1. Vic Howell – Mgr. Operations Engineering Support
SOL Methodology Update
Vic Howell – Mgr. Operations Engineering Support

2. Agenda Items The post-April 1st world and the RC’s role
Credible Multiple Contingencies – Panel Discussion
Seasonal Planning
BES vs non-BES Facilities in the West-wide System Model (WSM)

3. Peak Operational Observations
Absence of Path SOLs – fewer mitigations, more focus on RTA results
TOPs are generally addressing SOL Exceedances as expected – new standards resulting in significant improvements on how TOP are monitoring their systems through RTAs
Increased emphasis on developing Operating Plans in the Outage Coordination and OPA timeframes
TOPs are questioning the use of proxy limits and are rethinking that philosophy. Some of those interfaces (Path limits) were being monitored because they were the contractual paths between TOPs.
TOPs generally operating within TTCs, but occasionally exceed by 15-20% without seeing issues in RTCA
Some confusion for what TOPs are to do in terms of coordination with their neighbors

4. Some Issues to Revisit Known interactions and TOP-to-TOP Coordination
SOLs, IROLs, and Operating Plans
Multiple Contingencies

5. Known Interactions Examples
Nomogram for two Paths (for non-stability issues)
Exports from TOP A to TOP B cause thermal or voltage issues in TOP B (or TOP C)
During a planned transmission outage, Plant X generation causes thermal issues in TOP Y
Proxy (Path) SOLs used to address many of these
SOLs and IROLs do not address these issues – Operating Plans do
Lots of flexibility in Operating Plans
Can contain trigger points for operator action
Can incorporate RTA results
Can address “fairness” issues

6. What does the SOL Methodology say?
“Nomograms may be used to provide operators with helpful guidance as part of an Operating Plan; however, they are not considered to be SOLs unless the nomogram represents a region of stability (i.e., the nomogram defines a stability limit).”
“Similarly, TTC is not an SOL, and thus it is not an operating parameter. However, if a TOP so chooses, the TOP may utilize TTC (and Transfer Capability concepts) as part of an Operating Plan as a means by which to achieve acceptable pre- or post-Contingency performance and thus to prevent SOL exceedances.”

7. What does the SOL Methodology say?
“Note that exceeding a TTC value in real-time operations does not constitute SOL exceedance.”
“While TTCs and nomograms may serve as valuable mechanisms to prevent and/or mitigate SOL exceedances as part of an Operating Plan, these mechanisms are not a substitute for performing RTAs and does not absolve the TOP or the RC of its obligation to perform RTAs to identify SOL exceedance per the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards.”

8. What does the SOL Methodology say?
“If, for example, heavy Path or interface flow is determined to be the cause of an SOL exceedance, it is expected that steps be taken by the associated TOPs and BAs per the pertinent Operating Plan to alleviate the condition by reducing flow on the Path or interface. The Operating Plans are expected to refer to the TOPs, BAs, and the RC applicable to the Operating Plan.”

9. How Can We Improve? Peak-led Path conference calls in 2018
Path Operating Guide modification
What is the right level of Peak’s involvement in TOP-to-TOP coordination?
It gets tricky when operational issues are about “fairness”

10. Multiple Contingencies (MC)
TOPs determine MC credibility
It is the responsibility of the TOP in whose TOP Area the MC Facilities reside to determine MC credibility
Two categories of credible MCs:
Always Credible MCs
Conditionally Credible MCs

11. Always Credible MCs
There are MCs that, based on historical performance and TOP risk assessments, have a sufficiently high degree of likelihood of occurrence such that the TOP determines that the MC should be protected against in all phases of the operations planning process and in Real-time operations. The credibility of these MCs does not change based on observable operating conditions, but rather their credibility is static based on TOP performance and risk assessments.

12. Conditionally Credible MCs
MCs whose credibility is a function of observable system conditions
The Conditionally Credible MC is credible only when the observable system conditions are present
Example: those that become credible upon known and observable threats like fires, or adverse weather risks such as flooding, icing, tornados
Example: when a breaker has a low-gas alarm, system operators might operate the system to account for the possible failure of this breaker during those conditions

13. What is Acceptable System Performance?
Credible Multiple Contingencies (MC)
Acceptable system performance for single Contingencies is more stringent than that of credible MCs
Acceptable system performance for the post-Contingency state for credible MCs:
The MC shall not result in:
a. System-wide instability
b. Cascading
c. Uncontrolled separation

14. Multiple Contingency Issues
Wide ranging TOP risks and TOP risk tolerances across the West
Wide variances in the number of Always Credible MCs (ACMC) across TOPs – from zero to 200+
Significant inconsistencies in Always Credible MCs across RC Area
Impacts the existence (non-existence) of stability limits and IROLs
Many ACMCs increase risk of drastic operator action

15. Introduction of Panelists
Terri Kuehneman – SRP
Jerry Jackson – BPA
Dede Subakti – CAISO
Saad Malik – Peak

16. Discussion Topics
What works well with the current approach? Do you like the flexibility afforded by the Always Credible MC vs. the Conditionally Credible MCs? Please explain.
What problems or challenges, if any, does the current approach create for your TOP? What doesn’t work well with the current approach?
Should we collaboratively develop a set of homogeneously applied criteria for identifying baseline Always Credible MCs?
If so, what kinds of things could that criteria consider?
If so, should we always allow TOPs do define additional ACMCs?

17. Seasonal Planning Seasonal Planning Process Revision Project
To revise the seasonal planning process for the Peak RC Area to better align with the following industry changes:
The new TOP and IRO standards
The new IRO Outage Coordination Process
Peak’s revised SOL Methodology v8.1
The retirement of TOP-007-WECC-1a
Changes in TPL standards

18. Seasonal Planning Facts
May 2015 FERC Settlement Order states that “Peak shall coordinate the seasonal planning process for its RC Area.”
Seasonal studies are not an extension of TPL studies
No longer a need to determine historical Path SOLs
NERC Reliability Standards no longer contain requirements to perform seasonal studies
The standards require TPL Planning Assessments, outage coordination assessments, Operational Planning Analyses (OPA), and Real-time Assessments (RTA)

19. Study Window Overview IRO-017 Outage Coordination Process
Seasonal Planning Process
TPL-001 Planning Assessments
OPA/RTA
Operations Horizon
Planning Horizon

20. Study Window Overview Seasonal Planning Process
TPL-001 Planning Assessments
IRO-017 Outage Coordination Process
Planning Horizon
Short-Range Process
Long-Range Process

21. Project Objectives
Design and implement a seasonal planning process that:
Addresses TOP and RC needs
Adds real value to operations preparedness
Facilitates coordinated operations
Dovetails with NERC required studies (TPL, IRO-017 Outage Coordination)
Aligns with and supports the SOL Methodology v8.1
Retains the aspects of the current process that are working well and are adding value

22. Seasonal Planning
Timeline – to finalize the revised seasonal planning process before summer 2018 studies
Small team meetings

23. Preliminary Consensus Items
Keep the four subregional study groups
Focus on:
Identifying and addressing issues that impact more than one TOP
Identifying risks for instability, Cascading, and uncontrolled separation, and developing associated initial limits and Operating Plans
Lots of flexibility in what is studied in any given season
Make the long-range outage coordination process mandatory and modify as necessary
Will not require TOPs to conduct their own independent seasonal studies
Should add real, tangible value – not “turning the crank”
Summer and winter, spring as needed
Basecase development very important

24. BES vs. Non-BES
Non-BES Facilities are outside the jurisdiction of the Reliability Standards (e.g., TOP, IRO, BAL)
Peak doesn’t monitor non-BES Facilities for SOL exceedances – we monitor for impact on the BES
The WSM contains both BES and non-BES
Non-BES Facilities may need to be modeled to accurately determine BES SOL Exceedance
Peak has no way of knowing definitively if a given Facility in the WSM is BES or non-BES

25. BES vs. Non-BES Central repository for WSM BES/non-BES status
Additional data fields in COS addressed as part of data dictionary standardization effort
BES or non-BES
Impact to the BES
Provides clarity and consistency for WSM monitoring