1 / 24

Gareth Lim Manager, Model Engineering

Gareth Lim Manager, Model Engineering. WBRTF Data Processing: WECC RC Observations & Implementation of Changes in the WSM Model May 31 st , 2013. WBRTF Submittals. Phases: Phase 0: Mapping Data Phase 1: Generation & Generator Step-Up (GSU) Transformer Data Phase 2: System Transformer Data

nen
Download Presentation

Gareth Lim Manager, Model Engineering

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Gareth LimManager, Model Engineering WBRTF Data Processing: WECC RC Observations & Implementation of Changes in the WSM Model May 31st, 2013

  2. WBRTF Submittals • Phases: • Phase 0: Mapping Data • Phase 1: Generation & Generator Step-Up (GSU) Transformer Data • Phase 2: System Transformer Data • Phase 3: Transmission Line Data

  3. WBRTF Submittal Status • Submittal Status: • APS – GEN, GSU • AVA – GEN, GSU • BC-HYD – GEN, GSU • CFE – GEN, GSU, XF, LINE • IPCO – GEN, GSU • LADWP – GEN, GSU • PACE – GEN, GSU • PGE – GEN, GSU, XF, LINE, MAP • PNM – GEN, GSU • PSE – GEN • SCE – GEN • SCPD – GEN, GSU • SRP – GEN, GSU, LINE • TEP – GEN, GSU • TPWR – MAP

  4. WBRTF Implementation Status

  5. WBRTF Submittals

  6. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Type of Data Provided • Pmax differences (Potentially Gross vs. Net Issue) • Example: SRP Santan Unit 5S WBRTF Pmax submitted = 250 MW, ICCP Maximum measurement = 265.4 MW • Impact: Causes potential MW mismatches in State Estimator solution when compared with MW measurements. Potential conflicting requests from RCs / Shift Engineers to change Pmax values due to MW measurement mismatches • Pmax differences (Incorrect data in WBRTF data) • Example: BC-Hydro Dokiwind Wind Units WBRTF Pmax submitted = 0 MW • Impact: Causes potential MW mismatches inState Estimator solution

  7. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Type of Data Provided • Pmin differences • WSM Model is used in real-time operational models, which will have situations where generating units are ramping up and ramping down with generation output below its Operational Pmin (could be for several hours – depending on unit) • Impact: Causes MW mismatches in State Estimator solution when compared with MW measurements. Potential conflicting requests from RCs / Shift Engineers to change Pmin values due to MW measurement mismatches

  8. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Type of Data Provided • Qmax / Qmin differences • Example: BC-Hydro Units WBRTF Qmax / Qmin values EMS BC-Hydro Netmom have capability curves • Impact: Qmax / Qmin values not applied, as capability curves will override • MVA Rating differences • Example: PSE Bakersrvu Units WBRTF Pmax > MBase value WSM modeling requires MVA > Pmax • Impact: Violates current WSM modeling practices – Potential issues with DTS application

  9. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Mapping Quality • WBRTF Submitter maps 1 winding of a 3 winding transformer data directly to the WSM 2-winding transformer • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to double-check against WECC Basecase • WBRTF Submitter maps series capacitors to lines • Example: SRP Coronado – Silver King 500kV line. Coronado-side series capacitor mapped to WSM Line • WBRTF Submitter maps incorrect equipment • Example: BC-Hydro Bridge1 360/14 kV GSU 1B mapped to 14/14 kV GSU in WECC Basecase • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to ensure mapping correct

  10. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Different Modeling Detail – GSU • WECC Basecase includes additional step-up for wind turbines • Example: BC Hydro Bearmtnw 138/35 kV – WECC Basecase also includes step-up 35/0.4 kV • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to proper mapping & exclude these additional modeling • WECC Basecase includes generator bus kV difference • Example: SRP Aguafria Unit 4 – Planning = 13.8 kV, WSM = 13 kV, SRP Operations = 13.2 kV • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to coordinate with various folks (Planning & Operations)

  11. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Different Modeling Detail – GSU • WECC Basecase includes multiple step-up for each unit, WSM has only one step-up transformer • Example: PACE Emery (Hunter) Units #1 & 2 GSU 345/24 kV – WECC Basecase has two parallel GSU transformers for each unit, WSM has one GSU for each unit. • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to add the appropriate topological detail • Different Modeling Detail – Transformers • WECC Basecase models 3-winding transformers (with disconnected tertiary), WSM models 2-winding transformers • Example: BC-Hydro Transformers (approximately 100 xfmrs) • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to add the appropriate topological detail

  12. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Different Modeling Detail – Transformers • WECC Basecase model lower kV system equivalized in WSM model • Example: BC-Hydro 60kV system • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to add the appropriate topological detail • Different Modeling Detail – Generators • WECC Basecase model units in the lower kV system equivalized in WSM model • Example: BC-Hydro generating units connected to the BC-Hydro 60kV system • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to add the appropriate topological detail

  13. Observations: Data Discrepancies • Different Base • WBRTF Submitter provides transformer impedance data in Transformer MVA Base, and compares with WSM 100 MVA Base • Impact: Requires additional thorough review by WECC Modeling Engineers to identify MVA Base differences, and convert data to 100 MVA Base • WBRTF Submitter requests that Transformer MVA Base be changed in WSM model to match WECC Basecase

  14. Observations: Data Discrepancies • LTC Tap Changer step sizes • WBRTF Submitter submits LTC Tap Changer step sizes that is combination of transformer off-nominal kV, and tap size • Impact: Lose granularity of modeling off-nominal kV and tap size independently. Conflicts with previously validated tap modeling data. • LTC Tap Changer location • WBRTF Submitter submits LTC Tap Changer on the To Bus side, and request WSM to swap From-To bus • EMS Model requires LTC Tap Changer to be modeled on From side. • Impact: Potential modeling issues with Tap Changer remodeled on To side, hence not providing LTC support in EMS

  15. Observations: Data Discrepancies • EMS Mapping limitations • WBRTF Submitter submits WECC Basecase Bus Name > 8 characters (PSLF max = 12 characters). EMS model Translation table TRANSID limited to 8 characters. • Potential issue with Bus Numbers as well – EMS model Translation table TRANSNUM limited to 5 numbers, PSLF max = 6 numbers • Impact: Requires Modeling Engineer to “tweak” Translation IDs to meet EMS character limitation. Mapping discrepancies continue to exist.

  16. Observations: Software Limitations • EMS-to-PTI Raw File Conversion Software Bug • Recently identified sofware bug where Exported Bus Name defaults to the EMS Substation ID, instead of the TRANSID mapping provided • WSM model used for comparison is a snapshot of the state of the system, and may have split busses – resulting in busses with duplicate Bus Numbers defaulting to auto-generated unused Bus Number

  17. Observations: Data Discrepancies • General comments from EMS Modeling / Operations contacts • “Where are you getting this data?” • “The generator parameters are different because we have been updating the operations (EMS) model parameters based on telemetry observations – so if there are discrepancies, use the operations (EMS) model values” • “Our operations model data does not always agree with the planning model data”

  18. Implementation Flowchart

  19. WECC RC Resource Concerns • Extensive resources required to perform Data Validation • Example: 1 BA, 1 DeviceType (50-100 equipments) • Basic review (finding EMS Names) + Template creation: 2 hrs • Rio Script creation & Netmom validation: 1 hr • Powerflow Testing: 0.5 hr • E-terrasource Modeling: 3 hrs – 20 hours (depending on equipment) • Thorough review (Mapping verification & Side-by-side data validation using Comparison Tool): 2.5 hours • Excludes Discrepancies requiring additional investigation: 20-30% for Lines & Transformers, 10-20% for GSUs • Additional resource needed to test submitted data changes, and prepare necessary testing documentations

  20. WECC RC Resource Concerns • Multiple Testing Iterations require multiple resources • Rio Script Creation  Powerflow Testing  State Estimator Testing  Issues Identified  Rio Script Modification  …. Restart Process….. • Example (DB46) Resource Usage: • 9 Set of Changes: BC-Hydro (Gen, GSU, Transformer), PACE (Gen, GSU), PSE (Gen), SRP (Gen, GSU, Lines) • Modeling Engineer (Thorough Review, Rio & Troubleshooting) – 45 hours • Model Engineering Manager (Discrepancies Discussion, Troubleshooting) – 10 hours • EMS Applications Engineer (Testing, Test Documentation) – 24 hours • Excludes: (1) E-terrasource model update, (2) Model discrepancies requiring additional investigation, (3) Model changes related to different modeling details

  21. Recommendations • Operations Agreement & Sign-Off: WBRTF reviewer requests internal review by Operations personnel for verification prior to submitting data to WECC RC for update • Added Benefit: Reconciliation of Entity’s own Operations and Planning Model • Improved Data Quality: WBRTF reviewer reviews data differences, and not just providing differences • Data Source Identification: WBRTF reviewer indicates source of Planning model data – WECC Planning Basecase or Entity’s Internal Planning Model

  22. Recommendations • Additional Supporting Data: WBRTF reviewer provides additional supporting operational modeling details (e.g. generating unit capability curves, transformer tap tables - showing ranges) • Data Submittal Template enhancements: • Example: Split Transformer 3-Winding data from Transformer 2-Winding data

  23. Bottom Line • Need Better Quality Data • Need Closer Coordination with Entities Internal Operations staff prior to data submittal • Set Expectations that modeling review and changes to the WSM Model is Resource Intensive (equivalent to multiple routine model update requests)

  24. Gareth Lim Manager of Model Engineering glim@wecc.biz Questions?

More Related