View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Technology Innovation
AN EFFICIENT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING A COMMON
WECC-WIDE NODE/BREAKER MODEL
Presenter: Ramu Ramanathan Ph.D., P.E., PMP
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Project Synopsis
Goal of the Project
2
Define the requirements to come up with a
workable approach to develop an efficient
WECC wide common node/breaker model
Key deliverable: a final project report
documenting
Barriers to a common WECC node/breaker
model
Requirements for a regional common model
A plan for phase II
Goal: Requirements for common node/breaker model
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Project Synopsis
Peak
Model
CAISO
Model
Utility
1
Model
Utility
2
Model
Utility
m
Model
Current Status – Network models
Different Network Models
3
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Project Synopsis
Different Models
Node/Breaker – Bus Branch
Different
Parameters – Footprints
Financial/Legal
LMP VTL
Reliability
Different Results
RAS Curtailments Black/Brown
Outs
Qualified Staff
Current Issues
4
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Expected Benefits
5
• Improves model accuracy and transparency among
different organizations
• Provides a common framework to cross validate
model performance to improve reliability
• Better situational awareness for operational decision
making, to avoid cascading failures and blackouts
• Easier to maintain and update the model within a
common framework
Improve: Reliability, Efficiency and Accuracy
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Approach
Survey Initial
Requirements Gaps
Refine Requirements
Phase 2 Plan
6
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Accomplishments
Identify
Potential
Barriers
Prepare Survey
Identify Survey
Approach
Perform Survey
Summarize Findings
Task 1: Identify the barriers
7
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Survey Summary
8
Summary TOP
Survey Responded 34
Survey Results Summarized 23
No EMS systems (Network
Applications)
6
Survey Results to be Entered 5
Note: Survey results need to be reviewed and cleaned up
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Survey Participants (34 in total)
9
WECC Member Name Survey Participant Idaho Power Company Steven Carlton
PacifiCorp
Vijayan Poyya
Manikyan
SCE
Ali Rassamdana,
Gary Sun
San Diego Gas & Electric
Parviz
Ebrahimzadeh
Peak Gareth Lim
WAPA Jonathan Aust
Tacoma Power
Mary Savage,
Khaha Thai
Tucson Electric Power Shashi Gyawali
Portland General Electric Tammy Okubo
BPA Thong Trinh
SRP Brian Meadows
SMUD Devesh S. Chandra
Seattle City Light Mark Petilla
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Joe Betro
Puget Sound Energy Chris Yoon
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power
Lesley Kayser-
Sprouse
WAPA-RMR Zea Flores
FortisBC Inc. Jarret Leason
BC Hydro Michael Yao
Black Hills Corporation Dan Alsup
WECC Member Name Survey Participant Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM)
Brian Reindl
George Nail
El Paso Electric Steve Eckles
Snohomish PUD #1 John Liang
NV Energy Ben Hutchins
NorthWestern Energy Patrick Powers
Avista Corporation Craig N. Figart
Modesto Irrigation District Spencer Tacke
Eugen Water and Power Leon Atkinson
Clark Public Utility Curt McNeal
Silicon Valley Power Janos Bottyan
Turlock Irrigation District Sukhdeep S Gill
Douglas County PUD Jeff Heminger
Chelan County PUD Dennis Tarbert
Grant County PUD Kevin Carley
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
No Network Applications
10
1.Eugen Water and Power
2.Clark Public Utility
3.Silicon Valley Power
4.Douglas County PUD
5.Chelan County PUD
6. Modesto Irrigation District
Survey Results Not Included
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Survey Results Need to Be Updated
11
1. Turlock Irrigation District
2. NV Energy
3. NorthWestern Energy
4. Avista Corporation
5. Grant County PUD
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q1: EMS system vendor
12
GE
Grid solution 10
Harris 4
OSI 7
Siemens 3
Other 1
WAPA
only organization
that use multiple
systems.
GE Grid Solution (Alstom): 10
Idaho Power Company
Peak
WAPA
BPA
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Puget Sound Energy
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power
BC Hydro
El Paso Electric
Snohomish PUD #1
OSI: 7
PacifiCorp
Tacoma Power (ABB Ranger -
>)
Portland General Electric
SRP
SCL
Black Hills Corporation
Public Service Company of
New Mexico (PNM)
Siemens: 3
Tucson Electric Power
SMUD
WAPA (ODMS)
GE Harris:4
SCE
San Diego Gas & Electric
WAPA
WAPA-RMR
Other (No network Apps)
FortisBC Inc. ( Survalent
ONE SCADA & OMS )
OSI
GE Harris
Siemens
Other
GE Grid Solution (Alstom)
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
13
2. Do you have network applications in your EMS? (How many staff to support
the network model database? How often do you update the network model ?)
WECC Member Name Supports Update Frequency
Idaho Power Company 1~2 staff 3 months (weekly)
PacifiCorp 4 staff 1 month
SCE 7~8 staff Daily
San Diego Gas & Electric 2 staff weekly
Peak 3 staff every 5 weeks
WAPA 6~7 staff couple times a week
Tacoma Power None 4~8 weeks per Peak RC’s process
Tucson Electric Power 2 staff internal as needed, external yearly
Portland General Electric 1 staff monthly
BPA 3 staff every two weeks
SRP 7 staff every 1~2 weeks
SMUD 2 staff 1 month
Seattle City Light 1 staff 1 month
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 3 staff weekly
Puget Sound Energy 2 staff Every 2 weeks
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power None N/A
WAPA-RMR 2 staff weekly
FortisBC Inc. None N/A
BC Hydro 2staff bimonthly
Black Hills Corporation 3 staff Daily
Public Service Company of New Mexico
(PNM) 5 staff monthly
El Paso Electric 10 staff monthly
Snohomish PUD #1 None N/A
Average utilities have
2.5 staff to update
network model
Staffing varies from 1
to 10
The model updating
frequency varies from
daily to 3 months
If external model
update initially can be
monthly and gradually
needs to go to
biweekly. Then to
weekly
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
3. What are the technical challenges caused by different models?
14
Delta tracking (Update and comparing is difficult because on different
naming, different level of modeling)
Keeping external model current is always challenging with extensive
correspondence required with adjacent entities
Standardization such as naming, etc.
Comparison of results,
Parameter differences
Quality assurance
Different Solution from ISO, Peak RC
Model Updating Frequency & Synchronization
Lack of governance or modeling Standard
Model verification and validation
Difficult to coordinate between WSM/planning/EMS cases due to different
naming and numbering schemes.
Internal model more detail than Peak WSM model
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q4: Format for exporting node/breaker network models ( CIM, CSV, … )
15
Idaho Power Company CIM 15, CSV, Netmom
PacifiCorp CIM 15
SCE CIM 14, GE extension
San Diego Gas & Electric CSV
Peak CIM 15
WAPA CIM 15, extension, CSV,
Tacoma Power None
Tucson Electric Power CIM 12
Portland General Electric CIM 10, CSV
BPA CSV
SRP CIM 12 (moving to CIM 15), CSV
SMUD CSV
Seattle City Light CIM 13 (moving to CIM 15)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. CSV from HDBExport
Puget Sound Energy CIM 15, CSV from HDBExport
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power Other: GE PSLF V21
WAPA-RMR None
FortisBC Inc. None
BC Hydro
CIM 14/15, GE-Alstom extension,
CSV
Black Hills Corporation Generic CSV
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM)
CIMXML 10/12/13/15, CSV, PSLF
(by 09/2017)
El Paso Electric CSV
Snohomish PUD #1 CSV
Different version of CIM
(10/12/13/14/15);
12 utilities
CSV
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q5: Format for importing node/breaker network models ( CIM, CSV, … )
16
Idaho Power Company CIM 15, CSV, eterra
PacifiCorp CIM 15
SCE CIM 14, GE extension
San Diego Gas & Electric CSV
Peak CIM 14_15_16, CSV, OSI and other csv
WAPA
CIM 15, extension, CSV, Others: PSLF, PSSE,
File
Tacoma Power None for now, CIM with OSI in future
Tucson Electric Power capable of importing up to CIM 15
Portland General Electric CIM 10, manual manipulation
BPA CSV
SRP
CIM 15 (in future, with upgraded OSI EMS),
CSV
SMUD Siemens Proprietary data model format
Seattle City Light CIM 13 (moving to CIM 15)
Pacific Gas and Electric
Co. CSV from HDBExport
Puget Sound Energy CSV from HDBExport
Hetch Hetchy Water &
Power None
WAPA-RMR None
FortisBC Inc. None
BC Hydro CIM 15, extension, CSV
Black Hills Corporation Generic CSV
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM)
CIMXML 10/12/13/15, CSV, PSLF (by
09/2017)
El Paso Electric Not Sure (CSV)
Snohomish PUD #1 CSV from GE Grid solution, many others:
Different version of
CIM (10/12/13/14/15);
12 utilities
CSV
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q6: Using different naming convention for equipment?
(Internal EMS model Vs. West wide System Model from Peak Reliability)
17
Idaho Power Company Different
PacifiCorp Different
SCE Different
San Diego Gas & Electric Different
Peak N/A
WAPA Different
Tacoma Power Different
Tucson Electric Power Different
Portland General Electric Different
BPA
Majority same, more detailed
node breaker model
SRP Different
SMUD Different
Seattle City Light Same as Peak except switches
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Different
Puget Sound Energy Different
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power Yes (Same)
WAPA-RMR Different
FortisBC Inc. N/A
BC Hydro Different
Black Hills Corporation Different
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) Different
El Paso Electric Different
Snohomish PUD #1 Different
BPA, SCL and HHWP are
the only utilities company
that using the same
naming convention as
WSM from Peak RC;
Other utilities confirmed
that they are using
different naming
convention.
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q7: Notice period in advance for system changes?
(the future equipment parameters and configurations)
18
Idaho Power Company Now 1 month, targeting 5 months
PacifiCorp 3 months ahead
SCE varies, at least 1 week
San Diego Gas & Electric 1 month
Peak 30 days per IRO-010 requirement
WAPA 30 days
Tacoma Power 1~6 months
Tucson Electric Power 30 days for internal
Portland General Electric 6 months
BPA 30 days
SRP Several months ahead
SMUD 1 ~ 2 months
Seattle City Light 1 month
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. < 2 weeks
Puget Sound Energy Equipment installed ~ 6 months
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power > 3 days
WAPA-RMR greatly varies
FortisBC Inc. Maximum 60 days
BC Hydro
6 weeks general, 1 or 2 days for
Emergency
Black Hills Corporation 1 or 2 months for internal
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) 3 months
El Paso Electric no brief answer
Snohomish PUD #1 1 or 2 years for a future project
18 utilities are
consistent on 30-day
ahead notice policy;
PGE receive notices 6
months ahead;
PacifiCorp receive
notices 3 month
ahead;
SCE notice period is
significantly shorter
than others (need
double check?).
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q8: Is it useful to have a WECC wide centralized database node/breaker network
model ?
19
Idaho Power Company Yes
PacifiCorp Yes
SCE Yes
San Diego Gas & Electric Yes
Peak N/A
WAPA Yes
Tacoma Power Yes
Tucson Electric Power Yes
Portland General Electric Yes
BPA Yes
SRP Yes (ideal)
SMUD Yes
Seattle City Light Yes
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Yes
Puget Sound Energy Yes
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power Yes
WAPA-RMR Yes
FortisBC Inc. Yes
BC Hydro Yes
Black Hills Corporation Yes
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) Yes
El Paso Electric Yes
Snohomish PUD #1 Maybe
Most of the survey participants
confirm that a WECC wide
centralized node/breaker model
will benefit the external
network modeling.
Yes
Maybe
N/A
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q9: Format for exporting/importing EMS displays?
20
Idaho Power Company No export or import
PacifiCorp export in PDF, no import
SCE export in AutoCAD, no import
San Diego Gas & Electric No export or import
Peak No export or import
WAPA export in PDF and autoCAD, No import
Tacoma Power No export or import
Tucson Electric Power No export or import
Portland General Electric No export or import
BPA N/A, import Alstom WebFG
SRP export in PDF, no import
SMUD export & import SVG(XML)
Seattle City Light Export in PDF and OSI display, no import
Pacific Gas and Electric No export or import
Puget Sound Energy No export or import
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power None
WAPA-RMR None
FortisBC Inc. None
BC Hydro Export none, import GE WebFG
Black Hills Corporation None
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) None
El Paso Electric None
Snohomish PUD #1 export .pwd, import pwd, axd, areva .DDL
It is a challenging
issue.
No good solution is
supported by
vendors.
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q10: Supports for building/validating the bus/branch WECC seasonal cases?
21
Idaho Power Company 1~2
PacifiCorp 4
SCE 2~3
San Diego Gas & Electric 5, not all full time
Peak N/A
WAPA 11
Tacoma Power 0.1 FTE
Tucson Electric Power Not sure, in planning department
Portland General Electric 2
BPA 7 or 8
SRP 2
SMUD 2
Seattle City Light 4
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. > 10
Puget Sound Energy 1
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power None
WAPA-RMR 2
FortisBC Inc. None
BC Hydro 2
Black Hills Corporation 4
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) 5
El Paso Electric 4
Snohomish PUD #1 1
In general, there will
be 1~5 staffs for this
task within one utility
company.
Based on the model
area number of staff
increases
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Q11: Interested in 15-min phone survey?
22
Idaho Power Company Yes
PacifiCorp Yes
SCE Yes
San Diego Gas & Electric Yes
Peak Yes
WAPA Yes
Tacoma Power Yes
Tucson Electric Power Yes
Portland General Electric Yes
BPA Yes
SRP Yes
SMUD Yes
Seattle City Light Yes
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Yes
Puget Sound Energy Yes
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power No
WAPA-RMR Yes
FortisBC Inc. Yes
BC Hydro Yes
Black Hills Corporation Yes
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) Yes
El Paso Electric Yes
Snohomish PUD #1 No
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
WECC TSS A1: Interested in a common model for planning & operation?
23
Idaho Power Company Yes
PacifiCorp
SCE
San Diego Gas & Electric
Peak
WAPA
Tacoma Power
Tucson Electric Power Yes
Portland General Electric
BPA
SRP
SMUD
Seattle City Light
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Puget Sound Energy Yes
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power Yes
WAPA-RMR Yes
FortisBC Inc. Yes
BC Hydro
Black Hills Corporation Yes
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) Yes
El Paso Electric Yes
Snohomish PUD #1 Maybe
1. This question was added latter.
2. Interested to have a common model for
planning and operation.
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
WECC TSS A2: In the long term, interested in moving to a common node
breaker model for planning?
24
Idaho Power Company Yes
PacifiCorp
SCE
San Diego Gas & Electric
Peak
WAPA
Tacoma Power
Tucson Electric Power Yes
Portland General Electric
BPA
SRP
SMUD
Seattle City Light
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Puget Sound Energy Yes
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power Yes
WAPA-RMR Yes
FortisBC Inc. Yes
BC Hydro
Black Hills Corporation Yes
Public Service Company
of New Mexico (PNM) depends
El Paso Electric Yes
Snohomish PUD #1 Not sure
1. This question was added latter.
2. Planning people are interessted to move
to node/breaker model
Draft
B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Need survey input from following utilities
25
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Arizona Public Service Company
California Independent System Operator
Colorado Springs Utilities
Farmington Electric Utility System
Imperial Irrigation District
Intermountain Rural Electric Association
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
National Nuclear Security Administration - Los Alamos National Laboratory
Pend Oreille County Public Utility District No. 1
Platte River Power Authority
Public Service Company of Colorado
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Trans Bay Cable LLC
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. - Reliability
Valley Electric Association, Inc
Draft
Recommended