Update on node-breaker model development WECC MVWG meeting Phoenix, AZ Brian Thomas (GE)

1. Update on node-breaker model development WECC MVWG meeting Phoenix, AZ Brian Thomas (GE) Slaven Kincic (WECC) Donald Davies (WECC) November, 2013

2. Agenda • Background • PSLF updates • Mapping • Challenges

3. Background • Import node-breaker West-Wide System Model (WSM) in PSLF • Facilitate use of common dynamics data for planning and operations • Model validation using real time data • Reconciling the modeling differences and challenges working with WECC and WECC RC staff

4. PSLF Updates • WSM model can be directly imported in PSLF • EMS labels for devices • Bus-branch or node-breaker or hybrid model • New set of tools and features to help users PSLF 19 Quick DEMO

5. Mapping • Summary of work • Mapping format and its benefits • Includes data not available in WSM like base load unit • Can be used by MVWG, WBRTF, TEPPC • Future work • Reduce the list of unmapped units • Reconcile modeling differences

6. Mapping Tool for WECC • Validation of mapping for any manual additions • Automates incremental mapping updates • Automates mapping updates when underlying WSM model and/or Planning base case is changed • Exports mapping file which can be directly read into PSLF • Eliminates man-days of effort manually updating the mapping

7. Differences in number of generators WSM Model Planning Model • Question • Which dynamics model to use for HAUSER_M units in the WSM case? • Does the WSM model need to be updated to reconcile this issue?

8. Differences in number of wind generators WSM Model Planning Model

9. Multiple generators with same attributes, it is difficult to differentiate one generator from other • Question • Should we even worry about these? • In this case above, all the units have genptj and exst1 model but with different characteristics

10. Generator terminal kV doesn’t match

11. Generator MVA doesn’t match

12. Summary of issues with mapping generators • Nodes with kV < 2.2 not modeled in WSM. Because of this, generators in planning case which are on buses < 2.2 kV could not be mapped. Also, for some buses with kV >2.2kV in the planning case there is no corresponding bus in the WSM case. • For 1 bus in the WSM model, there may be more buses in the planning case. • For some generators with same attributes, it is difficult to differentiate one generator from other. • Generator terminal kV doesn’t match • Generator MVA ratings doesn’t match

13. Station Service Loads Planning Model WSM Model • Use of net generation will lead to model validation issues • Should we add rules based upon the experience with power plant testing for large units?

14. HVDC Modeling • Transformer reactance per bridge in WSM is almost 1/4th to 1/5th times the value seen in planning case. • Commutating reactance calculated from WSM data is 1/10th of the values as seen in planning cases. • Modeling individual bridge in WSM model vs. Entire Pole in planning modeling • E.g. CELILO bridges 1,3,5,7 are modeled as individual bridges in WSM case. This is modeled as 1 pole with 4 bridges in planning base cases. • Two alternative options • Create equivalent pole model from WSM data to match planning model • Reframe HVDC problem in power flow solution and update PDCI user written model • Need guidance from HVDC task force.

15. SVD modeling Planning Model WSM Model • Should we group shunts and create SVD’s from WSM data to use existing solution techniques • OR • Should we add new solution techniques and new models to solve this problem by adding priority based or sensitivity based solution techniques

16. Thank you!