2 Objectives Purpose Review applicable NERC Reliability Standards Understand differences between the Seasonal Assessment and the Operational Seasonal Study Understand study methodology Review types of contingencies screened Review actual coordinated corrective plans Understand the review & approval process Understand where the report is posted Questions?
Purpose Assess the adequacy & robustness of the FRCC Region under expected 2012 winter load conditions and under anticipated system conditions (taking into account generation and transmission maintenance activities). 3
Purpose, cont. Potential operating issues identified in advance Highlight areas of concern where operating and system planning personnel need to coordinate Coordinate corrective plans where multiple parties are involved Satisfy applicable NERC Reliability Standards 4
Applicable NERC Reliability Standards NERC StandardTitle TPL-001-0.1 System Performance Under Normal Conditions TPL-002-0b System Performance Following Loss of a Single BES Element TPL-003-0a System Performance Following Loss of Two or More BES Elements TPL-005-0 Regional and Interregional Self-Assessment Reliability Reports TPL-006-0.1 Assessment Data from Regional Reliability Organizations TOP-002-2bNormal Operations Planning VAR-001-2Voltage and Reactive Control 5 For example: TOP-002-2b R2. Each Balancing Authority and Transmission Operator shall ensure its operating personnel participate in the system planning and design study processes, so that these studies contain the operating personnel perspective and system operating personnel are aware of the planning purpose.
Assessment vs.Operational Study Seasonal Transmission Assessment Analyzes the FRCC transmission system with all transmission facilities expected to be in-service and with normal (pre-contingency) operating procedures in effect during the season. Only performed in Summer and Winter seasons due to expected peak load conditions. Operational Seasonal Study Analyzes the performance of the transmission system with forecasted generation and transmission outages for the season. Performed all four seasons (Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter). 6
Assessment vs. Operational Study, cont. Seasonal Transmission Assessment Six cases are developed: One case using forecasted Winter peak load flow (45,890 MW) is run (all facilities in service) Five additional cases – each with a large unit off (aka C3 Gen cases) are developed Units outaged include Crystal River #5, Ft Myers #2, St Lucie #1, Sanford #5, and Stanton #2 Single contingencies (Category B contingencies) are run on each of these cases. 7
Operational Seasonal Study Six cases are developed: Utilizes forecasted load Includes generation outages Includes transmission outages Two cases per month (December, January, & February) The 2 cases for each month are selected based on quantity and types of outages during the month 8 Assessment vs. Operational Study, cont.
Study Methodology Cases are developed utilizing Siemen’s PSS/e power flow software PSS/e is an integrated, interactive program for simulating, analyzing, and optimizing power system performance Steady-state analysis is performed using Siemens’ Managing and Utilizing System Transmission (PSS/MUST) load flow software PSS/MUST enables us to perform a variety of contingency analysis on multiple cases 9
Study Methodology, cont. Includes contracted firm interchange Includes screening for thermal and voltage limits “No Solves” are referred to the Stability Working Group (SWG) for further analysis 10
Study Methodology, cont. PSS/e Cases include three ratings for each transmission facility: Rate A: Continuous (Normal) Rating Rate B: Long-term Emergency Rating Rate C: Short-term Emergency Rating The amount of time a short-term or long-term emergency rating is valid is determined by the owning TOPs facilities rating methodology 11
TOPs are responsible for developing and maintaining all ratings within the PSS/e cases All ratings are developed based on the individual TOPs facilities ratings methodology Jointly owned facilities and tie-line facilities’ ratings are coordinated by applicable TOPs and included in cases 12 Study Methodology, cont.
If the screenings result in a potential overload on a facility due to a different TOP’s contingency facility, the TOP with the overloaded facility is responsible for contacting the TOP that owns the contingency facility to coordinate the corrective plan TOPs provide internal corrective plans to applicable screened contingencies 13
Study Methodology, cont. Each transmission facility’s short term emergency rating (Rate C) is utilized as a System Operating Limit (SOL) proxy A Rate C screening is performed on each of the study cases for applicable screened contingencies Pre-contingency corrective plans are incorporated in the cases for applicable contingencies that exceed the Rate C SOL proxy 14
Study Methodology, cont. Once Rate C screening is complete, applicable contingencies are run against the facility’s Rate A (normal continuous rating) Screened contingencies resulting in branch loadings exceeding 100% of the Rate A or buses outside the general screening criteria of 95%-105% are sent to entities for review and possible corrective plan development 15
Types of Contingencies Screened Category B - Single Contingency Analysis All 69kV and above facilities are individually outaged as a contingency Performed on all cases All BES (100kV and above) facilities exceeding their Rate A and/or their applicable voltage criteria require corrective plans Only 69kV facilities requiring coordination between entities require corrective plans 16
Category C1 Contingency Analysis Models bus section fault contingencies that result in the loss of two or more transmission system elements. Each entity compiles list of C1 contingencies within their area Performed on all cases Only BES (100kV and above) facilities exceeding their Rate A and/or their applicable voltage criteria that need coordination between entities require corrective plans Only 69kV facilities exceeding their Rate A and/or their applicable voltage criteria that need coordination between entities require corrective plans 17 Types of Contingencies Screened, cont.
Category C2 Contingency Analysis Models breaker failure contingencies that result in the loss of two or more transmission system elements. Each entity compiles list of C2 contingencies within their area Performed on all cases Only BES (100kV and above) facilities exceeding their Rate A and/or their applicable voltage criteria that need coordination between entities require corrective plans Only 69kV facilities exceeding their Rate A and/or their applicable voltage criteria that need coordination between entities require corrective plans 18 Types of Contingencies Screened, cont.
Category C5 Contingency Analysis Models the loss of 100kV and above multiple circuit tower lines (>1 mile) contingencies Each entity compiles list of C5 contingencies within their area Performed on all cases Only BES (100kV and above) facilities exceeding their Rate A and/or their applicable voltage criteria that need coordination between entities require corrective plans Only 69kV facilities exceeding their Rate A and/or their applicable voltage criteria that need coordination between entities require corrective plans 19 Types of Contingencies Screened, cont.
The Winter Study documented specific outages during the winter season that required additional coordination. 20 Study Results, cont.
Bunnell-Putnam 230kV Line Outage This line outage showed potential thermal overloads on various facilities for several contingencies. Coordinated Corrective Plan: FPL will modify the clearance schedule as needed depending on forecasted load. 21
Study Results, cont. Florahome-Riverview Outage Contingency: Firestone-Normandy Potential Overloads: CECIL FIELD – NORMANDY 138 119% FIRESTONE 138/69 tx 109% FIRESTONE 230/69 tx 132% HAMILTON - RANDALL 69.0 111% HERLONG - LANE AVE 69.0 132% 22
Study Results, cont. Florahome-Riverview Outage Coordinated Corrective Plan Pre Contingency: JEA will open Firestone breaker 949T3. Post Contingency: Jax Heights - Firestone 230 kV line will open and load will be dropped per the pre-approved FRCC Identified IROL mitigation plan. 23
Study Results, cont. Lake Agnes-McIntosh Outage Contingency: McIntosh-Teneroc 230kV Line Potential Overloads: Larsen E – McIntosh 69kV 107% McIntosh W-McIntosh E 69KV 115% McIntosh 230/69 kV 230% 24
Study Results, cont. Lake Agnes-McIntosh Outage Coordinated Corrective Plan If McIntosh Unit #3’s net output is > 240MW, LAK will open breaker P2284 at McIntosh pre-contingency. If McIntosh- Teneroc 230kV line trips (identified contingency), McIntosh Unit #3 will be isolated and subsequently trip offline. No thermal overloads will actually exist. If McIntosh Unit #3’s net output is between 150 MW – 240 MW and contingency occurs, LAK will utilize the McIntosh autotransformer’s 30 minute emergency rating of 240MW. Subsequently, LAK will decrease generation at McIntosh and replace the generation with LAK 69kV generation. 25
Study Results, cont. Poinsett-Holopaw 230kV line outage SEC, OUC and PEF have agreed to a Local Operating Plan to mitigate potential contingency overloads on the OUC’s St. Cloud 69kV transmission system. Please refer to the Holopaw-Osceola Local Operating Plan for details. 26
Study Results, cont. Two Local Operating Plans Updated Handcart Operational Plan & Holopaw-Osceola Operating Plan Local Operating Plans can now be found on the FRCC website in the BAs/TOPs posting area under a new folder named “Non-BES Local Operating Plans”. 27
Study Results, cont. Review actual spreadsheets with contingencies, impacted facilities, and coordinated corrective plans: Category B Contingencies (Singles & RC Monitored included) C1 Contingencies C2 Contingencies C5 Contingencies 28
Study Results, cont. The results demonstrate that potential thermal and voltage conditions exceeding the applicable screening criteria can be successfully mitigated under normal conditions, single contingency events, and selected multiple contingency events. The transmission system within the FRCC Region is expected to perform reliably for the anticipated 2012 winter season system operating conditions. 29
Review & Approval Process Operations Planning Working Group (OPWG) is responsible for the Seasonal Transmission Assessment & Operational Seasonal Study The OPWG representatives develop and coordinate all corrective plans The FRCC Operations Planning Coordinator (OPC) assists the OPWG by coordinating the studies, running contingency analyses, and developing draft reports Operating Reliability Subcommittee (ORS) reviews study and recommends approval by the Operating Committee (OC) & Planning Committee (PC) 30
Posting of Report Full report is posted on the OPC site (password protected) within the FRCC website for Balancing Authority, Transmission Operator, and Reliability Coordinator personnel to view. 31