generator capability verification

Generator Capability VerificationDaniel Leonard – Peregrine Engineering ConsultingSteve Barnes – Peregrine Engineering Consulting

Brian Hallett – ReliabilityFirstTechnical Talk with RF

June 21, 2021

Forward Together • ReliabilityFirst

Today’s Guest Speakers

2

Steven A. Barnes (BSEE Gannon University, MSEPE RPI) worked with Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc. and GE Energy Consulting prior to joining Peregrine Engineering Consulting where he is a Technical Director.

Daniel J. Leonard, PE (BSEE, MSEE Clarkson University) worked with GE Energy Consulting prior to forming Peregrine Engineering Consulting where he is Business Owner and Chief Engineer.


Flow of Data from Interconnection > Test > Models > Studies

Differences between Unit Test and Capability Verification

Testing Requirements and Specifications

Overview of past Assist Visits and Questions regarding MOD-025

Forward Together

Agenda

3


Present the interconnectedness between the following:• Interconnection Agreements/Studies (FAC-001, FAC-002)• Development of Transmission Planning Cases (MOD-032)• Verification and Reporting of Real and Reactive Power Capability (MOD-025)

Share insight from Peregrine Engineering Consulting:• Benefits of good generator testing• Lessons Learned from the field• Specifications of Engineering Analysis

Objectives

4


Flow of Data from Interconnection > Test > Models > Studies

5


Consistent Data

6


Impact Project Timing

7


RF Maturity Model

8


Management Practices – Closer Look

EXID – Establishing key players and defining specifications

ACM – Change management and data integrity

VER – Ensure capabilities meet requirements and specifications

VAL – Ensure applications function as designed in environment9


Driving Improvement

Continuous improvement using Management Practices can mature processes beyond what is required in the NERC Standards

For example, through continuously improving specifications:• Identify whether Engineering Analysis has been completed

‒ No. Communication that this is raw test data. Consider additional analysis may be needed to determine true capability. Compare test results to interconnection studies/agreements.

‒ Yes. Consider in-depth analysis has been completed. This information could supersede FAC-001, FAC-002 info.

• Validate generator dispatch in interconnection-wide cases‒ Is the modeled dynamic reactive reserves/capability adequate in studies?‒ Units mostly likely should not be dispatches at 75% Q-max‒ May require analysis of load power factor and cap bank settings

10


Differences between Unit Test and Capability Verification

11


NATF Guide

Google “NATF Generator Reactive”• The distinction between the “Generator” reactive

power capability and the “Generating Unit” reactive power capability

• Tests performed under a single set of conditions may not be adequate to provide the full picture of a unit’s reactive power capability

• Does not provide a “one size fits all” approach to methods for determining “generating unit reactive power capability”

12


NATF Guide

13


Testing Requirements and Specifications

14


Lessons Learned – A Few Best Practices

Unit Tests• Identify Protection and Control Coordination Issues• Identify Issues with HMI screens, capability curves (or lack thereof)• Identify Measurement Errors

Plant Tests• Coordinate Real and Reactive Load among available units• If staged: can be more time efficient• If operational: ensure that all points are monitored in plant historian for

subsequent NERC MOD-025-2 Attachment 2 forms (or similar)

15


“Field” Example 1 – The Case for Pre-Work

Mis-coordinated Loss of Excitation Protection and Minimum Excitation Limiter

Site Test Reports Indicated Issue Had Been Noted, and Protection had been “Tested”

16

Strong Value in Independent Confirmation of Settings…and

Full Test


“Field” Example 2 – Even with Pre-Work…

Eastern Interconnect CCPP

Pre-Test PRC-019-1 studies indicated V/Hz limiter and protection at 105%. Note: customer left as-found due to OEM warranty.

Tester limited voltages to < 104.5%

GSU PT tolerances raised issue, led to ST GSU trip => Block trip.

17

Event uncovered latent cal/tolerance issues – during TEST vs. during Peak


Flow of Information

MOD-025-2 Attachment 2• Used to document test environment• Critical for engineering analysis, benchmark generator model• Variations in Other Regional Forms

WECC -- Excitation quantities documented• Additional information beyond standard

PJM -- AUX XFMR ratios, tap position not required• Format appropriate at BES modeling level

• TP data requests may be tailored to meet modeling needs

18


NERC MOD-025-2 Attachment 2

19


Identification of Limitations During Testing –Adapted NERC MOD-025-2 Attachment 2

20

Min-Lead Min-Lag Max-Lead Max-Lag

03/10/21 03/10/21 03/10/21 03/10/21

15:24 15:44 9:19 12:13

15:24 15:44 9:19 13:13

UEL 105% Vterm UEL 105% Vterm

64 65 51 62

36 35 38 31

67 66 52 63

98 96 106 106

44.2 44.0 45.6 45.3

Point Meas/Calc Min-Lead Min-Lag Max-Lead Max-Lag

M 17.33 18.90 17.46 18.90

M 110.0 111.0 232.0 227.0

M -76.7 85.6 -56.7 91.2

M 17.33 18.90 17.46 18.90

M 7.0 7.2 8.6 7.8

M 4.3 5.2 5.2 5.5

M 528.4 527.9 528.6 528.8

C 102.8 103.6 222.7 218.5

C -89.7 71.7 -89.1 57.7

-76.7 85.6 -56.7 91.2

4.3 5.2 5.2 5.5

-81.0 80.4 -61.9 85.7

110.0 111.0 232.0 227.0

7.0 7.2 8.6 7.8

103.0 103.8 223.4 219.2

--- --- --- ---

Net Real Power Capability (*MW)

GSU losses (only required if verification measurements are taken on the high side of the GSU - MVAr)

Comments

Note that during the maximum load testing, the CTG was in Peak Limit Control Mode.

Note that during the minimum load testing, the CTG was at its emmissions limited minimum output (110 MW).

Gross Reactive Power Capability (*MVAr)

Aux Reactive Power (*MVAr)

Net Reactive Power Capability (*MVAr)

Gross Real Power Capability (*MW)

Aux Real Power (*MW)

B(Aux)

Voltage (kV)

Real Power (MW)

Reactive Power (MVAR)

F(POI)

Voltage (kV)

Real Power (MW)


Turbine Inlet Temperature (°F)

Cold Gas Temp (°F)

Hydrogen Pressure (PSIG)

Signal

A(Gen)

Voltage (kV)

Real Power (MW)


Date

Start Time

End Time

Limit Reached

Ambient Temperature (°F)

Humidity (%):

Aux voltage ratio: 18 / 6.9 / 4.16 Aux tap setting: 18 / 6.9 / 4.16

Test

Unit: UNIT Sched voltage (kV): 500 kV to 550 kV

GSU voltage ratio: 18.0 / 525.0 GSU tap setting: 18.0 / 525.0

Company: CUSTOMER Reported by: Steven A. Barnes

Plant: SITE Report date: 04/09/21

NERC MOD-025 (Attachment 2) Reporting Form


Overview of Past Assist Visits and Questions Regarding MOD-025

21


New Questions

Questions from TPS and GS:• Required capability testing specific to wind and solar units

‒ What tests are required?‒ What tests are not required? ‒ Proper evidence to prove compliance

• NERC Reliability Guideline‒ Power Plant Model Verification for Inverter-Based Resources‒ Specific chapter called “MOD-025-2 Capability Testing”

• MRO Standard Application Guide ‒ MOD-025-2 I4 Dispersed Power Producing Resources

• NERC Standard One-Stop-Shop22

https://www.mro.net/MRODocuments/MOD-025-2%20Standard%20Application%20Guide.pdf

https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Standard%20Purpose%20Statement%20DL/US_Standard_One-Stop-Shop.xlsx


New Questions

Demonstration of how to use the Attachment 2 form• What information is expected• What information is optional

Details for Staged verification

Details for Operational verification • Identify what data could be used for testing

23


New Questions

The first verification for each applicable facility under this standard must be a staged test. Now that this isn’t our first verification, do we still need to do a staged test?

24


New Questions

The NERC PPMVTF put out a White Paper back in July 2019 “White Paper: Implementation of NERC Standard MOD-025-2” which essentially said that the data acquired during MOD-025-2 testing should NOT be used to represent the actual capability of the machine in power system models. Does RF have any recommendations as a result? • The purpose of the standard is that accurate Real and Reactive Power

capabilities are available for planning models.‒ White Paper points to capabilities being established in Interconnection Studies/Agreements‒ Tests look for errors, issues, damage that may impact unit performance less than capability‒ Corrective actions and/or additional analysis may be needed‒ Capability should not vary greatly between model series.

25


Past Assist Visits

Assist Visit Topic: MOD-025; Compliance; Attachment 2• Requestor Message: Data was collected on the TP form that differs from the

MOD‐025 standard and its Attachment 2 format. Below is what was identified as needing further review due to the format differences. ‒ GSU Tap Position is written in GSU step up format instead of an actual position. Ex 13.8 /

138.6 KV‒ Aux Transformer Tap Position is not on the TP form, therefore is not indicated.‒ Aux Transformer Voltage Ratio is not on the TP form, therefore is not indicated.

• Requestor Question: Should this be self-reported as a violation?• RF Guidance: Recommendation to complete MOD-025 Attachment 2 to

document test conditions and results, then populate applicable TP forms. This specific scenario did not require a self-report. In an on-site audit, this scenario would likely result in an Area of Concern.

26


Past Assist Visits

Assist Visit Topic: MOD-025 testing with modified Under-Excitation Limit (UEL)

• Requestor Message: I have a question regarding MOD‐025 testing we performed after we upgraded our Excitation systems on all 3 of our units. During the testing we ran our 3 units at the same time so that while we were testing a specific unit we could use the other 2 units to assist with maintaining our voltage schedule. While doing this we had the OEM (Siemens) temporarily remove a software limit for the UEL of the units to help with the balancing of our line voltage.

• Requestor Question: Do we need to re-test and self-report?• RF Guidance: In the future, review test plan for specific requirements. The UEL

is required to be in-place for the specific unit being tested.

27


Forward Together

28


Forward Together

Please continue to utilize the Assist Visit program• RF Staff coordination with OPCTF/CCTF• Reach-out if there are questions when developing test plans,

as opposed to after-the-fact

Collaborative participation on MOD-025 revision• Reach out to RF Staff if you have comments/concerns

Continued analysis and coordination between Engineering & System Performance (ESP) and Entity Engagement (EE)

29


Questions & AnswersForward Together ReliabilityFirst

30