Archive for July 22nd, 2009

h1

Negative power prices in ERCOT West: Charts for Jan-June 2009

July 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

Below are three charts showing data on ERCOT West zone power prices for the January-June 2009 period.  The charts were derived from data provided through the ERCOT website, on their “Balancing Energy Services Market Clearing Prices for Energy Annual Report” page.

These charts were prepared in the same way, including use of the same axis scale, as earlier charts showing 2008 data in order to make comparison easier.  As discussed in this post published earlier today, average power prices are lower in 2009 than they were in 2008, but prices have gone negative less frequently this year due to the more frequent use of non-price methods of managing grid congestion.

As the histogram chart below shows when compared to its 2008 counterpart, when prices have become negative in 2009 they haven’t been quite so negative as before (likely also due to the congestion management methods used).  Last year about 70 percent of the negative prices were $-30 MWh or below.  So far in 2009 the comparable number is only 44 percent.

CHART_freq_of_neg_prices_ERCOT-WEST_by_date_2009_June

Frequency of negative prices in ERCOT West, January-June 2009

CHART_freq_of_neg_prices_ERCOT-WEST_2009_June

Frequency of negative prices by price bin, ERCOT West, January-June 2009

CHART_average_prices_ERCOT_WEST_by_date_2009_June

Daily average prices in ERCOT West, January-June 2009

h1

2009 power prices in ERCOT’s West zone: a mix of wind power, natural gas prices, transmission constraints, and (inefficient) congestion management practices

July 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

ERCOT reached a new peak load record last week, beating the record set just a week before. Boone Pickens is backing off a little from earlier ambitions to build the world’s largest wind power facility near Pampa, Texas. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that low natural gas prices are limiting interest in new renewable power projects. (It seems like such an obvious point that I wonder why they bothered to publish it. In any case, what has changed since they reported the same idea last October?)

Seems like a good time to follow up on earlier posts on wind power and electric power prices in ERCOT’s west zone.

In 2009 so far, power prices in ERCOT have been very low, averaging in the $22 MWh – $32 MWh range, with the West zone at the low end of that range and the Houston zone at the upper end. [All price data from the ERCOT website.] The main factor responsible for low ERCOT power prices has been low natural gas prices, but wind power is the primary reason pushing prices even lower in the West.

Natural gas fueled generators are typically the units that are “on the margin” in ERCOT, meaning the units available to adjust up or down in response to changes in demand and therefore the units most likely to be influencing the price in ERCOT’s balancing energy market.  Over the first 6 months of 2008, with natural gas prices beginning near $7 per million BTU and peaking mid-year over $13) average power prices in the West zone were about $55 MWh and Houston zone prices were over $87 MWh.  This year has seen NYMEX natural gas prices drifting from just over $4 per million BTU in January, down below $3.50, and back to about $3.85 recently.

Wind power output is up in 2009, due largely to significant wind power capacity additions in 2008 and early 2009. (2009: 2,300 MW average output; 2008: 1,916 MW)  To some extent wind power output lowers energy prices statewide.  But when wind power output is high, current transmission limits mean that not all of the power generated in the West zone can readily flow east and south where much of the state’s power consumption takes place.  Transmission limits are easily reached these days, given existing wind power capacity, so the effect of wind power on prices has been intensified in the West.

But negative prices are, surprisingly, less frequent in 2009. (Less than 14 percent of the time in 2009, compared to over 19 percent of the time during the first six months of last year.  The outcome is contrary to my projection earlier this year.)

As explained here before, negative prices in ERCOT’s West zone emerge largely due to the federal Production Tax Credit and Texas state subsidies available to wind power producers, which provide the producers incentives to continue to supply power even when they have to pay the ERCOT market to take the power away.  The subsidies lead to some economic waste in that some cheap, slow-moving baseload generators will be induced to shut down and restart much more frequently than otherwise, even though it would be cheaper overall for the wind generators to curtail instead. (But it is hard to put a good number on this economic waste because analysis of the relevant subsidies for various energy sources and associated externalities becomes very complex very quickly.)

Frequency of Negative prices by Month, ERCOT West, 2008 and 2009

2008

2009

Jan

8.61%

12.53%

Feb

18.82%

11.53%

March

33.33%

15.66%

April

20.63%

23.06%

May

19.62%

12.50%

June

16.46%

7.19%

Jan-Jun

19.55%

13.77%

What has happened in 2009 is that much more of the congestion created by high levels of wind power output in the West has been managed using reliability procedures instead of market-based procedures. Nothing sinister going on here (probably), just a result of the way the ERCOT zonal market design works (or not) to handle congestion of the transmission grid.

The zonal market design limits market-based methods for congestion management to a select number of so-called “commercially significant constraints.”  When other transmission elements become congested, operators must take recourse to non-market methods to manage the grid.  A line between the West zone and the South zone has become frequently congested this year, but no West-to-South lines are currently monitored as part of the market.  When the line approaches its limit, ERCOT operators identify a generator that can relieve the West-to-South line and then pays the generator to curtail production.  The cost of these reliability-based processes is averaged out to all consumers ERCOT-wide.

The reliability-based curtailment of power output in the West zone reduces the likelihood of congestion on the West-to-North zone elements that are part of the zonal market, which reduces the downward pressure on price in the West zone.  Without this out-of-market curtailment going on, power prices would be a lot lower on average in the West zone, and probably would be negative more often as well.

I haven’t found ERCOT data showing just how extensive this out-of-market curtailment is, but reportedly in some months this year the amount of intra-zonal congestion management has been many times the amount of market-based congestion management.  ERCOT updates its list of “commercially significant constraints” each year, and is beginning the review process for the next update, so maybe they’ll add the West-to-South line to the zonal market.  Perhaps also, data on congestion management practices will become available as part of that process.

A better solution than updating the zonal market list of constraints is to shift to a nodal market design, something that ERCOT expects to do in 2010.  A nodal market design automatically includes effectively all transmission elements as part of a market-based approach to congestion management.  The result is that congestion is more likely to be managed efficiently, and transparent price signals better reflect the value of power at different locations on the grid.

NOTE: Link to post charting ERCOT West prices, January-June 2009, including data on frequency of negative prices.

h1

Consumers, utilities and the smart grid

July 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

One point made here once or twice in the past is that consumers need to pay attention if they hope to get the most from the spread of smart grid technology. Another tale that makes this point comes from Energy Circle, “Smart Meters: Are Consumers An Afterthought?“:

As a resident of Toronto, I am privileged to live in a house equipped with a Smart Meter provided by Toronto Hydro. I also work at Energy Circle, which means I have been witness to the extraordinary power of real-time monitoring. Yesterday, I contacted Hydro to find out when we could expect our Smart Meter to start providing us with real-time data about our electricity use, so that we could start to benefit from the lessons gained by tracking and reducing our energy usage. The news isn’t great.

Follow the link to the story to see the rest of the not-so-great news.

ADDED: And for another story in the “not-so-great” category, pointed out in a comment by “Fat Man”: in France a regulator has concluded a company offering distributed energy management services should pay the electric company for the power it helps consumers save.

The company says its “distributive load shedding” technology can save users as much as 10 percent on their electricity bills and save power producers billions in investments in new plants used only to meet peak demand. Voltalis’s business model assumes the grid operator pays Voltalis for help in maintaining supply and demand equilibrium.

But the regulatory commission ruled that Voltalis should pay the power company because “its service would not be possible without the producer maintaining production.”

… Jean-Louis Borloo, the French energy and environment minister, backed the regulators in their decision. But on Monday, perhaps because of the rising political heat, he said he would appoint a working group to propose the legal and regulatory changes necessary “to favor energy-saving and respect the interest of all the parties involved.” The panel is to report back by year’s end.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers