MVWG Report to TSS August 2014 Stephanie Lu, MVWG Chair Seattle City Light

Recent Meetings REMTF Workshop June 17, 2014 MVWG Meeting June 18-19, 2014 Webinar Training on Frequency Response Validation Tool July 22, 2014 MVWG Conference Call August 12, 2014 May Event Validation Report PPMDTF Conference Call August 15, 2014

MVWG Activities Overview Approved Documents Renewable Energy Modeling System Model Validation Generator Modeling, Testing, and Validation RAS & Relay Modeling Status Update of Models Load Modeling HVDC Modeling Other items: NERC Updates, WECC Project Updates, Program Updates Next Meetings and Workshops

MVWG Approved Documents For TSS Information: Update to the Approved Dynamics Model ListApproved Dynamics Model List  Added wt1p_b (part of the 2 nd generation wind models) Update to the Typical Machine Data documentTypical Machine Data  Replaced 1st generation wind models with 2nd generation wind models (see modeling guidelines)  Added PV models (see modeling guidelines)  Minor improvements to the hydro model section Added accel parameter in gentpj model Changed the ks2 parameter in pss2a model to be Tw2/(2H) Approved May Event Validation ReportMay Event Validation Report Current Differential Relay Model Specifications were approved, but some abstained Current Differential Relay Model Specifications

Renewable Energy Modeling

Wind/Solar Implementation Plan

2 nd Generation Wind Models

SRWG Implementation Plan – Complete transition by 6/5/2015 Superseded models will be removed from Approved Dynamics Model List on 6/5/2015 Exception: REMTF recommended removing wt1p and wt2p from the WECC Approved Model List immediately Passive units should not have a pitch control model Active stall units should use wt1p_b REMTF will take the action to inspect the list and give the recommendation of either deleting or replacing the wt1p and wt2p with wt1p_b

Photovoltaic Models For large-scale PV plants: For distributed and small PV plants, use PVD1 model SRWG Implementation Plan to be completed by 6/5/2015

REMTF – Next Steps Wind Type 3 torque controller model – reviewing a proposal to keep the more complex model as a separate module Distributed PV model in composite load model  More discussion is needed between REMTF, program vendors and LMTF to implement a distributed PV model in the composite load model CMPLDW

REMTF – Next Steps (cont.) Energy Storage Modeling  Progress report expected Nov 2014  Members requested a more expedited schedule because interconnection requests of batteries are being received  Encourage manufacturers to get engaged early in the model development Plant Level Control Modeling  Expand plant control model to control multiple elements, including different types of wind turbines, SVCs or STATCOMs, and MSCs Investigate whether SVSMO3 can model hybrid SVC (contains both VSC and TSC)

System Model Validation

MVWG is continuing to improve the process to develop future model validation cases  Method 1: Planning base case and dyd  Method 2: Using WSM case and dyd (PSLF v19) Event Model Validation Efforts:  May NW RAS Event – Completed  May DC RAS Event – In progress

Planning Case & DYD

WSM Case & DYD

May NW AC RAS Event Validation Report MVWG approved the “Model Validation Report for May 16, 2014 RAS Event” Posted on website: WECC MVWG > Documents > Approved Documents WECC MVWG > Documents > Approved Documents Includes simulations using both methods (Planning and WSM case)

May NW AC RAS Event Pre-contingency: John Day-Grizzly #2 and Grizzly-Malin #2 500-kV lines were out of service At 23:18:15:  John Day-Grizzly #1 500-kV line tripped to lock-out  AC RAS gen.drop is initiated of about 2,500 MW at Grand Coulee, Wells, John Day, Biglow Canyon Wind and Dooley Wind  Chief Joseph braking resistor is operated Few seconds later: Kemano RAS in BC operated and tripped unit # 1 with 110 MW 40 seconds later: Springerville unit #4 in Arizona tripped with ~425 MW due to boiler instability 23:20:30: John Day-Grizzly #1 500-kV line is restored back to service 1 John Day-Grizzly 2 RAS Gen.Drop and Chief Joseph Brake 3 Kemano RAS 4 Springerville #4

May NW AC RAS Event :18:0023:18:1523:18:3023:18:4523:19:0023:19:1523:19:3023:19:4523:20:0023:20:1523:20:3023:20:45 Frequency NW RAS = 2,563 MW Kemano = 110 MW Springerville = 445 MW John Day – Grizzly #1 back in service

May NW AC RAS Event Remarkable agreement of frequency response Simulated versus Actual

May NW AC RAS Event WSM Simulation versus Actual

May NW AC RAS Event Validation Report Simulations matched actual recordings quite well Above NERC BAL Frequency Response Obligation Recommendations:  Validate Generator Frequency Modeling  Use tools available to validate frequency response and baseload flag  Expedite reconciliation of wind models in WSM and Planning cases  Reconcile wind modeling  Model wind in dyd (many wind plants do not have dynamic models)  Use 2 nd generation wind models  Model Kemano RAS, Review Kemano RAS, and install PMUs  BC Hydro to address recommendations  Chief Joseph Brake Modeling  BPA to review security of Chief Joseph Braking Resistor, and provide model  Springerville owners to resolve issues with unit #4 trip

Generator Modeling, Testing, and Model Validation

Frequency Response Tool BPA Generator Frequency Response Tool is available (uses PI data)Generator Frequency Response Tool

Frequency Response Tool Eric Bakie (IPCO) presented an improved PI Data Generator Frequency Response Model Validation Tool (version 1)PI Data Generator Frequency Response Model Validation Tool  Incorporates PI data tool  Incorporates PPMV tool for model validation  Includes batch processing, for multiple units and multiple events  Includes overview presentation and detailed user guide  Webinar training was provided July 22, 2014  Good for unit level model validation  This approach works for governor model validation  Good tool for identifying undesired control behavior

Frequency Response Tool

Recent Disturbance Events As presented at the last meeting: Jan 29, 6:47:06 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Jan 29, 7:03:58 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Feb 2, 11:29:32 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Feb 21, 10:14:16 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Apr 9, 17:33 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Apr 15, 05:46:00 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Apr 15, 14:43:10 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Apr 17, 16:21:03 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Apr 21, 10:41:43 PT – Freq dropped to Hz Apr 29, 05:23:28 PT – Freq dropped to Hz

Recent Disturbance Events Events since the last meeting: May 16, 23:18:20 PT – Freq dropped to Hz ** [NW AC RAS Event] May 26, 12:31:57 PT – Freq dropped to Hz May 26, 17:32:01 PT – Freq dropped to Hz ** [DC RAS Event] June 6, 3:37:41 PT – Freq dropped to Hz June 12, 18:07:55 PT – Freq dropped to Hz [BCH RAS and Alberta Separation Event] June 14, 11:22:14 PT – Freq dropped to Hz July 4, 3:14:33 PT – Freq dropped to Hz **MVWG is performing system model validation for the May 16 th (completed) and May 26 th events.

Power Plant Model Data Task Force Adding PC and TP for each item to spreadsheet with list of suspected errorslist of suspected errors PLEASE REVIEW LIST AND ADDRESS ITEMS IN YOUR AREA Modeling Data standard MOD (steady-state, dynamics, short circuit)  BA, GO, LSE, RP, TO, TSP must respond to PC or TP if they provide technical concerns with the data submitted (effective 7/1/2016) Verification standards MOD (Excitation Systems) and MOD (Turbine/Governor)  GO must respond to TP within 90 days if TP notifies GO that model is not usable, provides technical concerns with the verification documentation, or provides evidence that the model did not match the recorded response to an event (effective 7/1/2014)

Power Plant Model Data Task Force MVWG will work with SRWG to incorporate additional data checks into the base case review process  Turbine type (ensure this is being populated)  Baseload flag (review/verify that flag is populated and correct)  Pmax (powerflow) should be less than mwcap (dynamics)  Wind models (see SRWG implementation plan) If there are additional errors suspected, continue to send them to Kent

Excitation Models Eric Bakie (IPCO) showed that not modeling UEL impacts simulations  UEL1 and UEL2 have been recommended to be higher in priority for program implementation IEEE Standard on excitation models is close to going out for ballot  More discussion will be needed to determine which model(s) WECC will recommend to be the approved Currently OEL1 is WECC approved

RAS & Relay Modeling

Relay Modeling Discussion Current Differential Relay Model Specifications were approved, but some abstained Current Differential Relay Model Specifications “There is no or little value of deploying the current differential relay and distance relay throughout the system.” “It is good to make these models available in the software packages; however the need, cost, value, and increased database management, etc. for adding data collection requirements for all the new relay models to the WECC DPM have not fully been identified.” More discussion is described in the MVWG Report to TSSMVWG Report to TSS

Status Update of Models

Status of Model Development Model DescriptionModel Name Model Spec Approved? User Guide Available? WECC Approved? Composite load modelCMPLDWNeed to postXX 1 st generation windWTxx modelsXXX Over excitation modelOEL1PSLF Manual- X SVS modelsSVSMO1, 2, 3XXX Generator modelGENTPJX-X Overcurrent relay modelLOCTI & TIOCRSXSee Model SpecX Volt and freq ride throughLHVRT, LHFRT--X Hydro turbine governor modelH6BX-X 2 nd gen wind/1 st gen PVRExx and WTGxx modelsXXX Distributed PV modelPVD1XXX Directional Overcurrent relayTIOCRS (revision)XSee Model Spec Distance relay modelDISTRELAYXSee Model Spec Differential relay model*NEW*DIFFRLYG and DIFFRLYSXSee Model Spec Under excitation relaysUEL1 & UEL2 IEEE (2005) - Excitation system modelsSee IEEE efforts Composite load model with DGUnder development Colstrip ATRUnder development (NWE) Generator protectionUnder development (MSRATF) OtherSee Approved Dynamics List X Status Update of WECC ModelsStatus Update of WECC Models document is posted on website

Status of Model Development Added NOTE: RAS Common Format has been developed by TSS and has been implemented in PowerWorld and will be implemented in PSLF and PSSE. MATL and Bridger will be implemented using the common format.

Load Modeling

Load Modeling – Composite Load Model Data Tools Tools available on the TSS Base Cases website in the Composite Load Model Tools folderComposite Load Model Tools folder  Load Model Data Tool LMDT4A “2012 WECC CMPLDW.zip”  Updated Load Composition Data “CMPLDW Load Composition Data_ zip”  PNNL Tool to create PSSE dyr format “LMDT_install.zip”

Load Modeling –CMPLDW Phase 2 Update Results may be pessimistic due to point on wave sensitivity SCE has installed PQube devices on distribution circuits BPA has installed microPMUs on distribution circuits LBNL is providing PQube devices to those who will install them and share the data Renewed interest in residential and commercial building load composition

Load Modeling – CMPLDW Monitoring Improvements Specifications are being written to add these capabilities:  Requesting to add the ability to monitor load lost in CMPLDW models per area, zone, or owner so that we can track how much aggregated load is being shed  Request that otg-d format is compatible for both motorw and cmpldw models (otherwise you need to update the otg-d file with the new bus number for the cmpldw)  Request not to change the bus monitoring variable name so that it stays compatible with WCA analysis tools

Load Modeling – Voltage Dip Criteria Chuck Matthews (BPA), chair of WECC-0100 project, provided an update Discussing transient voltage performance, voltage stability criteria, steady state voltage limits and post contingency voltage deviations  Chuck indicated that the project may need input from M&VWG on the transient voltage performance criteria Discussed whether the criteria should be a RBP or a guideline  The majority of the project members prefer guideline TPL-001-WECC-CRT-2.1 retirement on 12/31/2015

HVDC Modeling

Multi-terminal conventional HVDC powerflow model – exists Multi-terminal VSC HVDC powerflow model – now in beta version and being tested Conventional HVDC dynamic model - in progress VSC HVDC dynamic model - in progress

HVDC Modeling Ongoing Issues  Trans Bay DC model still needs to be validated  PDCI Modeling Sylmar model still needs to be validated Celilo is expected to be replaced in 2016, the updated model is in progress

Other Items

NERC Updates WECC Project Updates Program Updates – PSLF, PSSE, and PowerWorld

NERC Updates Eric Allen (NERC) provided updates on NERC MWG activities:  Benefit analysis for node-breaker representation in off-line and real-time study models  Model validation field trial  SW outage recommendations 5, 6, 7, & NERC2 on Seasonal Assessment and sub-100 kV elements  Standardized component models More information available in NERC PC June 2014 Meeting MinutesNERC PC June 2014 Meeting Minutes

WECC Project Updates WECC-0101 SAR Gen Validation Policy  Drafting team chaired by Shawn Patterson USBR  Comments received on draft variance was mixed  Another draft is expected to incorporate comments: Apply to BES generators Address re-testing period (5 vs 10 years) WECC-0107 PSS Design and Performance  Drafting team formed (consists of Control Work Group), chaired by Martin Bauer USBR  The drafting team is taking most of the existing PSS requirements and putting it into a standard, but applicability is proposed to be changed to BES definition

Next Meetings & Workshops

November in Albuquerque NM, hosted by Sandia National Laboratories  REMTF Meeting -- Nov 18 th afternoon & Nov 19 th morning  LMTF Meeting -- Nov 19 th morning  MVWG Meeting -- Nov 19 th afternoon & Nov 20 th all day LMTF, HVDCTF and PPMDTF will meet independently from the main M&VWG meeting.

Questions ?

As MVWG LMTF Chair, “led the development of the recently implemented WECC composite load model” As JSIS Chair, “led the development and implementation of WECC’s oscillation analysis tools that were deployed last year” “he created disturbance base cases to validate the system model and generator models, leading to recommendations for model improvements” “Not only is Dmitry an expert in his field, but he has also demonstrated a leadership role as he shares his knowledge with those around him” “Dmitry has proven himself a major technical contributor at WECC”