verification and validation of transient stability models ... · pdf fileverification and...
TRANSCRIPT
Verification and Validation of Transient Stability Models and Results
Thomas J. Overbye, Komal ShetyeUniversity of Illinois at [email protected], [email protected]
June 30, 2015
Project Synopsis
• Over last five years UIUC and WSU have been working with BPA to do transient stability verification, with a primary focus on comparing results between PowerWorld, PSLF, TSAT, and (somewhat) PSSE– Verification is defined as making sure the packages have
correctly implemented the specified models– Over last year the project has also addressed validation, which is
defined as determining how well the models represent the actual system
• Verification goal has been to get the packages to give near similar results – We believe the goal has been met, particularly between
PowerWorld and PSLF
2
Reason for Project
• Software verification and dynamic model validation should ultimately provide better dynamic analysis tools and models
• Transient stability packages are complex, supporting hundreds of different models, each having many parameters and potentially different modes of operation– Errors can be missed, even in code that has been used for
decades for studies– Multiple packages can also be used to more quickly determine
errors in both old and new system models– The impact of underlying assumptions can be better considered
3
Example: Hydro Governor Non-Windup Limits
• One issue found during the verification work was the modeling of non-windup limits in hydro governors– Handled quite differently in different packages
4
Example: Hydro Governor Non-Windup Limits
• Seeing differences required a scenario in which governor hit its limit, then backed off its limit
5
Jamie Weberpresentedresults to MVWG inSpring 2014
Approach
• Difference transient stability packages can get different results for a variety of reasons– Different initial power flow cases; the sharing of generator reactive
power among multiple generators is a common difference– Slightly different models dynamic models, such as whether a speed
multiplier is included in the exciter output– Different methods for correcting "bad data"
• Our approach was "zero tolerance" for different results– Greatly helped by PowerWorld's implementing all the different
models and methods for correcting bad data
• Methodology combined looking at results for full system studies (top-down) and for two bus equivalents (bottom-up)
• Details matter!!
6
Project Background
• Current BPA project is an out-growth of an earlier (2011) successfully completed PSERC project (S 43-G), conducted by the UIUC and WSU team; funded entirely at BPA (RD53)• Project developed prototype mechanism to do software package
comparison using the bottom-up approach, but it was done manually, a slow process for thousands of generators
7
TIP 268 Verification Starting Point
59.75
59.8
59.85
59.9
59.95
60
60.05
0 5 10 15 20
Freq
uency (Hz)
Time (seconds)
Bus MALIN
Package A
PSLF
Power‐World
8
Results of Verification
59.75
59.8
59.85
59.9
59.95
60
60.05
0 5 10 15 20
Freq
uency (Hz)
Time (seconds)
Bus MALIN
Package A
PSLF
Power‐World
9
How this was achieved –Verification Methodology
• Analyzed results of the whole system
• Goal: To find the dynamic models causing these system-wide discrepancies
• Automated comparison of large system results – Created a metric to
compare results analytically rather than manually / visually
– L1 norm normalized by time and magnitude
10
59.7
59.8
59.9
60.0
0 5 10 15 20
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
Time (seconds)
Software Package A Software Package B
Spread of 18,000 WECC bus frequenciesSoftware Package A: PowerWorldSoftware Package B: PSLF
d = distance measureX = signal being compared (f, P, Q, etc.)A, B : Software Package
Verification Methodology – Hybrid Top Down + Bottom Up Method
• Top Down: Analyzing system–wide results and going down systematically to individual dynamic models
• Used Interface Signals: e.g. P and Q for generator buses
• Then, use data partitioning technique called “Elbow Point” to find the most discrepant generators in terms of P and Q comparisons
11
69 generators above elbow point for Q comparisons – analyzed further
Verification Methodology – Hybrid Top Down + Bottom Up Method
• Once major discrepant generators are identified, compare them in detail by single machine infinite bus (SMIB) analysis
• Creation of SMIB equivalents automated in PowerWorld
• Bottom Up: Simulate SMIB equivalents to isolate discrepancy causing model(s)
12
TABLE I. Some isolated models, from the large-system example
M E G S Failed Stage Signal(s)
1468 GENTPJ EXST1 PIDGOV PSS2A MG m 1896 GENROU EXAC1 IEEEG1 IEEEST ME fd 838 GENTPF EXST1 GGOV1 WSCCST MEGS s
Verification Methodology – Detection of Causes of Discrepancies
• Method 1: State / Block Diagram Analysis: Comparing states or outputs of blocks as available to narrow the discrepancy to a particular block
13
Integral wind-up seen in Package A but not in B, after frequency playback testPIDGOV block diagram: PI block in gray
Verification Methodology – Detection of Causes of Discrepancies
• Method 2: Clustering parameters: Clustering each parameter of all instances of a particular model type to see which parameter cluster aligns with the discrepant models
• Eg: Only 3 instances of WSCCST out of total 122 instances in the case showed this discrepancy (Buses 33141, 33142, 33143)
• Clustering all instances showed only these 3 had Vcutoff= -1
• PSLF had unclear documentation on what happens when this is 0
14
TABLE I. Key WSCCST parameters, with discrepant generators in grey cs qs qs q q1 pq1 q2 pq2 q3 pq3 smax cutoff slow
838 1 4.5 0 10 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.21 0 0 1 -1 0 839 1 5.1 0 10 0.025 0.25 0.025 0.25 0 0 1 -1 0 840 1 5.1 0 10 0.025 0.25 0.025 0.25 0 0 1 -1 0 1371 3 6 0.05 2 0 0 0.031 0.2 0.031 0.2 0.07 0 -0.07 1715 2 0.45 0 1.5 2.5 0.35 0.03 0.35 0 0 0.05 0 0 585 1 2.4 0 10 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.2 0.06 0 0.05 0 -0.05 ⋮
Now, both PW and PSLF disable this model when Vcutoff = -1, results match
• Final Step: Reporting error causing models / blocks / parameters to software vendor(s)– Helps confirming the error– Model updates and bug fixes– Re-run with update models to verify if results match
• Commonly found causes of errors– Software bugs– Incomplete documentation– “Bad” model parameters: Values that are not handled by the
model, or lack of documentation on how a software package handles them
15
Verification Methodology
Verification Results
• Some key models causing simulation result discrepancies identified / fixed in this project– Machines: GENTPF, GENTPJ - Fixing the frequency
dependent voltage issue drastically improved the system-wide frequency differences between PSLF and PowerWorld
– Exciters: EXAC1, ST4B, ST6B, AC7B, ESAC, etc.– Governors: Hydro governors with PI blocks such as
PIDGOV, GPWSCC, HYG3 etc., GGOV1, GGOV3– Stabilizer: WSCCST– Other Models: OEL1 implementations for different exciter
models, LCFB1– Loads: Static Load, MOTORW, MOTOR1, LDELEC,
LD1PAC, CMPLDW
16
Current Verification Results
• Verification led to a closer match between software packages
59.7
59.8
59.9
60.0
0 5 10 15 20
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
Time (seconds)
Software Package A
Software Package B
Figure shows where we are nowat in package to package comparisons.The largest frequency differences, shown in the figures on the right,are now quite small.
17
Current Verification Results
• Verification led to a closer match between PowerWorld/PSLF and TSAT as well
Malin Bus Voltage
18
Verification of Load Models
• In addition to generator models, performed verification tests for load models such as CMPLDW and its components: 1-ph air conditioner, electronic load, and 3-ph motor models– Methodology: Analysis of Single Load Infinite Bus Equivalents
(SLIBs). Can create automatically at any bus
19
VxejyVssejƟ
InfiniteBus
Load Bus
GENCLS (with signal
playback, e.g. Vx, fy)
Load ModelE.g.
CMPLDW
Eg: Testing contactor functionality of LD1PAC model. Found discrepancy only when voltage recovers above Vc1on. Issue was incorrect scaling of MVA base of the load above Vc1on. This was fixed in PoweWorld.
Verification of Load Models
• Report on CMPLDW benchmarking submitted to WECC MVWG Load Modeling Task Force in Oct 2014 (co-authored w/ BPA and PowerWorld)
20
Verification of Load Models
• One issue one complex load model verification is whether the underlying 3-phase induction motors are modeled with six parameters (like MOTORW) or seven parameters (like MOTOR1, CIM5)
21
The seven parametermodels will givedifferent results
Verification Tool Snapshot
• In progress, prototype GUIs shown here
22
Bus no Gen ID Gen Exc Gov Stab L1Norm
50310 4 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 1.530936
46606 1 GENROU EXAC8B IEEEG1_GE 0 1.254271
33142 1 GENTPF EXST1_GE GGOV1 WSCCST 1.026206
33143 1 GENTPF EXST1_GE GGOV1 WSCCST 1.022152
56357 3 GENROU EXAC1 IEEEG1_GE IEEEST 0.823748
16504 2 GENROU EXAC8B GGOV1 0 0.506081
50307 1 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.494893
46895 B9 GENTPF EXDC1 GPWSCC 0 0.489139
46895 B8 GENTPF EXDC1 GPWSCC 0 0.489139
58355 2 GENROU EXST1_GE GPWSCC PSS2A 0.488326
50308 2 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.434321
50309 3 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.403584
8368 1 GENTPF EXDC4 IEEEG3_GE 0 0.361006
51039 1 GENROU EXST1_GE GGOV1 PSS2A 0.349486
58290 2 GENROU IEEET1 GGOV1 WSCCST 0.331764
40344 1 GENTPJ EXST1_GE IEEEG3_GE PSS2A 0.214824
58354 1 GENROU EXST1_GE GPWSCC PSS2A 0.214785
59223 G4 GENROU EXST1_GE IEEEG1_GE PSS2A 0.209016
50499 5 GENTPJ EXST1_GE HYGOV IEEEST 0.184728
50496 2 GENTPJ EXST1_GE HYGOV IEEEST 0.183097
50297 4 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.1802
50296 3 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.180086
46257 1 GENTPJ ESST1A_GE 0 0 0.177994
44193 3 GENTPJ EXST1_GE GPWSCC WSCCST 0.175806
50294 1 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.172953
50295 2 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.172422
Top 25 Discrepant Generators
Verification Tool Features
Two parts• 1. Large System Analysis (eg. WECC Case)
– Process simulation results to apply metric: Time alignment, removing duplicates (during switching events), identifying motors (opposite sign convention), removing dc offset, etc.
– Comparing and displaying most discrepant buses– Ability to plot results
• 2. SMIB Analysis– Option to simulate all SMIB equivalents of a case or the
most discrepant ones identified from large system analysis– Simulate with voltage or frequency disturbances to test
relevant models– Comparing results and finding possible error causing models
23
Validation
• Actual system validation is more challenging, but many of tools developed for verification are helpful
• Comparing simulation results to PMU data from disturbances– Data received
• State Estimator (SE) Cases for Jan 29 2014 events (John Day - Grizzly fault + Gen Drop)
• Event logs• PMU data for disturbances (50 bus frequencies)• Planning cases containing dynamic data
– Validation Case Set-Up• Set-up a procedure to map dynamic data from planning to SE
cases (aided by WSM mapping)• Fixing “bad data” such as incorrect MVA bases, governors for
negative MW generators to address instability issues
24
Validation
• January 29, 2014 Event PMU Data
25
Validation
• Validation Results – Jan 29 2014, 6:46 event
Sensitivity of parameters such as governor response limits and load models, to validation results
59.65
59.70
59.75
59.80
59.85
59.90
59.95
60.00
60.05
0 5 10 15 20 25
Freq
uenc
y (H
z)
Time (seconds)
Bus Monroe 500 kV Frequency
PMU 14w governor response12s governor response 14w governor response + motor load
Note, Alberta is not in-service in the stateestimator case
We have not yetconsidered matchingvoltage magnitudes
26
PowerWorld Frequency Analysis Techniques
• Partially based on this project PowerWorld has implemented two frequency domain analysis techniques– Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and modal analysis using the variable
projection method (VPM)1
– Frequency domain techniques can be quite helpful in providing information about power system dynamic performance
– Integrating the tools within transient stability should allow for convenient access
27
1A. Borden, B.C. Lesieutre, J. Gronquist, "Power System Modal Analysis Tool Developed for Industry Use," Proc. 2013 North American Power Symposium, Manhattan, KS, Sept. 2013
Motivational Example
• The below graph shows a slight frequency oscillation in a transient stability run– The question is to figure out the source of the oscillation (in
the busfrequency here)
– Plotting all the speed values is one option, but sometimes small oscillations could get lost
– A solution is to do an FFT
28
Bus 2376 (PKNOBDUM) Frequency
Time181614121086420
Bus
2376
(PKN
OBD
UM
) Fre
quen
cy
6059.9959.9859.9759.9659.9559.9459.9359.9259.9159.9
59.8959.8859.8759.8659.8559.8459.8359.8259.8159.8
59.79
Bus 2376 (PKNOBDUM) Frequency
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) Overview
• In version 18 quick access to an FFT is available in the transient stability time values (or plot) case information displays by selecting "Frequency Analysis" from the right-click menu
• To understand the FFT, it is useful to start with a Fourier series, which seeks to represent any periodic signal, with frequency F=1/T, as a sum of sinusoidalswith frequencies that are integer multiples of F, nF– DC is n=0, fundamental is n=1, harmonics n > 1
29
Fourier Series and Nonperiodic Functions
• Often the complete representation requires an infinite number of terms
• Example at right shows the Fourierseries for a square wave, showing sequentially the first four terms
• Nonperiodic signals can be represented by letting T go to infinity; this gives a continuous Fourier Spectrum
30
Image Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) Overview
• Discrete Fourier Transforms (DFTs) can be used to provide frequency information about sampled, non-periodic signals
• The FFT is just a fast DFT – with N0 points its computational order is N0 ln(N0)– This allows it to be applied to many signals
• In version 18 quick access to an FFT is available in the transient stability time values (or plot) case information displays by selecting "Frequency Analysis" from the right-click menu– This works best when all the entries are of the same type,
such as bus frequency
31
FFT Analysis Display32
FFT Analysis Display
• The frequency analysis display shows the original data, the FFT for each time result, and a frequency summary
33
Max Value
Freq (Hz)121086420
Max
Val
ue
0.032
0.03
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Max Value
With about 840 time values, and18,000 signals (bus frequenciesin this example), the FFT takesabout six seconds
The Frequency Summary Page provides the ID of the signalwith the largest component for each frequency
Geographic Data Views
• Since about 2007 PowerWorld Simulator has had functionality for what we call Geographic Data Views (GDVs)– Original functionality described in paper, T.J. Overbye, "Wide-
area power system visualizations with geographic data views," IEEE PES 2008 General Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA.
• Idea of GDVs is for cases with geographic information for the buses (or substations) the power system information can be visualized on auto-created one-lines– Did not catch on because at the time few cases had the
necessary geographic information– This is now changing, so PowerWorld is refreshing the concept
34
GDV Process
• Starting point is a case with latitude/longitude values, and a map-based usually empty one-line (can be provided by PowerWorld)
• From a case informationdisplay with geo-linkedobjects, like substations,select fields of interest,and then right-click andselect Geographic Data View
• This displays the Geographic Data View Customization Display– Used to specify the attributes for the auto-inserted GDVs
35
Geographic Data View Customization Display: General Display Options
36
A one-line needsto be selected, but it need to beinitially open
Use the Fieldsand AttributesPage to customizethe display objects
Geographic Data View Customization Display: Fields and Attributes
37
Different attributescan be used tovisualization different objectvalues
Example WECC GDV38
Here thedisplayobjectsare linked tothe substations;size isproportionalto MWgeneration,color to Mvargeneration
Right-clicking on an object allows object to either see thesubstation dialog, or view the Geographic Data View Options
Example WECC GDV Showing GICs
• Below is same display, modified to show substation GIC amps to neutral (size), and direction (color)
• GDVs are standardPowerWorld one-lines, so they can be saved, objectsmoved around, and reused
• GDV attributes (i.e., the key)are always available by right-clicking
• They also support contouring
39
A n t e lo p e
Janet
Grand Coulee
McNary
Chief Joseph
W a n e t a E x p a n s io n P r o j e c t
T h e G e y s e r s
Monitor
Cholla
Roc ky Reac h
P o w e ll R iv e r D a m
Silver King
Br illiant
Ander s on
J o h n D a y P h
P r ie s t R a p id s
T h e D a lle s P h
Dever s
Lethbridge
Bonneville
Revelstoke
Dunsmuir
Calient e
M o s s L a n d in g ( D U E N N O )
Newar k
Har ewood
B a t t le R iv e r
M id w a y P e a k e r ( M I D W A Y )
Empress
I n t e r m o u n t a in G e n e r a t in g
C a t h e d r a l S q u a r e
Newell
C h e e k y e
Boundar y
I ngledow
Ashe
Table M t .
Casper
Pawnee
Olympia
Snohomish
R e d D e e r
B a lf o u r
C o m o L a k e
Beaver Creek
S e a I s la n d
Ar not t
Sno-k ing
Nicola
T r a c y
C lo w h o m
Gonder
E. Calgar y
A n a c o n d a M ill C r e e k
Selk ir k
Vant age
At c helit z
Nat al
M o r a g a
Sper ling
N o v a J o f f r e C o g e n e r a t io n
Bedding
M e d ic in e H a t ( C M H )
Longv iew
W y o d a k
M ead
Olive
Highland
Malin
Cranbrook
C O B E n e r g y F a c ilit y
Vis t a
G a t e s P e a k e r
H o o v e r A Z
Big Eddy
Colstrip
L o s E s t e r o s
C e r r o P r ie t o I I
Tec k la
Clayburn
Tacoma
M c Call
C o o l W a t e r
S h e e r n e s s
H a r q u a h a la V a lle y
A E S A la m it o s
Bell
S a n t a C la r a
Ker n- 1
V e r n o n T e r m in a l
M ur r in #1
C o n t r a C o s t a
W a lt e r s
Lam ar
Oquir r h
Kidd No. 2
C h a r le s L e n z ie
I m p e r ia l V a lle y
M a r t in P e a k e r ( C P N )
U n iv e r s it y o f B C
E l S e g u n d o
Napav ine
Pint o
Horsey
Midpoint
S a n J u a n 3 4 5
Br oadv iew
R e d h a w k 1 & 2
Gold River
Naught on
H y d e r
G o s h e n
Her m is t on Power Pr oj ect
W in s o r
J enner
H o o v e r N V
Palo Ver de
M iguel
Texac o
S e r r a n o
B r o w n in g
H o lly w o o d
S h ip r o c k
J . D. Ros s
I v a n p a h
E n m a x 2 2
Lower GraniteLower M onum ent al
M anc hief Power St at ion
F r e d o n ia ( P S P L )
Hundr ed M ile House
M e s q u it e P o w e r
Br ady
Wells (DOPD)
R o u n d M o u n t a in
E a s t S h o r e
Pit 1
Dworshak
Ter m inal
Hope
Cas t aic
Golden
F o o t e C r e e k I
Hillt op
T o r t o lit a
Suncr es t
S t . M a r y s
Ponderosa
Conr ad
G le n C a n y o n
M ir a c le M ile
Rat hdr um Power LLC
Es quim alt
F o r t C h u r c h ill
L o n g L a k e
M o s s y r o c k
C o lg a t e
Balzac Cogen
Custer
J o h n s t o n
Santiam
Lit t le Goos e Ph
Rinaldi
O c o t illo E n e r g y F a c ilit y
S a m m a m is h
Langdon
R iv e r g a t e
Ben Lom ond
Metiskow
Mica
Nor t h W es t
Sigur d
Sif t on
Hi Desert
M o h a v e
M o c c a s in
Ar den
C a s c a d e H e r it a g e P o w e r P a r k
Sandia
Syr ac us e
B a r n a r d
C a m b ie
J o h n H a r t
Cypr es s
W es t wold
D o n P e d r o
Dixonv ille
Vas
V a lle y v ie w
Yellowt ail
G o o s e L a k e
V a lm o n t ( P S C O )
Hunter Plant
Hill
Brooks
S n o q u a lm ie
Car ver
M a n d a la y
E a r ly I n t a k e
La Joie
C r y s t a l R iv e r
C r a ig ( T S G T )
C r o w n P a c k a g in g L t d .
S e v e n M ile
H u m b o ld t B a y
Bot hell
S a lm o n A r m
Kelly Lake
I c e H a r b o r
I llecillewaet
B u r lin g t o n I C ( B U R M L )
Kinport
S e d r o W o o lle y
Hes per us
Meridian
M or r o Bay
Ker r
A t h a lm e r
SAY
Pearl
T w in F a lls
M c loughlin
M eeker
C a m p W illia m s
S u m a s W a y
F . A . L e e
P la in s E n d
M ur r yhill
Kor t es
Car ibou
Chilliwac k
H o r n e P a y n e
E n m a x 1 3
Hunt ingt on
Fult on
M is s ion
Talbot
W eld
St et t ler
K w o ie k C r e e k
Vic t or v ille
Fols om
R u m o r o s a
BEN
Fr ank lin
E n m a x 3 6
G a r d n e r ( N E V P )
G r a n d J u n c t io n ( U T E )
H u m b o ld t
S o u t h B r e m e r t o n
C a b in e t G o r g e
Keeler
K ic k in g H o r s e
Kit s ap
B a lc h 2
L a r a m ie R iv e r
Rus k in
Tap
B ly t h e 2
Paul
Lone Pine
M ir a L o m a
Maple Valley
M o n a s h e e
Aberdeen
O r e n c o
Oyen
D a l G r a u e r
D a n s k in W in d P r o j e c t
B e a c o n ( S p o k a n e )
W at er t on
L a n c a s t e r
Roz a
Toluca
Sacajawea
S e c h e lt
P o r t A n g e le s
Rundle
B o u ld e r P a r k
Bowm ont
K im b e r le y
St . J ohns
H a r t z o g
I gnacio
Cent ur y Gener at ing
T ig e r C r e e k
B la c k D o g
Enmax 28
ANG
J ar r ow
Diablo Canyon
F a r a d a y
C a lif o r n ia
Fair view
Est es
Clover
W r ay
S e m in o e
Belt way
Rowley
Cus hm an 2
B e llin g h a m D iv is io n
Cor onado
P o t r e r o
AEC
Hanna
H e lls C a n y o n
I n y o k e r n
C a s c a d e ( T A U C )
Lange
Lakeville
Ros edale
Blis s
Sy lm ar
ASM
D . G . B e ll
S p a n is h F o r k
K e t t le s H ill W in d F a r m
Sarcee
Shelby
Bor ah
L a p o r t e
Bonanz a
C h ilo q u in
Bighorn Dam
River t on
Bet hel ( PGE)
Beaver
B a r b e r C r e e k
R e d B u t t e
Ault
P ilo t B u t t e
Am oco
Ghos t
M o n t e V is t a
Addy
A r lin g t o n V a lle y
A lb e n i F a lls
Olinda
Ont ar io
N o r t h V a lm y
O'Br ien
Ros s Dam
Allston
L a n g le y G u lc h
R io P u e r c o
M osc ow
M onr oe
Ar r ow Lake
A s h lu C r e e k H y d r o
A s h c r o f t
P o s t F a lls
B a s e L in e
Bear s paw
B e lle C r e e k
Benalt o
Wyndham
Satsop
Sher wood
Sidney W .
Ket t le Falls
S t a n d a r d O il
A n t e lo p e C y n
S t a v e F a lls
T ij u a n a 1
Coc hin
Collier v ille
Banf f
Chem awa
Novelt y
L u c k y P e a k
Vic t or
Haney
W e s t s id e
Er ie Tap
E l D o r a d o
E s c a la n t e
W a ls e n b u r g
W h it e h o r n
Sulphur
A n d r e w Y o r k
M c E lm o C r e e k
W h it e B lu f f s
Us k
T h r e e P k
Diablo
D a n ie ls P a r k
Lane
C u s h m a n 1
W int Hill
Bullpond
C o r o n a t io n
T r in it y ( U S B R C A )
I n d u s t r y
C o y o t e C r e e k
G o r g e ( S C L )
C o lu m b ia F a lls
Glendo
G r a n t s P a s s
Haas
BNC
F a r W e s t
Hungry Horse
Hansman
Car lt on
Taos
S u m m e r F a lls
Stegall (West)
Caldwell
Spr ay
South Rapid City
H ig h w o o d
But t e
Sout hwes t
Slat t
Shelt on
B o o n e S u b .
Rogue
L it t le F a lls ( W W P C )
L inc oln
Bent on
P o c a t e r r a
M er idian
P u n t le d g e
Pine Cr eek
R a v e n s w o o d
Tap
O r m o n d B e a c h
Nor t on
Alc oa
Nelway
A m e r ic a n F a lls
N . Y u m a
N . L e w is t o n
Sandhill
Pahr um p
P a m o n a H e ig h t s
S t ir lin g M o u n t a in
R a m o n a R e n e w a b le
Tipella
Lovell
Ridge
L o s t C a n y o n
HRD
Salem
PAP
M annix
S t a n is la u s
L o n g H o llo w
Hunt
H o r s e H e a v e n
H a r t la n d L F G
Clat s op
FRE
Fr y
Fort Peck
R o c k C r e e k
Yale
Eas t pine
S h ilo h I
W h a t s h a n
W ends on
W a r n e r
F a ir m o u n t
D o u g la s
Don Plant
W in d R id g e
B r ic k C e n t e r
D ix o n C r e e k
F o r d h a m
U p p e r B a k e r
Fos s il
M TP
C r o s s o v e r
PI N
C r a w f o r d
Y o u n g s t o n
Cypr ess
Cowlit z
Cougar
Union Gap
Douglas Lake
M ar ion
Tillam ook
G r a n d R o n d e
T h e r m o p o lis T o w n
C o ld S p r in g s
T o w a o c
Central Ferry
P a r is h G a p
C h e y e n n e
Hatwai
Albina
C h e n o w e t h
T a f t A u t o
VTG
T a h k e n it c h
S w a n V a lle y
J u d g e F C a r r
Rus sell
L o o k o u t
S o d a L a k e s
King
S ilv e r C r e e k
La Pine
Shawnee
B r a v o D o m e
B o r d e r t o w n
S a n d D u n e s
Lar s on
Peac oc k
R o c k y F o r d
Rio Os o
Lolo
L o o k o u t
Suns et
R a ilr o a d
LM N
Lower Baker
Basalt
G le n o m a
B e r r y d a le
B lu e L a k e
M a r y s v ille
SKK
M aupin
M a s s a c h u s e t t s
P E C H e a d w o r k s
A s h R iv e r
Ar c her
O s t r a n d e r
Oldm an
T r o u t C r e e k
N o r t h e a s t ( W W P C )
A lk a li C r .
Albany
K r a in C o r n e r
Adair
M c Call
P o r t a l W a y
Sier r a
C o w lit z F a lls
Tr oy
Tiber
C h a n d le r
B la c k w a t e r
Ringold
N o r t h e a s t
North America Load/Generation Map40
Image is abus loadcontour withsubstation generationGDVs
Thank You!41