parallel flow visualization project
DESCRIPTION
PARALLEL FLOW VISUALIZATION PROJECT. NAESB BPS UPDATE TO Executive Committee August 21, 2012 BY NARINDER K SAINI Ed Skiba Bps-Co-chairs. OVERVIEW. Background Parallel Flow Visualization Objectives NAESB Responsibility IDC Input Proposed Solution Issues NAESB External Next Steps. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
N A E S B B P S U P D A T ET O
E X E C U T I V E C O M M I T T E EA U G U S T 2 1 , 2 0 1 2
B YN A R I N D E R K S A I N I
E D S K I B AB P S - C O - C H A I R S
PARALLEL FLOW VISUALIZATION PROJECT
2
OVERVIEW
BackgroundParallel Flow Visualization ObjectivesNAESB ResponsibilityIDC InputProposed Solution Issues
NAESB External
Next Steps
3
Background: IRO-006 Transmission Loading Relief
Each Reliability Coordinator and Balancing Authority that receives a request pursuant to an Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure (such as Eastern Interconnection TLR, WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation, or congestion management procedures from the ERCOT Protocols) from any Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, or Transmission Operator in another Interconnection to curtail an Interchange Transaction that crosses an Interconnection boundary shall comply with the request, unless it provides a reliability reason to the requestor why it cannot comply with the request.
4
Background: INTERCONNECTION CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
IRO-006-WECC Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief (WECC)
IRO-006-TRE IROL & SOL Mitigation in the ERCOT Region
IRO-006-EAST Transmission Loading Relief Procedures for the Eastern InterconnectionWEQ-008 Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) – Eastern Interconnection Tool – (IDC)Interchange Distribution Calculator
5
Background: PRIMARY PLAYERS
NERC
Consortium
NAESB
NERC Standards CommitteeOperating Reliability Subcommittee IDC Working GroupStandards Drafting TeamsNAESB
Executive CommitteeBPSOASIS SubcommitteeJESS
ConsortiumIn Progress
* Interchange Distribution Calculator
IDC*
6
Parallel Flow Visualization Objectives
Generation to load (GTL) impacts reported to the IDC on a real-time basis
More accurate assignment of relief obligations to entities causing congestion Near real-time data using generator output provided
by RC Include impacts of intra-BA generation-to-load and
point-to-point transactions Differentiate between intra-BA firm and non-firm
transmission service IDC has better data to perform calculations for TLR
Levels 3 and 5
7
NAESB RESPONSIBILITY
NAESB will establish methodology for assigning the generation to load flows into the appropriate buckets.
8
IDC Input
Inter-BANetwork
InterchangeCurrent IDC
Inter-BAPoint-to-PointInterchangeCurrent IDC
Intra-BANetworkNAESB
Parallel Flow Visualization
Intra-BAPoint-to-Point
NERCS‐ Ref 10132*
* http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/All_Directives_Report_2012-04-05.pdf
9
Proposed Solution
Coordination ArrangementsTwo-Tier Firm CurtailmentTwo Methods*
Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service, or Generator Prioritization
Additional Key Concepts
*Assumes that all point-to-point transactions are tagged under NERC standards
Coordination Arrangements
Coordination Arrangements Types Coordination Agreements
An agreement between two or more Transmission Service Providers for coordination of: a) granting transmission service by honoring a set of Flowgate limits and b) managing real-time congestion
Unilateral Declarations allowed if Transmission Service Providers cannot agree
Reciprocity The provision in a Coordination Agreement that may extend certain provisions
beyond the direct signatories of a specific Coordination Agreement.
Jurisdictional entities required to file Coordination Agreements and Unilateral Declarations with FERC
Two-Tier Firm Curtailments – encourages Coordination Arrangements
10
Two-Tier Firm Curtailment
Two-Tier Firm Curtailment First-to-Curtail
The firm transmission service curtailment priority assigned by the IDC to parallel flows due to a lack of Coordination Agreement, Reciprocity, or unilateral agreement.
Last-to-Curtail The firm transmission service curtailment priority assigned by
the IDC to: a) on-path flows and b) parallel flows when a Coordination Agreement, Reciprocity, or Unilateral Declaration exists between the Transmission Service Provider experiencing congestion and (at least one of) the Transmission Service Provider(s) on the path of the transaction whose transmission service is contributing to the congestion.
11
First-to Curtail/Last-to-Curtail: Examples
TSP with Coordination Arrangements12
Last to Curtail TSPs
SOCO TVA DUK PJM MISO SPP EESCONGESTION
SOCO X X XTVA X X X X DUK X X X PJM X X X X
MISO X X X X SPP X X X XEES X X X
Congested TSP: TVA Last to Curtail if tag has TVA, PJM, MISO or SPP on path
Congested TSP: PJM Last to Curtail if tag has TVA, DUK,, PJM or MISO on path
Congested TSP: SPP Last to Curtail if tag has TVA, MISO, SPP or EES on path
13Legend: TSPs: A, B, C, D, E, F, G Firm Contract Path: Tie: Direct Agreements: Reciprocity: Congested FG: Notes: If any segment on the tag
is non-firm the 2-Tier Firm Curtailment process is not applicable.
2-Tier firm Curtailment only applies to off-path.
B
G F
DE
A
C
2 Tier Firm Curtailment
14
B
G F
DE
A
C
Last to Curtail Example
Scenario: Firm Tag Off-Path Congestion Coordinate Agmts in
placeC is coordinated with
at least one TSP on contract path: A-D-F
Tag is Last-to-Curtail
15
B
G F
DE
A
C
First to Curtail Example
Scenario: Firm Tag Off-Path Congestion Limited Coordinate
AgmtsC is not coordinated
with any TSPs on contract path: A-D-F
Tag is First-to-Curtail
16
Methods for Intra-BA Transactions
Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service Method A method used to submit to the IDC transmission
service curtailment priority of the Secondary Network Transmission Service using electronic tags.
Generator Prioritization Method A method used to submit to the IDC transmission
service curtailment priority of the generator output. Difference between what is reported and the
real-time generator output is firm
17
Additional Key Concepts
Balancing Authority to choose either one but not both Methods (Balancing Authority can switch)
Transactions or generation-to-load impacting 5% or greater considered for assigning relief obligations
Credit for RedispatchIDC Processing
Sub-priorities Reloads of Curtailed Transactions
Pseudo-Ties (generator physically in one BA but electrically located in another)
18
Issues: NAESB
Coordination Arrangements Penalty versus incentive - Subcommittee members perception Level of detail in Coordination Arrangements – high level
requirementsTwo-Tier Firm Curtailment
Two-Tier Firm Curtailment – Managing Committee DirectionTransparency of curtailments (OASIS templates)
Non-tagged transactions First-to-Curtail/Last-to-Curtail
Access to data during parallel testFull Staffing concerns
19
Issues: External
NERC Standards (reliability issue/priority) INT standards modified to require tagging on all intra-
BA point-to-point transactions IRO-006-EAST modified to allow a Reliability
Coordinator to request curtailments on intra-BAA point-to-point tags
IDC transitioning from NERC How funding/implementation for change orders to
accommodate Parallel Flow Visualization will be handled/prioritized?
NAESB/Consortium coordination unknown
Next Steps
Documentation Recommendation (in progress) IDC changes supporting document NERC standard changes supporting document
Posting for informal comments (after October meeting) – In Jeopardy Modifications to recommendation (November/December) - ??? Post for formal comments by end of year
Meetings Sept 12-13 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB) October 17-18 – Las Vegas, NV (hosted by OATI) November 14-15 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB) December 11-12 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB)
20
21
QUESTIONS
?