SPP DLTF Update November, Derek Brown Scott Jordan

Transcription

1

2 SPP DLTF Update November, Derek Brown derek.brown@westarenergy.com Scott Jordan sjordan@spp.org

3 SPP Dynamic Load Task Force The DLTF oversees the development, implementation, and modification of Dynamic Load Models within the SPP footprint to support compliance with NERC Reliability Standard TPL Requirements. The DLTF reviews and updates the SPP Disturbance Performance Requirements as necessary. 3

4 SPP DLTF Members Derek Brown, Chairman Westar Energy (WERE) Brian Brownlow - Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) Reené Miranda Xcel Energy (SPS) Mathew Stoltz Basin Electric Power Cooperatives (BEPC) Liam Stringham Sunflower Electric (SUNC) Marcus Moor Kansas City Power and Light (KCPL) Chris Colson Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Scott Jordan, Secretary - Southwest Power Pool (SPP) 4

5 Dynamic Load Modeling in SPP TPL requires dynamic load modeling. The DLTF proposes a phased implementation of dynamic load models in the SPP footprint to allow SPP Staff and members to gather data for and benchmark the effects of these models. 5

6 Dynamic Load Models The industry as a whole is moving towards the implementation and refinement of the Composite Load Model (CMLD), which has over 130 parameters that need to be specified. Source: ECC%20Composite%20Load%20Mo del%20specifications% docx The SPP DLTF has been compiling default data sets from industry for certain types of non-scalable (industrial) load to ease the burden of this transition in SPP. 6

7 Default Data sets The SPP DLTF has compiled data for the following types of loads: 1. Petro-Chemical Plant 2. Paper Mills (Kraft and Thermo-mechanical process) 3. Aluminum Smelter 4. Steel Mill 5. Mining Operation 6. Semiconductor Plant 7. Server Farm 8. Agricultural Irrigation Loads 9. Large Pumping Stations 10. Power Plant Auxiliary 11. Industrial - Other 7

8 SPP Benchmarking Load modeling and contingency events were coordinated through a survey with the SPP modeling contacts in 2016 for benchmarking efforts. Two cases were run using the contingency events provided. The 2016 Series MDWG 2017 Summer Peak dynamics case was utilized: 1. Base case - Load modeling as represented in the original build. 2. Change Case 1- CMLDs at non-scalable loads provided by the SPP modeling contacts in the 2016 survey. 3. Change Case 2 Change Case 1 plus CMLD representations using Industrial Other data at all non-scalable loads in the SPP footprint greater than or equal to 10 MW. Approximately 4.7 GW of SPP s total Summer footprint load of 60 GW. 8

9 SPP Benchmarking Results Benchmarking analysis indicates the impact of adding composite load models as represented in Change Cases 1 and 2 to the SPP footprint during Summer Peak conditions is minor. No new violations of the SPP Disturbance Performance Requirements were created in Change Cases 1 and 2. The plots on the following pages provide a visual confirmation of these results. 9

10 SPP Benchmarking Results Example 1 TPL P4 345 kv Stuck Breaker Event in NPPD s System 10

11 SPP Benchmarking Results Example 2 TPL P1 161 kv Line Event in KCPL s System 11

12 SPP Benchmarking Results Example 3 TPL P1 161 kv Line Event in Westar s System 12

13 SPP DLTF Recommendation The SPP DLTF recommends requiring all 10 MW or greater nonscalable loads in the SPP footprint to have a CMLD representation. Absent detailed data from applicable MOD-032 contacts, the Industrial Other data set will be used. o The 10 MW threshold aligns with the SPP Tariff Attachment AE Section 2.2 threshold requirement for market registration and satisfies industry recommendations for CMLD application If adopted, this would require a subsequent revision to the SPP MDWG Procedure Manual. The SPP DLTF will create a survey and compile documentation on the CMLD to send out to SPP MOD-032 Contacts to aid in meeting this requirement. 13

14 SPP MDWG Procedure Manual Revision Current Language in Section 13.B.4: o All demand data shall include a load model which represents the expected dynamic behavior of the loads. Absent detailed dynamic load models, the real portion (MW) of all demand data is converted to 100% constant current and the reactive portion (Mvar) of all demand data is converted to 100% constant admittance. Proposed Update: o All demand data shall include a load model which represents the expected dynamic behavior of the loads. Non-scalable loads greater than or equal to 10 MW are required to have a dynamic load model representation. For all other types of loads, absent detailed dynamic load models, the real portion (MW) of all demand data is converted to 100% constant current and the reactive portion (Mvar) of all demand data is converted to 100% constant admittance. The SPP DLTF obtained approval for this change for implementation in the 2018 Series Dynamics Build 14

15 Future Activities More Benchmarking and Requirements Review The SPP DLTF plans to start benchmarking a broader implementation of the CMLD based on default data sets to identify any limitation from both a software and system performance perspective. We are also planning to revisit the SPP Disturbance Performance Requirements. Potential work includes: 1. The creation of an Application Guide 2. A review of the damping ratio requirements 3. A review of the transient voltage requirements 15

16 Questions? 16