Load Shed Options Assessment: Proposed Solutions Comparison
In the assessment of load shedding options for ERCOT, three proposed solutions are evaluated for their pros and cons. The options involve variations in how to handle Load-Following Resources (LFLs) during real-time load shedding events, with considerations on accuracy, complexity, and allocation structures. Each option presents different advantages and potential challenges that stakeholders need to take into account for effective decision-making.
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.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
LFLTF Load Shed Options Assessment (Existing) Option Description Pros Cons 1 ERCOT to telemeter TOs RT Load Shed obligation % -Accuracy -Complex and highly dependent on telemetry -Implementation logistics? -ERCOT systems changes? -No assurance of how the LFLs will actually behave in RT 2 Exclude LFLs from LS table -Simple -Potentially increases LS allocation to other TOs (see Appendix example) -No assurance of how the removed loads will actually behave in RT 3 ERCOT to QSE LFL Load Shed -Keeps existing TO allocation the same -QSE allocation to be based on ERCOT registration requirements -TO to be backstop for firm portion if LFL doesn t respond? -Still need to account for/exclude LFLs consuming during 4CP intervals to ensure MW not included in TO allocations; at ERCOT-level? 4 Load Ratio Share based on distribution load only -May reduce complexity -Skews LS obligation to be more burdensome on TOs with less industrial (i.e., transmission-connected) load -No assurance of how the LFLs will actually behave in RT 1
LFLTF Load Shed Options Assessment (Proposed Combo 2+3) Option Description Pros Cons 1 ERCOT to telemeter TOs RT Load Shed obligation % -Accuracy -Complex and highly dependent on telemetry -Implementation logistics? -ERCOT systems changes? -No assurance of how the LFLs will actually behave in RT 2 + 3 ERCOT excludes LFLs from TO-LS allocation percentages, and ERCOT directs LFL QSEs to stop consuming pre-emergency -Will TO be backstop for firm portion if LFL doesn t respond? -Decouples transmission cost allocation (PUC level) from load shed allocations (ERCOT level) -QSE load shed allocation to be based on ERCOT registration requirements 4 Load Ratio Share based on distribution load only -May reduce complexity -Skews LS obligation to be more burdensome on TOs with less industrial (i.e., transmission-connected) load -No assurance of how the LFLs will actually behave in RT 2
LFLTF Load Shed Options Assessment (Combo 2+3 + GSEC) Option Description Pros Cons 1 ERCOT to telemeter TOs RT Load Shed obligation % -Accuracy -Complex and highly dependent on telemetry -Implementation logistics? -ERCOT systems changes? -No assurance of how the LFLs will actually behave in RT 2 + 3 ERCOT excludes LFLs from TO-LS allocation percentages, and ERCOT directs LFL QSEs to stop consuming pre-emergency -Will TO be backstop for firm portion if LFL doesn t respond? -Decouples transmission cost allocation (PUC level) from load shed allocations (ERCOT level) -QSE load shed allocation to be based on ERCOT registration requirements 4 Load Ratio Share based on distribution load only -May reduce complexity -Skews LS obligation to be more burdensome on TOs with less industrial (i.e., transmission-connected) load -No assurance of how the LFLs will actually behave in RT -If excluded, transmission level load is free to decrease, increase or remain the same during an event. (GSEC) -Potentially shifts obligations to entities with higher ratio of distribution level load (GSEC) 2
LFLTF Load Shed Options TO Inventory/Straw Poll Option Description Support Oppose Neutral 1 ERCOT to telemeter TOs RT Load Shed obligation % -GSEC -CNP (equitable) -Oncor (complexity) -AEP (generally support, but concerns with complexity) -PEC 2 + 3 ERCOT excludes LFLs from TO-LS allocation percentages, and ERCOT directs LFL QSEs to stop consuming pre- emergency -ERCOT -GSEC -Oncor -LCRA -AEP -TNMP -PEC -CNP 4 Load Ratio Share based on distribution load only -CNP -AEP -Oncor -GSEC -PEC 3
LFLTF Load Shed Recommendations/Consensus Statements Large loads should not be required to consume energy during Energy Emergency Levels 1, 2, or 3 Caveat: If providing RRS AS, LFL should consume until ERCOT directs the AS deployment Discussed/consensus reached during 6/25/22 LFLTF Caveat: provided EEA3 load shed allocation is changed so that an LFL does not create a load shed obligation with which a TO can t comply. (GSEC) 4
