Download RCVC TF Meeting

ROS Meeting
April 9, 2003
Lee Westbrook
Need for Standard
• Reactive compensation essential to voltage
support
• Compensation supplied at one level
(generation, transmission, or distribution)
affects that needed at other levels
• Responsibilities must be clearly defined and
assigned
• Compliance must be monitorable
Past Standard Development
Difficulties
• Agreement difficult
– Resulted in vague, unmeasurable responsibilities
– Any specific responsibilities were “lowest common
denominator”
• Studies not definitive
– Model and Data uncertainty
– Few clear result “breakpoints”
– No technical study can allocate reactive responsibility
among generation, transmission, and distribution
Past Standard Development
Difficulties (cont’d)
• Cost recovery uncertainty and diversity
• Diverse voltage control philosophies
• Monitoring difficult (metering deficiencies)
Past Advantages
• Integrated utilities could control voltage in an
integrated fashion (i.e., operating and planning
decisions could be made centrally for generation,
transmission, and distribution)
• Fewer remote generators, power transfers
• Less dispatch variability
• All generators had AVRs
Interim Standard
Negative Perceptions
• Need more information from a voltage
study in progress
• Need more definition of monitoring,
compliance, and enforcement mechanisms
• Cost allocation may not be equitable
• Differing locational and functional
requirements are discriminatory
• ERCOT discretion deemed excessive
Interim Standard
Negative Perceptions (cont’d)
• Cost of monitoring/compliance too high
• Inadequate justification of requirements
• Exclusions (e.g., wind generators, generator
grandfathering) deemed unjustified or
inadequate
• No specific DSP requirements, only TDSP
• Inadequate generator testing requirements
• Organization of standard confusing
Objectives
• Ensure that reactive power capability is installed and
deployed adequate to prevent unacceptable voltage or
voltage instability in ERCOT under credible operating
conditions
• Ensure that the standard requires neither the installation of
unneeded reactive power capability, nor the expenditure of
compliance monitoring costs that are unnecessary
• Provide ERCOT with a mechanism to address situations
when the standard does not define market participant
compliance responsibilities with sufficient clarity to
provide what is needed for acceptable reliability
• Ensure that different requirements on market participants
who are similar except for geographic location are justified
and documented
Objectives (cont’d)
• Provide for application of the standard on an aggregated
facility basis where reasonable
• Provide for reduced requirements on existing facilities
(e.g., grandfathering) only when justifiable considering
cost and reliability
• Provide an opportunity for market participants to refute an
ERCOT finding of noncompliance
• Create a standard that clearly states the obligations of
market participants and is organized to allow them to
locate all obligations easily
• Distinguish between DSP and TSP requirements, since the
organizations may not be integrated and the cost recovery
mechanisms differ
• Avoid staging and sunsetting of requirements if possible
Approach - RCVC TF
• Segregate drafting into requirements,
monitoring and compliance, and education
• Create a document in parts to facilitate
discussion, voting
• Present to ROS with any non-consensus
issues clearly delineated
• Present to WMS, TAC, etc.
• If approved, incorporate into OGRRs,
PRRs, and ERCOT Procedures for normal
processing
Technical Facts
• Static reactive is needed to preserve dynamic
reactive
• Dynamic reactive is needed to survive
disturbances
• Static reactive is lower $/MVAR than dynamic
reactive
• The lower the voltage level, the lower the static
reactive $/MVAR
• Reactive power transport is ineffective over
significant distance