Download Stakeholder Comment and AESO Replies Matrix Consultation on Proposed

Stakeholder Comment and AESO Replies Matrix
Consultation on Proposed Amended ISO Rules Definition “remedial action scheme” (“Amended RAS Definition”)
Date of Request for Comment:
August 4, 2015
Period of Consultation:
August 4, 2015
Definitions - Amended
Existing ISO rules definition
remedial action scheme - means
protection schemes designed to
perform pre-planned corrective
measures following a disturbance to
provide for acceptable AIES
performance or equipment protection
through
August 25, 2015
Proposed ISO rules 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
Amended RAS Definition to
reduce stakeholder confusion,
to align with the NERC
definition and to align with the
proposed new remedial action
scheme definition for the
Alberta reliability standards.
AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink)
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;
AESO Replies to Stakeholder Comments: 2016-05-19
AESO Reply
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.
1. Yes, an updated list of remedial action
schemes (“RAS”) will be posted at the
same time the proposed Amended 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 Amended 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
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
Page 1 of 5
b) a protection system for automatic
underfrequency load shedding and
automatic undervoltage load shed
comprised of only distributed relays;
c) out-of-step tripping and power swing
blocking schemes;
d) an automatic reclosing scheme;
e) 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;
f) 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;
g) 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;
h) a scheme or controller that remotely
switches shunt reactors and shunt
capacitors for voltage regulation that
AESO Replies to Stakeholder Comments: 2016-05-19
more than one of the items will be
deemed a RAS?
sequence (rather than as a scheme), this
would not be classified as a RAS under
the proposed Amended 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 Amended 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 and UVLS is not classified as
a RAS under the proposed Amended
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 Amended RAS Definition
Page 2 of 5
would otherwise be manually
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 Stakeholder Comments: 2016-05-19
and it aligns with the objectives set out in
the 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 Amended 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 Amended RAS
Definition.
6. (for item j) As per the proposed
definition, “a scheme that provides
anti-islanding protection” does not
individually constitute a remedial
action scheme. There are quite a few
“Anti-islanding schemes” in the
current ISO_RAS_Database. Please
clarify if these Anti-islanding
schemes are still RAS under the
6. No, an “anti-islanding scheme” will not be
classified as a RAS under the proposed
Amended RAS Definition.
Page 3 of 5
proposed RAS definition.
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?
AESO Replies to Stakeholder Comments: 2016-05-19
7. (a) The UFLS program will not be
classified as a RAS under the proposed
Amended 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 Amended
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 Amended
RAS Definition if it is installed for a
reason other than to meet the objectives
set out in the proposed Amended 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
(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
Amended RAS Definition where only
distributed relays are used.
Page 4 of 5
confirm?
d) Item e) Overvoltage tripping that
send remote DTT to protect line
connected equipment are not RAS
by definition. Could the AESO
please confirm?
AESO Replies to Stakeholder Comments: 2016-05-19
Note that exclusion b) refers to
“distributed relays” and not to
“distribution relays”.
(d) The objectives set out in the
proposed Amended RAS Definition
include 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. 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 Amended RAS
Definition.
Page 5 of 5