Posted on 07/09/2002 2:46:05 PM PDT by socal_parrot
The operatives words seem to be ... Stage One provides authority to implement certain mitigating actions, outside of normal operating procedures, that the ISO may take to resolve the deficiency.
Mr (me)
You have described two separate responses to an operating reserve deficiency. One is a typical advisory message issued by one of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Reliability Coordinators to all WECC Control Areas. The other is implementation of the ISO Electrical Emergency Plan. One does not require the other.
The message cited below is a typical advisory issued by the WECC's Reliability Coordinator on the WECC network to all other Control Areas when a reserve deficiency is identified. Responsibility for this message rests with the WECC. This message does not require the ISO to issue a Stage One Emergency notice.
The ISO issues a Stage One Emergency notice in accord with its own Electrical Emergency Plan. Stage One provides authority to implement certain mitigating actions, outside of normal operating procedures, that the ISO may take to resolve the deficiency. Because we receive schedules from all generators in the ISO Control Area, constantly monitor their output, maintain logs to identify their performance limitations and revise load forecasts several times each day, we are uniquely able to identify the necessity of these mitigating actions to correct an operating reserve deficiency. If they are deemed unnecessary to correct the problem, the ISO may not issue the notice.
I hope this helps clarify this for you.
Regards.
Mitchell Ford
Lead Operations Analyst
California Independent System Operator
I didn't like the response so I sent a follow-up set of questions. They are as follows:
Mr. Ford
Thank you. Unfortunately your message did not clarify things for me. Perhaps my second e-mail to Ms. McCorkle confused the matter by my reference to the WECC system summary. If that is the case, I apologize.
Specifically, ISO Procedure E-508C on page 3 of 8 defines the situations under which Stage 1 and Stage 2 Emergency Notices are to be issued. Under the procedure, it states that a Stage 2 Emergency Notice is to be given when reserves are "currently or forecast to be below 5%." To me the word "currently" implies that an instantaneous or relatively short term value is implied in the determination of reserves, not an hour long average value or multiple hour average, and especially not that things should be OK next hour. If the ISO has another meaning for the word "currently" I would appreciate learning its definition.
In your message you state, "Stage One provides authority to implement certain mitigating actions, outside of normal operating procedures, that the ISO may take to resolve the deficiency." This implies to me that what you are terming "...mitigating actions, outside of normal operating procedures..." means that the California ISO may not have been strictly following the procedures within E-508C as I read it. If that is the case, I would like to know more so that I can properly understand the California ISO procedures during such a critical time.
Yes, I recognize that the WECC is a different agency than the California ISO. In the past I have participated in WSCC meetings in Utah so I am aware that WECC is different from the California ISO.
My question for last Tuesday was to find out to what level did the ISO reserves fall (as the limited information I have implies that they fell to less than a "current value of 5%.") So I am specifically asking for the lowest reserve value on Tuesday. If the answer was a number below 5%, (which all information I have appears to be the case) then I would like to know why an E-508C Stage 2 Emergency Notice was not declared by the ISO.
If I can clarify my "Tuesday questions" further, please do not hesitate to ask me to explain.
In summary, I would like to know:
(1) the lowest reserve value for last Tuesday,
(2) how that value is calculated,
(3) if "current reserves were below 5%" why a Stage 2 Emergency Notice was not called,
(4) if the ISO was implementing mitigation that would assure that reserves would not go below 5%, what were those mitigation measures.
For last Wednesday, the ISO declared a Stage 2 Emergency Notice and required certain loads to be interrupted. For Wednesday, I would like to know the lowest reserve value for last Wednesday (there appear to be four clock hours in which reserves may have been "currently" low or "forecast" to be low.). I would further like to know how the value was calculated, if the current or forecast value of reserves was below 1.5% why a "Stage 3 Emergency Notice" or "Stage 3 Emergency Notice of Load Interruption" was not declared, if there were some mitigation measures implemented by the California ISO to keep reserves above 1.5%, what were they.
Thank you
me, P.E.
Sounds like we had similar mentors at some points early in our respective careers.
I think that the person who last responded told me that they didn't follow their procedures because they felt they could mitigate the problem. Sort of like we know better than the rules that govern our operations so trust us. I think that I may have gotten as much of an admission that they didn't follow their own rules as they are likely to voluntarily provide.
It should be interesting to see if they refuse to tell me what is going on or not. If they refuse, I am not sure if I should repeat my request with a cc to FERC/NERC/WECC/ one of my US Senators or some newspaper reporters. Choices, choice, choices.
Sounds like we also had the same difficulty, managing our way among the generally incompetent.
If they think it profits them to run and stonewall you, coercion won't work. If you can nail them in an outright lie, you can then agree to allow them some conciliatory damage control (dropping the threat) in exchange for what you want.
Yeah, I've been there. Try cramming a completely new process down the throat of a backward plant manager, in another country, when he's got the incompetent contractors you need to install the equipment by the balls (I had to do some of the work at night to fix their screw-ups, there was almost a union work stoppage until I proclaimed loudly how much I liked their work). If the plant electricians hadn't liked me more than their boss I'd have been toast.
I think that I may have gotten as much of an admission that they didn't follow their own rules as they are likely to voluntarily provide.
Why not contact T.U.R.N.?
Keep it up!
What follows is the PR persons bogus attempt at a response & kiss off.
I am going on vacaction until next week and will sleep on my response. I will be away from my computer for several days starting early tomorrow morning, but would appreciate thoughts on what I should do in a polite but escalating approach to finding the truth.
Mr. (me),
The WECC reserve requirement is not an instantaneous one, but rather a requirement that the integrated value over the course of any clock hour meets the minimum standard. For example, a Control Area could be drifting between 100 and 200 MW short of its reserve requirement for the first 30 minutes of the clock hour, but as long as it makes up that deficiency and carries enough reserve above the requirement for the last 30 minutes of the hour such that the actual Operating Reserve value at the end of the hour integrates to something equal to or greater than the requirement, you have met the criteria as a Control Area operator. Additionally, if a disturbance (loss of generation) in the Control Area has caused the ISO to utilize its operating reserve to recover ACE and frequency, we have 60 minutes to return our actual Operating Reserve to the required level.
If you feel the need to respond to this email, please respond to me. Our technical staff is dealing with a heavy workload here at the ISO. I think they have done a good job responding to your question. Any additional research, is more than we are able to provide. Thanks.
It's a bogus definition from a mathematical point of view, since under their definition the system could be a zillion MW short for 30 minutes, but that would not trigger an emergency as long as they believed they could scrounge up a zillion MW to cover during the next 30 minutes.
The protective relays on the system don't know that everything is going to be OK in thirty minutes; When they see an undervoltage or an underfrequency, they trip. It's that simple. Not all the PR BS in the world will prevent that from happening. Clearly, the rule was intended to be a line that, when crossed or projected to be crossed, the emergency would be declared. Period.
But Cal-ISO is saying "We can cross the line for a little while if we think we can come right back". IOW, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
I'm cynical that anybody other than us FReepers will much care about this, though. [Unless there is a grid crash]. As we have seen lately, nobody cares about accounting rules until the company goes under.
But Cal-ISO is saying "We can cross the line for a little while if we think we can come right back". IOW, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
I couldn't have said it better myself. If they lower frequency and don't trip off massive load because they are hoping that they will be OK the next hour, they are likely "leaning on neighboring" load control regions and risking uncontrolled outages in those other ISO regions to which they have major transmission interconnections. As a resident of one of those other ISO regions, I am shocked by the California ISO's approach to reliability and load control.
Now out the door and off to some vacation in the wilds of British Columbia. Ah?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.