«18 Month Outlook An Assessment of the Reliability and Operability of the Ontario Electricity System FROM APRIL 2015 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 18-Month ...»
4.1 Assessments Assumptions 4.1.1 Committed and Contracted Generation Resources All generation projects that are scheduled to come into service, be upgraded, or be shut down within the Outlook period are summarized in Table 4.2. This includes committed generation projects in the IESO’s Connection Assessment and Approval process (CAA), those that are under construction, as well as projects contracted by the IESO. Details regarding the IESO’s CAA process and the status of these projects can be found on the IESO’s website at http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Participate/Connection-Assessments/default.aspx under Application Status.
Notes on Table 4.2:
1. The total may not add up due to rounding. Total does not include in-service facilities.
2. Project status provides an indication of the project progress. The milestones used are:
a. Connection Assessment - the project is undergoing an IESO system impact assessment.
b. Approvals & Permits - the proponent is acquiring major approvals and permits required to start construction (e.g. environmental assessment, municipal approvals etc.).
c. Construction - the project is under construction.
d. Commissioning - the project is undergoing commissioning tests with the IESO.
e. Pre-NTP/NTP - Feed-in Tariff (FIT) projects are categorized as Notice to Proceed (NTP) or pre-NTP. IESO issues NTP when the project proponent provides necessary approvals and permits, finance plan, Domestic Content Plan and documentation on impact assessment required by the Transmission System Code or the Distribution System Code.
f. Commercial Operation – the project has achieved commercial operation under the contract criteria but has not met all the commissioning requirements of the IESO.
4.1.2 Summary of Scenario Assumptions In order to assess future resource adequacy, the IESO must make assumptions on the amount of available resources. The Outlook considers two scenarios: a Firm Scenario and a Planned Scenario as compared in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Summary of Scenario Assumptions for Resources
2,289 322 Both scenarios’ starting point is the existing installed resources shown in Table 4.1. The Planned Scenario assumes that all resources scheduled to come into service are available over the study period. The Firm Scenario only assumes resources that have reached commercial operation. Also considered for both scenarios are generator-planned shutdowns or retirements that have high certainty of occurring in the future. The Firm and Planned scenarios also differ in their assumptions regarding the amount of demand measures. The Firm scenario considers DR programs from existing participants only, while the Planned scenario considers DR programs from future participants too. Both scenarios recognize that resources are not available during times for which the generator has submitted planned outages.
The generation capability assumptions used in this Outlook are described in the following paragraphs.
The hydroelectric capability for the duration of this Outlook is typically based on median historical values (including energy and operating reserve) during weekday peak demand hours from May 2002 to March 2014. Adjustments may be made periodically, when outage or water conditions drive expectations of higher or lower output that varies from median values by more than 500 MW. Table 4.4 shows the historical hydroelectric median values calculated with the data from May 2002 to March 2014. These values are updated annually to coincide with the release of summer 18-Month Outlook.
Table 4.4: Monthly Historical Hydroelectric Median Values Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Historical Hydroelectric 6,059 6,025 5,876 5,812 5,841 5,716 5,684 5,414 5,018 5,401 5,730 6,131 Median Values (MW)
Non-utility Generators (NUGs), whose contracts have expired but which continue to • operate and provide forecasts are included in both planned and firm scenarios. NUGs whose contracts are expiring during the Outlook period are excluded from the Firm scenario after their contract expiry date. These NUGs are included as part of the Planned scenario if they have provided forecast data. Former NUGs that subsequently reach a contract or register with the IESO as a dispatchable facility are added to both scenarios.
For wind generation the monthly Wind Capacity Contribution (WCC) values are used at the • time of weekday peak, while annual energy contribution is assumed to be 29% of installed wind capacity. Table 4.5 shows the monthly WCC values (with actual historic wind output up to February 28, 2014). These values are updated annually to coincide with the release of summer Outlook.
Table 4.5: Monthly Wind Capacity Contribution Values Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WCC (% of 33.
1% 33.1% 26.2% 22.4% 23.4% 13.6% 13.6% 13.6% 16.7% 21.6% 28.6% 33.1% Installed Capacity)
4.2 Capacity Adequacy Assessment The capacity adequacy assessment accounts for zonal transmission constraints imposed by planned transmission outages. The planned outages occurring during this Outlook period have been assessed as of January 20, 2015.
4.2.1 Firm Scenario with Normal and Extreme Weather The firm scenario incorporates generation capacity that reached commercial operation. This will include the addition of roughly 280 MW of wind and 40 MW of biofuel capacity.
RAR levels, which represent the difference between Available Resources and Required Resources, are shown in Figure 4.1. As can be seen, the reserve requirement under normal weather conditions is being met throughout the Outlook period except for three weeks in summer of 2016. During extreme weather conditions, the reserve is lower than the requirement for a total of thirteen weeks during the summers of 2015 and 2016. This shortfall is largely attributed to the planned generator outages scheduled during those weeks.
Figure 4.1: Reserve Above Requirement: Firm Scenario with Normal vs.
Extreme Weather 4.2.2 Planned Scenario with Normal and Extreme Weather The planned scenario incorporates all existing capacity plus all capacity coming in service.
Roughly 2,300 MW of generation capacity is expected to connect to Ontario’s grid over this Outlook period.
Reserve Above Requirement levels, which represent the difference between Available Resources and Required Resources, are shown in Figure 4.2. As can be seen, the reserve requirement is being met throughout the Outlook period under normal weather conditions, except for two weeks during summer of 2016. The reserve is lower than the requirement for eleven weeks during the summer months of 2015 and summer of 2016 under extreme weather conditions. This shortfall is largely attributed to the planned outages scheduled for those weeks.
Figure 4.2: Reserve Above Requirement: Planned Scenario with Normal vs.
Extreme Weather 4.2.3 Comparison of Resource Scenarios Table 4.7 shows a snapshot of the forecast available resources, under the two scenarios, at the time of the summer and winter peak demands during the Outlook.
Notes on Table 4.7:
1. Installed Resources: This is the total generation capacity assumed to be installed at the time of the summer and winter peaks.
2. Total Reductions in Resources: Represent the sum of deratings, planned outages, limitations due to transmission constraints and allowance for capability levels below rated installed capacity.
3. Demand Measures: The amount of demand expected to be reduced.
4. Available Resources: Equals Installed Resources (line 1) minus Total Reductions in Resources (line 2) plus Demand Measures (line 3).
Comparison of the Current and Previous Weekly Adequacy Assessments for the Planned Normal Weather Scenario Figure 4.1 provides a comparison between the forecast RAR values in the present Outlook and the forecast RAR values in the previous Outlook published on November 27, 2014. The difference is mainly due to the changes to outages and changes in the demand forecast. The most significant difference is for spring of 2015 which reflects there will no longer be overlapping nuclear outages during that period.
Figure 4.3: Reserve Above Requirement: Planned Scenario with Present Outlook vs.
Previous Outlook Resource adequacy assumptions and risks are discussed in detail in the “Methodology to Perform Long Term Assessments”.
4.3 Energy Adequacy Assessment This section provides an assessment of energy adequacy, the purpose of which is to determine whether Ontario has sufficient supply to meet its forecast energy demands and to highlight any potential concerns associated with energy adequacy within the period covered under this 18Month Outlook.
4.3.1 Summary of Energy Adequacy Assumptions In order to achieve results consistent with the capacity adequacy assessments, the energy adequacy assessment is performed using the same set of assumptions pertaining to resources expected to be available over the next 18 months. Refer to Table 4.1 for the summary of ‘Existing Generation Capacity and Table 4.2 for the list of ‘Committed and Contracted Generation Resources’ for this information. The monthly forecast of energy production capability, based on information provided by market participants, is included in the 2015 Q1 Outlook Tables Appendix A, Table A7.
For the energy adequacy assessment, only the Planned Scenario as per Table 4.3 with normal weather demand is considered. In addition, in order to reasonably capture the variability and uncertainty associated with wind resources, multiple wind samples (hourly profiles) were considered in the energy adequacy assessment. Generator forced outages were modelled using a convergent Monte Carlo technique which pre-filters statistically unlikely outage patterns. The key assumptions specific to the Energy Adequacy Assessment (EAA) are described in the IESO document titled “Methodology to Perform Long Term Assessments”.
4.3.2 Results - Planned Scenario with Normal Weather Table 4.8 summarizes key energy statistics over the 18-Month period for the Planned Scenario with normal weather demand for Ontario as a whole, and provides a breakdown by each transmission zone.
The results indicate that supply is expected to be adequate over the 18-month timeframe of this Outlook with the analysis showing no occurrences of unserved energy.
(*) Values corrected on March 31, 2015.
Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.
5 show the percentage production by fuel type for each calendar year of the 18-Month period under conditions of zero net exports, while Table 4.9 summarizes these simulated production results by fuel type, for each year.
Figure 4.4: Production by Fuel Type – Apr.
1 to Dec. 31, 2015 (*) 0.5% 4.1% 8.6%
Figure 4.5: Production by Fuel Type – Jan.
1 to Sep. 30, 2016 (*) 0.3% 5.4% 8.5%
4.3.3 Findings and Conclusions The energy adequacy assessment results indicate that Ontario is expected to have sufficient supply to meet its energy forecast during the 18-Month Outlook period for the Planned scenario with normal weather demand. Additional sensitivity modelling runs were conducted to analyze the energy adequacy picture under more onerous demand conditions to capture the impact of load forecast uncertainty. Under these conditions Ontario is again expected to have sufficient supply to meet the forecast demand over the 18-Month Outlook period without reliance on imports or system operator control actions.
5 Transmission Reliability Assessment The IESO requires transmitters to provide information on the transmission projects that are planned for completion within the 18-month period. Construction of several transmission reinforcements is expected to be completed during this Outlook period. Major transmission and load supply projects planned to be in service are shown in Appendix B. Projects that are already in service or whose completion is planned beyond the period of this Outlook are not shown. The list includes only the transmission projects that represent major modifications or are considered to significantly improve system reliability. Minor transmission equipment replacements or refurbishments are not shown.
Some area loads have experienced significant load growth to warrant additional investments in new load supply stations and reinforcements of local area transmission. Several local area supply improvement projects are underway and will be placed in service during the timeframe of this Outlook. These projects help relieve loadings on existing transmission infrastructure and provide additional supply capacity for future load growth.
5.1 Transmission Outages The IESO’s assessment of the transmission outage plans is shown in Appendix C, Tables C1 to C10. The methodology used to assess the transmission outage plans is described in the IESO document titled “Methodology to Perform Long Term Assessments”. This Outlook contains transmission outage plans submitted to the IESO as of January 14, 2015.
5.2 Transmission System Adequacy The IESO assesses transmission adequacy using the methodology on the basis of conformance to established criteria, planned system enhancements and known transmission outages. Zonal assessments are presented in the following sections. Overall, the Ontario transmission system is expected to supply the demand under the normal and extreme weather conditions forecast for the Outlook period.