flexible adaptable scalable transfer capability path

Confidential & Proprietary | Copyright © 2015

Quanta Technology, LLC

4020 Westchase Blvd., Suite 300Raleigh, NC 27607 USA(919) 334-3000www.quanta-technology.com Confidential & Proprietary | Copyright © 2015

Flexible

Adaptable

Scalable

Transfer

Capability

Path Rating Methodology

Ali Daneshpooy

Tim Mason

Rahul Anilkumar

MARCH 19, 2015


WIEB Transmission Project Schedule

Slide 2

Transmission Webinar Series Web link: http://westgov.adobeconnect.com/spsc-crepc2015

Phone: 1-888-407-5039

Participant passcode: 95691724

• March 5- Current Grid Transfer Capability Planning and Needs

• March 12 - Grid Management Technologies

• March 19 – Flexible, Adaptable, Scalable Transfer Capability (FASTC)

FASTC Methodology Presentation and Panel Discussion

Joint CREPC / SPSC / WIRAB Meeting in San Diego, April 7, 2:15 p.m.Panelists:

• Jim Robb of WECC

• Vic Howell of PEAK Reliability Council

• Chifong Thomas of Smart Wire Grid

• Tim Vas Blaircom of Grid SME.


Agenda

Slide 3

Part 1 – Overview (Hour 1)

• Project Drivers, Goals and Process

• Review of current WECC methodology and concerns

• Proposed Fast, Adaptable, Scalable Transfer Capability (FASTC) methodology

• Comparison of Current WECC and FASTC methodologies

• Demonstration of FASTC at California – Oregon Interface (COI)

• Summary

Part 2 – Detailed FASTC Methodology Presentation (Hour 2)

• Components, Models and Tools

• Process Flowchart

• Demonstration at COI

Case Development

Results


Glossary of Commonly Used

Acronyms

Slide 4

COI – California-Oregon Interface

EIM – CAISO Energy Imbalance Market

FASTC - IROL - Interregional Operating Limits

FACTS - Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System device

NERC - North American Electric Reliability Council

PMU - Phasor Measurement Unit or “synchrophasor”

POTF – WECC Path Operator Task Force

RAS – Remedial Action Schemes

RC – PEAK Reliability Coordinator

SCADA – Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system

SOL - Seasonal Operating Limits (WECC) and System Operating Limits (NERC)

TOP - Transmission Operator

TTC – Total Transfer Capability

WECC – Western Electricity Coordinating Council


Part 1

Slide 5

BACKGROUND


Transfer Capability Project Drivers

■ IMPROVE RELIABILITY

• Concerns with current rating process insufficient to meet current and future needs

• Meet reliability criteria and NERC requirements

■ INCREASE TRANSFER CAPACITIES TO MEET CHANGING GRID USES

• Transmission requirements in Western grid are changing with demand for more

dynamic intertie energy transfers

• Technology is enabling more precise methods to develop and maintain path

ratings

Slide 6


WECC Path Rating Process

Concerns

Slide 7

Several concerns raised with current process

NERC’s Gerry Cauley letter to WECC following the September 8, 2011 Pacific Southwest event:

NERC is please to see that WECC is holding additional discussions toclarify the role of Path Operators, including the potential toimplement contractual relationships and make use of RTCA and othertools to improve the accuracy of system operating limits. As thesediscussions continue NERC suggests that you also review theconcept of Path Ratings and whether, as the Western Interconnecthas become more highly interconnected, the Path Rating and PathOperator concept, along with the use of nomograms, still has meritfor real-time operations. Other interconnections do determineFlowgate limits for purposes of interchange scheduling, but rely morefully on RTCA for real-time operating reliability.


NERC Path Rating Requirements

■ NERC MOD-001 requires each Transmission Operator (TOP) to calculate Total

Transfer Capability (TTC) and Available Transfer capability (ATC) using one of

the methodologies listed in MOD – 028/029/030.

■ Different ways to identify TTC are:

• Based on satisfying all criteria including all elements at or below 100% of their

continuous rating, demonstrated stability during post contingency with all elements

under emergency rating, no uncontrolled separation.

• By contract rights.

• Nomograms.

• Through determination of how to resolve an adverse impact on existing path.

• Historical precedence.

Slide 8


Changing Grid Utilization

■ Western Interconnect grid uses are changing, as are the technologies that can

be used to assess and manage the grid.

• Demand for variable energy transfers from renewable generating resources

• Inter-hour scheduling and dispatch (e.g. CAISO 15-minute Energy Imbalance

Market)

• Distributed generation and micro-grids will redefine “traditional” path flows

■ New measurement and grid management tools are required to allow for more

accurate transmission transfer capability values

Slide 9


■ WIEB seeks to develop a new methodology to measure path transfer

capability that:

• Determines transfer capability based on physics of transmission system

• Maintains or enhances reliability

• Dynamically reflects transmission availability

• Anticipates new grid uses

• Responsive to available grid data and information

• Ensures consistency in line rating methodologies and practices, and can be

reasonably implemented by all Transmission Operators

• Reduces costs – increases grid efficiency

Slide 10

Transfer Capability Project Goals


What are Other Reliability

Coordinators Doing?

■ ISO New England – Automated TTC calculation process. Currently in the

process of expanding it to day ahead markets and real time markets. TTC limits

determined considering steady state and voltage stability boundaries. However

it is still under factory testing stage.

■ BC Hydro has implemented real time TTC calculation with steady state and

dynamic security assessment in real time horizon. It is a hybrid model that uses

both planning and real time TTC calculations. Although TTC is computed in real

time, they have not reported their actual use.

■ PJM automated process of first contingency incremental path transfer

calculations.

Slide 11

NE –ISO Automated Total Transfer Capability , Power World Users- group meeting, [Available]: www.powerworld.com/files/MaslennikovAutomatedTTC.pdfPJM Outage Analysis Automations, IEEE GM 2014. [Available]: http://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/conferences/2014-gm-super-session-pjm-outage-analysis-automations-video/Kaci, A.; Kamwa, I.; Dessaint, L.A.; Guillon, S., "Synchrophasor Data Baselining and Mining for Online Monitoring of Dynamic Security Limits," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on . 2014

http://www.powerworld.com/files/MaslennikovAutomatedTTC.pdf

http://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/conferences/2014-gm-super-session-pjm-outage-analysis-automations-video/

Confidential & Proprietary | Copyright © 2015 Slide 12

CURRENT WECC PATH RATING PROCESS



> 1 year < 1 year toDay-ahead

Current conditions

WHAT Establish Path Rating (TTC)

Establish Seasonal Operating Limits (SOL) and Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL)

Enforces Path Rating –monitors path flows and mitigates as needed

WHO WECC Path Rating and Coordination Process

Path Operator and affected systems group

Path Operators

USES Transmission expansion planning, long term transmission commitments

Rerate paths to respond to near-term conditions (i.e. hydro and generation outages)

Maintains reliability

HOW Calculated using long-term planning assumptions

Calculated using planning assumptions with known changes

Path limit - the lesser of TTC or SOL

WHENREVISED

Not revised unless external reasons to review

As needed to reflect current operating conditions.

Monitor path flows


Takeaways from Current Process

■ In the planning time horizon a project’s path rating must not reduce any

other party’s existing path rating

■ In real-time a path can only be operated to the lessor of the path rating

established in the planning time horizon or the seasonal path rating (SOL)

regardless of real-time conditions that would allow more accurate transfer

capability without threatening reliability

• This reliability-based rule was established in an age when real-time analysis of

grid transfer capabilities was not feasible



Concerns

WECC Path Operator Task Force (POTF)* identified several issues:

1. The Path SOL concept undermines the distinction between reliability limitations and

commercial limitations

2. Path SOLs often do not take into consideration real-time tools and information

3. The Path SOL paradigm potentially disguises other critical limitations

4. The Path SOL paradigm results in “chasing the SOL”

5. The Path SOL paradigm results in unnecessary TOP and RC compliance risk

6. The Path SOL paradigm pre-supposes the need for unique monitoring of all WECC paths

7. The Path SOL concept is extraneous and redundant in light of the revised SOL Methodology

8. TOP designated as the Path Operator may have limited ability to manage Path SOL

exceedances

9. The Path Operations paradigm prevents full utilization of transmission and generation

investments

Slide 15

WECC Path Concept White Paper: https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Reliability/Path%20Concept%20Whitepaper.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1

WECC Path Operator Task Force Recommendation, OC Meeting, July 15, 2014

https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Reliability/Path Concept Whitepaper.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1


Fast, Adaptable, Scalable Transfer Capability

(FASTC)


WIEB Transfer Capability Project

Objectives

■ Develop a scalable, flexible and adaptable new methodology to assess path

transfer capability for the Western grid.

■ Describe tools and analytical processes to develop and implement path

transfer capability values.

■ Specify data requirements to develop the path transfer capability.

■ Conduct an example assessment of the proposed methodology on a WECC

path.

■ Identify technical hurdles and data access requirements.

■ Develop a high level estimate of the cost to develop the tool.

Slide 17


WIEB Transfer Capability Project

Organization

■ Engaged Quanta Technologies to develop new technically-based transfer capability

methodology

■ Expert Advisory Team established to review methodology

• Vic Howell, Engineering Manager, Peak Reliability

• Philip Jones, Commissioner, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

• Andrew Mills, Researcher, Lawrence Berkeley Nation Laboratory

• Nathan Powell, Manager of Planning Services, WECC

• Victoria Ravenscroft, Senior Policy Analyst, WECC

• John Savage, Director, Utility Program, Oregon Public Utility Commission

• Dede Subakti, Director of Engineering, California Independent System Operator

• Branden Sudduth, Director of Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis,

WECC

• Chifong Thomas, Director, Transmission Planning and Strategy, Smart Wire Grid

Slide 18


Proposed Methodology

■ The new methodology is scalable, flexible and adaptable to multiple platforms.

■ Flexible:

• Hybrid State Estimation can be replaced by PMU only state estimation.

■ Adaptable:

• Additional components can be added or subtracted as per need.

• Volt/VAr control from renewable generation units can also be considered.

• System dynamic stability can be either calculated (current method) or be replaced

with predictive estimations based on historic operations and advanced algorithms.

■ Scalable

• Load Forecast data can be replaced with aggregated AMI data at a Price node, P-

node.

Slide 19


Components of Proposed TTC

Methodology

Slide 20

Input Data

(1)

Planning Models

(2)

State Estimator

(3)

Error Calibration

(4)

TTC Calculation (CPFlow)

(5)

Steady State stability

limits (7)Dynamic Stability (7)

Fast Contingency

Screening Algorithm

(6)

Load

Forecast data

(10)

Online Look

Ahead

Calculations

(11)

VAR

optimization

(9)

Output

Criteria Satisfied

Proposed

Methodology of TTC

calculation

Generator Schedules

Load Forecast Data

List of monitored

buses/interfaces

List of contingencies

RAS Schemes(8)

1. Input data

2. Planning models

3. State Estimation

4. Error Calibration

5. TTC calculation

6. Contingency screening

7. Steady State and Dynamic Stability

8. RAS schemes

9. VAR optimization

10. Load Forecast data

11. Online Look Ahead Screening


Components of Proposed TTC

Methodology

Slide 21

■ Tools used

• GE PSLF v19.0

• MATLAB

• Powertech tools (TSAT,VSAT, PSAT)

GE PSLF (.sav/ .epc/.dyd)

Microsoft Excel MATLAB

DSA Tools-VSAT-PSAT-TSAT


Technology Development for

Proposed Methodology

■ Proposed methodology will use variety of new and tools, processes and

information

■ Most of this is well developed but is not used in the WECC methodology

■ Following is discussion of technology by process and the current level of

development

Slide 22


Comparison of FASTC to WECC

Process

Slide 23

Current Methodology Main Concerns Proposed Methodology

Total transfer capability (TTC) is computed during planning and operational (in response to system changes/outage) horizons.

The current process does not take into account most recent/up to date information of current system operating state.

Total transfer capability (TTC) is computed during planning as well as real time operations. Therefore allowing for dynamic updating of path transfer limits in 15 minute intervals.

The planning models used are bus branch representation.

Inadequate system contingency and special protection scheme response.

The planning models used are node breaker representation.

Dynamic Models are currently calibrated against historic events. However , the process Is labor intensive and typically takes a long time due to insufficient data availability and lower SCADA refresh rate; with estimations of some system data made during the process.

Dynamic models are very important to assess the transient and long term voltage dynamics of the network components. Non calibrated models can result in establishing TTC limits from models that are prone to errors.

The dynamic models are calibrated against PMU data with higher sampling times than traditional SCADA data available, and the process is automated by batch tuning of parameters of interest.

The use of SCADA measurements and static state estimators

Larger errors and slower refresh rate.The use of Hybrid PMU and SCADA measurements with dynamic state estimators

Use of offline stability simulation tools.Unavailability of current boundaries of safe operating region.

Use of offline and online stability simulation tools.

Typically conservative TTC limits due to planning model assumptions about future conditions.

For example- summer cases built from 1 in 10 year worst case scenario for local area studies, and 1 in 5 year for system wide studies. High hydro cases built from assumptions of future conditions.

Improved path transfer capability estimates in planning stage due to improved forecasts and real time 15 minute TTC calculation.


Comparison of FASTC to WECC

Process (cont’d)

Slide 24


Technology Roadmap

■ Among the building blocks, color codes have been added to differentiate those

elements that have been widely deployed (purple), deployed only in few areas

(blue), and are new ground (red).

Slide 25

Planning Models

• Bus branch Representation.

• Node breaker representation for improved accuracy.

Model Validation

• Use of larger PMU data during disturbance events.

• Available in commercial tools (manual process).

• Extended Kalman Filer, Genetic Algorithm, group parameter sensitivity.

Flow Transfer Studies

• Continuation Power Flow.

• Repeated Power Flow.

• Optimal Power Flow.

• Make the Power Flow adaptive.


Technology Roadmap

Slide 26

Contingency Analysis

• Currently a manual process (dynamics).

• dynamic contingency screening.

• Heuristics, Boundary to instability, energy function.

Volt/VAr optimization

• Take advantage of FACTS devices and VAr devices in network.

• WAMPAC allowing for better control.

Stability Study

• Voltage and Transient stability tools that are deployable online and are already in use.


Technology Roadmap

Slide 27

Forecast Data

• Can be improved through larger AMI data becoming available.

State Estimators

• Hybrid State Estimators (static) .

• PMU only state estimators(static and dynamic).

• Linear Least Squares/ Weighted Least Square.

Look ahead tools

• Calculate TTC using improved forecast data.

• Predict instability margins as well.


Methodology Feasibility and Implementation

■ Data

• Use existing and new PMU data and system information.

• A combination of PMU data and traditional SCADA data can also be used

■ Computing Requirements – likely require parallel computing also known as

High Performance computing (HPC) platform

• Universities

• Research Labs

• Large Scale Organizations

■ Support for heavy data – data mining

■ Conclusion – uses new and

advanced tools but could be

implemented into exiting Infrastructure

Slide 28


■ California – Oregon Intertie (COI) is

aggregation of several transmission lines

with total Path Rating of 4800 MW in

North-South direction

■ COI has had Path Rating of 4800 MW

since 1986

■ Monitored elements include all

substations above 230 kV and all

transmission lines using emergency

loadings under contingencies Show

topology

■ Due to its strategic location and transfer

capability, COI is probably the most

actively managed path in the Western

Interconnection; other paths typically

have more static ratings under the current

process

FASTC Demonstration - COI


FASTC methodology applied to several

operating situations at COI

■ “Base Case” Analysis

• Generation –Load Dispatch

• Generation – Generation Dispatch

• All available RAS schemes

modeled*

• Step size/ Transfer size increments

of 100 MW

■ “Duck Curve” cases

• Simulated several hours of CAISO

“duck curve” to show transfer

during extreme ramp event on

March 31, 2014




Slide 31


■ CAISO Duck Curve

Slide 32


New cases

30200

30400

30600

30800

31000

31200

31400

31600

31800

3 4 5 6

CAIS

O lo

ad in

MW

Hour (PM)

Load (MW) vs Time of day

Load


■ CAISO Duck Curve


Summary

■ FASTC methodology works

• Successfully identified critical contingencies

• Calculated Total Transfer Capability in real time

• Supported by findings in other reports and literature

■ TTC is not fixed - dynamically varies with system operating state

• Examples (operating states) show variable TTC values around 4800 MW on COI

■ FASTC can be used in planning, operational and real time environments

• Need to develop appropriate assumptions for forward planning periods

Full report of project, methodology and results will be available in April, 2015

Slide 34


Part 2

Flexible

Adaptable

Scalable

Transfer

Capability

Path Rating Methodology

Slide 36


Agenda

• Components, Models and Tools

• Process Flowchart

• Demonstration at COI

Case Development

Results

Summary of Results

• References to Technical Material

Slide 37


COMPONENTS,MODELS &

TOOLS

Slide 38


Component Breakdown For

Respective Horizon / Inputs

Slide 39

Dat

a R

eq

uir

em

en

ts a

nd

an

alyt

ical

to

ols

Network model State Estimator full or reduced system Basecase with node breaker

Scheduling data Generation; Load Forecast; System changes Stored repository of historical state estimator data

Monitoring data List of monitored interfaces, lines, substations List of monitored interfaces, lines, substations

Contingencydescriptions

Manual list of contingencies/Dynamic screening Manual list of contingencies/Dynamic screening

RAS Scheme Manual list of RAS schemes/Dynamic RAS Manual List of RAS Schemes/Dynamic RAS

System security assessment

Online steady state and Dynamic stability analysis module

Offline Steady state and Dynamic stability analysis module

Power Flow module

Online adaptive continuation power flow module Offline adaptive continuation power flow module

Control devices VAr optimization (WAMPAC enabled) VAr optimization ( offline studies)

Error Calibration Load Forecast error calibration Dynamic model calibration

Study HorizonReal Time

Horizon (1-15 min)

Day ahead Horizon( 1 hour

ahead to 24 hours ahead)

Week Ahead Horizon( 24 hours to 168 hours, 7 days

ahead)

Daily values for month and

monthly values once per week

for months 2-13

Seasonal horizon (6 months)

Long term planning (1 -10

years and beyond)


Planning Models

• Planning models built representing period of study (summer, spring, winter).

• Historical Snap-shots of EMS network model available in stored repository from

real time operations horizon (power flow and dynamics data file).

• Currently, wide use of bus-branch representation.

• Node Breaker representation of the traditional bus – branch configuration.

Improved visibility to substation configurations and equipment.

• Node breaker representation will be validated against EMS network model.

Most commercial tools capable of handling this kind of verification

Slide 40


State Estimators

• Static State Estimators (current practice) or Dynamic State Estimators

Hybrid measurements (current practice)

PMU only measurements

Slide 41

Analog

Measurements

Pi,Qi,Pf,Qf,V,I State

EstimatorV,θ

Bad Data

Processor

Topology

Processor

Network

Observability Check

Load Forecasts

Generation Schedules

Parameter and Topology

Errors Detection,

Identification, Correction

Network Parameters, Branch

Status, Substation Configuration

Output


Model Validation, Verification

and Calibration

• Improve quality of power system dynamic models and its associated data

• Benchmarked against data collected during disturbance events from either PMUs or

Digital Fault Recorders

Slide 42


Path Transfer Power Flow Tool

■ Continuation Power Flow/Repeated Power flow

• Given a specific source and sink area, the curve can be traced till the point of

maximum power transfer

• Process repeated for step size increments in the direction of loading/generation

variation.

■ Transfer step size made adaptive (prediction)

• Next step size prediction based on two factors

• Differences between predictor and corrector step

• Voltage sensitivity closer to the peak node ( delta V/delta MW)

Slide 43

Fixed step sizeAdaptive Step Size


Contingency Selection & Screening

• Contingencies are selected in the following manner:

Manual selection based on operator experience or planning recommendations

Automatic contingency screening algorithms (real time)

Rank contingencies based on steady state and dynamic

stability

Post contingency voltage deviation

Post contingency thermal overloads

Dynamic stability contingencies based on properties of

energy functions

Can be used in planning and operational environment

Contingencies identified as most critical will involve further time domain

simulations

Slide 44


Static/Dynamic Security Assessment

• At every step size increment of load transfer, the steady state and dynamic stability

limits will be computed

• The voltage stability criteria are monitored consistently within the process and any

violations are recorded

• Transient stability simulations in time domain are performed for critical identified

locations either from past experience or through contingency screening algorithm

• The stability results are then translated to the required operating parameters

• The total path transfer capability is identified as the minimum of voltage, thermal

and dynamic stability limited path transfer along the considered interface.

Slide 45


Remedial Action Schemes

• The RAS schemes will be used as an input into the TTC calculator.

• The existing list can be added to/modified or changed as required.

• Dynamic RAS: From a predefined list of remedial actions, RAS schemes can be

dynamically updated to improve the transfer capability along considered path.

• Some actions include

generator tripping

load rejection

system separation

modification to the operational state of FACTS devices

Slide 46


Volt/VAR Optimization

• This is an optional block that could be considered under both planning and

operational realms.

• In the real time operational horizon, this is a component of Wide Area Monitoring,

Protection and Control (WAMPAC).

• At every step size increment, the different control devices in the network will be

tuned to meet the objective function under consideration.

• In this work, enhancing network loadability or path transfer capability is objective.

Slide 47


Load Forecast Data

• Load Forecast calculation using smart meters is considered to improve the

accuracy of Look Ahead TTC calculations.

Availability of smart meter data provides new opportunities to generate

accurate system level data.

Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) will continue to be used since widely

accepted.

• Combined use of local load forecasting software tools to create a forecast model

considering all system parameters such as weather , temperature and temporal

conditions.

• Traditionally – Aggregated system (zonal/area) level load forecasting.

Slide 48


Look Ahead TTC Calculation

• Calculated in near real time using the following information:

State of the system.

Proposed Power transfer agreements.

Load forecast

Generation dispatch schemes.

Planned Outages schedule.

• Based on the real time state estimation(state estimator network model) at hour 0, base

cases for the next period under consideration are generated using the above

information.( 1 to 168 hours – 7 days ahead).

• For daily TTC values over next 31 days and monthly TTC values once per week for

months 2-31, planning models are used

Slide 49


PROCESS FLOWCHART

Slide 50


Operational/Real Time Horizon Process

Flowchart

Slide 51

Input data repository

Network Topology model

representing current state of the

system

Set Base case load at initialization

point with step size = 0

Run Continuation Power Flow

Steady State analysis for voltage

violations and thermal overloads.

Perform Voltage Stability and

Transient Stability Assessment

Check for violations

Identify TTC as minimum

of steady state and

dynamic stability results

Look ahead TTC

calculator

Data mine

Real Time

Measurements from

PMU, RTU and

state estimator

(static or dynamic)

Energy

Management

System

Increment step size by 0.1

Contingency Screening Algorithm

( steady state and dynamic )

Predict next step size

NO VIOLATIONS RECORDED

List of manual contingencies

List of Monitored elements

List of interfaces

Load Forecast data

Generator schedules.

System changes.

RAS scheme

Store Network Topology and EMS

data in 1 minute snapshots.

Wide Area Measurement,

Monitoring and Control.

Coord

inated

with

VA

R

support alg

orith

m an

d

Dynam

ic RA

S


Planning/Operational Planning Horizon –

Process Flowchart

Slide 52

Power Flow Case for the horizon of interest (summer, winter, spring)

Model Validation(node breaker representation) and dynamic model

error calibration

Develop Base Case Scenarios

Run Continuation Power Flow with initial step size increment of 0.1

Steady State analysis for voltage violations and thermal overloads.

Perform Voltage Stability and Transient Stability Assessment

Check for violationsIdentify TTC as minimum

of steady state and dynamic stability results

Output

Repository of stored data ( Power Flow and dynamic data)

Energy Management

System

Power System Disturbance Data or PMU

data

Set Base case load as starting point

ContingenciesMonitored elements

Equipment status changesInterface or paths considered

Model RAS schemes

Contingency Screening Algorithm ( steady state and dynamic )

Predict next step size

NO VIOLATIONS RECORDED

Co

ord

inate

d with

VA

R

sup

po

rt and

dynam

ic RA

S algo

rithm


COI PATH DEMONSTRATION

Slide 53


COI Cases Tested

• 2014 HS Base Case.

Load to Generator dispatch

Generator to Generator dispatch

• Select operating points along the steep slope of the duck curve for the PG and

E/CAISO operating area and perform

Load to Generator dispatch

Generator to Generator dispatch.

Slide 54


Base Case – High Summer Load

■ WECC 2014 High Summer Loading base case.

■ Initial Base case tuning-

• Ensure all voltages are within 0.95-1.05 range.

Generation Redispatch (adjust generation by 5 to 10 MW) .

Switch SVC device status.

Change Transformer tap setting.

Generator VAr limit adjustment.

Generator bus terminal voltage adjustment.

■ Base case information-

Slide 55

Area 40 (Northwest) Export 4348.7 MW

Area 30 (PG&E) Import -855 MW

COI Flows 3765 MW


Demonstration Study Methodology

Use load profile data from PROMOD High hydro Production cost model.

■ BA Load Profiles from production cost.

• Five separate days at close to peak load.

■ Create a series of 5 operating conditions.

■ All the load buses in each BA areas are uniformly adjusted.

■ To keep the balance between generation and load, the generation level in this

area is also adjusted.

• Outputs of generation units supplying base loads (e.g., nuclear generators) are

fixed, and they are excluded from generation adjustment.

■ Generate five operating conditions.

• Scale loads in all areas along with generation in areas (varying ratios) to build

different operating points.

• Generators serving base loads (for example - nuclear generators) are excluded

from scaling.

Slide 56


Assumptions

■ All cases created represent an operating point in the system.

■ These cases represent the data available to operator in real time / planner.

■ Source Area – Area 40 (Northwest Export)

■ Sink Area – Area 30 (PG&E Import)

Slide 57

Area 40

Rest of the

system

Area 30


Base Case - Generation-Load Dispatch

■ Plot of COI path transfer under different system operating conditions.

Slide 58


Base Case - Generation-Generation

Dispatch

Slide 59



Operating Point

Load Generator Dispatch Total Path Transfer capability (MW)

Generator Generator Dispatch Total Path transfer capability (MW)

SampleArea 30 Load Scaling from base case

SampleArea 30Generation Scaling from base case

1 4804 4802 1.007 1.004

2 4850 4846 1.002 1.000

3 4982 4984 0.983 0.990

4 4948 4945 0.990 1.00

5 4899 4894 0.996 0.990

Summary of Base Case Results


CAISO : Fast Ramp Case

■ CAISO March 31 “Duck Curve”

■ Considered operating points

along the “neck” (ramp) of the

curve.

■ The load (NOT net load) from

duck curve was considered.

■ Load values were scaled into

different zones within CAISO

for PG&E, SCE and SDG&E.

■ Generation was scaled in the

area and NOT zone.

■ Four hourly operating cases

created

Slide 61


Fast Ramp – Generation Load Dispatch

Slide 62



Fast Ramp – Generation-Generation

Dispatch

Slide 63



Summary of CAISO loads and

Path Transfer limits

Slide 64

CAISO Load (MW) Load Generator Dispatch Total Path Transfer capability (MW)


31732 4871 4869

31236 4932 4928

30839 5076 5070

30392 5088 5081

CAISO Load (MW) Load Generator Dispatch Total Path Transfer capability (MW)


31732 4871 4869

31236 4932 4928

30839 5076 5074

30392 5088 5083


References to Technical Material

■ NERC Report (1996). Available Transfer capability definitions and determination. North American Electricity Reliability Council.

■ WECC Report (2001). Determination of Available Transfer capability within the Western Interconnection, Western Electricity

Coordinating Council.

■ WAPA OATT- Attachment C. Methodology to assess Available Transfer Capability. [Available]: www.wapa.gov/transmission/oasis.htm

■ WECC Guideline (2012). Project Coordination and Path Rating Processes. Western Electricity Coordinating Council.

■ WECC Report (2014). A New Paradigm for Path Operations. Western Electricity Coordinating Council.

■ NERC Report (2013). White Paper on MOD – A Standards, North American Electricity Reliability Council.

■ NE –ISO (2008), Automated Total Transfer Capability , Power World Users- group meeting, [Available]:

www.powerworld.com/files/MaslennikovAutomatedTTC.pdf

■ Singh, R.; Diao, R.; Niannian Cai; Zhenyu Huang; Tuck, B.; Xinxin Guo, "Initial studies toward real-time transmission path rating,"

Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D), 2012 IEEE PES.

■ PJM Outage Analysis Automations, IEEE GM 2014. [Available]: http://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/conferences/2014-gm-super-session-

pjm-outage-analysis-automations-video/

■ Kaci, A.; Kamwa, I.; Dessaint, L.A.; Guillon, S., "Synchrophasor Data Baselining and Mining for Online Monitoring of Dynamic Security

Limits," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on . 2014

■ Power-World, Topology processing and Real Time applications. [Available]: www.powerworld.com/files/GrijalvaRealTimeApps.pdf

■ GE PSLF V19, [Available]: http://www.geenergyconsulting.com/pslf-re-envisioned.

■ NASPI, Model Validation using Synchrophasor Data – A success story. [Available]: https://www.naspi.org/File.aspx?fileID=1341

■ NERC Report (2010), Power System Model Validation, North American Electricity Reliability Council.

■ A.A. Hajnoroozi, F. Aminifar, H. Ayoubzadeh, “Generating Unit Model Validation and Calibration Through Synchrophasor

Measurements," Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on.

■ Jinquan Zhao; Hsiao-Dong Chiang; Hua Li, "Enhanced look-ahead load margin estimation for voltage security assessment," Power

Engineering Society General Meeting, 2003, IEEE , July 2003

■ V&R Energy, Vaiman, M.Y.; Vaiman, M.M.; Gaikwad, A., "Fast fault screening methodology for transient stability analysis of bulk power

systems," Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PES), 2013

Slide 66

http://www.wapa.gov/transmission/oasis.htm

http://www.powerworld.com/files/MaslennikovAutomatedTTC.pdf

http://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/conferences/2014-gm-super-session-pjm-outage-analysis-automations-video/

http://www.powerworld.com/files/GrijalvaRealTimeApps.pdf

http://www.geenergyconsulting.com/pslf-re-envisioned

https://www.naspi.org/File.aspx?fileID=1341


References to Technical Material

■ H.D. Chiang, “Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric Power Systems: Theoretical Foundations, BCU Methodologies, and Applications”,

ISBN: 978-0-470-48440-1 Wiley Publications, 2011.

■ E. Vaahedi, “Practical Power system Operation”, ISBN: 978-1-118-84863-0, Wiley Publications, 2014.

■ H.D Chiang, “A (Smart) Real time PMU- assisted Power Transfer Limitation Monitoring and Enhancement System”. [Available]:

www.resnick.caltech.edu/docs/sg_chiang.pdf

■ Westermann, D.; Sauvain, H., "Experiences with Wide Area Coordinated Control of Facts Devices and HVDC in a Real Time Environment," Power

Tech, 2007 IEEE Lausanne, 1-5 July 2007.

■ A.J Wood, B.F Wollenberg, G.B. Shelbe, “Power Generation, Operation, and Control”, 3rd Edition, ISBN: 978-0-471-79055-6, 2013.

■ Quilumba, F.L.; Lee, W.-J.; Huang, H.; Wang, D.Y.; Szabados, R.L., "Using Smart Meter Data to Improve the Accuracy of Intraday Load Forecasting

Considering Customer Behavior Similarities," Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on.

■ P. Mirowski, S. Chen, T.K. Ho, C.N. Yun, “Demand Forecasting in Smart Grids”. [Available]:

https://cs.nyu.edu/~mirowski/pub/Mirowski_BLTJ2014_DemandForecastingSmartGrids.pdf.

■ Gol, M.; Abur, A., "A Hybrid State Estimator For Systems With Limited Number of PMUs," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on.

■ A. Abur, “Phasor- only State Estimation”, [Available]:

http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/documents/general_information/presentations/pserc_seminars/psercwebinars2014/Abur_PSERC_Webinar_10-7-

2014_Slides.pdf.

■ Z. Huang, N. Zhou, Y. Li, P. Nichols, S. Jin, R. Diao, and Y. Chen, “Dynamic paradigm for future power grid operation,” in Proceeding 8th Power

Plants Power System Control Symposium, 2012.

■ PNNL, Look Ahead Dynamic Simulation, [Available] http://eioc.pnnl.gov/research/hpc_simulation.stm

■ Y. V. Makarov, J. Ma, and Z. Y. Dong, “Non-iterative method to determine static stability boundaries,” in Proceeding IEEE Power Tech, Lausanne,

Switzerland, Jul. 2007.

■ DSA Tools, Renewable Energy Impact Assessment. [Available]:

http://www.dsatools.com/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

■ Coordination and Path Rating Processes

(https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Reliability/NDA/Project%20Coordination%20and%20Path%20Rating%20Process

es.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1)

■ WECC Path Concept White Paper

(https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Reliability/Path%20Concept%20Whitepaper.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpe

n=1)

Slide 67

https://cs.nyu.edu/~mirowski/pub/Mirowski_BLTJ2014_DemandForecastingSmartGrids.pdf

http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/documents/general_information/presentations/pserc_seminars/psercwebinars2014/Abur_PSERC_Webinar_10-7-2014_Slides.pdf

http://eioc.pnnl.gov/research/hpc_simulation.stm

http://www.dsatools.com/downloads/Renewable Energy Impact Assessment.pdf

https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Reliability/NDA/Project Coordination and Path Rating Processes.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1

Quanta Technology, LLC4020 Westchase Blvd., Suite 300

Raleigh, NC 27607 USA(919) 344-3000

www.quanta-technology.com


Thank You!

flexible adaptable scalable transfer capability path

Documents