Transcript Document
Special Protection Systems - Market Rule Amendment Submission
Presentation to: Market Operations Standing Committee Barbara Reuber, Regulatory Affairs January 14, 2004
Purpose of Presentation:
To provide OPG’s rationale for its market rule amendment submission:
– –
Problems with the current market rules Proposed solutions
2
Background
Special Protection Systems (SPS) allow the IMO to increase the utilization of the grid while maintaining system integrity.
Typical SPS control actions are generation and load rejection.
A more expensive alternative to SPS is transmission upgrades OPG has generation rejection and runback schemes at quick start (hydroelectric) and non quick-start (nuclear and fossil) facilities.
Hydro One owns the SPS equipment.
IMO directs the operation of the SPS with no obligation for direct communication to facility impacted by the SPS.
No compensation currently provided under the market rules.
3
Operational Issues
Facility operators need to be aware of status of SPS on an ongoing basis to assess risk to their facilities.
Under some conditions, facilities will reject an arming request (for reasons of safety, environment, equipment damage). Rules allow facilities to reject a dispatch instruction for the same reasons – need comparable allowance for SPS.
There are no requirements or standards in current market rules for a status signal informing a facility when an SPS is armed/ activated. For comparison, Market Rules (Appendix 4.15) require generators to provide equipment status indication to IMO, e.g., AVR and Stabilizer status. Accountability for providing an SPS monitoring signal is not defined.
4
Operational Issues
Proposed Solution:
MP/ owner of facility connected to SPS needs to agree to changes to SPS arming/ activation criteria
Where a market participant requires it, the owner/ operator of the SPS shall provide a mechanism to inform the market participant when the SPS is armed and activated. The mechanism shall be satisfactory to market participant (acting reasonably).
A market participant may reject a request to arm an SPS due to concerns regarding safety, equipment or environmental damage or legal requirements.
5
Compensation Issue
There are two categories of costs to a facility impacted by an SPS:
Operations and maintenance costs: Wear and tear costs each time a generation rejection scheme is activated (significant costs) plus incremental maintenance/ verification costs (minor incremental costs).
Lost revenue: Non-quick start facilities do not receive CMSC payments for the time they are not connected to the grid as a direct result of SPS activation.
Benefits of SPSs accrue to many market participants; risks are faced solely by facility impacted by the SPS.
6
Compensation
Proposed Solution: Non quick-start facilities receive CMSC payment for two hours after generation rejection based on offers already submitted.
This proposal is a compromise solution that likely does not address costs of wear and tear.
7