Curtailment of electricity supply in Ontario

I've just developed some queries to estimate the curtailment of wind supply on the Ontario grid, and thought a quick, primarily "stats", post might interest some of my readers.

This also provides an opportunity to review methods that the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) uses to reduce supply, and the limitations of estimating those curtailment actions.

1. Non-Utility Generator (NUG) curtailment (discussed here)
2. Hydroelectric output being redirected directly in Quebec's high-voltage direct current (HVDC) grid (discussed here)
3. Nuclear curtailment maneuvering condenser steam discharge valves (CSDV) to reduce output at all Bruce Power's 8 reactors (Bruce A's units gained this capability since I discussed the curtailment method here)
4. Wind curtailment, which became possible on September 11th, 2013, as a result of the IESO's renewable integration initiative.

Generators Output and Capability Report

On September 10th the IESO changed it's "Generators Output and Capability" report to indicate the "forecast" for the hourly output from industrial wind generators.  The difference between the "forecast" and the "output" appears to provide a method to estimate the amount of wind curtailment: in the 30 days from September 11 to October 10, the sum of the differences is 28,053 MWh, while the IESO has presented dispatch of 28GWh for the same period.

In the 66 days since curtailment of the wind resource was introduced, curtailment is approximately 61GWh - at any average price of $120 that would equate to a cost of $7.3 million (~$110,800/day) if suppliers are reimbursed for curtailment. 

One of Kathleen Wynne's first acts of Premier appears to have been forcing an agreement to pay the wind companies for curtailed supply - although the details of a settlement that got suppliers to halt proceeding at the Ontario Energy Board are secret (the board should have refused to hear them anyway).

There is a lot of area of uncertainty in my estimates of nuclear curtailments, in that the estimates are based on when Bruce Power's nuclear units are operating in the range characterized in a reduction maneuver.  If a unit is running at a reduced level for technical reasons my estimates include it as a curtailment.  However, if a unit is completely powered down due to an extended period of surplus, my estimates do not show it.  

As examples;

The IESO reported that "The total loss in nuclear energy due to SBG [surplus baseload generation] as of May 15, 2013 is 310 GWh..."
My estimate is only 97GWh (nuclear steam bypass only).  

Conversely, in August Bruce's unit 3 ran at reduced power almost the entire month, which is captured as curtailment in my estimates, but probably isn't.  

Estimates: Nov 6-12, 2013

While the science of estimating using only data algorithms is not precise, it's much better than not estimating - and my weekly and monthly charting of the estimates shows they are generally valid.

It's important to remember that there is more curtailed than wind; in fact wind curtailments appear to be only about 20% of nuclear curtailments thus far.

In agreeing to pay for wind turbine curtailment periods, the cost may be far higher than the $35-$40 million a year the first 66 days of data might indicate.  During that time it was windy much of the time nuclear curtailment was occurring.  If wind had never been contracted, the savings, on only eliminating paying for curtailment, may have been as much as $240 million a year

NOTES:
"Bumped" indicates curtailments that were made while an equal amount of wind output was being purchased"

The Google spreadsheet generated in creating this post is here


Follow-up:

The numbers from the weekend are remarkable.
Ontario's electricity sector essentially paid more to curtail supply than it received from generation this weekend.

About 5% of contracted supply looks to have been curtailed (43GWh curtailed, 793GWh produced)

The total market (HOEP) value of all Ontario production on the weekend was ~$3,430,887

I'll value the curtailments that occurred while we were purchasing wind at the wind value (because that's the true cost to the end consumer)- wind at $120/MWh times 30,887MWh = $3,706,440
The remaining curtailment I'll estimate at $65/MWh; a blend of Bruce A and Bruce B rate (12033MWh = $752,145)

The total cost of curtailments is therefore estimated at $4,599,571, which is 31% more that the entire market value of all the production that was not curtailed.

A record week for Ontario wind

Each week I update my estimates/shadow reporting of the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) data reports; the IESO reports weeks as running from Wednesday to Tuesday.
I reference the first Wednesday of the year as marking week 1; today we begin week 46.

Weekly supply mix chart (from data site)

Week 45 was pretty interesting.
It set at least one record - the highest reporting output from the industrial wind turbines on the IESO grid.

The week also contained the hour of highest IWT output, which is currently hour 11 of the 11th day of the 11th month [1].

Coupled with high nuclear production levels, this plentiful supply resulted in an average Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) of $10.23/MWh; that is the second lowest weekly average since the market began (record low is week 14 of 2009, at the depth of the recession and the height of the freshet).

A twitter exchange has motivated me to write a quick entry on the cost of Ontario's changed supply mix at this time of year (all of impacts being predicted by the data analysis behind an earlier blog post).

In Ontario, high supply and low prices end up being very expensive for consumers.

Low emissions from electricity production is wonderful, but the reality we know is that because gas, and coal, generation essentially receives payment to exist, the incremental cost of generation from those sources is cheap.
Flipped around, any generation that displaces previous years' levels of production from natural gas-fired generators is displacing production valued around $30/MWh - so the output of Bruce A reactors would cost $40-$50 more than the gas-fired generation it displaced, and new wind generators getting the feed-in tariff rate of $135 would cost over $100/MWh more.

Each week I graph the changes - and for week 45, it's good for the environment (higher wind, nuclear and imports - which come primarily from Quebec and are therefore hydro) -- and that will be very expensive for Ontario's ratepayers.

for a better view, the graph is interactive on the data site

What's really shocking to me, with the history of producing this weekly, is that the output from the hydroelectric producers on the IESO's grid is down on the week.

Consider that in light of the reported water levels of the great lakes; Ontario, Superior and Huron are over a foot higher than a year ago.

I have not developed a method of estimating how much hydro is spilled when the wind blows, but I have developed tools to estimate how much nuclear and non-utility generator production is curtailed,as well as estimating how much power is fed directly (primarily from Saunders) into Quebec's grid.



The figures (a copy of the spreadsheet is here) indicate about 30% of the record weekly wind production resulted in the curtailment of other, cheaper, supply.

The hydro figures show other supply was curtailed too, but we don't get reporting on that.
There is also no reporting on how much wind production is being curtailed

Much of the potential wind supply that is not curtailed, or pushing other supply into being curtailed, is bound for export markets.  The export figures show much of the remaining production was sold not at the $135/MWh being paid, but at around the $10/MWh HOEP.

If you have shares in TransAlta, or Suncor, or Enbridge, or the other companies owning Ontairo's industrial wind turbines, you can celebrate a record week of wind production with a fine vintage.

If not, you might wait until you see the global adjustment charge on the bill for November ... and then recognize the accomplishment with a spot of tea as you try and keep warm.


Endnote/Postscript
[1] The record hourly output was surpassed multiple times by the end of the day this was posted (Nov. 13th)

There's never been a worse time for this Conservation thing

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted   - Ecclesiastes ,3 King James Version [1]

A time to conserve - a time to consume.

As the clock struck midnight with the arrival of November, my hourly rate for electricity went up 7.5%[2], while the rate for export customers was around 1/10th of the residential rate in Ontario, and over 20% of Ontario's generation was being gifted away at those low, low prices.

“There’s never a wrong time to do the right thing ...” - Dalton McGuinty

The current Premier would appear to be trying to take a page out of her predecessor's book of wisdom (a page with 10 words), as her administration seems to have turned the entire public service to promoting "conservation" regardless of the circumstance (abundance).  In a simpleton's world of good and bad, conservation is portrayed as the very best regardless.

Conservation may be, but the conservation the government's agencies are spending their time, and our money, promoting won't conserve energy this winter.

In a recent Twitter Campaign on "phantom power" Ontario's Ministry of Energy found these messages important to communicate:

• Count em' up: how many non-essential appliances do you have plugged in?
• Plug into a power bar with an integrated timer or auto-shutoff. Here’s a coupon...
• Gaming consoles draw #phantompower. Plug them into a power bar and switching it off when you’re not playing
• Unplug that hairdryer or electric toothbrush to save...
• Chargers for cellphones, laptops and other personal devices draw #phantompower. Unplug them when you’re not charging. 
• Unplug small kitchen appliances when not in use. Otherwise they draw...

Regardless of the moral righteousness of conservation programming in general, I got the feeling Ministry wasn't really aware of how phantom power wastes "energy".


I tried asking;

@OntMinEnergy If you had to pick the worst time of year to address phantom power, would it not be the now - as heating season starts?
— Scott Luft (@ScottLuft) October 29, 2013

The "phantom" electricity produces heat, and we, in Ontario, are now entering 6 months of heating.   Energy won't be conserved by unplugging your toaster; electricity will be conserved and, in most houses, it will be replaced with natural gas heating (or oil ... or propane ...).

Substitution is not conservation.

Meh... It's a ministry and political games are expected.

But why would the nominally independent provincially owned utility, Hydro One, participate in this nonsense?

• Unplug battery chargers as soon as the device is fully charged or when the charger is not being used.
• Plug all electronics into a power bar that can be easily switched off when the electronics are not being used.
• The easiest way to eliminate standby power loss is to unplug electronic devices when they are not in use.
• Appliances still draw power when turned off but plugged in.

Hydro One is selling gas - because government requires them to do so.

Throughout October 2013 Ontario was, on average, a net exporter of over 1,400,000 kilowatts of electricity - over the past 12 months the average is over 1,500,000 kilowatts.  Put in news release electricity units, Ontario averages electricity exports enough to power over 1.25 million homes. [3]

Ontario provides power to those over 1.25 million foreign homes at prices stuck well below 3 cents per kilowatt hour ($30/MWh), which is the price the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) claimed it had been spending on conservation.

As I do most months, I again received an advertisement from my utility, and the OPA, enticing the owners of central air conditioning (not me) to participate in peak-saver plus - a program that will provide the customer with a smartish home thermostat [4], so that the utility can curtail the electricity draw from your air conditioning when demand requires it.

I'll end the post on a positive note.

I can't participate in the program to relinquish control of power hogs I don't have, but I did use the program to reduce the use of other energy sources.

With a smile:

"Smile if you're saving [electrical] energy right now"

Endnotes:

[1] The Byrds took it from Pete Seeger who got it from the Bible.

[2] Time-of-use off-peak electricity rate.  The rate is set twice a year, and the off-peak rate for the upcoming winter is actually 14% higher than the previous winter's
Ontario Energy Board: Historical Electricity Prices

[3] The "home" may not be the greatest unit of measurement - it's meant to be communicative because people supposedly can associate it better than the watt.
Unfortunately, the purpose of communication is not necessarily to educate:
When the Ontario government released Making Choices: Reviewing Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan, it included "Since 2005, Ontario has saved over 1,900 megawatts of power based on the actions of homeowners, business and industry . That is the equivalent of more than 600,000 homes being taken off the grid."
The statement is problematic as Ontario hasn't intentionally accomplished that reduction, and based on 800 kWh per month (here), the number of homes is 1/3rd of what math would put it at (over 1.7 million).
The 1900 megawatts is about half due to large industrial "conservation" (aka closing/leaving)
another chunk of it is due to extremely expensive "embedded" generation - because nobody in Ontario releases information on how much this largely solar component, it's reported as reduced demand, instead of reporting as increased, and extraodinarily expensive, production.

[4] Not the Nest product people want.