Upload
thao
View
38
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Status Update: Using NMMS for Building SSWG Cases. Wes Woitt CenterPoint Energy 2010 SSWG Chair. Current Process. TSP Data PSSE IDEV. TSP Data PSSE RAW format. Yes. Posted to ERCOT Website. No. ERCOT Using PSSE. Compile Data and Solve. Output PSSE Cases. Case need tuning?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Status Update: Using NMMS for Building SSWG Cases
Wes WoittCenterPoint Energy2010 SSWG Chair
Current Process
TSP DataPSSE RAW format
ERCOTUsing PSSE
TSP DataPSSE IDEV
Compile Dataand Solve
ERCOT Determines Dispatch Using UPLAN
OutputPSSE Cases
Posted toERCOT Website
Ready for use in planning studies
Case needtuning?
Yes
No
TSP Data• Some have internal databases to compile data • Others take previous case and add projects or corrections as necessary• Incumbent upon each TSP to coordinate and track what is contained in data sent to ERCOT
NMMS Process
TSP DataPSSE RAW format
ERCOTUsing PSSE
TSP DataPMCR
Compile Dataand Solve
ERCOT Determines Dispatch Using UPLAN
OutputPSSE Cases
Posted toERCOT Website
Ready for use in planning studies
Case needtuning?
Yes
No
MOD
PSSE
Topology fromNMMS Topology
ProcessorRAW file to MOD
TSPs ProvideLoads and DeviceControl Profiles
RAW file to MOD
TSPs ProvideFuture Projects
PMCR
Topology Processor (TP)Topology Processor (TP)
• Converts Operations formatConverts Operations formatto Planning format (RAW) filesto Planning format (RAW) files
• MOD produces (.PRJ Project)MOD produces (.PRJ Project)
• Converts “Bus/breaker”Converts “Bus/breaker” to “Bus/branch” model to “Bus/branch” model
Case Builder (CB)Case Builder (CB)
• Builds time-based modelsBuilds time-based models
4
Topology Processor Functionality
What’s been done so far?
• IMM work ERCOT prepopulated much of the planning related data in 2009 TSPs cleaned up over 1000 incorrect Connectivity Node Groups
(CNGs) Moved incorrect Connectivity Nodes into the correct CNGs Worked with ERCOT to correct CNGs and nodes where TSPs did not
have ownership TSPs cleaned up planning related data (Area #s, Zone #s, ckt IDs, etc.)
• Submitted SCR 759• Worked with ERCOT to modify TP• MOD training in July• Currently testing new build process using Topology
Processor (TP) and MOD• Identified issues with TP/IMM
IMM/TP output PSSE v30TSP Combined Issues List #50
• TP is already dated SSWG moved to PSSE v31 in May 2009 New data types and parameters
• PSSE generally puts out a new version annually• For TP to be able to include new data types or new
parameters, IMM will need to be changed not just TP
No Distribution Cap Banks in TP CaseTSP Combined Issues List #38
• TSPs model distribution cap banks at transmission buses in PSSE
Allows cap banks to be switched during planning studies• IMM does not model equipment below transmission
voltage• Hundreds of these cap banks in ERCOT system• Cannot solve through MOD Device Control Profile
Distribution Cap banks
Fall Planning Case Topology Processor Case
Zero Impedance Lines Created by TP Have 9999 MVA Ratings
TSP Combined Issues List #35
• TSPs model about 250 zero impedance lines which have real ratings in SSWG cases• See examples
Zero Impedance Line RatingsPlanning Case
TP Case
Zero impedance branch 46110 – 46111 – 95Rate A = 360 MVARate B = 440 MVARate C = 440 MVA
Non-zero impedance branch 46111 – 46002 – 95Rate A = 455 MVARate B = 478 MVARate C = 580 MVA
North Belt 138 kV
Zero Impedance Line Ratings
Associating Loads and Cap Banks with the Correct CNG
TSP Combined Issues List #33 and #34
• It was somewhat of an art to assign nodes to CNGs to create model that we wanted to see• See example
LEGENDNode Switch AC Line Segment Series Compensator Breaker
• With the current method of modeling, the cap bank and distribution load are associated with Bus 40000. To match the topology of our cases, the cap bank and distribution load should be associated with Buses 40001 & 40002, respectively. With the cap bank and load modeled as part of multi-section lines off of the main bus (40000), we are able to switch the lines, de-energize the cap bank, and “roll” the load to another load bus. This is impossible with the current method, because when the lines are de-energized, the cap bank and load remain on the main bus (40000).• See Figure 2 for the resulting PSSE diagram when the above (current) method of modeling is run through the Topology Processor.• See Figure 3 for the desired PSSE topology of the above substation.
Figure 1: Modeling of Cap Banks and Load Taps in IMMScenario 1
B
D
E
F
A
C
Bus 40000
G
Bus 40002
Bus 40001To Bus 80000
Bus 50000
Ckt. 01
Ckt. 02Bus 60000
To Bus 70000
Figure 2: Resulting PSSE Topology Using Scenario 1 Modeling Method
LEGENDNode Switch AC Line Segment Series Compensator Breaker
• With the current method of modeling, the cap bank and distribution load are associated with Bus 40000. To match the topology of our cases, the cap bank and distribution load should be associated with Buses 40001 & 40002, respectively. With the cap bank and load modeled as part of multi-section lines off of the main bus (40000), we are able to switch the lines, de-energize the cap bank, and “roll” the load to another load bus. This is impossible with the current method, because when the lines are de-energized, the cap bank and load remain on the main bus (40000).• See Figure 2 for the resulting PSSE diagram when the above (current) method of modeling is run through the Topology Processor.• See Figure 3 for the desired PSSE topology of the above substation.
Figure 4: Modeling of Cap Banks and Load Taps in IMMScenario 2
B
D
E
F
A
C
Bus 40000
G
Bus 40002
Bus 40001To Bus 80000
Bus 50000
Ckt. 01
Ckt. 02Bus 60000
To Bus 70000
Figure 5: Resulting PSSE Topology Using Scenario 2 Modeling Method
Figure 3: Desired PSSE Topology
Autotransformer Modeling IssuesTSP Combined Issues List #41, #42, #48, and #52
• #48 and #52: • CNP reported that the TP was incorrectly calculating off-nominal 3-winding
transformer impedances.• Subsequent discussion with ERCOT/Siemens leads us to believe that we are
inputting incorrect Ohmic impedances into IMM – Still testing• Siemens has used this method in other regions and had the same arguments• No documentation about what we are expected to provide in IMM or what
calculation TP is using• #41
• CNP Operations standardizes all autos – SCADA does adjustment automatically• PSSE does not have that same intelligence; therefore, IMM auto models must
be adjusted to reflect real equipment characteristics• Some parameters can be changed in Device Control Profile, but not all• Not talking about ratings and impedances differences
• #42• Allow a phase shift to be applied to transformers and output in the case.
Useful when creating cases for fault duty studies to have this already in case.• This has nothing to do with phase-shifting transformers
Autotransformer Ops Model vs. Planning Model
The device control profile is not robust enough to handle the majority of differences between the Topology Processor output case and the Transmission Planning case. Instead, at least 50 3-winding transformers in CenterPoint Energy’s area will require PRJ files to alter the Topology Processor output case to a typical Transmission Planning case.
Differences Resolved with PRJ
•Moving the LTC from the low winding to the high winding.
•Number of taps
•Specifying a different voltage control bus
•The tap range of the LTC Rmax, Rmin
Differences Resolved with Device Control Profile
•Winding voltage for off-nominal NLTC settings.
•The auto-adjust code for LTC windings
•Voltage control bus regulation values Vmax, Vmin
FACTS Device ModelingTSP Combined Issues List #32
• PSSE allows modeling FACTS devices (STATCOMs, SVCs, TSCs, etc.) in a number of different ways
Generator Switched shunt FACTS Device
• TP only outputs a FACTS device as a generator model• Important to model correctly for dynamic studies
FACTS Devices
Planning Case – CNP’s FACTS Device TP Case model – CNP’s FACTS Device
FACTS Devices
Planning Case – AEN’s FACTS DeviceTP case – AEN’s FACTS Device,
currently on wrong bus
PSSE IDs for Branches
• PSSE allows any two character CKT ID for any branch• IMM has validation rules that series devices PSSE CKT
IDs have to be Sx• TP automatically creates PSSE CKT ID of BC or BO for
any branch that represents and breaker or switch• Would prefer to leave PSSE CKT ID open and left to the
discretion of TSPs
Line IDs with BO/BC ID
RARF Data TSP Combined Issues List #30
• TSPs have seen lots of basic problems with RARF data MBASE Zsorce
• Other RARF data problems Reactive data does not correspond with biennial tests RARFs submitted with erroneous PSSE bus numbers
ERCOT Network Modeling creates NOMCRs Creates problems with TP output as SSWG recently discovered
• Need process to allow TSP review• Even more issues with wind resource RARFs• NPRRs currently being drafted or in process
Equipment Associated with SPS/RAPs Modeled in IMM
TSP Combined Issues List #49
• SPS/RAP models are not real equipment• TSPs see additional data in TP output
Remaining Issues TSP Combined Issues List #26, #27, #28, #29
• #26: Each of the items identified above can be fixed in SSWG base cases through ‘Standard’ PMCRs
Taken as a whole, this represents an enormous amount of corrections to make to the case
SCR being drafted to propose changes to many of these• #27: Changes described in #26 are not implemented by
next spring• #28: SCR 759 is never implemented
Multi-section line creation is not functional• #29: Case building process is still very unclear
Due to these uncertainties Just begun finding issues with MOD
Remaining Issues TSP Combined Issues List #40, #48, #51, #52
• #40: Specific modeling added for contingency analysis, dynamic analysis, short circuit analysis, etc., that is lost by creating cases from IMM data
This punishes TSPs who have made a concerted effort to align their base cases to serve the needs of planning, protection, and stability studies without having to maintain separate cases.
• #48: Topology Processor issues Software is still being changed Radial line reduction still not working properly
• #51: Not all TSPs have PSSE which is creating problems with their ability to create PRJ files
Potential resolution is being discussed, but it is a workaround• #52: Lack of documentation about TP