Comments on Preliminary feedback

Gas resource management working group

Print
Comment period
Jul 17, 08:00 am - Jul 24, 05:00 pm
Submitting organizations
View by:

Middle River Power, LLC
Submitted 07/24/2023, 03:42 pm

Contact

Brian Theaker (btheaker@mrpgenco.com)

1. Please provide any potential topics your organization would like considered as scope for the Gas Resource Management working groups and stakeholder initiative:

Midde River Power (MRP) offers these two potential topics:

Potential Topic 1 - In Section 9.3.3, the CAISO's BPM for Reliability Requirements indicates that a forced outage due to "Fuel Insufficiency" requires substitution to avoid RAAIM charges.  While it is reasonable to levy RAAIM penalties for a Scheduling Coordinator's failure to secure gas if gas is available, it does not seem reasonable to penalize a Scheduling Coordinator for failure to obtain fuel due to conditions beynd the SC's control (e.g., a gas pipeline outage)

Potential Topic 2 - The Winter Storm Elliott event in PJM yet again highlights the issues that arise becuase of the mismatch between the electric market day and the gas market day.  While past efforts to address this long-standing mismatch have gone nowhere, and while the scope of this issue may be beyond what the CAISO is contemplating in this initiative - the mismatch remains an issue.  

2. Please provide any potential topics your organization would be willing to present on in the working group process:

MRP would be willing to present on the two proposed topics above at future meetings of the Gas resource management working group..  And while MRP does not have a list of guiding principles to offer at this time, MRP would be willing to offer such principles and present on its thoughts on those principles at future meetings.  

3. Please provide suggestions on any data analysis your organization believes is necessary to facilitate working group discussion and the upcoming policy development process:

MRP has no suggestions at this time.  

4. Please provide any additional comments on the upcoming Gas Resource Management working groups:

MRP apprecaites the CAISO establishing this working group and looks forward to its future discussions.  

NV Energy
Submitted 07/24/2023, 03:56 pm

Contact

Lindsey Schlekeway (lindsey.schlekeway@nvenergy.com)

1. Please provide any potential topics your organization would like considered as scope for the Gas Resource Management working groups and stakeholder initiative:

NV Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment prior to the start of the gas management workshop discussions.  In the past, CAISO opened a stakeholder initiative called the Commitment Costs and Default Energy Bidding Enhancements (“CCDEBE”) to tackle some of these gas management issues that are caused from mitigation.  Prior to that initiative, the CAISO market was designed from the California perspective for California.  Now, CAISO is moving to include a Day Ahead Market within its footprint that expands to the rest of the West. Therefore, NV Energy proposes that these gas management workshops to start at square one with all potential options on the table.  Meaning NV Energy would like to take a holistic approach that would potentially re-evaluate the market timelines and re-evaluate the bidding flexibility in order to determine if the trade offs are still applicable and appropriate for an expanded Day Ahead Market.

 

The Desert Southwest Entities have a significant gas resource fleet that help balance the variability that occurs from renewable resources. The market design should provide enough information to help participants maintain balance within their gas nominations and actual burns while allowing these participants to reflect these costs in the market. Additionally, the market solution should resolve issues that occur with miscellaneous gas resources that have use limitations. 

2. Please provide any potential topics your organization would be willing to present on in the working group process:

No Comment

3. Please provide suggestions on any data analysis your organization believes is necessary to facilitate working group discussion and the upcoming policy development process:

No Comment

4. Please provide any additional comments on the upcoming Gas Resource Management working groups:

No Comment

PacifiCorp
Submitted 07/24/2023, 04:21 pm

Contact

Vijay Singh (vijay.singh@pacificorp.com)

1. Please provide any potential topics your organization would like considered as scope for the Gas Resource Management working groups and stakeholder initiative:

PacifiCorp appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on gas resource management in the west and looks forward to participating in this working group. PacifiCorp was very pleased by cooperation and transparency many stakeholders exhibited at the Regional Issues Forum (RIF) meeting in June and are hopeful that can continue in this working group. PacifiCorp would also like to commend the CAISO for listening to the concerns brought forward during the RIF and creating a forum for stakeholders to come together to make improvements to the WEIM. PacifiCorp believes that stakeholders will be able to come to solutions that lead to a more efficient use of the gas resources in the WEIM.

The following topics PacifiCorp would like to be considered, in order of significance, in the Gas Resource Management Working Group are the following:

    • Challenges associated with difference in timelines between the gas trading day and the power trading day.
    • Challenges of managing gas burn limitations in EIM through bids and schedules.
    • Potential use of gas burn limitations in the market optimization.
    • Gas-burn nomograms and how they are used by the CAISO.
    • Potential loss of firm transportation.
    • Ability to accurately reflect operational flow orders, balancing restrictions from pipelines and cuts on economic purchases in the market optimization.
    • Risk of additional hedging in limited liquidity markets and differences of index prices.
2. Please provide any potential topics your organization would be willing to present on in the working group process:

PacifiCorp has none at this time but will reach out to the CAISO if that changes.

3. Please provide suggestions on any data analysis your organization believes is necessary to facilitate working group discussion and the upcoming policy development process:

In general, PacifiCorp would like to better understand how gas resources are managed and optimized in the CAISO markets today. The following graphs or analysis would be helpful for PacifiCorp to become more familiar with the current market dynamics.

  • Day-Ahead awards vs real-time dispatch for gas resources
  • Aggregated supply stack for gas resources during normal system conditions and times of adverse system conditions such as high gas prices, pipeline restrictions, supply scarcity
  • Analysis on frequency and severity of local power mitigation on gas resource bids in the day-ahead market and WEIM
  • Frequency and severity of deviations between WEIM base schedule and real-time dispatch for gas resources
4. Please provide any additional comments on the upcoming Gas Resource Management working groups:

PacifiCorp would like to request that future working group meetings be held in the morning. Gas and power traders work early hours and including them in these discussions is vital to the ultimate success of this working group. As such, morning meetings will allow PacifiCorp gas and power trading subject matter experts the ability to incorporate the Gas Resource Management working group meetings into their schedules.

PacifiCorp believes that the Gas Resource Management working group comes at an opportune time, as many western entities have expressed interest and their own challenges with gas resource management in the WEIM. Furthermore, the Extended Day-Ahead Market will likely increase the challenges that western entities face regarding gas management. An open and stakeholder-driven discussion forum will allow western entities to work together to find solutions that will lead to a more efficient use of the West’s gas resources. PacifiCorp looks forward to collaborating with colleagues from across the west in this effort.

Salt River Project
Submitted 07/24/2023, 04:38 pm

Contact

Jerret Fischer (jerret.fischer@srpnet.com)

1. Please provide any potential topics your organization would like considered as scope for the Gas Resource Management working groups and stakeholder initiative:

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments regarding the scope of the Gas resource management working group. The two (2) objectives that SRP seeks to address are:

  1. The reliable delivery of gas. It is critical to know the quantity of gas required to meet load/market awards so that the correct amount can be scheduled. At times, intra-day gas may not be available to purchase. In very extreme cases, the gas company can use flow control to manage burns. Both of these are system reliability risks.
  1. More certain cost recovery for gas purchases. The day-ahead and real-time gas prices may be vastly different at times. Additionally, over or under-burning can lead to very high penalties that would be difficult to predict or build into a bid price.

To address these issues within the working group, the first and primary topic SRP requests the CAISO consider within the scope is the mismatch between when gas is traded, when gas is scheduled, and when power awards are made by the organized market. Currently, day-ahead natural gas scheduling takes place between 4:30am-6:30am PPT, which is prior to the timeline for the day ahead Resource Sufficiency Evaluation (RSE) and the market results. SRP recommends improved alignment between the gas scheduling and power awards. An improved alignment has the potential to enhance the support for day-ahead power activity by enabling entities to know the volume of gas necessary to support the organized market award. Further, a multi-day market run forecast for gas burn projections could address multi-day gas scheduling packages or the difference between the gas day and electric day hours.

Second, SRP urges the CAISO to consider adding more tools for managing gas-limited resources in both the day-ahead and real time horizons. It is common for a group of resources with differing heat rates and characteristics to share a common daily and/or hourly gas burn requirement. For the best market solution, the day-ahead and real time markets should consider these requirements through a tool such as grouped energy limits, gas nomograms, or other types of grouping constraints.

Third, SRP requests that CAISO review open software defects and enhancements holistically to identify those that would improve gas management for multi-stage generators (MSGs). At times, it may be beneficial for an MSG to run at a base-scheduled configuration to better manage gas burn.  In the event some or all bids are removed, the market software should seamlessly issue awards at or near the base-scheduled quantity. In many instances, the market issues 0MW dispatch operating targets (DOTs) or shutdown instructions that cause difficulty for the grid operations team. Software fixes or enhancements are required to simplify a Scheduling Coordinator’s ability to remove bids to manage gas burn.

Fourth, SRP asks that the CAISO review and update the automatic and manual reference level adjustment processes. CAISO points to these processes as the mechanism to address gas-related concerns, but these are pricing mechanisms only and may not have a direct influence on staying within gas burn limitations. Additionally, these processes are incredibly burdensome for the user in the following ways:

  • The automated reference level process must be implemented by unit and configuration for all applicable hours, which is too labor-intensive for Scheduling Coordinators with a large gas fleet.
  • The manual reference level process requires a CIDI case that is reviewed by the CAISO and approved late morning or early afternoon. By this time, several hours have passed in the current gas day.
  • The reference level process does not allow participants to claim costs for penalties, and there is no way to incorporate risk or market price if the gas is not already purchased.
  • The gas price index posted by the CAISO is for a calendar day, when in reality the gas day does not end until the morning hours of the following day. The index for the next calendar day is also not published until very late in the day. This makes predicting the need for a reference adjustment for the morning hours of the following day very difficult.

The importance of these topics continues to increase with the growing demand on gas pipelines, additional pipeline limitations/complexity, and changing pipeline contracts. SRP requests the CAISO address and/or facilitate discussion that specifically addresses these topics and recommendations made by SRP.

2. Please provide any potential topics your organization would be willing to present on in the working group process:

No comment at this time.

3. Please provide suggestions on any data analysis your organization believes is necessary to facilitate working group discussion and the upcoming policy development process:

SRP encourages the CAISO to consider leveraging data analysis on NAESB standards to support the facilitation of the Gas Resource Management working group.

4. Please provide any additional comments on the upcoming Gas Resource Management working groups:

SRP requests the CAISO explore in the working groups the feasibility of modifying the ability to schedule gas resources to meet transfers related to the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM).

Vistra Corp.
Submitted 07/25/2023, 04:56 pm

Contact

Cathleen Colbert (cathleen.colbert@vistracorp.com)

1. Please provide any potential topics your organization would like considered as scope for the Gas Resource Management working groups and stakeholder initiative:

Vistra appreciates the CAISO seeking feedback on challenges that gas Electric Generators (EG) are having with participating in CAISO’s day-ahead market or real-time Western Energy Imbalance market. We believe it is critical that this effort tackles the difficult challenges that EG have been raising with the CAISO about managing gas system operator directed outages through existing outage management practices.

As a gas EG we receive instructions from the gas company to take outages so that the necessary work can be performed. While we understand these outages may need to be taken to maintain the reliability of the gas infrastructure, the gas companies are usually inflexible on when the outages can be scheduled, and these outages generally do not overlap with EG planned outages that generally take place in the Spring. Further, in addition to gas operator directed outages, EG also receive Long Term Service Agreement (LTSA) vendors instructed outages to avoid plant failures. An EG would only advance plan to have substitution during an outage for EG planned outages it is aware of and can control when they occur during that month. In both gas company directed outages and LTSA directed outages an EG would not have advance notice to secure substitute capacity for any RA capacity. If identified prior to T-45, Vistra accepts that the existing policies require substitute capacity when shown on the RA plan at T-45. However, imposing the same standards on outages identified after the RA showing during a period where substitute capacity is illiquid, and in most cases unavailable, is unreasonable. This scope should include outages outside an EG control identified after T-45 that occur to gas-fired EG that we cannot control.

Example 1 - Gas company directed outage for pipeline maintenance work after T-8

For example, the gas pipeline needs a maintenance outage that results in curtailment of EG on that portion of the pipeline. In this instance, we as the SC of the affected EG must submit outage card to the CAISO, however there are challenges with this because some pipeline maintenance advance notice may not yet define the days or hours, or MMBtu amounts that will be reduced. As such, it is likely that we will not know the hours and amounts until the forced outage horizon, when we submit this gas operator instructed outage to CAISO today it is under a “Ambient not due to Temp” card, which is exposed to Resource Adequacy Availability Incentive Mechanism (RAAIM) penalties. However, the CAISO Tariff adopted exclusions to RAAIM for certain outage types in Section 40.9.3.4(d) that include an outage in a nature of work category specified in BPM that relates to administrative action by resource owner, a cause outside of the control of the resource owner, short-term use limitation, or non-Run-of-River hydro resources management of water related operational or regulatory limitations. This example of an outage type meets the criteria outlined because it is not within the control of the EG, however outage management manual does not allow for a card to support this outage reason where the card is flagged as meeting these criteria. This is an existing issue that should be addressed to provide an outage card eligible for this outage type that is excluded from RAAIM per Tariff Section 40.9.3.4(d).

Example 2 - Gas company directed outage for non-routine pipeline (pigging) prior to T-8

There are also outages required by the gas company communicated more than eight days prior to the operating day that the CAISO calls Planned Outages in its Business Practice Manual. For example, gas companies can identify the set of days and hours within the day that the EG must operate to provide must flow amount to support pigging work. When submitting the outage prior to eight days before the operating day, the CAISO treats this as a planned outage when in practice it is a forced outage that is noticed sooner than eight days. The Tariff refers to Maintenance Outages that are known at least eight days prior to the operating day. The Tariff does not detail how forced outages outside the resource owner control that are issued prior to eight days of the operating day should be handled, because the Tariff only refers to maintenance outages. Maintenance outages are defined in Appendix A as, “A period of time during which an Operator (i) takes its transmission facilities out of service for the purposes of carrying out routine planned maintenance, or for the purposes of new construction work or for work on de-energized and live transmission facilities (e.g., relay maintenance or insulator washing) and associated equipment; or (ii) limits the capability of or takes its Generating Unit or System Unit out of service for the purposes of carrying out routine planned maintenance, or for the purposes of new construction work.” This leads to confusion when there is a lack of clarity in the Tariff on how Maintenance Outage rules should apply to Planned Outages that are not maintenance outages. For example, Vistra interprets the Appendix A definition of maintenance outage to refer to planned maintenance work on the Electric Generator or its interconnection facilities not work being performed by Transmission Operator or by Gas Operator that triggers curtailments on EG without our ability to affect those outages. Today, there is a path for submitting an EG outage triggered by transmission maintenance work performed on transmission elements under the “Transmission Induced” outage card that is exempt from RAAIM. However, there is no associated card for “Gas system induced” that is also exempt from RAAIM for an EG outage triggered by gas operator’s maintenance work. This issue has caused repeated challenges with gas management of EG as should be discussed in this effort. We believe discussions on improving how planned outage substitution obligations are defined, enforced, and addressed should be discussed in this effort as this is a significant challenge.

Example 3 - Reliability directed outages from e.g., Long Term Service Agreement vendor

In addition to gas operator directed outages, EG also receive Long Term Service Agreement (LTSA) vendors instructed outages to avoid plant failures. For example, an EG may have planned and scheduled their Maintenance Outage far in advance and secured substitute capacity for that month. However, when the LTSA vendor instructs based on its tests that the maintenance work must be moved up, this effectively moves a planned maintenance outage forward due to plant failure risks if not taken when told to do so. This results in needing to submit a new outage card that may not have substitution, where today CAISO declines the outage request if there is no substitution. It is not reasonable to expect a SC to be able to secure substitution in e.g., the T-20 days prior to the start date of the accelerated outage. As a result, the CAISO would in most cases decline the outage, where the process for seeking approval to resubmit the outage as forced outage is not adequately defined. Consequently, Vistra generally believes this process requires CAISO leadership level approval, which adds burdens on CAISO staff. It is critical to understand that these outages are not optional. The outages impact critical plant equipment of gas generation that if it is continued to operate and leads to plant failure, which take more time to return to service. It is not in the best interest of the EG or grid to operate a plant such that it has an imminent risk of plant failure that could lead to it being out of service when needed for reliability. We believe discussions on improving how planned outage substitution obligations are defined, enforced, and addressed should be discussed in this effort as this is a significant challenge for EG.

Vistra recommends the following solutions be considered in scope:

  • Advanced notice forced outages should be explicitly discussed and any necessary rules identified. Advanced notice forced outages are outages outside the resource owner control that are identified up to eight days prior to operating day. For purposes of compromising on the solutions, Vistra is comfortable starting with defining these as between T-45 and T-0 of the compliance month.
  • Advanced notice forced outages that EG cannot delay or reschedule, since they are out of the owner’s control, whether gas or plant operations related should not be denied as planned outages and then forced to resubmit as forced. These should be accepted as planned outages that do not require substitution since the outage was identified after T-45 day showing. The logic is that at the time of showing the resource on the supply plan this outage was not known by the seller, and after which the RA resource cannot reasonably be expected to find substitute capacity for any advance notice forced outages due to lack of liquidity and structure of substitute capacity markets.
  • Outage management practices could be revised to accommodate the gas company or LTSA vendor directed outages by:
    • For the gas operator directed outages: These types of outages are entered into by the direction of the gas company and only after determined that they cannot move. The appropriate outage card for this type of work would be to treat it consistent with transmission outages. CAISO should ensure that EGs have an outage card that is not exposed to RAAIM for submitting these types of outages occurring after T-45.
    • For the reliability triggered EG outages instructed by LTSA vendor: These types of outages are entered into when plant equipment fails or is in danger of imminent failure resulting in a curtailment of dispatchable capacity. This is the appropriate description for these types of outages. However, CAISO should not expose them to RAAIM since these are outside the EG owner’s control. Additionally, CAISO should add Advanced Notice Forced time period to its processes for T-45 to T-8 and allow card to not require substitution for both Advance Noticed Forced and Forced but require substitution for any planned outages (up to T-45 from start of month).
2. Please provide any potential topics your organization would be willing to present on in the working group process:

Vistra is willing to present at future workshops on the EG outage management challenges that we believe put grid reliability at risk by incentivizing buyers or sellers to in some ways feel compelled to leave RA-eligible resources off the table for an entire month even though there outage may be no more than a few hours within that month.

3. Please provide suggestions on any data analysis your organization believes is necessary to facilitate working group discussion and the upcoming policy development process:

Vistra believes the CAISO should provide analysis on:

  • Changes to RA showings for months typically associated with shoulder outages.
  • Frequency of planned-to-forced outage conversions that have taken place since the June 2021 effective date.
  • Changes to historical forced outage rates since June 2021.
4. Please provide any additional comments on the upcoming Gas Resource Management working groups:

None currently.

Back to top