MISO South Local Resource Zones (LRZ) Discussion. LOLE Working Group 5/8/2013

Transcription

1 MISO South Local Resource Zones (LRZ) Discussion LOLE Working Group 5/8/2013

2 Overview: Background Modeling Data Source MISO South Local Resource Zone Evaluations Proof of Concept Study Results Capacity Import Limits Capacity Export Limits Local Reliability Requirement High Level Results Summary Next Steps 2

3 Background: MISO performed a 2013 Proof-of-Concept (POC) Study, which is an analysis to test out any proposed MISO South Local Resource Zones (LRZ) Comparable to the POC study conducted in 2011 to test out the seven MISO Midwest LRZs MISO used what modeling data that was available for POC study Transfer Analysis: 2013 Summer Peak Load-Flow model updated with MISO South data LOLE Analysis: PROMOD PowerBase load and generator data Class Average Forced Outage Rates 3

4 MISO South Local Resource Zone Evaluations Selection Criteria Based on: State Regulatory Authority Geographical Boundaries Zone Size (Load and Generation totals) Local Balancing Authorities (LBA) Definitions Derivation of two different configurations: 2 New LRZs (Arkansas & remainder) 3 New LRRs (Arkansas, Mississippi & remainder) 4

5 2013 MISO South Local Resource Zones (LRZ) Proof-of-Concept (POC) Study Two different analysis (Transfer & LOLE) were performed to calculate example LRZ metrics for POC study Transfer Analysis: Used to calculate Capacity Import and Export Limits (CIL and CEL) The most limiting constraint results are shown in this presentation More detailed Transfer Analysis Results with additional constraints are posted in a spreadsheet with meeting materials LOLEWG Item 03 POC Transfer Analysis Results.xlsx Stakeholder review of Limiting Element & Contingency pairs Since these transfer analysis results are the 1 st results shown for MISO South LRZs, any feedback received on invalid constraints will go into the 2014 LOLE Study process and improve the 1 st round of preliminary CIL/CEL results LOLE Analysis Calculated Local Reliability Requirements (LRR) Used CIL to illustrate Local Clearing Requirements (LCR) 5

6 Configuration: Two New MISO South LRZs Two-Zone Configuration LRZ Area Name State 8 BUBA City of Benton, AR AR 8 CWAY City of Conway, AR AR 8 EES-EAI Entergy Arkansas AR 8 NLR City of North Little Rock, AR AR 8 OMLP City of Osceola, AR AR 8 PLUM Plum Point Energy Associates (PPEA), LLC AR 8 PUPP Panda Union Power Partners AR 8 WMU City of West Memphis, AR AR 9 BCA Batesville Generation MS 9 BRAZ Brazos Electric Cooperative TX 9 CLEC Central Louisiana Electric Company LA 9 DERS City of Ruston, LA LA 9 EES Entergy Electric System LA,TX 9 EES-EMI Entergy Mississippi MS 9 LAFA Lafayette Utilities LA 9 LAGN Louisiana Generating Company LA 9 LEPA Louisiana Energy and Power Authority LA 9 SMEPA South Mississippi Electric Power Association MS 6

7 Transfer Analysis Results Two Zone Configuration Capacity Import Limit (CIL) LRZ CIL Limiting Element Contingency Facilities 8 5,933 Union - Browns Ferry 500kV C:LS_B_388702, Disconnect Daniel 230kV bus 9 3,554 Coly 500/230kV Transformer Willow Glen - Coly 500kV Capacity Export Limit (CEL) LRZ CEL Limiting Element Contingency Facilities 8 3,464 Sheridan - Mabelvale 500kV White Bluff - Keo 500kV 9 2,716 Flowgate SHRMAB_KEO, Sheridan - Mabelvale 500kV White Bluff - Keo 500kV 7

8 Configuration: Three New MISO South LRZs Three-Zone Configuration LRZ Area Name State 8 BUBA City of Benton, AR AR 8 CWAY City of Conway, AR AR 8 EES-EAI Entergy Arkansas AR 8 NLR City of North Little Rock, AR AR 8 OMLP City of Osceola, AR AR 8 PLUM Plum Point Energy Associates (PPEA), LLC AR 8 PUPP Panda Union Power Partners AR 8 WMU City of West Memphis, AR AR 9 BRAZ Brazos Electric Cooperative TX 9 CLEC Central Louisiana Electric Company LA 9 DERS City of Ruston, LA LA 9 EES Entergy Electric System LA,TX 9 LAFA Lafayette Utilities LA 9 LAGN Louisiana Generating Company LA 9 LEPA Louisiana Energy and Power Authority LA 10 BCA Batesville Generation MS 10 EES-EMI Entergy Mississippi MS 10 SMEPA South Mississippi Electric Power Association MS 8

9 Transfer Analysis Results Three Zone Configuration Capacity Import Limit (CIL) LRZ CIL Limiting Element Contingency Facilities 8 5,933 Union - Browns Ferry 500kV C:LS_B_388702, Disconnect Daniel 230kV bus 9 3,419 Coly 500/230kV Transformer Willow Glen - Coly 500kV 10 1,298 Freeport - Twinkle Town 230kV Freeport - Horn Lake 230kV Capacity Export Limit (CEL) LRZ CEL Limiting Element Contingency Facilities 8 3,464 Flowgate SHRMAB_KEO, Sheridan - Mabelvale 500kV White Bluff - Keo 500kV 9 1,913 Flowgate SHRMAB_KEO, Sheridan - Mabelvale 500kV White Bluff - Keo 500kV 10 2,531 Moon Lake - Ritchie 230kV Batesville - Tallahatchie Industrial Park 161kV 9

10 LOLE Analysis Results LOLE Analysis Results Local Resource Zone (LRZ) LRZ-8 LRZ-9 LRZ-8 LRZ-9 LRZ-10 Areas 2 Zone Configuration EAI EES, LEPA, SMEPA, CLECO, LAGN, LAFA EAI 3 Zone Configuration EES(Exc Miss), LEPA, CLECO, LAGN, LAFA EES-EMI, SMEPA Installed Capacity (ICAP) 11,843 33,623 11,843 26,540 7,083 [A] Unforced Capacity (UCAP) 11,291 31,893 11,291 25,182 6,711 [B] Adjustment to UCAP to meet LOLE Criteria {1d in 10yr} -2,680-5,770-2,680-3, [C] Local Reliability Requirement (LRR) 8,611 26,123 8,611 21,782 5,766 [D]=[B]+[C] Non-Coincident Load Calculations (LRZ Peak) LRZ Peak Load 6,283 23,483 6,283 19,390 4,101 [E] LRR per-unit of Non-Coincident load 137.1% 111.2% 137.1% 112.3% 140.6% [F]=[D]/[E] Transfer Analysis Results Capacity Import Limit (CIL) 5,933 3,554 5,933 3,419 1,298 [G] Capacity Export Limit (CEL) 3,464 2,716 3,464 1,913 2,531 [H] Planning Resource Auction (PRA) Example LRZ Peak Load 6,293 23,493 6,293 19,400 4,111 [I] LRZ Load Coincident to MISO Peak 6,088 22,648 6,088 18,700 3,948 [J] Coincidence Factor 103.4% 103.7% 103.4% 103.7% 104.1% [K]=[I]/[J] LRR per-unit of Coincident load 141.7% 115.4% 141.7% 116.5% 146.4% [L]=[F]x[K] PRA Updated - Local Reliability Requirement (LRR) 8,625 26,134 8,625 21,793 5,780 [M]=[J]x[L] Local Clearing Requirement (LCR) 2,692 22,580 2,692 18,374 4,482 [N]=[M]-[G] LCR per-unit of Coincident load 44.2% 99.7% 44.2% 98.3% 113.5% [O]=[N]/[J] Planning Reserve Margin (PRM) 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% [P]= Greater of 6.2% 13.5% or [O]-100% Planning Reserve Margin Requirement (PRMR) 6,465 24,052 6,465 19,859 4,482 [Q]=([P]+100%)x[J] 10

11 High Level Results Summary All but one of the test zones (LRZ-10) showed it had Capacity Import Limit large enough to receive the MISO Planning Reserve Margin of 6.2% CIL values are preliminary, review of Transfer-Limit Analysis results is important All test zones demonstrated that they have enough resources to meet the zonal Planning Reserve Margin Requirements Note: The POC study is only a review of LRZs and none of the results are used further than the evaluations of proposed LRZs The 2014 Loss of Load Expectation(LOLE) Study will determine: A single Planning Reserve Margin (PRM) for all of MISO (Midwest and Southern regions) for the June 1 st 2014 through May 31 st 2015 Planning Year All MISO LRZs for the 2014 Planning Resource Auction (PRA) and the MISO South LRZs for the Transitional Auction for the MISO South Establish LRZ metrics like: Capacity Import Limit (CIL) Capacity Export Limit (CEL) Local Reliability Requirement (LRR) 11

12 Pros and Cons: Three Zone vs. Two Zone Configuration Pros: More granular zones addresses better FERC instructions in our Resource Adequacy (RA) construct to observe local reliability Observes state jurisdictional authority Addresses geographical boundaries of the Mississippi River Cons: Maybe difficult to implement depending on Local Balancing Authority (LBA) definition or splitting LBAs Relative size of a third zone is small compared to other zones Since each MISO LRZ load is required to meet the 1-day in 10-years LOLE criteria, a smaller zone with fewer resources is held to the same reliability criteria as a larger zone with more resources Potential exposure to zonal charges if price separation occurs during PRA Market behavior could drive internal load to be severed by outside zone resources, which would use up CIL, the inverse is also true that could use up CEL Market Efficiency Project (MEP) Cost Allocation Allocation of cost by load ratio share within LRZ 12

13 Next Steps and Finalizing New Member LRZs Schedule May 8 th LOLEWG Meeting (now) Review MISO South Proof-of-Concept Study Results May 8 th through May 22 nd (2-weeks) Receive Stakeholder & Regulator Feedback on MISO South LRZs June 6 th SAWG and June 12 th LOLEWG Meetings July Final MISO South LRZs presented File final LRZ definition map with FERC (Attachment to Tariff) June Oct LRZs used in 2014 LOLE Study Nov 1 st Business as Usual June 1 st 2014 May 31 st 2015 Planning Year Transitional Auction period for the MISO South 2014 LOLE Study Report and Results finalized 13

14 Contact Info Brandon Heath (651) MISO Stakeholder Working Group LOLEWG ESWORKGROUPSTASKFORCES/LOLEWG/Pages/home.aspx Kevin Larson (317) MISO Stakeholder Working Group SAWG ESWORKGROUPSTASKFORCES/SAWG/Pages/home.aspx 14