tip #: project name - western electricity coordinating ... node breaker presentation... · of new...

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


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


Project Synopsis

Peak

Model

CAISO

Model

Utility

1

Model

Utility

2

Model

Utility

m

Model

Current Status – Network models

Different Network Models

3


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


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


Approach

Survey Initial

Requirements Gaps

Refine Requirements

Phase 2 Plan

6


Accomplishments

Identify

Potential

Barriers

Prepare Survey

Identify Survey

Approach

Perform Survey

Summarize Findings

Task 1: Identify the barriers

7


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


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


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


Survey Results Need to Be Updated

11

1. Turlock Irrigation District

2. NV Energy

3. NorthWestern Energy

4. Avista Corporation

5. Grant County PUD


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


WAPA

WAPA-RMR

Other (No network Apps)

FortisBC Inc. ( Survalent

ONE SCADA & OMS )

OSI

GE Harris

Siemens

Other

GE Grid Solution (Alstom)

Draft


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Q11: Interested in 15-min phone survey?

22


PacifiCorp Yes

SCE Yes

San Diego Gas & Electric Yes

Peak Yes

WAPA Yes

Tacoma Power Yes


Portland General Electric Yes

BPA Yes

SRP Yes

SMUD Yes

Seattle City Light Yes

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Yes


Hetch Hetchy Water & Power No

WAPA-RMR Yes

FortisBC Inc. Yes

BC Hydro Yes





Snohomish PUD #1 No

Draft


WECC TSS A1: Interested in a common model for planning & operation?

23


PacifiCorp

SCE


Peak

WAPA

Tacoma Power



BPA

SRP

SMUD

Seattle City Light




WAPA-RMR Yes

FortisBC Inc. Yes

BC Hydro





Snohomish PUD #1 Maybe

1. This question was added latter.

2. Interested to have a common model for

planning and operation.

Draft


WECC TSS A2: In the long term, interested in moving to a common node

breaker model for planning?

24


PacifiCorp

SCE


Peak

WAPA

Tacoma Power



BPA

SRP

SMUD

Seattle City Light




WAPA-RMR Yes

FortisBC Inc. Yes

BC Hydro



of New Mexico (PNM) depends


Snohomish PUD #1 Not sure

1. This question was added latter.

2. Planning people are interessted to move

to node/breaker model

Draft


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


26

Questions?

If you have any questions, please contact:

Ramu Ramanathan

[email protected]

(360) 713-1525

Draft

tip #: project name - western electricity coordinating ... node breaker presentation... · of new...

Documents