1

N A E S B B P S U P D A T ET O

E X E C U T I V E C O M M I T T E EA U G U S T 2 1 , 2 0 1 2

B YN A R I N D E R K S A I N I

E D S K I B AB P S - C O - C H A I R S

PARALLEL FLOW VISUALIZATION PROJECT

2

OVERVIEW

BackgroundParallel Flow Visualization ObjectivesNAESB ResponsibilityIDC InputProposed Solution Issues

NAESB External

Next Steps

3

Background: IRO-006 Transmission Loading Relief

Each Reliability Coordinator and Balancing Authority that receives a request pursuant to an Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure (such as Eastern Interconnection TLR, WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation, or congestion management procedures from the ERCOT Protocols) from any Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, or Transmission Operator in another Interconnection to curtail an Interchange Transaction that crosses an Interconnection boundary shall comply with the request, unless it provides a reliability reason to the requestor why it cannot comply with the request.

4

Background: INTERCONNECTION CONGESTION MANAGEMENT

IRO-006-WECC Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief (WECC)

IRO-006-TRE IROL & SOL Mitigation in the ERCOT Region

IRO-006-EAST Transmission Loading Relief Procedures for the Eastern InterconnectionWEQ-008 Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) – Eastern Interconnection Tool – (IDC)Interchange Distribution Calculator

5

Background: PRIMARY PLAYERS

NERC

Consortium

NAESB

NERC Standards CommitteeOperating Reliability Subcommittee IDC Working GroupStandards Drafting TeamsNAESB

Executive CommitteeBPSOASIS SubcommitteeJESS

ConsortiumIn Progress

* Interchange Distribution Calculator

IDC*

6

Parallel Flow Visualization Objectives

Generation to load (GTL) impacts reported to the IDC on a real-time basis

More accurate assignment of relief obligations to entities causing congestion Near real-time data using generator output provided

by RC Include impacts of intra-BA generation-to-load and

point-to-point transactions Differentiate between intra-BA firm and non-firm

transmission service IDC has better data to perform calculations for TLR

Levels 3 and 5

7

NAESB RESPONSIBILITY

NAESB will establish methodology for assigning the generation to load flows into the appropriate buckets.

8

IDC Input

Inter-BANetwork

InterchangeCurrent IDC

Inter-BAPoint-to-PointInterchangeCurrent IDC

Intra-BANetworkNAESB

Parallel Flow Visualization

Intra-BAPoint-to-Point

NERCS‐ Ref 10132*

* http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/All_Directives_Report_2012-04-05.pdf

9

Proposed Solution

Coordination ArrangementsTwo-Tier Firm CurtailmentTwo Methods*

Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service, or Generator Prioritization

Additional Key Concepts

*Assumes that all point-to-point transactions are tagged under NERC standards

Coordination Arrangements

Coordination Arrangements Types Coordination Agreements

An agreement between two or more Transmission Service Providers for coordination of: a) granting transmission service by honoring a set of Flowgate limits and b) managing real-time congestion

Unilateral Declarations allowed if Transmission Service Providers cannot agree

Reciprocity The provision in a Coordination Agreement that may extend certain provisions

beyond the direct signatories of a specific Coordination Agreement.

Jurisdictional entities required to file Coordination Agreements and Unilateral Declarations with FERC

Two-Tier Firm Curtailments – encourages Coordination Arrangements

10

Two-Tier Firm Curtailment

Two-Tier Firm Curtailment First-to-Curtail

The firm transmission service curtailment priority assigned by the IDC to parallel flows due to a lack of Coordination Agreement, Reciprocity, or unilateral agreement.

Last-to-Curtail The firm transmission service curtailment priority assigned by

the IDC to: a) on-path flows and b) parallel flows when a Coordination Agreement, Reciprocity, or Unilateral Declaration exists between the Transmission Service Provider experiencing congestion and (at least one of) the Transmission Service Provider(s) on the path of the transaction whose transmission service is contributing to the congestion.

11

First-to Curtail/Last-to-Curtail: Examples

TSP with Coordination Arrangements12

  Last to Curtail TSPs

SOCO TVA DUK PJM MISO SPP EESCONGESTION

SOCO X   X       XTVA   X   X X X  DUK X   X X      PJM   X X X X    

MISO   X   X X X  SPP   X     X X XEES X         X X

Congested TSP: TVA Last to Curtail if tag has TVA, PJM, MISO or SPP on path

Congested TSP: PJM Last to Curtail if tag has TVA, DUK,, PJM or MISO on path

Congested TSP: SPP Last to Curtail if tag has TVA, MISO, SPP or EES on path

13Legend: TSPs: A, B, C, D, E, F, G Firm Contract Path: Tie: Direct Agreements: Reciprocity: Congested FG: Notes: If any segment on the tag

is non-firm the 2-Tier Firm Curtailment process is not applicable.

2-Tier firm Curtailment only applies to off-path.

B

G F

DE

A

C

2 Tier Firm Curtailment

14

B

G F

DE

A

C

Last to Curtail Example

Scenario: Firm Tag Off-Path Congestion Coordinate Agmts in

placeC is coordinated with

at least one TSP on contract path: A-D-F

Tag is Last-to-Curtail

15

B

G F

DE

A

C

First to Curtail Example

Scenario: Firm Tag Off-Path Congestion Limited Coordinate

AgmtsC is not coordinated

with any TSPs on contract path: A-D-F

Tag is First-to-Curtail

16

Methods for Intra-BA Transactions

Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service Method A method used to submit to the IDC transmission

service curtailment priority of the Secondary Network Transmission Service using electronic tags.

Generator Prioritization Method A method used to submit to the IDC transmission

service curtailment priority of the generator output. Difference between what is reported and the

real-time generator output is firm

17

Additional Key Concepts

Balancing Authority to choose either one but not both Methods (Balancing Authority can switch)

Transactions or generation-to-load impacting 5% or greater considered for assigning relief obligations

Credit for RedispatchIDC Processing

Sub-priorities Reloads of Curtailed Transactions

Pseudo-Ties (generator physically in one BA but electrically located in another)

18

Issues: NAESB

Coordination Arrangements Penalty versus incentive - Subcommittee members perception Level of detail in Coordination Arrangements – high level

requirementsTwo-Tier Firm Curtailment

Two-Tier Firm Curtailment – Managing Committee DirectionTransparency of curtailments (OASIS templates)

Non-tagged transactions First-to-Curtail/Last-to-Curtail

Access to data during parallel testFull Staffing concerns

19

Issues: External

NERC Standards (reliability issue/priority) INT standards modified to require tagging on all intra-

BA point-to-point transactions IRO-006-EAST modified to allow a Reliability

Coordinator to request curtailments on intra-BAA point-to-point tags

IDC transitioning from NERC How funding/implementation for change orders to

accommodate Parallel Flow Visualization will be handled/prioritized?

NAESB/Consortium coordination unknown

Next Steps

Documentation Recommendation (in progress) IDC changes supporting document NERC standard changes supporting document

Posting for informal comments (after October meeting) – In Jeopardy Modifications to recommendation (November/December) - ??? Post for formal comments by end of year

Meetings Sept 12-13 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB) October 17-18 – Las Vegas, NV (hosted by OATI) November 14-15 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB) December 11-12 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB)

20

21

QUESTIONS

?