Methods for Establishing IROLS Task Force Highlights and Minutes 201… · Methods for Establishing IROLS Task Force. Scope Approval . Ryan D. Quint, NERC. Planning Committee Meeting

Methods for Establishing IROLS Task ForceScope Approval

Ryan D. Quint, NERCPlanning Committee MeetingDecember 13-14, 2016

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2

• Seeking approval Scope Document for the NERC Methods for Establishing IROLs Task Force (MEITF)

• OC and PC leadership support the creation of the TF to help Project 2015-09 and also develop industry reference materials in the area of instabilities and establishment of IROLs

• Scope document has been reviewed closely by OC and PC leadership and Project 2015-09 SDT leadership

• Presentation in Joint OC/PC session earlier provided detailed description of Scope Document…

Overview


• Develop technical reference documents that focus on types of system instabilities, simulation methods for assessing instability, determining IROLs, and assessing impact of instabilities on BPS reliability

• Consider technical aspects of system studies as well as operational aspects of IROLs

• Support Project 2015-09 SOL SDT and utility industry with technical basis and recommended guidance relating establishing stability-related SOLs and IROLs

MEITF Purpose


Joint TF will focus primarily on system stability, establishment of IROLs, and assessing the impact of different types of instabilities when establishing IROLs. Activities include:1. Reviewing gaps or discrepancies in statutory definition of

Reliable Operation, existing definition of IROL, and current planning and operating practices

2. Defining types of system and unit instabilities and their impacts on reliability

3. Assessing existing methods for establishing IROLs and reliability impacts of any discrepancies across North America

MEITF Activities


Activities include (cont.):4. Developing a framework for assessing impacts of system

instability, understanding limitations of commonly used simulation methods, and types of analysis to provide justification for quantifying impact of instability

5. Determining which aspects of system stability and assessment of impact should be considered part of a continent-wide criteria for determining IROLs

6. Working with subject matter experts, software vendors, TPs and TOPs who focus on system stability analysis; working with RCs who have expertise in operational considerations for establishing and operating within IROLs

MEITF Activities


Activities include (cont.):7. Review metric M-8 IROL Exceedances and modify as needed to

align with updates from TF work.

MEITF Activities


1. Technical reference document addressing at least the topics identified by Project 2015-08 SOL SDT and NERC SC

2. Reliability Guideline on system stability analysis, assessing system instability, and determination of IROLs

3. Webinars and technical workshops, as deemed beneficial, to support information sharing across North America

4. Recommendations to the PAS whether M-8 metric is appropriate or needs modification and proposed modifications

5. Other activities as directed by PC and OC in coordination with SC

MEITF Deliverables


• NERC PC and OC members Four (4) NERC System Analysis and Modeling Subcommittee (SAMS) Four (4) NERC Operating Reliability Subcommittee (ORS)

• Two (2) SDT members from Project 2015-09• NERC Staff Coordinator(s)

• Expertise in: System stability analysis including transient, voltage, and small signal Software and tools used for assessing instability Practices and methods for developing SOLs and IROLs Operational considerations for ensuring real-time reliability of BPS,

defining and operating within IROLs

MEITF Membership


• Reporting & Duration: Jointly report to NERC PC and OC Expected to exist no more than 18 months to develop deliverables outlined TF will develop detailed work plan for PC/OC acceptance

• Meetings: Expected to have 2-3 in-person meetings Supplemented with monthly conference calls to continue workload

throughout the year

MEITF Membership


Essential Reliability ServicesDistributed Energy Resources

Essential Reliability Services Working Group (ERSWG)White Paper on Sufficiency Guidelines

Brian Evans-Mongeon, PC ChairPlanning Committee Meeting December 13-14, 2016


Essential Reliability Services Working Group (ERSWG)

White Paper on Sufficiency Guidelines


• 2015 - ERSTF identified reliability measures in ERSTF Final Framework Report

• 2016 - ERS whitepaper focuses on methods to develop sufficiency guidelines for: Frequency Voltage Ramping

• Fall 2016 – OC and PC Comments received• ERSWG distributed responses to comments

ERS White Paper Background

http://www.nerc.com/comm/Other/essntlrlbltysrvcstskfrcDL/ERSTF%20Framework%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf


• Acceptance vote – December PC and OC Meeting• Post the report on ERS site• To be shared with NERC BOT and MRC as information (Dec –

Feb)• Provide a report in 2017 on the trending analysis based on the

report’s recommendations

Next Activities


Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) Final Report


• DERs are rapidly growing in the BES• The reliability impact of DERs on distribution system is well

understood, but less so on BES level• DERs will increasingly have state-of-the-art capabilities for active

power control and reliability services. • This report focuses on understanding the basics of modeling,

planning and operating DERs

DER Report Background


• Modeling of DERs – No netting• Ramping and Variability • Provision of Reactive Power • Frequency and Voltage Ride-Through • System Protection Considerations• Visibility and Control• Load and Generation Forecasting• NERC Reliability Standards

DERTF Report – Key Areas of Focus


• Approval Vote – December OC and PC Meeting, recognizes the completion of the DERTF Scope and movement of future work to ERSWG

• January 16, 2017 – send final report to NERC Board of Trustees• Q2 2017 – NERC Board of Trustees Acceptance


Reliability Guideline: PMU Placement & InstallationFinal Approval

Ryan D. Quint, NERCDecember 2016


Overview

• At the September PC meeting, NERC PC approved posting the draft guideline for industry comment as per the PC charter

• SMS received 150+ comments• NERC staff worked with SMS subject matter experts to develop

responses and make revisions to guideline accordingly• SMS met to review and finalize responses and changes to

guideline• Legal review of guideline and comment matrix• Final guideline and comment matrix posted on guideline

webpage and provided ahead of meeting


• Sept ‘15-June ‘16 Development of draft guideline• June 29 SMS Approved draft guideline• Sept 14 PC approval for industry comment period• Sept 19-Nov 11 Industry Comment Period • Nov 12-Nov 30 Response to industry comments• Dec 13 PC final approval

Development Timeline


Guideline Overview

• PMU Placement Guideline PMU Installation & Data Quality Considerations Data Storage and Retrieval Practices Real-Time Tools Placement Offline Engineering Analysis Placement Prioritization Framework


Industry Comments

• Majority of comments very technical in nature, improved technical content and guidance in guideline. Many small technical additions throughout the document to strengthen

the subject matter in each section

• Editorial and readability comments• Some comments on removal of data quality sections SMS agreed uniformly to keep these sections

• Comments wanting more specificity on certain applications SMS agreed that future and current work will address specific topics in

more detail (e.g., oscillations)

• Some comments on alternative approaches and considerations SMS included these, as appropriate and where sufficient information

was provided, in the guidance


Approval

• SMS is seeking final PC approval of the Reliability Guideline on PMU Placement and Installation.


Reliability Guideline:Reactive Power PlanningFinal PC Approval

Bill Harm, PJM, NERC SAMSNERC Planning Committee MeetingDecember 13-14, 2016


• At the June 8th meeting, NERC PC approved posting the draft guideline for industry comment as per the PC Charter

• SAMS responded to all comments received Most did not recommend substantive changes In general, editorial changes helpful in improving the document’s clarity

and readability

• Next slide will highlight the “larger” changes to the report

Reactive Guideline – Industry Comments


• Changed title to Reactive Power Planning Deleted “and Operations” based on input from NERC OC

• Deleted TOP-004-2 Summary • Added an “Executive Summary”• Added a section to address FERC Order 827 - Issued June 16,

2016 Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation Eliminates exemptions for wind generators from the requirement to

provide reactive power

Reactive Guideline - Changes


• Improved readability by Reorganizing background materialo Section headings added - material grouped better

Assessment Techniques for Reactive Power sufficiency is now two sectionso Assessment Techniqueso Reactive Power Sufficiency

• Incorporating industry comments into the document and reorganizing the material into a number of focused subsections enhanced its value and purpose as a reliability guideline

Reactive Guideline - Changes


• NERC PC approved the Reliability Guideline for industry comment at the June 2016 meeting

• SAMS addressed and/or responded to all comments• SAMS is seeking final PC approval for publication of the

Reliability Guideline

Approval


Reliability Guideline: Modeling DER in Dynamic Load ModelsFinal Approval

Ryan D. Quint, NERCPlanning Committee Meeting December 13-14, 2016


Overview

• At the September PC meeting, NERC PC approved posting the draft guideline for industry comment as per the PC charter

• SMS received ~120 comments• NERC staff worked with LMTF subject matter experts and

software vendors to develop responses and make revisions to guideline accordingly

• LMTF met to review and finalize responses and changes to guideline

• Legal review of guideline and comment matrix• Final guideline and comment matrix posted on guideline

webpage and provided ahead of meeting


• Sept ‘15-June ‘16 Development of draft guideline• Sept 14 PC approval for industry comment period• Sept 19-Nov 11 Industry Comment Period • Nov 12-Nov 30 Response to industry comments• Dec 13 PC final approval



Guideline Overview

Table 1: Example of U-DER and R-DER Requirements

Criteria Description Threshold

U-DER Modeling Gross aggregate nameplate rating of an individual U-DER facility directly connected to the distribution bus or interconnected to the distribution bus through a dedicated, non-load serving feeder

___ MVA

R-DER Modeling Gross aggregate nameplate rating of all connected R-DER resources that offset customer load including residential, commercial, and industrial customers

___ MVA


Guideline Overview

Topics addressed:• Differentiating between DER for purposes of modeling• Accounting for DER in powerflow records• Linking R-DER to powerflow records• Explicit modeling of U-DER• Adaptation to specific systems (modeling thresholds)• Coordination with DERTF (mentioned in guideline)


Industry Comments

• Coordination with DERTF• Compliance implications• Adaptations to modeling framework• Modeling thresholds• Clarifications of U-DER and R-DER for modeling purposes• Comments outside scope of modeling• Editorial and readability for technical clarity• Software capabilities maturity and availability• Use of other load models and DER dynamics models


Key Changes to Guideline

• Reorganization of Purpose statement and rewording for readability and clarity

• Alignment with DERTF Report and definition of DER• Minor adjustment to figures for technical clarity• Accounting for U-DER less than threshold (as R-DER)

clarification• Highlighting alternative approaches within the overall

framework (footnotes, clarifying sentences, etc.)• Explicit recommendations for software tool capabilities• Reassurance of software vendor participation in NERC LMTF to

achieve these software capability advancements• Emphasis of adaptable framework to use as starting point


Approval

• LMTF is seeking final PC approval of the Reliability Guideline on Modeling DER in Dynamic Load Models.


Reliability Guideline: Developing Load Model Composition DataInitial Approval – Industry Comment Period



Overview

• Developing load model composition data is a key component of dynamic load modeling and representative stability studies

• Relates to TPL-001-4 requirements for having a model that reasonably represents the dynamic behavior of end-use loads

• LMTF developed guideline on this topic to support industry in understanding potential considerations and methods for deriving this information from available sources.

• LMTF is seeking PC approval to post guideline for 45-day industry comment period.


Guideline Overview


Guideline Overview


Guideline Overview


• Dec ‘15-Oct ‘16 Development of draft guideline• Oct 25 Detailed walkthrough of guideline to SAMS• Nov 3 LMTF approval of guideline• Nov 7 SAMS approval of guideline• Dec 13 PC initial approval for posting for comment• Dec 16-Feb 3 Industry comment period• Feb 3-20 Response to comments• March 7 PC Final Approval



Approval

• LMTF is seeking initial PC approval to post the Reliability Guideline on Developing Load Model Composition Data for a 45-day industry comment period.


Phil Fedora, RAS ChairPlanning Committee MeetingDecember 13-14, 2016

Reliability Assessment SubcommitteeStatus Update


• 2016/2017 Winter Reliability Assessment • 2016 Long Term Reliability Assessment 2017 Schedule

• Probabilistic Assessment Working Group• Other Activities

Reliability Assessment SubcommitteeSummary


2016/17 Winter Reliability Assessment• Review Period – October 3rd – 11th• October 21st Webinar• Voting Period – October 24th – October 28th Accepted with 22.5 “yes” votes

• Posted November 15th – following NERC Executive Management Review

Reliability Assessment Subcommittee2016/17 Winter Assessment


Reliability Assessment Subcommittee2016 Long Term Reliability Assessment

2016 Long Term Reliability Assessment• Review Period – October 26th – November 9th • November 14th Webinar• Voting period November 17th – 23rd Accepted with 19.5 “yes” votes

• Posting anticipated December 15th – following Board of Trustees Review and Approval


Reliability Assessment Subcommittee2017 Long Term Reliability Assessment

Milestone Target Time Period

Send out updated draft and narrative questions request.

Mid-January

Initial Data/Narrative Due Mid-June

Peer Review of Part 1 and Part 2 Early July

RAS Draft Report Review August/September

PC Draft Report Review September/October

Editorial/Publications November

Release Date December


Reliability Assessment SubcommitteeProbabilistic Assessment Working Group

Probabilistic Assessment Working Group (PAWG)• PAWG Scope Developed – November RAS Meeting• Continue the efforts of the PAITF Focus on Resource Adequacy Assessment

• Seek PC Approval of the PAWG Scope


Reliability Assessment SubcommitteeNovember RAS Meeting Summary

Summary• PAWG RAS Scope Developed – November RAS Meeting• 2017 LTRA Data Definition, Collection and Schedule Developed Review Demand Response requirements with PAS/DADSWG Supplemental Data Request(s)

• Initiated Review of NERC Reference Reserve Margin Level(s)• Peer Reviewed NERC Probabilistic Assessment Narratives


Reliability Assessment SubcommitteeNovember RAS Meeting Summary

Summary (continued)• Reliability Assessment Database (RADS) Status• Review of SOR M-1 Planning Reserve Margin Metric with PAS

(via teleconference)• Single Point of Disruption STSA Status• MOD 31/32 Requirements• Reliability Assessment Guidebook Update Incorporation of PAITF Recommendations


Probabilistic Assessment Working Group (PAWG)Noha Abdel-Karim, PhD., Senior Engineer, Reliability AssessmentNERCPlanning Committee MeetingDecember 13-14, 2016


Purpose

Primary functions of the PAWG• Advance the work initiated by the

GTRPMTF and the PAITF. • Evaluate more probabilistic approaches

that will provide further insights into resource adequacy assessment.

Introduction


• Conduct biennial NERC Core ProbA• Support NERC coordinated Special ProbA reports• Coordinate and promote alignment of assessments conducted by NERC, the

Regions, and the industry at large

PAWG –Objectives


• Objective 1 –Conduct biennial NERC Core ProbA Complement the deterministic analysis offered by

the LTRA. Provide probabilistic reliability metrics for each

NERC Assessment Area. Convey a clear understanding of the reserve

margin implications.

PAWG –Objectives


Objective 2 –Support NERC coordinated Special ProbA reports• Expand the probabilistic study efforts through NERC and the Regions.• Develop and evaluate additional probabilistic studies such as impacts of

increased VER, natural gas, and retirements on resource adequacy. Special Assessment on Reduced Natural Gas Pipeline Transportation Capability• Quantify the potential reliability impacts of events that disrupt the normal

supply of natural gas to the generators.• Estimate the loss of load expectation (LOLE) due to unavailable gas-fired

generation.• Tasks include: Database preparation and validation of interruption modeling Model of even disruption events. Model of specific events.

• Software Tool: GE- MARS, A Multi Area Reliability Model• Study Region: NPCC footprint

PAWG –Objectives


• Objective 2 (Cont.) –Support NERC Special ProbA reportsSpecial Assessment on Diminishing On-Peak Impact of VER

PAWG –Objectives


• Objective 2 (Cont.) –Support NERC Special ProbA reportsSpecial Assessments on VER Impacts on BPS Reliability LOLE and RM calculations at different VER capacity

contributions –Multi-Area Reliability Models.

PAWG –Objectives


• Objective 2 (Cont.) –Support NERC Special ProbA reports Special Assessment on Planning studies

with VER:o Sensitivity studies on Reserve Margins

calculationso Modeling uncertain parameters impacting

resource adequacy and system reliability

PAWG –Objectives


• Identify improvement opportunities• Provide and maintain a work plan• Recommend common data collection approaches Hourly load and variable generation data Generation data: FOR, maintenance and deratings Transmission system data Others –Assessment based requirements

• Develop NERC Technical Document(s)

PAWG –Scope of Activities

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Oct Nov Dec

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

Capaci

ty F

act

or

2015

2014

Example: Wind Power Capacity Factor Calculated Using Hourly Data

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

Cap

acity

Fac

tor 2015

2014

Example: Solar Power Capacity Factor Calculated Using Hourly Data


• Nomination is open for Chair (two-years term) and Vice Chair posts.• At least one representative from each Regional Entity.• At least one representative from Canada.• Members from: Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (RAS) Planning Authority Operating Committee (encouraged to participate)

• Observers: FERC DOE Canadian Provincial Energy Boards State regulatory authorities

PAWG -Membership


• Approve the PAWG Scope of Work document, including: The PAWG to report to the RAS. Final PAWG work products to be reviewed by the RAS, and recommended for

approval by the PC (and the OC if required).• Suggest and encourage subject matter experts to be members of the PAWG.

Request Actions by the PC


Noha Abdel-Karim, PhD.Senior Engineer, Reliability Assessment202-644-8081 office | 202-480-6261 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Geomagnetic Disturbance Task Force: Phase IIIScope Approval

Ken Donohoo, GMDTF ChairPlanning Committee Meeting December 13-14, 2016


• The 2012 NERC interim report on geomagnetic disturbances concluded that the most likely impact to the bulk power system resulting from a GMD event and the corresponding geomagnetic induced current (GIC) flows is voltage instability.

• On September 22, 2016, FERC issued Order No. 830 approving Reliability Standard TPL-007-1: Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events.

• FERC directed NERC to modify the Standard by May 29, 2018.• FERC also directed NERC to: file a work plan for GMD research by May 29, 2017; and to collect GMD data (GIC and magnetometer) pursuant to Section 1600 of

the Rules of Procedure and to make the data publicly available.

Background


• Research activities include: Sensitivity analysis on “spatial averaging” and “scaling factors” approach Improving the earth conductivity model (1D) Study “worst-case” geomagnetic field orientation thermal impact on

transformers Further analysis on transformer heating due to geomagnetically induced

current (e.g., tertiary windings)

• Additional NERC activity includes: Implement data collection and sharing system for monitoring devices Develop tool for calculating geo-electric fields and transformer thermal

response Improve harmonic analysis capability

FERC-directed Activities


• Develop and recommend a research work plan to NERC and review and vet research results.

• Upon completion of research deliverables, the task force will review, comment, and provide an assessment of the research results and outcome.

• Conduct analysis as described in the attached work plan.• Support NERC in developing the data collection request for the

period of May 2013 to present, and future data collection, as required by FERC Order No. 830.

• Provide technical and subject-matter support the Standard Drafting Team, as requested.

Scope of Activities for GMDTF: Phase III


• No changes to leadership, membership, and reporting

Governance


• Recommend a research work plan for NERC to pursue• Final Report on Research • GIC Monitoring and Magnetometer Data Collection Assessment• Sponsor 1600 Data Request • Geo-electric Field Calculation Tool• Transformer Thermal Model Tool• Improve Harmonics Analysis Capability

Draft Work Plan


• PC to consider Approval of the GMDTF Scope Work plan to be finalized by the task force PC to be updated in March on task force work plan and NERC research plan

Motion to Approve GMDTF Scope


PAS Update

Paul Kure, Chair, NERC Performance Analysis Subcommittee Maggie Peacock, Vice Chair, NERC Performance Analysis SubcommitteePC meeting, December 13-14, 2016


• PAS updates PAS and working group scope documents – for approval Metrics review – one change needs approval Update on operating year SoR Schedule and review of SoR report – reviewers are requested

PAS Updates


• PAS, GADSWG, TADSWG, AND DADSWG scope documents approved in 2011, 2011, 2009, & 2013, respectively.

• Reviewed and revised as needed.• Most changes were clean up or consistency changes. Removed phased-in activities Some activities were combined Membership changes to eliminate duplicates; reflect current status TADSWG to operate by consensus

Updated Scope Documents


• Major change suggested by the Working Groups: PAS to approve WG leadership, scope changes, and work products, instead of

PCo GADSWG, TADSWG, & DADSWG report to PAS; work products submitted to PAS for

SoR reporto PC still retains oversight of work products through approval of SoRo PC direction of PAS can affect GADSWG, TADSWG, & DADSWG work products

Scope changes today are for approval by PC

Updated Scope Documents


• PAS task #3 (PC work plan) Review of reliability metrics used in SOR o Maggie Peacock, PAS vice chair, to present results

Metrics Review


• SRI and eSRI• Reliability Metrics (M-1 through M-16)• Compliance/enforcement Metrics (CP-1 and CP-2)• BES Security Metrics

Metrics Review


SRI and eSRI• Working on enhancements for 2017 and beyond Transmission elements Load source Renewable generation inclusion

Metrics Review


Metrics Review

Reliability Metrics• 2017 SOR - Report by exception• Retire: M-10-transmission constraints• Modify (during 2017): M-4-Frequency Response and M-8- IROL

exceedances


Metrics Review

• NERC staff and PAS representatives working with sponsor groups to further refine and enhance the CP-1, CP-2, and BES security metrics

Compliance and BES Security Metrics


• Update on operating year SoR Operating Year reporting would keep winter and summer peak seasons

together October – September operating year allows more time for analysis and

oversight review

• Some data (for SRI calc.) only available after the end of the calendar year What are the alternatives for this data? Are there other alternatives that provide increased review opportunities?

Update Item


• 2017 SOR & draft sections Chapter 2 Annual Reliability Highlights February 21 – February 28 Chapter 7 BES security metrics February 21 – February 28 Chapter 8 Status of prior recommendations February 21 – February 28 Chapter 5 Enforcement metrics (CP1, CP2) February 24 – March 3

SoR Schedule and Reviewers


• 2017 SOR & draft sections Chapter 3 SRI, GADS, TADS, DADS sections and: o Appendix A – SRI data analysis SRI March 20 – March 27o Appendix B – TADS data analysis TADS March 20 – March 27o Appendix C – GADS data analysis GADS March 20 – March 27o Appendix D – DADS data analysis DADS March 20 – March 27

Chapter 4 Reliability Indicator trends (metrics) March 20 – March 27o Appendix E – Reliability indicator trends

Chapter 6 Event Analysis March 20 – March 27o Appendix F – Event Analysis discussion



• 2017 SOR & draft sections Draft report to PC/OC April 6 – April 11o Executive Summary April 6 – April 11o Chapter 1 Key findings and Recommendations April 6 – April 11

• SoR report acceptance by PC/OC May 2



• March PC meeting Status of SoR and chapter review

Next Meeting


GADS Wind Reporting Update

Donna Pratt, Performance Analysis Manager – Data AnalyticsPlanning Committee MeetingDecember 13-14, 2016


• Wind Data Reporting Reporting Schedule Requirements

• Implementation Update Project Application

• Training Approach Topics Schedule

• For more information

Agenda


Wind Data Reporting Schedule

• Reporting frequency Monthly data submitted quarterly, 45 days or sooner after the end of the

quarter

• Phased in approach, beginning January 1, 2017 2017 (year 1): Voluntary reporting 2018 (year 2): Mandatory for plants 200 MW or greater 2019 (year 3): Mandatory for plants 100 MW to 199 MW 2020 (year 4): Mandatory for plants 75 MW to 99 MW

• Wind data will be used by NERC activities such as: Long-term and seasons reliability assessments; Studies on changing grid characteristics; and Behaviors and performance


• Project status Testing: December Initial Rollout: December 2016 through February 2017o Rollout to include industry outreach, training, and registration to access the

reporting application– Industry outreach: webinars and conference presentations

UVIG: November 9, 2016» recorded and posted for its members

AWEA: December 13, 2016 & Feb. 2017 O&M Conference– Additional outreach: via NERC-issued announcements/website, NERC Regions, and the

GADS Working Group (GADSWG)

• Dedicated e-mail: [email protected]

Implementation Update - Project



• GADS Wind Reporting application will support: Data submission, Views, and Reports/exports

• Samples of the preliminary screen designs for the GADS Wind Reporting application follow

Implementation Update - Application


Application Preview: Main Page


Application Preview: Submission Page


Application Preview: File Validation Results

Company 1Company 2


Primary Validation: Utility ID, user, and file format

Secondary Validation: record content

Application Preview: File Validation Results


Application Preview: Reports/Exports

Company 1Company 2


Application Preview: Request Voluntary ID


Application Preview: Contact NERC


• Three-pronged Approach: o Process: how to register, get access to the system, request Sub-Group IDs,

ownership transfer, what to report, NERC website resourceso Subject matter: terminology, concepts, how to categorize and report operationso Application: how to submit data through the GADS Wind reporting application

Delivery methods: o In-person, narrated presentations, and videos

Training - Approach


Location of GADS Wind Material on NERC’s website


Donna K. PrattPerformance Analysis Manager, Data AnalyticsNorth American Electric Reliability Corporation3353 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 600 – North TowerAtlanta, GA 30326404-446-9789 office | 404-987-9791 [email protected]


Aliso Canyon Update

Steve Ashbaker – Director Event Analysis & Situation AwarenessDecember 14,2016

NERC Planning Coordination Meeting

W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C I T Y C O O R D I N A T I N G C O U N C I L

Topics

• Aliso Canyon Background• Natural Gas Storage• Natural Gas and Electric Interdependence• Aliso Canyon – Summer 2016• Aliso Canyon – Winter 2016-2017• What have we learned and next Steps

2

Aliso Canyon Background

• October 2015, a gas leak was detected in well SS-25 at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility

• Aliso Canyon is a critical component of the natural gas system in Southern California; directly serves 17 electric generating plants (9,800 MW capacity)

• CPUC/DOGGR authorized 420 MMcf/day emergency withdrawal capability from Aliso Canyon for electric system reliability(to avoid load shed)

• No gas was used from Aliso Canyon during 2016 summer operations

3


Why Underground Storage?4


Natural Gas Storage Facilities5


SoCalGAS System 6


Overview: LA Basin Power Supply7


Potential Impacted Generation

LA Basin:• 9,800 MW natural gas generation• ~95% of total local capacity

Rest of Southern California:• >15,000 MW natural gas

generation

Maximum Import Capacity• 5,500 MW DC capacity • 14,900 MW AC capacity• 20,400 MW total*

Midway- Vincent (Path 26)

4,000 MW

Pacific DC Intertie (Path 65)

3,100 MW Intermountain (Path 27)

2,400 MW

East of River (Path 49)

10,100 MW

SDGE-CFE Import

(Path 45)800 MW

* Typically limited to 17,000 - 18,000 MW

DC Interties

AC Paths

Gas-Electric Interdependence

• Approximately 1300 MW of local generation required to provide local voltage support and stable system operations in LA Basin (RMR)

• LADWP has temporary variance to allow it to burn diesel fuel at 3 plants (~1,300 MW)• Under Emergency Energy Alert or Transmission Emergency

• LADWP seeking a permanent variance to use diesel as a last resort

8


Enhanced Coordination & Communication Measures


Summer Operations

• During summer 2016, there were 3 gas curtailments, (none Aliso Canyon-related), with no impact to electric generation

• System was operated reliably, despite numerous fires and line outages in Southern California

• Coordinated operating plans between Peak Reliability, the CAISO, LADWP, SoCalGas and other impacted entities

• No electrical load interruptions

10


Summer Operations

• Gas and electric operators coordinated on facility maintenance schedules

• CAISO and LADWP initiated Restricted Maintenance Operations when needed

• CAISO implemented Exceptional Dispatch of generation to avoid curtailment of electric service and manage gas burns

• CAISO and LADWP initiated voluntary Demand Response and energy conservation as appropriate

11


Summer Operations

• Joint agency walk-throughs/tabletop exercises helped entities prepare for summer operations

• Flex Alert, Demand Response, and other tools successfully altered consumer behavior

• Gas balancing rules put into effect had positive impact on gas supply/demand balance Operational Flow Orders (OFOs)

12


Winter Operations

• Technical assessment based on a 1-in-10 cold winter day requires 5.2 Bcfd

• Maximum send out that can be supported w/o Aliso Canyon is 4.7 Bcfd

• Demand flips – core customers (residential & small business) use 60% of gas supply

• Electricity demand lower in winter; more flexibility to shift generation to resources outside the LA Basin area

13


Demand Flips14


0.6

3.11.9

1.00.6

1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Summer Peak Winter Peak

C&I

Power

Core

Seas

onal

Pea

k D

eman

d (B

CFD

)

• 20% Electric generation• Aliso Canyon withdrawals

occurred 134 out of 151 “winter” days over past five years

• 60% Electric generation• Aliso Canyon withdrawals occurred

70 out of 214 “summer” days over past five years

5.1

3.2

Source: Aliso Canyon Risk Assessment Technical Report

Winter Operations

• All operating entities to continue increased level of communication and coordination, 24x7, to ensure the electric system remains stable and reliable

• SoCalGas to develop and deploy Gas Demand Response Program

• SoCalGas to develop and deploy Gas Cold Weather Messaging

• Keep the Tighter Noncore Balancing rules

15


Winter Operations

• Peak RC Winter studies did not indicate any new potential issues

• Key assumptions:– Electric load significantly lower than summer– Most gas fired generation offline

• System response acceptable for credible single and multiple contingencies –some system adjustment necessary

16


Winter Operations

• Continued regional approach and coordination

• Improved day ahead forecasting of regional gas usage

• Dynamic System Operating Limits• Modify Dispatch priority• Alternate Fuel Capability

17


Aliso Canyon Status

• Aliso Canyon Wells – 1 permanently sealed (original well, SS-25)– 31 passed all tests– 6 pending test results– 76 temporarily plugged and isolated awaiting

testing

• Aliso Canyon Winter Risk Assessment Technical Report

18


https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=212913

Learnings

• Renewable resources and natural gas are becoming increasingly central to the power generation fuel mix and present new and different reliability challenges

• Natural gas storage facilities are critical to the operations of the gas system

• Future assessments of the relationship between the natural gas infrastructure and electric generation are essential

19


Next Steps

• Aliso Canyon safety review and testing continue and must be completed before public hearing to decide if injections can resume

• Decide in late winter if Action Plan for next summer is needed and, if so, begin to develop

• Continue longer-term reliability assessments • Build on previous work• Contribute to ERO Single Points of Failure Task

Force (Q2 2017)

20


Next Steps

• Build on previous work • Contribute to ERO Single Points of Failure Report

(Q2 2017)• Identify Western Interconnection “gaps”

remaining from above work. • Continue communications and coordination

– Weekly calls as needed hosted by Peak

• Day ahead forecast data utilization improvements• Day ahead study results coordination

21


Winter Expectations

• Winter Report concluded, with exceptions, the gas system will be able to meet each month’s average daily demand for the winter season with no service disruptions

• Aliso Canyon Gas and Electric Reliability Winter Action Plan

22


https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=213406


23

Steve Ashbaker – Director Event Analysis & Situational Awareness

[email protected]

Thank You


Single Point of

Disruption Analysis of

Natural Gas

December 14, 2016

Reliability Analysis Performed in

Support of Interagency Task Force Task – Developed a risk-based method for underground gas

storage (UGS) facilities:

– Approach accounted for both frequency and consequence (to the electric sector and other customers) ), using public data and assumptions

– Publicly-available draft report will be available at end of December 2016 currently responding to comments from gas sector.

2

Collect and analyze data: • State • Federal • Public

Develop Consequence Models and

Estimate Likelihood of

Disruption

Estimate Potential

Impacts on Electric Sector (MWs)

Confirm Affected NG-Fired

Power Plants

Refine Estimates of Impacts on Electric Reliability

This Study Next Steps

Findings:

– Aliso Canyon is unusual but not unique. Analysis indicates that some other UGS facilities, if shut down for one month, may lead to reductions in available electric generation capacity.

– Most States do not collect underground well incident data on a consistent basis, making it difficult to determine the failure mechanisms that can lead to downstream supply reductions.

Approach to Estimate UGS Consequences (Based on Publicly-Available Datasets)

3

Consequence (compensated supply-demand) models developed for UGSs owned by: – Local distribution companies (LDCs) – Interstate transmission pipelines – Independent third-party operators

Consequence tools developed by Argonne provided to and discussed with: – American Gas Association (AGA) and its

Storage Task Group – Interstate Natural Gas Association of

America (INGAA) and member pipelines – Two Midwestern LDCs – Large Midwest engineering firm – Subject matter experts

Argonne analysis predicts 7,800 MW at-risk from peak-month loss of Aliso Canyon: – Joint Workshop predicted ~9,800 MW at-risk

at peak-day. – Difference due to higher assumed peak-day

requirements versus those for peak-month.

Argonne Analysis

Ongoing discussions on assumptions and

data inputs

4

Potential Electric Impacts from Disruption of UGS Operations (Peak Demand and Disruption are Coincident)

12 UGS facilities may have the potential to affect 2 GW or more of available generation capacity:

– Many are high deliverability salt caverns.

Screening-level reliability assessment for two UGS facilities with highest potentially affected gas-fired capacity:

– Potential for power outage (load flow analysis)

– Potential 50-140% increase in peak-day price (dispatch analysis)

Aliso Canyon is not unique UGS in terms of potential electric power impact.

Over 60 UGSs may have potential to affect available generation capacity:

– Does not account for potential dual-fuel capability, alternative generation, generator contracting, or demand load shedding

Locations of 12 UGS Facilities, Disruption of Which Could Potentially Affect 2 GW or More of Generation Capacity

• An Analysis Tool to estimate impact of

postulated flow disruption:

– States affected (uncompensated and

compensated)

– LDCs affected in each state

– Load shed per customer class per LDC

– Number of customers per class type

– Megawatts (MWs) of electric power plants

affected

– Actions taken to minimize impacts

• An Information Retrieval Tool:

– Information on normal systems operations

– Pipeline structure and load connectivity

– Spare mitigating capacity data (UGS and

LNG) for each state served by pipelines

• Applications:

– DOE workshops and hurricane analysis

– DHS studies

– Electric sector training

NGfast Model for Gas-Electric Interdependency Analysis

5

418

6

Application of NGfast during MISO Gas-Electric Coordination Training Course (summer 2015)

NGfast Graphical Results — Affected States

NGfast Results - Affected Power Plants – Uncompensated Case

Hypothetical Natural Gas Pipeline Disruption

NERC-certified “Natural Gas and Electric Coordination 101” training course:

– Examined the Natural Gas Risk Profile and related that to the BES and the MISO footprint.

– Simulated and evaluated risk-based scenarios and determined the possible impact on the gas delivery system and the BES.

– Applied NGfast tool to determine power plants potentially at-risk of loss of gas supply.

Some Recommendations from Interagency Task Force Report

7

Power system planners and operators, working with their natural gas counterparts, should study and understand the electric reliability impacts of prolonged disruptions of large-scale natural gas infrastructure (e.g., storage facilities, processing plants, key pipeline segments and compressor stations, LNG terminals).

While ensuring appropriate protections for proprietary information, DOE intends to determine how proprietary data can be re-analyzed to determine the potential consequences of the disruption of UGS operations—with particular attention to the 12 UGS sites of interest. (DOE has authorized Argonne to request proprietary data and re-analyze impacts)

DOE plans to work with NERC on its Special Reliability Assessment on Single Points of Disruption to Natural Gas Infrastructure, which will examine transmission-level reliability impacts on the bulk power system in the event of disruptions of service from key UGS facilities. (DOE has authorized Argonne to work with NERC on the SPOD study)

For More Information Please Contact:

8

Steve Folga Risk and Infrastructure Science Center Argonne National Laboratory 630-252-3728 [email protected]

Guenter Conzelmann Center for Energy, Environmental, and Economic Systems Analysis Argonne National Laboratory 630‐252‐7173 [email protected]



ISO-NE PUBLIC

D E C E M B E R 1 4 , 2 0 1 6 I A T L A N T A , G A

Peter BrandienI S O N E W E N G L A N D

NERC Planning Committee

Natural Gas in New England

ISO-NE PUBLIC2

Gas Sources – New England

• Five natural gas pipelines serving New England & Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

• Western sources of natural gas– Tennessee Natural Gas Pipelines– Algonquin Natural Gas Pipelines– Iroquois Natural Gas Pipelines

• Eastern sources of natural gas– Sable Island Offshore Platform off Nova Scotia, Canada– Deep Panuke Offshore Platform off Nova Scotia, Canada– Canaport Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), New Brunswick, Canada – Distrigas LNG, Everett, Mass– Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port - offshore LNG buoy– Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS)

ISO-NE PUBLIC3

New England Pipelines

ISO-NE PUBLIC4

Gas Sources – Canada

• Deep Panuke and Sable Island Offshore Platforms

ISO-NE PUBLIC5

Gas Sources – Canada

ISO-NE PUBLIC6

Gas Sources – Distrigas LNG

ISO-NE PUBLIC7

7

Gas Sources – Distrigas LNG to Mystic Station

ISO-NE PUBLIC8

Gas Sources – Canaport LNG

• Canaport LNG

ISO-NE PUBLIC9

Gas Sources – Excelerate LNG

ISO-NE PUBLIC10

Approximate Pipeline Supply Capability

LNG Facility Storage Capacity Vaporization Rate

Canaport 10.0 BCF / 3 tanks 1,000,000 MMBtu/day

Distrigas 3.4 BCF / 2 tanks 715,000 MMBtu/day

Excelerate 5.0 to 5.5 BCF * 400,000 MMBtu/day **** Excelerate Energy ships are capable of vaporizing up to 800,000 MMBtu/day in their peak send-out configuration, but the pipeline is not capable of receiving more than 400,000 MMBtu/day

* There are 10 Excelerate ships. Storage capacity varies by ship.

ISO-NE PUBLIC11

Power System Capacity (Nameplate MW)

ISO-NE PUBLIC12

Gas Utilization Tool – Pipeline Map

ISO-NE PUBLIC13

ISO New England Actions To Date• Non-Market Enhancements

– Maintenance coordination between the ISO and the pipeline operators – Changes to the ISO Information Policy allows communications with pipeline

operations staff about specific generators– Improved awareness of the gas system using newly developed tools for

situational awareness, including fuel accounting and reporting for gas and monthly oil and coal surveys

• Market Enhancements– A shifted day-ahead market timeline – Winter reliability programs for the previous three years and two more

remaining years provide necessary incentives for fuel inventories– Enhanced the energy market to allow generators to better reflect fuel price

volatility in their intraday offers– Enhancements to the ancillary services market, in terms of product

requirements and pricing to more accurately procure and dispatch reserve resources

– Pay for performance incentives in the Forward Capacity Market

ISO-NE PUBLIC14

Gas Dependency and Analyzing Potential Disruptions

NERC PC Meeting

12/14/2016

Ryan Colley Planning Manager, Transmission Planning

Southern Company

2

Southern Company Generating Capacity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Nam

ep

late

Cap

acit

y (

GW

)

Coal Gas Oil Nuclear Hydro Other

33%

46%

2%

8%

7% 4%

2016

52%

28%

3%

9%

8%

2007

3 CONFIDENTIAL – Transmission Information – This Data Should Not Be Shared

With The Merchant Function

Supply Pipelines Two Independent Supply Pipelines: • SONAT • TRANSCO ~ 5-8 GW in SOCO

served from each pipeline

Firm generation resources are backed with “annual firm gas supply contracts” or “on-site oil”

SONAT

TRANSCO

4

Background

• Coordination with gas supply company’s operating groups to discuss potential disruptions - Developed process and procedures in event of emergency

• Southern’s Gas / Electric Infrastructure Study - NOT related to daily gas availability concerns as we contract for annual firm

gas - Related to catastrophic loss of gas pipeline event at a point between gas

supply (including storage) and delivery to generators - Annual coordination with Gas Operations to be sure we have latest fuel

assumptions (e.g., back-haul capability)

5

• Southern Company analyzes on an annual basis the potential impacts to the Southern Balancing Authority’s Area (SBAA) Generation and Transmission System of a hypothetical pipeline failure event at critical locations.

Preparing for Failure of Pipeline

• This hypothetical pipeline failure event is studied at peak

seasons (Summer and Winter) to identify the potential impacts at the most constrained timeframes.

6

• A three-stage approach is used for the analysis: - Stage 0: system conditions prior to the failure and the system response immediately

(~15-60 min) following the failure - Stage 1: system conditions 1-24 hours after the failure - Stage 2: system conditions days following failure

• An N-1 transmission evaluation is conducted at each Stage

Study Methodology

• Oil backup

• Oil burning CTs

• Off system purchases

• Spinning reserves

• Coal-fired plants

• Firm gas on

alternate pipelines

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2

Pipeline

Failure

7

Conservative

• Full summer & winter peak loads

• All system load remains post event

• Interruptible load is not called

• Firm contract transfers off-system remain

• LNG storage is not used

• Solar resources modeled offline in winter peak cases

Optimistic

• All units with oil transition seamlessly

• No EFOR

• No oil delivery issues

• No environmental constraints

• No issues on surviving pipeline

• Power imports are readily available.

• Hydro levels normal

Key Assumptions

8

Post Failure (Initial Moments)

• Prompt communication/notification of failure from pipeline Operator to Transmission and Fleet Operations

• Decisions made on how to burn the remaining gas (first hour)

• All plants on pipeline are turned off unless they have backup oil ; if oil is available, convert gas units to oil

• Start all available oil-fired CTs (15 min)

• Utilize Spinning reserves (online coal and CCs)

• Run Hydro

• Arrangements for additional gas on non-affected pipelines and, if necessary, additional off-system purchases

• Initiate processes for oil resupply and for available off-line steam units

Stage 0

Stage 1

Stage 2

Pipeline

Failure

9

Beyond Initial Response

Critical Elements for Success:

• Steam units called on during initial response are available

• Gas units from non-affected pipeline are available

• Off-system purchases are available

• Begin reducing oil burn to replenish sustainable rates

• Considerations for oil replenishment: supply depot min levels loading terminal capability # of trucks needed unloading terminal capacity

• Identify & prepare Operations for any needed transmission mitigation

Stage 0

Stage 1

Stage 2

Pipeline

Failure

10

Results of Study

• Southern has adequate resource flexibility and backup fuel capability to maintain reliability in the event of a pipeline failure

• No significant issues resulting from transmission analysis

TRANSCO: SONAT:

11

Key Takeaways

• Understanding resource impacts & response to disruption is critical element of study - More time spent coordinating and understanding impacts to resource

adequacy than performing transmission analysis

• Coordination with Operations (Gas & Transmission) is key to

developing processes and procedures

Questions?

System Analysis and Modeling Subcommittee (SAMS) UpdateMichael R. LombardiChair, NERC System Analysis and Modeling SubcommitteePlanning Committee MeetingDecember 13-14, 2016


SAMS Update December PC Meeting

• Review of SAMS current efforts focusing on: Reliability Guideline: Reactive Power Planning (separate PC agenda item) Modeling Distributed Energy Resources in Dynamic Load Models (separate

PC agenda item) Load Composition Guideline (separate PC agenda item) IROL Task Force (separate PC agenda item) Interconnecting Variable Energy Resources (VER) to Weak Grids (SAMS

Informational Item)


SAMS Update December PC Meeting

• Review of SAMS current efforts focusing on: Applications for Three Phase Modeling of Transmission Networks (SAMS

Informational Item) FERC Order 786 Directives (SAMS Informational Item) ERS Measure 7 Data Analysis (SAMS Informational Item) Node-Breaker Planning Model Representation (SAMS Informational Item) Modeling Notifications (SAMS Informational Item) NERC Approved Powerflow and Dynamics Model List (SAMS Informational

Item)


Interconnecting Variable Energy Resources (VER) to Weak Grids

• Interconnecting VER to Weak Grids Task re-scoped and coordinating with SMEs on this topic from CIGRE, IEEE,

and other industry groups Develop Technical Reference Document or Reliability Guideline on

studying, simulating, and modeling VER interconnecting to weak grids Provide useful guidance and mitigation strategies for potential issues. High-level summary of information developed by CIGRE B4.62 Sub-team being formed and work task being kicked off Target Completion Q4 2017


Applications for Three-Phase Modeling of Transmission Networks

• Applications for Three Phase Modeling of Transmission Networks Develop Technical Reference Document or white paper related to

modeling 3-phase modeling of the power system Address detailed generator interactions and possibly inverter-based

generation interactions Target Completion Q3 2017


FERC Order 786 Directives

• FERC issued Order No. 786 on October 17, 2013 Final Rule Approving Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Transmission System

Planning Performance Requirements Included two directives: Paragraph 40 (six month threshold) and Paragraph

89 (spare equipment strategy)

• SAMS provided to PC a white paper and summary of its input regarding to FERC Order 786 at the September 2016 PC meeting PC Reviewers provided comments SAMS developed “Consideration of Comments” SAMS shared white paper and consideration of comments with PC

Leadership to share with the (NERC Project 2015-10) TPL-001 Standard Drafting Team (SDT)


ERS Measure 7 Data Analysis

• ERS Measure 7 Data Analysis NERC Performance Analysis Subcommittee (PAS) collected ERSTF Measure

7 data from BAs across the NERC footprinto 22 BAs participatedo Data collected for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020

• Created SAMS sub-team to review Measure 7 data and provide conclusions back to ERSWG SAMS sub-team has project plan and expects initial analysis by late Q4-

2016


Node-Breaker Planning Model Representation

• Node-Breaker Planning Model Representation MWG Task prior to restructuring Supporting advancement of node-breaker representation in planning

models and alignment between planning and operations cases Industry webinar on node-breaker software capabilities held on December

6, 2016; software vendors included:o General Electric PSLF, Siemens PSS/E, V&R POM Suite, PowerWorld, DSATools

and eTap SAMS reviewing webinar questions and feedback to identify next steps


Modeling Notifications

• Notification Process Improvement MWG Task prior to restructuring Developing Modeling Notifications, creating industry announcements and

educational webinars on notifications Current Notifications:o EX2000 Dynamics Component Model for Excitation Systems -Initial Distribution:

March 21, 2016o Use of GENTPJ Generator Model - Updated Distribution Date: November 18,

2016o Webinar for EX2000 and GENTPJ held on December 9, 2016

Notifications under consideration:o GAST to GGOV1 Conversion Table


NERC Approved Powerflow and Dynamics Model List

• NERC Approved Powerflow and Dynamics Model List MWG Task prior to restructuring Purpose:o Maintain and document for industry list of ‘approved models’ for powerflow and

dynamicso Periodic updates to list based on industry advancements

Modifying existing Standardized Component Model Library document on MWG webpage to align with Modeling Notifications and will review approved models


Power Plant Modeling & Verification Task ForceScope Approval



Background

• NERC held Power Plant Model Verification & Testing Workshop in September 2016 in Atlanta, GA. 175+ attendees from generation, transmission, manufacturing community,

testing experts, etc. Large waiting list, showing significant interest in topics

• Key takeaways from workshop included need for focused effort to address technical aspects of MOD standards MOD-025 generator capability curve testing MOD-026/-027 model verification testing Related PRC standards clarity

• PPMVTF will address these issues brought to light and also develop technical materials for industry to use as a reference for modeling and verification purposes


PPMVTF Purpose

• Develop technical guidance material related to power plant modeling, power plant model verification (PPMV), and generator testing procedures used for developing certifying simulation models used to reliably plan and operate the BPS

• Intended to support utility industry with technical basis and recommended guidance relating to aspects associated with NERC Reliability Standards MOD-025, MOD-026, MOD-027, as well as PRC-019, PRC-024, and PRC-025.


PPMVTF Activities

1. Formulate and guide industry practices related to power plant modeling, testing, and verification; support entities seeking information on modeling across North America

2. Provide technical guidance and materials focusing on relevant NERC Standard

3. Establish guidance materials and technical references related to power plant models and modeling practices, leveraging existing material and addressing any gaps or inconsistencies in practices

4. Promote collaboration and coordination between generation and transmission entities, as well as equipment manufacturing and controls communities


PPMVTF Activities

5. Coordinate with NERC efforts to mitigate use of obsolete models and modeling errors in interconnection-wide base cases; work with experts to address any inconsistencies or gaps, and understand model limitations; work with software vendors to ensure uniform and accurate implementation of existing and future models

6. Coordinate with entities external to NERC such as IEEE, NATF, and NAGF on power plant modeling.


PPMVTF Deliverables

1. Guideline on baseline development of power plant dynamic models and verification of those models fulfilling the purposes of MOD-026 and MOD-027

2. Compliance guidance focusing on testing for generator active and reactive power capability relating to MOD-025

3. Reference material on coordination of unit or plant capability, voltage regulating controls, and protection relating to PRC-019

4. Reference material on power plant auxiliary equipment and plant controls that should be considered during model development, testing, and verification activities

5. Webinars and technical workshops to support information sharing across North America

6. Other topics as prioritized by SAMS and PC


PPMVTF Membership

• TP and TOP experts familiar with plant modeling and dynamic behavior of power plants

• GO and GOP experts familiar with plat dynamic behavior, operations, and testing procedures

• Plant equipment manufacturing experts familiar with generator, turbine-governor, excitation system, PSS, limiter, compensator, turbine-boiler and/or plant auxiliary controls

• Consultants familiar with generator modeling, testing, and verification practices

• Software vendors of simulation programs widely used by North American electric utility industry for simulation of power plant tests and dynamic behavior


PPMVTF Logistics

• Reporting & Duration Administratively reports to SAMS Expected to exist for two (2) calendar years to develop deliverables

outlined

• Meetings 2-4 in-person per year (or as needed) in coordination with NERC SAMS Supplemented with monthly conference calls to continue workload, as

needed


December 2016 PC Update Eastern Interconnection Frequency Response Assessment:Changing Resource Mix Study

Olushola J. Lutalo, MS, P.E., PMP, Senior Engineer of System AnalysisDecember 13, 2016


• Phase I – 2016/17 Evaluate and improve plant modeling and data quality Develop frequency responsive model for the Eastern Interconnection Benchmark models to recent outage events Evaluate the impact of inverter based resources referred to as New

Technology Resources (NTRs) Perform scenario analysis for various futures

Frequency Response Study Phase I


2021 Light Load Online Governor Modeling Summary (%)

Governor Type Generation Dispatched w/GOV Generation Available w/GOVCRCMGV 1.56% 1.35%ETSIG2 0.09% 0.11%GAST 0.93% 0.81%

GAST2A 0.38% 0.44%GEWTT1 0.08% 0.27%GGOV1 3.20% 2.82%

GWME27 0.00% 0.00%HQRVC 0.67% 0.50%HQRVN 0.12% 0.09%HQRVW 0.62% 0.59%HYGOV 1.76% 1.80%HYGOV2 0.32% 0.27%HYGOV4 0.73% 0.52%IEEEG1 8.84% 8.29%IEEEG2 -0.08% 0.52%IEEEG3 0.07% 0.07%IEESGO 8.64% 7.47%

No Governor Modeled 59.44% 61.10%

PIDGOV 0.41% 0.31%PWRHL2 -0.03% 0.06%SOLAGT 0.01% 0.00%TGOV3 9.98% 10.21%TURCZT 0.01% 0.01%VWGOV 0.02% 0.01%WESGOV 0.61% 0.70%WPIDHY 0.53% 0.39%WSHYDD 0.21% 0.18%WSIEG1 0.87% 1.09%

Total 100.00% 100.00%


Squelched Frequency Response Governor Modeling Summary

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

IEEEG1 IEESGO TGOV GGOV

Thou

sand

s

Squelched Generation Modeling (MW)

MW Squelched MW Dispatched


Build Cases for Frequency Response Scenarios

Study Scenarios for 2021 Light Load

BAU Base Case CPP- Scenario 1 CPP Base Case CPP- Scenario 3

NTR Penetration % of Total Additions for CPP Phase II Study Retirements (Coal/Oil/Gas Retirement)

BAU Base Case Constrained Interstate

Trading

CPP -High Renewables integration

(8500MW) of PV/Wind

Nuclear retirements

NTR Mix (Wind/Solar) BAU Base Case 50%/50% 50%/50% 50%/50%

NTR Type 3/ Type 4 % BAU Base Case 75/25% 75/25% 75/25%

NTR Frequency Control On/Off

BAU Base Case Off/On Off/On Off/On

NTR Inertia Control On/Off

BAU Base Case Off/On Off/On Off/On


Identified Events for Base Case Benchmarking

Completed• EI 2015-04-07 Washington, D.C., (1981 MW) (Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2

tripped at 1779 MW net)• May 25, 2014 at 07:01 Trip Millstone 2 (870 MW) and Millstone

3 (1,233 MW)• EI 2007-08-04 EI Frequency Dist. (Rockport) (4457 MW)


Millstone May 25, 2014 Event Benchmark to 2015 Series BAU Case


Millstone May 25, 2014 Event Benchmark to 2015 Series BAU Case


Calvert Cliff April 7, 2015 Event Benchmark to 2015 Series BAU Case


Calvert Cliff April 7, 2015 Event Benchmark to 2015 Series BAU Case


Millstone May 25, 2014 Event Benchmark to 2015 Series CPP Base Case








Calvert Cliff April 7, 2015 EventBenchmark to 2015 Series CPP Base Case








Conclusions• MMWG 2015 Series MMWG 2021 LL Base Case and FR Data

starting point• NERC developed FR Base Case model referred to as the2021 LL

Business as Usual (BAU) Model)• NERC Revised the2021 LL BAU model to replace 8500 MW CPP

retirements with New Technology Resources (NTRs) • Valid No-Disturbance modeling evaluations were obtained

Frequency Response Model Development Conclusions


Conclusions• Benchmarking to Recent Outage Events RoCoF compared very well for Primary Frequency Response(PFR) Point A and Point C on the FR curves benchmarked compared very well for

PFR period Point B on the FR curve indicates that additional modeling requirements

beyond 30 seconds

• Frequency responsiveness of NTRS will not impact EI• Aggressive NTR additions will not affect EI FR

Frequency Response Model Development Conclusions


Data Change Management -RTCA vs. Planning DocumentJohn Idzior RF, (Former MWG) ChairPlanning Committee MeetingDecember 13-14, 2016


Background

SW Outage Recommendation 16 - Discrepancies between RTCA and Planning Models

“[Western Electricity Coordinating Council] WECC should ensure consistencies in model parameters between its planning model and its RTCA model and should review all model parameters on a consistent basis to make sure discrepancies do not occur.”


Background

The Modeling Working Group (MWG) recommended implementation of data change management processes that include requirements for Generator Owners (GO) and Transmission Owners (TO) to notify Transmission Planners (TP), Transmission Operators (TOP), Reliability Coordinators (RC), Planning Coordinators (PC), et al, whenever there are changes made to the system that must be reflected in planning, operational, and real-time models.


Background

• September 2013: PC asked for a work plan• December 2013: PC was informed of the implementation plan and

asked for standard review• March 2014: PC approves the implementation plan

1. Review existing requirements in the NERC Reliability Standards. 2. Review existing requirements in the Regional procedures.3. Identify industry best practices and communicate them to the regions4. Identify gaps in data change management processes, if any.5. Ascertain status of NATF and NAGF efforts on data change management. 6. Write a summary of the findings from steps 1 through 4. 7. Develop a list of recommended practices for approval by PC or OC8. Work with Regional Entities to facilitate the implementation of these

recommended practices

• The summary of the findings step 6 is presented in this document.


PC Approval

• MWG Drafted v1 August 2014• SAMS Approved v1 October 2014• Version 1 was not presented to the PC• MOD-032-1 became effective and required a rewrite of the

document• MWG Drafted v2 October 2016• SAMS Approved v2 November 2016• PC approval of document requested
