ECC Task Force Meeting August 30, 2016

Transcription

1 ECC Task Force Meeting August 30, 2016

2 Anti-Trust Statement I would like to remind ECC Task Force members and observers that this meeting is being conducted subject to the condition and requirements of NERC s Antitrust Guidelines, which supports compliance with antitrust laws and the avoidance of all conduct that unreasonably restrains competition. A copy of NERC s Antitrust Compliance Guidelines will be provided upon request. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your antitrust responsibilities, please see a member of Peak s Legal Department. The NERC Antitrust Guidelines are available at: liance%20guidelines.pdf 2

3 Agenda 1. Introductions and Meeting Arrangements (Kevin Pera, ECC Chair) a. Daily Schedule and accommodations b. Agenda Overview/Changes c. State of Affairs ECC Task Force 2. Review Charter/Update as needed (Chair) 3. Review/Renew Membership a. Refresh/Seek officer commitments b. Request and receive nominations for membership c. Plan for finalizing roster 4. Peak Update on ECC (Peak Staff) a. Current ECC i. Tool development ii. Users iii.expectations for current situational awareness use b. High level review of next phases c. What Peak RC needs from the ECC Task Force 5. Items at hand a. Review past ECCTF efforts on technical and policy concerns (curtailment methodology, Dynamic Transfers, Market/BA seams issues) b. Current and future user engagement c. WebSAS integration d. User-defined paths 6. Rolling it up a. Determine action items b. Plans for next meeting(s) c. Smaller technical advisory groups as needed 3

4 Peak Update on ECC

5 Current ECC - Phase 1A Foundational design that can be built upon as future phases are implemented Current phase provides situational awareness for Peak, TOPs, and BAs to use in formulating mitigation plans 5

6 How Does ECC Work? WSM State Estimator (including contingency) Telemetry (ACE, PT & DS) E-Tags 4-6 weeks 5 min 5 min 1 min ECC Monitored Equipment (PTDF / OTDF) (Interfaces, Single transmission lines, Contingency groupings) Factors / Impacts (5 min) Visualization e-tags Load ACE DT DC Lines Phase Shifters 6

7 Value of Current ECC Collaborative situational awareness tool for RC, TOPs, BAs o Sandbox for TOP elements Identify composition of congestion (layers) Support required RT assessments (TOP-001-3) Quantitative look at ACE / Gen Redispatch options 7 Foundation for future congestion management changes (websas, etc.)

8 What Peak is Monitoring with ECC WECC TOP Paths Other important thermal limit equipment o E.g. Aliso Canyon OTDF Elements out of Peak studies (Next Day/OPA, ROE, etc.) 8

9 ECC Metrics 132 Active Elements o 95 PTDF o 37 OTDF Monitoring Thresholds o PTDF = 95% NORMAL LIMIT (90% on QPs) o OTDF = 100% HIGHEST AVAILABLE LIMIT Congestion o June = 185 Events on 32 Elements (25 PTDF, 7 OTDF) 3 of 4 Qualified Paths o July = 276 Events on 25 Elements (20 PTDF, 5 OTDF) All 4 Qualified Paths 9

10 Ongoing Phase 1A Development Continuing to pursue variances and enhancements for current time situational awareness o Improved data visualization for end users o Optimize data & calculations o Streamline efforts for incorporating elements in timely fashion (e.g. OTDFs generated from Peak RTCA) 10

11 Mapping Process in ECC Mappings are optional as ECC can use BA-level factors as a proxy Mappings provide more accurate determination of e-tag, Dynamic Transfer, and Generation and Load impacts (use factor from bus of generation or load) More important in websas integration phase as websas currently has zonal mapping in place 11

12 Mapping Process in ECC Peak investigations find the following types of mapping issues: Small generation that is below the threshold of Peak modeling practice but has an e-tag Source name 2. Is small generation modeled as load in Peak a net meter that has more load than gen? 3. For an e-tag Sink name, what one line or contract defines all the load points? 4. If a sink point contains multiple feeders, can a static percentage be used? 5. What if Peak does not model some of the load points but an e-tag Sink name exists? 6. Are JOU contracts too complex to model the owner shares?

13 Mapping Process in ECC Mapping efforts require one or more SMEs within an entity who understand the intersection between EMS modeling, contracts for gens and loads, and e-tag scheduling practices Peak plans to begin with webinars to the industry for mapping processes and reaching out to EIR contacts 13

14 Current ECC Phase 1A Rollout Series of webinars in May and June Tool now available to BAs and TOPs Training documentation also available Documentation and processes at peakrc.org 14

15 Materials at PeakRC.org Training 15 o Materials used in Train the Trainer sessions o Process to request training environment Production Provisioning o Process for entity to request first admin user o Subsequent users configured by entity admin o Simultaneous access still capped at 3 users Element Requests o Nomination TOPs requesting sandbox elements o Activation BAs requesting definition from Peak

16 Current ECC Users Peak (as of June 6 th ) 3 TOPs 4 BA / TOPs Outreach to UFMP Path Operators with websas Integration Phase next 16

17 Peak s Expectation for Phase 1A Usage Peak s mitigation philosophy does not change with the ECC; additional tool to monitor congestion and provide additional information Additional use cases: 1. Situational Awareness 2. Collaborative tool between Peak and TOPs/BAs 3. Assists with TOP RT assessments 4. Quantitative look at ACE / Gen Redispatch options 5. Sandbox for TOPs to monitor their system 17

18 Use Case for ECC PATH SOL = 1000 BA 1 BA 2 BA 3 Line A 18 Line B

19 Use Case for ECC 80% BA 1 BA 2 PATH SOL = 1000 BA 3 Line A Path SOL takes into account the system limitations of flows across BA 3 19 Line B

20 Use Case for ECC BA 1 BA 2 PATH SOL = 1000 BA 3 Line A Path SOL is protecting overloads on Line A FLO Line B 20 Line B

21 Use Case for ECC Curtail e-tags by100 MW BA 1 BA 2 PATH SOL = 1000 BA 3 Line A Current approach may be to curtail e-tags to get below SOL 21 Line B

22 Use Case for ECC Path Mitigation Approach Curtail e-tags by 100 MW Path Gen GSF = -80% Path Gen GSF = +75% BA 1 BA 2 ACE = +200 PATH ACE = -90 SOL = 1000 BA 3 ECC shows that tag curtailment is not effective and that Path mitigation is not efficient for underlying issue 22

23 Use Case for ECC Mitigation of Actual Constraint BA 1 BA 2 PATH SOL = 1000 Element Gen GSF = -3% Element Gen GSF = +7% Tag TDF = 10% Gen GSF = 90% BA 3 Rather than moving large tag, gen, or ACE amounts on proxy Path, effective small gen movement near issue is shown by ECC 23

24 websas Integration Next phase for design / implementation Plan is to keep existing functionality but incorporate into ECC Phase 1A platform o No changes to UFMP plan More accurate TDFs and mappings Minimize GUI changes 24

25 What does not change from websas? Workflow for issuance USF procedures 25 o Timing for TOP issuance o Timing for the RC to Approve o Timing for BA Curtailment acknowledgements USF Calculations do not change (except for using more accurate TDFs) Competing Path methodology remains the same as currently implemented in websas Reports and GUI for USF procedures have very minimal changes

26 websas Integration Timeline OATI completed software design Successful high-level demonstration to Peak week of August 22 nd Next step will be to perform site acceptance testing o Tentatively scheduled for mid-september o Want to utilize Path Operators in SAT 26

27 websas Integration Timeline After successful site acceptance testing: o Parallel operations (approx. 3 months): Current websas tool is tool of record but ECC USF will generate study events for comparison Also can test data with study events in both systems o Stakeholder training Feedback from Phase 1A was too much lag between training and rollout TENTATIVE GO-LIVE DATE BY Q

28 websas and Mapping As previously discussed, mapping is necessary for websas integration to succeed Peak will work with Path Operators to update On-Path and Off-Path mappings o Test with existing set from websas Source/sink mapping will require entity outreach as previously discussed o Will take time to complete with all BAs 28

29 websas and Mapping Peak is investigating using the websas zonal factors in ECC for testing / parallel ops while pursuing the more granular mappings 29 o Restricts variability between systems to factor calculations (static vs. 5-minute refresh) o Provides additional time for Peak to roll out process and work with individual entities o Removes large differences where BA-BA vs. Zone-Zone showed large (50%+) factor mismatch

30 Future ECC Phases Future Hour Visualization o Provide similar situational awareness that is provided with Phase 1A o Incorporates new data sources (Forecast data, Outages, etc.) o Balance design with usage and overlap against other Peak tools 30

31 Future ECC Phases Expanded Congestion Management o Provide RC additional capability to automatically address congestion via curtailment o Ensure that Dynamic Transfer and market transfers are effectively monitored for seams coordination o Peak is looking for the industry to collaborate on a viable curtailment strategy 31

32 What Peak Needs from ECCTF Primarily will cover in the Items at Hand Future Hour = how far into future to visualize Expanded Congestion Management = review strawman and technical challenges; provide SME review of proposed methodologies 32

33 Timeline Key Milestones June 2016 ECC Real-time Situational Awareness released Q websas functionality migrated to ECC Q Q congestion management plan developed April 2017 IRO/TOP standards in place Q Future hour situational awareness Q ECC upgraded to manage congestion on facilities & Paths beyond Qualified Paths 33

34 Items at Hand

35 Definition of Congestion Management is Changing 35 Today UFMP addresses only 4 qualified Paths Other Paths/facilities currently are managed through operating procedures or plans Future Different operating paradigm market expansion, required Real-time Assessments for TOPs Stronger seams coordination is needed across BA and Market footprints Enhanced Curtailment Calculator (ECC) will be an Interconnection-wide mechanism to manage congestion

36 Peak s Direction Continued refinement of ECC to improve congestion visibility & the contributing factors Develop/implement with stakeholders a congestion management plan to address all Paths/facilities to move beyond UFMP 36 o Reliable, fair, and equitable o ECC will be the mechanism to implement Plan will accommodate both market and non-market needs and obligations

37 Collaboration/Next Steps Peak working with ECCTF to initiate discussions on future congestion management framework Peak continuing to improve ECC functionality to maximize value to operations We want the industry s voice (ECCTF, UFAS, etc.) to be heard as we develop tool / framework 37

38 Key Principles of Future Congestion Management Reliability All Paths & facilities Fair and equitable Real-time data and assessments Interconnection-wide Current hour and future hour Expanded controls: phase shifters, e-tags, generation re-dispatch, dynamic schedules Applicable compensation mechanisms 38

39 Technical / Policy Concerns Curtailment methodology o Key challenges 16-bucket or not? Automatic adjustments to other layers? Generation? ACE? Dynamic Transfers? Elements that are part of automatic CM 39

40 Technical / Policy Concerns What filings are needed for expanded congestion management? o Changes to NERC IRO-006? o Changes to UFMP? Something different? o Other impacts to NERC, FERC, or TP OATT? 40

41 Current and Future User Engagement Phase 1A has been voluntary o TOPs and BAs can adopt as needed websas Integration requires transition for all entities (TOPs, BAs, and now PSEs) o OATI has provided contact info for current websas entities 41

42 Current and Future User Engagement Future Engagement o The upcoming phases require industry participation and then COMMUNICATION of the direction chosen (especially for expanded congestion management) What mechanisms should Peak use to keep the stakeholders effectively engaged and informed? 42