14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee1 Special Protection Systems: Operational and Compensation Issues

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee2 Purpose of Presentation and Discussion Background information on Special Protection Systems Operational and compensation issues and considerations regarding Special Protection Systems raised in MR-00247: Amendments to Ensure Proper Operation and Compensation for Special Protection Systems Seeking MOSC input on resolution of issues; feedback will be given to Technical Panel for consideration in development of MR rule amendments

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee3 What are Special Protection Systems (SPSs)? Special Protection Systems have been installed historically on the IMO-controlled grid to automatically initiate one or more of the following control actions  Generation rejection  Generation runback  Load rejection  Shunt capacitor switching  Shunt reactor switching  Cross-tripping

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee4 Purpose of SPSs Used to increase the pre-contingency power transfer capability of the IMO-controlled grid by improving post- contingency IMO-controlled grid performance The arming of an SPS achieves this by deliberately and automatically initiating action so as to respect post-contingency security requirements upon the occurrence of recognized contingencies or upon detection of changes to IMO-controlled grid parameters. Historically installed as lower cost alternative to transmission connection/network upgrade

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee5 SPS Terminology SPS Arming: the SPS has been “turned on” and facilities connected to the SPS could be subject to the automated action associated with the SPS SPS Activation: applicable contingency or applicable change in grid conditions has occurred, and automated action has been activated (e.g. generator or load tripped off)

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee6 SPS Statistics (still being compiled) Number of SPSs in Ontario –Generation Rejection: 12 –Load Rejection: 16 –Generation Runback: 3 –Shunt capacitor switching: 1 –Shunt reactor switching: 10 –Cross-tripping: 4 Frequency of arming Frequency of activation

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee7 MR Submitted by OPG; determined by Technical Panel to warrant consideration using the following criteria: –the amendment could potentially reduce market participant’s costs by allowing a market participant with facilities connected to an SPS to better anticipate and manage the risks associated with the use of SPSs

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee8 Additional Considerations Operational Should means of notification be mutually agreeable to SPS owner (typically transmitter) and MP/owner of facility connected to SPS, as these are the entities that would incur cost(s) of implementing means of notification?

14 Jan 2004Market Operations Standing Committee9 Additional Considerations Compensation MP/owner of facility connected to SPS derives benefit from SPS arming: allowed to operate in manner of their choosing rather than being constrained by IMO Analogous situation of forced outage of transmission connection does not result in compensation Compensation costs would be recovered through uplift