1 / 13

WECC 2013 TPL Coordination Analysis Report PCC Response

WECC 2013 TPL Coordination Analysis Report PCC Response. Brian Keel. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response. Task Members: Brian Keel Jeff Mechenbier Marv Landauer Gordon Dobson – Mack Tom Green Bob Easton Chuck Matthews Melvin Rodrigues Muhkles Bhuiyan.

vernon-kidd
Download Presentation

WECC 2013 TPL Coordination Analysis Report PCC Response

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. WECC 2013 TPL Coordination Analysis Report PCC Response Brian Keel

  2. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Task Members: • Brian Keel • Jeff Mechenbier • Marv Landauer • Gordon Dobson – Mack • Tom Green • Bob Easton • Chuck Matthews • Melvin Rodrigues • MuhklesBhuiyan

  3. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • FERC /NERC report from Western AZ/Southern CA Outage of September 8, 2011, WECC developed activities to address the Recommendation by FERC/NERC • Operations & Planning ( O&P7) – WECC develop recommendations for improving coordination of TPL Assessments • To begin, WECC developed a questionnaire to query WECC Members

  4. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Results of the questionnaire identified several potential enhancements to TPL practices • Major topics of the recommendations in Report: • PCC to consider developing guidelines to better coordinate and standardize the diverse practices within WECC • Coordinate the sharing of TPL assessments • Enhance DPM to specify criteria for when planned projects are included in WECC base cases • Participate in regional and sub-regional planning groups • Identify which transmission elements need to be studied in assessments and to insure all are covered in WECC

  5. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • The Report recommendations are based on survey results and WECC Staff • Recommendation #1: Assessments are not being shared or coordinated in a consistent manner between TPs and PCs. The PCC should consider developing a process that facilitates entities sharing. • Task Force Response - The new NERC Standard, TPL-001-4 Requirement #8, will demand this anyway. This Task Force does not see additional value with the recommendation.

  6. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Recommendation #2: TPs and PCs should clearly understand what transmission and non-transmission elements are included in their TPL assessments and coordinate with other TPs and PCs to verify that all are being studied. Task Force Response - The Task Force states that no action is needed by WECC because this issue will be covered in the compliance with NERC Standard TPL-001-4, Requirement #7. This Task Force does not see additional value with the recommendation

  7. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Recommendation# 3 & 4: Recommendation #3: Future versions of the questionnaire should include questions concerning the extent of modifications made to WECC base cases before TPL assessment simulations are performed. Recommendation #4: Future questionnaire questions should focus on how existing facilities are selected for inclusion in the system models; whether by voltage thresholds or other criteria. Task Force Response for #3 & #4 – The Task Force does not need to reply to these recommendations as the future questionnaires are not currently being re – written to gather more information.

  8. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Recommendation #5: The PCC should consider refinements to the existing Data Preparation Manual to specify criteria for determining which planned projects are included in WECC base cases. The current DPM does not adequately specify what future projects are to be represented in WECC base cases, such as what stage in the planning process projects should be included and how non-utility projects are represented. • Task Force Response for #5 - If a Project sponsor misses any Phase 3 milestones by 12 months or more, the Sponsor may lose Phase 3 status (as mentioned in the WECC 3 Phase Rating Process). If the Project does lose the Phase 3 status, then the Project will be pulled out of future WECC base cases and the Task Force does not recommend that WECC Staff return to already released WECC base cases and remove the Project from already completed WECC base cases. • Presented to TSS and under review and receptive.

  9. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Recommendation# 6: The PCC should consider refinements to the existing DPM to specify criteria for determining which planned projects are included in WECC base cases. The current DPM does not adequately specify what future projects are to be represented in WECC base cases,. • Task Force Response for #6 – • The Task Force does see a benefit of developing a process for Project removal. There is no need for back-casting base cases with removed Projects. With the application of the BCCS, the data removals will be part of the normal evolution of base case development. • should not be any future cases built with deleted project(s) that have been removed in the BCCS and • the previously built WECC base cases will not be re-built with the projects deleted.

  10. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Recommendation #7 The PCC should consider • A) developing a process or guideline for how assessment results and mitigation are communicated; specifically, • (B) logging potential performance concerns and the mitigation to address the concern. • Task Force Response for Recommendation #7a, same as #7b – • The Task Force concluded that email communication of the results of the TPL Assessment, as dictated by the NERC Standard TPL-001-4, results will not be enough. • The Task Force recommends that verbal communications of the results is the best method of communication; however, if the communication is performed via email, then the specific information of the violations needs to be explicitly highlighted in the emails.

  11. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Recommendation #8: • The PCC should consider the development of a process or guideline for how TPL assessment results and corrective action plans are shared and reviewed. • The Task Force Response for #8 - to keep the communication between TP and PCs, with the results of the TPL Assessments mitigations done in general as mitigation plans may not have been completely developed at that time.

  12. 2013 TPL Coordination analysis response • Recommendation #9: That the TPs and PCs should participate in regional and sub-regional planning groups to insure open communication with TPL results. • Task Force Response to #9 – Participation in these groups is choice of the TP and PC and may share TPL assessment results with whoever it desires

More Related