MISO and stakeholders to coordinate

Generator Planned Outages

Lead time defined as a rolling 2 year outage (3 years for nuclear) Potential impacts to accreditation for

• utages submitted with

less than 1 year of lead time*

CROW

Forward view of resource status and capability Generator outages are coordinated and reliability impacts assessed

GADS

NERC Historical resource performance utilized for accreditation Planned and maintenance outages are optimized in the LOLE

26

Sc Schedule Pl Plan anned Ou Outa tage No later than 48 Hours Repo port Quarterly Pl Plan an 2 Years

*Outages submitted with less than one year lead time may have three times the impact of a forced outage if reschedule is refused

Coordination and and tr tran ansp sparency may als also be im improved wit ith better r awar areness ss an and use use of

• f for

forward sig signals

Lack of awareness and confidence in results Uses LOLE results which are driven by optimal planned and unplanned outage scheduling assumption Load modeling

• Does not effectively

consider impact of severe weather events

• Granularity

produces additional variability

Transmission limits

• Assume capacity is

available to transfer

• Variation driven by

updated inputs 27

Maintenance Margin assumptions; August 2018 posting

General Issues

Issues with Inputs

Hi Histo toric ical For

• recastin

ing, , Regiona nal For

• recast,

t, Im Improve Too

• ols

ls: : Stakeholder input will shape the improvement of existing and future tools

28

Annual Planning Reserve Margin

• Correlating outages
• utside of MISO control

(unplanned outages) compared to GADS accounting

• More granular

requirements and revised forced outage rates Load Modeling

• Utilizes multiple load

shapes and include risk range (long term)

• Average load over a

defined number of past years Capacity Import Limits

• Reduce limits by a

defined percentage to reflect system topology impacts during outage season

• Use the historic
• perational data based
• n LBA/BA interchange

to represent import capability

OR

Key area

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

OR OR

Key ey Pot

• tential Maintenance Marg

rgin Impro rovements

• The potential solutions for
• utage coordination could be

implemented as a series of complementary solutions

• Forward summaries
• Maintenance margin

projections

• Historic summaries
• The goal is to create a suite
• f information to inform
• utage scheduling processes
• No Tariff modifications are

expected to be required

Definiti tive Outa tage Clas lassification: Align timing in submitting planned

• utages and incent early scheduling
• Goal would be to encourage scheduling

time:

• Allows for early identification of risks
• Provide generators notice of likelihood of

need to reschedule outages

• CROW focuses on urgency of outage; GADs

focuses on rationale

• Aligning two areas may help with forward

scheduling but will not resolve flexibility concerns

• Potential documentation required
• Outage coordination processes
• Impacts on resource accreditation /

Module E-1 Tariff

29

Bus usiness Purp urpose CRO CROW GADS PRA Accreditation No Yes Reports on Generation Performance No Yes Initiates Outage Coordination Studies / Reviews Yes No Informs the process in advance of Real Time of resource participation Yes No

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

Hig igh Ris isk Outage Rati ting: Merge incentives to schedule early with near term flexibility

30

• A unit’s outage rate will be impacted if
• Generator is on outage during a period
• f low reserves; and
• Outage was not scheduled in advance
• Goal is to create additional incentives to
• Increase forward outage scheduling
• Utilize available flexibility to avoid
• utages during high risk times
• Potential documentation required
• Outage coordination processes
• Impact on resource accreditation

process / Module E-1 Tariff

Sep. Jan. May

• 10,000
• 5,000

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Disp spat atcha hable le MW Plann annin ing Year ar 17/18 7/18 Weekly ly Data ta

Week eekly Ma Margin

Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

Total Outage Rati ting: Increase efficiency and minimize total outages

• Solution focuses on minimizing total
• utages
• All outages treated comparably
• Does not incent forward scheduling or

scheduling during low risk periods

• Potential documentation required
• Outage coordination processes
• Impact on resource accreditation

process / Module E-1 Tariff

31 Draf aft proposal al as of 10/2 /29/18

32

Additional Feedback

Holistic Solutions Feedback

• Economic Demand Response should

be a short/medium term item

• MISO should identify barriers to

registering as DRR I and II

• DR provisions should not exclude

market participants

• Emergency Demand Response

(EDR) outside of RAN scope.

• Expand EDR to allow resources to
• ffer outside of emergency

conditions

• Instead of market-based outage

products, seasonal or monthly resource adequacy construct should be pared with Effective Outage Rate (EOR)

• Timeline/milestones needed for

development of outage market mechanisms

33