A Family of CIM EMS Exchange Standards based on CIM/XML ( ) - Static Network Model Exchange ( ) - Schematic Layout Exchange ( ) - Solved State Exchange ( ) - EMS Static Model Update (proposed) - Analog Measurement Set? - Status Measurement Set? - Contingency Definition Update? - … Jay Britton

33 The Basic Model Exchange Business Problem  The members of an interconnection share a mutual necessity to achieve:  Accurate assessment of grid reliability.  Appropriate, timely response to insecure conditions.  A pre-requisite to the above are:  Accurate, up-to-date network models.  Consistent network models (at each responsible site).  In an interconnection, this requires:  Exchange of models.  Exchange of solved analytical results.  2008 NERC Real-Time Best Practices Report:  “Although defining the elements represented in internal network models is relatively straightforward, the task force finds that defining the elements to be represented in external models is much more complex.”  “Issue #5: External Modeling and Data Exchange Practices Should be Improved by Explicit Reference to the Definition of the Wide-Area-View Boundary. A consistent, uniform set of modeling and data exchange practices, procedures, and standards are needed to support creation and maintenance of accurate external models…”  These requirements apply in real-time, near-future and long- term time frames.

44 There is high-level consensus about the right approach.  Basic Modeling:  Each TSO is the authority for its own territory. Each TSO exports its internal model to its neighbors and/or regional authority, and keeps it up to date.  Regional authorities assemble internal regional models from member TSO internal models. (Sometimes reducing unnecessary parts.)  All parties assemble external models from the internal models of other sites.  Analysis:  Responsibility may be distributed among cooperating sites.  Solution exchange is required, depending on the problem. Exchanged solutions should be based on consistent underlying models.  These goals apply to both operations and planning.  Operations focus is on as-built and near future changes.  If operations and planning share the same as-built base model, then the planning focus is on exchange of plans.

55 Expanding the Use Cases  Exchange of network models.  EMS A and B are neighbors in an interconnection and therefore each needs to represent the other as part of its external model.  Requires exchange of internal models.  Scope is limited to network data and measurement placements.  Common Modeling Source between planning and operations.  One modeling application for the enterprise.  An EMS requires a model that covers any point in time.  Other targets require data for a specific “case”.  Exchange of solved cases. Several variations…  Real-time exchange among different applications.  Real-time cases to study or planning.  Exchange of study or planning cases between different tools.  Import of study cases to EMS.  UCTE Day-Ahead.  Study cases are generated for the next day by each TSO representing the expected state of their internal network.

66 A Generic Model Exchange Business Process (ERCOT, WECC, …)

77 Preview – We are working toward defining model partitioning into non-overlapping XML submodels that satisfy all of the use cases.

88 CIM Exchange (full, partial, incremental update) The initial CIM model exchange ( ) standard focused only on transfer of complete models: A Internal Model A’s model of B b a Proprietary / Home grown Extract / Merge Tools Proprietary / Home grown Extract / Merge Tools CIM import / export System A Local Vendor Model System A Import Model B’s Model of A B Internal Model System B Local Vendor Model System B Import Model CIM import / export System A EMS System B EMS

99 A More Desirable Process Site A makes a change: 1.A changes its ModelAuthoritySet using its CIM modeller. 2.A imports the change into its EMS. 3.A exports the change to B. 4.B receives the change (full or incremental), updating A’s ModelAuthoritySet within its CIM modeller. 5.B renames any new elements and repeats any reduction of A’s ModelAuthoritySet. 6.B imports the new model into its EMS.

10 Merge/Extract with Model Authority Sets  Each object is in one and only one set.  Simple labeling technique for assigning responsibility.  Associations connect some objects that are in different sets. Currently directional from n to 1 (“foreign key” convention) – under discussion.  Regional Sets:  No associations with other regional sets.  External associations to boundary sets only.  Boundary Sets:  External associations from regional sets.  External associations with other boundary sets.  A regional set may be referentially validated independent of other regional sets.  Modeling processes can proceed independently in each region.  Goal:  Maximize independence.  Design boundary sets to achieve: Minimum data Infrequent change

11 Typical North American Boundary

12 Typical UCTE Boundary

13 Hierarchical Process Definition for an Interconnection  Bottom level.  No significant differences. Export changes as the model authority. Import externals from the full interconnection model.  Upper level:  Manages boundary sets.  Creates the full interconnection model. Model quality evaluation. Study state estimation.  Derives operational model in the same manner as lower levels. Different reduction criteria.  Design extends to any number of hierarchical levels.

14 Consolidating Planning with Operations  Full interconnection model is the common source for all models.  Interconnection planning shown on diagram.  No procedural difference required to support analytical functions running at any level for any purpose.  Planning adds other requirements.  New information modeling in CIM. Accommodate bus- oriented apps. Add short circuit, dynamics, etc.  Incremental model standard expands to model plans.  CIM modeling applications need to have a temporal axis.  2007 EPRI “CIM for Planning” project.  Goal is eliminate duplication of modeling.

15 The Naming Problem

16 Roles in Model Exchange  Key modeling roles in an interconnection:  Model Authority The official source of data for a particular part of the network. Usually the TSO (Transmission System Owner/Operator)  Model Quality Broker (optional) Arbitrates boundary definitions. Receive model authority data. Assemble a complete interconnection model. Validate interconnection model. Distribute updates to model.  End User Uses the models for some operational or planning purpose. Creates analytical cases.

17 Adding Support for Analytical Processes  The standard exchanged EMS models.  Did not deal with planning (‘bus-branch’ models).  Did not support power flow solution exchange (or any other type of analytical result).  Several recent efforts defined other needed support.  2007 EPRI ‘CIM for Planning’  2008 UCTE Day Ahead Congestion Analysis  EPRI ‘CIM for Dynamics’  2009 IEC WG13 Goals  Unify and formalize UCTE and CIM for Planning results: Capture CIM changes in CIM14. Complete specification for Solved Power System State Exchange.  Solidify building block concept for a family of standards. CIM modularized by ‘profile data groups’.

18 Existing UCTE Process for Day-Ahead Congestion Analysis  Daily Process: 1. Each TSO constructs power flow cases representing the planned operation for each hour of the following day. 2. Each TSO gets its neighbors cases and conducts congestion analysis studies focused on its own territory.  Cases typically generated and analyzed with planning tools.  Case Format:  Power flow format unique to UCTE.  Bus-branch network topology.  Each case is a single point in time. Load and generation values at each bus. Specific targets for controls (regulated voltages, regulated flows). Status of branches (in or out of service).

19 Current UCTE Day-Ahead Process

20 Requirements Analysis Data Modularity  Equipment.  Identifies equipment and describes basic characteristics.  Connectivity.  Describes electrical connectivity that would be input to topology processing.  Schedules.  Describes input to functions that derive parameters for a specific point in time.  Analogs.  The set of SCADA values for analog measurements for a particular point in time.  Status.  The state of switches – input to topology processing.  Topology.  The result of topology processing. i.e. Description of how equipment connects into buses and how buses makeup connected systems.  Scheduled.  This is the result of time scheduling to develop input for a case.  State.  This is the set of state variables used in the mathematical formulation that the algorithms work with.

21 Requirements Analysis  In an EMS environment: 1. A modeler supplies Equipment + Connectivity + Schedules to the EMS. 2. Switch states and other parameters may be changed by telemetry or manual entry. 3. The EMS code develops Topology + Scheduled data for the desired case. 4. Manual override of the case input is allowed. 5. Algorithm develops solved State.  In a planning environment: 1. A ‘base’ version of case input is selected. 2. Manual override of the case input is allowed. 3. Algorithm develops solved State.  Both environments feed the same case data (Equipment + Topology + Scheduled) into the solution applications.  Main question is how to address the different starting points.

22 Requirements Analysis  Receivers of solved cases often need to recreate the case input.  Since there is normally the possibility of manual override of data, cases cannot simply be recreated from 452 static model data.  This means we need to define exchange of Topology + Scheduled data as well as State.  If we need to exchange Topology + Scheduled anyway,  A family of profiles are desired such that use cases may bypass Connectivity and Schedules where that makes sense.  Propose two standards:  Static Model Exchange  Solved Power System State Exchange  We should be able to construct profiles for all use cases from these.  EMS and planning.  Real-time and future.  Bus versus breaker detail.  State estimator and power flow.

23 CIM Design  Topology  TopologicalNodes (i.e. buses) in EMS represent the collection of ConnectivityNodes that are connected by closed Switches -- the result of topology processing.  Objective: don’t force Connectivity modeling if the usage only demands Topology.  Solution: establish direct relationships from Terminals to each. Terminal  ConnectivityNode Terminal  TopologicalNode  Scheduled  Scheduled data is essentially starting conditions for state variables -- additional modeling is not required.  State is modeled in a new collection of SV (state variable) classes.  State Variables profile data group may be used to present starting conditions, solved state or indeed, any set of values for state variables, depending on the business usage.

24 IEC Static Model Exchange Profile ( ) Equipment + [Connectivity] + [Schedule] Ref (static model) + Topology + State Variables IEC Solved State Exchange Profile ( )

25 Solved State Metadata by File Type

26 Profile Specification – File Types  TSO Equipment Model Files  Equipment All equipment modeled by a given TSO. - Includes Terminal objects. Switches only if they are to be retained in studies. Equivalent generator at X-nodes.  Regulating Control: RegulatingControl targetRange for each voltage and flow control.  Topology Files  X-node Boundary File TopologicalNodes at tie midpoints.  TSO Files TSO TopologicalNode objects Terminal ‘about’ objects - TopologicalNode association - Connected attribute indicates open/close end  State Variable Files  SvVoltage at TopologicalNodes  SvPowerFlow at GeneratingUnits, EnergyConsumer  SvShuntCompensatorSections and SvTapStep

27 Partitioning into Files by TSO

28 Complete View of Partitioning Into Files

29 UCTE Interconnection Solution

30 Dependency Relationships to be Expressed in Headers

Profile Data Groups

32 Partitioning of EMS Static Model

33 Partitioning of EMS Solved Cases

Display Layout Exchange  Purpose:  To exchange schematic display layouts accompanying model or solution exchanges.  Corresponds to the part of display maintenance work that normally goes with model maintenance.  Defines graphic objects used in the sender’s displays:  Usually linked to a model object, but can also be background.  One or more location coordinates. (Optional glue points.)  Graphic style reference.  Does not define:  Interpretation of graphic style references. Diagram exchanges must first agree on a set of style references. Receiver provides the graphic style interpretation models for their display management software.  Result:  Layouts and names of things should be familiar.  Exact replication graphically is likely only when sender and receiver applications are the same.  Exact replication functionally is likely only when sender and receiver applications are the same.

35 Display Layout UML Proposal

36 UCTE Case – Display Layout Exchange

37 Profile Specifications -- Packaging  Files  A business exchange contains 1-n files.  File bodies follow except that some have “dangling associations”. MRIDs are used as RDFIDs.  File naming convention TBD  Header references dependent files.  When multiple files are used to transmit a complete model – as defined by some CIM profile…  Files are zipped together.  Each XML expression of an object, association or attribute appears in one and only one file. Associations are defined from the “many” end as with the existing 452 exchanges that have been interop tested.  Total profile transmission is the union of the file body contents.  A complete valid XML expression can be obtained simply by concatenating the RDF/XML in the file bodies.

38 Business Usage Profiles for x  Typically, will need to add specific usage decisions for their exchange agreements.  Boundary conventions  Is there a model broker?  Naming  Slack variable treatment  EMS or planning or both?  File packaging.

39 Conclusions  A great deal of progress has been made.  Tools exist.  Adoption is lagging – especially in North America.