MVWG Report to TSSJan 2016

Jun Wen, MVWG ChairSouthern California Edison

MVWG Vice Chair

Song Wang (PacificCorp) agreed to serve as MVWG Vice Chair

- Principal Transmission Planner at PacificCorp- 20+ years working experience in power system engineering

MVWG TFs LMTF – Hamody Hindi (BPA) PPMVDTF – Steve Yang (BPA) REMTF – Spencer Tacke (MID)* HVDCTF – Pouyan Pourbeik (EPRI) SMVTF – Slaven Kincic (PeakRC)* Relay TF? TBD RAS TF? TBD

* New TF Chairs in Nov 2015

Recent Meetings and WorkshopsMeeting / Workshop Date

Load Modeling Webinar Oct 22, 2015

HVDCTF Meeting Oct 28, 2015

LMTF Meeting Nov 17, 2015

REMTF Meeting Nov 18, 2015

PPMVDTF Meeting Nov 18, 2015

MVWG Meeting Nov 18-19, 2015

MVWG Activities Overview and Approval Items Load Modeling Renewable Energy Modeling

White paper on limitations of generic model – Approval Item System Model Validation

SMVTF Charter Generator Modeling, Testing, and Model Validation HVDC Modeling RAS and Relay Modeling Approved Dynamic Model List 2016 MVWG Meetings and Workshops

Load Modeling

Composite Load Model Work Plan Direct phase 1 model improvements

Improve stall characteristics Improve protection and control

Model implementation improvements Consistent, robust rules for model initialization Program benchmarking

Data management improvements Efficient data management

R&D work Component model flexibility (plug and play) Motorc model benchmarking Improvements to 3ph motor models Load model data tool development Model simplification Evaluation of special studies Expect for approval next meeting

Program Benchmarking Studies The purpose is to ensure performance uniformity among

the programs. Benchmark methodology:

Simple 2 bus model Play-in signal of frequency and voltage at the “system” bus 6 different play-in signals 6 different load models

Preliminary results indicated that overall models behave mostly the same.

The plan is to have benchmarking tests done by March 2016, and white paper by June 2016.

MEPPI WECC Load Model Sensitivity Study

Heat Maps

# of Buses Delta(% change) # of Buses Delta

(% change) # of Buses Delta(% change) # of Buses Delta

(% change) # of Buses Delta(% change) # of Buses Delta

(% change) # of Buses Delta # of Buses Delta(% change) # of Buses Delta

(% change) # of Buses Delta(% change)

1 Phase 2 - 3202 - 2315 - 67 - 178 - 320 - 712 - 221 - 181 - 361 - 105 -

2 -40% 2755 -14% 2042 -12% 61 -9% 139 -22% 207 -35% 384 -46% 40 -82% 20 -89% 328 -9% 88 -16%

3 -20% 2965 -7% 2118 -9% 68 1% 138 -22% 340 6% 453 -36% 110 -50% 70 -61% 385 7% 98 -7%

4 -10% 3060 -4% 2202 -5% 68 1% 143 -20% 342 7% 561 -21% 168 -24% 107 -41% 390 8% 96 -9%

5 +10% 3286 3% 2458 6% 79 18% 216 21% 360 13% 865 21% 249 13% 241 33% 390 8% 111 6%

6 +20% 3336 4% 2608 13% 82 22% 254 43% 412 29% 994 40% 348 57% 281 55% 398 10% 117 11%

7 +40% 3495 9% 2872 24% 88 31% 363 104% 498 56% 1054 48% 446 102% 330 82% 373 3% 114 9%

8 0 3217 0% 2335 1% 71 6% 208 17% 368 15% 901 27% 225 2% 196 8% 371 3% 96 -9%

9 0.05 3208 0% 2322 0% 70 4% 190 7% 342 7% 867 22% 222 0% 193 7% 383 6% 101 -4%

10 0.15 3199 0% 2303 -1% 67 0% 177 -1% 321 0% 612 -14% 215 -3% 188 4% 358 -1% 108 3%

11 0.2 3195 0% 2298 -1% 67 0% 192 8% 342 7% 525 -26% 213 -4% 169 -7% 366 1% 118 12%

12 0.25 3180 -1% 2294 -1% 68 1% 177 -1% 337 5% 473 -34% 207 -6% 146 -19% 386 7% 128 22%

13 0.5 3125 -2% 2250 -3% 79 18% 159 -11% 119 -63% 115 -84% 237 7% 36 -80% 575 59% 257 145%

14 0.4 3202 0% 2315 0% 70 4% 178 0% 320 0% 683 -4% 219 -1% 177 -2% 361 0% 105 0%

15 0.55 3202 0% 2315 0% 69 3% 178 0% 320 0% 709 0% 219 -1% 191 6% 361 0% 105 0%

16 0.65 3202 0% 2315 0% 67 0% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 219 -1% 191 6% 361 0% 105 0%

17 0.75 3202 0% 2315 0% 68 1% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 222 0% 184 2% 361 0% 105 0%

18 0.85 3202 0% 2315 0% 69 3% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 219 -1% 182 1% 361 0% 105 0%

19 0.9 3202 0% 2315 0% 69 3% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 204 -8% 183 1% 361 0% 105 0%

20 1 3202 0% 2315 0% 75 12% 178 0% 320 0% 708 -1% 237 7% 324 79% 882 144% 105 0%

21 1.1 3202 0% 2315 0% 74 10% 178 0% 320 0% 709 0% 233 5% 486 169% 725 101% 105 0%

22 1.3 3202 0% 2315 0% 70 4% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 217 -2% 290 60% 361 0% 105 0%

23 1.4 3202 0% 2315 0% 70 4% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 220 0% 280 55% 361 0% 105 0%

24 2 3202 0% 2315 0% 68 1% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 222 0% 164 -9% 361 0% 105 0%

25 3 3202 0% 2315 0% 71 6% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 202 -9% 67 -63% 358 -1% 105 0%

26 0.01667 3203 0% 2316 0% 85 27% 197 11% 617 93% 1399 96% 487 120% 307 70% 384 6% 83 -21%

27 0.0667 3202 0% 2311 0% 61 -9% 173 -3% 145 -55% 139 -80% 38 -83% 21 -88% 410 14% 762 626%

28 0.08335 3200 0% 2308 0% 61 -9% 164 -8% 140 -56% 148 -79% 39 -82% 21 -88% 410 14% 756 620%

29 0.1 3195 0% 2306 0% 61 -9% 183 3% 143 -55% 141 -80% 38 -83% 21 -88% 403 12% 756 620%

30 0.1667 3192 0% 2306 0% 60 -10% 191 7% 140 -56% 121 -83% 38 -83% 21 -88% 410 14% 756 620%

31 0.25 3192 0% 2306 0% 60 -10% 191 7% 153 -52% 116 -84% 38 -83% 21 -88% 410 14% 756 620%

32 5 3202 0% 2315 0% 76 13% 178 0% 320 0% 687 -4% 236 7% 143 -21% 958 165% 107 2%

33 10 3202 0% 2315 0% 72 7% 178 0% 320 0% 698 -2% 221 0% 251 39% 378 5% 105 0%

34 12 3202 0% 2315 0% 70 4% 178 0% 320 0% 709 0% 221 0% 256 41% 361 0% 105 0%

35 17 3202 0% 2315 0% 69 3% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 216 -2% 146 -19% 361 0% 105 0%36 20 3202 0% 2315 0% 71 6% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 202 -9% 126 -30% 361 0% 105 0%37 25 3202 0% 2315 0% 73 9% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 203 -8% 96 -47% 358 -1% 105 0%38 Min 3269 2% 2403 4% 84 25% 225 26% 440 38% 1042 46% 297 34% 207 14% 362 0% 104 -1%39 R1 3229 1% 2344 1% 66 -1% 202 13% 393 23% 625 -12% 223 1% 212 17% 397 10% 100 -5%40 R2 3229 1% 2344 1% 66 -1% 202 13% 393 23% 625 -12% 223 1% 212 17% 397 10% 100 -5%41 R3 3114 -3% 2244 -3% 64 -4% 152 -15% 338 6% 504 -29% 170 -23% 120 -34% 393 9% 104 -1%42 R4 3013 -6% 2153 -7% 65 -3% 143 -20% 183 -43% 510 -28% 116 -48% 50 -72% 474 31% 119 13%43 Max 2849 -11% 1992 -14% 67 0% 139 -22% 319 0% 664 -7% 164 -26% 138 -24% 484 34% 72 -31%44 0.5 3202 0% 2315 0% 66 -1% 178 0% 148 -54% 509 -29% 180 -19% 126 -30% 380 5% 114 9%45 0.7 3202 0% 2315 0% 66 -1% 178 0% 315 -2% 751 5% 182 -18% 117 -35% 361 0% 112 7%46 0.8 3202 0% 2315 0% 66 -1% 178 0% 320 0% 714 0% 198 -10% 142 -22% 361 0% 108 3%47 0.85 3202 0% 2315 0% 66 -1% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 207 -6% 150 -17% 361 0% 105 0%48 0.9 3202 0% 2315 0% 67 0% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 215 -3% 167 -8% 361 0% 105 0%49 1 3202 0% 2315 0% 66 -1% 178 0% 320 0% 712 0% 219 -1% 195 8% 361 0% 105 0%50 0.3 3253 2% 2413 4% 66 -1% 173 -3% 174 -46% 217 -70% 40 -82% 21 -88% 513 42% 305 190%51 0.4 3251 2% 2373 3% 66 -1% 170 -4% 160 -50% 182 -74% 39 -82% 18 -90% 466 29% 402 283%52 0.45 3220 1% 2330 1% 72 7% 167 -6% 299 -7% 280 -61% 106 -52% 40 -78% 472 31% 251 139%53 0.55 3202 0% 2314 0% 71 6% 189 6% 326 2% 802 13% 220 0% 194 7% 353 -2% 101 -4%54 0.6 3202 0% 2319 0% 80 19% 194 9% 411 28% 1236 74% 289 31% 248 37% 365 1% 86 -18%55 0.8 3094 -3% 2591 12% 73 9% 319 79% 1911 497% 2966 317% 1031 367% 869 380% 7 -98% 56 -47%

Tth(15)

Vc1Vc2

Vrst(0.95)

Vstall(0.5)

> 30% Voltage Dip

FmD(varies)

Fuvr(0.1)

Th1t(0.7)

Th2t(1.2)

Tstall(0.033)

Voltage overshoot over 1.1 p.u. b/w 8 and 15 seconds

Voltage overshoot over 1.1 p.u. within 8 secondsRef.

No. Variable

Voltage overshoot over 1.1 p.u. b/w 15 and 30 seconds Voltage < 70% in 1 second Voltage < 80% in 3 seconds

Setting Voltage < 90% in 5 seconds Voltage Deviation > 5% > 25% Voltage Dip Generator Swings Offline

Par

amet

ers

ObservationsPhase 2 Base Case

% change from Base Casefor all contingencies(Motor D fraction)

Type of observation

Load Loss Summary Per Contingency

10

1PH Stuck Breaker5+ branches lost

No-fault gen loss No-fault gen loss Line and gen loss Double line loss

Load Loss (MW)

Delta(% change)

Load Loss (MW)

Delta(% change)

Load Loss (MW)

Delta(% change)

Load Loss (MW)

Delta(% change)

Load Loss (MW)

Delta(% change)

1 Phase 2 - 1884 - 533 - 270 - 3242 - 1219 -

2 -40% 890 -53% 490 -8% 261 -3% 2194 -32% 886 -27%

3 -20% 1174 -38% 512 -4% 266 -2% 2675 -17% 1052 -14%

4 -10% 1302 -31% 523 -2% 268 -1% 3003 -7% 1181 -3%

5 +10% 2263 20% 542 2% 272 1% 3514 8% 1513 24%

6 +20% 2565 36% 552 4% 273 1% 3763 16% 2293 88%

7 +40% 3108 65% 569 7% 276 2% 4353 34% 2303 89%

8 0 2031 8% 533 0% 270 0% 3259 1% 1140 -6%

9 0.05 1941 3% 533 0% 270 0% 3190 -2% 1187 -3%

10 0.15 1779 -6% 533 0% 270 0% 3286 1% 1270 4%

11 0.2 1794 -5% 533 0% 270 0% 3341 3% 1312 8%

12 0.25 1786 -5% 533 0% 270 0% 3373 4% 1362 12%

13 0.5 1544 -18% 533 0% 270 0% 3664 13% 1596 31%

26 0.01667 1940 3% 533 0% 270 0% 4421 36% 2142 76%

27 0.0667 1505 -20% 533 0% 270 0% 1568 -52% 973 -20%

28 0.08335 1449 -23% 533 0% 270 0% 1563 -52% 973 -20%

29 0.1 1429 -24% 533 0% 270 0% 1563 -52% 973 -20%

30 0.1667 1405 -25% 533 0% 270 0% 1563 -52% 973 -20%

31 0.25 1404 -25% 533 0% 270 0% 1563 -52% 973 -20%

32 5 1897 1% 533 0% 270 0% 3232 0% 1221 0%

33 10 1885 0% 533 0% 270 0% 3239 0% 1208 -1%

34 12 1885 0% 533 0% 270 0% 3239 0% 1205 -1%

35 17 1883 0% 533 0% 270 0% 3253 0% 1219 0%

36 20 1879 0% 533 0% 270 0% 3268 1% 1211 -1%

37 25 1842 -2% 533 0% 270 0% 3263 1% 1213 0%

Tstall(0.033)

Tth(15)

Contingency 4 Contingency 5

FmD(varies)

Fuvr(0.1)

Ref.No. Variable Setting

Contingency 1 Contingency 2 Contingency 3

Composite Load Model Improvements Motor characteristics were not fully captured by positive

sequence program The closer the fault is, the larger the breaking torque is.

Some continuums needs to be added to stalling phenomenon John Undrill played a movie of hundreds of disturbance events

seen by a feeder in Houston during summer. FIDVR doesn’t happen every time.

Stall Voltage and point-on-wave variation

Ramp voltage instead

NERC, DOE, and Industry Activities NERC-DOE Joint FIDVR Workshop

http://www.nerc.com/comm/PC/Pages/System-Analysis-and-Modeling-Subcommittee-(SAMS)-2013.aspx

NATF Load Modeling Activities WECC LMTF Load Modeling Webinar

Oct 22, 2015 Available at WECC MVWG page Seminars

NERC new LMTF First meeting, Jan 12-13, Salt Lake Office NERC and WECC LMTF coordination is being worked on to

avoid overlap

Renewable Energy Modeling

New REMTF chair: Spencer Tacke (MID)

Many thanks to Abe Ellis (Sandia) who served as REMTF chair for the past 10 years

REMTF charter is expected to be reviewed at the next meeting

Whitepaper on Limitations of Generic Models Pouyan Pourbeik (EPRI) led and completed the White Paper “Value

and Limitations of the Positive Sequence Generic Models of Renewable Energy Systems”

The White Paper summarized why the second generation renewable energy models were developed, and the limitations in their applicability.

The main limitations: Not intended for use in performing studies of phenomena outside of typical range

of frequencies of interest in power system stability studies (i.e. 0.1-3 Hz) Not intended for detailed analysis of unbalanced phenomena Not intended for detailed local studies associated with control tuning and design

for the interconnection of win/PV to very weak system (i.e. short-circuit ratios below 2-3)

The White Paper was unanimously approved.

Motion: Approve the White Paper on the Limitations of Generic Models

Energy Storage Modeling Xiaokang Xu (S&C) tested the battery storage model REEC_C

across 4 software platforms. His simulation results showed large differences in the responses of the frequency and MW output, as well as noticeable differences of the voltage and MVAR output.

The most likely reason seemed to be the use of system base versus generator base when calculating the model per unit values.

The software vendors will look into this and the simulations will be re-run.

Enhanced Plant Level Control REPC_B will have additional new features, including interface with

multiple WTGs, interface with reactive support devices, and plant level power factor control option.

Work in progress. GE and PowerWorld have beta versions implemented. PTI is working on the model. Jay Senthil (Siemens) presented his work on implementing the model.

Jay proposed a new module for the plant controller which allows users to interface with up to 50 devices including Wind Type 3, 4, PV, STATCOM, SVC, Synchronous Condenser, etc., and allows for interface with the REPC_A model.

Jay proposed alternatives which would allow users to define a few, or many, sub-models that can interface with the existing REPC_A model

The proposal will be discussed among a small group, including Pouyan Pourbeik (EPRI) who wasn’t able to attend the meeting.

DG Modeling Abe Ellis (Sandia) briefed the current revision work on

IEEE 1547. DG tripping/recovery needs to be considered for the advanced DG modeling.

The flexibility to plug-in different DG models into the Composite Load Model was briefly discussed. Jamie Weber presented the implementation of DG for both power flow and dynamics in PowerWorld.

Others “Generic Wind Turbine Generator Models for WECC – A Second

Status Report” was awarded one of the four “Best of the Best” papers at 2015 IEEE PES General Meeting.

Potential work by Sandia and BPA sponsored by DOE: Wind model verification tool Wind model validation process and guideline

Vendor specific type 4 WTG modeling issues

System Model Validation

JSIS Update Dmitry Kosterev (BPA) provided update on the JSIS

activitieshttps://www.wecc.biz/Pages/FilteredCalendar.aspx?FilterField1=Committee&FilterValue1=JSIS

SMVTF Charter System Model Validation TF (SMVTF):

Select disturbance events and develop disturbance cases 2 Planning Case conversions per year Have a basecase review process in place

Perform system model validation studies and provide modeling and practice recommendations

Have a communication mechanism in place to send out notification of disturbance events and disturbance cases (PC can choose to leverage the case or develop their own for MOD-033 compliance)

Create SMVTF tab at the MVWG page and maintain list of disturbance events and all the disturbance reports and slides

Conduct educational workshops Chair of SMVTF will be Slaven Kincic (PeakRC) Calling for more volunteers, more logistics need to be worked out

SMVTF Charter was unanimously approved by MVWG

System Model Validation Studies Event Model Validation Efforts (WSM model validation):

May 28th Montana Event June 17th Chief to Brake insertion

The results are reasonable, and it is much faster to prepare the WSM case comparing to the planning case approach.

More simulations are needed to gain more confidence and to improve models.

Generator Modeling, Testing, and Model Validation

Generator Models Excitation Models

The ballot for IEEE Standard 421.5 on excitation models closed, with 80% response rate and 100% approval rate.

MVWG plans to review and update the exciter models following the IEEE standard in effect

Hydro-turbine Model BPA is working with John Undrill on the hydro-turbine model. John provided an update on the h6e model.

Thermal Governor Model Practice (baseload flag) PPMVDTF will compile the suspect error list and send to SRWG

Machine Documentations John Undrill talked about the history of GENROU, GENSAL,

GENTPF, GENTPJ models GENSAL comes from limitations of analog computers in late 1950s GENTPJ and GENTPF come from GENROU but with different

saturation calculations.

The 2012 GENTPJ model specification document will be updated with reference documents A Paper written by John Undrill but never submitted, if available Documentation by Jamie Weber

http://www.powerworld.com/files/GENROU-GENSAL-GENTPF-GENTPJ.pdf

Power Plant Testing and Model Validation PPMVDTF had its first TF meeting, led by Steve Yang (BPA)

NERC SMS PPMV activities Reliability Guideline draft – Power Plant Model Verification using PMUs

PSSE has added the play-in function

Pavel Etingov (PNNL) provided an overview of BPA-PNNL tool. Hassan Ghoudjebaklou (SDG&E) shared SDG&E’s experience using the PPMV tool

More participation to the TF activities is highly encouraged.

HVDC Modeling

HVDC Modeling Conventional HVDC point-to-point dynamic model

Final memo and model sent to software vendors Once implemented by software vendors, EPRI will help to test with BPA

PDCI data Target to have model spec and model for approval in the March meeting

VSC HVDC point-to-point dynamic model The interface between power flow model and dynamic model still needs

to be decided The proposal is to start with voltage source behind reactance model Pouyan Pourbeik (EPRI) will go through the Transbay model to

determine if it can be represented with the generic VSC model

RAS and Relay Modeling

RAS and Relay Modeling GE implemented Steady State RAS implementation. The

training videos for PSLF users are available at https://vimeo.com/album/3561877

James O’Brien (PeakRC) provided a brief update to the transient RAS modeling. Jun Wen (SCE) will schedule a follow up call for RAS work

planning

It seemed little interest on additional relay modeling

WECC Approved Dynamic Model List

WECC Approved Dynamic Model List All three software vendors reviewed and updated

comment All the blanks were filled in

“not approved”- the model was never approved by MVWG “un-approved” – the model was approved at one time and then

un-approved later No model is incorrect modeling. If you don’t know what

to do, consult with MVWG

Motion: Approve the WECC Approved Dynamic Model List??

2016 MVWG Meetings and Workshops

2016 MVWG Meetings & Workshops

South Regional Hands-on Workshop and 1st MVWG Meeting March 8-10 San Diego

2nd MVWG Meeting June 14-16 Salt Lake

North Regional Hands-on Workshop Aug 2-3 Portland

3rd MVWG Meeting Nov 15-17 Salt Lake

3 MVWG Meetings and 2 Hands-on Regional Workshops

Questions ?

Type 1 Type 2

Type 3

Type 4

PV

BESS

Very simple 2 bus model Play in signal of frequency and voltage is

done at the “SYSTEM” Bus Vary the Load Model and the Playin

Signals

Test System

1

SYSTEM LOAD

25.00000 MW 25.0000 MW

R=0.00000 puX=0.10000 pu

R=0.00000 puX=0.10000 pu

1.02750 pu1.03000 pu

5.0000 Mvar5.30781 Mvar

6 Different Playin Signals FLAT – output with 1.03 voltage and 1.0 frequency, but with a Fault applied 50% of the way down

the transmission line at 10.00 sec and cleared at 10.10 sec FREQ – Drop of frequency to about 0.992 per unit (about 59.5 Hz) OSC – oscillatory signal of both voltage and frequency VRamp – Ramp voltage down to zero, Frequency Flat VSag75 – Ramp voltage down to 0.75, Frequency Flat VSag90 – Ramp voltage down to 0.90, Frequency Flat

6 Different Load Models ALL_P1 – all model types without motor stalling on LD1PAC ALL_P2 – all model types including motor stalling on LD1PAC MA – 100% motor A MB – 100% motor B MD_P1 – 100% LD1PAC without motor stalling MD_P2 – 100% LD1PAC with motor stalling

This gives us 6 X 6 = 36 scenarios to test

Test Cases