WESTERN ELECTRICITY COORDINATING COUNCILSystem Review Working Group

15-16 July 2014 (Workshop)17-18 July 2014 (Meeting)

Columbia Grid Office8338 NE Alderwood Road, Suite 140

Portland, Oregon 97220

MEETING MINUTES FOR MEETING AGENDA #2014-2

Attendees:

Bakie, Eric Idaho PowerChan, Desmond SCLChavez, Evan POWER Eng.Christensen, Andrew BPACichosz, Jon Black HillsDu, Fangfang PacifiCorpEstrada, Kathy TEPEwry, Eleanor PSEFraughton, Karl BPAGalaway, Jennifer PGEGross, John AvistaHubbard, Ryan Tri-State G&THutchins, Ben NV EnergyJensen, Jon WECCJohnson, Pamela Southwest TransKeenan, Gary NWPPLopez, Jesus GCPUDMallard, Mark NorthWesternMazari, Shukul PacifiCorp

Mclean, Pamela SRWG Chair & AESOMiranda, Juan SCEMorrell, Thomas AvistaNiazi, Tariq SCEPacheco, Ezequiel IIDPigman, Mark Tacoma PowerPope, Linda WAPA RMPulido, Gerry El PasoRunanu, Paul WAPASingh, Prabal SMUDStoker, Mark APSTanneeru, Sirisha Xcel EnergyThornton, Jameson PG&ETucker, Doug WECCWujek, Kristi SRPYoung, Jonathan ColumbiaGrid

Webinar

Jarvenpa, Frank WAPA UGPKatatacha, Dennis SDG&ELu, Stephanie SCLNail, George PNMRolstad, Tracy AvistaRust, Gerry NWPPZornes, Zach Chelan

Page 1 of 17

Workshop Day 1 July 15: 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

1. MOD File Builder

2. BCCS Web Application

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Presentations/1/SRWG%20Workshop.pptx

Workshop Day 2 July 16: 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

1. BCCS Web Application (Cont.)

2. Data Submitters Guide

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/WECC%20BCCS%20Data%20Submitter's%20Guide_6-30-14_FinalDraft.docx

3. Project File Syntax

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/MOD%20Project%20file%20format.pdf

4. Project File Parser (Jameson Thornton)

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/PRJ_Parser.xlsm

Sub-group working sessions July 16: 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Group 1: SRWG Interpretation of NERC MOD-032

Group 2: Light Load Case Description

Group 3: Compliance Sub-Group

Page 2 of 17

Meeting Day 1 July 17: 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

1. INTRODUCTIONS 8:00-8:10Meeting began with group introductions for attendees in the room and on the phone. WECC Staff reviewed the WECC Anti-trust Policy. Jonathan Young reviewed the Columbia Grid evacuations procedures.

2. MEETING ARRANGEMENTS 8:10-8:153. CHANGES TO AGENDA 8:15-8:25Pamela reviewed the agenda for Meeting #14-2; no changes to the agenda were noted.

4. APPROVAL OF NOTES FROM LAST MEETING (BAKIE) 8:25-8:35Eric reviewed the #14-1 meeting minutes, minor typos were corrected.

MOVED – Eric Bakie: that the minutes be accepted as amended, seconded and PASSED

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Exhibits/1/14-1_SRWGmn_R0.docx

5. SRWG CHAIRMAN’S REPORT (MCLEAN) 8:35-9:205.1 TSS Meeting

Pamela provided a summary of the SRWG Chair’s Report to TSS. The 2015 base case compilation schedule was presented and accepted without any changes. PCC has directed modification of the DPM to include modeling of primary relays only. TSS has also directed additional DPM modifications are to be made such as including GIC data reporting requirements, sequence data reporting requirements, and so on. It was also commented that PCC has passed a motion not to include sequence data reporting requirements in the DPM.

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/20140507/Lists/Minutes/1/TSS_Meeting_166_SRWGreport_R1.docx

5.1.1 ACTION ITEM: SRWG to determine the next case to be used for a BCCS case review.

5.1.2 ACTION ITEM: SRWG to begin modification of DPM, etc. to implement generator labels.

5.2 Unbalance (sequence) data in base cases

6. WECC TECHNICAL STAFF REPORT (TUCKER) 9:20-9:456.1 Late Data Log

Jon Jensen presented the 2014 Ten-Year Data Bank Late Data Log as of July 2014. No late data submittals for initial data submittal for the bulk of the cases with the exception of WAPA who was 1 week late for the 2017 LSP-1 case. Late data for the submittal of comments was the same with most cases being on-time with the exception of WAPA who was one week late on the 2019-

Page 3 of 17

20 HW1 cases. It was discussed by the group that late data submittals are considered a violation of NERC MOD-010. WECC Staff indicated that the late data submittal logs are not reported as standard violations at this time. Members commented that late data could cause compliance issues for the companies responsibility for providing the data, the group was reminding to please be on time with your data submittals and follow the data compilation schedule.

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/71514late%20data%20log.xls

6.2 Status of the Data BankThree cases have been approved since last meeting: (1) 2014-15 HW3-OP, (2) 2014-15 LW2-OP, (3) 2015 HSP1-OP. Data is currently being complied for three cases: (1) 2019-20 HW1, (2) 2020HS2, (3) 2017 LSP1-S. Next case is the 2024 HS TEPPC.

Version 33.5.0 of PSS/E is currently in use for the PTI power flow conversions. Also, version 18.1_02 of PSLF is currently in use at WECC. Currently there are PTI dynamics conversions for the following cases: 15HS3, 14HS4, 19HS2, and 15HSP1. WECC worked with Bill Hall on the 15HSP1 PTI dynamics conversion, there are still some issues with the conversion process, one of which is that PSS/E currently doesn’t have the capability to implement the complex load models completely due to memory issues, so a little over 500 complex load models have been removed from the PTI dynamics conversion, so if you are using the PTI dynamics, make sure your complex load models are in the dynamics file. The dummy bus mapping file is currently in use when converting a PSLF case to PTI so the dummy buses will have the same numbers from case to case.

Last MVWG has recently approved the new Phase 2 REMTF wind and solar models. The implementation for the new Phase 2 wind and solar models calls for the existing records to be phased out and replaced with these new models. Refer to the new REMTF wind and solar guidelines:

WECC Wind Plant Dynamic Modeling Guidelines:

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/MVWG/Shared%20Documents/MVWG%20Approved%20Documents/WECC%20Wind%20Plant%20Dynamic%20Modeling%20Guidelines.pdf

WECC Solar Plant Dynamic Modeling Guidelines:

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/MVWG/Shared%20Documents/MVWG%20Approved%20Documents/WECC%20Solar%20Plant%20Dynamic%20Modeling%20Guidelines.pdf

July 2014 SRWG Meeting Status of the Data Bank:

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/71514stata.doc

Page 4 of 17

6.3 Comments to approved cases

BREAK 9:45-10:00

7. COMPLIANCE SUBGROUP (JONATHAN YOUNG ) 10:00-11:007.1 The BCCS DPM

Jonathan Young presented the latest revision of the BCCS version of the DPM. This version of the DPM primarily explains the process for using the BCCS and provides reference to the BCCS Data Submitter’s Guide for additional details. References to the Master Tie Line file have been removed from the document. Karl (BPA): if you have a project that changes a path how is that submitted? Doug (WECC): paths don’t have any area association; can be included in project files. Area interchange is now based off area and zones rather than the master tie-line file. Additional clarification may need to also be included in the data submitters guide. Specifies that facility ratings are to be submitted and stored in profile files. The data review/submission process is intended to mimic the current process.

Members were encouraged to follow the BCCS Data Submitter’s Guide and to name project files using the established file naming convention. Company acronyms are defined in DPM: use defined acronym in building PRJ files. Members were asked to review the company acronyms listed in Appendix 2 for accuracy; changes were made as needed to update the Appendix 2 tables.

John Gross commented that reference to “member system” may need to change to language of “transmission planner/planning coordinator”.

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/WECC%20Data%20Preparation%20Manual_6-30-14_RedLine_WithBCCS.docx

7.2 Data Submitter’s GuideWECC is presently having the document reviewed and updated by a technical writer. This document is largely based on MRO practices and MRO data submitter’s guide modified to meet WECC processes and needs. Dynamic data will be handled by WECC staff under BCCS as it is handled now, thus no dynamics data guidelines are included in the current version of this document. WECC Staff has not established a timeline at this point in time for incorporating dynamics data into the BCCS.

Some discussion as to whether the BCCS base case can be referred to as a “solved case”. Once corrections are submitted to the BCCS it is no longer the same case and is not to be considered a solved case. The process is that the case will be exported and solved whenever it is sent out for review. Project files will be committed to the base case on the last day of each month based on the in-service date of the project files.

Gary Keenan: “solved” may refer to solving only a single iteration; but it is essential that the matrix integrity be proven by at least one iteration so the term “solved” is essential. WECC Staff indicated that the run-validation feature is checking matrix integrity.

Page 5 of 17

Project types include: (1) “Planned”, (2)“Proposed”, and (3) “Exploratory”. Exploratory projects will not be included in WECC builds, but can be entered in BCCS. Mark and Gary: need to “approve” Exploratory projects for situations where it can be taken into account for specific user studies. Exploratory projects in particular should be well documented. Exploratory projects are essential to being able to build stressed scenario cases such as TSS has been asking for this capability for a number of years.

Important note when updating ratings: project files are loaded before rating profiles so make sure the updated rating is in the ratings profile and not just in the project file.

Helpful hints section at end of document. Handling of ratings is idiosyncratic. Need to embed them in project files for projects, at the end of the prj file followed by a “q” terminator. BUT if ratings are included in the rating profile they will overwrite anything loaded from the project(s). Appendices include examples of the different submission files. Baseratings.csv can be updated with a new csv file or by using prj files with a ratings header included.

The Standard Effective Date that defines when a project will be included with a case build is shown in Section 1.3.3. It was also discussed that the replace function is not available for updated project files.

Tracy Rolstad: will be noted to TSS that this document be accepted by TSS, but approval is final at the SRWG level. Kathy Estrada asked: why are we rushing to approve this document if we don’t know what the BCCS will actually do when it isn’t working properly now. Further discussion indicated that SRWG approval of the BCCS Data Submitter’s Guide is in support of BCCS Implementation.

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/WECC%20BCCS%20Data%20Submitter's%20Guide_6-30-14_FinalDraft.docx

Moved Jonathan and seconded: that SRWG approve the BCCS Data Submitter’s Guide. Motion Passed.

7.3 WSM – Node-Breaker Modeling and Generator LabelsPamela led a discussion regarding the efforts of the MSRATF breaker-node subgroup. The group (Pamela, Joe Seabrook, Jonathan Young) is proposing an Integrative (or hybrid) modeling strategy: adding breaker/connectivity node topology with containment relationship with existing topological nodes. Having the same nomenclature will allow validation and leverage duplicate checking of data improving both WSM and WECC base cases. Bus-branch cannot be validated easily and will need manual validation to comply with MOD-033; that will encourage entities to prioritize adding breaker-Node detail. A whitepaper is being developed by this group to help explain this process. Eric (IPCO) asked if discussion regarding equipment level ratings data collection have taken place as part of this effort, Jonathan indicated that these discussions have not taken place.

It was also noted that the MSRATF group may be changed to the JUD.

TSS has directed that facility labels be added to generator records to support Slaven’s efforts of mapping the WSM generator records to the planning basecase dynamics data records. The Generator Long ID field is to be used to fill in facility labels (unique generator label) with the intent to map dynamics from WSM (ugly labels aligned with SCADA tag and ICCP identifiers).

Page 6 of 17

Not available in PSS/E: would need to be maintained as a csv file. Needs dis-aggregation where WSM is de-aggregated and WECC case is aggregated. Slaven has provided a spreadsheet for members to review in order to add the labels to the base case data and to also improve the generator matching between the WSM model and the planning base case data. WECC Staff was asked to include language in the next base case data request letter for members to add generator labels and to review the mapping spreadsheet provided by Slaven.

Moved Jonathan and seconded: that SRWG approve the BCCS version of the DPM to take effect when the BCCS is fully implemented, at a future date to be determined, with the understanding that future changes to the active DPM will be implemented into both versions. Motion passed to approve the BCCS Data Submitter’s Guide.

Lunch 12:00-1:00 p.m.

7.4 ReplogJonathan Young reviewed the replog: Significant increase in PSS-data log counts from benchmark 11hs2a count but down from last (march) replog; this could be an error in the reporting. Eric (IPC) commented that the PSS limit will likely go down to 20MVA due to efforts of the WECC-0107 drafting team. Old machines will be grandfathered; these changes will require the replog filters to be updated. Bus no-zone count is down to zero. Significant improvement in long load ID. Jonathan to add checks for generators connected to transmission buses, which also may develop the need for an exception list. Non-standard checks for dynamic data are still pending; resources have not yet been available. Case-check can include generator longid without including into replog (yet).

Gary Keenan asked: are we going to expand our replogs? NERC wants a grading process for base cases. Gary has been working with Don Davies to establish a grading process. Jonathan commented: we can add whatever we want to the replog as long as the data checking items are clearly identified.

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/15hsp1a%20replog.xlsx

8. STUDY PROGRAM SUBGROUP (ELEANOR EWRY) 11:00-12:008.1 Annual Study Program Log

Eleanor presented the latest version of the Standard Disturbance List, per previous SRWG decision, will be one per region: The Standard Disturbance List includes the following disturbances: (1) ST-0 – No Disturbance, (2) ST-DSW-1 Palo Verde Generating Station Double Unit Outage, (3) ST-NWC-1 Chief Joe Brake Insertion, (4) ST-CAL-S Red Bluff-Colorado River 1&2, (5) ST-CAL-N Metcalf-Moss Landing& Tesla-Metcalf, (6) ST-IMW-1 Brownlee-Hells Canyon, (7) ST-UCN-1 Daniel Park – Comanche 1&2 SLG

Moved Eleanor and seconded: to accept the presented list of standard outages and direct WECC staff to use them on prepared cases beginning with the next case to be compiled; and carried

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/Annual%20Study%20Program%20Results%20Log-v3.xlsx

Page 7 of 17

8.2 Light Load“Light” cases have been found to be too high to represent real “light” load conditions. BPA provided load duration curves using PEAK RC data. The presented load duration curves indicate that the previous cases have been hitting 25th to 30th percentile. The desired target level is approximately 90,000MW; past light load cases have been higher than target.

The Intention of light load cases is to look at lightest realistic value. A small light load work group was formed and the group identified the need to gather everyone’s load duration curves, to get an idea how to specify load duration curves for meeting the desired interconnection case target.

Ben: how do our heavy summer cases reflect the load duration curve

Pamela:this load duration curve methodology is in effect in Alberta

Karl: don’t want the full year load duration curve or you can’t select the appropriate load for the season.

Eleanor: non-conforming load may not be scaled properly. – side-by-side comparison shows discrepancies regarding use of this flag. Jonathan: Could request percentage of peak on L&R sheets.

Gary: to clarify reserve sharing groups – estimates of light are within 2500MW of light for the entire peak.

Zack: important to specify whether we are talking historical load data or forecast load data.

Prabal: this data is already submitted to Dick Simons; why not just go to Dick (WECC) and get the data since it is already being submitted.

Moved – Eleanor: that SRWG request of WECC, or if not available of the BA for historical hourly load data by BA; or for load duration curve by BA and four seasons for the 2013 year, and carried;

8.3 BCCS implementationTSS has directed that SRWG identify the next test case to be built as a BCCS test case. Final release of BCCS is due mid to late august. Desire is to utilize an OP case in order to simplify the process. Parallel submission to be requested for 2015LS1 case, and request profile (for BCCS parallel process) to go at same time as case for review is issued on October 10, 2014; and reviewed by WECC by mid to late November; then move on to 5-year case and do a special submission (non-parallel) using the 2020HS case (already built by the regular process – profiles will be taken out of the prebuilt case) to test the BCCS in the 5-year timeframe. Request to go out December 1, 2014. John Gross: inevitable delays may make it timely to do the regular 5-year case starting in February as scheduled. Doug: need to make sure the tool and processes work the way we want them to work, and delay if necessary if they do not, so that we do not have roadblocks after the go-live date.

Moved – Use the 2015 LS1-OP with a 10/10/2014 request date and the 2020HS2 with a 12/1/2014 request date, seconded and passed.

Page 8 of 17

9. REVIEW MDF PROCESS(JON JENSEN) 11:00-12:00Gary Keenan: annual process for UFLS includes dynamic relay data for UFLS. The PRC-006 data submittals are due to the UFLS Review Group July 1 each year. Looking at performance in the assessment, Gary observed incorrect load shedding; further review indicated that the MDF did not reflect WECC posting for the case dynamics data. Same token: had member BAs submitting data: Bonneville had sent in data to WECC Staff with remove-and-replace instructions for getting the data into the WECC MDF. The end result was that the submitted data was included in the pre-run dynamics data file, but never made it into the MDF file or operating case posting. Gary commented that this is a compliance element and the need to demonstrate compliance using the downloaded cases and downloaded MDF. This instance has identified a potential gap data reporting submission procedure for inclusion in the MDF.

Open discussion: Who is it data being sent to? PRC-006 data submission is separate and submitted to the WECC Compliance Portal. WECC Staff indicated that they do not receive anything from the compliance directory. Doug indicated that MDF submissions have to be made deliberately as a separate action. In this case Karl (BPA) submitted the data to WECC Staff, the data was included in the pre-run dynamics file, but never not included in the WECC MDF. WECC Staff indicated that direct email has one-week turn-around and is met with a direct email reply. MDF changes submitted with a case take longer and don’t get a reply email. For block updated please send directly to WECC Staff. The MDF is posted twice per month. Only submit changed data when submitting changes. UFLS data is only updated for operating case dynamics data file. Dynamics for long-term out planning cases only get into the actual case MDF unless accompanied by a note that specifies it should be treated as permanent data. Can always use basecase@wecc.biz; but they don’t check that as frequently as their own emails.

Ben: when will BCCS support dynamic data? That’s phase II and we haven’t finished phase I yet.

Gary: both generator models and load models are used for compliance. Eric noted that submission of generator UFLS models are not required per the current DPM requirements.

BREAK 3:00-3:15

10.MODEL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (ERIC BAKIE)10.1 Transition Plan for Removing Wind Phase 1 Generic Models

Eric presented the transition plan for removing the Phase 1 wind and solar models from the WECC MDF and replacing the models with the REMTF Phase 2 models. The presented plan includes MVWG member comments.

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Presentations/1/TransitionPlanforRemovingWindPhase1GenericModels_v0.pptx

10.1.1 MDF reviewEric performed a detailed review of the MDF by manually inspecting the data and developing model counts for existing wind and solar records.

Page 9 of 17

This review had the following findings: (1) approximately 132 records are using synchronous generator modeling packages to represent wind and solar projects, (2) a large number of wind and solar records are using un-approved model types, (3) motor1 models are still being used to represent type 1 wind facilities which is not approved, (4) type 4 records are approximately 50% solar and 50% wind, (5) a large number of wind and solar records have only a generator record populated and the electrical controls, plant controls, and turbine/pitch controls are not being represented, this results in the simulation running without any representation of the plant control system dynamics, (6) the total number of records requiring conversion is approximately 526 models, (7) Turbine type from powerflow data is not used consistently matching with dynamics data records, (8) approximately 50% of the 2024 HS1-s case data is missing the turbine type in the gens table; (9) Large blocks of generation is missing the collector system equivalent representation, many units are shown connected directly onto transmission voltage or 34.5kV, which is not consistent with the DPM modeling requirements.

Eric created a spreadsheet with macros that parses the WECC MDF with the parsing filters set by the user. The developed spreadsheet parsed wind and solar records by wind/solar model type, wind/solar records by Area, and comments that included wind/solar references. This spreadsheet is available to WECC members to reference as a tool for transitioning to Phase 2 wind and solar models and modify to meet their needs. This spreadsheet is posted on the WECC TSS Base Case site at the link shown below:

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/BaseCases/Base%20Cases/WECC_Basecase_MDF_WindModelCounts.zip

10.1.2 Implementation planThe developed implementation plan calls for review and replacement of all existing records with the Phase 2 REMTF models with a grace period for the Phase 1 models. There was interact of the REMTF task force with vendors, thus the Phase 2 models should be the last changes to wind/solar models for some time.

Note that PVD1 has also been approved for distributed photovoltaic plants. PVD1 is similar to the developed Phase 2 models for solar but contains less detail within the model. It was noted that some of the model names in the wind/solar guidelines contain typos, see the implementation plan presentation, WECC Approved Dynamic Model Library or software user’s literature for the correct spelling of the new models.

It was also discussed that REMTF recommended removing wt1p and wt2p models from the approved model list and the WECC MDF. REMTF will take action to review the MDF and either simply delete, or replace with wt1p_b models.

The proposed plans calls for beginning transition with 2015 summer operating cases (7/18/2014 request date) and ending with the 2020-21 HW1 case on 06/05/2015. The plan calls for removal of the Phase 1 models On 06/05/2015

MVWG held a workshop on 6/17/2014 regarding the new phase 2 models and new WECC wind and solar guidelines have also been developed. Transmission Planners need to enter into dialog with generator owners where necessary to update models: Corrected model may come from either GO or TP. Despite being “generic” model types, the parameters going into those models are not generic and need to be tuned to the facilities being modeled.

Page 10 of 17

The effective date timelines for applicable NERC standards such a MOD-026 (excitation system verification) and MOD-027 (turbine governor system verification) were also presented. Portions of these two standards became effective on 07/01/2014 which may help in collecting and verifying wind and solar dynamic modeling data.

10.2 Tracking spreadsheet for model implementation/retirementEric also developed and presented a new spreadsheet that contains the dynamic model implementation schedule for the new Phase 2 wind/solar models and also the new overcurrent relay models. The sheet was amended during SRWG group discussion.

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/WECC%20Approved%20Dynamic%20Model%20Implementation%20Schedule%20July%202014%20v0.xlsx

Moved – Eric and seconded: that the spreadsheet as shown and amended be accepted by the SRWG as the model implementation schedule and posted on the SRWG webpage

10.3 Secondary Protection (Pamela Mclean)Pamela indicated that PCC has directed that only primary relays be modeled.

11.DYNAMIC CORRECTIONS (JOHN GROSS) 2:00-3:00Demonstrably “wrong” data notably the wt1p model, is in the MDF but have not had any progress in changing it from the responsible party. MVWG has asked REMTF to take action to make a recommendation to either have WECC staff remove the non-useful models such as wpt1 or replace them with more accurate data such as wt1p_b.

Eric Bakie commented that if a transmission planner is not getting good models then the TP should be empowered to submit good data especially if bad data is know to impact the study results. Eric described experience with other parties not acting on complaints for an oel1 model. The process that was used to correct the bad data was notifying the generator owner that data is unusable and informing them that due to lack of submittal of corrected data the TP is moving forward with the included proposed data until new data is submitted by the equipment owner. Eric indicated that TPs have a reliability obligation to correct data when you know it is wrong. The use of PMU data to verify existing modeling records is one basis for proposing data changes.

Eric also shared with the group that EPRI is developing a m atlab package that uses disturbance data (i.e. PMU recordings) to validate wind/solar plant models; the tool will be available through EPRI website. Karl commented that mechanisms for validating wind data are lacking. Eric commented that tools for validation wind data are becoming more available; the process is to validate the overall behavior of the plant equivalent model using disturbance data/ play-in simulation, and parameter optimization tools such a the EPRI tool currently under-development. Several presentations regarding this type of model validation work can be found on the MVWG pages.

12.ZERO-SEQUENCE DATA FOR MOD (JOHN GROSS) 16:30-17:00

Page 11 of 17

12.1 PC rolesMOD-032 requires that Planning Coordinators to collect data and make it available to the ERO or it designee upon request. Planning personnel need to have control of the information that goes into the base cases in order to meet the case objectives. MOD 026 and MOD 027 mandate that equipment owners validate their modeling data. MOD-032 R1 Procedures must be JOINTLY developed with transmission planners. AVISTA has lumps of generation fully within their area for which Bonneville is the resource planner. Transmission Planner and Planning Coordinator should be the same and aligned unless a deliberate agreement states that a second party will perform the Planning Coordinator function as a service to the Transmission Planner (as CALISO does for the utilities under their jurisdiction).

Interpretation of R4 – measure says that data needs to be made available “when requested” and “to support the cases” requires that the DPM be followed. SRWG’s read through MOD-032 is that data as required in the DPM supports the interconnection-wide model and data in different formats would not support the interconnection-wide model. SRWG resolved that PC/TP adoption of the WECC DPM is necessary to support the interconnection-wide case creation process.

12.2 Short Circuit DataAfter significant group discussion it was decided that the only real benefit of supplying/maintaining zero sequence data in WECC base cases is transient simulation of non-3-phase faults. It was discussed that PC’s would submit the short circuit data to WECC in whatever format available.

Moved – John Gross and seconded: that WECC Staff create a location for storing Short Circuit Data. Passed.

Page 12 of 17

Meeting Day 3 July 15: 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

12.2 DPM Additionshttp://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/SRWG/20140715/Lists/Minutes/1/WECC%20Data%20Preparation%20Manual_6-30-14_RedLine.docx

12.2.1 GIC dataTSS requested addition of data reporting requirements for substations (sub number, sub name, sub latitude, sub longitude, bus numbers assigned, sub resistance). Jameson (PG&E): was concerned with the security of maintaining latitude and longitude data in WECC bases cases and that additional security would be required if Lat and long data is added. This is seen as sensitive data even though acknowledging that it can be found on Google satellite view. PG&E’s position is that this data does not need to be in the base cases. Karl: Need to include information about transformer grounding too – which is a first step to getting sequence data modeling and you could gather phase shifts at the same time. Jonathan: could do an annual data request for supplementary data that does not go in the base cases (lat/long; aspen cases;) The BCCS can store lat/long data in the PSLF busd table. Mark Mallard commented that having a bunch of satellite databases defeats the purpose of the BCCS. Eric Bakie commented that the DPM is intended for defining the data reporting required needed to build the desired base cases; IPCO does not support putting requirement in the DPM that for gathering other data; Eric commented that WECC Regional Criteria provide a means for collecting other data. Eric also commented that the BCCS does not have the substation field requested by TSS for storing the data and there are currently no plans to add these data fields to the BCCS; this request seems premature given capability of the data reporting tools; Eric also commented that Siemens, PSLF, and PowerWorld have GIC as a separate modules not as part of the base model and inclusion of GIC data in the basecases at this point in time will likely have data conversion issues between software programs.

Summary, BCCS cannot store the data needed to perform a GIC study, there are data security concerns that need to be addressed. Discussion on this item will to continue at the next SRWG meeting. Forming a small group to discuss developing a plan for defining GIC data collection requirements was taken as an action item.

Motion: to add language as proposed for GIC data for substations. Defeated.

Page 13 of 17

13.DISTANCE RELAY MODEL (ANDREW CHRISTENSON) 3:13-4:15MVWG agreed to have models coded, developed and made available for those who want to use them. MVWG voted against mandating and requiring collection of the data and including distance relay modeling comprehensively in the MDF. Struggling to maintain quality of data in the MDF and MVWG felt that generic distance relay settings would provide adequate coverage without creating the problem of having to collect and validate installation-specific distance relaying data.

CLEARING TIMES has value to a significant minority of SRWG members. Karl: how much worse is generic data? Clearing time data is not volatile – it will be relatively stable once gathered. Karl: using a relay model requires additional work by the protection staff, and many planning engineers may not have the background to use it. Karl: normal study praxis is to fault, then toggle line off at the tripping time. Eric: distance relay model will include the ability to model communication aided tripping schemes (POTT, Blocking. etc.). MVWG believes that RAS modeling would higher value and modeling of overcurrent relays is of higher value. John: contingency list that is shareable would be another equivalent source of information that describes “what the system does”. Putting the relay models and clearing times into the case data provides the ease of not having to manually open a branch in a transient contingency definition; Kathy: that information should be shared only with neighbors, because everyone doesn’t need to know; what is the value of requiring everybody to report this data. Karl: distance relay behavior will depend on what is going on in the simulation; Overcurrent relay modeling makes sense, but when will distance relays operate? Eric: PRC-023 now sets limits that prevent setting relays in the load-incursion range; the system event will likely have to be N-3+ before operation of distance relays would be observed in dynamic simulation. In addition, multiple models will store the same data as clearing time is specified in the distance relay model and the differential relay model so planners will have to make sure which relay actually tripping in the simulation. Pamela commented: Node-breaker modeling will allow storing breaker time instead of putting the same breaker clearing time in multiple times. John: it’s valuable data but RAS data and contingency list is more valuable. Jameson: putting relay data into the MDF would slow data down considerably (in addition to all the time required to gather the data.) MVWG: top priority (10) is response-based RAS and out-of-step relay modeling; (9) then overcurrent and additional RAS; (6) generic relay models in monitoring mode. SRWG basically has the same position as MVWG with the exception of add contingency definition lists with clearing times as an (8) priority. It was asked if model relays in monitoring mode or operating mode provide the same operating behavior – Jameson found that monitoring mode did not pick up when operating mode actually did. Eric Bakie comments that errors are being found in models in different platforms. Cross-program checking needs to be done. Andrew: MVWG is going to review adequacy of generic models – may find that generics need to be upgraded. MVWG recommends collection of additional relay modeling be put on the back burner, but supports having the relay models coded in the programs.

14.REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS (PAMELA/ERIC)

15.LIAISON REPORTS15.1 OTC Sub-Group

Page 14 of 17

15.2 PTI Users Group 15.3 GE Users Group15.4 TAS

16.MEETING DATES AND LOCATIONS16.1 2014-3 Oct 15-17 or December 10-1216.2 2015-1 Mar 4-6 or 3-516.3 2015-2 Jul 29-31 or 28-3016.4 2015-3 Nov 11?-13? (TBD)

17.PROJECT STATUS REPORTS AND INFORMAL REPORTS (ALL)

18.ADJOURN

Page 15 of 17

SRWG Action ItemsAction Item Assigned Due Status

1) Work to invigorate the GE Users’ group

Chair April 2014 SRWG Mtg

Carried Forward

2) Create an additional check log for advising data submitters of potential errors

Jonathan Young & WECC Staff

Next Case Ongoing

3) Track new dynamic models being used in the replog

Compliance Sub-Group

Next Meeting Ongoing

4) SRWG needs to improve how we describe light load cases

Eleanor Next Meeting Ongoing

5) Add implementation schedule for new models to routine SRWG agenda

SRWG Chair Next Meeting Ongoing

6) Push for Regional Criteria Classification or SAR via TSS for DPM (DPM is necessary for MOD-032 PC adoption, currently classified as a WECC Guideline)

Pamela Next TSS Ongoing

7) Add contingency list to MVWG priorities and support MVWG position at TSS

Pamela Next TSS Ongoing

8) Represent importance of PC’s adopting DPM

Pamela Next TSS Ongoing

9) Small group developing for data collection requirements for GIC

TBD TBD Ongoing

10) Add Generator long ID All Members Per Requested Date

Ongoing

11) Get BA load duration curves or data Eleanor Next Meeting Ongoing

12) Tracking tool for phase 2 implementation & turbine type mismatches

Eric Next Meeting Ongoing

13) Populate turbine type field All Members Next Case Build

Ongoing

14) Phase 2 Wind/Solar Model Implementation

All Members 06/05/2015 Ongoing

Page 16 of 17

This page is intentionally blank.

Page 17 of 17