integrating the grid of the future

Integrating the Grid of

the FutureDesigning for procurement, operations and

maintenance

Mar-17-2014

By Bassem Maurice, Schneider Electric,

Offer Manager – Feeder Automation

OutlineSEC1 - The Grid

SEC2 - The Feeder

SEC3 - Evolving the Feeder

Integrating the grid of the future – Bassem Maurice – Mar-2014

The GridHistoric, Current and Future


History of the US Grid evolution

●Energy systems were small and localized

●The AC versus DC is an early indicator of

competing technologies

●Small systems were consolidated throughout

the early 1900s

●Today’s electricity grid is extraordinarily

complex as a result.


The Current Grid

●Multiple standards

●Proprietary protocols

●Fragmented technologies

●Oil switchgear

●Vacuum Interrupters

●Air-break Switchgear

●Fiber in the substation

●Electromechanical Protection

●Microprocessor based Protection

●SAIDI above 130 min


Future Grid Needs and New Players Distributed Energy Resources

●Potential Benefits of DER

●Redundancy for critical loads

●Reduces impact due to tampering

●Reduces Flicker and Harmonic Distortion

● Impact

●Responsive Voltage Regulation

●Granular Voltage Regulation

*Source: “The Future of the electric Grid, an interdisciplinary MIT study”, 2011

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/the-electric-grid-2011.shtml

*The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is an 845 MW wind farm in the U.S. state of Oregon.



Future Grid Needs and New Players Electrical Vehicles Growth

Consumers

Support for clean energy

Better driving experience

10:1 Long-term cost advantage

Governments

Providing purchase incentives

$2 billion in grants issued

Energy independence

Auto manufacturers

Must average 35 MPG across the fleet by

2020

Delivering 40+ new EV models in next few

years

Cost Declines

Supply chain improvements narrowing the

initial cost gap

Battery cost declining s

Nissan Leaf

In Market

Chevy Volt

In Market

Ford Focus EV

In Market

BMW ActiveE

In Market

Honda Fit EV

In Market

Tesla Model S

In Market

Ford C-MAX Energi

2013

Toyota Rav4 EV

In Market

Audi A1 E-tron

2013

VW Golf Blue-e-

motion

2014

Toyota Prius plug-

in hybrid

In Market

Exponential EV Growth2010 :Thousands 2011:Tens of Thousands 2014:100’s of Thousands 2020:Millions 2030:Tens of Millions

BMW i32014


Future Grid Needs and New Players Electrical Vehicles

Power Requirement of a Single Home in the San Francisco Bay Area with and without

Electric Vehicle Charging

“The Future of the electric Grid, an interdisciplinary MIT study”, 2011



Future Grid Needs and New Players Electrical Vehicles

THE EFFECT OF UNCOORDINATED CHARGING ON TRANSFORMERS

“The Future of the electric Grid, an interdisciplinary MIT study”, 2011



Smart Generation

(bulk, distributed & renewable)

Smart Distribution

(DMS, substations, feeders)

Demand Response

Efficient homes

(incl. EV charging infrastructure)21

1

2

1

33

Connecting utilities with customers, bridging

supply & demand for greater efficiency

4

5

1

4

5

Efficient Enterprise

(buildings, industries & datacenters

+ EV charging infrastructure)

The Smart Utility

* Source: “Schneider Electric Integrating Demand Management”,

Greg Thomson, DistribuTech 2014


Automating Dispatchable Resources

● Integrate Supply-side and Demand-side resources into real-time and day-ahead

operations

Generation

External renewable

energy resources

(solar and wind)

Energy

purchases

and sales

Demand

management

and load

control (ADR)

Energy storage and

electric vehicles

Distributed

generation, PV,

and microgridsCentralized

Control Center

* Source: “Schneider Electric Integrating Demand Management”, Greg Thomson, DistribuTech 2014


The Grid of the future


The Technology Gap

“ Valley of Death”

R&

D S

pen

d

Future GridCurrent Grid

Evolution

Design


Quantifying the Gap

●Quantifying the Gap between Current and

Vision

●Example from the telecom industry

●Not as fragmented technologies

(due to the relatively young

network)

●Yet a decade was required to

converge.

●This highlights the difference

between:

● designing an optimum

architecture, and

●evolving towards optimum

architecture


The FeederImpact and modernization


The Utility as Energy Market Place

●Micro generators

●Renewable Resources

●Multiple Industries

●Automotive

●Telecom

●Information

The Distribution Network is

where it all comes together


The Feeder as the Highway

●Power flow in both direction

●Ensuring quality

●Regulating the traffic

●Protecting assets

●Ensuring the safety

Is the SAIDI of today acceptable?Even if acceptable for the regulator today

SAIDI of the future grid

• goes beyond customer satisfaction

• It reflects interruptions to the business of Energy Exchange

How good is the Feeder Voltage profile?

Ready Feeder

FLISR VVO


The Feeder Networks

• Protect

• Increase Reliability

• Maximize life

MV Network

• Modernize

• Increase Reliability

• Integrate

Comms Network

• Build

• Evolve

• Integrate

Control Network


Evolving the FeederPossible Integration Architectures


Overhead Radial Feeder AutomationThe Opportunity

R

Load Break Switch

• Adding a Recloser decreases SAIFI and SAIDI by ~70%

• For 5 zones, uniform fault probability and assuming N users

per zone:

• Automating the LBS further reduces SAIFI and SAIDI by

40%

Only 30% of overhead

faults are permanent

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5


Overhead Ring Feeder AutomationThe Opportunity

R

Load Break Switch

Tie Switch

• For uniform fault probability, 𝑛𝑍 zones

and assuming N users per zone:

• Automating the Tie further reduces

SAIFI and SAIDI by 1 −1

𝑛𝑍

• A reduction of 80% for 5 zones

R

The Load Break Switch is a versatile

automation point

Reliable and Fast Operation of the

Switch make or break the solution.


Architecture Topologies

CENTRALIZED

• Devices report change of state to central

• Central real-time algorithms decide

• Commands issued to all devices top-down

DECENTRALIZED

• With or without communication

• Real-time algorithms distributed

• Device make a decision and action locally

• Advise the next device in the scheme (if P2P)

HY

BR

ID

•E

nact tim

e c

ritical alg

orith

ms a

s

decentr

aliz

ed

•H

and c

ontr

ol to

centr

al fo

r le

ss t

ime

constr

ain

ed LOCALIZED

• Devices report change of state to RTU

• RTU real-time algorithms decide

• Commands issued by RTU to devices


Implement using Centralized

Architecture

Keys to Success

Advanced Distribution

Management System (ADMS)

Timing

Communications Bus

Central Server

Control

Center


• N/A

• Minimal Impact

• Full network visibility and analytics to support Planning

• Deployment competency can be contracted

• Difficult to scale

• High CAPEX

•Model allows simulating impact to the network.

•Higher visibility allows network wide self healing algorithms

•Easily add applications

•Heavily dependent on Communication availability

•Requires wider bandwidth

•GIS integration streamlines maintenance

Impact of Centralized design

•Retrain Operations

Design

Planning

&

Deployment

Purchasing

&

Procurement

Operations

&

Maintenance


10km15km

10km

7.5km

Midpoint 4

Midpoint 3

2D

Feeder 2

2B

10km

2A

1A

Tie

Midpoint 2

7.5km

1D

1B

7.5km 2C

1C

5km

Loop Automation Activation Delay

timers start due to a loss of supply.

The downstream Midpoint device changes

protection group in anticipation to the power

flow direction change and goes to Single Shot

(no auto-reclose) mode after its timer expires.The Tie device also changes protection group depending

on which side the power was lost (source or load), goes to

Single Shot (no auto-reclose) mode and closes after its

timer expires.

The Feeder device picks up, executes a

trip & goes to lockout.

ClosedOpen

Switchgear

LiveDead

Line

Feeder 1

Other Midpoint devices also change protection group and go

to Single Shot (no auto-reclose) mode after their timers expire.

Midpoint 1B+SSB

BB+SS

Substation CB’s

(or other switchgear)

The Tie close causes the fault to be re-energized.

However, since the closest Midpoint is in single-shot,

it trips to disconnect the fault and goes to lockout.

> Fault isolated

> Power restored to unfaulted sections in less than 1 minute

> No operator intervention

Implement using De-Centralized

Architecture – No Comms


Implement using De-Centralized

Architecture – M2M Comms

10km15km

10km

7.5km

Midpoint 4

Midpoint 3

2D

Feeder 2

2B

10km

2A

1A

Midpoint 2

7.5km

1D

1B

7.5km

Feeder 1

2C

1C

5km

B

The Feeder device executes a trip and goes to lockout.

The Feeder device Picks up, executes a trip/reclose

sequence & goes to lockout. It will then send a trip

request to its downstream device and a close request to

the Tie device using Modbus M2M communications.

ClosedTripped

Switchgear

LiveDead

Line

Modbus Trip Request

Other Midpoint devices also change protection group

and go to Single Shot (no auto-reclose) mode after their

timers expire.

Tie

Modbus Close Request

Midpoint 1

B+SS

BB+SS

Substation CB’s

(or other switchgear)

The Tie device also changes protection group depending

on which side the power was lost (source or load), goes to

Single Shot (no auto-reclose) mode and closes upon

receiving a close request and having its timer expired.

Loop Automation Activation Delay

timers start due to a loss of supply.

> Fault isolated

> Power restored to unfaulted sections in less than 1 minute

> No operator intervention


• If using proprietary protocols, minimize P&P leverage over supplier.

• Same if standardizing devices rather that protocols

• N/A

• Easily Scalable

• Deployment as per current practices

•Fast ROI

•Staged CAPEX

• N/A

•Highest Network Availability

•Low Bandwidth Comms

•Can be done with no Comms

•Can be locked into proprietary protocols

•Comms version is incompatible with legacy gear

•Operation is as per current practices

Impact of De-Centralized design

•Maintenance can be complex if not designed in.

Design

Planning

&

Deployment

Purchasing

&

Procurement

Operations

&

Maintenance


Implement using Localized

SR

TR

B

B

Feeder 1

Feeder 2

Zone 1 Zone 2

Zo

ne

2

Subzone

2-1

Subzone

2-2

Subzone

2-3

Subzone

2-4

LBS 1 LBS 2

LBS 3RTU

SR

TR

B

B

Feeder 1

Feeder 2

Zone 1 Zone 2

Zo

ne

2Subzone

2-1

Subzone

2-2

Subzone

2-3

Subzone

2-4

LBS 1 LBS 2

LBS 3RTU

Local Communications Bus

Central Server

Central Communications Bus

Contr

olC

ente

r


Implement using Localized –

Minimizing Bandwidth

RTU


Implement using Localized –

Minimizing Bandwidth

RTU

SR LBS1 LBS2 LBS3


• If using proprietary protocols, minimal supplier leverage

• Allows for supplier diversity

•Easily Scalable

•Fast ROI

•Staged CAPEX

• Commissioning can be complex

•Can integrate legacy gear

•Moderate Bandwidth Comms

•Slower response than decentralized

•Operation similar to substation automation

Impact of Localized design

•Maintenance can be complex if not designed in.

Design

Planning

&

Deployment

Purchasing

&

Procurement

Operations

&

Maintenance


Soft-Handover

● Integrating a Feeder at a time

● Architecture chosen feeder by feeder to suit

assets and communication available to it

● Integrating the system upward

● Breaking the cost of deployment

● Evolving applications as technology is

defined and needs identified

● Monetizing todays opportunities

Centralized

Localized

De-Centralized

SR

TR

B

B

Feeder 1

Feeder 2

Zone 1 Zone 2

Zo

ne

2

Subzone

2-1

Subzone

2-2

Subzone

2-3

Subzone

2-4

LBS 1 LBS 2

LBS 3

Feeder 1

Feeder 2

Zone 1 Zone 2

Zo

ne

2

Subzone

2-1

Subzone

2-2

Subzone

2-3

Subzone

2-4

LBS 1 LBS 2

LBS 3

SR

TR

B

B

Handover

Contr

ol

Monitor

FLISRVVO

SIM

FLISRVVO

FLISR

Handover

Contr

ol

Monitor

RTU DSCADA

ADMS

Fe

ed

er

Su

bsta

tio

n

N

etw

ork


Conclusion

●Co-existing technologies is how the Grid evolved

●Harnessing the current assets is the first step to integrating

the grid of the future

●Flexible design ensures room to move for Planning, P&P,

Deployment and Operations.

●Evolving design is a strategy to:

● Maximize current assets life

● Allow technology to mature

● Break down CAPEX

integrating the grid of the future

Engineering