Southern Company History and Usage of AURORAxmp
•
1 like•464 views
Southern Company veteran and principal engineer over forecasting & model development, J. Scott Eiserloh, discusses some of the company’s history in using legacy models and how their search for improvement led them to AURORAxmp at the 2014 EMFC. He discusses their collective user experience, the value of a common database and interface, and their experience with the responsiveness and commitment of EPIS customer support and development. He also outlines the wide variety of applications for which the company uses - or is exploring the use of - AURORAxmp, from fuel & emissions projections and general budgeting to avoided cost and retirement studies to capital project evaluations and outage optimizations.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Southern Company History and Usage of AURORAxmp
Similar to Southern Company History and Usage of AURORAxmp (20)
More from EPIS Inc
More from EPIS Inc (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Southern Company History and Usage of AURORAxmp
- 1. Navigating the Swamp Scott Eiserloh, Forecasting and Model Development Principal Engineer Aurora Electric Market Forecasting Conference, Skamania, Sept. 19, 2014
- 3. The Early Bird – Analog Economic Dispatch and AGC
- 4. Proprietary/Confidential – Not to be shared externally or with SPC CC OPCO Plant Type GPC APC GULF MPC SPC H Weiss Dam Total 50,862 MW Southern Company “Owned” N S Combined Cycle (12,263 MW) H CT PA Nuclear (4,715 MW) Steam (21,382 MW) Combustion Turbine (5,278 MW) Hydro (2,595 MW) Power Purchase Agreements (4,629 MW) HLay Dam HMitchell Dam H Martin Dam H Yates Dam H Thurlow Dam Sinclair Dam Logan Martin Dam HNeely Henry Dam HHolt Dam HJordan Dam HBankhead Dam HBouldin Dam H Riverview Dam H Smith Dam H Harris Dam HRocky Mountain HMorgan Falls Dam H Langdale Dam H Bartletts Ferry Dam H Goat Rock Dam H Oliver Dam H North Highlands Dam H Flint River Dam Lloyd Shoals Dam SPlant McManus Wallace Dam H Estatoah Dam H Burton Dam H Terrora Dam H Yonah Dam HNacoochee Dam HTugalo Dam HTallulah Dam SPlant Gorgas N Plant Vogtle S Plant Miller SPlant Greene County S Plant Gadsden SPlant Bowen SPlant Gaston SPlant Barry SPlant Scholz S Plant Mitchell S S Plant Yates SPlant Scherer S Plant Hammond SPlant McIntosh S Plant Kraft S Plant Smith SPlant Watson SPlant Daniel SPlant Sweatt S Plant Crist N Plant Farley N Plant Hatch S Plant Branch CC Washington County CC CC CC Plant Theodore CC CCPlant Harris CCPlant Franklin Plant WansleyCC CC CT Chevron Cogen CT CT CT Plant Wilson CT Plant Dahlberg CT Plant Robins CT PA Calhoun PA Mid-GA Cogen PA Wash Co. (Tiger Creek) H PA Solar H H H PA Monroe/Walton Co. PA Bainbridge CT Addison PACentral Alabama PA Heard Co. Plant McDonough CC CT CTCleveland County CT Rowan County Energy Complex CC CT
- 5. 25-MW CCS Demo “World’s largest carbon capture facility on a fossil-fueled power plant” Alabama Power Plant Barry Absorber Regenerator Compressor
- 6. Kemper County IGCC Project
- 7. Vogtle 3 and 4 Construction
- 8. Southern Power Company Southern Power is an unregulated wholesale energy provider. Southern Power and its subsidiaries own and operate 17 facilities in eight states, with more than 8,800 megawatts of generating capacity operating in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas.
- 9. Proprietary/Confidential – Not to be shared externally or with SPC 9 Separation Protocol • FERC ORDER • Non-Public retail unit specific or transmission Information Is NOT ALLOWED to be shared with Southern Power • Public Bulletin Board • SPC Personnel Not Allowed In Retail Work Spaces – Electronic Security ID Cards • Term Traders cannot know non-public transmission information • Best Practices May Be Shared
- 10. How did we get here? • Legacy models are many in number and are frequently being stressed • They include the many in-house developed “tools” • Comfortable, familiar processes are sometimes called “ruts” • But they usually get us where we want to go
- 11. Search for Improvement • Generalization • Models are developed with a specific problem(s) in mind. • All models are predisposed to look at things in a certain way • This can affect the results • The modeler has to recognize this and sometimes “manipulate or lie” to the model to get the results that he “knows” are “better” • What’s out there that may be “better” • Faster • More accurate • More versatile • Easier to use • “Better” is Defined by the User
- 12. • To accomplish a large change, it takes: • Agreement ( buy-in) • Co-ordinated Effort • TIME When Adopting Anything Different, Remember
- 13. Aurora Benefits • Ease of I/O with other analysis tools through Excel • Versatility – Zonal – Nodal – LT Resource Expansion and Retirement • Common database and interface – Common data across uses – Facilitates training of personnel – User customizable I/O templates – Scripting capability • Commitment to Customer Support and Model Improvement is Real
- 14. Our Computer Issues • IT Justifiably Paranoid • Many corporate applications and servers • ~20,000 individual desktops using a common image • Severely restricted admin privileges • For Aurora We Choose Workstation Over Server • System planning computer farm • “Local” results instead of SQL server • Plan to test solid state drive
- 16. Desktops for Planning • Windows 7 Enterprise or Ultimate • i7-3770 3.40GHz quad core • Hyper threaded • 12.0GB Ram • Dual 22” Monitors
- 17. The World According to Our Energy Budget
- 18. Current Hourly Modeling • In 2012, over 2,200 Runs • Avoided Cost Studies • Unit Retirement Studies • Renewable Evaluations • Fuel Projections • General Budgeting • Portfolio Analysis • Coal Inventory Management • Gas Hedging • RTP Projections • Financial Planning • Emission Projections • Pool Transaction Projections • Capital Project Evaluations • Outage Optimization
- 19. LT Modeling Potential Uses • Retirement Analysis • Expansion Planning – Especially Renewables
- 20. Nodal Uses • A group within Southern Company is looking at utilizing the Nodal Analysis capability in Aurora to apply Production Cost Modeling to physical transmission markets. This group is currently evaluating the potential benefits & challenges associated with this analysis approach. • Potential benefits include: – Identifying system losses – Off-Peak Congestion – Estimates of Forecasted Re-dispatch Due to Congestion • Useful Aurora Enhancements – Automated Contingency Files – Automatic Constraint Identification Reports – Ability to Model Resource Loss as Contingencies
- 21. Term Traders • SWE (Southern Wholesale Energy) is exploring the use of AuroraXmp Nodal for LMP forecasting and congestion analysis to support various trading strategies in RTOs. The AuroraXmp’s automated scripts have the ability to retrieve market data and update the powerflow model’s load forecast, fuel prices, generator outage periods, and more in several LMP and non-LMP markets. The simulation run times are very prompt and can provide the following output: – Granular Day-Ahead/Real-Time LMP forecast(s) to nodal level – Flow-gate Constraint Impacts to RTO Hub pricing points – Additional Risk Analysis for Hedging Strategies
- 22. Southern Power Company and AURORA 22 • AURORAxmp is used by Southern Power’s Market Strategy and Assessment group to support the development of market price forecasts for the company’s existing and targeted market areas. These forecasts are instrumental in supporting the company’s business development activities and remarketing opportunities. • Southern Power models the Eastern Interconnect and ERCOT with a custom input database that resides on a SQL Server. The Southern Power base case is a 20 year hourly study. • Southern Power began evaluating AURORAxmp in 2012 and successfully published its Annual Market Price Forecast using AURORAxmp in July 2014.
- 23. Enhancements of Interest • Uplift Logic – making units “whole” • Convergent EFOR • Script for Examining ALL Data for a Specific Resource • Commitment and Dispatch – Which MIP? – Run Time • Hydro Scheduling
- 24. Convergent EFOR Effects on Dispatch
- 25. Input Checking - Single Resource Time Resolution Call Support for Details
- 27. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 24 8 3 1 12 4 2 Hoursfor20Years Hours Sampled 20 Year Est. Run Times With Gurobi 0.01 2 0.01 3 0.01 4 0.01 5 0.01 6 0.01 7 0.005 2 0.005 3 0.005 4 0.005 5 0.005 6 0.005 7 0.001 2 0.001 3 0.001 4 0.001 5 0.001 6 0.001 7 Data missing due to timing across midnight.
- 28. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1 201 401 601 801 1001 1201 1401 1601 1801 2001 2201 2401 2601 2801 3001 3201 3401 3601 3801 4001 4201 4401 4601 4801 5001 5201 5401 5601 5801 6001 6201 6401 6601 6801 7001 7201 7401 7601 7801 8001 8201 8401 8601 Run-Of-River Hydro Output Capacity Set Energy Shift Method = 0 To Get Fixed Output
- 31. Retirement Analysis • Appears to meet our needs, but has not been sufficiently explored – Dilemma – what is fixed and what is variable? – Must appropriately structure the data to fit Aurora – Some important items affecting resource retirement decisions are not directly quantifiable • Personnel • Local economy impacts – Method and results must meet scrutiny of PSC.
- 32. Current Approach for LT Expansion Planning Area 1 Area 2 Unlimited Flows
- 33. Retail Only Expansion • DSO’s – Resource; 100% @ Peak, But Always on Maintenance • Purchase Transactions Modeled as Resources • Some resources which are obligated to third parties are not accounted for in the expansion plan. • A plan may be “profitable”, but can it also be least cost to retail • Stop on least cost option is not the same as least production cost
- 34. LT Issues Continued • Can over-build relative to annual reserve margin requirements be least cost? – Might this result in a lower total production cost? – Even if it does, there could be near term rate impacts. – New option to “minimize reserve margin” may address this issue. – Can we get comfortable with the different way end effects are handled – Are the solutions “close enough” compared to what we are used to?
- 35. CONCLUSION • EPIS Commitment to Customer Support and Model Improvement is Real
- 36. QUESTIONS?
- 37. Proprietary/Confidential – Not to be shared externally or with SPC 37 Nacogdoches Generating Facility – 100 MW
- 38. Proprietary/Confidential – Not to be shared externally or with SPC 38 CIMARRON SOLAR FACILITY – 30 MW
- 39. Lloyd Shoals Dam – 14 MW Capacity – 6 Units Martin Dam – 186 MW Capacity – 4 Units Wallace Dam 321.3 MW – 6 Units, 4 Reversible for PSH Rock Mountain PSH Facility – 1095 MW with 613 Foot Head