reliability assessment subcommittee highlights and minutes 201… · wind and solar pv resources...

Reliability Assessment SubcommitteeStatus ReportPhil Fedora, RAS ChairNERC Planning Committee MeetingSeptember 12-13, 2017

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2

• August 22-23, 2017 RAS Meeting 2017-18 Winter Reliability Assessmento Schedule

2017 Long Term Reliability Assessmento Key findingso Essential Reliability Services Measureso Schedule

Probabilistic Assessment Working Groupo Technical Reference Document on Probabilistic Adequacy Assessmento 2018 ProbAo Work Plan review

NERC Special Reliability Assessment

Summary


2017-2018 WRA Schedule

Date ActionAugust 4 Final 2017 LTRA data due to NERC (2017-18 winter data to be used for WRA)August 9 NERC sends information (winter summary) request to RegionsAugust 25 Information (winter summary) updates due to NERC

August 25-31NERC develops WRA report using winter summary and data for each Assessment Area

August 31-September 8 NERC sends report to RAS for reviewSeptember 11-14 NERC responds to RAS commentsSeptember 13-15 NERC initial Administrative reviewSeptember 18 – October 2 NERC publications reviewOctober 2-10 PC ReviewOctober 11-20 NERC responds to PC feedback; finalizes comment matrixOctober 20 PC Webinar to review final report and comment matrixOctober 23-27 PC Email vote to approve reportOctober 24-October 27 Report sent to publications for final reviewOctober 27-November 3 NERC Executive Management Review of ReportNovember 7 Send to NERC Board of Trustees and MRC membersNovember 15 WRA Release


2017 LTRA Request ScheduleRemaining PC and RAS Milestones – Updated July 20

Date MilestoneAugust 4 Data correction and final narrative responses with completed comment matrix due to NERC

August 4 – 10 NERC coordinates and reviews narratives with each Assessment Area/Region

August 14 – August 22 RAS reviews final narrative sections and proposed front section outline

August 22 – 23 RAS meeting – discuss RAS feedback

August 24 – September 8 NERC ongoing development of front section

September 11 – 15 Final RAS review of report

September 18 – 22 NERC incorporation of RAS feedback

September 25 – October 6 Report sent to PC, MRC, and ERO RAPA for review

October 9 – 13 NERC responds to PC/MRC/ERO Feedback

October 16 NERC sends updated report to the PC and hosts Webinar to present updates made

October 16 – October 20 PC Electronic Vote for report approval

December 14 Target Release

SPCS Work Plan

Rich Quest, SPCS ChairNERC Planning Committee MeetingSeptember12-13, 2017


• Review of auxiliary supply to FACT devices Awaiting direction from NERC

• Review IEEE Stationary Battery SAR concerning PRC-005 Completed prior to last PC meeting

• PRC-024 Implementation Guidance Draft is completed and reviewers are requested to enable 4th Qtr finish

• PRC-023 Implementation Guidance Draft is completed and reviewers are requested to enable 4th Qtr finish

• PRC-019 Implementation Guidance Work on this guidance will follow PRC-024 Guidance

• Reactive Generator undesired tripping analysis/tracking Tracking is not ongoing, and SPCS is probably not the proper group for this.

SPCS Work Plan

System Analysis and Modeling Subcommittee (SAMS) UpdateSAMS, LMTF and PPMVTF

Michael R. Lombardi, SAMS ChairPlanning Committee MeetingSeptember 12-13, 2017


• Summary LMTFo Reliability Guideline Distributed Energy Resource (DER) Modeling (Informational)

PPMVTFo Reliability Guideline on PPMV for Synchronous Machines (Informational)o Reliability Guideline on PPMV for Inverter-Based Resources (Informational)

SAMSo Node Breaker Representation (Informational)o Case Quality Metric (Informational)o Modeling Notifications Updates / Approved Model List (Informational)o Interconnecting Inverter-Based Resources to low Short Circuit Systems

(Informational)o Governor Deadband Modeling (New - Informational)o Planning Assessment Assumptions (New - Informational)

SAMS Update September PC MeetingOutline


• Reliability Guideline on DER Modeling Provides information relevant for developing models and model

parameters to represent different types of U-DER and R-DER in the stability analysis of the BPS

Industry Comment Period held 6/13/17 – 7/28/17 150+ comments received LMTF responded to comments and seeking PC approval at this meeting

(separate agenda item)

• Benchmarking composite load model with DER component

SAMS Update September PC MeetingLMTF – DER Modeling


• Reliability Guideline on PPMV for Synchronous Machines -Under Development Provides GOs and TPs with technical reference material and guidance

related to testing, model verification, and modeling practices for synchronous generating resources; centered around NERC Reliability Standards:o MOD-025-2o MOD-026-1o MOD-027-1o MOD-032-1o MOD-033-1

Planned first draft ready December or March PC meeting

SAMS Update September PC MeetingPPMVTF – Power Plant Model Verification (PPMV)


• PPMV for Inverter-Based Resources - Under Development Focus on inverter-based resources connected to the BPS, predominantly

wind and solar PV resources Provides reference material and examples of model verification for

inverter-based resources as well as non-inverter-based renewable energy systems (e.g., Type 1 and 2 wind power plants)

Recommended practices for verification and testing of these resources Coordination with inverter manufacturers and modeling SMEs

SAMS Update September PC MeetingPPMVTF – Power Plant Model Verification (PPMV)


• Node Breaker Representation Regional pilot projects underway Preliminary observations:o Conversion from bus-branch to node-breaker data

– Greater coordinated between: Planners, Operators, and Substation Engineers

o Conversion of Slider Diagrams– Each substation needs to be reconfigured manually

o Contingency Files– Need to be updated manually– Cannot mix bus-branch and node-breaker representations

o Other tools– PSLF, PowerWorld, and TARA need to be able to read PSS/e cases with node-breaker

representations

Next Steps: A sub-team of the regional reps and their respective SMEs are working together on these topics and will report back at the next SAMS meeting

SAMS Update September PC MeetingSAMS – Node Breaker


SAMS Update September PC MeetingSAMS – Case Quality


• Modeling Notifications Updates Approved by SAMSo Gas turbine governor modeling

– Recommends reviewing application of the GAST, GAST2A, GASTWD, GFT8WD, and WESGOV turbine-governor models to gas turbine generators with modern digital controls

– Subject models do not have the capability and flexibility of more recently developed models, and should not be used in the future

– Default manufacturer data for the more flexible GGOV1 model is provided as a starting point for verification of the updated model using GGOV1

– NERC Approved Model List updated

Future Notifications under development or planned:o Second generation renewables modelso Generator generic protection modeling GP1/GP2o Composite load model benchmarkingo Modeling momentary cessation

SAMS Update September PC MeetingSAMS – Model Notifications / Approved List


• SAMS - Interconnecting Inverter-Based Resources to low Short Circuit Systems SAMS approved title change from “… weak grids” to “…low Short Circuit

Systems” Guideline provide utility planners, modelers, and operations engineers

with useful tools, techniques, and recommendations around identifying weak grids and mitigating potential issues that could arise in weak grid conditions

Industry Comment Period held 7/11/17 – 8/25/17 Next Step:o Respond to industry comments

SAMS Update September PC MeetingSAMS – Inverter-Based Resources


• SAMS - Governor Deadband Modeling New Activity / update of previous efforts to incorporate governor

deadband modeling Focused on improving and standardizing the implementation of a

deadband in existing governor models Documentation is needed that describes:o Why governor deadbands are used from an equipment perspective and plant

perspectiveo Impact of governor deadband modeling has on the grid perspective

Previous efforts involving the implementation of governor deadbands may not have accurately located the deadband; e.g., deadband on speed vs. error

SAMS Update September PC MeetingSAMS – Governor Deadband


• SAMS - Planning Assessment Assumptions SAMS to conduct a data request or assessment of industry practices

associated with MOD-032 case creation to: Foster a common understanding of the case creation requirements Improve consistency in case development

SAMS Update September PC MeetingSAMS – Planning Assessment

Reliability Guideline: Distributed Energy Resource ModelingFinal Approval

Ryan D. Quint, Ph.D., P.E.NERC Planning Committee MeetingSeptember 12-13, 2017


Topics of Guideline

• DER Dynamic Load Modeling Framework• DER Modeling Practices and Model Parameters Data collection Synchronous DER models 2nd generation renewable energy system modelso Solar PV modelingo Battery energy storage system modeling

PV1 Model PVD1 Model DER_A Model

• U-DER and R-DER Modeling Capabilities


Timeline

• PC Approval for 45-day Comment Period: June 6, 2017• Comment Period: June 13 – July 28, 2017• LMTF Response to Comments: July 28 – August 18, 2017• PC Vote for Approval: September 12, 2017


Comments

• Editorial, formatting, etc.• Technical clarifications• Questions on how to apply model parameters and default

settings• Slight modifications to recommendations, same intent• Removal of unnecessary text• Specific call-outs of IEEE 1547-2003 and P1547, and CA Rule 21


Approval

• LMTF/SAMS seeking final approval to publish the Reliability Guideline on Distributed Energy Resource Modeling and Modeling Parameters

Reliability Guideline:Forced Oscillation Monitoring & MitigationFinal Approval

Ryan D. Quint, Ph.D., P.E.NERC Planning Committee MeetingSeptember 12-13, 2017


Topics of Guideline

• Provides industry with understanding of fundamental behavior of forced oscillations and how they differ from system (natural) oscillations.

• Highlights use of PMU data for oscillation monitoring and analysis.

• Provides framework for identifying, characterizing, and determining the source of forced oscillations

• Recommends practices and mitigation strategies for system operators and operations engineers

• Appendices of operational tools and actual forced oscillation events


Timeline

• PC Approval for 45-day Comment Period: June 6, 2017• Comment Period: May 22 – July 7, 2017• SMS Response to Comments: July 8 – August 18, 2017• PC Vote for Approval: September 12, 2017


Comments

• Editorial, formatting, etc.• Technical clarifications• Added technical content from comments received• Updates to forced oscillation events and online applications

from entities who supplied the data/information


Approval

• SMS seeking final approval to publish the Reliability Guideline on Forced Oscillation Monitoring & Mitigation

Special Assessment: Bulk Power System Impacts Due to Severe Disruptions on the Natural Gas SystemPRELIMINARY FINDINGS – Work in Progress

John Moura, Director, Reliability Assessment and System AnalysisPlanning Committee September 12, 2017


• Aliso Canyon storage facility outage underscored risks to electric generation and potential reliability issues

• Evaluate impacts to BPS reliability as a result of potential disruptions and the loss of major natural gas infrastructure facilities: Key pipeline segment outages Disruption of LNG transport operations Natural gas storage disruptions

• Collaborative effort with Argonne National Laboratory analysis on critical facilities

• Advisory group established with electric, gas, research orgs.

Special Assessment Scope and Drivers


Analysis Approach and Assessment Structure

• Gain better understanding of existing planning approaches

• Highlight and promote best practices

Part I: Review of Existing Studies

• Evaluate large storage facilities that are tightly coupled to electric generation (>2GW)

• Measure BPS reliability implications when storage facilities are not available

Part II: Evaluation of Gas Storage

Facilities

•Identify areas with a high density of natural gas generation

•Determine vulnerabilities and risk factors to consider in resiliency planning

Part III: Identification of

Generation Clusters


• Increased dependence on natural gas for generating capacity can amplify the bulk power system’s vulnerability to disruptions in fuel supply, transportation, and delivery.

Gas – Electric Interdependency

Risk To Bulk Power System

Reliability

Interruption (Fuel Contracts)

Wholesale Electricity Market

Utility, Integrated Resource Plan,

State Commission

Curtailment (Physical

Disruption)

Resiliency Planning

(All Hands)

Threat Solution SpaceTest


What is a Single Point of Disruption?

…on Natural Gas Infrastructure - A catastrophic failure of a facility (e.g., compressor station, underground storage) or transportation segment (e.g., pipeline element or segment) that physically impedes downstream delivery of natural gas to natural gas-fired electric generators. These failures occur where there is very little or no backhaul capability to deliver sufficient quantities of natural gas.


Step 1: Review of Studies


Step 1: Review of Studies – Key Findings

• Variety of concerns and region-specific challenges• Wide-area transmission impacts (voltage and thermal

constraints) due to loss of natural gas infrastructure are typically not studied; focus is generally on resource adequacy and resource availability.

• Many respondents indicated that there were no natural gas storage facilities within their systems to evaluate.

• Opportunity to learn from those with comprehensive resiliency plans


Step II: Storage Facilities

12 storage facilities have

been identified that can impact

> 2GW of generation


Step III: Generation Clusters


Step III: Identifying Generation Risk Clusters

South CA-AZ:60 GW – 201617 GW -- Planned

East TX-OK-LA85 GW – 201628 GW – Planned

Northwest:25 GW – 20164 GW – Planned

Florida38 GW – 20165 GW – Planned

Mid-Atlantic95 GW – 201650 GW – Planned

New England11 GW – 20165 GW – Planned

Southeast55 GW – 20167 GW – Planned

* All values are approximates, various sources: EIPC, EIA-860, NERC LTRA



• Dual-fuel maintained on-site• Firm fuel agreements• Multiple pipeline connections

• Dual-fuel capable• Part of firm fuel portfolio• Multiple pipeline connections

• Dual-fuel capable, no inventory• Interruptible fuel, spot • Single pipeline connection

Higher individual reliability

Lower individual reliability

• Not dual-fuel capable• Interruptible fuel, spot • Single pipeline connection



Table 1.1: Identification of Vulnerable Generation

Region

Number of Generators

with one connection

Generation Capacity with

one connection

(MW)

Number of Major Supply “trunk” Lines Serving Area

Number of Significant Storage Facilities

Northwest 16 4,963 24 0

Southern California and Arizona 20 11,430 13 1

East Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma

1 656 60 3

Southeast 68 46,124 35 5Florida 38 31,049 7 0Middle Atlantic 22 12,244 9 0New England 35 13,103 6 0


• Areas assessed 14 generation clusters with greater than 2 GW of natural gas generation

and no dual fuel capability 5 additional clusters due to storage facility evaluation

• Data request to Planning Coordinators Dual fuel capability, fuel contract type, bus number, natural gas pipeline

• Transmission, Power Flow Analysis Assess capability of transmission system to withstand loss of impacted

generation Transfer analysis, evaluation of thermal limits and voltage criteria

Transmission Analysis: Method and Assumptions


• Screening analysis identified 18 out of 19 clusters did not meet voltage criteria and power flow was unsolved

Transmission Analysis: Results


• Disruptions to natural gas facilities impacting BPS reliability are highly dependent on a variety of regional specific issues The amount and distance from natural gas supply source The amount of natural gas generation commonly connected to the pipeline

system Resilience and preparation measures Market and regulatory requirements

• Natural gas infrastructure disruptions can simultaneously impact large amounts of gas generation (>2GW). In many cases, the transmission system is not designed nor planned to withstand these losses.

• Natural gas storage facilities have evolved to accommodate changing demand patterns, making them more critical for inter-day reliability

Key Findings


• All systems can currently accommodate some level of generation loss due to loss of fuel delivery

• Firm fuel agreements provide the highest level of reliable natural gas delivery

• Aliso Canyon is a relatively unique situation given the Southern California dynamics

• NERC Planning Coordinator studies show that comprehensive planning and evaluation of impactful contingencies can significantly increase resilience

Key Findings Cont’d


• Regulators and Policy Makers Dual-fuel capability and emergency backup considerations Long-term fuel diversity

• Industry More detailed analysis needed Operational capabilities and resiliency measures should be tested Reliability signals should accurately reflect the risk of gas supply disruptions

• NERC NERC should consider enhancing its Reliability Standards to include further

planning and operating requirements caused by outages NERC’s GADS data base should be modified to provide more granular cause

codes for natural gas outages

RecommendationsRegulators and Policy Makers


• Incorporate comments In process

• Additional PC/OC review in early October• Targeted November release

Next Steps

Compliance Guidance

Ken McIntyre, Vice President and Director of Standards and ComplianceNERC Planning Committee Meeting September 12-13, 2017


• Compliance Guidance Policy• Types of Compliance Guidance• Prequalified Organizations• Endorsement process• Implementation guidance development aid• Key Takeaways• Questions and answers

Overview


• Purpose of policy Industry implement Reliability Standards ERO CMEP staff execute duties

• Compliance Guidance team Reviewed role, purpose, development, use, and maintenance Recommended use of examples

• NERC Board or Trustees approved Compliance Guidance Policy

Compliance Guidance Policy


Principles:• Cannot change scope of Reliability Standard• May be developed concurrently with Reliability Standard,• Should not conflict• Should be developed collaboratively• Not only way to comply• Additional Considerations: Finite and limited set Related guidance in one location Consider revising standard Apply professional judgment Feedback loops

Compliance Guidance Policy


Compliance Guidance

Implementation Guidance

CMEP Practice Guides

Types of Guidance


Implementation Guidance:• Developed by industry, for industry• Examples or approaches One of several possible approaches

• Developed by: Standard Drafting Team (SDT)o Vetted by industry

Pre-Qualified Organizationo Endorsed by ERO Enterprise

Types of Guidance


CMEP Practice Guides:• Developed by ERO Enterprise, for ERO Enterprise May be initiated through industry discussions Publically posted

• ERO Enterprise CMEP staff approach Fosters consistency

• May not be Reliability Standard specific• All Guidance reviewed by NERC Vice President, Deputy General

Counsel, and Director of Enforcement

Types of Guidance


Approved by Compliance and Certification Committee (CCC)• The organization must: Be actively involved in NERC operations Have methods to assure technical rigor Possess ability to vet content

Pre-Qualified Organizations


• Standard Drafting Team (SDT) Identifies examples Reviews existing guidance

• Examples vetted by industry• Decision to submit made by Project Management and Oversight Subcommittee (PMOS) liaison NERC Standards Developer submit for ERO Enterprise endorsement

• May not submit guidance after standard is approved Must be submitted by Pre-Qualified Organization



Endorsement of Implementation Guidance:• Pre-Qualified Organization or SDT submit proposed guidance Email to [email protected] Include Implementation Guidance Submittal Form

• NERC Acknowledges receipt Posts proposed guidance Distributes to ERO SME

• ERO endorses or declines to endorse• Publicly posted Non-Endorsed noted in spreadsheet

Endorsement Process

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/guidance/Documents/Pre-qualified_org_submittal_with_form.pdf


Implementation Guidance Development Aid


• Implementation Guidance may be an approach Developed by industry Endorsed by the ERO Enterprise

• CMEP Practices Guides Developed by ERO Enterprise Not standard-specific

• During development of guidance reference the Implementation Guidance Development Aid

• Review the Compliance Guidance Policy document for more details

• Check Compliance Guidance webpage regularly for updates

Key Takeaways

PRC-024Implementation Guidance

Rich BauerPlanning CommitteeQuebec City September 12, 2017


Need/Drivers

Example for reviewing voltage settings

• Lots of questions from Industry surrounding voltage ride through curve and curve clarifications

• Many requests for an example• IEEE PSRC Task Force requested an example for determining if

protective relay settings were compliant• Two RFIs Is outside the no trip area a must trip area? Is auxiliary equipment protection included?

• So, Implementation Guidance was determined to be needed• SPCS undertook the task!

PRC-023-4 Guidance

Rich Quest, Principal Protection EngineerNERC Planning Committee MeetingSeptember, 2017


• The ERO Enterprise declined to endorse the existing guidance document. Requires updating to reflect changes from previous PRC-023 revisionso Primarily involves removing guidance to Generator Loadability which is currently

covered by a separate Reliability Standard Specifically address Requirement R1 Criteria 10 and 11o These criteria address over current protection applied to transformers

– Guidance for criteria 10 includes a caution to ensure protection conforms to IEEE recommendations

– Criteria 11 provides an option for lower over current set points, provided that tripping is supervised by devices that identify eminent damage to the transformer.

Adds a reference for load ingression techniques Corrects minor errors in the Switch onto Fault guidance

Changes to the Existing Guidance Document


Request for Reviewers

• Determination and Application of Practical Relaying Loadability Ratings Version 2 System Protection and Control Subcommittee Version 1 was issued in 2008, and remains largely unchanged, except as

noted in the previous slide.

2017 Long-Term Reliability AssessmentOverview and Preliminary Key Findings

Elliott Nethercutt, NERC Senior Technical Advisor, Reliability AssessmentPlanning Committee MeetingSeptember 12-13, 2017


• New format for 2017 More succinct; similar to NERC’s recent seasonal assessments Enhanced preface with additional clarification on data terms and concepts Improved data presentation and messaging

Overview


• Anticipated Reserve Margins Are Adequate in All Assessment Areas for Years 1-5

• Amidst Low Demand Growth, Baseload Retirements Will Continue with Rapid Growth of Natural Gas, Wind, and Distributed Solar Resources

• The Changing Composition of the North American Resource Mix Will Require Additional Review of Established Planning Metrics

• Wind Integration Is the Primary Driver of Most Planned Transmission Projects

Preliminary Key Findings


Key Finding 1

• Year-5 (2022) Anticipated Reserve Margins are above the Reference Margin Levels for all Assessment Areas


• Amidst Low Demand Growth, Baseload Retirements Will Continue with Rapid Growth of Natural Gas, Wind, and Distributed Solar Resources Demand growth is at its lowest rate on record. NERC-wide, natural gas-fired capacity (on-peak) has increased from 280

GW in 2009 to 427 GW today, with continued growth projected During the past decade, baseload retirements have outpaced additions 50 GW of Tier 1 wind capacity Distributed solar resource are expected to grow by over 28 GW during the

next decade

Key Finding 2


• The Changing Composition of the North American Resource Mix Will Require Additional Review of Established Planning Metrics Application of Reference Margin Levels Accounting for On-Peak Contributions of Wind and Solar Past Performance Impacts on Projected Natural Gas Availability Applications of ERS Measure 1 (Inertia) and Measure 6 (Ramping) Probabilistic Approaches for Assessing Natural Gas Availability

Key Finding 3


• Wind Integration Is the Primary Driver of Most Planned Transmission Projects Transmission Adequacy Is Increasingly Important to Maintain Reliability

with the Onset of Rapid Wind Integration.

Key Finding 3


Remaining PC and RAS Milestones

Date MilestoneAugust 4 Data correction and final narrative responses with completed comment matrix due to NERC

August 4 – 10 NERC coordinates and reviews narratives with each Assessment Area/Region

August 14 – August 22 RAS reviews final narrative sections and proposed front section outline

August 22 – 23 RAS meeting – discuss RAS feedback

August 24 – September 8 NERC ongoing development of front section

September 11 – 15 Final RAS review of report

September 18 – 22 NERC incorporation of RAS feedback

September 25 – October 6 Report sent to PC, MRC, and ERO RAPA for review

October 9 – 13 NERC responds to PC/MRC/ERO Feedback

October 16 NERC sends updated report to the PC and hosts Webinar to present updates made

October 16 – October 20 PC Electronic Vote for report approval

December 14 Target Release

Essential Reliability Services Working GroupUpdate

Essential Reliability Services Working Group (ERSWG)NERC OC/PCSeptember 12, 2017


• Balancing/Ramping Historical Analysis (Measure 6) Largely completed; will wrap up in Q4 2017 Based on analysis of hourly CPS1 values for each BAo CPS1 data collection process and analysis method has been vetted by the OC

Resources Subcommittee (RS)o RS process includes outreach to BA when indicated by the analysis of trendso RS is incorporating the rolling review of CPS1 metrics and BA outreach into their

ongoing processes

• RS will provide annual input to the PC Performance Analysis Subcommittee for inclusion in the State of Reliability Report

Historical Balancing/Ramping


Historical M6 - Western Interconnection

1

2 34

5


Historical M6 - Eastern Interconnection

1 23

4


• Balancing/Ramping Forward-Looking Analysis (Measure 6) Expected to be completed in Q4 2017 Developed a model for prospective identification of potential concernso Currently testing and refining process with volunteer BAso In review by the PC Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (RAS)

Necessary data collection will be administered by the RAS going forward Results to be included in future Long-Term Reliability Assessment Reports

Forward-Looking Balancing/Ramping


• Frequency Response Historical Analysis (Measures 1-4) Will be completed in Q4 2017o Collecting historical interconnection-level data from the four interconnections

since June 2016o Load damping factors under development for use in ROCOF ½ second calculationso Value of collecting BA level inertia data is under review

Frequency metrics data collection process establishedo Completed first pass at calculating frequency response metricso OC Resources Subcommittee (RS) is reviewing and refining the metrics

RS will manage the historical frequency response analysis going forward o RS will provide input to PC’s Performance Analysis Subcommittee (PAS) and into

annual State of Reliability Report

Historical Frequency Response


• Frequency Response Forward-Looking Analysis (Measures 1-4) Under active developmento Ongoing work with the interconnections on the development of frequency

response modelso Plans for model development to complete by Q4 2017

Operational models and analysis to be completed in 2018 o Analysis included in Long-Term Reliability Assessment Reports starting in 2018

In the future, the PC Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (RAS) will provide oversight for Forward-Looking Frequency Response Analysis

Forward-Looking Frequency Response


• Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Submitted SAR for MOD-032 to address recommendation in DERTF reporto In the hands of the NERC Standards Committee - SAR comment period just closed

DER Data Collection Guideline is underway - to be completed Q4 2017o Not to be confused with DER Data Modeling initiatives (but supports them)o Policy Briefing summary will also be created - scheduled for Q1 2018

Developing WG scope for DER Forecasting to include a survey to identify current practices and issueso To be completed Q4 2017o Led by John Simonelli

Developing recommendation for OC/PC coordination of DER issues going forward

Distributed Energy Resources


• Balancing/Ramping (Measure 6) Historical analysis - Policy Briefing Forward-looking analysis - Technical Brief on process, and Policy Briefing

• Frequency Response (Measures 1-4) Historical analysis process - Technical Brief Forward-looking approach and model development - Technical Brief (Q1-

2018)

• Distributed Energy Resources (DER) DER Data Collection Guideline WG scope for DER Forecasting to include a survey to identify current

practices and issues.

Expected 2017 Deliverables

System Voltage and Reactive Capability

Ryan D. Quint, Ph.D., P.E., NERC Senior Manager, Advanced Analytics and ModelingNERC Planning Committee MeetingSeptember 12-13 2017


ERS Measure 7Reactive Capability on the System

• Measure 7: Tracks static and dynamic reserve capability per total megawatt load at peak, shoulder, and light load levels; and load power factor for distribution at the low side of transmission buses at peak, shoulder, and light load levels. A data request was developed asking for the information on a BA basis for

equipment on or connected to the transmission system at 100 kV and above.

The measure also offered BAs the option of providing the data by reactive sub-areas if available.

The request sought data for the past five years and the current year plus four future years.

Several BAs responded to the request.


SAMS Analysis of Measure 7

WOW! Look at all that dynamic MVAR reserve. Utility A will NEVER have a problem!

Those forward looking trends appears to show potential issues…


SAMS Analysis of Measure 7

WOW! Look at all that dynamic MVAR reserve. Utility A will NEVER have a problem!

Those forward looking trends appears to show potential issues…

Reactive is a local issue, this doesn’t signify anything. Paints the wrong message actually.

Differences between actual data and planning case assumptions. Modeling issue, not actual issue.


SAMS Perspective & Recommendations

Overall Perspective:• Reactive capability and reactive planning are localized issues,

not suited for wide-area metric• Requires detailed pre- and post-contingency analysis, as part of

TPL-001-4 analysis• FERC Order 827, subsequent to Measure 7, requires non-

synchronous resources to provide dynamic reactive supportRecommendations:• Discontinue Measure 7 – does not capture useful information• Use ERS Whitepaper on Sufficiency Guidelines (BA sub-area)• Use Reliability Guideline on Reactive Power Planning


SAMS Disclaimers

• Ensuring dynamic (and static) reactive capability critical to reliability – requirement of TP and PC

• Ensuring controllable and stable grid voltages necessary for operating reliability – requirement of TOP and GOP

• Measure 7 to be retired BUT reliability concepts still hold true


Performance Questions

• International grid codes often require “dynamic” performance requirements EirGrid – 90% of steady-state response in 1 second, rise time < 100 s UK – 90% response in 1 second South Australia – 200 ms initial response, 95% within 1 second

• FERC Order 827 assures BES-connected resource reactive capability, but not “dynamic” performance

• Who is tracking how these resources perform and how this is affecting grid reliability?


Capability & Ride-Through Questions

• MOD-025-2 requires reactive capability testing for generators and synchronous condensers

• No similar requirement for capability testing of transmission-connected dynamic reactive resources (e.g., STATCOMs, SVCs, etc.). Why?

• PRC-024-2 requires ride-through for generators to maintain support to BES during abnormal V and f conditions

• No similar requirement for ride-through of transmission-connected dynamic reactive resources

• How are we assuring that these resources remain connected during grid events?


Steady-State Voltage Control Questions

• VAR-001-4 and VAR-002-4 work together to ensure GOPs are provided a voltage schedule by the TOP and they maintain the voltage schedule, unless exemption given for power factor control

• Many older generation resources interconnected on power factor control

• What fraction of resources providing power factor control vs. voltage control?

• Are TOPs utilizing to the fullest extent possible the reactive capabilities of inverter-based resources?


Trending and Tracking Questions

• Are we seeing an increasing trend in power electronic-based reactive power resources?

• Are we collecting sufficient data to make observations around these trends?

• Do these resources have the same performance characteristics of conventional dynamic reactive resources (e.g., failure rates)?

These are all good questions!• Planners and operators should be asking themselves these

questions – and most likely are addressed already!• NERC has an obligation to ensure reliability trends and

observations are addressed, proactive assurance of reliability

GMD UpdateStandards Drafting Team and GMD Task Force

Frank Koza, PJM InterconnectionPlanning Committee MeetingSeptember 13, 2017


• FERC Order No. 830 issued in August 2016 approved the geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) planning standard TPL-007-1 and directed additional actions

• Update on activities addressing FERC directives Standards Drafting Team (SDT) development of TPL-007-2 GMD Task Force (GMDTF) activities for implementing a research work plan

and NERC Rules of Procedure (ROP) Section 1600 data request

Order No. 830


• TPL-007-2 is being developed to address directives in Order No. 830: Modify the benchmark GMD event definition used for GMD assessments Require entities to collect GMD data that can be used for model validation Establish deadlines for Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) and mitigating

actions to address identified GMD impacts

• Revisions must be filed by May 2018

Revisions to TPL-007


• Initial posting of proposed TPL-007-2: June 28 – August 11, 2017

• SDT met August 29 – 31 to review comments and consider revisions

Status of Standards Development

BallotQuorum / Approval Result

79.87% / 72.67% Pass


• Summary from the Aug 29-31 SDT meeting will be provided during the PC meeting

Comment Themes


• SDT is keeping GMDTF informed of progress• Standards must be filed by May 2018• Refer to NERC website, Standards Under Development: Project 2013-03 GMD Mitigation

Next Steps in Standards Development

http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/Project-2013-03-Geomagnetic-Disturbance-Mitigation.aspx


• NERC’s Preliminary GMD Research Work Plan filed with FERC in May 2017 Developed by NERC, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the

GMDTF to meet Order No. 830 objectives

• August 2017 - EPRI initiated member outreach for support of a multi-year EPRI GMD project addressing the research work plan Expected to begin in Q4 2017 and conclude in Q1 2020

• GMDTF will review and provide feedback on results and deliverables from the research work plan

Development Steps

http://www.nerc.com/FilingsOrders/us/NERC%20Filings%20to%20FERC%20DL/GMD%20Work%20Plan%20Informational%20Filing.pdf


• FERC-directed research activities include: Continued analysis on the benchmark GMD event used in TPL-007 Improving earth conductivity models Further analysis on transformer vulnerability to geomagnetically-induced

current (GIC) Development of system-wide GIC related harmonic analysis capability

• Specific tasks were briefed to the Planning Committee in May 2017 webinar and listed in the NERC’s work plan filing

Research Work Plan Overview

http://www.nerc.com/FilingsOrders/us/NERC%20Filings%20to%20FERC%20DL/GMD%20Work%20Plan%20Informational%20Filing.pdf


• Order No. 830 includes directives for collecting data to “improve our collective understanding” of GMD risk Includes GIC and magnetometer data NERC is to make data available to the public

• EPRI project will help develop guidance for the measurement of GIC and geomagnetic field

• GMDTF held initial discussion at February in-person meeting and will review draft data request in September Target PC review of draft data request in December 2017

Section 1600 Data Request


• NERC GMDTF meeting: September 19, 2017 NERC HQ Atlanta | Remote access available | Details on NERC Calendar

GMDTF Meeting