Transcript Reactive & Voltage Maintenance - Joint Proposal

Reactive & Voltage Maintenance
Joint Proposal
by TexGenCo/Calpine
Is Reactive Power Worth Anything?
The sun sets on a lightless New York City – August 14th
GenReaTF Directive
from WMS
1) Develop a method similar to the one found in the EPRI study that
compensates for heating losses in generator equipment and GSU
2) Develop a method and Protocols language to pay for “as
delivered” Mvarhs under PIP 102 for reactive beyond a
machine’s URL
3) Determine if the trigger point for settlements of reactive power
delivered can be different from what’s in the Interim Standard
and if so, what should it be?
TF’s Areas of Focus
1) “Heating Loss” type component,
2) PIP 102 method for payment for Mvars
beyond unit’s URL
3) “Opportunity Cost” component (solved
problem - OOM-E Down paid for reduction
in MWs)
Key Issues That Lead to This
Proposal
The Task Force Learned the Following:
1) The number and complexity of facility metering scenarios are
enormous making individual Mvar flow calculations impossible if
gaming possibilities are to be avoided,
2) The calculations for equipment heating loss are very
involved and the assumed variables are hard to defend or
refute; subject to site-specific gaming opportunities
3) Voltage at the transmission injection point metering is the
objective function in assigning criteria for reactive delivery;
whatever method is used for compensation must be shaped
by voltage maintenance performance
4) From anecdotal comments there appear to be significant inequities in
some areas of ERCOT in the dispatch of Mvars and the alignment of a
financial incentive with voltage support is needed to compensate the
true providers and keep score so that “loafers” don’t go unnoticed.
Conceptual Layout of This Proposal
ERCOT
Summer Base
Case 2004
527 total
Units in
case
15,954 MVars
Needed from
399 Gens.
turned on
Each of the 527 units has a prorated 30 Mvar
“compensation component” assigned.
Next slide provides assumptions for this
assignment.
Compensation Component (“CC”)
Assumptions
• All units in base case have a “CC” whether turned on or
not because of uncertainty between planning case and actual
operations that can arise during peak season (unit outages of
“turned on” units causing “turned off” units to operate, etc.)
• Units that go COD during the year and were not in the base
case are not eligible for a “CC” assignment until subsequent
year
• The base case provides the pool of dynamic Mvars that the
system expects resources to provide at peak
Calculating Each Interval’s
Possible Compensation Amount
(based on given assumptions)
• $20/Kvar Installed Capital Cost assumed for a transmission
level shunt device chosen as a ‘proxy device cost’ (as noted
in PIP 102)
• 20 years term assumed for capital expense payout
• $1K/year assumed for 20 years as O&M costs for device
• 30 Mvar Compensation Component per Resource as
per 2004 Base Case results
((30 Mvar * $20/Kvar) + $20K) / 35,040 intervals/year))
= $0.88 / 15 minute interval
Criteria for an Interval’s Payment
1) Unit must be on line with AVR in Automatic (unless
dispatched otherwise by ISO)
2) Injection Point voltage must be within +- 2%
of ERCOT-posted voltage profile value
3) Payment amount is conditioned on whether Mvar
flow is helping or hurting voltage relative to posted
profile value
Dispatch Becomes Simpler Under
this Proposal
a) Entire range of machine’s reactive capability in
lead and lag directions are available to the
system with no additional payment calculated
b) No payment necessary for dispatch beyond
URL; URL is only used as a transmission
planning and compliance threshold
The “D” Curve and the URL Area
Determining the URL
 The Resource owner should determine the
machine’s URL
 The Resource owner would provide the
“Area within the Unit’s URL” to the ISO for
approval
 The ISO would advise the TDSPs of the
current URLs for resources in their footprint
Helping or Hurting Voltage
Harry Holloway of TexGenCo
Voltage Maintenance
Performance Spreadsheet
Compelling Features of this
Proposal
• Bus voltage maintenance is the objective and the performance criteria
in proposal aligns incentives with that,
• Per interval payment based on fixed base case value sets an annual
cap of potential payments,
• Method is not complex with a minimum of variables for ISO to
manage/collect from telemetry
• Full range of machine’s capability is available without additional
payments
• Gaming opportunities are virtually nonexistent,
• Potential compensation is nominal compared to OOM-C and RMR
payments with similar objectives
Questions
Issue to Consider for Motion/s:
If this combined proposal is accepted as the direction WMS wants the
TF to proceed, then the work on PIP 102 can be stopped.
These Guys Would Say……YES!
The “Pucker Factor” sets in – Aug. 14th
Answers the TF Expects from
WMS
1) Does WMS approve of this joint proposal’s
methodology in order that the TF can proceed to
develop Protocol language around it? [Motion]
(If YES, disregard Item #2)
2) If the answer to Item #1 is NO, then does WMS
approve of the Protocol language proposed for PIP
102’s treatment of Mvars beyond the URL so that
language can be crafted into a PRR for submission to
PRS? [Motion]
(If NO, then how does WMS want the TF to
proceed?
)
And who will the new Chair be?