erstf loads and resources balance february 2015 meeting...erstf. loads and resources balance. clyde...
TRANSCRIPT
ERSTFLoads and Resources Balance
Clyde Loutan, Senior Advisor – Renewable Energy Integration, CAISO
EPRI Dallas Regional OfficeLas Colinas Tower II
February 3 & 4
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
Loads and Resources Team
Subgroup Lead Company Email
Clyde Loutan CAISO [email protected]
Subgroup Members
Amir Najafzadeh NERC [email protected]
Brendan Kirby Kirby Consulting [email protected]
Dave Devereaux IESO [email protected]
Ed Scott Duke Energy [email protected]
Jay Ruberto First Energy [email protected]
Layne Brown WECC [email protected]
Michael McMullen MISO [email protected]
Michael Milligan NREL [email protected]
Noha Abdel-Karim NERC [email protected]
Pooja Shah NERC [email protected]
Ron Carlsen Southern Company [email protected]
Todd Lucas Southern company [email protected] Siegrist Brickfield, Burchette, Ritts & Stone, P.C. [email protected] Dariush Shirmohammadi California Wind Energy Association [email protected] Tuohy EPRI [email protected]
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
CAISO: 1-Hour Upward Ramping Needs
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2011_1h 3,935 3,630 3,271 2,897 2,951 2,637 3,137 2,933 3,004 3,514 3,746 4,5062012_1hr 3,875 3,394 3,428 2,959 2,736 2,606 2,695 2,766 3,143 3,240 5,358 4,3522013_1hr 4,524 3,557 3,224 2,893 3,072 3,401 2,723 2,380 2,964 3,406 3,759 4,5672014_1hr 3,862 3,374 3,064 3,653 2,527 3,128 2,446 2,320 2,848 3,012 3,192 4,2352018_1hr 5,790 6,545 6,298 5,459 4,515 4,220 3,976 4,774 5,999 6,084 6,794 7,420
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
MW
Maximum 1-Hour Upward Ramps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
CAISO: 3-Hour Upward Ramping Needs
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2011_3hr 6,766 6,067 5,688 5,942 6,732 7,822 7,702 7,251 6,767 6,433 7,098 2012_3hr 7,173 7,028 5,774 6,278 5,543 6,367 7,410 6,591 6,422 6,062 7,2112013_3hr 7,171 6,736 5,881 6,096 8,745 6,426 6,024 6,591 6,609 7,355 8,3432014_3hr 6,170 5,755 5,363 6,394 6,177 6,559 5,879 7,862 5,952 5,844 6,4942018_3hr 15,048 14,100 11,332 11,022 10,769 10,390 12,143 14,174 12,509 15,190 17,179
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
MW
Maximum 3-Hour Upward Ramps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
CAISO: 1-Hour Downward Ramping Needs
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2011_1h -2,823 -2,939 -2,751 -2,758 -3,374 -3,771 -3,994 -3,920 -4,758 -3,267 -2,719 -3,2522012_1hr -3,118 -7,240 -2,940 -3,056 -3,458 -3,457 -4,049 -3,919 -4,220 -3,972 -4,547 -3,0432013_1hr -3,236 -2,663 -3,004 -3,194 -4,043 -3,820 -4,398 -4,140 -3,926 -3,026 -2,849 -3,0442014_1hr -2,506 -2,510 -2,601 -3,554 -4,170 -3,728 -3,826 -3,830 -4,248 -3,453 -2,426 -2,7952018_1hr -4,014 -4,078 -5,344 -4,593 -4,901 -4,672 -4,955 -5,316 -5,659 -4,997 -4,638 -4,590
-8,000
-7,000
-6,000
-5,000
-4,000
-3,000
-2,000
-1,000
0
MW
Maximum 1-Hour Downward Ramps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
CAISO: 3-Hour Downward Ramping Needs
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2011_3hr -7,091 -7,118 -6,711 -6,690 -8,276 -9,248 -10,362 -9,919 -11,684 -8,162 -6,900 -8,202 2012_3hr -7,083 -7,363 -6,900 -7,472 -8,472 -7,734 -9,804 -10,775 -10,195 -10,256 -6,865 -7,6802013_3hr -7,600 -6,794 -6,806 -7,769 -9,908 -10,357 -10,023 -10,438 -10,136 -6,765 -6,643 -7,2272014_3hr -6,258 -6,263 -6,350 -9,330 -10,538 -9,395 -9,813 -10,128 -10,981 -8,996 -6,346 -7,1132018_3hr -8,815 -9,106 -9,086 -9,418 -12,068 -10,684 -11,676 -12,871 -13,143 -10,223 -8,541 -9,572
-14,000
-12,000
-10,000
-8,000
-6,000
-4,000
-2,000
0
MW
Maximum 3-Hour Downward Ramps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
BC Hydro 1-Hour Ramps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
BC Hydro 3-Hour Ramps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY9
Duke Energy Florida (DEF)
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY10
Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC)
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY11
Duke Energy Progress (DEP)
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY12
Measure 6Ramping Capability Measures
The historical and projected maximum one-hour up, one-hour down, three-hour up, and three-hour down net load ramps (actual load less production from VERs) using one minute data.
Year One-hour Up One-hour down Three-hour Up Three-hour Down
2011 6166 -6325 11714 -100962012 5560 -4376 10385 -96142013 4192 -4521 9034 -90722014 4423 -3868 9911 -92362015 4423 -3868 9911 -92362016 4423 -3868 9911 -92362017 4423 -3868 9911 -9236
YearWind
Capacity, MW PV, MW2011 0 02012 0 02013 202 462014 404 502015 404 11822016 654 11822017 654 1670
Southern Company
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY13
Southern Company
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY14
Southern Company
Todd Lucas
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY15
PJM
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY16
PJM
Ken Schuyler
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY17
NERC ERSTF: Data Request Responses, Measure 3&1
Julia Matevosyan, PhDSr. Planning EngineerResource [email protected]
Measure 3, summary BA/ISO NSG,
20142014, %penetration
NSG 2017
2017, %penetration
Inertia Trendingdown?
ERCOT 11,066 39.4% 21,130 75% YesISO NE 3,155* 10% 5,591* 22.5% YesIESO 4,075* 16.3% 5,607* 22% SomewhatMISO 9,653 16% 13,028 21% SomewhatBC Hydro 487.2 13.2% 667.2 12.1% No (too little
NSG)Southern BA 454 1.1% 2,324 1.8% No (new NSG is
mainly PV)Duke: DEF 0 0% 0 0% No (No NSG)Duke: DEC 136 N/A 232 N/A No (too little
NSG)Duke: DEP 320 N/A 495 N/A No (too little NSG,
PV)
* Includes HVDC import and renewables
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4x 10
5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Kin
etic
ene
rgy,
MW
s
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Installed
Capacity, MW 9,116 9,452 10,034 10,570 11,066 19,443 20,630 21,130
Max Pwind/Pload 25.5% 27.4% 29.8% 35.8% 39.4% 69% 73.2% 75%
Pwind, MW 6,483 6,772 7,247 8,773 9,699 17,041 18,082 18,520
Pwind/Pwind_inst 71% 72% 72% 83% 88% 88% 88% 88%
Pload, MW 25,427 24,745 24,328 24,488 24,617 24,700 24,700 24,700
Historic SIR and Future Projections, ERCOT Example
at max wind penetration, historic
at max wind penetration, projected based on SGIAs
∗ at max wind penetration, projected based on SGIA&FCs
ISO NE
4
IESO
2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017 Installed Capacity (HVDC line
Capability included), MW 2955 2955 3452 4075 5607 5607 5607
Max Pwind/Pload 11.2% 14.3% 14.6% 16.3% 22% 22% 22%
Pwind(HVDC Imports included), MW 1794 2560 3114 2735 4055 4055 4055
Pwind/Pinstall 62% 87% 90% 72% 72% 72% 72%
Pload, MW 16084 17937 21335 16822 18045 18045 18045
Minimum Market Demand 12605 11974 12762 12741
Date HE max(γ(t))
2011/11/25 14 11.2%
2012/03/28 7 14.3%
2013/11/18 18 14.6%
2014/04/10 6 16.3%
5
MISO
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Installed Capacity of Wind MW 10,628 12,270 13,035 13,726 15,476 17,001 18,526
Load MW 49,190 40,191 47,263 59,119 59,711 60,308 60,911
Wind MW 7,665 9,906 9,705 9,653 10,883 11,956 13,028
Max Pwind/Pload 16% 25% 21% 16% 18% 20% 21%
Wind Production in % of Installed
Capacity72.12% 80.73% 74.45% 70.32% 70.32% 70.32% 70.32%
Max Load MW 100,795 94,468 92,034 111,318 48,827 48,352 47,883
6
BC Hydro
Historical Projection2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Installed Capacity (Wind Turbine), MW
246 388.2 388.2 487.2 487.2 487.2 667.2
Non-synch gen penetration peak, ɣ(tmax)
5.06%(Apr)
5.96%(Nov)
8.86%(Apr)
13.21%(Sep)
8.80% 8.80% 12.05%
Pwind, MW 199 302 330 336 336 336 460Wind production in % of installed capacity, ɳwind(tmax)
81% 78% 85.0% 69.0% 69.0% 69.0% 69.0%
BCH Load, MW(excluding import/export)
5422 5584 4914 4463 N/A N/A N/A
Pload, MW 3938 5075 3731 2542 3822 3822 3822
Net Load, MW 3739 4773 3211 2206 3486 3486 3362 7
Duke: DEP
Historical and Projected NSG Installation and penetrations at ϒ(tmax)
2014 2015 2016 2017PV Installed cap
320 447 712 712
PV @ ϒ(tmax) 222 309 495 495PV % @ ϒ(tmax)
69.38% 69.05% 69.63% 69.58%
9
Southern BA
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Installed Capacity Non-synch, MW 0 0 248 454 1586 1836 2324
Non-synch. gen. penetration peak 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8% 1.8%
Installed Capacity Wind, MW 0 0 202 404 404 654 654
Pwind, MW 0 0 44 202 202 325 325Wind production in % of installed capacity 0.0% 0.0% 21.8% 50.0% 50.0% 49.7% 49.7%
Pload, MW 17637 16691 17974 18422 18422 18422 18422
10
• How difficult for a BA to gather this data?
• How difficult would it be for a BA to continue tracking this data?
• Did you see any benefit in collecting this data?
Questions
11
Measure 1&2 WECC
Date WSM Cases
System MVA
SIR, MWs Average H Comment
1-Jul-14 216,536 821,212 3.79 WECC Peak
2-Nov-14 162,444 593,100 3.65 WEC Min
early Nov, 2014 185,777 681,534 3.67
19-Nov-14 196,883 731,101 3.71
WECC Base Cases
2015 HS4A1 253,596 932,130 3.68 2015 Heavy Summer
2015 HWA1 228,247 851,119 3.73 2015 Heavy Winter
12
Measure 1, WECC
13
• CBR adjustment ratio, is statistically determined ratio between Point C and Point B frequency deviations.
• Higher CBR will result in higher IFRO
• Even if system frequency response is unchanged, but system inertia is getting low, the difference between Point C and Point B is increasing.
• This will result in higher IFRO for next year
• Disadvantage of this metric: it’s reactive, historic trending and look ahead measure is needed to introduce proper incentives for the right resources.
Will IFRO capture decreasing SIR?
14