CERC – Re-designing of Real Time Electricity Market in India
The existing DSM mechanism and AS
(RRAS) are frequency-dependent imbalance handling tools, not to be used as markets. The design of RTM as a balancing market must
ensure participation and reduce dependence on AS (RRAS) and DSM for real time energy needs.
A time gap of 10 minutes is required between
gate closure and opening of bid (auction) for
Distribution utilities should be allowed to
provide demand side ‘up regulation’ and
‘down regulation’ bids to enhance the overall
DSM price vector, currently linked with
prices in DSM, could be linked to the prices discovered in RTM, at a later stage, for reflecting the true cost of deviation.
For participating in RTM, RE generators would have to be well equipped with more reliable generation forecast.
The RTM would require real time exchange of information on congestion, injection/drawl schedules, cleared price, cleared volumes, etc., between power exchange(s), system operators and market participants.Availability of adequate infrastructure in such regards must be ensured in advance.
With the introduction of RTMs, better market
monitoring would be required to avoid the abuse of market power.
CERC – Re-designing of Ancillary Services Mechanism in India
Efficiently designed ancillary services market along with proposed real-time market should ultimately render DSM operation irrelevant.
At the end of the debarment period, an evaluation process should be put in place to strengthen compliance framework for debarred participants to regain entry in the Ancillary Services market. Failure in qualifying the evaluation should lead to extension in the debarment period.
Based on relative technical capability, inter-/intra-state plants/facilities participating in ancillary services market should be classified into Ramp Resources, Ramp Limited Resources and Energy Limited Resources.
MBED of Electricity: Re-Designing of DAM in India – A CERC Discussion Paper.
Expected savings from optimisation over a larger portfolio of procurement contracts need to be weighed against costs associated with the implementation of MBED.
Relevant sections of Electricity Act, 2003 may need to be amended to facilitate the creation of MBED.
The proposed price risk hedging mechanism in BCS is asymmetric – allowing DISCOMs to hedge risk when MCP is greater than the price in the PPA(s), while exposing GENCOs to financial risks if MCP is less than PPA(s) price.
Some generating units may need frequent shut downs, especially in the absence of incentives to generate up to their technical minimum limit, when the system forces low demand or high renewable penetration, thereby affecting the overall market outcome.
The legal implications of termination of PPA(s) may be significant, given the high financial stakes for investors and lenders.
A holistic market design should give due consideration to all segments of capacity market, DAM/TAM, Deviation Settlement Mechanism (DSM), RTM, AS, etc. A capacity market to be developed alongside MBED would help ensure long-term resource adequacy.
The implementation of MBED may witness high fixed costs by GENCOs, with lower variable costs for getting scheduled in DAM. Consequently, technologies like solar photovoltaics (SPV), especially with storage, would be the most viable option.
Proposed Bid (Order) Types in DAM – IEX's petition to CERC
The whole bid system is more favourable to the seller side.
The constant quoted price of MQB and PB would be compared with average and weighted average MCP respectively of the block for selection. This may lead to paradoxical rejection in individual time block(s) of the profile.
Bid types such as PB and FB are specifically designed for renewable power plants, but the planttechnology type of bidder, placing such bids may not be known to the market operator. Also, an optimal solution may not be possible if unintended plants use such bids for their own financial benefit.
Minimum quantity bids and MIC bids are contradictory in nature. The former places a lower bound whereas the latter an upper bound on the selection criterion.
Similar products should be combined for a less complex system to ease the process of market clearing and settlement.
CERC – Pilot on SCED of Inter-State Generating Stations PAN India
Savings on account of SCED implementation, for which methodology is yet to be specified by CERC, should only be apportioned to the respective beneficiaries. Generators, who are otherwise compensated for all the associated cost, should not be a party to such savings.
The variable cost quoted by the ISGS for RRAS is vetted by neither CERC nor POSOCO. Moreover, it is not specified if this variable cost should be based on the previous month's billing or the current month's expected billing, or on the basis of the cost of recent delivery of fuel (in case of coal-based thermal station).
The asymmetry of variable cost used by state utilities and that quoted by ISGS plants (and used for SCED) would lead to over-/under-estimation of benefits.
Procedure for Pilot on SCED for ISGS PAN India
The SCED being implemented is based on variable cost at the generator bus bar, where states consider the landed cost of such power, including transmission charges and transmission losses, while determining the MoD. Hence, the results provided by SCED may be suboptimal for a state sometimes.
In the absence of UC, all the units on bar would be allowed to run up to technical minimum along with heat rate compensation, thus imposing a higher overall cost on the system and ultimately the final consumers, whereas SLDCs can opt for shutdown of a unit as well.
In future, SCED should also consider unit commitment taking into account the strategy of shutting down of a unit, particularly under low-demand conditions.
The concept of retrospective changes in the SCED schedule, in the context of infeasible/nonconvergent solution, may expose the constituent to ‘Unscheduled' DSM penalty/incentives as its treatment is not specified.
The inclusion of URS in SCED optimisation may leave no economics in it.
The objective function used for SCED (as given in the document) is based on an individual block basis and does not consider optimisation feasible across time blocks where ramping constraints would influence the solution.
There is no provision for passing the baton; provisions for roll-over must be provided through the mathematical formulation.
CERC – Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matters (Fifth Amendment), Regulations, 2019
As per clause 4.5 (a) and (b), to meet sign change norm, regional entities (buyer or seller) deviating beyond ±20 MW with reference to schedule need to pay additional charges. This range may be suitable for smaller states. However, for larger states this range may be expressed in terms of percentage of schedule power.
As per provision of clause 4.5 (a) and (b), forced outage of a generating station participating in collective transactions on Power Exchanges are exempted from adherence to sign change norm. Such exemption due to forced outage may be applicable to all generating stations.
As per CERC's DSM 3 Amendment Regulation 2016, there are different methodologies for compilation of deviation charge. Post 3 Amendment to the Regulation in 2016, deviation charges for renewable rich states (states with installed solar and wind capacity 1000 MW) and the rest are differentiated. States like Gujarat, Karnataka, AP, MP, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and UP have reached 1000 MW RE generation capacity and few other states are close to reach this limit. As the number of states qualifying as renewable rich states rises, the asymmetric application of charges may need to be relooked in the future.
Proposed Methodology for Compilation of Coal Price Index
Need for Revision in Methodology for Escalation Index: Variation in the coal prices for different grades, as shown below, clearly highlights the need for more representative coal price index for determining the escalation factor.
Laspeyres Vs Paasche index: As acknowledged in the staff paper the Lespeyres index uses base year rates to derive changes in the Price index in a current period. It is suggested that the Paasche index would be more suitable as it uses current period weights. Since the coal cost burden is on account of the current period's coal purchases, Paasche index would provide a better picture of the cost escalation of the coal being consumed in the current billing period.
Weights used for Index: The proposed methodology suggests use of value (price x quantity) as weights to derive the Price index. Adoption of value as weights would overestimate the Price index as costly coal grades would automatically have higher weights. Use of quantities as weights would be more appropriate.
Geometric Average for Base Year Price Index: Geometric mean of monthly prices for the coal price may lead to under-estimation of the true cost of the coal basket.
Deriving Annual Rate from 6 monthly rate (Step 3 clause 8): It would be more appropriate to account for compounding rather than doubling the six-monthly rate to derive annual rate.
Price Index for Captive Coal Mines: Price escalation in coal prices published by CIL are a reflection of its inefficiency. In the case of captive coal mines operated by efficient private or public sector generators, one would expect the operations to be more efficient and should not warrant for a similar level of price escalation.