AN EFFICIENT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING A COMMON WECC-WIDE NODE/BREAKER MODEL 1. How much time are you spending building your network model? 2. Are you happy with the results you are getting? 3. Can you compare your solution results with other utilities? 4. Do you want a realistic model? Can add graphics, etc. to personalize this slide. Presenter: Ramu Ramanathan Ph.D., P.E., PMP

Project Synopsis Goal of the Project 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 Answer the following: Provide a brief project description. What are the project objectives? What is the major planned deliverable? Describe any issues/problems/challenges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The questions below are food for thought. You are not limited to answering just these questions, nor do you have to answer them all. Respond with information, as appropriate for your project. Are the stakeholders in agreements that the project is moving toward the intended objectives/accomplishments as planned? What technical approach is being used to do the research? How would you define success for this project? What technology gap in the Roadmap will this project close? Goal: Requirements for common node/breaker model

Current Status – Network models Project Synopsis Current Status – Network models CAISO Model Peak Model Utility 1 Model Utility 2 Model Utility m Model Answer the following: Provide a brief project description. What are the project objectives? What is the major planned deliverable? Describe any issues/problems/challenges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The questions below are food for thought. You are not limited to answering just these questions, nor do you have to answer them all. Respond with information, as appropriate for your project. Are the stakeholders in agreements that the project is moving toward the intended objectives/accomplishments as planned? What technical approach is being used to do the research? How would you define success for this project? What technology gap in the Roadmap will this project close? Different Network Models

Project Synopsis Current Issues Different Models Node/Breaker – Bus Branch Different Parameters – Footprints Financial/Legal LMP VTL Reliability Different Results RAS Curtailments Black/Brown Outs Qualified Staff Answer the following: Provide a brief project description. What are the project objectives? What is the major planned deliverable? Describe any issues/problems/challenges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The questions below are food for thought. You are not limited to answering just these questions, nor do you have to answer them all. Respond with information, as appropriate for your project. Are the stakeholders in agreements that the project is moving toward the intended objectives/accomplishments as planned? What technical approach is being used to do the research? How would you define success for this project? What technology gap in the Roadmap will this project close?

Project Participants Team Expertise Experience Team Power System PM: Edison Elizeh (BPA) PNNL Dr. Zhenyu (Henry) Huang Dr. Ruisheng Diao James O’Brien Dr. Xiaoyuan Fan Maxisys Dr. Ramu Ramanathan Dr. Gerald Sheble Anand Popat Meena Sambandam Compusharp Ramesh Hariharan Phani Harsha Gadde PGE, WECC, SCE BPA- Thong Trinh Team Expertise Power System WECC System Software Applications Answer the following: Provide details about the project participants (BPA Project Manager, BPA Project Sponsor, Contractor, Principal Investigator, Project Team Members, Project Sub-contractors, and Project Stakeholders) that describe expertise (e.g., publication, credentials, experience in similar work). Rate the level of project team engagement as high, moderate or minimal based on the following. Explain why. Highly Engaged – project team members exhibit a sense of connection to the research, are focused on the project goals, contribute meaningfully to the project, initiate communication to resolve project issues, engaged stakeholders routinely, come prepared for project team meetings, submit informative project status reports on time, drive innovation and move the project forward. Include stakeholders in project stage gate decisions.  Moderately Engaged – project team members exhibit a sense that they are getting the research done as planned but not with energy, contribution is routine as if going-through-the motions, slow to share project issues with stakeholders in hopes of resolving the issues themselves, project status reports are satisfactorily completed. Update stakeholders in project stage gate decisions. Minimally Engaged – project team members are behind in their planned work schedule because this project compared to other work they are committed to, hard-to-get-a-hold-of in that they do not answer emails or phone calls in a timely manner, unprepared for scheduled project meetings, submit project status report with minimal information, unconcerned about stakeholder interests, unenthusiastic about the research. Do not include stakeholders in project stage gate decisions. Experience Team

Improve: Reliability, Efficiency and Accuracy Expected Benefits 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 Answer the following: What has been accomplished to date? Do the actual project’s accomplishments match what was planned to-date? If the actual accomplishments are less than expected, what is the planned corrective action? If better than expected, what has been the response? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The questions below are food for thought. You are not limited to answering just these questions, nor do you have to answer them all. Respond with information as appropriate for your project. What challenges/barriers have been overcome? Which have not? Suggestions for items to include on this slide: -Software, prototype developed -Data collected -Requirements met -Stage gate achieved -Contract in place

Identify Survey Approach Accomplishments Task 1: Identify the barriers Identify Potential Barriers Prepare Survey Identify Survey Approach Perform Survey Summarize Findings Answer the following: What has been accomplished to date? Do the actual project’s accomplishments match what was planned to-date? If the actual accomplishments are less than expected, what is the planned corrective action? If better than expected, what has been the response? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The questions below are food for thought. You are not limited to answering just these questions, nor do you have to answer them all. Respond with information as appropriate for your project. What challenges/barriers have been overcome? Which have not? Suggestions for items to include on this slide: -Software, prototype developed -Data collected -Requirements met -Stage gate achieved -Contract in place

San Diego Gas & Electric Portland General Electric Question 6: Do you use a different naming convention for elements in your internal EMS compared to the West wide System Model from Peak Reliability? For example, are your station names and device names (breaker, disconnects, transformers, generators, load…) same as those in PEAK? Idaho Power Company Different PacifiCorp SCE San Diego Gas & Electric Peak N/A WAPA Yes(Different) Tacoma Power Not provided Tucson Electric Power Portland General Electric BPA Majority same, some difference, more detailed node breaker model SRP SMUD SCL Same as Peak except switches Different naming convention

San Diego Gas & Electric Portland General Electric Question 8: Will it be useful to have a WECC wide centralized database node/breaker network model that will enable utilities to download external area models? Idaho Power Company Yes PacifiCorp SCE San Diego Gas & Electric Peak N/A WAPA Tacoma Power Not provided Tucson Electric Power Portland General Electric BPA SRP Yes (ideal) SMUD SCL Most of the survey participants confirm that a WECC wide centralized node/breaker model will benefit the external network modeling

Standardization of naming will help Survey Summary Some key findings from the survey feedback are summarized as follows: Internal model is accurate, Keeping up the External Model current is challenging Utilities are using different naming conventions compared to the West wide System Model Not Easy to validate the solution. Different Solution from ISO, Peak RC. WECC wide centralized node/breaker model will benefit the external network modeling Standardization of naming will help

Project Progress Schedule & Stage Gates Task FY17 FY18 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Task 1: Identify the barriers to a common WECC-wide node/breaker model   Stage Gate 1 * Task 2: Develop a methodology to address naming conventions Task 3: Develop techniques to identify model changes Stage Gate 2 Task 4: Develop model validation requirements and approaches Task 5: Identify tools needed for model building and validation Stage Gate 3 Task 6: Design a system architecture Task 7: Prototype some major gaps Stage Gate 4 Task 8: Identify technical gaps Task 9: Develop a requirement document Task 10: Phase 2 plan

Project Direction/Next Steps Requirements Document Phase 2 Plan Gaps Answer the following: What is the next stage gate? What are future anticipated decisions and/or milestones? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The questions below are food for thought. You are not limited to answering just these questions, nor do you have to answer them all. Respond with information as appropriate for your project. Do you expect to be within budget? Are there challenges expected where you could use some help? Is there a role for BPA Labs? Is project knowledge being transferred to other BPA employees?

Planning Initial focus will be for operation Latter add future conditions needed for planning Move towards one node/breaker model for planning and operation within Western Interconnection Model No bus numbers and unique equipment ID

Help Needed Provide inputs to the survey questionnaire Participate in follow-up discussion Review and provide feedback on white papers Identify the key gaps in today’s practice Join future conference calls to review progress and provide input.

Summary Common Model Accuracy Efficiency Reliability

Q&A