Reliable Power
Market Services Stakeholder
Session
Reliable Markets
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Reliable People
Metropolitan Centre, Calgary
Reliable Power
Wind Technical Rule
Reliable Markets
John Kehler
Senior Technical Specialist
Reliable People
Agenda
• Purpose of Session
• Why a Wind Technical Rule
• Summary of Key Points
• Authoritative Documents
• Inputs to the Wind Technical
Rule
• Overview and Discussion of the
Wind Technical Rule
• Next Steps
3
Background
Market and Operational Framework
• Market and Operational Framework: effective September 26, 2007
• Premise of framework - If the System Operator receives a reasonable
forecast of wind power generation, then they can establish an operating
plan to accommodate the forecast wind energy by using the following
resources/tools:
– Forecasting
– The Energy Market Merit Order
– Regulating Reserves
– Wind Following Services
– Wind Power Management
• AESO Final Recommendations for the implementation of the MOF June 18, 2009
4
Purpose
• Review and discuss the Wind Technical Rule with
stakeholders prior to submission of comments (deadline for
comment is Jan 22)
• Encourage stakeholders and suppliers of wind facility
equipment to comment on the Wind Technical Rule
5
Key Points
• The Wind Technical Rule is:
• For all wind power facilities, any considerations for existing and new
facilities will be addressed in the Rule
• In most cases the technical intent remains the same as in the
predecessor standard
• Primarily to add requirements for physical infrastructure at wind
power facilities for wind power forecasting capability, power limiting,
ramp rate limiting and over-frequency control
• Proposing effective date of 180 days post AUC approval to provide
existing facilities a reasonable period of time to add or modify equipment
at wind generating facilities
6
Transition of Wind Technical
Requirements
New ISO Rules Framework
http://www.aeso.ca/rulesprocedures/17885.html
AESO Tariff
Article 4
Customer Interconnection
Requirements
Authority for the Technical
Requirements currently under the
Tariff
Authority for Technical
Requirements will transition to
Part 500 of ISO Rules
7
Transition of Wind Technical
Requirements
Existing
Requirements
Existing Requirements
• Use and consistency of definitions
• Clarify the language and incorporate new
or updated definitions
• Clarify the requirements based on last 5
years experience
New Requirements
• Add grandfathering
• Add Over Frequency Control requirements
• Add Ramp and Power Limiting
requirements
• Add forecasting and meteorological data
requirements
Existing
Guide
Future
New Rule and
Requirements
Example of an
Information
Document
New
Information
Document
8
Considerations in Developing Wind
Technical Rule
• Current Wind Power Facility Technical Requirements - November 2004
• Wind Power Forecasting Pilot Project Work Group recommendations
• Wind Power Management Protocol Work Group recommendations
• Wind Power Management Technical Requirements Work Group
• Transition Of Authoritative Documents (TOAD) policies, template,
framework, standards and principles
• Any applicable provisions of Alberta Reliability Standards
• AESO final recommendations to implement the Market and Operational
Framework for Wind Integration - June 2009
9
Specific Policy Considerations
• All forms of generation in Alberta have certain basic obligations
• Wind Technical Rules are specifically for wind power facilities that
connect to the transmission system
• Wind Power Facility Technical Requirements included “policy place
holders” for future technical requirements
• In a separate and future consultation on wind power integration, the
AESO will consult on how and when wind power or ramp rate limiting,
and wind forecasting, will be used
10
Technical Considerations
• Development of technical requirements in Wind Technical
Rule is based on either:
– NERC/WECC requirements, or
– AESO requirements
• Fairness amongst generating facilities,
• Technical capability of existing wind facility technology
11
Wind
Turbine
Generators
WTG's
Wind
Turbine
Generator
Transformer
< 690v
Transmission
System
Step-up
Transformer
Point of
Connection
Transmission
System
25 - 35 kV
69 - 240kV
WTG's
Collector
Bus
WTG's
WTG's
External Voltage
Regulation / Reactive
Power System
WIND POWER FACILITY
12
Performance Points
• Collector Bus
– Maximum
Authorized MW
– Gross MW
– Reactive Power
requirements
– Voltage
Regulation
– Voltage
Operating
Range
– Over
• Facility
Frequency
– Meteorological
Control
data
– Monitoring
Wind
Turbine
Generators
WTG's
Wind
Turbine
Generator
Transformer
< 690v
Transmission
System
Step-up
Transformer
Point of
Connection
Transmission
System
25 - 35 kV
WTG's
Collector
Bus
WTG's
WTG's
External Voltage
Regulation / Reactive
Power System
69 - 240kV
• Point of
Connection
– Voltage Ride
Through
– Off Nominal
Frequency
– Power and
Ramp Rate
Limiting
– Monitoring
WIND POWER FACILITY
13
Definitions
(Apply to all participants)
General Definitions
• “generating facilities”
• “maximum authorized MW”
• “operator”
These definitions will move out
of Wind Technical Rule and
into Part 100: General of the
ISO Rules
http://www.aeso.ca/rulesprocedures/17885.html
• “person”
• “wind turbine generator”
• “transmission system”
• “voltage regulating system”
• “owner”
• “gross MW”
• “point of connection”
14
Applicability Section 1
Applies to all wind generating facilities
• New facilities must comply
• Existing facilities connected under 2004 technical
requirements must comply
• Grandfathering considerations to those facilities connected
under 1999 technical requirement
• All wind generating facilities participate in wind power
forecasting requirements including meteorological data
requirements
15
Example of Grandfathering Rule
18 MW grandfathered to the
1999 technical requirements
3
MW
3
MW
3
MW
Two 3 MW turbines are
upgraded over any period of
time. The upgraded 6 MW
must fully comply with the
Wind Technical Rule. The
older 12 MW remain under
the 1999 requirements until
such time they are upgraded.
3
MW
3
MW
3
MW
EXAMPLE:
18 MW WIND GENERATING FACILITY
Under 1999 Technical Requirements
16
Example of Grandfathering Rule
Upgraded portion will be required to
comply with voltage ride through, voltage
regulation, reactive power, over frequency
control, power limiting, ramp rate limiting
and any other requirements that are
deficient to the new Wind Technical Rule
3
MW
3
MW
3
MW
3
MW
Grandfathered portion is not likely to comply
with the voltage ride through and is not
required to comply with the over frequency
control, power limiting and ramp rate limiting
requirements of the new Wind Technical Rule
3
MW
3
MW
EXAMPLE:
18 MW WIND GENERATING FACILITY
With 6 MW Upgraded
17
Over Frequency Control
Section 15
• Frequency control requires fast measurement and good resolution of
system frequency
– 30 samples per second at 0.004 Hz resolution in the standard
• Consistent with conventional generators
– 0.036 Hz allowable deadband
– Equivalent to 5% speed drop
– Response rate equivalent to gas and hydro
• Coordinates with the off nominal frequency requirements
– Facilities can disconnect from the grid at 61.7 Hz
18
Over Frequency Control Example
• When system frequency
exceeds the allowable deadband
• Controls will reduce MW
output of the wind generating
facility
Alberta Frequency (Hz)
• Wind MW is illustrative only
60.6
60.4
60.2
60.036 Hz Allowable
deadband
60
59.8
Time (10 Minutes Per Division)
MW (In % of Capacity)
(20% per division)
• Example of actual over
frequency event in 2009
Illustrative Example of Wind Generating Facility
MW output to an over frequency event "with"
and without" over frequency controls
Time (10 Minutes Per Division)
19
Power Limiting and Ramp Rate
Limiting Section 17
• Power limiting and ramp rate limiting manage the MWs
produced at the Point of Connection
– These are the MWs supplied to the market
– These are the MWs that will be forecasted
• Power limiting will be manually put in control with a Directive
• The control system must be fast and precise to maintain the
MWs within reasonable tolerance of the Power Limit during
variable and gusting wind conditions
– Prevent MW from exceeding the power limit by 2% for normal wind
conditions and by 5% during gusts
• Ramp rate limiting is required with a default rate of 10% per
minute
20
Power Limiting Control Example
Power Limiting Example
The instantaneous MW
cannot exceed Power Limit
+ 5% of the maximum
authorized MW
Instantaneous MW
MW
1 minute average MW
cannot exceed Power Limit
+ 2% of the maximum
authorized MW
Power Limit for the WPF
1 Min Average MW
Time (1 Minute Per Division)
21
Illustrative Example of How Power
Limiting and Ramp Rate Limiting Could
Coordinate
MW
Illustrative Example of Power Limiting and Ramp Rate
Limiting
10 Minutes Per Division
Potential MWs
Combined Power and Ramp Rate Limit
Power Limit
Actual MWs
22
SCADA Requirements Section 31
• New SCADA signals from the facility to the AESO
– Potential MW capability signal
– Power limit signal
– On/off status of the power limiting controls
23
Description of potential MW
capability
Local computer
calculates
potential MW
from the turbine
WPF SCADA
system collects
and sums the
potential MW
from all turbines
at the WPF
Measured wind
speed and
direction
Utility SCADA
system sends
data to the
AESO
24
Wind Power Forecasting Data
Collection Section 32
• Met tower with 2 weather
measurement devices
– measurement at the wind turbine
generator hub height and another taking
measurements at a height specified by
the ISO
• Measurements are 10 minute
average values
– wind speed, wind direction, barometric
pressure and ambient temperature
• AESO is currently working on
details for data transfer
25
Wind Power Forecasting Data
Collection Section 36
• Historical data and facility information necessary for wind
power forecasting
– Historical 10 minute averaged meteorological data, containing
details on wind speed, wind direction, temperature and barometric
pressure
– Historical data and records referenced in subsection for up to 2
calendar years prior to the commissioning period of wind generating
facilities
– Provide wind turbine generator data and records, including hub
height, turbine land coordinates, turbine power curves, high wind
speed cut-out, and any applicable temperature cut-outs
26
Other Changes
• Transfer trip or anti-islanding schemes are proposed
additions where the facility is not required to voltage ride
through
• Monitoring requirements were a “may require” - we are now
proposing a “must require”
• Harmonic and Flicker measurements/tests were a “must
require” - we are proposing a “may require”
• Figures and tables moved into appendixes
27
Next Steps
• January 22, 2010
– Stakeholder comments back to the AESO
• February, 2010
– Post Stakeholder comments
– Post AESO response to stakeholder comments
• March 2010**
– File Wind Technical Rule with AUC
**Date may change depending on any material changes as a result of consultation
28
Questions ?
Contact Information
John Kehler
Ph: 403-539-2622
John.kehler@aeso.ca
Kevin Wiens
Ph: 403-539-2672
Kevin.wiens@aeso.ca
30
Reliable Power
Wind Power Forecasting
Update
Reliable Markets
Rob Baker
Reliable People
Manager Forecasting
Rob Baker
Forecasting
Agenda – Wind Power Forecasting
• Pilot Study
• Wind Power Forecast RFP
• Purpose and Benefits of Wind Power Forecasts
• Wind Forecast Service Cost Recovery
• Next Steps
• Questions
32
Wind Power Forecasting Pilot
Project
• AESO conducted a wind forecasting pilot project in 2006 to
– Trial different methods and providers
– Identify the most effective forecasting methods in Alberta
– Identify the most effective providers of wind power forecasts
– Educate industry on the capabilities of wind power forecasting in
Alberta
• Project funded by Dept of Energy, Alberta Energy Research
Institute, AESO with expertise provided by CanWEA
• Wind forecasters were AWS Truewind, energy & meteo, and
WEPROG
• Industry working group monitored results from pilot project
and provided recommendations to AESO used to develop
Forecasting Service RFP
33
Wind Power Forecasting RFP
• AESO issued a request for proposals in June 2009
• The objective of the RFP is to solicit proposals to deliver
accurate wind power forecasts for the AIES with these
outcomes:
– Availability of a production Wind Power Forecasting Service for the
AESO
– Accuracy and reduced uncertainty of wind power forecasts
– A high quality Wind Power Forecasting Service and ongoing
performance improvements
• AESO involved industry stakeholders (ENMAX, Canadian
Hydro, Shell, Suncor, TransAlta, and CanWEA) to provide
input and advice to the AESO regarding the selection and
RFP review process
• Negotiations with a vendor are underway
34
Purpose and Benefits of Wind
Power Forecasts
AESO
• Reliable operation of the power system
– Ancillary service forecasting and procurement
– Supply adequacy
Wind Developers
• Each individual wind generating facility will have access to the forecast
for its facility
Industry / Market Participants
• Aggregate forecasts provided on the AESO website
• Transparency of aggregate wind forecasts to market participants
35
Wind forecast service cost
recovery
•
External wind power forecasting service cost will be
allocated amongst wind power facility owners as a $/MWh
charge
•
Cost recovery will begin in Q4 2010 and will be levelized
over Q4 2010 and the subsequent 3 years
•
An escalation factor of 10% to the $/MWh rate will be
applied
•
Variances from forecast costs and revenues will be
reconciled on an annual basis
36
Next Steps
• Finalize contract and announce successful vendor
• AESO expects to start receiving wind forecast data in
January 2010
• Phased implementation of IT infrastructure for data
management and integration into AESO system operator
tools
• Establish a Wind Power Forecasting Working Group for
continuous improvement on forecasting performance
37
Questions ?
Contact Information
Rob Baker
Ph: 403-539-2614
rob.baker@aeso.ca
39
Transmission Constraints
Management (TCM)
Reliable Power
Reliable Markets
Gordon Nadeau
Market Design Specialist
Reliable People
Agenda
• TCM Rule 9.4 AUC Re-Filing Proposal Discussion Paper
– AUC Decision 2009-042:
• Review AESO views on Commission findings
• Review AESO proposals on Commission directions
• Remedial Action Scheme (RAS) in the planning domain
– Review AESO approach in RAS comment response matrix
41
Proposed TCM Rule 9.4
Protocol Steps to Manage Constraints
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Determine effective generation and load
Directives to generate above MC are canceled
Dispatch off downstream Dispatch Down Service (DDS) providers
Curtail imports/exports as appropriate
Curtail downstream Demand Opportunity Service (DOS)
Dispatch effective TMR (use DDS to reconstitute price)
Curtail upstream energy in reverse merit order (RMO) based on
energy offer price followed by pro rata, if congestion is sustained
beyond T-2 period, use pro rata only
8. Dispatch downstream energy using the merit order up to replace the
curtailed upstream energy
9. Curtail downstream load
10. When curtailing effective upstream assets, curtail ancillary services
before energy
42
Review of Findings in
AUC Decision 2009-042 on TCM Rule 9.4
• Economic Dispatch: The use of the merit order for dispatch instructions
is aligned with regulation.
• Price Impact: Price impact of the TCM rule will be reasonable under
current and anticipated market conditions.
• Compensation: Constrained down payments are not contemplated
under regulation.
43
Review of Findings in
AUC Decision 2009-042 on TCM Rule 9.4
• Transmission “rights”: Regulation provides for reasonable system
access which does not equate to a “right”. The AESO is allowed to
assign a RAS under regulation where appropriate.
• Use of TMR/DDS: The use of TMR/DDS may be applicable in certain
situations but that it is not appropriate in all constraint situations.
44
AESO Proposals regarding Commission
Directions on TCM Rule 9.4
Directions:
• Scope of Rule
Proposal:
• 9.4 is real time rule only
• Use of TMR
• TMR for reliability only and
not price management
• Pay as bid protocol
• Pay as Bid not recommended
• Define fundamental terms
• Definitions provided for load
pocket and other terms
• Clarify TCM process steps
• Explain use of TMR/DDS within
steps
45
Pay as Bid Discussion
Pros
Cons
• Price impact of constraint
removed
• Does not promote price fidelity
under current market design
• Creates separate side
payments for constraints
• Not the best price signal and may
not be effective in managing
constraints
• Congestion costs may be
lower than proposed TCM
protocol
• Not a generic, in-market solution
that applies to all constraint cases
• Operationally and administratively
complex to implement
46
Pay as Bid Discussion
AESO Conclusions
• Price signal is the appropriate method of encouraging FEOC behaviour
not out of market solutions
• The Rule 9.4 protocol:
–
–
–
–
Is effective and practical
works within current market framework
Is a single protocol that deals with all constraints
Promotes price fidelity by minimizing the price impact and level of market
distortion
• The AESO does not recommend using any pay as bid protocol within
the TCM Rule
• Severe market distortions are not constraint management issues and
will be dealt with appropriately through other means
47
Remedial Action Scheme
(RAS) in the Planning Domain
Reliable Power
Reliable Markets
Reliable People
RAS in the Planning Domain
• Stakeholder comments on the RAS discussion paper and the AESO
response to those comments were published in December 2009
• A review of the AESO approach is provided to facilitate ongoing
stakeholder consultation on RAS
49
RAS Discussion
Transmission Regulation gives the AESO the authority to use RAS
• RAS is permitted under the Transmission Regulation section 15(1),
however, RAS is not an alternative to major system upgrades or key
transmission paths
• RAS can be temporary or permanent under section 15(1)
• Specific temporary RAS exceptions are allowed under sections 15(2)
and 15(3)
50
RAS Discussion
Overarching RAS rules are appropriate
• Requirement for RAS determined by Reliability Criteria and Alberta
Reliability Standards - It is not appropriate to have RAS criteria in the
ISO rules
• Reliability Criteria documentation to be reviewed in 2010 and specific
RAS criteria will be discussed
51
RAS Discussion
Two types of RAS: Connection RAS and System RAS, each of which
serve different purposes and require different approaches
Connection RAS
• Assigned to and paid for by customers on a last in first off
basis - Alternatively, the customer can choose to wait until
facilities are built
• Is temporary, however, the AESO can only provide an
estimate of when it is no longer needed
• Customers do not receive compensation for being
connected to a RAS
52
RAS Discussion
System RAS
• May be assigned or procured
• Customers do not receive compensation for being constrained down
• May be permanent
• System RAS applications unique:
– May develop over time with no single cause
– Variety of solutions may exist
– Could involve generation or load or both
– Compensation may be a consideration depending on the purpose and who
benefits from the protection
– Each application will require consultation on a case by case basis
– May require high level guiding rule
53
Next Steps
• Comments on the TCM paper due January 15, 2010
• AESO response to comments will be provided and may
proceed to re-filing Rule 9.4 with the AUC in Q1
• OPPs will be filed in stages in 2010 and full implementation
of Rule 9.4 thru OPPs and systems to proceed on a yet to
be determined schedule
• Consultation to proceed on RAS rules and a RAS
Information Document in Q1
54
Contact Information
Gordon Nadeau
Ph: 403-539-2568
gordon.nadeau@aeso.ca
55