Members agreed last week to move forward with an initiative that could result in reduced restrictions on up-to congestion transactions.
About 70 percent of stakeholders at the Market Implementation Committee voted in favor of an issue charge to consider lifting the UTC bid cap and restrictions on the nodes that are eligible for such trades.
The measure passed over opposition from the Market Monitor and several stakeholders, who said the product is already exacerbating the underfunding of Financial Transmission Rights.
A UTC combines a day-ahead offer to sell energy at a source with a bid to buy the same quantity at a sink. The transaction is only executed if the difference between the Locational Marginal Prices at the source and sink are under a threshold set by the bidder. Current market rules limit such bids to differentials of $50 or less.
Noha Sidhom, of Inertia Power LP, proposed the review in a problem statement last month, saying the bid cap forces traders to place price insensitive bids that don’t reflect market conditions. (See PJM to Consider Relaxing UTC Rules.)
The current rules also limit such transactions to nodes historically available for interchange transactions, excluding those load buses below 69 kV and buses for generators below 100 MW. “Expanding nodes would make [UTCs] a true hedge when the market is more volatile,” Sidhom said.
The issue charge directs the MIC to consider alterations to UTCs during special sessions in the first quarter of 2014, with a FERC filing for approval of Tariff changes anticipated in July.
As expected, PJM transmission planners said last week they will recommend the PJM Board of Managers approve FirstEnergy’s proposed $8 million congestion-relief upgrade in the MetEd zone.
“We’re already looking at the FirstEnergy project as the project we would like to move forward on,” PJM’s Tim Horger told the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee Thursday.
The FirstEnergy project bested two proposals by LS Power to relieve congestion on the Hunterstown 230/115 kV transformer. The LS Power projects, estimated at more than $60 million each, had benefit to cost ratios of less than 2, far below FirstEnergy’s B/C ratio of more than 6.
Reliability tests of the LS Power proposals indicated one would require a new circuit breaker and the other caused reliability violations, additional costs that would further reduce their benefit-cost ratios. Adding either LS Power proposal to the FirstEnergy project would have an incremental B/C ratio of less than 1, Horger said.
The FirstEnergy project, expected to be completed in 2017, includes the installation of a second Hunterstown 230/115 kV transformer and reconductoring of the Hunterstown-Oxford 115 kV line
The project has a total revenue requirement of $11.7 million and is expected to produce savings with a net present value of $71.6 million over 15 years, a payback of 6.1 to 1. The calculations are based on a carrying charge rate of 16.7% and a 7.7% discount rate.
The three projects were among 17 congestion relief transmission proposals submitted by developers in September. PJM rejected the other 14, saying they failed to provide sufficient benefits or targeted problems that were already addressed by other upgrades. (See PJM to OK Only 1 of 17 Congestion Relief Proposals.)
$238M in Additional Reliability Projects
The FirstEnergy project will be recommended to the Board of Managers in February along with seven reliability projects totaling more than $238 million, including four in Penelec (total $82 million) and one each in PPL ($350,000), AE ($300,000). The biggest project of the seven is a $155 million upgrade in Dominion to correct overloads on the Franconia 230kV to Van Dorn 230kV line and four other lines.
2014 RTEP Timeline
Transmission owners are conducting a second-round review of inputs to the 2019 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan model. The Model incorporates updated information provided by TOs following their initial review.
PJM staff is updating contingency, interchange and generation dispatch data, with plans to finalize the case by the end of January and begin testing the model in February.
$141M in Upgrades for Generator Retirements
Upgrade Costs for Plant Retirements (Source: PJM Interconnection, LLC)
Planners said they have identified more than $141 million in upgrades needed to correct reliability problems resulting from the retirements of 14 plants announced late in 2013. (See chart)
PPL’s retirements of Sunbury units 1-4 will require upgrades totaling $52 million. Large upgrades were also identified as a result of the closing of the Mad River combustion turbines ($45.7 million) and Dickerson units 1-3 and Chalk Point units 1 and 2 ($43 million).
The reliability analysis on BGE’s Riverside unit 4 identified no issues.
Sub-zero temperatures from Toledo to Tennessee pushed PJM to its limits last week as the RTO overcame the loss of nearly 40,000 MW of generation during an arctic blast that set a new winter demand record.
(Source: PJM Interconnection, LLC)
Demand response, voluntary conservation and imports helped PJM avoid shedding load as demand hit 141,500 MW Tuesday evening, besting the previous winter peak — set Feb. 5, 2007 — by nearly 5,000 MW.
The RTO survived Tuesday’s peak despite about 38,000 MW in generation outages, almost 20% of its installed capacity. “We really exhausted every megawatt we had on the system,” Adam Keech, director of wholesale market operations, told the Market Implementation Committee in a briefing Wednesday.
Some plants failed to start, suffered tube leaks or were unable to convert to backup fuel. “We’ve seen everything,” Executive Vice President for Operations Mike Kormos said during a press conference Tuesday morning.
What sent temperatures plunging and power and natural gas prices skyward was an unusual visit by the polar vortex, a low pressure system that normally circles around the North Pole.
Temperatures of -10 or below were recorded Tuesday in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The negative numbers reached as far south as Kingsport, TN, which reported -1 and Blacksburg, VA, which registered -5.
PJM power prices were above $200/MWh for most of the period from Monday evening through Tuesday evening, peaking at more than $1,800/MWh during Tuesday’s morning and evening peaks.
Natural gas for Tuesday delivery hit a record $95/mmBtu at Transco’s Zone 6 non-New York hub in PJM, Natural Gas Intelligence reported. U.S. gas demand hit a record 130 billion cubic feet per day Monday, topped by a new record of 134 Bcf/d Tuesday, according to Bentek Energy.
Generators told PJM, “`I can get gas but it’s very expensive. Do you still want it?’” Executive Director of System Operations Mike Bryson told Platts Energy Week later. “And we were in a position where we needed every megawatt we could get on the system.”
One bright spot: The gusts that accompanied the cold boosted PJM wind production to more than 3,000 MW, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
Below is a chronology of PJM’s response to the arctic blast, based on PJM records and briefings from PJM officials and industry news reports.
Monday, Jan. 6
PJM braced for the arrival of the vortex Monday as subzero temperatures began moving east from the western portion of the RTO. Shortly before noon, PJM issued a Maximum Emergency Generation Alert for Tuesday for the entire PJM RTO — a signal that the RTO may need every available megawatt of generating capacity. They also issued a press release calling on consumers to conserve power the following day.
PJM and state regulators urged consumers to reduce energy use during the emergency. “Every little bit helps,” Kormos said. “There’s 60 million people in our footprint. If everyone does their part, that could easily add up to one nuclear plant, which is 1,000 MWs.”
“We’re very close [to generation limits],” Kormos added. “The last couple hundred megawatts could allow us to not have to take any forced interruptions.”
PJM received a waiver from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Order 787, allowing RTO officials to share information with natural gas pipelines serving the region. PJM held conference calls with pipelines Friday and Monday and individually validated gas nominations for the RTO’s gas generators. Keech said there were no natural gas curtailments.
“The pipelines came through pretty well,” Gary Helm, lead market strategist, told the Market Implementation Committee in a briefing. “We only saw two compressor outages.”
At about 5 p.m., the RTO lost about 1,500 MW of generation, including the FirstEnergy’s 911 MW Beaver Valley nuclear unit 1, which tripped after a transformer malfunction. Operators requested synchronized reserves and shared reserves from NYISO. Load mounted faster and higher than expected, topping off 5,000 MW above forecast at 131,900 MW.
Keech said operators’ ability to forecast load was hamstrung by a lack of comparable temperature data. “We couldn’t find a temperature set [with extreme cold throughout the RTO] for the last decade. And if you go back that far the [RTO] footprint was so different it’s probably not even useful.” Keech said.
The synch reserve event was ended after a little more than an hour at 6:09 p.m. Shortly before 7:30 p.m., another large generator tripped.
At 7:50, with reserves growing short, operators reduced voltage across the RTO by 5% to help them through the evening peak. The action, which lasted about an hour, triggered scarcity pricing — sending prices briefly above $1,000/MWh.
Tuesday, Jan. 7
Overnight, operators became alarmed after the “valley load” — the lowest load of the day —came in 4,000 MW higher than the projected 116,000 MW. About 2 a.m., expecting a morning peak of 140,000 MW, operators issued a request for emergency energy for 6 through 11 a.m.
Shortly before 3 a.m., they issued a warning that they might again reduce voltage.
At 4:30, they issued a call for 1,900 MW of emergency demand response and issued a Maximum Emergency Generation Action, notifying market participants that off system energy sales from PJM capacity resources may be recalled. Demand response provider EnerNOC Inc. said it was the largest winter dispatch in PJM history.
About 1,100 MW of emergency energy began flowing from MISO and NYISO at 6 a.m., but at 6:30 operators called on 100% synchronized reserves to respond to a low Area Control Error. A second spin event was initiated shortly after 8 a.m., when an unnamed unit tripped.
The morning peaked at 138,600, a new — if short-lived — winter record. Prices were in the $1,800/MWh range from 7 to 11 a.m.
At 3 p.m., operators again called on DR for an evening peak projected at 142,000 MW. However, an unexpected influx of imports — as much as 10,000 MW — allowed them to cancel the DR call shortly after 6 p.m.
The evening peaked at 141,500 — below projections but a new winter record nonetheless.
Bryson credited voluntary conservation. “There were times when we thought we were going to be short on reserves and the load just didn’t come in,” he said. “And it’s probably representative of a very good consumer response.”
Wednesday, Jan. 8
Expecting a morning peak of 136,600 MW, PJM again issued a Maximum Emergency Generation Action, called on DR and issued a request for emergency energy.
Generator outages would peak Wednesday morning at 39,520 MW. But with temperatures rebounding, the morning peak would hit only 134,500. With load coming in lower than expected, the RTO cancelled the DR call at 6:30 and the Maximum Generation Action at 9 a.m.
Adam Keech, director of wholesale market operations, told the Market Implementation Committee last week that reactive credits in the real time market were inflated by $25 to $30 million between August and December as a result of a software error.
In December 2012, PJM changed the way it allocated local reactive power costs: Costs that were previously allocated to all Day Ahead load, DECs and exports were allocated to the individual transmission zone.
A subsequent change to the logging process, effective Aug. 1, also inadvertently changed the settlement process. As a result, resources committed in the DA market for reactive support were credited with make whole payments in real time.
“Anytime a unit wasn’t following dispatch we assumed it was redispatched for reactive” service, Keech explained.
Officials discovered the error after noticing RT reactive credits, which had been negligible compared with DA credits, grow to more than $5 million per month. The error was corrected for settlements beginning Dec. 20.
With two new types of demand response about to be introduced, members last week took steps to clarify rules on substitutions and maintenance outages for the products.
Extended Summer DR (7 days a week between May-Oct.) and Annual DR (12 months) will be available for the first time in the 2014/15 delivery year, joining the existing Limited DR (available for 10 dispatches annually on weekdays during June-Sept.).
Manual Change OKd for DR Substitution
Members last week approved changes to Manual 18: PJM Capacity Market governing how demand response providers may substitute for underperforming resources when called to dispatch.
Under the changes endorsed by the Market Implementation Committee Wednesday, the substitute and under-performing registration must:
Be located in the same dispatch area;
Have comparable capacity commitments (defined as the within ±25% or ±0.5 MW); and
Have the same designated lead time (e.g., long lead or short lead)
Under the rules, providers may use Limited DR to replace Annual DR but the substitution will not count against Limited’s 10 dispatch-per-year cap, said PJM’s Pete Langbein. Annual DR has no limits on the number of dispatches.
Maintenance Outages
The MIC also agreed to develop rules for approving maintenance outages for Annual DR.
The Tariff allows Annual DR to take maintenance outages between October and April, but members asked for rules to specify the application and approval procedures.
Under an Issue Charge approved by the MIC, the Demand Response Subcommittee will seek to develop manual changes that clarify what is eligible for a maintenance outage and how Curtailment Service Providers can apply for one. Members hope to complete the proposed changes for MIC endorsement by March.
PJM is adding more items to the to-do list resulting from the September heat wave, during which officials ordered limited load sheds to prevent a wider system collapse.
A 104-page analysis of the operational events and market impacts resulted in 22 recommendations, including 11 not previously announced (see sidebar). RTO officials briefed members on the report last week — ironically amidst the arctic blast that set a new winter demand record.
The analysis reads a bit like a thriller, documenting PJM dispatchers’ minute-by-minute decision-making — and identifying mistakes and missed opportunities for reducing or eliminating some of the five load sheds Sept. 9 and 10.
The city of Sturgis, Mich., emerges as a hero in the drama, as the city’s behind-the-meter generator and conservation measures by residents combined to provide 8 MW of relief, preventing a third day of load shedding on Sept. 11.
The report attributed the load sheds in part to inaccurate transmission, weather and load forecast models and also cited errors in synchronized reserve estimates. Load sheds did not significantly affect prices, the report concludes. But the dispatch of demand response caused both price increases and decreases and shortfalls in Financial Transmission Rights funding.
The report also illustrates the limits of demand response in relieving transmission constraints and identified operator errors and communication lapses.
Among the previously undisclosed details in the report:
Closing the South Akron-Clay 138 kV line might have prevented the Sept. 10 load shed in FirstEnergy’s Tod area near Warren, Ohio.
PJM might have avoided the load shed in the AEP Summit area Sept. 10 by dispatching 395 MW of combustion turbines that were off line. It did not do so because of a modeling error and because it was not monitoring a 138 kV line not under RTO control.
The Sept. 9 and 10 load sheds in AEP’s Pigeon River area in southern Michigan might have been avoided had a scheduled rebuilding of a 69-kV line been complete. PJM is working with AEP to “fast-track” the project, which is currently scheduled for completion in June 2017 under the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan.
PJM should have ordered the Sept. 10 load shed in Erie South area of Penelec 40 minutes earlier than it did, immediately after an analysis indicated it was the only solution to prevent a potential cascading outage. The load shed was preceded by the unplanned outage of two hydropower units (Seneca #1 and #2) that were scheduled to run at full output, a combined 421 MW.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) indirectly contributed to one load shed. The planned outage of the South Canton 765 kV/345 kV transformer — required to support an upgrade needed prior to the retirement of five New Castle generators —contributed to less than 1 MW of the 16 MW FirstEnergy (ATSI) Tod area load shed.
Access to recently retired generation would not have eliminated the load sheds, although the five Bay Shore and East Lake generators retired in September 2012 could have reduced the Tod load shed by 75% and the AEP Summit outage by almost half.
Modeling
Many of the report’s findings and recommendations deal with PJM’s transmission modeling:
PJM’s contingency analysis of the Pigeon River area failed to include both a planned outage on the 69-kV Moore Park Tap-Industrial Park line and a relay limitation on the Lagrange-Howe (NIPSCO) section of the line. Because of the relay limitation, the most severe real-time contingency would automatically relay the Lagrange-Howe 69-kV line out of service. The Moore Park Tap-Industrial Park line was not modeled by PJM because it is below the 100-kV level; current PJM rules do not require reporting of outages below 100-kV.
Ratings on the Summit-Industrial 138 kV line, which figured in the 25 MW load shed in the AEP Summit area, were incorrectly listed as 251 MVA for normal (24 hours), emergency (four hours), and maximum (15 minute) conditions. “The reason for having different ratings is to give the dispatcher time to trend and validate the flows as well as take action to reduce the flows on the line,” the report said. “The impact of all the ratings being the same is there is no time for the dispatcher to perform anything but the most extreme action that must be taken once the load dump rating is reached. In this case, it was to issue the PCLLRW [Post Contingency Local Load Relief] and ultimately shed load.”
PJM incorrectly modeled a 138 kV series device, resulting in a 20 MVA difference between PJM and AEP’s state estimator solutions. PJM correctly compensated for the difference in real-time by conducting a cascading outage analysis at AEP’s lower threshold.
Because of the modeling error and because the Industrial-Summit 138 kV line is classified as a monitored priority 2 (MP 2) facility — which is above the 100 kV NERC Bulk Electric System (BES) level but not turned over to PJM for control — PJM did not dispatch 395 MW of combustion turbines that were off line, “which may have eliminated the need for the load shed.”
Synchronized Reserve
The heat wave also exposed problems with PJM’s estimates of synchronized reserves.
PJM issued a call for synchronized reserves Sept. 10, believing it had 1,665 MW available. It never got more than 400 MW of relief, with only 200 MW showing up in the first 10 minutes. As a result, the spinning event — which normally last only 10 minutes — ran for more than an hour.
The report concluded that some generation operators do not respond to PJM requests to confirm their synchronized reserves — called an Instantaneous Reserve Check (IRC) — or “provide stale or unreliable data.”
It also cited errors by operators who manually reduced output from some generating units to relieve transmission constraints Sept. 10. Because they failed to log the units as “Manual Dispatch,” PJM’s Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) software returned the units to a higher output and calculated available Tier 1 reserves from some units on the sending end of transmission constraints, although those units could not increase their output.
Heat Wave Forecasting Errors
RTO Temperatures During Sept. 13 Heat Wave (Source: PJM Interconnection LLC Technical Analysis of Operational Events and Market Impacts during the Sept. 13 Heat Wave)
Forecasting temperatures also proved problematic. Temperature forecasts for 10 PJM zones missed actual conditions by an average of 2 to 3 degrees over the three days, with errors as high as 10 degrees.
These contributed to load forecasts that fell up to 3.6% short. “Backcasting” — rerunning the load forecast using actual temperatures to separate the effect of the weather forecast errors — still produced average errors of 2% to 4.5%.
PJM said this is because its “Neural Net” forecasting tool relies on the previous day’s temperature and load trends. “When temperatures change significantly from one day to the next, it takes time for the Neural Net to catch up. Therefore the model inherently does not handle this first day of change well.”
Communications
The report also raises questions about how PJM operators communicated their actions to others on the grid and within PJM headquarters.
It noted that operations management chose not to call a System Operations Subcommittee Transmission (SOS-T) conference call on Sept. 10, because although “temperatures were higher than normal there were no forecasted events that would adversely impact the bulk electric system.” The calls are scheduled on an as-needed basis during emergency events to share information.
After the five load sheds, on Sept. 9 and 10, a conference call was held on Sept. 11. “While most SOS-Transmission members agreed that the communications of the conference call were adequate, some conference call participants stated that they would have liked more detailed information provided for the operations issues being discussed.”
Generic Logging
Dispatch staff logged the load sheds as generic transmission events because they were unaware of a category in the Emergency Procedures application for a “Local Load Relief Action.” Officials said dispatchers were unaware of the category because it had rarely if ever been used before and because its name did not exactly match the “Post Contingency Local Load Relief Action” instructions in PJM Manual 13: Emergency Operations. “As a result, those parties who depended on the Emergency Procedures application for notification were not notified of the load shed events.”
Many PJM officials, including the State Government Policy, Member Relations, Federal Government Affairs, and Corporate Communications departments were not informed about the load sheds, delaying their ability to communicate with stakeholders. “Dispatch has no formal notification checklist to follow except for certain emergency procedures steps requiring specific notifications pursuant to DOE, FERC, NERC, or PJM Manual requirements.”
Demand Response
The September heat wave illustrated that demand response — which proved a valuable tool during capacity shortages during the July heat wave — is less useful in relieving transmission constraints.
PJM dispatched DR on Sept. 10 and 11 after load forecasts fell 4,000 to 5,000 MW short of actual load. Of 740 MW called in ATSI and the South Canton subzone, 695 MW responded (94%).
Curtailment service providers provide street addresses for their resources but this information is not mapped electrically to the nearest substation. “When using these resources for transmission constraints, it is important for the dispatchers to know precisely where the curtailment will occur so that they can better understand the impact on the observed constraint,” the report said. “Too many DR resources on the wrong side of a constraint can make a constraint worse.”
The report identified 11 MW of demand response in the Summit area, which it said could have reduced, but not eliminated, that Sept. 10 load shed. The exact impact of the DR is unknown because of the lack of electrical mapping.
In addition, the long lead time of most of the DR resources does not lend itself well to addressing transmission constraints, which often need controlling actions within 30 minutes.
Starting in delivery year 2014/15, DR is required to respond on a subzonal basis if PJM establishes subzone the day before issuing a dispatch order. Only seven subzones are currently defined.
In December, members approved changes that will allow PJM operators more flexibility in dispatching demand response, including a reduction in the lead time to 30 minutes. (See Members OK DR Dispatch Rules after Late Amendments.)
Price Impact
The load sheds “did not have significant impacts on market outcomes,” the report concluded. Demand response, however, set prices in the ATSI zone at about $1,800 for hours ending 15 through 20 on Sept. 11 while causing prices to crash from more than $200 to less than $70 in some other regions in HE 16.
PJM said such a price drop usually results from a sudden influx of imports coming into PJM as price-takers. In this instance, it resulted from operators calling for more DR than was ultimately needed.
The DR deployment was called based on an expected peak load of 153,000 MW — nearly 6,600 MW above the actual peak. “Since PJM does not account for these MW as additional reserves, LMP is set by the marginal resource and demand response did not … set price when dispatched because this volume of demand response was not ultimately required,” the report explained.
After dropping below $70 in HE 16, prices rebounded to more than $200/MWh in HE 17.
FTR Funding Shortfalls
The dispatch of DR contributed to large differences between day-ahead and real-time prices in the ATSI zone, increasing FTR funding shortfalls for the month.
September 10 and 11 showed $29.3 million in FTR underfunding, more than half of the $56.3 million shortfall for the month. “Under the current market rules, FTR holders can be adversely impacted significantly by such emergency procedures taken to maintain system reliability when they have no impact to the Real-Time Market or system operations. PJM believes that this is a flaw in the market design that needs to be addressed.”
Fearing a potential shortage of reactive power, PJM last week won stakeholder support for an initiative to consider requiring that renewable resources add technology capable of providing grid support.
The Planning Committee meeting gave near unanimous approval to a problem statement and issue charge to explore whether to require renewables such as solar PV to install enhanced or “smart” inverters that can produce and absorb reactive power in addition to inverting DC power to AC. Reactive power (vars) is required to maintain the voltage to deliver active power (watts) through transmission lines.
With the increasing amount of renewables, which do not provide reactive support, and the retirement of large traditional generators that do, “there’s a need for additional reactive support to avoid voltage problems,” said PJM’s Frank Koza.
“This is not a here-and-now problem for PJM, but something we should look at to see what the cost and benefit is,” he said.
Koza told the committee that running additional conventional generators for reactive support is not cost effective and could cause negative Locational Marginal Prices. Adding static VAR compensators is cost prohibitive. Neither address frequency issues, he said.
smart inverter with reactive power ability (Source: SMA Solar Technology AG)
Renewable power generators in Great Britain and Germany are already using smart inverters to improve grid reliability. Smart inverters can allow renewable generators to stay on line despite low voltages and fluctuating frequencies and reduce the “flicker” that can occur with solar generators on days of mixed sun and clouds, Koza said.
One question to be addressed in the inquiry will be whether smart inverters should be installed on existing equipment, or only required on future installations. (Currently installed smart inverters have their reactive capabilities disabled.)
The Planning Committee plans to develop technical standards for inverters along with related Tariff, Operating Agreement and manual changes. Koza said he hoped work could be completed in time for a FERC filing in August.
Below is a summary of 11 new recommendations resulting from PJM’s final report on the September 2013 heat wave. This is in addition to 11 recommendations made immediately after the events of Sept. 9-11. (See Big To-Do List from September Heat Wave.)
Update PJM’s documentation for modeling process and practices to include Transmission Owners’ input to PJM modeling process and a plan for implementing more modeling and telemetry across the transmission and sub-transmission system.
Identify behind–the-meter generators and incorporate them into emergency operations.
Develop rules for logging local shed events into the Emergency Procedures application and conduct training to reinforce usage.
Review and modify how EMS handles nonconvergences; automate cascading outage analysis; provide filtering on Emergency Procedure application.
Define more DR subzones proactively and map DR resources to nearest substation to improve the reliability of using DR to relieve transmission constraints.
Develop tools to aid dispatchers in visualization of the location and MW relief from DR.
Improve processes during hot and cold weather alerts; review process of handling notification of load forecast errors; create documentation and training that better explains to the Master Coordinators what information to look at when these days are forecasted.
Reconsider current methods for sampling and weighting of weather data throughout the RTO footprint; consider developing load forecasts on a sub zonal basis.
Develop a process for validating generator performance data (EcoMax, emergency max, spin max, etc.).
Improve the generation sorting functionality in the Dispatcher Management Tool. Available and max emergency units should be included on the normal sort. Max Emergency units should be flagged for easy identification.
Provide reinforcement training for operators on contingency management (contingency trending, PCLLRW, load shed, etc.) in the control room simulator. Use this training to look for EMS enhancements for managing constraints.
PJM overcame the loss of nearly 40,000 MW of generation yesterday, keeping the lights on in the second day of an arctic blast that set a new winter demand record.
The new winter record – 141,500 MW — came during Tuesday evening’s peak as PJM operators scrambled to overcome 38,000 MW in generation outages. The new record exceeded the Feb. 5, 2007 mark of 136,675 MW by nearly 5,000 MW.
“We really exhausted every megawatt we had on the system” Tuesday, Adam Keech, director of wholesale market operations, told the Market Implementation Committee in a briefing yesterday.
Generator outages peaked at 39,520 MW at 8 a.m. Wednesday, as load fell to 134,500. As of 8 p.m. last night, about 27,000 MW of generation was idled as demand peaked at about 125,600.
PJM operators also overcame gas pipeline curtailments that idled up to 9,046 MW of generation yesterday.
“The pipelines came through pretty well,” Gary Helm, lead market strategist, told the MIC. “We only saw two compressor outages.”
Keech said operators’ ability to forecast load was hamstrung by a lack of comparable temperature data.
“We couldn’t find a temperature set [with extreme cold throughout the RTO] for the last decade. And if you go back that far the [RTO] footprint was so different it’s probably not even useful.” Keech said.
PJM resorted to a 5% voltage reduction when reserves grew short about 8 p.m. Monday, triggering scarcity pricing — sending prices briefly above $1,000/MWh. “It hasn’t been this cold in 20 years,” Keech said. “It’s an outlier. That’s why we have scarcity pricing.”
Prices were above $200/MWh for most of the period from Monday evening through Tuesday evening, peaking at more than $1,800/MWh during Tuesday’s morning and evening peaks.
Officials also rescinded outage requests and implored customers to reduce consumption. And they benefited from an unexpected influx of more than 8,000 MW of imports Tuesday morning — more than half from MISO — that allowed them to cancel an emergency deployment of demand response.
Had the steps not been sufficient, officials said they might have had to resort to rolling blackouts to prevent more widespread outages.
“How close were you to a bigger problem? One unit away?” one stakeholder asked Keech.
Weary from lack of sleep, Keech smiled uneasily. “It depends on the size of the unit,” he said.
UPDATE: AS OF 5 P.M. TUESDAY, PJM SAID 36,000 MW OF GENERATION, 20% OF INSTALLED CAPACITY, WAS UNAVAILABLE DUE TO FORCED OUTAGES.
PJM operators dispatched demand response this morning after cutting voltages and calling on spinning reserves last night as frigid temperatures stressed generators and created record loads across the RTO.
Officials said they would likely call on DR again to meet tonight’s projected evening peak of 142,000 MW. That would break the RTO’s all-time winter peak of 138,600 — set this morning.
Officials were forced to take action last night after losing more than 2,000 MW of generation as peak loads hit 132,000 MW, 5,000 MW above PJM’s forecast.
RTO officials called on spinning reserve from about 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., then issued a 5% RTO-wide voltage reduction from 7:50 to 8:50 p.m. “We were able to recover,” Adam Keech, director of wholesale market operations, told the Operating Committee in a briefing this morning.
Today’s morning peak, which broke the previous 2007 record, led officials to call on about 1,900 MW of demand response about 6 a.m. and to purchase 1,100 MW of emergency power from NYISO and MISO between 6 and 11 a.m.
The dispatch of DR pushed prices from $1,000/MWh to $1,800/MWh – over $2,000, including congestion, in some locations.
Officials said they could be forced to issue a second voltage reduction or brief rolling blackouts if conservation efforts and imports fail to make up any shortfalls this evening. “We do not expect to take that [load shed] action,” Executive Vice President for Operations Mike Kormos said during a media call today.
PJM and state regulators urged consumers to reduce energy use during the emergency. “Every little bit helps,” Kormos said. “There’s 60 million people in our footprint. If everyone does their part, that could easily add up to one nuclear plant, which is 1,000 MWs.”
“We’re very close [to generation limits],” Kormos added. “The last couple hundred megawatts could allow us to not have to take any forced interruptions.”
Officials did not immediately have details on the number of generators out of service due to the cold. Kormos said some plants suffered mechanical problems and tube leaks or were unable to convert to backup fuel. “We’ve seen everything,” he said.
PJM received a waiver from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Order 787, allowing RTO officials to share information with natural gas pipelines serving the region. PJM held conference calls with pipelines Friday and Monday and individually validated gas nominations for the RTO’s gas generators.Keech said there were no natural gas curtailments.
