C O N V E R G E N C E
HV-MV-LV SCADA and DMS solutions – Italy/Spain convergence Assessment methodology Christian Noce GI&N – GNT – Remote Control, Protection and TLC Systems Brian Deaver EPRI – Distribution Systems Program – Power Delivery and Utilization
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process Main description Step 2 Mapping of Step 1 AS IS analysis Common understanding of the main features of the 2 SCDMS solutions.
Outstanding features Mapping of the main features of the 2 SCDMS, introducing several parameters taking into account the degree of innovation, the diffusion in the territory, impact on the grid operation, benefits etc.
Step 3 Feasibility analysis
Step 4
The converging
Deployment roadmap
SCDMS should be an
The feasibility analysis
evolution of one of the
will be the main driver
2 SCDMS. So it is
for the decision.
crucial to identify the
After that, a deployment
SCDMS that is more
roadmap will be made
apt (time/costs
according to the
analysis) to import the
ICT/outsourcers
features of the other
technical/economical
one (ICT/outsourcers
offers.
strongly involved).
C O N V E R G E N C E
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process The EPRI role in step 1 Step 1 – AS IS analysis – Fast description
Step 1 – AS IS analysis – EPRI role
Common understanding of the main features of the 2 SCDMS solutions.
EPRI provided a preliminary exam of the selected
LNT/LO&M cooperated to present the SCDMS to EPRI
features, by using the documentation coming from
and to individualize the SCDMS features to focalize
LNT/LO&M.
during the assessment.
EPRI suggested further features, that are normally
In other words, the LNT/LO&M teams clarified what are
included in this kind of assessment; GNT/GO&M
the crucial characteristics of the systems, because the
validated the proposal.
converging SCDMS will be an evolution of one of the 2 SCDMS, by incorporating the good ideas coming from the other one. The entire features set (coming from both systems) was used to asses both the SCDMS.
3
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process The EPRI role in step 2 Step 2 – Mapping of Outstanding features – Fast
Step 2 – Mapping of Outstanding features – EPRI
description
role
Mapping of the main features of the 2 SCDMS, by
EPRI visited both the LNT competency centers in Spain
introducing several parameters taking into account
and Italy (1 in each country).
the degree of innovation, the diffusion in the
EPRI visited both the LO&M operative centers in Spain
territory, impact on the grid operation, benefits etc.
and Italy (1 in each country). EPRI/LNT/LO&M suggested the parameters set to evaluate the 2 SCDMS and their main features. GNT/GO&M validated the proposal. EPRI provided full assessment for the 2 SCDMS.
4
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process The EPRI role in step 3 Step 3 – Feasibility analysis
Step 3 – Feasibility analysis – EPRI role
The converging SCDMS will be an evolution of one
EPRI provided full assessment for the 2 SCDMS;
of the 2 SCDMS. So it is crucial to identify the
providing also a suggestion about the SCDMS that
SCDMS that is more apt (time/costs analysis) to
should be the base of the converging solution and about
import the features of the other one.
the features to import. The EPRI assessment is the starting point for step 3.
5
Assessment methodology
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Features vs parameters
Parameters set Functionality
Field Deployment Experience
Flexibility / Adaptability
HMI (Visualization / Navigation)
Configuration Management
Adherence to Standards
Etc.
HV/HV & HV/MV & MV & MV/LV SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
HV/HV & HV/MV (Primary Substation) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation Evaluation & & by EPRI Score Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
MV (Distribution) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
MV/LV (Secondary Substation) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
DER (Distributed Energy Resources) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Features set
7
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Features vs parameters Feature
Parameter
a) a prominent or distinctive part of the SCDMS
a) one of a set of independent variables that
b) an SCDMS item or functions appearing regularly in the assessments. c) a SCDMS function or part given special prominence on day by day usage as indicated by users d) a SCDMS function or part offered for sale as a special attraction, as in international SCDMS implementations.
express the value of a feature b) one of a set of measurable factors that define a SCDMS and determine its value during the day by day usage c) a factor that determines the boundaries for the features development: for example the regulatory constraints
8
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment The flexibility of the features vs parameters approach The
Parameters set P1
P2
P3
F1
F1P1 ev&score
F1P2 ev&score
F1P3 ev&score
F2
F1P1 ev&score
F2P2 ev&score
F2P3 ev&score
F3
F1P1 ev&score
F3P2 ev&score
F3P3 ev&score
Features set
F4
F4P1 ev&score
F4P2 ev&score
F4P3 ev&score
P4
FxPy
scores
evaluations are
&
mutually
independent so the inclusion F1P4 ev&score F2P4 ev&score
of
new
features
and/or
parameters will not impact the former analysis.
F3P4 ev&score F4P4 ev&score
EPRI started the assessment with a shared set of parameters and features. But new insertions was also possible during the process.
9
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment The options for convergence path
10
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 1: Converge one SCDMS into the other One SCDMS is better and it will be revised in the few features where it is not the best.
Parameters set
Parameters set P1
Features set
P2
P3
P4
P5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1
F1
F2
F2
F3
F3
F4
F4
11
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 1: Converge one SCDMS into the other Assessment of the individual SCDMS systems may have resulted in a situation where both met or exceeded the requirements within their own operating territories, but one of the systems was in a satisfactory position to be upgraded with the necessary features from the other system and form the basis of a converged system. If this were the case, a careful feature-by-feature requirements document would have to be prepared and prioritized to facilitate transfer or recreation of these features into the converged SCDMS. From a project management perspective, this option would require deep communications between the operating company who’s features were being transferred and the development team building the new features. This option would require only one of the operating utilities to go through the change management process of implementing a new system into their organization.
12
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 2: Converge both SCDMS into a new SCDMS The two SCDMS are strongly complementary, the convergency is possible through a new system Parameters set P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1 Parameters set
F2
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set
F3
F1
F4
F2 F3
Parameters set P1 Features set
P2
P3
P4
P5
F4
F1 F2 F3 F4
13
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 2: Converge both SCDMS into a new SCDMS Very often, in these situations the SCDMS systems of both merging utilities are at or near the end of their useful life cycle, and at the state where they are ready to begin another procurement and implementation cycle. If that were the case, or if a significant number of deficiencies were identified in both SCDMS deployments, the correct answer would be to combine the requirements for both systems into the comprehensive set of requirements for a new converged system. This option would require both of the operating utilities to go through the change management process of implementing a new system into their organization
14
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 3: Too close to call – Requires further analysis The two SCDMS have very competitive scores, weaknesses and strong points are not well defined, further analysis is necessary Parameters set P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1 F2 F3 F4
Parameters set Features set F1 F2 F3 F4
15
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 3: Too close to call – Requires further analysis It was possible, going into the Assessment process that the analysis may have revealed no specific pattern of differences between the two SCDMS systems. This option would be the correct answer only if the Assessment process resulted in insufficient differences between the SCDMS systems, such that making a decision was too difficult.
16
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 4: Maintain the status quo The two SCDMS are very unique features, the convergence may not be the right choice Parameters set
Parameters set P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1
F1
F2
F2
F3
F3
F4
F4
Parameters set
Parameters set P1
Features set
P2
P3
P4
P5 Features set
F1
F1
F2
F2
F3
F3
F4
F4
17
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 4: Maintain the status quo This option was not included in the Project Kick Off Workshop, but should be considered in any evaluation of options. Essentially, this option would be the correct answer if the analysis determined that there were too many “unique” features in both of the SCDMS that would cause a convergence to be impractical, overly disruptive or too expensive. This option would require neither of the operating utilities to go through the change management process of implementing a new system into their organization. This option, however, does not lead to the long term cost efficiencies and operating improvements available through large scale corporate standards and consistency. 18
Assessment methodology application
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process Main description Step 2 Mapping of Step 1 AS IS analysis Common understanding of the main features of the 2 SCDMS solutions.
Outstanding features Mapping of the main features of the 2 SCDMS, introducing several parameters taking into account the degree of innovation, the diffusion in the territory, impact on the grid operation, benefits etc.
Step 3 Feasibility analysis
Step 4
The converging
Deployment roadmap
SCDMS should be an
The feasibility analysis
evolution of one of the
will be the main driver
2 SCDMS. So it is
for the decision.
crucial to identify the
After that, a deployment
SCDMS that is more
roadmap will be made
apt (time/costs
according to the
analysis) to import the
ICT/outsourcers
features of the other
technical/economical
one (ICT/outsourcers
offers.
C O N V E R G E N C E
strongly involved).
20
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Step 1: AS IS analysis
103 Features Were Identified
•
Integration
•
Advanced Apps
•
SCADA
•
DER Integration
•
System Modelling
•
Architecture
21
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Step 2: Mapping of outstanding features Step 2 is divided in 3 sub steps 2.a, 2.b and 2.c.
Wednesday March 2, 2016 Deaver Barcelona
Date EPRI Team
From 01/02/2016 to 02/03/2016.
Location Session 11
a. EPRI visited Enel facilities in Italy and Spain. Tuesday March 1, 2016 Deaver / Peled Barcelona
Date EPRI Team Location Session 7
Session 8
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 88 89 90 91 92
Advanced Applications - MV - 5 Hours Web Aplicación Gestión GE Fault Location, Isolation, Service Restoration MV State Estimation Volt/VAR Optimization (including CVR) Radial Fault Location MV On-Line PowerFlow Scheduled Works (Switch Order Management) Demand Management Emergency Load Shedding MV, Secondary Substation Adaptive Protection Training Simulator Fault Anticipation Optimal Network Reconfiguration Management Detection of sudden load shedding DER Integration - 2 Hours Monitoring of Solar, Wind, EV, Storage Integration with Volt/VAR Optimization DER Forecasting Aggregation of DER Controls Dispatch of Storage
Wednesday March 2, 2016 Peled Barcelona
Date EPRI Team Location Session 9
Session 10
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103
Integration - 3 Hours Customer Information System Geographic Information System Data Historian Workforce Management / Mobile Workforce Telephone / Radio System Asset Management System Meter Data Management System Maintenance Management System Inter Control Center Integration Load Forecasting Web Applications Automated System Monitoring BI integration Information Technology - 3 Hours Backup Recovery System Emergency Environment System and apps recovery procedure automation Standard&Audit compliance Multi-Mode Hierarchy High scalability Desktop Layout flexibility Remote Operation Degraded Mode Disturbance Robustness Big networks
Session 12
37 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Model Management - HV - 3 Hours HV System Model Operational hierarchy change flexibility Alternate Scenario Management As Operated Model Incremental Data Management Temporal Modelling (past, present, future) Load Modeling Change activation and disemination Integrated Data Management Zero unaivalability for data base update Graphic and alphanumeric data base Huge Networks Data Management Advanced Applications - HV - 5 Hours HV State Estimation Contingency Analysis Optimal Network Reconfiguration Management Volt/VAR Optimization (including CVR) Mesh Fault Analysis / Location Fault Anticipation HV On-Line PowerFlow Dynamic Equipment Ratings Scheduled Works (Planned Switching) Condition Based Maintenance HV, HV/MV Station Adaptive Protection Training Simulator Emergency Load Shedding Network System Load Forecasting
22
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Step 2: Mapping of outstanding features Radial Fault Location (MV) Endesa
Step 2 is divided in 3 sub steps 2.a, 2.b and 2.c. From 04/04/2016 to 05/07/2016.
3
c. EPRI provided full assessment for the 2 SCDMS: i.
EPRI sent a draft to LNT/LO&M.
3
3
ii. LNT/LO&M evaluated the draft providing the change requests.
Enel
Functionality Because of Endesa's reletively recent formation from a Enel Distribuzione has largely standardized on the number of smaller utilities, they are operating with many Peterson Coil in the HV/MV substation to inject a different MV infrastructures, particularly when it comes variable impedance between the neutral and earth. to neutral grounding. Primarily a resistance grounded Based on this they have developed the RGDAT and system, they also have isolated neutrals, reactance RGDM technologies to detect and localize faults grounding, and reactance plus resistance grounding. (between secondary substations) which support all This leads to the need for many different varations of three of their DA/FLISR algorithms. technology to detect faults on the MV> Field Deployment Experience ENEL has embarked on a long journey toward a At this time, 6.5% of Endesa’s secondary substations system with Peterson Coils and RGDM fault detectors. are equipped with fault detection. In the next four years, Presently there is a mix of Primary Substations with Isolated Neutrals and RGDAT and Primary Substations they expect to duplicate the ratio. with Peterson Coils and RGDM. Flexibility / Adaptability The original solution, RGDAT, could detect high impedance faults, including directional sensitivity, allowed remote alteration of the working direction, and Without detailed MV fault indication, they utilize SAC to had high sensitivity for both isolated and compensated perform a search on the MV feeder by opening neutral grounding configurations. Building on this switches, reclosing the MV feeder breaker, and finally capability, RGDM (Directional Fault Detection and isolating the fault. Measurement) was developed combining protection, regulation, and monitoring capabilities, as well as operating as a data concentrator for lower level devices. HMI (Visualization / Navigation)
NA
4
5
NA Configuration Management
NA
iii. Assessment report ready.
5
NA
NA Adherence to Standards The New RDGM includes IEC 61850 to enable more sophisticated automation schemes like FSL. Scalability
NA
5 NA
Availability / Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery NA
NA Summary
3
103 Features X 9 Parameters X 6 Scoring criteria Scoring Criteria Functional 1 Not Implemented 2 Partially Meets Current Requirements 3 Fully Meets Current Requirements 4 Partially Meets Future Requirements 5 Fully Meets Future Requirements NA Not Assessed (Not included in Weighted Score)
Δ
ENEL has researched and developed a "World Class" solution for fault detection on MV systems that employ isolated neutrals (RDGAT) or Peterson Coil Compensated neutrals (RGDM). These complex devices provide significant functionality that has enabled ENEL to dramatically improve their reliability. Endesa operates similarly to many other utilities using a smaller population of fault indicators and isolating the fault through iterative switching. Ulitimately the converged solution will benefit from a higher population of remotely monitored fault indicators.
All switching maneuvers must be logged per the regulator. Also, adoption of the RGDM fault indicator would require a significant investment in Peterson Coils at Primary Substations.
Level of Deployment Not Implemented Pilot Implementation Production Implementation - 20% Production Implementation - 50% Production Implementation - Complete Not Assessed (Not included in Weighted Score)
23
4.75
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process Main description Step 2 Mapping of Step 1 AS IS analysis Common understanding of the main features of the 2 SCDMS solutions.
Outstanding features Mapping of the main features of the 2 SCDMS, introducing several parameters taking into account the degree of innovation, the diffusion in the territory, impact on the grid operation, benefits etc.
Step 3 Feasibility analysis
Step 4
The converging
Deployment roadmap
SCDMS should be an
The feasibility analysis
evolution of one of the
will be the main driver
2 SCDMS. So it is
for the decision.
crucial to identify the
After that, a deployment
SCDMS that is more
roadmap will be made
apt (time/costs
according to the
analysis) to import the
ICT/outsourcers
features of the other
technical/economical
one (ICT/outsourcers
offers.
strongly involved).
C O N V E R G E N C E
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process The EPRI role in step 1 Step 1 – AS IS analysis – Fast description
Step 1 – AS IS analysis – EPRI role
Common understanding of the main features of the 2 SCDMS solutions.
EPRI provided a preliminary exam of the selected
LNT/LO&M cooperated to present the SCDMS to EPRI
features, by using the documentation coming from
and to individualize the SCDMS features to focalize
LNT/LO&M.
during the assessment.
EPRI suggested further features, that are normally
In other words, the LNT/LO&M teams clarified what are
included in this kind of assessment; GNT/GO&M
the crucial characteristics of the systems, because the
validated the proposal.
converging SCDMS will be an evolution of one of the 2 SCDMS, by incorporating the good ideas coming from the other one. The entire features set (coming from both systems) was used to asses both the SCDMS.
3
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process The EPRI role in step 2 Step 2 – Mapping of Outstanding features – Fast
Step 2 – Mapping of Outstanding features – EPRI
description
role
Mapping of the main features of the 2 SCDMS, by
EPRI visited both the LNT competency centers in Spain
introducing several parameters taking into account
and Italy (1 in each country).
the degree of innovation, the diffusion in the
EPRI visited both the LO&M operative centers in Spain
territory, impact on the grid operation, benefits etc.
and Italy (1 in each country). EPRI/LNT/LO&M suggested the parameters set to evaluate the 2 SCDMS and their main features. GNT/GO&M validated the proposal. EPRI provided full assessment for the 2 SCDMS.
4
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process The EPRI role in step 3 Step 3 – Feasibility analysis
Step 3 – Feasibility analysis – EPRI role
The converging SCDMS will be an evolution of one
EPRI provided full assessment for the 2 SCDMS;
of the 2 SCDMS. So it is crucial to identify the
providing also a suggestion about the SCDMS that
SCDMS that is more apt (time/costs analysis) to
should be the base of the converging solution and about
import the features of the other one.
the features to import. The EPRI assessment is the starting point for step 3.
5
Assessment methodology
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Features vs parameters
Parameters set Functionality
Field Deployment Experience
Flexibility / Adaptability
HMI (Visualization / Navigation)
Configuration Management
Adherence to Standards
Etc.
HV/HV & HV/MV & MV & MV/LV SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
HV/HV & HV/MV (Primary Substation) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation Evaluation & & by EPRI Score Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
MV (Distribution) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
MV/LV (Secondary Substation) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
DER (Distributed Energy Resources) SCADA
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Evaluation & Score
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Features set
7
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Features vs parameters Feature
Parameter
a) a prominent or distinctive part of the SCDMS
a) one of a set of independent variables that
b) an SCDMS item or functions appearing regularly in the assessments. c) a SCDMS function or part given special prominence on day by day usage as indicated by users d) a SCDMS function or part offered for sale as a special attraction, as in international SCDMS implementations.
express the value of a feature b) one of a set of measurable factors that define a SCDMS and determine its value during the day by day usage c) a factor that determines the boundaries for the features development: for example the regulatory constraints
8
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment The flexibility of the features vs parameters approach The
Parameters set P1
P2
P3
F1
F1P1 ev&score
F1P2 ev&score
F1P3 ev&score
F2
F1P1 ev&score
F2P2 ev&score
F2P3 ev&score
F3
F1P1 ev&score
F3P2 ev&score
F3P3 ev&score
Features set
F4
F4P1 ev&score
F4P2 ev&score
F4P3 ev&score
P4
FxPy
scores
evaluations are
&
mutually
independent so the inclusion F1P4 ev&score F2P4 ev&score
of
new
features
and/or
parameters will not impact the former analysis.
F3P4 ev&score F4P4 ev&score
EPRI started the assessment with a shared set of parameters and features. But new insertions was also possible during the process.
9
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment The options for convergence path
10
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 1: Converge one SCDMS into the other One SCDMS is better and it will be revised in the few features where it is not the best.
Parameters set
Parameters set P1
Features set
P2
P3
P4
P5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1
F1
F2
F2
F3
F3
F4
F4
11
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 1: Converge one SCDMS into the other Assessment of the individual SCDMS systems may have resulted in a situation where both met or exceeded the requirements within their own operating territories, but one of the systems was in a satisfactory position to be upgraded with the necessary features from the other system and form the basis of a converged system. If this were the case, a careful feature-by-feature requirements document would have to be prepared and prioritized to facilitate transfer or recreation of these features into the converged SCDMS. From a project management perspective, this option would require deep communications between the operating company who’s features were being transferred and the development team building the new features. This option would require only one of the operating utilities to go through the change management process of implementing a new system into their organization.
12
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 2: Converge both SCDMS into a new SCDMS The two SCDMS are strongly complementary, the convergency is possible through a new system Parameters set P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1 Parameters set
F2
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set
F3
F1
F4
F2 F3
Parameters set P1 Features set
P2
P3
P4
P5
F4
F1 F2 F3 F4
13
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 2: Converge both SCDMS into a new SCDMS Very often, in these situations the SCDMS systems of both merging utilities are at or near the end of their useful life cycle, and at the state where they are ready to begin another procurement and implementation cycle. If that were the case, or if a significant number of deficiencies were identified in both SCDMS deployments, the correct answer would be to combine the requirements for both systems into the comprehensive set of requirements for a new converged system. This option would require both of the operating utilities to go through the change management process of implementing a new system into their organization
14
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 3: Too close to call – Requires further analysis The two SCDMS have very competitive scores, weaknesses and strong points are not well defined, further analysis is necessary Parameters set P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1 F2 F3 F4
Parameters set Features set F1 F2 F3 F4
15
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 3: Too close to call – Requires further analysis It was possible, going into the Assessment process that the analysis may have revealed no specific pattern of differences between the two SCDMS systems. This option would be the correct answer only if the Assessment process resulted in insufficient differences between the SCDMS systems, such that making a decision was too difficult.
16
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 4: Maintain the status quo The two SCDMS are very unique features, the convergence may not be the right choice Parameters set
Parameters set P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Features set F1
F1
F2
F2
F3
F3
F4
F4
Parameters set
Parameters set P1
Features set
P2
P3
P4
P5 Features set
F1
F1
F2
F2
F3
F3
F4
F4
17
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Option 4: Maintain the status quo This option was not included in the Project Kick Off Workshop, but should be considered in any evaluation of options. Essentially, this option would be the correct answer if the analysis determined that there were too many “unique” features in both of the SCDMS that would cause a convergence to be impractical, overly disruptive or too expensive. This option would require neither of the operating utilities to go through the change management process of implementing a new system into their organization. This option, however, does not lead to the long term cost efficiencies and operating improvements available through large scale corporate standards and consistency. 18
Assessment methodology application
Italy/Spain SCDMS convergence process Main description Step 2 Mapping of Step 1 AS IS analysis Common understanding of the main features of the 2 SCDMS solutions.
Outstanding features Mapping of the main features of the 2 SCDMS, introducing several parameters taking into account the degree of innovation, the diffusion in the territory, impact on the grid operation, benefits etc.
Step 3 Feasibility analysis
Step 4
The converging
Deployment roadmap
SCDMS should be an
The feasibility analysis
evolution of one of the
will be the main driver
2 SCDMS. So it is
for the decision.
crucial to identify the
After that, a deployment
SCDMS that is more
roadmap will be made
apt (time/costs
according to the
analysis) to import the
ICT/outsourcers
features of the other
technical/economical
one (ICT/outsourcers
offers.
C O N V E R G E N C E
strongly involved).
20
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Step 1: AS IS analysis
103 Features Were Identified
•
Integration
•
Advanced Apps
•
SCADA
•
DER Integration
•
System Modelling
•
Architecture
21
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Step 2: Mapping of outstanding features Step 2 is divided in 3 sub steps 2.a, 2.b and 2.c.
Wednesday March 2, 2016 Deaver Barcelona
Date EPRI Team
From 01/02/2016 to 02/03/2016.
Location Session 11
a. EPRI visited Enel facilities in Italy and Spain. Tuesday March 1, 2016 Deaver / Peled Barcelona
Date EPRI Team Location Session 7
Session 8
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 88 89 90 91 92
Advanced Applications - MV - 5 Hours Web Aplicación Gestión GE Fault Location, Isolation, Service Restoration MV State Estimation Volt/VAR Optimization (including CVR) Radial Fault Location MV On-Line PowerFlow Scheduled Works (Switch Order Management) Demand Management Emergency Load Shedding MV, Secondary Substation Adaptive Protection Training Simulator Fault Anticipation Optimal Network Reconfiguration Management Detection of sudden load shedding DER Integration - 2 Hours Monitoring of Solar, Wind, EV, Storage Integration with Volt/VAR Optimization DER Forecasting Aggregation of DER Controls Dispatch of Storage
Wednesday March 2, 2016 Peled Barcelona
Date EPRI Team Location Session 9
Session 10
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103
Integration - 3 Hours Customer Information System Geographic Information System Data Historian Workforce Management / Mobile Workforce Telephone / Radio System Asset Management System Meter Data Management System Maintenance Management System Inter Control Center Integration Load Forecasting Web Applications Automated System Monitoring BI integration Information Technology - 3 Hours Backup Recovery System Emergency Environment System and apps recovery procedure automation Standard&Audit compliance Multi-Mode Hierarchy High scalability Desktop Layout flexibility Remote Operation Degraded Mode Disturbance Robustness Big networks
Session 12
37 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Model Management - HV - 3 Hours HV System Model Operational hierarchy change flexibility Alternate Scenario Management As Operated Model Incremental Data Management Temporal Modelling (past, present, future) Load Modeling Change activation and disemination Integrated Data Management Zero unaivalability for data base update Graphic and alphanumeric data base Huge Networks Data Management Advanced Applications - HV - 5 Hours HV State Estimation Contingency Analysis Optimal Network Reconfiguration Management Volt/VAR Optimization (including CVR) Mesh Fault Analysis / Location Fault Anticipation HV On-Line PowerFlow Dynamic Equipment Ratings Scheduled Works (Planned Switching) Condition Based Maintenance HV, HV/MV Station Adaptive Protection Training Simulator Emergency Load Shedding Network System Load Forecasting
22
Italy/Spain SCDMS assessment Step 2: Mapping of outstanding features Radial Fault Location (MV) Endesa
Step 2 is divided in 3 sub steps 2.a, 2.b and 2.c. From 04/04/2016 to 05/07/2016.
3
c. EPRI provided full assessment for the 2 SCDMS: i.
EPRI sent a draft to LNT/LO&M.
3
3
ii. LNT/LO&M evaluated the draft providing the change requests.
Enel
Functionality Because of Endesa's reletively recent formation from a Enel Distribuzione has largely standardized on the number of smaller utilities, they are operating with many Peterson Coil in the HV/MV substation to inject a different MV infrastructures, particularly when it comes variable impedance between the neutral and earth. to neutral grounding. Primarily a resistance grounded Based on this they have developed the RGDAT and system, they also have isolated neutrals, reactance RGDM technologies to detect and localize faults grounding, and reactance plus resistance grounding. (between secondary substations) which support all This leads to the need for many different varations of three of their DA/FLISR algorithms. technology to detect faults on the MV> Field Deployment Experience ENEL has embarked on a long journey toward a At this time, 6.5% of Endesa’s secondary substations system with Peterson Coils and RGDM fault detectors. are equipped with fault detection. In the next four years, Presently there is a mix of Primary Substations with Isolated Neutrals and RGDAT and Primary Substations they expect to duplicate the ratio. with Peterson Coils and RGDM. Flexibility / Adaptability The original solution, RGDAT, could detect high impedance faults, including directional sensitivity, allowed remote alteration of the working direction, and Without detailed MV fault indication, they utilize SAC to had high sensitivity for both isolated and compensated perform a search on the MV feeder by opening neutral grounding configurations. Building on this switches, reclosing the MV feeder breaker, and finally capability, RGDM (Directional Fault Detection and isolating the fault. Measurement) was developed combining protection, regulation, and monitoring capabilities, as well as operating as a data concentrator for lower level devices. HMI (Visualization / Navigation)
NA
4
5
NA Configuration Management
NA
iii. Assessment report ready.
5
NA
NA Adherence to Standards The New RDGM includes IEC 61850 to enable more sophisticated automation schemes like FSL. Scalability
NA
5 NA
Availability / Business Continuity / Disaster Recovery NA
NA Summary
3
103 Features X 9 Parameters X 6 Scoring criteria Scoring Criteria Functional 1 Not Implemented 2 Partially Meets Current Requirements 3 Fully Meets Current Requirements 4 Partially Meets Future Requirements 5 Fully Meets Future Requirements NA Not Assessed (Not included in Weighted Score)
Δ
ENEL has researched and developed a "World Class" solution for fault detection on MV systems that employ isolated neutrals (RDGAT) or Peterson Coil Compensated neutrals (RGDM). These complex devices provide significant functionality that has enabled ENEL to dramatically improve their reliability. Endesa operates similarly to many other utilities using a smaller population of fault indicators and isolating the fault through iterative switching. Ulitimately the converged solution will benefit from a higher population of remotely monitored fault indicators.
All switching maneuvers must be logged per the regulator. Also, adoption of the RGDM fault indicator would require a significant investment in Peterson Coils at Primary Substations.
Level of Deployment Not Implemented Pilot Implementation Production Implementation - 20% Production Implementation - 50% Production Implementation - Complete Not Assessed (Not included in Weighted Score)
23
4.75
