ERCOT Panhandle Hub Analysis Recommendations

Analysis of the Panhandle Hub definition under NPRR817 shows options for ERCOT stakeholders. Recommendations include avoiding congestion, testing hub definition using day-ahead market model, and consistent weighting of nodes. Methodology involves using Panhandle GTC, SCED intervals, sorting LMPs, and mapping electrical buses to substations for analysis.

• ERCOT
• Panhandle Hub
• Stakeholders
• Analysis
• Recommendations

juel459 Follow

Uploaded on Sep 26, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Panhandle Bus Definition QMWG June 5, 2017

2. Purpose NPRR817, Create a Panhandle Hub, is under discussion and appears to have significant support; however, the confidence in the Hub definition is not strong. This analysis aims to provide options for ERCOT stakeholders to consider. Disclaimer this is the independent work of Megawatt Analytics, LLC and is not at the behest of any stakeholder and certainly should not be interpreted as such. June 5, 2017

3. Rules of Hubs Protocols List of busses cannot be modified unless physically removed (3.5.1(2)) Perpetual (2.1) Simple averages quantity of generation or load at bus is irrelevant. (3.5.2) Rules Average price of aggregated nodes ( 25.501 (g)) June 5, 2017

4. Patton Hub Recommendations Avoid intra-hub congestion ? The day-ahead market model should be used to test the definition of the hub by submitting large net energy purchases and sales at the hub location under a defined range of market conditions The nodes selected for use in the hub should be electrically similar and have a relatively stable price relationship in aggregate ? Resource node price correlations are strong, proposed hub bus correlations could be tested Use consistent weighting of nodes between definition of the hub and the distribution methodology Using non-energy weighted simple average is consistent with distribution methodology ( 4.5.1 (6) ) June 5, 2017

5. Methodology for Hub Analysis 1) Assume Panhandle GTC should be the basis for Hub definition; 2) Find SCED interval with only Panhandle GTC binding; 3) Sort using LMPs by Electrical Bus report; 4) Map electrical bus to substations using: Settlement Points List and Electrical Buses Mapping ERCOT Steady State Planning Data Dictionary Day-Ahead PSS-E Network Operations Model and Supporting Files June 5, 2017

6. Raw Result- 30 Busses PH1 PH2 ROUTE_66 MIAM1 SSPURTWO RAILHEAD 1. ABERNATH 16. OGALLALA CTT_GRAY ALN_CRK SALTFORK AJ_SWOPE 2. AEEC 17. PH1 ALIBATES GRANDVW1 3. AJ_SWOPE 18. PH2 4. ALIBATES 19. RAILHEAD 5. ALN_CRK 20. ROUTE_66 6. ASTRA 21. SALTFORK WINDMILL MARIAH ASTRA HRFDWIND 7. BRISCOE 22. SPLAIN1 LHORN_N 8. COTPLNS 23. SPLAIN2 OGALLALA 9. CTT_CROS 24. SSPURTWO TESLA TULECNYN 10. CTT_GRAY 25. TESLA BRISCOE CTT_CROS 11. GRANDVW1 26. TULECNYN WHIT_RVR 12. HRFDWIND 27. W_CW_345 COTPLNS 13. LHORN_N 28. WAKEWE ABERNATH SPLAIN1 SPLAIN2 14. MARIAH 29. WHIT_RVR AEEC 15. MIAM1 30. WINDMILL W_CW_345 WAKEWE June 5, 2017

7. Pare by Protocol? Electrically Similar Settlement Points Two or more distinct Settlement Points that are either mapped to the same electrical location in a market model or are mapped to locations that are connected by a transmission element with a reactance of less than 0.0005 per unit. June 5, 2017

8. Remove E.S.P. : 23 Busses SSPURTWO MIAM1 RAILHEAD PH2 ROUTE_66 CTT_GRAY 1. ABERNATH 14. RAILHEAD ALN_CRK AJ_SWOPE ALIBATES 2. AJ_SWOPE 15. ROUTE_66 GRANDVW1 3. ALIBATES 16. SPLAIN1 4. ALN_CRK 17. SPLAIN2 5. ASTRA 18. SSPURTWO WINDMILL MARIAH ASTRA 6. CTT_CROS 19. TESLA LHORN_N 7. CTT_GRAY 20. TULECNYN OGALLALA TESLA 8. GRANDVW1 21. W_CW_345 TULECNYN 9. LHORN_N 22. WHIT_RVR CTT_CROS 10. MARIAH 23. WINDMILL WHIT_RVR 11. MIAM1 ABERNATH SPLAIN1 SPLAIN2 12. OGALLALA 13. PH2 W_CW_345 June 5, 2017

9. E.S.P. Trimmings Raw Bus Reactance E.S.P. Bus AEEC 0.00006 ABERNATH These changes appear to be reasonable, but note PH1 to Railhead included, but PH2 is not. SALTFORK 0.00001 ALN_CRK BRISCOE 0.00032 TULECNYN COTPLNS 0.00001 WHIT_RVR HRFDWIND 0.00001 WINDMILL PH1 0.00039 RAILHEAD WAKEWE 0.00048 W_CW_345 June 5, 2017

10. E.S.P. on the Margin Raw Bus Intuitive Bus Reactance GRANDVW1 ALIBATES 0.0005 SPLAIN1 WHIT_RVR 0.00051 Some of these are reasonable, but note GRANDVW1 is on the margin, SPLAIN1 is close, and PH2 does not qualify while its sister bus did. OGALLALA WINDMILL 0.0006 RAILHEAD CTT_GRAY 0.0006 ROUTE_66 ALIBATES 0.0006 ASTRA WINDMILL 0.00069 LHORN_N TULECNYN 0.0008 PH2 RAILHEAD 0.00085 MIAM1 CTT_GRAY 0.00129 SPLAIN2 WHIT_RVR 0.00143 MARIAH WINDMILL 0.00161 SSPURTWO AJSWOPE 0.00376 June 5, 2017

11. E.S.P. Remove Radial: 11 Busses SSPURTWO MIAM1 RAILHEAD PH2 ROUTE_66 CTT_GRAY 1. AJ_SWOPE ALN_CRK AJ_SWOPE ALIBATES GRANDVW1 2. ALIBATES 3. CTT_CROS 4. CTT_GRAY WINDMILL MARIAH ASTRA 5. OGALLALA LHORN_N 6. RAILHEAD OGALLALA TESLA TULECNYN 7. TESLA CTT_CROS 8. TULECNYN WHIT_RVR 9. W_CW_345 ABERNATH SPLAIN1 SPLAIN2 10. WHIT_RVR 11. WINDMILL W_CW_345 June 5, 2017

12. Statistics of Real Time RN LMPs A E E C B R I S C O E C O T P L N S G R A N D V W 1 H R F D W I N D L H O R N _ N M A R I A H M I A M 1 P H 1 P H 2 H B _ N O R T H H B _ W E S T Mean difference = $0.08 Median = $0.00 Max difference = $59.72 AEEC 1.00 Correlation between known Resource Nodes in the proposed hub is very strong, but weaker compared to existing Hubs. A better look would be to compare proposed Hub bus LMPs, but data is not readily available. BRISCOE 1.00 1.00 COTPLNS 1.00 1.00 1.00 GRANDVW1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HRFDWIND 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LHORN_N 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MARIAH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MIAM1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH1_UNIT1_2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH2_U1_U2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HB_NORTH 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 HB_WEST 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 1.00 June 5, 2017

13. The Abernathy Option Several potential plans would tie the panhandle in to the rest of the system through Abernathy making it an intuitive candidate for a Hub Bus. PREZ Study Report LP&L Option 4OW Sharyland South Plains OGALLALA ABERNATH June 5, 2017

14. Recommendation RAILHEAD CTT_GRAY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. W_CW_345 11. WHIT_RVR 12. WINDMILL ABERNATH AJ_SWOPE ALIBATES CTT_CROS CTT_GRAY OGALLALA RAILHEAD TESLA TULECNYN AJ_SWOPE ALIBATES WINDMILL OGALLALA TESLA TULECNYN CTT_CROS WHIT_RVR ABERNATH W_CW_345 June 5, 2017

15. Risks Panhandle interface shifts? Significant Lubbock upgrade beyond plan 4OW? Additional Load Transfer to ERCOT? June 5, 2017

16. Questions? Brandon Whittle www.megawattanalytics.com June 5, 2017