ERCOT Planning Go-Live Introduction and Background

December 15 2010

Nodal Planning Go-Live Workshop

ERCOT Planning Go-Live Introduction and Background

Jay TeixeiraManager, Model Administration

2 Nodal Planning Go-Live Workshop

December 15 2010

ERCOT Concerns regarding Planning Go-Live

• Topology Processor is in production for CRR– Data, such as connectivity node groups (CNG) must be

maintained by ERCOT and TSPs– Equipment IDs and Circuit IDs for all equipment must be

populated and unique and are dependent on correct CNG definition

• Easier to maintain one model than two


December 15 2010

Reasons to Go Live in April 2010

• Date to start building Data Set A cases which are heavily used by ERCOT– Near Term congestion analysis and studies to support ERCOT

Operations (SPS, RMR, etc)– Studies simulate planned outages, manual process to map to

SSWG cases• Protocols require consistency in all operational models• Value to both ERCOT and Market Participants in moving to a

process that satisfies the consistency requirements


December 15 2010

Data Set A Uses from June PLWG meeting

ERCOT Use DS A Case Used

Determining Flat load for Near Term congestion and 5 year plan cases

Uses all 8 cases for range of load level.

SPS Reviews Can use any of all 8 cases depending on SPS under study and time frame

RMR Analysis Can use any of all 8 cases depending on RMR unit under study and time frame

Transmission Loss Factor Calculations Uses generation, load, losses from all 8 cases

Near term congestion analysis Uses summer peak topology

ERCOT Operations requested studies Can use any of all 8 cases

Dynamic Data Set (wind and no wind) Currently use summer peak, DWG proposal to use peak and off-peak case

Stability Screening Studies (Dynamic and Voltage)

PV and TS for summer, PV for winter peak and TS for winter off-peak

NERC Compliance Studies Summer peak and one off-peak

Voltage Profile Studies Peak(Sum, Win) and Off peak (Spg, Fal) cases

5

Current Process – Separate System for Planning


December 15 2010

ERCOTManual Process

TSP Review

Case complete

?

Case Posted

Yes

NoTSPs submitChanges via IDEV, other

NMMS db

ERCOT Topology

Processor for ODMS

ERCOT/TSP Network Model

update via NOMCR

CRR Top Output

Planning Case

Creation

ERCOT Dispatch

TSPs submit RAWD files for their area

containingTopology,

Load, Voltage Control

6

Topology Processor/Model on Demand Integrated System


December 15 2010

TSPProfiles

Planning Topology

Output

TSP Review

Case complete

?

Case Posted

Yes

NoTSPs submitChange via MOD

NMMS db

ERCOT Topology

Processor for ODMS

ERCOT/TSP Network Model

update via NOMCR

CRR Topology Output

Planning Case Output

ERCOTModel on Demand

TSP Standard PMCR

TSP Future PMCR

ERCOT DispatchProfile


December 15 2010

Bus Branch Load GenSwiched Shunt XF FACT

Mult-Section Lines Area Owner Totals

Total of DSB Submission

%Size of DSB submission

AEN Add 1 14 1 7 1 24add 1Delete 2 23 3 1 1 30Modify 2 14 16

3 37 6 1 0 22 2 0 0 0 70 263 26.62%AEP Add 8 1 133 8 1 9 1 3 164

Delete 3 5 7 1 1 17Modify 7 2 5 2 16

18 6 133 17 2 10 0 0 6 5 197 2638 7.47%CNP Add 38 165 97 9 26 7 151 493

Delete 93 251 125 9 21 5 504Modify 10 7 6 86 109

141 423 228 18 47 98 0 151 0 0 1106 1833 60.34%CPS Add 13 13

Delete 13 6 19Modify 22 22

0 26 6 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 54 349 15.47%GPL Add 6

Delete 6Modify 2 1 3

0 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 273 1.10%LCRA Add 383 383

Delete 324 324Modify 1 1

0 0 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 708 1043 67.88%Oncor Add 253 253

Delete 2 2Modify 0

0 0 0 0 255 0 0 0 0 0 255 5087 5.01%STEC Add 6 3 3 12

Delete 6 16 3 25Modify 4 4

0 12 23 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 41 540 7.59%2434

Topology Processor Results from the 2010 Test case as of 11-23-2010This includes all the PMCRs from pass1, pass2 and pass3.

8

Notes for Previous Slide

• AEP 133 added load records appears to separate load into Residential, Wholesale, etc to match SSWG case. Do not get removed by SCR.

• LCRA 383 load adds and 324 load deletes appears to be to realign Load ID field to new modeling philosophy. Will be changed in IMM and not necessary to submit as future PMCR

• ERCOT is reviewing all “Standard PMCR’s” – Some may be reduced by making changes in IMM

• Up to 230 have been found

– Some may be just for comparison purposes• May be why changes to IMM were not made

December 15 2010 Nodal Planning Go-Live Workshop


December 15 2010

• PMCR’s are not the same as NOMCR’s• NOMCR’s are very detailed xml files• PMCR’s vary from 1 line of data to up to 4 lines of

data

What are PMCR’s?

10

Example of PMCR File

• <PROJECT>, 30• AEN_TEST_CASE_10SUM_PMCR_FILE,Standard_PMCR,Active,Make sure Autos are 3-winding• <PHASE>,TEST_PMCR,10/8/2010,10/8/2010,• BUS, DELETE,9281,'TRADPOST1',138,1,0,0,9,709,1,0,190• BUS, ADD,9025,'HP_STATC',32,1,0,0,9,709,0.9986,-3.2377,100• LOAD, DELETE,9187,'1',1,9,709,2,0,0,0,0,0,190• LOAD, ADD,9184,'DG',1,9,709,-2.12,0.597,0,0,0,0,400• LOAD, MODIFY,9282,'1',1,9,709,20.324,14.287,0,0,0,0,190• GENERATOR, DELETE,9118,'VC',0,0,110,-80,1.018,0,110,0,9999,0,0,0,1,100,0,0,1,1• BRANCH, DELETE,7288,-9288,'BC',0,0.0001,0,9999,9999,9999,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,1• FACTS, ADD,1,9025,0,1,0,0,0.9986,100,9999,0.9,1.1,1.2,100,0.05,100,100,0,0,0• TRANSFORMER, ADD,9025,9118,0,'1',1,1,1,0,0,1,'STATC1',1,190,1,,,,,,• 0.0025,0.08,100,,,,,,,,• 1,0,-30,120,120,120,0,0,1.5,0.51,1.5,0.51,33,0,0,0• 1,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,• TRANSFORMER, MODIFY,9002,9188,0,'1',1,1,1,0,0,2,,1,189,1,,,,,,• 0.00521,0.18106,100,,,,,,,,• 1,13.8,0,139,139,139,0,0,1,1,1.1,0.9,33,0,0,0• 1,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,• Q

This file contains 10 PMCRS


11

The effect of SCRs on the number of PMCR’s submitted

SCR # SCR Description

PMCR Reduction Achieved by

SCR1 Comment

Possible PMCR Reduction

by SCR2

Additional PMCR's considered as reduced by SCR

1 UpgradeTP to PSS/E version32 - Unable to Determine -

2 Distribution Capacitor Banks 231Unable to Determine all 557

PMCR's CNP add Caps + AEP estimate (200)+Add'l Oncor estimate (100)

3 Zero Impedance Line Ratings 118 118

4Associate Loads and Capacitor banks with the correct CNG 17

Unable to Determine all 114 PMCR's CNP add Loads

5 Additional Transformer Data for Planning - Unable to Determine 86 PMCR's CNP Modify XF6 FACTS Devices 7 21 Only 21 in case

7Assign valid PSSE IDs to Breakers/Switches/Series Devices 245 245

8 Phase Shift of Autos For Short Circuit Studies 46 46

SCR 760 Total Number and as percent of 2434 664 27.3% 1187 43.4%

SCR759 - Increase ACLineSegment Length 151 6.2%

Should Not Be Modeled as a Standard PMCR3 44

3PMCR's that were submitted that either should have included in profile or reflect change that needs to also be made in IMM

1Using values that ERCOT was able to determine from submitted PMCR's2Using values as in footnote 1 but including additional PMCR's and estimated non-submitted PMCR's that might be reduced by SCR



December 15 2010

TAC Approved Principles of Consistency

• Consensus version developed by Joint ROS/TPTF on August 4, 2006

• Approved by TPTF on August 7, 2006• Approved by ROS on August 11, 2006

• Entitled “Principles of Consistency” applies to:• Annual Planning Models• CRR Network Models• Network Operations Models


December 15 2010


• Purpose to provide principles to define the term “consistent” as used in sections 3.10 and 3.11 of ERCOT Protocols to describe relationships between the models to which it applies• “The name of existing Transmission Elements

including Electrical Buses, lines, transformers, generators, loads, breakers, switches, capacitors, reactors, phase shifters, or other similar devices, if modeled as part of the ERCOT Transmission Grid, must be identical (Protocols Section 3.10 Network Operations Modeling and Telemetry)”

14

CRR Names use Topology Process Bus Numbers and Names


December 15 2010

Name Limit DeviceName DeviceType FlowDirectionW_TO_N 6444 SARC7A 1440 COMCHESS1_5 1 LINE From-To

Non-Thermal Constraints

Contingency DeviceName DeviceType ActionSRSFB9 44290 FTBEND_ 69 700151 700151_ 1 A1 XFMR OUT

Contingencies

DeviceName DeviceType BaseCaseRating EmergencyRating1 ROANSPRARE 4 IOLA 1 LINE 269 269

Monitored Lines and Transformers


December 15 2010


• “All existing transmission line’s and transformer’s impedances (or equivalent branch circuit impedance) and ratings (Normal, Emergency and 15-Minute, if modeled) shall be identical for equipment without Dynamic Ratings and for equipment with Dynamic Ratings having the same assumed ambient weather conditions, and shall use Dynamic Ratings where implemented according to the nodal protocols ("Identical" as used herein permits only those differences due to the use of different numerical precision)”


December 15 2010


• “If all normally closed breakers and switches are closed and normally open breakers and switches are open in the CRR Network and Network Operations Model, the calculated line flows between substations in the Annual Planning Model shall be consistent (very close), when all models use the same load magnitude and distribution, generation commitment and dispatch, and voltage profile”

17

SCR760 Preliminary Impact Analysis

SCR TSP Requirement Cost Delivery

760-1

Keep TP current for all new PSS/E releases

$610K - $760K Dec 2012

760-2 Represent Distribution Capacitor Banks on the proper bus in Topology Processor PSS/E case $210K - $260K May 2012

760-3Represent the proper ratings on zero impedance lines in Topology Processor cases $560K – 720K Mar 2013

760-4Planning should be able to model loads and capacitor banks on the correct PSS/E busses $165K – 205K

May 2012

760-5Represent the actual transformer models in the PSS/E cases

$145K - $185KMay 2012

760-6 Update IMM and TP to incorporate FACTS devices $230K - $295K Dec 2012

760-7Modify TP to assign valid PSS/E IDs to Breakers/Switches/Series Devices

$105K-$140K Sep 2011

760-8Allow representation of a phase shift for an autotransformer winding in the Topology Processor PSS/E cases $95K - $130K Sep 2011

TOTAL $2.1M - $2.7M

Annual Recurring Cost$535K – $715K


18

Delivery Plan


Questions?


ERCOT Planning Go-Live Introduction and Background

Documents

Transcript of ERCOT Planning Go-Live Introduction and Background