CIM Issues #4943
ControlAreaGenratingUnit2: IOP suggest to clarify the usage
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-May-2023:
Create ControlAreaPowerElectronicsUnit class with association with PowerElectronicsUnit and ControlArea. We want to follow the same pattern as between ControlArea and GeneratingUnit. Class and property descriptions are the same except for the classes.
11-Oct-2023:
Additional discussion occurred. We agreed to include HyrdoPump and EquivalentInjection using the same pattern as applied earlier. Others we have not agreed to include at this point. We will review again next week after further thought.
Release Notes
ControlAreaPowerElectronicsUnit class with association with PowerElectronicsUnit and ControlArea were added. The same pattern is followed as between ControlArea and GeneratingUnit. Class and property descriptions are the same except for the classes.
61970-452 is updated to include the class and the 2 associations
Updated by Chavdar Ivanov about 1 year 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.
Updated by Todd Viegut about 1 year 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).
Updated by Eric Stephan about 1 year ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Review
- Solution to be Applied To set to CIM18v04
- Decision updated (diff)
Updated by Chavdar Ivanov 7 months ago
- Solution to be Applied To changed from CIM18v04 to CIM18v07
- Solution Version set to CIM18v07
- Solution Applied By set to Chavdar Ianov
- Completion Date set to 10/08/2023
- Release Notes updated (diff)
Updated by Todd Viegut 6 months ago
- Subject changed from ControlAreaGenratingUnit2: IOP suggest to clarify the usag to ControlAreaGenratingUnit2: IOP suggest to clarify the usage
09-Oct-2023:
As Chavdar was applying the decisions to the model for CIM18v07 it became clear that for bullet point #2 in the description of this issue that we have not added commentary to the decision for the additional associations mentioned by the issues description as: "...we need some associations to be able to have EnergySource, EquivalentInjection and ExternalNetworkInjection in a controlArea"
So, we either need to confirm that for these additional associations we also follow the same prescribed pattern or we need to say something in the decision to clarify what will be done for these additional associations. We may decide not to apply for these associations but if so we need to explain why we will not.