Transcript WECC ATC Methodology Overview

JPA AGENDA
•
•
Welcome/Introductions
Power Marketing Updates (Oretta)
– PD Remarketing
– O&M Contracts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meter Testing Program (Radosevich)
Short Circuit Working Group Update (Field)
OATT NOPR Update (Moulton)
POISE Update (Steward)
10 Year Studies & Maintenance/Construction Program (Johnston & Radosevich)
Right-of-Way Studies & Standards (Radosevich)
JPA 2006-2007 Goals (Moulton)
Next Meeting
Action Items
(602) 605-2639
[email protected]
POWER MARKETING UPDATES
• PD Remarketing
• O&M Contracts
(602) 605-2605
[email protected]
Western’s Integrated Meter
Validation Program
• Old procedure (standard) is to remove meter from
service and bench test to provide an accurate
validation of the meter
• New procedure being established provides an
accurate validation and is preferred because:
1) Does not interrupt power metering or billing
2) Performed faster (costs less to do)
3) Same degree of accuracy
4) Meter is not removed from service
5) Validates meter under actual load conditions
Integrated Meter Validation Procedure
• New procedure utilizes an RD-33 reference standard to
validate the accuracy of the revenue meter while still in
service
1) It measures the actual voltage and current applied
to the meter to calculate power
2) It also monitors the KYZ pulse output of the meter
3) It then compares the calculated MW to the pulses
received, providing a percent error based on this
comparison
Integrated Meter Validation Procedure
•
•
Accuracy of the In-service Validation Test is the same as
the bench test, since they both use the RD-33
While the in-service validation is a single test, the bench
test consists of several independent tests:
1) All four quadrants (Watts Fwd, Watts Rev, VARS
Fwd, VARS Rev) are tested in a bench test
2) In each quadrant, three tests are performed:
Full Load (5A) at Unity PF
Light Load (0.5A) at Unity PF
Full Load (5A) at 0.5 PF
Integrated Meter Validation Procedure
•
•
•
Since the MW load and power factor vary from line to
line, the maximum acceptable error for the in-service
validation is set to the maximum error allowed in the
bench test, 0.3%
If the in-service validation fails to meet this tolerance
requirement, a full bench test shall be conducted on the
meter
If the loading on the line is insufficient to perform an inservice validation test, a bench test is performed
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
DESERT SOUTHWEST REGION
IN-SERVICE METER VALIDATION
Location:
Circuit:
Customer:
Contract #:
Date:
Winterhaven
Pilot Knob Line
IID
N/A
12/21/2005
Meter #:
Manufacturer:
Meter Type:
Meter S/N:
M Form # / W.O. #
WHV-551
Transdata Inc
Mark V
30207510
2005-725 / 100065763
Nameplate Data
Form
Test Amps
Class
Volts
Elements
Scaler SW
Option SW
Station Print #
0
9J4W
2.5
CL-20
120V
3
0000
0
02 DATE MAX W FWD
03 TIME MAX W FWD
04 KVAR HRS FWD
05 MAX KVAR FWD
06 DATE MAX VAR FWD
07 TIME MAX VAR FWD
08 KW HRS REV
09 MAX KW REV
10 TIME MAX W REV
11 DATE MAX W REV
12 KVAR HRS REV
13 MAX KVAR REV
14 DATE MAX VAR REV
15 TIME MAX VAR REV
Working
00937.6
00000.0
12:21:05
08:30:00
04774.4
00000.4
12:16:05
13:00:00
08687.2
00000.6
07:00:00
12:17:05
00460.5
00000.0
12:21:05
08:30:00
Input Sensor Used:
Test Run #
Time
Test Function
Ke
# Pulses
Metric
% Registration
% Error
0
0
1200
Yes
30
175
1
0
Register Reads
TIME
00 KW HRS FWD
8:32:30
01 MAX KW FWD
Meter Test
Address
Password
Baud Rate
Mass Memory
CT Ratio (*/1)
PT Ratio (*/1)
Comm Port
1
8:37:06 AM
Wh
0.1
50
5.017971
99.641861
-0.358135
2
8:39:18 AM
Wh
0.1
50
5.01835
99.626808
-0.373185
29 KW HRS FWD
30 MAX KW FWD
31 DATE MAX W FWD
32 TIME MAX W FWD
33 KVAR HRS FWD
34 MAX KVAR FWD
35 DATE MAX VAR FWD
36 TIME MAX VAR FWD
37 KW HRS REV
38 MAX KW REV
39 DATE MAX W REV
40 TIME MAX W REV
41 KVAR HRS REV
42 MAX KVAR REV
43 DATE MAX VAR REV
44 TIME MAX VAR REV
KYZ Chan (Ke)
Mass Mem
Secondary Kh
Primary Kh
KWH Mult
Dem Mult
KYZ Pulse Mult
Scada Mult
Dem Interval
Storage
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
RR-KYZ Input Adapter
3
8:41:15 AM
Wh
0.1
50
5.018002
99.655067
-0.344932
Average
Ke
# Pulses
Metric
% Registration
% Error
RESULT:
Standard Data
Manufacturer
Radian Research Inc.
Tested By:
Remarks:
Model #
0.5
0.45
1.8
9,450
5250
5250
2625
2.625
30
RD-33-373
Serial #
Matt Caldwell
Date
Meter tested out of tolerance. See Bench Test Sheet for additional test results.
0.1
50
5.018108
99.641245
-0.358751
FAIL
300110
12/21/2005
Integrated Meter Validation Procedure
QUESTIONS??
(602) 605-2517
[email protected]
JPA SWAT Short Circuit Study
Group Update
July 12, 2006
Phoenix, AZ
Short Circuit Work affects
System Reliability
• Relay Misoperations – Fail to Operate or
Operate When They Shouldn’t
• Equipment Damage due to Failure to Operate
Relays
• Circuit Breakers and Other Equipment Failure
because not Properly Rated
Power System Operational
Reliability
•
Correct Relay Operation
•
Correct Breaker Ratings
•
Reliability Depends on Accurate Fault
Current Calculations
Reasons to Form Regional Short
Circuit Working Group
• The interconnected system requires
cooperation between everyone for accurate
short circuit data
• There was no formalized mechanism in place
by WECC or other Arizona regional groups for
coordination of the short circuit case
SWAT SCWG Footprint
4 Main Areas of Work
• Annual Operating Case
• Common Impedance Maps
• Common Study Methodologies
• Annual Standards Review
Annual Short Circuit Operating Case
• Improved Short Circuit Data for Relay Settings
• Improved Short Circuit Data for Breaker Duty Evaluations
• Improved Short Circuit Data for Safety Grounding and Arc
Flash Evaluation
• Improved Reliability of System Operation and Safety of
Maintenance Personnel
Common Impedance Maps
• Useful for seeing Short Circuit Case and Planning
Case Updates
• One set of maps reduces duplication of effort
• Easy to make changes for annual operating case
by marking drawings
Common Methodologies
• One set of breaker methodologies chosen for
the jointly owned stations
• Other methods, such as safety grounding, etc.
developed as guidelines
• Information sharing forum
Annual Standards Review
• Breaker Duty Studies, TRV Studies, Switching
Studies, and Safety Grounding Studies based on
standards
• Standards can change without a change in study
methodologies
• Annual review of standards changes to determine if
study methodology changes required
SWAT SCWG Accomplishments
• Webpage setup and linked to SWAT Website
• Charter (Scope) Finalized
• All SWAT Transmission Owners joined
• 6 meetings held since starting in January
• Monthly meeting schedule
• Impedance Map Plan Developed
• Working on Combining First Case
SWAT Webpage
SWAT SCWG Webpage
SWAT SCWG Charter
SWAT SCWG Webpage
SWAT SCWG Webpage
Impedance Maps Work
• Most Impedance Maps Are Out of Date
• List of Items to be Placed On Maps Developed
• A Single Set of Impedance Maps to be Generated
• Requested SWAT to Develop WestConnect Funding of Impedance
Map Generation
• Only 2 WestConnect Members not Members of SWAT SCWG
SWAT SCWG Webpage
Combined Case
• Plan Developed
• Conversions Currently being Checked
• Zones for Members being Developed
• Equivalents to be Checked
• Cases to be Combined
Future Work
• Combine CCPG SCWG Case
• Combine STEP SCWG Case (if developed)
• Develop Common Methodologies
• Review of Standards
• Start on next Annual Case and Impedance Maps
Update (refinements)
Future Refinements
• Add Mutual Coupling
• Add Line Charging Capacitance
• Add Motors
• Check Transformer, Line, Shunt, Generator,
and Load Data
Questions?
(602) 605-2668
[email protected]
NOPR TIMELINE FOR FILING
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) was issued 5-1806
• OATT NOPR Comments/Compliance Filing Team was
formed 6-1-06
• Charter drafted 6-8-06
• Conference Call 6-8-06 to determine issues for response
and develop Western’s approach
• Regional representatives submit input to the team by COB
6-16-06
• Technical and Legal Team Leads compile input into first
draft response by 6-30-06
• Review by Team representatives by COB 7-7-06
NOPR TIMELINE (cont’d)
• Technical and Legal Team Leads compile second draft for
review by PSOC by COB 7-12-06
• PSOC review completed by 7-17-06 and coordinated with
BPA
• Team representatives respond to PSOC comments by COB
7-24-06
• Final draft response to DOE’s General Counsel for review
by COB 7-26-06
• DOE’s General Counsel review completed by 8-2-06
• Western will submit the completed response to FERC by
COB 8-7-06
TOP ISSUES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transmission Planning
Imbalance Pricing
Capacity Reassignment
Redispatch Service
Conditional Firm Service
Hourly Firm Service
Reservation Priority
Secondary Network Service
(602) 605-2774
[email protected]
JPA Meeting 2006
POISE / OASIS
• What
is POISE?
• Current Scheduling System
• Future Scheduling System
• OASIS Customer Support
JPA Meeting 2006
POISE / OASIS
• What is POISE?
P – Power
O – Operations
I – Integrated
S – Systems
E - Environment
• Groups Comprising POISE
- Information Technology
- Interchange Scheduling
- Transmission Planning & Industry Restructuring
- Reliability Generation
- Load and Resources
JPA Meeting 2006
Current Scheduling System
Transmission Request
Customer Submit E-Tag
E-Tag
OASIS
Effects
1. No Communication
From OASIS to ETag and Scheduling
to OASIS
2. Manual Processes In
Place
Limited Validation
Manual Process
After Tag is Implemented
It becomes a schedule
Scheduling
JPA Meeting 2006
POISE Scheduling System
Transmission Request
Customer Submit E-Tag
E-Tag
OASIS
Effects
Full Validation
Potential to Automate
Process
1. Communications amongst
all three systems
2. Automate some processes
3. Increase Non-Firm ATC
4. Industry Standardization
Send Schedule Data
Increase Non-Firm ATC
Send Approved Tags
to Scheduling System
Scheduling
JPA Meeting 2006
POISE / OASIS
• Effective date
– The date of implementation is December 1, 2006
• Who will be impacted
– This will have an impact on OATT customers
• Issues
– There are still many open issues that need to be decided
JPA Meeting 2006
POISE / OASIS
• OASIS/OATT Customer Support
– Open Access Transmission Tariff
■ Questions and “What If” Scenarios
Please contact:
John Steward
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (602) 605-2774
OR
Nancy Whitson
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (602) 605-2667
JPA Meeting 2006
POISE / OASIS
QUESTIONS ?????
(602) 605-2634
[email protected] (602) 605-2608 [email protected]
10 YEAR STUDIES &
MAINTENANCE/CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM
• Northwest Region (South of Mead)
– Load Serving Capabilities (Johnston)
– Maintenance/Construction Program (Radosevich)
– Questions
• Central Region (South of Phoenix)
– Load Serving Capabilities (Johnston)
– Maintenance/Construction Program (Radosevich)
– Questions
Ten Year Study
• Analyze the existing construction ten year
plan using engineering planning criteria
– Analysis will aid in prioritizing future proposed
construction projects
– Results may re-shape existing construction plan
– Results will approximate each proposed project
in potential increased MW to Western’s system
capabilities
Ten Year Study
• Purposes
– Benchmark DSW system 2006 to 2015
– Identify capability of each project
• Results
– Transmission line operating limits
– Load-serving capabilities
– Import capabilities
Study Methodology
• WECC-approved power flow cases
– Study cases used for EOR rating studies
– Arizona heavy summer cases
• Years 2006, 2008, 2012, 2015
• Coordinated by Arizona utilities
– DSW study cases
• Started with 2006 contact loads
• Evaluated possible future transmission projects
Study Methodology
• Divided DSW system into study regions
–
–
–
–
–
Northwest
Southwest
Central
Southeast
All rest of DSW
Study Regions Defined
Study Methodology
– For each study region, developed several generation
scenario base cases
– For each generation scenario case, increased regional
load with corresponding increase in regional import to
identify violations:
• Line thermal violations
• Bus voltage violations
– For particular generation scenarios, ran sensitivities:
• Operation of Liberty and Perkins phase shifters
• Level of Central Arizona Project (CAP) pumping load
• Power factor of regional loads
Legend for Maps
Ten Year Projects in Northwest Study
Area
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
COST
IN
$1000
YRS
STUDY
IMPACT
DAVIS
SWITCHYARD
UPGRADE OLD 69-Kv
EQUIPMENT
$1,069
0911
NONE
BUCHANAN
BLVD
REBUILD DEGRADED
MEAD ACESS ROAD
$2,788
0710
NONE
MEAD-BASIC
230kV
RECONDUCTOR 12.76
MILES OF CU CONDUCT.
$1,955
1517
NONE
CLARK TAP
ADD CTS AND METERS
$442
0607
NONE
DAVIS-TOPOCK
RECONDUCTOR
RECONDUCTOR USING
3M
$29,000
0607
YES
DAVIS-MEAD
RECONDUCTOR
RECONDUCTOR USING
ACSS OR 3M
??
0708
YES
RECONDUCTOR
Northwest Study Region
• Study Results
– Benchmarks
• Load-serving capability approx. 2100 MW
• Import capability approx. 2015 MW
• Current contracts approx. 950 MW (360 MW CAP)
– Path increases from Benchmarks
• 50 MW on Path D TTC (Phoenix/west)
• 50 MW on Path G TTC (S. Nevada/Davis)
• Up to 80 MW on Path SS (Gene/Parker)
Northwest Study Region
Path G (S. NV/Davis)
530 MW
(50 MW increase)
Peacock Transformer
385 MW
Study Results
Path SS (Gene/Parker)
140 MW
MW increase pending)
Capability
MW
Import
2015
Load
2100
(80
Path D (Phoenix/west)
775 MW
(50 MW increase)
Summary of Existing Regional Contracts
Path BB
185 MW
Total Contract
950
CAP
360 (Non-Growable)
*Net Growable
590 (Growable)
Northwest Study Region
• Interconnection on Davis-Topock #1
– Re-conductor Davis-Topock #1 year 2007
– Commission substation year 2008
– MEC SIS Report published June 2005
• Re-conductor 60 miles Mead-Davis 230kV
– In-service date 2008
– Results in approx. increase 170 MW TTC Path G
Time Frames for Upgrades
• Additional system upgrades needed
technically in approximately:
– 10 years if load uniformly increases 10% per
year
• Actual projected peak loads from customers
will provide greater certainty
QUESTIONS???
Ten Year Projects in Central Study Area
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
COST
IN
$1000
YRS
CAG-EMPIRE
230kV TLINE
UPGRADE EXISTING
LINE TO 230kV
$6,240
0709
EMPIRE-ED5
230kV TLINE
UPGRADE EXISTING
LINE TO 230kV
$4,935
0710
ED5-ED-4 230kV
TLINE
UPGRADE EXISTING
LINE TO 230kV
$3,442
1214
ED4-ED-2 230kV
TLINE
UPGRADE EXISTING
LINE TO 230kV
$3,479
1214
COOLIDGE -ED-2
230kV TLINE
UPGRADE TWO
LINES TO 230kV
$9,58
1315
EMPIRE TAP
CHANGE MOI TO BKRS
$6,345
7-09
CASA GRANDE
UPGRADE TO 230kV
$4,349
11-13
ED5
UPGRADE TO 230kV
$5,295
7-10
ED-4
UPGRADE TO 230kV
$6,469
10-12
ED-2
UPGRADE TO 230kV
$8,789
9-11
COOLIDGE
UPGRADE TO 230kV
$3,419
10-11
SAGUAROORACLE
WOOD POLE
REPLACEMENT
$1,866
7-8
COOLIDGEORICLE
WOOD POLE
REPLACEMENT
$462
7-8
Central Study Region
•
Study Results
–
2006 Benchmarks
•
•
•
Load-serving capability approx. 650 MW
Current contracts approx. 375 MW
Technical violations occur in this order
1. Casa Grande - Empire - ED5 115 kV lines
2. ED5 - ED4 - ED2 - Coolidge 115kV lines
Central Study Region
• Load serving capability after reconductoring:
– Casa Grande - Empire - ED5 115 kV lines
• Approx. 1120 MW
• Increase of 1120-650 = 470 MW
– ED5 - ED4 - ED2 - Coolidge 115kV lines
• Approx. 1310 MW
• Increase of 1310-1120 = 190 MW
Time Frames for Upgrades
• System upgrades needed technically in approximately:
– 6 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year
• After reconductoring Casa Grande - Empire – ED5
– 11 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year
• After reconductoring ED5 – ED4 – ED2 - Coolidge
– 13 years if load uniformly increases 10% per year
• Having actual projected peak loads from customers will
decrease uncertainties
Order of Thermal Violations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Empire – ED5 (@650 MW)
Casa Grande – Empire (@810 MW)
Coolidge – ED2 (@1120 MW)
Voltage violations occur approx. 1200 MW
Saguaro – ED5 #1 (@1310 MW)
Saguaro – ED5 #2 (@1310 MW)
Tucson – Oracle (@1310 MW)
Coolidge – Valley Farms (@1330 MW)
Saguaro – Oracle (@1365 MW)
ED4 – ED5 (@1500 MW)
ED2 – ED4 (@1700 MW)
230kV System Upgrade
• 230kV planned upgrades do not increase
system load serving capability significantly
– Due to overloads of other existing 115kV lines
– Does provide increased voltage support
Next Studies
• Study all study regions with customerprovided peak load projections for next 10
years
• Study Southwest study area
• Study Southeast study area
• Study rest of DSW system
QUESTIONS???
(602) 605-2605
[email protected]
RW Studies and Standards
Line Voltage
(Kilovolts)
Type of
Construction (1)
Width of
Right-of-Way (feet)
Nominal
Span (feet)
Maximum
Span (feet)
46 or under
Single Wood Pole (2)
30
300
375
46 or under
H-Frame Wood Pole
65
700
875
69
Single Wood Pole (2)
30
300
375
69
H-Frame Wood Pole
75
700
875
115
Single Wood Pole (2)
40
300
375
115
H-Frame Wood Pole
80
700
875
115
Single Steel Pole (3)
80
1000
1200
138
H-Frame Wood Pole
80
700
875
161
H-Frame Wood Pole
85
700
875
230
H-Frame Wood Pole
100
700
875
230
H-Frame Wood Pole
100
1000
1200
230
Single Steel Pole (3)
150
1200
1375
345
Steel Tower
175
1200
1375
500
Steel Tower
200
1500
2000
T-Line Name
kV
Project
In Svs PREFER
Date
WIDTH
PRIVATE
TRACTS
WIDTH
STATE
Hoover - Mead #1
230 BC
1942
150
TRACTS
1
3
WIDTH
125
200
Hoover - Mead #2
Hoover - Mead #3
Hoover - Mead #4
Hoover - Mead #5
Hoover - Mead #6
Hoover - Mead #7
Hoover - Mead #8
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
1942
1939
1960
1938
1940
1936
1936
150
150
150
150
150
11
11
12
14
14
200
200
185
200
250
Flagstaff - Pinnacle Peak #1
Flagstaff - Pinnacle Peak #2
Glen Canyon Dam - Glen Canyon #1
Glen Canyon - Navajo
Kayenta - Navajo
Kayenta - Shiprock
Liberty - Peacock
Mead - Peacock
Griffith - Peacock
345
345
345
230
230
230
345
345
230
129
128
150
150
232
125
175
150
Griffith - McConnico
230
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
INT
INT
INT
INT
PD
3
80
Henderson - Mead #1
Henderson - Mead #2
Lone Butte - Test Track
Parker - Topock
Peacock - Prescott
Rogers - Coolidge
230
230
230
230
230
230
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
16
200
1
11
200
125
Santa Rosa - Test Track
South Point - Topock #1
South Point - Topock #2
230 PD
230 PD
230 PD
PD
Grand
7
>100
1965
1966
1964
1964
1964
1964
1968
1968
2000
175
175
24
11
150
150
150
6
5
0
125
175
110
150
2000
100
42/04
1969
2005
2000
1951
1951
150
150
100
3
4
2
4
VAR
80
125
0
70
125
2005
2000
2000
TRACTS
13
14
57
WIDTH
FEDERAL/BIA
150
150
150
100
150
100
12
125