Verification and Validation of Transient Stability Models and Results

Thomas J. Overbye, Komal ShetyeUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaignoverbye@illinois.edu, shetye1@illinois.edu

June 30, 2015

Project Synopsis

• Over last five years UIUC and WSU have been working with BPA to do transient stability verification, with a primary focus on comparing results between PowerWorld, PSLF, TSAT, and (somewhat) PSSE– Verification is defined as making sure the packages have

correctly implemented the specified models– Over last year the project has also addressed validation, which is

defined as determining how well the models represent the actual system

• Verification goal has been to get the packages to give near similar results – We believe the goal has been met, particularly between

PowerWorld and PSLF

2

Reason for Project

• Software verification and dynamic model validation should ultimately provide better dynamic analysis tools and models

• Transient stability packages are complex, supporting hundreds of different models, each having many parameters and potentially different modes of operation– Errors can be missed, even in code that has been used for

decades for studies– Multiple packages can also be used to more quickly determine

errors in both old and new system models– The impact of underlying assumptions can be better considered

3

Example: Hydro Governor Non-Windup Limits

• One issue found during the verification work was the modeling of non-windup limits in hydro governors– Handled quite differently in different packages

4

Example: Hydro Governor Non-Windup Limits

• Seeing differences required a scenario in which governor hit its limit, then backed off its limit

5

Jamie Weberpresentedresults to MVWG inSpring 2014

Approach

• Difference transient stability packages can get different results for a variety of reasons– Different initial power flow cases; the sharing of generator reactive

power among multiple generators is a common difference– Slightly different models dynamic models, such as whether a speed

multiplier is included in the exciter output– Different methods for correcting "bad data"

• Our approach was "zero tolerance" for different results– Greatly helped by PowerWorld's implementing all the different

models and methods for correcting bad data

• Methodology combined looking at results for full system studies (top-down) and for two bus equivalents (bottom-up)

• Details matter!!

6

Project Background

• Current BPA project is an out-growth of an earlier (2011) successfully completed PSERC project (S 43-G), conducted by the UIUC and WSU team; funded entirely at BPA (RD53)• Project developed prototype mechanism to do software package

comparison using the bottom-up approach, but it was done manually, a slow process for thousands of generators

7

TIP 268 Verification Starting Point

59.75

59.8

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

60.05

0 5 10 15 20

Freq

uency (Hz)

Time (seconds)

Bus MALIN

Package A

PSLF

Power‐World

8

Results of Verification

59.75

59.8

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

60.05

0 5 10 15 20

Freq

uency (Hz)

Time (seconds)

Bus MALIN

Package A

PSLF

Power‐World

9

How this was achieved –Verification Methodology

• Analyzed results of the whole system

• Goal: To find the dynamic models causing these system-wide discrepancies

• Automated comparison of large system results – Created a metric to

compare results analytically rather than manually / visually

– L1 norm normalized by time and magnitude

10

59.7

59.8

59.9

60.0

0 5 10 15 20

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

Time (seconds)

Software Package A Software Package B

Spread of 18,000 WECC bus frequenciesSoftware Package A: PowerWorldSoftware Package B: PSLF

d = distance measureX = signal being compared (f, P, Q, etc.)A, B : Software Package

Verification Methodology – Hybrid Top Down + Bottom Up Method

• Top Down: Analyzing system–wide results and going down systematically to individual dynamic models

• Used Interface Signals: e.g. P and Q for generator buses

• Then, use data partitioning technique called “Elbow Point” to find the most discrepant generators in terms of P and Q comparisons

11

69 generators above elbow point for Q comparisons – analyzed further

Verification Methodology – Hybrid Top Down + Bottom Up Method

• Once major discrepant generators are identified, compare them in detail by single machine infinite bus (SMIB) analysis

• Creation of SMIB equivalents automated in PowerWorld

• Bottom Up: Simulate SMIB equivalents to isolate discrepancy causing model(s)

12

TABLE I. Some isolated models, from the large-system example

M E G S Failed Stage Signal(s)

1468 GENTPJ EXST1 PIDGOV PSS2A MG m 1896 GENROU EXAC1 IEEEG1 IEEEST ME fd 838 GENTPF EXST1 GGOV1 WSCCST MEGS s

Verification Methodology – Detection of Causes of Discrepancies

• Method 1: State / Block Diagram Analysis: Comparing states or outputs of blocks as available to narrow the discrepancy to a particular block

13

Integral wind-up seen in Package A but not in B, after frequency playback testPIDGOV block diagram: PI block in gray

Verification Methodology – Detection of Causes of Discrepancies

• Method 2: Clustering parameters: Clustering each parameter of all instances of a particular model type to see which parameter cluster aligns with the discrepant models

• Eg: Only 3 instances of WSCCST out of total 122 instances in the case showed this discrepancy (Buses 33141, 33142, 33143)

• Clustering all instances showed only these 3 had Vcutoff= -1

• PSLF had unclear documentation on what happens when this is 0

14

TABLE I. Key WSCCST parameters, with discrepant generators in grey cs qs qs q q1 pq1 q2 pq2 q3 pq3 smax cutoff slow

838 1 4.5 0 10 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.21 0 0 1 -1 0 839 1 5.1 0 10 0.025 0.25 0.025 0.25 0 0 1 -1 0 840 1 5.1 0 10 0.025 0.25 0.025 0.25 0 0 1 -1 0 1371 3 6 0.05 2 0 0 0.031 0.2 0.031 0.2 0.07 0 -0.07 1715 2 0.45 0 1.5 2.5 0.35 0.03 0.35 0 0 0.05 0 0 585 1 2.4 0 10 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.2 0.06 0 0.05 0 -0.05 ⋮

Now, both PW and PSLF disable this model when Vcutoff = -1, results match

• Final Step: Reporting error causing models / blocks / parameters to software vendor(s)– Helps confirming the error– Model updates and bug fixes– Re-run with update models to verify if results match

• Commonly found causes of errors– Software bugs– Incomplete documentation– “Bad” model parameters: Values that are not handled by the

model, or lack of documentation on how a software package handles them

15

Verification Methodology

Verification Results

• Some key models causing simulation result discrepancies identified / fixed in this project– Machines: GENTPF, GENTPJ - Fixing the frequency

dependent voltage issue drastically improved the system-wide frequency differences between PSLF and PowerWorld

– Exciters: EXAC1, ST4B, ST6B, AC7B, ESAC, etc.– Governors: Hydro governors with PI blocks such as

PIDGOV, GPWSCC, HYG3 etc., GGOV1, GGOV3– Stabilizer: WSCCST– Other Models: OEL1 implementations for different exciter

models, LCFB1– Loads: Static Load, MOTORW, MOTOR1, LDELEC,

LD1PAC, CMPLDW

16

Current Verification Results

• Verification led to a closer match between software packages

59.7

59.8

59.9

60.0

0 5 10 15 20

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

Time (seconds)

Software Package A

Software Package B

Figure shows where we are nowat in package to package comparisons.The largest frequency differences, shown in the figures on the right,are now quite small.

17

Current Verification Results

• Verification led to a closer match between PowerWorld/PSLF and TSAT as well

Malin Bus Voltage

18

Verification of Load Models

• In addition to generator models, performed verification tests for load models such as CMPLDW and its components: 1-ph air conditioner, electronic load, and 3-ph motor models– Methodology: Analysis of Single Load Infinite Bus Equivalents

(SLIBs). Can create automatically at any bus

19

VxejyVssejƟ

InfiniteBus

Load Bus

GENCLS (with signal

playback, e.g. Vx, fy)

Load ModelE.g.

CMPLDW

Eg: Testing contactor functionality of LD1PAC model. Found discrepancy only when voltage recovers above Vc1on. Issue was incorrect scaling of MVA base of the load above Vc1on. This was fixed in PoweWorld.

Verification of Load Models

• Report on CMPLDW benchmarking submitted to WECC MVWG Load Modeling Task Force in Oct 2014 (co-authored w/ BPA and PowerWorld)

20

Verification of Load Models

• One issue one complex load model verification is whether the underlying 3-phase induction motors are modeled with six parameters (like MOTORW) or seven parameters (like MOTOR1, CIM5)

21

The seven parametermodels will givedifferent results

Verification Tool Snapshot

• In progress, prototype GUIs shown here

22

Bus no Gen ID Gen Exc Gov Stab L1Norm

50310 4 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 1.530936

46606 1 GENROU EXAC8B IEEEG1_GE 0 1.254271

33142 1 GENTPF EXST1_GE GGOV1 WSCCST 1.026206

33143 1 GENTPF EXST1_GE GGOV1 WSCCST 1.022152

56357 3 GENROU EXAC1 IEEEG1_GE IEEEST 0.823748

16504 2 GENROU EXAC8B GGOV1 0 0.506081

50307 1 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.494893

46895 B9 GENTPF EXDC1 GPWSCC 0 0.489139

46895 B8 GENTPF EXDC1 GPWSCC 0 0.489139

58355 2 GENROU EXST1_GE GPWSCC PSS2A 0.488326

50308 2 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.434321

50309 3 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.403584

8368 1 GENTPF EXDC4 IEEEG3_GE 0 0.361006

51039 1 GENROU EXST1_GE GGOV1 PSS2A 0.349486

58290 2 GENROU IEEET1 GGOV1 WSCCST 0.331764

40344 1 GENTPJ EXST1_GE IEEEG3_GE PSS2A 0.214824

58354 1 GENROU EXST1_GE GPWSCC PSS2A 0.214785

59223 G4 GENROU EXST1_GE IEEEG1_GE PSS2A 0.209016

50499 5 GENTPJ EXST1_GE HYGOV IEEEST 0.184728

50496 2 GENTPJ EXST1_GE HYGOV IEEEST 0.183097

50297 4 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.1802

50296 3 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.180086

46257 1 GENTPJ ESST1A_GE 0 0 0.177994

44193 3 GENTPJ EXST1_GE GPWSCC WSCCST 0.175806

50294 1 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.172953

50295 2 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.172422

Top 25 Discrepant Generators

Verification Tool Features

Two parts• 1. Large System Analysis (eg. WECC Case)

– Process simulation results to apply metric: Time alignment, removing duplicates (during switching events), identifying motors (opposite sign convention), removing dc offset, etc.

– Comparing and displaying most discrepant buses– Ability to plot results

• 2. SMIB Analysis– Option to simulate all SMIB equivalents of a case or the

most discrepant ones identified from large system analysis– Simulate with voltage or frequency disturbances to test

relevant models– Comparing results and finding possible error causing models

23

Validation

• Actual system validation is more challenging, but many of tools developed for verification are helpful

• Comparing simulation results to PMU data from disturbances– Data received

• State Estimator (SE) Cases for Jan 29 2014 events (John Day - Grizzly fault + Gen Drop)

• Event logs• PMU data for disturbances (50 bus frequencies)• Planning cases containing dynamic data

– Validation Case Set-Up• Set-up a procedure to map dynamic data from planning to SE

cases (aided by WSM mapping)• Fixing “bad data” such as incorrect MVA bases, governors for

negative MW generators to address instability issues

24

Validation

• January 29, 2014 Event PMU Data

25

Validation

• Validation Results – Jan 29 2014, 6:46 event

Sensitivity of parameters such as governor response limits and load models, to validation results

59.65

59.70

59.75

59.80

59.85

59.90

59.95

60.00

60.05

0 5 10 15 20 25

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

Time (seconds)

Bus Monroe 500 kV Frequency

PMU 14w governor response12s governor response 14w governor response + motor load

Note, Alberta is not in-service in the stateestimator case

We have not yetconsidered matchingvoltage magnitudes

26

PowerWorld Frequency Analysis Techniques

• Partially based on this project PowerWorld has implemented two frequency domain analysis techniques– Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and modal analysis using the variable

projection method (VPM)1

– Frequency domain techniques can be quite helpful in providing information about power system dynamic performance

– Integrating the tools within transient stability should allow for convenient access

27

1A. Borden, B.C. Lesieutre, J. Gronquist, "Power System Modal Analysis Tool Developed for Industry Use," Proc. 2013 North American Power Symposium, Manhattan, KS, Sept. 2013

Motivational Example

• The below graph shows a slight frequency oscillation in a transient stability run– The question is to figure out the source of the oscillation (in

the busfrequency here)

– Plotting all the speed values is one option, but sometimes small oscillations could get lost

– A solution is to do an FFT

28

Bus 2376 (PKNOBDUM) Frequency

Time181614121086420

Bus

2376

(PKN

OBD

UM

) Fre

quen

cy

6059.9959.9859.9759.9659.9559.9459.9359.9259.9159.9

59.8959.8859.8759.8659.8559.8459.8359.8259.8159.8

59.79

Bus 2376 (PKNOBDUM) Frequency

Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) Overview

• In version 18 quick access to an FFT is available in the transient stability time values (or plot) case information displays by selecting "Frequency Analysis" from the right-click menu

• To understand the FFT, it is useful to start with a Fourier series, which seeks to represent any periodic signal, with frequency F=1/T, as a sum of sinusoidalswith frequencies that are integer multiples of F, nF– DC is n=0, fundamental is n=1, harmonics n > 1

29

Fourier Series and Nonperiodic Functions

• Often the complete representation requires an infinite number of terms

• Example at right shows the Fourierseries for a square wave, showing sequentially the first four terms

• Nonperiodic signals can be represented by letting T go to infinity; this gives a continuous Fourier Spectrum

30

Image Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series

Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) Overview

• Discrete Fourier Transforms (DFTs) can be used to provide frequency information about sampled, non-periodic signals

• The FFT is just a fast DFT – with N0 points its computational order is N0 ln(N0)– This allows it to be applied to many signals

• In version 18 quick access to an FFT is available in the transient stability time values (or plot) case information displays by selecting "Frequency Analysis" from the right-click menu– This works best when all the entries are of the same type,

such as bus frequency

31

FFT Analysis Display32

FFT Analysis Display

• The frequency analysis display shows the original data, the FFT for each time result, and a frequency summary

33

Max Value

Freq (Hz)121086420

Max

Val

ue

0.032

0.03

0.028

0.026

0.024

0.022

0.02

0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0

Max Value

With about 840 time values, and18,000 signals (bus frequenciesin this example), the FFT takesabout six seconds

The Frequency Summary Page provides the ID of the signalwith the largest component for each frequency

Geographic Data Views

• Since about 2007 PowerWorld Simulator has had functionality for what we call Geographic Data Views (GDVs)– Original functionality described in paper, T.J. Overbye, "Wide-

area power system visualizations with geographic data views," IEEE PES 2008 General Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA.

• Idea of GDVs is for cases with geographic information for the buses (or substations) the power system information can be visualized on auto-created one-lines– Did not catch on because at the time few cases had the

necessary geographic information– This is now changing, so PowerWorld is refreshing the concept

34

GDV Process

• Starting point is a case with latitude/longitude values, and a map-based usually empty one-line (can be provided by PowerWorld)

• From a case informationdisplay with geo-linkedobjects, like substations,select fields of interest,and then right-click andselect Geographic Data View

• This displays the Geographic Data View Customization Display– Used to specify the attributes for the auto-inserted GDVs

35

Geographic Data View Customization Display: General Display Options

36

A one-line needsto be selected, but it need to beinitially open

Use the Fieldsand AttributesPage to customizethe display objects

Geographic Data View Customization Display: Fields and Attributes

37

Different attributescan be used tovisualization different objectvalues

Example WECC GDV38

Here thedisplayobjectsare linked tothe substations;size isproportionalto MWgeneration,color to Mvargeneration

Right-clicking on an object allows object to either see thesubstation dialog, or view the Geographic Data View Options

Example WECC GDV Showing GICs

• Below is same display, modified to show substation GIC amps to neutral (size), and direction (color)

• GDVs are standardPowerWorld one-lines, so they can be saved, objectsmoved around, and reused

• GDV attributes (i.e., the key)are always available by right-clicking

• They also support contouring

39

A n t e lo p e

Janet

Grand Coulee

McNary

Chief Joseph

W a n e t a E x p a n s io n P r o j e c t

T h e G e y s e r s

Monitor

Cholla

Roc ky Reac h

P o w e ll R iv e r D a m

Silver King

Br illiant

Ander s on

J o h n D a y P h

P r ie s t R a p id s

T h e D a lle s P h

Dever s

Lethbridge

Bonneville

Revelstoke

Dunsmuir

Calient e

M o s s L a n d in g ( D U E N N O )

Newar k

Har ewood

B a t t le R iv e r

M id w a y P e a k e r ( M I D W A Y )

Empress

I n t e r m o u n t a in G e n e r a t in g

C a t h e d r a l S q u a r e

Newell

C h e e k y e

Boundar y

I ngledow

Ashe

Table M t .

Casper

Pawnee

Olympia

Snohomish

R e d D e e r

B a lf o u r

C o m o L a k e

Beaver Creek

S e a I s la n d

Ar not t

Sno-k ing

Nicola

T r a c y

C lo w h o m

Gonder

E. Calgar y

A n a c o n d a M ill C r e e k

Selk ir k

Vant age

At c helit z

Nat al

M o r a g a

Sper ling

N o v a J o f f r e C o g e n e r a t io n

Bedding

M e d ic in e H a t ( C M H )

Longv iew

W y o d a k

M ead

Olive

Highland

Malin

Cranbrook

C O B E n e r g y F a c ilit y

Vis t a

G a t e s P e a k e r

H o o v e r A Z

Big Eddy

Colstrip

L o s E s t e r o s

C e r r o P r ie t o I I

Tec k la

Clayburn

Tacoma

M c Call

C o o l W a t e r

S h e e r n e s s

H a r q u a h a la V a lle y

A E S A la m it o s

Bell

S a n t a C la r a

Ker n- 1

V e r n o n T e r m in a l

M ur r in #1

C o n t r a C o s t a

W a lt e r s

Lam ar

Oquir r h

Kidd No. 2

C h a r le s L e n z ie

I m p e r ia l V a lle y

M a r t in P e a k e r ( C P N )

U n iv e r s it y o f B C

E l S e g u n d o

Napav ine

Pint o

Horsey

Midpoint

S a n J u a n 3 4 5

Br oadv iew

R e d h a w k 1 & 2

Gold River

Naught on

H y d e r

G o s h e n

Her m is t on Power Pr oj ect

W in s o r

J enner

H o o v e r N V

Palo Ver de

M iguel

Texac o

S e r r a n o

B r o w n in g

H o lly w o o d

S h ip r o c k

J . D. Ros s

I v a n p a h

E n m a x 2 2

Lower GraniteLower M onum ent al

M anc hief Power St at ion

F r e d o n ia ( P S P L )

Hundr ed M ile House

M e s q u it e P o w e r

Br ady

Wells (DOPD)

R o u n d M o u n t a in

E a s t S h o r e

Pit 1

Dworshak

Ter m inal

Hope

Cas t aic

Golden

F o o t e C r e e k I

Hillt op

T o r t o lit a

Suncr es t

S t . M a r y s

Ponderosa

Conr ad

G le n C a n y o n

M ir a c le M ile

Rat hdr um Power LLC

Es quim alt

F o r t C h u r c h ill

L o n g L a k e

M o s s y r o c k

C o lg a t e

Balzac Cogen

Custer

J o h n s t o n

Santiam

Lit t le Goos e Ph

Rinaldi

O c o t illo E n e r g y F a c ilit y

S a m m a m is h

Langdon

R iv e r g a t e

Ben Lom ond

Metiskow

Mica

Nor t h W es t

Sigur d

Sif t on

Hi Desert

M o h a v e

M o c c a s in

Ar den

C a s c a d e H e r it a g e P o w e r P a r k

Sandia

Syr ac us e

B a r n a r d

C a m b ie

J o h n H a r t

Cypr es s

W es t wold

D o n P e d r o

Dixonv ille

Vas

V a lle y v ie w

Yellowt ail

G o o s e L a k e

V a lm o n t ( P S C O )

Hunter Plant

Hill

Brooks

S n o q u a lm ie

Car ver

M a n d a la y

E a r ly I n t a k e

La Joie

C r y s t a l R iv e r

C r a ig ( T S G T )

C r o w n P a c k a g in g L t d .

S e v e n M ile

H u m b o ld t B a y

Bot hell

S a lm o n A r m

Kelly Lake

I c e H a r b o r

I llecillewaet

B u r lin g t o n I C ( B U R M L )

Kinport

S e d r o W o o lle y

Hes per us

Meridian

M or r o Bay

Ker r

A t h a lm e r

SAY

Pearl

T w in F a lls

M c loughlin

M eeker

C a m p W illia m s

S u m a s W a y

F . A . L e e

P la in s E n d

M ur r yhill

Kor t es

Car ibou

Chilliwac k

H o r n e P a y n e

E n m a x 1 3

Hunt ingt on

Fult on

M is s ion

Talbot

W eld

St et t ler

K w o ie k C r e e k

Vic t or v ille

Fols om

R u m o r o s a

BEN

Fr ank lin

E n m a x 3 6

G a r d n e r ( N E V P )

G r a n d J u n c t io n ( U T E )

H u m b o ld t

S o u t h B r e m e r t o n

C a b in e t G o r g e

Keeler

K ic k in g H o r s e

Kit s ap

B a lc h 2

L a r a m ie R iv e r

Rus k in

Tap

B ly t h e 2

Paul

Lone Pine

M ir a L o m a

Maple Valley

M o n a s h e e

Aberdeen

O r e n c o

Oyen

D a l G r a u e r

D a n s k in W in d P r o j e c t

B e a c o n ( S p o k a n e )

W at er t on

L a n c a s t e r

Roz a

Toluca

Sacajawea

S e c h e lt

P o r t A n g e le s

Rundle

B o u ld e r P a r k

Bowm ont

K im b e r le y

St . J ohns

H a r t z o g

I gnacio

Cent ur y Gener at ing

T ig e r C r e e k

B la c k D o g

Enmax 28

ANG

J ar r ow

Diablo Canyon

F a r a d a y

C a lif o r n ia

Fair view

Est es

Clover

W r ay

S e m in o e

Belt way

Rowley

Cus hm an 2

B e llin g h a m D iv is io n

Cor onado

P o t r e r o

AEC

Hanna

H e lls C a n y o n

I n y o k e r n

C a s c a d e ( T A U C )

Lange

Lakeville

Ros edale

Blis s

Sy lm ar

ASM

D . G . B e ll

S p a n is h F o r k

K e t t le s H ill W in d F a r m

Sarcee

Shelby

Bor ah

L a p o r t e

Bonanz a

C h ilo q u in

Bighorn Dam

River t on

Bet hel ( PGE)

Beaver

B a r b e r C r e e k

R e d B u t t e

Ault

P ilo t B u t t e

Am oco

Ghos t

M o n t e V is t a

Addy

A r lin g t o n V a lle y

A lb e n i F a lls

Olinda

Ont ar io

N o r t h V a lm y

O'Br ien

Ros s Dam

Allston

L a n g le y G u lc h

R io P u e r c o

M osc ow

M onr oe

Ar r ow Lake

A s h lu C r e e k H y d r o

A s h c r o f t

P o s t F a lls

B a s e L in e

Bear s paw

B e lle C r e e k

Benalt o

Wyndham

Satsop

Sher wood

Sidney W .

Ket t le Falls

S t a n d a r d O il

A n t e lo p e C y n

S t a v e F a lls

T ij u a n a 1

Coc hin

Collier v ille

Banf f

Chem awa

Novelt y

L u c k y P e a k

Vic t or

Haney

W e s t s id e

Er ie Tap

E l D o r a d o

E s c a la n t e

W a ls e n b u r g

W h it e h o r n

Sulphur

A n d r e w Y o r k

M c E lm o C r e e k

W h it e B lu f f s

Us k

T h r e e P k

Diablo

D a n ie ls P a r k

Lane

C u s h m a n 1

W int Hill

Bullpond

C o r o n a t io n

T r in it y ( U S B R C A )

I n d u s t r y

C o y o t e C r e e k

G o r g e ( S C L )

C o lu m b ia F a lls

Glendo

G r a n t s P a s s

Haas

BNC

F a r W e s t

Hungry Horse

Hansman

Car lt on

Taos

S u m m e r F a lls

Stegall (West)

Caldwell

Spr ay

South Rapid City

H ig h w o o d

But t e

Sout hwes t

Slat t

Shelt on

B o o n e S u b .

Rogue

L it t le F a lls ( W W P C )

L inc oln

Bent on

P o c a t e r r a

M er idian

P u n t le d g e

Pine Cr eek

R a v e n s w o o d

Tap

O r m o n d B e a c h

Nor t on

Alc oa

Nelway

A m e r ic a n F a lls

N . Y u m a

N . L e w is t o n

Sandhill

Pahr um p

P a m o n a H e ig h t s

S t ir lin g M o u n t a in

R a m o n a R e n e w a b le

Tipella

Lovell

Ridge

L o s t C a n y o n

HRD

Salem

PAP

M annix

S t a n is la u s

L o n g H o llo w

Hunt

H o r s e H e a v e n

H a r t la n d L F G

Clat s op

FRE

Fr y

Fort Peck

R o c k C r e e k

Yale

Eas t pine

S h ilo h I

W h a t s h a n

W ends on

W a r n e r

F a ir m o u n t

D o u g la s

Don Plant

W in d R id g e

B r ic k C e n t e r

D ix o n C r e e k

F o r d h a m

U p p e r B a k e r

Fos s il

M TP

C r o s s o v e r

PI N

C r a w f o r d

Y o u n g s t o n

Cypr ess

Cowlit z

Cougar

Union Gap

Douglas Lake

M ar ion

Tillam ook

G r a n d R o n d e

T h e r m o p o lis T o w n

C o ld S p r in g s

T o w a o c

Central Ferry

P a r is h G a p

C h e y e n n e

Hatwai

Albina

C h e n o w e t h

T a f t A u t o

VTG

T a h k e n it c h

S w a n V a lle y

J u d g e F C a r r

Rus sell

L o o k o u t

S o d a L a k e s

King

S ilv e r C r e e k

La Pine

Shawnee

B r a v o D o m e

B o r d e r t o w n

S a n d D u n e s

Lar s on

Peac oc k

R o c k y F o r d

Rio Os o

Lolo

L o o k o u t

Suns et

R a ilr o a d

LM N

Lower Baker

Basalt

G le n o m a

B e r r y d a le

B lu e L a k e

M a r y s v ille

SKK

M aupin

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

P E C H e a d w o r k s

A s h R iv e r

Ar c her

O s t r a n d e r

Oldm an

T r o u t C r e e k

N o r t h e a s t ( W W P C )

A lk a li C r .

Albany

K r a in C o r n e r

Adair

M c Call

P o r t a l W a y

Sier r a

C o w lit z F a lls

Tr oy

Tiber

C h a n d le r

B la c k w a t e r

Ringold

N o r t h e a s t

North America Load/Generation Map40

Image is abus loadcontour withsubstation generationGDVs

Thank You!41