C: SYSTEM PROTECTION SUBCOMMITTEE
Chair: S. Ward
Vice-Chair: J. O’Brien
The
C System Protection Subcommittee met on Thursday, September 15, 2011, in Minneapolis,
MN with 24 members and 31 guests in attendance. Quorum was not reached.
7
Working Groups and 2 Task Forces met at this meeting.
PSCE
liaison report: Nothing to report.
PSSC
liaison report: Report is included in the CTF3 meeting minutes.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
None
Assignment: Identify the functions and data available in
Protective Relaying Devices that are used at different functional levels and
different applications and can be used within a Smart Grid.
Describe
the use of interoperable data formats for protection, control, monitoring,
recording, and analysis.
Working Group C2, Role of Protective
Relaying in the Smart Grid, met on Tuesday with 12 members and 12 guests.
In the absence of the WG Chair and
Vice Chair, the meeting was chaired by Solveig Ward. Unfortunately, she had not
had a chance to prepare as the Chair had not informed Sub C that he would not
attend the September meeting.
The session consisted of brain
storming, trying to identify Smart Grid functions external to the conventional
utility applications that could benefit from data and/or functionality provided
by protective relays.
Mark Simon, Chair of the parallel
H2 WG dealing with Smart Grid communications requirements agreed to share the
H2 draft with C2 members in order for C2 to avoid overlap with this group.
The H2 draft will be sent out to C2
members with the September meeting minutes and members were assigned to read
the draft before the January meeting.
For the January 2012 meeting, the
working group requests a single session, a room to accommodate 40 people, and a
projector.
Assignment: Develop
a guide for performance, functional, and information communication needs of Phasor Data Concentrators for power system protection,
control, monitoring, and information management. The Guide will include system needs for PDC
applications, configuration, and testing procedures.
Working
Group C4 met on September 13, 2011 in Minneapolis, MN in a double session with
21 attendees (11 members and 10 guests).
Quorum was not achieved. May 2011 meeting minutes will be approved
electronically.
After
introductions, Working Group Chair presented IEEE Patent Policy slides and
asked to bring up any patent issues. None were identified.
Working
Group Chair updated the group on project status:
-
Working PC37.244 draft is dated
July 29, 2011
-
1st Conversion to IEEE
format completed in August 2011
-
Review by IEC TR 61850-90-5 experts
is planned
-
PDC Functions (Section 5) were
agreed
-
PDC Requirements (Section 5) is in
works.
Discussion
on Advanced Communication Requirements (Section 6.2.2) followed. The group
agreed that core discussion and agreements are needed on Data Alignment and
Data Aggregation functions. It was suggested to re-order and move sections from
Advanced Communication Section to Data Alignment section, then continue
discussions on this topic.
Working
Group Chair reminded that the group has regular conference calls on Monday and
Friday 10am – 11:15am Pacific time, and invited members and guests to
participate.
Requirements for the next meeting: a
double session, meeting room for 30 people with a computer projector.
Assignment: Develop a Guide for Synchronization,
Calibration, Testing, and Installation of Phasor
Measurement Units (PMU) for Power System Protection and Control
Scope: The document provides guidance for
Synchronization, Calibration, Testing, and Installation of Phasor
Measurement Units (PMU) applied in Power System Protection and Control. The
following are addressed in this Guide:
• Considerations
for the installation of PMU devices based on application requirements and
typical bus configurations
• Techniques
focusing on the overall accuracy and availability of the time synchronization
system
• Test and
calibration procedures for phasor measurement units
(PMUs) for laboratory and field applications
• Communication
testing for connecting PMUs to other devices including Phasor
Data Concentrators (PDC)
Purpose: This guide is intended to be used by power
system protection professionals for PMU installation and covers the requirements
for synchronization of field devices and connection to other devices including Phasor Data Concentrators (PDC).
The
Working Group met on September 14, 2011 in a double session. Sessions were
chaired by vice-chair Paul Myrda. The first session had 13 members and
9 guests and the second session had 10 members and 6 guests.
The
IEEE-SA Patent Slides were presented – there were no comments from the
participants.
The
minutes of the May 2011 meeting were approved in the first session with a quorum
of members.
During
the first session, the document revisions were reviewed and discussed. This activity was led by Vahid Madani.
During
the second session there was a discussion led by Solveig Ward on the
ability/availability of the current Chair to continue in this capacity due to
extensive external and business related time demands or to replace him with a
new Chair that will be able to attend to the WG process more effectively. There was a motion to elect a new chair and
Farnoosh Rahmatian volunteered and was approved by the working group as the new
chair.
The
rest of the session continued with a review of the proposed guide changes.
The WG
will be organizing weekly conference calls to accelerate document revision –
Action Farnoosh Rahmatian and Paul Myrda.
The team will be coordinating the weekly conference calls with WG C4
since the two WG share several members/resources.
The
Working Group is still planning on initiating the process to form a balloting
pool at the earliest opportunity.
A
double session with a room for 40 people and a computer projector is requested
for the January JTCM meeting.
The WG
meet on September 14, 2011, in one session, attended by 2 members and 9 guests.
The WG
report, which was sent to the SC members for balloting, has received only 18
ballots so far (16 positive and 2 negative). One of the negative ballots was
verbally converted to positive during the discussion about the requested
changes, while the other negative ballot, requiring a number of typos and
editorial corrections to be done, will also hopefully become a positive ballot
when the revision of the report is completed.
As
most of the editorial changes are of non-substantive nature, re-balloting will
not be needed upon corrections. It will be needed, however, to obtain 75
percent of the SC membership votes (current SC membership stands at 45, which
means that for the minimum passing vote the report will need 34 votes, or at
least 16 additional votes.
Once
the report is corrected (during the month of October), the report and ballots
will be sent once again to the SC membership with request to those who have not
voted to send their ballots so that the process be completed. The plan is to
conclude the process in January 2012 at the JTCM meeting and begin work on the
summary paper(s).
Assignment: Produce a general report to PSRC Subcommittee
C outlining practical protection applications using synchrophasors.
Working
group C14 met on September 13, 2011, in Minneapolis, MN, in a single session
chaired by Jim O’Brien with 4 members and 9 guests present.
The
chair distributed the latest draft of the Report. The Report nears completion and requires
final editing. A few outstanding issues were discussed during the meeting.
The
title of Figure 2.1 on page 4 was proposed to be revised to CT ratio correction factors from
original Relative errors for metering and
protection CTs; however, it was decided to keep the title as is.
There
was an issue with the limits of the data loss and the reference for the
communication infrastructure requirements in section 3.1 on page 10. The
sentence in question was re-written as follows: Dropout tolerance depends on a
particular application and should be determined on case-by-case basis.
In
section 4.12 on page 32, Jay Murphy will check with Ken Martin about the
subsection 4.12.2 a), which is in question due to a statement that values of Xd and Xq (generator steady-state
reactances) might vary with the generator operating
conditions. Also, the introduction to this section will be dropped because its
reference Standard C37.118.1 is not approved yet at this time.
It
was decided that the topic on Synchrophasor application to controlled
islanding, which was moved from subsection 5.12 to 5.10 would be a separate
subsection. The chair will contact Demetrious Tziouvaras,
who was supposed to expand on this topic, whether he would do so; otherwise, the
new subsection will contain the present material.
Alex
Apostolov was to contribute a write-up to address
different synchrophasor measurements – for metering and for protection and
latency and time synchronizing requirements for the protection synchrophasor
measurements based on the IEC standard 90-5. The chair will contact Alex
whether he would provide this contribution. If not received, this topic will be
left out from the Report.
Other
editorial comments by those present at the meeting were addressed.
The
chair will incorporate the latest changes, edit, and recirculate
the latest Report draft for approval by the WG members. It will then be
submitted to the Subcommittee C, and the volunteers from the WG members will be
needed to put together Power Point document for a presentation at one of the
future PSRC Main Committee meetings. If any WG member would like to contribute
to the Power Point presentation, please contact the Chair or vice-chair.
The
next meeting in January of 2012 is requested to be scheduled and may be the
last.
Requirements
for the next meeting are as follows: single session, meeting room for 25 people
with a computer projector.
Assignment:
Write a report in industry practices and testing of selected SIPS (System
Integrity Protection Schemes)
Working group C-15 met on Tuesday,
September 13, 2011 in Minneapolis, MN, in single session chaired by Yi Hu with
7 members and 7 guests attending.
During
the meeting, the latest comments provided by the WG members and review team
members on the latest draft report were reviewed and discussed. Members and
guests also reviewed and discussed the latest additional contributions provided
by working group members. Conclusions / resolutions on significant comments
were as follows.
·
In
section 3.II RAS Requirements, it was decided to utilize milliseconds
consistently instead of cycles.
·
In
the same section, it was clarified that the breaker failure time is included in
the RAS operating time, and insulator contamination was included as one of the
reasons of transmission line faults.
·
Additionally,
the term SIPS will be utilized throughout the Report,
and other references such as RAS (Remedial Action Scheme) will be eliminated.
This is consistent with the title of the Report and PSRC definition.
·
In
Section 4, Load Rejection, a comment was that the section is very generic and
does not have a particular example like other sections do. A practical example
needs to be included. Alex Apostolov, the original
author, will be contacted for the example; also, Fernando Calero
will try to provide one.
·
Figure
2.1.4 is illegible. Mark Adamiak will be contacted to
provide a better version of it.
·
Also,
a clarification will be added to the Introduction section by Yi Hu regarding
presenting actual examples of SIPS in the Report, not a SIPS theory.
·
A
question regarding the centralized, localized, and distributed SIPS definitions
was raised. A recently completed WG C4 report Global Industry Experience with System Integrity Protection Systems
has these definitions, which need to be consistently followed. The WG members
will review the C4 report and discuss the issue at the next meeting.
·
Other
comments were to define acronyms SCD and SCE (pp. 31-32) used in the Report.
·
Also,
a question of the difference between load rejection and load mitigation was
raised. This issue is covered in Appendix A of the C4 report Global Industry Experience with System
Integrity Protection Systems. Yi will add text to Section 1 defining the SIPS,
which are described in the present Report.
·
A
subject of Optimal Power Flow is not mentioned in Section 2 although it is
referred to Section 2 in Section 5. This needs a correction.
·
The
WG also discussed the newest contribution by Vahid Madani for subsection 2.4
Redundancy Considerations.
The latest comments will be
implemented in the current draft of the Report, and a new draft will be put
together and circulated among the WG members before next meeting. The members
will need to review the document.
Next step actions:
Planned
next step actions before January 2012 PSRC meeting are as follows:
o
WG
Chairs to follow on a few specific comments with respective section authors
o
WG
Chairs to create a new version of the draft report to include all new contributions,
make necessary edits, and re-distribute it to WG members and review team
members for review and comment
o
WG
members and review team members to review and provide comments
o
WG
Chairs to create a combined comments list for review and discussion at next
meeting
The working
group will meet at next PSRC meeting in one session to review the next draft of
the report.
Requirements
for Next Meeting – Room for 30 People, single Session, Projector, Power strip
Assignment: Write a supplement to the existing 1999
relay trip circuit design paper as an IEEE report to address microprocessor
relays.
Working
Group C16 held its meeting on Monday afternoon with 17 attendees. Eleven
working group members were in attendance.
Guest
Brian Boysen has been added as a member.
The working
group chair reiterated to the group that the intent of the report is to serve
as a supplement to the much older trip circuit design report.
Draft 2.6
of the paper was discussed. Several
sections of the paper were assigned for revision.
Ken Behrendt will look into section 4.4.1
The
question was raised as to what to do with the final paragraph of 2.6.1 which
doesn’t belong. It may be placed with
2.6.2 concerning battery ground considerations.
Brian Boysen will revise figure 2.6.2 to add a logic diagram
Adi Mulawarman
will rewrite section 3 to make the logic shown more vendor
generic.
Don
Lukach will rewrite section 2.7 on scheme complexity
Angela
Higdon will add to section 3.3
All
assignments are due by October 31.
Next
meeting requirements: Single meeting, 30
persons, computer projector.
Joint WG Assignment: To
characterize and quantify short circuit current contributions to faults from
wind plants for the purposes of protective relaying and equipment rating, and
to develop modeling and calculation guidelines for the same.
C-17 WG Assignment: To support the activities of the Joint
Working Group on Fault Current Contributions from Wind Plants.
The Joint Work Group met in a single
session at the PES Joint Technical Committee Meeting in
The Joint Work Group met in a single
session at the
Dean Miller reviewed the status of the
report and writing assignments. Most
writing assignments have been submitted, though 3 are still outstanding. Dean provided paper copies of version 4.0
plus a new submittal for section 3.4.
The combination is draft 4.1.
Assignments have been submitted for wind turbine Types I, II, IV, and
V. Assignments are still pending for
Type III and for Equipment Fault Current Interrupting Issues. The Introduction and Conclusion also have not
yet been written.
Ron Harley and Dustin Howard from
Georgia Tech have done extensive modeling work for Type I machines. Dustin presented the analysis and conclusions
to the WG. Analysis was similar to
earlier presentations for Type II turbines.
Lab tests were performed on a 7˝ HP wound rotor motor using both time
domain and sequence calculations. PSCAD
simulations were done for a 1.8 MW turbine.
Results for three phase faults and the faulted phase for line-to-ground
faults provided quite good agreement on methods. However, results for the unfaulted
phases during line-to-ground faults were quite sensitive to negative sequence
values and other parameters. Charlie
Henville suggested that generator per unit quantities also be presented to
improve clarity.
There was a brief review of the new
material in section 3.4 for the type 4 turbines. It was discussed at that for the analysis of
all types of turbine/generators that both faults on the generator terminals and
the high side of the generator transformer should be discussed in the report.
The next Joint work group meeting will
be at the
CTF3
met in Minneapolis with two members present.
A
joint panel session with PSDP at the PES GM in July 2012 is now confirmed. Alex
Apostolov will be the representative with Pratap
Mysore being backup person.
The
PSRC presentation will be `Protection issues during system restoration`, and
will be based on the PSRC transactions paper that was published in 2005 but
with updates with respect to changes in technology. These updates will not be
published in the printed paper which will simply be the Transactions paper, but
will be included in the presentation.
Some
possible impacts of modern technology that are not fully discussed in the
Transactions paper but could be included in the update are:
·
Alternate
settings groups to be enabled during system restoration
·
Synchrophasors in synchronizing during system restoration
·
Modern
frequency tracking capabilities during frequency excursions
·
Adaptive
settings
·
Enhanced
visibility due to monitoring capabilities of modern IEDs
In
addition, outside the CTF3 meeting, discussions with Ken Martin led to the idea
of proposing a panel session at the July 2013 PES general meeting to be
sponsored primarily by the PSRC but with the cooperation of the PSPD on the new
synchrophasor standard(s) and applications of synchrophasors
for SIPS. This will be developed further at the January PSRC meeting.
Task
Force CTF18 met on September 14, 2011, in Minneapolis, MN, in single session
chaired by Alla Deronja, with 30 people present.
The
chair presented the task aiming at writing an IEEE Guide for the transmission
to generation interconnections. This topic has not been rigorously approached
by the industry yet. The purpose of the new Guide is driven by the fact that
many power producers, being connected to the power grid, may fail to install
the adequate protective equipment at the interconnection because of the limited
expertise of their consultants or desire to decrease the cost of the
facilities.
A
discussion was followed to identify the potential conflicts with other working
groups. The task force determined that there was no credible conflict between the
present work and WG J3 (Power Plant and
Transmission System Protection Coordination) and K4 (Revision of C37.95 Relaying of utility-consumer interconnections).
However,
Gerry Johnson brought an issue with SCC21 IEEE P1547.5 Draft Technical Guidelines for Interconnection of
Electric Power Sources Greater than 10MVA to the Power Transmission Grid,
which appears to duplicate the effort of this task force. According to Gerry,
this group’s work has been stalled for 6-7 years with no progress made, and
their current PAR will expire soon. The plan is for Gerry and the task force
chair to get in contact with P1547.5 chair and secretary to resolve this
conflict before moving forward with this project.
The
title for the future Guide, if cleared for progress, was approved to be IEEE Guide
for Protection Systems of Transmission to Generation Interconnections. Also, the scope and purpose were proposed
and discussed. They stand as follows at this time:
Scope:
This Guide
contains information on recommended protection of transmission to generation
interconnections. It is intended to
cover the protection system applications at the interconnections between the
transmission systems and generation facilities.
This Guide
is not intended to supplant specific transmission or generator owner practices,
procedures, requirements, or any contractual agreement between the transmission
and generator owners.
This Guide
will be coordinated with IEEE Std. C37.95 IEEE Guide for Protective Relaying of
Utility-Consumer Interconnections.
Purpose:
This
document is intended to provide guidance to those who are responsible for the
relay protection of electrical interconnections between transmission and
generation facilities.
Depending
on the conflict resolution with P1547.5, a second task force meeting in January
of 2012 is requested.
Requirements
for the next meeting are as follows: single session, meeting room for 20-30
people with a computer projector.