Ramprate Usaid

RAMPING UP THE
RAMPING CAPABILITY
India’s Power System Transition
GREENING THE GRID PROGRAM

A Joint Initiative by USAID/India and Ministry of Power
Photo from iStock 1210372195
SEPTEMBER 2020
This report was produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Prepared by
Disclaimer
This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and do not necessarily
reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with Alliance for
Sustainable Energy, LLC, the Manager and Operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
RAMPING UP THE
RAMPING CAPABILITY
India’s Power System Transition
Authors
Mohit Joshi and David Palchak, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Saif Rehman, S.K. Soonee, S.C. Saxena, S.R. Narasimhan,

Power System Operation Corporation Limited (POSOCO)
(Lead authors Mohit Joshi and Saif Rehman)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Greening the Grid (GTG) is a 5-year program implemented
in partnership with India’s Ministry of Power (MOP) under USAID’s ASIA EDGE (Enhancing Development and
Growth through Energy) Initiative. The program aims to support the Government of India’s efforts to manage the large-
scale integration of renewable energy (RE) into the grid.
This study was supported by USAID/India, as part of its GTG program. The authors would like to thank Anupam
Thatte of the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) Energy for insights regarding power system operations in
MISO and careful review of this report. We also thank Amy Rose, Jaquelin Cochran, and Dan Bilello of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Raghav Pachouri (TERI) for their careful review and comments.
We would also like to thank Somesh Bandyopadhyay of NTPC, Debasis De, N. Nallarasan, R.K. Porwal, Tushar
Mohapatra, Phanisankar Chilukuri, M. Venkateshan and Sharath Chand from the different regional control centres of
POSOCO for their valuable insights offered in connection with ground level implementation of ramping capability in the
scheduling process and its measurement. Special thanks to K. V. S. Baba of POSOCO for his continuous support.
The authors also acknowledge the continuous guidance and support provided by Ministry of Power, Government of India,
and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), India. Finally, we are grateful for the graphics and editorial
support from Britton Marchese, Liz Craig, and Liz Breazeale of NREL.
Funding for this work was provided by the U.S. State Department as part of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s
Greening the Grid program. This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), operated
by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-
08GO28308. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of DOE or the U.S. Government. The
U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of
this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
PI: David Palchak, NREL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Indian power system is going through a period of transformation with plans for renewable energy to
be integrated at a large scale over the next decade. Increasing thrust is being given to flexible operation of
existing generating resources. Ramping is one of the key attributes of flexibility. With implementation of
national level security constrained economic dispatch (SCED), the national power system operator of India
(POSOCO) has started to observe occasional constraints in ramping capability obtained from generators
under SCED, which could get further aggravated with more variable renewable energy (VRE). This paper
focuses on complexities of ramping and the challenges with high shares of renewables in the Indian context.
List of Acronyms
ADGP achievable degree of generator performance
CAISO California Independent System Operator
CERC Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
CPUC California Public Utility Commission
EIM energy imbalance market
FRP flexible ramp product
IDGP interval degree of generator performance
ISGS interstate generation station
ISO independent system operator
MISO Midwest Independent System Operator
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
POSOCO Power System Operation Corporation
RCP ramp capability product
ReEDS Regional Energy Deployment System
RRAS reserve regulation ancillary services
SCED security constrained economic dispatch
VRE variable renewable energy
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Ramp Rate: An Essential Flexibility Attribute ....................................................................................... 3
3 Ramping in the Context of the Indian Power System ............................................................................ 5
3.1 Regulatory Provisions .............................................................................................................7
3.2 Operational Experience...........................................................................................................9
4 Ramping-Related Practices Around the World .................................................................................... 14
4.1 Ramping Capability of Various Resources ...........................................................................14
4.2 Options to Meet Ramping Requirements ..............................................................................15
4.3 Performance Measurement ...................................................................................................17
5 Ramping Considerations From Resource Adequacy to Dispatch: Case Study of CAISO ................ 19
6 Pathway for India .................................................................................................................................... 22
References ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A. Changes in Ramping Over the Years in India ....................................................................... 30
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Generators Ramping Performance Criteria in India .................................................................................. 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Example of increasing solar resources leading to increased ramping requirements ......................... 2
Figure 2. Flexibility attributes of generators ............................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Hourly ramp rates of demand and thermal generation in India from 2008–2020 ............................. 5
Figure 4. Projected ramp rates frequency distribution in India in 2022 as per the National Electricity Plan,
CEA.................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5. Net load ramps for the annual operations of two scenarios in 2022. No New RE represents a
scenario with 2016 levels of RE, and 100S-60W represents a scenario where Government of
India targets of 160 GW wind and solar are met. .................................................................................... 7
Figure 6. Maximum ramp capability distribution of coal-fired generating stations in India ............................ 9
Figure 7. Ramping in optimal schedule and actual (all-India)—typical day...................................................... 10
Figure 8. Infeasibilities (ramp up/down)—diurnal pattern in India ..................................................................... 11
Figure 9. Infeasibility case study India—system ramp (National) ....................................................................... 11
Figure 10. Demand and ramp rates trend during the lights-off event .................................................................. 12
Figure 11. Illustration of ramp in average MW schedule ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 12. Technology-specific ramp rates around the world ............................................................................... 15
Figure 13. Graphical representation of ramp capability requirements in MISO ............................................... 17
Figure 14. CAISO system-wide flexible capacity monthly calculation by category for 2021 ....................... 20
Figure 15. Schematic representation of ramping requirement assessment, compliance, and procurement
in CAISO ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure A- 1. Hourly demand ramp duration curve for India from 2015 to 2020 (alternate years)................ 30
Figure A- 2. Hourly net demand ramp duration curve for India from 2015 to 2020 (alternate years) ......... 30
Figure A- 3. Hourly ramp duration curve for thermal generation in India from 2015 to 2020
(alternate years) ............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure A- 4. Hourly ramp duration curve for hydro generation in India from 2015 to 2020
(alternate years) ............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure A- 5. Hourly ramp for hydro generation in India from 2008 to 2020 ..................................................... 32
Figure A- 6. Maximum hourly ramp as percentage of daily maximum demand in India from 2008
to 2020 ............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure A- 7. Maximum hourly ramp as percentage of daily maximum thermal generation in India from
2008 to 2020................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure A- 8. Maximum hourly ramp as percentage of daily maximum gas generation in India from
2008 to 2020................................................................................................................................................... 33
iii
1 Introduction
Imagine driving a car on a terrain with plains and steep slopes with sharp hairpin bends. The job of the driver is
relatively easy while driving on plains as a steady speed would be sufficient to cover the distance. But what
happens when the car climbs up the slope with the same speed? The car would start to slow down and fall back
unless the car is accelerated to balance the opposing gravitational forces. Similar is the case with power systems
where power system operators are required to ensure a balance between load and generation to maintain the
constant frequency of the grid, and, therefore, ensure reliable delivery of power. They do this by dispatching least-
cost generation at the same rate as load subject to various operational constraints. This is traditionally achieved
either by changing the generation of many large, slower-moving plants, dispatching a few fast-ramping plants, or
a combination of these. Any imbalance impacts the frequency as well as tie-line flows in the system. It becomes
more challenging during the time when load is ramping up fast and the generation needs to be adjusted at the
same rate.
Present-day power systems are undergoing transformations toward higher penetrations of renewables, and,
therefore, the main objectives of power system operators are also undergoing a transition. This transition is
toward balancing supply with a slightly modified version of load, termed the net load, which includes the
generation of variable renewable energy (VRE). In balancing net load as opposed to only load, there are new
considerations. For instance, the periods when load is increasing and VRE generation is decreasing could require
conventional generators to respond at a faster rate than traditional requirements to compensate for lost supply
from renewable energy (Figure 1); however, the ability of a power system to respond to such periods could be
limited due to various reasons, the result of which could be load curtailment, VRE curtailment, or reliability
concerns, such as frequency violations. Anticipating the ramping needs of the system in real time requires
considering potentially new scenarios such as these to avoid periods of ramp scarcity.
For example, with more VRE and without nontraditional methods, the on-bar conventional generation decreases,
which means the responsibility of providing ramp comes to fewer generators. Whatever the reason, any additional
ramping requirement in real time is met by the residual ramp capability of the on-bar conventional generation or
the use of nontraditional methods such as demand response or new technologies such as battery storage. With
more VRE in the system, there is more uncertainty in the ramp requirement and the residual ramp capability to
meet this uncertainty could be limited with less conventional generation on-bar. Further, government policies and
directives in many countries are phasing out coal/nuclear generation (CIGRE 2020). This phase out may lead to
scarcity of ramping capability in real-time operations. It is therefore important to assess the requirements of the
system, the capability of the existing fleet, and to take operational and long-term measures to ensure sufficient
ramping capability exists. Another important aspect of ramping is its inclusion in the schedules. Further, changing
the direction of ramp during ramping in one direction is challenging, like the challenge of turning a vehicle at
hairpin bends. Apart from ramping, acceleration and jerk are equally important for the system operators. All these
factors make it difficult for the system operators to correctly incorporate the exact ramping profile in the
schedules, which is done in actual practice with some trade-offs.
Figure 1. Example of increasing solar resources leading to increased ramping requirements
(Source: NERC, 2019 Long-Term Reliability Assessment)
The Indian power system is going through a period of transformation with plans for renewable energy to be
integrated at a large scale over the next decade. Further, with implementation of national-level security
constrained economic dispatch (SCED), the national power system operator of India, POSOCO, has started to
observe constraints in ramping capability obtained from generators under SCED, which could get further
aggravated with more VRE (POSOCO, 2020). This report focuses on complexities of ramping and the challenges
with high share of renewables in Indian context. This report also reviews the experience of different power
systems around the world in accounting for, acquiring, and managing the ramping capabilities as a means for
balancing supply and demand. The report concludes with a suggested pathway for India to plan for ramping
related issues in the future.
2 Ramp Rate: An Essential Flexibility Attribute
Flexibility is defined as the ability of a resource, whether any component or collection of components of the
power system, to respond to the known and unknown changes of power system conditions at various operational
timescales (Ela et al. 2014). Every power system needs flexibility to operate but differs in the requirement, which
is based largely on the load profile. Accordingly, every power system has built generation and transmission
resources and developed market products matching its requirements for flexibility; however, the addition of
renewables has the potential to increase the need for flexibility to manage the uncertainty and variability
associated with weather-dependent generation resources. This additional flexibility, manifested in market
products or operational practices, could come from various sources, such as demand response, energy storage,
altering transmission operation, and renewable energy curtailment. But it is likely that thermal and hydro
generators, which form the bulk of the generation assets in India, will balance this requirement in the near- to
mid-term. These generators can increase flexibility through various parameters (Text Box 1), which have the
potential to be altered by either operational practices or retrofits (Cochran et al.).
Test Box 1. Flexibility Attributes of Generators
Minimum Generation Levels: Also referred to as minimum turn down level or technical minimum in
Indian context, defined as the minimum output that the generator can sustain continuously. It is
expressed as percentage of maximum rated capacity.
Ramp Rate: It measures how quickly a plant can change its output. It is generally calculated as the
capability of a unit between its minimum and maximum level. It is expressed as percentage (of unit
rating) per minute.
Startup/Shutdown Time: Time required to move from nonoperational state (cold, warm, hot) to
operational state and vice versa. It is expressed in minutes/hours.
Minimum up/down time: Minimum length of time the plant must stay in an operational state before
taking offline and vice versa. It is expressed in minutes/hours.
Figure 2. Flexibility attributes of generators

Source: Adapted from Agora 2017
Ramping is a key flexibility attribute which has acquired significance in recent years. It has also been identified as
an important reliability service by North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and an important
attribute for managing power systems with high penetration of renewables in various renewable integration
studies around the world. Some systems have developed specific market products to procure necessary ramping
services, and some are providing incentives to the generators to improve ramping performance as discussed in the
subsequent sections.
3 Ramping in the Context of the Indian Power System
According to Government of India targets, 175 GW of VRE (100 solar, 60 wind, 10 biomass, and 5 small hydro)
capacity is planned to be achieved by 2022, which will be increased to 450 GW by 2030 (Prime Minister’s Office
2019). The ramping requirements have increased over the years, as shown in Figure 3 and with these targets, the
ramping requirements for India are also expected to increase and so is the uncertainty of net load. The increased
requirement for ramping is primarily being met by the thermal fleet (Figure 3), which was mostly operating as
base load around a decade back. While contribution of other generation sources towards ramping is yet to increase
commensurately, it is observed that hydro plants have been providing faster ramp down in recent years, matching
their ramp up capabilities (Figure A- 8). Additional plots showing changes in ramping over the years are included
in Appendix A.
Figure 3. Hourly ramp rates of demand and thermal generation in India from 2008–2020
(Source: POSOCO)
The Government of India renewable energy targets have led to several technical planning studies that have
identified power system ramping to be a potential issue for further research and planning efforts (GTG National
Study 2017; NEP 2018; CEA 2019; CPI 2019). For instance, the National Electricity Plan (Generation) has
stressed on the importance of having fast ramping capability for large-scale renewable energy in the grid (NEP
2018). The study estimated that the ramping requirements to balance net load for 2021-2022 would be higher than
those required for only balancing load (Figure 4). Specifically, that there are more periods of time where the
ramping demands of the system are above 6,000 MW/hour than if the system was without VRE. It has also
concluded that the additional capacity required for 2022–2027 should be preferably from flexible sources of
generation to meet the peaking, balancing, and ramping requirements of the grid.
Figure 4. Projected ramp rates frequency distribution in India in 2022 as per the National Electricity Plan,
CEA
(Source: CEA 2019)
Additionally, a study examining 15-minute operations for 2022 concluded that, when Government of India targets
of 160 GW of wind and solar are met, for 0.6% of the year, net load up-ramps exceed 25 GW/hour, greater than
any hour in a scenario with 2016 levels of VRE (No New VRE), and peak at almost 32 GW/hour (GTG National
Study 2017). This is manageable, provided all the machines provide at least 1% ramp rate. The study by Central
Electricity Authority on the flexible operation of thermal plants for integration of renewable generation has also
concluded that the net load ramp is manageable with all plants providing at least 1% ramp rate. This is assuming
that entire capacity on-bar would contribute to ramping. This expectation needs to be tempered as only plants
which are yet to reach their maximum or minimum generation levels would contribute to ramping. Another
analysis from Climate Policy Initiative estimates India’s ramping requirements to increase by three to four times
from 2017 to 2030 in various scenarios with a much wider spread (CPI 2019).
Figure 5. Net load ramps for the annual operations of two scenarios in 2022. No New RE represents a
scenario with 2016 levels of RE, and 100S-60W represents a scenario where Government of India targets
of 160 GW wind and solar are met.
(Source: GTG National Study)
These studies have used models that simulate operations at either 1-hour or 15-minute time steps with an
assumption of all generators providing 1% ramp rates; however, in practice, this level of availability is often
otherwise, and operators are faced with the challenges such as insufficient ramping capability, delay in ramping,
and so on. The following sections give details on the status of system ramping challenges and solutions in India.
3.1 Regulatory Provisions

The existing provisions of Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standard for Construction of Electrical Plant
and Electrical Lines) in India requires thermal generators to be capable of providing 3%–5% ramp rate.
7 (4)-The design shall cover adequate provision for quick start up and loading of the unit to full load at a fast
rate. The unit shall have minimum rate of loading or unloading of 3% per minute above the control load (i.e. 50%
MCR). For supercritical and ultra-super-critical units, minimum rate of loading or unloading shall be 5% per
minute above the control load (i.e., 50% MCR).”
On the other hand, Indian Electricity Grid Code recommends one per cent per minute or as per manufacturer’s
limits.
5.2(i) -The recommended rate for changing the governor setting i.e., supplementary control for increasing or
decreasing the output (generation level) for all generating units, irrespective of their type and size, would be one
(1.0) per cent per minute or as per manufacturer’s limits.
Any imbalance between demand and generation including variability of renewables in India is being managed
through dispatch of Reserve Regulation Ancillary Services (CERC 2015). There is no exclusive product for
procurement of ramping as of now. Implementation of automatic generation control interstate generating stations
across the country is in progress, after which secondary reserves would be used to handle the imbalances along
with ancillary services (CERC 2019).
Although the technical provisions require generators to be capable of providing ramp rate between 3%–5%, the
actual performance of the thermal generators has been much less than this. Generators in India declare their block-
wise ramp rates to the system operator for scheduling purposes which is generally in the range of 1%. In addition,
thermal generators which fall under the ambit of Regulation Reserve Ancillary Services (RRAS) declare ramp
rates, which were around 0.5%–0.8% until March 2020.
In order to incentivize thermal generators to provide more ramping capability, Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (CERC) came out with regulations to financially incentivize generators to provide ramping
capability beyond the threshold of 1% and to penalize in case of failure to provide 1%, in terms of return on
equity.
“Proviso (iii)to regulation 30(2) of CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2019 (applicable to
generators whose tariff is determined by CERC)
“in case of thermal generating stations with effect from 1.4.2020:
a) Rate of return on equity shall be reduced by 0.25% in case of failure to achieve the ramp rate of 1% per
minute;
b) An additional rate of return on equity of 0.25% shall be allowed for every incremental ramp rate of 1% per
minute achieved over and above the ramp rate of 1% per minute, subject to ceiling of additional rate of return on
equity of 1%.
These regulations require the National Load Despatch Centre to assess the ramping capability of individual
generators based on which, incentive/penalty (Table 1)shall be applicable to these generators. Accordingly, the
guidelines were issued by National Load Despatch Centre for assessment of ramping capability of individual
stations (POSOCO 2020). These guidelines assess the ramping capability based on the ramp rate declared,
scheduled and achieved by the generator. A summary of the ramping capability assessment process is given
below:
1. Calculate proportion of blocks (Td) out of total (Tm) in a period, in which the ramp up/down rate
declared by interstate generation stations (ISGS) is 1% per minute or more (i.e., Td/Tm).
2. Calculate number of blocks (D) out of declared blocks (Td), in which ISGS is scheduled by regional load
dispatch center with ramp up/down rate of ≥1 % /min.
3. Calculate proportion of blocks (E) out of scheduled blocks (D), where ISGS has achieved actual ramp
up/down rate ≥scheduled ramp rate (when it is ≥1%/min) i.e., (E/D).
4. Calculate proportion of blocks (F) out of scheduled blocks (D), where ISGS has achieved actual ramp
up/down of ≥1%/min when scheduled ramp rate is ≥1%/min i.e., (F/D).
5. Calculate actual average ramp rate in the blocks when scheduled ramp rate is 1%/min or more.
Table 1. Generators Ramping Performance Criteria in India
Td/Tm < 0.85 reduction in return on equity

by 0.25%
D < 60*M no additional return on equity
E/D < 0.75 no additional return on equity
E/D ≥0.75 Additional return on equity (%)
D ≥60*M = (Greatest Integer (annual
average ramp rate) –1)*0.25%
(Ceiling of 1%)
D < 90*M no reduction in return on
equity
Td/Tm ≥0.85 and D ≥ 90*M F/D ≥0.75 no reduction in return on

equity
F/D < 0.75 reduction in return on equity
by 0.25%
With this incentive/penalty regime for ramp rates coming into effect on April 1, 2020, interstate thermal
generators have started declaring ramp rates of 1% for the purpose of scheduling and Regulation Reserve
Ancillary Services/SCED. For performance measurement, this scheme utilizes 15-minute injection recorded in
interface energy meters, which serve as the datum for commercial settlement.
3.2 Operational Experience

An assessment of actual ramping capability of all generators in India, including intrastate and interstate
generators, reveals that around 35% of coal-fired units provide at least 1% ramp and the rest provide ramping in
the range of 0.5%–0.7% (Figure 6) (POSOCO, 2018). Many pilots have been taken up in India to demonstrate
ramping capability of up to 3% in thermal power plants (IGEF 2018; GTG-RISE 2019; CEA 2019).
Figure 6. Maximum ramp capability distribution of coal-fired generating stations in India

Source: POSOCO’S Report on Analysis of Ramping Capability of Coal-Fired Generation in India
Additionally, efforts to improve the efficiency of operations in India include a pilot on SCED at the national level,
which has been implemented by POSOCO since April 1, 2019. All the thermal ISGS, which are regional entities
and whose tariff is determined or adopted by the CERC, are participating in this pilot. CERC has expanded the
scope of SCED from June 1, 2020 onward to allow intrastate generators and independent power producers to join
SCED. As of August 2020, the total capacity, which is part of SCED, stands at 56 GW. SCED is an optimization
mechanism for the dispatch of generating units to meet demand based on minimizing total variable cost of
generation subject to technical and operational constraints. Ramp rate is one of the constraints that is being
honored during this optimization process. While improvements in terms of reduction of variable cost of
generation and ease of generator operations (lesser requirement of ramping from individual generators) are
observed, there is a significant reduction in the amount of total ramping capability available during certain
periods. The data from April–December 2019 for this pilot project was analyzed by POSOCO where it was found
that the leftover up margin (Installed Capacity-Schedule) in ISGS after SCED scheduling, which is also referred
as available spinning reserve in Indian context, is being consolidated in the higher variable cost generators. The
availability of these reserves is being constrained by the ramping capability of generation units. Therefore, a
reduction in the cumulative reserve quantum constrained by ramp is being observed after the SCED optimization
process. It is also observed that typically, ramp constrained reserve (i.e., reserve that can be activated within next
15 minutes) is approximately one-third of the total spinning reserve.
Post-implementation of SCED, the cheaper generators are generating at their maximum capacity, and the costlier
generators are either turned off or operating at their technical minimum. This has reduced the number of
generators providing reserves in both directions at any instance. Although the ramping requirements based on
requisition by various states are satisfied in SCED, the responsibility of providing ramping in either direction
amongst generators is more concentrated to few generators. Delay in ramping by any generator leads to
considerable shortfall in real time.
Figure 7. Ramping in optimal schedule and actual (all-India)—typical day (96 15-minute time blocks)
Source: (POSOCOs “Detailed Feedback Report on SCED Pilot”)
The shortfall in available ramping was also observed during certain time blocks especially during evening and
morning when the ramp requirement is very high (Figure 7). This has led to infeasibility in the SCED algorithm in
certain time blocks. Figure 8 shows the average block-wise pattern of infeasibility due to ramp during the SCED
pilot. It can be inferred from the figure than the ramp up infeasibility during the evening is considerably higher
than other hours.
10
Figure 8. Infeasibilities (ramp up/down)—diurnal pattern in India
Source: (POSOCOs “Detailed Feedback Report on SCED Pilot”)
The ramp-related infeasibilities are being resolved by making it a soft constraint. The penalty price was chosen as
one-third of the highest variable cost initially and is currently kept at 25% of the highest variable cost based on
operational experience. These penalty prices only resolve the issue encountered during the optimization stage but
in the real time operations there is an actual shortfall of ramping which could adversely impact the frequency and
tie-line flows. Figure 9 shows the shortfall in ramp in SCED observed on one sample day.
Ramp shortfall of 233 MW

(Total SCED schedule - 37000 MW)
Figure 9. Infeasibility case study India—system ramp (National)

Source: (POSOCOs “Detailed Feedback Report on SCED Pilot)
Unprecedented demand ramp rates of the order of 3,000 to 4,000 MW/min were observed (Figure 10)during the 9
p.m. 9 min. event on April 5, 2020, where people of India switched off their lights at 9 p.m. for 9 minutes on the
appeal of the Prime Minister of India to show solidarity and confidence in the nation’s collective fight against the
11
novel coronavirus. These high ramp rates were managed by the Indian system operators with the help of fast-
ramping hydro and gas generation. Although hydro generators are considered a fast-ramping resource, their
governor response is limited by the droop settings. During this event, the system operator changed the droop
settings of some hydro generators from normal range of 4%–5% to 1%–2%. The lowering of governor droop
settings means faster response in the event of frequency change which was beneficial in managing these events.
The normal droop settings may be revisited to get faster response from the generators with high penetration of
renewables, especially during events, which would require faster ramping from conventional generation such as
solar eclipse, cyclone, and so on.
Figure 10. Demand and ramp rates trend during the lights-off event
Source: (POSOCOs report on “Pan India Lights Off Event (9 PM 9 Minutes) on 5th April 2020”)
For the regulated generation capacity, which is shared by many beneficiaries, sharing of ramping capability
becomes particularly challenging for regional load dispatch centers, which are coordinating the scheduling
activity. The requisitions given by beneficiaries are moderated to ensure generators get an operationally feasible
schedule, that is, limits like ramp rates, technical minimum, declared capability, are honored; however, market
platforms, like power exchanges are yet to factor ramp rates as a constraint either in the day-ahead market or the
real-time market. For market transactions, it is the responsibility of the generators to structure their offers in a
manner such that all limits are satisfied. From a physical perspective, although ramp capability of thermal
generators is assumed constant over their generation range in the scheduling process, it depends on factors like
generation level, number of mills in service etc. The ability of generators to follow scheduled ramps strictly also
depends on the preparation time available to generators before dispatch.
Another aspect associated with ramping, which is to be appreciated, arises due to the scheduling, metering, and
settlement philosophy. While the load curve, generation, and ramping are all continuous curves, they have to be
discretized into 15-minute average MW blocks for the purpose of scheduling and settlement (Figure 11). The
average MW drawn or injected by any entity during any 15-minute time block should be equal to their schedule in
the corresponding time block. The interface meters record the energy exchanged for each time block from which
the average MW is derived. The relationship between the ramping in the actual generation, which is a continuous
line versus the ramping in average MW schedule, which is a staircase, introduces complications in assessment of
available ramping reserves in the scheduling timeframe. The ramp rate that can be scheduled, therefore, instead of
12
straightforward 1%, becomes a function of the schedule in previous time blocks. Further, any change in the
direction of ramping between consecutive time blocks creates an additional constraint while scheduling. Modeling
this dependence mathematically and incorporating it into scheduling and optimization logic adds another layer of
complexity and is usually a trade-off from practical considerations. While the scheduling is based on 15-minute
average MW values, the power plant operator needs to convert it suitably to the generating unit load set points as
well as the ramp rate. There is no unique solution for these set points which needs to be varied within the 15-
minute time block, too.
Figure 11. Illustration of ramp in average MW schedule
13
4 Ramping-Related Practices Around the World
Over the years, the ramping needs of the power system were limited to changes of load and the systems were
designed to cater to those changes only. Most of the ramping needs of the systems were catered by fast-ramping
generators, such as hydro, gas and so on, or through interconnection. Thermal generators were required to operate
at baseload at most of the time, and hence were designed and operated with less flexibility. The general default
ramp rate in these cases was around 1% per minute or even less. Any shortfall in actual ramping is reflected in the
frequency which results into activation of reserves/ancillary services and in some cases even led to manual control
of loads. The aspect that block scheduling, although facilitating markets, fails to accurately represent the physical
characteristics of load or generation, and results in significant regulation burden, has been recognized and
reported (ORNL 2003). Over the years, the expectation of consumers to get round-the-clock quality power have
led to improved reliability standards which has forced the systems to find ways to meet the ramping needs.
Further, the transition to clean energy has also increased the deployment of VRE generation around the world.
The variability and uncertainty of VRE has added another dimension to the ramping needs of the system (AEMO
2020; CAISO 2016; Agora 2015; Huber 2014). The changing needs and changing technology have enabled
thermal generators to provide higher ramp rates.
Insufficient ramping capability may lead to imbalance between generation and load. This may impact the
frequency adversely and, in some cases, cause curtailment of either load or renewable energy. These issues creep
into the system slowly over a matter of months or years, and hence need to be diagnosed early to ensure sufficient
measures are taken in time to address them. Therefore, the first step is to identify ramping concerns, if any. The
increasing penetration of nondispatchable resources in the United States raised the concerns regarding insufficient
ramping capability. For example, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) started experiencing
ramping and over supply concerns especially during the times when such resources were meeting large portion of
the demand. Further the changing generation mix, environment regulations leading to coal generation retirements,
distributed generation, and so on, raised reliability related concerns which led to the constitution of Essential
Reliability Services Task Force by NERC. The Essential Reliability Services Task Force has developed guidelines
to provide balancing areas with methods to identify the ramping concerns with increasing penetration of non-
dispatchable resources. The first step is to perform prescreening process based on various parameters of the
forecasted operating conditions such as minimum load, amount of non-dispatchable resources, maximum
regulation up/down, maximum net load increase/decrease and contingency reserves. A more detailed analysis
based on Control Performance Standard (CPS1) (NERC Reliability Standard BAL-001-2) is done if the balancing
area fails the prescreening test (NERC 2016). The criteria for prescreening (Level 1) is based on the contribution
of nondispatchable resources during constrained operating conditions and in cases where Level 1 screening results
indicates concern, additional (Level 2) analysis is done considering how much resources can be brought
online/offline within one to three hours to cover the requirements. The CPS1 evaluation will also identity the
hours of the day where ramping is a concern for the balancing area.
4.1 Ramping Capability of Various Resources

On average, the coal-based power plants around the world have ramp rates within the range of 1%–4% per
minute, combined cycle gas turbines are between 2%–4%, and open cycle gas turbines are within the range of
8%–12%. State-of-the-art coal-based plants can even achieve ramp rates of up to 6% per minute, whereas state-of-
the-art combined cycle gas turbines can achieve 8%–10%, and open cycle gas turbines up to 15% (Agora 2017;
EPPSA 2015). In Denmark, thermal power plants are either built or retrofit to provide 4% ramp rate. Retrofit
measures in Germany (Boxberg and Walsum Power Plant) allowed power plants to achieve ramp rates up to 6%.
The new Belchatow II Unit1 in Poland can provide a ramp rate of 2%–6%. Nuclear plants are generally
considered inflexible, but they also offer some flexibility in countries like Germany and France (Agora 2015).
Internal combustion engines can provide fast ramping of around 100% (IRENA 2019). Hydro generators can
provide ramp rates of the order of 10%–30% per minute; however, this flexibility may be restricted at times due
to various environmental constraints. The fixed-speed pumped storage hydro plants can also provide the response
14
rate within this range but adjusting their load in pumping mode is a challenge (MWH 2009). On the other hand,
the output of variable speed pumped storage hydro can also be adjusted in the pumping mode. Emerging
technologies such as battery energy storage systems and demand response have the potential to contribute to the
ramping needs of the system. Battery energy storage systems can provide the full response within a second
(PNNL 2019) making them suitable for providing operating reserves (GTG, Grid Integration Toolkit 2019).
Demand response can also provide very fast response, but its availability is limited and varied. Figure 12 shows
the technology specific ramp rates for thermal generators around the world.
Figure 12. Technology-specific ramp rates around the world

(Source: Agora Energiewende (2017): Flexibility in thermal power plants – With a focus on existing coal-fired power plants)
Information on the actual ramping capability of generators in the United States is limited. A study by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the PJM, CAISO, and WAPA systems based on publicly available
hourly data indicates the thermal generator ramping within 1%–1.2% (Kirby 2014). The Regional Energy
Deployment System (ReEDS), a capacity expansion model developed by NREL for the U.S. power sector,
assumes 4% ramp rate for coal and 5%–8% for gas generation (NREL2018). 1 In South Africa, most of the
generators provide ramp rates between 0.1%–0.7% (Agora 2017).
4.2 Options to Meet Ramping Requirements

Ramping response could either be mandated through grid code provisions, procured through markets or a
combination of both. In most regions, ramping availability has evolved over time as new requirements have been
realized. The National Electricity Rules of Australian Energy Market Commission requires generators to provide
3 MW/min or 3% per min, whichever is lower (AEMC 2020). The grid code of E.ON Netz, Germany, requires
generators to be capable of providing at least 1% per minute ramp rate (E.ON Netz 2006). EirGrid (Ireland) Grid
Code, mandates ramping capability of at least 1.5% of registered capacity per minute when the unit is in the
normal dispatch condition (EirGrid 2020). Northern Ireland grid code requires generators to be able to provide at
least 3% ramp rate in hot conditions (SONI 2018). The standard ramp rate for coal-fired thermal generators in
Denmark is 4% for open cycle gas turbines 3% and for gas-fired power plants 9% (Jiawei Wang et al.). The
1
NREL has also developed a ReEDS-India model for use in long-term power system planning for India. Preliminary analysis
using this tool can be found in Rose et al. 2019.
15
transmission code of Energy Market Authority of Singapore requires generating units providing contingency
reserve should at least be capable of providing 10% per minute (EMA 2014).
A lot of systems around the world can manage their present ramping needs from regulation reserves and ancillary
services provided by their existing generation fleet. In Europe and the United Kingdom, various categories of
reserves are held by the control areas to manage imbalance between load and generation. Regulatory mandates to
provide higher ramp rates, generation retrofit to improve flexibility, availability of fast ramping hydro, reserves
and ancillary services, reserves sharing, and a robust interconnection provides European countries and the United
Kingdom ways through which they can fulfill their ramping requirements (Triple 2015). Over the years, there has
been a downward change in temporal resolution of ancillary services and load and batteries are allowed to
participate in these markets in some countries (Bowler et al.).
Recently, EirGrid and System Operator of Northern Ireland have defined new ramping services under the DS3
program. These ramping services are namely RM1, RM2, and RM3, defined to cover three distinct product-time
horizons (i.e., 1 hour, 3 hours, 8 hours). This was based on an analysis that showed that even with capacity
adequacy, the ramping adequacy is unlikely with high levels of wind penetration. The payment toward these
services is based on available volume, payment rate, scaling factor, and duration. The fast reserve in the United
Kingdom is procured by the system operator via competitive monthly tendering process from the providers who
can start delivery within 2 minutes of instruction, deliver at least 25 MW at a ramp rate of more than 25
MW/minute and sustain that level for a minimum of 15 minutes In addition, in the United Kingdom, some portion
of general operating reserves are procured to manage the additional variability caused by wind and solar
generation.
In most U.S. markets, ramp rates are included in the offers made by the generators, although this can vary
depending on the market product. Any imbalance in the system leading to area control error or frequency
deviation is generally compensated by dispatching regulation reserves. However, with increasing renewable
penetration, handling imbalances on account of insufficient ramping capability through regulation reserves may
obscure any signal in real time prices regarding ramping requirements. In fact, holding more regulation reserve for
ramping may reduce the resources in real time dispatch and may cause some price spikes in real time due to
resource shortage (CAISO 2015). Hence, CAISO and the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) have
come up with unique products to procure ramping capability.
The mechanism for the ramping products in CAISO and MISO is somewhat unique to other reserve products, in
that there is no exclusive offer from a generator made for ramping capability. Instead, the opportunity cost of each
provider is calculated as the difference between energy bid price and the local marginal price, which is considered
for calculating the clearing price for the ramp product. In MISO, the ramp capability product (RCP) is co-
optimized with energy and ancillary services. The payments towards RCP is made at the clearing price of ramp
products. In CAISO, flexible ramping product (FRP) procured in 15- and 5-minute markets is settled at the market
clearing price for that market. Any difference between FRP procured in 15- and 5-minute markets is settled at the
5 minutes market FRP price. The Figure 13 below shows the concept behind MISOs ramping product. The energy
ramp constraint is depicted in red, whereas the blue depicts the ramp capability constraint. With only energy ramp
constraints, the dispatch at t3 would be based on the netload at t2 and t3. With ramping capability constraint, the
dispatch at t3 would additionally include sufficient margin in the resources to ramp up/down to the range of
potential at t5.
16
Figure 13. Graphical representation of ramp capability requirements in MISO
(Source: Ramp Capability Product Design for MISO Markets)
4.3 Performance Measurement

Performance measurement is the ability of the ISOs or market operators to measure the actual ramping achieved
by the generators and compare it with the declared ramp rates. In many markets around the world, ramp
capabilities are mandated by grid codes. For example, the generating units in Ireland and Northern Ireland are
required to demonstrate the ramp capabilities in accordance with grid codes. The performance of RM1, RM2, and
RM3 services in Ireland is assessed based on the unit’s ability to follow a synchronization dispatch instruction
except demand-side units. If the unit gets delayed in synchronizing 15 minutes after the start synchronizing time,
the transmission system operator issues a failure to follow notice. The demand-side units performance is assessed
based on the response, time and duration. In Australia, the ancillary service providers are required to be certified
in accordance with the guidelines of Australian Electricity Market Operator, which includes ramp rate as one of
the parameters. The transmission code of New Zealand requires reserves to be tested for its capability in
accordance with the system operation manual.
FERC Order 755 requires wholesale market operators in the United States to include market-based payments for
regulating reserve performance, lost opportunity costs for all regulating reserve capacity prices, and incentives
and rules for accuracy. In PJM, this led to a tripling of fast-moving resources available for frequency regulation.
Because these resources can respond to signals more quickly and accurately, PJM was able to lower its regulation
requirements. Order 784 expands the incentives for high-performance resources by requiring public utilities to
also consider speed and accuracy in assessing regulation resources. U.S. ISOs have several calculations for
measuring ramp performance. CAISO has detailed guidelines for testing regulation, spin, and nonspin ramp rate.
Availability of contracted and self-provided ancillary services can be verified by the CAISO by unannounced
testing of resources, by auditing of response to CAISO dispatch instructions, and by analysis of the appropriate
meter data or interchange schedules. The capability of any resource providing regulation is tested by CAISO
using energy management system data by moving a resource’s output over the full range of its regulation capacity
within a 10-minute period. MISO, on the other hand, calculates performance factor and ramp factor for making
the payments. Performance factor is an energy mileage-based calculation that measures how closely a resource
follows dispatch instructions across a market hour based on its offered ramp rate. Ramp factor represents the ratio
that the time-weighted real-time ramp rate deviates from the day-ahead ramp rate. PJM calculates an hourly
performance score that reflects a regulation resource’s accuracy in increasing or decreasing its output to provide
frequency regulation service in response to PJM’s dispatch signal. The calculations are done for each 10 seconds
but averaged over a 5-minute period to determine a composite performance score per resource. PJM also monitors
the real time performance of the generator through its Generator Performance Monitor (GPM) logic. This model
17
calculates the interval degree of generator performance (IDGP) and achievable degree of generator performance
(ADGP), which is used to modify the bid ramp rate in case of underperformance. IDGP is a measure of
responsiveness of a generator to energy dispatch instructions in MW terms, whereas ADGP calculates the
response in the last 10 SCED intervals to calculate the expected performance of the generator. The value of
ADGP will be lie between zero and one; however, a floor of 0.75 is applied to the lower value.
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡 − 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡−1
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 =
𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡 − 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡−1
where,
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡 : Actual unit output for interval t
𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡 : SCED dispatch signal for interval t

𝑁𝑁−1
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 = � 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡−1 × 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡−1

𝑖𝑖=0
1 𝛼𝛼
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡−1 = �1 − � , i = 0,1, . . . , N −1
𝑁𝑁
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 − 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
18
5 Ramping Considerations from Resource Adequacy to
Dispatch: Case Study of CAISO
Initial efforts in the United States to consider ramping requirements in resource adequacy started in 2013–14 by
CAISO and the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) with Flexible Resource Adequacy Criteria and
Must-Offer Obligation initiative. This was largely driven by the CAISO studies indicating requirements of
flexible capacity with 33% renewable portfolio standards, future retirements of significant amounts of once-
through cooling generation units and rapidly growing levels of distributed generation. In 2015, CPUC adopted a
flexible resource adequacy requirement which requires load-serving entities to demonstrate 90% of their monthly
flexible capacity requirements in the year-ahead process and 100% of their flexible capacity requirements in the
month-ahead process. 2 The flexible capacity needs at the resource adequacy level are developed through CAISO’s
annual Flexible Capacity Study, where the flexible capacity need is defined as the quantity of economically
dispatched resources needed by CAISO to manage grid reliability during the largest 3-hour continuous ramps in
each month. Resources are considered as flexible capacity if they can ramp up or sustain output for 3 hours. These
flexible capacity needs of the system are determined for up to 3 years into the future. The ISO-wide flexibility
needs are calculated as follows:
where
Max[(3RRHRx)MTHy] = Largest 3-hour contiguous ramp starting in hour x for month y
E(PL) = Expected peak load
MTHy = Month y
MSSC= Most Severe Single Contingency
ε = Annually adjustable error term to account for load forecast errors and variability methodology
The assessment process has the following broad steps:
1. Load and net load forecasts are calculated based on expected and existing grid-connected wind and solar
resources, CEC (CAISO 1-in-2 MID-MID) hourly load forecast from integrated energy policy report and
actual load of current year.
2. Maximum 3-hour net load ramps plus contingency reserve are calculated for each month. This gives the
monthly flexible capacity requirements, which are divided into various categories based on the system’s
operational needs:
o Base Flexibility: Largest 3-hour secondary net load ramp. Secondary net load ramp is calculated
as the largest net load ramp that is distinct from the daily maximum net load ramp.
o Peak Flexibility: Difference between 95% of the maximum 3-hour net load ramp and the largest
3-hour secondary net load ramp
2
CPUC resource adequacy obligations are applicable to all load-serving entities within CPUC’s jurisdiction, including
investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators. Based on the study done by CAISO,
each load-serving entity receives its allocation, which they have to comply by annual and monthly filling with CPUC.
19
o Super-Peak Flexibility: Five percent of the maximum 3-hour net load ramp of the month
3. The distributions of both the largest 3-hour net load ramps for the primary and secondary net load ramps
are analyzed to determine appropriate seasonal demarcations.
4. The seasonal requirements are calculated as a simple average of the percent of base flexibility needs for
all months within a season.
5. Each local regulatory authority’s contribution to the flexible capacity need is calculated based on their
contribution to the maximum three-hour net load ramp
CAISO also declares a specific 5-hour period during which flexible capacity counted in the peak and super-peak
categories will be required to submit economic energy bids into the ISO market. This period is called the Seasonal
Must-Offer Obligation Period. This period is determined based on the analysis of net load curves to coincide with
the maximum three-hour net load ramp. The calculation of flexible capacity needs for each category for 2021 is
shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. CAISO system-wide flexible capacity monthly calculation by category for 2021
(Source: CAISO report on Final Flexible Capacity Needs Assessment for 2021)
CAISO has also implemented FRP, which requires a certain quantum of 5-minute ramping capability in both
directions to ensure sufficient flexible ramping capacity in real time 15- and 5-minute markets (CASIO Market
Operations BPM 2020). This was introduced as CAISO observed that the unit commitment in real-time lacks
sufficient ramping capability and flexibility to handle real-time system load and supply changes with high
renewable energy penetration (CAISO, 2015). FRP is modeled as a constraint on both sides in these markets. The
ramping needs for the system are calculated based on the expected ramp and uncertainties in the net system
demand of the current and the next interval. The incremental up and down uncertainty requirements are calculated
based on a rolling 30-day hourly net forecast error with separate calculations for weekends and holidays.
CAISO also performs a flexible ramping sufficiency test as a part in the Energy Imbalance Market (EIM)
(CAISO, EIM, BPM 2019). An EIM entity is required to demonstrate sufficient ramping capability for each 15-
minute interval in each hour. EIM entity must pass all four 15-minute interval tests to pass the hourly flexible
ramping sufficiency test for the given ramp type. This test calculates the ramping requirement as a combination of
net demand uncertainty, forecasted change in demand, diversity benefit factor, net import capability, net export
20
capability, and flexible ramp credit. Figure 15 provides a schematic representation of ramp checks at various
stages of power system operation in CAISO.
Resource Adequacy Real Time Market
Flexible Capacity Flexible Ramping Flexible Ramping

Needs Assessment Sufficiency Test in EIM Product
Each 15-minute interval 15- and 5-minute

in each hour markets
Annual Monthly
Compliance Filing Compliance Filing
Figure 15. Schematic representation of ramping requirement assessment, compliance, and procurement
in CAISO
21
6 Pathway for India
The Indian power system is different from other power systems in many ways. It has a decentralized system of
scheduling and dispatch with a thin overlay of centralized systems applications (SCED, Ancillary Services) and a
small percentage of energy transacted through markets. Hence, balance needs to be maintained between the
market-based solutions and mandatory requirements for achieving the desired ramping requirements. Based on
the literature survey, it appears that the provisions in the Central Electricity Authority standards are close to the
average capabilities of existing plants around the world. Because the declaration of actual ramping capability by
different generators under the ancillary services is less than the standards, it is important that these standards are
enforced at the interconnection stage and in the long run through periodic testing at both central and state levels.
Incentives and penalties for ramping performance have already been included in the tariff of the interstate
generators by CERC. Similar provisions can be made at the state level and included in the power purchase
agreements with merchant power plants. Ramping-related issues may become more visible with high penetration
of renewables. It is therefore important for state control areas to assess flexible capacity needs and ensure resource
adequacy considering these flexibility requirements.
Suitable framework may also be considered where emerging technologies such as energy storage, demand
response, and so on, can also provide ramping services. The experience of SCED has showed ramping as a
constraint during the pilot phase at many instances. Typically, ramp-constrained15-minute reserve is around
20%–30% of the total spinning reserve. It is therefore important to consider multiperiod optimization so that a
look-ahead ramp is available for many time blocks rather than only the immediate next time block. With
experience, security-constrained unit commitment may also be adopted, which can ensure adequacy of ramping
and spinning reserves margin. The requirement to maintain minimum 15-minute reserve in both directions in
addition to spinning reserves could be introduced. This can be modeled as a constraint in SCED and security-
constrained unit commitment, which would then be used for obtaining secondary regulation through automatic
generation control and would also help in avoiding instances of ramp shortfall. Depleted secondary reserves and
shortfall would be replenished by dispatching tertiary reserves. Factoring of ramp constraints in the day-ahead
market, as well as the real-time market, is another area to be examined.
As India moves in the direction of higher renewable energy absorption and initiatives, such as 24 x 7 power
supply, agriculture load shifting to the high solar generation period, electrification of loads, and so on, the issue of
ramp flexibility would become more and more important. Unlike reactive power requirement, which is local and
needs to be supplied by local resources, ramping requirement is system-wide but needs to be provided in a
dispersed manner or it would lead to an adverse impact on tie-line flows.
The understanding of ramp and its importance is evolving among various stakeholders, and so are the market and
regulatory mechanisms. The challenges associated with ramping will occupy center stage and keep practitioners
and researchers engaged for a long time to come.
22
References
AEMC. 2020. National Electricity Rules. https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-
08/NER%20v148%20full_2.pdf.
AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator). 2020. Renewable Integration Study: Stage1 report.
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/ris/2020/renewable-integration-study-
stage-1.pdf?la=en.
AEMO. 2018. ABC AND AGC Interface Requirements. https://www.aemo.com.au/-

/media/files/electricity/wem/security_and_reliability/ancillary-services/2018/abc-and-agc-
requirements-sept-2018.pdf?la=en&hash=DF420D332F1552755E73C8A258D962F0.
AEMO. 2018. AEMO observations: Operational and market challenges to reliability and security in the NEM.
https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Media_Centre/2018/AEMO-observations_operational-
and-market-challenges-to-reliability-and-security-in-the-NEM.pdf.
AEMO. 2019. WEM Ancillary Services Certification Guidelines. https://www.aemo.com.au/-

/media/Files/Electricity/WEM/Participant_Information/Guides-and-Useful-
Information/Guidelines/Ancillary-Services-Certification-Guidelines.pdf.
Agora Energiewende. 2015. The Danish Experience with Integrating Variable Renewable Energy. Berlin,
Germany: Agora Energiewende. https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2015/integration-variabler-erneuerbarer-energien-
daenemark/Agora_082_Deutsch-Daen_Dialog_final_WEB.pdf.
Agora Energiewende. 2017. Flexibility in thermal power plants. Berlin, Germany: Agora Energiewende.
https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2017/Flexibility_in_thermal_plants/115_flexibility-report-
WEB.pdf.
Agora Energiewende. 2015. The European Power System in 2030: Flexibility Challenges and Integration
Benefits. Berlin, Germany: Agora Energiewende. https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2014/Ein-flexibler-Strommarkt-
2030/Agora_European_Flexibility_Challenges_Integration_Benefits_WEB_Rev1.pdf
Bowler B., Asprou M., Hartmann B., Mazidi P., Kyriakides E. 2020. “Enabling Flexibility Through Wholesale
Market Changes – A European Case Study.” In: Németh B., Ekonomou L. (eds) Flexitranstore. ISH 2019.
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 610. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
37818-9_2.
CAISO. 2019. Business Practice Manual for Market Operations. Folsom, CA: CAISO.
https://bpmcm.caiso.com/BPM%20Document%20Library/Market%20Operations/BPM_for_Mar
ket%20Operations_V63_redline.pdf.
CAISO. 2020. California Independent System Operator Corporation Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff
(Open Access Transmission Tariff) Effective as of June 1, 2020. Folsom, CA: CAISO.
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/ConformedTariff-6-1-2020.pdf.
23
CAISO. “Flexible resource adequacy criteria and must offer obligations.” Accessed on July 3, 2020.
http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/StakeholderProcesses/CompletedClosedStakeholderInitiat
ives/FlexibleResourceAdequacyCriteria-MustOfferObligations.aspx.
CAISO. 2020. Final Flexible Capacity Needs Assessment for 2021. Folsom, CA: CAISO.
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final2021FlexibleCapacityNeedsAssessment.pdf.
CAISO. 2020. Resource Testing Guidelines. Folsom, CA: CAISO.

https://www.caiso.com/Documents/5330.pdf.
CAISO. 2020. Resource Performance Verification. Folsom, CA: CAISO.

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/5370.pdf.
CAISO. 2015. Reliability Services Initiative –Phase 2 and Flexible Resource Adequacy Criteria and Must Offer
Obligation –Phase 2: Issue Paper. Folsom, CA: CAISO.
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/IssuePaper_ReliabilityServices_FlexibleRACriteria_MustOffe
rObligationsPhase2.pdf.
Cavicchi, Joseph, and Scott Harvey. “Ramp Capability Dispatch and Uncertain Intermittent Resource Output.”
Presented at Rutgers Center for Research in Regulated Industries Advanced Workshop in Regulation and
Competition 31st Annual Western Conference, Hyatt Regency, Monterey, California, June 27-29, 2018.
http://lmpmarketdesign.com/papers/Ramp-Dispatch-Paper-for-CRRI-Monterey-Revised-7-17-
2018-Cavicchi-Harvey.pdf.
CEA. 2018. National Electricity Plan (Vol-I) Generation.

http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/committee/nep/nep_jan_2018.pdf.
CEA. 2020. Quarterly Review Report Renovation & Modernisation of Thermal Power Stations.
http://cea.nic.in/reports/quarterly/trm_quarterly_review/2020/trm_qrr-03.pdf.
CEA. 2010. Technical Standard for Construction of Electrical Plant and Electrical Lines.
http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/regulation/tech_std_reg.pdf.
CERC. Terms and Conditions of Tariff Regulations. March 7, 2019.

http://cercind.gov.in/2019/regulation/Tariff%20Regulations-2019.pdf.
Chang, Judy, Mariko Geronimo, Aydin Romkaew, Broehm Yingxia, and Yang Richard Sweet. 2018. Shortage
Pricing in North American Wholesale Electricity Markets. http://files.brattle.com/files/14169_4_3-
brattle-paper-shortage-pricing.pdf.
Clean Energy Ministerial. 2018. Thermal Power Plant Flexibility. Paris, France: CEM. http://www.ea-
energianalyse.dk/reports/thermal_power_plant_flexibility_2018_19052018.pdf.
Cochran, Jaquelin, Debra Lew, and Nikhil Kumar. 2013. Flexible Coal, Evolution from Baseload to Peaking
Plant. NREL/BR-6A20-60575. Golden, CO: NREL. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60575.pdf.
Cohen, Stuart, Jon Becker, Dave Bielen, Maxwell Brown, Wesley Cole, Kelly Eurek, Will Frazier, et al. 2019.
Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) Model Documentation: Version 2018. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-72023.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72023.pdf.
24
EirGrid Group. 2012. DS3: System Services Consultation –New Products and Contractual Arrangements.
http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/System-Services-Consultation-New-
Products-and-Contractual-Arrangements-June_2012.pdf.
EirGrid Group. 2020. EirGrid Grid Code. http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-

files/library/EirGrid/Grid_Code_Version_8_1.pdf.
Ela, E. 2016. Wholesale Electricity Market Design Initiatives in the United States: Survey and Research Needs.
000000003002009273. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002009273.
Ela, E., and R.B. Hytowitz. 2019. Ancillary Services in the United States, Technical Requirements, Market
Designs and Price Trends. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
Ela, E., M. Milligan, A. Bloom, A. Botterud, A. Townsend, and T. Levin. 2014. Evolution of Wholesale
Electricity Market Design with Increasing Levels of Renewable Generation. NREL/TP-5D00-61765.
Golden, CO: NREL. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/61765.pdf.
Energy Market Authority of Singapore. 2014. Transmission Code. https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/About-

Us/transmission%20code.pdf.
ENTSOE. “Commission Regulation 2017/1485.” August 2, 2017. https://www.entsoe.eu/network_codes/sys-

ops/.
eon, Grid Code, Germany, 2006. Accessed on January 15, 2020

https://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/German_EON_Grid_Code.pdf.
EPPSA (European Power Plant Suppliers Association). 2015. Study on Thermal Power in 2030. Brussels: EPPSA.
http://www.eppsa.eu/tl_files/eppsa-
files/3.%20Publications/Technical%20Brochures/Thermal%20Power%20in%202030_LowRes.p
df.
Expert Group. 2020. Report of the Expert Group: Review of Indian Electricity Grid Code. New Delhi, India: The
Expert Group. http://cercind.gov.in/2020/reports/Final%20Report%20dated%2014.1.2020.pdf.
FERC. “FERC Order 755.” https://ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/OrderNo.755-A.pdf.
Harvey, Scott. “Discussion on Energy Imbalance Market Pricing: Ramp Constraints and Load Balance Penalties
in Electricity Markets.” Presented at Market Surveillance Committee meeting, General Session, April 17,
2015.
http://lmpmarketdesign.com/papers/Discussion_EnergyImbalanceMarketPotentialPricingSolutio
ns-04-17-2015.pdf.
Huber, Mathias, Desislava Dimkova, and Thomas Hamacher. “Integration of wind and solar power in Europe:
Assessment of flexibility requirements.” Energy 69 (2014): 236–246.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544214002680.
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). 2019. Flexibility in Conventional Power Plants. Abu Dhabi:
IRENA. https://www.irena.org/-
25
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Sep/IRENA_Flexibility_in_CPPs_2019.pdf?la=en&hash=AF6
0106EA083E492638D8FA9ADF7FD099259F5A1.
IRENA. 2019. Flexible generation to accommodate variability. https://irena.org/-

/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Topics/Innovation-and-
Technology/IRENA_Landscape_Solution_02.pdf?la=en&hash=470DB659CE9788DCDCE96E7
24F8946B99AAA141A.
King, J., B. Kirby, M. Milligan, and S. Beuning. 2011. Flexibility Reserve Reductions from an Energy Imbalance
Market with High Levels of Wind Energy in the Western Interconnection. NREL/TP-5500-52330. Golden,
CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52330.pdf.5.
Kirby, B.J., J. Dyer, C. Martinez, Dr. Rahmat A. Shoureshi, R. Guttromson, and J. Dagle. 2002. Frequency
Control Concerns in The North American Electric Power System. ORNL/TM-2003/41.
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub57419.pdf.
Kirby, Brendan, and Michael Milligan. A Method and Case Study for Estimating the Ramping Capability of a
Control Area or Balancing Authority and Implications for Moderate or High Wind Penetration. Presented
at WINDPOWER 2005 Conference and Exhibition Denver, Colorado May 15–18, 2005. NREL/CP-500-
38153. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38153.pdf.
Lannoye, Eamonn. Flexibility in Power Systems. University College Dublin, 2010.

http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Eamonn-Lannoye.pdf.
Lannoye, Eamonn, Damian Flynn, and Mark O’Malley. “Evaluation of Power System Flexibility.” IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems 27, no. 2 (May 2020): 922-931.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6125228.
Lannoye, Eamonn, Michael Milligan, John Adams, Aidan Tuohy, Hugo Chandler, Damian Flynn, and Mark
O'Malley. “Integration of Variable Generation: Capacity Value and Evaluation of Flexibility.” IEEE PES
General Meeting, Providence, RI, July 25-29, 2010. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5589889.
Milligan, Michael, Bethany Frew, Ella Zhou, and Douglas Arent. 2015. Advancing System Flexibility for High
Penetration Renewable Integration. NREL/TP-6A20-64864. Golden, CO: NREL.
Milligan, Michael, et. al. 2010. Operating Reserves and Wind Power Integration: An International Comparison.
NREL/CP-5500-49019. Presented at the 9th Annual International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration
of Wind Power into Power Systems as well as on Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Power
Plants Conference Québec, Canada; October 18-19, 2010.
Milligan, Michael, Bethany A. Frew, Aaron Bloom, Erik Ela, Audun Botterud, Aaron Townsend, and Todd
Levin. “Metrics for Quantifying Flexibility in Power System Planning.” The Electricity Journal 29, no. 2
(March 2016): 26-38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619016300094.
MISO. “Business Practice Manuals.” Accessed on August 6, 2020.

https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/business-practice-manuals/.
26
MISO. 2013. Ramp Capability Product Design for MISO Markets. Carmel, IN: MISO.
https://cdn.misoenergy.org/Ramp%20Capability%20for%20Load%20Following%20in%20MIS
O%20Markets%20White%20Paper271169.pdf.
Modern Power Station Practice, Volume L: System Operation 3rd Edition. Colchester, U.K.: British Electricity
International, 1992.
Mongird, K., V. Fotedar, V. Viswanathan, V. Koritarov, P. Balducci, B. Hadjerioua, and J. Alam. 2019. Energy
Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report. PNNL-28866. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance
%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf.
MWH. 2009. Technical Analysis of Pumped Storage and Integration with Wind Power in the Pacific Northwest.
Bellevue, WA: MWH. https://www.hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/PS-Wind-Integration-
Final-Report-without-Exhibits-MWH-3.pdf.
National Grid ESO. “List of all balancing services.” Accessed on May 22, 2020.
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/balancing-services/list-all-balancing-services.
National Grid ESO. “THE SERVICED GRID CODE – ISSUE 5 REVISION 33.” April 5, 2019.
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/141511/download.
Navid, Nivad, and Gary Rosenwald. “Market Solutions for Managing Ramp Flexibility with High Penetration of
Renewable Resource.” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy 3, no. 4 (October 2012): 784-790.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6268313.
NERC. 2016. Essential Reliability Services, Whitepaper on Sufficiency Guidelines. Atlanta, GA: NERC.
https://www.nerc.com/comm/Other/essntlrlbltysrvcstskfrcDL/ERSWG%20Draft%20Sufficiency
%20Guideline%20Report.pdf.
Palchak, David, Jaquelin Cochran, Ali Ehlen, Brendan McBennett, Michael Milligan, Ilya Chernyakhovskiy,
Ranjit Deshmukh, Nikit Abhyankar, Sushil Kumar Soonee, S.R. Narasimhan, Mohit Joshi, and Priya
Sreedharan. 2017. Greening the Grid: Pathways to Integrate 175 Gigawatts of Renewable Energy into
India's Electric Grid, Vol. I -- National Study. NREL/TP-6A20-68530. Golden, CO: NREL.
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/india-renewable-integration-study.html.
PJM. 2020. Generation Performance Monitor and the Degree of Generation Performance White Paper.
https://www.pjm.com/-/media/etools/oasis/system-information/generation-performance-monitor-
and-degree-of-generator-performance-white-paper.ashx?la=en.
Porter, Kevin, Sari Fink, Jennifer Rogers, Christina Mudd, Michael Buckley, and Cali Clark. 2012. PJM
Renewable Integration Study. https://www.pjm.com/~/media/committees-
groups/subcommittees/irs/postings/pris-task3b-best-practices-from-other-markets-final-
report.ashx.
POSOCO. 2020. Detailed feedback report on pilot of Security Constrained Economic Dispatch of Inter-state
Generating Stations pan-India. New Delhi, India: POSOCO. https://posoco.in/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/POSOCO_SCED_Pilot_Detailed_Feedback_Report_Jan_2020.pdf.
27
POSOCO. “Final detailed guidelines for assessment of ramping capability of thermal Inter-state generating
stations(ISGS) in India.” February 28, 2020. https://posoco.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Final-
Guidelines-for-Assessment-of-Ramping-Capability-1.pdf.
POSOCO. 2020. Flexibility Analysis of Thermal Generation for Renewable Integration in India. New Delhi,
India: POSOCO. https://posoco.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Flexibility-Analysis-of-Thermal-
Generation-for-RE-Integration-in-India-1.pdf.
POSOCO. 2019. Report on Analysis of Ramping Capability of Coal-Fired Generation in India. New Delhi, India:
POSOCO. https://posoco.in/download/analysis-of-ramping-capability-of-coal-fired-generation-in-
india/.
POSOCO. 2017. Report on Operational Analysis for Optimization of Hydro Resources & facilitating Renewable
Integration in India. New Delhi, India: POSOCO. https://posoco.in/download/fold-posoco-report-on-
operational-analysis-for-optimization-of-hydro-resources/?wpdmdl=14168.
POSOCO. 2020. Report on Pan India Lights Off Event (9 PM 9 Minutes) on 5th April 2020. New Delhi, India:
POSOCO. https://posoco.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report-on-Pan-India-Lights-Off-Event-
9-PM-9-Minutes-on-5th-April-2020-1.pdf.
Prime Minister’s Office. Press release. September 23, 2019.

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1585979.
Rose, Amy, Ilya Chernyakhovskiy, David Palchak, Sam Koebrich, and Mohit Joshi. 2020. Least-Cost Pathways
for India’s Electric Power Sector. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-
6A20-76153. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/76153.pdf.
Doorman et. al. 2020. Short-term flexibility in power systems: drivers and solutions CIGRE TB-808, WG C5.27.
https://e-cigre.org/publication/808-short-term-flexibility-in-power-systems-drivers-and-solutions.
SONI Grid Code. October 22, 2018.

http://www.soni.ltd.uk/media/documents/SONI_GridCodeVersion2018_Final.pdf.
Udetanshu, Brendan Pierpont, Saarthak Khurana, and David Nelson. 2019. Developing a roadmap to a flexible,
low‐carbon Indian electricity system: interim findings. San Francisco, CA: Climate Policy Initiative.
https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CPI-India-Flexibility-February-
2019.pdf.
USAID and Government of India. 2020. Minimum Load/Ramp Test Procedure for Coal based Thermal Power
Plants (TPPs). Washington, D.C.: USAID. https://www.gtg-india.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/Greening-the-Grid_GTG_Test-Run-Procedure_-Final.pdf.
Wang, Jiawei, Yi Zong, Shi You, and Chresten Træholt.” A review of Danish integrated multi-energy system
flexibility options for high wind power penetration.” Clean Energy 1, no. 1 (2017): 23–35.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkx002.
Xu, Lin, and Donald Tretheway. 2012. Flexible Ramping Products, Draft Final Proposal. Folsom, CA: CAISO.
https://www.caiso.com/Documents/DraftFinalProposal-FlexibleRampingProduct.pdf.
28
Slingerland et. al. 2014. The Balance of Power–Flexibility Options for the Dutch Electricity Market, Triple E
Consulting –Energy, Environment, Economics B.V. http://trinomics.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/The-Balance-of-Power-%E2%80%93-Flexibility-Options-for-the-
Dutch-Electricity-Market-final-report.pdf.
PJM Manual 12: Balancing Operations. 2020 https://www.pjm.com/-/media/documents/manuals/m12.ashx
29
Appendix A. Changes in Ramping Over the Years in India
Figure A- 1. Hourly demand ramp duration curve for India from 2015 to 2020 (alternate years)
(Source: POSOCO)
Figure A- 2. Hourly net demand ramp duration curve for India from 2015 to 2020 (alternate years)
(Source: POSOCO)
30
Figure A- 3. Hourly ramp duration curve for thermal generation in India from 2015 to 2020 (alternate years)
(Source: POSOCO)
Figure A- 4. Hourly ramp duration curve for hydro generation in India from 2015 to 2020 (alternate years)
(Source: POSOCO)
31
Figure A- 5. Hourly ramp for hydro generation in India from 2008 to 2020
(Source: POSOCO)
Figure A- 6. Maximum hourly ramp as percentage of daily maximum demand in India from 2008 to 2020
(Source: POSOCO)
32
Figure A- 7. Maximum hourly ramp as percentage of daily maximum thermal generation in India from 2008
to 2020
(Source: POSOCO)
Figure A- 8. Maximum hourly ramp as percentage of daily maximum gas generation in India from 2008 to
2020
(Source: POSOCO)
33
About USAID
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent government
agency that provides economic, development, and humanitarian assistance around the world in
support of the foreign policy goals of the United States. USAID’s mission is to advance broad-
based economic growth, democracy, and human progress in developing countries and emerging
economies.
About the Ministry of Power, Government of India

The Ministry of Power is primarily responsible for the development of electrical energy in the
country. The Ministry is concerned with perspective planning, policy formulation, processing of
projects for investment decision, monitoring of the implementation of power projects, training
and manpower development, and the administration and enactment of legislation in regard to
thermal, hydro power generation, transmission, and distribution.
About NREL
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)
primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research. NREL deploys
its deep technical expertise and unmatched breadth of capabilities to drive the transformation of
energy resources and systems.
About Power System Operation Corporation Limited

Power System Operation Corporation Limited (POSOCO) is an independent government
company in India that operates the National Load Despatch Centre and Regional Load Despatch
Centres. POSOCO ensures integrated operation of regional and national power systems to
facilitate transfer of electric power within and across regions.
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Available electronically at SciTech Connect, http:/www.osti.gov/scitech
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its

contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Disclaimers Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored OSTI http://www.osti.gov
Phone: 865.576.8401
by an agency of the United States government. Neither the
Fax: 865.576.5728
United States government nor any agency thereof, makes any Email: reports@osti.gov
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or U.S. Department of Commerce
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. National Technical Information Service
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, 5301 Shawnee Road
or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise Alexandria, VA 22312
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, NTIS http://www.ntis.gov
recommendation, or favoring by the United States government Phone: 800.553.6847 or 703.605.6000
Fax: 703.605.6900
or any agency thereof. Th
e contents of this report are the
Email: orders@ntis.gov
sole responsibility of National Renewable Energy Laboratory
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States NREL/TP-6A20-77639
Government or the Government of India. NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

Ramprate Usaid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramprate Usaid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramprate Usaid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAMPING UP THE

GREENING THE GRID PROGRAM

Photo from iStock 1210372195

Saif Rehman, S.K. Soonee, S.C. Saxena, S.R. Narasimhan,

(Lead authors Mohit Joshi and Saif Rehman)

PI: David Palchak, NREL

Test Box 1. Flexibility Attributes of Generators

Figure 2. Flexibility attributes of generators

3.1 Regulatory Provisions

“in case of thermal generating stations with effect from 1.4.2020:

Td/Tm < 0.85 reduction in return on equity

Td/Tm ≥0.85 and D ≥ 90*M F/D ≥0.75 no reduction in return on

3.2 Operational Experience

Figure 6. Maximum ramp capability distribution of coal-fired generating stations in India

Ramp shortfall of 233 MW

Figure 9. Infeasibility case study India—system ramp (National)

Figure 11. Illustration of ramp in average MW schedule

4.1 Ramping Capability of Various Resources

Figure 12. Technology-specific ramp rates around the world

4.2 Options to Meet Ramping Requirements

4.3 Performance Measurement

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡 : Actual unit output for interval t

𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡 : SCED dispatch signal for interval t

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 = � 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡−1 × 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡−1

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 − 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅_𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

Max[(3RRHRx)MTHy] = Largest 3-hour contiguous ramp starting in hour x for month y

E(PL) = Expected peak load

MSSC= Most Severe Single Contingency

The assessment process has the following broad steps:

Resource Adequacy Real Time Market

Flexible Capacity Flexible Ramping Flexible Ramping

Each 15-minute interval 15- and 5-minute

AEMO. 2018. ABC AND AGC Interface Requirements. https://www.aemo.com.au/-

AEMO. 2019. WEM Ancillary Services Certification Guidelines. https://www.aemo.com.au/-

CAISO. 2020. Resource Testing Guidelines. Folsom, CA: CAISO.

CAISO. 2020. Resource Performance Verification. Folsom, CA: CAISO.

CEA. 2018. National Electricity Plan (Vol-I) Generation.

CERC. Terms and Conditions of Tariff Regulations. March 7, 2019.

EirGrid Group. 2020. EirGrid Grid Code. http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-

Energy Market Authority of Singapore. 2014. Transmission Code. https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/About-

ENTSOE. “Commission Regulation 2017/1485.” August 2, 2017. https://www.entsoe.eu/network_codes/sys-

eon, Grid Code, Germany, 2006. Accessed on January 15, 2020

FERC. “FERC Order 755.” https://ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/OrderNo.755-A.pdf.

IRENA. 2019. Flexible generation to accommodate variability. https://irena.org/-

Lannoye, Eamonn. Flexibility in Power Systems. University College Dublin, 2010.

MISO. “Business Practice Manuals.” Accessed on August 6, 2020.

Prime Minister’s Office. Press release. September 23, 2019.

SONI Grid Code. October 22, 2018.

PJM Manual 12: Balancing Operations. 2020 https://www.pjm.com/-/media/documents/manuals/m12.ashx

About the Ministry of Power, Government of India

About Power System Operation Corporation Limited

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Available electronically at SciTech Connect, http:/www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its

You might also like