resource adequacy reliability criterion workshop

Resource Adequacy Reliability Criterion Workshop

Philip A. FedoraDirector, Market Reliability InterfaceNortheast Power Coordinating Council

Sponsored by the NEPOOL Power Supply Planning Committee

Sheraton Springfield Monarch Place Hotel, Springfield, MA

November 18, 2004

NPCC November 18, 2004 2

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

NPCC

• One million square miles

• 54 million people

• 50% US 50% Canadian

• Represents 70% of Canadian Load

http://www.npcc.org/


NPCC Statistics

Relative Capacity by Fuel Mix

Dual Fuel

Gas

Oil

Hydro

Nuclear

CoalPumped Storage

Other

Projected 2004 Summer Coincident Peak Demand 104,520 MWProjected 2004 Summer Net Capacity 143,670 MW

Historically, the summer peak loads and temperatures between New England and New York can have a high degree of correlation; there is also some potential for the Ontario summer peak demand to be coincident.

The Canadian Provinces of Québec and the Maritimes experience their highest electricity demand in the winter.


NPCC Basic Criteria for Design and OperationOf Interconnected Power Systems

http://www.npcc.org/PublicFiles/Reliability/CriteriaGuidesProcedures/A-02.pdf

3.0 Resource Adequacy - Design Criteria

Each Area’s probability (or risk) of disconnecting any firm load due to resource deficiencies shall be, on average, not more than once in ten years.

Compliance with this criteria shall be evaluated probabilistically, such that the loss of load expectation [LOLE] of disconnecting firm load due to resource deficiencies shall be, on average, no more than 0.1 day per year.


NPCC Basic Criteria for Design and OperationOf Interconnected Power Systems

http://www.npcc.org/PublicFiles/Reliability/CriteriaGuidesProcedures/A-02.pdf

3.0 Resource Adequacy - Design Criteria

This evaluation shall make due allowance for demand uncertainty, scheduled outages and deratings, forced outages and deratings, assistance over interconnections with neighboring Areas and Regions, transmission transfer capabilities, and capacity and/or load relief from available operating procedures.


NPCC Guidelines for Area Review ofResource Adequacy

Purpose

The purpose of the presentation associated with a resource adequacy review is to ascertain that each Area's proposed resources are in accordance with the NPCC Basic Criteria for Design and Operation of Interconnected Power Systems (Document A-2).

By such a presentation, the Task Force will satisfy itself that the proposed resources of each NPCC Area will meet the NPCC Resource Adequacy - Design Criteria (as defined in Section 3.0 of NPCC Document A-2) over the time period under consideration. This review by the Task Force on Coordination of Planning does not replace Area and/or company responsibility to assess their systems in conformity with the NPCC Basic Criteria.

http://www.npcc.org/PublicFiles/Reliability/CriteriaGuidesProcedures/B-08.pdf


NPCC Triennial Reviews of Area Resource Adequacy

Objective:

As part of the NPCC Reliability Assessment Program, the Task Force on Coordination of Planning is charged, on an ongoing basis, with conducting reviews of resource adequacy of each Area of NPCC, in accordance with NPCC Document B-8, Guidelines for Area Review of Resource Adequacy.

http://www.npcc.org/resourceAdequacyReviews.asp?Folder=CurrentYear


NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment – Summer 2004

Assumed Annual NPCC 2004 Peak Loads – MW (1995 Load Shape/2002 Load Shape)

Area Expected Peak Extreme Peak Peak Load

Month

1995 Load Shape

Peak Load Month

2002 Load Shape

Québec (Q) 34,587 37,824 January January

Maritimes Area (MT) 5,448/5,350 5,992/5,885 January February

New England (NE) 25,735 27,210/27,102 July August

New York (NY) 31,800 33,387 August August

Ontario (ON) 23,719 24,967 December December



2004 Projected Coincident Monthly Peak Loads - MW1995 Load Shape

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MW

Q MT NE NY ON



2004 Projected Coincident Monthly Peak Loads - MW2002 Load Shape

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000


MW

Q MT NE NY ON



2004 Projected Coincident Monthly Peak Loads - MW

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000


MW

NPCC MAAC ECAR



Per Unit Variation in Load Assumed for the Month of July 2004

Area Per-Unit Variation in Load

Q 1.0679 1.0679 1.0340 1.0000 0.9660 0.9321 0.9321

MT 1.1000 1.1000 1.0500 1.0000 0.9500 0.9000 0.9000

NE 1.0968 1.0573 1.0285 1.0000 0.9719 0.9427 0.9032

NY 1.0584 1.0499 1.0250 1.0000 0.9770 0.9660 0.9070

ON 1.1330 1.0886 1.0443 1.0000 0.9557 0.9114 0.8670

Prob. 0.0062 0.0606 0.2417 0.3830 0.2417 0.0606 0.0062



NPCC Capacity and Load Assumptions for July 2004 - MW Base Case - Expected Load

Q MT NE NY ON

Assumed Capacity 25,996 6,568 31,039 38,185 29,750

Purchase/Sale 2,541 -400 593 750 0

Peak Load 20,505 3,558 25,735 30,995 23,668

Reserve (%) 39 73 23 26 26

Annual Weighted Average Unit Availability (%)

98.54 86.17 87.81 82.32 81.12

Scheduled Maintenance

0 973 115 218 376


NPCC Transfer Limits – From CP-8 2004 Summer Assessment(Assumed Ratings)

A

C

D

F

G

JK

1,000 S1,100 W

440 S535 W

225

200

0

300

222

2,690

200

1,500

0

700

150

1,5000

1,800 S2,000 W

1,300 S1,500 W 400

1,000

1,500

1,600 S1,700 W

1,475 740 S760 W

500

500

800

800

Total NY-NE1,225 / 925 S

1,475 W(Excludes CSC)

286

550 2,000

1,100

01,000

ECAR

NBM

BEAU

LG2A

HQ

PEI

NB

NS

2,550

2,150

690

124

350

NOR

CT

W-MA

BHE

CMA

MINNE

MANIT

140 90

324

275

330 (CSC)

VT

1,100

65 S84 W

95 S110 W

NW

West

Niagara

NE

Ottawa

East750

750 400

400

Total Ontario4,050 In

5,550 Out

1,100

0

1,900 S2,000 W

330 S342 W

262 S274 W

West Cent. East

4,000 6,000



NPCC Operating Procedures to Mitigate Resource Shortages 2004 Summer Load Relief Assumptions - MW

Actions Q MT NE NY ON

1. Curtail Load / Utility Surplus LRP/SCR/EDRP Manual Voltage Reduction

0 0 0

0 0 0

45 331

0

0 785 2.6%

of load

450

0 0

2. No 30-min Reserves 500 229 564 600 441

3. Voltage Reduction or Interruptible Loads

300 464 1.42 % of load

1.59% of load

580

4. No 10-min Reserves General Public Appeals

1,000 0

420 0

960 0

0 213

939 0

5. General Public Appeals No 10-min Reserves

0 -

0 -

0 -

- 1,200

200 -


NPCC Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment

ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL LOLE (DAYS/YEAR)

BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS

YEAR Q MT NE NY ON

2004 .0030 <.0005 .0030 .0115 .0005

2003 <.0005 .0020 .0150 .0030 .0010

2002 <.0005 <.0005 .0460 .0030 .0010

2001 <.0005 <.0005 .0010 .0050 .0010

2000 <.0005 <.0005 .0430 .1095 .0020


NPCC Summary - May - September 2004Potential Range of Use of Indicated Operating ProceduresBase Case Scenario – Preliminary Results

0

1

2

Estimated Number of

Occurrences (days/period)

NE NY ON MT HQ

Reduce 30-min Reserve Voltage Reduction Reduce 10-min Reserve Appeals Disconnect Load

Maximum values from Base Case, Extreme Load – 2002 Load Shape assumptions

Minimum values from Base Case, Expected Load – 1995 Load Shape assumptions



NPCC Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits

Estimate (on a consistent basis) the amount of interconnection assistance available to the NPCC Areas;

Review each NPCC Area’s current estimates of interconnection benefits used to meet the NPCC Resource Reliability Criterion;

Verify that the current levels of interconnection benefits assumed in each Area’s resource adequacy assessments are reasonable and do not result in overstating any Area’s reliability.



A

C

D

F

G

JK

TEWest

TEEast

1,000 S1,100 W

440 S535 W

225

200

0

300

222

2,690

200

1,500

100

700

150

1,5000

1,800 S2,000 W

1,300 S1,500 W 400

1,000

1,500

2,100 S2,200 W

1,700

1,385 740 S760 W

500

500

800

800

Total New York -New England1,550 / 950 S975 / 2,050 W

286

550

1,000

2,000

500

0

1,000

1,000

ECAR

MAAC

NBM

BEAU

LG2A

Q

MAAC-D

PEI

NB

NS

2,550

2,150

690

124

350

NOR

CT

W-MA

BHE

CMA

MN

MAN

14090

324

275

325

375

VT

1,100

65 S84 W

95 S110 W

NW

West

Niagara

NE

Ottawa

East700

700

400

400

Total Ontario4,050 In

5,550 Out

New England

Maritimes

Quebec

New York

Ontario



NPCC Area (Date of Review)

Assistance Reported in Recent NPCC Triennial Reviews of

Resource Adequacy

Range of EstimatedAnnual Tie Benefit

CP-8 Study Results for 2006

Québec (11/02) 0 2,720 – 3,380

Maritimes (12/01) 0 930 - 1,200

New England (11/02)

1,800 487 - 3,975

New York (06/02) 2,100 3,775 – 7,150

Ontario (07/03) 1,500 3,150 – 4,050



The methodology and assumptions used in this Review was consistently applied to all NPCC Areas, using the same multi-Area reliability model

NPCC Area estimates of interconnection benefits used to meet the NPCC Resource Reliability Criterion were reviewed on a consistent basis

The interconnection assistance values reported by NPCC Areas in their recent resource adequacy assessments appear to be reasonable and do not overstate interconnection benefits.



Announced Transmission projects in varying stages of the planning process:

Neptune ProjectTransEnergie Harbor Cable ProjectOntario – Québec TieSecond New Brunswick TieEmpire ConnectionThe Lake Erie Link Transmission ProjectNiagara Reinforcement Project

NPCC Major Project ListNE RTEP03



In light of these and other developments, the CP-8 Working Group recommends that NPCC’s Review of Interconnection Assistance Reliability Benefits be updated once these developments (or their combination) are further quantified in order to identify the impact on the NPCC Area interconnection assistance estimated for the 2006 time frame.


NERC Reliability Assessments

NERC issues regular assessments of the reliability of North American bulk electric systems.

Ten-Year Reliability Assessments - Each year NERC prepares an assessment of the adequacy of the bulk electric system in the United States and Canada for a ten-year period. The report assesses projected electricity supply and demand, reviews transmission system adequacy, and discusses key issues and trends that could affect reliability. Summer and Winter Assessments - These annual reports assess the adequacy of electricity supplies in the United States and Canada for the upcoming summer and winter peak demand periods. Special Assessments - Special reliability assessments are conducted on a regional, interregional, or interconnection-wide basis as conditions warrant.

http://www.nerc.com/~filez/rasreports.html


NERC Resource and Transmission Adequacy Recommendations

The NERC Planning Committee (PC) approved the Resource and Transmission Adequacy Task Force’s (RTATF) report, “Resource and Transmission Adequacy Recommendations,” via mail ballot on May 27, 2004. The NERC Board of Trustees, at its June 15, 2004 meeting, also approved the RTATF report and associated recommendations for implementation. Subsequently, the PC approved the action plans related to the resource adequacy recommendations of the RTATF report at its July 20, 2004 meeting. Those action plans charged the RIS with the development and submittal of a Standard Authorization Request (SAR) on resource adequacy that recognized the elements of resource recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the RTATF report.

http://www.nerc.com/~filez/rtatf.html


NERC Gas/Electric Interdependency Task Force

The PC and the NERC board gave similar approvals to the Gas/Electricity Interdependency Task Force’s (GEITF) “Gas/Electricity Interdependencies and Recommendations” report at the same meetings. The PC also approved the implementation plan for the GEITF recommendations at its July 20, 2004 meeting. Recommendation 4 charged the RIS with developing a SAR that related fuel infrastructure reliability to resource adequacy. RIS has developed a SAR that incorporates the required elements of the RTATF and GEITF reports.

http://www.nerc.com/~filez/geitf.html


Draft NERC SAR on Resource Adequacy

1. a) Each NERC Regional Reliability Council (Region) to establish a resource adequacy criterion (or criteria) based on some metric (e.g., LOLE, LOLP, etc.), consistent with applicable state/province or multi-state/province resource adequacy criteria or requirements. The adequacy criteria should take into account operable capacity situations and reflect the impact of expected transmission constraints, fuel deliverability, environmental restrictions, and other relevant factors.

The state(s), province(s), RTO/ISO(s), generation reserve sharing pool(s) and/or other appropriate entity(ies) should establish resource adequacy requirements so as to comply with the resource adequacy criterion (or criteria) of the Region. The Region or subregions should establish assessment methodologies to determine whether the adequacy criteria are met.



1. b) Each Region should be required to demonstrate periodically, through analysis, that Regional resource adequacy requirements (such as reserve margins, capacity margins, etc.) satisfy the applicable resource adequacy criteria (such as LOLE, LOLP, etc.). As a part of the demonstration, each Region should describe the expected resource capacity characteristics for the study period and demonstrate that possible fuel supply interruptions have no adverse impact on system reliability. Each Region should also describe available mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of fuel interruption(s) on its ability to serve load reliably. Other factors such as expected transmission constraints and/or environmental restrictions that may impact the Region’s resource adequacy should be examined. The demonstrations should include analyses supporting all critical assumptions.



2. The results of all Regional resource adequacy assessments, whether performed by NERC or the Regions, should be made public with the understanding that some data which supports the assessment may be confidential and may not be made public. The Region will aggregate the supply/demand data within the Region and report an aggregate number, not individual electric utility supply/demand data if that data is not available in other public forums.



3. NERC should perform periodic audits of the Regional resource adequacy assessment processes. Such audits should validate the compliance of the Regional adequacy requirements with the resource adequacy criteria and may include the performance of independent analysis by NERC. Such audits should also confirm the consistent application of standard resource adequacy assessment methodologies, including appropriate Regional variations.



4. NERC, in conjunction with the Regions, should conduct periodic reviews of the respective Regional resource adequacy criteria and their methodologies for general consistency, interdependency and/or impact on adjacent Regions, the treatment of contract considerations, and the deliverability of resources to load.


Northeast Power Coordinating Council

?? QUESTIONS ??

Contact:

Phil [email protected]

(212) 840-4909

resource adequacy reliability criterion workshop

Documents

npcc area

area of npcc

npcc guidelines

npcc basic criteria

npcc statisticsprojected

resource adequacy review

npcc document b

resource deficiencies