Market Performance and Planning Forum March 16, 2010 Objective: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Market Performance and Planning Forum March 16, 2010

Objective: Enable dialogue on implementation planning and market performance issues  Review key market performance topics  Share updates to 2009-2011 release plans, resulting from stakeholders inputs  Provide information on specific initiatives  to support Market Participants in budget and resource planning  Focus on implementation planning; not on policy  Clarify implementation timelines  Discuss external impacts of implementation plans  Launch joint implementation planning process Slide 2

Agenda TIME TOPIC PRESENTER 9:00-9:15 Overview, Objectives Mercy Parker-Helget 9:15-11:00 Market Performance Mark Rothleder, Nan - Minimum Online Commitment Review Liu, Brian Jacobsen - Discussion of Effective Threshold Report - Bid Caps and associated parameters - Cycling of Resources and initial conditions - Constraint Management 11:00 -11:30 Policy Update Margaret Miller 11:30-12:30 Lunch – Provided by ISO 12:30 –3:00 Release Planning Khaled Abdul- - Impact Assessment of new policy initiatives Rahman, Janet - Convergence Bidding Morris, Li Zhou - Technical Update - Technical Specifications - Upcoming Implementation Efforts - Participating Load Refinements - Business Requirements Specifications - Impact Assessment - Release Update Slide 3

Market Performance Mark Rothleder Director, Market Analysis & Development Slide 4

Minimum Online Commitment Review  G-219 - Local Area Generation Requirement for Orange County activated requires approximately 224MW of online commitment at current load levels  Results in 0 to 1 unit commitment  G-217 - South-of-Lugo Generation Requirements not currently active at current load level  Extending Minimum Online Commitment constraint to outage conditions in final testing Slide 5

Discussion of Effective Threshold Report  March 1, 2010 Report on Effectiveness Threshold posted: http://www.caiso.com/274c/274ce65363b0.html  Currently effectiveness threshold was applied based individual resource’s shift-factor relative to distributed slack reference  Analyzes impact on operational market performance  Analyzes impact on APNode vs Anode pricing Slide 6

Discussion of Effective Threshold Report  No increase or decrease from 2% effectiveness threshold recommend at this time  Consideration should be given to investigate the alternative effectiveness threshold methodologies that address combinational effectiveness rather than individual resource effectiveness  Current methodology in some situation may reduce ability to manage and price congestion  Current methodology in some situations may not eliminate relatively ineffective combinations of dispatch  The impact on APNode vs. ANode differences are small and no change is recommended Slide 7

Discussion of Effective Threshold Report • East Nicolas to Rio Oso 115 kV and Palermo to Typical Hourly Shift-Factor 32212_E.NICOLS_115_32214_RIO OSO _115_BR_1 _1 Honcut Junction 115 kV Constraints 2,500 2,000 • Low Shift-Factors excluded resources that could have Counts of Nodes 1,500 been effective in congestion relief 1,000 Total 500 0 -11.00% -9.50% -8.50% -7.50% -6.50% -5.50% -4.50% -3.50% -2.50% -1.50% -0.50% 0.50% 1.50% 2.50% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.50% 13.50% 22.00% Shift Factors: ( Δ F jk/ Δ P i ) ref x 100 (%) Typical Hourly Shift-Factor • VICTVL_BG due to its location has resources with VICTVL_BG 3,000 relatively low effectiveness 2,500 Counts of Nodes 2,000 • Combinations of effective resource re-dispatch are not showing as effective since individual that have 1,500 shift-factor lower than threshold are set to 0 1,000 Total effectiveness 500 0 -3.00% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 5.00% 7.00% 7.50% 8.00% 9.00% 9.50% 10.00% Shift Factors: ( Δ F jk/ Δ P i ) ref x 100 (%) Slide 8

Discussion of Effective Threshold Report Typical Hourly Shift-Factor • SCE_PCT_IMP and SDG_CFEIMP_BG constraints are SCE_PCT_IMP_BG 3,500 examples of constraint where re-dispatch of 3,000 resources that are within individual effective Counts of Nodes 2,500 threshold can result in combinations of re-dispatch 2,000 that is relatively ineffective 1,500 Total 1,000 • Ineffective combinations of re-dispatch result in 500 0 prices between bid cap ($500) and scheduling run -53.00% 47.00% parameter for constraint relaxation ($5000) Shift Factors: ( Δ F jk/ Δ P i ) ref x 100 (%) • This effect can be due to use of lossless shift-factor Typical Hourly Shift-Factor or due to small differences between resources both SDGE_CFEIMP_BG 3,500 of which are considered effective on an individual 3,000 resources basis Counts of Nodes 2,500 2,000 1,500 Total 1,000 500 0 -90.00% 10.00% Shift Factors: ( Δ F jk/ Δ P i ) ref x 100 (%) Slide 9

Discussion of Effective Threshold Report Typical Hourly Shift-Factor HUMBOLDT_BG • HUMBOLDT_BG is example where a few resources 4,000 are highly effective but all other resources on 3,500 3,000 Counts of Nodes opposite side of constraint are considered ineffective 2,500 2,000 • While ineffective resources are re-dispatched to 1,500 Total maintain power-balance, such ineffective resource’s 1,000 500 LMP will not reflect congestion relief 0 -99.50% 0.50% Shift Factors: ( Δ F jk/ Δ P i ) ref x 100 (%) Slide 10

Discussion of Effective Threshold Report – APNode vs ANode • APNode price is the weighted average of constituent PNodes • Anode price is the price of the aggregate ANode and reflects the effectiveness of the aggregate Anode relative to a constraint Bid Price ($/Mwh) APNode Price APNode Clearing APNode Price Vs ANode Clearing Price ANode Clearing Anode Price Impact MW Intersect ANode Demand (MW) of APNode Price Clearing on DLAP Bid Curve MW Slide 11

Discussion of Effective Threshold Report – APNode vs ANode Comparison PGAE_DLAP SCE_DLAP SDGE_DLAP % of Day-Ahead hours with ABS(APNode - 86.8% 94.1% 98.0% Anode) < $.01 % of Day-Ahead hours with ABS(APNode - 98.78% 99.8% 100% Anode) < $1.0 Maximum Positive Price Difference $23.28 $45.15 $0.14 (APNode>Anode) Maximum Negative Price Difference -$1.68 -$0.29 -$0.15 (APNode<Anode) Estimated settlement impact of APNode and $75,068 $228,225 $0 Anode price difference Slide 12

Bid Caps and associated parameters  Energy Bid Cap changes from $500 to $750  Energy Soft-Bid Floor remains unchanged at -$30  A/S Bid Cap remains unchanged at $250  RUC Bid Cap remains unchanged at $250  $2500 Price Cap is eliminated  Other parameters change coordinate with change in Energy Bid cap as follows Slide 13

Bid Caps and associated parameters – Day Ahead Penalty Price Description Scheduling Pricing Run Comment Run Value Value Market energy balance 6500 500  750 Market energy balance is the requirement that total supply equal the sum of total demand plus losses for the entire system. In the IFM energy balance reflects the clearing of bid-in supply and demand; in the MPM-RRD component of the DAM it reflects the scheduling of bid- in supply against the ISO demand forecast. Transmission constraints: Intertie 7000 500  750 Intertie scheduling constraints limit the total amount of energy and scheduling ancillary service capacity that can be scheduled at each scheduling point. Transmission constraints: branch, 5000 500  750 In the scheduling run, the market optimization enforces transmission corridor, nomogram (base case and constraints up to a point where the cost of enforcement (the “shadow contingency analysis) price” of the constraint) reaches the parameter value, at which point the constraint is relaxed. Transmission Ownership Right 5900, -5900 500->750, A TOR Self-Schedule will be honored in the market scheduling in (TOR) self schedule preference to enforcing transmission constraints. -30 Existing Transmission Contract 5100 to 500->750, An ETC Self-Schedule will be honored in the market scheduling in (ETC) self schedule 5900, -5100 preference to enforcing transmission constraints. The typical value is -30 to -5900 set at $5500, but different values from $5100 to $5900 are possible if the instructions to the ISO establish differential priorities among ETC rights. For some ETC rights the ISO may use values below the stated scheduling run range if that is required for consistency with the instructions provided to the ISO by the PTO. Converted Right (CVR) self 5500, -5500 500->750, A CVR Self-Schedule is assigned the same priority as the typical value schedule for ETC Self-Schedules. -30 Slide 14