interchange distribution calculator working group … related files dl/idcwg... · hardeep kandola...

Minutes Interchange Distribution Calculator Working Group (IDCWG) December 7–8, 2011 NERC Headquarters 3353 Peachtree Road NE Suite 600, North Tower Atlanta, Georgia

The Interchange Distribution Calculator Working Group (IDCWG) met on December 7–8, 2011 in Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting agenda is affixed as Exhibit A. Chair Yasser Bahbaz presided and Larry Kezele announced that a quorum was present. Mr. Kezele read the applicable Notice of Public Meeting. Attendees1

Yasser Bahbaz, Chair

SPP Mike Lowman* VACAR-S Mohamad Yassin OATI Hugh Francis Southern Mike Colby* PJM Larry Kezele NERC Carlos Gonzalez-Perez OATI Ed Skiba* MISO Brian Strickland* ICTE David Mahlmann NYISO Wendy Ladd VACAR-S LaChelle Brooks PJM Hardeep Kandola IESO Jagjit Singh OATI David Lemmons Xcel Energy Raja Thappetaobula MISO Keith Mitchell MISO Paul Graves FRCC Alberto Gonzalez-Novoa* FRCC Nelson Muller OATI Antitrust Compliance Statement Mr. Kezele summarized the NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines. Interchange Distribution Calculator Working Group Meeting Minutes The IDCWG approved the minutes of the October 11–12, 2011 IDCWG meeting (Motion 1) and the minutes of the November 11, 2011 IDCWG conference call meeting (Motion 2).

1 * Indicates participation by speakerphone.

Interchange Distribution Calculator Working Group Meeting Minutes December 7–8, 2011

2

Future Meetings

Meeting/Conf. Call Purpose Date IDCWG Meeting Regular Meeting January 31, 2012 (8 a.m.– 5 p.m. PST)

and February 1, 2012 (8 a.m.– 5 p.m. PST) Redwood City, CA hosted by OATI

IDCWG Meeting Regular Meeting March 14, 2012 (8 a.m.– 5 p.m. EST) and March 15, 2012 (8 a.m.– 12 p.m. EST) or March 21, 2012 (8 a.m.– 5 p.m. EST) and March 22, 2012 (8 a.m.– 12 p.m. EST) Charlotte, NC hosted by Duke Energy

IDCWG Meeting Regular Meeting May 16, 2012 (8 a.m.– 5 p.m. EDT) and May 17, 2012 (8 a.m.– 5 p.m. EDT) Atlanta, GA hosted by NERC

Review of Agenda Chair Bahbaz reviewed the agenda and prioritized agenda items. The working group will conduct closed sessions as required. IDCWG Roster The working group reviewed and revised the roster. IDCWG Self-directed Work Teams The working group reviewed membership of each of the self-directed work teams:

Project Management Yasser Bahbaz (Team Lead), Allan Watson, Larry Kezele, Brian Nolan

Market Flow Yasser Bahbaz (Team Lead), Raja Thappetaobula, LaChelle Brooks, Allan Watson, David Mahlmann, Larry Kezele

Documentation LaChelle Brooks (Team Lead), Allan Watson, Cheryl Mendrala, Ben Taylor, Hugh Francis, Wendy Ladd, Larry Kezele

NERC Update Larry Kezele reported that the Operating Reliability Subcommittee (ORS) met on November 15, 2011. Items discussed by the subcommittee of interest to the working group included 1) new ORS leadership (Colleen Frosch, ERCOT, chair and Joel Wise, TVA, vice chair), 2) IDC transition, 3) PFV Project update from NAESB BPS, and 4) MHEB EAR tag curtailments.


3

NERC/NAESB Coordination Ed Skiba, co-chair of the NAESB Business Practices Subcommittee, provided a status report of the Parallel Flow Visualization project (Presentation 1). The PFV approach consists of two components which are 1) tag all non-firm and 2) generator prioritization. Each Eastern Interconnection balancing authority will be required to select one of the two components, but not both. The BPS PFV recommendations are based upon the assumption that the NERC INT and IRO reliability standards will be revised to reflect a requirement to tag all intra-balancing authority area point-to-point transactions. Mr. Skiba reported that he expects the NAESB Executive Committee to take action on the proposed business practices in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2012. Motions

Motion-1: Moved: David Mahlmann; Action: Passed. Approve the minutes of the October 11–12, 2011 IDCWG meeting.

Motion-2: Moved: Wendy Ladd; Action: Passed. Approve the minutes of the November 11, 2011 IDCWG conference call meeting.

Motion-3: Moved: Raja Thappetaobula; Action: Passed. Approve CO-333 (Include MF and NNL on TLR Event History Display) for development.

Motion-4: Moved: Raja Thappetaobula; Action: Passed. Approve CO-336 (Changes to IDC Factor Calculation Timing) for development.

Motion-5: Moved: LaChelle Brooks; Action: Passed. Accept CO-337 (PJM Request to Access and Use IDC Data) as implemented.

Motion-6: Moved: Raja Thappetaobula; Action: Passed. Accept CO-339 (MISO Data Request from IDC) as implemented.

Motion-7: Moved: Raja Thappetaobula; Action: Passed. Approve CO-338 (Default Timing for TLR Levels 1 and 0) for evaluation.

Motion-8: Moved: Raja Thappetaobula; Action: Passed. Approve CO-340 (Effective Date on Market Coordinated Flowgates) for evaluation.

Motion-9: Moved: Raja Thappetaobula; Action: Passed. Approve CO-341 (MISO and PJM ED6/7FN Transfer to IDC) for evaluation.

Motion-10: Moved: Wendy Ladd; Action: Passed. Approve Version 3.0 of webSDX CO-08 (Remaining GUI Changes) for evaluation.

Motion-11: Moved: David Mahlmann; Action: Passed. Approve webSDX CO-10 (Change the Filtering Options on Displays) for evaluation.


4

IDC Change Orders (CO)

1. CO-283 Generator-to-Load Reporting Requirements a. Status of Generator to Load Data Submission – Keith Mitchell reviewed a draft spreadsheet

reflecting the status of generator to load data submissions. The working group suggested several revisions to the spreadsheet. Mr. Mitchell’s intent is to issue the spreadsheet on a weekly basis.

2. CO-315 Circuit B3M (ONT-ITC) Phase Shifter Modeling Changes Chair Bahbaz reported that NYISO, MISO, PJM, and IESO are reviewing CO-315. CO-315 may be redrafted following this review. He reported that CO-315 remains on hold.

3. CO-316 Send a Target Market Flow not Equal to 9999 to External Market Entities of Flowgates CO-316 addresses the sending of a target market flow not equal to 9999 to external market entities of flowgates. Chair Bahbaz reported that the working group previously addressed target market flow through the implementation of multiple change orders. At the working group’s August 2010 meeting, former Chair Busbin suggested that the Congestion Management Working Group consider the impacts of implementation of CO-316 before the working group takes action. Chair Bahbaz reported that the Market Flow Task Force of the CMWG is reviewing development and deployment of CO-316 and requested that further action by the working group related to CO-316 remain on hold. The Market Flow Self-Directed Work Team may draft a white paper to document several potential alternatives to modifying the TLR reliability standards and business practices to address shortcomings of the present target market flow methodology.

4. CO-317 Michigan–Ontario PAR Status Change Switch The working group approved CO-317 for development, contingent upon resolution of a contractual agreement regarding funding between NERC and MISO, at its October 18, 2010 conference call meeting. CO-317 requests a single status flag that resets all four PARs in the MI-ONT interface with a single status change. NERC has not yet signed CO-317 nor executed a contractual agreement with MISO regarding funding of the change order.

5. CO-322 Generation Priority Submission Chair Bahbaz reported that the Parallel Flow Visualization project requires entities to submit the MW output for each generator accompanied with the Priority assigned to each MW. Currently, the priority is submitted in the same webMethod as the generator MW output. There is a need for the flexibility to allow different entities to submit real MW output and the associated priority of the MW. The working group reviewed the evaluation of Version 2 of CO-322 and deferred further action on the change order to its next meeting pending further guidance from the NAESB Business Practices Subcommittee.

6. CO-326 Parallel Flow Visualization Metrics Chair Bahbaz explained the purpose of CO-326 which is:

As the parallel flow visualization (PFV) project prepares to enter the pilot period, more benchmarking tools are needed to compare the results in both current production IDC logic and


5

the generator-to-load (GTL) calculation logic. The difference between the two logics in the two environments should be justifiable and defensible through the enhancements in visualization of parallel flows in the IDC. The following metrics assume that the methodology for PFV relief assignment has been determined and incorporated into the IDC.

He also provided the Operating Reliability Subcommittee and the NAESB BPS an overview of CO-326. CO-326 will remain on hold pending finalization of the business practices needed to implement the Parallel Flow Visualization project. The BPS will also develop its own metrics to aid in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the PFV project in managing transmission congestion.

7. CO-328 Intra-Hour Tag Curtailments Chair Bahbaz explained that currently the IDC only takes into consideration the profile value at the time of the effective TLR time. If a tag has a profile of 0 MW at xx:00 for TLR xA level but 100 MW at xx:15 thru xx+1:00, the TLR will consider 0 MW for impact purposes and, therefore, it will not curtail the tag regardless of priority. The method for which the impacts are captured should be changed to account for the profile changes of tags within the hour and assign a target MW for each tag.

The working group approved CO-328 for development during its June 23, 2011 conference call. However, OATI reported that the development of CO-328 has proven to be more complex than originally envisioned. Nelson Muller described several potential outcomes if the change order is developed as written and approved for development by the working group (Presentation 2). Following an extensive discussion, OATI will redraft CO-328 for the working group’s consideration.

8. CO-329 Load Adjustment During TLR 5 Issuance Chair Bahbaz reported that OATI implemented CO-329 in the IDC production environment on December 1, 2011. Following implementation, SPP noted that when four load types are sent to the IDC (hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly), each of those load values were reflected in the graphical user interface. OATI corrected the GUI by showing only the load value by highest priority (e.g., hourly would be shown before weekly, and daily before monthly). OATI applied this fix on December 5, 2011.

9. CO-330 Authorization of OATI Use of IDC Data for DOE Studies Chair Bahbaz explained that OATI will contract with the DOE to perform studies that will require use of data from the IDC. Any data provided to the DOE will be in a form which does not specifically identify confidential data taken from the IDC. It is expected that all data presented shall be in the form of aggregates and statistical summaries. Carlos Gonzalez-Perez reviewed the development status of CO-330.

As a follow-up to the working group’s discussion of CO-330 during its September 23, 2011 conference call, Jagjit Singh briefed the working group regarding the current development status of the change order at its October 2011 meeting. The Department of Energy would like to have actual and scheduled flow information on specific Eastern Interconnection interfaces for 2010. OATI can, in most instances, derive the scheduled flow by using e-Tag information. However, deriving the


6

actual flows on the interfaces and the scheduled flows on interfaces within a market is more problematic. Mr. Singh continues to address these data issues with members of the working group, the reliability coordinators and balancing authorities.

10. CO-331 IDC Interface to NAESB webRegistry Chair Bahbaz explained CO-331 is a change request to send the active flowgate data from IDC to the NAESB webRegistry project through an XML Web Service interface. The data will initially be transferred every time the IDC model gets updated, but more frequent data transfers can be requested in the future.

The working group approved CO-331 for development at its August 2011 meeting. Larry Kezele reported that NERC approved CO-331 for development. Carlos Gonzalez-Perez reported that, on behalf of NAESB, OATI is developing an Electric Industry Registry to replace NERC TSIN registry. OATI developed a test plan to functionally test the development of webRegistry and NERC and NAESB will jointly conduct webRegistry testing. Transition to the new registry is expected to occur in early 2012.

11. CO-332 Changes to Manitoba EAR Tag in IDC At the working group’s August 2011 meeting, Raja Thappetaobula reviewed a draft of CO-332 and summarized the MISO’s rationale for recommending its development and implementation. He explained that an External Asynchronous Resource (EAR) is a generation resource that participates in the MISO market. EAR represents a DC tie between the synchronous Eastern Interconnection grid and an asynchronous grid. Currently the MISO market has one registered EAR that represents Manitoba import into the MISO market. The EAR resource is dispatched like any other MISO resource in the real time market. The EAR has an associated dynamic schedule tag (Priority NN6) in the IDC. Even though the MISO real time market is dispatching the unit associated with the EAR every 5 minutes, the dynamic schedule tag does not get updated frequently.

Mr. Thappetaobula reported that the Operating Reliability Subcommittee discussed CO-332 at its November 15, 2011 meeting. MISO noted in its discussion with the ORS that an entity commented that a situation could occur where all MISO market flows are in a firm priority bucket but the tag has an over-all non-firm curtailment priority (EAR uses firm service in MHEB and non-firm network service in MISO). MISO’s response, to the entity’s comment, is that in those situations when TLR is called due to congestion, MISO will likely be using all of its Priority 7 firm bucket and its Priority 6 non-firm bucket. Therefore, it’s more likely that the EAR e-Tag impacts will appear in the MISO Priority 2 non-firm hourly priority bucket than in the Priority 7 firm bucket. MISO will review past TLR events to verify this. The ORS requested that MISO conduct its review of past TLR events and report its findings to the subcommittee at its February 2012 meeting. Mr. Thappetaobula will provide the working group an overview of this assessment at its next meeting.

12. CO-333 Include MF and NNL on TLR Event History Display The working group reviewed the evaluation of CO-333. CO-333 modifies the TLR History display by adding the requested columns below the “RC Ack Cuts” heading: 1) total market flow curtailments


7

and 2) total native and network load curtailments. These columns would be added to the right of the column labeled “Relief.” The same columns will be added to the Archival TLR History display.

Raja Thappetaobula moved to approve CO-333 for development (Motion 3). The working group approved the motion.

13. CO-336 Changes to IDC Factor Calculation Timing The working group reviewed the evaluation of CO-336. Chair Bahbaz explained that when the regulation status of the Michigan-Ontario PARS is manually changed within the IDC tool, a factor calculation should be manually initiated. It is understood that if the calculation is already in progress the manual initiation will be started upon completion. This will allow IDC to effect a change on the TLR process factor calculation within approximately five to eight minutes of the regulation status of the Michigan-Ontario PARS changing depending on the status of the current calculation. The “Active TLR” or Main IDC display will indicate that a manual calculation has been completed due to PARS status change. Currently the only PARS modeled in the IDC are the Michigan - Ontario PARS. However, CO-336 would also apply to all future PARS.

Raja Thappetaobula moved to approve CO-336 for development (Motion 4). The working group approved the motion. OATI anticipates that the development of CO-336 will take approximately one month; hence, NERC will not sign the change order until requested to do so by MISO and/or IESO.

14. CO-337 PJM Request to Access and Use IDC Data The working group approved CO-337 for development at its October 11–12, 2011 meeting. In CO-337, the PJM Interconnection (PJM) requests OATI to provide the aggregated impact of PJM scheduled firm transmission service reservations on the coordinated flowgates. This impact will be used by PJM to determine the firm limit of its market flows on PJM reciprocally coordinated flowgates. OATI is planning to build an interface between the NERC IDC and OATI webImpact, an OATI hosted engine, to calculate the requested impacts, to support the following tasks:

a. Access the Transfer Distribution Factors (TDFs)

b. Identify interchange schedules that source/sink or wheel through the PJM system

c. Retrieve the list of MISO coordinated flowgates

LaChelle Brooks moved to accept CO-337 as implemented (Motion 5). The working group approved the motion.

15. CO-338 Default Timing for TLR Levels 1 and 0 Chair Bahbaz reviewed a draft of CO-338. Raja Thappetaobula moved to approve CO-338 for evaluation (Motion 7). The working group approved the motion.

16. CO-339 MISO Data Request from IDC Raja Thappetaobula reported that the working group approved Version 2 of CO-339 for development during its November 11, 2011 conference call meeting and that MISO has received


8

the requested data. Raja Thappetaobula moved to accept CO-339 as implemented (Motion 6). The working group approved the motion.

17. CO-340 Effective Date on Market Coordinated Flowgates LaChelle Brooks reviewed a draft of CO-340 and explained that implementation of the change order would add an effective date to market coordinated flowgates. This effective date would be considered by the IDC alarming processes. Raja Thappetaobula moved to approve CO-340 for evaluation (Motion 8). The working group approved the motion.

18. CO-341 MISO and PJM ED6/7FN Transfer to IDC Raja Thappetaobula reviewed a draft of CO-341 and explained that MISO and PJM are currently sending values for daily firm limit once a day as part of IDC CO-114 that required MISO and PJM to send this data to IDC. Currently this data is not being used anywhere in IDC and the data is not being displayed anywhere in IDC. Therefore, MISO and PJM request IDCWG approval to stop this daily transfer. Raja Thappetaobula moved to approve CO-341 for evaluation (Motion 9). The working group approved the motion.

SDX Change Orders (CO)

1. CO-08 Remaining GUI Changes Chair Bahbaz reminded the working group that during its April 26, 2010 conference call, it was agreed that webSDX CO-02 (Miscellaneous GUI Changes) would be partially implemented with the understanding that sections 4 and 5 of the change order would be addressed in a new change order. The purpose of webSDX CO-08 is to address those outstanding items; however, the change order also requested additional functionality not originally requested in webSDX CO-02.

The working group approved Version 2.0 of webSDX CO-08 for evaluation at its October 2011 meeting. However during its further review of Version 2.0, the working group decided to include additional webSDX functionality within CO-08. Hugh Francis will draft Version 3.0 of webSDX CO-08 in accordance with the working group’s discussion. Wendy Ladd moved to approve Version 3.0 of webSDX CO-08 for evaluation (Motion 10). The working group approved the motion.

2. CO-10 Change the Filtering Options on Displays Chair Bahbaz reviewed a draft of webSDX CO-10 and explained that implementation of the change order would link the filtering options from one display to other displays. The working group suggested further clarification within the change order. Following a brief discussion, David Mahlmann moved to approve webSDX CO-10 for evaluation (Motion 11). The working group approved the motion.

WebFactor Change Orders (CO) There were no webFactor change orders to consider. NERC IT Services Change Orders (CO) There were no NERC IT Services change orders to consider.


9

Book of Flowgates Change Orders (CO) There were no Book of Flowgates change orders to consider. Calendar of Change Order Implementation and Other Related Events

1. November 1, 2011

a. IDC Winter Model Upload

b. IDC CO-320 ( Set PGEN for Base Loaded Units to Effective Pmax for NNL) implemented

2. November 4, 2011 – Emergency IDC Winter Model Upload

3. December 1, 2011

a. IDC Winter Model Update

b. IDC CO-329 (Load Adjustment During TLR 5 Issuance) implemented

c. WebSDX CO-09 (Addition of Derate Validation to webSDX) implemented

4. January 1, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update

5. February 1, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update

6. March 1, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update

7. April 3, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update

8. May 1, 2012 – IDC Summer Model Upload IDC Operations and Maintenance

1. IDC and SDX User Comments

a. There were no IDC or SDX user comments discussed during this portion of the meeting.

2. IDC Event/Incident Reports — Mohamad Yassin reviewed IDC and webSDX help desk calls since the working group’s October 11–12, 2011 meeting.

New Projects, Issues, and Other IDC/webSDX Matters

1. WebSDX Documentation Hugh Francis reviewed Version 9 of the webSDX User’s Manual. Chair Bahbaz requested the Documentation SDWT to review the manual and provide a recommended course of action to the working group at its next meeting.

2. SPP Concerns with the Accuracy of Reported Market Impacts to the IDC and the Possible Impact on the Parallel Flow Visualization Project Chair Bahbaz reported that SPP, PJM and MISO continue to review and monitor market flow on flowgates and opportunities to improve the accuracy of IDC calculations, for example, by addressing IDC granularity. He suggested that this


10

agenda item not be included in future IDCWG agendas until the markets have more specific information to report or discuss.

3. Temporary Flowgates Raja Thappetaobula explained that under certain circumstances temporary flowgates can be dropped during an IDC model upload. Mohamad Yassin explained that during the model update the temporary flowgates could be immediately validated and those that pass the validation test could be kept active. Those that do not pass validation would be dropped and an alarm issued. Mr. Thappetaobula will draft an IDC change order to address this issue.

4. IDC Base Case Development Hardeep Kandola reported that the MMWG/ERAG will adopt PSS/E version 32 in early 2012. Therefore, he suggested that the working group review the data format changes between PSS/E 30 and PSS/E 32 and formulate a transition plan. He noted that IDEV files from version 30 and version 32 are different. The MMWG will develop the 2012 summer case using version 32. Nelson Muller reported that moving to the new version will require development and implementation of an IDC change order. Mr. Kandola will draft a change order and also send OATI a sample version 32 base case.

The working group also discussed the timeline leading to the development of the January 2012 model upload.

5. Change Order Prioritization The working group discussed its 2011 budget for IDC, webSDX, webFactor, and BoF change orders and prioritized those that should begin development as soon as practicable.

6. WECC Enhanced Curtailment Calculator Task Force Due to the unavailability of WECC representatives, this agenda was not discussed. Chair Bahbaz reported that WECC intends to visit SPP next week to discuss the IDC.

7. GSF and GLDF Calculations Mohamad Yassin reported that OATI continues to monitor the GSF and GLDF calculation processes. However, the initial problem has yet to be replicated. OATI is assessing various methodologies to maintain a more constant monitoring of the calculation process.

8. Reference Document Review

a. Parallel Flow Calculation Procedure Reference Document – Chair Bahbaz and Hugh Francis will draft a brief white paper

b. Reliability Coordinator Reference Document – Chair Bahbaz requested the Documentation SDWT to review the status of the Reliability Coordinator Reference Document. Hugh Francis will assist in this review.


11

Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. CDT on December 8, 2011.

Larry Kezele Larry Kezele Secretary

Agenda: Interchange Distribution Calculator Working Group (IDCWG) December 7, 2011 | 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. December 8, 2011 | 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. NERC Headquarters 3353 Peachtree Road NE Suite 600, North Tower Atlanta, Georgia 404.446.2560 Conference: 1-866-740-1260; Passcode: 5247004 Introductions and Chair’s Remarks NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Public Announcement Agenda

1. Administrative Matters

a. Arrangements – Larry Kezele

b. Announcement of Quorum – Larry Kezele

c. Parliamentary Procedures* – Larry Kezele

d. Approve Agenda – Chair Bahbaz

Closed sessions will be conducted as required. The December 7–8, 2011 IDCWG meeting agenda in Word format is included in the IDC Change Order zip file.

e. Future Meetings and Conference Calls – Chair Bahbaz

i. January 31, 2012 (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. PST) and February 1, 2012 (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.), in Redwood City, CA (hosted by OATI)

f. Approval of the IDCWG Meeting Minutes* – Chair Bahbaz

i. October 11–12, 2011 IDCWG Meeting Minutes

ii. November 11, 2011 IDCWG Conference Call Meeting Minutes

Exhibit A

IDCWG Meeting December 7–8, 2011

2

g. NERC feedback from Operating Reliability Subcommittee (ORS) – Larry Kezele

The ORS met on November 15, 2011. Discussion items included: 1) new ORS leadership (Colleen Frosch, ERCOT, chair and Joel Wise, TVA, vice chair), 2) IDC transition, 3) PFV Project update from NAESB BPS, and 4) MHEB EAR tag curtailments.

h. North American Electric Reliability Corporation/North American Energy Standards Board (NERC/NAESB) coordination update

Business Practices Subcommittee – Ed Skiba or Narinder Saini

i. Review IDCWG roster* – Larry Kezele

j. Review membership of the IDC self-directed work teams – Chair Bahbaz

Project Management Yasser Bahbaz (Team Lead), Allan Watson, Larry Kezele, Brian Nolan

Market Flow Yasser Bahbaz (Team Lead), LaChelle Brooks, Raja Thappetaobula, Allan Watson, David Mahlmann, Larry Kezele

Documentation Ben Taylor (Team Lead), Cheryl Mendrala, LaChelle Brooks, Allan Watson, Larry Kezele

2. Review of Active Interchange Distribution Calculator (IDC) Change Orders (CO) (Secretary’s Note: The IDC Change Orders for discussion at this meeting are posted in a zip file on the IDCWG web site.)

a. CO-283: Generator-to-Load Reporting Requirement (Status — Accepted as implemented on November 1, 2010) Action:

i. Review outstanding variances and other areas of development

ii. Status of data transmittals

iii. Reliability Coordinator Permissions to address GTL Data Confidentiality

b. CO-315: Circuit B3M (ONT-ITC) Phase Shifter Modeling Changes (Status — NYISO, MISO, PJM, and IESO are reviewing CO-315) Action: On hold.

c. CO-316: Send a Target Market Flow not Equal to 9999 to External Market Entities of Flowgates (Status — Congestion Management Working Group to review need to proceed with the development and deployment of CO-316) Action: On hold.


3

d. CO-317: Michigan – Ontario PAR Status Change Switch (Status — Approved for development, contingent upon resolution of a contractual agreement regarding funding between NERC and MISO) Action: NERC and MISO have not yet finalized a contractual agreement regarding funding.

e. CO-322: Generation Priority Submission (Status —Version 2 approved for evaluation) Action: Review evaluation and approve for development.

f. CO-326: Parallel Flow Visualization Metrics (Status — Review draft) Action: Approve for evaluation.

g. CO-328: Intra-Hour Tag Curtailments (Status — Approved for development) Action: Review status of development.

h. CO-330: Authorization of OATI Use of IDC Data for DOE Studies (Status — Approved for development) Action: NERC approved for development, review status of development.

i. CO-331: IDC Interface to NAESB webRegistry (Status — Approved for development) Action: NERC approved for development, review status of development.

j. CO-332: Changes to Manitoba EAR Tag in IDC (Status — Review draft) Action: Approve for evaluation.

k. CO-333: Include MF and NNL on TLR Event History Display (Status — Approved for evaluation) Action: Review evaluation and approve for development.

l. CO-336: Changes to IDC Factor Calculation Timing (Status — Evaluated) Action: Review evaluation and approve for development.

m. CO-337: PJM Request to Access and Use IDC Data (Status — Approved for development) Action: Review status of development.

n. CO-338: Default Timing for TLR Level 1 and 0 (Status — Review draft) Action: Approve for evaluation.


4

o. CO-339: MISO Data Request from IDC (Status — Approved for development) Action: Review status of development.

3. Review of Active webSDX (SDX) Change Orders (CO) (Secretary’s Note: The webSDX Change Orders for discussion at this meeting are posted in a zip file on the IDCWG web site.)

a. CO-08: Remaining GUI Changes (Status —Revision 2 of CO-08 approved for evaluation) Action: Review evaluation and approve for development.

4. Review of Active webFactor (Factor Viewer) Change Orders (CO)

(Secretary’s Note: The Factor Viewer Change Orders for discussion at this meeting are posted in a zip file on the IDCWG web site.) There are no webFactor change orders to review at this meeting.

5. Review of Active NERC IT Services Change Orders (CO)

(Secretary’s Note: The NERC IT Services Change Orders for discussion at this meeting are posted in a zip file on the IDCWG web site.) There are no NERC IT Services change orders to review at this meeting.

6. Review of Active Book of Flowgates Change Orders (CO) (Secretary’s Note: The Book of Flowgates Change Orders for discussion at this meeting are posted in a zip file on the IDCWG web site.) There are no Book of Flowgates change orders to review at this meeting.

7. IDCWG Calendar of Change Order Implementation and Other IDC-Related Events

a. November 1, 2011

i. IDC Winter Model Upload

ii. IDC CO-320 (Set PGEN for Base Loaded Units to Effective Pmax for NNL) implemented

b. November 4, 2011 – Emergency IDC Winter Model Upload

c. December 1, 2011

i. IDC Winter Model Update

ii. IDC CO-329 ( Load Adjustment During TLR 5 Issuance) implemented

iii. WebSDX CO-09 (Addition of Derate Validation to webSDX) implemented

d. January 4, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update


5

e. February 1, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update

f. March 1, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update

g. April 3, 2012 – IDC Winter Model Update

h. May 1, 2012 – IDC Summer Model Upload

8. IDCWG Maintenance

a. IDC operation:

i. IDC and SDX user comments

b. Event/incident reports – OATI

i. Review Help Desk calls 9. New Projects, Issues, Other

a. WebSDX Documentation The working group will review Version 1.0 of the Balancing Authority webSDX User Guide for Providing Generator Outputs and Priority and Version 2.3 of the webSDX User Administrator Registration Guide to determine if these documents require revision to support implementation of IDC CO-322.

b. IDC Base Case Development PSS/E version 32 will be adopted by MMWG/ERAG in early 2012. The working group will review data format changes between PSS/E 30 and PSS/E 32 and formulate a transition plan.

c. SPP Concerns with the Accuracy of Reported Market Impacts to the IDC and the Possible Impact on Parallel Flow Visualization Chair Bahbaz will provide a status report of this project.

d. WECC Enhanced Curtailment Calculator Task Force Jeffrey Sundvick, chair of the WECC Enhanced Curtailment Calculator Task Force, seeks input from the IDCWG regarding the pros and cons of the IDC. Some of the specific areas the task force would like to discuss with the working group include 1) how and when the IDC uploads the grid topology, 2) outage information, 3) congestion management processes, 4) curtailment processes, and 5) what the actual work load entails for IDC operators.

e. Change Order Prioritization The working group will continue its discussion of prioritizing change order development for 2011.

f. GSF and GLDF Calculations Chair Bahbaz will inform the working group of recent efforts to identify the cause of sporadic inaccuracies in the IDC’s calculation of GSF and GLDF matrices.

g. Reference Document Review

i. Parallel Flow Calculation Procedure Reference Document – At its August 2011 meeting, Larry Kezele recommended that the working group not expend additional resources to


6

revise the Parallel Flow Calculation Procedure Reference Document, given that the NAESB BPS will be rewriting the TLR business practices to implement the approved permanent solution.

ii. Reliability Coordinator Reference Document – At its August 2011 meeting, Chair Bahbaz requested the Documentation SDWT to review the status of the Reliability Coordinator Reference Document.

12/20/2011

1

PARALLEL FLOW VISUALIZATION PROJECT

N A E S B W H O L E S A L E E L E C T R I C Q U A D R A N TB U S I N E S S P R A C T I C E S S U B C O M M I T T E E A C T I V I T I E S U P D A T E

T ON E R C I N T E R C H A N G E D I S T R I B U T I O N C A L C U L A T O R W O R K I N G G R O U P

D E C E M B E R 8 , 2 0 1 1

B YE D S K I B A

W E Q B P S C O - C H A I R

OVERVIEW

PROPOSED SOLUTION

REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

COMMON REQUIREMENTS

IDC REQUIREMENTS

TAG ALL NON-FIRM REQUIREMENTS

GENERATOR PRIORITIZATION REQUIREMENTS

OUTSTANDING ITEMS OUTSTANDING ITEMS

MILESTONES

2012 MEETING SCHEDULE

12/20/2011

2

PROPOSED SOLUTION

PARALLEL FLOW VISUALIZATION APPROACH CONSISTS OF TWO COMPONENTS TAG ALL NON-FIRM COMPONENT

GENERATOR PRIORITIZATION COMPONENT

BALANCING AUTHORITY TO SELECT ONE COMPONENT BUT NOT BOTH

TRANSACTIONS OR GENERATION TO LOAD (GTL) HAVING 5% OR GREATER IMPACT WILL BE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING RELIEF CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING RELIEF OBLIGATIONS

COMPONENTS HAVE COMMON REQUIREMENTS AND UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSED SOLUTION

TAG ALL NON-FIRM COMPONENT WITHIN A BALANCING AUTHORITY AREA ALL NON-FIRM TRANSACTIONS ARE REQUIRED

TO BE TAGGED INCLUDING NATIVE AND NETWORK SERVICE.

GENERATOR PRIORITIZATION COMPONENT WITHIN A BALANCING AUTHORITY GENERATOR PRIORITIES WILL BE SUBMITTED TO

THE IDC VIA THE SDX (IN EITHER MW OR PERCENTAGE)

BUILDS ON IDC CHANGE ORDER 283 WHICH UPLOADS GENERATOR OUTPUTS

BASED ON GENERATOR OUTPUTS AND DATA PROVIDED UNDER EITHER COMPONENT, THE IDC CAN DETERMINE FIRM GENERATION IN ORDER TO ASSIGN CURTAILMENT OBLIGATIONS UNDER TLR LEVELS 3 & 5

ASSUMPTIONS ASSUMPTIONS INT STANDARDS WILL BE MODIFIED TO REQUIRE TAGGING ON ALL INTRA BALANCING

AUTHORITY AREA POINT-TO-POINT TRANSACTIONS (DIRECTIVE UNDER FERC ORDER NO. 693)

IRO-006-EAST WILL BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW AN RELIABILITY COORDINATOR TO REQUEST CURTAILMENTS ON INTRA-BA POINT-TO-POINT TAGS.

12/20/2011

3

COMMON REQUIREMENTS

COORDINATION AGREEMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR

COORDINATION OF GRANTING TRANSMISSION SERVICE BY HONORING THE FLOWGATE LIMITS OF EACH COUNTERPARTY AND MANAGING REAL-TIME CONGESTION THROUGH PROCEDURES, LIKE THE TLR PROCESS.

UNILATERAL AGREEMENTS ALLOWED IF TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDERS CANNOT AGREE

JURISDICTIONAL ENTITIES REQUIRED TO FILE AGREEMENTS WITH FERC

RECIPROCITY EXTENDS COORDINATION OF GRANTING TRANSMISSION SERVICE BY HONORING

THE FLOWGATE LIMITS AND MANAGING CONGESTION BETWEEN TRANSMISSIONTHE FLOWGATE LIMITS AND MANAGING CONGESTION BETWEEN TRANSMISSIONSERVICE PROVIDERS VIA INDIRECT AGREEMENTS

SWITCHING BETWEEN COMPONENTS SEVEN DAY NOTIFICATION COINCIDE WITH MONTHLY IDC MODEL UPDATE

COMMON REQUIREMENTS (cont.)

RELIEF OBLIGATION UNDER TLR LEVEL 5 FOR FIRM

TWO-TIER FIRM CURTAILMENT FIRST-TO-CURTAIL

THE FIRM CURTAILMENT PRIORITY ASSIGNED TO OFF-PATH TRANSACTIONS AND GTL DUE TO A LACK OF COORDINATION AGREEMENT, RECIPROCITY, OR UNILATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDER EXPERIENCING CONGESTION AND THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDER WHOSE TRANSMISSION SERVICE IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONGESTIONCONTRIBUTING TO THE CONGESTION.

LAST-TO-CURTAIL

THE FIRM CURTAILMENT PRIORITY ASSIGNED TO TRANSACTIONS AND GTL THAT ARE NOT ASSIGNED FIRST-TO-CURTAIL PRIORITY.

12/20/2011

4


ALTERNATIVES FOR MEETING RELIEF OBLIGATIONSOBLIGATIONS

CREDIT FOR REDISPATCH FOR TAGS

CREDIT FOR REDISPATCH FOR GENERATOR PRIORITIES

ALTERNATIVE 1 (WITHOUT CREDIT FOR REDISPATCH)

THE BA WILL CURTAIL GENERATION IN THOSE PRIORITY BUCKETS

ASSIGNED PROPORTIONAL CURTAILMENTS BY THE IDC

IN THIS ALTERNATIVE, THE NEXT HOUR TLR WILL RECOGNIZE CURTAILMENTS MADE IN THE PREVIOUS HOURS.


CREDIT FOR REDISPATCH FOR GENERATOR PRIORITIES

ALTERNATIVE 2 (CREDIT FOR REDISPATCH)

THE BA WILL MEET ITS RELIEF OBLIGATION USING GENERATORS IN PRIORITY BUCKETS NOT ASSIGNED PROPORTIONAL CURTAILMENTS BY THE IDC.

• THE NET GTL IMPACTS (NET OF FORWARD AND REVERSE IMPACTS) WILL BE COMPUTED BY THE BA PRIOR TO STARTING REDISPATCH (NOTE: THE IDC WILL ALSO CALCULATE THE FORWARD GTL IMPACTS TO ESTABLISH THE RELIEF OBLIGATION FOR THE BA AND THE NET GTL IMPACTS)

• A TARGET GTL FLOW WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE BA BY TAKING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NET GTL FLOW AND THE RELIEF OBLIGATION FROM THE BAOBLIGATION FROM THE BA.

• THE BA WILL REDISPATCH ITS SYSTEM TO MEET THE TARGET GTL FLOW. THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY EITHER REDUCING FORWARD FLOWS OR INCREASING REVERSE FLOWS.

• THE IDC WILL DETERMINE IF THE RELIEF OBLIGATION HAS BEEN MET.

12/20/2011

5


COORDINATION AGREEMENTS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

WHEN PROVIDING TRANSMISSION SERVICE OR GTL – RESPECT CONSTRAINTS OF OTHER PARTIES WITH COORDINATING AGREEMENT

MUTUALLY AGREED CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

HONOR RECIPROCITY PROVISIONS OF OTHER ENTITIES OF THE COORDINATING AGREEMENT

BOTH INVOLVED PARTIES SHOULD AGREE FOR HONORING RECIPROCITY WITHOUT HAVING DIRECT COORDINATION RECIPROCITY WITHOUT HAVING DIRECT COORDINATION AGREEMENT

UNILATERAL AGREEMENT ALLOWED IF PARTIES CAN NOT AGREE

AGREEMENTS TO BE FILED WITH FERC, IF JURISDICTIONAL

IDC REQUIREMENTS

MAKE PROVISION FOR ENTERING INFORMATION RELATED TO EXISTENCE OF INFORMATION RELATED TO EXISTENCE OF COORDINATION AGREEMENT

DETERMINE IMPACTED TRANSACTIONS AND GTL WITH 5% OR GREATER IMPACT

DETERMINE RELIEF OBLIGATION USING EXISTENCE OF COORDINATION AGREEMENTSEXISTENCE OF COORDINATION AGREEMENTS

IDC TO PROVIDE LATEST MATRIX OF COORDINATION AGREEMENTS TO CUSTOMERS

12/20/2011

6

TAG ALL NON-FIRM REQUIREMENTS

TAG ALL NON-FIRM COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS

TAG ALL NON-FIRM REQUIRES TAGGING INTRA-BA QTRANSACTIONS

PSE/LSE TO SUBMIT TAGS

GENERATORS ELECTRICALLY RESIDENT IN BUT PHYSICALLY LOCATED OUTSIDE OF A BA THROUGH THE USE OF PSEUDO-TIE(S) WILL UTILIZE INTRA-BA TAGS FOR EACH NON-FIRM TRANSACTION ASCRIBABLE TO THOSE GENERATORSASCRIBABLE TO THOSE GENERATORS

SOURCE GENERATION MAY BE ASSIGNED TO A GENERATOR (UNIT, PLANT OR SYSTEM FLEET) VIA MAPPING IN THE TSIN REGISTRY/WEBREGISTRY

GENERATOR PRIORITIZATION REQUIREMENTS

GENERATOR PRIORITIZATION COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS

TSP TO IDENTIFY FIRM AND NON FIRM USAGE OF GENERATORS TSP TO IDENTIFY FIRM AND NON-FIRM USAGE OF GENERATORS

POST METHODOLOGY USED TO IDENTIFY USAGE (TRANSPARENCY)

MW OR PERCENT FIRM OR NON-FIRM GENERATION OUTPUT CAN BE ASSIGNED

PRIORITIZATION CAN BE ASSIGNED TO GENERATING UNITS OR PLANTS AS MODELLED IN IDC AND TSIN REGISTRY

PRIORITIZATION VALUES PRIORITIZATION VALUES

UNIT-DEFAULT PRIORITY SCHEDULES FOR PERIODS 6 MONTHS OR GREATER

SHORT-TERM PRIORITY SCHEDULES - CAN CHANGE AS FREQUENTLY AS 15 MINUTES

12/20/2011

7

OUTSTANDING ITEMS

CREDIT FOR REDISPATCH TAG ALL NON-FIRM

GENERATOR PRIORITIZATION

IMPACT CALCULATION – ONE OR TWO APPROACHES GENERATION TO LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTOR WITHIN A BALANCING AUTHORITY AREA (BAA)

NATIVE/TRANSFER FOR MARKETS/BAAS WITH MULTIPLE LOCAL BALANCING AUTHORITIES (LBAS)

DISPUTES ON EFFECTIVE/TERMINATION DATES FOR COORDINATION AGREEMENTS

IMPACT ON NERC STANDARDS INTERCHANGE SCHEDULING AND COORDINATION (INTRA BA POINT-TO-POINT)

INTERCONNECTION RELIABILITY OPERATIONS AND COORDINATION (IRO-006-EAST)

IMPACT ON NAESB STANDARDS TRANSMISSION LOADING RELIEF (TLR)

OASIS (POSTING REQUIREMENTS)

COORDINATE INTERCHANGE (INTRA BA TAGS)

MILESTONES

BPS IDENTIFY CATEGORIES OF SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS REVIEWING TEST DATA IN DECEMBER

S O O S O BPS COMPLETE PARALLEL FLOW VISUALIZATION WHITE PAPER IN JANUARY

BPS FINALIZE STANDARDS AND POST FOR 30-DAY FORMAL COMMENT PERIOD SECOND QUARTER 2012

NAESB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TAKE ACTION ON STANDARDS IN THE SECOND/THIRD QUARTER OF 2012

STANDARDS SUBMITTED FOR 30 DAY MEMBERSHIP STANDARDS SUBMITTED FOR 30 DAY MEMBERSHIP RATIFICATION

BPS WILL ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SECOND/THIRD QUARTER 2012

12/20/2011

8

2012 MEETING SCHEDULE

January 18-19 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB)

F b 1 16 R d d Sh CA (h t d b OATI) February 15-16 – Redwood Shores, CA (hosted by OATI)

March 6-7 – Little Rock, AR (hosted by Entergy)

April 3-4 – Carmel, IN (hosted by MISO)

May 16-17 – Atlanta, GA (hosted by NERC)

June 13-14 – Valley Forge (hosted by PJM)

July 18-19 – Minneapolis, MN (hosted by OATI)

August 15-16 – Carmel, IN (hosted by MISO)

Sept 12-13 – Houston, TX (hosted by NAESB)

October 17-18

November 14-15

December 11-12

Questions

??

NERC IDC Change Order #328 Intra Hour Tag Curtailment Nelson Muller, Executive Vice President

Atlanta, GA December 07-08, 2011

Proprietary and confidential. Do not copy or distribute without permission from OATI. © 2011 Open Access Technology International, Inc. 2

Trade Secret This document and attachments contain confidential and proprietary information of Open Access Technology International, Inc. This information is not to be used, disseminated, distributed, or otherwise transferred without the expressed written permission of Open Access Technology International, Inc.

Proprietary Notice All OATI products and services listed are trademarks and service marks of Open Access Technology International, Inc. All rights reserved.


Change Order #328 – Summary (1/2)

• Background – TLR calculations are based on snapshot of Interchange

Transactions (e-Tags) at the start time of the TLR – All e-Tag energy profiles are assumed constant through the

remainder of the TLR • End of the current hour for Current Hour TLR • End of the next hour for Next Hour TLR

• Issues – TLR does not take into account changes to e-Tag energy

profiles throughout the effective time of the TLR – TLR does not take into account e-Tags that start or end

during the TLR – A relief amount at the start time of the TLR (snapshot time)

may not suffice the entire duration of the TLR – A non-firm tag at the start of the hour may be firm later in

the TLR hour – potential for firm curtailment


Change Order #328 – Summary (2/2)

• Change Request – IDC to determine the highest energy profile of impacting e-

Tags (TDF ≥ 5%) for the duration of the TLR to determine the “worst case scenario” of MW flows on the constrained flowgate

– Curtailments are determined from the highest energy profile of impacting e-Tags for the duration of the TLR to determine the “most conservative” MW flows on the constrained flowgate from a reliability perspective

– Example – tag with TDF = 50% • xx:00 – xx:30: Energy Profile = 20 MW, Impact = 10 MW • xx:30 – xx+1:00: Energy Profile = 50 MW, Impact = 25 MW • Relief required: 5 MW • Largest Impact: 25 MW (relief determined from max impact) • Largest Profile: 50 MW (curtailment determined from max

schedule) • Relief of 5 MW incurs a 10 MW curtailment at the highest profile.

Reliability cap set to 40 MW for the duration of the hour


General Comments - Text

• Unintended consequences of the proposed solution – Although only a few e-Tags may have a very large MW

schedule for only a short time period during the TLR, all e-Tags get penalized through curtailments for the duration of the TLR when the flowgate violates SOL/IROL for only a few minutes during the TLR

– If an e-Tag starts, ends or has a non-zero schedule for parts of the hour, the e-Tag will get curtailed, even if the non-zero schedule occurs during a time when total flow doesn’t exceed SOL/IROL


General Comments – Graph • Unintended consequences of the proposed solution – a picture is worth a

thousand words • Assume all TDFs are 100%

xx-1:45 xx:00 xx:15 xx:30 xx:45 xx+1:15 xx+1:00

Tag - B

Tag - C

Tag - D

Tag - E

Tag - F

Tag - A


Maximum Energy Profiles

xx-1:45 xx:00 xx:15 xx:30 xx:45 xx+1:15 xx+1:00

Tag - B

Tag - C

Tag - D

Tag - E

Tag - F

Maximum Profile of Tags

Tag - A


Aggregated Tag Impact • Requested Flow > MW Impact

• System is overly conservative → all tags are curtailed for the entire hour for the worst case scenario

• Relief is only needed for 15 minute between xx:30 and xx:45 and Tags A, B and F are the only ones that impact during this time → no need to cut all tags

xx-1:45 xx:00 xx:15 xx:30 xx:45 xx+1:15 xx+1:00

Desired tag flow

Actual Curtailment

Actual Impact Profile

Maximum Profile Required Relief


Proposed Solution (1/2) • Break problem into smaller intervals and solve TLRs for each interval (higher

time granularity) – suggested 15-minute intervals • Solve TLR for the time periods where largest flow within the time interval

exceeds target MW on flowgate – xx:30-xx-45

xx-1:45 xx:00 xx:15 xx:30 xx:45 xx+1:15 xx+1:00

Desired tag flow

Actual Impact Profile

Required Curtailment

:30 xx:

TLR Period


Proposed Solution (2/2)

• Only consider tags with non-zero schedules during the constrained time intervals. – Only Tags A, B and F are subject to curtailment – Tags C, D and E don’t impact the “TLR Period” and are not subject to

curtailment

xx-1:45 xx:00 xx:15 xx:30 xx:45 xx+1:15 xx+1:00

Tag - B

Tag - F

Maximum Profile of Tags

Tag - A

:30 xx:

TLR Period


Summary of Proposed Solution

• When TLR is issued, breakdown time range of TLR into 15 minute intervals for greater time-range granularity

• For each 15-minute interval – Identify • Schedule MW (highest MW schedule of a tag for the interval)

– Determine relief for the interval as the difference between the impact of the Schedule MWs and the target flow • If relief is not needed (difference < 0), ignore the time period

– Solve TLR

• Identify lowest MW of tag over every interval and send a hour-long curtailment request for acknowledgement/approval


Advantages

• Higher time-range granularity enables more surgical curtailment

• Reduced likelihood of under-curtailment – Captures intra-hour transactions that are not flowing

at the start of the hour

• Reduced likelihood of over-curtailment, as compared to the originally proposed solution


Points to Note (1/3)

• Sub-Priority parameters – Scheduled e-Tag flows

• Snapshot at a time immediately prior to the start of the TLR • Snapshot at the start time of the TLR

– Curtailed e-Tag flows • Snapshot at a time immediately prior to the start of the TLR • Snapshot at the start time of the TLR

– Issue with “time immediately prior…” • Should a TLR solution for a time interval be dependent on the solution of the

previous time interval within the same TLR execution? – Solutions within a TLR execution become inter-dependent – If curtailed MW flow of previous interval is not the lowest of the entire TLR, an

earlier curtailed tag MW becomes dependent of a later curtailed tag MW. Example: » xx:00-xx:15: MWSchedule = 100 MW MWCurtailed = 50 MW » xx:15-xx:30: MWSchedule = 100 MW MWCurtailed = 50 MW » xx:30-xx:45: MWSchedule = 40 MW MWCurtailed = 10 MW » Lowest MWCurtailed of 10 MW is used for xx:00-xx:15, which changes the

solution for xx:15-xx:30

– Objective of sub-priorities is to capture MW changes between different hours • Proposal to use existing flow from prior to TLR execution and not create intervals’

interdependencies


Points to Note (2/3) • Intra-hour/intra-time period changes to

Transmission Service Reservation priorities – Issue • Non-firm at the start of the TLR • Firm at a later time of the TLR • Tag is curtailed due to non-firm snapshot at the

beginning of the TLR • OATI has never received a call in over 12 years of

service about a curtailed tag – if problem exists if has never come to OATI’s attention

– Proposed solution • This is likely a non-issue, but may be revised later with

introduction of intra-hour TSRs • Retrieve the TSR priorities for the highest MW of the

tag throughout the hour


Points to Note (3/3) • Market flows and NNL – Market flow solutions for 15-minute intervals – Just like e-Tags:

• Provide Markets with lowest target for the entire hour • Provide BA with highest NNL relief required for the entire hour

• Start time of TLR – The RC may set the start time of a TLR to any 5-minute

break in an hour. This can potentially create TLR solution intervals that are less than 15 minutes.

• User Interface for multiple TLR solutions – Much more complex user interface • Redesign of main Congestion Management Report for

multiple time intervals • Drill-in capabilities for each individual time period • Use of graphics for visualization

– Change to NERC report – Others

Nelson Muller [email protected]

Thank You

interchange distribution calculator working group … related files dl/idcwg... · hardeep kandola...

Documents