July 2003 Resource Plan Performance Report For QSE Project Managers ERCOT Compliance August 11, 2003 Scores Calculated Using Common Measures Developed With ERCOT Market Operations and QSE Project Managers. Contact ERCOT Client Reps for further information, data behind any of the scores, and/or comments.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
July 2003 Resource Plan Performance Report
For QSE Project ManagersERCOT Compliance
August 11, 2003
Scores Calculated Using Common Measures Developed With ERCOT Market Operations and QSE Project Managers. Contact ERCOT Client Reps for
further information, data behind any of the scores, and/or comments.
2
• Compares hourly Resource Plan status to telemetry. 12 telemetry values are used, an average over 5 minutes, for each Resource in the Resource Plan.
• An occurrence is counted when either of the following conditions are met:– Status = “Offline” AND 1 telemetry value > 0.5 MW
– Resource MW > 0 MW AND all telemetry values < 0.5 MW
• Each QSE’s Resource with telemetry is evaluated each hour of the month. The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Status
Count Total
Occurences of #1
3
Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Status
Resource Status Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
DK DA AM BG CT CI CQ CW BX CD CF AD CU BE BF CJ AP AR BC DE AY CV AO DF
ID
Sco
re
April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
4
• As an alternative to the Resource Status Measure, Combined Cycle Trains approved by ERCOT are treated as if they were single units.
• Not all combined cycle unit trains are approved and included in settlement now – nor in these calculations. We will add them as they are approved.
• Occurrences and the overall are calculated the same as before.
Resource Plan Performance Report: CC Resource Status
5
Resource Plan Performance Report: CC Resource Status
Resource Status Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
DK DA AM BG CT CI CQ CW BX CD CF AD CU BE BF CJ AP AR BC DE AY CV AO DF
ID
Sco
re
June 2003 Score
June 2003 Score Where CCs Treated As Single Unit
July 2003 Score
July 2003 Score Where CCs Treated As Single Unit
6
• Reviews minimum and maximum capability for each Resource listed as “online” in the Resource Plan each hour.
• An occurrence is counted when:– Minimum RP Limit = Maximum RP Limit– Maximum RP Limit > 0 MW
• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Max Min Limit Equality
Count Total
Occurences of #1
7
Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Max Min Limit Equality
Resource Max Min Limit Equality Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
DK CW CQ CJ CD DF BX BG AY DE CT CU AM AD AO AP AR BC BE BF CF CI CV DA
ID
Sco
re
April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
8
• Reviews minimum and maximum capability for each Resource listed as “online” in the Resource Plan each hour, as an alternative to the Resource Max Min Limit Equality Measure.
• An occurrence is counted when:– Minimum RP Limit > 70% * Maximum RP Limit– Maximum RP Limit > 0 MW
• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
• This needs to account for limitations of different unit types. Work in progress to extract a min-max capacity spread for each unit from Asset Registration data and compare to RP min-max spread.
Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT Resource Min As % of Max
Count Total
Occurences of #1
9
Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT Resource Min As % of Max
Resource Min As A % of Max Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
AP CV CW DK BF CU CD CJ AY CQ CT DA BX AM DF BG DE AR AO CF CI AD BC BE
ID
Sco
re
June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
10
• As a second alternative to the Resource Max Min Limit Equality Measure, Combined Cycle Trains approved by ERCOT are treated as if they were single units.
• Again, we are only using those that are approved, some CC’s aren’t aggregated here.
• Occurrences and the overall are calculated the same as before.
Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT CC Resource Min As % of Max
11
Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT CC Resource Min As % of Max
Resource Min As A % of Max Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
AP CV CW DK BF CU CD CJ AY CQ CT DA BX AM DF BG DE AR AO CF CI AD BC BE
ID
Sco
re
July 2003 Score July 2003 Score Where CCs Treated As Single Unit
12
• Compares hourly Resource Plan MW to the Schedule by Zone. Existing measure uses Day Ahead data.
• An occurrence is counted when:– (RP Zonal MW – Zonal Schedule) > 2% * Zonal Schedule– (RP Zonal MW – Zonal Schedule) > 1 MW
• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
Resource Plan Performance Report: DA Zonal Energy Schedule (2.0%)
Count Total
Occurences of #1
13
Resource Plan Performance Report: DA Zonal Energy Schedule (2.0%)
Day Ahead Zonal Energy Schedule Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
CQ DK CT DA AP AY CW CJ AR BX AD CD BE AM CV CF BG BF CI AO BC CU DE DF
ID
Sco
re
April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
14
• An additional measure comparing Resource Plan to Zonal Schedules at the end of the Adjustment Period has been proposed.
• ERCOT is still looking for reliable data to use for this measure.
Resource Plan Performance Report: AP Zonal Energy Schedule (2.0%)
15
• Compares Resource Plan Aggregated Minimum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Down Regulation, and Down Balancing Bid. Measured by QSE for each hour, based on RP at time of bids.
• An occurrence is counted when:– (Down Balancing Bid – Minimum Capability) > 10 MW
• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
`
Count Total
Occurences of #1
16
Resource Plan Performance Report: Down Bid
Down Bid Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
DE AO CV CU BF CD CJ DF CT AY DA BC AD BX AM CF CI CW AP AR BE BG CQ DK
ID
Sco
re
June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
17
• Compares Resource Plan Aggregated Minimum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Down Regulation, and Down Balancing Deployed. Schedule and AS awards for lowered MW output is the “obligation”.
• An occurrence is counted when:– (Obligation – Minimum Capability) > 1 MW– Down Regulation > 0 MW
• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
Resource Plan Performance Report: Down Deployment
Count Total
Occurences of #1
18
Resource Plan Performance Report: Down Deployment
Down Deployment Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
BF BC CJ AO BX CT AY AM AR BG CQ CU CW DA DF DK DE
ID
Sco
re
April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
19
• Compares QSE Resource Plan Aggregated Maximum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Up Regulation, Responsive Reserve, and Up Balancing Deployed. Schedule and AS awards for increased MW output is the “obligation”.
• An occurrence is counted when:– (Obligation – Maximum Capability) > 1 MW– Up Regulation + Responsive Reserve > 0 MW
• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
Resource Plan Performance Report: Up Deployment
Count Total
Occurences of #1
20
Resource Plan Performance Report: Up Deployment
Up Deployment Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
BX CD DA CV CT AO CF AR AM BG CW AY BC BF CJ CQ CU DF DK DE
ID
Sco
re
April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
21
• Compares Resource Plan Aggregated Maximum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Up Regulation, Responsive Reserve, Non Spinning Reserve, and Up Balancing Deployed. Non Spinning Capacity will have an “offline” status.
• An occurrence is counted when both of the following conditions are met:– (Obligation – Maximum Capability) > 1 MW
– NSRS > 0 MW
• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:
Resource Plan Performance Report: Non Spinning Reserve
Count Total
Occurences of #1
22
Resource Plan Performance Report: Non Spinning Reserve
Non Spinning Reserve Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
CD BF CF AO CQ DA AM AR AY BC BG BX CJ CT CU CW DF DK
ID
Sco
re
April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
23
• This measure is the unweighted average of the current measures:– Resource Status– Resource Max Min Limit Equality– Day Ahead Zonal Schedule– Down Deployment– Up Deployment– Non Spinning Reserve
• The PUCT MOD has expressed an interest in looking at these measures individually.
Resource Plan Performance Report: Overall Score
24
Resource Plan Performance Report: Overall Score
Overall Score
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
DK CQ BF CD CT DA AP BX CJ CW AD AM BE AY CV CI BG CF AR BC AO CU DE DF
ID
Sco
re
April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score
25
• Developing the “min-max capability spread” using asset registration data as the basis for comparison instead of fixed % of RP max capability.
• Add new aggregated CC’s as they approved• Find good data for AP Zonal Schedule measure• Review QSE inquiries about data and calculations• Develop a trial measure that checks to see that a
QSE Resource Plan allows the required mandatory down balancing bids without exceeding minimum capability
Resource Plan Performance Report: Action Items
Related Documents
