1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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 s 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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?

14. 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

15. 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.

16. Summary
Common Model
Accuracy
Efficiency
Reliability

17. Q&A