Technical Studies Subcommittee Report Planning Coordination Committee Meeting Kyle Kohne, TSS Chair June 10, 2010.

Technical Studies Subcommittee Report

Planning Coordination Committee Meeting

Kyle Kohne, TSS Chair

June 10, 2010

2

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

3

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.

4

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.

5

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.

6

TSS Charter

● Proposed Motion: TSS requests PCC approval of the TSS Charter

as modified related to the appointment of the TSS Chair

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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

11

2011 Annual Study Program Outline

● Proposed Motion: SRWG and TSS request PCC approve the

general structure of the 2011 Annual Study Program Outline

12

Performance Log (Closed)

Log/Disturbance Responsible Entity Description/Status

P07-02-NT

D0709

IPC, PAC A single-line-to-ground Jim Bridger 345 kV fault and loss of the Jim Bridger-Kinport 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

D0713

TSGT, PSCO A three-phase Comanche 230 kV fault and loss of the Comanche-Walsenburg 230 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

D0728

TSGT, PSCO A three-phase Comanche 230 kV fault and loss of the Comanche-Walsenburg 230 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

D0837

PAC Loss of St.George SVC. Post-transient case did not solve;

Status: Closed at TSS in August 2009

13

Performance Log (Conditional Closure)

Log/Disturbance Responsible Entity Description/Status

P07-01-NT

D0706

NV Energy A three-phase Midpoint 345 kV fault and loss of the Midpoint-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

D0712

TSGT, PSCO A three-phase Comanche 230 kV fault and loss of the Comanche-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

D0829

NV Energy A three-phase Hesperus 345 kV fault and loss of Hesperus – San 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.

14

Performance Log (Open)

Log/Disturbance Responsible Entity Description/Status

P08-03-FT

D0815

WAPA A three-phase Midpoint 345 kV fault and loss of the Midpoint-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: Open – Resolution anticipated in July 2010

15

Representation Log

Case under current study: 10hs3b-aprv'dCase previously studied: 10hsp1-aprv'd MOD-010,11 MOD-010,11 MOD-012,13 MOD-012,13

TPL-001 FAC-009Owner 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

NERC StandardsRequirements Data

Case under current study: 10hs3b-aprv'dCase 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

Non-NERC StandardsMisc

16

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

17

MVWG Activities

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

WECC Composite Load ModelWECC Composite Load Model

Electronic

M

M

M

115-kV230-kV

Static

MUVLS

UFLS

Load ModelCompositionData

Load ComponentModelDataDistribution Equivalent Data

19

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

20

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

Composite Load Model Composite Load Model –– Outstanding Issues 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 StudiesSystem 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 StudiesSystem 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 ModelingSolar 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 ModelsWind 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 ModelsWind 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 DataWind Power Plant Model Data

WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4Vestas V821.65 MW, 50/60Hz

Vestas V80 1.8 MW, 60Hz

GE 1.5 MW, 50/60 Hz Enercon E66 1.8 MW, 50 Hz

Bonus 1.3 MW, 50/60 Hz

Vestas V47 660 kW, 50/60 Hz

GE 3.6 MW, 50/60 Hz Enercon E70 2.0 MW, 50 Hz

Bonus 2.3 MW, 50 Hz Vestas V66 1.75 MW Gamesa G80, G83, G87, G902 MW, 50/60 Hz

General Electric 2SX2.5 MW, 60 Hz

Mitsubishi MWT1000A1 MW, 60 Hz

Gamesa G801.8 MW, 60 Hz

NORDEX N802.5 MW, 50Hz

Siemens 2.3 SWT932.3 MW, 60 Hz

Suzlon S66 1.25 MW, 50 Hz

Suzlon S88 2.1 MW, 50/60Hz

REPower MD70 and MD771.5 MW, 50Hz

Clipper Liberty 2.5MW 2.5MW, 60 Hz

REPower MM70/MM82/MM92 2.0 MW, 50/60Hz

Samsung 2.5 MW

Mitsubishi MWT-92/95 /100 2.4 MWVestas V90 1.8 MW & 3 MWAcciona 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 GuideWind 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 ValidationGenerator 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 ModelsSVC 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 ModelsHVDC 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

32

Project Coordination

● Project Coordination No new projects entered or completed the Project

Coordination Process since the March 2010 PCC Meeting

33

Project Rating Process – Phase One

● Phase One No new projects entered or completed the Phase One since

the March 2010 PCC Meeting

34

Project Rating Process – Phase Two

● Phase Two No new projects have entered or completed Phase Two since

the March 2010 PCC Meeting

35

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 and the Hemingway Transmission Project

Idaho Power 1200 MW (W-E)

2400 MW (E-W)

550 MW (W-E)

1500 MW (E-W)

Completed 6/8/10

36

Questions?