HMTF Update TAS Nov 3-4, 2015 Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGrid TEPPC\Hydro Modeling Work Group - Chair.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ENERGY VALUE. Summary  Operational Value is a primary component in the Net Market Value (NMV) calculation used to rank competing resources in the RPS.
Advertisements

Preliminary Impacts of Wind Power Integration in the Hydro-Qubec System.
Technical Conference Avoided Cost Modeling January 6, 2015.
Power Supply Adequacy Assessment Model/Methodology Review Steering Subcommittee Meeting January 29, 2010.
1 Generation Adequacy Task Force Report to TAC April 7, 2005.
3/16/20001 BPA’s traditional revenue stream varies with water supply (higher water conditions, higher revenues) BPA’s revenues from Slice are independent.
Time Series Analysis Autocorrelation Naive & Simple Averaging
Short Term Load Forecasting with Expert Fuzzy-Logic System
Slides 13b: Time-Series Models; Measuring Forecast Error
Federal Columbia River Power System Operations Planning.
Reclamation Mid-Term Operational Modeling Seasonal to Year-Two Colorado River Streamflow Prediction Workshop CBRFC March 21-22, 2011 Katrina Grantz, PhD.
Extending that Line into the Future St. Louis CMG February 12, 2008 Wayne Bell – UniGroup, Inc.
Study Results Drought Scenario Study This slide deck contains results from the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the impact in the interconection.
Colombian Firm Energy Market: Discussion and Simulation Peter Cramton (joint with Steven Stoft and Jeffrey West) 9 August 2006.
Hydro Power 102. Hydroelectric Models in the Northwest.
A Resource Adequacy Standard for the Pacific Northwest Resource Adequacy Technical Committee January 17, 2008 Portland Airport.
Sixth Northwest Conservation & Electric Power Plan Adding Incremental Flexibility to the Pacific Northwest Power System? Maury Galbraith Northwest Power.
Sixth Northwest Conservation & Electric Power Plan Draft Wholesale Power Price Forecasts Maury Galbraith Northwest Power and Conservation Council Generating.
Visit by Government Officials from Mozambique COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM BRIEFING III U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division North Pacific Water.
ERCOT Planning WMS 10/20/2010 Target Reserve Margin and Effective Load Carrying Capability of Installed Wind Capacity for the ERCOT System – Methodology.
Powered by the Loads and Resource Information System (LaRIS) Pacific Northwest Loads and Resources Operational Peaking Adjustment Council Briefing.
PJM©2013www.pjm.com Economic DR participation in energy market ERCOT April 14, 2014 Pete Langbein.
HMTF Understanding PLF August 31, 2015 Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGrid TEPPC\Hydro Modeling Work Group - Chair.
Study Results High EE/DG/DR Study This slide deck contains results from the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the results of an increase of EE/DG/DR.
1 Pacific Northwest Hydro-Thermal System and RTO West Market Design FERC Market Design Workshop January 23, 2002.
Resource Adequacy Task Force (RATF) Update to WMS June 12, 2013.
Power Association of Northern California Maintaining Grid Reliability In An Uncertain Era May 16, 2011 PG&E Conference Center Jim Mcintosh Director, Executive.
October 29, Organizational role of Short-Term Planning and Hydro Duty Scheduling Relationship to other groups in BPA Planning and analysis job.
ISO Proposed Flexible Capacity Requirements Stephen Keehn Senior Advisor California ISO CPUC Workshop January 26, 2012.
Winter Power Supply Adequacy/Reliability Analysis Power Committee Briefing October 17, 2001.
09/17/2006 Ken Donohoo ERCOT Peak Day August Initial Settlement Data by Fuel Type.
Slide 1 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N June 2011 Non-Treaty Storage Agreement non-Binding Terms for Storage Accounts.
TAS – Review Load and Hydro Shapes for use in TEPPC 2026 Common Case Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGrid TEPPC\Hydro Modeling Task Force - Chair.
Analysis of Demand Response Modeling in GridView Andy Satchwell and Sarah Smith Modeling Work Group December 21, 2015 The work described in this presentation.
PDCWG 8/25/2015 GTBD Bias Analysis ERCOT Market Analysis and Design PDCWG August 25, 2015.
Project Setup and Execution For PMPlan Enterprise Presented by AlNik Solutions Copyright ©
DWG – Dependable Capacity Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGrid TEPPC\Hydro Modeling Task Force - Chair.
PDCWG Report to ROS January 13, 2011 Sydney Niemeyer.
Developing Synthetic Temperature-Correlated Wind Generation Data Steering Committee Meeting January 29, 2010.
Capacity Forecast Report Fall Update Sean Chang Market Analysis and Design Suresh Pabbisetty CQF, ERP, CSQA Credit CWG/MCWG December 16, 2015 ERCOT Public.
1 R Workshop on 2016 RA proposals Energy Division Staff Procurement Oversight and Resource Adequacy California Public Utilities Commission Thursday,
Thomas Carr Western Interstate Energy Board ColumbiaGrid Planning Meeting August 1, 2013 Grid Tracker: A web-based tool to analyze historic transmission.
1 PG&E Proposals for Refinements to the Resource Adequacy (RA) Program Compliance Year 2017 RA Workshop February 18, 2016.
Sixth Northwest Conservation & Electric Power Plan Draft Wholesale Power Price Forecasts Maury Galbraith Generating Resource Advisory Committee Meeting.
Shaping Up The Duck Chart Independent Energy Producers Association Annual Meeting Mark Rothleder Vice President, Market Quality and Renewable Integration.
Economic Planning Study June 23, In this presentation  Major changes from last meeting  Results: 2010, 2014, 2019  Finish analyst  Next steps.
Economic Planning Study Presentation Northwest Coal Retirement Reduction Study Results Kevin Harris February 3, 2015.
EPS Updates ColumbiaGrid Planning Meeting October 13, 2016
Heat Rate Calc based on CEMS Data April 12, 2016
DWG Meeting March 7, 2017 (Update to a Meeting held July 26, 2016)
Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGrid TEPPC\Model Work Group - Chair
Hydro Modeling Improvement for TAS Approval May 4, 2017
MWG Recommended Hydro Improvement March 7, 2017
2018 VELCO IRP Forecast Preliminary results
Outline Background Study Assumptions Study Results To Do
Recommended Hydro Improvement April 11, 2017
Upper Snake Reservoir Operations October 13, 2015
Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGrid TEPPC\Hydro Modeling Task Force - Chair
Outline Modeling Issue 2017 Modeling Goals
Vetting the GENESYS Model
MWG Recommended Hydro Improvement March 14, 2017
RE Grid Integration Study with India
MWG Recommended Hydro Improvement March 7, 2017
Hydro Modeling Improvement for TAS Approval May 4, 2017
Recommended Hydro Improvement April 11, 2017
Technical Committee Meeting January 27, 2012
Study Results Drought Scenario Study
Tyler Butikofer Associate Engineer II
PDWG Validation of the 2028 ADS PCM V1.0
Base on maximum operating wind capacity at end of planning period
Presentation transcript:

HMTF Update TAS Nov 3-4, 2015 Kevin Harris, ColumbiaGrid TEPPC\Hydro Modeling Work Group - Chair

Outline Background Change in Hydro Operations on Columbia River Understanding PLF and developing K Factor Hydro Dispatch Against Load – Wind Summary of Findings 2

Background 3

Objective of Current Hydro Modeling Review Review the modeling of Core Columbia River projects: – Determine if existing modeling represents current operations? Make recommendations to correct any operational issues Develop tools/method to determine appropriate Hydro modeling parameters/coefficients for in GridView Test Load – Wind for BPA 4

The Core Columbia The Core Columbia River is used to evaluate Hydro modeling in GridView The Core Columbia River represents 45% of Western US Hydro generation ( ) Upper Columbia: – Coulee- Priest Rapids Lower Columbia – McNary-Bonneville Think of the Snake River as the dividing point between Northern and Southern System 5

Example Historic Operations Example operation for January 2010 through Per unit of generation the operating range of Upper Columbia is greater than the Lower Columbia Load Used:= 100% of BPA + 100% of MidC + 6% of CAISO Aggregated and some individual projects Hydro generation are proportional to load

Change in Hydro Operations on Columbia River

Operational Change Starting in 2011 Starting in 2011 the annual average daily operating range decrease by 2,224 MW (38%) Any forecast run should reflect this reduction in operational flexibility 8

Operational Change Starting in Note the polynomial for 2011, 2012, and 2013 for operational Min and Max rating over-lap Date Points Spring Run-Off: 122/yr Balance of year: 243/yr Just received hourly 2014 data It’s operation overlays on

Understanding PLF and Developing K Factor 10

Proportional Load Following (PLF) How PLF works – The reference frame for PLF is the average monthly load and Hydro generation – Hourly Hydro generation is equal to the hourly percent change in load, from average load, multiplied by K Factor and applied to average monthly Hydro generation – Min and Max rating is enforced on Calc Hydro generation – K=0 results in a flat monthly shape equal to the average monthly Hydro generation 11

K Factor - Hourly Shape (PLF) Positive K Factor result in Hydro generation proportional to load – K Factor 0> and < 1, results in a contraction of the daily operating range in Hydro generation relative to the load shape – K Factor > 1, results in expanding the daily operating range in Hydro generation relative to the load shape 12 Negative K Factor result in Hydro generation inversely proportional to load Note: In the example daily average is equal to monthly average

Calculating K Factor The reference frame for PLF is the average monthly load and Hydro generation K Factor:= Slope of – Y= Hydro Gen(Hr i)/Avg Mo Hydro Gen – X:= Load(Hr i)/Avg Mo Load – Example K:= You only need two data points to calc a slope: Weekday min and max Consider multi hour avg for weekday min & max The avg WKD min/max do not set operational min/max rating

If Slope is all we need: = Delta(Y Axis)/Delta(X Axis) Delta(Y Axis) and Delta(X Axis) can be calculated independently K Factor can be split into two components: – Hydro K’ [Delta(Y Axis)]: Is tailored to the desired average weekday operating range – Load K’ [Delta(X Axis)]: Is based on the load Hydro is to be dispatched to Formula: K can be tailed to dispatch to a forecasted load shape Feedback loop: Spreadsheet Calculate - resulting hourly Hydro generation can be compared to actual Hydro generation without simulation run Two Point K Factor 14

Calc Operational Min/Max Ratings Calc operational min and max rating based on historic operations – Base min rating on min gen curve at a 15% probability and max on the max gen curve at 85% probability – Use the target average monthly generation for the average – The StDev is based on: Backcast use actual StDev Forecast use calc StDev based on operations 15

Summary of Modeling Change Split the 11 projects into upper and lower Columbia River to calculate PLF coefficients and compare to expected operations – Upper Columbia: Coulee through Priest Rapids – Lower Columbia: McNary through Bonneville 16 Use a flat monthly generation shape for previously hourly shapes K:=0 Objective Take a desired operating year and have it’s monthly operation conform to operation from

Error Check 2010 Backcast 17 Compare calculated hourly weekday generation shape with historic operation for accuracy in duplicating hourly shape (hour ending 1-24) 2010 backcast matches actual operations

Error Check 2013 Backcast 18 Compare calculated hourly weekday generation shape with historic operation for accuracy in duplicating hourly shape (hour ending 1-24) 2013 backcast matches actual operations

Hydro Dispatch Against Load – Wind 19

Hydro Dispatch Load - Wind Relative to load, wind generation serves up to 64% of BPA daily load in 2014 or 20% of annual load Changing from “Load” to “Load – Wind” increases the deviation in daily a factor of 2.7 The expanded daily StDev directly impacts the daily allocation of Hydro generation. This impact can be amplified when K is > 1 20 Installed Wind Capacity in BPA for ,515 MW

Hydro Dispatch Load - Wind The top right chart BPA load vs Core Columbia gen (R^2=0.616) The bottom right chart: BPA Load – Wind vs Core Columbia gen (R^2:= 0.252) Bottom chart show daily Hydro generation tracking BPA load 21

Hydro Dispatch Load - Wind Compare backcasting April 2013 Hydro operation: – Against Load: A better match against actual Hydro operation – Against Load-Wind: When wind comes on and off for a couple of days the result Hydro diverges from actual Hydro generation 22

Summary of Findings 23

Summary of Findings Current modeling does not reflect operational changes on the Columbia River which starting in 2011 – Base Hydro operating on year for any forecast year K factor can be adjusted to account for different load forecast Dispatching Hydro against “Load – Wind – Solar” – In the Pacific Northwest, K based on: “Load” is more predictable and matches historic operation “Load –Wind” results in increase volatility in daily allocation of monthly Hydro generation which is greater than historic operations Next step working on Hydro Thermal Coordination (HTC) 24

Proposed GridView Improvements Load – Wind – Solar: Add two new dimensions that control how Load – Wind – Solar is set: – The ability to set Load – Wind – Solar by area/region – The ability to set a percentage (0% to 100%) of wind and solar that is subtracted from the load – Example: BPA: 10% Wind and 100% Solar CAISO: 100% Wind and 100% Solar 25

26 Kevin Harris (503)