June 5 – 6 th – IDCWG Meeting, OATI – Minneapolis, MN August 20 – 21 st. Duke Energy – Charlotte NC October 9 – 10 th – OATI Customer Meeting - Las Vegas December 10 – 11 th. SOCO – Birmingham AL January 29 -30 th – FRCC - Tampa, FL
IDCWG is no longer under NERC purview. As of April 1 st 2013, IDCWG reports to Association Steering Committee represented by RCs IDCWG meetings are no longer available to public – though attendance maybe requested and granted by IDCWG chair on as need basis IDCWG meeting materials will be posted on OATI hosted location accessible by members of the IDCWG and RC users.
What happens if actual changes do occur to a Generator Priority Schedule inside the 20 min timeframe? Can a user submit changes that begin in less than 20 min (but maybe those wont be used) or must the user specify that the start of the change is 20 min in the future? If changes with a start time <20 min in the future will not be allowed, we recommend this requirement be reflected in the SDX User Manual. Changes with start times < 20 minutes from the actual time will not be considered in current hour relief obligation but will be considered in the next issuance of TLR. This requirement must be included in the specification document. This comment will be addressed through the IDCWG rather than making changes to the NAESB BP Standards.
IDC can look at the priority MW and check if the effective time of the message is greater than TLR effective time if needed for all TLRs IDCWG does not recommend submitting priorities effective 20 minutes in the future because priorities can also be submitted as part of the Generation MW message which has the MW output of the resource associated with it but only one effective time for the message. IDCWG asks the BPS for reasons for the purpose for this from an operations standpoint.
Unclear how GTLNative + GTL Transfer (Market flow) impacts will be calculated using Control Zones. Is PFV changing the process as to how market flows are currently calculated? This section also states, All impacts are calculated at 0% and 5% threshold levels for each flowgate defined for each flowgate defined in the Book of Flowgates. Does this include temporary flowgates? Are market flow impacts calculated on a temporary flowgate as soon as its created? BPS was supplied by the IDCWG a document ( CO 283 Summary Write Up ) that goes over a high level description on Control Zone and Load Zone modeling impact GTL calculation with respect to control zone modeling. IDC will calculate GTL on all active permanent and temporary flowgates (5% and 0%). Curtailments and relief obligation will be based on the GTL amount with greater than 5% impact reported/calculated.
Section 4.0 doesnt describe how generation priority schedule shift factors are calculated especially in respect to how zones are handled. Generation shift factor is independent of the priority of the generation MW. The shift factors will be calculated same way it is calculated today. The zones come in to play when determining the GTL impact for a given area based on GSF and LSF of the subject area.
In Section 4.5 TDF calculation use MBASE instead of PMAX. MBASE should be removed from the calculations since MBASE isnt kept as up to date as the PMAX values. In the equation for LSF, (GSF x Load) is used. GSF should not be used in the LSF calculation. GSF is the generation impact, LSF is the load impact. Both components make up GLDF. GLDF is the term used for GTL calculation MBASE to determine participation factor of a resource, this can be changed within the model by entities to reflect how much each resource may participate in TDF from their area prospective.
Section 3.5 on page 14 – The PFV Project description says the IDC will calculate a next- hour GTL during every TLR run. This is not consistent with the discussions at the BPS and is not consistent with Section 7.10 on page 40, under the 3rd bullet of the PFV Project description.
NH is part of CO 283 implementation. NH Generation projection information may be submitted by an entity, IDC will then use this information to calculate NH GTL projection to be used by NH TLRs. If no NH projections is provided, IDC will be able to estimate a projection based on NH schedules and loads. IDCWG needs a clarification on if NH information cannot be submitted by any entity? Or is it just not a requirement?
Section 4.5 on page 16 describes using only those generators with a GLDF of 5% or greater when calculating GTL relief obligations. Section 7.8 on page 38 describes making GTL calculations down to 0% and 5% for each flowgate defined in the Book of Flowgates. MISO would like to have discussions with the IDCWG on how the 0% and 5% impacts are determined since generators have a native GLDF and a transfer GLDF either of which may or may not meet the 5% threshold.
Each Components is calculated as a function of a GLDF (Native or Transfer) for GTL (Native and Transfer). The GTL impact of 5% or greater, is calculated as the sum of GTL Native and GTL Transfer Where GTL Native = GenMW NativeComp * GLDF Native Where Gen MW reported is only on resource with GLDF Native is greater than or equal to 5% Where GTL Transfer = GenMW TransferComp * GLDF Transfer Where GenMW reported is only on resource with GLDF Transfer is greater than or equal to 5%
Section 7.8 on page 38 has subsections on how marginal zones are used to determine impacts of tagged exports and imports. MISO wants to clarify marginal zones are only used to determine tag impacts for tag curtailment purposes and they are not used to adjust generation and load in the GTL calculation. Agreed. IDCWG asks that the GTL Control Zone adjustment is consistent with the Participation Factor of the Control Zone for scaling for the transaction.
Section 7.12 on page 43 – MISO does not believe market tag dump data (zone/LBA net interchange and zone/LBA load forecast) will still be needed under PFV and would like this section removed. Agreed. This can be removed
IDC Users Manual Section 8.0 on page 43 (Phase Shifters in IDC) and Section 9.0 on page 46 (DC Lines in IDC) - MISO would like to have discussions with the IDCWG on these two sections since it is not clear how the GTL calculation is impacted by these devices.
These devices impact GTL only of these devices are internal to a BA. In this case, real time flows across these equipment can be considered as transfer between Control Zones within the area. This assumes that all BAs model separate Control Zones on either side of the equipment. If a mixture of tags and GTL flow on the same equipment, then the flows on the equipment are adjusted by the schedule amount. The remaining flow is considered GTL. This is part of CO 283.
The IDC User's Manual and SDX Manual are included detailing how the IDC calculations will be performed for implementing the requirements included in WEQ-008. Parties are invited to provide comments on these documents. Appendix A, Case 4 states E is obligated to try to reconfigure transmission to mitigate Constraint #2 in E before E may curtail the Interconnection Transaction as ordered by the TLR. (See Business Practice Standard WEQ-008-2.2) There doesnt seem to be an obligation to reconfigure in the NAESB BP before a TLR 5 is called.
The Subcommittee decided to remove the Appendix A from the BP Standard and will request the IDCWG to consider including a modified version of Appendix A in IDC Users manual. IDCWG will not include Appendix A the documentation. IDCWG will, however, include illustrations in the IDCWG document as needed to help specify IDC changes.
Language in the last paragraph of C2.2 - Element Definitions and Required Fields states, Certain resources may have multiple PSE/LSEs that need to submit priority for them (i.e. Pseudo Tie scenario), in which case IDC will be changed to look at the priority submitted and consider the effective one depending on the issuing TLR entity and the location of the congestion. Duke doesnt understand this since PSE/LSE are not modeled, how will IDC know which one is more effective? Overall this is not clear about what is needed in SDX for this feature.
The PSE/LSE relationship to a given a resource can be obtained from the EIR. This will allow IDC to assign specific privileges for a PSE/LSE on a given resource. The TSP relationship will be of different effort, may need to be less flexible. A static table may be the solution. IDCWG recommends that only one entity is designated to submit priority. CO 322 was designed that only one entity (PSE, LSE, TSP BA or RC) may submit but no more than one.
There is already some effort involved in allowing TSP, PSE and LSE to be able to be recognized as registered entities in SDX to submit data. Allowing multiple entities to submit for one resource would require a many validations and may get complicated.
The tools impacted by these changes, SDX and IDC, are not owned or funded by NAESB, and NERC is currently transitioning away from controlling them. The group has identified high-level descriptions of the changes to the tools via the user manuals. However, there is not enough detail to support software changes. Who will define those details and how will the BPS be involved? It would be helpful for the Groups recommendation to include more detail on an implementation plan.
IDCWG will define details. To the extent IDCWG needs additional clarification they will contact BPS. IDCWG will provide high level development plan to get to the field trial/test. IDCWG has assigned sub teams that would convert the specifications from the BPS – once finalized – and lay out the exact impact and complexity of development and implementation into IDC.
These proposed changes are the result of years of detailed discussion on these topics and represent a fundamental change to the how the IDC works. We suggest that the group include in the recommendation, or supporting documentation, a high level comparison of the processes including items such as those listed below. As those outside the group are asked to review these changes, this comparison will help companies understand the impact of the changes. What are the differences in entity obligations between the current and future processes? What are the changes to the IDC inputs between the current and future processes? What are the potential impacts on the IDC outputs for various TLR levels (more importantly TLR =5)?
BPS will document what entities will be required to provide data in the White Paper. IDCWG will be requested to document the data structures and the frequency of providing the data. IDCWG will be requested to respond to second and third bullets.
Once the whitepaper is updated with latest, IDCWG will line up the full data requirement. Currently CO 283 lines out the basis. Metrics Change Order can be put in place once we have specific design changes lined out. A preliminary assessment based on known items specified in latest BPS requirements has been drafted and reviewed by IDCWG. OATI is providing a high level evaluation from a standpoint of how much effort it would take to implement each design items. This report can be shared with BPS on July meeting, pending a review from IDCWG sub-team.
IDCWG created the following two sub teams in effort to jump start PFV on IDCWG level. PFV Design Assessment PFV Design Assessment: Responsible for analyzing and stay up-to-speed on BPS discussed design items and analyze the design and implementation of each item. PFV Data & Analysis: Responsible for reporting on data submission efforts to the IDCWG and eventually analyze the quality of the data being submitted.
IDCWG requested and agreed, with Association Steering Committee support, that all RCs submit the following information by September 2013 GTLSetGeneratorMW GTLSetBranchflow – Not 100% required but we expect major lines be submitted. GTLSetParTap – Needed for those modeled in the IDC GTLSetDCline