This comment form is no longer interactive because the comment period is closed.

2013-03 Geomagnetic Disturbance Mitigation White Papers

Description:

Start Date: 05/12/2016
End Date: 06/13/2016

Associated Ballots:

Ballot Name Project Standard Pool Open Pool Close Voting Start Voting End

Filter:

Hot Answers

Chris Gowder, On Behalf of: Florida Municipal Power Agency, FRCC, Segments 3, 4, 5, 6

- 0 - 0

Our review group didn’t see any major impacts with the drafting teams proposed changes to the three (3) White Papers. We commend them on the consistency of correcting all the documents at the same time. Thank you for all your efforts.

SPP Standards Review Group, Segment(s) , 6/13/2016

- 0 - 0

Other Answers

ATC is fine with the changes to the GMD white papers and have no comments.

 

Andrew Pusztai, On Behalf of: Andrew Pusztai, , Segments 1

- 0 - 0

Though AEP has no objections to the revisions themselves, we do have a question regarding Figure 5 (formally Figure 4) in the document entitled “Screening Criterion for Transformer Thermal Impact Assessment”. In short, what data source was used for this particular chart? Was it perhaps from the research conducted in Finland by ABB? If so, the plot does not appear to correlate correctly with this study’s data. If this chart is not associated with the ABB study, please provide the data source used. In general, we would suggest that data sources be explicitly cited for all charts in the documents.

 

Thomas Foltz, On Behalf of: AEP, , Segments 3, 5

- 0 - 0

CenterPoint Energy agrees with the revisions. CenterPoint Energy does not see any major impact with the SDT’s proposed changes to the Screening Criterion White Paper, Thermal Impact Assessment, and Benchmark GMD Event White Paper. The changes were made based on the actual data received from the 2003 GMD Halloween storm, which clarified data shown by Figure 1. The SDT consisted of widely-recognized, knowledgeable experts. The Company believes that the members of the SDT are the most qualified to make justified adjustments to the white papers. The Company commends them for their open, thorough, and deliberative process, as well as careful consideration of the full range of technical issues and on the consistency of aligning all the documents at the same time.

CenterPoint Energy greatly appreciates the SDT’s effort in developing this Standard.

Larisa Loyferman, On Behalf of: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, Texas RE, Segments 1

- 0 - 0

Southern Company, Segment(s) 3, 5, 6, 4/21/2016

- 0 - 0

Nick Vtyurin, On Behalf of: Manitoba Hydro - MRO - Segments 1, 3, 5, 6

- 0 - 0

RoLynda Shumpert, On Behalf of: SCANA - South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., SERC, Segments 1, 3, 5, 6

- 0 - 0

Duke Energy , Segment(s) 1, 5, 6, 4/10/2014

- 0 - 0

Responding on behalf of the Exelon Utilities and Generation companies.

Exelon agrees with the revisions made to the Project 2013-03 white papers; we believe, however, that the drafting team missed the opportunity to include in these revisions any reference to the recently approved IEEE Std C57.163, Guide for Establishing Power Transformer Capability while under Geomagnetic Disturbances.  At a minimum this IEEE Guide should be referenced on page 4 of the Transformer Thermal Impact Assessment White Paper as the source of IEEE guidance on conducting a detailed thermal impact assessment. The IEEE Guide also gives detailed information on thermal response of transformers to GIC, evaluation of transformer susceptibility to the effects of GIC, and recommendations regarding transformer specifications and monitoring. The IEEE Guide was developed in an open and collaborative process by more than 150 transformer experts composed of manufacturers, users and consultants from around the globe.  Exelon recommends future revisions of the Project 2013-03 white papers should make a point to reference IEEE Std C57.163.

Daniel Gacek, On Behalf of: Exelon, , Segments 1, 3, 5, 6

- 0 - 0

The figure on page 3 of the Screening Criterion for Transformer Thermal Impact Assessment does not have a description.  Should it be part of Figure 1?  Is just the figure shown on page 4 Figure 1?

RSC, Segment(s) 1, 0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 3, 6/13/2016

- 0 - 0

sean erickson, On Behalf of: Western Area Power Administration, , Segments 1, 6

- 0 - 0

Rachel Coyne, On Behalf of: Texas Reliability Entity, Inc., , Segments 10

- 0 - 0

We commend the SDT for revising the Screening Criterion and associated Project 2013-03 white papers.  These revisions provide additional clarification on why 75 A per phase was chosen as the maximum effective geomagnetically-induced currents (GIC) value for the thermal impact assessment of applicable BES power transformers.

However, based on these clarifications, we believe this after-the-fact exercise to maintain accuracy misses the opportunity to revise the proposed TPL-007-1 reliability standard.  The SDT should have justified its actions to revise these documents through the issuance of a SAR, as part of the standards development process.  From these clarifications, it’s further obvious that the 75 A per phase, while a step in the right direction away from the 15 A per phase value identified in the last draft revision of the standard, still misses the intent of why an overly conservative GIC value was chosen.  Based on the information identified within the Screening Criterion and following the revised Table 2, it seems 130 A per phase is a better and more accurate selection for the GIC value.

We recommend the SDT develop a SAR, as part of the standards development process, with the intent to revise Requirement R6 of the standard and remove the maximum effective GIC value reference entirely.  We suggest rephrasing the requirement to “each TO and GO shall conduct a thermal impact assessment for its solely and jointly owned applicable BES power transformers based on information provided in Requirement R5. The thermal impact assessment shall consist of [sub-requirements].”  These documents could then be updated as part of the standards development process.

ACES Standards Collaborators, Segment(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 4, 6/13/2016

- 0 - 0