Operational Flexibility Study Update Mark Rothleder, Executive - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Market Surveillance Committee Operational Flexibility Study Update

Mark Rothleder, Executive Director Market Analysis and Development June 22, 2012

Supply variability and uncertainty will increase while the flexible capability of the fleet is decreases

• Flexible requirements increase
• Flexible capability reduce 15%

1

Conventional resources will be dispatched to the net load demand curve – High Load Case

2

Load & Net Load (MW)

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 46,000 0:00 1:30 3:00 4:30 6:00 7:30 9:00 10:30 12:00 13:30 15:00 16:30 18:00 19:30 21:00 22:30 0:00 Load Net Load Wind Solar

Load, Wind & Solar Profiles – High Load Case January 2020

Wind & Solar (MW) 8,000 MW in 2 hours 6,300 MW in 2 hours 13,500 MW in 2 hours

Uncertainty range around the net load demand curve – High Load Case

3

Load & Net Load (MW)

Load, Wind & Solar Profiles – High Load Case January 2020

Wind & Solar (MW)

20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 46,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Net Load

Uncertainty Range Required Flexibility Ramp Rate

Intra hour need for flexibility and forecast uncertainty

MW t

Operating Hour

Hour-Ahead Schedule Day Ahead Schedule Hour Ahead Adjustment Load Following/Flexibility Generation Requirement Regulation Hour-Ahead Schedule and Load Following/Flexibility 4

The assessment of a balancing authority’s control performance is based on three components

• Control Performance Standard (CPS1) - measures the control

performance of a BA's by comparing how well its ACE performs in conjunction with the frequency error of the Interconnection

• Balancing Authority Ace Limit (BAAL) - is a real-time measure of

Area Control Area and system frequency which cannot exceed predefined limits for more than 30-minutes

• Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) - is the responsibility of the BA

following a disturbance to recover its ACE to zero if its ACE just prior to the disturbance was greater than zero or to its pre-disturbance level if ACE was less than zero - within 15 minutes

Control Performance Rating Pass is when CPS1 ≥ 100%; BAALLimit ≤ 30 minutes & DCS = 100%

5

Control Performance Standard Scores (CPS1) Scores January 2009 through April 2012

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Percent (%) CPS1

CPS 1 Scores – January 2009 through April 2012

Began operating to BAAL

6

Study process quantifies operational requirements and evaluates fleets ability to meet operating requirements.

Renewable Portfolios Variable Resource Wind / Solar and Load Profiles Flexibility Requirements (Regulation, Balancing) Develop Profiles Shortages Infrastructure Needs Costs, Emissions Import/Export Capacity Factor Statistical Analysis/ model Production simulation

7

33% scenarios in 2020 cover range renewable and load conditions.

Case Case Title Description 1 33% Trajectory Based on contracted activity 2 Environmental Constrained High distributed solar 3 Cost Constrained Low cost (wind, out of state) 4 Time Constrained Fast development (out-of-state) 5 20% Trajectory For comparison 6 33% Trajectory High Load Higher load growth and/or energy program under-performance 7 33% Trajectory Low Load Lower load growth and/or energy program over-performance

8

Potential need for 4,600MW of upward flexible resources observed in the high-load scenario using deterministic production simulation.

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Trajectory, Environmental, Cost, Time Constraint Cases (1-in-2 year load, 5,688 MW of incremental DR, 5,145 MW of Energy Efficiency) 2020 LTPP Operational Case (10% (5,500 MW) Higher Load) 2020 LTPP Operational Case (3,173 MW Local Capacity Resources) 2018 Sensitivity Risk of Retirement Case Capacity (MW)

Generic Upward Capacity Needs to Meet Observed A/S Load Following Shortages

Local Capacity Needs (Based on LCR Studies of OTC Retirement) System Neeeds

9

A few hours of potential shortages of downward flexibility were observed using deterministic production simulation

Note 1: Downward balancing may be more effectively and efficiently managed using curtailment

• r storage rather than less economic dispatch of flexible resources to higher level to maintain

downward flexibility. Note 2: High volume of net exports observed that require further review

10

Large quantity of net export observed in the cases need to be reviewed.

Export Import

11

CAISO Proposed Approach Determine Need Based on Probability of Shortage

Step 1: Calculate hourly flexibility reserve requirement

Previous Deterministic Methodology

Step 2: Test for violations in PLEXOS Loads, gen. profiles, imports, etc. Need

Proposed Stochastic Methodology

Step 1: Calculate hourly flexibility reserve requirement Step 2: Develop base system need using LOLP Loads, gen. profiles, imports, etc. Capacity Need Step 3: Test for flexibility within base portfolio Flexibility Need

12

Step 2: Benchmark LOLP Performance

Calibrate Model to All-Gas TPRM = 17% Initial Benchmark Case Portfolio Step 2 Trajectory Portfolio [= Peak Load * (1+TPRM)] Initial Trajectory Portfolio Calculate Trajectory TPRM Define LOLE benchmark based on TPRM Step 2 All-Gas Portfolio [= Peak Load * (1+TPRM)] Step 2 Portfolio To Step 3 Step 2 Portfolio To Step 3 Add resources to meet 17% PRM (if needed) Add resources to meet 17% PRM (if needed)

13

Preliminary LOLE Results without Load Following, Regulation, and 3% Operating Reserve using 1-in-2 Year Load*

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 13% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% 27% Annual LOLE Reserve Margin All Gas Trajectory (Small PV NQC = 0%) Trajectory (Small PV NQC = 45%) 1 in 10 Range

• Note: Trajectory 1-in-2 year load adjusted up by 10% to account for underperformance of demand programs.

LOLE Analysis Performed by E3

14

Preliminary LOLE Results with Load Following, Regulation, and 3% Operating Reserve using 1-in-2 Year Load*

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 13% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% 27% 29% Annual LOLE Reserve Margin All Gas Trajectory (Small PV NQC = 0%) Trajectory (Small PV NQC = 45%) 1 in 10 Range

Incorporating Regulation and LFU increases LOLE to 5.2 hours per year at 17% PRM for All-Gas Case

• Note: Trajectory 1-in-2 year load adjusted up by 10% to account for underperformance of demand programs.

LOLE Analysis Performed by E3

15

Next Steps

• Complete stochastic analysis to determine

probability of flexibility shortage and potential needs

• Review potential for over generation condition
• Evaluate alternatives to meet observed shortages

16