Post on 30-Dec-2015
description
transcript
Power Supply Adequacy AssessmentModel/Methodology Review
Steering Subcommittee Meeting January 29, 2010
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
2
Outline• Model Validation
– Benchmarking Process– Sample Historical vs. Simulated Dispatch
• Methodology Review– Current Adequacy Metric: LOLP– The Problem with LOLP– LOLP Subcommittee Suggestions– Next Steps
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
3
Model Validation• HYDSIM vs. actual monthly generation• GENESYS vs. HYDSIM hydro generation output• Hydro peaking calibration
– Trapezoidal Model/HOSS/Capacity Survey• Check random variable distributions
– Water, wind, forced outage, load/temperature• Simulated thermal dispatch vs. historical dispatch• Simulated hydro dispatch vs. historical dispatch
• Simulated dispatch vs. scheduler’s perspective
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
4
Monthly Generation - Boardman
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133
Months
MW
-mo
nth
sHistorical Mean Simulated
10771104 139 104159 124 98 58 104 88 100
Runoff Volume in Blue - Avg =107
Monthly Generation - Columbia Generating
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133
Months
MW
-mo
nth
s
Historical Mean Simulated
10771104 139 104159 124 98 58 104 88 100
Runoff Volume in Blue - Avg =107
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
5
Genesys - February 1997
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000Demand Hydro
Sample Comparison of Historical vs. Simulated Hydro Dispatch
•Hourly hydro dispatch is highly dependent on hourly load shape
•Historical and Genesys hydro load following is consistent
•Illustrative only – based on old data and F&W constraints
Historical - February 1997
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Demand Hydro
Methodology Review
Current Adequacy Metric:LOLP
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
7
January 1930
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1 27 53 79 105
131
157
183
209
235
261
287
313
339
365
391
417
443
469
495
521
547
573
599
625
651
677
703
729
Hour in Month
Meg
awat
ts
Net Demand NW Thermal NW Hydro Unserved Net Imports
Cold
Hydro Limited
GENESYS Simulation Illustrative Example Only
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
8
Curtailment Events(Peaking problems and energy shortages)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Hourly Curtailments Dec-Apr (Not all hours shown)
Curt
aile
d M
egaw
atts
Peak Event > 3,000 MW
Energy Event > 28,800 MW-hrs
Each event has a peak and Each event has a peak and duration.duration.
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
9
What do we Count?• Ideally, we count “significant” events (those
that we want to avoid)• Energy threshold (or contingency resource)
is 1,200 MW for one day or 28,800 MW-hours from Dec-Mar
• Capacity threshold (or contingency resource) is 3,000 MW in any hour from Dec-Mar and from Jun-Sep
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
10
Curtailment Events(non-events not shown)
Reliability Events by Game
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
3 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 15 18 18 22 22 25 25 25 25 25 25 33 33 33 33 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 41 44 44 46 46 46
Game
Cur
tailm
ent (
MW
)
Seattle
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
11
Loss of Load ProbabilitySimulated 300 winters (December through March)
Out of 300 winters, 15 had an average curtailment greater than 10 MW-seasons, which means that the Winter Loss of Load Probability (LOLP) = 15/300 = 5 percent
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
12
Energy LOLP(Sum of Curtailed Energy Dec-Mar)
0102030405060708090
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Probability (%)
Mag
nitu
de
(MW
-S
easo
ns)
We plot the average seasonal curtailment for every
simulation in descending order. We then observe where that
curve crosses the 10 MW- Season level on the probability
axis - - that identifies the LOLP for this scenario.
The Problem with LOLP
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
14
Potential Problem with LOLPSame LOLP – Bigger Magnitude
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6
Probability
Mag
nitu
de
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
15
Potential Problem with LOLPLower LOLP – Bigger Magnitude
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Probability
Mag
nitu
de
LOLP Subcommittee Reportand Recommendations
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
17
LOLP Subcommittee Report• Clearly define all reserve requirements
– Operating reserves– Planning reserves– Wind integration reserves
• Determine which reserve curtailments count toward LOLP• Add temperature-correlated wind as a random variable• Decouple temperature and water condition • Define a “contingency” resource for each month of the
year instead of defining threshold events • Record curtailment events across all months of the year• Consider using other adequacy metrics • Continue to assess climate change impacts
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
18
LOLP Review Status• Reserves
– Work being done by PNUCC committee• Temperature-correlated wind
– BPA working on a test data set• Decouple temp and water
– Done• Contingency resource
– Work needs to be assigned• Annual metric
– Not yet started• Other metrics
– BPA draft methodology– PSRI review
• Climate change – Ongoing
Next Steps
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
20
Possible Modifications to the Current Method
• Replace LOLP with an alternative metric
• Use LOLP in conjunction with an alternative adequacy metric
• Use LOLP in conjunction with the magnitude of the most severe event (or an average of the worst 10% of events)
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
21
Examples of Other Adequacy Metrics
• LOLE: loss of load expectation (%)– Number of hours with curtailment divided by the
total number of hours simulated– Can be more intuitive, i.e. 99.5% reliable– Does not address magnitude
• EUE: expected unserved energy (MW-hr)– Average amount of unserved energy per year– Lacks specific information about severe events
January 29, 2010 Resource Adequacy Steering Committee
22
Work Plan• PSRI review complete by early 2010
• Benchmark GENESYS by early 2010
• Tech Committee propose new metric and threshold by April of 2010
• Use new metric to assess 3 and 5 year adequacy by June 2010