Download Market Participant Comment and AESO Replies Matrix Consultation on Proposed

Market Participant Comment and AESO Replies Matrix
Consultation on Proposed New Alberta Reliability Standards Definition “remedial action scheme” (“New RAS Definition”)
Date of Request for Comment:
Period of Consultation:
Definitions - New
Existing
No definition currently exists in the
Alberta reliability standards
August 4, 2015
August 4, 2015
through August 25, 2015
Proposed Alberta reliability standards
definition
Rationale
Market Participant Comments and/or
Alternate Proposal
“remedial action scheme” means a
scheme designed to detect
predetermined power system conditions
and to automatically take corrective
actions that may include, but are not
limited to, adjusting or tripping
generation (MW and MVAr), tripping
load, or reconfiguring a power system(s)
in order to accomplish objectives such
as:
• maintaining stability of the
transmission system;
• maintaining acceptable
transmission system voltages;
• maintaining acceptable
transmission system power flows;
or
• limiting the impact of cascading or
extreme events.
The AESO is proposing the New
RAS Definition to align with the
NERC definition and the
proposed amended remedial
action scheme definition for the
ISO rules.
AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink)
1. With the proposed new definition of
Remedial Action Scheme (RAS), will the
AESO be reviewing and updating the
current ISO_RAS_Database to ensure
consistency with the definition? Please
confirm.
The following do not individually
constitute a remedial action scheme:
a) a protection system installed for the
purpose of detecting faults on
transmission facilities and isolating
the faulted facilities;
b) a protection system for automatic
AESO Replies to Market Participant Comments: 2016-05-19
AESO Reply
1. Yes, an updated list of remedial action
schemes (“RAS”) will be posted at the
same time the proposed New RAS
Definition becomes effective. Please
note that the RAS list is for information
purposes only and is not authoritative.
Where there is a conflict between the
information contained in the AESO RAS
List and the definition of a “remedial
action scheme” in the AESO’s
Consolidated Authoritative Document
Glossary, the definition takes
precedence.
2. With the proposed new definition of
RAS, will the AESO continue to classify
RAS type (e.g. WECC RAS, Alberta
RAS, etc.) or change the way that
current RAS types are classified?
Please confirm.
2. The AESO will continue to classify RAS
types under the proposed New RAS
Definition in the same way that RAS
types are currently classified.
3. The proposed definition states that the
15 items (a, b, c, ……, o) do not
individually constitute a remedial action
scheme. Is the implication that a scheme
which is composed of more than one of
the items will be deemed a RAS?
3. Not necessarily. Altalink is correct that
each of the 15 items listed does not
individually constitute a RAS. Also, for
example, where more than one of the
individual items on the list act in
sequence (rather than as a scheme), this
Page 1 of 5
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
underfrequency load shedding and
automatic undervoltage load shed
comprised of only distributed relays;
out-of-step tripping and power swing
blocking schemes;
an automatic reclosing scheme;
a scheme applied on a facility for nonfault conditions, including, but not
limited to:
(i) generator loss-of-field;
(ii) transformer top-oil temperature;
(iii) overvoltage; or
(iv) overload
to protect the facility against damage
by removing it from service;
a controller that switches or regulates
one or more of the following:
(i) series or shunt reactive
devices,
(ii) flexible alternating current
transmission system devices,
(iii) phase-shifting transformers,
variable-frequency
transformers, or
(iv) tap-changing transformers
and that is located at and monitors
quantities solely at the same station
as the facility being switched or
regulated;
a flexible alternating current
transmission controller that remotely
switches static shunt reactive devices
located at other stations to regulate
the output of a single flexible
alternating current transmission
device;
a scheme or controller that remotely
switches shunt reactors and shunt
capacitors for voltage regulation that
would otherwise be manually
AESO Replies to Market Participant Comments: 2016-05-19
would not be classified as a RAS under
the proposed New RAS Definition. For
example, the operation of a line
protection system followed by the
operation of an automatic reclosing
scheme would not be classified as a
RAS.
However, when more than one of the
items on the list are set up in
combination as a scheme designed to
detect predetermined power system
conditions and to automatically take
corrective actions that may include, but
are not limited to, adjusting or tripping
generation (MW and MVAr), tripping
load, or reconfiguring a power system(s)
in order to accomplish the objectives set
out in the proposed New RAS Definition,
such a scheme would be classified as a
RAS.
4. (for item b) What’s the definition of
“distributed relays”? What kind of UFLS
or UVLS is considered a RAS? Would a
local UFLS and UVLS be considered a
RAS? Please clarify.
4. The term “distributed relays” is not
defined, but it refers to a protection
system for automatic underfrequency
load shedding (UFLS) or undervoltage
load shed (UVLS) that has relays at
multiple sites and that operate locally on
the detection of the underfrequency or
undervoltage condition at that site. A
local UFLS or UVLS is not classified as a
RAS under the proposed New RAS
Definition if it is part of a protection
system for UFLS or UVLS that is
comprised of distributed relays.
A UFLS or UVLS is classified as a RAS
where it is not comprised of only
distributed relays, it does not fall within
one of the other listed exclusions listed
in the proposed New RAS Definition and
it aligns with the objectives set out in the
Page 2 of 5
switched;
i) a scheme that automatically deenergizes a line for a non-fault
operation when one end of the line is
open;
j) a scheme that provides anti-islanding
protection (e.g. protects load from the
effects of being isolated with
generation that may not be capable of
maintaining acceptable frequency and
voltage);
k) an automatic sequence that proceeds
when manually initiated solely by a
power system operator;
l) a temporary SCADA action scheme
that may be implemented to facilitate
construction of transmission projects
to assist in system performance
during temporary build stages;
m) modulation of high voltage direct
current or flexible alternating current
transmission via supplementary
controls, such as angle damping or
frequency damping applied to damp
local or inter-area oscillations;
n) a sub-synchronous resonance
protection scheme that directly
detects sub-synchronous quantities
(e.g., currents or torsional
oscillations); or
o) a generator control including, but not
limited to:
(i) automatic generation control,
(ii) generation excitation (e.g.
automatic voltage regulation
and power system stabilizers),
(iii) fast valving, and
(iv) speed governing.
AESO Replies to Market Participant Comments: 2016-05-19
RAS definition (such as maintaining
stability of the transmission system,
maintaining acceptable transmission
system voltages, maintaining acceptable
transmission system power flows or
limiting the impact of cascading or
extreme events). If, for example, voltage
conditions at multiple sites are
monitored by a single scheme that takes
action to remedy an undervoltage
condition detected at a combination of
these sites, the scheme would be
classified as a RAS under the proposed
New RAS Definition, unless it falls within
one of the listed exclusions.
5. (for item i) As per the proposed
definition, “a scheme that automatically
de-energizes a line for a non-fault
operation when one end of the line is
open” does not individually constitute a
remedial action scheme. There is a
WECC RAS (RAS #14 in current
ISO_RAS_Database) called “1201L
Open breaker (3-pole) transfer trip”
which automatically de-energizes the
line 1201L for a non-fault operation
when one end of the line is open. Please
clarify if this is still a RAS under the
proposed RAS definition.
5. RAS #14 will not be classified as a RAS
under the proposed New RAS Definition.
6. (for item j) As per the proposed
definition, “a scheme that provides antiislanding protection” does not
individually constitute a remedial action
scheme. There are quite a few “Antiislanding schemes” in the current
ISO_RAS_Database. Please clarify if
these Anti-islanding schemes are still
RAS under the proposed RAS definition.
6. No, an “anti-islanding scheme” will not
be classified as a RAS under the
proposed New RAS Definition.
Page 3 of 5
ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO Electric)
7. ATCO Electric thanks AESO for allowing
us to provide comments and ask
questions on the proposed definition.
a) To Clarify - the overall ATCO Electric
UFLS program still falls under the RAS
definition given it is multiple sites.
Could the AESO please confirm?
7. (a) The UFLS program will not be
classified as a RAS under the proposed
New RAS Definition if it is comprised of
only distributed relays. Please see AESO
Reply #4.
b) Item b) If a transmission voltage is used
to initiate the UVLS and/or a
transmission relay using the
transmission voltage sends a signal to a
distribution relay, but the setting and
action is taken by distribution relays all
within the same substation, does that
still comply to the intent of item b and
NOT fall into the RAS category? Could
the AESO please confirm?
(b) If the UVLS in the example provided is
part of a protection system that uses only
distributed relays then this protection
system would not be classified as a RAS
in accordance with exclusion b) of the
proposed New RAS Definition. If the
UVLS in the example provided does not
fall within exclusion b), it may not be
classified as a RAS under the proposed
New RAS Definition if it is installed for a
reason other than to meet the objectives
set out in the proposed New RAS
Definition (such as maintaining stability of
the transmission system, maintaining
acceptable transmission system voltages,
maintaining acceptable transmission
system power flows or limiting the impact
of cascading or extreme events).
c) Item b) To Clarify - the Safety Net
Scheme where multiple UVLS are
implemented at various substations,
even though only distribution relays are
used, still falls within the RAS definition.
Could the AESO please confirm?
(c) Not confirmed. A safety net scheme
where multiple UVLS are implemented at
various substations will not be classified
as a RAS under the proposed New RAS
Definition where only distributed relays
are used.
Note that exclusion b) refers to
“distributed relays” and not to “distribution
relays”.
d) Item e) Overvoltage tripping that send
remote DTT to protect line connected
AESO Replies to Market Participant Comments: 2016-05-19
(d) The objectives set out in the proposed
New RAS Definition include maintaining
Page 4 of 5
equipment are not RAS by definition.
Could the AESO please confirm?
ATCO Power
8. ATCO Power agrees that the definition
of a Remedial Action Scheme (RAS)
should align with NERC’s definition;
however, ATCO Power requests that the
AESO provide a list of the existing RASs
and provide some guidance as to the
entities responsible for the RAS under
the Alberta Reliability Standards (ARS).
Such a list would clarify the ARS
applicability and facilitate compliance.
AESO Replies to Market Participant Comments: 2016-05-19
stability of the transmission system,
maintaining acceptable transmission
transmission system voltages,
maintaining acceptable transmission
system power flows or limiting the impact
of cascading or extreme events.
Overvoltage tripping that sends a remote
Direct Transfer Trip (DTT) to protect line
connected equipment does not meet any
of those objectives or any similar
objectives, and therefore is not classified
as a RAS under the proposed New RAS
Definition.
8. Please refer to the AESO’s Reply #1.
Where there is a requirement in an
Alberta reliability standard relating to a
RAS, the reliability standard will indicate
which entity is responsible for complying
with the requirement.
Page 5 of 5