Presentation on theme: "UFMP methodology changes in the updated webSAS February 2015 A video presentation reviewing the webSAS UFMP methodology changes going into effect March."— Presentation transcript:
UFMP methodology changes in the updated webSAS February 2015 A video presentation reviewing the webSAS UFMP methodology changes going into effect March 4th 2015 Craig Williams – WECC Market Interface Manager email@example.com@wecc.biz 801-883-6846
Why Did We Update the UFMP? The previous UFMP relief requirement calculation methodology did not take into account the transmission priority on tags when determining relief requirement allocations. This is not in line with the pro forma OATT. – Order 888 – Order 890 – Order 713-A and 713-B
UFAS Recommendation After a long period of development the Unscheduled Flow Administrative Subcommittee in March 2012 recommended to the OC and WECC Board that the Relief Requirement calculation methodology be updated and modified to utilize a combination of Transmission Priority and Transfer Distribution Factor to determine Relief Requirement allocations for unscheduled flow events.
Three Main Changes to the UFMP 1.There are now 16 groups of tags based on transmission priority and On or Off-Path status.
Three Main Changes to the UFMP Group 1 – Priority 0 (0-NX) off-path Group 2 – Priority 0 on-path Group 3 – Priority 1 (1-NS) off-path Group 4 – Priority 1 on-path Group 5 – Priority 2 (2-NH) off-path Group 6 – Priority 2 on-path Group 7 – Priority 3 (3-ND) off-path Group 8 – Priority 3 on-path
Three Main Changes to the UFMP Group 9 – Priority 4 (4-NW) off-path Group 10 – Priority 4 on-path Group 11 – Priority 5 (5-NM) off-path Group 12 – Priority 5 on-path Group 13 – Priority 6 (6-NN, 6-CF) off-path Group 14 – Priority 6 on-path Group 15 – Priority 7 (7-F, 7-FN) off-path Group 16 – Priority 7 on-path
Three Main Changes to the UFMP 2.Only e-tag schedules with Transfer Distribution Factors (TDF) greater than or equal to 10 Percent are utilized for curtailment. 3.The effective transmission priority is determined by: – The lowest priority on any leg for Off-Path Tags. – The priority of the On-Path Transmission segment for On-Path Tags.
Comparison of Methodology The USF Task Force evaluated several different USF events to compare the impact of these changes. To ensure comparability, the MW relief required under the previous methodology was used as the target relief required for new methodology. The number of tags curtailed and the total amount of MWs curtailed were compared.
Additional Benefits Under the previous program, we moved from Step 1 to Step 9 depending on the severity of the event. The new methodology has four steps: – Step 1Path Operator advises the RC of the situation. – Step 2 Path Operator uses available devices to mitigate flows. – Step 3 Coordinated Operation of Phase Shifters. – Step 4 Path Operator requests a specific amount of relief and e-tag curtailments are calculated.
Example Previous Process – Step 7 Relief Available 100 MWs – Step 8 Relief Available 100 MWs – Step 9 Relief Available 300 MWs – Needed relief is 150 MWs. – QTPO requests Step 9 New Method QTPO requests 150 MW relief
Additional Methodology Changes Once an Event is called, Restricted Transactions will be curtailed to zero after approval. - Approval allows them to be reloaded if required and follows transmission priority requirements. Restricted Transactions may bump schedules with lower priority transmission when they are approved.
Additional Methodology Changes Each hour will be a distinct Event – If a Restricted Transaction is for multiple hours, then all hours after the first hour may be able to flow, dependent upon its transmission priority and TDF. The mathematics have changed to a TDF squared methodology to reduce the amount of tags curtailed in an event.
Go live is scheduled for March 4, 2015 Please direct your questions to: Craig Williams firstname.lastname@example.org 801-883-6846 Questions?