Branden SudduthDirector, Reliability Assessment and
Performance Analysis
Rocky Mountain Region PA/PC MeetingMarch 18-19, 2014Denver, Colorado
2
• The NERC Functional Model Overview• The Planning Coordinator• The Coverage Gap Issue in WECC• WECC Staff Observations• Planning Coordination Committee Effort
o Planning Coordinator Survey Results
Overview
The NERC Functional Model and the Planning Coordinator
4
• NERC Reliability Function Model version 5o Functional Definitions and Functional Entitieso Technical Document
• Purpose:o Provide a framework for Standards
developmentoDescribe reliability functions and relationships
between entities that are responsible for performing the tasks within the functions
The NERC Reliability Functional Model
5
• The model must be complete – no gaps• No overlap for operation tasks• In certain instances, overlap for planning
tasks is unavoidable• The model is a guideline – it does not
address requirements for registration, delegation, or sharing responsibility
Guiding Principles of the Model
6
• Develop methodologies for planning analysis and simulation
• Define information required for planning purposes and facilitate collection process
• Evaluate, develop, document, and report plans for Planning Coordinator area
• Coordinate with adjoining Planning Coordinators
• Develop and maintain models
Function – Planning Reliability
7
• “The functional entity that coordinates, facilitates, integrates and evaluates (generally one year and beyond) transmission facility and service plans, and resource plans within a Planning Coordinator area and coordinates those plans with adjoining Planning Coordinator areas.”
• Assesses longer-term reliability
Functional Entity – Planning Coordinator
8
• Standards applicable to the “Planning Authority” are applicable to the “Planning Coordinator” (pre-version 3 revision)
Standards – Planning Coordinator
9
• Some Applicable Reliability Standardso TPL-001 through 004 (System Performance)o FAC-002 (Coordination of Plans for New
Facilities)o FAC-010 (System Operating Limits
Methodology for the Planning Horizon)oMOD-016 (Actual and Forecast Demands, Net
Energy for Load, Controllable DSM)
Standards – Planning Coordinator (cont.)
10
• NERC Functional Model is not always prescriptive on “who reports to who”
• Depending on the specific function, reporting structure for a functional entity may change
• Structure can vary greatly depending on interpretation by entity
• Planning Coordinator definition is vague and Registration doesn’t help
Organization Structure
The Planning Coordinator Gap Issue in WECC
12
• June 2007oMandatory Standards initially created chaos o “Checklist” registration with no review or
coordination
• Functional Model meant to be a one-size-fits-all solution – in many instances, WECC is “different”o Area Coordinatorso Path Operators
Contributing Factors to the Problem
13
Planning Coordinator Count by Region
Region Planning Coordinators
Transmission Planners
WECC 30 46
TRE 1 27
FRCC 14 13
MRO 5 24
NPCC 6 14
RFC 3 13
SERC 20 32
SPP 2 19
14
• Perceived reliability risk because:o Several entities do not know who their Planning
Coordinator is or mistakenly assume another entity is performing this function for them
o There is a lack of clarity in Functional Model around who should be a Planning Coordinator
o There is no clear definition of a Planning Coordinator Area
o There may be reliability functions not being performed because of gaps
Planning Coordinator Gaps Issue
WECC Staff Observations and PCC Efforts
16
• In WECC, currently Planning Coordinator gaps create more of a compliance risk than a reliability risko Many functions duplicative of Transmission Planner
functionso Area Coordinators created for data collectiono Interconnection-wide coordinated plans (UFLS)
• The list of registered Planning Coordinators almost the same as list of registered Balancing Authorities
WECC Staff Observations
17
• Gaps not prevalent in regions where ISO/RTOs exist
• Reluctance to be a Planning Coordinator is often tied to liability concerns
• More Reliability Standards applicable to the Planning Coordinator are being developed…
WECC Staff Observations (cont.)
18
• Passed final ballot in December 2013• NERC Board approval February 2014• Requires data providers to submit power flow,
dynamics, and short-circuit data to their Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner
MOD-032 Standard Development Update
19
Base Case Data Submittal Process (current and general)
Generator Owner
Transmission Owner
Resource Planner
Transmission Planner
Area Coordinator WECC
20
Base Case Data Submittal Process (MOD-032)
21
• October 2013: PCC asks WECC staff to develop a list mapping Transmission Owners and Generator Owners to Planning Coordinators
• December 2013: System Review Work Group survey conducted to identify facilities not in a Planning Coordinator Areao PCs asked to respond to surveyo Still collecting and compiling responses
Planning Coordination Committee (PCC) Effort
22
Planning Coordinator PreliminarySurvey Results as of 3-11-14
23
“Arizona” Area Unclaimed Buses
91
59
35
1 1
Generator OwnedSWTCFEUNMIID
24
“Northwest” Area Unclaimed Buses
115
4
8
12
121 20
Generator OwnedCity of CentraliaAvistaJCPUDMFROTC IdahoFirst WindOP&L
25
“Montana/WAPA UM” Area Unclaimed Buses
9
4
1
Generator ownedNorthwesternHill Co Elec
26
“PSCo/WAPA RM” Area Unclaimed Buses
9
420
711
128
8
94
27
16 237 9
Generator Owned Tri StateWest PlainsEMAPAC EWAPA LMWapa UCBlack HillsPSCOIMPlatte RiverBasin
27
“California” Area Unclaimed Buses
33
60
46
2226
4
2312
33
4
87
3Metro WD
Redding
Silicon VP
USBR
Roseville
CA-OR Trans
NCPA
NextEra
Calpine
San Francisco
Shasta Lake
Modesto
Merced ID
29
• What is the role of the Transmission Planner (TP) vs. Planning Coordinator (PC)?
• Who should be a TP?• Who should be a PC? Who should they be
a PC for?• How should TP and PC area boundaries be
determined?
Defining the Problem
30
• What concerns do entities have relative to being a PC?
• How formalized should PC arrangements be?
• What are a PC’s responsibilities for Generator Owners (non-TO)?
• What can WECC do to help facilitate the resolution of PC gaps?
Formulating a Proposal
31
Review of Action Items
Action Item Status Completion Date