IEEE SCC21 P1547 Working Group Meeting Minutes, February 28...

Minutes—P1547 Meeting, February 28 – March 1, 2017, Atlanta, GA

IEEE SCC21 P1547 Working Group Meeting Minutes, February 28 – March 1, 2017, Atlanta, GA

“P1547 Draft Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed Energy Resources with Associated Electric Power Systems Interfaces”

Chair: David Narang

Vice Chairs: John Berdner, Jim Daley, Babak Enayati, Mark Siira and Bob Fox

Secretary/Treasurer: Charlie Vartanian The tenth meeting of the P1547 Working Group (WG) was held in Atlanta, GA, on February 28 – March 1, 2017, at the North American Reliability Corporation (NERC). The targeted outcomes for this meeting were to review the pre‐meeting comments and resolutions for draft D6.1, continue to refine the draft revision document, and hold live recirculation votes with the intent to approve the draft revision’s content to advance to pre‐ballot review, pre‐ballot preparation, and then balloting by IEEE‐SA. Summary highlights. Full revision Draft 6.1 (D6.1) was iteratively updated and recirculation votes taken live at the meeting, on versions D6.2 through D6.6. Draft D6.6 received adequate yes votes (>66%) to achieve approval of the draft’s content for pre‐ballot review and ballot preparation by IEEE‐SA, in coordination with the Working Group. However, not all priority topics were reviewed at the meeting, so the WG members directed that the comments received up to and through the meeting be considered for creation of a Draft D6.7, to be recirculated for one more round of voting to reaffirm approval. Two weeks was the timeframe agreed on at the meeting for creation of an updated draft revision D6.7, and posting for review and recirculation vote by WG Members. After accomplishing the goal of reaching approval of the content, the meeting focus shifted to pre‐balloting prep topics, including a tutorial on how to sign up for the 1547 Revision project through the IEEE‐SA myProject system. The planned location and dates for the next P1547.1 and P1547 WG meetings were also announced. The P1547.1 WG meeting will be held June 20 and 21, 2017, and the P1547 WG will be held June 22. Meetings’ location will be Tempe, Arizona, hosted by the Salt River Project. TUESDAY, February 28, 2017, Day 1 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER, INTRO, and ADMIN ITEMS The meeting was called to order at 8:15am. Attendees (Attachment A) were welcomed by David Narang, Chair of IEEE P1547. In lieu of voice roll call, the registration list was sent prior to the meeting for information on attendees and affiliation. Meeting participants were asked to be sure and give their name and affiliation when they asked questions or made comments during the meeting. The Secretary emphasized the need to initial the meeting sign‐in sheets each day, since this is the means used to determine Working Group Member status qualification. Additionally, becoming a WG Member and enabling Member‐only iMeet website access requires the person to request Member status, upon qualifying by attending two in‐person WG meetings.

David thanked NERC for sponsoring the meeting facilities. Mohamed Osman, Sr. Engineer, NERC, welcomed the attendees, and Janelle Law, Administrative Assistant, NERC, provided meeting room and


building logistics and emergency procedure info. Later in the morning, Mark Lauby, Sr. VP and Chief Reliability Officer, NERC, provided an executive overview of industry challenges including increased DER presence. David presented the introductory slides and made a call for potentially essential patents. No potentially essential patent claims were declared, and no holders of potentially essential patents were identified. Mike Kipness provided further clarification on essential patents and reiterated the prompt to identify any. David then presented the agenda for the meeting (Attachment B), reviewed planned activity for the next several days, and had the P1547 Officers introduce themselves. WORK PROCESS AND SETTING PRIORITIES FOR THE MEETING WORKIG SESSION Jens Boemer briefed the group on how to use a text voting tool. This tool was used in an exercise to have the meetings attendees identify which of several industry categories they map to. The results shown in Attachment B slide 4 illustrate the wide breadth of industry segment representation at the meeting and among the Working Group participants. Jens then reviewed the comments received prior to the meeting, and the number of no vote comments per related topics. He then led a group vote to prioritize which topic areas we would work on to 1) identify concerns and possible solutions, 2) make redline edits, and then 3) hold recirculation votes as substantive changes are made during the meeting. Before starting the iterative work process outlined above, Charlie closed the recirculation vote for Draft D6.1. The final number of yes votes for D6.1 did not exceed the 66% threshold needed to approve that version of the draft. Slide 7 in Attachment C shows the vote tabulation results for all votes for Draft D6.1 through Draft 6.6. ROUND TABLE WORKING SESSION The first set of subclauses worked on to update D6.1 to D6.2 were 4.6, 10.1, 10.7 and 10.9. The resulting redlines shown below are from file “P1547‐D6.2_20170228_1527pmET_Live_REDLINE.doc”, posted to P1547 iMeet’s meeting materials folder. Subclause 4.6, prioritization of DER responses, was discussed. The WG accepted changes are as follows:

Subclause 10.1, interoperability requirements, was discussed. WG accepted changes were text edits as follows:


Subclause 10.7, communication protocol requirements, was discussed. WG accepted changes were text edits as follows:


Subclause 10.9, cyber security requirements, was discussed. WG accepted changes were text edits as follows:


After the conclusion of the discussion and edits shown above, the new set of redlines was saved to Draft D6.2, and a recirculation vote was taken. The percentage of yes votes did not reach the minimum 66% approval threshold. DAY 1 MEETING RECAP Charlie briefly previewed the agenda for tomorrow, meeting Day 2. IEEE ICAP Paul invited IEEE 1547 meeting participants to remain for an informational briefing following today’s WG meeting.

David recessed the meeting at 5:00pm. The meeting is to resume tomorrow.

------------------------------------------------- Day 1 concluded. -----------------------------------------

WEDNESDAY, March 1, 2017, DAY 2

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND INTRO David called the meeting to order at 8:15am.

David announced that the working session process would change for the next set of edits. Three specific comments related to D6.1 no votes would be discussed and resolved. Three were selected on the qualitative assessment that they were discreet, and addressable.

Mamadou Diong’s comment was a recommendation to add the following footnote to Tables 11, 12, and 13:


This recommended change was accepted per majority show of hands vote. Marcelo Algrain comment was a recommended change to add the following sentence to subclause 6.3.2.6.1: “Active power oscillations in the post-disturbance period that are positively damped are acceptable.” This recommended change was accepted per majority show of hands vote, but the sentence had been incorporated in D6.1. Jeanie Piekarz ‘s comment was a recommendation to add negative sequence as shown in the following edit:

This recommended change was accepted per majority show of hands vote.

After the conclusion of the discussion and edits shown above, the new set of redlines was saved to Draft D6.3, and a recirculation vote was taken. The percentage of yes votes did not reach the minimum 66% approval threshold. The resulting redlines shown are from file “P1547‐D6.3_20170228_2100pmET_Jens_REDLINE.doc”, posted to P1547 iMeet’s meeting materials folder. The working process continued with the approach of addressing specific comments with edits that could remove issues causing no votes. Reigh Whaling’s comment recommended the following edit to subclause 5.1, reactive capability:


This recommended change was accepted per majority show of hands vote (42 yes, 5 no, 12 abstain) Discussion continued related to subclause voltage control, with the edits shown approved by majority hand vote (49 yes, 0 no, 4 abstain.

After the conclusion of the discussion and edits shown above, the new set of redlines was saved to Draft D6.4, and a recirculation vote was taken. The percentage of yes votes did not reach the minimum 66% approval threshold. The resulting redlines shown are from file “P1547‐D6.4_20170301_0950amET_Jens_REDLINE.doc”, posted to P1547 iMeet’s meeting materials folder. The working process continued with the approach of addressing specific comments with edits that could remove issues causing no votes.

Jens recommended an edit to subclause 6.3.2.1, to cite “may see to energize”.


This recommended change was accepted per majority show of hands vote (43 yes, 0 no, 3 abstain)

Michael Brigandi had a follow‐on comment recommending that the UV points be changed to conform to 1547a. After discussion, the WG accepted by majority hand vote having the time for point UV 2 conform to 1547a for Category I and II, but not Category 3. Category III was excluded in part because it applies to very high penetration scenarios. The WG acknowledged that this change would be imparted to the latest Draft after the meeting. Charlie Vartanian presented Jim Reilly’s comment requesting removal of the term “Microgrid” and related terms that use “Microgrid”, e.g. Microgrid Island. After Working Group discussion, the WG accepted the change by majority hand vote to conform to the term Intentional Island in place of “Microgrid”. This update will be imparted to subclause 3.1 and subclause 8.2 after the meeting by the CRT.

After the conclusion of the discussion and edits and planned changes shown above, the new set of redlines was saved to Draft D6.5, and a recirculation vote was taken. The percentage of yes votes exceeded the minimum 66% approval threshold. The resulting redlines shown are from file “P1547‐D6.5_20170301_0411pmET_Jens_REDLINE.doc”, posted to P1547 iMeet’s meeting materials folder. David verified that changes will still need to be made after the meeting, even though the recirculation vote has approved the content. New edits will be per WG discussion and direction, but new editorial edits could be imparted as well. Secretary opened the comment period to extend through the close of meeting Day 2, for consideration in making the final post‐meeting updated Draft D6.X. The working process continued with the approach of addressing specific comments with edits that could remove issues causing no votes.

Jens facilitated discussion subclause 4.1 reference point of applicability. The discussion resulted in the edits shown below, accepted per majority hand vote (57 yes, 1 no, 0 abstain):


Jens facilitated discussion of the term “cease to energize”. The discussion resulted in the edits to subclause 3.1 and 4.4 as shown below, and accepted per majority hand vote (45 yes, 4 no, 3 abstain):


Mamadou Diong raised his comment on DER masking of faults. An action item was taken for the CRT to set up a WEBEX specific to this topic to discuss his input and recommended edits.

After the conclusion of the discussion and edits and planned changes shown above, the new set of redlines was saved to Draft D6.6, and a recirculation vote was taken. The percentage of yes votes exceeded the minimum 66% approval threshold. The resulting redlines shown are from file “P1547‐D6.6_20170302_0930amET_Jens_REDLINE.doc”, posted to P1547 iMeet’s meeting materials folder. NEXT STEPS and ADJOURN Michael Kipness gave a step‐by‐step tutorial on how to designate interest in the IEEE 1547 Revision Working Group and Project in IEEE‐SA myProject. ACTION ITEM – All individuals interested in balloting for approval to update IEEE 1547‐2003 with the proposed revision needs to identify their interest in myProject. Charlie recapped the post‐meeting ACTION ITEMS:

1. Secretary to post clean and redline versions of D6.6 to iMeet

2. Secretary to post the D6.1‐D6.6 vote tabulation to iMeet

3. CRT to impart the WG‐accepted edits, not already added to D6.2‐D6.6, to create D6.7.


a. Additional edits may be made by the CRT at their discretion, based on review of

D6.1 comments sent earlier, plus new comments submitted (sent by email) thru the

end of this meeting.

4. After draft D6.7 is posted to iMeet, there will be a recirculation vote. This will be an

electronic/email vote, with a 3 day window for WG Members to send in recirculation votes,

i.e. any changes from current vote.

David Narang thanked the meeting attendees for their substantial input throughout the drafting process, through the work accomplished at this meeting. Meeting adjourned at 5:00pm, Wednesday March 1, 2017. Respectfully submitted, Charlie Vartanian P1547 Secretary for P1547 Chair, David Narang. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment A – Attendees Attachment B – Selected introductory slides, including the meeting agenda as updated during the meeting Attachment C – Summary of topics and votes, for the set of D6.2‐D6.5 updates and recirculation votes done live at the meeting ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐


Attachment B– Selected introductory slides, including meeting agenda & WG activities schedules updated during the meeting


Attachment C – Summary of topics and votes, for the set of D6.2‐D6.5 updates and recirculation votes done live

IEEE SCC21 P1547 Working Group Meeting Minutes, February 28...

Documents

Transcript of IEEE SCC21 P1547 Working Group Meeting Minutes, February 28...