ercot - university of texas at austin€¦ · scenario 3 – plus limited availability of low...

Mike GentVice Chair, ERCOT Board of Directors

ERCOT

CEE – UT ANNUAL MEETINGDECEMBER 8, 2011

2

PRIMARY ISSUES OF INTEREST

• Wind Integration & Related Operational Challenges

• Resource Adequacy & Regulatory Uncertainties– Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

• Advanced Metering & Demand Response – GrowingOpportunities


3 CEE – UT ANNUAL MEETINGDECEMBER 8, 2011

Wind Integration&

Related Operational Challenges

4

WIND GENERATION

• ERCOT is #1 in the U.S. in windproduction.

• Our capacity is three times the amountof #2 (Iowa).

• If Texas were a separate country, we’dbe #5 in the world.


5

CHALLENGES RELATED TO INCREASED WIND RESOURCES IN ERCOT

• Wind is not as controllable or predictable as traditionalgeneration– Highly dependent on weather conditions– Cannot be dispatched (with exceptions)– Voltage control and reactive coordination are difficult

• Works best in conjunction with other generation in samearea– Conventional resources available to provide regulation &

responsive reserve services– Possible ancillary service impacts

• Creates new challenges in system design & operation– Difficultly in coordination of transmission outages and

construction, i.e., system off peak = wind peak production– Development of standard software stability models for operations

& planning environment


6

COUNTY LOCATION OF PLANNED GENERATION WITH INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS(WIND) SEPTEMBER 2011


7

SCENARIO 2 TRANSMISSION PLAN (18GW)


8

DAILY WIND GRAPH AT PEAK



Resource Adequacy&

Regulatory Uncertainties

10

RESERVE MARGIN, WITH POTENTIAL RESOURCES FROM QUEUE

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Installed Capacity Planned Units Coal * Natural Gas * Nuclear * Other * Solar * Wind * Suspended Projects ** 13.75% Target

* Fuel Composition of Projects Undergoing Full Interconnection Studies - theseprojects may be cancelled or delayed beyond the indicated commercial dates shown

** Potential in-service dates for suspended projects shown as the later of 2013 orthe date provided by the developer in their last update prior to suspension; may notreflect feasible in-service dates

• Installed Capacity and Planned Units areincluded in the CDR (top of light blue bar)

• Uncommitted Projects are not included inCDR

Uncommitted Projects


Reserve Margin Target – 13.75%

11

GENERATION INTERCONNECTION PROJECTS UNDER STUDY

ACTIVITY


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

Jan-

06Fe

b-06

Ma

r-06

Ap

r-06

Ma

y-06

Jun-

06Ju

l-06

Au

g-06

Sep-

06O

ct-0

6No

v-06

Dec-

06Ja

n-07

Feb-

07M

ar-0

7A

pr-0

7M

ay-

07Ju

n-07

Jul-0

7A

ug-

07Se

p-07

Oc

t-07

Nov-

07De

c-07

Jan-

08Fe

b-08

Ma

r-08

Ap

r-08

Ma

y-08

Jun-

08Ju

l-08

Au

g-08

Sep-

08O

ct-0

8No

v-08

Dec-

08Ja

n-09

Feb-

09M

ar-0

9A

pr-0

9M

ay-

09Ju

n-09

Jul-0

9A

ug-

09Se

p-09

Oc

t-09

Nov-

09De

c-09

Jan-

10Fe

b-10

Ma

r-10

Ap

r-10

Ma

y-10

Jun-

10Ju

l-10

Au

g-10

Sep-

10O

ct-1

0No

v-10

Dec-

10Ja

n-11

Feb-

11M

ar-1

1A

pr-1

1M

ay-

11Ju

n-11

Jul-1

1A

ug-

11Se

p-11

Oc

t-11

Nov-

11

Proj

ect

Co

un

t

MW

C

ap

aci

ty

MW Natural Gas MW Nuclear MW Coal MW Wind MW Solar *

MW Biomass * MW Other Total # Projects # Projects Cancelled

* Prior to September 2008, Category "Other" included "Solar" and "Biomass"Projects in all phases of interconnection study are reflected in this graphProject cancellation tracking by month began in March 2008

Note: Suspended Projects are not included in this chart


Cross State Air Pollution Rule

13

CSAPR RULE REQUIREMENTS

• The CSAPR affects generating units in most of the eastern US (depictedon next slide).

• Under the CSAPR, generating units must have CSAPR allowances tomatch annual emissions of SO2 and NOX and separate allowances forpeak season (May – Sept.) NOX emissions.

• Units are allocated a number of allowances based on historicalgeneration. These unit allocations have been published.

• Trading of allowances within a state is unlimited. Interstate trading ofallowances is allowed, but net state-wide imports of allowances arecapped at approximately 18% of a state’s total allocation.

DECEMBER 8, 2011 CEE – UT ANNUAL MEETING

14

STATES INCLUDED IN THE CSAPR


For SO2 allowances, owners of resources inTexas will be allowed to trade with ownersof resources in the “Group 2” states:Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Alabama,Georgia, and South Carolina.

However, based on information obtained todate, ERCOT does not anticipate theemergence of an active market for trading ofGroup 2 SO2 allowances.

15

CSAPR RELIABILITY IMPLICATIONS FOR 2012-13


Scenario 1 – Successful implementation of compliance plans– Mothballs and peak output reductions to ensure compliance– Extended outages during lower price periods– 1,200 to1,400 MW capacity reduction during peak months– 3,000 capacity reduction during off-peak months (Mar, Apr, Oct, Nov)

Scenario 2 – Plus Additional daily dispatching of base-load coal units– Additional maintenance requirements due to increased ramping and

starts/stops– Capacity reduction in Oct & Nov increases to 5,000 MW

Scenario 3 – Plus Limited availability of low sulfur coals– Output restrictions to ensure compliance– Capacity reduction in Oct & Nov increases to 6,000 MW

16

CSAPR UPDATE


ERCOT is analyzing the reliability impacts of the proposed revisions to the CSAPR ruleannounced by the EPA on October 6, 2011.

The changes proposed:• Did not alter the rule’s January 1, 2012 implementation date• Did not revise modeling errors that ERCOT has reported do not reflect actual

conditions on the ERCOT electric grid• Have not been finalized, and may be altered or withdrawn by the EPA

The announced revisions to the rule arise from changes to model input assumptions inemissions rates of existing units in Texas. These changes lead to a 30% increase in thenumber of SO2 allowances given to plants in Texas.

The proposed changes also delay implementation of limits on interstate trading ofallowances until 2014.

ERCOT is gathering information from generators regarding changes to their complianceplans reported to ERCOT after the initial adoption of CSAPR.

Resource Adequacy predictions become quite challenging in the light ofRegulatory Uncertainties


Advanced Metering&

Demand Response

18

ADVANCED METERING & DEMAND RESPONSE

• Part of “Smart Grid” efforts• Remote meter reading• Informed Customers• Dynamic pricing – limited approach• Demand Response Programs

– Decrease Consumption– Need programs to Increase Consumption


Demand Response presents a great opportunity to address bothWind Integration and Resource Adequacy issues

19

SUMMER PEAK DAY LOAD SHAPE WITH FUEL MIX

Coal

DC Imports

Nuclear

Wind

Natural Gas

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10: 0

0

11: 0

0

12: 0

0

13: 0

0

14: 0

0

15: 0

0

16: 0

0

17: 0

0

18: 0

0

19: 0

0

20: 0

0

21: 0

0

22: 0

0

23: 0

0

August 3, 2011 Natural Gas Wind Nuclear Hydro

Other DC Imports Coal Energy Price

MW

$/M

Wh

$25 - $75

$3001


20

DEMAND RESPONSE POTENTIAL IN ERCOT

Source: FERC 2009 National Assessment of DR, page 42

• FERC estimates >18 GW of DR potential in Texas by 2019– Attributed to high peak demand– This would represent 20-25% of total ERCOT peak


21

OFF-PEAK VS. ON-PEAK LOAD

• Both days were Wednesdays• Customer class breakdown is for

competitive choice areas only• IDR meters are required at >700kW

Hot day, high A/C load

21,000 MW of residentialsummer peak load

Moderate day, low A/C load


22

TODAY WE’RE SETTLING ABOUT FOUR MILLION ADVANCED METERS

Advanced Meter Deployment Plan


Advanced meters give customers the data they need to makeeducated decisions about their electricity usage

QUESTIONS?

24

CHANGES THAT AFFECT RESERVE MARGIN SINCE JUNE 2011CDR (FOR SUMMER 2012)


The Peak Demand forecast has been updated (increase in Firm Load Forecast of 738 MW for 2012)

Additional Mothballed Units Capacity (MW) Planned UnitsGreens Bayou 5 -406 09INR0001-Sandy Creek 1 -925 DelayedMidlothian 5 -225 09INR0029-CFB Power Plant Units 11&12 -260 In-service, but zero net capacity to gridMonticello 1 -565 11INR0086-RRE Austin Solar -60 DelayedMonticello 2 -565 08INR0011-Senate Wind Project -13 Delayed 150 MW Unit at 8.7%Sam Bertron 3 -230 Misc DG Units 25 NewSam Bertron 4 -230 -1234Sam Bertron T2 -13Change in Prob. Of Return %s 717 Changes to Unit Maximum Sustainable Limits reported in RARFs

-1517 Net Change 339Mothballed Units Returned to Service

Spencer 4 61 Change to PUN Available Generation based on Aug 2011 ActualsSpencer 5 61 Net Change -681 Based on Aug 2011 Actual OutputSam Bertron 1 174Sam Bertron 2 174 Total Change in Resources Available -2623

470

Jack County 2 (565MW) and Sherbino Mesa Wind 2 (150MW with ELCC of13MW) moved from Planned to Installed)

ercot - university of texas at austin€¦ · scenario 3 – plus limited availability of low...

Documents