ISO New England Results of Ancillary Service Pilot Programs:

Transcription

1 ISO New England Results of Ancillary Service Pilot Programs: Alternative Technology Regulation Pilot Program Demand Response Reserves Pilot Program Jon Lowell and Henry Yoshimura ISO New England October 25-26, 2011

2 Alternative Technology Regulation Pilot Program

3 Alternative Technology Regulation Pilot Program Why? Stakeholder request Low risk opportunity to evaluate new technologies Allow new technologies to experience realistic operation Minimal impact on the existing regulation market What? Limited to 13 MW total to ensure no threat to reliability Incremental to existing regulation market Participants operate as price-takers Will continue until permanent market changes are approved and implemented When? Commenced 11/2008; closed to new entrants after 11/2009 Expected to re-open Q Will continue until permanent market changes are approved and implemented 3

4 Principal Issues Can these new technologies perform as advertised? So far, the answer is yes What issues have been identified? Managing state-of-charge for storage resources with limited energy storage (i.e. less than 2 hours) Cost-effective metering and communications for geographically dispersed resources (electric vehicles, demand response) Benefits of fast response vs. sustained response AGC dispatch sends new set points every 4 seconds Many/most of the new technologies can move from top to bottom of their regulating range within a single 4-second cycle NERC compliance criteria based on 15-minute intervals Fast is better than slow, but: Faster response is unlikely to reduce noncompliance risk Might allow reduced regulation requirement Current New England requirement is ~65MW for a 28,000 MW summer peak system. 4

5 Annual Mileage or Annual Cost $/mile or $/MW of Cap per hour Impact of Response Rate 7,000,000 6,000,000 ISO New England Regulation Market ,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000, Mileage Payment Payment/Mile Pmt / MW of Delvd Reg Cap - < >20 Response Rate MW/min 0 5

6 Reg Reqm MW Reg Pmts $m Factors Affecting Regulation Market Economics Late-2005 implemented service payment and separated resource-specific opportunity costs from the Regulation Clearing Price Early-2007 Bidders fully adjusted to market design minor improvements in selection algorithm 2009 Reduction in requirements Lower gas prices reduced opportunity costs Future? Uniform clearing price New technologies Regulation Market Reg Requirement MW Reg Pmts to Resources 6

7 Pilot Program Interested Technologies Currently participating Flywheels Residential electric thermal storage Qualified to participate, but not online NaS batteries Commercial/industrial load control HVDC power electronics Expressions of Interest Lithium-ion batteries Electric vehicles Buoyancy energy storage Wind-powered microgrid 7

8 Where Are We Heading? ISO-NE is moving to eliminate the pilot status and allow full participation of these new technologies in the regulation market Timing mostly depends on scope of forthcoming rules related to FERC s February 2011 Regulation NOPR May preserve the Pilot Program infrastructure as a technology sandbox Innovation doesn t occur on schedule Will shorten or avoid delays related to stakeholder and regulatory processes Develop cost-effective approaches to metering and settlement to accommodate geographically dispersed smart-grid applications Expensive solutions will be a significant barrier to entry 8

9 ISO-NE s Regulation Market - Design Improvement Goals Uniform clearing price that incorporates opportunity costs of the marginal resource Cost-effectively integrating limited energy storage resource Cost-effectively integrating geographically dispersed, aggregated resources Examples: vehicle-to-grid, demand-response 9

10 Demand Response Reserves Pilot Program

11 Demand Response in Reserve Markets Demand Response is currently not eligible to provide reserves to the wholesale electric system Dispatchable demands are eligible to provide reserves Demand Response Reserves Pilot started in MW test over a multi-year period to demonstrate performance during reserve activation events Can Demand Response provide a product similar to 10 and 30-minute spinning and non-spinning reserves? 11

12 Participating Asset Types Load Reduction The most common load reduction technology/strategy included lighting and HVAC usage Asset performance was assessed by comparing actual metered load during an event to an asset-specific estimated baseline Behind-the-Meter Generation Asset performance assessed solely on the metered generation at the time of an event Direct Load Control Centralized control of a specific end-use across a large number of small customers e.g., residential air conditioner curtailment Asset performance was assessed by comparing actual metered load during an event to a control group 12

13 Participating Industries Grocery Stores Manufacturing Large Retail Education Sector Wastewater Treatment Facilities Aggregated Air Conditioning Curtailment Behind-the-Meter Generators (regardless of their industry of origin) 13

14 10/06/ /30/ /06/ /16/ /15/ /06/ /22/ /13/ /26/ /30/ /08/ /22/ /05/ /25/ /07/ /13/ /15/ /05/ /26/ /06/ /29/ /28/ /22/ /29/ /26/ /17/ /01/ /12/ /23/ /02/ /16/ /28/ /12/ /02/ /17/ /03/ /08/ /25/ /08/ /17/ /07/ /17/ /28/ /10/ /07/ /02/ /07/ /15/ /16/ /05/ /22/ /13/ /27/ /17/2010 Demand Response Reserves Pilot Summary Pilot ran from October 2006 to May 2010 Asset types include load reductions, Behind the Meter Generation, direct load control (i.e. aggregated air conditioner curtailment) 109 assets participated in at least one season; 35 assets participated in all seasons Assets enrolled in six seasons; 26.4 MW per season on average 107 events 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% DR Reserve Pilot Performance Total Load Relief as Percent of DRR Contract Amount (Mean MW) Session Average Linear Trend 14

15 DRRP Performance of Load Reduction 15

16 16

17 17

18 DRRP Performance of Behind-the-Meter Generation 18

19 19

20 Comparing the Performance of Pilot Program Assets and Generation Resources Participating pilot program assets showed less reliability than generation resources (i.e., in-front of meter generators) In-front-of-the-meter generation resources showed a moderate increase in reliability since the pilot program started, while pilot program assets showed a decrease in reliability during the same time frame 20

21 Recommendations for Further Research Investigate / implement: Performance erosion Audit day behavior Weather-based performance metrics Penalties for over-performance Tools to assist asset providers to set goals and maintain performance Change rules regarding re-submission of data Special metering requirements for behind-the-meter generation assets 21