production cost data subcommittee (pcds) update to rac
TRANSCRIPT
Jamie Austin, PCDS Chair
Production Cost Data
Subcommittee (PCDS)
Update to RAC
March 12, 2021
Addressing Round-Trip Issues
Overview
▪ 2030 ADS Validation
• Production Cost Model (PCM)
• Power Flow Export Hours_ NorthernGrid
▪ Addressing Round-Trip Issues
• Process
• Committee Coordination
• Software Solutions
2
The 2030 ADS Dataset
▪ The ADS Package:
• 2030 Heavy Summer Power Flow Case
• 2030 ADS Production Cost Model Case
• 2030 ADS Round Trip Power Flow Case
• Data Development and Validation Manual
▪ The 2030 ADS has been produced through the efforts of many internal and external organizations:
• WECC Committees: The Production Cost Data Subcommittees; The Production Cost Modeling Subcommittee; The System Review Subcommittee; The WECC System Adequacy Planning staff; and The WECC System Stability Planning staff
• Participants from WECC Member Utilities
• The Western Planning Regions
• The National Labs: NREL, PNNL, LBNL
• The California Energy Commission
• Stakeholders at large, including Venders and Consultants
3
ADS PCM Dataset
4
ADS Dataset
ADS PCM
SRS - PF
“Reference Case”WECC L&R
ADS PF
PCDS - Other Data
ADS PCM\PF Validation
Posted Case
June 30, 2020
PCM Validation continues…Next official
posing: V2.0 ->
Mid-March
PF Export Hours Validated
by
NorthernGrid
5
Use of the “Round-Trip” in NorthernGrid
▪ To determine the more efficient or cost-effective transmission plan that would
become the Study Plan, Northern Tier Transmission Group (NTTG) had
utilized results from the production cost model to identify stressed hours;
after review of the cases, data from eight of the export hours were subjected to
reliability analysis using the power flow model.
• The input and output data for these selected hours were transferred, using the round-trip
process, from the production cost model (i.e., GridView) to a power flow model (i.e.,
Power World) to perform the technical reliability analysis.
▪ NorthernGrid is using the NTTG process for the 2020-2021 Study Cycle.
6
Issue Discussion Resolution
Loads: 1. Starting with same time stamp L&R monthly Forecast2. BA level load forecast versus planning area forecast3. Small irrigation loads not reaching its potential
(summer pumping is scaled up, winter)
1. Confirming that loads submitted to NorthernGrid are the same as that submitted WECC L&R
2. BA Mapping issue
1. Require BA level data as stipulated in DPM
1. Bus mismatches present in the PCM case contribute to solution difficulty
1. Issue has to do with not having the right voltage angle when adding a new bus.
2. Power Flow uses “Angle Smoothing
1. In future, WECC staff will solve PF case when base case modifications are applied.
2. If just imported into GridView, Hitachi - ABB will look into "smoothing" angles.
1. Do NOT modify topology in PCM 1. Topology changes – read in epc file with PF changes Model consistent with PF1. Phase shifters2. Negative load3. Generators – voltage control, Pmax, Pmin,
Qmax, Qmin, technology
1. Initial changes to generators should be applied in power flow
1. DC line flow/direction 1. rectifier, inverter (alpha, gama) Already fixed I PCM
1. Checks for motor or battery representation (negative load check
2. Do not remove or set Pgen=zero for negative generation
3. Do not exceed Pmin or Pmax limits of generators
1. If motor loads, data needs to be identified in the L&R data collection. Checks:
2. Netted from load? Remove from load and model as a negative generation
1. Do not net out station service load for generation2. Doing this is causing Pgen to exceed Pmax it seems.
There is really no reason to modify the station service load.
1. Data Issue 2. Modify HR, using Pnet not Pgross
1. Data Issue 2. Modify HR, using Pnet not Pgross
1. Changes made in power flows after exporting the hourly data from PCM will definitely impact path flows.
1. Generator capacities greater than transformer or branch rating
Rules of thumb (all need to be checked with basic power flow)Do not exceed capacity of POI• 0 to 34.5 kV: 5 MW• 34.5 to 69 kV: 25 MW• 115 kV: 25 to 50 MW
1. Data issue in placing L&R generators that were not able to be aligned with the PF
The PCM Case Build Process Overview
8
GridView Inputs
SRS Powerflow with L&R Resources“Reference Case”
WECC L&RLoad Forecasts
PDCS –Other DataHeat rates, solar and wind patterns, etc.
GridViewSRS Powerflow“Target Case”
GridView Outputs
Cases forPowerflowanalysis
Model for Production Cost analysis
Export
Load modeling Issue
9
▪ While all three are similar representations, information is lost in conversion.
1. PF Base Case – Feeder Loads, DG, EE all individually modeled as Load
2. Internal PCM – DG/BTM converted to generator models to capture their respective hourly shapes
3. PCM Export hour aggregates Load/DG, BTM, resulting in reduced bus load for the hour –
▪ Vender is working on adding to PCM to model subsequent negative load independently; this is consistent with how it is modeled in the original power flow, however dispatches with varying hourly profiles.
1
2
3
10
Human input Error – BA mapping
▪ Checking PCM mapping vs. WECC base case• The green dot indicates the sum of PCM loads when
mapping entered a WECC base case.
• The PCM distribute BAA loads from the L&R to busses, using Area load busses. If BA busses are not populated consistent with DPM, or incorrectly assigned to a BA, that impact the load distribution to the bus.
• Solution - - WECC will be sending out a request for members to review BA mapping
• This can help clean up base cases (BA in DPM but not always populated
11
DC Line Model
▪ NorthernGrid looked for a stressed S-N case for COI/PDCI
▪ PCM delivered! Spring during light load and high solar: COI at -3,321 (S-N) and PDCI -3,050 (S-N)
▪ This was the internal PCM model
▪ On export, COI at -7933 (S-N), PCI +2711 (N-S)
▪ WHAT HAPPENED!?
• PDCI DC Line model is uni-directional – PCM export code wasn’t ‘flipping’ DC direction in target PF case
In addition …
• PDCI limits 3220 N-S and 3100 S-N – but where’s the meter and what about losses?
• In PCM, the metering was at Celilo – fine for the 3220 N-S rating, but the 3100 S-N is metered at Sylmar
• S-N DC Losses needed to be accounted to assign limit at the Celilo terminal, less than 3100, or even 3050.
• Bi-pole losses ~550 MW at this level of transfer in the model – limit transferred to Celilo ~2550 S-N
▪ Short Term – add a DC pole model for each direction of flow in each WECC base case model – one would be turned ‘on’, the other ‘off’
Bus Mismatches
▪ The export from PCM to a power flow case snapshot has some significant bus
mismatches (worst in the example case was 4,762,977 MVA; 28 buses > 40,000
MVA mismatch) …
▪ Issue has to do with not having the right voltage angle when adding a new
bus.
▪ Interim Solution - - WECC staff will solve PF case when base case
modifications are applied. Power Flow uses “Angle Smoothing” … voltage
and angle averages on adjacent busses.
▪ Long Term Solution - - ABB will investigate a potential software solution.
12
Topology changes include dispatch test
From Number From Name To Number To Name Circuit % of Limit Used MVA or Amps?
366701 11C1472C1 366702 11C1472C2 1 852.3 Amps
11337 BV_C1 11338 BV_STA 1 421.6 MVA
11328 SOLAR_EV 11327 SOLAR_EC 1 380.4 MVA
85677 MV1 85678 Inverter 1 236.8 MVA
47296 HW_HILL_2 47297 HW_HILL_2 1 194.3 MVA
23709 Q1170 23710 Q1170_BESS 1 192.1 MVA
11336 BV_C2 11335 BV_PV1 1 187.4 MVA
11336 BV_C2 11334 BV_PV2 1 187.4 MVA
23707 Q1170_HV 23708 Q1170_MV 1 185.4 MVA
23708 Q1170_MV 23709 Q1170 1 166.3 Amps
32500 ULTR RCK 32402 ULTR-RCK 1 165.3 MVA
85677 MV1 85679 Storage 1 158.5 MVA
41286 ROZA 41284 ROZA M 1 151.6 MVA
47436 COLW13B 47448 LVF23 1 142.9 Amps
40756 ROZA 41284 ROZA M 1 142.2 MVA
11110 NEWMAN 11229 NEWMN7G1 1 138.8 MVA
36204 AERA_12 36090 AERA_ENG 1 133.2 MVA
55087 DAISHOW8 55089 DAISHOW9 XR 133 Amps
40911 SACJAWEA 41047 SUN_HARBOR+ 1 131.3 Amps
57185 SCOTFCL2 58885 SCOT4_6 04 129.1 Amps
11321 CANUT1_BAT 11320 BATTERY_W 1 125.9 MVA
24786 CSA DIAB 24726 CSA DIAB 1 125.6 MVA
34627 KETTLEMNSC1 34455 KETTLEMNS 1 125.3 MVA
55185 SCOTFCL1 58785 SCOTF_4 02 123.4 Amps
40843 PORT ANG 40841 PORT ANG 1 122 MVA
23410 Q1434_MV2 23409 Q1434_MV1 1 120 Amps
38365 N.HGN DM 33638 N.HOGAN 1 118.5 MVA
37530 WHISKEYT 37531 WHISKEYF 1 115.8 MVA
31101 SCOTIATP 31105 RIODLLTP 1 114.3 Amps
54054 DOW GEN1 59061 DOW BUS2 66 113.6 Amps
55450 IRRICAN2 54450 IRRICAN1 T1 112.4 MVA
14045 PCC 85683 SUB_PSTR 1 111.9 MVA
44931 HINKLE T 45233 HINKLE 1 111.8 Amps
44931 HINKLE T 45139 HERMISTN 1 111.7 Amps
21914 ORM1 21907 ORM12 2 110.2 MVA
13
This is a sample PCM PF from NorthernGrid work. Occurrenceof these overloads leads to serious loss of faith in veracity of PCM case. The ADS process, if followed, would have preventedthis.
Types of ISSUES
14
1 - Human Input Error
Lacking Bus Assignment to BA
2 - Model Limitation
Load Model in PCM - - not able to model Load Modifiers hourly on the Load side
3 - PF\PCM Mismatching Algorithms
1) DC Line Model incompatibility
2) Bus Mismatches for not having the right voltage when adding a bus
4 - Topology Changes
1)Network Overload
2) Low Voltages
5 - Process Change
SRS compiling the ADS “Reference Case”
Leads to fixing types 3 & 4 Issues
Next Steps
▪ Proposed approach would be to have PCDS and the SRS work
together to improve the two models, PCM and Power Flow (PF)
▪ Start with inventory model specific differences and outline needs
▪ Work with other RAC committees and WECC staff as necessary
(e.g., PCMS, StS, MVS, LRTF) to generate an implement solutions
15
