Verification and Validation of Transient

Stability Models and Results

Thomas J. Overbye, Komal Shetye

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
overbye@illinois.edu, shetye1@illinois.edu

June 30, 2015

 2
Project Synopsis

• Over last five years UIUC and WSU have been working
with BPA to do transient stability verification, with a
primary focus on comparing results between
PowerWorld, PSLF, TSAT, and (somewhat) PSSE
– Verification is defined as making sure the packages have
correctly implemented the specified models
– Over last year the project has also addressed validation, which is
defined as determining how well the models represent the actual
system
• Verification goal has been to get the packages to give
near similar results
– We believe the goal has been met, particularly between
PowerWorld and PSLF
 3
Reason for Project

• Software verification and dynamic model validation

should ultimately provide better dynamic analysis tools
and models
• Transient stability packages are complex, supporting
hundreds of different models, each having many
parameters and potentially different modes of operation
– Errors can be missed, even in code that has been used for
decades for studies
– Multiple packages can also be used to more quickly determine
errors in both old and new system models
– The impact of underlying assumptions can be better considered
 4
Example: Hydro Governor
Non-Windup Limits
• One issue found during the verification work was the
modeling of non-windup limits in hydro governors
– Handled quite differently in different packages
 5
Example: Hydro Governor
Non-Windup Limits
• Seeing differences required a scenario in which
governor hit its limit, then backed off its limit

Jamie Weber
presented
results to
MVWG in
Spring 2014
 6
Approach

• Difference transient stability packages can get different

results for a variety of reasons
– Different initial power flow cases; the sharing of generator reactive
power among multiple generators is a common difference
– Slightly different models dynamic models, such as whether a speed
multiplier is included in the exciter output
– Different methods for correcting "bad data"
• Our approach was "zero tolerance" for different results
– Greatly helped by PowerWorld's implementing all the different
models and methods for correcting bad data
• Methodology combined looking at results for full system
studies (top-down) and for two bus equivalents (bottom-up)
• Details matter!!
 7
Project Background

• Current BPA project is an out-growth of an earlier (2011)

successfully completed PSERC project (S 43-G),
conducted by the UIUC and WSU team; funded entirely at
BPA (RD53)
• Project developed prototype mechanism to do software package
comparison using the bottom-up approach, but it was done
manually, a slow process for thousands of generators
 8
TIP 268 Verification Starting Point
Bus MALIN
60.05

60 Package A

59.95
Frequency (Hz)

59.9 PSLF

59.85

59.8
Power‐
World
59.75
0 5 10 15 20
Time (seconds)
 9
Results of Verification
Bus MALIN
60.05

60 Package A

59.95
Frequency (Hz)

59.9 PSLF

59.85

59.8
Power‐
World
59.75
0 5 10 15 20
Time (seconds)
 10
How this was achieved –
Verification Methodology
60.0 • Analyzed results of the
Software Package A Software Package B
whole system
Frequency (Hz)

•
59.9

Goal: To find the

59.8 dynamic models
59.7
causing these system-
0 5 10 15 20
Time (seconds) wide discrepancies
Spread of 18,000 WECC bus frequencies • Automated comparison
Software Package A: PowerWorld of large system results
Software Package B: PSLF
– Created a metric to
compare results
analytically rather than
manually / visually
d = distance measure – L1 norm normalized by
X = signal being compared (f, P, Q, etc.) time and magnitude
A, B : Software Package
 11
Verification Methodology – Hybrid Top
Down + Bottom Up Method
• Top Down: Analyzing
system–wide results and
going down systematically to
individual dynamic models
• Used Interface Signals: e.g.
P and Q for generator buses

• Then, use data partitioning

technique called “Elbow
Point” to find the most
discrepant generators in
terms of P and Q
69 generators above elbow point for Q
comparisons – analyzed further
comparisons
 12
Verification Methodology – Hybrid Top
Down + Bottom Up Method
• Once major discrepant
generators are identified,
compare them in detail by
single machine infinite bus
(SMIB) analysis
• Creation of SMIB equivalents
automated in PowerWorld
• Bottom Up: Simulate SMIB
equivalents to isolate
discrepancy causing
model(s)
TABLE I. Some isolated models, from the large-system example
Failed
M E G S
Stage Signal(s)
1468 GENTPJ EXST1 PIDGOV PSS2A MG m
1896 GENROU EXAC1 IEEEG1 IEEEST ME fd
838 GENTPF EXST1 GGOV1 WSCCST MEGS s
 13
Verification Methodology – Detection of
Causes of Discrepancies
• Method 1: State / Block Diagram Analysis: Comparing
states or outputs of blocks as available to narrow the
discrepancy to a particular block

Integral wind-up seen in Package A but

PIDGOV block diagram: PI block in gray not in B, after frequency playback test
 14
Verification Methodology – Detection of
Causes of Discrepancies
• Method 2: Clustering parameters: Clustering each
parameter of all instances of a particular model type to see
which parameter cluster aligns with the discrepant models
• Eg: Only 3 instances of WSCCST
out of total 122 instances in the
case showed this discrepancy
(Buses 33141, 33142, 33143)
• Clustering all instances showed
only these 3 had Vcutoff= -1
• PSLF had unclear documentation
on what happens when this is 0
TABLE I. Key WSCCST parameters, with discrepant generators in grey
cs qs qs q q1 pq1 q2 pq2 q3 pq3 smax cutoff slow

838 1 4.5 0 10 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.21 0 0 1 -1 0

Now, both PW and PSLF disable this 839
840
1
1
5.1
5.1
0
0
10 0.025 0.25 0.025 0.25 0
10 0.025 0.25 0.025 0.25 0
0
0
1
1
-1
-1
0
0
model when Vcutoff = -1, results match 1371
1715
3
2
6 0.05
0.45 0
2 0 0 0.031 0.2 0.031
1.5 2.5 0.35 0.03 0.35 0
0.2 0.07
0 0.05
0
0
-0.07
0
585 1 2.4 0 10 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.2 0.06 0 0.05 0 -0.05
⋮
 15
Verification Methodology

• Final Step: Reporting error causing models / blocks /

parameters to software vendor(s)
– Helps confirming the error
– Model updates and bug fixes
– Re-run with update models to verify if results match
• Commonly found causes of errors
– Software bugs
– Incomplete documentation
– “Bad” model parameters: Values that are not handled by the
model, or lack of documentation on how a software package
handles them
 16
Verification Results

• Some key models causing simulation result

discrepancies identified / fixed in this project
– Machines: GENTPF, GENTPJ - Fixing the frequency
dependent voltage issue drastically improved the system-
wide frequency differences between PSLF and PowerWorld
– Exciters: EXAC1, ST4B, ST6B, AC7B, ESAC, etc.
– Governors: Hydro governors with PI blocks such as
PIDGOV, GPWSCC, HYG3 etc., GGOV1, GGOV3
– Stabilizer: WSCCST
– Other Models: OEL1 implementations for different exciter
models, LCFB1
– Loads: Static Load, MOTORW, MOTOR1, LDELEC,
LD1PAC, CMPLDW
 17
Current Verification Results

• Verification led to a closer match between software

packages

60.0
Software Package A
Frequency (Hz)

59.9
Software Package B

59.8

59.7
0 5 10 15 20
Time (seconds)

Figure shows where we are now

at in package to package comparisons.
The largest frequency differences,
shown in the figures on the right,
are now quite small.
 18
Current Verification Results

• Verification led to a closer match between

PowerWorld/PSLF and TSAT as well

Malin Bus Voltage

 Verification of Load Models

• In addition to generator models, performed verification

tests for load models such as CMPLDW and its
components: 1-ph air conditioner, electronic load, and 3-
ph motor models
– Methodology: Analysis of Single Load Infinite Bus Equivalents
(SLIBs). Can create automatically at any bus
Vsse jƟ Vxe jy

Load Infinite
Bus Bus

Load Model GENCLS

E.g. (with signal
CMPLDW playback, e.g.
Vx, fy)

Eg: Testing contactor functionality of LD1PAC model. Found discrepancy

only when voltage recovers above Vc1on. Issue was incorrect scaling of
MVA base of the load above Vc1on. This was fixed in PoweWorld.
19
 20
Verification of Load Models

• Report on CMPLDW benchmarking submitted to WECC

MVWG Load Modeling Task Force in Oct 2014 (co-
authored w/ BPA and PowerWorld)
 21
Verification of Load Models

• One issue one complex load model verification is

whether the underlying 3-phase induction motors are
modeled with six parameters (like MOTORW) or seven
parameters (like MOTOR1, CIM5)

The seven parameter

models will give
different results
 22
Verification Tool Snapshot

• In progress, prototype GUIs shown here

Top 25 Discrepant Generators

Bus no Gen ID Gen Exc Gov Stab L1Norm
50310 4 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 1.530936
46606 1 GENROU EXAC8B IEEEG1_GE 0 1.254271
33142 1 GENTPF EXST1_GE GGOV1 WSCCST 1.026206
33143 1 GENTPF EXST1_GE GGOV1 WSCCST 1.022152
56357 3 GENROU EXAC1 IEEEG1_GE IEEEST 0.823748
16504 2 GENROU EXAC8B GGOV1 0 0.506081
50307 1 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.494893
46895 B9 GENTPF EXDC1 GPWSCC 0 0.489139
46895 B8 GENTPF EXDC1 GPWSCC 0 0.489139
58355 2 GENROU EXST1_GE GPWSCC PSS2A 0.488326
50308 2 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.434321
50309 3 GENTPJ EXDC4 HYGOV 0 0.403584
8368 1 GENTPF EXDC4 IEEEG3_GE 0 0.361006
51039 1 GENROU EXST1_GE GGOV1 PSS2A 0.349486
58290 2 GENROU IEEET1 GGOV1 WSCCST 0.331764
40344 1 GENTPJ EXST1_GE IEEEG3_GE PSS2A 0.214824
58354 1 GENROU EXST1_GE GPWSCC PSS2A 0.214785
59223 G4 GENROU EXST1_GE IEEEG1_GE PSS2A 0.209016
50499 5 GENTPJ EXST1_GE HYGOV IEEEST 0.184728
50496 2 GENTPJ EXST1_GE HYGOV IEEEST 0.183097
50297 4 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.1802
50296 3 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.180086
46257 1 GENTPJ ESST1A_GE 0 0 0.177994
44193 3 GENTPJ EXST1_GE GPWSCC WSCCST 0.175806
50294 1 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.172953
50295 2 GENTPJ EXST1_GE 0 0 0.172422
 23
Verification Tool Features

Two parts
• 1. Large System Analysis (eg. WECC Case)
– Process simulation results to apply metric: Time alignment,
removing duplicates (during switching events), identifying
motors (opposite sign convention), removing dc offset, etc.
– Comparing and displaying most discrepant buses
– Ability to plot results
• 2. SMIB Analysis
– Option to simulate all SMIB equivalents of a case or the
most discrepant ones identified from large system analysis
– Simulate with voltage or frequency disturbances to test
relevant models
– Comparing results and finding possible error causing models
 24
Validation

• Actual system validation is more challenging, but many

of tools developed for verification are helpful
• Comparing simulation results to PMU data from
disturbances
– Data received
• State Estimator (SE) Cases for Jan 29 2014 events (John
Day - Grizzly fault + Gen Drop)
• Event logs
• PMU data for disturbances (50 bus frequencies)
• Planning cases containing dynamic data
– Validation Case Set-Up
• Set-up a procedure to map dynamic data from planning to SE
cases (aided by WSM mapping)
• Fixing “bad data” such as incorrect MVA bases, governors for
negative MW generators to address instability issues
 25
Validation
• January 29, 2014 Event PMU Data
 26
Validation

• Validation Results – Jan 29 2014, 6:46 event

60.05
Bus Monroe 500 kV Frequency
60.00
We have not yet
59.95 considered matching
Note, Alberta is not voltage magnitudes
Frequency (Hz)

59.90
in-service in the state
59.85 estimator case
59.80

59.75

59.70

59.65
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (seconds)
PMU 14w governor response
12s governor response 14w governor response + motor load

Sensitivity of parameters such as governor response limits and

load models, to validation results
 27
PowerWorld Frequency Analysis Techniques

• Partially based on this project PowerWorld has

implemented two frequency domain analysis techniques
– Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and modal analysis using the variable
projection method (VPM)1
– Frequency domain techniques can be quite helpful in providing
information about power system dynamic performance
– Integrating the tools within transient stability should allow for
convenient access

1A.Borden, B.C. Lesieutre, J. Gronquist, "Power System Modal Analysis Tool Developed for Industry
Use," Proc. 2013 North American Power Symposium, Manhattan, KS, Sept. 2013
 28
Motivational Example

• The below graph shows a slight frequency oscillation

in a transient stability run
– The question is to figure out the source of the oscillation (in
the bus 60
Bus 2376 (PKNOBDUM) Frequency

frequency here) 59.99

59.98

–
59.97

Plotting all the speed 59.96

Bus 2376 (PKNOBDUM) Frequency

59.95
59.94
values is one option, 59.93
59.92

but sometimes small 59.91

59.9
59.89

oscillations could get lost 59.88

59.87

– A solution is to do an FFT
59.86
59.85
59.84
59.83
59.82
59.81
59.8
59.79
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time
Bus 2376 (PKNOBDUM) Frequency
 29
Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) Overview
• In version 18 quick access to an FFT is available in
the transient stability time values (or plot) case
information displays by selecting "Frequency
Analysis" from the right-click menu
• To understand the FFT, it is useful to start with a
Fourier series, which seeks to represent any periodic
signal, with frequency F=1/T, as a sum of sinusoidals
with frequencies that are integer multiples of F, nF
– DC is n=0, fundamental is n=1, harmonics n > 1
 30
Fourier Series and
Nonperiodic Functions
• Often the complete representation
requires an infinite number of terms
• Example at right shows the Fourier
series for a square wave, showing
sequentially the first four terms
• Nonperiodic signals can be
represented by letting T go to infinity;
this gives a continuous Image Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series
Fourier Spectrum
 31
Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) Overview
• Discrete Fourier Transforms (DFTs) can be used to
provide frequency information about sampled, non-
periodic signals
• The FFT is just a fast DFT – with N0 points its
computational order is N0 ln(N0)
– This allows it to be applied to many signals
• In version 18 quick access to an FFT is available in
the transient stability time values (or plot) case
information displays by selecting "Frequency
Analysis" from the right-click menu
– This works best when all the entries are of the same type,
such as bus frequency
 32
FFT Analysis Display
 33
FFT Analysis Display

• The frequency analysis display shows the original

data, the FFT for each time result, and a frequency
summary
With about 840 time values, and
0.032
Max Value
18,000 signals (bus frequencies
0.03
0.028
in this example), the FFT takes
0.026
0.024
about six seconds
0.022
0.02
The Frequency Summary Page
Max Value

0.018

0.016
0.014 provides the ID of the signal
0.012
0.01 with the largest component
0.008
0.006
0.004
for each frequency
0.002
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Freq (Hz)

Max Value
 34
Geographic Data Views

• Since about 2007 PowerWorld Simulator has had

functionality for what we call Geographic Data Views
(GDVs)
– Original functionality described in paper, T.J. Overbye, "Wide-
area power system visualizations with geographic data views,"
IEEE PES 2008 General Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA.
• Idea of GDVs is for cases with geographic information
for the buses (or substations) the power system
information can be visualized on auto-created one-lines
– Did not catch on because at the time few cases had the
necessary geographic information
– This is now changing, so PowerWorld is refreshing the concept
 35
GDV Process

• Starting point is a case with latitude/longitude values, and

a map-based usually empty one-line (can be provided by
PowerWorld)
• From a case information
display with geo-linked
objects, like substations,
select fields of interest,
and then right-click and
select Geographic Data View
• This displays the Geographic Data View Customization
Display
– Used to specify the attributes for the auto-inserted GDVs
 36
Geographic Data View Customization
Display: General Display Options

A one-line needs
to be selected,
but it need to be
initially open

Use the Fields

and Attributes
Page to customize
the display
objects
 37
Geographic Data View Customization
Display: Fields and Attributes

Different attributes
can be used to
visualization
different object
values
 38
Example WECC GDV

Here the
display
objects
are linked to
the substations;
size is
proportional
to MW
generation,
color to Mvar
generation

Right-clicking on an object allows object to either see the

substation dialog, or view the Geographic Data View Options
 39
Example WECC GDV Showing GICs
Hil

Coc hin

•
BNC

Bighorn Dam
Mica
VTG

M annix
Hundr ed M ile House B a t tJ le
ar Rr ivow
Bullp ond e r
Benalt o No v a J o f f r e C o g e n e r a t io n

W int Hil M ar io n

Below is same display,

R e d D e e r
St et t le r

Metiskow
Hansman

C o r o n a t io n

Kelly L ak e
L a J oie Monitor
K ic k in g H o r s e Am oco
Golden

Beddin g
A s h c r o f t

Revelstoke I le cile waet

Banf f
C a s c a d e ( T A U C )

Rundle Ghos tANG S h e e r n e s s

Y o u n g s t o n

J o h n H a r t
AEC
V a le y v ie w Spr ay
Bear
E n m sa paw Ander s on
Gold River
S a lm o n A r m

Oy en
Balzac Cogen
x 3 6

Hig hla nd
Sarcee
Enmax
E n E
mn m
a x a x1 3 2 2

28
E. Cal
g ar y
P o w e l R iv e r D a m
W es t wold Janet
A s h lu C r e e k H y d r o
LM N Langdon
Wyndham
Nicola
P u n t le d g e

SAY Douglas Lake P o c a t e r r a

SKK
K w o ie k C r e e k

C h e e k y e V e r n o n T e r m in a l

C lo w h o m FRE B la c k D o g

Tipella
A t h a lm e r

Dunsmuir
A s h R iv e r

modified to show substation

S e c h e lt
J enner

F . A . L e e
Brook s Empress Cy prSandhi
ess l
Cypr es s D . G . B e l

Har ewood
U n iv Ce ar t s D M ur r in #1
Sper lin g
hit aey lHd o
rGora
Meridian
W a lt e r s
r f nla e
uSBeqCrP
u a yr ne e
B a r n a r d
M
W
o n a s h e e
h a t s h a n

S e aKid d No. Newel

2 l C o m o
I Cs ala mn d b ie
L a k e
Hope
C r o w n
I ngle dow
P a c k a g in g
Haney
L t d .

Rus k inF
S t a v e a ls

Ar not t
M is s io n Chiliwac k T r o u t C r e e k
B a lf o u r
Ros edale

Clayburn At c helit z C r a w f o r d

P o r t a l
S u m a s W a y

BEN Vas Nat al

Custer
W a y K im b e r le y M e d ic in e H a t ( C M H )
M a r y s v ile
W h it e h o r n

Ar r ow L ak e I n d u s t r y

Br ila nt Lethbridge
B e lin g h a m D iv is io n

PI N
Cranbrook G o o s e L a k e

Old m an
H a r t la n d L F G
Rus sell

Ros
Dia bl
so Dam
ASM K e t t le s H il W in d F a r m

Horsey
Es qui
m alt
Tex acF roe d o n ia ( P S P L )
U p p e r B a k e r
G o r g e ( S C L ) C a s c a d e H e r it a g e P o w e r P a r k
Selk ir k W in s o r
S e d r o W o o le y
L ower Bak er W a n e t a
S e v e n
E x p a n s io n NelM
Pw
r ay
ile
o j e c t
Boundar y

P o r t A n g e le s

Ket t le Falls

F a ir m o u n t

Snohomish
Bot hell M onr oe

GIC amps to neutral (size),

Addy
Sno-k ing Us k Tr oy
S a m m a m is h
Nov elt y
Wel
ls (DOPD) Joseph
Chief
Eas t pin e
h KitBsr ap
S o u t e m M e ra ts o
s n
a c h u s e t t s
Grand Coulee A lb e n i F a ls

Hungry Horse
C u s h m a n 1

Cus hm an 2 Shelb y
Mapl
Talbe
otValley
C o lu m b ia F a ls
S n o q u a lm ie

O'Br ie n C a b in e t Go r g e

Shelt on B e r r y d a le L it t le F La lo
s n g
( WL W
a k P
e C )

Tacoma
RocDkoyu gReac h
la s
Tiber

Bell
N o r t h e a s t A n d r e w Y o r k

Aberdeen
Sout hwes t
Cowlit z K r a in C o r n e r
Tap No r t h e a s t Rat
( Whdr
W um
P C ) Power LLC
L a n c a s t e r

Sie r r a
Satsop Oly mpia
S u m m e r F a ls
B e a c o n ( B Sop uo ldk e ar n eP) a r k
P o s t F a ls
Conr ad

R o c k y F o r d

Pin e Cr eek
Paul L ar s on Ker r
S a n d Du n e s
W in d R id g e

Napav in e
Vant age P E C H e a d w o r k s
T a f t A u t o
Fort Peck
S ilv e r M
C r e
o e
s ks y r o c k

G le n o m a
H ig h w o o d
C o w lit z F a ls

P a m Roz
o n a a H e ig h t s

Cla t s op Unio n Gap P r ie s t R a p id s

Shawnee
Beav er
L ongv ie w
Allston
Ashe Rin gold
Bent on
L ower M onum ent al
Central
L it t le Goos e Ph Ferry Lower Granite
M osc ow

and direction (color)

Sulp hur
W h it e B lu f f s
Yale

Dworshak
C h a n d le r

I Sacaj
Fr ankc e linH aaw
r bea
o r N .
Hatwai
L e w is t o n

L olo
JAl.cD.
oa Ros s
Sif t on R o c k C r e e k

Tilam ook St
R iv . e r Jgohns
Keeler
Suns et
Alb in a
a t e
Bonnevile
McNary
O r e n c o B lu e L a k e Ho r s e He a v e n
S t . M a r y s

M ur r y hil C h e n o w e t h J o h n D a y P h
C o ld S p r in g s

T h e
Big Eddy P
D a le s h

Sher wood Car v er Sla t t Her m is t on Power Pr oj ect

Car lt on Pearl M c loughl
O s t in
r a n d e r

F a r a d a y
G r a n d R o n d e

A n a c o n d a M il C r e e k
Chem awa
Bet hel ( PGE) M aupin
Sale m
But t e

Adair
Santiam
P a r is h G a p
Br oadv ie w
Fos s il
Alb any
Fr y

H e ls C a n y o n
A lk a li C r .

B a s e L in e
Colstrip
C r o s s o v e r

•
W ends on
M c Call
Lane Cougar
Ponderosa Yello wt ail
T a h k e n it c h

GDVs are standard

B e le C r e e k

L a Pin e L ov ell
Fair vie w Ont ar io

Dix onv ile

L a n g le y G u lc h

Hanna
Cald well L o o k o u t

B a r b e r C r e e k
W y o d a k
Bowm ont
Rogue

L u c k y P e a k

G r a n t s P a s s

C h ilo q u in D a n s k in W in d P r o j e c t
SouLth
ange
Rapid Cit y
M er id ia n
L one Pin e
S wa n V a le y T h e r m o p o lis T o w n Ha r t z o g

G o s h e n

PowerWorld one-lines, so
C O B E n e r g y F a c ilt y
Blis s Tec k la

Kin g
Midpoint
Don Plant
Malin Kinport P ilo t B u t t e

T w in F a ls A m
Bready
r ic a n F a ls

Bor ah
Hunt
Riv er t on
Car ib ou

Casper
J o h n s t o n

W a r n e r

H u m b o ld t B a y
Gle ndo

T r in it y ( U S B R C A ) Pit 1 M ir a c le M ile

R o u n d M o u n t a in Kor t es
S e m in o e

J u d g e F C a r r

Naught on L a r a m ie R iv e r

H u m b o ld t
C o y o t e C r e e k

Olin da L o n g H o lo w

they can be saved, objects

Ben L om ond
Stegall (West)
No r t h V a lm y

R a ilr o a d F o o t e C r e e k I

Syr ac us e

Rowle y

Ter m in al
Ar c her
C h e y e n n e
Sid ney W .

Tabl
Tap
e M t. Oquir r h

B o r d e r t o w n C a m p W ila m s

C a lif o r n ia

C o lg a t e

L a p o r t e
M ir a L o m a
C r a ig ( T S G T )
Ault
F a r W e s t D ix o n C r e e k

S p a n is h F o r k

T h e G e y s e r s
W eld
Est es
Rio Os o
Bonanz a

Beaver Creek
F o r t C h u r c h il

Clo v er
M eek er F o r d h a m
Pawnee
M anc hie f Power St at io n N . Y u m a

Fult on Fols om E l D o r a d o

moved around, and reused

Gonder V a lm o n t Er ie Tap
( P S C O )

I n t e r m o u n t a in G e n e r a t in g W r ay

L ak evile P la in s E n d

Rid ge
T ig e r C r e e k
Hunt ingt on L o o k o u t B r ic k C e n t e r

I gnacio
S o d a L a k e s
S h ilo h I

Hunter Plant W at er t on
S t a n d a r d O il
C o n t r a C o s t a Basalt D a n ie ls P a r k

Collie r v ile
S t a n is la u s

M o r a g a

P o t r e r o
Sig ur d
M a r t in P e a k e r ( C P N )
T r a c y G r a n d J u n c t io n ( U T E )

B u r lin g t o n I C ( B U R M L )
E a s t S h o r e

E a r ly I n t a k e
M o c c a s in

R a v e n s w o o d Newar k D o n P e d r o

L o s E s t e r o s

M o n t e V is t a
L inc oln

T h r e e P k

•
A n t e lo p e C y n

M o s s L a n d in g ( DU E N N O )

B o o n e S u b .

Pin t o
B a lc h Haas
2

R e d B u t t e

GDV attributes (i.e., the key)

Lam ar

M c Call

M c E lm o C r e e k

L o s t C a n y o n W a ls e n b u r g

T o w a o c

G a t e s P e a k e r

G a r d n e r ( N E V P ) G le n C a n y o n Hes per us
S t ir lin g M o u n t a in

C r y s t a l R iv e r

Nor t h W es t C h a r le s L e n z ie

Pahr um p
S a Sn h ip J r uo ac n k 3 4 5

Belt way
W e s t s id e

M or r o Bay
Ar den
H o o v e r A V
N Z

M ead
Diablo Canyon
I n y o k e r n

M id w a y P e a k e r ( M I D W A Y )
Ker n- 1

Taos

are always available by

I v a n p a h

Hilt op
M o h a v e
Nor t on
A n t e lo p e
C o o l W a t e r
Peac oc k B r a v o D o m e

Cas t aic

E s c a la n t e

Vic t or v ile
S a n t a C la r a Vic t or
SyOllm
iv ear
M a n d a la y
Rin aldi R io P u e r c o

O r m o n d B e a c h Tolu ca
H o ly w o o d
Cholla

Sandia

Cent ur y Gener at in g
Vis t a
E l S e g u n d o
Hi Desert
S e r r a n o
Dev er s
A E S A la m it o s
Cor onado

O c o t ilo E n e r g y F a c ilt y

right-clicking
B ly t h e 2

B la c k w a t e r

H a r q u a h a la V a le y

R a m o n a R e n e w a b le

Palo Ver de
M r lie
A n sg q
t uo itn e V P
a ole w
y e r
Suncr es t R e d h a w k 1 & 2

B r o w n in g

Silv er Kin g
M ig uel
H y d e r

I m p e r ia l V a le y

T ij u a n a 1

PAP
HRD R u m o r o s a

M TP

T o r t o lit a

•
C e r r o P r ie t o I I

They also support contouring Calie nt e

 40
North America Load/Generation Map

Image is a
bus load
contour with
substation
generation
GDVs
 41
Thank You!