Project

General

Profile

CIM Issues #4943

ControlAreaGenratingUnit2: IOP suggest to clarify the usag

Added by Herbert Falk over 1 year ago. Updated 2 months ago.

Status:
Review
Priority:
High
Author/Contact Info:
ENTSO-E N9
Base Release:
61970cim16v21
Solution to be Applied To:
CIM18v04
Solution Version:
Solution Applied By:
Completion Date:
CIM Keywords:
Breaking Change:
No
Breaking Change Description:
CIM Impacted Groups:
WG13
Requestor:
Standard(s):
Version:
Clause:
Sub-Clause:
Paragraph:
Table:
Originally Closed in Version:
Origination Date:
05/29/2013
Origination ID:
13_165
Originally Assigned To:

Description

ControlAreaGenratingUnit
2: IOP suggest to clarify the usage of ControlAreaGenratingUnit: Perhaps WG16 opinion is needed as well. If the issue cannot be resolved fast we need to have a note to cover short term usage.
3: we need some associations to be able to have EnergySource, EquivalentInjection and ExternalNetworkInjection in a controlArea

Proposed Solution

It was identified the the classes require better description. The poor description made users invent new models instead of using this one.

Decision

04/05/2023: Create ControlAreaPowerElectronicsUnit class with association with PowerElectronics and ControlArea. We want to follow the same pattern between ControlArea and GeneratingUnit.

#1

Updated by Chavdar Ivanov 4 months ago

  • Subject changed from ControlAreaGenratingUnit 2: IOP suggest to clarify the usag to ControlAreaGenratingUnit2: IOP suggest to clarify the usag
  • Status changed from Open to Review
  • Priority changed from Low to High
  • Decision updated (diff)

This issue needs to be decided. The description seems improved, but the associations are not changed.

#2

Updated by Todd Viegut 4 months ago

  • Decision updated (diff)

Revisited this issue on 15-Feb-2023 during in-person meetings in Richland. Outcome of discussions is:

"We propose adding the power electronics devices 'someway and somehow' to the ControlAreaGeneratingUnit" (~Chuck DuBose 14-Feb-2023)

Must take HydroPumps into consideration for any proposals for this Issue.

Which loads are to be curtailable is another issue that must be considered as part of the proposal.

Chuck's suggested proposal (needs more discussion): Either rename the ControlAreaGeneratingUnit to ControlAreaSources OR ControlAreaSupply (i.e. a breaking change) and then add an association from that (existing) class to PowerElectronics (either the unit or the connection).

#3

Updated by Todd Viegut 4 months ago

  • Status changed from Review to In Progress
#4

Updated by Eric Stephan 2 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Review
  • Solution to be Applied To set to CIM18v04
  • Decision updated (diff)

Also available in: Atom PDF