Minutes of IEEE SCC21 P1547.3 Draft Guide for Monitoring, Information Exchange and Control of Distributed Resources

Interconnected with Electric Power Systems Work Group (WG) Meeting of Aug 1-2, 2005 Arlington VA

1.0 Executive Summary This meeting focus was to review P1547.3 Draft 2 and establish the approach to a ballot-ready draft. We reviewed updated materials and agreed on the following targeted schedule.

Schedule P1547.3 ActionOctober 1, 2005 Revision to Draft 2 to T. Basso, J.

Koepfinger and F. Goodman November 17-18, 2005 Meeting to Review Ballot ready Draft December 2005 Ballot Jan 30 – Feb 3, 2006 2-day Meeting to Review Comments March 2006 Results to IEEE Standard Board

- The next P1547.3 meeting dates are firm for Nov. 17 – 18, 2005; either Dallas or Denver. - The next general 1547 series meetings will be during January 30-Feb 3, 2006 in Atlanta GA,

hosted by Georgia Power. - Anyone interested in helping with writing should contact Goodman, Basso or Koepfinger. - Anyone desiring new material in the document must submit that in final form by October 1.

2.0 Meeting Notes The meeting agenda (Annex B) and information materials were discussed with the changes made to the agenda as shown. Detailed meeting notes and new action items are included in Annex C to these minutes. The meeting was opened by the Chair, Frank Goodman, and we introduced ourselves. We discussed the scope/purpose, IEEE points about not discussing patentable, proprietary or other inappropriate topics, and the other P1547.x meetings this week.

It is critically important to complete all prior outstanding action items (Annex C and Annex D) in a timely manner to meet the October 1 deadline to provide inputs to Tom Basso, F. Goodman, and J. Koepfinger. Based on that, we will establish the ballot ready draft for November 17-18, 2005 meeting, and December ballot.

See the following annexes for action items and more details.

3.0 Adjournment Chairman F. Goodman thanked Bob Saint for NRECA hosting this meeting, and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at 1PM (participants were invited to stay on and continue to work).

Respectfully Submitted, F. Goodman, J. Koepfinger and T. Basso.

Minutes P1547.3 Meeting Aug 1-2, 2005 Arlington VA Page 1 of 28

Annex A -- P1547.3 Meeting Attendees Aug 1-2, 2005

P1547.3 Officers Frank Goodman – Chair fgoodman@epri.com (650) 855-2872 Joe Koepfinger – Vice Chair joseph_l_koepfinger@msn.com (412) 264-6148 Tom Basso - Secretary thomas_basso@nrel.gov (303) 275-3753

P1547.3 Meeting Attendees Aug 1-2, 2005

Arup Barat Thomas Basso David Beach David Bosack Edward Brann John Bzura David CartesSteve Chalmers David Costyk

Murray Davis Paul Dolloff George Ello Joe Galdo Andris Garsils Frank Goodman C. Travis Johnson Donald Junta Stanley Klein

Joe Koepfinger Jason Lin Wayne Manges Robert Peterson Bob SaintHerbert Sinnock Sanjeev Srivasta Tim Wall Steve Widergren

Minutes P1547.3 Meeting Aug 1-2, 2005 Arlington VA Page 2 of 28

Annex B -- P1547.3 Meeting Agenda Aug 1-2, 2005

Draft Agenda (revised onsite: added double underline) Chair - F. Goodman, Vice Chair - J. Koepfinger, Secretary - T. Basso P1547.3 Draft Guide for Monitoring, Information Exchange, and Control of Distributed Resources Interconnected With Electric Power Systems August 1, 2005 (8:10 AM – 5:30 PM) NRECA Conference Center 8:10 – 8:30 Arrive/Register for meeting All 8:30 Welcome, Introductions Goodman, All8:45 Minutes review; document completion schedule Goodman, Koepfinger, Basso 9:15 – 12:20: Presentation Review of Draft 2 clauses in the order: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 4, 1, Annexes9:15 Front pages and Clause 1 Goodman9:25 Clause 2 Goodman9:35 Clause 3 Goodman9:45 Clause 4 Goodman10:00 Clause 5 and associated annexes Dolloff10:25 Break10:40 Clause 6 and associated annexes Widergren11:05 Clause 7 and associated annexes Widergren11:30 Clause 8 and associated annexes Zhou11:55 Clause 9 and associated annexes Wills12:20 Lunch1:30 Continue Review of Draft 2 Written comments presentations on clauses in the following order: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 4, 1, Annexes

Working Group, by clause in order received

5:30 Adjourn

August 2, 2005 (8AM – 1PM, option to 5PM) 8:00 – 12:40 Written comments presentations Review continued from first day 7, 8, 9, 4, 1, Annexes

(break 10:00 to 10:20)

12:40 Closing Remarks Goodman, Koepfinger, Basso1:00 Working Group Adjourns2:15-5:00 Writing teams optional meetings

IEEE P1547.3 PAR Title, Scope, and Purpose P1547.3 Title Draft Guide for Monitoring, Information Exchange, and Control of Distributed Resources Interconnected With Electric Power Systems P1547.3 PAR Scope. This document provides guidelines for monitoring, information exchange, and control for distribute resources (DR) interconnected with electric power systems (EPS). P1547.3 PAR. Purpose. This document facilitates the interoperability of a one or more distributed resources interconnected with electric power systems. It describes functionality, parameters and methodologies for monitoring, information exchange and control for the interconnected distributed resources with or associated with electric power systems. Distributed resources include systems in the areas of fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind turbines, microturbines, other distributed generators, and, distributed energy storage systems.

------------------------ -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------

Patents and Inappropriate Topics for IEEE WG Meetings (see slides) Slide 1

Slide 2

Annex C

DETAILED NOTES: AUGUST 1 – 2, 2005 MEETING OF IEEE P1547.3 WORK GROUP (WG) at NRECA Conference Center, Arlington, VA

* ACTION denotes specific action items. However, be sure to read the complete detailed notes for further elucidation.

INTRODUCTIONDr. Goodman opened the meeting at 8:30 AM on 1 August 2005 with a review of the scope and purpose of P1547.3. This was followed by a personal introduction of the approximate 20 attendees. There was a presentation of the IEEE notification of copyright and patent issues as well as limitation regarding items that should not be discussed. Guidance was given to the use of Website and the list serve. Types of standards were explained, Standards, Recommended Practice, Guides and Technical Reports. All the P1547.x titles, scopes and purposes were previewed, along with the full week’s planned schedule for P1547.x WG meetings. Dr. Goodman indicated that a schedule for P1547.3 ballot will be presented tomorrow morning.

AGENDA. For this meeting, a motion was made to revise the agenda to delete the document presentations and directly proceed with reviewing clauses 5,6,7,8 and 9. The motion passed. (See Annex B of these Minutes).

REVIEW OF MINUTES OF Feb 10-11, 2005 Las Vegas MeetingTom Basso assisted in the review of the minutes of the Las Vegas February 2005 meeting High lighted was the focus of the last meeting on Clause 5 of P1547.3 and the action item list which was prepared by Joe Koepfinger. Motion made to approve the minutes.

NEXT MEETING P1547.3 will meet Nov 17-18, 2005 (either Dallas or Denver). Next P1547 series of meetings will be hosted by Georgia Power in Atlanta the week of January 30, 2006.

REVIEW OF P1547.2 DRAFT 2

General. Mr. Davis re-introduced the need for communications associated with islanding situations. Mr. Basso noted that this sounded like a potential Use-Case. It was noted there has been limited amount of resources to discuss this issue at this time.

It was proposed by Koepfinger that communications associated with Islanding be included in this document.

* ACTION. Murray Davis volunteered to do a Use-Case for Islanding. The goal would be to have a first draft on this by Sept 02, 2005.

Review of P1547.3 Draft 2 CLAUSE 5 - Paul Dolloff presented this material

This clause is based primarily on the requirement Clause 4.1.6 in IEEE Std 1547:

IEEE Std 1547 Clause 4.1.6 Monitoring provisionsEach DR unit of 250 kVA or more or DR aggregate of 250 kVA or more at a single PCC shall have provisions for monitoring its connection status, real power output, reactive power output, and voltage at the point of DR connection.

Paul noted the following as one key issue on the 4.1.6 clause. There was considerable discussion regarding whether or not as generation installation increases in capacity, would it be necessary to have to monitor each of the individual units. The general consensus was that if an aggregate installation of local DR Units exceeds 250 kVA provisions, then that aggregate would need to have monitoring provisions.

Dr. Dolloff proposed the following replace the Clause 5 current 3rd paragraph that now reads:

For aggregate installations of multiple DR units, the requirement is correctly interpreted to mean that provisions for monitoring these parameters at each DR unit are required. Often times, aggregate installations are comprised of multiple units, each less than 250 kVA.

With the followingFor aggregation installation of multiple DR units, the requirement is correctly interpreted to mean that a single provision for monitoring these parameters for the entire installation is required.

Output is to be changed to Capacity.

* ACTION: Dr Dolloff is to rewrite this clause based upon all discussion at this meeting.

Steve Widergren proposed a change in the title of Clause 5 to indicate that this clause is based upon 1547. The chair suggested that this comment be considered by Dr. Dolloff.

Additional points of discussion follow. Issue 1Change the following to read:The intended use of the monitoring provisions is to allow interested stakeholders to monitor the DR’s performance. It is likely the monitoring will be interfaced with the Area EPS via SCADA. In such a case, the DR operator needs to consider the scan rate and the communication protocol used by the area EPS operator. Clauses 6-8 of this guide discusses these issues in more detail.

Issue 2:5.1.1 Connection StatusIn this guide the term “connection status” as used in clause 4.1.6 of IEEE Std 1547 TM means an indication of whether or not an individual DR is connected at the point of DR connection. Connection status should not be confused with:

- Indication of whether or not the DR is interconnected with the Area EPS- Indication of whether or not the DR is energizing the Area EPS- Indication of whether or not the DR is available- Indication of whether or not the DR is running.

It was agreed that this is OK.

Issue 3aIn this guide the term “connection status” as used in clause 4.1.6 of IEEE Std 1547 TM means an indication of whether or not an individual DR is connected at the point of DR connection. Connection status should not be confused with:

- Indication of whether or not the DR is interconnected with the Area EPS- Indication of whether or not the DR is energizing the Area EPS- Indication of whether or not the DR is available- Indication of whether or not the DR is running.

The above clause was accepted

Issue 3b5.1.2 Real PowerAccepted as presented with the following change

* Action: resurrect footnote.

Reactive PowerAccepted as presented.

Issue 3c 5.1.3 VoltageThe monitoring provision for voltage requires that each DR unit provide the ability for an external device to connect and monitor the voltage, measured in volts, on the DR unit side of the point of DR connection to the local EPS. Monitoring of the DR voltage is often required for synchronism and anti-aliasing protection schemes.

Accepted as written.

Issue 3dDR Conversion Technologies(CHECK WITH THE 1547.2 GROUP) This clause summarizes some of the key characteristics of the major types of DR conversion technologies. These characteristics are the partial basis for the MIC guidance that follows.

Accepted without change

Issue 3e5.2.1 Inverter Based DRTwo major types of inverters are used with DR: line commutated and self commutated. The comment was made that use of the terms line excited and self excited to describe the type of inverter should be changed to voltage source or current source inverter respectively.

5.2.1.1 Induction Generator If an Area EPS de-energizes, this type of generator will not continue to produce real

power unless an alternate source of reactive energy is provided. This type of generator will need to “sense” external voltage, generally from the Area EPS

o to remain proper operation This type of generator will need to draw reactive energy from an external source,

generally from the Area EPSo to allow generation of real power

This type of generator will need to “sense” external voltage and frequency, generally from the Area EPS

o to synchronize prior to interconnectiono to detect Area EPS faults

This type of generator is not capable of providing energy for a local EPS island. Additional protection functions will be required for anti-islanding and Area EPS fault

detection.

One of the attendees indicated that the communications requirement for line commutated induction and self commutated induction generators may need to be considered separately.

* ACTION: Dr. Davis is to rewrite information on Induction Generator

* ACTON: Dr Rob Wills is to rewrite information on Inverters. Others are to be contacted as well. In addition a review is to be made of 1547.2 to see what is available in that document. Dr. Dolloff will send a email requesting assistance in this effort.

Class Definitions This guide has defined three classes based on the output of the DR installation as given below in Table 5.1. It is recognized that these class size breakdowns can be modified to accommodate local regulations and practices. For aggregate installations, the total combined output of all DR within the aggregate defines the class to which the aggregate installation belongs.

Table 5.1 DR ClassesClass DR OutputClass 1 0 to 250 kVAClass 2 250 to 1,500 kVAClass 3 1.5 10 MVA

Dr. Dolloff noted that these class definitions are technology neutral.

* ACTION: A stronger statement will be added to indicate that this table should not be used exclusively and the other issue such as, local EPS condition, regulation, etc. need to be considered.

Tom Basso suggested that consideration be given to the fact that some aggregation may be composed of more than one technology. It would be desirable to consider the monitoring requirements. The desire is to promote interoperability.

In Clause 5. 1 make the following change:Often times, units in this class qualify for net metering tariffs, which may be available by the Area EPS operator. By definition, net metering installations require nothing more than the use of a revenue meter.

5.3.1 Class 1IEEE Std 1547 states that units in this class are not required to have monitoring provisions; however, it may be desirable in some cases to monitor these and other parameters

The change replaces “provision” with “have”.

5.3.2 Class 2Class 2 includes DR units between 250 kVA and 1.5 MVA. IEEE 1547 states that DR units in this class shall provide monitoring provisions. Note that class 2 installations could be an aggregate of smaller DR units.

The resolution of a typical Area EPS energy management system (EMS) is 1.0 MW; therefore, the Area EPS operator may require the energy output of a Class 2 DR installation be monitored by the EMS. It is highly unlikely that these units will be included in automatic generation control algorithms and part of the Area EPS economic dispatch, but it may be needed for voltage.

As DR installations approach output levels of 1.0 MW or greater, the DR owner may be required to communicate the DR’s connection status and output to the Area EPS operator. Often times, a Class 2 DR installation of 1.0 MW will need to communicate its status and output to an ISO. The ISO is likely to request the total MWhr production on a daily basis.

Most often for class 2 synchronous machines, the Area EPS operator is likely to require the DR to provide connection status and real and reactive power at the output terminals of the DR unit to ensure that the DR is operating within agreed upon power factor limits. Basically, the Area EPS operator does not want the synchronous DR machines to be drawing reactive energy from the Area EPS, especially during high load conditions.

For class 2 installations, it is highly unlikely that the voltage of a DR will be monitored by the Area EPS operator. Due to size limitations, class 2 DR installations are unlikely to be contracted to provide voltage regulation. Also, the voltage at the terminals of the DR unit is likely to be different than the voltage at the point of common coupling.

Table 5.2 gives guidance on the communication parameters that may be needed for Class 2 installations.

Table 5.2 MIC Recommendations for Class 2 DR InstallationsDR Monitoring Parameter

Synchronous Generator

InductionGenerator

Inverter based Generator Stakeholder

connection status S (note 1) S S AEPSO, DRA, DRO, DRMreal power output U U U AEPSO, DRA, DRO, DRMreactive power output U N/A U AEPSO, DRA, DRO, DRMvoltage S S S DRO, DRM

U=UsuallyN/A = not applicable S=SeldomAEPSO=Area EPS OperatorDRA=DR Aggregator

A member suggested that this clause have two subclass, for example could be broken into two subclasses.

There should be a consistence used in the use of the terms MW, kVA and MWhr.

* ACTIONS: Change MW usage to kVA.

N/A is not applicable for self excited. Induction generators. Add a note that in the case of a self excited generator an induction generator can provide reactive power.

The task force indicates that they wanted three levels for usage designations. Therefore, Dr. Dolloff will have to either choose words that can be easily understood or define the terms as used in this standard. The writing group removed “occasionally” since it has the same meaning as “seldom” according to Merriam Webster dictionary that is the IEEE baseline for English language usage.

Some questioned the value of this table. It could be useful to a manufacturer. Dr. Davis proposed that tables discussed in Class 2 and Class 3 be eliminated. Straw vote was to remove these tables from Clause 5. The vote was to remove these tables but to keep the intent of the tables. This intent is to amplify what is given in Figure 1.

The tables mentioned more as a guide to indicate what would be desirable on an installation what should be provided the individual stakeholders. The tables assumed that provisions would be provided as per IEEE Std. 1547, but 1547 doesn’t give guidance as to when the provisions are to be implemented. It is the intent of these tables to address this void. (Wayne Manges)

* ACTIONDr.Dolloff indicated that MIC is not covering information, like kW and kVar, etc that is used for financial revenue purposes.

After considerable discussion it was concluded that the task force is to have further discussion on this topic during their breakout tomorrow.

The Chair encouraged anyone to join into the task force developing this this clause.

Issue 3g The following issues still need to be developed. Dr. Manges indicated that the following may be needed for those who are not experienced in the application of DR.

5.5.1 Local controlSpecifically, aggregate installations

5.5.2 System ProtectionTransfer tripCoordinationLocal protection

5.5.3 Commerce FunctionsMetering

5.5.4 Energy Control FunctionsAutomatic Generation Control (AGC)Economic Dispatch

* ACTION: P. Dolloff to consider the following. There was general agreement that this material above should be developed and included in this guide.

Review of Written Comments on Draft 2 Relating to Clause 5Comments were received from Steve Widergren and David Bassett. Each comment was discussed briefly. Dr. Dolloff will consider the editorial comments and include them in the next rewrite of Clause 5. He will address the technical comments.

---------- ------------- Review of P1547.3 Draft 2 Clauses 6 and 7 and Annex F (Steve Widergren). OVERVIEW: BUSINESS PROCESS for INFORMATION AND EXCHANGE INFORMATION Mr. Widergren introduced the material in this clause. One of the goals is to establish a common terminology for communicating information. Example: Breaker and Circuit Breaker. Both mean the same thing, but only one should be the accepted term. The other goal is to develop examples of Information and Exchange called Use-Cases. Five use cases are included at this time

DR Unit Dispatch DRR Unit scheduling DR aggregation DR maintenance

Other cases are encouraged, but if someone wants a Use-Case the proposer has the responsibility of developing the Use-Cases. They should work with Steve.

* ACTION. Murray Davis volunteered to do a Use-Case for Islanding. The goal would be to have a first draft on this by Sept 02, 2005. (This occurred earlier in this meeting that M. Davis recommended and volunteered to establish a new use case.)

Stan Klein asked if any of the Use Case have any commonality. The response was that a comparison has not been made at this time.

Figure 7-1 Elements of Information Model was explained. This was followed by an explanation of an Ontology Diagram, Figure 7-2. Work already exists in the Standard world such as the Common Information Model (CIM) which was developed for generating units by EPRI. Similar information is contained in IEC Std 61850. IEC Std 61850 has standardized on names to be used in the ontology diagram. Another standard is IEC Std. 61970.

An IEA Outline was shown to contain the following: Introduction Theory of Operation Shared Ontology Message Format Interface Services and Collaboration Agreement Performance, Retirements and Constraint Etc.

For each of the above there are subsections that were discussed in this presentation

Information Modeling Work: This is more work that has to be done, but time is not available for this issue of 1547.3 to develop this material.

Dr. Davis discussed his concerns that in the real world there are many protocols. Some are driven by the manufacturer, some by the integrator and some by the operator. Steve responded to this concern. This could result in three different agreements. This process will assist in identifying the terminology and other information that should be in the Interchange Agreements. It is agreed that at this time it is not possible to standardize on the protocol associated with the low levels of the ISO standard communication model. The model being presented in Clause 7 is at the Application or the Service layer. This process is an upper layer approach.

Koepfinger suggested that this material, be linked where possible, to the Standard ISO levels.

Stan Klein reported that IEC Std 61400-25-4 for wind power has introduced the use of IEC Std 61850 for use over wire line.

Steve asked if Davis could provide an example of an Information Exchange Agreement associated with one of DTE installation.

* ACTION: Davis will investigate if this request can be satisfied.

Figure 7-1 It was suggested that the block called Information Exchange Agreement (IEA) needs to have some relationship to the other components of the figure.

* ACTION: Steve suggested that this should surround all of the elements. He will make a change to reflect that in the figure.

CLAUSE 6 BUSINESS AND OPERATING PROECESS

* ACTIONS: Murray Davis is to provide Use Case on reactive scheduling. Dave Costyk will provide a Use Case on DR protection.

Discussion of Written Comments There was only one comment that was editorial. It was agreed to accept this comment

Annex B (Informative) – Use Case TemplateSteve briefly explained how to use the Annex B Use Case Template for other scenarios by making reference to a Use Case.

Note was made by Manges that in the case of maintenance the information for maintenance cannot come from just the DR Controller. The data is unit specific and would not be available in the DR controller for the aggregator.

There was considerable discussion regarding the definition of a DR controller. Davis has installations where there are multiple independent systems that communicate with other systems to provide aggregated information to the Area EPS Operator. At present this is not covered by P1547.3. There is no definition for a DR Controller. The closet thing to a definition is given in Clause 1.8.1.2 Equipment Roles. This states:

DR Controller – a device that manages the moment-by-moment operation of the DR device. These functions include fuel control, machine safety, electrical protection, and other functions needing tightly coupled monitoring and control. The DR Controller also has an interface that handles the slower communications requirements of the various stakeholders and coordination with a Building EMS. The DR Controller can be incorporated into a DR device or one DR Controller may control several DR devices. The DR Controller includes the functions labeled as System Control, Electrical Protection, and Steady-State Control as described in the Definitions section of IEEE Std P1547.1 (draft).

Davis scenario would be achieved by having all of the other DR installations to be aggregated at the Information Exchange Interface

* ACTION: Look through the document tonight to arrive at a definition for DR Controller.

Meeting adjourned for the day at 5:20 PM. It will reconvene at 8:00 AM

MEETING RESUMED AT 8:00 AM on 2 August 2005The whole group will work until 1 PM and P1547.3 Meeting will be adjourned. Discussions are to continue on Clause 6 and 7 for first two hours. One hour will be allocated to the rest of the Clauses. After P1547.3 adjourns at 1PM, that will be followed by lunch and then by ad-hoc task force meetings.

Schedule P1547.3 Action Comment

Oct 1 Revision to Draft 2 to Tom Basso, J. Koepfinger and F. Goodman

Provide a notice to form the ballot group

Nov 17 – 18, 2005 Meeting to Review DraftDec BallotJan 30 – Feb 3 2006 2-day Meeting to Review

CommentsMar Results to IEEE Standard Board

To meet this schedule some material may have to be deferred until a future revision. The decision this is going to have to be made by the Task Force leaders. The members of Task Force on Clause 5 are concerned that as the result of yesterday they would have a major re-write since the material discussed yesterday seen to suggest a new approach. Dr Dolloff has developed a new outline that he wants to discuss. Stan Klein mentioned that material in clause six and seven in some degree addresses his concerns. If this is the case the Tables that were deleted yesterday could be retained.

* ACTION: Delay and final decision on Clause 5 until the review on Clause 6 and 7 is completed. * ACTION: Steve will write a definition for DR Controller and for other definitions relating to his clauses.

CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON CLAUSE 6 – Steve Widergren Steve inquired as to what happened to the diagrams that were to accompany each Use Case.

* ACTION: Mr. Basso will look into this comment.

In response to a request for comment by Steve the following were made: Make sure terminology used is consistent and correct through out each Use Case One member would like the use cases limited to the “top level” cases. It was noted that at

this time the Use Cases were not intended to convey “top level” situations. The commenter indicated that the individual Use Case presented are just examples of business processes. Initially, there was a list of thirty or more cases that the group prioritized but the volunteer use case writers did not always provide that prioritized use case. The Use-Cases are a means (methodology) to get to the end result of arriving at determination of

the data that should be exchanged between DR and stakeholders. It is not a “requirement” that such use case methodology be followed.

The Chair of the Working Group suggested that we stay the course. He noted that there are limited resources to develop additional material at this time. If some of the interested parties would like to have additional Use Cases developed in time for this document, they would be considered, otherwise, they could be published in future publications (e.g., not necessarily in P1547.3).

* ACTION: In Clause 6 capture the idea that Use-Cases are a methodology to capture the idea that it is a tool to communicate information the power industry needs to operate DR interconnected with the EPS and for the IT industry that writes the computer codes to implement the processes.

Review of ANNEX F * ACTION: Add to Acronym list any new terms used in the Use Cases

The discussion of this clause was primarily limited to the need to have document for the next submission in a format that can be used in the balloted document.

Review of CLAUSE 7* ACTION. Clause 7.3.5.7 Security Agreement: To be reorganized by Stan Klein and sent to Steve W.

7.3.5.4 Resource Registration & Discovery

* ACTION: An explanation has to be added at to what is mean by registration.

7.3.5.9 Autonomous OperationThis is to define what happens when the specific communication is not available.Communication in this context involves any part of the information exchange system. The real concern is what does this do to the operation of the total process if the total information exchange system fails/malfunctions.

* ACTION: Steve W. to consider what to do to make this clause more easily understood.

Koepfinger announced that contact has been made with IEEE staff Claudio Stanziola (732 562 3804) in early June 2005 regarding the use of this material for an Information Exchange Agreement provided by one of the members.

Review of CLAUSE 8 PROTOCOLThe Chair has been aware that there is some concern on the use of the example used in Annex D. He explained to those expressing concern that these are just examples and do not represent endorsement of that product.

Review of CLAUSE 9 Security

There was no one available to present this material. The Chair noted that he has received comments that would like to see added to the material contained in this Clause. The Chair asked that additional comments be prepared using the electronic comment form.

* ACTION. Stan Klein indicated that he will prepare comments on this clause.

Review of Clause 9.7 Security Issues with Communication Network and MediaThere should be something added that would address the security of proprietary communication systems. * ACTION: The task force should address the security of this type of a system.

CLAUSE 9 LIST OF WRITTEN COMMENTS One comment was received from Steve. This is accepted.

Review of CLAUSE 1 Introduction and CLAUSE 4 General Informantion on Monitoring, Information Exchange and Control (MIC)These were updated since the last meeting and were discussed in a Webcast. It has been decided that at this time that this material is current. The plan is to use what is submitted by October 1 on the other clauses by the Task Force and use this to modify these clauses. The Chair will make additional modification before Draft 3 is submitted to the general working group in November 2005.

Review of CLAUSE 2 AND CLAUSE 3The definitions for terms not used in the document

* ACTION: The definitions have to be placed in the IEEE format before the issuing of the next draft. Reference for this is the IEEE Standard Companion.

Review of REFERENCES and BIBLIOGRAPHYThe material included in the IEEE Standard Companion should be followed for inclusion of material in the reference and the bibliography

Review of ANNEXES in GENEARL If an individual has a comment it shall be submitted in writing.

CONNECTIVITY FOR THE ATLANTA MEETINGIt has been suggested that a wireless and internet connection be considered for each meeting room. Host for the Atlanta meeting will consider that.

REVISITATION OF CLAUSE 5, by Dr. Dolloff

Class Definition (Table 2.1 DR Classes

Table 5.1 DR ClassesClass DR CapacityClass 1 0 to 250 kVAClass 2 250 to 1,500 kVAClass 3 1.5 10 MVA

* ACTION The consensus is to not define the ranges.

Dr. Dolloff presented a new Clause 5 outline.

After the discussion of two different approaches the following format was presented.

Clause from Std 1547 4.1.1 4.1.3 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.6 4.4.1ConditionDR Connection StatusDR Real Power OutputDR Reactive Power OutputDR voltagesAEPS voltage magnitudeAEPS frequencyAEPS phase rotationAEPS phase angleASPs faultAPS energizedVoltage FluctuationProtection

In this approach text will be developed in Clause 5 to explain why MIC for each item is needed, and what is needed to satisfy the clause from IEEE Std 1547.

WHAT IS CLAUSE 5 to ACCOMPLISH?The Task Force convener indicated at this time he believes that Clause is to address Clause 4.1.6 of IEEE Std 1547. But, if it is just limited to this some parameters need for the stakeholders is going to be missing. * ACTION The concept of the above table was accepted (table format to be removed).

Following copied from Aug 2004 Minutes: P1547.3 (New) Task Force on 1547 & Current Practices to draft a new clause for P1547.3 that focuses on the basic methods and criteria for Information Exchange between the local EPS (with interconnected DR) and the Areas EPS, and to address what is current practice and what is needed to meet 1547.

NEW TABLEInformation Writing

ResponsibilityClause from 15474.1.1 Voltage Regulation4.1.3 Synchronization4.1.5 Inadvertent Energization of the Area EPS4.1.6 Monitor Provisions Paul Dolloff4.2.1` Area EPS Faults4.2.2 Area Reclosing Coordination4.2.3 Voltage 4.2.4 Frequency4.2.5 Loss of synchronization4.2.6 Reconnection to Area EPS4.4.1 Unintentional IslandingThe above will be mirrored and discussed in Clause 5 to address the needed MIC for this material of DR Capacity as Classes. The table is to be removed.

TECHNOLOGY impactThe information need can be technology driven. Thus a multi-dimensional table may be needed.

A table previously prepared by working group P1547.2 was reviewed in light of the new table above. That review helped to assure that all of the parameters will be addressed in the text of clause five. Using this material as a basis, writing assignments were made by the Task Force convener.

P1547.3 WG MEETING CLOSING COMMENTS.

HELP NEEDED. The Chair of Working Group, Dr. Goodman asked for members to volunteer for the section writing teams. Anyone interested should contact Goodman, Basso or Koepfinger.

PROCEDURE FOR NEW MATERIAL. The Chair, Dr. Goodman, indicated that if anyone has new material that they wanted in the document they are to prepare the material and if will be considered if it is in a form that it can be placed in the document in time for ballot.

P1547.3 WG MEETING IN NOVEMBER. The meeting was selected to occur on 17-18 November 2005 in the Dallas area. * ACTION Dr Goodman to make arrangements.

MEETING ADJOURNED August 2, 2005 1:05 PM.

--------------- ----------------------

Annex D to Aug 1-2, 2005 Meeting Minutes:Prior P1547.3 Action Items Summary/Checklist

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

1 to undertake the task to fully develop Clause 1.4 on how to use this document

Goodman OPEN Draft completed

2 to make a proposal by tomorrow morning on changes in Clause 1.5. This is to be the first item of discussion for tomorrow morning. Remarks: This action was superseded by the review of a “simple case created by Paul Dolloff.

R. West DONE

3 no change is to be made at this time to Clause 1.5.4 4th Paragraph, but comments and proposal will be accepted by the Chair.

all Done

4 to develop his concerns pertaining to the use of terms such as “direct and non-direct interaction”. Steve Widergren is to review the inconsistency between this clause and

W. MangesS. Widergren

OPEN Done

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

other clauses in the document.5 to review the term “visual” and to find

an alternative word Basso OPEN Open

6 Clause 1.5, 4th ¶ : A definition is needed for the IEI point or remove it. The concept of Information Exchange Interface may be connectional as well as physical

CLOSED

7 to prepare an outline of Clauses 4.6 and 4.7for discussion tomorrow. This will be done after the meeting

W. Manges CLOSED

8 Clause 4and 5 are to be merged into a single clause - – see below

DONE (New 5 being

developed) 9 A statement of the Goals of the

document was lost in the re-writing of the document

Goodman OPEN Closed

10 TITLE CHANGE of Clause 4:Change the title to “GENERAL INFORMATION ON MONITORING INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CONTORL (MIC). This was noted by the Chair and will be included in the next revision of the document.

Writing GrpGoodman

OPEN Open

11 They are to review and make a R. Wills, OPEN Wills and

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

recommendation by tomorrow as to what information to move some material from clause 4 and clause 1. Remarks: This was done as requested. A new outline for the document was presented by Rob.

Rui Zhou & T. Yeh

Goodman to make a contact - done

Basso to do today?

12 T. Basso is looking for some guidance as to what level of implementation is required for different size installations. Expand USE-Case examples

Dolloff OPEN

13 To take into consideration the development of guidance that will show to what extent MIC has to be dependent on the functionality and size of the DR. This is to be included in Clause 4 rewrite.

Goodman DONE

14 take into consideration the development of guidance to show to what extent MIC has to be dependent on the functionality and size of DR This is to be included in clause 4

Goodman done

15 to write clause 4.6 to address communication performance

W. Manges DONE Material sent to Basso

16 Clauses 4.6 and 4.7 : too much W. Manges OPEN Draft

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

misunderstanding by the use of the word “OPEN”. It was proposed that clause 4.6 and 4.7 be combined and that the focus is on the ISO seven layer system.

submitted

17 The suggestion to delete clause 4.3 (protocols) is to be taken under consideration by all

Goodman

CLOSE Keep the thought somewhere in document, e.g., move to “Open” clause.

18 PROTOCOLS : Suggested deleting this clause as it is covered in Annex D

Goodman OPEN Keep open until full document populated

19 Develop a finite list of USE CASES. In the development of the finite list a check is to be made with 1547.2 to see that there are scenarios in that document that should be developed into Use Cases for MIC.

S. Widergren Done (note P1547.2 is considering more examples – potential for P1547.3 use cases)

20 In the review of the Use Case provide comments and indicate what is useful and what is needed.

ALL DONE

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

21 Develop a definition for Ontology S Widergren OPEN Done 22 In the Overview Clause and in Clause

7 there should be some statement(s) that calls attention to the use of the Use Case approach to develop information Model that require the minimal data sets.

Goodman Widergren, Dolloff

OPEN Open (new clause 5 implications to consider use case and write into clause 4

23 change title of second clause to “Important Characteristics of Protocols

(Randy moved to P1547.1)

OPEN Need new leader for “Protocols” (Wills to coordinate)

24 The chair asks that any further discussion on Clause 8 should be committed to writing and sent to Randy West before the Monday after Labor Day.

ALL DONENo Comments were received

25 Clause 9.3 and 9.5 should be moved to the ANNEX. Rob is to consider

Wills OPEN Open

26 Change 9 title to INFORMATION SECURITYThen delete from Security for DR systems to Physical Security.

R. Wills OPEN Open

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

27 Dolloff’s Use Case Presentation at the 8/04 Las Vegas meeting is to be included in P1547.3. It was proposed for the purpose of this use case that Transfer Trip was not to be included (as MIC).

Dolloff OPEN Done

28 The Working Group needs to revisit whether or not a protection signal that has to be interchanged between the Area EPS and the DR is to be part of a Use Case communication requirements.

Widergren, Bassett (2/10/05) and Dolloff

OPENTo make a proposal

Open

29 A presentation by Rob suggested changes to organize material in section 4 and 1. This is to be done in time to be included in the next draft.

R. Wills OPEN Open (Basso and Wills to fix)

30 Dr. Goodman indicated that he would look into a solution of this need for more support for Steve in the development of the use cases.

Goodman OPEN Done

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

31 as a result of the review of the Action Item from the previous meeting Koepfinger offered to produce an updated list of action items for the next meeting. These are contained in Annex A of these notes.

Koepfinger Assigned at Dallas Mtg/ Done

32 it was identified during the development of Table 2, Relationship of DR Parameters to Stakeholders that a need exists in P1547.3 for a Use Case to cover DR Maintenance. A draft case is to be developed.

Widergren Added at Dallas Mtg.

Done

33 Definitions The Chairman requested that all Section Leaders who are writing other sections are to inform the leader of the definition section of any new definitions. They are to use definitions in 1547 if possible

ALL Section Leaders

Added at Dallas Mtg

Ongoing

34 Define protection Goodman -- Assigned

35 Clause 4.12 and 4 Manges -- Assigned 36 Send clause 4 to Wills Basso -- Assigned/

Done

P1547.3 ACTION ITEMS SUMMARY/CHECKLIST (Feb 11, 2005 ) ITEM DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED

TODATE11/04/04

DATE 2/10/05

37 Clause 5 group 1 Dolloff -- Assigned 38 Clause 5 group 2 Dolloff -- Assigned 39 Send username & password to ALL

P1547.x peopleBasso -- Assigned/

Done 40 To each use case incorporate 4-

Performance tableManges -- Assigned

41 To 4-protocols add more Manges -- Assigned 42 Coordinate P1547.3 use cases with

P1547.2 examples Basso – Widergren

-- Assigned