ROS Feb 2006 The Model Curtis Crews Network Model Engineering Supervisor 512-248-3139.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Outage Coordination Process and New Equipment 1. Introduction This presentation is intended to increase knowledge of outage coordination and NOMCR submittal.
Advertisements

1 New Generation Commissioning Emal Latifzai Operations Support Engineer New Generation Information Forum ERCOT Public November 4, 2014.
February 25, 2011 Demand Side Working Group EILS Update Mark Patterson ERCOT, Manager Demand Integration.
1 New Resource Qualification Testing Sandip Sharma Supervisor, Operations Analysis New Generation Information Forum ERCOT Public November 4, 2014.
11/08/2005 Ken Donohoo How Does NMMS meet the Nodal Protocol Requirements John Adams 3/23/2006.
1 TSP Nodal Engagement Market Participant Call ERCOT August 04, 2010.
June 12, 2008 ROS SEM Go-Live procedure Linda Clarke.
QSE/RE Transmission Facilities Outage Coordination Workshop.
NPRR 365 Change in Resource Outage Approvals from 8 to 45 or 90 Days Woody Rickerson Director Grid Coordination
1 Single Entry Model (SEM) Go-Live Update ROS Update July 16, 2009.
SPS policy – Information Presentation Presentation to ROS June 16, 2004.
1Texas Nodal Texas Nodal Market Trials and Data Verification ROS Meeting By Steve Grendel, ERCOT Thursday, 01/11/2007.
Reliability and Operations Subcommittee Report Presentation to the ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee January 6, 2005.
EDS 2 Early Delivery Systems Review and Request for Approval May 2007 John Webb.
NPRR514, Seasonal Generation Resource Wholesale Market Subcommittee April 12, 2013 Amanda Frazier.
NPRR 219 & Outage Scheduler Enhancement Workshop April 28, 2014.
SIMPLE TRANSMISSION OUTAGE. Nodal Protocol Definition 2.26 Simple Transmission Outage A Planned Outage or Maintenance Outage of any Transmission Element.
Texas Nodal 1 Nodal Operations Model Posting Confirmation TAC May 7, 2009 Matt Mereness, ERCOT.
1 Nodal Single Entry Model (SEM) Go-Live WMS Update May 18, 2009.
ISO Comparison – CAISO Alex Lee (ERCOT)
MIG TF Voting Items Market Participant Notification Period (Transmission outage) – =1 Year Interconnection Date for Protocol Considerations – First Interconnection.
Transmission Outage Process April Purpose In compliance with the Protocols and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) Operating Guides,
1 TSP Nodal Engagement Market Participant Call ERCOT July 14, 2010.
AEP Corpus Christi TDC Advance Outage Scheduling Initiative.
Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision Transmission Workstream meeting, 3 rd December 2009.
Overview Art Deller, P.E. Supervisor, Model Administration New Resource Workshop May 28, 2014.
– 1Texas Nodal Texas Nodal Electrical Buses – 2Texas Nodal Electrical Bus Definition as Proposed in NPRR 63 Electrical Bus A physical transmission element.
Network Model Management System (NMMS)
1 TAC Report to the ERCOT Board February 21, 2006.
1 Entergy Transmission Planning Summit Transmission Planning Process Doug Powell New Orleans, LA July 8, 2004.
1Texas Nodal Texas Nodal NMMS/RARF Data Discussion By John Moseley, ERCOT, Network Modeling Group.
Outage Scheduler Transition Plan Kenneth Ragsdale NATF.
814_20 – Substation ID updates Background and Proposed Action Plan RMS – 11/07/07.
1 Single Entry Model (SEM) Go-Live Update Special TAC Meeting (Updated) August 18, 2009.
Distributed Generation Registration June 30, 2008.
Operating Guide and Planning Guide Revision Requests Blake Williams, ROS Chair September 13, 2012.
NDSWG Report June 16, NDSWG Report Regular meeting held May 16 in Taylor Telemetry / State Estimator Update Naming Convention Electrical Bus Designation.
ERCOT Guideline for Interim Updates to the Network Operations Model Excerpted from the “Modeling Expectations” whitepaper D.W. Rickerson.
October 29, 2012 RARF Workshop 2 Introduction to ERCOT Modeling Process Jay Teixeira Manager, Model Administration.
February 3, 2011 TAC ERCOT Planning Go-Live Update Jay Teixeira Manager, Model Administration.
Scheduling and Operating Transmission Devices in the Nodal Environment.
Model load frequency Discussion John Adams January 5, 2010 Nodal Advisory Task Force.
ROS Report to TAC October 5, Outline  General Items  Nodal Operating Guides  OGRR192  Document control issues  Proposed revisions to Texas.
Texas Nodal 1 Nodal Operations Model Posting NATF Sep 29, 2009 Matt Mereness, ERCOT.
1 TAC Report to the ERCOT Board November 14, 2006.
PLWG Report to ROS September 4, PGRR039 PGRR requires Interconnecting Entities (IEs) to provide information for ERCOT’s resource adequacy reports,
Next Steps on Reserve Discount Factor and 2016 Ancillary Service Methodology ERCOT Staff Date 02/25/2016.
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.
1 CenterPoint Energy presentation to TAC regarding the NMMS April 7, 2006.
Network Operations Model Go-Live Decision Kenneth Ragsdale TAC July 1, 2010.
TPTF Update Trip Doggett TAC March 9, TPTF Update Meetings February 6 & 7, February 20 Attendance approximately 40 Completed review of ERCOT’s clarification.
Approval of Important Station Voltages for State Estimator Reporting Review of SE and Telemetry Standards Alex Sills Advanced Network Applications 10/13/11.
1 Single Entry Model (SEM) Go-Live TAC Update May 7, 2009.
1 Single Entry Model (SEM) Go-Live Update TAC Update August 6, 2009.
Texas Nodal Electrical Buses and Outage Scheduling.
Nodal Planning Go Live Austin, TX February 3, 2011
ME 3.0 to ME 5.0 ME3.0 review scheduled during the Joint NDSWG/NATF meeting in July. There were approximately 180 comments on the ME3.0 paper. Deadline.
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.
Market Trials Update NATF March 2,
Nodal COMS Additional Items Update
NOGRR-169 OWG discussion Bill Blevins June 28, 2017.
PLWG Review 6.9 and the Interconnection process
TAC Report to the ERCOT Board
Resource Registration Update
Transmission Outage Coordination
Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC
Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision
Text for section 1 1 Text for section 2 2 Text for section 3 3
Text for section 1 1 Text for section 2 2 Text for section 3 3
Presentation transcript:

ROS Feb 2006 The Model Curtis Crews Network Model Engineering Supervisor

Line Comparison between Operations & Planning Matched Lines with MVA or Imp. differences Jan ' % Mar ' % Jul ' % Aug ' % Sep ' % Jan ' % Criteria for “with differences”: R, X, & I difference of (pu) or greater (not including Operation’s “Internal Bus bar” entries that have a difference = ) Rate B vs. Emergency & for Rate A vs. Continuous Line Limits that have 1 MVA or greater difference Jan 2006 Comparison completed on Operations Jan 5 Database and Planning 06 Winter Peak

Matched Lines with MVA differences Total of over 500 MVA differences noted For MVA differences of 100+ MVA: –Planning’s Rate A / Operation’s Continuous = 89 –Planning’s Rate B / Operation’s Emergency = 83 For MVA differences of less than 10 MVA (but equal or greater than 1 MVA) –Planning’s Rate A / Operation’s Continuous = 150 –Planning’s Rate B / Operation’s Emergency = 168

Where do the numbers come from? Charging attribute was not considered in original comparison. Note the comparison increased in terms of number of lines being compared (from 3622 to 5035) Jan 2006 Comparison completed on Operations Jan 5 Database and Planning 06 Winter Peak

Why is this important? What information is correct? Which methodology for rating lines is correct? Future Nodal Protocols call for consistency (Reference Nodal Protocols Section 3 specifically 3.10 (5), 3.10 (9), (1), (1), (2) ) Network Model Management System Software Proposal

What now? Encourage ROS to endorse internal efforts to correlate data fully understanding that there will be differences due to the nature and intent of models. Understand that the intent of OGRR 181 is to correlate data of existing equipment. Other equipment comparisons to follow.

Energize Date Requirement TSP Information to be provided to ERCOT The TSP shall notify ERCOT at least thirty (30) days before starting to energize or place into service any new or relocated Facility.

Why is this important? ERCOT has 15 days to approve or reject data submittal Coordination of model data is vital Nodal Protocols call for a 90 day minimum data submittal time period. There is a requirement for Summer Model data to be submitted a minimum of 180 days in advance. (See Protocol )

Challenges ERCOT does not control data submittal quantity Outage Scheduler Database Loads Incomplete Data re-submittal

In Service Notification Approval to Energize 8.8.1Coordination with ERCOT Prior to energizing and placing into service any new or relocated Facility connected to the ERCOT Transmission Grid, TSPs shall coordinate with and receive approval from ERCOT. Temporary Re-Route Process is currently being revised. Expect a new process soon.

Challenges Reliability of system could be affected. Has model data been provided in a timely manner? Has model data been provided? Timing of energization.

References Nodal Protocol 3 np/index.html np/index.html OGRR /181/index.html 199/181/index.html Current Protocol Temporary ReRoute/InService Notification s/ s/