Transcript TPL Standards - North American Electric Reliability

Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop
Sponsored by NERC PC –June 3, 2008
1. NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines
2. Opening Remarks and Introductions
3. Workshop Objectives
4. Background
• Drafting Team Objectives
• Update on Standard Drafting
Team Activities
• Brief Overview of Proposed
Standard
1
Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop
Sponsored by NERC PC –June 3, 2008
5. High Level Overview of Comments Received
6. Highlight of Areas where Drafting Team
made changes
7. Major areas where the industry has differing
views
8. Q & A
9. Proposed Drafting Team Schedule
10. Discussion of PC involvement
11. Wrap-up
2
TPL Standards Workshop
Sponsored by NERC PC
Toronto – June 3, 2008
John Odom
Florida Reliability Coordinating
Council
ATFNSDT Roster
 John Odom, FRCC (Chair)
 Bernie Pasternack, AEP
 Bob Millard, RFC
 Bob Pierce, Duke Paul
Rocha, CenterPoint
(Vice chair)
 Darrin Church, TVA
 Bill Harm, PJM
 Doug Hohlbaugh,
FirstEnergy
 Bob Jones, Southern
 Chifong Thomas, PG&E
 Yury Tsimberg, Hydro One
 Jim Useldinger, KCPL
 Dana Walters, National Grid
 Bob Williams, FMPA
 Brian Keel, SRP
 Tom Mielnik, MidAmerican
4
ATFNSDT Observers
 Ray Kershaw, ATC
 Doug Powell, Entergy
 Hari Singh, ATC
 Tom Gentile, Quanta Technology
 Daniela Hammons, Centerpoint
 NERC Staff Coordinator – Ed Dobrowolski
5
Workshop Objectives
1. Update PC on Standard Drafting Team
(SDT) efforts.
2. Highlight areas where SDT made
changes from 1st posting.
3. Highlight areas where industry consensus
has not been reached.
4. Q & A to clarify SDT positions and begin
to formulate a NERC PC position.
6
Background – Drafting Team
Objectives
Create a new standard that:
1. Has clear, enforceable requirements
2. Is not a Least Common Denominator
standard
3. Addresses the issues raised in the
SAR and issues raised by FERC and
others
7
Background- Update on Standard
Drafting Team Activities
 The first draft was posted for comment from Sept. 12,
2007 through Oct. 26, 2007.
 Response was very good
 More than 80 sets of comments
 233 different people
 80 companies
 9 of the 10 Industry Segments
 5 face-to-face meetings & 6 full team conference calls &
many more sub-team conference calls
 2nd posting completed & under review by NERC Staff
8
Background – Brief Overview of
Proposed Standards
 Upcoming draft remains very similar to
1st draft
 R1 – Maintaining models (moved
modeling requirements to end)
 R2 – Assessment and Corrective
Action Plan requirements
 R3 – Steady State Analysis
 R4 – Short Circuit Analysis (was part
of R2)
9
Background – Brief Overview of
Proposed Standards
 Upcoming draft remains very similar to
1st draft
 R5 (old R4) – Stability Analysis
 R6 – Define & document how
cascading and voltage instability are
addressed
 R7 (old R5) – Identify work
coordination amongst planners
10
Background – Brief Overview of
Proposed Standards
 Upcoming draft remains very similar to
1st draft
 R8 (old R6) – Make assessment
available to other planners
 Coordinate open and transparent
peer review process
 R9 – R14 (old R1) – Modeling
details, e.g. planned outages, etc.
11
Background – Brief Overview of
Proposed Standards
 Performance Tables
 Table 1 – Steady state
 Table 2 - Stability
12
High Level Overview of
Comments Received
 Draft standard still not clear
 Many commenter's agreed with general
approach
 Most significant disagreements were based on:
1. Lack of clarity in the draft standard
2. Disagreed with a specific requirement,
often based on cost to implement
3. Thought that standard caused too much
study work
13
High Level Overview of
Comments Received
1. Definitions
2. Sensitivity Studies
3. Corrective Action Plans
4. Performance Requirements
5. Stability
14
High Level Overview of
Comments Received
6. Generation runback and Tripping
7. General Questions
Short circuit requirements
Proxies for instability, cascading outages
and uncontrolled islanding
Actions allowed to prepare for next
contingencies
Applicable ratings
Define bus-tie breaker
15
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Most definitions modified for clarity
 Consequential Load Loss – concern
about what, if any, local load should
be treated the same as Consequential
Load
 Year One more detailed –
acknowledge moving window
16
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Relationship of modeling
requirements in TPL standard to other
modeling standards (MOD series)
 Identify gaps – modeling needed for
TPL not in MOD standards
 Identify how results of modeling
standards are to be used in TPL
17
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Sensitivity studies modified and
clarified
 Include additional studies as
appropriate
 Must run at least one basic sensitivity
– explain why others not needed
 Qualifications for “past” studies more
defined
18
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Corrective Action Plan
 Examples of type of “actions”
expanded, include SPS/RAS, etc
 Sensitivity studies considered but
not sole basis for “actions”
19
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) or
Special Protection Systems (SPS)
may be allowed but should not be
inadvertently encouraged
 Eliminate differences between
“committed” and “planned” projects
 Generator redispatch and tripping
detailed and clarified throughout
requirements
20
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Clarify the acceptable results
immediately after event and also
what actions are allowed to prepare
for the next event
 Firm Non-Consequential load should
not be lost for single contingency
21
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Treatment of “firm” transfers
clarified
 Mapped requirements to FERC
Orders 693 & 890
 Standard must have a detailed
implementation plan
22
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Performance Requirements (Tables)

Changed “Equipment Ratings shall not be
exceeded” to “Facility Ratings shall not be
exceeded. Planned System adjustments are
allowed, unless precluded in the Requirements,
to keep Facilities within the Facility Ratings, if
such adjustments are executable within the
time duration applicable to the Facility Ratings.”
 Re-formatted tables for clarity.
23
Areas Where Drafting Team
Made Changes
 Added P0 – Normal System
Conditions
 Loss of one element, followed by
system adjustments, followed by loss
of a second element – changed to
allow non-consequential load loss
 Clarified wide area events in extreme
events
24
Major Areas Where The Industry
Has Differing Views
 Should there be different performance
requirements for facilities above
300kV?
25
Major Areas Where The Industry
Has Differing Views
 Should the use of generation tripping
be limited?
26
Major Areas Where The Industry
Has Differing Views
 Should there be a requirement to
model dynamic loads?
27
Major Areas Where The Industry
Has Differing Views
 Should there be an exception to allow
“local load” loss for single
contingencies?
28
Major Areas Where The Industry
Has Differing Views
 Are the performance requirement
changes made in the proposed
standard appropriate?
29
Major Areas Where The Industry
Has Differing Views
 Are the new study requirements and
documentation in the proposed
standard appropriate?
30
Major Areas Where The Industry
Has Differing Views
 Is the starting point for required studies
in the proposed standard defined
adequately?
31
Industry Involvement
 SDT should issue responses to comments
and the 2nd draft this month
 More consensus needed before items like
VSLs are proposed
 Everyone is encouraged to provide specific
comments and discuss issues with SDT
members
32
Questions & Answers
33
Proposed Drafting Team Schedule
Monthly meetings with conference
calls every two weeks
Post 3rd Draft in December 2008
Post 4th Draft in April or May 2009
Ballot in June or July 2009
34
Discussion of PC Involvement
 Next steps
- to be discussed at PC meeting
35
Wrap-up
Thank you
for your participation
36