Sudarshana Hore_2015 Intern MISO

1

Internship Presentation

2015 Sudarshana Hore –

EMS Intern

EDUCATION: Master of Science - Michigan Technological UniversityDepartment- Electrical & Computer Engineering

Internship:Manager- Jay R. DondetiMentor - CharlesDepartment- EMS Engineering

3

OVERVIEW Roles of EMS Engineer EMS Applications Significance of Mvar Project: Mvar State Estimator Solution Improvement

• Tasks Accomplished• Voltage/Var Performance• XF Tap Change Case Study• Tap Estimation

Concerns Future Work Suggestions & Questions

4

ROLES OF EMS ENGINEERING

Maintain/operate State Estimator and Real Time Contingency Analysis applications

24*7 monitoring and resolving solution issues

Model Issues

Resolve Application Issues: Working with other teams in MISO and vendor (ALSTOM)

Application Enhancement

5

EMS APPLICATIONS

SCADA State Estimator (SE)

Real-time Contingency

Analysis (RTCA)

Loss Sensitivity Calculator (LOSSES)

Constraint Activity Logger

(CLOGGER)

Unit Dispatch System (UDS)

Unit OutputBreaker Status

Loss sensitivities

Constraint list andsensitivities

Constraint list andsensitivities

AnalogsStatuses

Real-time Model

Automatic Generation Control

(AGC)

Island

Network Topology

6

APPARENT POWERBeer: Full glassElectricity: Available from utility

REACTIVE POWER (MVAR)Beer: FoamElectricity: Unable to do work

REAL POWER (MW)Beer: DrinkableElectricity: Able to do work

It is the Active Power that contributes to the energy consumed, or transmitted. Reactive Power does not contribute to the energy. It is an inherent part of the ‘‘total power’’ which is often referred as “Useless Power”.

SIGNIFICANCE OF Mvar

7

Benefits

Improves system power factor

Reduces network losses Avoid penalty charges from

utilities for excessive consumption of reactive power

Reduces cost and generates higher revenue for the customer

Increases system capacity and saves cost on new installations

Improves voltage regulation in the network

Increases power availability

8

9

Tasks Accomplished

1

• Analyzing the data and getting a statistics of tap positions of the transformers for each of the companies/ areas

2• Evaluating the performance measurement for

various cases

3• Analyzing the transformers having the highest

residuals and thus contributing to a high PM

4• Analyzing effect of tap estimation in

Performance measurement

10

5• Highlighting the areas of concerns, issues

such as model issues, measurement issues etc.

6• Automated the process by writing few

jython scripts so that can be reused in future

7

• Provided valid data points with charts, bar graphs and excel documents, so that can be shared with concerned teams to take necessary actions for the concerned areas

Tasks Accomplished

11

Voltage/Var Performance

WeightFootprint CA Weight )20)5.04.1(20))5Resedual()50Resedual()50ResidualX((

0.01Mismatch KV BS of Sum 40BS meteredper Residual KV Avg.0.01MismatchVar UNof Sum 40 UNmeteredper ResidualVar Avg.

0.005Residual XF of Sum 3XF meteredper ResidualVar Avg.(Measure ePerformanc

orSEkvvBSswithSEkBSsUNsFsSum

Performance Measure for each individual CA is calculated as (Proposed):

12

PM Comparison for Different Companies

13

AECIBase Case: Tap is already at nominal 0 (min=-16 and max=16) Residuals = 45.94

All nom case: Tap is already at nominal 0 (min=-16 and max=16) Residuals = 45.94

14

AECI

Sign is flipped: Residuals dropped down PM becomes 103.12

15

ALTWBase Case: Tap is -3(min=-16; nom=-1; max=16) Residuals = 92.84

All nom Case: Tap is =-1(min=-16; nom=-1; max=16) Residuals = 119.27

16

ALTW“Tap set to 0”(min=-16; nom=-1; max=16) Residuals = 23.7

PM became 30.21

17

LESBase Case: Tap is 7(min=-16; nom=0; max=16) Residuals = 78.33

18

LESAll Nom Case: Tap is 7(XF is on tap estimation) Residuals = 97.91

Tap is set to 0(nominal) PM=33.28 Residuals = 21.37

19

EESBase Case: Tap is 3(min=-1; nom=3; max=5) Residuals = 67.32

Only min to nom Case : Tap is 3 Residuals = 67.20

20

EESAll nom Case : Tap is 3 Residuals = 29.08

Flipped the sign Residuals = 19.57

PM doesn’t improve!!!

21

NELSON_E (T1)Base Case : Tap is 3(nom=3;min=1;max=5) Residuals = 38.77

Only min to nom Case: Tap is 3(nom=3;min=1;max=5) Residuals = 29.32

22

EES

All nom Case: Tap is 3(nom=3;min=1;max=5) Residuals = 87.66

RBEHV (AT1_500): Residual shoots upto 74.54 from 41.24 for all nominal case

23

TAP ESTIMATION: ONTBase Case: Tap is 2(nom=11;min=1;max=21) Residuals = 360.97


24

TAP ESTIMATION: ONT


Flag is checked for Tap Estimation

25

TAP ESTIMATION: TVABase Case: Tap is 15(nom=12;min=1;max=23) Residuals = 218.26


26

Tap is 12(nom=12;min=1;max=23) Residuals = 188.77

Flag is checked for Tap Estimation

Tap is 19 Residuals = 296.75

27

ALTE

AMIL

BREC

CLEC

CWLD

DPC

EES HE

LAFA

MEC

MHEB

MPW

NSP

SIGE

SME

SPS

WEC 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

BaseCase_PMOnly min_PMAll Nom_PMTap Estimation_PM

Internal Areas: Comparison with Tap Estimation

28

AECI

AEP CE

CSWS

DEOK

EDE EEI

FE

KCPL

LGEE

MPS

NPPD

ONT

OKGE

OPPD

SOCO

SPA

SPC

TVA

WR 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


First Tier: Comparison with Tap Estimation

29

AP

DEWO

DLCO

DPL

EKPC

GRDA

INDN

IPRV

KACY

MIDW

NYISO

OPPD (S)

OTP

OVEC

PJMC

PSEG

SECI

SPRM

SPS

VAP

WAUE

WEC

WFEC

WPS

WR 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


External: Comparison with Tap Estimation

30

CARMEL_C

BREC HE AMIL AMMO

CIN CWLD CWLP IPL OVEC SIGE SIPC 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

No of Observable TapsTotal no of transformers

1 2 3 40

20

40

60

80

100

120

BREC HE AMIL

PM Comparison

31ALTE CONS UPPC NIPS DECO MGE WEC WPS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


CARMEL_E

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450ALTE

CONS

UPPC

NIPS

PM Comparison

32

CLEC LAFA EAI EES LAGN SME 0

50

100

150

200

250

300


SOUTH

0

20

40

60

80

100

120CLEC LAFA

PM Comparison

33

ALTW DPC MDU MHEB NSP MPW GRE MEC MP OTP SMP 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


ST PAUL

34

High no. of Observable Taps:

Better PM with Tap Estimation

Low no. of Observable Taps:

Worse PM with Tap Estimation

High no. of Observable Taps:

Worse PM with Tap Estimation

Low no. of Observable Taps:

Better PM with Tap Estimation

35

ConcernsModel Issues:

• Nominal tap is not set to proper value• No taps assigned

Measurement Issues: Flipped measurements

Tap estimation: Low observability

36

Future Work

Sharing the data with modelling team and discussing about action points

Implementing the suggested changes to get a better Mvar Solution

37

Learned How the EMS System works Implementation of Theoretical Ideas Exposure to Alstom EMS Automated the process for future use Improvement of analytical and coding

skills Made new friends

SUMMARY

38

Jay Dondeti

Charles

Joanna

Sandeep Yeleti

Dustin J. Vandeventer

Carol & Brandy

Recruiting & HR Team

Toastmaster Group Members

All the Summer Interns

39

40

Sudarshana Hore_2015 Intern MISO

Documents