Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Branden SudduthDirector, Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis Rocky Mountain Region PA/PC Meeting March 18-19, 2014 Denver, Colorado
Overview • The NERC Functional Model Overview • The Planning Coordinator • The Coverage Gap Issue in WECC • WECC Staff Observations • Planning Coordination Committee Effort • Planning Coordinator Survey Results
The NERC Reliability Functional Model • NERC Reliability Function Model version 5 • Functional Definitions and Functional Entities • Technical Document • Purpose: • Provide a framework for Standards development • Describe reliability functions and relationships between entities that are responsible for performing the tasks within the functions
Guiding Principles of the Model • The model must be complete – no gaps • No overlap for operation tasks • In certain instances, overlap for planning tasks is unavoidable • The model is a guideline – it does not address requirements for registration, delegation, or sharing responsibility
Function – Planning Reliability • Develop methodologies for planning analysis and simulation • Define information required for planning purposes and facilitate collection process • Evaluate, develop, document, and report plans for Planning Coordinator area • Coordinate with adjoining Planning Coordinators • Develop and maintain models
Functional Entity – Planning Coordinator • “The functional entity that coordinates, facilitates, integrates and evaluates (generally one year and beyond) transmission facility and service plans, and resource plans within a Planning Coordinator area and coordinates those plans with adjoining Planning Coordinator areas.” • Assesses longer-term reliability
Standards – Planning Coordinator • Standards applicable to the “Planning Authority” are applicable to the “Planning Coordinator” (pre-version 3 revision)
Standards – Planning Coordinator (cont.) • Some Applicable Reliability Standards • TPL-001 through 004 (System Performance) • FAC-002 (Coordination of Plans for New Facilities) • FAC-010 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon) • MOD-016 (Actual and Forecast Demands, Net Energy for Load, Controllable DSM)
Organization Structure • NERC Functional Model is not always prescriptive on “who reports to who” • Depending on the specific function, reporting structure for a functional entity may change • Structure can vary greatly depending on interpretation by entity • Planning Coordinator definition is vague and Registration doesn’t help
Contributing Factors to the Problem • June 2007 • Mandatory Standards initially created chaos • “Checklist” registration with no review or coordination • Functional Model meant to be a one-size-fits-all solution – in many instances, WECC is “different” • Area Coordinators • Path Operators
Planning Coordinator Gaps Issue • Perceived reliability risk because: • Several entities do not know who their Planning Coordinator is or mistakenly assume another entity is performing this function for them • There is a lack of clarity in Functional Model around who should be a Planning Coordinator • There is no clear definition of a Planning Coordinator Area • There may be reliability functions not being performed because of gaps
WECC Staff Observations • In WECC, currently Planning Coordinator gaps create more of a compliance risk than a reliability risk • Many functions duplicative of Transmission Planner functions • Area Coordinators created for data collection • Interconnection-wide coordinated plans (UFLS) • The list of registered Planning Coordinators almost the same as list of registered Balancing Authorities
WECC Staff Observations (cont.) • Gaps not prevalent in regions where ISO/RTOs exist • Reluctance to be a Planning Coordinator is often tied to liability concerns • More Reliability Standards applicable to the Planning Coordinator are being developed…
MOD-032 Standard Development Update • Passed final ballot in December 2013 • NERC Board approval February 2014 • Requires data providers to submit power flow, dynamics, and short-circuit data to their Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner
Planning Coordination Committee (PCC) Effort • October 2013: PCC asks WECC staff to develop a list mapping Transmission Owners and Generator Owners to Planning Coordinators • December 2013: System Review Work Group survey conducted to identify facilities not in a Planning Coordinator Area • PCs asked to respond to survey • Still collecting and compiling responses
Planning Coordinator Preliminary Survey Results as of 3-11-14
Branden Sudduth WECC email@example.com 801.883.6888 Questions?
Defining the Problem • What is the role of the Transmission Planner (TP) vs. Planning Coordinator (PC)? • Who should be a TP? • Who should be a PC? Who should they be a PC for? • How should TP and PC area boundaries be determined?
Formulating a Proposal • What concerns do entities have relative to being a PC? • How formalized should PC arrangements be? • What are a PC’s responsibilities for Generator Owners (non-TO)? • What can WECC do to help facilitate the resolution of PC gaps?