PNNL

Abstract

The frequency response of SG-dominated power grids is predictable ahead of an occurrence of a frequency event because the frequency response of SGs is consistent, and it can be inferred from the swing equation [1]. However, increasing the portion of IBRs in an SG-dominated power grid might make the characteristics of the conventional power grids no longer valid because this changing resource mix affects grid dynamics and controls [2]. Thus, maintaining these characteristics greatly benefits the control and operation of the power grids with high penetration of IBRs. To maintain these characteristics in IBR-dominated power grids, IBRs should have frequency response capability similar to that of an SG. The WECC modeling validation subcommittee has developed generic IBR models for large system planning [3]-[5]. These models can represent various vendors' dynamic behavior for WTG, PV, and ESS [5]. The current generic IBR models approved by WECC can provide frequency response only from droop control loops in REPC models [6], [7]. The contribution of the loops is proportional to the frequency deviation from the nominal frequency. Thus, it presents an insufficient contribution to arrest frequency variation compared to the frequency response of SGs because it allows a high ROCOF in the early stage of frequency events. This shortfall will become greater as the PL of IBRs increases in power grids. Controller enhancement for the generic IBR models is required to secure the frequency stability under high PL of IBRs as in the SG-dominated power grids. This paper proposes a control extension for the generic IBR models to enhance the frequency support capabilities and discusses the classification of frequency support for the different types of IBR considering their operating constraints. An inertial control scheme is implemented in the REPC and REEC models of the generic IBR models to achieve these objectives. The inertial control scheme includes the following stages: Control area data acquisition, inertia time constant estimation, IBR-related constraint check, IBR contribution determination, and inertial response provision. In the scheme, a REPC acquires control area data from a system operator and estimates a total inertia time constant for the control area the applicable IBR power plant belongs. Then, the estimated inertial time constant is transferred to each IBR controller—REEC—within the power plant. Each REEC checks the availability of applicable IBR for inertial response participation. If the IBR is available, the REEC amplifies the estimated inertial time constant to utilize it for inertial response provision. In this way, the proposed inertial response scheme extends the functionality of the generic IBR models to provide SG-like frequency response within their constraints. Various scenarios considering different IBR types, IBR penetration levels, and frequency control schemes were simulated and compared in an IEEE 39-bus system using PSCAD simulator to verify the effectiveness of the proposed scheme.