Monthly State of the Market Report November 2010

Transcription

1 Monthly State of the ket Report ember 20 Published ember 17, 20

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...2 Metrics...3 Figure 1 SPP EIS Price Contour Map...3 Figure 2 Congestion by Shadow Price Impact ember Figure 3 Congestion by Shadow Price Impact Previous 12 months...5 Figure 4 Breached and Binding Flowgates by Interval...6 Figure 5 LIP / Cost Comparison...7 Figure 6 Average Hourly Price by ket Participant ember Figure 7 Average Hourly Price by ket Participant Previous 12 months...9 Figure 8 Regional Monthly Prices... Figure 9 Energy Generation by Fuel Type...11 Figure Wind Generation & Capacity...12 Figure 11 Fuel on the gin...13 Figure 12 EIS Settlements - GWh...14 Figure 13 EIS Settlements - $...15 Figure 14 Depth of Energy ket for Resources Only by Status...16 Figure 15 Ramp per 0 MW of Online Capacity...17 Figure 16 Monthly Summary of ket Ramp Rate Deficiency...18 Figure 16a Timing of Up Ramp Deficiency Intervals...19 Figure 17 Dispatchable Range...20 Figure 18 Transmission Owner Revenue...21 Figure 19 Average Transmission Reservations and Schedules...22 Figure 20 RNU Components...23 DISCLAIMER The data and analysis in this report are provided for informational purposes only and shall not be considered or relied upon as market advice or market settlement data. The Southwest Power Pool ket Monitoring Unit (SPP MMU) makes no representation or warranties of any kind, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy or adequacy of the information contained herein. The SPP MMU shall have no liability to recipients of this information or third parties for the consequences arising from errors or discrepancies in this information, or for any claim, loss or damage of any kind or nature whatsoever arising out of or in connection with (i) the deficiency or inadequacy of this information for any purpose, whether or not known or disclosed to the authors, (ii) any error or discrepancy in this information, (iii) the use of this information, or (iv) a loss of business or other consequential loss or damage whether or not resulting from any of the foregoing. Copyright 20 by All rights reserved.

3 Executive Summary Wind generation in the SPP ket footprint for ember 20 was at an all-time high, surpassing the wind generation totals experienced in spring of 20 (Figure ). However, the wind capacity factor of 42% was lower than the all-time high in il 20 due to new wind resources coming into the market. Although the SPP market has gained just over 350 MW of additional wind capacity since the spring, some of these units are still not in commercial operation. Even though the total system generation in ember was nearly the same as ober, gas generation dropped to only 15% of total generation (Figure 9). This is the lowest percentage since the start of the EIS market. During ember the Up Ramp Deficiencies increased, which appears to be attributed to fewer resources being online and offering ramp to the market, along with an increase in residential lighting load. Figure 16a shows the timing of Up Ramp Deficiencies over the past 13 months. In ember 20, most Up Ramp Deficiency intervals were clustered around two daily peak times for winter months from 6 7 a.m. and from 5 6 p.m. Another cluster of Up Ramp Deficiencies occurs around p.m. when on-peak schedules expire, which then places high ramp demands over a very short period of time. Due to one specific ramp deficiency event, all market participants received the high LIP of $ for the month (Figure 6). This occurs due a ramp rate deficiency during a period of no congestion, causing all market participants to settle at the same LIP. This $294 LIP is also the 12 month high for many market participants (Figure 7). The highest area of congestion during ember was concentrated in the Texas Panhandle, specifically around the Randall County Interchange Palo Duro flowgate (Figure 1). This flowgate had an average hourly shadow price over $0/MWh and was congested over 71% of all intervals (Figure 2). The loading on this flowgate is due to typical north-south flow on the western edge of the SPP footprint. Due to work being done in the area, system configuration changes has caused this flowgate load up before other flowgates in the area are impacted. The Dispatchable Range offered by resources made a sharp drop this month after experiencing a short-term increasing trend since e 20 (Figure 17). The overall trend for this metric continues to decrease and continues to be an area of concern for the ket Monitoring Unit. Monthly State of the ket Report 2 ember 20

4 Metrics Figure 1 SPP EIS Price Contour Map ember kv 345 kv 230 kv 161 kv 138 kv 115 kv 69 kv Kansas City area SE Kansas Tulsa Oklahoma City Texas Panhandle 12 Month EIS Price Contour Map 500 kv 345 kv 230 kv 161 kv 138 kv 115 kv 69 kv Tulsa Oklahoma City Monthly State of the ket Report 3 ember 20

5 Average Hourly Shadow Price ($/MWh) %Total Intervals Congested Figure 2 Congestion by Shadow Price Impact ember 20 $0 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 0% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Average Hourly Shadow Price ($/MWh) % Total Intervals Congested Region Flowgate Name RANPALAMASWI Flowgate Location (kv) [Control Area] Randall County - Palo Duro (115) ftlo Amarillo Swisher (230) [SPS] Average Hourly Shadow Price ($/MWh) Total % Intervals (Breached or Binding) $ % Detailed Description Texas Panhandle Kansas City Area TEMP12_16700 ELKXFRTUCOKU IATXFRIATSTR IASCLKNASJHA Tolk Tuco (230) ftlo Tolk Yoakum (230) $ % Elk City XFR (230/138) [CSWS] ftlo Tuco Oklaunion (345) [SPS- CSWS] Iatan XFR () [KCPL] ftlo Lake Road Iatan Stranger (345) KCPL] Iatan Stranger Creek (345)[KCPL] ftlo Lake Road Nashua (161), St. Joe Hawthorne (345) [GMOC- KCPL] $ % $ % $ % Congestion due to high N-S flow. Breaches generally occur in this area with high fluctuating wind along with limited transmission capability available. Heavy North South flow from Nebraska into Kansas with high external impacts and high market flow in the Kansas City load pocket. TEMP17_16702 TWA Roanridge (161) ftlo Stranger Craig (345) [KCPL] $ % SE Kansas SW Nebraska TEMP_16663 NEOCOLNEODEL GENTLMREDWIL Neosho Columbus [WR- EDE] (161) ftlo Asbury Purcell [EDE] (161) Neosho - Columbus [WR- EDE] (161) ftlo Neosho - Delaware (345) [WR-CSWS] $ % $ % Gentleman Red Willow (345) [NPPD] $ % Due to the outages of: 161 kv transmission line in the region. Congestion in Kansas City with the addition of multiple 345 kv transmission line outages over the month that caused additional flow and external flow on the flowgate. SW Kansas HOLPLYHOLSPE Holcomb Plymell Switch (115) ftlo Holcomb - Spearville (345) [SECI] $ % 345 kv transmission line tripped for a day that caused additional flow on the flowgate. Monthly State of the ket Report 4 ember 20

6 Figure 3 Congestion by Shadow Price Impact Previous 12 months Region Flowgate Name Flowgate Location (kv) Texas Panhandle OSGCANBUSDEA RANPALAMASWI Osage Switch - Canyon East [SPS] [(115) ftlo Bushland - Deaf Smith [SPS] (230) Randall County - Palo Duro (115) ftlo Amarillo Swisher (230) [SPS] Average Hourly Shadow Price ($/MWh) Total % Intervals (Breached or Binding) $ % $ % Projects Expected to Provide Some Positive Mitigation (Estimated In Service Date Upgrade Type) 1. Tuco Int. Woodward 345 kv line ( Balanced Portfolio) 2. Castro County Int. Newhart 115 kv line (il Regional Reliability) 1. Rebuild Randall Co Palo Duro 115 kv line (il no NTC but is Sponsored) 2. Tuco Int. Woodward 345 kv line ( Balanced Portfolio) 3. Swisher Co. Int. Newhart 230 kv line (il Regional Reliability) SE Oklahoma LONSARPITVAL Lone Oak to Sardis [CSWS] (138) ftlo Pittsburg Valiant [CSWS] (345) $ % 1. Sunnyside Hugo Valliant 345 kv line (il Transmission Service) SE Kansas NEOCOLNEOMOR Neosho - Columbus [WR-EDE] (161) ftlo Neosho - Morgan (345) [WR-AECI] $ % 1. Rose Hill Sooner Cleveland 345 kv lines ( 2012 Regional Reliability/Balanced Portfolio) 2. Two Woodward Medicine Lodge Wichita 345 kv lines ( Priority Projects) PLAKCISTRCRA Platte City KCI (161)[GMOC] ftlo Stranger Creek Craig (115) [KCPL] $ % 1. Iatan Nashua 345 kv line (e Balanced Portfolio) 2. Nebraska City yville Sibley 345 kv line (e Priority Projects) Kansas City Area LAKALASTJHAW Lake Road Alabama [GMOC] (161) ftlo St. Joe Hawthorn [GMOC] (345) $ % 1. Axtell Post Rock Spearville 345 kv line, two Spearville Comanche Woodward 345 kv lines, and two Comanche Medicine Lodge Wichita 345 kv lines (12/31/ Balanced Portfolio/Priority Projects) 2. Iatan Nashua 345 kv line (e Balanced Portfolio) 3. Nebraska City yville Sibley 345 kv line (e Priority Projects) LAKALAIATSTR Lake Road Alabama [GMOC] (161) ftlo Iatan to Stranger Creek [KCPL] (345) $ % Same as LAKALASTJHAW above Wichita Area ELPFARWICWDR El Paso Farber [WR] (138) ftlo Wichita Woodring [WR-OGE] (345) $ % 1. Rose Hill Sooner 345 kv line (e Regional Reliability) 2. Two Woodward Comanche Co. Medicine Lodge Wichita 345 kv lines ( Priority Projects) SW Kansas HOLPLYHOLSPE Holcomb Plymell Switch [SECI] (115) ftlo Holcomb - Spearville [SECI] (345) $ % 1. Rebuild Holcomb Plymell Switch 115 kv line ( Regional Reliability) NE Kansas KELSENEMACON Kelly S. Seneca (115) [WR] ftlo E. Manhattan Concordia (230) [WR-SECI] $ % 1. Rebuild Kelly Seneca 115 kv line ( 20 - Regional Reliability) 2. Axtell Post Rock Spearville 345 kv line, two Spearville Comanche Medicine Lodge Woodward 345 kv lines, and two Medicine Lodge Wichita 345 kv lines ( Balanced Portfolio/Priority Projects) Monthly State of the ket Report 5 ember 20

7 % Dispatch Intervals Binding % Dispatch Intervals Breached Figure 4 Breached and Binding Flowgates by Interval 15% % Intervals Breached % 5% 0% 0% % Intervals Binding 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% intervals % Breached last 12 months 3.2% 6.6% 3.4% 2.6% 6.8%.6% 7.5% 6.1% 4.4% 7.5% 6.7% 3.4% 3.1% 5.7% % Binding 54.7% 59.4% 41.5% 48.8% 74.4% 82.5% 68.9% 55.3% 56.5% 76.7% 72.9% 72.3% 82.1% 66.0% Source: OBIEE/MOS Monthly State of the ket Report 6 ember 20

8 Cost Electricity Price (LIP) Figure 5 LIP / Cost Comparison $8 $50 $6 $40 $4 $30 $2 $20 (Panhandle) Electricity (LIP) Electricity (LIP) [$/MWh] Panhandle [$/MMBtu] 12 month average Monthly State of the ket Report 7 ember 20

9 Prices ($/MWh) Figure 6 Average Hourly Price by ket Participant ember 20 $35 $35 $30 $30 GSEC EDEP SPSM $25 AECC AEPM GRDX KBPU KCPS KPP OGE OMPA WFES WRGS $ INDN MIDW GMOC SECI $20 BEPM LESM MEAN OPPM TEAN $20 $15 AECC AEPM BEPM EDEP GMOC GRDX GSEC INDN KBPU KCPS KPP LESM MEAN MIDW OGE OMPA OPPM SECI SPSM TEAN WFES WRGS ket Participant $15 MP Average SPP Average in $ AECC AEPM BEPM EDEP GMOC GRDX GSEC INDN KBPU KCPS KPP LESM MEAN MIDW OGE OMPA OPPM SECI SPSM TEAN WFES WRGS Max Avg Min Monthly State of the ket Report 8 ember 20

10 Prices ($/MWh) Figure 7 Average Hourly Price by ket Participant Previous 12 months $40 For 12 months ending ember 20 $40 EDEP GSEC SPSM AECC AEPM GRDX OGE OMPA WFES $30 GMOC INDN KBPU KCPS KPP MIDW SECI WRGS $ BEPM LESM MEAN OPPM TEAN $20 AECC AEPM BEPM EDEP GMOC GRDX GSEC INDN KBPU KCPS KPP LESM MEAN MIDW OGE OMPA OPPM SECI SPSM TEAN WFES WRGS ket Participant $20 MP Average SPP Average in $ AECC AEPM BEPM EDEP GMOC GRDX GSEC INDN KBPU KCPS KPP LESM MEAN MIDW OGE OMPA OPPM SECI SPSM TEAN WFES WRGS Max , , Avg Min Monthly State of the ket Report 9 ember 20

11 $/MWh Figure 8 Regional Monthly Prices $60 SPP MISO ERCOT $50 $40 $30 $20 $ $0 Region Average Price Maximum Price Minimum Price Volatility Average On- Peak Price Average Off-Peak Price SPP $ $ $ % $ $ MISO $ $ $ % $ $ ERCOT $ $ $ % $ $ Note: This table is a rough comparison because of inherent differences in the structure of the three markets and also because of the differences in how prices for SPP, MISO, and ERCOT are calculated. For SPP, load weighted averages are used, while the data from MISO and ERCOT are not load weighted. Volatility is measured by the Coefficient of Variation, which is the standard deviation across all hours divided by the average of all hours. 200% 150% 0% Regional Price Volatility SPP Volatility MISO Volatility ERCOT Volatility 50% 0% Monthly State of the ket Report ember 20

12 Generation (GWh) Figure 9 Energy Generation by Fuel Type 25,000 20,000 15,000,000 5, Other Hydro Wind Nuclear in GWh 11,294 12,952 12,198 11,317 11,277 9,828,871 12,542 13,373 14,167 11,716,3,889 2,646 3,943 4,459 3,630 2,858 2,931 3,859 5,934 6,846 7,748 4,535 3,691 2,427 Nuclear 519 1,556 1,814 1,664 1,599 1,716 1,819 1,718 1,802 1,800 1,770 1,392 1,789 Wind ,069 1, ,132 Hydro Other Total 15,492 19,407 19,378 17,296 16,993 15,743 17,661 21,356 23,034 24,630 19,029 16,358 16,352 by % 12 month average 73% 67% 63% 65% 66% 62% 62% 59% 58% 58% 62% 63% 67% 63% 17% 20% 23% 21% 17% 19% 22% 28% 30% 31% 24% 23% 15% 23% Nuclear 3% 8% 9% % 9% 11% % 8% 8% 7% 9% 9% 11% 9% Wind 5% 4% 4% 3% 6% 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 5% 5% 7% 5% Hydro 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: OBIEE/MOS Monthly State of the ket Report 11 ember 20

13 Wind Capacity (MW) Wind Generation (GWh) Figure Wind Generation & Capacity 4,000 2,000 3,500 3,000 1,500 2,500 2,000 1,000 1,500 1, Wind Capacity (MW) Wind Generation (GWh) Capacity (MW) 3,202 3,313 3,313 3,313 3,313 3,381 3,381 3,402 3,402 3,402 3,402 3,735 3,735 Generation (GWh) Capacity Factor # of Resources ,069 1, ,132 36% 34% 30% 23% 43% 45% 36% 39% 30% 30% 35% 31% 42% Source: OBIEE/MOS Monthly State of the ket Report 12 ember 20

14 Figure 11 Fuel on the gin 0% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% last 12 months Other 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 39.5% 31.9% 29.9% 25.6% 41.9% 43.8% 46.6% 40.4% 32.0% 33.5% 40.7% 35.5% 44.4% 37.2% 60.5% 67.9% 70.0% 74.4% 57.8% 55.7% 52.5% 59.3% 68.0% 66.3% 58.7% 64.4% 55.4% 62.5% Source: OBIEE/MOS Note: During non-congested periods, one resource sets the price for the entire market. During congested periods, the market is effectively segmented into several sub-areas, each with its own marginal resource. Each congested interval counts the same as a non-congested period, but the marginal fuel type for each sub-area is represented proportionally in the congested period. Monthly State of the ket Report 13 ember 20

15 GWh EIS Transactions as % of Total Figure 12 EIS Settlements - GWh 50,000 25% 40,000 20% 30,000 15% 20,000 %,000 5% 0 0% Scheduled Transactions (GWh) Load EI GWh Resource EI GWh % EIS Transactions in GWh Resource EI 2,483 2,840 2,805 2,159 2,565 2,597 2,770 2,980 3,004 3,8 2,817 2,486 2,527 Load EI Scheduled Transaction 27,970 35,158 35,469 31,864 30,644 27,817 31,477 38,975 42,303 45,290 34,216 29,275 29,175 Total Energy 31,000 38,641 38,896 34,555 33,760 30,964 34,829 42,625 46,056 49,087 37,671 32,355 32,319 by % Last 12 Months Resource EI 8.0% 7.3% 7.2% 6.2% 7.6% 8.4% 8.0% 7.0% 6.5% 6.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.8% 7.2% Load EI 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 1.6% Scheduled Transactions 90.2% 91.0% 91.2% 92.2% 90.8% 89.8% 90.4% 91.4% 91.9% 92.3% 90.8% 90.5% 90.3% 91.1% Totals may not equal 0% due to rounding. Monthly State of the ket Report 14 ember 20

16 Millions Figure 13 EIS Settlements - $ $200 $0 $0 Resource EI Load EI in million $ 12 Month Average Resource EI Load EI Total EI Monthly State of the ket Report 15 ember 20

17 GWh Production Figure 14 Depth of Energy ket for Resources Only by Status 25,000 20,000 15,000,000 5,000 - Other Manual (other) Manual (intermittent) Nuclear Self-Dispatch ket Dispatch in GWh ket Dispatch 12,733 15,490 15,139 13,699 13,020 11,758 13,450 16,613 18,648 20,5 14,790 12,583 12,007 Self-Dispatch Nuclear 514 1,561 1,832 1,675 1,614 1,734 1,821 1,723 1,807 1,803 1,770 1,393 1,798 Manual (intermittent) ,175 1,181 1,027 1, ,233 Manual (other) 811 1,052 1,369 1, ,122 1,334 1,213 1,317 1,039 1,242 1,223 Other (6) 4 (2) (7) (9) (4) (8) (6) (5) (2) (9) (19) (19) TOTAL 15,549 19,475 19,578 17,395 17,174 15,903 17,741 21,470 23,144 24,745 19,121 16,431 16,457 by % of total Last 12 Months ket Dispatch 82% 80% 77% 79% 76% 74% 76% 77% 81% 81% 78% 77% 73% 78% Self-Dispatch 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% Nuclear 3% 8% 9% % 9% 11% % 8% 8% 7% 8% 8% 11% 8% Manual (intermittent) 6% 5% 4% 3% 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6% 7% 5% Manual (other) 5% 5% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 8% 7% 6% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Note: not total to 0% due to rounding. Source: MOS Monthly State of the ket Report 16 ember 20

18 MW / Minute / 0 MW of Online Capacity Average Online Capacity (GW) per Interval Figure 15 Ramp per 0 MW of Online Capacity Offered and Available to the EIS ket Available Online Capacity MW / Min Offered / 0 MW of Online Capacity 12 month average MW / Minute / 0 MW of Online Capacity Average Online Capacity (GW) per Interval Monthly State of the ket Report 17 ember 20

19 Ramp Deficiency Intervals MW Ramp Available per Minute Figure 16 Monthly Summary of ket Ramp Rate Deficiency UP Ramp Deficiency Intervals DOWN Ramp Deficiency Intervals Total MW Ramp Available per Minute 12 month average UP Ramp Deficiency Intervals DOWN Ramp Deficiency Intervals Total Ramp Deficiency Intervals % of Total ket Dispatch Intervals MW Ramp Available per Minute % 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 0.3% Monthly State of the ket Report 18 ember 20

20 11/1/ 11/2/ 11/3/ 11/4/ 11/5/ 11/6/ 11/7/ 11/8/ 11/9/ 11// 11/11/ 11/12/ 11/13/ 11/14/ 11/15/ 11/16/ 11/17/ 11/18/ 11/19/ 11/20/ 11/21/ 11/22/ 11/23/ 11/24/ 11/25/ 11/26/ 11/27/ 11/28/ 11/29/ 11/30/ Hour Hour Figure 16a Timing of Up Ramp Deficiency Intervals Past 13 months ember Monthly State of the ket Report 19 ember 20

21 Figure 17 Dispatchable Range 44% 40% 36% 32% Avg Dispatchable Range / Peak Demand Linear (Avg Dispatchable Range / Peak Demand) Average 39.2% 37.8% 36.9% 36.2% 36.2% 35.4% 37.4% 34.7% 36.6% 36.0% 37.6% 38.4% 35.0% 36.5% last 12 mo Dispatchable Range is calculated as the average dispatachable range available (in MW) divided by the average of the daily peak demand (MW) for the month. Monthly State of the ket Report 20 ember 20

22 Millions Figure 18 Transmission Owner Revenue $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $ $0 in millions $ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly State of the ket Report 21 ember 20

23 Thousands MWh Figure 19 Average Transmission Reservations and Schedules % % % % % 0 % % Avg. Daily Transmission Reservations Schedules as a % of Reservations in thousands MWh 12 month average Average Daily Reservations Average Daily Schedules % 19% 25% 23% 24% 19% 21% 21% 22% 20% 21% 20% 20% 19% 21% Monthly State of the ket Report 22 ember 20

24 Millions Figure 20 RNU Components $4 $2 $0 -$2 -$4 SP LOSS UDC U/S O/S EIS Total RNU $ (thousands) EIS ,166 1, ,617 1, O/S U/S UDC SP Loss Total RNU ,434-1,444 1, ,319 1,265-1, ,078 EIS (Energy Imbalance Charge/Credit) All energy deviations between actual generation or load and schedules are settled as (EIS). O/S (Over-Scheduling Charge) - During any hour, if Locational Imbalance Prices diverge and a ket Participant s Load imbalance is more than 4% (but at least 2 MW) at an applicable Settlement Location in that hour, that MP may be subject to an Over-Scheduling Charge. U/S (Under-Scheduling Charge) - During any hour, if Locational Imbalance Prices diverge and a ket Participant s Load imbalance is more than 4% (but at least 2 MW) at an applicable Settlement Location in that hour, that MP may be subject to an Under-Scheduling Charge. UDC (Uninstructed Resource Deviation) the difference between the dispatch instructions and the actual performance of a Resource. SP Loss - Self-Provided Losses Monthly State of the ket Report 23 ember 20