Proposed Revision to the Shadow Price Cap and Power Balance Penalties in SCED Same Transmission Element.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Outage Cost Study Market Analysis and Design Outage Coordination Improvement Task Force 3/23/2015.
Advertisements

Ancillary Services and SCED Jeff Gilbertson Market Analyst Congestion Management Working Group 9/4/2013.
SCED Power Balance Penalty Curve
Critique of Proposal to Designate SAPS-Shrew as CRE Shams Siddiqi, Ph.D. Crescent Power, Inc. (512) June 4, 2009.
Discussion: Use of RAPs in system operations Kris Dixit 1.
Real-Time Transmission Congestion Management & Market Effects
1 Geographic Integration, Transmission Constraints, and Electricity Restructuring Comments by Erin Mansur Yale University, SOM and FES.
Lecture 14: Capital Utilisation and the Business Cycle L11200 Introduction to Macroeconomics 2009/10 Reading: Barro Ch.9 24 February 2010.
ECE 530 – Analysis Techniques for Large-Scale Electrical Systems Prof. Hao Zhu Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
February 2012 CMWG Constraints Competitiveness Tests (CCT)
2001 South First Street Champaign, Illinois (217) Davis Power Consultants Strategic Location of Renewable Generation Based on Grid Reliability.
IMO Market Evolution Program Drew Phillips Market Evolution Program
1 Essential Question: Identify the two ways that producers can increase profit, List and briefly describe the 6 non-price determinants of supply, and evaluate.
October 22, 2007 TPTF Meeting Early Delivery Systems Status Update and Forecast Daryl Cote/John Webb/John Hall.
Nothing below this point Subtitle Nothing below this point Congestion.
Reliability Requirements Bill Blevins Manager of Operations Support ERCOT.
April, 2008 Maximum Shadow Price. April, 2008 Protocol Requirement: Transmission Constraint Management (2)ERCOT shall establish a maximum Shadow.
John Dumas Director of Wholesale Market Operations Jeff Billo Manager of Mid Term Planning Dan Jones Director with Potomac Economics, the ERCOT IMM Board.
EDS 2 Early Delivery Systems Review and Request for Approval May 2007 John Webb.
Market Evolution Program Day Ahead Market Project How the DSO Calculates Nodal Prices DAMWG October 20, 2003.
Bill Hellinghausen EDF Trading North America
RPRS ERCOT System Wide Insufficiency Charge Presented at the Technical Advisory Committee June 1, 2006.
January 21, 2010 Security Constrained Economic Dispatch Resmi Surendran.
Chad Thompson, ERCOT Special ROS PGRR011 Workshop October 21 st, 2011 SCED Overview and Results.
April 28, 2008 Constraint Competitiveness Tests, an Overview Congestion Management Working Group.
CMWG Update to WMS Report of CMWG Meeting of M Wagner Edison Mission Marketing & Trading.
CRR Shortfall – Revenue Equalization Part 3 (Continuation from 3/5/08 TPTF discussion) Bill Barnes/Sharon Wang TPTF 3/21/2008.
Slack Bus Change and Impact to Market Market Analysis, ERCOT QMWG Sep. 4, 2015.
Nodal MIS Portal Project MIS Functions to Support EDS 3, Release 5 September 11, 2007.
1 Cutover Market Call November 29, :00 AM.
RCWG Update to WMS July 11, Alternatives to Address Negative Prices At its June meeting, WMS directed RCWG to bring back something to vote on. RCWG.
ERCOT, Market Analysis 2013 Annual Constraint Competitiveness Test (CCT) Study Results – Update for 8/27/12 CMWG 8/27/2012 ERCOT Public.
Competitive Constraints/ Protocols 3.19 Presented to CMWG 10/14/2011 Steve Reedy, Manager, CRR.
2% Shift Factor rule and associated price discrepancies Kris Dixit 1.
Lance Cunningham, Ph.D., PE November Frisco, TX 2.
AEP’s Response to EDF’s Analysis. Apples vs. Oranges EDF’s analysis technique compares apples to oranges Shift factors do change as the transmission model.
1 Tests for Reasonable LMPs & Price Validation Tool Overview October 27, 2009 NATF.
2010 CSC & Zone Selection: 6 Lines W-N & 4 Zones (WN2_SN0-4Z) Shams Siddiqi, Ph.D. Crescent Power, Inc. (512) August 19,
February 5, 2008 TPTF 168 Hour Test Follow up discussion.
Announcements Homework 8 is 11.19, 11.21, 11.26, 11.27, due now
ECE 476 Power System Analysis Lecture 13: Power Flow Prof. Tom Overbye Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
MISUG TAC Update Jackie Ashbaugh ERCOT 3/7/ TAC3/7/ /22/2011 Meeting Focus on the high priority items from MISUG: Review task list prioritization.
Constraints Competitiveness Tests (CCT) Results Analysis of 2010 SSWG Peak Summer Case Presented to CMWG 1/27/2010.
August 2012 Wholesale Market Operations Constraints Competitiveness Tests (CCT) – Annual CCT 2013 Study Result with New Approach Market Support and Analysis.
Discussion on FGR Settlement Protocol Language David Maggio CMWG February 17, 2014.
WMS 1/9/20131 Priority Power Management, LLC Proposed Changes to Holistic Solution WMS January 9, 2013 James Z. Brazell Law Office of James Z. Brazell.
2% Shift Factor dispatchable rule discussion and alternatives for the 2% rule Kris Dixit 1.
09/20/20061 RTCA, CAM, and SFT Presented by: John Dumas September 20, 2006.
CMWG Update to WMS Report of CMWG Meeting of
1 Market Trials Congestion Revenue Rights Weekly Update May 28, 2010.
RDTF June 1, Purpose “The effect of the Shadow Price cap for the Power Balance Constraint is to limit the cost calculated by the SCED optimization.
NPRR 520 Resmi Surendran ERCOT. Current CCT Process Annual CCT (ACCT) is run every year to feed the results to Monthly CCT (MCCT) MCCT is run every month.
RCWG Update to WMS March 7, Draft NPRR, Caps and Floors for Energy Storage Resources Chair of ETWG gave high level overview ERCOT had questions.
Response to TAC Questions on PGRR031 TAC– January 28, 2014 Jeff Billo, ERCOT 1.
Proposal for Consideration Regarding Holistic Solution to Congestion Irresolvable in SCED Issue:How do you identify when constraint is irresolvable Proposal:Adopt.
Money Transfer Due to Real-Time Irresolvable Constraint Resmi Surendran ERCOT.
CMWG Update to WMS Met 4/24 & 5/11 Continued Work on PRR 801 –Discussed outages as related to TCR Cases –ERCOT evaluates various outage combinations.
Congestion Management Work Group 2008 Overview CMWG Marguerite Wagner, Reliant Energy Inc.
Texas Congestion Management Work Group Update For WMS Marguerite Wagner, PSEG Texas.
EDS 3 Release 5 SCED Testing Update - TPTF Daryl Cote August 28, 2007.
Valley Import Constraint Resmi Surendran. Valley Import Constraint Range of SFs – to in valley area – 0.03 to outside valley area Not.
The Budgeting Process 7. OBJECTIVE 1: Define budgeting, and explain budget basics.
NPRR784 Mitigated Offer Caps for RMR Units Protocol Revision Subcommittee June 16,
Announcements Please read Chapter 6
NPRR833 Workshop: Contingency Processing in CRR, DAM and SCED
May 2012 Generation Resource Energy and Regulation Deployment Performance QMWG 6/8/2012.
Review of Abnormal MCPEs
LMP calculations Congestion evaluation
ECEN 460 Power System Operation and Control
ISyE 6203 The HDT Case Vande Vate Fall,
Presentation transcript:

Proposed Revision to the Shadow Price Cap and Power Balance Penalties in SCED Same Transmission Element

2 What Makes Up a Constraint? A “constraint” is defined by the following – Transmission Element (“E”) Typically lines or transformers Contingency (“C”) The “What If?” Which lines or transformers are out of service Direction (“D”) Which way is the power flowing?

3 For Example ODNTH_FMR1/SNCWMOS8/138kV->69kV ODNTH_FMR1 = Transmission Element In this case, the Odessa North Transformer SNCWMOS8 = Contingency In this case, three line segments kV->69kV = Direction

It’s Kind of Like….A Hot Dog! 4

Three Major Components Instead of - Transmission Element/Contingency/Direction You have – Frank/Mustard/Bun 5

But What About Ketchup? Not everybody likes mustard so what if instead you have – Frank/Ketchup/Bun Is it still a Hot Dog? OF COURSE, IT IS! 6

Back to Constraints There are around 36M constraints (E/C/D) but some very similar to others (E/C’/D) or (E/C”/D). A small change in the network model or other conditions can cause the binding constraint to jump from one constraint (E/C/D) to another very similar constraint (E/C’/D). In most cases the underlying physical problem on the system (E & D) is actually the same and they have very similar effects on the market. 7

Shift Factor Correlation This can be measured by the shift factor correlation Calculated the shift factor at each pricing bus for Irresolvable Constraint Calculated the shift factor at each pricing bus for constraints with same Transmission Element and Direction (E&D) The correlation between the shift factors for the Irresolvable Constraint and other constraints with same E&D was over 90% 8

For Example Analysis of 2012 data showed that - All binding constraints with a correlation of >90% to ODNTH_FMR1/SNCWMOS8/138->69kv had the same E&D i.e. ODNTH_FMR1/XXXX/138->69kv Similarly, all binding constraints with a correlation of >90% to 6215__A/DODEQAL5/CGRSW->BCKSW had the same E&C i.e. 6215__A/XXXXXX/CGRSW->BCKSW In other words, they all had a frank and a bun but may have had ketchup or relish or chili instead of mustard 9

Same Transmission Element Currently, a constraint is deemed irresolvable by SCED if: A. A non-competitive constraint violation is not resolved by SCED or overridden for more than two consecutive hours on more than 4 consecutive Operating Days; OR B. A non-competitive constraint violation is not resolved by SCED for more than a total of 20 hours in a rolling thirty day period. 10

AEP’s Proposed Revisions Our proposal keeps those in place but adds an additional criterion – A constraint has the same overloaded Transmission Element and Direction as a constraint that has met criterion A or B The Shadow Price Cap for a such a constraint will be set to the same value as the constraint that met either trigger condition A or B Also, total $$ tracking towards $95K is tracked by the set of constraints with same Transmission Element and direction rather than the individual constraint 11

Impacts to Market If our proposal had been in effect in 2012, it would have reduced the HB_WEST- >LZ_WEST congestion by 2.6% That may not seem like a lot but in fact translates into ~$2500/MW That’s a lot of hot dogs! 12

For the Geeks And, Let’s Face It, We All Are…

Quantitative Impact Analysis Correlation Analysis Use set of binding constraints that had Shadow Price > $2000 in RT (241, could not map 23 to FEB CRR case, used 218) If contingency was not defined in FEB 2013 case, use BASE CASE Find shift factors for each constraint (all planning buses) [labor intensive] Find HB_WEST to LZ_WEST shift factors for each constraint Calculate correlation factors for each constraint relative to the Non-Competitive/Irresolvable constraints (ODNTH_FMR1 and 6215__A) 14

Quantitative Impact Analysis Correlation Analysis (cont.) For each constraint that had a correlation factor higher than 90% to ODNTH_FMR1, multiply the shift factor by the difference between the ODNTH shadow price cap and the actual shadow price (then by 1/12) For each constraint that had a correlation factor higher than 90% to 6215__A and occurred after May 3rd, 2012, multiply the shift factor by the difference between the 6215__A shadow price cap and the actual shadow price (then by 1/12) Those numbers added up to $2500. Error source – used FEB 2013 CRR model rather than actual daily models – should be low (<20%) 15