RRO Adequacy Assessment Practices-Survey Responses 08-14-08 2

Survey for Inventory of NERC Regional Resource Adequacy Assessment C
Survey Questions
Region -> Describe the latest resource adequacy studies (i.e. Loss-of-Load Expectation, Expected Unserved Energy, etc.)
What criterion do you use to determine whether existing and planned resources provide an adequate level of reliability?
What is the methodology for assessing resource adequacy? What model is used?
What are the results of the assessment used for?- i.e. to inform resource planning, to incentivize market participants, or for use by state/provincial/local regulators?
What data is used? How is data provided?
Are transmission constraints modeled? If so, how?
Load What method is used to aggregate internal peak 6 demands of individual members actual loads for use in the forecast?
How do you categorize load uncertainty?
How is load forecast uncertainty incorporated into your assessment?
Are any loads within your geographic area excluded?
Supply-Side Resources
10
For Planned and Proposed capacity resources, what is process used to select resources for reliability analysis/capacity margin calculations (i.e. forward capacity markets, obligation to serve activities, low certainty classes of resources under consideration, etc.)? Quantify this resource selection if possible.
11
What criteria do you use to include future resources in your resource adequacy assessments?
12
Given your definition of resource certainty above, how does your region map resources to "existing", "planned" and "proposed" capacity, as defined in the 2008 LTRA instructions? (See Footnote Column)
13
How would you recommend the uncertainty of existing and future resources be categorized? Do you have suggestions for improving the NERC capacity definitions?
14
Do Loss of Load Probability problems occur in unexpected months due to maintenance outage scheduling assumptions?
15
How are energy-limited resources, such as hydro or environmentally-constrained thermal, modeled?
16
Describe how energy-only, existing-uncertain wind and transmission-limited resources are considered in your resource adequacy assessment.
17
Is there a rating system for wind resources?
18
How are temperature impacts on resources modeled? Is there a formal process for rating generators?
19
Have you considered fuel supply vulnerability in your region/subregion? If so, are there any anticipated concerns. If not, explain why this is not a concern. What percentage of your generation is either natural gas or coal-fired and are any fuel supply and delivery problems anticipated for either fuel type?
20
Explain and/or reference documentation, and provide the definition of deliverability used in your region/subregion. If there is none, explain what is done to ensure that the resources are sufficient and deliverable to meet your load requirements at the time of system peak.
Demand-Side Management Resources (DSM):
21
Describe and specify the current and forecast demand response programs in your region that reduce peak demand i.e. interruptible demand; direct control load management; critical peak pricing with control; load as a capacity resource, etc.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY (EE) (non-dispatchable) Are historical levels of EE assumed to continue 22 into the future? Or is EE assumed to erode?
23
What types of EE improvements are included in the 10-year load forecast?
24
Are any types of EE improvements tabulated separately? If so, what improvements?
25
How do you determine the peak demand component of EE improvements?
26
Are the EE-associated peak demand reductions incorporated into the resource adequacy assessments?
27
How are the certainties/uncertainties of EE resources modeled?
28
What criteria do you use to include future EE in your assessments?
NON-DISPATCHABLE DEMAND RESPONSE (ND2R): 29 Are any ND2R resources included in the 10-year load forecast?
30
Are any ND2R resources tabulated separately? If so, what resources? How do you determine the peak demand component of ND2R? Are the ND2R-associated peak demand reductions incorporated into the resource adequacy assessments? How are the certainties/uncertainties of ND2R resources modeled? How is retention and diversity modeled? What criteria do you use to include future ND2R in your assessments?
31
32
33
34
DISPATCHABLE ECONOMIC DEMAND RESPONSE (DEDR): Are any DEDR resources included in the 10-year 35 load forecast?
36
Are any DEDR resources tabulated separately? If so, what resources? How do you determine the peak demand component of DEDR?
37
38
39
40
Are the DEDR-associated peak demand reductions incorporated into the resource adequacy assessments? How are the certainties/uncertainties of DEDR resources modeled? How is retention and diversity modeled? What criteria do you use to include future DEDR in your assessments?
DISPATCHABLE CONTROLLABLE DEMAND RESPONSE (DCDR): Are any DCDR resources included in the 10-year 41 load forecast? 42 Are any DCDR resources tabulated separately? If so, what resources?
43
How do you determine the peak demand component of DCDR?
44
45
Are the DCDR-associated peak demand reductions incorporated into the resource adequacy assessments? How are the certainties/uncertainties of DCDR resources modeled? How is retention and diversity modeled?
46
What criteria do you use to include future DCDR in your assessments? Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs)
47
What are your categories of emergency operating procedures?
Are any emergency operating procedures included as measures to avoid a loss of load in resource adequacy assessments? If so, which procedures? Imports/Exports How do you categorize imports and exports? 49 48
50
How are each of these categories considered in your resource adequacy assessment? Is there a process in place to ensure that there is consistency of export/import assumptions between and among regions and areas?
51
52
What criteria do you use for including future imports, exports?
Tie Benefits How are tie benefits considered in your resource 53 adequacy assessment?
54
Is there a process in place to ensure that there is consistency of tie benefit assumptions between and among regions and areas?
55
What criteria do you use for including future tie benefits?
Assessments How often are probabilistic assessments 56 performed?
57
What is the time horizon for the assessments?
58
What type of probabilistic metric is used to assess resource adequacy? (see footnote column for possible choices and existing inventory for definitions) For probabilistic assessments, what parameters are treated as stochastic variables?
59
60
Does the assessment include scenarios? How are these modeled?
61
Discuss resource adequacy and operational measures available if peak demands are higher than expected due to weather or other conditions.
62
Does the assessment include a threshold below which misses are not included in the analysis, or which denotes flexibility in reserve margin capacity?
Reserve Margin Calculations Is non-dispatchable DSM subtracted from peak 63 demand?
64
Is dispatchable DSM modeled as a resource or subtracted from load forecast?
65
Is there a different PRM target "with EOP" and another "without EOP"? Are there different PRM targets with and without tie benefits/imports/exports? Are supply-side resources such as hydro and wind derated for reserve margin presentation? If so, how?
66
67
68
Implementation How is resource adequacy implemented in your Region, sub-regions or sub-areasthrough organized markets (ISOs, RTOS), planning reserve sharing pools, state regulatory mechanisms, other mechanisms or not implemented using an organized approach?
69
Have the entities responsible for assuring resource adequacy in your Region established metrics and benchmarks (e.g. planning reserve margin of 12%) with which to measure resource adequacy? If so please list those entities and the associated metrics and benchmarks.
70
Are there jurisdictions in your Region with prescribed Resource Adequacy requirements? If yes, please list those jurisdictions.
71
If resource adequacy is implemented using an organized market approach, what is the timeframe when a demonstration of sufficient resources to meet the metric is required? (e.g. month out, year out, several years out?)
Other Questions? In reviewing the attached spreadsheet and the 72 list of questions above, have we missed any questions, which because of their non-inclusion preclude a complete description of the Regions resource adequacy assessment methodology?
onal Resource Adequacy Assessment Criteria by Regional Reliability Organizatio

Response to Survey
ERCOT
Previous LOLP studies have led to stakeholder agreement that a reserve margin of 12.5% is adequate to ensure a minimal risk of loss of load events.
The most recent ERCOT LOLP study was conducted by Global Energy Decisions. They utilized the ProSym model to determine the probability of unserved energy in each hour throughout a year.
To inform regulators, market participants, and other stakeholders
These studies have been subcontracted to outside engineering firms. These firms have used their own databases.
Not in previous studies.
The forecasted peak demands are produced by ERCOT for the entire ERCOT Region (which is a single Balancing Authority area) based on coincident actual demands.
Primary sources of load uncertainty are weather and economic trends.
Probability distributions are developed based on historical data and expected future trends.
No.
Planned capacity additions include new generation that has a signed interconnection agreement and air permit, with wind generation counted at its effective load carrying capability. Proposed capacity additions include all other generation that has requested interconnection agreement, with wind generation counted at its effective load carrying capability.
Future generation facilities for which there is a signed transmission interconnection agreement and a completed air permit are included in our resource adequacy assessments.
in ERCOT, we consider existing units and units with signed interconnection agreements and air permit to be equally certain.
Yes. LOLP events can occur during peak months, during very hot periods in shoulder months, or during winter severe cold snaps,
ERCOT does not have a significant amount of energy-limited resources.
Existing Uncertain capacity includes the portion of the wind generation that is not counted as Certain due to its variability and the existing generating capacity that is mothballed
Based on previous LOLP studies, wind resources are considered to have an effective load carrying capability of 8.7% of nameplate rating for resource adequacy studies in ERCOT.
ERCOT maintains summer and winter ratings for generating units.
Over 60% of the generating capacity in ERCOT is fueled by natural gas, resulting in some concern about the adequacy of natural gas supply during winter months when winter heating demand peaks. Natural gas interruptions are not typically a concern during the summer, when electric power demand peaks. ERCOT has a procedure in place to request current status of fuel supply contracts, back-up fuel supplies and unit capabilities if severe cold weather is in the seven day forecast. This information would be used to prepare operation plans. However, there is currently no market incentive or non-market mechanism for gas generation to maintain dual fuel capability and storage, typically with fuel oil, that could be critical to maintaining generation adequacy during extended periods of gas curtailments. . ERCOT does not have a definition of deliverability at this time. The deliverability of resources at system peak is evaluated as part of the Five-Year transmission planning process.
ERCOT has no demand response programs specifically designed to deploy at system peaks. ERCOT ISO administers two market-based DR services (Loads Acting as a Resource providing Ancillary Services, and Emergency Interruptible Load Service) in which Loads are available for dispatch in emergency conditions during all hours. Emergency conditions do not necesssarily correlate to system peaks.
Historically, EE initiatives are assumed to have been assimilated into econometric load forecasting.
Per statutory requirement, projected peak demand reductions due to EE are now required to be reported as part of long-term planning.
Only EE programs administered by IOU transmission & distribution service providers for 2008 and 2009, per statute. These include EE standard offer and market transformation programs, and load management standard offer programs.
As reported by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, based on data provided by IOU transmission & distribution providers.
Yes
n/a
Texas Legislature is expected to revisit EE statutes in 2009; requirements may change at that time.
NSE (ND2R): No.
No.
n/a
No.
n/a
n/a
ESPONSE (DEDR): No.
No.
n/a
No.
n/a
None.
AND RESPONSE (DCDR): Yes, Loads Acting as a Resource (LaaR) providing Ancillary Services. Yes. See above.
Three year average of the hourly procurement of LaaR providing Ancillary Services during the Summer months for HE 1600 thru HE 1800.
Yes.
There are currently in excess of 2000 MW qualified to perform these services. Limits are placed on the maximum participation at 1150 MW. In addition the historical average is adjusted to show a 95% confidence level based on the normal distribution of these Resources in the Generation/Load Resource mix. None at present.
Excerpt of Current ERCOT EECP procedures are attached. Full version can be viewed at http://www.ercot.com/mktrules/protocols/current/0 5-100107.doc
Previous LOLP studies have included an assumption that a loss of load event would not occur until after the Loads Acting As Resources (LAARs) have been tripped. ERCOT does not have any synchronous import or export capability.
n/a
n/a
n/a
ERCOT has 1,106 MW of asynchronous tie capacity with adjoining interconnections. Onehalf of this capacity is assumed to be available for reserve margin analysis purposes.
No
n/a
LOLP studies have been performed every 2 - 3 years.
These studies have looked at current conditions only.
The most recent study used a 1 event in 10 years metric (see attached).
Loads, thermal generation availability, wind generation availability.
No scenarios were performed in the last LOLP study.
ERCOT will initiate its Emergency Electric Curtailment Plan (EECP) if available capacity gets below required levels due to gas curtailments or any other reason. The EECP maintains the reliability of the interconnection by avoiding uncontrolled load shedding.
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
Wind resources are assumed to have an effective load carrying capability of 8.7% of nameplate rating.
N/A. ERCOT has a deregulated, energy-only generation market.
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
ent Criteria by Regional Reliability Organization (August 14, 2008)

Response to Survey
FRCC
Minimum 20% Reserve Margin for IOUs; remaining utilties maintain at least a 15% Reserve Margin. The periodic loss-of-load probability (LOLP) assessment validates that the Reserve Margin requirement is adequate.
Develop resource plan that maintains FPSC mandated Reserve Margin. FRCC conducts periodic loss-of-load probability (LOLP) assessments for the region using the TieLine and Generation Reliability (TIGER) model which calculates the LOLP values for the tenyear planning horizon, with the criteria not to exceed 0.1 days/year. FRCC conducts annual reliability assessment by monitoring trends in load forecasting accuracy, unit Availability Factors, and unit Forced Outage Rates.
To confirm Reserve Margin criteria is adequate to utilities and state regulators.
LOLP Analysis - Data includes load forecast, loadshape, resource plan, unit Forced Outage Rates, maintenance schedules, available tie-line assistance (regional imports), and energy management programs. Each utility provides data to the FRCC in an online database. Annual Reliability Assessment - Data includes trending historic unit Forced Outage Rates and unit Availabilities, and comparison of load forecast to actual. Each utility provides data to the FRCC in an online database.
No.
Member seasonal peaks are aggregated with care taken not to double count. The members' individual seasonal peaks are summed to determine a Regional non-coincident peak.
Load uncertainty is left to the member companies, and is not analyzed on the Regional level. The FRCC Load Forecast is an aggregation of the load forecast of each of its member utilities. FRCC has pursued this avenue since it is only logical to assume that each utility is most familiar with its own service territory. The load forecast evaluation process undertaken by FRCC ensures that each utility in preparing this outlook is availing itself of the best available information in terms of data, forecasting models and to a certain degree consistency of assumptions across all utilities. FRCCs Load Forecasting Task Force (LFTF) reviews in detail each utilitys forecast methodology, input assumptions and sources, and output of forecast results. Sanity checks are performed comparing the historical past with the projected load growth, use per customer, weathernormalized assumptions, and load factors. Does not apply.
Some members exclude load served by selfservice generation since this generation is assumed to be in-service during monthly peaks.
All Planned and Proposed capacity additions are based on the obligation to serve and are included in the Reserve Margin calculation. Non-firm energy resources are not included in calcuation of Reserve Margins.
Minimum 20% Reserve Margin for IOUs; remaining utilties maintain at least a 15% Reserve Margin.
For 'Existing - Certain' capacity, the region will include all existing committed firm generation. For 'Existing - Uncertain' capacity, the region includes existing units that have been mothballed or placed into operational standby, and any IPPs with generation that does not have a firm contract for service. For future generation, all generation will be mapped as 'Planned'.
See response to question 12 above on 'Planned' capacity.
No.
Energy-limited resources in the region are not significant in the FRCC Reserve Margin calculation, and are not always modeled.
N/A
N/A
Models contain a winter and summer rating for each unit in the region.
The FRCC has established a Fuel Reliability Working Group (FRWG) whose purpose is to examine matters related to fuel and impacts to Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability. The FRWG provides the administrative oversight of a Regional fuel reliability forum that studies the interdependencies of fuel availability and electric reliability and supports coordinated Regional responses to fuel issues and emergencies. The generation fuel mix is approximately 18% Coal, 51% Natural Gas, 21% Oil, and 8% Nuclear.
The FRCC Transmission Working Group (composed of transmission planners from FRCC member utilities) conducts regional studies in accordance with the FRCC Regional Planning Process to ensure that all dedicated firm resources are deliverable to loads under forecast conditions and other various probable scenarios to ensure the robustness of the BES. In addition, the FRCC Transmission Working Group evaluates planned generator additions under stressed conditions to ensure that the proposed interconnection and/or integration are acceptable to maintain the reliability for the BES within the FRCC Region.
Interruptible, Curtailable, Residential critical peak pricing and Commerical demand response direct load control and standby generation.
EE is assumed to continue in the future, and planning assumes replacement in kind. The impact of the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 increases through time as sufficient time is allowed for the current stock of less efficient appliances to be depleted and replaced by more efficient ones. Most Utilities are required per Florida Statute to file plans each year with the Public Service Commission detailing efforts in EE improvements as outlines in the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA). Some entities account for EE within the load forecast and others account for it separately. Most Utilities are required per Florida Statute to file plans each year with the Public Service Commission detailing efforts in EE improvements as outlines in the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA). Some entities account for EE within the load forecast and others account for it separately (i.e., incremental conservation, residential versus commercial conservation). There are approved programs registered with the Florida PSC that have both demand and energy reduction goals assocaited with their implementation. Those goals are the amounts included in the EE forecast. Yes
Most Utilities are required per Florida Statute to file plans each year with the Public Service Commission detailing efforts in EE improvements as outlines in the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA). Most Utilities are required to file plans each year with the Public Service Commission detailing efforts in EE program and improvements (FEECA). N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Some of the entities in the Region include DCDR resources in their forecast. Some of the entities in the region include DCDR resources separately such as Residential Load Management, Commercial Load Management, Interruptible Service, Curtailable Service and Stanby Generation. Time-Temp Matrix - Residential Load Management & Commercial Load Management. Sum of estimated available MW from Iinterruptible Service and Curtailable Service. Sum of MW capacity for Standby Generation. Yes.
Participation is tracked and end-use study verifies diversified impacts and results are reflected in future DCDR forecasts.
Cost benefit analysis includes Participant Test, Total Resource Cost Test, and Rate Impact Measure.
Interruptible/Curtailable load, DSM (HVAC, Water Heater, Pool Pump), Voltage Reduction, 10 minute fast start units, 10 minute reserve sharing, customer stand-by generation, emergency contracts, unit emergency capability and load shed. (The categories described above can vary from entity to entity). Same as above. The inclusion of the categories described above can vary from entity to entity in resource adequacy assessments.
Generally, sales contracts are not expected to renew, purchase contracts from QFs, Cogens and Renewables are expected to renew, and speculative contracts are not included. However, each entity in the region can account for sales and purchase differently. The FRCC only aggregates the information provided by each entity. The FRCC Region only includes firm imports and exports in the resource adequacy assessment. The FRCC Region only includes firm imports and exports in the resource adequacy assessment. There is a process for coordination between the FRCC and SERC Regions addressing import and export transactions. Generally, only executed contracts for firm import and exports are included.
The FRCC Region only includes firm imports and exports in the resource adequacy assessment.
The FRCC Region only includes firm imports and exports in the resource adequacy assessment. There is a process for coordination between the FRCC and SERC Regions addressing import and export transactions. Generally, only executed contracts for firm import and exports are included.
Performed as needed by evaluating input data such as forced outage rates and availability factors for significant changes.
Annually.
Loss Of Load Probability (1 day in 10 years).
Occurences of forced outages.
Scenarios such as change in load forecast may be modeled as needed.
Generally, the reserve margin includes: Interruptible/Curtailable load, DLC (HVAC, Water Heater, Pool Pump), Voltage Reduction, 10 minute fast start units, customer stand-by generation, (These operational measures can vary from entity to entity) which are available during unexpected conditions. Additionally, 10 minute reserve sharing, emergency contracts, unit emergency capability and public appeal are operational measures that can be implemented to meet the unexpected demand. The probabilistic assessment does not include extreme events. However, the FRCC studies the impact of extreme fuel shortages and/or fuel deliverability issues (pipeline event). These studies are used to construct regional mitigation procedures.
Yes (Individual entity practice may be different).
Subtracted from load.
No.
No.
No.
State Regulatory Mechanisms
The Florida Public Service Commission requires IOUs (PEF, FPL, TEC) to maintain a Reserve Margin of at least 20% and all other entities at least 15%. Individual entities within the FRCC may utilize LOLP metrics for their resource adequacy assessment.
The Florida Public Service Commission requires IOUs (PEF, FPL, TEC) to maintain a Reserve Margin of at least 20% and all other entities at least 15%. N/A
No response
Organization (August 14, 2008)

Response to Survey
MRO
The MRO does not set a resource adequacy level. The MRO requires that an assessment be performed annually based on an LOLP of no greater than 0.1 day in one (1) year.
See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower)
See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower)
See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower)
See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower)
See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See MRO standard (RES-501-MRO-01)
See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower) See the responses from the Planning Coordinators within the MRO geographical area (MISO, MAPP, MHEB, ATC, SaskPower)
MRO standard is applicable to the LSE or its delegate. Midwest PRSG, MAPP PRSG, SaskPower will be performing the studies
state of Wisconsin
No response
Response to Survey NPCC
Each Areas 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.
The evaluation makes 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. General Electric's MultiArea Reliability Simulation (MARS) program is used.
The annual NPCC Multi-Area Summer Probabilistic Reliability Assessments verifies NPCC members' (Areas) compliance to the NPCC Document A-02 (resource adequacy criteria), as well as demonstarting their compliance to governmental and regulatory officials. Periodically, NPCC also performs an Interregional Long Range Adequacy Overview, extending the annual Probabilistic Multi-Area Reliability Assessment out five years in the future. In addition, NPCC has established a Reliability Assessment Program to bring together work done by the Council, its member systems and Areas relevant to the assessment of bulk power system reliability. As part of the 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. NPCC Areas follow the requirements outlined in NPCC's Document B-08 - Guidelines for Area Review of Resource Adequacy. See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx. See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/regStandards/Gu ide.aspx - Document B-08
Yes - The GE MARS program models the transmission system through transfer limits on the interfaces between pairs of areas. The transfer limits are specified for each direction of the interface and can be changed on a monthly basis. Random forced outages on the interfaces are modeled in the same manner as the outages on thermal units, through the use of state transition rates.
The GE MARS model uses hourly (8760) load data that is forecast by the Areas, based on the year 2002 load shape.
Load forecast uncertainty is modeled. The effects on reliability of uncertainties in the load forecast, due to weather and economic conditions, are captured through the load forecast uncertainty model in the GE MARS program. The program computes the reliability indices at each of the specified load levels (seven load levels are modeled) and calculates weightedaverage values based on the associated probabilities of occurrence. The per unit variations in Area and sub Area load can vary on a monthly basis.
Through the load forecast uncertainty model in the GE MARS program. The forecast of load uncertainty can change, depending on the nature (short term (annual) or long term (five year)) of the analysis.
No - in fact a GE MARS representation of neighboring regions (PJM/FRC and the MISO/MRO) is included.
NPCC modeling is consistent with each NPCC Areas' resource adequacy assumptions - refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx
For short term (annual) analysis, resource certainty can be addressed through scenario analysis; for longer term analysis (five year), a probabilistic representation for the expected value of resources can be developed that eliminates the need for characterizations such as "planned" or "proposed." The NPCC LOLE criteria is an annual index that accounts for the risks in all hours (8760) modeled.
Type 1 energy-limited units are modeled as thermal units whose capacity is limited on a random basis for reasons other than the forced outages on the unit. This unit type can be used to model a thermal unit whose operation may be restricted due to the unavailability of fuel, or a hydro unit with limited water availability. It can also be used to model technologies such as wind or solar; the capacity may be available but the energy output is limited by weather conditions. Type 2 energy-limited units are modeled as deterministic load modifiers. They are typically used to model conventional hydro units for which the available water is assumed to be known with little or no uncertainty. This type can also be used to model certain types of contracts. A Type 2 energy-limited unit is described by specifying a maximum rating, a minimum rating, and a monthly available energy. This data can be changed on a monthly basis. The unit is scheduled on a monthly basis with the unit's minimum rating dispatched for all of the hours in the month. The remaining capacity and energy can be scheduled in one of two ways. In the first method, it is scheduled deterministically so as to reduce the peak loads as much as possible. In NPCC modeling is consistent with each NPCC Areas' resource adequacy assumptions - refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx
Development of NPCC guidelines for rating intermittent resources (wind) for resource adequacy assessments is a NPCC 2009 Corporate Goal.
Yes - see NPCC Document A-13 Verification of Generator Gross and Net Real Power Capability at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/regStandards/Cri teria.aspx Handled through scenario analysis - dependence on natural gas for gas-fired generation is more of a concern in the winter period - see: Multi-Area Probabilistic Reliability Assessment For Winter 2007/08 at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reports/Seasonal .aspx
Refer to the NPCC A-02 Document - NPCC Members' are obligated to its conditions under the NPCC Bylaws - see: http://www.npcc.org/documents/aboutus/BusPlan Bylaws.aspx
No response
Refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
Refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
Refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
Refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx
Yes -the annual LOLE index is calculated after all Areas' EOPs are exhausted.
Firm sales/purchases of ICAP (installed capacity) are modeled.
See: pre-seasonal assessments at http://www.npcc.org/documents/reports/Seasonal .aspx Neighboring Regions (PJM/RFC and MISO/MRO) participate in the studies and review the purchase/sale assumptions.
Only known, firm contracts are modeled.
NPCC Multi-Area modeling of its Areas with the GE MARS program and neighboring regions precludes the need for explicit Tie Benefit assumptions. NPCC periodically reviews the Tie Benefits assumptions used by its Members for reasonability - see: http://www.npcc.org/documents/publications/Assi s.aspx
See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/publications/Assi s.aspx
See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/publications/Assi s.aspx A range is estimated based on "As Is' and "At Criteria" Annually for the pre-seasonal and interim Area reviews of resource adequacy and every three years for the comprehensive Area reviews of resource adequacy Pre-seasonal assessments - current year; interim and comprehensive - five year
annual LOLE
Refer to: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reports/Seasonal .aspx (pre-seasonal multi-area assessments) and http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx (interim and comprehensive reviews of resource adequacy) Yes - scenarios are modeled with separate multiarea probabilistic assessment assumptions/simulations
NPCC modeling is consistent with each NPCC Areas' resource adequacy assumptions - refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx NPCC modeling is consistent with each NPCC Areas' resource adequacy assumptions - refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx See above
NPCC does not have a reserve margin requirement NPCC does not have a reserve margin requirement See above
Through the NPCC Areas (ISO-NE, NYISO, IESO, NBSO, Hydro-Quebec)
Consistent with the NPCC A-02 resource adequacy criteria; refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx
New York State, the Ontario Energy Board, the Quebec Energy Board, NECPUC, and the New Brunswick commission have all either mandated or accepted the NPCC A-02 resource adequacy criteria. NPCC modeling is consistent with each NPCC Areas' resource adequacy assumptions - refer to the individual NPCC Area responses for more detail or the latest NPCC Review of Area Resource Adequacy at: http://www.npcc.org/documents/reviews/Resourc e.aspx Many of the questions are "reserve margin" centric, NPCC's criteria is based on a probabilistic multi-area LOLE index; reserve margins in NPCC may vary by area, but each Area adheres to the NPCC criteria when calculating there installed capacity and resource requirements.
Response to Survey
RFC The PRSGs within ReliabilityFirst conduct LOLE analyses to determine the required reserve margins for their respective areas. Information on the reserve margin requirement can be found at the following URLs: PJM http://www.pjm.com/markets/rpm/downloads/plan ning-period-parameters.xls Midwest PRSG www.midwestmarket.org/page/Regulatory+and+E conomic+Standards
ReliabilityFirst has a Regional Standard that requires all LSEs to determine their level of reserve margin needed to satisfy a Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) of 1 occurrence in ten years (.1/year LOLE). The evaluation can be made for individual LSEs or groups of LSEs known as Planned Reserve Sharing Groups (PRSGs).
The choice of a particular LOLE model is up to the LSE or PRSG.
The ReliabilityFirst standard requires that LSEs or PRSGs perform an LOLE analysis. The reserve margins derived from that analysis is used by ReliabilityFirst to assess the resource adequacy of the region. Results from this assessment are reported within the ReliabilityFirst region and in the NERC assessments.
Each evaluation utilizes demand data, DSM/Demand response data, Generator capacity and availability data, and interconnection/import capability data. Data can be provided by whatever functional entity has the applicable data, or the PRSG can develop or collect the applicable data as needed.
Transmission constraints are required to be factored into import capability. Internal constraints are as determined and included by the LSE/PRSG in their analysis.
The demand forecast for an LSE or PRSG is to be coincident demand.
Weather, economic forecast, and load forecast uncertainty are the listed categories in the regional standard.
This is incorporated into the analysis as determined by the PRSG or LSE.
The only demand not included in the analysis is behind the meter and customer supplied demand.
The two RTOs in the ReliabilityFirst region (MISO and PJM) provide this data based on the definitions in the NERC LTRA.
ReliabilityFirst assesses long term adequacy by comparing the required reserves to the Planned and Proposed capacity resources identified by the RTOs.
Existing capacity- Certain: Deliverable resources included as Capacity or DNR in the RTO markets. - Uncertain: Existing capacity not in the certain category. All resources are to be mapped to Planned and Proposed categories based on the definitions and the RTO's judgement.
Planned resources should be resources that have a reasonable expectation of commercial operation in the next few years. Proposed resources are uncertain and should be recocnized as uncertain without trying to assign a precise probability of operation. In planning studies this does not occur.
The modeling is determined by the LSE or PRSG conducting the study.
Energy only and transmission limited resources would be included as a type of future year planned resources. Uncertain wind or other variable generation would be included as a type of proposed resources.
The rating of wind generation facilities is determined by the PJM and MISO market requirements.
ReliabilityFirst is developing a rating standard that will require verification of seasonal capacity ratings. Ratings will be adjusted to expected seasonal ambient temperatures.
The ReliabilityFirst region monitors, at a high level, the general fuel supply situation in the region. About 46% of the fuel supply is coal, about 29% is gas. As of 4-15-08 there are no anticipated fuel supply concerns.
Both RTOs, MISO and PJM have procedures to evaluate deliverability of generation to load within their respective markets. There is no regional definition of deliverability.
The ReliabilityFirst RTOs currently identify interruptible demand and direct control load management as their demand response programs.
Energy efficiency is built in to the demand forecasts based upon the the demand forecasting methodology used by the RTOs and their members. ReliabilityFirst does not have any information on EE programs and forecasts.
See response to #22
See response to #22
See response to #22
See response to #22
See response to #22
See response to #22
No
No
Not applicable
No
Not applicable
Not applicable
Unknown
No
Not applicable
No
Not applicable
Not applicable
Yes
No
From RTO data responses
Yes
Modeling is assumed to be the net reduction available at the time of the regional peak.
The current level of reduction is assumed to continue indefinitely.
The categories of emergency operating procedures are determined by the RTOs.
No.
PJM and MISO provide data only for "firm" imports and exports.
Firm imports and exports are included in resource adequacy assessments. No.
Whatever criteria the RTOs use for firm imports and exports.
Tie benefits are not included in the assessments.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Regional assessments utilize the reserve margins of the PRSGs. Reserve margins are based upon probabilistic analyses that are conducted annually. The regional assessments have seasonal and ten year horizons according to NERC standards. The PRSG analyses have a ten year horizon. The PRSG analyses are required to calculate an LOLE based on a minimum of the weekday peak LOLPs.
Random generator outages are included in the PRSG analyses
The region's seasonal assessments include an exteme weather scenario.
When peak demands exceed expectations for any reason, the operational response will vary from nothing (adequate reserves), to rolling blackouts (inadequate reserves, no available purchase power, and demand response, public appeals and voltage reductions unable to restore demand and capacity balance).
Not applicable
Yes, when included in the demand forecast.
Load reduction
No.
No.
Yes, based upon expected operation at peak.
PJM has a provision to implement through the RTO tariff. MISO is approved by FERC to implement through the RTO tariff beginning in 2009.
Yes. PJM 15 % reserve margin. MISO uses 12%, 13.7%,14.2%, 14.3% and 18% depending on the specific PRSG zone or state requirements.
The state of Wisconsin requires a 18% reserve margin.
The PJM timeframe is one year. The MISO timeframe is one month.
No.
Planning Coordinator Region (select from the drop-down Date Survey Completed:
Response to Survey
SERC SERC as a region does not perform probabilistic resource adequacy studies, however many of SERC's members do perform probabilistic resource adequacy studies to project future resource needs. These underlying probabilistic studies will therefore influence SERC's deterministic assessment. Under the supervision of the SERC Engineering Committee (EC), the SERC Reliability Review subcommittee (RRS) conducts reviews of regional and subregional margin assessment; assesses the adequacy and security of each of the SERC subregions; and reports its findings to the SERC EC. The RRS reviews and assesses the overall reliability (adequacy and security) of the SERC bulk electric systems, both existing and as planned, to ensure that each SERC member conforms to applicable NERC Reliability Standards, as well as any related SERC criteria. The RRS is a permanent subcommittee of the SERC Engineering Committee. These reviews and assessments: 1) consider trends in planning, operations, and external influences as they affect reliability, both overall and subregion specific; 2) are conducted annually and as requested by the NERC Planning Committee; and 3) consider seasonal variations, near-term (years one
There is no regional criteria specified. Resource planning and criteria are left to the members and their respective state or other jurisdictions. The RRS determines if resource information submitted represents a reasonable and attainable plan. The transmission systems within SERC are planned, designed, and operated such that the regions generating resources with an obligation to serve load or have firm contracts to serve load are not constrained. Typical resource adequacy studies (LOLE studies) do not consider transmission constraints Some SERC members perform some sort of probabilistic studies. Others consider their approach deterministic. Some consider their approach a combination of deterministic and probabilistic methods. At least one member uses Loss of load expectation and percent reserves. The RELY model is used by at least one member.
Determining resource adequacy in each capability period (summer/winter). Results are used to determine if additional capacity and energy need to be procured. State and local regulators generally rely on company specific studies for those companies within their respective jurisdictions.
The data used is the data gathered through a twice yearly survey of SERC members in support of NERC LTRA, Winter and Summer Assessments along with EIA data filings. Within member companies expected forced outage rates for all generation units are provided by , i.e. nuclear, fossil, hydro, etc.
The transmission systems within SERC are planned, designed, and operated such that the regions generating resources with an obligation to serve load or have firm contracts to serve load are not constrained. Typical resource adequacy studies (LOLE studies) do not consider transmission constraints. But limits are modeled by some members indirectly through limits on amount of off-system purchases.
Summation of non-coincident peaks on a monthly or annual basis.
Load uncertainty related to many factors including economic conditions and weather is generally considered by SERC's members. Most produce a 50/50 forecast, Some use a 90/10 forecast.
SERC members are questioned and asked to quantify load forecast uncertainty. Information received is used in assessments. Members typically consider short term load uncertainty as including the impacts of extreme weather. Long term uncertainties include high and low economic scenarios, high and low electric prices, high and low gas prices, and outlook for large industrial customers. None to the best of our ability to determine. SERC staff extensively test the data received to determine if any data is missing.
All load serving entities within SERC report existing and future resources through the EIA411 reporting process. This includes owned resources as well as merchant resources with a contractual arrangement. Only capacity reported through the EIA-411 is used in capacity margin calculations. Because significant capacity exist within SERC with no obligation to serve or firm contractual arrangement, there will continue to be additional generation above that which is reported in the capacity margin trend. Capacity margin calculations also assume the use of load management and interruptible contracts at the time of the annual peak. Market based mechanisms for capacity assurance are generally not applicable to SERC except in a few areas that are part of organized markets (MISO, SPP, PJM). All resources reported in the region are tabulated as being a portion of the resource mix. Resources are being categorized consistent with the NERC LTRA guidelines. The load serving entities (LSE) may have their own selection process, including RFPs, to evaluate the capacity options. Capacity resources included in reliability assessments are generally proven technologies.
See answer above. For the purposes of NERC Reliability Assessment reporting, SERC members are generally using the NERC Planning Committee and RAS guidance from the December 2007 meeting: "Planned" means construction has started with at least one of the following regulatory permits approved: Site permit, Construction permit, Environmental permit Or: Corporate management has approved at least one of the following: Included in a capital budget BOD approved. All other resources are considered Uncertain
SERC members have been instructed to follow the NERC definitions for resource certainty in the current year's (2008) reporting.
We do not have a recommendation at this time, but note that very few SERC members reported any "uncertain" capacity for the Summer 2008 and the 2008 LTRA reporting cycle.
Yes. SERC members monitor and develop contingency plans as needed to address these operational issues.
SERC members are aware of energy-limited resources that could impact resource availability and use various tools and practices to develop short-term operational and long-term plans to address these issues.
SERC is not specifically assessing transmission limited resources as a result of the NERC Planning Committee decision to not do so this year. Some members may calculate accredited capacity of 4-6 hours duration based on legacy region (MAIN) criteria. At this time there is not much wind resource in SERC although in some portions of SERC it is expected to develop. There is no SERC standard approach. Projected wind (or any other fuel type plant) project output is taken as reported by each SERC reporting member. MISO is using a rating for capacity determination set at 20% of the rated output of wind plants. Wind resources should be connected to the Ameren system in late 2008 or early 2009.
Ratings for generating plants are reported based on the seasonal ratings established based on peak season ambient temperature, water, or other constraining conditions. Based on recent history, water temperatures and water availability would be included. Yes, for instance we have developed a drought study which examines the impact of the Southeast US drought on hydro and thermal plants (environmental permit related cooling system impacts) in the region. The NERC 2007 LTRA reported for 2006 showing natural gas at 15%, Coal at 44% , Nuclear at 16% and Hydro at 6% of Summer peak demand. Also, some members have conducted interdependency studies between fuel delivery and resource availability. Specifically the RRS performed a gas-electricity interdependence assessment two years ago. No fuel supply problems are anticipated except for the recent drought related issues which may be abating.
Deliverability to load is generally assessed through regional transmission assessment studies and studies carried out by Transmission Planning entities within the SERC region. Some sub areas have other approaches, for instance in MISO, generators that pass a deliverability test can be considered as a network resource for any of the MISO loads that choose to designate them. The load serving entities (LSE) may have their own selection process, including RFPs, to evaluate the capacity options.
In general within the SERC region there are significant demand response programs. These programs allow demand to be reduced or curtailed when needed to maintain reliability. Traditional load management and interruptible programs such as air conditioning load control and large industrial interruptible services are utilized within the region.
EE is considered at the member level. SERC does not generally obtain this information, however for 2008 there are categories of reporting which include such information.
NDDR is considered at the member level.
DEDR is considered at the member level.
DCDR is considered at the member level.
Emergency Operating procedures vary by member.
Some members rely on public appeals to reduce load for capacity reserve deficiencies.
SERC takes the assessments of such transactions as put forward by our SERC members in the data survey process.
Import and export categories are considered certain as reported Yes- we strive to match up buyers and sellers reporting transactions when reporting transactions. These are reconciled at the regional reporting level.
Past experience with import plans and projections made by members through the twice yearly surveys.
They are not
There is no process in place.
Probabilistic assessments are not performed by SERC, although some members perform such assessments at the member level. They are typically performed on an annual basis by members 10,15, or 20 years depending on the member.
Some members use probability methods others use deterministic methods. Some use LOLP others LOLE, others use a capacity or reserve margin approach not driven by a probabilistic assessment. Answer not available at this time for those members performing such assessments.
Scenarios are modeled from time to time depending on the issue. For instance for Summer 2008 SERC has prepared a Drought Assessment. SERC is also at the time of this submittal considering participating in a renewables assessment.
In general, operating procedures seek voluntary load reduction through public appeals, reactive power dispatch and generation redispatch are tools that are available to operators in the SERC region. We would not be pursuing operating remedies if peak demands are higher than expected. Typically, only if operating reserves are at risk would there be implementation of DSM or public appeals, or voltage reduction, etc.
Not Applicable in the SERC region.
SERC members have generally adopted the NERC 2008 LTRA definitions which identifies this component separately
SERC members are generally applying the NERC 2008 LTRA model definition which identifies this component separately
Yes, by each reporting member company consistent with their respective experience.
resource adequacy is assessed on a state jurisdictional basis by each member company and generally not through organized markets, ISOs, RTOs except where such exist (MISO, SPP, PJM) in parts of the SERC footprint
No there are no benchmarks or established metrics but, depending on the company, state and subregion; for the SERC region as a whole one can say that there is general acceptance of capacity margins in the range of 10-15%
Yes, the state of Georgia.
Not generally applicable in the SERC region except for portions of SERC in SPP, MISO and PJM.
No response
Response to Survey
SPP The lastest study is under progress. It will be made available at a later date.
SPP uses a 12% reserve margin which based on historical LOLE studies(approximately a 1 day in ten years)
To verify LOLE, a 3-5 year out case is used, with Monte Carlo simulations.
To inform resource planners who are SPP members.
Data is used from member data submissions annually relevant to forecast and historical figures
Interface limits are modeled as well as significant OTDF flowgates. Binding transmission forces local generation to serve load, if none is available then load is shed
Each SPP member annually provides a tenyear forecast of peak demand and net energy requirements. The forecasts are developed in accordance with generally recognized methodologies.The resultant SPP forecast is the total of the member forecasts. High and lowgrowth rates and unusual weather scenario bands are then produced for the SPP regional and subregional demand and energy forecasts
Based on weather, economic trends, etc.
Changes over time
No
EIA-411,LTRA,Supply Adequacy Audit
EIA-411 data submitted by members
Existing Capacity includes Certain and Uncertain Capacities. Planned Capacity is a resouce that is already under construction or has a signed interconnection agreement in place. Proposed Capacity is a resource that has been announced but does not have a signed interconnection agreement.
No suggestion at this time
Studies show LOLP problems throughout the year based on standard FOR and results of the simulation. Maintenance is done on SPP generating units in the off peak season, where enough generation is present in the surrounding system to cover any unexpected system conditions based on the reserve sharing requirements.
They are included with a uncertainty distribution in the program
These resources are currenly being derated appropriately for resource adequacy assessment.
Wind is rated based on historical data, and a standard uncertainty distribution
Units that have a specific derating for peak load conditions are modeled as such on an individual basis.
SPP consults its generation owners and contolling members each year to monitor fuel supplies. SPP criteria requires members to keep a sufficient amount of standby fuel on hand to help if there are any deliveribilty concerns. There are no concerns known to SPP at this time.Coalfired plants make approx. 48% and natural gas power plants make up approx. 44% of SPP total generation.
SPP defines firm deliverability as electric power intended to be continuously available to the buyer even under adverse conditions; i.e., power for which the seller assumes the obligation to provide capacity (including SPP defined capacity margin) and energy. Such power must meet standards of reliability and availability as that delivered to native load customers. Power purchased can be considered to be firm power only if firm transmission service is in place to the load serving member for delivery of such power. SPP does not include financial firm contracts towards this category
The following programs are currently being used in the SPP region: Direct Control Load Management,Contractually Interruptible (Curtailable),Critical Peak-Pricing (CPP) with Control, and Load as a Capacity Resource.
EE is assumed to continue in the future as part of the SPP Strategic Plan.
Will be evaluated through SPP Strategic Plan
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Determined by SPP Membership
The SPP Region relies on the following emergency operating procedures: 1) Operating Reserves SPP Criteria 6 2) Under-Frequency Automatic Load Shedding SPP Criteria 7 3) Manual Load Shedding SPP Criteria 7 No
Firm, Non-Firm, and Firm w/rollover rights. All Firm contracts are considered rollover contracts unless they are deemed otherwise.
Firm, Non-Firm, and Firm w/rollover rights. All Firm contracts are considered with rollover rights unless they are deemed otherwise. No
SPP monitors predetermined limiting flowgates in West > East, East > West, South > North, North > South directions. Based on the impacts of the service on these flowgates determines what direction biased scenario they are placed in.
Ties with Entergy are assumed to be free flowing within thermal and voltage constraints since Entergy is part of the SPP reserve sharing program. Other regions are allowed to flow based on line limits but are modeled as an external system (e.g. low certainty)
Annually during the ERAG MMWG and SPP MDWG all data on tie lines is checked as well as coordinationg of expected long term area interchange values
Long term planned transmission ties are expected to be available at rated capacity.
Approximate every 5 years
1-2 months
LOLE is the primary factor based on duration.
Monte Carlo
The base study is done based on expected system conditions. Additional scenarios are studied to analyze potential future transmission needs
SPP's capacity margin criteria is inteneded to address the load forcast uncertainty.
This will be considerd in LOLE analysis
Yes
Subtracted from the load forecast
No
No
No
Resource adequacy is implemented in the SPP Region through each load serving members compliance with SPP Criteria, specifically section 2. In the operating horizon, each Balancing Authority within SPP is required to carry sufficient operating capacity to maintain a prescribed amount of operating reserves. SPP maintains an Operating Reserve Sharing Group for dealing with energy emergencies.
The SPP Criteria, section 2.1.9, requires each load serving member of SPP to carry a minimum capacity margin of 12%. Load serving members with system capacity of at least 75% hydro-based generation are required to carry a minimum capacity margin of 9%.
See answer to question 69.
N/A
No
Response to Survey
WECC Currently WECC does a demand to resource comparison. We are anticipating that in the next year or two we will be going to a deterministic model which will provide LOLE, etc
Building Block reserve margin comprised of a forced outage rate, a regulating margin, a contingency margin, and a temperature adder above forecasted demand.
Supply Adequacy Model (SAM)
Public Information
Existing and forecasted resources and forecasted loads provided by Balancing Authorities.
Yes, Limited representation of major paths.
Balancing Authorities currently report their actual and forecast peak demands. WECC uses the aggregate of these forecasts for it's forecasts. The aggrregation is of non-coincidental peaks for each month.
The PSA includes an adverse weather scenario.
A study is done using demand date that has been increased from a 1 - 2 demand forecast to a 1 10 forecast.
Yes, there is some behind the meter loads served by self generators.
WECC divided their resources into 5 classifications. Classes 1-3 were considered planned capacity resources, all planned capacity resources were considered available for the LTRA. Classes 4 and 5 were considered proposed capacity resources, the proposed capacity had a zero percent certainity applied to it, by decision of WECC's Loads and Resources Subcommittee. WECC took an exception to counting resources in the "Planned" categorization that had only received Board Approval or were included in a budget. These resources WECC categorized as Class 4 and were included in the Proposed Capacity. See below for further details.
Class 1: Under active construction and expected to be in service by Jan. 2012. Class 2: All regulatory permits approved, interconnection agreement signed, and expected to be on-line by Jan. 2014. Class 3: At least under regulatory review, at least facility study done and interconnection agreement in active negotiation, and expected to be on-line by Jan. 2014.
All operational existing resources are considered Existing Certain. Class 1: Under active construction and expected to be in service by Jan. 2012. Class 2: All regulatory permits approved and, interconnection agreement signed and, expected to be on-line by Jan. 2014. Class 3: At least under regulatory review and, at least facility study done and interconnection agreement in active negotiation and, expected to be on-line by Jan. 2014. Class 4: All others that meet NERC criteria for "Planned" resources but for WECC's analysis they were included in "Proposed". Class 5: All resources that only meet the NERC ctiteria for "Proposed" resources. WECC encourages NERC to cosider using the PSA Class 1-5 definitions for defining the gradation of certainty of resources.
N/A. As mentioned above, WECC currently does not have the ability to perform LOLP analyses. Currently WECC does a demand to resource comparison. WECC is anticipating that in the next year or two they will be going to a deterministic model which will provide LOLE, etc
Hydro and energy-limited resources, such as wind, are derated in the PSA analysis.
In the 2008 LTRA, the existing uncertain wind and transmission-limited resources are listed and included in the "Total Internal Capacity", but they are not counted in the "Deliverable Internal capacity" and are not considered further in our resource adequacy assessment.
Yes
WECC has a generator rating process.
WECC has not implemented a formal fuel supply interruption analysis methodology. Gas and Coal resources make up 43% and 18% of WECC's existing on peak resources. Historically, coalfired plants have been built at or near their fuel source and generally have long-term fuel contracts with the mine operators, or actually own the mines. Gas-fired plants were historically located near major load centers and relied on historically relatively abundant western gas supplies.
The PA and LSE's are responsible for determining deliverability within their area. WECC also uses the SAM model for their PSA and depicts transmission constraints using a transport algorithm.
Of the 35 Balancing Authorities that have responded, the majority of them primarily only use two traditional DSM programs, Interruptible demand (1,054 MWs) and Direct control load management (3,053 MWs).
This is the first year WECC has requested this information from their BAs and so WECC does not have historic levels. But the forecasted levels of EE reported to WECC does not appear to erode.
No explict energy efficiency assumptions or assessments are performed on a RRO level.
Although efforts are underway to start collecting data mandated under NERC Standards Mod 1621; there is currently no categorization of interuptible loads into the Non-dispatchable demand response category
Although efforts are underway to start collecting data mandated under NERC Standards Mod 1621; there is currently no categorization of intteruptible loads into the dispatchable economic demand response category
Yes, there are DCDR resources reported in the LTRA. Some of those resources are the Air Conditioner cycling programs The Balancing Authorities report the Direct Control Load Management values to WECC and WECC compiles them and includes them in the LTRA and the PSA. see questions 41 and 42.
No in the PSA and Yes in the LTRA
Not
These are not considered in the SAM Model
These are not considered in the SAM Model
In various WECC subareas, remotely owned generation is allocated to the owner. All other resources are economical transactions.
N/A
N/A
Same treatment as used in #49
All resources are assumed to be available for exports except those remotely owner resources which are allocated.
All resources are assumed to be available.
Same treatment as used in #49
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
As demands are higher than expected, additional resources would be brought on or purchases would be made to meet the increased need. Most of the BAs are members of reserve sharing groups and could declare a NERC alert, which allows them to call upon those resources if needed within the hour due to outages etc. However if all local resources were dispatched (including DSM programs) and no additional imports were available, then controlled load shedding would occur. (also see item 69 and 71) N/A
no
Dispatchable DSM products are generally subtracted from load by most of the balancing authorities, but is considered a resource in others and could be used to meet a portion of their reserve margins. As reported in question 41, the BAs already report a net firm load that is not further reduced. No
No
Yes. Wind is derated to the average generation available over the last three years and in the NorthWest, the hydro resources are also derated by the planning authority.
On a Load Serving Entity basis working with their regulators.
California ISO 15%; PNW adopted voluntary standard with energy and capacity targets in April 2008.
California PUC
For the CAISO, 1 year out, 90% demonstration of adequacy; 1 month out 100% demonstration of adequacy.
No response

RRO Adequacy Assessment Practices-Survey Responses 08-14-08 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RRO Adequacy Assessment Practices-Survey Responses 08-14-08 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survey for Inventory of NERC Regional Resource Adequacy Assessment C

What data is used? How is data provided?

Are transmission constraints modeled? If so, how?

How do you categorize load uncertainty?

How is load forecast uncertainty incorporated into your assessment?

Are any loads within your geographic area excluded?

How are energy-limited resources, such as hydro or environmentally-constrained thermal, modeled?

Is there a rating system for wind resources?

Demand-Side Management Resources (DSM):

What types of EE improvements are included in the 10-year load forecast?

Are any types of EE improvements tabulated separately? If so, what improvements?

How do you determine the peak demand component of EE improvements?

How are the certainties/uncertainties of EE resources modeled?

What criteria do you use to include future EE in your assessments?

How do you determine the peak demand component of DCDR?

What are your categories of emergency operating procedures?

What criteria do you use for including future imports, exports?

What criteria do you use for including future tie benefits?

Assessments How often are probabilistic assessments 56 performed?

What is the time horizon for the assessments?

Does the assessment include scenarios? How are these modeled?

Reserve Margin Calculations Is non-dispatchable DSM subtracted from peak 63 demand?

Is dispatchable DSM modeled as a resource or subtracted from load forecast?

onal Resource Adequacy Assessment Criteria by Regional Reliability Organizatio

To inform regulators, market participants, and other stakeholders

Not in previous studies.

Primary sources of load uncertainty are weather and economic trends.

ERCOT does not have a significant amount of energy-limited resources.

ERCOT maintains summer and winter ratings for generating units.

NSE (ND2R): No.

ESPONSE (DEDR): No.

LOLP studies have been performed every 2 - 3 years.

These studies have looked at current conditions only.

Loads, thermal generation availability, wind generation availability.

No scenarios were performed in the last LOLP study.

N/A. ERCOT has a deregulated, energy-only generation market.

ent Criteria by Regional Reliability Organization (August 14, 2008)

To confirm Reserve Margin criteria is adequate to utilities and state regulators.

See response to question 12 above on 'Planned' capacity.

Loss Of Load Probability (1 day in 10 years).

Occurences of forced outages.

Scenarios such as change in load forecast may be modeled as needed.

Yes (Individual entity practice may be different).

Subtracted from load.

State Regulatory Mechanisms

Organization (August 14, 2008)

Response to Survey NPCC

Firm sales/purchases of ICAP (installed capacity) are modeled.

Only known, firm contracts are modeled.

See: http://www.npcc.org/documents/publications/Assi s.aspx

Through the NPCC Areas (ISO-NE, NYISO, IESO, NBSO, Hydro-Quebec)

The choice of a particular LOLE model is up to the LSE or PRSG.

The demand forecast for an LSE or PRSG is to be coincident demand.

This is incorporated into the analysis as determined by the PRSG or LSE.

The modeling is determined by the LSE or PRSG conducting the study.

See response to #22

See response to #22

See response to #22

See response to #22

See response to #22

See response to #22

From RTO data responses

The current level of reduction is assumed to continue indefinitely.

The categories of emergency operating procedures are determined by the RTOs.