UCAIug Issue Tracking System: Issueshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/https://redmine.ucaiug.org/favicon.ico?15861924492024-03-28T13:34:58ZUCAIug Issue Tracking System
Redmine WG16 Issues - CIM Issues #6745 (New): Need for consistent approach for Market Productshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/67452024-03-28T13:34:58ZScott Coe
<p>Market Products are not used consistently in the CIM because market products are not really consistent across markets...</p>
<p>Energy is the universal commodity; however, even when considering universal grid support products the names vary. In the North America, they call the load frequency control the Regulation product, but in Europe is is Secondary Reserve. Standby/emergency reserve products are more varied. Tertiary Reserve in Europe is split into Synchronous and Non-Synchronous Reserve in the North America. But in even in North America, there is inconsistent usage. PJM calls it Synchronized/Non-Synchronized, MISO and SPP have Spinning and Supplemental, NYISO/ISO-NE/CAISO use Spinning and Non-Spinning, and finally ERCOT has Responsive and Non-Spinning.</p>
<p>One of the oldest market enumerations, MarketProductType does not follow the typical format. We have: EN, RU, RD, SR, NR, RC, LFU, LFD, REG, RPU, CO2e, RMU, and RMD. Changing to Energy, RegulationUp, RegulationDown, SynchronousReserve or SpinningReserve, NonSynchronousReserve or NonSpinningReserve, ReliabibilityUnitCommitment, LoadFollowingUp, LoadFollowingDown, CarbonDioxideEquivalent, RegulationMileageUp, and RegulationMileageDown would break things.</p>
<p>Then we have a similar enumeration: ResourceCapacityType. RU, RD, SR, NR, MO, FO, RA, RMR which map to RegulationUp, RegulationDown, SynchronousReserve or SpinningReserve, NonSynchronousReserve or NonSpinningReserve, MustOffer, FlexibleOffer, ResourceAdequacy, and ReliabilityMustRun. Clearly a different use, but some of the concepts here overlap.</p>
<p>Finally, the most recent is ResourceCertificationKind which allows us to flag when a resource is certified to provide a service. Here the enumeration is properly formatted (all but one entry, that is) and again have a strong correlation to products: RegulationUp, RegulationDown, SpinningReserve, NonSpinningReserve, ReliabilityMustRun, BLACKSTART, DemandSideResponse, SynchronousCondenser, ReliabilityUnitCommittment, Energy, Capacity.</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #6680 (New): Support time series/schedule for SSHhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66802024-01-17T15:43:16ZChavdar Ivanovchavdar.ivanov@griddigit.eu
<p>We have the ability to exchange multiple SSH but we do not have capability exchange irregular schedule for SSH classes. It will be good to have a generic model of 2-3 classes that provide this possibility<br />There are use cases that require exchange of multiple SSH information where exchange of multiple files is less attractive.<br />Some of the use cases are<br />- TSO-DSO exchange for planning code in UK<br />- ENTSO-E exchanges where SSH can contain all situations for a day <br />- setting up year round calculations with time series SSH (e.g. when some information is coming from market simulations)<br />... etc</p>
<p>It will be good to have this model added to CIM18 and a small profile (SSH-Schedule, or some other name) included in 456</p> WG14 Issues - CIM Issues #6620 (New): Enterprise Package Name Related Model Updateshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66202023-12-05T19:07:35ZHenry Dotson
<p>The CIM UML model package name change from "IEC61968" to "Enterprise" has created the need to update some model element names for consistency.</p> CIM Joint Issues - CIM Issues #6619 (New): Renaming the CIM UML Model Packageshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66192023-12-05T18:37:57ZHenry Dotson
<p>There is a need to explicitly distinguish the CIM UML model from IEC TC57 CIM-based standards for the purpose of unambiguously identifying ownership of intellectual property.</p>
<p>The current CIM UML model top-level packages have names containing IEC terms related to IEC TC57 CIM-based standards. Specifically, the root-level model package name is "TC57CIM," and the three top-level sub-packages under the root-level model package are named "IEC61970," "IEC61968," and "IEC62325." These names introduce ambiguity regarding ownership of the CIM UML model.</p>
<p>The CIM UML model is open source and owned by UCA, the Electric Power Research Institute and various other organization and is reproduced permission of the UCA User Group, Inc (UCAIug). The CIM UML model open source file is managed by UCAIug under their Open Source sites. The IEC TC57 CIM-based standards are owned and copyrighted by the IEC. The IEC TC57 CIM-based standards are derived from the CIM UML model.</p>
<p>The aforementioned packages need to be renamed to remove the ambiguity regarding ownership of the CIM UML model.</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #6610 (New): Multiple issue Measurement and Controlhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/66102023-11-27T15:55:48ZSvein Olsen
<p>This is a collection of issues on CIM17 Measurement, SCADA and Control information model with the focus on what is relevant for the Operation profile.</p> CIM Joint Issues - CIM Issues #6584 (New): Handling unit multiplier needs joint WG concensus on a...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/65842023-11-08T12:55:38ZTodd Viegut
<p>Handling unit multiplier</p>
<p>WG13 needed a policy with respect to how unit multpliers are to be exchanged. For example CDPSM has need for Length to be in <strong>km</strong> for line length, but in <strong>meters</strong> for conductor spacing. IEC 61970-552 does not provide for the exchange of unit symbols or unit multpliers. Therefore, manual documentation is required in profiles. Possibly different model parts assembled together may have different unit multipliers such as combining a distribution and transmission model together. With current work in progress for the upcoming IEC 61970-301 Ed 8.0 (i.e. CIM18) and the accompanying editions of IEC 61970-452, IEC 61970-456, etc. there is the planned introduction of the new unbalanced profiles which will require concensus on an approach.</p>
<p>WG13 has issue: <a class="external" href="https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5014">https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/5014</a> for addressing this cross-cutting concern within the context of WG13. This CIM Joint issue is to raise visibility across WG14, WG16, WG21 so that we have a common understanding/policy for how we will address this.</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6579 (New): How to add utility process name to DOshttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/65792023-11-07T14:40:47ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Currently SCL has poor support for handling gateway/RTU-funktions where signal names are translated for remote communication. The specified sigal has a utility process name independent of used protcol. E.g. "start of distance protection". This needs to be associated with its IEC 61850 implementation (xxPDIS1.Str.general, xxPDIS2.Str.general etc.). The 80-1 part describes how 104 addresses can be added to SCL but also other utility fields are important to be able to include in SCL for specification and documentation purposes. Desired solution by Vattenfall is to have vendors use DA description to add utility process name.</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #6553 (New): Removal of InfGrid package InfSIPShttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/65532023-10-25T19:55:45ZBecky Iverson
<p>CIM17 included a proposed set of modeling to support SIPS in the InfGrid package. In CIM18, this package has been removed. It is understood that there is a new Inf package for ENTSO-E extensions that may have some of the similar modeling support for SIPS, but without the existing InfSIPS package that existed in CIM17, there is no way to harmonize or compare the SIPS support between the different modeling suggestions. Please return the InfSIPS package to the InfGrid package for use in the upcoming modeling sessions for review of SIPS support to be included in the Grid->Base package.</p> WG14 Part 9 Issues - CIM Issues #6549 (New): Switch Contention Issuehttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/65492023-10-24T22:26:02ZDavid Haynes
<p>There are many relays controlling many loads. Sometimes these assets can be switched on or off for different reasons. While working on lines, it is a common practice to employ "lock out / tag out" procedures. In this scenario, the workman physically places a padlock on a switch to prevent its movement. Then, at the end of the job the workman physically removes his padlock to restore normal operation of the switch. While the safety issue is nicely handled by the physical locks, an operational issue still remains. What if a CIS declares that a particular RCD switch inside of a revenue meter is to be opened due to non-payment. Then what if this same switch is made available to the DERMS for load control purposes? A DR system might (even as part of a group) ask that the switch participate in a load shed, then upon completion, that the switch be closed in. What is the switch to do? How would it know to revert to an open position? What if that is obsolete information? What are the expectations for the AMI network / load control system? Should there be a "system of record" that is the official keeper of allowable switching activity? Should there be the means for a back office system to effectively place a "lock" on a switch position and prevent other back office systems from operating it? Can multiple systems place locks similar to the physical lockout/tagout mechanism described above? Or rather, should there be a "list"? Should there be a "do not open" list and a "do not close" list? (Someone might be on life support, someone may have moved out, etc.)<br />Meters con not only have a big 200A disconnect, they might have a number of small relays designed to control individual loads like irrigation pumps, or anything else the utility wires them to.<br />There are also specialized switches the AMI network might control -- usually installed beneath a given revenue meter -- to control smaller loads within a home. Should these be lockable too?<br />We can't have multiple systems fighting over the switch position. We need a switch management plan.</p>
<p>This issue is related to Issue <a class="issue tracker-9 status-1 priority-2 priority-default" title="CIM Issues: Group Management (New)" href="https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/6542">#6542</a>.</p>
<p>For discussion purposes, we think the scope of this issue is limited to switches that are not on the feeder that a lineman could interact with. These switches are covered by Part 3. But there are switches that are otherwise safe to operate that are in scope.</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6448 (New): GOOSE treatment as a commandhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64482023-06-21T09:46:02ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724220">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724220</a></p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6428 (New): Next Steps with IEC 61850-90-11 (Publis...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64282023-06-21T09:26:50ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/719278">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/719278</a></p>
<p>Comment: Check about starting the TF</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6422 (New): Consistent Handling of Abbreviations fo...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64222023-06-21T09:18:46ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/720322">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/720322</a></p>
<p>Comment: Laurent will initiate</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6411 (New): Update the Model of Circuit Breaker/Dis...https://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/64112023-06-21T08:33:57ZVladan Cvejic
<p>Link to Collaboration tool discussion:<br /><a class="external" href="https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724224">https://collaborate.iec.ch/#/pages/workspaces/137211/documents/145326/details/539706/discussions/724224</a></p>
<p>Notes from Morning session (in addition to the summary on the collab tool):<br />"as well 7-500, 90-3, 62271-3; initially create TF to prepare a PWI maybe for a TR"</p> WG13 Issues - CIM Issues #6328 (New): Required usage of BusbarSectionhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/63282023-05-01T07:59:15ZChavdar Ivanovchavdar.ivanov@griddigit.eu
<p>Multiple requests received on lack of instructions if BusbarSection is a required class if a ConnectivityNode is a node (just for the connectivity purpose) or a busbar section.</p>
<p>There are multiple options how to solve this gap</p>
<p>- Option 1: state in 301 and/or 452 that "if a ConnectivityNode represents a busbar it is required that there is an instance of BusbarSection which Terminal is associated with this ConnectivityNode." <br />- Option 2: revisit the need of BusbarSection class. If we can make it a bit easier perhaps doing the following is better approach: 1) add a boolean ConnectivityNode.isBusbarSection, this shoudl be required in 452 2) see if if true we require BusbarSection class instantiated or not; if we want to keep it for compatibility we shoudl write a constraint in 452 to require BusbarSection is the boolean is true and we can validate this.</p>
<p>I will put an issue in the IEC on this, but we need to see what the next steps will be within ENTSO-E. The BusbarSection class is in both v2.4 and v3 and it is a matter to say that the usage of it is required in some cases. In a way this is the main purpose of this class anyway. the point we need to state is that it is important to use it.</p> IEC TC57 WG10 Future Work - WG10 Future Work #6143 (New): Update the Switchgear / Breaker Modelhttps://redmine.ucaiug.org/issues/61432022-09-29T14:19:16ZChristoph Brunner
<p>There exist the LNs XCBR/XSWI ("operative model") and the "supervision" LNs SCBR and SOPM. In addition, there are trip and control circuits. The number of instances needed depends on the switchgear technology (single phase switching/tripping and three phase control/tripping). The DOs in the LNs are not always in line with allocated tasks of the LNs. Therefore, a careful consistent and comprehensive remodeling is needed.</p>