MISO MOD-032 Model Data
Requirements & Reporting
Procedures
Version 1.1
September 5, 2015
i
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
MISO
ii
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Process Overview ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3
Responsible Entities .................................................................................................... 2
1.4
Data Submittal Delegation Options .............................................................................. 2
2 Data Submission Requirement ................................................................................................ 4
2.1
Load Serving Entity ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2
Generator Owner ......................................................................................................... 4
2.3
Transmission Owner .................................................................................................... 4
3 Power Flow Model Development ............................................................................................. 6
3.1
Data Format ................................................................................................................. 6
3.2
Level of Detail .............................................................................................................. 6
3.2.1
MOD Naming Conventions ................................................................................... 7
3.2.1.1
MOD Project Files .......................................................................................... 7
3.2.1.2
Bus/Load/Generation (BLG) Profiles .............................................................. 7
3.2.1.3
Device Control Profiles .................................................................................. 7
3.2.2
Definitions ............................................................................................................. 8
3.2.2.1
Project Types ................................................................................................. 8
3.2.2.2
Project Statuses............................................................................................. 8
3.2.3
Modeling Criteria................................................................................................... 8
3.2.4
Area Interchange .................................................................................................. 9
3.2.5
Ratings ................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.6
Standard Case Effective Dates ............................................................................. 9
3.2.7
Modeling of Wind Farms ......................................................................................10
3.2.8
Dispatch...............................................................................................................11
3.2.9
Load Modeling .....................................................................................................11
3.2.10
Tie Lines ..............................................................................................................11
3.3
Scenarios ....................................................................................................................11
3.4
Schedule .....................................................................................................................12
3.5
Power Flow Data Checks ............................................................................................12
3.6
MOD Training & Access ..............................................................................................13
MISO
i
3.6.1
MOD Access Levels.............................................................................................13
3.6.2
Obtaining Access to MOD ....................................................................................13
3.6.3
MOD Training ......................................................................................................14
4 Dynamics Model Development ...............................................................................................15
4.1
Data Format ................................................................................................................15
4.2
Level of Detail .............................................................................................................15
4.2.1
Power Flow Representation .................................................................................16
4.2.2
Dynamics Representation ....................................................................................16
4.2.2.1
Generators....................................................................................................16
4.2.2.2
Static VAR Systems & Synchronous Condensers .........................................16
4.2.2.3
HVDC ...........................................................................................................17
4.2.2.4
Load .............................................................................................................17
4.2.2.5
Protection Relays ..........................................................................................17
4.3
Scenarios ....................................................................................................................18
4.4
Schedule .....................................................................................................................18
4.5
Dynamics Data Checks ...............................................................................................19
5 Standard Generator & Load Component Model List ...............................................................20
5.1
Generator Models .......................................................................................................20
5.2
Exciter Models ............................................................................................................21
5.3
Turbine/Governor Models ...........................................................................................22
5.4
Turbine Load Controller Models ..................................................................................23
5.5
Power System Stabilizer Models .................................................................................23
5.6
Compensator Models ..................................................................................................23
5.7
Wind Models ...............................................................................................................24
5.8
PV Models ..................................................................................................................24
5.9
Load Characteristics Models .......................................................................................24
6 Converting Legacy to Newer Models ......................................................................................26
6.1
Generators ..................................................................................................................26
6.2
Exciters .......................................................................................................................26
6.3
Turbine/Governors ......................................................................................................26
6.4
Turbine Load Controller ..............................................................................................26
6.5
Power System Stabilizer .............................................................................................27
6.6
Compensator ..............................................................................................................27
MISO
ii
6.7
Wind ...........................................................................................................................27
6.8
PV...............................................................................................................................27
7 Composite Load Model ..........................................................................................................28
7.1
Parameter Derivation Based on Load Composition .....................................................29
7.2
Example Composite Load Model Based on Load Composition ...................................30
8 Short Circuit Model Development ...........................................................................................32
9 MOD-032-1 – Attachment 1 ...................................................................................................33
10 Data Checks ........................................................................................................................35
10.1
Power Flow Data Checks ............................................................................................35
10.2
Dynamics Data Checks ...............................................................................................36
11 Entity Lists ...........................................................................................................................38
Appendix 1 Transmission Planner Compliance .........................................................................39
MISO
iii
1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose
MISO develops a series of power flow and dynamics simulation models which are used by
MISO and its members for performing reliability and economic planning studies needed to fulfill
various NERC and Tariff compliance obligations.
Pursuant to requirement R1 of MOD-032-1, MISO as a NERC Planning Coordinator (PC), and
its NERC Transmission Planners (TPs) have jointly established a set of common procedures for
submitting data needed for developing planning models as described in this document.
Pursuant to requirement R1.3 the Requirements and Reporting Procedures manual is posted on
the MISO web site at the following location:
https://www.misoenergy.org/PLANNING/MODELS/Pages/MOD-032.aspx
The purpose of this document is to outline these data reporting procedures needed to support
the development of power flow and dynamics simulation base case models that realistically
simulate steady state and dynamic behavior of the transmission system in a manner compliant
with MOD-032.
The PC is also responsible for submitting models for its planning area to the ERO or its
designee to support creation of the Interconnection-wide cases that includes the Planning
Coordinator’s planning area per MOD-032 Requirement R4.
1.2 Process Overview
Figure 1-1 provides a high-level overview of the modeling process. Additional details on the
modeling process are outlined in Sections 3 & 4.
MISO
1
MISO
Data Owners
MISO
•Send annual data request
•Submit data to MISO
•Review data & compile into
set of models
•Post models for review
ERO/Designee
MISO
Data Owners
•Create Eastern
Interconnection models
•Incorporate feedback into
models
•Send models to ERO/
designee
•Review models
•Provide corrections &
feedback
Figure 1-1: Modeling Process Overview
1.3 Responsible Entities
Pursuant to requirements in MOD-032-1 R2, data owners are responsible for providing the data
necessary to model their assets to its Transmission Planner(s) and Planning Coordinator(s) as
described in this document. Transmission Planners may notify data owners that they do not
want the data and that it should only be sent to the planning coordinators. Data owners and
their respective data submission responsibilities are noted ahead:




Generator Owners (GO) are responsible for submitting modeling data for their existing
and future generating facilities with a signed interconnection agreement
Load Serving Entities (LSE) are responsible for providing their load forecasts
corresponding to the scenarios developed
Transmission Owners (TO) are responsible for submitting data for modeling their
existing and approved future transmission facilities
Balancing Authorities (BA), Transmission Service Providers (TSP), Resource Planners
(RP) currently do not have any data submittal requirements, since they don’t own
facilities
1.4 Data Submittal Delegation Options
Generator Owners:
GOs will coordinate with their interconnected TO in order to ensure that their data is consistent
with the TO submitted topology. The generator owner may request assistance from the
transmission owner in ensuring the equipment is modeled in the format requested. The
transmission owner will let the generator owner know if they are willing to assist. GOs may
MISO
2
submit their data directly to MOD/MISO or work with their interconnected TO to submit the data
to MOD/MISO on their behalf. GO’s are expected to submit directly to MOD/MISO unless they
have made arrangements with their interconnected Transmission Owner to submit data on their
behalf. If arrangements have been made, it must be communicated in writing to MISO at
TAMModeling@misoenergy.org
Load Serving Entities:
LSEs will coordinate with their interconnected TO in order to ensure that their data is consistent
with the TO submitted topology. In alignment with MISO BPM-011, each LSE is responsible to
work with applicable Electric Distribution Companies (EDC) to coordinate the submission of
EDC forecast data in areas that have demand and energy that are subject to retail choice. The
load serving entity may request assistance from the transmission owner in ensuring the loads
and equipment is modeled in the format requested. The transmission owner will let the load
serving entity know if they are willing to assist. LSEs may submit their data directly to
MOD/MISO or work with their interconnected TO to submit the data to MOD/MISO on their
behalf. LSEs are expected to submit directly to MOD/MISO unless they have made
arrangements with their interconnected Transmission Owner to submit data on their behalf. If
arrangements have been made, it must be communicated in writing to MISO at
TAMModeling@misoenergy.org
Transmission Owner Submittal of Unregistered Entities
As a best modeling practice it is desired that TOs would also submit modeling data at their
disposal for unregistered entities in their footprint. There is no obligation to do so and
additionally no compliance repercussions relating to the data provided, however it is desired to
produce higher quality models.
MISO
3
2
Data Submission Requirement
MOD-032 Attachment 1 lists the modeling data to be submitted and is summarized by
responsible entity below. Section 9 includes Attachment 1 for reference. MISO as a PC will
send a message confirming an entity’s participation in fulfilling their modeling
obligation/compliance with MOD-032 at the end of the model building cycle.
2.1 Load Serving Entity
In coordination with their interconnected TO, the LSE shall provide the aggregate demand levels
for each of the scenarios specified in Section 3. The load serving entity shall use the bus
numbers assigned to them by the interconnecting transmission owner. Table 2-1 provides a
summary of the data required to be submitted by the LSE.
Table 2-1: Data to be submitted by the LSE
Steady-State
Aggregate demand on a bus level
Location of new expected loads
Dynamics
Load Composition or Characteristics
2.2 Generator Owner
In coordination with their interconnected TO, the GO shall provide the necessary data to model
their generating facilities. The generator owner shall use bus numbers assigned to them by the
interconnecting transmission owner. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the data required to be
submitted by the GO.
Data for existing and planned generators with executed interconnection agreements should be
submitted. Actual dispatch will be determined based on study needs.
Table 2-2: Data to be submitted by the GO
Steady-State
Generator parameters
Generator step-up (GSU) transformer data
Seasonal output capabilities
Station Service Load
Reactive Power Compensation1
Wind Collector System
Dynamics
Generator
Excitation System
Turbine-Governor
Power System Stabilizer
Protection Relays
2.3 Transmission Owner
The TO is responsible for providing the necessary data to model the items listed in Table 2-3.
1
Additional reactive power support equipment (such as a switched shunt) used to maintain an acceptable
power factor at the Point of Interconnection
MISO
4
Table 2-3: Data to be submitted by the TO
Steady-State
System Topology
Buses
AC transmission lines
HVDC transmission facilities
Transformers
Reactive Power Compensation
Static VAR Systems (SVS)
Initial Generator Output in MOD (to be
submitted by the TO whose model control area
the unit is located within)*
Dynamics
Static VAR Systems
HVDC Facilities
FACTS Devices
Protection Relays
*In the circumstance where the model Control Area is not a Transmission Owner, then the LBA may submit
the data instead of the control area Transmission Owner if MISO is notified via email by both parties to
TAMModeling@misoenergy.org
MISO
5
3
Power Flow Model Development
3.1 Data Format
Power Flow model data is to be submitted to MISO via MISO’s Model on Demand (MOD) Tool
in the MOD format as explained ahead. Models are developed using the Siemens PTI PSS/E
software program. Data submitted should be compatible with the MOD and PSS/E versions
currently specified by MISO. Modeling data requests and notifications are sent to the Planning
Subcommittee mailing list. Individuals can subscribe to the list at the following location:
https://www.misoenergy.org/Pages/ListsSignup.aspx
3.2 Level of Detail
On at least an annual basis each data owner is required to submit the following model data to
MISO’s Model on Demand (MOD) database:
1. Transmission projects intended to be approved by MISO (moved to Appendix A) in the
upcoming MTEP; to be submitted by Transmission Owners
a. This includes the projects that are submitted to the MISO Project Database by
member companies by September 15 of each year.
2. Generators with executed generator interconnection agreements (GIA) & associated
network upgrades. At a minimum, all generators with a nameplate greater than 20 MVA
or a facility with an aggregated nameplate greater than 75 MVA must be modeled in
detail (except for those meeting the exclusion criteria as specified in the NERC BES
definition) and additionally Blackstart Resources identified in the Transmission
Operator’s restoration plan.
3. Bus/load/generation and devices profiles, which include:
a. Load forecast for each scenario at the bus level representing a 50/50 forecast
coincident with the company peak; to be submitted by LSE
b. Corresponding generation limits and level for each scenario in the model list
(Pmin, Pmax, Qmin, Qmax, Pgen); Generation limits/capabilities to be submitted
by Generation Owner. Generator owner shall submit generator capabilities
(Pmax/Qmax) that correspond to a point in the reactive capability curve,
Generation output to be submitted by Transmission Owners
c. Settings on regulating equipment such as transformers, switched shunts and
HVDC data; to be submitted by data owner
4. Updates and/or corrections to approved future generation and transmission projects
5. Any corrections that need to be made to existing system modeling in the MOD Base
Case. Data owners shall provide facility retirement updates.
GOs and LSEs will coordinate with their interconnected TO in order to ensure that their data is
consistent with the TO submitted topology. GOs and LSEs may submit their data directly to
MOD/MISO or work with their interconnected TO to submit the data to MOD/MISO on their
MISO
6
behalf. GO’s and LSE’s are expected to submit directly to MOD/MISO unless they have made
arrangements with their interconnected Transmission Owner to submit data on their behalf. If
arrangements have been made, it must be communicated in writing to MISO at
TAMModeling@misoenergy.org
If the data has not changed since the last submission, a written confirmation that the data has
not changed is sufficient. Such confirmation should be sent to MISO as the Planning
Coordinator and the appropriate Transmission Planner. MISO correspondence should be sent
by email to TAMModeling@misoenergy.org. Bus/Load/Generation (BLG) Profiles need to be
submitted on an annual basis if the generation limits/parameters change depending on the
season.
The data submitted must be sufficient to perform reliability and economic studies on the bulk
electric system (BES) as defined by NERC2. To that extent, relevant data associated with sub100 kV facilities may also need to be provided.
3.2.1 MOD Naming Conventions
Files submitted to MOD (projects, profiles, etc.) must follow naming conventions specified in the
following sub-sections.
3.2.1.1 MOD Project Files
MOD project files are used to make transmission system topology changes. Filenames should
contain the company name acronym and the MTEP Project ID (MTEP_PRJID). This project ID
is available in the MISO Project Database. Company name (acronym) should appear first in the
project file name, see example below:
Example: ITC-MTEP_PRJID- project_name.prj
3.2.1.2 Bus/Load/Generation (BLG) Profiles
Bus/Load/Generation (BLG) profiles contain information about loads and generation and are
specific to individual scenarios (year, season, load-level). BLG profiles cannot be used to modify
transmission topology. The BLG profile name should mention the specific scenario, the MTEP
cycle, and the Company name (acronym) per example below:
Example for 2016 Summer peak profile: 2016SUM-MISO14-XEL-BLG.raw
3.2.1.3 Device Control Profiles
Device profiles contain information about settings on regulating equipment such as
transformers, switched shunts and DC data. Device profiles cannot be used to modify
transmission topology. The device control profile name should contain the specific scenario, the
MTEP cycle, and the Company name (acronym), see example below:
Example for 2016 Summer peak profile: 2016SUM-MISO14-ATC-DEV.raw
2
http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/BES%20DL/bes_phase2_reference_document_20140325_final_clean.pdf
MISO
7
3.2.2
Definitions
3.2.2.1 Project Types
 MTEP Appendix C: Projects that are proposed by TOs, Stakeholders, or MISO staff for
which specific needs have not yet been established, but that are thought by the sponsor
to be a potentially beneficial expansion.
 MTEP Appendix B: Projects that are demonstrated to be a potential solution to an
identified reliability, economic, or policy need.
 MTEP Appendix A: Projects that have been justified to be the preferred solution to an
identified reliability, economic, or policy need, and have been reviewed and approved by
the MISO Board of Directors.
 Non-MTEP MISO: Projects submitted by MISO members that are Non-Transferred
facilities and that don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the MTEP process, as detailed in
Section 4.2.3 (Project Reporting Guidelines) in the Transmission Planning BPM.
 Non-MISO Network: Projects submitted by Non-MISO members/Non-MISO electric
system
 Base Case Change: Projects submitted to make changes to the MOD Base Case
 Generator: Projects submitted to add generators with approved interconnection service
3.2.2.2 Project Statuses
 Conceptual: Conceptual or vision plans
 Alternative: Alternatives to preferred projects in MTEP Appendix B
 Proposed: Projects that require additional review and are subject to change
 Planned: Projects that have completed the TO planning process and TO intends to
permit and construct the project
 In Service: In Service Generator
 Correction: Base case change to be submitted for correction of MOD Base Case
3.2.3 Modeling Criteria
Criteria for inclusion of projects in the base models are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Project Inclusion Criteria
Type &
Status
Target MTEP
A
Planned
Proposed
Alternative
Conceptual
In Service
Correction
MTEP
Appendix A
N/A
IN MODELS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MTEP
IN MODELS
Appendix B
NOT IN
MODELS
NOT IN
MODELS
NOT IN
MODELS
N/A
N/A
N/A
MTEP
IN MODELS
Appendix C
NOT IN
MODELS
NOT IN
MODELS
N/A
NOT IN
MODELS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Non-MTEP
MISO
MISO
N/A
IN MODELS
8
Non-MISO
Network
N/A
Base case
Change
N/A
N/A
Generator
IN MODELS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IN MODELS
IN MODELS
N/A
N/A
NOT IN
MODELS
IN MODELS
N/A
3.2.4 Area Interchange
Area interchange will be set to model firm and expected inter- and intra MISO transactions. A
transaction workbook including OASIS data will be utilized to determine Area Interchange. Data
needed to model transactions will include the source and sink areas, transaction MW amount,
applicable model scenarios, start/end dates and an OASIS reference (Transmission Service
Reservation) number or a Grandfathered Agreement (GFA) number if applicable (Expected
transfers may not have OASIS or GFA information). This data is required to be provided by
TOs in collaboration with their Balancing Authority. The LBA may submit the data instead of the
control area Transmission Owner if MISO is notified via email by both parties to
TAMModeling@misoenergy.org
Transactions need to be confirmed by both transacting parties. MISO will post a workbook for
review, edits, additions and deletions. Final cases are solved by enabling the PSS/E “ties +
loads” interchange function.
Method to collect transaction level data will be accomplished through a workbook.
3.2.5 Ratings
Data owners are responsible for maintaining the ratings data for their facilities in MOD. While
creating cases, facility ratings are selected as indicated below:



Rate A=Normal
Rate B=STE (emergency rating, the rating used in contingency analysis)
Rate C=LTE (Long-Term Emergency Rating, not required)
3.2.6 Standard Case Effective Dates
Effective dates are cutoffs that are used to identify projects that are applied to the corresponding
model scenario as noted in Table 3-2. Therefore, all projects that have their expected in service
date specified to be on or before the effective date are included in the corresponding model.
Table 3-2: Standard Effective Dates
Season
MISO
Standard Case
Effective Date
(MM/DD)
Spring and Spring Light Load
04/15
Summer and Summer Shoulder
07/15
9
Fall
10/15
Winter
01/15
3.2.7 Modeling of Wind Farms
Data should be submitted to allow wind farms to be modeled as a single equivalent machine
with at least the following:





Point of Interconnection Transformer (Medium to High voltage)
Equivalent generator step-up transformer (Low to Medium voltage)
Collector System Equivalent (transmission lines representing the equivalent impedance
of the collector system)
Wind Turbine Generator modeled at the appropriate low voltage (i.e. 690 V)
WMOD3 and WPF4 populated with an appropriate value
Interconnection
Transmission
Line
POI
Transformer
High Voltage
(i.e. 345 kV)
Collector System
Equivalent
GSU
Equivalent
Mid Voltage
(i.e. 34.5 kV)
Wind
Generator
Low Voltage
(i.e. 690 V)
Plant Reactive
Support
Generator Reactive
Support
Figure 3-1: Single equivalent machine representation for wind farm
Modeling multiple equivalent machines for a single wind farm is acceptable when trying to
model:




Different turbine types/manufactures
Geographic diversity
Explicit ownership
Different development phases
Bus numbers for buses shown in Figure 3-1 should be coordinated with the interconnecting TO.
Specific wind output levels are required to be specified for the various scenarios in the BLG
profile, as shown in Table 3-3.
3
4
Wind Machine Control Mode
Wind Power Factor
MISO
10
Table 3-3: Required Wind Output
Scenario
Wind Level
Wind Unit Output
(%)
Summer Peak
Capacity Credit Wind
14%*
Summer Shoulder, Winter Peak
Average Wind
40%*
Fall, Spring, Light Load, Summer
Shoulder
High Wind
90%
Light Load
No Wind
0%
*14% is used as capacity credit
*40% is used as a proxy for average wind
3.2.8 Dispatch
MISO uses a combination of generation dispatches for its NERC TPL analyses. Most models
that are used for steady state analysis contain a control area level Network Resource dispatch.
For implementing this dispatch, Network Resources in each control area are dispatched in
economic order to meet the load, loss and interchange level from the area interchange
workbook at the control area level. Light Load models use the dispatch submitted to Model On
Demand.
3.2.9 Load Modeling
It is desired that station service load have a consistent load ID across the MISO footprint so it is
easily identifiable. As such, it is desired that station service load have a load ID of SS. If a
legacy station service load ID is being used please communicate that to MISO via email to:
TAMmodeling@misoenergy.org.
Additionally the scalable load should also be easily identifiable. Therefore, the scalable load
field should be populated as 1 if it is scalable and 0 if it is not.
3.2.10 Tie Lines
MISO will maintain a tie-line workbook for its members’ ties with external (non-MISO) entities.
The workbook format will be determined by the ERO/designee. The Power Flow Coordinator
maintains a Master Tie Line Database. A tie line will not be represented in a particular power
flow base case model unless both parties have agreed to include it. Tie lines between MISO
entities need to be coordinated between both parties. MISO can facilitate dialogue between its
members if that is desired.
3.3 Scenarios
For each MTEP planning cycle MISO will develop a set of power flow cases as shown in Table
3-4. The scenarios developed could change from year to year based on MISO and member
needs. However at a minimum those needed for TPL and MOD-032 compliance will be
included. General descriptions of the scenarios are provided below:
MISO
11





Winter Peak Load (WIN) – is defined as the winter peak demand expected to be
served.
Spring Light Load (SLL) - is defined as a typical early morning load level, modeling at
or near minimum load conditions.
Summer Peak Load (SUM) - is defined as the summer peak demand expected to be
served.
Summer Shoulder Load (SSH) - is defined as 70% to 80% of summer peak load
conditions.
Fall Peak Load (FAL) - is defined as typical fall peak load conditions.
Table 3-4: Scenarios to be developed
Model Spring
Spring
Summer
Summer
Fall
Winter
Year
Light Load
Shoulder
Peak
Peak
0
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
10
X
X
For example for the 2016 model series the model years would be 2016, 2017, 2018,
2021, 2026
3.4 Schedule
The annual schedule power flow model development schedule is shown in Table 3-5. Specific
dates will be supplied with the annual data request.
Table 3-5: Power flow Development Schedule
Task
Estimated Completion
GO Data Request
August
Transaction Data Request
August
GO Data Due
September
Transaction Data Due
September
TOs & LSEs submit initial data to MOD
st
Post 1 pass models to MTEP ftp site for review
Members submit updates/corrections to MOD
Post Final MTEP models
Request Updates prior to MMWG submittal
Send final models to ERO
October
December
Dec-Jan
March
April
June (Actual timeframe
to be determined based
on ERO schedule)
3.5 Power Flow Data Checks
Once the power flow models are created, a set of data checks to flag potential issues with the
data submitted will be performed by MISO. Section 10.1 provides a list of the quality checks
MISO
12
performed. In addition to the data checks, a sample N-1 DC contingency screen is performed to
assist with model review. Results of the data checks and sample contingency screens will be
included along with each model posting. Data owners are required to submit corrected data in
the time window specified in the model review request/notification.
3.6 MOD Training & Access
3.6.1 MOD Access Levels
A brief description of the different access levels in MOD is provided below:






Market Participant – Only has ability to access the MOD Base case
Ratings Only - Can only view and submit equipment ratings.
User – Can create and submit modeling data in MOD. Majority of data users.
Local Process Manager – Review, approve and may submit information to MISO
Process Manager
MISO Process Manager – Reviews and accepts submittals (limited to MISO staff).
MOD Administrator – Sets roles of MOD users (limited to MISO staff).
Data submitters will require “User” level access in order to submit the necessary data. The
diagram below shows the sequence of data from their submission to MOD through their
implementation in models.
Figure 3-6: Sequence of MOD Data Submission
3.6.2 Obtaining Access to MOD
In order to gain access to MOD, each company must have a Universal NDA on file with MISO
and each individual user is required to sign a Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)
NDA. MISO Client Relations can assist in completing or verifying the NDAs. MISO Client
Relations can be contacted via e-mail at clientrelations@misoenergy.org
Once the appropriate NDAs are in place, the company should complete one of the following
MOD access request forms:
MISO
13
For access allowing submission of modeling data:
-
https://www.misoenergy.org/_layouts/miso/ecm/redirect.aspx?id=145068
For MOD base case read-only access (does not have ability to submit data to MOD):
-
https://www.misoenergy.org/_layouts/miso/ecm/redirect.aspx?id=145069
3.6.3 MOD Training
MISO will generally conduct training on how to submit data through MOD annually in the Fall.
Additional training sessions may be scheduled as needed. Current MOD training materials are
available at:
https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/Repository/Meeting%20Material/Stakeholder/Trainin
g%20Materials/300%20Level%20Training/Level%20300%20%20Transmission%20Modeling%20Tools%20MOD.pdf
File format excel workbooks and Model On Demand file examples are posted to aid in submittal
of data to Model On Demand on the MTEP ftp site at the following location:
/usr/users/mtepro/mtep/MOD-032
MISO
14
4
Dynamics Model Development
4.1 Data Format
Dynamics modeling data needs to be submitted in the form of a Siemens PTI PSS/E dyr file.
Dyr file submittals can be of just changes to your system from the existing dyr or of an entire
representation of only your system in a dyr. Models are developed using the PSS/E software
program. Data submitted must be compatible with the PSS/E version currently specified by
MISO.
Standard library models should be used to represent all active elements (generators, static VAR
compensators, etc) whenever possible. If a user-written model (UDM) is being submitted,
documentation and an object file or source code must be submitted along with the dyr file. The
documentation must include the characteristics of the model including block diagrams, values
and names for all model parameters, and a list of all state variables.
Modeling data requests and notifications are sent to the Planning Subcommittee mailing list.
Individuals can subscribe to the list at the following location:
https://www.misoenergy.org/Pages/ListsSignup.aspx.
4.2 Level of Detail
Dynamics simulations analyze the transient response of the power system following a
disturbance. These simulations are in a timeframe of 0 to 20 seconds with a typical time step of
¼ cycle. As such it is necessary to develop a model that sufficiently represents the automatic
response of all active elements to a disturbance on the power system.
On an annual basis each data owner is required to submit the following model data:


Dynamic models to represent approved future active elements such as generators,
FACTS devices, or fast switching shunts
Updates to existing dynamic models
GOs and LSEs are expected to submit directly to MISO unless they have made arrangements
with the interconnecting Transmission Owner to submit data on their behalf. If arrangements
have been made, it must be communicated in writing to MISO at
TAMModeling@misoenergy.org
If the data has not changed since the last submission, a written confirmation that the data has
not changed is sufficient. Such confirmation should be sent to MISO as the Planning
Coordinator and the appropriate Transmission Planner. MISO correspondence should be sent
by email to TAMModeling@misoenergy.org.
MISO
15
4.2.1 Power Flow Representation
The dynamics model will use a power flow model consistent with the steady-state model
outlined in Section 3. If changes are required to the power flow data for dynamics they should
be reflected in the steady-state power flow cases and the appropriate changes entered in MOD.
4.2.2
Dynamics Representation
4.2.2.1 Generators
At a minimum, all generators with a nameplate greater than 20 MVA or a facility with an
aggregated nameplate greater than 75 MVA must be modeled in detail (except for those
meeting the exclusion criteria as specified in the NERC BES definition) and additionally
Blackstart Resources identified in the Transmission Operator’s restoration plan. A detailed
model of a generator must include:





Generator Model
Excitation System Model
o May be omitted if unit is operated under manual excitation control
Turbine-Governor Model
o May be omitted if unit doesn’t regulate frequency
Power System Stabilizer Model
o May be omitted if device is not installed or not active
Reactive Line Drop Compensation Model
o May be omitted if device is not installed or not active
Generators with detailed modeling must use a dynamic model from the Standard Generator
Component Model List, specified in Section 5. If a suitable model is not on the standard list the
data submitter may request a model be added to the standard list by providing MISO with a
technical justification for doing so. Additions to the standard list will be handled on a case by
case basis.
Several legacy models have been omitted from the Standard Generator Component Model List
since they can be directly converted to newer dynamic models with minimal effort and without
changes to simulation results. The recommended conversions from a particular legacy model to
a newer model are listed in Section 6.
In instances where detailed dynamic modeling is unavailable, generic data may be used.
Generators without detailed modeling will be netted with the load (set as a negative load).
4.2.2.2 Static VAR Systems & Synchronous Condensers
Static VAR Systems (SVS) and synchronous condensers are reactive power devices that can
vary the amount of reactive power supplied or absorbed within the simulated timeframe (0-20
seconds). These devices must be modeled in sufficient detail in order to simulate its expected
behavior.
If the reactive power device is modeled as a generator (for example a synchronous condenser)
it should follow the guidelines in Section 4.2.2.1.
MISO
16
4.2.2.3 HVDC
All HVDC transmission facilities must be represented with a sufficiently detailed model to
simulate its expected behavior. For future HVDC transmission facilities where exact design
specifications are not known generic HVDC models should be used (such as CDC6).
4.2.2.4 Load
The dynamic behavior of load must be modeled in sufficient detail to meet NERC TPL
compliance obligations. The dynamic behavior of load can be specified on an aggregate
(area/zone/owner) or individual bus level. Providing a specific dynamic load characteristic
model or the motor load composition is acceptable.
Loads with detailed characteristic modeling must use a dynamic model from the Standard
Component Model List, specified in Section 5.9. If a desired model is not on the standard list
the data submitter may request a model be added to the standard list by providing MISO with a
technical justification for doing so. Additions to the standard list will be handled on a case by
case basis.
If a specific dynamic load characteristic model is not provided, the motor load composition of the
load on a bus/area/zone or owner level is required in order to determine the appropriate
dynamic representation. The composition of the load shall be defined as:






Motor A – Small 3-Phase (i.e. compressor motors used in large air-conditioners and
refrigerators)
Motor B – Large 3-Phase (i.e. Fan Motor)
Motor C – Medium 3-Phase (i.e. Pump Motor)
Motor D – 1-Phase Air Conditioner Compressor Motor
Electronic Load – Voltage Dependent Load
Static Load – Frequency & Voltage Dependent Load
Based on the composition of the load an appropriate dynamic representation will be developed
using the composite load model (CMLD). Additional details on how the composite load model
parameters will be developed are specified in Section 7. A walkthrough of how to determine the
motor load composition based on the Residential/Commercial/Industrial/Agricultural composition
of the load is also detailed in Section 7.
4.2.2.5 Protection Relays
Generic protection relays are applied during the simulation that scan for bus voltages, out-ofstep conditions, and against generic protection zones for transmission lines. These generic
protection relays only monitor system conditions. Table 4-1 shows the settings of the generic
relays.
Table 4-1: Generic Relay Settings
Generic Relay
Generic Transient Voltage Monitoring
Generic Out-of-Step Monitoring
Generic Distance Relay
MISO
Monitored Condition
0.7 ≤ Vbus ≤ 1.2 (12 cycles following the initiating event)
Apparent Impedance > Line Impedance
Circle A = 1.00 x Line Impedance
Circle B = 1.25 x Line Impedance
17
Circle C = 1.50 x Line Impedance
Equipment specific detailed protection relays may also be submitted at the discretion of the data
owner; however, detailed protection relay models need to be submitted for:


Voltage and frequency ride through capabilities of
o Nuclear Facilities
o Wind Farms
Automatic action of Special Protection Schemes (SPS)
4.3 Scenarios
For each MTEP planning cycle, MISO will develop a single dynamics data set to be used with
the associated power flow models list in Table 4-2. The scenarios developed could change from
year to year based on MISO and member needs. However at a minimum those needed for TPL
and MOD-032 compliance will be included.
Table 4-2: Power flow Scenarios Used for Dynamics
Model
Year
0
1
5
10
Light
Load
Summer
Summer
Winter
Fall Peak
Peak
Shoulder
Peak
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
*Will be built if proposed material generation additions or changes
occur in between years 5&10. If year 10 Summer Peak is required
to be submitted to ERO designee and MISO has no material generation
additions/changes, MISO will submit +5 Summer Peak dynamics.
4.4 Schedule
The annual schedule for dynamics model development is shown in Table 4-3. Specific dates
will be supplied with the annual data request.
Table 4-3: Dynamics Development Schedule
Task
Estimated Completion
MISO requests updated Dynamic data (dyr updates)
April
Create Initialized Pass 1 Dynamics Package
Post Initialized Pass 1 Dynamics Package & provide
output of sample set of disturbances
Data Owners review and provide corrections
Incorporate updates and develop Final Dynamics
Package
Post Final Dynamics Package
April - May
Dynamics Data submitted to ERO or its Designee
MISO
May
June
June
July
August (Actual
timeframe to be
determined based on
18
ERO schedule)
4.5 Dynamics Data Checks
Once the dynamic models are created, a set of data checks to flag potential issues with the data
submitted will be performed. Section 10.2 provides a list of the data quality checks performed.
In addition to the data checks, a sample set of disturbances are run to assist in model review.
Data owners are required to submit corrected model data in the time window specified in the
model review request/notification.
MISO
19
5
Standard Generator & Load Component
Model List
Please note that TSAT may not have a standard library model for all PSS/E or PSLF dynamic
component model but still has the ability to automatically read and convert them into the
appropriate TSAT format. Some models will be listed as “UDM” for TSAT, however; this should
not be confused with the term “user-written model” or “UDM” used in the context of PSS/E or
PSLF.
5.1 Generator Models
PSS/E V33
PSLF V18
TSAT V12
Description
CSTATT
stcon
UDM
Static Condenser
FACTS
CSVGN1
vwscc
SVC Type 1
SCR Controlled Static
Var Source
CSVGN3
vwscc
SVC Type 1
SCR Controlled Static
Var Source
CSVGN5
vwscc
SVC Type 2
SCR Controlled Static
Var Source
GENROE
genrou
DG0S2
GENROU
genrou
DG0S5
GENSAE
gensal
DG0S2
GENSAL
gensal
DG0S4
MISO
Notes
Not a direct
conversion for
PSLF
Not a direct
conversion for
PSLF
Not a direct
conversion for
PSLF
If combined
with STBSVC
model will
convert to SVC
Type 3 in
TSAT
Round Rotor
Generator with
Exponential Saturation
Round Rotor
Generator with
Quadratic Saturation
Salient Pole Generator
with Exponential
Saturation
Salient Pole Generator
with Quadratic
Saturation
20
5.2 Exciter Models
PSS/E V33
ESDC1A
ESDC2A
DC3A
DC4B
ESAC1A
ESAC2A
ESAC3A
ESAC4A
ESAC5A
ESAC6A
AC7B
AC8B
ESST1A
ESST2A
ESST3A
ESST4B
ST5B
ST6B
ST7B
ESAC8B
PSLF V18
esdc1a
esdc2a
esdc3a
esdc4b
esac1a
esac2a
esac3a
esac4a
esac5a
esac6a
esac7b
esac8b
esst1a
esst2a
esst3a
esst4b
esst5b
esst6b
esst7b
esac8b
TSAT V12
EXC1
EXC1
UDM
UDM
EXC5
EXC6
EXC4
EXC30
EXC10
UDM
UDM
UDM
EXC34
EXC7
EXC8
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDM
UDM
Description
1992 IEEE Type DC1A
1992 IEEE Type DC2A
2005 IEEE Type DC3A
2005 IEEE Type DC4B
1992 IEEE Type AC1A
1992 IEEE Type AC2A
1992 IEEE Type AC3A
1992 IEEE Type AC4A
1992 IEEE Type AC5A
1992 IEEE Type AC6A
2005 IEEE Type AC7B
2005 IEEE Type AC8B
1992 IEEE Type ST1A
1992 IEEE Type ST2A
1992 IEEE Type ST3A
2005 IEEE Type ST4B
2005 IEEE Type ST5B
2005 IEEE Type ST6B
2005 IEEE Type ST7B
Basler DECS
EX2000
esac7b
UDM
EX2000 Excitation
System
EXAC2
exac2
EXC6
1981 IEEE Type AC2
EXAC3
exac3
EXC4
1981 IEEE Type AC3
EXST3
exst2
EXC7
1981 IEEE Type ST2
EXBAS
-
UDM
EXPIC1
expic1
UDM
SCRX
scrx
EXC30
Basler Static Voltage
Regulator Feeding DC
Proportional/integral
Excitation
Bus or solid fed SCR
Bridge Excitation
SEXS
sexs
EXC30
MISO
Simplified Excitation
Notes
Prefer moving to
newer AC8B
Not a direct
conversion in
PSLF
Prefer moving to
newer ESAC2A
Prefer moving to
newer ESAC3A
Prefer moving to
newer ESST2A
Only to be used
for future
machine where
excitation system
details are
unknown
Only to be used
for future
machine where
excitation system
details are
unknown
21
5.3 Turbine/Governor Models
PSS/E V33
DEGOV1
GAST
GAST2A
GASTWD
PSLF V18
gast
-
TSAT V12
UDM
GOV7
UDM
UDM
GFT8WN
-
UDM
GGOV1
HYGOV
ggov1
hygov
UDM
GOV20
IEEEG1
ieeeg1
GOV4
IEEEG2
ieeeg2
GOV22
IEEEG3
ieeeg3
GOV21
PIDGOV
TGOV1
pidgov
tgov1
UDM
GOV6
TGOV3
tgov3
GOV4
WESGOV
-
GOV4
WSIEG1
ieeeg1
GOV4
MISO
Description
Woodward diesel
governor
Gas Turbine-governor
Gas Turbine-governor
Gas Turbine-governor
Notes
UDM Source
Code available
GE General purpose
turbine-governor
Hydro turbine-governor
1981 IEEE Type 1
Turbine-governor
1981 IEEE Type 2
Turbine-governor
1981 IEEE Type 3
Turbine-governor
Hydro turbine and
governor
Steam Turbine-governor
Modified IEEE Type 1
turbine-governor with
fast valving
Westinghouse digital
governor for gas turbine
1981 IEEE Type 1
Turbine-governor with
deadband & nonlinear
valve gain
22
5.4 Turbine Load Controller Models
PSS/E V33
LCFB1
PSLF V18
lcfb1
TSAT V12
UDM
Description
Turbine Load Controller
Notes
5.5 Power System Stabilizer Models
PSS/E V33
IEEEST
IEE2ST
PSS2A
PSS2B
PSS3B
PSS4B
PSLF V18
ieeest
pss2a
pss2b
pss3b
pss4b
TSAT V12
PSS1
PSS12
PSS9
PSS9
UDM
UDM
STAB3
-
PSS1
STAB4
-
PSS12
Description
1981 IEEE PSS
Dual Input PSS
1992 IEEE PSS2A
2005 IEEE PSS2B
2005 IEEE PSS3B
2005 IEEE PSS4B
Power Sensitive
Stabilizer
Power Sensitive
Stabilizer
svcwsc
SVC Type
3*
Supplementary Signal for
Static VAR System
STBSVC
Notes
For TSAT &
PSLF Embedded
in SVC Model
5.6 Compensator Models
PSS/E V33
IEEEVC
-
-
REMCMP
-
-
MISO
PSLF V18
TSAT V12
Description
1981 IEEE Voltage
Compensating model
Notes
Embedded in
PSLF generator
record and TSAT
exciter model
Remote Bus Voltage
Signal
23
5.7 Wind Models
PSS/E V33
WT1G1,
WT12T1,
WT12A1
WT2G1,
WT2E1,
WT12T1,
WT12A1
WT3G2,
WT3E1,
WT3T1,
WT3P1
WT4G1,
WT4E1,
PSLF V18
wt1g,
wt1t,wt1p
TSAT V12
WGNA,
WGNAT,
WGNAE
WGNB,
WGNBT,
WGNBE
Description
Generic Type 1 WTG
wt3g, wt3e,
wt3t, wt3p
WGNBC,
WGNBT,
WGNBE
Generic Type 3 WTG
wt4g, wt4e,
wt4t, wt4p
Generic Type 4 WTG
-
WGND,
WGNDT,
WGNBE
-
W4G2U,
W4E2U
SWTVS4
-
-
Siemens WTG UDM
SWTDD4
-
-
Siemens WTG UDM
wt2g, wt2e,
wt2t, wt2p
Notes
Generic Type 2 WTG
Updated Generic Type 4
WTG
Includes
additional
parameters to
model Siemens
WTG
Necessary only if
Siemens Weak
Grid Option
installed
Necessary only if
Siemens Weak
Grid Option
installed
5.8 PV Models
PSS/E V33
PSLF V18
TSAT V12
Description
Notes
No standard
model currently
available across
software
platforms
5.9 Load Characteristics Models
Note: In PSS/E all Load characteristic models may be specified on the Bus, Owner, Zone, or
Area basis.
PSS/E V33
ACMTxxU1
PSLF V18
ld1pac
TSAT V12
MOT1PH
CIM5xx
-
MOT1LI
MISO
Description
1-Phase Air Conditioner
Motor Model
3-Phase Induction Motor
Model
Notes
24
CIM6xx
-
MOT1LI
CIMWxx
motor1
MOT1LI
CLODxx
CMLDxxU1
IEELxx
LDFRxx
cmpldw
xlwscc
LOADX
LOADX
LOADX
Internally
converted
ZIP
MISO
3-Phase Induction Motor
Model
WECC 3-Phase
Induction Motor Model
Complex Load Model
Composite Load Model
IEEE Load Model
Load Frequency Model
Constant impediance,
current & power
With reference to TPL-001-4
section 2.4.1, “An aggregate
System Load model which
represents the overall
dynamic behavior of the Load
is acceptable” , these models
cannot be used solely to
represent an entire area, as
they are static load models.
They can be used in
conjunction with other
dynamic load models or
induction motor models.
25
6
Converting Legacy to Newer Models
MISO has developed and tested conversion methods for moving the legacy models to their new
equivalents. These conversions can be found at the following location:
-
https://www.misoenergy.org/_layouts/MISO/ECM/Redirect.aspx?ID=173635
6.1 Generators
Not Applicable
6.2 Exciters




















ESAC8B  AC8B
EXAC1  ESAC1A
EXAC1A  ESAC1A
EXAC2  ESAC2A
EXAC3  ESAC3A
EXAC4  ESAC4A
EXDC2  ESDC2A
EXST1  ESST1A
EXST2  ESST2A
EXST2A  ESST2A
EXST3  ESST3A
IEEET1  ESDC1A
IEEET2  ESDC2A
IEEET3  ESST2A
IEEET5  DC3A
IEEEX1  ESDC1A
IEEEX2  ESAC5A
IEEEX4  DC3A
IEEX2A  ESDC2A
UREXAC  EX2000
6.3 Turbine/Governors



IEESGO  IEEEG1
ETSIG2  IEEEG1
UGGOV1  GGOV1
6.4 Turbine Load Controller
Not Applicable
MISO
26
6.5 Power System Stabilizer

STAB1  IEEEST
6.6 Compensator

COMP  IEEEVC
6.7 Wind







A1530X  WT3G2
C93GEN  WT4G1
GEWTG1  WT3G2 (or WT4G1 if Full Converter)
GEWTG2  WT3G2 (or WT4G1 if Full Converter)
SWTVS4  W4G2U
WT3G1  WT3G2
WT3G  WT3G2
6.8 PV
Not Applicable
MISO
27
7
Composite Load Model
The composite load model was developed through industry collaboration led by the efforts of the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Load Model Task Force (LMTF). The
composite load model has since been implemented into the various commercially available
software tools. Figure 7-1 provides a diagram of the composite load model. Please refer to the
WECC Report “Composite Load Model for Dynamic Simulations”5 for additional information
about the composite load model.
Motor A – 3 Phase
Motor B – 3 Phase
Distribution
Transformer
Equivalent
Distribution Feeder
Equivalent
Motor C – 3 Phase
Motor D – 1 Phase
High Voltage
System Bus
(i.e. 115 kV)
Electronic
Low Voltage
Distribution Bus
(i.e. 13.8 kV)
Static
Figure 7-1: Composite Load Model
5
https://www.wecc.biz/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Reliability/WECC%20MVWG%20Load%
20Model%20Report%20ver%201%200.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1
MISO
28
7.1 Parameter Derivation Based on Load Composition
The composite load model has 132 different parameters. The majority of these parameters are
used to define the characteristics and behavior of the 6 main components of the model, which
are listed below:






Motor A – Small 3-Phase (i.e. compressor motors used in large air-conditioners and
refrigerators)
Motor B – Large 3-Phase (i.e. Fan Motor)
Motor C – Medium 3-Phase (i.e. Pump Motor)
Motor D – 1-Phase Air Conditioner Compressor Motor
Electronic Load – Voltage Dependent Load
Static Load – Frequency & Voltage Dependent Load
Table 7-1 provides example percentages of load composition for the different components of
load.
Table 7-1-1: Sample Summer Peak Load Composition Based on R/C/I/A
Motor A
Motor B
Motor C
Motor D
Electronic
Static
Residential
8%
7%
2%
34%
15%
34%
Commercial
12%
10%
4%
25%
18%
31%
Industrial
13%
22%
16%
0%
27%
22%
Agricultural
10%
20%
22%
8%
10%
30%
Table 7-1-2: Sample Shoulder Load Composition Based on R/C/I/A
Motor A
Motor B
Motor C
Motor D
Electronic
Static
Residential
8%
7%
2%
25%
19%
39%
Commercial
12%
10%
4%
20%
23%
31%
Industrial
13%
22%
16%
0%
27%
22%
Agricultural
10%
20%
22%
8%
10%
30%
Table 7-1-3: Sample Light Load Composition Based on R/C/I/A
Motor A
Motor B
Motor C
Motor D
Electronic
Static
Residential
10%
8%
2%
0%
40%
40%
Commercial
12%
10%
4%
5%
38%
31%
Industrial
13%
22%
16%
0%
27%
22%
Agricultural
10%
20%
25%
5%
10%
30%
Table 7-1-4: Sample Winter Peak Composition Based on R/C/I/A
Motor A
Motor B
Motor C
MISO
Residential
10%
7%
2%
Commercial
12%
10%
4%
Industrial
13%
22%
16%
Agricultural
15%
20%
15%
29
Motor D
Electronic
Static
0%
35%
46%
0%
34%
40%
0%
27%
22%
0%
10%
40%
Since load components are defined as fractions of the total load, mixtures of
Residential/Commercial/Industrial/Agricultural are handled by summing the weighted fraction as
shown in Table 7-2.
Table 7-2: Derivation of Load Composition Based on R/C/I/A in Table 7-1-1
PSS/E CON
Description
Value Based on R/C/I/A Mix
J+18
Fma, Motor A Fraction
Fma = (0.08*R+0.12*C+0.13*I+0.10*A)
J+19
Fmb, Motor B Fraction
Fmb = (0.07*R+0.10*C+0.22*I+0.18*A)
J+20
Fmc, Motor C Fraction
Fmc = (0.02*R+0.04*C+0.16*I+0.22*A)
J+21
Fmd, Motor D Fraction
Fmd = (0.34*R+0.25*C+0.0*I+0.10*A)
J+22
Fel, Electronic Load Fraction
Fel = (0.15*R+0.18*C+0.27*I+0.10*A)
Note: Static Load fraction is defined as remainder of the load in order to get to 100%
7.2 Example Composite Load Model Based on Load Composition
The PSSE dyr entry for composite load model has the following structure:
I, 'USRLOD', LID, 'CMLDxxU1', 12, IT, 0, 132, 27, 146, 48, CON(J) to CON(J+131) /
Where:
Model suffix "XX" Corresponding "IT" Description Corresponding "I" Description
BL
1
Bus number
OW
2
Owner number
ZN
3
Zone number
AR
4
Area number
AL
5
0
Below is an example of how the composite load fractions will be calculated based on a provided
load composition.
Given the load composition for area 1 is:




Residential – 40%
Commercial – 30%
Industrial – 20%
Agricultural – 10%
Thus:


MISO
Fma = (0.08*R+0.12*C+0.13*I+0.10*A) = (0.08*0.4+0.12*0.3+0.13*0.2+0.10*0.1) = 0.104
Fmb = (0.07*R+0.10*C+0.22*I+0.18*A) = (0.07*0.4+0.10*0.3+0.22*0.2+0.18*0.1) = 0.12
30



Fmc = (0.02*R+0.04*C+0.16*I+0.22*A) = (0.02*0.4+0.04*0.3+0.16*0.2+0.22*0.1) = 0.074
Fmd = (0.34*R+0.25*C+0.0*I+0.10*A) = (0.34*0.4+0.25*0.3+0.0*0.2+0.10*0.1) = 0.221
Fel = (0.15*R+0.18*C+0.27*I+0.10*A) = (0.15*0.4+0.18*0.3+0.27*0.2+0.10*0.1) = 0.178
The DYR entry would be:
1
MISO
'USRLOD'
*
132
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.221
0.95
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.0
999.0
999.0
0.19
2.0
999.0
999.0
0.19
2.0
999.0
999.0
1.0
0.0
12.0
0.2
0.4
1.3
5.0
'CMLDARU1'
27
0.01
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.178
2.0
2.0
3.0
0.104
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.14
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.14
0.6
0.4
0.033
0.97
0.0
3.2
0.6
0.6
0.0
/
12
146
0.001
0.0
1.0
0.104
0.9
0.615
-0.5
0.85
.095
0.1
0.1
0.75
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.75
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.6
1.0
11.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
4
48
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.12
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.04
0.0021
0.15
0.15
0.03
0.0026
0.15
0.15
0.03
0.0026
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.124
6.0
2.5
-3.3
10.0
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.074
0.4
0.38
1.5
1.8
0.1
999.0
999.0
1.8
0.15
999.0
999.0
1.8
0.15
999.0
999.0
0.02
0.114
2.0
0.86
0.5
0.7
0.0
31
8
Short Circuit Model Development
MISO will not maintain a short-circuit model database, but will pass short-circuit data through to
ERO designee upon request. Upon ERO designee providing a schedule for interconnectionwide short-circuit model development, MISO as the Planning Coordinator will send a notification
and subsequent data request to Transmission Owners for short-circuit data to be submitted in
PSS/e compatible format. Short-circuit model data should not contain equivalent sources for
systems external to Transmission Owner’s system. Data will be due to MISO at least 5
business days before short-circuit data is due to ERO designee.
MISO
32
9
MOD-032-1 – Attachment 1
The table, below, indicates the information that is required to effectively model the
interconnected transmission system for the Near‐Term Transmission Planning Horizon and
Long‐Term Transmission Planning Horizon. Data must be shareable on an interconnection-wide
basis to support use in the Interconnection‐wide cases. A Planning Coordinator may specify
additional information that includes specific information required for each item in the table
below. Each functional entity1 responsible for reporting the respective data in the table is
identified by brackets “[functional entity]” adjacent to and following each data item. The data
reported shall be as identified by the bus number, name, and/or identifier that is assigned in
conjunction with the PC, TO, or TP.
steady-state
(Items marked with an asterisk
indicate data that vary with
system operating state or
conditions. Those items may
have different data provided for
different modeling scenarios)
1.
2.
3.
Each bus [TO]
a. nominal voltage
b. area, zone and owner
Aggregate Demand6 [LSE]
a. real and reactive power*
b. in-service status*
Generating Units7 [GO, RP (for
future planned resources only)]
a. real power capabilities - gross
maximum and minimum
values
b. reactive power capabilities maximum and minimum
values at real power
capabilities in 3a above
c. station service auxiliary load
for normal plant configuration
(provide data in the same
manner as that required for
aggregate Demand under item
2, above).
d. regulated bus* and voltage set
point* (as typically provided
dynamics
(If a user-written model(s) is
submitted in place of a generic or
library model, it must include the
characteristics of the model,
including block diagrams, values
and names for all model
parameters, and a list of all state
variables)
1.
Generator [GO, RP (for future
planned resources only)]
2. Excitation System [GO, RP(for
future planned resources only)]
3. Governor [GO, RP(for future
planned resources only)]
4. Power System Stabilizer [GO,
RP(for future planned resources
only)]
5. Demand [LSE]
6. Wind Turbine Data [GO]
7. Photovoltaic systems [GO]
8. Static Var Systems and FACTS [GO,
TO, LSE]
9. DC system models [TO]
10. Other information requested by
the Planning Coordinator or
Transmission Planner necessary
for modeling purposes. [BA, GO,
LSE, TO, TSP]
short circuit
1.
Provide for all applicable elements
in column “steady-state” [GO, RP,
TO]
a. Positive Sequence Data
b. Negative Sequence Data
c. Zero Sequence Data
2. Mutual Line Impedance Data
[TO]
3. Other information requested by
the Planning Coordinator or
Transmission Planner necessary
for modeling purposes. [BA, GO,
LSE, TO, TSP]
6
For purposes of this item, aggregate Demand is the Demand aggregated at each bus under item 1 that is identified by a
Transmission Owner as a load serving bus. An LSE is responsible for providing this information, generally through coordination with
the Transmission Owner.
7 Including synchronous condensers and pumped storage.
MISO
33
by the TOP)
machine MVA base
generator step up transformer
data (provide same data as
that required for transformer
under item 6, below)
g. generator type (hydro, wind,
fossil, solar, nuclear, etc)
h. in-service status*
AC Transmission Line or Circuit [TO]
a. impedance parameters
(positive sequence)
b. susceptance (line charging)
c. ratings (normal and
emergency)*
d. in-service status*
DC Transmission systems [TO]
Transformer (voltage and phaseshifting) [TO]
a. nominal voltages of windings
b. impedance(s)
c. tap ratios (voltage or phase
angle)*
d. minimum and maximum tap
position limits
e. number of tap positions (for
both the ULTC and NLTC)
f. regulated bus (for voltage
regulating transformers)*
g. ratings (normal and
emergency)*
h. in-service status*
Reactive compensation (shunt
capacitors and reactors) [TO]
a. admittances (MVars) of each
capacitor and reactor
b. regulated voltage band limits*
(if mode of operation not
fixed)
c. mode of operation (fixed,
discrete, continuous, etc.)
d. regulated bus* (if mode of
operation not fixed)
e. in-service status*
Static Var Systems [TO]
a. reactive limits
b. voltage set point*
c. fixed/switched shunt, if
applicable
d. in-service status*
Other information requested by
the Planning Coordinator or
Transmission Planner necessary for
modeling purposes. [BA, GO, LSE,
TO, TSP]
e.
f.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
MISO
34
10
Data Checks
10.1 Power Flow Data Checks
Name
Data
Checked
Bus Voltage
Blank Voltage Fields
Machines on Code 1 Buses
Buses
Buses
Buses;
Generators
Buses;
Generators
Buses;
Generators
Generators
Including off-line
generators
Generators
Including off-line
generators
Generators with
STAT = 1 & Bus
IDE=2 or 3
Generators
Generators
Online Machines on Code 4
Buses
Code 2 Buses Without
Machines
Unrealistic PMAX and
PMIN
Unrealistic QMAX and
QMIN
PGEN Outside Range
Non-positive RMPCT
GTAP Out Of Range
CNTB Errors
Small Voltage Band Shunts
Missing Block 1 Steps
Transformer MAX below
MIN
Transformer Default R
Transformer Default V
Small Voltage Band
Transformer
Small Transformer Step
Size
MISO
Switched Shunts;
Generators;
Transformers
with COD1 = 1
Switched Shunts
Switched Shunts
2-Winding
Transformers
with COD1 ≠ 0
2-Winding
Transformers
with COD1 ≠ 0
2-Winding
Transformers
with COD1 ≠ 0
All Transformers
with COD1 = 1
Transformers
Conditions
Flagged
Existing TO planning criteria
Blank BASKV field
Generator at bus with IDE = 1
Machine with STATUS = 1 at bus with
IDE = 4
No generator at bus with IDE = 2
PMAX < PMIN,
PMAX > 2000,
PMIN < -1000
QMAX < QMIN,
QMAX > 1000,
QMAX < -1000
PGEN > PMAX,
PGEN < PMIN
RMPCT ≤ 0
GTAP > 1.1,
GTAP < 0.9
Conflicting voltage objectives
VSWHI – VSWLO < 0.0005
Missing Block 1 steps
VMA1 ≤ VMI1,
RMA1 ≤ RMI1
RMA1 = 1.5 and RMA2 = 0.51
VMA1 = 1.5 and VMA2 = 0.51
VMA – VMI < 2.0 × Step Size
0.015625 < Step Size < 0.00625
35
Name
Data
Checked
Max or Min at 0
2-Winding
Transformers
with COD1 ≠ 0
Branch Issues
Branches;
2-Winding
Transformers
Rating Errors
Branches;
Transformers
3 Winding Rating Errors
3-Winding
Transformers3
Branch Overloads
Islands
Branches;
Transformers
Buses
Unrealistic MBASE
Generators
Unrealistic ZSOURCE
Generators
Machines Missing GSU
Machines at
buses ≥ 50 kV
Branches,
Transformers
Branches,
Transformers
Generators
Open ended branches
Branches to different bus
voltages
Wind units modeled at high
voltage buses
Ensure WMOD is
populated for wind units
modeled with library
models
Conditions
Flagged
RMA1 = 0,
RMI1 = 0,
VMA1 = 0,
VMI1 = 0
Branches: R > |X|
Transformers:
R1-2 > |X1-2|
High/Low Reactance, Charging Issues
RATEB < RATEA,
RATEA = 0,
RATEB = 0
RATEB < RATEA,
RATEA = 0,
RATEB = 0
Branch loading above 100% of RATEA
or RATEB
Buses with IDE 1 or 2 not connected to a
bus with IDE = 3
MBASE < PMAX,
MBASE = 100
RSOURCE = 0 & XSOURCE = 1,
RSOURCE = 1 & XSOURCE = 1,
RSOURCE > XSOURCE
Implicit GSU not specified
Branch with STATUS = 1 connected to
bus with IDE = 4
Branches between buses with different
bus voltages
Wind units that are modeled on buses
10kV or higher
WMOD
10.2 Dynamics Data Checks
Models Checked
MISO
Data
Checked
Conditions
Flagged
All Gen Model with inertia defined as H
H
H=0
All Gen Model with S(1.0)
S(1.0)
S(1.0) <0
All Gen Model with S(1.2)
S(1.2)
S(1.2) <0
All Gen Model with S(1.0) and S(1.2)
S(1.0)
S(1.0) > S(1.2)
All Gen/Exciter Model with S(E1)
S(E1)
S(E1) < 0
36
Models Checked
MISO
Data
Checked
Conditions
Flagged
All Gen/Exciter Model with S(E2)
S(E2)
S(E2) < 0
All Gen/Exciter Model with S(E1) and
S(E2)
S(E1)
S(E1) > S(E2) if
E1 < E2
All Gen/Exciter Model with S(E1) and
S(E2)
S(E1)
S(E1) < S(E2) if
E1 > E2
All Gen Models with reactance/transient
reactance defined as Xd and X'd in D
axis
Xd
Xd <= X'd
All Gen Models with transient
reactance/sub-transient reactance
defined as X'd and X''d in D axis
X'd
X'd <= X''d
All Gen Models with sub-transient
reactance/leakage reactance defined as
X''d and XL in D axis
X''d
X''d <= XL
All Gen Models with reactance/transient
reactance defined as Xq and X'q in Q
axis
Xq
Xq <= X'q
All Gen Models with transient
reactance/sub-transient reactance
defined as X'q and X''q in Q axis
X'q
X'q <= X''d
(X''d=X''q)
All Gen Models with reactance/transient
reactance defined as X and X'
X
X <= X'
All Gen Models with transient
reactance/sub-transient reactance
defined as X' and X''
X'
X' <= X'' if X''/=0
and T''/=0
All Gen Models with sub-transient
reactance/leakage reactance defined as
X'' and XL
X''
X'' <= XL if X''/=0
and T''/=0
All Gen Models with transient
reactance/leakage reactance defined as
X' and XL
X'
X' <= XL if X''=0
or T'=0
37
11
Entity Lists
A detailed list of NERC Compliance Registry is available at:
http://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/Pages/Registration-and-Certification.aspx.
A MISO membership listing is available at:
https://www.misoenergy.org/StakeholderCenter/Members/Pages/Members.aspx.
MISO
38
Appendix 1
Transmission Planner Compliance
Pursuant to requirement R1 of MOD-032-1, MISO as a NERC Planning Coordinator (PC), and
its NERC Transmission Planners (TPs) have jointly developed modeling data requirements and
reporting procedures for MISO’s planning area. Transmission Planners that have participated in
the development of this document are as follows.
Transmission Planner
Transmission Planner
Participant
ALLETE, Inc. (for its operating Ruth R. Pallapati
division Minnesota Power)
Ameren Services Company
Jason Genovese
American Transmission
Curtis Roe
Company, LLC
Robert Krueger
Big Rivers Electric
Tim Curtis
Corporation
Cedar Falls Utilities
Ken Kagy
Central Iowa Power
William Sondermann
Cooperative
City Of Ames Electric
Lyndon Cook
Services
City of Columbia, MO
Armin Karabegovic
City of Lansing by its Board of Jamal Ahmed
Water and Light
Robert Tidd
City Water, Light & Power
Chris Daniels
(Springfield, Illinois)
Steve Rose
Cleco Power LLC
Terry Whitmore
Chris Thibodeaux
Ian Gray
Dairyland Power Cooperative
Steve Porter
Duke Energy Corporation
Phillip C. Briggs
East Texas Electric
Claudiu Cadar
Cooperative, Inc.
John Chiles
Jason Shook
(GDS Associates)
Entergy
William Hamilton
Peng Yu
Melinda Montgomery
Great River Energy
Patrick Quinn
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Matt Fields
Cooperative, Inc.
Indianapolis Power & Light
Mark Kemper
Company
Robert Grubb
Brad Williams
International Transmission
Michael C. Hamlin
Company (d/b/a ITC
Shalini Gupta
MISO
39
Transmission Planner
Transmission)
ITC Midwest
Lafayette Utilities System
Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC
MidAmerican Energy
Company
Minnkota Power Cooperative
Muscatine Power & Water
(Board Of Water, Electric &
Communications)
Montana Dakota Utilities
Northern Indiana Public
Service Company
Otter Tail Power Company
Prairie Power, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities
South Mississippi Electric
Power Association
Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative
Southern Indiana Gas &
Electric Company (Vectren)
Southern Minnesota Municipal
Power Agency
Wolverine Power Supply
Cooperative, Inc.
Xcel Energy
MISO
Transmission Planner
Participant
Mike Hamlin
Josh Grindeland
(ITC Holdings Corp.)
Hunter Boudreaux
Mike Hamlin
Shalini Gupta
(ITC Holdings Corp.)
Daniel Rathe
Will Lovelace
Lewis Ross
Omer Vejzovic
Shawn Heilman
Lynn A. Schmidt
Denise Keys
Karl Kohlrus
Scott Nickels
Jason Goar
Jeff Jones
Larry Rogers
Mark Rose
Patrick Egan
Rick Koch
Tyler Bruning
Jason Espeseth
40