Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop Sponsored by NERC PC –June 3, 2008Sponsored 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 Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop Sponsored by NERC PC –June 3, 2008Sponsored 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 TPL Standards Workshop Sponsored by NERC PCSponsored by NERC PCToronto – June 3, 2008Toronto – June 3, 2008
John OdomJohn Odom
Florida Reliability Coordinating Florida Reliability Coordinating CouncilCouncil
ATFNSDT RosterATFNSDT Roster
John Odom, FRCC (Chair)
Bob Millard, RFC
(Vice chair)
Darrin Church, TVA
Bill Harm, PJM
Doug Hohlbaugh, FirstEnergy
Bob Jones, Southern
Brian Keel, SRP
Tom Mielnik, MidAmerican
Bernie Pasternack, AEP
Bob Pierce, Duke Paul Rocha, CenterPoint
Chifong Thomas, PG&E
Yury Tsimberg, Hydro One
Jim Useldinger, KCPL
Dana Walters, National Grid
Bob Williams, FMPA
4
ATFNSDT ObserversATFNSDT Observers
Ray Kershaw, ATC
Doug Powell, Entergy
Hari Singh, ATC
Tom Gentile, Quanta Technology
Daniela Hammons, Centerpoint
NERC Staff Coordinator – Ed Dobrowolski
5
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.
Workshop ObjectivesWorkshop Objectives
6
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
Background – Drafting Team Background – Drafting Team ObjectivesObjectives
7
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
Background- Update on Standard Background- Update on Standard Drafting Team ActivitiesDrafting Team Activities
8
Background – Brief Overview of Background – Brief Overview of Proposed StandardsProposed 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 Background – Brief Overview of Proposed StandardsProposed 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 Background – Brief Overview of Proposed StandardsProposed 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 Background – Brief Overview of Proposed StandardsProposed Standards
Performance Tables
Table 1 – Steady state
Table 2 - Stability
12
High Level Overview of High Level Overview of Comments Received 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 High Level Overview of Comments Received Comments Received
1. Definitions
2. Sensitivity Studies
3. Corrective Action Plans
4. Performance Requirements
5. Stability
14
High Level Overview of High Level Overview of Comments Received Comments Received
6. Generation runback and Tripping
7. General QuestionsShort 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Areas Where Drafting Team Made ChangesMade 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 Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing ViewsHas Differing Views
Should there be different performance requirements for facilities above 300kV?
25
Major Areas Where The Industry Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing ViewsHas Differing Views
Should the use of generation tripping be limited?
26
Major Areas Where The Industry Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing ViewsHas Differing Views
Should there be a requirement to model dynamic loads?
27
Major Areas Where The Industry Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing ViewsHas Differing Views
Should there be an exception to allow “local load” loss for single contingencies?
28
Major Areas Where The Industry Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing ViewsHas Differing Views
Are the performance requirement changes made in the proposed standard appropriate?
29
Major Areas Where The Industry Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing ViewsHas Differing Views
Are the new study requirements and documentation in the proposed standard appropriate?
30
Major Areas Where The IndustryMajor Areas Where The IndustryHas Differing ViewsHas Differing Views
Is the starting point for required studies in the proposed standard defined adequately?
31
Industry InvolvementIndustry 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 & AnswersQuestions & Answers
33
Proposed Drafting Team Schedule Proposed Drafting Team Schedule
34
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
Discussion of PC Involvement Discussion of PC Involvement
35
Next steps
- to be discussed at PC meeting
Wrap-up Wrap-up
36
Thank you
for your participation
