1 / 15

December 9-10, 2014 | NEPOOL Markets Committee Westborough, ma

December 9-10, 2014 | NEPOOL Markets Committee Westborough, ma. Winter Periods Prior to June 1, 2018. Winter Reliability Solution - Committee Discussion. Andrew Gillespie. Principal analyst Market development. background. Winter Reliability Program.

Mia_John
Télécharger la présentation

December 9-10, 2014 | NEPOOL Markets Committee Westborough, ma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. December 9-10, 2014 | NEPOOL Markets CommitteeWestborough, ma Winter Periods Prior to June 1, 2018 Winter Reliability Solution - Committee Discussion Andrew Gillespie Principal analyst Market development

  2. background

  3. Winter Reliability Program • In July of 2014, the ISO filed tariff revisions to aid in maintaining reliability during the winter 2014-2015 (the 2014-2015 Winter Reliability Program). • On September 9, 2014, the FERC accepted these changes, but also required the ISO to initiate a stakeholder process to develop a proposal to address reliability concerns for the 2015-2016 winter and future winters, as necessary.

  4. Options to Address Winter Reliability Concerns As noted in the ISO’s compliance filing, the ISO will work with stakeholders to develop a proposal to address reliability concerns for future winters. Such a proposal could be: • To continue in some manner a form of the 2014-2015 Winter Reliability Program,- or- • Some other market-based mechanism to achieve the same, or perhaps broader, objectives.

  5. prior discussion points and comments

  6. What is the Concern? • Lessons learned from Winter 2013-2014: • Oil inventory was vitally important to reliability this past winter • Gas pipelines were constrained even without significant use by gas-fired generators • Unless the weather is mild, winters will be more challenging given retirements • Anticipated improvements for Winter 2014-15 and beyond: • Implementation of the “Offer Flexibility” project • Commission clarification regarding generator obligations • But, can the region meet the energy needs of a severe winter (like 2013-14 or 2003-2004), and fill the deficit resulting from the shutdown of Vermont Yankee and Salem Harbor? From Cold Weather Operations: New England Winter Readiness Seminar

  7. From the Commission: • The Program’s unused fuel inventory design is closer to a market-based solution than last year’s design. • The Program is designed to help ensure fuel adequacy by creating incentives for resources to procure more fuel than they would have procured in the absence of the Program. • Given this objective, we find that ISO-NE reasonably limited participation in the Program to market participants that ISO-NE, as the system operator responsible for ensuring reliability in the region, determined will procure additionalfuel ahead of winter as a result of payments through the Program.

  8. Summary of Participant Comments at Last Meeting: • Pursue a market-based solution which achieves a system reliability objective - the market option is the right route to the address the objectives. • Do not want an extension of the current winter reliability program to be the solution for all winter periods prior to FCM Performance Incentives. • Any further performance incentives for a winter period should be to a broader range of resources. • It is not necessarily difficult to implement a market-based solution. • We do not need a market-based solution as an interim solution - a market-based solution for next winter would not be supported. • Prefer the ISO continue with the current winter reliability program for the 3 year period prior to June 1, 2018 and spend the ISO development money on other projects. • Don’t lock-in anything specific without observing the effects of the energy market changes or this upcoming winter’s program. • To spend more time developing an incremental capacity performance product is not worth our time. No clear consensus

  9. Lacking Consensus… • As a backstop measure if there is no consensus on an interim alternative solution, the ISO will propose to use the framework of the 2014-2015 winter program as an interim solution for future winters (through 2017-2018) • Possible changes and improvements to current program for future years: • Price indexing vs. fixed price • A total energy equivalent vs. fuel quantities • Extended duration vs. year-by-year

  10. ISO Proposal • While hopeful that other market improvements would help address the region’s dependence on natural gas, other factors causes ISO-NE to conclude that a fuel adequacy program is necessary for future winters. • Retirements of non-gas generation will likely make the region more reliant on natural gas than before. • In the Winter 2013-2014 there were more natural gas pipeline constraints than expected, and resources had difficulty replenishing oil inventories. • ISO-NE anticipates the need for some form of a winter reliability program for each winter prior to the implementation of Pay-for-Performance (PFP).

  11. Discussion of Market Based Option

  12. Alternative Solution - Discussion Points • What incentive can be created and what opportunity is there for material improvement over status-quo? • Given other important issues, what is the value of diverting time and expenditure of limited resources to develop, file, and implement an alternative? • Development time (ISO and stakeholders) • Discussion, debate, and possible litigation • Software implementation (possibly supplanting other projects) • The degree of innovation – how complicated or simple • Are new constructs needed, or can current constructs be used? • Is new software needed, or can current software be adapted?

  13. Participant Suggested Alternative: ‘Pilot PFP’ • A participant suggested that some type of pilot PFP program be considered, and to facilitate further discussion of this idea the following aspects/questions are presented. • Would this be voluntary? If so: • How would a scarcity condition be defined for the subset of participating resources? Who is under-performing and who is over-performing? • How would an appropriate balancing ratio be determined? • What is the MW amount procured? • Are there any qualification requirements? Any offer review/mitigation? • How would settlement work in lieu of sub-hourly functionality? • What would be the performance payment rate? • Would there be any exemptions? Any stop-loss mechanism? • How would payments (i.e., costs) be allocated? • NOTE: Full PFP infrastructure will not be in place by 2015.

  14. Tentative Schedule for Proposed Alternative

  15. Conclusion • As previously noted, if there is no consensus on an interim alternative solution the ISO will propose to use the framework of the 2014-2015 winter program as an interim solution for future winters (through 2017-2018). • Review what, if any, additional lessons learned during the upcoming winter. • Consider possible changes and improvements: • Price indexing vs. fixed price. • A total energy equivalent vs. fuel quantities. • Extended duration vs. year-by-year.

More Related