Business Practices Subcommittee

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 EF E B R U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 1 3

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

Business Practices Subcommittee

2

OVERVIEW

Business Practices Subcommittee (BPS) Status

Parallel Flow Visualization (PFV) Status Background Objectives NAESB Responsibility IDC Input Proposed Solution Concerns/Dependencies

Next Steps

3

BPS Status

Meetings since last report Subcommittee – 3 two-day meetings Recommendation Sub-team – 5 three-hour conference

calls IDC/SDX Users Manuals Sub-team

(8) 1-hour conference calls (2) review sessions with IDC Workings Group

Results: Draft standards/recommendation Redlined IDC Users Manual and SDX Users Manual NERC Support Document

4

BPS Status

Draft Standards include Changes to the Transmission Loading Relief

Process (WEQ-008) Postings on OASIS

ATC Information Link (WEQ-001) ScheduleDetail Template (WEQ-002, WEQ-003, WEQ-

013) Glossary Updates (WEQ-000 and conforming

changes)

5

BPS Status

Draft Standards Address Annual Plan Items: 1.a Parallel Flow Visualization/Mitigation for Reliability

Coordinators in the Eastern Interconnection – Permanent Solution

1.b Perform consistency review of WEQ-008 Transmission Loading Relief Business Practice Standards and develop recommendation

1.d Revise TLR level 5 to be treated similarly to TLR Level 3 in terms of treating the next hour allocation separately from that of current hour. (R11020)

6

PFV Background: IRO-006

IRO-006 Transmission Loading ReliefEach 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.

7

PFV Background: Interconnections

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 Tools – (IDC)Interchange Distribution Calculator (SDX )System Data eXchange

8

PFV Background: Primary Players

NERC

Association

NAESB

NERCStandards CommitteeOperating Reliability Subcommittee IDC Working GroupStandards Drafting TeamsNAESB

Executive CommitteeBPSOASIS SubcommitteeJESS

AssociationEffective 4/1/2013

IDC - Interchange Distribution CalculatorSDX - System Data eXchange

IDCSDX

9

PFV 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

10

PFV: NAESB RESPONSIBILITY

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

11

PFV: 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

12

PFV 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

PFV 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 through congestion management process.

Unilateral Declarations allowed if Transmission Service Providers cannot agree

Reciprocity A commitment by two Transmission Service Providers to provide Last-

to-Curtail treatment of parallel flows on one another’s system without having a direct Coordination Agreement.

Two-Tier Firm Curtailments – encourages Coordination Arrangements

13

PFV: 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 declaration.

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.

14

PFV: First-to Curtail/Last-to-Curtail

TSP with Coordination Arrangements15

  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

16

PFV: 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 e-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

PFV Additional Key Concepts

Balancing Authority to choose either one but not both Methods Balancing Authority can switch Six month notice

LSE (or entity acting on their behalf) enters Tags for Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service

Method Generator Priority Schedules for Generator Prioritization

MethodTransactions or generation-to-load impacting 5%

or greater considered for assigning relief obligations

18

PFV Additional Key Concepts

Credit for RedispatchIDC Processing

Sub-priorities for TLR Level 5a Reloads of Curtailed Transactions Reallocations for TLR Level 5b

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

OASIS ScheduleDetail template modified to identify firm tagged curtailments as First-to-Curtail or Last-to-Curtail.

19

PFV Concerns/Dependencies

NERC INT standards modified to require tagging on all intra-BA

Point-to-Point transactions (Project 2008-12) IRO-006-EAST modified to allow a Reliability Coordinator to

request curtailments on intra-BAA Point-to-Point tags (Project 2012-09)

IDC Association NAESB/Association coordination Visibility into changes in the IDC Access to data during parallel test/full staffing (NAESB formal

request) Parallel Flow Visualization priority

Next Steps

Informal Comment Period (February 15 – March 15) Recommendation (WEQ-000, 001, 002, 003, 008,

013) IDC User’s Manual SDX User’s Manual NERC supporting document

Industry overview of Parallel Flow Visualization (February 27)

Address informal comments (March – June)Post for formal comments by end of second quarter

20

Next Steps

MeetingsMarch 20-21 – Little Rock, AR (hosted by

SPP)April 24-25 – Carmel, IN (hosted by MISO)May 22-23 – Valley Forge, PA (hosted by PJM)June 19-20 – Minneapolis, MN (hosted by

OATI)

21

22

QUESTIONS

?