Phase IIA Baseline Generation Deliverability Study Report CAISO Stakeholder Meeting July 14, 2006

Transcription

1 Phase IIA Baseline Generation Deliverability Study Report CAISO Stakeholder Meeting July 14, 2006

2 Today s Agenda Meeting objectives and background Review of deliverability study methodology Phase IIA Deliverability study base case assumptions Review of deliverability study tools Lunch (on your own) How to read the results tables in the report and selected examples of study results Discussion of next steps July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 2

3 Meeting Objectives Review the purpose of deliverability study Review the deliverability study methodology Explain how to read the results tables in the Phase IIA Report Discuss next steps in the Phase II Baseline study process July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 3

4 The Purpose of the Deliverability Assessment CAISO generation interconnection procedures LGIP Section describes the parameters of a deliverability assessment Appendix 1 of the Phase I Baseline Deliverability study describes the information provided to FERC regarding the specific steps, and assumptions that the ISO will use in the performance of deliverability assessments Resource Adequacy deliverability requirements CPUC has adopted CAISO deliverability study methodology for resource counting purposes Deliverability does NOT ensure dispatch: Deliverability does not mean 100% congestion elimination for all load levels. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 4

5 The Purpose of the Deliverability Assessment The CAISO offers two levels of interconnection service Base level Interconnection Service for reliable interconnection and A higher level of Interconnection Service to ensure that generation capacity can be counted for resource adequacy planning purposes The Deliverability Assessment determines the Network Facility upgrades needed to obtain the higher level of service July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 5

6 Overview - How We Got to this Point / ISO proposes generation deliverability methodology to CPUC for Resource Adequacy purposes and to FERC for generation interconnection purposes 2005 ISO completes Phase I Baseline Generation Deliverability assessment of all generation expected to be in operation during summer CPUC and FERC approve methodology for use in Resource Adequacy and Generation Interconnection processes ISO begins Phase II baseline study of new generation projects in the generation interconnection queue July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 6

7 Phase I Study - The Bottom Line - The Phase I Baseline Generation and Import deliverability study confirmed that: historical summer peak imports levels are deliverable. most of the existing generating units in the ISO Control Area are deliverable. Some transmission upgrades are needed over the next few years to make all existing generating units fully deliverable to load using this methodology. ISO is working with the PTOs to identify and implement the necessary transmission upgrades. The ISO is treating all existing generators as fully deliverable until at least 2007 July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 7

8 Deliverability of Generation: Methodology A deliverability assessment is applied to existing and planned generation located in the control area. Phase I baseline study covered all generation expected to be in operation in Phase II baseline study covers existing generation and all generation in the interconnection queue Developed from PJM Methodology (MISO uses a similar methodology) Peak load conditions Aggregate of generation can be transferred to aggregate of the ISO Control Area Load July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 8

9 Study Methodology Capacity resources within a given sub-area must be able to be exported to other parts of the Control Area experiencing a resource shortage due to forced generation outages. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 9

10 Transmission Lines in California July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 10

11 Power Plants in California July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 11

12 Reserve Shortage in California * Summer Peak Load * Power Plants Forced out *** SCENARIO 1*** Forced generation outage July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 12

13 Reserve Shortage in California * Summer Peak Load * Power Plants Forced out *** SCENARIO 1*** All generation in Pocket 1 available Forced generation outage Generation Pocket 1 July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 13

14 Reserve Shortage in California Forced outages are random and occur throughout the system * Summer Peak Load * Power Plants Forced out *** SCENARIO 2*** All generation in Pocket 1 available Forced generation outage Generation Pocket 1 July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 14

15 Generation Pocket Analysis The location of units forced out and causing reserve margin shortage in Scenarios 1 and 2 does not significantly change the loadings on constrained transmission lines associated with the generation pocket The units forced out in Scenarios 1 and 2 are outside of the generation pocket study area, so their status and dispatch levels, in aggregate, do not significantly impact the study area The hundreds of thousands of generation forced outage scenarios can be sufficiently represented by evenly distributing the forced outages across the system July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 15

16 Overview of Test Procedure 1. Build power flow base case model Create base case generation dispatch 2. Create study areas around each line and transformer and analyze them individually 3. Identify overloaded lines and transformers constraining generation capacity and the units that are constrained. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 16

17 Elaborating on the Base Case Dispatch Dispatching generation in the base case essentially means that we evenly distribute the available generation. Since all available capacity is needed, it is all dispatched close to its maximum capacity without consideration of cost. For Phase II study, generation in the queue was grouped into geographic clusters and several base cases were built with all generation in each cluster dispatched close to its maximum capacity in at least one of the base cases. Base case values also represent approximate dispatch of generation outside of the study areas during the analysis. Generation inside of the study areas is maximized during the study. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 17

18 Study Areas Are Created Around Each Line and Transformer Each transmission line and transformer is analyzed individually. A study area is established for each line and transformer that includes all generation with a 5% distribution factor or greater on the particular line or transformer. Capacity generation dispatch inside the study area is maximized to determine the maximum potential loading on the line or transformer. Generation outside the study area is proportionally decreased to balance the load and resources. This process is intended to test the ability of resources inside of the study area to be dispatched at full output when various resources outside of the study area are unavailable. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 18

19 Moss Landing 230 kv Los Banos 230 kv Dos Amigos 230 kv Warnerville 230 kv Bellota 230 kv -16% Melones 230 kv Example Generation Deliverability Test Study Area for Gregg- Borden 230 kv line 1.6% Coburn 230 kv Panoche 230 kv 8.5% Wilson 230 kv Storey 230 kv Line outage 230/115 kv Bank #1 8.8% Henrietta 230 kv 10% Mc Call 230 kv Borden 230 kv Helms 230 kv 23% Gates 230 kv Arco 230 kv Gregg 230 kv Line overload Morro Bay PP 230 kv Gates 500 kv 2% Midway 230 kv DFAX% July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 19

20 Deliverability of Imports -- Assumptions California is dependent on imports to satisfy its resource requirements. Imported resources in the resource plans of all LSEs need to be assessed by the ISO to ensure that they can be simultaneously accommodated on the transmission grid. When relying on imports to meet reserve margin requirements, LSEs with the assistance of the ISO should demonstrate that their imports are deliverable from the tie point to aggregate load on the ISO System using a deliverability test procedure similar to the generation deliverability test. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 20

21 Deliverability of Imports and Internal Generation Assumptions Assessing the deliverability of imports and generation simultaneously will ensure that any interaction between the deliverability of imports and generation is considered. This can be done by modeling import capacity to be used for resource adequacy planning purposes as the starting point for import assumptions in the internal generation deliverability analysis. The initial import capacity is based on historical data during summer peak load and high import conditions. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 21

22 Network model and Generation Capacity Study Assumptions A network model of the ISO Controlled Grid modeling the year 2010 was used for the Phase IIA study. ISO approved transmission projects and delivery network upgrades identified during new generation project interconnection studies were also modeled in the base case Appendix A includes a list of the transmission projects assumed to be completed along with the cost responsibility for the project Phase IIA study includes all generation in the interconnection queue with a queue date earlier than March 30, 2005 Appendix C of the Draft report lists the generation projects in the study Phase IIB will include the remaining generation projects in the queue. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 22

23 Import, Load and Contingency Study -- Assumptions Imports modeled in the base case are the same import levels used in the Phase I study: Summer peak load, maximum import conditions by branch group The 2010, 1 in 5 peak load forecast for the ISO Control Area was modeled in the base case. All NERC Category B and selected Category C contingencies were analyzed while applying the study methodology: Category C.5 (double circuit towerlines) WECC-S2 contingencies on the 500 kv system (common corridor) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 23

24 Deliverability Study Tools

25 Review of Deliverability Study Tools The tools in this study were designed to detect deliverability limitations where the combined output from resources cause overloads on transmission facilities. In this case, the following are key information of each overload that will be reported by the tools as a part of study results: Facilities that could be overloaded. Contingencies that cause the overload. Resources contribute to the overload. How many MW output from these resources should be reduced to maintain the flow on the limiting facility below its applicable rating? July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 25

26 Review of Deliverability Study Tools (Cont) Typically, in order to obtain this information, each facility need to be analyzed individually against different contingencies and generation dispatches which result in a large number of simulated cases. In this study, a DC/AC technique is used instead of analyzing all cases using AC power flow. This technique significantly improves the efficiency of the study as described below: DC Analysis: Screens and selects only the cases with the potential to cause the overloads from all cases. Use DC Linear Analysis to speed up the calculation. Distribution Factors (DFAX) are used to estimated the flow. Because DC approach is used, rating of each element were scaled down to its 96% to cope with reactive power flow. Results from DC approach must be verified again with AC power flow. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 26

27 Review of Deliverability Study Tools (Cont) AC Analysis: Verification process to confirm the identified overloads. For each potential overload, DC analysis provides the following information. Overloaded facility. Contingency that causes the overload. Resources inside gen pocket that contribute to the overload. Then AC analysis re-simulate each scenario using AC power flow and confirm the overload. In addition, specific procedures in the study methodology are applied e.g. limit the number of resources moved inside each gen pocket to 20 units or 1,500 MW. These procedures primarily limit the total amount of generation increase in the Gen pocket to a reasonable level. If criteria violation is detected, calculate resource curtailments that will lower power flow on the overloaded facility below its applicable rating. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 27

28 July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 28

29 How to read the results tables in the report and selected examples of study results

30 How to read the study results This section focuses on the following selected key study results. Table 1: Summary of deliverability overloads identified in this study. Table 2: Conceptual Mitigation Project Alternatives for the overloads identified in table 1, along with rough estimated costs (excluding land). Appendix B: List of the resources inside each generation pocket as identified in Tables 1-2, and figure 1. Dispatches of resources in this appendix are at the level that power flow on the limiting facility is approximately at 100% of its applicable rating. Figure 1: Geographical locations of constrained generation pockets identified in tables 1 & 2. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 30

31 1 Names of generation pockets. Geographical locations of these pockets shown in figure1 5. Total MW capacity of resources in the queue located inside each gen pocket Table 1 2 Transmission facility could be overloaded from the aggregate output of resources in each gen pocket 6. Non-deliverable MW capacity from the total MW of resources in each gen pocket as identified in Column 5 3 Critical contingencies that could cause deliverability overloads 4. Contingency performance level based on NERC/WECC standards 7. Total MW capacity of resources in the queue that is already in-service. 8. Net MW addition of new resource in each pocket =(Total gen in queue)-(not Deliverable)-(Queue gen in service) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 31

32 Example 1 What is this table 1 telling me? For Humboldt Area/Sub Area There are two deliverability overloads identified in this area (2 gen pockets) - driven by 2 category B contingencies that overloading 2 limiting facilities. Both pockets have 66.4 MW of resources in the queue inside their 5% DFAX circles. 32 MW of resources in the queue is not deliverable in the first pocket and 38.8 MW in the second pocket. This implies that the second case is slightly more severe. No resources in the queue located inside both pockets is already in-service. Totally, this area may add up to 27.6 MW ( ) of additional capacity resources to the grid for RA purposes. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 32

33 1 Details of conceptual mitigation project alternatives Table 2 2 Estimated costs of the conceptual mitigation alternatives (excluding land cost) 3 Potential beneficiaries: Non-Deliverable resources that will become deliverable after these conceptual alternatives (or similar) are implemented. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 33

34 Example 3 What is this table 2 telling me? For Humboldt Area/Sub Area An alternative mitigation project to make resources in this subarea fully deliverable (as shown in example MW is not deliverable) is to install a SPS. Cost of this SPS is approximately.5 $M (estimated for the equipment only not including land or other costs). Resources #38 in ISO queue (baseline queue number 1550) will benefit from this reinforcement. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 34

35 Contingency that causes the overload Header of each page indicates the area of the limiting facilities and performance level of the contingencies that cause the overload Appendix B Facilities that could be overloaded (bottleneck) and their ratings * = 0% Deliverable **=Partially Deliverable List of resources inside each gen pocket Bus Numbers of the resources Bus Names Rated Voltage of each bus Resource ID in power flow Resource Status 1=Online 0=Offline Dispatch Level (Deliverable capacity level for units with **) Maximum Capacity Distribution Factor Area Number Queue number used in this study (0=Existing resources) Zone Number Flow Impact = (DFAX * Pmax) / Rating of the facility July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 35

36 Example 4 What is this appendix B telling me? In this pocket The limiting facility is the thermal overload on BORDEN-GREGG 230 kv line #1 The overload could occur during normal conditions (no contingency) 23 resources are in this gen pocket, 19 resources are 100% deliverable as seen from their ouput at Pmax 3 resources are 0% deliverable (Pgen=0), 1 resource (34681) is only 20.7 MW deliverable. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 36

37 Trinity Captain Jack Shasta Malin Round Mountain Celilo Humboldt Keswick PIT River Nuclear Generation Humboldt Olinda Cottonwood Cortina Table Mountain Hyatt Feather River Sierra Generation Substation WECC Transfer Path +500 kv DC 500 kv 230 kv 115 kv Palermo Solano-Contra Costa Cortina Colgate Drum Geysers Geysers Rio Oso Atlantic Summit Fulton Lakeville Vaca Dixon Gold Hill Geysers Ignacio Bird Pittsburgh Landing Wind Master Sobrante Contra Costa Tracy Brighton Bellota Panoche-McCall-Wilson Potrero Pittsburgh Newark Tesla Wilson Big Creek Figure 1 Moss Landing Metcalf Los Banos San Luis Gregg Warnerville Helms Kings River Inyo LDWP Gorge SPP Silver Peak Panoche McCall Control Haiwee Colorado River Intermountain Hoover Balch Inyokern Diablo Canyon Morro Bay Lompoc Mesa Mandalay Lompoc July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 37 Gates Ormond Beach Pardee Vincent Midway Castaic Huntington Beach Encina Esc/Syc Sylmar SONGS Magunden Encina Southbay Antelope Los Coches Rinaldi Santiago Talega Mission Adelanto Toluca Kramer Escondido CFE Tijuana Serrano Miguel Chino Victorville Valley Old Town Devers CFE La Rosita Pisgah Lugo Mira Loma Market Place Mirage Coachella IID Greater SD El Centro USA MEXICO Mead Imperial Valley Central La Rosita II McCullough Crystal Cima Eldorado Mohave East of Devers Termoelectrica De Mexicali Perkins Liberty Navajo Palo Verde North Gila Moenkopi Hassayampa

38 Study results Summary Table (South) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 38

39 Study results Summary Table (South Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 39

40 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (South) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 40

41 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (South Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 41

42 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (South Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 42

43 Study results Summary Table (North) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 43

44 Study results Summary Table (North Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 44

45 Study results Summary Table (North - Cont) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 45

46 Study results Summary Table (North - Cont) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 46

47 Study results Summary Table (North - Cont) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 47

48 Study results Summary Table (North - Cont) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 48

49 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (North) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 49

50 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (North Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 50

51 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (North Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 51

52 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (North Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 52

53 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (North Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 53

54 Study results Conceptual Mitigation Alternatives (North Cont.) July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 54

55 Next Steps

56 Next Steps The CAISO offers two levels of interconnection service Base level Interconnection Service for reliable interconnection and A higher level of Interconnection Service to ensure that generation capacity can be counted for resource adequacy planning purposes The Deliverability Assessment determines the Network Facility upgrades needed to obtain the higher level of service July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 56

57 Notification Step Appendix D contains a draft notification form that the Interconnection Customer (IC) would submit to the CAISO when the Phase IIA study is finalized. The would be used by IC to inform the CAISO of their desired level of deliverability 100 % deliverable The level of deliverability identified in the report without any network upgrades July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 57

58 Supplemental Facilities Study For IC s that are identified as not 100% deliverable in Appendix C, and indicating they want to be 100% deliverable would need to execute a study agreement to perform a Supplemental Facilities Study. The study would identify the scope, schedule and cost of facilities needed to ensure 100 % deliverability under the study conditions July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 58

59 Final Phase IIA Study Stakeholder comments on the draft Phase IIA study are due on July 21, 2006 and should be submitted to and The ISO plans to finalize the study by July 28, A Market Notice will go out when the study is finalized and will request that the Deliverability Service Level Request Forms be submitted. July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 59

60 Phase IIB Study The Phase IIA study includes all generation in the interconnection queue with a queue date earlier than March 30, 2005 Appendix C of the Draft report lists the generation projects in the study Phase IIB will include the remaining generation projects in the queue. The ISO plans to complete the Phase IIB study by the end of 2006 July 14, 2006 Phase IIA Deliverability Study Report 60