MUG: MOD-032-1 Manual Update (20210610)

DTE would like to thank MISO for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the “MISO MOD-032 Model Data Requirements & Reporting Procedures” proposed changes. Here is our response which we can discuss as needed:

 Please replace all references to PRC-006-3 to PRC-006-5 as version 5 became effective April 1, 2021.

 Section 4 Page 28 (Dynamic Model Development)

• The following statement “Equipment specific detailed protection relay models shall be submitted for” should be changed to include control systems, i.e. AVR  (“Section 4.2.2.5 Protection Relays”)

• The document asks for voltage and frequency settings but only mentions PRC-006. Why isn’t PRC-024 referenced?

• Voltage settings includes V/Hz? If so, what model will be used for generators?

• In September 2019, MISO announced a new process for PRC-024-2 R4 frequency and voltage setting submissions.  Based on this new process, PRC-024-2 R4 60 day change notifications were no longer required and instead a request for the information would be made by MISO and submissions would be sent to “PlanningModeling@misoenergy.org” with “PRC-024-2” in the subject line.  On June 1, 2021, a dynamics model data request was made by MISO which also asked for “generator frequency and voltage relay settings that meet requirements of PRC-024-2”.  Also, this request was due in 15 days, far less time than the 60 days allowed by PRC-024 R4.  Has the September 2019 MISO PRC-024-2 R4 process been replaced by a new process?  Is the dynamics data request for frequency and voltage relay settings meant to be a request per PRC-024-2 R4 or will PRC-024-2 R4 requests be made separately?

• Section 7, Page 36  (Short Circuit Model Development) states that data should be submitted for “Transformers interconnecting to the above facilities that have a configuration other than wye connected (ex. zig-zag, auto, wye-grounded) at the 200 kV or higher terminal.”  Please clarify what this statement means.  Is the intent that only transformers applicable to TPL-007 are included (power transformers with a high side, wye-grounded winding with terminal voltage greater than 200 kV)?

• Would MISO consider supplying the data entry template and block diagram as suggested in the NERC MOD-032 Technical Reference?

 “Requests for powerflow or dynamics data with a required data format as dictated by a software platform (e.g., *.raw,

*.sav, *.dyr, *.dyd) should include a data template. If applicable (typically for dynamics models) and possible, the TP

or PC should supply the DEO with the associated data entry template and block diagram. The TP and PC should

understand that many DEOs are not users of the applicable power system modeling software and are therefore

unfamiliar with the data formats and requirements. It is the responsibility of the TP and PC to fully understand the

data requirements and provide data requests to DEOs in a format that respects the needs and limitations of the DEOs.”

Section 4.4.10 Branch Modeling

Comment: Should line length be requirement?

Section 4.4.10 Branch Modeling Section1:

Correction: the statement"

1. For non-area ties, please have the corresponding area number followed by a dash preceding the unique name (this keeps uniqueness within each area and under each area’s control)." This conflicts with the ERAG MMWG manual v28  Section 8.2 C.6 that calls for using a colon and not a dash.

Section 4.4.11 Transformer Modeling Section1:

Correction: the statement"

1. For non-area ties, please have the corresponding area number followed by a dash preceding the unique name (this keeps uniqueness within each area and under each area’s control)." This conflicts with the ERAG MMWG manual v28  Section 8.2 C.6 that calls for using a colon and not a dash.

Section 4.4.13.2 Load Profiles, 3rd sentence:

Comment: What does the following statement imply?  Will MISO treat these DER resources differently? "All negative load values provided will be assumed to be Distributed Energy Resources (DER) unless otherwise identified."  

Section 8 Short Circuit Model Development, 2nd paragraph, 2nd Sentence:

Correction/Comment: Shouldn't the "MMWG" reference be replaced with "MISO MOD Basecase" in the following sentence?  "Topology must be consistent with MMWG powerflow model representation, i.e. designated 6-digit bus numbers and consistent transformer modeled windings.

Section 9.1.1 Substation and Bus Data, MMWG manual link

Comment: The link is broken and refers to an out-dated version of the MMWG Manual.  the current version is V28 and the link is:

https://rfirst.org/ProgramAreas/ESP/ERAG/MMWG/Pages/MMWG.aspx

Thank you,

Kerry Marinan

I have concerns regarding the transformer modeling requirements in section 4.4.11.  Specifically the three-winding transformer winding order:

In addition, three-winding transformers shall be modeled in the following configuration:

Winding 1 – Highest KV – Highest MVA Rating

Winding 2 – 2nd Highest KV – 2nd Highest MVA Rating

Winding 3 – Lowest KV – Lowest MVA Rating

PSSE requires the LTC of a two-winding transformer to be on winding 1.  Since all of our LTCs are on the 2^nd highest voltage we have been working to standardize all of our transformers to be modeled as 2^nd highest kV, highest kV, lowest kV (for 3-winding transformers).

Please see red-line comments & suggested edits in Word document submitted in conjunction with this feedback.

In the previous stakeholder feedback I submitted the comments and request for modification to address SPF analysis under TYPL-001-5.  Only feedback I received on my previous feedback, is that it is sent to the expansion group for comment.    I submitting the comments again to keep on the radar screen.

Submitted May 30,

During the TPL-001-5 preparation effort under the TOCTT run by Joe Reddoch it was discovered that there is a compliance gap regarding Single Point of Failure (SPF) responsibility.  TPL-001-5 P5 contingencies and footnote 13 SPF compliance obligations rests solely with the TP and not the Protection System Owner (TO and GO).   There are no NERC standards where this obligation is established.   This is only a problem for the transmission and generation assets not owned by the TP’s compliance.  

This gap can be closed with some small additions to the MOD-032 User’s Guide responsibility section (see attached redline of MOD-032 User’s Guide pg 1 and 2).    By adding these two additional responsibilities, TOs and GOs will have a MOD-032 R2 compliance responsibility to identify SPF locations and develop the contingency definitions, including the complicated dynamic contingency sequencing for remote clearing.

Likewise, an addition to Section 4.2.2.5 Protective Systems (pg 30) clarifies that the modeling of protection system operation for SPF rest with the TO and GO.   Also, Section 4.4 Schedule clarifies that the SPF contingency definition are dues with the dynamic model data.