T&D Losses Reflecting Losses in DR within ERCOT August 22, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Demand Response Commissioner Suedeen Kelly June 3, 2008.
Advertisements

Demand Side Working Group April 27 th, © CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC. THE OFFERING DESCRIBED IN THIS PRESENTATION IS SOLD AND CONTRACTED.
Summary of Proposed Market Rules For Transition Period Price-Responsive Demand and Active Demand Resources in the Forward Capacity Market Henry Yoshimura,
INSULATING PRICE RESPONSIVE LOAD FROM RUC CAPACITY SHORT CHARGE Mark W. Smith J. Kay Trostle August 2008 DSWG.
Distributed Generation (DG)
Unresolved Issues in NPRR 555 Texas Steel Companies July 9, 2013.
Demand Response in New York State Northwest Power and Conservation Council DR workshop February 24, 2006.
Discuss infrastructure to support bilateral contracting between CSPs and REPs in the Retail Market Loads in SCED Sub-group May 22,
Loads in SCED v2 Subgroup The LMP-G Journey 1. TAC Endorsement of LMP-G TAC voted to endorse “LMP-G” rather than “Full LMP” as the mechanism to enable.
TPTF Presentation Registration of PUN Facilities December 19, 2007.
Loads Acting as a Resource Relationships with QSEs and LSEs
Loads in SCED Version 2 Proxy G Proposal. This is a proposal from Carl Raish as an individual … it has not been vetted internally at ERCOT and should.
Market Overview in Electric Power Systems Market Structure and Operation Introduction Market Overview Market Overview in Electric Power Systems Mohammad.
ERCOT Tool to manage unexpected incremental load November 16, 2006.
ERS Procurement Methodology 09/04/2013 ERS Workshop Presented By: ERCOT Staff.
Presented By: Mark Patterson ERCOT Manager, Demand Integration November 29, Minute ERS Pilot update to TAC 1.
Demand Side Working Group Load Resource Performance Subgroup April 9, 2010 Mary Anne Brelinsky EDF Trading North America.
1 Welcome to Load Participation Orientation Elev MenWomen Phones Info Presentation and other Load Participation information will be posted at:
Distributed Energy Resources Concept Document Discussion ERCOT Staff DREAM Task Force Aug. 25,
“Demand Response: Completing the Link Between Wholesale and Retail Pricing” Paul Crumrine Director, Regulatory Strategies & Services Institute for Regulatory.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION
PRS - RPRS Task Force Status Summary - August 14, PRS RPRS Task Force Status Summary Prepared for WMS and PRS August 2006.
Section 5.9 – added export language Each ERS Generator site must have an interconnection agreement with its TDSP prior to submitting an ERS offer and must.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Introductions, Roles and Responsibilities.
NPRR 097 DSR and Small Capacity / Low Operating Level Issues for Compliance Monitoring.
RPRS ERCOT System Wide Insufficiency Charge Presented at the Technical Advisory Committee June 1, 2006.
NPRR XXX: PRR 307 Inclusion in Nodal…Part II. Questions Raised 06/26/06 Section 3 –COP (resource parameters) –CLR participation limits –Telemetry Requirements.
Grabbing Balancing Up Load (BUL) by the Horns December 2006.
ERCOT Demand Response Spring 2015 ERCOT Operator Seminar.
PJM©2013www.pjm.com Economic DR participation in energy market ERCOT April 14, 2014 Pete Langbein.
Protocol Revision Subcommittee Sandy Morris November 3, 2011.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations May 8, 2012 – COPS Meeting May 9, 2012 – WMS.
1 UFE Workshop Sponsored by COPS October 19, 2004.
ERCOT UFE Analysis UFE Task Force February 21, 2005.
1 History of UFE (shortened version of presentation provided at UFE Taskforce Workshop on 9/14/2004) UFE Taskforce Meeting February 21, 2006.
LMP-G Policy Issues Matrix LRISv2 Subgroup July 23 rd,
Emergency Demand Response Concept Overview and Examples Presented to: ERCOT December 3, 2004 Presented by: Neenan Associates.
This slide deck contains animations. Please open this deck in slide show mode (“View” menu, then click on “Slide Show”). To move through the animations,
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Smart Meter Technology.
RPRS TF and QSE Managers Report to PRS 1)Procurement (QSE Managers) 2)Cost Allocation (RPRS Task Force) –PRR 674 –PRR 676 –PRR 678.
01/17/ CP Discussion October 16,2002 Retail Market Subcommittee Austin, Texas.
ERS Update – DSWG Presentation September 21, 2012.
LMP-G Policy Issues Matrix LRISv2 Subgroup July 23 rd,
Floyd Trefny, P.E. Director of Wholesale Market Design Nodal Market Tools to Manage Wind Generation January 29, 2009 Presentation to the Renewables Technology.
Distributed Generation Registration June 30, 2008.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Introductions, Roles and Responsibilities.
Business Case NPRR 351 Floyd Trefny Amtec Consulting Brenda Crockett Champion Energy Services.
Small Resettlements A Proposal to Reduce Impact on ERCOT and Market Participants.
1 WMS Report TO TAC April 2007 (which is in March)
DSWG Update to WMS 2/9/2011. EILS Procurement Results from 1/31 Business Hours 1 HE 0900 through 1300, Monday thru Friday except ERCOT Holidays; 425 hours.
February 2, 2016 RMS Meeting 1. * Reasons: * Per the ERCOT Board Report dated 8/5/14 there were 6.6M Advanced Metering System (AMS) Electric Service Identifiers.
COPS DECEMBER 2013 UPDATE TO RMS 12/18/2013 Harika Basaran, Chair Jim Lee, Vice Chair.
NPRR 649 Addressing Issues Surrounding High Dispatch Limit (HDL) Overrides Katie Coleman for Air Liquide (Industrial Consumer) ERCOT Board February 9,
Third Party DR Self-Deployment Loads in SCEDv2 Subgroup Sept. 18, 2015.
Real Time Balancing (RTB) & Resource Plan Statuses Change to the QSE practice of showing offline units as online and available ERCOT Presentation to ROS.
Proxy $G and other Loads in SCED 2 Litmus Tests Loads in SCEDv2 Subgroup Dec. 2, 2014.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations June 27, 2012 – ETWG Meeting.
07/27/2006 Overview of Replacement Reserve Procurement ERCOT Staff PRS RPRS Task Force.
1 TAC Report to the ERCOT Board July 18, TAC Summary 4 PRRs for approval (3 unanimous) 4 PRRs for approval (3 unanimous) 5 Nodal PRRs for approval.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations November 2, 2012 – RCWG Meeting.
©2003 PJM 1 Presentation to: Maryland Public Service Commission May 16, 2003.
Exceptional Fuel Costs in LMP
Pilot Project Concept 30-Minute Emergency Response Service (ERS)
ERS Procurement Methodology
Alternative Approach for Loads in SCED v.2
Paul Wattles, Sai Moorty ERCOT Market Design & Development
Reflecting Losses in DR within ERCOT August 22, 2012
NPRR829 Incorporate Real-Time Telemetered Net Generation for Non-Modeled Generation into the Real-Time Liability Estimate ERCOT PRS Meeting May 11, 2017.
Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461
The Future of Demand Response in New England
Presentation transcript:

T&D Losses Reflecting Losses in DR within ERCOT August 22, 2012

Losses Introduction Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Loss factors are calculated on a 15 minutes basis to estimate amount of electricity lost in the transmission and distribution system o TDSPs create and assign loss codes (often, although not necessarily, based upon voltage level) to ESIIDs and provide the coefficients used in the calculation of loss factors o [Metered Load * (1/(1-DLF))] * (1/(1-TLF)) Unaccounted for Energy (UFE) added after losses

Losses Introduction (continued) Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Losses are forecasted for two days in advance with actual losses calculated the day after flow o QSEs are charged but load typically pays for these losses, although the load never sees that electricity pass through its meter o This is not about losses behind the meter, but rather describes the losses between two accepted lines of demarcation – the generation meter and the load meter

Concept Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o The grid impact of 1 MW of metered demand response is not the same as 1 MW of additional generation o 1 MW of generation satisfies something less than 1 MW of metered load as electricity due to losses o Conversely, 1 MW of metered load curtailment replaces something more than 1 MW of generation as losses are avoided

Losses Illustrated Reflecting T & D Losses in DR Transmission Level service 1.3% to 2.6% Distribution Level service – Primary 2.0% to 11% Distribution Level service – Secondary 4.0% to 19% 9.7 MWs 30 MWs 8.9 MWs 8.1 MWs

Suggested Solution Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Demand Response that is offered in any ERCOT related program or market should be grossed up to reflect the applicable transmission and distribution losses that would have applied to measured curtailed volumes

Benefits Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o More equitably compensates DR for grid impact o Recognizes true impact on grid including reducing stress on distribution assets o Volumes of offered demand response not curtailed are adjusted for losses by LSE for retail electricity billing o Most beneficial for smaller customers o Untapped (and needed) DR potential o Utilize smart meters o Inline with goals of SB1125

Benefits (continued) Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Aligns ERCOT with other regions for DR reporting o Most other ISOs with a history of successful demand response programs incorporate this concept into their programs, including PJM, ISO-NE, and NYISO o Facilitates LMP – G for Real Time Market dispatch o LMP – G settlement would gross up curtailed volumes to bill customer for G; curtailed volumes should also be grossed up o Should speed implementation of Loads in Real Time Market dispatch as methodologies will be defined

Issues List Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Items to be considered: o UFE o NOIE losses o Impacts for LR o Impacts to ALR o Impacts to CLR o ERS Settlement calculations o ERS Compliance calculations

UFE Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Including UFE will foster consistency. o If participating in Real Time Market, and with the LMP – G concept, an LSE would be charged for the same volume as the DR QSE would be paid o Customers receiving statements would see same volumes o Including UFE will increase uncertainty, making it more difficult for: o Compliance o Reserves procurement in SCED o Budgeting o Recommendation: Do not adjust for UFE o Differences should be small so benefits will be limited

NOIE Losses Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o NOIEs are not required to provide Distribution Loss Factors to ERCOT o Providing DLFs for use only for demand response opens potential for gaming o Recommendation: All meters behind NOIE territories are grossed up for only the Transmission Loss Factors

Impacts for LR Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o QSEs determine volumes to schedule based upon expected load and forecasted losses o Actual loss factors not available until T+1 and therefore cannot give real time awareness o Telemetry provided to ERCOT would be grossed up by the appropriate forecasted loss factors o [Metered Load * (1/(1-DLF Forecasted ))] * (1/(1-TLF Forecasted )) o LR settlement is unchanged as it is based upon scheduled volumes o LR compliance is unchanged since telemetry would be grossed up

Impacts for LR (continued) Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Should the telemetry be grossed up by ERCOT or by the QSE? o Implementation at ERCOT would entail a single change vs. all QSEs making changes o Implementation at QSE would ensure QSE personnel see the values used for meeting their obligations and those used for compliance o If a QSE doesnt implement, harms only that QSE and their customers o Recommendation: QSEs responsible for grossing up for losses o Would introduce some (likely very small) level of loss forecast risk

ERS Compliance Calculation - Alternate Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Alternate o Contract Capacity (CC) offers could be maximized by QSEs based upon expected actual loss factors o Maximum Base Load (MBL) submitted based upon metered value but grossed up for losses by ERCOT for availability and performance calculations o Availability calculation to be based upon CC, grossed up metered volumes and MBL (DLF and TLF) o Performance compares grossed up metered values vs. grossed up MBL

ERS Compliance Calculation - Default Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Default o CC offers could be maximized by QSEs based upon expected actual loss factors o Availability calculation to be based upon CC and grossed up metered volumes (actual DLF and TLF) o Performance compares grossed up metered values vs. CC

ERS Compliance Calculation - Risks Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Risks o May increase availability risk as actual loss levels will not be known in advance o Difference of submitting grossed up CC and metered MBL is a potential source of confusion o QSEs that offered based upon metered volumes for consistency and to avoid confusion would reduce availability risk and not be affected for performance risk

ERS Settlements Calculation - Settlements Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Settlements unchanged o Would continue to use the availability and performance metrics to get combined performance factor o Costs allocated based upon load ratio share

Next Steps Reflecting T & D Losses in DR o Identify / resolve outstanding issues: o LR o ERS o ALR o CLR o LR – change in Operating Guide? o ERS – NPRR with small changes to compliance sections

Chair Contact Information Tim Carter Reflecting T & D Losses in DR