1 / 19

CIM Utility Case Study Alabama Power

CIM Utility Case Study Alabama Power. G. Larry Clark Alabama Power, A Southern Company Fall 2009 CIM User Group Meeting EPRI, Charlotte, North Carolina November 11-13, 2009. Presentation Agenda. 2006 CIM Utilization Experience Alabama Power Specific Issues Alabama Power Observations

iona
Download Presentation

CIM Utility Case Study Alabama Power

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CIM Utility Case StudyAlabama Power G. Larry Clark Alabama Power, A Southern Company Fall 2009 CIM User Group Meeting EPRI, Charlotte, North Carolina November 11-13, 2009

  2. Presentation Agenda 2006 • CIM Utilization Experience • Alabama Power Specific Issues • Alabama Power Observations 2009 • Alabama / Southern AMI System (and Interface standards) • CIM Modeling Gap Analysis (for the Distribution feeder)

  3. The Southern Company Serve 4.4 Million Retail Customers Generating Capacity : 42,000 MW 120,000 Square Miles

  4. Alabama Power Company • APC serves 1,431,334 Customers • APC owns or operates 81 electric generating units with 12,222 megawatts Total Nameplate Capacity • Coal ……………… 70.53 % • Nuclear ………….. 17.99 % • Gas and Oil ……… 9.55 % • Hydro …………….. 1.93 % • Regulated by The Alabama Public Service Commission • Rate Stabilization

  5. Alabama Power Company • Install 28,000 new meters per year • Over 6,600 Employees • 10,218 Miles Transmission • 79,430 Miles Distribution • 44,500 Sq. Mile Service Territory • Six Geographic Divisions

  6. CIM Utilization Experience • Experience period – June 2006 to August 2006 • Semantic layer decouples application from data, but resulting XML file substantially increases model size • Component attributes are removed from entity causing the schema to use relationships to provide adequate attribution • Attribution is abstracted to achieve flexible data format while causing model complexity • e.g. “Address” is not an attribute of equipment, but is in the Erp.Address space

  7. CIM Utilization Experience • Graphics placement was removed from CIM • GML is used to represent graphics placement • Use of GML resulted in considerable extensions to model • Use of GML did not provide adequate means to represent the same data element as different symbols at different scales

  8. Alabama Power Specific Issues • Metering was not complete in CIM data model in 2006 • Measurement points for line-post sensors did not exist • Address information was very complex to represent using the Erp model • Distribution pole-mounted recloser was not in CIM (Breaker is included but only in the context of a substation) • Capacitor model was not complete requiring considerable number of extensions • CT’s and PT’s were not represented resulting in extension additions

  9. Alabama Power Specific Issues • Alabama model contains approximately 500 attributes • Approximately 300 attributes of the Alabama attributes were found in the CIM definitions • Approximately 100 attributes required extensions which have been added to CIM • Another approximately 100 attributes were identified as Alabama custom attributes and have not yet been added to CIM • Consequently, approximately 400 of the 500 attributes in the Alabama model are in the CIM which includes the 100 attribute extension additions

  10. Alabama Power Specific Issues • Alabama chose to use a flatter XML file specifically to manage large GIS model files to achieve: • Faster movement of smaller files across the network to support incremental updates of the operational model • Faster translation from GIS XML to IDMS XML

  11. Alabama Power Observations • Southern/Alabama supports the industry movement to a common model • For IDMS interfaces to external applications (e.g. CIS, AMI, IVR, Work Management), the vendors do not offer a CIM compliant interface • CIM is too complex and heavy for efficient movement of the GIS data model (based on the substation being the smallest increment) • Southern/Alabama will continue to pursue opportunities to use CIM messages on the utility integrated bus to externalize IDMS data to the enterprise

  12. Multi-Comm PCT/G-way Displays LCM H/W Alabama / Southern AMI System AMI Dashboard • Southern Company’s Enterprise Systems 1.5 MM Meters Proprietary Today Servers, Software & Databases (RNI) WirelessRF • CSS • Complex Billing • Load Research • EnergyDirect “Buddy Mode” IEE • Outage Management • Demand Response • Service Orders • PQView • Others Data Backhaul to SCS CIM IEC 61968-9 (IEC IS) CIM IEC 61968-8 (under development) Or Multi Speak C12.22 C12.19 C12.22 Base Station MV/XI Comm Tower Enterprise Bus FlexNet HAN SEP 2.0 MV90 PHEV Use standards Non-proprietary Interoperability EVM ION Enterprise USnap – USB Port in Home

  13. CIM Modeling Gap Analysis • CIM was originally developed to represent the transmission systems • No interoperability testing has occurred (CDPSM InterOp testing planned for November 2009) • CIM has not yet evolved to support North American distribution feeders • MultiSpeak Specification has evolved specifically to support North American feeders • Distribution Model Problem Statement • Both lines and loads are typically unbalanced • Many lines and transformers are single-phase or two-phase

  14. CIM Modeling Gap Analysis • New features are needed in CIM (specifically the CDPSM) to better support North American Distribution feeders • CIM Issues • Submitted through the IEC TC 57 / WG 14 Part 11 Modeling team • WG17? • Switching Operational Model exchange? • CIM needs Recloser and Sectionalizer classes to represent North American Distribution feeders

  15. CIM Modeling Gap Analysis • Outage Analysis Impact • Clarify the use of geographic coordinates • Bring back the EquivalentLoad class • Assign phase codes to windings • Everything outside the substation should be in a feeder container • Clarify the appearance of phases on Terminals and Connectivity Nodes

  16. CIM Modeling Gap Analysis • Power Flow testing impact • Add the full complement of control parameters for voltage regulators • For capacitor controls, add the modes for power factor, var control, time, and temperature • Add a new line code class, to facilitate transfer of power flow models • Define a structured matrix format for the phase impedance matrices of a general number of conductors and other applications

  17. CIM Modeling Gap Analysis • Asset modeling and fault analysis impact • Add a Recloser class • Add a Sectionalizer class • Add a Sensor class • Conclusions and Recommendations • Reclosers, sectionalizers, and sensors need to be added to the CIM as assets • The Distribution electrical model needs adequate representations of reclosers, sectionalizers, and sensors

  18. Presentation Epilogue 2006 • CIM Utilization Experience • Alabama Power Specific Issues • Alabama Power Observations 2009 • Alabama / Southern AMI System (and Interface standards) • CIM Modeling Gap Analysis (for the Distribution feeder)

  19. Questions CIM Utility Case StudyAlabama Power G. Larry Clark Alabama Power, A Southern Company Fall 2009 CIM User Group Meeting EPRI, Charlotte, North Carolina November 11-13, 2009

More Related