Testing Workshop: Reactive Capability Testing

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IMPACT TO FREQUENCY CONTROL DURING STARTUP AND SHUT DOWN OF UNITS
Advertisements

1 New Generation Commissioning Emal Latifzai Operations Support Engineer New Generation Information Forum ERCOT Public November 4, 2014.
Discussion of MOD Comparison to ERCOT Requirements Luminant OWG, May 21,
1 New Resource Qualification Testing Sandip Sharma Supervisor, Operations Analysis New Generation Information Forum ERCOT Public November 4, 2014.
A Partial Interim Report To WMS Guidance on Implementing Protocol Implementation Plan (PIP) 102 Reactive Power Task Force.
Generator Data Submittals 5/8/ Transmission Customer Forum Bob Jones Transmission Planning Southern Company Transmission 5/8/ Transmission.
Audit & Compliance Tips Jagan Mandavilli Senior Compliance Engineer.
PLWG Report to ROS July 9, PGRRs needing vote PGRR043 – FIS Scoping Amendment – PGRR043 moves the Subsynchronous Resonance (SSR) Study out of the.
June 12, 2008 ROS SEM Go-Live procedure Linda Clarke.
ERS Update for DSWG June 1, Agenda June – September 2012 Procurement XML Project Update Clearing Price discussion NPRR 451 Q & A.
RTWG Report to TAC August 5, 2010 Howard Daniels.
Workshop: Reactive Power Testing:
DC Tie Reservation and Scheduling with Mexico Shams Siddiqi representing Sharyland Utilities WMS Meeting May 15, 2007.
April 23 rd OWG UFLS Survey & Power Factor Review.
Generator Test Data, Generator Capability Curve, and NPRR 366 Terms March 14, 2012 Mike Noth & Bracy Nesbit 1.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Resource Entity Owned Transmission Asset Data Collection Feb 27, 2009 Kick Off Meeting.
RARF Frequently Asked Questions from Resource Entities Ed Geer RARF Workshop III 8/29/2013.
Demand Side Working Group Load Resource Performance Subgroup April 9, 2010 Mary Anne Brelinsky EDF Trading North America.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Registration Market Call Apr 10, 2009.
PRR835 – Reactive Power Capability Requirement
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Registration Market Call Mar 13, 2009.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Texas Nodal Energy Management System Requirement Documents December 5, 2006 Jay Dondeti EMS Project.
August 17, 2012 Solar PV Inverters Anuj Dixit Planning Engineer Resource Integration RPG Meeting.
Vestas.com Wind Power Plant Dynamic Reactive Power “Hybrid” Solutions to meet ERCOT Reactive Power Capability Requirements Presented at ERCOT ROS Meeting,
Texas Nodal 1 Nodal Operations Model Posting Confirmation TAC May 7, 2009 Matt Mereness, ERCOT.
WGR Ramp Rate in Nodal: “As High as Possible” Mike Grimes for QMWG Meeting 10 August 2009.
NPRR425 - Creation of a WGR Group for GREDP and Base Point Deviation Evaluation and Mixing Turbine Types Within a WGR Art Deller, P.E. RARF Workshop 8/29/13.
Protocol Revision Subcommittee Sandy Morris November 3, 2011.
RCWG Update to WMS July 11, Alternatives to Address Negative Prices At its June meeting, WMS directed RCWG to bring back something to vote on. RCWG.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations May 8, 2012 – COPS Meeting May 9, 2012 – WMS.
Congestion Management and Ramp Rate for Delivering Ancillary Services Resmi Surendran.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Registration Market Call Mar 27, 2009.
1 Update to NATF on Resource Registration Feb 2, 2010.
RMS/COPS Workshop VI 1 October 06, Antitrust Admonition ERCOT strictly prohibits Market Participants and their employees who are participating in.
1 Submitting a RARF Art Deller, P.E. Supervisor, Model Administration New Generation Workshop November 4, 2014.
May 11, 2012 RPG meeting YTP Scope and Process – RPG Comments.
ERS Update – DSWG Presentation September 21, 2012.
1Texas Nodal Texas Nodal NMMS/RARF Data Discussion By John Moseley, ERCOT, Network Modeling Group.
Resource Parameters Needed for LFC NATF WebEx Meeting 05/11/2010 Dave Maggio Operations Engineer, Supply Integration and Grid Applications.
Floyd Trefny, P.E. Director of Wholesale Market Design Nodal Market Tools to Manage Wind Generation January 29, 2009 Presentation to the Renewables Technology.
Distributed Generation Registration June 30, 2008.
Steady-State Working Group: Resource Modeling Discussion Wes Woitt September 27 th, 2011.
Review of Integration of the Requirements of MOD Standard with ERCOT Protocols and Operating Guides S. Looney, Luminant Energy Company For Presentation.
October 29, 2012 RARF Workshop 2 Introduction to ERCOT Modeling Process Jay Teixeira Manager, Model Administration.
Scheduling and Operating Transmission Devices in the Nodal Environment.
ROS Report to TAC October 5, Outline  General Items  Nodal Operating Guides  OGRR192  Document control issues  Proposed revisions to Texas.
Resource Registration Update Dana Showalter Patrick Coon March 4, 2008.
Texas Nodal 1 Nodal Operations Model Posting NATF Sep 29, 2009 Matt Mereness, ERCOT.
© CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC. THE OFFERING DESCRIBED IN THIS PRESENTATION IS SOLD AND CONTRACTED BY CONSTELLATION NEWENERGY, INC., A SUBSIDIARY.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 High-Level Overview of draft NPRR implementing PUCT Rule Posting Requirements January 8,
1 Nodal Stabilization Market Call December 27, 2010.
Demand Side Working Group March 5, 2010 Mary Anne Brelinsky EDF Trading North America.
Transition Plan Network Operations Model Change Requests 5/26/2010.
Current Nodal OS Design 1.The NMMS database will have an OWNER and an OPERATOR designation for each piece of equipment in the model. The OWNER and OPERATOR.
October 29, 2012 RARF Workshop 2 ERCOT RARF Data Request Issues Jay Teixeira Manager, Model Administration.
Voltage Control Brad Calhoun Consultant, Sr. Trainer Spring 2016.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Texas Nodal Market Management System Update on TPTF Comments on MMS Clarification Notes May 21,
NPRRs 705NPRR Provides Consistency for References to the End Date of the Generation Interconnection Process. In the Resource Interconnection Handbook,
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations November 2, 2012 – RCWG Meeting.
Issues with Reactive Testing and the NDCRC S. Looney QMWG, 11/5/2012.
Impact of not including proposed generators lacking RARF data in the planning models Planning Guide Section 6.9 Issues February 17, 2016.
Abilene Mc Camey Big Spring. Far West Abilene Area All the values are based on returned ERCOT survey results Total number of Wind Powered Generation.
Current Nodal OS Design 1.The NMMS database will have an OWNER and an OPERATOR designation for each piece of equipment in the model. The OWNER and OPERATOR.
Nodal COMS Additional Items Update
NPRRs 815NPRR Revise the Limitation of Load Resources Providing Responsive Reserve (RRS) Service.  This Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) revises.
PLWG Review 6.9 and the Interconnection process
Current FRRS Language & Explanation of Posted Data
Congestion Management and Ramp Rate for Delivering Ancillary Services
Reactive Power Task Force
Presenter: Peter Heidrich, FRCC – BES Drafting Team Chair
Presentation transcript:

Testing Workshop: Reactive Capability Testing Bill Blevins Carmen Tillman Sandip Sharma

Outline Clarify how Nodal Protocols for Voltage Support and Unit Reactive Test are related and dependent Define CURL and URL Review telemetry requirements for Unit Reactive Testing for Conventional and IRR units Discuss Coordinated Vs. Non-Coordinated Testing Review NDCRC Form Demonstrate CURL data use in ERCOT ISO Grid Operations Feedback from Market Participants Identify topics which still require additional clarification Suggested changes to NDCRC tool

Nodal Protocols – Reactive Capability NP 3.15 (2): Units Required to Provide VSS All Generation Resources (including self-serve generating units) that have a gross generating unit rating greater than 20 MVA or those units connected at the same Point of Interconnection (POI) that have gross generating unit ratings aggregating to greater than 20 MVA, that supply power to the ERCOT Transmission Grid, shall provide Voltage Support Service (VSS). Nodal Protocol 3.15 Voltage Support Service Requirements {POI} +/- 0.95 power factor (lead/lag) at Maximum Net MW Output URL Nodal Protocol 8.1.1.2.1.4 Maximum Reactive Capability of the Unit CURL Validation {Generator Terminals/Gross} “How to Guide”: Nodal Operating Guide 3.3.2 NP 3.15 (3): Reactive Requirement (POI) An over-excited (lagging or producing) power factor capability of 0.95 or less determined at the generating unit's maximum net power to be supplied to the ERCOT Transmission Grid and at the transmission system Voltage Profile established by ERCOT, both measured at the POI; (b) An under-excited (leading or absorbing) power factor capability of 0.95 or less, determined at the generating unit's maximum net power to be supplied to the ERCOT Transmission Grid and at the transmission system Voltage Profile established by ERCOT, both measured at the POI; NP 8.1.1.2.1.4 (2): Reactive Testing Requirement The Resource Entity shall conduct reactive capacity qualification tests to verify the maximum leading and lagging reactive capability of all Generation Resources required to provide VSS. Reactive capability tests are performed on initial qualification and at a minimum of once every two years. ERCOT may require additional testing if it has information indicating that current data is inaccurate. The Resource Entity is not obligated to place Generation Resources On-Line solely for the purposes of testing. The reactive capability tests must be conducted at a time agreed to in advance by the Resource Entity, its QSE, the applicable TSP, and ERCOT. To review please preview this slide.

Nodal Protocol Definitions and Acronyms URL and CURL Defined Unit Reactive Limit - URL Corrected Unit Reactive Limits - CURL Nodal Protocol Definitions and Acronyms The maximum quantity of Reactive Power that a Generation Resource is capable of providing at a 0.95 power factor at its maximum real power capability. Leading and lagging Net MVAR Defined in Nodal Operating Guides 3.3.2 The corrected reactive capability curve establishes the Corrected Unit Reactive Limits (CURL) at the unit terminals that ERCOT Planning and ERCOT Operations will use for their studies. Leading and lagging reactive gross output

CURL and URL Typically limited by prime mover. Generator is sized greater than turbine.

CURL Components “Typical Generator Capability Curve and Operating Limits for a cylindrical rotor generator” from IEEE PES-PSRC Paper “COORDINATION OF GENERATOR PROTECTION WITH GENERATOR EXCITATION CONTROL AND GENERATOR CAPABILITY”

Static and Dynamic Reactive Devices (Power World Example) Each component is capable of providing reactive but is modeled separately.

Tested Reactive Capability Measured and Telemetered Gross Real and Reactive Power should be Telemetered during the Reactive Capability Test.

Typical IRR physical arrangement

Gross MW and MVAR Telemetered for IRR Testing IRR units are modeled at the collector bus on the low side of the GSU The gross reactive output is the measured value at the collector bus with no static reactive devices included CB 138 kV/ 34.5 kV 34.5 kV Collector Bus Feeders Static or Dynamic Reactive Devices POI GSU GROSS MW & MVAR (CT and PTs)

Coordinated Vs. Non-Coordinated Reactive Capability Tests Non-Coordinated Test Coordinated Test ERCOT and TSP given a minimum of 48 hour notice of testing. ( An “ERCOT Operating Procedure Document Request for Unit Testing” should be submitted) Included in the notice: Date of Testing Net MVAR Leading and/or Lagging that will be experienced on the TSPs transmission system during the test CURL Estimated MW output   TSP given confirmation prior to test date that system conditions can be made favorable for a specified  leading or lagging reactive test on the requested test date TSP approves reactive testing ERCOT approves reactive testing 2 Hours Notice Required for all parties No assistance from TSP or ERCOT needed to adjust voltage at the POI No Adjusting Transformer Taps No Switching nearby Transmission Static Reactive Devices Not Recommended for Units testing as a requirement of Part 3 of the COD Checklist

When should a Resource Entity conduct a Coordinated Reactive Test? If a RE is unable to test within 90% of the URL/CURL with a “non-coordinated” test then a “coordinated” test should be performed. For initial testing the RE determines whether “coordinated” or “non-coordinated” reactive capability testing is appropriate. For additional information for “coordinated” and “non-coordinated” refer to Nodal Operating Guides section 3.3.2.3 and 3.3.2.2.

NDCRC Unit Reactive Test Form Process & timeframe for ERCOT to review & respond is between 2 weeks to a month

NDCRC Unit Reactive Test Form

NDCRC Unit Reactive Test Form Tested Reactive Capability Section is were Gross and Net MW and MVAR values are entered These values must align with historical telemetered data to be considered valid

NDCRC Typical Unit Reactive Test – Data Points 6 Points which could be used to recreate the attached CURL These values should be the remain constant for a given unit Those entering the Test Form Should now receive automatic notifications that a review is complete whether the test is approved or rejected

NDCRC IRR Unit Reactive Test The Max Capability is the capacity of commissioned reactive devices at the site. The Tested Capability is the magnitude of MVAR contributed from the commissioned reactive devices during the test.

NDCRC IRR Unit Reactive Test

CURL DATA USE Process for CURL Data Retrieval: Perform Reactive Capability Test Submit Test Results and CURL in NDCRC Test Results are Reviewed When Approved, the RARF should be updated (as needed) to reflect the CURL which was submitted in NDCRC within 10 business days Nodal Protocol 3.7 (b): “ The QSE or Resource Entity must update any Resource Parameter for a specific Resource…(b) Within ten Business Days of completion of a reactive capability test to reflect the results of the test” Four Data Points submitted in the RARF are: Incorporated in EMS model Real Time VSAT Incorporated in Seasonal Studies Planning Models

FEEDBACK Identify topics which still require additional clarification Additional Detail? Examples? Suggested changes to NDCRC tool Changes to HELP documentation? Add/Remove Fields? More User-Friendly format? Point of contact. Bill Blevins bblevins@ercot.com

Appendix

Four basic WTG types Type 1: Wound rotor induction generator Type 2: Wound rotor induction generator with variable rotor resistance Type 3: Doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG) Type 4: Full back-to-back converter interface between grid and turbine

Protocol Language 3.15 (4) Generation Resources required to provide VSS whose installations initially began operations on or after September 1, 1999, except as noted below, must have and maintain a URL which has an over-excited (lagging) power factor capability of 0.95 or less and an under-excited (leading) power factor capability of 0.95 or less, both determined at the generating unit's maximum net power to be supplied to the transmission grid and at the transmission system Voltage Profile established by ERCOT, and both measured at the point of interconnection to the TSP. April

Other Protocol defined terms High Emergency Limit (HEL) - Limit established by the QSE describing the maximum temporary unsustainable energy production capability of the Resource. This limit must be achievable for a time stated by the QSE, but not less than 30 minutes. High Sustained Limit-(HSL for a Generation Resource)- Limit established by the QSE, continuously updated in Real Time, that describes the maximum sustained energy production capability of the Resource. Net Dependable Capability - The maximum sustained capability of a Resource as demonstrated by performance testing. Unit Reactive Limit - The maximum quantity of Reactive Power that a Generation Resource is capable of providing at a 0.95 power factor at its maximum real power capability.

URL and HSL Lag +MVAR Lead -MVAR Net or Gross MW Curve defined by Manufacturer (D-Curve) or CURL as updated by testing after commercial operations begins Armature Current Constraint (Typical limit) Under Excitation Constraint(Typical limit) Field Current Constraint (Typical limit) Unit Reactive Limit (URL) Lag Maximum Gross power output typically limited by the Turbine(Generators are typically sized greater than the Turbine) Test must fall within 90% of the Curve provided by the Resource Lag +MVAR .95 pf Lagging Real Power Test loading for Leading Test done at <60% HSL for IRR or at typical loading for low load conditions for Thermal Unit Real Power Test loading for Lagging Test done at >60% HSL for IRR or above 95% HSL for Thermal Unit Maximum Net power output HSL typically Net or Gross MW Lead -MVAR .95 pf Leading Unit Reactive Limit (URL) Lead Test must fall within 90% of the Curve provided by the Resource

The Question Is the “maximum net power to be supplied to the transmission grid” the HSL?