Intervention Pricing Working Group. Meeting 5: 30 May :30 AM 12:30 PM

Transcription

1 Intervention Pricing Working Group Meeting 5: 30 May :30 AM 12:30 PM

2 Agenda 1. Previous Meeting Minutes and Action Items 2. Feasibility Study 3. Implementation of Proposed Approach 4. Confirmation of Prospective Rule changes 5. Next Steps 6. Meeting Close 2

3 1. Action Items from IPWG Meeting #4 3

4 ACTION ITEMS FROM 22 MARCH 2018 Action Item #1: AEMO to add new views for consolidated RegionSolution tables Issue 1: Price and Region Solution results are being published in separate tables for DS, PD (e.g. DISPATCHPRICE and DISPATCHREGIONSUM, PREDISPATCHPRICE and PREDISPATCHREGIONSUM) Proposed Solution: New views to be created to consolidate the Price and RegionSolution results for DS, PD tables. Indicative timeline for implementation: EOY Release (end of November 2018). Issue 2: 5MPD tables only publish one set of results (I=1 or I=0) during Interventions. Proposed Solution: Publish both sets of results (I=1 and I=0) during Interventions. Indicative timeline for implementation: EOY Release (end of November IPWG Meeting #5 30 May ).

5 ACTION ITEMS FROM 22 MARCH 2018 Action Item #2: AEMO to conduct feasibility study of Option 5.1 and report back to IPWG with results. Feasibility Study paper circulated with meeting pack. Overview of study outcomes to be covered in later slides. Action Item #3: AEMO to assess materiality impact of excluding net direct costs in AP compensation payments. Rule Clause (j)(1) allows AEMO to take avoided net direct costs into consideration while determining AP payments. Current methodology for determination of AP compensation payments does not consider avoided net direct costs. IPWG requested AEMO to assess the materiality impact of net direct costs in AP compensation payments. AEMO conducted materiality impact studies using two approaches. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

6 Avoided Net Direct costs Materiality Impact study Cases: January 2018 (extreme prices, system strength direction) February 2018 (normal prices, system strength direction) Approach: Static SRMC value for each DUID - Estimated by consultants, used in long-term Planning studies (ISP, VAPR) New AP compensation payment (with avoided net direct costs) = Old AP compensation payment (w/o avoided net direct costs) - MWh x SRMC Apply $5000/TI threshold Findings from Approach: January 2018: AP comp. ($5000/TI) AP comp. ($5000/TI)_Stat ic SRMC AP comp. ($5000/even t) ~$542k ~$400k ~$1.25mn ~$822k AP comp. ($5000/event)_Sta tic SRMC February 2018: AP comp. ($5000/TI) AP comp. ($5000/TI)_Stati c SRMC AP comp. ($5000/event) ~$149k Nil ~$492k ~$114k AP comp. ($5000/event)_Stati c SRMC IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

7 ACTION ITEMS FROM 22 MARCH 2018 Action Item #4: AEMO to conduct further studies to assess the impact of Directions with and without counter-actions. Effectiveness of counter-actions during Interventions was discussed at last meeting (b)(11) requires AEMO to ensure that as far as reasonably practical, during AEMO Intervention events: No. of Affected participants; and the effect of interconnector flows be minimised. Historical Assessment seemed to indicate no. of APs for Directions with CA were similar or more than no. of APs for Directions w/o CA. IPWG requested AEMO conduct further studies to assess whether CAs were effective in reducing effect on interconnector flows. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

8 Effect of Counter-actions on Interconnector flows Simulation studies Cases: 09 February 2017 (Direction for reliability with CA) April 2017 (Direction for minimum no. of synchronous units online with CA) November 2017 (System Strength Direction with CA) Approach: Simulate above cases w/o CA (by removing CA constraints) and compare IC flows. Findings: 09 Feb IPWG Meeting #5 30 May 2018

9 Effect of Counter-actions on Interconnector flows Simulation studies April 2017: IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

10 Effect of Counter-actions on Interconnector flows Simulation studies November 2017: Simulations provide conclusive evidence that Counter-actions do reduce the effect on Interconnector flows. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

11 2. Feasibility Study 11

12 Issue and Proposed Approach Current approach: Inconsistent set of inputs to feedback constraint equations in the Pricing run produces anomalous What-If prices (e.g. 09 Feb 2017 and 13 Jan 2018) Proposed approach: Use consistent set of inputs (all measured values) for all feedback constraint equations in Pricing runs. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

13 Reasoning for Proposed Approach Technical limits for network elements are the same between Outturn (Physical) and Pricing runs. Feedback constraint equations reflecting network limits should have same RHS between Outturn (Physical) and Pricing runs. Proposed approach ensures same technical envelope between Outturn (Physical) and Pricing runs. Historical Cases: Feasibility Study conducted on 20 historical intervention events between Feb 2017 and March Approach: 1. For each case, identify the Thermal, Voltage and Stability feedback constraint equations with Analog (SCADA) terms on the RHS. 2. Force the RHS of the constraint equations (identified in 1.) in the Pricing run of each DI to be the same value produced in the Outturn run. 3. All Other constraint equations would be dynamically determined as per outcomes in Pricing run. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

14 Proposed Approach Constraint Classification Constraint Type FCAS Ramp NC NRM NSA Fixed Loading Constraint Description FCAS Requirement Constraints Network ramping constraints Non-conformance constraints Negative Residue Management constraints Network Support Agreement Unit fixed loading constraints Proposed Approach Dynamic (RHS calculated as per outcomes in Pricing run) Dynamic (RHS calculated as per outcomes in Pricing run) Dynamic (RHS calculated as per outcomes in Pricing run) Dynamic (RHS calculated as per outcomes in Pricing run) Dynamic (RHS calculated as per outcomes in Pricing run) Dynamic (RHS calculated as per outcomes in Pricing run) ROC Rate of Change constraints Dynamic (RHS calculated as per outcomes in Pricing run) System normal constraints Feedback constraints Static (RHS calculated same as Outturn run) IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

15 Feasibility Study Outcomes 09 Feb 2017 Extreme cases: Feb 2017: No. of high price intervals in NSW reduced in the rerun. The high price at DI ending 1630 hrs persisted (expected result). IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

16 Feasibility Study Outcomes 09 Feb 2017 Extreme cases: Feb 2017: No. of high price intervals in QLD reduced in the rerun. The high price at DI ending 1630 hrs persisted (expected result). IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

17 Feasibility Study Outcomes 09 Feb 2017 Extreme cases: Feb 2017: No. of high price intervals in SA reduced in the rerun. High prices persisted for 7 DIs (expected result). IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

18 Feasibility Study Outcomes 09 Feb 2017 Extreme cases: Feb 2017: VIC-NSW target flow higher in the rerun. the The higher flow across VIC-NSW interconnector in the rerun resulted in reduced no. of high price intervals in NSW, QLD. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

19 Feasibility Study Outcomes 13 Jan 2018 Extreme cases: Jan 2018: No high price intervals in QLD in the rerun. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

20 Feasibility Study Outcomes 13 Jan 2018 Extreme cases: Jan 2018: QNI target flow higher in the rerun. The less restrictive limits in the rerun for the QNI interconnector allowed more flow north (NSW -> QLD), thus reducing the prices in QLD. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

21 Feasibility Study Outcomes Normal cases Price Statistics: % of DIs when Rerun What-If price > Original Outturn price Rerun What-If price > Original Outturn price for most DIs Avg. price deviation, Rerun What-If price vs. Orig. What-If price & Orig. Outturn price Rerun What-if prices did not deviate by a large margin as compared IPWG Meeting #5 to 30 May the

22 3. Implementation of Proposed Approach 22

23 Rule Consultation Rule Clause (e) requires AEMO to consult with the market any changes to the Intervention Pricing Methodology. Full Rules consultation required to incorporate changes into the Methodology document. Indicative timelines for Rule Consultation provided below: Timelines for publication of Draft report and Final report could be reduced. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

24 Implementation Project 1. Implementation of proposed approach involves: Flag each constraint equation as Feedback (Flag = 1) or Non-feedback (Flag = 0) Different computation of constraint equation RHS in Outturn and Pricing runs, depending on Flag = 1 or 0. Algorithm above will ensure RHS of feedback constraints in the Pricing run are computed in the same manner as Outturn (Physical) run. Indicative timeline for implementation: EOY Release (end of November 2018). IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

25 Other issues relating to Pricing runs Generator trips 2. Generator trips not being reflected in Pricing run: What-If Initial MW (Starting point) of generators in the Pricing run is the same as target from previous run i.e. no linkage to actual output. Only information available to Pricing run of a generator trip is the rebid submitted by the generator. Tripped generator ramps down in accordance with its ramp-down rate (which could take hours for units with smaller ramp rates) The above issue can be avoided by adding the following check into the Pricing runs: For all DUIDs in each DI: IF [(Bid Availability = 0) AND (InitialMW = 0)], THEN What-If InitialMW = 0 MW. For any capacity reduction other than a reduction to 0 MW, it is difficult to conclusively ascertain if the reduction was due to a unit trip. In such cases, there will not be any overrides applied to What-If InitialMW. Indicative timeline for implementation: EOY Release (end of November 2018). IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

26 Other issues relating to Pricing runs Generators TRAPPED in FCAS trapeziums 3. Generators trapped in their FCAS trapeziums in the Pricing runs continue to be trapped until the end of the Direction. Once trapped, the TRAPPED target becomes What-If InitialMW for subsequent DI. The Trapped state perpetuates and incorrectly dispatches the generating unit for the duration of the Direction. The above issue can be avoided by adding the following check into the Pricing For runs: all DUIDs in each DI: IF [(FCAS R6/R60/R5MIN/RREG FLAG=TRAPPED) OR (FCAS L6/L60/L5MIN/LREG FLAG=TRAPPED)], THEN What-If InitialMW = FCAS Enablement max (if TRAPPED at Enablement Max.) ELSE What-If InitialMW = FCAS Enablement min The above algorithm will untrap the unit by increasing/decreasing (if TRAPPED at What-If Enablement Initial Min.) MW by a very small amount (0.0001) Indicative timeline for implementation: EOY Release (end of November 2018). IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

27 4. Proposed Rule Changes 27

28 Fast-tracked / Expedited Proposals (please refer to meeting pack paper 4.1 for details) 1. $5,000 Threshold 2. Alignment of Compensation and Settlement Timetables 3. RRN Test for RERT 4. 7-Day Deadline for Additional Compensation Claims 5. Additional Compensation Claim Deadline (new item) 6. Semi-Scheduled Generation Eligibility as Affected Participants (new item) IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

29 Standard Rule Change Proposals (please refer to meeting pack paper 4.1 for details) 7. Bid Price for Scheduled Loads 8. FCAS Losses Excluded from Additional Compensation 9. RERT Cost Recovery for Affected Participants IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

30 Rule Changes that will not be Proposed (please refer to meeting pack paper 4.1 for details) 10. Intervention Settlement Timetable 11. Ambiguity of Loss of Revenue th Percentile Compensation IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

31 5. Next Steps 31

32 Next Steps 1. Report outcomes from IPWG to the NEMWCF to be held on 26 June Rules consultation to update Intervention Pricing Methodology Indicative completion by end of October Implementation project to progress in parallel with Rules consultation: NEMDE Formulation documentation change & certification NEMDE Solver software change & certification Dispatch Caseloader changes for Pricing runs (Proposed approach, FCAS untrapping, Generator trips) Development of consolidated views for DS, PD tables, publication of both sets of data in 5MPD tables. Regression Testing Pre-production release Production release Indicative timeline for implementation: EOY Release (end of November 2018). 4. Promulgate fast-track and standard Rule change proposals in Q3 2018, with priority given to the fast-track changes. IPWG Meeting #5 30 May

33 6. Meeting Close 33