Docstoc

TSS Report PCC 061010 v5

Document Sample
TSS Report PCC 061010 v5 Powered By Docstoc
					Technical Studies Subcommittee
            Report

 Planning Coordination Committee Meeting
          Kyle Kohne, TSS Chair
              June 10, 2010
    Overview

    ● Approval
       TSS Charter
       2011 Annual Study Program Outline
       Base Case Coordination System – Request for
        Proposal
    ● Status
       SRWG Activities
       MVWG Activities
       Project Coordination and Three-Phase Rating
        Status


2
    TSS Charter

    ● Purpose
       The purpose of TSS is to undertake those studies
        related to the reliability of the interconnected bulk
        power systems that have been approved and
        authorized by the PCC.




3
    TSS Charter

    ● Responsibilities
        Conduct studies and evaluate study results to
         determine the reliability of the Western
         Interconnection. Prepare annual “state of the system”
         reports and other reports covering study results and
         evaluations, and make recommendations to the PCC.
        Collect, coordinate, and maintain data files for power
         flow and stability studies. Monitor data submission for
         quality assurance.
        Determine program or modeling requirements and
         evaluate, validate, and propose modifications to
         existing WECC computer programs.
4
    TSS Charter

    ● Responsibilities (continued)
        Conduct and evaluate studies to investigate special
           conditions.
          Evaluate and explore new developments and techniques
           of interest to WECC.
          Review and evaluate reports from member systems
           covering proposed additions or alterations to facilities in
           relation to NERC Planning Standards and WECC Regional
           Criteria.
          Recommend liaising with other areas when required.
          Prepare and submit an annual budget.
          Perform such other functions as may be delegated by the
           Planning Coordination Committee.
5
    TSS Charter
    ● Proposed Motion:
       TSS requests PCC approval of the TSS Charter
        as modified related to the appointment of the TSS
        Chair




6
    SRWG Activities

    ● 2010 Annual Study Program
    ● 2011 Annual Study Program Outline - Approval
    ● Performance Log
    ● Representation Log
    ● Base Case Coordination System (BCCS) -
      Request for Proposal (RFP) - Approval




7
    2010 Annual Study Program

    ● The 2010 Annual Study Program is in
      progress
    ● The areas of focus for 2010 studies
      include Path 15: Midway-Los Banos and
      Path 46: West of Colorado River
    ● SRWG is editing the proposed disturbance
      list based on input received from TSS


8
    2011 Annual Study Program Outline
    ● The 2011 Annual Study Program includes 11 cases and is typical for
      Annual Study Program Outlines
        Five Operating Cases
        One 5-year winter Planning Case
        One 5-year summer Planning Case
        One 10-year winter Planning Case
        Three Scenario Cases
           2015HA1: Stress paths in S. Nevada/Arizona/New Mexico
           2022LS1: High renewable generation simultaneous with light
            summer conditions
           2017LW1: High renewable generation displacing thermal
            generation with S-N flow from California to the Northwest.


9
     2011 Annual Study Program Outline

     ● Regular Cases
        2011-12HW2-OP: Heavy Winter Operating
        2011-12LW1-OP: Light Winter Operating
        2012HSP1-OP: Heavy Spring Operating
        2012HS2-OP: Heavy Summer Operating
        2012LS1-OP: Light Summer Operating
        2017HS2-G: 5-Year Summer Planning
        2016-17HW2-G: 5-Year Winter Planning
        2022HW1-G: 10-Year Winter Planning


10
     2011 Annual Study Program Outline

     ● Proposed Motion:
        SRWG and TSS request PCC approve the
         general structure of the 2011 Annual Study
         Program Outline




11
     Performance Log (Closed)

     Log/Disturbance   Responsible Entity   Description/Status
     P07-02-NT         IPC, PAC             A single-line-to-ground Jim Bridger 345 kV fault and loss of the Jim Bridger-Kinport
     D0709                                  and Jim Bridger-Goshen 345 kV lines on the 2011 HS1B configuration. Results for
                                            this simulation indicate post-transient voltage deviations up to 15.2% in eastern
                                            Idaho and southwestern Montana.
                                            Status: Closed at TSS in August 2009
     P07-06-NT         TSGT, PSCO           A three-phase Comanche 230 kV fault and loss of the Comanche-Walsenburg 230
     D0713                                  kV line on the 2010 HS2-SA configuration. Results for this simulation indicate post-
                                            transient voltage deviations up to 17.8% in southern Colorado. A solved follow-up
                                            post-transient power flow case with southern Colorado loads increased to 105%
                                            indicates voltage stability is maintained. Results for this simulation also indicate that
                                            Rosebud pump load in northern New Mexico trips by frequency relay.
                                            Status: Closed at TSS in August 2009
     P07-08-NT         TSGT, PSCO           A three-phase Comanche 230 kV fault and loss of the Comanche-Walsenburg 230
     D0728                                  kV line on the 2011 LSP1-SA configuration. Results for this simulation indicate post-
                                            transient voltage deviations up to 22.1% in northeastern New Mexico and -iv-
                                            southern Colorado. A solved follow-up post-transient power flow case with southern
                                            Colorado loads increased to 105% indicates voltage stability is maintained. Results
                                            for this simulation also indicate that Rosebud pump load in northern New Mexico
                                            trips by frequency relay.
                                            Status: Closed at TSS in August 2009
     P08-01-NT         PAC                  Loss of St.George SVC. Post-transient case did not solve;
     D0837                                  Status: Closed at TSS in August 2009




12
     Performance Log (Conditional Closure)

      Log/Disturbance   Responsible Entity   Description/Status

      P07-01-NT         NV Energy            A three-phase Midpoint 345 kV fault and loss of the Midpoint-
      D0706                                  Humboldt 345 kV line on the 2011 HS1B configuration. Results for this
                                             simulation indicate post-transient voltage deviations up to 5.9% in
                                             northeastern California and southern Oregon.
                                             Status: Conditional Closure at TSS in August 2009. Project
                                             completion anticipated after June 2011.
      P07-05-FT         TSGT, PSCO           A three-phase Comanche 230 kV fault and loss of the Comanche-
      D0712                                  Walsenburg 230 kV line on the 2016-17 HW1A configuration. Results
                                             for this simulation indicate post-transient voltage deviations up to
                                             7.3% in southern Colorado. A solved follow-up post-transient power
                                             flow case with southern Colorado loads increased to 105% indicates
                                             voltage stability is maintained.
                                             Status: Conditional Closure at TSS in August 2009. Project
                                             completion anticipated after December 2013.
      P08-02-NT         NV Energy            A three-phase Hesperus 345 kV fault and loss of Hesperus – San
      D0829                                  Juan 345 kV line resulted in 26 buses in southwest Colorado
                                             exceeding the 5% post-transient voltage limit. Largest was 12.7%.
                                             Status: Conditional Closure at TSS in August 2009. Project
                                             completion anticipated after June 2011.




13
     Performance Log (Open)

     Log/Disturbance   Responsible Entity   Description/Status

     P08-03-FT         WAPA                 A three-phase Midpoint 345 kV fault and loss of the Midpoint-Humboldt
     D0815                                  345 kV line on the 2011 HS1B configuration. Results for this simulation
                                            indicate post-transient voltage deviations up to 5.9% in northeastern
                                            California and southern Oregon.
                                            Status: Open – Resolution anticipated in July 2010




14
     Representation Log
                                                                                                                           NERC Standards
           Case under current study: 10hs3b-aprv'd                                                                        Requirements Data
            Case previously studied: 10hsp1-aprv'd                                                        MOD-010,11 MOD-010,11 MOD-012,13 MOD-012,13
                                                                                                           TPL-001    FAC-009
                  Owner                       Owner           Previous***    Current                           Device               No           Required       Generator  Std
                  Name                        Number             case         case        Change              Overload            Ratings        PSS Data          w/o    Total
                                                                 total        total                             n-0                               is Due       dyn models
                       (1)                                        (2)           (3)            (4)                (5)               (6)             (8)           (9)          (10)
 Totals                                                           282           436            154                7                  3             295             0           305



                                                                                                                                    Non-NERC Standards
          Case under current study: 10hs3b-aprv'd                                                                                         Misc
           Case previously studied: 10hsp1-aprv'd

               Owner                   Owner        Previous***             Current                    LSDT9          Ownership      Duplicate     Incorrect        Non-std
               Name                    Number          case                  case      Change        bus not in          no            bus        Zone/Area          Total
                                                       total                 total                   powerflow         owner          name           Owner
                 (1)                                    (2)                   (3)        (4)             (7)            (11)           (12)           (13)              (14)
 Totals                                                 282         0        436        154              57               2               1           71                131



15
     Base Case Coordination System – RFP

     ● BCCS Task Force has completed drafting a Request
       for Proposal – RFP
     ● TSS approved the BCCS-RFP at the April 2010 TSS
       Meeting
     ● Branden Sudduth - WECC (TF Co-Lead) will give a
       presentation on the BCCS-RFP after the TSS
       presentation




16
     MVWG Activities
     ●   Load Modeling
     ●   System Model Validation
     ●   Solar PV Generation Modeling
     ●   Wind Power Plant Modeling
     ●   Generator Testing and Model Validation
     ●   SVC Modeling
     ●   HVDC Modeling




17
WECC Composite Load Model                              Load
                                                       Component
                                                       Model
           Distribution Equivalent Data    M           Data


                                           M
  115-kV
  230-kV
                                           M
                                                       Load Model
                                                       Composition
                                                       Data
                                           M
  UVLS

  UFLS                                    Electronic

                                           Static
     Load Modeling

     ● Composite Load Model Structure
         Composite load model is implemented in PSLF and PSS®E as
          specified by WECC
     ● Default load composition data sets are available
         Used as a starting point for load model validation studies
     ● Tools for creating load model records are available in PSLF
         Creates load records with default data for every load that meets
          filter criteria (area/zone, etc.)
         Success of load model implementation is highly dependent of
          availability of tools for managing load model data and for creating
          load model data sets


19
     Composite Load Model - System
     Impact Studies
     ● System impact studies are on-going, model
       revisions are very likely
        FIDVR Validation Studies
            Valley and Palo Verde – Devers faults in Southern California
            2003 Hassayampa fault
            2009 Utah Mid-Valley fault
        System-Wide Validation Studies
            August 4, 2000 oscillation
            June 14, 2004 West-Wing disturbance
            July 2003 Palo Verde single unit outage
        Major Path System Impact Studies
20
Composite Load Model – Outstanding Issues

 ●   Load Model Data Tool
 ●   Motor and Electronic Load Modeling
 ●   Industrial Load Representation
 ●   Distribution-Connected Generation
 ●   Post-Transient Load Models
 ●   Load model implementation process
 ●   Support review of WECC voltage dip criteria
System Model Validation Studies

 ● NERC TIS developed a White Paper on System
   Model Validation
 ● System model validation is a deliverable under
   Western Interconnection Synchrophasor Project
   (WISP)
 ● WECC needs to start doing regular system model
   validation studies
      Enough evidence that the overall model performance is
       diverging from the system performance
System Model Validation Studies
 ● Validation Base Cases
       Use element code to match dynamic data with West-wide
        System Model?
 ● Interconnection-Wide Data
       Disturbance data for the model validation process will be
        supported by WISP
       Performance baselining analysis is done by North American
        Synchrophasor Initiative (NASPI), to become an automated
        continual process by end of May
 ● System Model Validation Tools
       Power plant model validation tools are available from MVWG
       System-wide model validation tools are tested
Solar PV Generation Modeling
 ●       A comprehensive overview of solar PV generation,
         including technologies, performance issues,
         operations and modeling was provided by Abe Ellis
         (Sandia)
 ●       From a modeling perspective, solar PV generation
         can be grouped into two categories
          Central plant solar PV installations and
          Distribution-connected PV installations
 ●       Issues under consideration include
          Power Flow Representation, Guide
          Understanding Dynamic Behavior
          Specifications for WECC PV System model
Wind Power Plant Models

 ● Generic model structures are developed for all type 4
         wind-turbine generators
 ●       Frequency response not part of original specification
          For under-frequency events, all generic models show good
           agreement with “typical” WTG manufacturer model
          No significant issues reported with respect to the WT3 and
           WT4 generic models.
          Validation against actual system disturbances is
           needed
Wind Power Plant Models
● Wind Power Plant Data
      Developing generic model parameter sets for different
       manufacturers is critical
          Model acceptance/adoption
          User feedback and model refinement

● Several efforts underway
      Initial model verification at Siemens and GE
      NREL/UM (CEC and DOE sponsoring)
      EnerNex/UWIG (DOE sponsoring)
Wind Power Plant Model Data
       WT1                   WT2                         WT3                         WT4
Vestas V82            Vestas V80 1.8 MW,   GE 1.5 MW, 50/60 Hz              Enercon E66 1.8 MW, 50
1.65 MW, 50/60Hz      60Hz                                                  Hz
Bonus 1.3 MW, 50/60   Vestas V47 660 kW,   GE 3.6 MW, 50/60 Hz              Enercon E70 2.0 MW, 50
Hz                    50/60 Hz                                              Hz
Bonus 2.3 MW, 50 Hz   Vestas V66 1.75 MW   Gamesa G80, G83, G87, G90        General Electric 2SX
                                           2 MW, 50/60 Hz                   2.5 MW, 60 Hz
Mitsubishi            Gamesa G80           NORDEX N80                       Siemens 2.3 SWT93
MWT1000A              1.8 MW, 60 Hz        2.5 MW, 50Hz                     2.3 MW, 60 Hz
1 MW, 60 Hz
Suzlon S66            Suzlon S88           REPower MD70 and MD77            Clipper Liberty 2.5MW
1.25 MW, 50 Hz        2.1 MW, 50/60Hz      1.5 MW, 50Hz                     2.5MW, 60 Hz
                                           REPower MM70/MM82/MM92 2.0       Samsung 2.5 MW
                                           MW, 50/60Hz
                                           Mitsubishi MWT-92/95 /100 2.4 MW
                                           Vestas V90 1.8 MW & 3 MW
                                           Acciona 1.5/3.0 MW (*)
                                           Fuhrlaender FL 2.5 MW, 60 Hz

RED: Default WTG Model Data. BLUE: ongoing work to identify parameters
Wind Power Plant Modeling Guide
● Resource to transmission planers, project developers on
  WPP modeling using WECC generic models
    Applicability and limitations
    Model structure and default data
    Examples
● Approval process
    Submit to MVWG for comment
    Then present to TSS for approval
● Larger question
    How to migrate to WTG models
    Standards compliance issue
Generator Testing and Model Validation

 ● Generator model data review (WECC Staff)
         Donald Davies provided log of suspicious data
 ● Model validation and system impact studies with
        GENTPJ model – on-going
 ● John Undrill provided a program to create OEL and
        Generator Protection models with default data
 ● Shawn Patterson reviewed hydro governor data –
        many questionable data records
 ● Kaplan turbine model data – no progress is made
SVC Models
● Progress is slower than expected
● SVSMO1 – SVC model with TSC and TCR is most
    mature and implemented in PSLF beta version. The
    model is being tested and expected to be ready for
    approval at July meeting
●   SVSMO2 – SVC model with TSC is under development.
●   SVSMO3 – STACTCOM model is prototyped
●   MSS01 – relay model for switching mechanical shunt
    capacitors and reactors is under development
HVDC Models
 ● IPP DC model
      LADWP provided a new model for IPP DC controls for
       PSLF and PSS®E programs.
 ● PDCI model
      TOS brought up an issue with PDCI responses during
       close AC system faults
      MVWG recommended a code to simulate DC converter
       bypass to represent commutation failures when a fault
       occurs close to HVDC inverter
      Need to confirm with TOS that this issue has been
       addressed
     Project Coordination
     ● Project Coordination
         No new projects entered or completed the Project
          Coordination Process since the March 2010 PCC Meeting




32
     Project Rating Process – Phase One

     ● Phase One
        No new projects entered or completed the Phase One since
         the March 2010 PCC Meeting




33
     Project Rating Process – Phase Two

     ● Phase Two
        No new projects have entered or completed Phase Two since
         the March 2010 PCC Meeting




34
     Project Rating Process – Phase Three

     ● Phase Three
        The following projects have entered or completed Phase
         Three since the March 2010 PCC Meeting

           Project Name               Sponsor        Rating         Date



 Path 14 and Path 75 Redefinition   Idaho Power   1200 MW (W-E)   Completed
 and the Hemingway Transmission                   2400 MW (E-W)     6/8/10
 Project                                           550 MW (W-E)
                                                  1500 MW (E-W)




35
     Questions?




36

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:2/23/2012
language:
pages:36