PJM provided stakeholders with the latest steps in its fuel security analysis at a special Members & Reliability Committee meeting July 31.
PJM staff went through updates to the study since the special Markets & Reliability Committee meeting on June 28. Supporting details were made available as an appendix to the presented materials.
Eric Endress, senior engineer – Operation Analysis and Compliance, went through the external coordination and outreach update. He said PJM is looking at different angles to assure that it does not overlook any information that should be considered as part of study assumptions.
PJM has had refueling conversations with multiple generator owners, looking at the logistics of how to refuel facilities and where the fuel comes from, as well as credible disturbance scenarios and refueling time. Endress said PJM wants to make sure all characteristics are included to cover every potential impact to a unit.
PJM will be working with different generation fuel types, including gas, coal and nuclear, as well as demand response and renewable generation resources. With each of the groups, PJM is looking for a sounding board, as well as source of information, asking stakeholders for input, questions or concerns about how PJM is conducting Phase I of the study.
Jonathon Monken, senior director, System Resilience and Strategic Coordination, said PJM is working with the U.S. Department of Energy to study cyber and physical actors and what PJM needs to look at to assess risks for the study. PJM is using the Department’s insight into credible threat actors to help define credible physical/cyber disruption scenarios for Phase III.
Natalie Tacka, engineer – Applied Innovation, detailed generation retirements/replacements and how they will be accounted for in the operating assumptions. PJM is working with Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, as well as industry groups (Nuclear Energy Institute and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity), to obtain additional input to calculate a “reasonable” amount of coal and nuclear retirements to be modeled in the stressed portfolio sensitivity.
One specific change from the prior presentation involved performing a retirement sensitivity analysis. If the total amount of retirements results in installed reserve margin of less than the required 16.6 percent, PJM would replace up to the 16.6 percent installed reserve margin, identifying replacement capacity by applying commercial probabilities to existing generation queues.
If retirements result in an installed reserve margin of greater than or equal to 16.6 percent, no additional replacement will be modeled. Although the capacity market traditionally clears approximately the amount of the installed reserve margin, the intent of the retirement sensitivity is to examine a stressed portfolio.
Tacka said PJM is interested in gathering additional stakeholder input.
Tom Falin, director – Resource Adequacy Planning, reviewed the load models and demand resource values to be used in the base case and the extreme winter case.
In the base winter 50/50 load, the peak forecast is 134,976 megawatts for the winter of 2023/24, using the average 50/50 winter hourly load shape from 2011/12. For the extreme case (95/5 load), the peak of 147,721 MW is the median of three historical cold snaps in the last 45 years.
Daniel Bennett, senior engineer – Generation Department, provided an update on generator refueling assumptions. Based on generator surveys and targeted outreach, transportation is the most limiting factor, considering a range of variables (weather, driver constraints, size of trucking facilities/carriers). PJM was initially focused on fuel delivery via trucks and will review modeling assumptions related to barge and rail delivery logistics.
Brian Fitzpatrick, senior lead fuel supply analyst, and Marilyn Jayachandran, senior engineer – Transmission Operations, discussed approaches and assumptions related to natural gas supply disruption sensitivities and identified ongoing efforts to incorporate disruptions to other fuels.
For Phase I of the analysis, Fitzpatrick said PJM is looking at credible pipeline disruption events and their duration and is working with the pipeline industry to derive an appropriate industry metric. PJM is currently assuming a pipeline outage lasting five days, based on actual disruptive events that have occurred and initial outreach to interstate pipelines.
Phase III analysis will include assessing the impacts of more widespread cyber and physical attacks on fuel delivery infrastructure as identified in consultation with the Department of Energy. For the pipelines, PJM is separating cyber and physical events, the “DOE type of events.” As PJM expands the range, it will include more events with greater impact to the system.
Jayachandran presented specifics on the deterministic and probabilistic analysis that PJM will be performing for the first phase of the study. She discussed details of how assumptions will be included in the simulation and what tools will be used to run the simulation.
PJM will perform a production cost simulation for the duration of the cold snap. Contingency and transfer analysis will also be performed to assess impacts (during the peak hours on Day 1 and Day 14 of the study).
Anthony Giacomoni, senior market strategist – Advanced Analytics, discussed the analysis timeline and next steps, stating most of the fuel security analysis will be completed during the month of August.