REPORT REGARDING STUDIES CONDUCTED WITH THE OWNERS' VALIDATED DATA FOR THE NEW WECC THERMAL TURBINEGOVERNOR

MODELING

Les Pereira (Chair, GMTF) Donald Davies (Chair, MDTF) Shawn Patterson (Chair, M&VWG) Dmitry Kosterev, BPA Mark Willis, CAISO

Governor Modeling Task Force WECC Modeling & Validation Work Group
February 28, 2003

2 Report Regarding Studies Conducted With the Owners' Validated Data for the New WECC Thermal Turbine-Governor Modeling Executive Summary and Recommendations This report includes details of simulations performed with validated governor data submitted by generator owners for the new thermal governor model developed by the Governor Modeling Task Force (GMTF). The Modeling & Validation Work Group (M&VWG) and the Technical Studies Subcommittee (TSS) have previously approved the new thermal governor model, which was developed using approximated data. The studies reported herein were conducted using the new dynamic database populated with validated governor data from the owners. Study results clearly indicate that the new thermal governor model is more accurate than the existing thermal governor models. It is not intended that these studies reproduce in exact detail the events themselves1. Rather it is the intent of these studies to demonstrate that the new thermal governor model is comparatively more accurate than the existing model as demonstrated by simulations for random and staged major generator trip disturbances. In these simulations, the existing governor model has been seen to be consistently optimistic. The new model exhibits a better match to frequency response, flows, and oscillations than with the existing governor model. Most of the events studied occurred at WECC system loads of 90000 to 110000 MW. With higher load levels and flows, it is reasonable to expect that the relative improvement in results with the new model as compared to the old model will become even more apparent. While the new governor modeling is clearly more accurate than the existing modeling, the GMTF will continue its work to refine the governor modeling in the simulation of responses after 20 to 30 seconds when other effects such as AGC need to be addressed. Generator owners will likely refine their governor models as more disturbance data is obtained. Also, the introduction of Kaplan hydro turbine models and other modeling improvements for both governors and exciters will improve simulation results. The need for longer time simulations greater than 20 seconds has to be first established by the WECC. (An example would be the NERC requirements for frequency-responsive reserves.) Modeling work will continue with criteria that includes more accurate frequency response, generator pickup, oscillations and intertie flows. Recommendations Based on studies performed with validated governor data submitted by generator owners for the new thermal governor model, the GMTF recommends the use of the new thermal governor model with generator owners new data in lieu of the existing model and existing data for WECC studies for simulations up to 20 seconds.

This can only be possible if every generating unit and every load is accurately modeled dynamically, and system voltages and flows are accurately initialized.

3 Background The new thermal governor model was developed using assumed data based on the May18, 2001 trip test. The GMTF presented the model to WECC in July 2002 after extensive studies and a validation effort that included the May 18, 2001 Northwest and Hoover generator trip tests, the June 7, 2000 trip test, and verification simulations of three other major system disturbances. A comprehensive report titled New Thermal Turbine-Governor Modeling for the WECC (Report) was issued by the GMTF and is available on the WECC web-site2. The model was approved by the MVWG at Roseville on July 16, 2002 and was approved by the TSS at Estes Park on August 28, 2002. These approvals were essentially for the model, i.e. the ggov1 model and the load controller lcfb1 for the ieeeg1 thermal governor model, with the understanding that validated data would be obtained from the generator owners before use of the model by the WECC members for studies. Additionally, presentations were made at the PCC, RITF and OSS at meetings between June and October 2002. There was a wide distribution of the Report and the presentations at the various meetings. Current WECC policy requires that all generation owners submit appropriate computer model data to represent their machines and associated equipment along with recorded data that validates the accuracy of the computer models. It was therefore required that the data for the new models be validated by comparing actual measured electrical power output response data of each unit to the computer modeled simulation response. To introduce the new governor model to owners and describe the requirements for obtaining validated data, a workshop was conducted by the GMTF at Salt Lake City on August 19-20, 2002. To facilitate obtaining validated data for the new model from the owners, the GMTF proposed the formation of a Model Data Task Force (MDTF) at the PCC meeting on October 25, 2002. The MDTF was formed with members comprising generator owners, and control area and interconnection service provider representatives3. Guidelines for the selection and validation of the owner's governor model were published by the GMTF and have been included in the Report. To assist in the selection of the parameters of the new model, computer programs were developed that simulated the governor performance for a frequency profile input of the May 18, 2001 test, and other events. These computer programs were available for use with the GE stability program. Additionally, for those owners who did not have the GE program or access to it, a spreadsheet simulation tool, based on a linearized version of a Matlab-Simulink program of the ggov1 model, was developed using the modeling technique of frequency profile input of the May 18, 2001 test and the October 8, 2002 event. A PTI version of the ggov1 model was also developed.

2 3

The reference url is http://www.wecc.biz/committees/PCC/TSS/MVWG/thermalgovernor.html A list of the MDTF members is given in Appendix 1.

4 The MDTF conducted an intensive program of assistance, including workshop meetings and conference calls, to assist owners to select and validate their governor models by January 15th 2003. Over 90% of generator owners responded with data for over 800 generators. The MDTF has already released the 2003 Spring & Summer Operating cases to WECC members with the new data. MDTF Details of Validated Data Submittal from the Owners The new governor modeling data were compiled from submittals by generator owners and the Model Data Task Force members. The following statistics demonstrate the significant effort that occurred. There are 828 thermal units generating at least 10 MW in the 2003 HS4 operating case. Generator owners or control area/interconnection service providers submitted information regarding new governor modeling for 765 of those thermal units. The dynamic data collected by the MDTF includes 132 units with load controllers (that are not base loaded) and 590 base-loaded units. For governors and exciters that were not previously modeled, there are 400 new governor models and 100 new exciter models. The new governor models include 50 new hydro governor models. The MDTF was formed by a November 7, 2002 letter from the PCC chair. There was participation from Control Area Operators, Transmission Interconnection Service Providers, Generator Owners, and the Governor Modeling Task Force members. Although generator owners are responsible to provide model data for their generators, the task force provides experts to assist generator owners in understanding what is needed for simulation models and how to obtain and provide the needed information. The purpose of the task force is to assist the generator owners as necessary so they can succeed in providing the needed model data. The initial focus of the task force was to assist owners to provide data for the new governor model. In the future, focus will be placed upon improving data for other models such as the generator overexcitation limiters, adding governor and exciter data for unmodeled generators, and improving load modeling data. To complete the initial focus on populating data for new governor model by January 15, 2003 the task force conducted two meetings and several conference calls. The purpose of these meetings and calls was to train MDTF members regarding new governor model data needs and to provide support to MDTF members so they could provide assistance to the generator owners. Another important function of the MDTF task force is to provide an avenue for identification of and communication with the generator owners interconnected to their systems. Governor Model Studies of Generator Disturbances Recordings of system frequency for the following underfrequency events were made available from the WECC website and were used for governor data validation by the owners. May 18, 2001 tests (NW and Hoover trips) - 1250 MW and 750 MW respectively (10:40 and 10:20 PDT)

5 July 27, 2002 (19:19 PDT), Four Corners trip (2065 MW) July 15, 2002 (13:04 and 15:12 PDT), NW RAS trip (2350 MW) July 17, 2002 (15:41 PDT), NW RAS trip (2350 MW) June 6, 2002 (13:47 PDT), PDCI loss (2800 MW) October 8, 2002 (15.21 PDT), NW RAS (2900 MW)

Simulation studies of some of these events have been included in this report. Results Comparison The following sections of the report includes plots depicting a comparison in results between: 1) the present data files, 2) the data files with the base load flag, load controller, and other changes submitted to the MDTF, and 3) the actual system performance. Note that the results with the new data files are significantly closer to the system performance than are those with the old data files. Plots of flow changes on paths, frequency levels, and voltages were reviewed. Representative plots are included in the following discussion. The following table summarizes generation represented on line and frequency responsive for the simulations (not base loaded, with active governors): Frequency Event date PGEN Total responsive PGEN May 18, 2001 92168 MW 51149 MW June 6, 2002 110202 MW 63325 MW July 17, 2002 119713 MW 68415 MW July 27, 2002 102174 MW 51705 MW October 8, 2002 103435 MW 54712 MW May 18, 2001 System Test NW RAS (1250 MW) Trip On May 18, 2001, a WECC system test was performed. Separate tests were conducted including 1) Chief Joseph Brake insertion, 2) tripping of Hoover units (750 MW), and 3) tripping of Northwest units (1250 MW). Notably, AGC was turned off during the tests to capture the effect of the governors. Plots are included here for tripping of the Northwest generator units. The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included the following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains the time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow:

6 Switching Codes TG - Trip generator TG TG TG TG TG TG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "I " "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "J " "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "K " "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "M " "COULEE20" 15.0 "1 " "GMS G10 " 13.8 "1 "

Plots depicting frequency at Malin and flow on Malin-Round Mountain 500 kV line 1 are included below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and green provides actual traces from system monitors during the disturbance. Effect of Governor Blocking The M&VWG recommendation for the last several years has been to represent all thermal generators larger than 150 MW that are loaded more than 90% with blocked governors for simulations. The new governor modeling replaces that approximation with a more accurate representation of the individual generators. The following plots compare results for the May 18 northwest generator trip between a representation with the old M&VWG recommendation and the new representation. The turquoise plot provides results for the simulation with no governor blocking.
MAY 18, 2001 1250 MW NW TRIP Malin Frequency 60.02

60

59.98

Existing governor model - without OCSG "blocking' - with OCSG 'blocking'

59.96 Frequency (Hz)

59.94 New thermal governor model 59.92

59.9 May 18th test recording 59.88

59.86

59.84 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

May 18th 2001 NW 1250 MW Trip Test 400

350

Malin-Rd Mt#1 Line flow, MW

300

250

New thermal governor model May 18th test recording

200

150 Existing governor model - without OCSG "blocking' - with OCSG 'blocking' 100 -10

10

20 Time in secs

30

40

50

60

MAY 18, 2001 NWTRIP Malin Voltage dip 1.1 May 18th test recording New thermal governor model

1.095 Malin Voltage (pu)

Existing governor model - without blocking - with recommended blocking

1.09

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by +.01 to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison

1.085 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

MAY 18, 2001 NWTRIP Cols-Brdvw flow 1035

1030 Esisting governor model - without blocking - with recommended blocking

1025

Cols-Brdvw Flow (MW)

1020 May 18 test record 1015

1010 New thermal governor model 1005 Note: The simulated flow is offset by +40 to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

1000

995 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

May 18, 2001 System Test Hoover (750 MW) Trip On May 18, 2001, a WECC system test was performed. Separate tests were conducted including 1) Chief Joseph Brake insertion, 2) tripping of Hoover (750 MW) units, and 3) tripping of Northwest (1250 MW) units. Plots are included here for tripping of the Hoover generator units. The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included the following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains the time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow: Switching Codes TG - Trip generator TG TG TG TG TG TG TG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 "HOVRA1A2" 16.5 "A1" "HOOVERA6" 16.5 "1 " "HOOVERA7" 16.5 "1 " "HOVRN1N2" 16.5 "N2" "HOVRN3N4" 16.5 "N3" "HOVRN3N4" 16.5 "N4" "HOVRN5N6" 16.5 "N5"

Plots depicting frequency at Malin and flow on Malin-Round Mountain 500 kV line 1 are included below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and green provides actual traces from system monitors during the disturbance.

MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Malin Frequency dip 60.02 Note: The simulated frequency is offset by +0.01 to match initial actual frequency. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison. 60

59.98 Frequency (Hz)

Present governor model

New governor model 59.96

59.94 May 18 test recording

59.92

59.9 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Mln-RM flow 500

480

460

440 Malin-RM Flow (MW)

420

400

380 Note: The simulated flow is offset by +20 to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

360

340

320

300 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

10

MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Malin Voltage 1.1

1.099

1.098

1.097

Malin Voltage (pu)

1.096

1.095

1.094

1.093

1.092

1.091

1.09 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Clstp-Brdvw flow 1050

1040

1030

1020 Clstp-Brdvw Flow (MW)

1010

1000

990

980

970

960

950 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

11 June 6, 2002 NW RAS operation On June 6, 2002, the PDCI tripped, first one pole and then the other followed by operation of the NW generator tripping RAS. The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included the following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains the time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow:
Switching Codes DB - Delete bus DL - Delete line DDC - Delete DC line TG - Trip generator FL - Fault line CC - comment MBS - Modify shunt CC DROP PDCI POLE 3 CC DDC 0.0 "CELILO3P" 500. "SYLMAR3P" 500. DB 0.0 "CELILO1 " 500. DB 0.0 "CELILO3 " 230. DB 0.0 "SYLMAR1 " 230. DB 0.0 "SYLMAR3 " 230. CC CC AT 12.0 CYCLES INSERT FORT ROCK SERIES CAPS CC RC 12.0 "CAPTJACK" 500. "GRIZZLY " 500. "1 " 4 RC 12.0 "GRIZZLY " 500. "MALIN " 500. "1 " 4 RC 12.0 "PONDROSA" 500. "SUMMER L" 500. "1 " 4 CC CC AT 90.0 CYCLES INSERT BOTH SHUNT CAPS AT MALIN 500 CC MBS 90.0 "MALIN " 500. "c1" "R" MBS 90.0 "MALIN " 500. "c2" "R" CC CC AT 12.45 SECONDS (747 CYCLES) DROP PDCI POLE 4 CC DDC 747.0 "CELILO4P" 500. "SYLMAR4P" 500. DB 747.0 "CELILO2 " 500. DB 747.0 "CELILO4 " 230. DB 747.0 "SYLMAR2 " 230. DB 747.0 "SYLMAR4 " 230. CC CC AT 16.85 SECONDS (1011 CYCLES) DROP FOLLOWING GEN CC AT CHIEF JOSEPH, GRAND COULEE AND MCNARY CC (CHIEF JO = 1735 MW, COULEE = 500 MW, MCNARY = 300 MW) CC TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "I " TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "J " TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "K " TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "M " TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "N " TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "O "

12
TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "P " 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "Q " 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "R " 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "S " 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "T " 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "1 " 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "2 " 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "3 " 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "D " 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "E " 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "F " 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "G " 1011.0 "COULEE14" 13.8 "1 " 1011.0 "COULEE15" 13.8 "1 " 1011.0 "COULEE16" 13.8 "1 " 1011.0 "COULEE17" 13.8 "1 " 1011.0 "COULEE18" 13.8 "1 " 1011.0 "MCNARY07" 13.8 "7 " 1011.0 "MCNARY08" 13.8 "8 " 1011.0 "MCNARY09" 13.8 "9 " 1011.0 "MCNARY10" 13.8 "A " 1011.0 "MCNARY11" 13.8 "B "

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths are included below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and green provides traces from system monitors during the disturbance.
06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Malin Freq dip Note: The simulated frequency is offset by -0.03 Hz to match initial actual frequency. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

60.05

60

59.95 Malin Frequency (Hz)

59.9

59.85

59.8

59.75

59.7

59.65 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

13

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Malin Volt dip

1.15

1.1 Malin Voltage (pu)

1.05

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by +0.02 pu to match actual initial voltages. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

0.95

0.9 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Mln-RM Flow 2200

2000

MW Flow on Malin-RM Line 1

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

14

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Midway-Vincent Flow

1400

1200 MW Flow on Midway-Vincent Line 1

1000

800

600

400

-10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

15

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Palo Verde-Devers Flow 1050

1000

MW Flow on PV-Devers Line

950

900

850

800

Note: The simulated flow is offset by +50 MW to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

750 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Vincent Volt dip 1.08

1.07

1.06

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by -0.02 pu to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

1.05 Vincent Voltage (pu)

1.04

1.03

1.02

1.01

0.99 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

16 July 17, 2002 NW RAS operation On July 17, 2002 the Northwest RAS operated tripping northwest generation. The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included the following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains the time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow: Switching Codes DL - Delete line TG - Trip generator FL - Fault line CC - comment MBS - Modify shunt DL 0.0 "MIN287 " 287 "KIT287 " 287 "1 " TG 0.0 "KMO G1 " 13.8 "1 " TG 0.0 "KMO G2 " 13.8 "1 " TG 0.0 "KMO G3 " 13.8 "1 " CC fault p.u. clear clear CC imp. dist from to CC time bus1_name bkv bus2_name bkv ckt sec r x from cl1 cl2 FL 276 "GRIZZLY " 500. "MALIN" 500. "1 " 1 0 0 1 279 280 CC 615 MW at Chief Joseph TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "O " TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "P " TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "Q " TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "R " TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "S " TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "T " CC 324 MW at Chief Joseph */ TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "5 " TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "6 " TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "7 " TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "8 " CC 386 MW at Chief Joseph */ TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "1 " TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "2 " TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "3 " TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "D " TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "E " CC 605 MW at Grand Coulee PH3 */ TG 293 "COULEE21" 15.0 "1 " CC 397 MW at Grand Coulee */ TG 293 "COULEE06" 13.8 "1 " TG 293 "COULEE07" 13.8 "1 " TG 293 "COULEE08" 13.8 "1 " TG 293 "COULEE09" 13.8 "1 " CC 170 MW at Wanapum */ TG 293 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "7 " TG 293 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "9 " CC 230 MW at Rocky Reach */ TG 293 "ROCKY RH" 15.0 "7 " TG 293 "RRCH8-11" 15.0 "A " CC Insert Chief Joseph braking resistor */

17
MBS 293 "CHIEF JO" 230 "bB" "A" 14. 0.0 MBS 323 "CHIEF JO" 230 "bB" "D" C

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths are included below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and green provides traces from system monitors during the disturbance.
17July2002 NWRAS Malin Frequency dip 60

59.95

59.9

Frequency

59.85

59.8

59.75

59.7

59.65 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

18

17July2002 NWRAS Malin Voltage dip 1.12

1.11

1.1

Voltage

1.09

1.08 Note: The simulated voltage is offset by 0.003 to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

1.07

1.06 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

17July2002 NWRAS Malin-Round Mountain Line 1 Flow 800

700

600

500

MW Flow

400

300

200

100

-100 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

19

17July2002 NWRAS Midway-Vincent Line 1 Flow 400 Note: The simulated flow is offset by -100 MW to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison

350

300

250 MW Flow

200

150

100

50

0 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

17July2002 NWRAS PV-Devers Line Flow 1000

950

900

850 MW Flow

800

750

700

650

600 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

20

17July2002 NWRAS Colstrip-Broadview Line 1 Flow 560

550

540

530

520 MW Flow

510

500

490

480

470

460 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

21

July 27, 2002 Four Corners Plant trip On July 27, 2002 all five units at the Four Corners generating station tripped. The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included the following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains the time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow: Switching Codes TG - Trip generator TG TG TG TG TG 0.0 "FCNGEN 1" 20.0 "1 " 0.0 "FCNGEN 2" 20.0 "1 " 870. "FCNGEN 3" 20.0 "1 " 870. "FCNGN4CC" 22.0 "4 " 870. "FCNGN5CC" 22.0 "5 "

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths are included below. In every plot, blue depicts the old model, red the new, and green provides traces from system monitors during the disturbance.

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Malin Freq dip

60 59.98 59.96 59.94 59.92 59.9 59.88 59.86 59.84 59.82 59.8 -10

Note: The simulated frequency is offset by -.015 to match initial actual frequency. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

Malin Frequency (Hz)

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

22

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Malin Volt dip 1.11

1.1

1.09

1.08 Malin Voltage (pu)

1.07

1.06

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by +.03 to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

1.05

1.04

1.03 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Mln-RM Flow 1300

1250

1200 MW Flow on Malin-RM Line 1

1150

1100

1050

1000

950 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

23

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Midway-Vincent Flow 450

400

MW Flow on Midway-Vincent Line 1

350

300

250

200 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Palo Verde-Devers Flow 800 Note: The simulated flow is offset by -60 MW to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

750

700 MW Flow on PV-Devers Line

650

600

550

500

450

400 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

24

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Colstrip-Broadview Line 1 Flow 900

895

890 MW Flow on Colstrip-Broadview Line 1

885

880

875

870

865

860

855

850 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Vincent Volt dip 1.07 Note: The simulated voltage is offset by -0.04 to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison. 1.065

1.06 Vincent Voltage (pu)

1.055

1.05

1.045

1.04 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

25

Oct 8, 2002 Line trip and NW RAS operation On October 8, 2002 the Northwest RAS operated tripping northwest generation. The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included the following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains the time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow: Switching Codes DL - Delete line TG - Trip generator CC - comment
DL 0.0 "PONDROSA" 500 "SUMMER L" 500 "1 " DL 0.0 "MALIN " 500 "SUMMER L" 500 "1 " DL 0.0 "BURNS " 500 "SUMMER L" 500 "1 " CC /* 677 MW at Chief Joseph */ TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "N " TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "O " TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "P " TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "Q " TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "R " TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "S " TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "T " CC /* 520 MW at Grand Coulee */ TG 17 "COULEE01" 13.8 "1 " TG 17 "COULEE02" 13.8 "1 " TG 17 "COULEE03" 13.8 "1 " TG 17 "COULEE04" 13.8 "1 " TG 17 "COULEE05" 13.8 "1 " CC /* 307 MW at Grand Coulee */ TG 17 "COULEE06" 13.8 "1 " TG 17 "COULEE07" 13.8 "1 " TG 17 "COULEE08" 13.8 "1 " CC /* 490 MW at Grand Coulee #20 */ TG 17 "COULEE20" 15.0 "1 " CC /* 551 MW at Grand Coulee #24 */ TG 17 "COULEE24" 15.0 "1 " CC /* 167 MW at Wanapum */ TG 17 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "7 " TG 17 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "A " CC /* 196 MW at Rocky Reach */ TG 17 "ROCKY RH" 15.0 "7 " TG 17 "RRCH8-11" 15.0 "B "

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths are included below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and green provides traces from system monitors during the disturbance. Some of the plots below also include a turquoise trace with PPSM monitor data. The other actual data (green) in this report is from the PMU monitors.

26

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Malin Freq dip

60

59.95

59.9 Malin Frequency (Hz)

59.85

59.8

59.75

59.7

59.65

59.6 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Malin Volt dip

1.16

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by +.01 to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

1.14 Malin Voltage (pu)

1.12

1.1

1.08

1.06 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

27

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Mln-RM Flow 1100

1000 Note: The simulated flow is offset by -20 to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

900 MW Flow on Malin-RM Line 1

800

700

600

500

400

300 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Palo Verde-Devers Flow 1400 Note: The simulated flow is offset by -20 to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison. 1350

MW Flow on PV-Devers Line

1300

1250

1200

1150

1100 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

28

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Colstrip-Broadview Line 1 Flow 1080

1060

Note: The simulated flow is offset by +30 to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

1040 MW Flow on Colstrip-Broadview Line 1

1020

1000

980

960

940

920

900

880 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Vincent Volt dip 1.07

1.065

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by -0.015 to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

1.06

1.055 Vincent Voltage (pu)

1.05

1.045

1.04

1.035

1.03

1.025 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

29

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Custer-Ingledow Line Flow 1000 Note: The simulated flow is offset by -40 to match initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

900

800 MW Flow on Custer-Ingledow Line

700

600

500

400

300

200 -10

10

20 30 Time in Seconds

40

50

60

30 APPENDIX 1 MODEL DATA TASK FORCE (MDTF) PARTICIPANTS Baj Agrawal Jeffrey Scott Kai C Lee Barry Francis Dmitry Kosterev Xavier Baldwin Alan Roth Mario Lara Bert E. Hoffman Mark Willis Romulo F Barreno Ben Supremo Jerry Kyle David Tovar Wayne Kunkel David Barrajas Mark Hanson John (Gang-Kung) Hu Mike Kramer Robert Jenkins Les Pereira Helena Ho Marc A. Kodis John Cummings Craig Quist Bill Hall Mike Okapal Ashok Agarwal Sherman Chen Jon Eric Thalman Richard J. Goddard Kenneth Dillon George Nail Bob Johnson Tom Green Joe Seabrook John Phillips Joseph W. Milton Nam Nguyen Fred Ojima Abbas Abed Dilip Mahendra APS AVA BCHA BEPC BPAT BURB CALP CFE CHPD CISO DENA DENA DOPD EPE GCPD IID IPC LDWP MID MIR NCPA NEVP NRG NWMT PAC PAC PAC PASA PG&E PG&E PGE PGE PNM PSC PSC PSE PSE REI SCE SCL SDGE SMUD

31 Zeina Randall John Hernandez John Kehler Kenneth Peck Chris Shultz Vince Leung Shawn Patterson John Greenlaw Doug Smith Donald Davies (Chair) Andy Schuetzinger SPP SRP TAA TEP TPWR TSGT USBR WACM WAPA WECC