Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Structured / Unstructured Market Trials Analysis Weekly Update Meeting 9/27/2013.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Structured / Unstructured Market Trials Analysis Weekly Update Meeting 9/27/2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Structured / Unstructured Market Trials Analysis Weekly Update Meeting 9/27/2013

2 Mitigation of Resource Offer Data Three Test are performed to determine the need for Mitigation of an offer: –Behavior Test –Local Market Power Test –Impact Test All Three tests must fail in order for the offer to be mitigated. Carrie Simpson 2

3 Behavior Test The behavior test determines if the submitted offer exceeds a threshold related to the Mitigated Offer. Example: An Energy Offer Curve for a resource in a Frequently Constrained Area has a 17.5% threshold. If any part of the submitted Energy Offer Curve is greater than 117.5% of the Mitigated Offer, that Energy Offer Curve fails the Behavior Test Carrie Simpson 3

4 Local Market Power Test (Structure Test) The Structure Test determines if a Resource has local Market Power. Protocols Section lists the four ways a resource can have Local Market Power and fail the Structure Test. In simple terms, if a Resource is geographically located such that based on current system conditions they can influence market clearing, that Resource fails the Structure Test. Carrie Simpson 4

5 Impact Test The Impact Test takes the results of the first two tests and then determines if the clearing (LMP, MCP, and MWP) is actually impacted by the failed resource offers. A case with no Mitigation applied is compared to an identical case with Mitigation applied to Resource Offers that failed the first two tests. If the difference in LMPs or MCPs at a Settlement Location exceeds a threshold or the MWP for a resource exceeds a threshold, the Impact Test Fails. Carrie Simpson 5

6 What Mitigation Looks Like What does Mitigation related to MWP looks like? Mitigation of Offers related to the MWP calculation are determined at the time of commitment, either manually or coming out of DAMKT or RUC processes. Since this mitigation decision is tied to the commitment decision, the MP is notified Offer Data was mitigated for use in the MWP calculation through the commitment notification. Carrie Simpson 6

7 What Mitigation Looks Like What does Mitigation related to Energy/OR clearing look like? Mitigation of Offers related to Energy/OR clearing is determined at the time of clearing. As such, whether or not a Resource is Mitigated can change as often as clearing is determined. Hourly for DAMKT and every five minutes for RTBM. Carrie Simpson 7

8 Scenario Day Ahead Offer Mitigation Day Ahead Offer Mitigation Scenario was executed for 9/18 Operating Date. Scenario was successful from a software perspective and SPP’s Market- wide visibility perspective. –Scenario was difficult to orchestrate for the Market Power and Impact Tests –Many Participants would not be able to verify the results because their resource did not fail all three Mitigation Tests, and therefore did not get mitigated. Should this scenario be re-executed – understanding that broad individual Participant results may not improve dramatically? 8 Jarrett Friddle

9 Scenario Day Ahead Offer Mitigation Participant Bids that failed the Mitigation Behavior Test: –Failures for Energy Offer Curve – Maximum 83 (HE04), Minimum 74 (HE12). –25 MPs with at least one offer curve submitted that failed the behavior test. –Failures for:  No Load Cost = 94  Cold Startup Cost = 102  Intermediate Startup Cost = 102  Hot Start Up cost = 109 –35 of the Resources that failed the Energy Offer Curve behavior test were not committed at all. Participant Offers that failed the Mitigation Tests for Commitment: –37 distinct resources mitigated for SCUC, SCED or both for some hours of the day based on mitigation of commitment and/or energy curve parameters. Participant Offers that failed Mitigation Tests for the Energy Curve in SCED: –9 distinct Resources from 7 Market Participants were mitigated for SCED Energy Offer Curve. 9 Jarrett Friddle

10 Day Ahead Analysis 9/17/2013 Operating Date – An Asset Owner doubled their demand bids all day (Fixed and Price Sensitive). The LMP was low enough in the Off-Peak hours that that Price Sensitive bids cleared in addition to the Fixed bids. This resulted in a price curve that is relatively flat for the whole day. 10 Jeff Fruit

11 Day Ahead Analysis 9/18/2013 Operating Date – Two price peaks (HE13 and HE17) due to a constraint being activated twice (Transformer and Line). Resulted in the shadow price being doubled – once for each instance of the same constraint. The transformer constraint was deactivated so that this constraint will be treated correctly as a single constraint. 9/20/2013 Operating Date – There was an odd price spike during HE 13 caused by congestion on HAYVINPOSKNO due to an incorrect line limit. This has been corrected for all future cases. 11 Jeff Fruit

12 Scenario 16.2 – DARUC Offer Mitigation General Results: Executed on 9/17 for 9/18 Operating Date. 18 out of 20 Participants were committed and mitigated by DARUC 2 Participants offers were sent such that mitigation would not occur. Scenario was successful from a software perspective and SPP’s Market-wide visibility perspective. Initial Analysis Data Points from the Scenario: Behavior Test Failures (Not visible to MPs) –Energy Cost = 89 Resources –No Load Cost = 108 Resources –Cold Startup Cost = 107 Resources –Intermediate Startup Cost = 112 Resources –Hot Start Up cost = 118 Resources 12 Final Solution –26 Distinct Resources were Mitigated. Alan Adams

13 DARUC Analysis Operating Day 9/16/2013 –Only 12 out of the 56 recommended resources were committed in DARUC. The Max capacity gap between DAMKT and DARUC was 2934 MWs at Hour Ending 14:00. Operating Day 9/17/2013 –Only 19 resources were recommended for commitment in DARUC with 7 being committed. This is mostly due to overbidding in the DAMKT for 20/24 hours of the day. There were also no constraints driving the need for commitment. The Max capacity gap between DAMKT and DARUC was 705MWs at Hour Ending 17:00. Operating Day 9/18/2013 –This was Scenario 16.2 – DARUC Offer Price Mitigation. All resources recommended by RUC were committed to ensure those participating in the scenario would see their selected resource mitigated. 13 Carrie Simpson

14 Scenario 16.3 – RTBM Offer Mitigation General Results: Executed on 9/18 for 9/18 Operating Date. Ran from 08:00 to 16:00. Mitigation parameters were set at protocol levels from 08:00 to 12:00 with no mitigation. Mitigation parameters were lowered from 12:00 to 16:00 triggering mitigation. Scenario was successful from a software perspective and SPP’s Market-wide visibility perspective. Some Participants would not be able to verify the results because their resource did not get mitigated. –Not all resources had substantial impacts on the active constraints. Scenario Results: Behavior Test Failures (Not visible to MPs) –79 Resources –25 Market Participants Final Solution Mitigation –37 distinct resources mitigated at least one interval. –17 Market Participants had resources mitigated. –SPP observed mitigation flags via Markets UI and XML Notifications. 14 Alan Adams

15 Scenario 31.0 – RTBM Bock Demand Response Scenario Results: Participants were able to submit hourly DRL forecasts. BDRs cleared energy according to hourly block schedule. Energy dispatch was observed via Markets UI and XML Notifications. Reduction in load was added back to the load forecast (in EMS). Snapshot of demand MW consumption was taken. Real-Time Resource output was calculated correctly. 15 Alan Adams

16 RTBM Performance Of the 28 cases not Approved, –1 Case Failed. –0 Cases failed initialization. –26 cases solved but not in time to meet approval deadline or approval failures due to communication challenges between the Market System and the server responsible for various market control functions. –1 Cases were terminated * These issues are known and logged, and SPP continues to work to improve the performance. SPP has increased the urgency of the issue even higher. IT and the vendor are spending more time in trying to determine an exact cause and fix. 16 Casey Cathey

17 Operating Reserves SPP operated at no ramp sharing during every interval. Shortages Occurred in at least one product in 317 of the 540 intervals during the operating hours of Sept. 16 th through the 20 th. (1197 of the 1440 intervals total for Sept. 16 th -20 th ) In effort to maintain a healthy range of dispatchable and regulation clearable resources, SPP continues to address the following as needed: Discrepancies between EIS and Integrated MarketPlace with SCADA, Resource Plans, and AGC Control Status. Spin product shortages led SPP to find numerous resources that are no longer registered as Spin qualified. SPP will be working with market participants to verify the spin qualification statuses of these resources. 17 Casey Cathey

18 RTBM LMP and MCP summary SPP continued max OR zonal limits in preparation for soon-to-come zonal requirements that will be set by the Reserve Requirement Calculator. No zonal MCP separation has occurred due to these max limits. SPP continued to use the automated “True Up” process and the automated NSI offset process to mirror EIS results as accurately as possible. 18 Casey Cathey

19 On Sept 18, afternoon LMP’s were affected while conducting mitigation logic tests with Market Participants. Unrealistic parameters were entered for constraints to invoke mitigation and redispatch pricing. This caused high and low LMPs on either sides of the constraints. Sept 18 th LMP Summary 19 Casey Cathey

20 Ramp Constraints contributed to high LMPs and limited AS product availability. LMPs showed consistent and appropriate separation when solving for constraints. September 16 th, 17 th, 19 th, and 20 th LMP Summary 20 Casey Cathey

21 During operating hours, SPP manually activated constraints to mirror activated constraints from EIS. Due to model and constraint differences between EIS and IM PRD not all EIS constraints were able to be matched. Large BIAS values still exist on constraints. This is due to energy imbalance in external areas. SPP and ALSTOM have an agreed upon solution that is projected to come in 1.7 release. Constraint Summary 21 ConstraintBinding IntervalsBreached IntervalsMax Shadow Price ($) PENMUN87TCRA TEMP35_ SPPSPSTIES TEMP56_ REDWILLMINGO REDARCREDARC ELKXFRTUCOKU IATSTRSTJHAW IATSTRIATSTJ PLTSMTSTR87T POTXFRHITXFR OSGCANBUSDEA TEMP08_ Casey Cathey

22 Noteworthy After conducting the mitigation tests last week with Market Participants, Mitigation logic will now remain on barring any unforeseen circumstances. 22 Casey Cathey

23 0.4 – Base RTGEN Scenario Results: Input Data –Tielines  At least 1 data point has been added for every tie. –Frequency  Normal frequency data is being used but the periodicity needs to be increased to 2 secs. –Schedules  RTGEN is receiving the schedules from RTOSS through a translation program. –Dynamic Interchange  Currently the RTGEN data points are not linked to receive the dynamic interchange from ICCP, so we are including the data available from RTOSS for dynamics and including that in our NSI total. 23 Daniel Baker

24 0.4 – Base RTGEN Scenario Results: Tieline Statistics –No SCADA : 5 –At least 1 Good : 194  1 Good: 30  2 or More Good: 164 –Total Tielines: 199  Questionable: 4  Manual Entered : 5 24 Daniel Baker

25 0.4 – Base RTGEN Scenario Results: Overall Performance –SPP’s ACE is tracking the SUM of the individual EIS ACE values. We will monitor for differences and report the results over time. Market Participant Activities –We have been contacting members to verify their ACE inputs and are working to understand differences and validating our ACE calculations. 25 Daniel Baker

26 EMS for September 16, Tim Miller

27 EMS for September 16-20, State Estimator mismatch levels on average were at acceptable levels for go- live on all three days. The recorder for the metric was down one day. Higher than usual solutions un-solved due to staff availability. No concerns with applications – continue to stress test and perform model updates to test the system. Short Term load forecast errors were generally reasonable with a few high error intervals that are currently under investigation. Mid Term load forecast error research and tuning continues with the different methods. Please keep your Resource Control Mode Statuses up-to-date. Tim Miller

28 Scenario Tracker 28 Ginny Watson Scenario ID Scenario Title SPP Successful SPP Unsuccessful MP StatusCommentsMP Fail Details 1Delay MarketX Fail2 MPs requested retest MP System issues; want to retest notifications 2Failure to Publish ORX Fail5 MPs requested retest MP Systems were not ready during Scenario 4Outage SimulationX Fail3 MPs requested retest MPs want to verify ICCP dispatches 5.1DA Capacity Shortage XPending Reschedule 5.2RUC Capacity ShortageX Fail3 MPs requested retest MP did not have ICCP working; MP wants to verify messages (XML and MUI) 8DA Scarcity PricingX Fail1 MP requested retest MP wants to ensure API/MUI download of Reserve Requirement & notification via MUI/API 11EDR Deployment XPending Reschedule 12OOMEX Fail3 MPs requested retest 2 MPs did not have ICCP working; 1 MP wants to confirm XML data is being received 13Demand ResponseX Pass 14.1Low Load High WindX Pass 14.2Low Load High WindX Fail1 MP requested retest MP wants to re-test functionality 15Commitment Mismatch XPending RescheduleRescheduled for9/ DA MitigationX Fail2 MPs requested retest 16.2RUC MitigationX Fail No retest requested; 1 MP confirming issues resolved 16.3RTBM MitigationX Fail2 MPs requested retest 17.3Reserve Cap TestingX Fail1 MP requested retest MP wants to verify ICCP is insync, STOP/START notifications are correct, MUI is receiving notifications 18Failure ModesX Pass 19Emergency LogicX Fail2 MPs requested retest MP did not receive correct ICCP deployments; MP unable to check LMP during shortage and surplus conditions 20CRD EventX Fail No retest requested; 1 MP confirming issues resolved 23.1Spring Load ProfileRemoved from scope 23.2Spring Load ProfileRemoved from scope 25.1Fall Load Profile X Pass 25.2Fall Load ProfileX Pass 26.1Winter Load ProfileX Pass 26.2Winter Load ProfileX Pass 27.1Summer Load ProfileX Pass 27.2Summer Load ProfileX Pass 31Block Demand ResponseX Pass 33Ramp Reservations XPending Reschedule

29 Scenario Tracker Metrics 29 Ginny Watson Scenario # s Sent # Responses Received % Responses Received # No Response % No Response# Passed % Passed (of Resp. Rec'd)# Fail % Fail (of Resp. Rec'd) 1 - Delay Market573867%1933%3592%38% 2 - Failure to Publish OR493367%1633%2885%515% 4 - Outage Simulation493367%1633%3091%39% 5.1 DA Capacity ShortageN/A RUC Capacity Shortage403485%615%3191%39% 8 - Day Ahead Scarcity Pricing423686%614%3597%13% 11 - EDR DeploymentN/A 12 - OOME322991%39%2690%310% 13 - Demand Response11100%00%1100%00% Low load High Wind513671%1529%36100%00% Low Load High Wind363392%38%3297%13% 15 - Commitment MismatchN/A DA Offer Curve Mitigation242292%28%1986%314% RUC Offer Curve252288%312%2195%15% RTBM Mitigation272489%311%2188%313% Reserve Cap testing21 100%00%2095%15% 18 - Failure Modes0N/A 19 - Emergency Logic262492%28%2396%14% 20 - CRD Event212095%15%1995%15% Spring Load ProfileN/A Spring Load ProfileN/A Fall Load Profile503468%1632%34100%00% Fall Load Profile503468%1632%34100%00% Winter Load Profile513569%1631%35100%00% Winter Load Profile513569%1631%35100%00% Summer Load Profile513569%1631%35100%00% Summer Load Profile513569%1631%35100%00% 31 - Block Demand Response %0 0%1 100%00% 33 - Ramp Reservation SystemN/A

30 Meter Data 30 Tony Alexander 100% of MDSLs have been successfully submitted. SPP has provided Meter Data and Meter Agent Reports for every operating day.

31 Bilateral Settlements Schedules 31 Tony Alexander 67% of MPs have successfully submitted BSS Contract Headers. 58% of MPs have successfully approved BSS Contract Headers. 49% of MPs have successfully submitted BSS Profiles.


Download ppt "Structured / Unstructured Market Trials Analysis Weekly Update Meeting 9/27/2013."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google