Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 1

Transcription

1 IEEE SCC21 P1547 Working Group Meeting Minutes, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, CA P1547 Draft Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed Energy Resources with Associated Electric Power Systems Interfaces Chair: Thomas Basso Vice Chairs: John Berdner, Jim Daley, Babak Enayati, and Mark Siira Secretary/Treasurer: Charlie Vartanian The seventh meeting of the P1547 Working Group (WG) was held in Juno Beach, FL, on March 8 9, 2016, at NextEra Energy. The targeted outcomes for the meeting were to review the latest proposed edits for creation of P1547/Draft 4, and receive direction from the WG for each subgroup going forward. Note: after the P1547 march 9, adjournment, the P WG held its first meeting. Summary highlights. May 6 is the due date for Vice Chairs to provide Draft 4 inputs to Secretary. The Chair announced that Folder 1 Overall Document and Folder 6 Testing will begin active subgroup work for their respective topics following this WG meeting. Each of the other active Folder 2 5 & 7 subgroups then presented its latest proposed draft edits and other progress since the last WG meeting. The attendees provided verbal comments and other direction to the subgroups for next iteration of draft updates and work going forward. The input and guidance received by the subgroups will be incorporated into updated edits following this meeting for creation of draft 4, which will be finalized following this meeting and then posted to CDT. Subgroups will continue to hold their respective subgroup webinars and telecons, and the P1547 Officers will continue to have telecons to track overall progress. The WG confirmed the dates for the next meeting, June 14 16, 2016 for the next P1547 WG meeting, and June 16 for the P WG meeting, both in Portland, OR; facilities sponsored by Portland General Electric. TUESDAY, March 8, 2016, Day 1 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND INTRO, ADMIN ITEMS, and START OF FOLDER 1 and 6 ACTIVITY The meeting was called to order at 8:45am. Attendees (Attachment A) were welcomed by Tom Basso, Chair of IEEE P1547. Tom thanked Next Era Energy for sponsoring the meeting facilities. James Hurtt of Florida Power & Light welcomed the attendees and provided meeting room and building logistics information. Tom presented the agenda for the meeting (Attachment B, updated version of slides), received WG approval of the prior meeting s revised minutes, reviewed planned activity for the next several days, and had the P1547 Officers introduce themselves. Tom presented the introductory slides and made a call for potentially essential patents. No potentially essential patent claims were declared, and no holders of potentially essential patents were identified. Charlie covered several admin items. He reviewed the P1547 Central Desktop (CDT) website folder structure, which maps to the Folder subteams. He clarified that CDT is access controlled to Working Group Members. Charlie also emphasized the need to initial the meeting sign in sheets each day, since this is the means used to determine Working Group Member status Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 1

2 qualification. Additionally, enabling access requires the person to request Member status, upon qualifying with attendance of two in person WG meetings. Charlie asked all participants to provide comments going forward using the IEEE Comments Form, and thanked those that submitted comments on draft 3 in advance of the meeting. He clarified that draft 3 incorporated the WG input received at the October 2015 meeting, draft 3.1 are subgroup level work product (there is no complete 3.1 draft) accomplished since the last meeting, and that a consolidated draft 4 would be established incorporating the outcome of this meeting. The Intro slides were updated over the course of the meeting primarily for next actions including setting a due date for submittal of P1547 draft comments prior to the next meeting, and to clarify subgroup meeting schedules. ACTION May 6, 2016 is the due date for each Vice Chair to submit their respective subgroup s redline edits and comments form for draft 4 to the Secretary (Charlie) for consolidation into the P1547 draft 4 document. Individuals can submit comments, but please send those to the respective Vice Chair addressing the subclause you are commenting on. If you are unsure which Folder Vice Chair to send your comment form to, send your comment form to Charlie (Charlie.vartanian@meppi.com). The floor was opened for WG comments and questions. Questions included a request for the schedule for completing the revised IEEE 1547 standard. Charlie responded that the plan remains to complete 1547 revision content by the October WG meeting, with intent of only needing to do overall editing, formatting, and packaging for publication beyond that point. The goal remains to have a ballot ready draft by end of calendar year (CY) 2016, with balloting opening early in CY2017. Ideally the more substantial topics under Folder 2 and 3 shall be completed by June, and the focus of WG will then be on completing the remainding (per June 2014 WG meeting vote) Folder topics by October. Jens offered his help to the other Folders as his work is nearing completion. Jens also recommended others establish and share an overall schedule, as he provided with F3 pre meeting materials. Overall comments on the existing draft included the observation that some of the topics still being worked on may not be mature enough for standards requirements to be included in this revision. REVIEW OF SUBGROUPS DRAFT 3.1 EDITS, F3, F2, F7 Day 1 s subgroups presented their proposed new edits developed since the last WG meeting, and posted for review prior to the meeting. F3 General Requirements, Abnormal Conditions Jens Boemer (F3 Facilitator) opened with a status overview. F3 s work status is 90% completion. Next he reviewed the F3 subgroup s proposed Draft 3.1 edits. These edits are contained in file P1547 D3 Clean_Input to D3.1 from F3 GR2 Clause 4.2_ docx. This file is posted on CDT in the Meeting Materials folder. Another introductory point was that cross cutting issues that impact several folders need to be addressed. Examples of cross cutting issues that need consideration across Folders include: DRAFT ANNEX A, coordinate F3 Category I-III with F2 Category A-B ACTION F3 and F2 to create a joint recommended ANNEX A, and provide this by May 6 as input for draft 4. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 2

3 One significant point made during the initial discussion is that F1 will be the subgroup that will work on content and/or decisions that are cross-cutting and need to by conformed across Folders and the document as a whole. Reigh Walling continued the presentation and discussion covering three specific topics: 1) Frequency droop. Active topic under discussion by subgroup. 2) Area Recloser Coordination, subclause Subgroup has draft proposed language 3) Dynamic voltage. Active topic under evaluation by subgroup 4) Inertial response. Closed topic. Subgroup determined this is not required in 1547 Jens Boemer continued with a review of the comments received prior to this meeting, which were incorporated in F3 s detailed comments management spreadsheet. The comments file is posted on CDT, P1547 Comments Form_Input to D3.1 from F3 GR2 Clause 4.2_v2_ xlsx The floor was opened for comments. An initial comment stated that NERC s guideline for rotating machines frequency response deadband is 36MHz, and ERCOT s deadband is 16.6MHz. Discussion continued on this topic, with one general observation that all assets need consistent and appropriate behavior in terms of maintaining bulk grid stability, and certain settings will need to be complimentary from a fleet perspective. Slides used by the F3 subgroup during the meeting are posted on CDT, file. John Berdner (F3 Vice Chair) took detailed notes for subgroup use. F2 General Requirements, Voltage Regulation Aminul Huque (F2 Facilitator) gave a front to back page turn review of F2 subgroup s draft 3.1 completed subclauses. This material is contained in file Draft voltage regulation input for D3.1.docx. This file is posted on CDT in the Meeting Materials folder. Two more cross cutting content items were noted and discussed, Figure 1 which illustrates EPC and PCC, and the capacity screen (500kW) used by F2 for determining Cat A. or Cat. B ACTION F2 and F3 to create a joint recommended Figure 1, and provide any proposed update to Figure 1 by May 6 as input for draft 4. Overall, all edits for voltage control modes are complete except for Dynamic VAR Control. The F2 subgroup will continue work to complete their recommended draft edits for this mode. Babak Enayati (F2 Vice Chair) took detailed notes for subgroup use. F7 Power Quality Babak Enayati (F7 Vice Chair) gave a front to back page turn review of F7 subgroup s Draft 3.1 completed subclauses, with a focus on new edits. This material is contained in file _3 Power quality (Final Draft) (4).docx. This file is posted on CDT in the Meeting Materials folder. Babak highlighted areas with most significant changes: New edits include a change in the flicker requirement s point of compliance. The latest version now designates customer point of connection. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 3

4 Another major update per the 3.1 edits is changes to the harmonics table. The even harmonic limits have been substantially changed. The new proposed requirements for even harmonics of 8 or higher even order multiples is Associated range specified in Table 3, the table listing the harmonic limit bands for odd order harmonics. This is recommended by the F7 subgroup, acknowledging that this deviates from IEEE 519 recommended limit Even harmonics are limited to 25% of the odd harmonic limits above. WG feedback on the Flicker included ToV pu level vs time duration, as illustrated in Figure TBD Transient over voltage limits. WG input included recommended F7 consider ToV of >2PU for initial very brief transient timeframe, in part citing CBEMA (now ITIC s modified CBEMA) curve. And, other comments recommended extending 2 PU beyond.1 cycle. Counter comments cited potential conflict with some equipment ToV ratings. F7 received the input for consideration. Comments included a question on if F7 PQ is the correct subgroup to address the voltage impact due to variable irradiance. One response was since PV variability voltage variability is not perceptible; it isn t a power quality, even recognizing that PV variance may impact the management of primary voltage regulation. Additional comments raised idea of expanding the standard to address voltage variation. Overall, F7 s feedback on this topic was that this issue has been evaluated and decided by the subgroup previously that will not be necessary proposed requirement in P1547, and comments can be submitted for Draft 4. OTHER INFORMATION ITEMS NextEra Energy Executive Overview Bill Brennan (Director, Engineering & Construction) gave an abbreviated version of a corporatelevel overview of NextEra Energy focusing on overall business aspects. The P1547 working group expressed our appreciation for them hosting this meeting s facilities. IEEE ICAP Paul Heitman of IEEE (paul.heitman.us@ieee.org) gave an overview presentation on the IEEE SA Conformity Assessment Program (ICAP). ICAP 1547/ activities arose during early P1547 full revision workshops and meetings. Paul invited IEEE 1547 meeting participants to an informational meeting following today s WG meeting, and also invited participants following tomorrow s P1547 adjournment, to observe an ICAP Members meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm Day 1 concluded WEDNESDAY, March 9, 2016, DAY 2 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND INTRO Tom called the meeting to order at 8:45am. Day 2 s subgroups presented their proposed new edits developed since the last WG meeting, and posted for review prior to the meeting. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 4

5 REVIEW OF SUBGROUPS DRAFT 3.1 EDITS, F4, F5 Networks, F5 Islanding, F5 Energy Storage Day 2 s subgroups presented their proposed new edits developed since the last WG meeting, and posted for review prior to the meeting. F4 Interoperability Mark Siira (F7 Vice Chair) opened with a summary of the work by F4 subgroup in the interim since the October 2015 WG meeting. Several key items highlighted in Mark s presentation: F4 s subgroup level meetings/discussions proceeded following the Oct. WG meeting with two separate groups: o Interoperability o Simulation and Modeling Mark then reviewed the F3 s respective subgroup s progress since the last meeting, and some of the key accomplishments and open/active issues. FOR THE INTEROPERABILITY TOPIC: Tabulated interfaces relevant to IEEE 1547 from an analysis of 1547 D3 Tabulated monitoring points from an analysis of 1547 D3 The analysis of monitoring points raised the following questions (from live presentation, file F4 ( IIAMS) Slides for March 9 Meeting Updated ppt ): Constant Power Factor Is there a required range for constant power factor setting? What is power factor sign convention? Are there any time window settings associated with constant power factor settings? Volt var Does the reactive power percentage need to be qualified by an additional setting specifying % of max var, % of avail var, or other? Voltage Should voltage regions be specified using x, y points to allow more complex boundaries between regions? 4,2,4 Frequency Should frequency regions be specified using x, y points to allow more complex boundaries between regions? These questions posed by F4 to the wider WG highlight a general theme that F4 facilitators & leads emphasized several times, roughly restated, the F4 facilitators want more details of the communications needs for specific P1547 requirements for F4 to complete its work. FOR THE MODELING & SUMULATION TOPIC: This subgroup s activity and key open issues since the last WG meeting are: o Evaluating German FGW standard SubGroup 4 received English translations on Feb 29. o Developing Normative Text as a result of proposal made at October 2016 meeting ACTION Concepts from the German FGW Technical Guidelines for Power Generating Units will be incorporated into F4 s normative 1547 draft text, for pending 1547 draft 4. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 5

6 Mark then reviewed the F4 subgroup s work in creating new proposed content beyond draft, or the draft 3.1 proposed edits. Comments included that FGW is an industry consortium, and not an SDO. ( fgw.de/ziele_und_inhalte_eng.htm) FOR THE INTEROPERABILITY TOPIC: Interoperability team currently evaluating modifications for next draft with following focus: (from live presentation, file F4 ( IIAMS) Slides for March 9 Meeting Updated ppt ) o Data Exchange Concepts and Key Monitoring Requirements Referenced Point (Local and/or Remote) PCC and/or ECP Open F4 question Add to another clause? o Data Exchange Requirements between Area EPS Operators and DER Operators Area EPS operators shall specify Data attributes and requirements Retrieval rates, accuracy, latency, Data requirements Other metrics Basic Power Settings and Nameplate Values Power, reactive power ranges Voltage Normalization Settings For functions using voltage parameters (e.g. Volt Var modes), a reference voltage and an offset voltage are defined Ramp Rate and Time Delay Settings Interoperability Topic Facilitators and contributors Frances Cleveland, Wayne Stec Brian Seal, and Bob Fox lead discussion and took WG input. FOR THE MODELING & SUMULATION TOPIC: Modeling & Simulation edits are being developed, but are not at point for proposed normative text From live presentation, file F4 ( IIAMS) Slides for March 9 Meeting Updated ppt : o o Normative Text Referencing IEEE was rejected during WG Discussion Proposed requirement to provide minimal data on fault current contribution, as required for the entity performing an interconnection technical studies ( Area EPS Operator) to perform interconnection related protection studies Modeling & Simulation Topic Facilitator Mike Ropp led discussion and collection of WG feedback. Modeling data requirements were outlined for fault current. WG interaction focused on the trade offs for using source impedance versus explicit fault contribution. The input was taken by the F4 team for consideration. Modeling data requirements for transient studies was also a specific topic presented and discussed. One aspect of the proposed data requirements was the proposed ability for manufacturers to require NDA. There were a range of views offered to F4 by the WG regarding whether this would facilitate the availability and use of this information or not. The WG input was taken by F4 for consideration Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 6

7 Mark then added an informational item to his meeting agenda slot. Additional information was shared on the topic of Information Model material/concepts still under review at subgroup level, but not yet at full subgroup consensus. Topic Facilitator Francis Cleveland led that discussion and received WG feedback. Mark closed the F4 presentation session with Conclusions and Next Steps: (from live presentation, file F4 ( IIAMS) Slides for March 9 Meeting Updated ppt ) ACTION Sub Groups (Interoperability and M&S) to incorporate requirements for IEEE1547 Revision from March 2016 meeting ACTION Interoperability sub group will increase frequency of meetings and develop normative text prior to June Meetings ACTION Simulation and modeling sub group develop normative text prior to June Meetings F5 Special Interconnections, Networks Michael Coddington supported by Dan Mungovan (F5 SPI Networks co Facilitators) reported that proposed revision draft for Secondary and Spot Networks have been completed at the Subgroup level. The completed Network related 1547 revision edits were posted to CDT for premeeting review, file IEEE 1547 Secondary Networks Clause Jan Clean.pdf. The completion of Network related edits was achieved following several Network topic specific conference call working sessions held between the October 2015 WG meeting and this WG meeting. He acknowledged the input from several utility participants that have extensive experience with networks on their systems. The floor was opened for feedback. Discussion centered on the limitation of the standard to allow backfeed. The topic facilitators outlined why the limitation is a fundamental need that will remain in the revision due to the characteristics and limitations of the predominantly existing older network protectors. However, Michael invited submittal of comments for continued consideration. F5 Special Interconnections, Islanding Mike Ropp presented and lead discussion on behalf of Leo Casey (Leo is F5 SPI Islanding Facilitator). F5 Islanding s subgroup s work since the prior WG meeting in October included a focused effort on the topic of Island Detection, for implementing anti islanding capability. This work since October has resulted in proposed revised language for the Unintentional Islanding clause. Before Mike discussed the proposed language he outlined major driving and some remaining open issues: 1) Definitions, modify? 2) Point of Departure, s existing text 3) Unintentional Islands 1) Anti Islanding in context of high penetration and ride through and voltage control, 2) Moved 2s to 5s with appropriate language 3) Role of simulation, and 4) Role of communications to be completed 4) Intentional Islands Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 7

8 1) Subclause 4.4 text to clarify types of islands, working on Island Transitions to support Intentional Island activity After a review of our starting point ( text), Mike outlined the challenges to existing island detection methods that depend on local perturbation of V and F in an environment with an increasing number and type of DER, and higher DER penetration overall. From slides used live, file Folder5_Pres_JunoBeach_ Islanding.ppt. ISLANDING DETECTION CHALLENGES o New and more stringent ride through requirements Voltage and frequency ride throughs, Vector shift and df/dt (RoCoF) ride throughs o Combinations of different manufacturers products can lead to islanding detection degradation o Circuits hosting both rotating machines and inverters: becoming more common o Perturbation based methods, without positive feedback, struggle in cases with large numbers of inverters o Large influx of new, less well vetted technology entrants o Incompatibility with low inertia systems and microgrids Mike discussed options for dealing with these challenges: extending allowable unintentional island (UI) clearing time from 2 to 5 seconds, and adding communication based detection schemes, role of simulation and modeling. The substantive discussion and response from the WG was on the topic of extending the UI clearing time. The following recaps WG feedback comments, restated from Mike Ropp s post meeting notes. Several comments expressed concern that the associated incremental safety risk of going to 5 seconds has not been taken into consideration, nor quantified. One commenter concerned that a 5 s island without utility control of V and f is simply too long and could lead to equipment damage. Commenters concern with the relative magnitude of the change was; e.g. calling going from 2 to 5 seconds a 250% change. Some suggested that maybe going from 2 s to 3 or 4 s would be more palatable. Concern that an island driven by inverters would be ungrounded, so if we wanted to extend the UI clearing time from 2 to 5 s that should come with an effective grounding requirement. A lot of the concerns expressed regarding the time extension were associated with faultedline cases, so we are still erroneously convolving island clearing time and fault response. Mike then presented new proposed revision edits for 1547: For 1547 clause 4.4.1: For an unintentional island in which the DER energizes a portion of the Area EPS through the PCC, the DER interconnection system shall detect the island and cease to energize the Area EPS within five seconds. For Area EPS that use automatic reclosing times of equal or less than five seconds, DER owner and the Area EPS operator shall mutually agree on the appropriate DER or Area EPS solution or an appropriate combination of those to detect the island and cease to energize the Area EPS. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 8

9 Mike Ropp then summarized the status of Intentional Islanding as having need for more work on definitions. Mike Ropp concluded with the F5 Islanding subgroups action plan for the June 2016 WG Meeting. From slides used live, file Folder5_Pres_JunoBeach_ Islanding.ppt. Work to be completed by June (by F5 Islanding) Unintentional Islands l ACTION Add clause on role of modeling and simulation l l ACTION Add clause on hybrid solutions (active and passive) ACTION Complete and share technical white paper to complement problem statement white paper Intentional Islands l ACTION Add clause to conform with categorical exclusions determined for the 1547 Revision s Ride Through requirements l Add clause defining transition to and from islanded condition, and state maximum allowable delta V and delta F and other impacts/limits at the PCC covering pre, during, and post transition intervals. How l l l Add clause on ramp rate limits? Particularly minimum limits to not trip or trigger islanding detection in other devices? Formed writing group (1 2 more members welcome) ACTION Weekly calls till done F5 Special Interconnections, Energy Storage The Energy Storage topic team has come to consensus on general points, but is still developing proposed edits. No edits were presented at this WG meeting. However, agenda time was allotted for an informational update on this topic s work progress and plans. Richard Bravo (F5 SPI Energy Storage Facilitator) presented the informational update and took feedback from the WG. The Energy Storage subgroup has reached consensus on several points. Strongest, or green light level consensus items at the Energy Storage subgroup level are listed below. From slides used live, file IEEE 1547 Storage Discussion Intro March2015Mtg.ppt. TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL Flywheel, battery, hydraulic, pneumatic, DISCHARGE MODE (generation): not controversial (DER 1547 compliance required Section in IEEE1547: Need its own section which could refer to other parts of document for compliance One more consensus item presented, but at yellow light consensus level was: CHARGING MODE (energy storage as a load): If storage is performing as an intelligent load with advanced DER capabilities that are grid interactive or even intentionally performed for grid benefit. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 9

10 should it be required to comply with 1547 standards? An example of ES charging for a service or grid benefit was grid energy storage both charging and discharging continuously to perform frequency regulation. Richard recapped issues that framed earlier discussion by the Energy Storage topic team. From slides used live, file IEEE 1547 Storage Discussion Intro March2015Mtg.ppt. Transitions between modes of operation From charging to discharging and vice versa Storage can cause severe negative impacts to distribution systems if uncontrolled Under voltages (over load), over voltages (over generation), etc Present Load standard/rules need to be revised For instance California Rule 2, could conceivably be modified to reference 1547 for grid interactive loads, similar to Rule 21 referencing 1547 (NOTE it is outside of the scope of 1547 to address modifications to Regulatory tariff or market rules) Bidirectional power flow at PCC not unique to storage But Storage can be FULL controllable 4 quadrant device In terms of overall outlook, the Energy Storage subgroup s outlook is that energy storage in discharge should follow the same 1547 standards as a generating resource. However, the existing standard does not address ES aspects related to charging, when the energy storage asset could be impacting the Area EPS as a load. This may be the aspect of Energy Storage that warrants and needs a new subclause in Richard then took questions and comments from the WG. Consider generalizing any standards developed for ES in charging mode as being applicable to to controllableloads. Controllable load being a more general set of connected devices including energy storage, dispatchable load, frequency responsive load, etc. Comment that load vs generation, even from same connected equipment, e.g. storage, could have asymmetrical capabilities and thus requirements Comment cautioned that the ramp rates (power change per unit time) from energy storage systems that industry is calling is aggressive relative to traditional assets. First hand observation cited of ES connected for Frequency Regulation in PJM having multi MW/seconds actual output response to 2 second SCADA control (AGC). Another observation of similar industry practice is PREPA s ramp rate (rate of change) limit for PV, for which ES is used and operated with relatively aggressive ramp rates that are also in the Multi MW/seconds range. Recommendation made by commenters that the ES team collect the specific ramp rate requirements or operational information that is available and use that input in evaluation of P1547 ES related requirements. Commenter asked if use of term required was intentional. Answer was yes. For next steps, Richard announced the plan for increasing the tempo of working meetings (WEBEX s) for the Energy Storage subgroup. The plan is to increase to 2 times per month. One intended deliverable from the Energy Storage subgroup is a white paper on Energy Storage. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 10

11 ACTION. Chair s post meeting action the ES subgroup shall provide the Chair a proposed purpose and outline of such white paper for WG approval so not to have ES subgroup write a white paper not specific for P1547. The Secretary asked that any technical requirements (i.e. standards) the subgroup determines are needed for ES be provided in the form of proposed edits for This could be an extract from the white paper. GENERAL INPUT FROM WG, NEXT STEPS, ADJOURN After the conclusion of the Folder subgroups agenda items, the Secretary opened the floor to general comments or questions from the WG. The following were received: Commenter asked which Folder would address subclause on reclosing. And recommended if there isn t a subgroup addressing this subclause for the revision, this topic needs to be assigned to a Folder for evaluation in this revision round. Commenter noted lack of clarity and need for consistency on topics including maximum generation limits, and ramp rate limits across the subclauses. Commentor and discussion noted that is an example of remaining needs for the revision that Folder 1 can help resolve, i.e. consistency across the document Commenter called for the WG to review the new communications related proposed draft language. These are provided in IEEE 1547 Revision D3 Data to Be Exchanged v2.docx. Commenters noted the need to consider developing mpre specific Minimum Requirements for Manufacturers Stated Measurement Accuracy. Discussion cited Folder 6, covering clause 5 test requirements, as the subgroup to evaluate and address this topic. For the next Working Group meeting, Janette Sandberg confirmed the dates (June 14-16, for both IEEE 1547 and ) and location at Portland General Electric in downtown Portland. She highlighted some of the appealing aspects of Portland as a city to visit. For the following WG meeting in October 2016 a show of hands vote was taken for WG preference on the location. The two options are DVP in Richmond VA and ComEd in Chicago Il. By show of hands, there was a preference for Chicago by a count of 22 to 18. The WG was prompted for known conflicts in October to help select the specific dates. Conflicts cited were: First 2 weeks in October, IEC meetings Around October people noted Solar Int l in mid Sept and a Cigre event in early Nov, Nov 2 3. ACTION Officers and IEEE to work with contacts at the candidate venues for the October meeting. Confirm availability of meetings space in October, and determine the candidate dates that are available to us to select from. Currently, ComEd is the primary target location pending confirmation of room availability, and DVP is the backup location if needed. Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 11

12 The Chair concluded the meeting with a discussion of next steps including a recap of major action items and/or deliverables following this WG meeting. The major deliverables and dates were noted in the meeting slides as shown in Slide #12 in Appendix B, and recopied here. One modification made at the meeting was to change the Survey Monkey due date April 1. As part of the next steps discussion, the proposed dates for the future recurring Folder 1 and Folder 6 subgroup WEBEX s were given. The proposed meeting schedules for these Folder Subgroups are: Folder 1 Overall Document, WEBEX meetings weekly, Monday, 4 5pm Eastern Folder 6 Testing, WEBEX meetings weekly, Tuesday, 12 1:30pm Eastern A Survey Monkey will be sent to the P1547 WG members, as a means for people interested in joining these subgroups to identify themselves and be added to the pending meeting notices for these new WEBEX s. Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm, Wednesday March 9, Respectfully submitted, Charlie Vartanian P1547 Secretary for P1547 Chair, Tom Basso; Attachment A Attendees Attachment B Introductory slides including agenda, updated during the meeting Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 12

13 Attachment A Attendees: P1547 Working Group Meeting June First Name Last Name Affiliation 1. David Aldrich Beckwith Electric Co. 2. Marcelo Algrain Caterpillar Inc. 3. Daniel Arjona Idaho Power 4. Dillon Ashton Nextronex 5. Manuel Avendano ComEd 6. Thomas Basso NREL 7. John Berdner Enphase Energy 8. George Berntsen FuelCell Energy, Inc. 9. Jason Bobruk Solar Edge Technoloties 10. Jens Boemer Electric Power Research Institute 11. Richard Bravo Southern California Edison 12. Michael Brigandi Eversource 13. Paul Brucke Cypress Creek Renewables 14. Brian Bunte U.S. Green Building Council 15. jason byerly American Electric Power 16. James Carroll Oncor Electric Delivery 17. Carlos Casablanca American Electric Power 18. Sudipta Chakraborty NREL 19. Ke Chen Duke Energy 20. Frances Cleveland Xanthus Consulting International 21. Michael Coddington NREL 22. Nancy Connelly Duke Energy 23. Robert Cummings NERC 24. Mattia Dal Corso CREI VEN SCARL 25. Hussein Darvish NextEra Energy 26. Herbert Daugherty Electrical Generating Systems Assoc. 27. Mamadou Diong Dominion Virginia Power 28. Anthony Eason Duke Energy 29. Babak Enayati National Grid 30. David Forrest ISO New England 31. Bob Fox SunSpec Alliance 32. Darrell Furlong Gridco Systems 33. Elizabeth Gall MEPPI 34. Haile Gashaw Georgia Power Company 35. Gunjan Gautam The World Bank 36. Ken Gebauer ASCO Power Technologies 37. Stephen Giguere Power Electronics, Inc 38. Sigifredo Gonzalez Sandia National Laboratories 39. craig groeling Xcel Energy 40. Jason Gunawardena SRP Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 13

14 First Name Last Name Affiliation 42. Joshua Hambrick GE 43. Keith Harley Georgia Power Company 44. Wayne Hartmann Beckwith Electric 45. Allen Heffner NIST 46. Paul Heitmann IEEE Standards Association 47. Anderson Hoke NREL 48. Soonwook Hong Yaskawa, Solectria Solar 49. Keith Houser Dominion 50. Aminul Huque Electric Power Research Institute 51. James Hurtt Florida Power and Light 52. HIROSHI IRIE Mitsubishi Research Institute 53. Bob Jordan Southern Co. Alabama Power Co. 54. Prashant Kansal American Electric Power 55. Scott Karpiel SMA America 56. Robert Kazimier Basler Electric 57. Michael Kipness IEEE 58. Paul Krell Unitil Corporation 59. Tommi Laakkonen ABB Oy, Power Conversion 60. Eddie Lim FERC 61. Haiwen (Howard) Liu Intertek ETL 62. Alejandro Lopez Advanced Roofing, Inc. 63. Brian Lydic Fronius USA 64. FUMIO MASUDA JET 65. Alex Mayer SolarCity 66. Jonathan Meyer Idaho Power Company 67. Troy Miller S&C Electric Company 68. Hugo Monterrubio Beckwith Electric 69. Lyman Morikawa Morikawa & Associates, LLC 70. Martin Mucha S&C Electric Co. 71. Daniel Mungovan National Grid 72. Rohit Nair PacifiCorp 73. David Narang NREL 74. Justin Odom Commonwealth Edison 75. Vishal Patel SCE 76. Jeannie Piekarz National Grid 77. Robert Preus NREL 78. Ryan Quint NERC 79. Jim Reilly Reilly Associates 80. Roe Rodrigo Con Edison of NY 81. Michael Ropp SolarCity 82. John Ruddock Deep Sea Electronics PLC 83. Roger Salas Southern California Edison Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 14

15 First Name Last Name Affiliation 84. Janette Sandberg Portland General Electric 85. Joseph Schaefer Florida Power & Light 86. Karl Schoder CAPS/FSU 87. Brian Seal EPRI 88. Robert Sherman PSE&G 89. Ronald Shipman Utility 90. Mark Siira Comrent 91. Mark Smith American Electric Power 92. Gary Smullin Smullin Engineering, Inc. 93. James Sprecher Sunverge Energy 94. Wayne Stec Distregen, LLC 95. Ravi Subramaniam IEEE SA 96. Tim Sullivan CenterPoint Energy 97. Chase Sun PG&E 98. Monica Taba FERC 99. Charlie Vartanian MEPPI 100. Reigh Walling Sandia National Lab 101. Bob White ABB 102. Bob Wills Integrid 103. Chris Wright Individual 104. Marcus Young Mitsubishi Electric Power Products 105. Li Yu Quanta Technology 106. Tim Zgonena UL Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 15

16 Attachment B Introductory slides including agenda updated during meeting Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 16

17 Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 17

18 Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 18

19 Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 19

20 Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 20

21 Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 21

22 Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 22

23 Minutes P1547 Meeting, March 8 9, 2016, Juno Beach, FL Page 23