Download Springerville-Luna 345 kV line-99 MW Wind (SIS)

SIS REPORT
System Impact Study
XXXXXXXXX Wind Park
99 MW Generator Interconnection
Prepared for
El Paso Electric Company
Prepared by:
TRC Engineers, LLC
249 Western Avenue
Augusta, ME 04330
(207) 621-7000
November 2009
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
1
FOREWORD
This report was prepared for the project Developer, by System Planning at El Paso
Electric Company. Any correspondence concerning this document, including
technical and commercial questions should be referred to:
Dennis Malone
Manager – System Planning Department
El Paso Electric Company
P.O. Box 982
El Paso, Texas 79960
Phone: (915) 543-5757
Fax: (915) 521-4763
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................1
1.0
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................4
1.1
P ERFORMANCE C RITERIA ...........................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................5
2.0
METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................6
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
ASSUMPTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................6
P ROCEDURE .................................................................................................................................................6
DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF C ASES ............................................................................................6
2.2.2
3.0
3.1
Contingency List ......................................................................................................................................7
POWER FLOW ANALYSIS RESULTS ...................................................10
SENSITIVITY STUDIES ................................................................................................................................ 11
4.0
VOLTAGE ANALYSIS RESULTS............................................................12
5.0
STABILITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................13
6.0
SHORT-CIRCUIT ANALYSIS ..................................................................15
8.0
DISCLAIMER ..............................................................................................29
9.0
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................30
APPENDICIES
Generation Interconnection System Impact Study Scope............................................... Appendix 1
Developers Interconnection Request Data ...................................................................... Appendix 2
XXXXXX Stability Data Sheets ..................................................................................... Appendix 3
Stability Plots ................................................................................................................. Appendix 4
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
ii
Executive Summary
Background
El Paso Electric Company (EPE) has been requested to perform a System Impact Study (SIS) for
XXXXX Wind Park (XXXXX/XX) under a Large Generator Interconnection Request (LGIR).
XXXXX is a proposed 99 MW wind generation facility located approximately 30 miles
northeast from EPE’s Luna 345 kV Substation and interconnected to EPE’s Springerville-Luna
345 kV transmission line. XXXXX will consist of 66 GE 1.5 MW wind turbines and has a
proposed in-service date of March 1, 2011. The Feasibility Study for this LGIR was completed
in September 2008 and can be found on the EPE web site. 1
This SIS examined the impacts on the EPE transmission system as well as on the neighboring
transmission systems in Southern New Mexico and Eastern Arizona. The study included all
senior projects ahead of it in the EPE LGIR Queue 2, which, in this case, was the 495 MW wind
generation project, identified as QP1. The generation from QP1 and XXXXX was modeled as
being delivered to all entities in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) system.
Therefore, no specific transmission path for energy sales has been defined, nor does this study
guarantee that a transmission path will be available when the generator is placed in service.
A six mile long, 115 kV transmission line is to be built between XXXXX and a new EPE
115/345 kV substation to be located on the Springerville-Luna 345 kV transmission line,
approximately 30 miles from the Luna 345 kV Substation. This will be the Generator Point of
Interconnection (POI).
This study also analyzed whether a +/-0.95 pf can be maintained by XXXXX at the POI, as per
FERC 661a requirements and the requirements of Appendix G to the LGIA of EPE’s OATT for
wind turbines.
Steady State Results
Power flow results showed that before the XXXXX project is added there are a few overload and
voltage criteria violations existing on the system. These violations remain and their values are
slightly increased when the XXXXX project is added. The primary power flow analysis was
conducted with 141 MW of Afton generation scheduled at West Mesa and a PNM to EPE control
area firm schedule of 60 MW.
The most significant overload increases are a 4% increase in the overloads on the Luna 345/115
kV transformer caused by the Luna-Hidalgo 345 kV line outage. This overload is an existing
issue and not due to the XXXXX project. Therefore, XXXXX is not responsible for correcting
1
http://www.epelectric.com/8725714B005E3445/BF25AB0F47BA5DD785256499006B15A4/6E33E72C35D51ED3
8725714B005EFAF5?OpenDocument
2
http://www.epelectric.com/8725714B005E3445/BF25AB0F47BA5DD785256499006B15A4/1AAFC422C08EA18
08725714B005EFAF2?OpenDocument
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
1
this violation. The other increases are 9.9% increase on the overloads on the Rio Grande-Asarco
69 kV line and the parallel Rio Grande-Sunset-Asarco 69 kV line. The loss of one of these 69
kV lines overloads the other. These are known issues and are being addressed by EPE.
Additional sensitivity scenarios concerning schedules on the Ft. Craig phase-shifting transformer
were also examined. These were 201 MW North to South, 10 MW North to South, and 30 MW
South to North. The results showed similar results to those noted above.
Results of this Study show that the XXXXX project does not create any adverse impact on the
regional voltages. The overall results for all steady state studies show that transmission
upgrades are NOT required.
Shor t Cir cuit Results
The short circuit analysis was performed without the XXXXX project modeled and with all other
third-party generation projects ahead of the XXXXX project in the study queue in service. This
identified the “base case” fault duties of the circuit breakers. The short circuit analysis was
performed again with the 99 MW XXXXX project modeled in the case. The incremental
difference between these two analyses shows the impact of the new generators on the existing
circuit breakers in the EPE system.
Comparing the maximum fault currents to the lowest rated existing circuit breaker interruption ratings
at the faulted bus shows that the interconnection of the XXXXX project, as modeled in the shortcircuit database, will not cause any existing circuit breaker to operate outside of its design rating.
Therefore, interconnecting the XXXXX project into the EPE transmission system will not require
replacement of any of the existing circuit breakers on the EPE transmission system.
Stability Results
The stability analyses examined the Regional transmission system for angular and system
frequency instability as well as Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) capabilities of the XXXXX
project. The fault simulations showed that the XXXXX project does not produce any angular or
system frequency instability. The simulations also show that the XXXXX project has adequate
LVRT capability when modeled with the GE Zero Voltage Ride Through (ZVRT) option
available on the turbines. This complies with FERC 661a requirements and the requirements of
Appendix G to the LGIA of EPE’s OATT for wind turbines.
For all faults studies, the system remains stable before and after XXXXX is added.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
2
Cost Estimates
Scoping level cost estimates (+/- 30%) have been determined. The cost (+/-30%) estimates are
in 2009 dollars (no escalation applied) and are based upon typical construction costs for
previously performed similar construction. These estimated costs include all applicable labor
and overheads associated with the engineering, design, and construction of these new EPE
facilities. This estimate did not include the cost for any other Developer owned equipment and
associated design and engineering except for those located at the POI.
The estimated total cost for the required upgrades is $ 16.1 Million. This breaks down to $9.8
Million for the 345 kV POI ring bus, $5.3 Million for the 345/115 kV Developers transformer
and associated equipment located at the POI, $0.7 Million for removal and relocation of series
compensation and shunt devices from Luna to the POI, and $0.3 Million for Springerville-Luna
transmission line in/out of POI. Time frame for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction is a
minimum of 24 months depending upon the delivery of the transformer.
The cost responsibilities associated with these facilities shall be handled as per current FERC
guidelines.
Conclusion
This SIS shows that the proposed 66 turbine, 99 MW total XXXXX Wind Park does not have
any adverse or negative impact on the El Paso Electric or Southwestern New Mexico
Transmission System.
No improvements or Network Upgrades are required.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
3
1.0
Introduction
The Developer is proposing to construct 99 MW of wind generation, XXXXX Wind Park
(XXXXX/XX), consisting of 66 wind turbines rated at 1.5 MW each, that will
interconnect to the southern New Mexico transmission system.. A six mile, 115 kV
transmission line is to be built between the generation site and a new 115/345 kV
substation to be located on El Paso Electric’s (EPE) Springerville-Luna 345 kV line,
approximately 30 miles from the Luna 345 kV Substation. The proposed in-service date is
March 1, 2011. In September 2008, EPE completed the Generator Interconnection
Feasibility Study for the XXXXX Wind Park. As per the EPE OATT, and requirements
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Large Generator Interconnection
Procedures, EPE and the Developer initiated a Generator System Impact Study (SIS) to
study the impact of the proposed generation on the EPE and Southwestern New Mexico
transmission system, and to a lesser degree, the Eastern Arizona transmission system.
A 2011 power flow case was developed for power flow analysis that included the one
generation interconnection project in the Queue that is senior to the XXXXX Project,
QP1. It is included in the System Impact Study as a 495 MW wind park, interconnecting
at a new 345 kV Ft. Craig Substation on the West Mesa-Arroyo 345 kV line.
1.1 Performance Criteria
The EPE reliability criteria standards were used to perform this Study. These standards
can be found in Section 4 of EPE’s FERC Form 715. The steady state and stability
analyses were performed using the GE PSLF Version 16.3 program. For pre-contingency
solutions, transformer tap phase-shifting transformer angle movement and static VAR
device switching was allowed. For each contingency studied, all regulating equipment,
transformer controls and switched shunts, were fixed at pre-contingency positions. All
buses, lines, and transformers in the El Paso, surrounding New Mexico, and Arizona
control areas, with base voltages of 115 kV and above, were monitored.
Pre-contingency flows on lines and transformers are required to remain at or below the
normal rating of the system element, and post-contingency flows on system elements must
remain at or below the emergency rating. Flows above 100% of an element’s rating,
either pre- or post-contingency, are considered violations.
Post-project voltage criteria violations that either exacerbate or improve an existing preproject violation are not considered an adverse impact to the system.
The performance criteria utilized in monitoring the El Paso Electric (EPEC), New Mexico
(PNM) and Arizona (Tri-State) areas are shown in Table 1-1.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
4
Table 1-1: Performance Criteria
Area
Conditions
Normal
Loading
Limits
Voltage
(p.u.)
Voltage
Drop
0.95 - 1.05
69kV and above
0.95 - 1.10
Artesia 345 kV
0.95 - 1.08
Arroyo 345 kV PST source side
< Normal Rating
0.90 - 1.05
EPEC
Contingency
< Emergency
Rating
Alamo, Sierra Blanca and Van Horn 69kV
0.925 - 1.05
7%
60 kV to 115 kV
0.95 - 1.07
7%
Artesia 345kV
0.95 - 1.08
7%
Arroyo 345kV PST source side
0.90 - 1.05
0.95 - 1.05
Normal ALIS
Contingency
PNM
N-1
Contingency
N-2
Normal ALIS
Contingency
Tri- State
N-1
Contingency
Application
< Normal Rating
Alamo, Sierra Blanca and Van Horn 69kV
7%
0.95-1.05
Hidalgo, Luna, or other 345 kV buses
46 kV and above*
0.925-1.05
6 %**
46 kV to 115 kV
0.90 – 1.05
6 %**
230 kV and above
< Emergency
Rating
0.90-1.05
10 %
46 kV and above*
< Normal Rating
0.95-1.05
< Emergency
Rating
< Emergency
Rating
< Emergency
Rating
All buses
0.90 – 1.10
6%
0.90-1.10
7%
0.90-1.10
10%
Tri-State buses in the PNM Service Area
(list provided by Tri-State)
Tri-State buses in southern and northeastern
New Mexico (list provided by Tri-State)
All buses
N-2
* Taiban Mesa and Guadalupe 345 kV bus voltage must be between 0.95 and 1.10 p.u. under normal and contingency
conditions.
** For PNM buses in southern New Mexico the allowable N-1 voltage drop is 7%.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
5
2.0
Methodology
2.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions are consistent for all study scenarios unless otherwise noted.
•
This study assumes that all system expansion projects as planned by area utilities by
the year under analysis are completed and that any system improvements required by
the QP1 generator interconnection senior to the XXXXX project are implemented.
•
This study did not analyze any transmission service from the interconnection point to
any specific point on the grid. It will determine Network Upgrades, if necessary, to
deliver the proposed XXXXX generation output uniformly into the entire WECC
transmission grid.
2.2 Procedure
The analyses in this study included Steady State, Short Circuit, and Stability. A detailed
discussion for each is included in this report. A description of the procedures used to
complete the analyses is presented below.
2.2.1
Development and Description of Cases
A 100% peak summer load 2011 WECC power flow case was used and modified
as listed below to establish a 2011 benchmark case without the developer’s
XXXXX generation project. In addition a 2011 off-peak case was modified to
determine any off-peak violations. This case was loaded to 60% of the peak case,
with the generation dispatched for the load.
Benchmark Case:
The 2011 benchmark case included the following third party generation:
1. 570 MW of generation (Luna Energy Facility) interconnected at the Luna 345
kV bus and scheduled to the WECC grid.
2. 141 MW of generation (Afton CT) interconnected at the Afton 345 kV
Substation and scheduled to PNM through the EPE/PNM control area at the
West Mesa 345 kV bus.
3. 160 MW of generation (Pyramid) interconnected at PNM’s Hidalgo 115 kV
Substation and scheduled to the WECC grid.
4. 80 MW of generation (Lordsburg) interconnected at PNM’s Lordsburg 115 kV
Substation and scheduled to the WECC grid.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
6
5. 94 MW of generation (Afton ST) interconnected at the Afton 345 kV
Substation and scheduled to PNM.
6. 495 MW of generation (QP1) interconnected at FT. CRAIG on the West Mesa
– Arroyo 345 kV transmission line and delivered to WECC.
Generation Interconnection Case:
The XXXXX Generation Interconnection case utilized the benchmark case,
described above, with the proposed XXXXX generation in service. The XXXXX
generation output was modeled at a net output of 99 MW delivered to WECC.
2.2.2
Contingency List
The list of contingencies, provided by EPE, used to perform this study is shown in
Table 2-1. A more detailed description of each contingency can be found in
Appendix 3. Based on engineering judgment, these contingencies were selected
by EPE because they represent a good cross section of potential contingencies that
would stress the EPE system, PNM’s southern New Mexico system, and adjacent
Arizona system facilities. Double contingencies were not analyzed in this study.
Table 2-1 Steady State Contingency List
line_1
line_2
line_3
line_4
line_5
line_6
line_7
line_8
line_9
line_10
line_11
line_12
line_13
line_14
line_15
line_16
line_17
line_18
line_19
line_20
El Paso Contingencies
CAL-AMRAD 345
tran_11 MILAGRO 115/69
AMRAD-ART 345
tran_12 RG 115/69 T1
WM-FT CR PS 345
tran_13 SCDL 115/69
FTCRAIG-ARROY345
line_74 ASARTAP-RG 69
FTCRAIG-Z3451345
line_75 AUS-ASC
69
FTCRAI-VLTAP 345
line_76 BERGST-RG 69
WM-ARR PS 345
line_77 CLINT-FABENS 69
CAL-NEWMAN 345
line_78 DYER-AUSTIN 69 2
GRN-HID345
line_79 FABENS-FELIPE 69
LUNA-AFTON 345
line_80 LANE-AMERICAS 69
LUNA-DIABLO345
line_81 MANN-LANE 69
LUNA-HID 345
line_82 PROLER-BERGST 69
NEWMAN-ARR 345
line_83 PROLER-BORDER 69
NEWMAN-AFTON 345
line_84 RG-SUNSET69 1
SPR-VL TAP 345
line_85 RG-SUNSET69 2
VL TAP-LUNA 345
line_86 SANTAFE-DALLAS69
ANT-NEWMAN 115
line_87 SANTAFE-SUNSET69
AIRT-AIRPORT115
line_88 SCOTSDA-AUSTIN69
ARROYO-TALA 115
line_89 SOCORRO-VALLEY69
TALAVE-ANTH 115
line_90 SUNSET-ASARTAP69
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
New Mexico/Arizona Contingencies
line_1 AMRAD-ALAMGCP115
line_2 HOLLOMAN-ALAMGCP115
line_3 MD-LUNA 115
line_4 HIDALGO-TURQUOIS 115
line_5 MD-TURQUOIS 115
tran_1 MD 69/115
tran_2 TURQUOIS 69/115
line_6 LUNA-MIMBRES 115
line_7 MIMBRES-HERM115
line_8 MIM-PIC 115
line_9 BELEN-EL_BUTTE 115
line_10 EL BUT-MIMBRES 115
line_11 DA-ALAMOGCP 115
line_12 PIC-LC 115
line_13 EL BUT-PIC 115
tran_3 ALAMOGPG 69/115
tran_4 HID 345/115 T1
tran_5 LUNA 345/115
line_14 HID-PYR 115
line_15 HID-PYRAMID 115
TRC
7
line_21
line_22
line_23
line_24
line_25
line_26
line_27
line_28
line_29
line_30
line_31
line_32
line_33
line_34
line_36
line_37
line_38
line_39
line_40
line_41
line_42
line_43
line_44
line_45
line_46
line_47
line_48
line_49
line_50
line_51
line_52
line_53
line_54
line_55
line_56
line_57
line_58
line_59
line_60
line_61
line_62
line_63
El Paso Contingencies
ANTH-MONTOY 115
line_91 VALLEY-AMERICA69
ANTH-SALOPEK 115
line_92 VALLEY-CLINT69
ASC-COPPER 115
line_93 RIO_BOS-ASC 69
SUNSET N-ASC 115
line_94 SOCOR-RIO_BOS 69
AUS N-MARLOW 1
line_95 SPARKS-FELIPE69
AUS N-MARLOW 2
line_96 ALA 5-ORO G 115
BUTER-FT. B 115
line_97 AMRAD-LARGO 115
CAL-LANE 115
line_98 ARROYO-COX 115
CAL-VISTA 115
line_99 ANTH-TALAVE 115
CHAPA-ORO G 115
line_100 "ANTH-BORDER 115"
TROW-ASC 115
line_101 "FT. B-AUS N 115"
MARLO-TROB115
line_102 "HATCH-ARROY 115"
COPPE-LANE 115
line_103 "HATCH-JORNA 115"
SE1-LANE 115
line_104 "JORNA-ARROY 115"
COY-CAL 115 2
line_105 "HOLLO-LARGO 115"
CROMO-RG 115
line_106 "MONTW-HORIZON 115"
DIA-RIO G115 1
line_108 "NEWMAN-CROMO 115"
DYER-AUS N 115
line_109 "GR-VISTA 115"
DYER-SHEAR 115
line_110 "NEW-BIGGS 115"
NE1-CHAPAR 115
line_111 "BIGGS-GR 115"
NE1-NEWMAN 115
line_112 "ORO G-AMRAD 115"
NE1-SHEAR 115
line_113 "SUNSET-RIO G 115"
HOR-MONTW 115
line_114 "SUNSET-RIO G 115"
LANE-WRANG 115
line_115 "WHITE-ALA 5 115"
LC-ARROYO 115
line_116 "WRANG-SPARKS 115"
MAR-LARGO 115
line_117 "LEO-DYER 1 115"
MESA-AUS N 115
line_118 "DALLAS-ASCARATE169"
MESA-RIO G 115
line_119 "FARAH-SCOTDAL169"
MILAGRO-NEW 1
line_120 "LEO-DYER 1 69"
MILAGRO-NEW 2
line_122 "MANN-SCOTSDALE69"
NEW-BUTER 115
line_123 "MILAGRO-LEO 69"
NEW-CHAPA 115
line_124 "PD-ASCARATE 69"
NEWM-CROMO 115
line_125 "PD-VISCOUNT 69"
NEW-PIPELI115
line_126 "VISCOUNT-FARAH69"
PIK-PIPELI115
line_127 "RIO_BOS-ASCARAT 69"
PIK-BIGGS 115
line_129 "ANTHONY-COX 115"
PIK-GR 115
line_130 "ARROYO-COX 115"
NEW-SHEAR 115
line_131 "ARROYO-COX 115"
RIO G-THORN115
tran_14
"COX 115/69 "
SALOPEK-ARR 115
line_132 "COX-APOLLOSS115"
SANTA_T-MONT 115
line_133 "COPPER-PEN 115"
SANTA_T-DIA 115
line_134 "LE1 - JORNA 115"
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
New Mexico/Arizona Contingencies
tran_6 LRD-LRDSBG113.2
tran_7 LRD-LORDSBG 115
line_16 DEM-MIM 69/115
tran_10 PYR-PYRTAP2 115
tran_8 AFTGS-AFT 345
tran_9 PYR-PYRMDG113.8
line_17 LUNA-LEF
line_18 ALMGPG-ALGCP115
line_19 MD-IVANHOE 115
line_20 GAVILAN-ALGCP115
line_21 TURQ-PDTYRONE115
line_22 CAL-PICANTE345
line_23 PICAN-NEWMA345
line_24 WALS-GSTON 230
line_25 SHIPROCK-SJ 345
line_26 VL-TAP-LUNA345
line_27 SPRG-VL-TAP 345
line_28 B-A-GUAD 345
line_29 B-A-NORTON 345
line_30 OJO-TAOS 345
line_31 SAN_JUAN-B-A 345
line_32 SAN_JUAN-OJO 345
line_33 SAN_JUAN-RIOP345
line_34 WM-SANDIA 345
line_35 B-A-WM1345
line_36 RIOPUERCO-WM1345
line_37 B-A-RIOPUERC1345
line_38 RIOPUERC-B-A2345
line_39 GUAD-TAIBANMS345
line_40 TAIBANMS-BLKW345
line_41 FC-SAN JUAN 345
line_42 FC-WESTMESA 345
tran_11 BA 345/115
tran_12 NORTON 345/115
tran_13 OJO 345/115
tran_14 RIOPUERCO345/115
tran_15 SANDIA 345/115
tran_16 TAIBANMS 345/35
tran_17 WM-WMS_1 345/115
tran_18 WM-WMS_2 345/115
tran_19 GUAD-ARG4345/138
tran_20 MCK-YATA 345/115
TRC
8
line_65
line_66
line_67
line_68
line_69
line_70
line_71
line_72
line_73
tran_1
tran_2
tran_3
tran_4
tran_5
tran_6
tran_7
tran_8
tran_9
tran_10
tran_11
tran_12
tran_13
El Paso Contingencies
SCOTS-VISTA 115
line_135 "LE1-APOLOSS 115"
SOL-LANE 115
line_136 "NE1-NEWMAN 115"
SOL-VISTA 115
line_137 "NE1-CROMO 115"
SPARKS-HORIZ 115
line_138 "PIK -CAL 345"
THORN-MONTOY 115
line_139 "PIK -NEW 345"
MONT-CALIENTE115
line_140 "NEW-PIK 115"
MILAGRO-LEO 115
tran_15
"PIK 115/345"
LC-SALOPEK 115
line_141 "PIP-BIGGS 115"
MONT-COYOTE 115
line_128 "PICANTE-BIGGS 115"
AMRAD 115/345
line_142 "NEW-PIP 115"
ARR 115/345 T1
line_143 "PEL-MONTW 115"
CAL 115/345 T1
line_144 "PEL-HORIZON 115"
PICANTE115/345
line_145 "PEN-LANE 115"
DIA 115/345 T1
line_146 "COPPER-PEN 115"
NEW 345/115
line_147 "RIO G-RIP 115"
ASC 115/69 T1
line_148 "RIP-THORN 115"
DYER 115/69
line_149 "SANTA_T-DIA 115"
SPRKS 115/69
line_150 "SC1-ASCARATE 115"
LANE 115/69
line_151 "SUNSET N-SC1 115"
MILAGRO 115/69
RG 115/69 T1
SCDL 115/69
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
New Mexico/Arizona Contingencies
tran_21 TAOS 115/345 #1
line_43 HID-LORSBRG115
line_44 SPRGR-VAIL 345
line_45 SPRGR-GREEN 345
line_46 SPRGR-CORON 345
tran_22 COPVR345230
line_47 GREEN-WINCH345
tran_23 GRNSW345230
TRC
9
3.0
Power Flow Analysis Results
Power flow study results for the EPE and PNM areas showed that no overloaded transmission
facilities are present under non-contingency system conditions, with or without the XXXXX
generation connected. Power flow results for contingency scenarios covering the EPE, New
Mexico, and Tri-State areas show that in many of the scenarios, overloads existed prior to the
addition of the XXXXX generation. However, the addition of the XXXXX Project in the
southern New Mexico system does increase these overload criteria violations. The contingency
overload criteria violations occur on facilities belonging to either Public Service Company of
New Mexico (PNM) or El Paso Electric (EPE) and are listed below:
•
•
•
Luna Transformer #1 115/345 kV (PNM)
Rio Grande – Asarco Tap 69 kV (EPE)
Sunset – Asarco Tap 69 kV (EPE)
The Luna 115/345 kV transformer overloads under two different 345 kV line contingencies and
the Rio Grande-Asarco Tap and Sunset-Asarco Tap 69 kV lines overload under a Rio GrandeSunset2 69 kV line contingency. These are existing problems and not due to the XXXXX project.
Therefore, XXXXX is not responsible for correcting these violations.
At full XXXXX generation output, and under the contingencies described above, the Luna
115/345 kV transformer overloads to 111.3% of its normal/emergency rating of 224 MVA. This
is a 3.9% increase compared against the case with no XXXXX generation. EPE’s Rio Grande –
Asarco Tap 69 kV and the Rio Grande - Sunset – Asarco Tap 69 kV lines overload under the RG
– Sunset2 69 kV line contingency. The Rio Grande – Asarco Tap 69 kV line overloads to 115.9%
of its normal/emergency rating of 64.7 MVA. This is a 9.9% increase compared against the case
without XXXXX generation. The Sunset – Asarco Tap 69 kV line overloads to 111.4% of its
normal/emergency rating of 64.7 MVA. Again this is a 9.9% increase compared against the case
without XXXXX generation. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 detail these violations.
Table 3-1 EPE Control Area Contingencies Case w/ Ft. Craig PST=60 MW N-S
From Bus
kV
To Bus
kV
W/O
XXXXX
(%)
LUNA
RIO_GRAN
115
69
LUNA
ASARCO_T
345
69
107.4
106.0
111.3 *
115.9 *
SUNSET
69
ASARCO_T
69
101.9
111.4 *
*
With
XXXXX
(%)
Delta
(%)
Emergency
Rating
(MVA)
Area
Contingency
3.9
9.9
224.0
64.7
10
11
LUNA-HID 345
RG-SUNSET2 69
9.6
64.7
11
RG-SUNSET2 69
These overloads occur in every case under the same single line contingencies. These
violations are existing issues and not due to the XXXXX project.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
10
Table 3-2 NM Area Contingencies Case w/ Ft. Craig PST=60 MW N-S
From Bus
kV
To Bus
kV
W/O
XXXXX (%)
With
XXXXX
(%)
Delta
(%)
Emergency
Rating
(MVA)
Area
Contingency
OJO
345
OJO
115
113.7
111.4 *
-2.2
180.0
10
OJO-TAOS 345
HERNANDZ
115
OJO
115
109.2
107.3 *
-1.9
183.0
10
OJO-TAOS 345
HERNANDZ
115
OJO
115
100.3
100.0 *
-0.4
183.0
10
OJO-TAOS 345
PROSPER
115
PERSON
115
104.7
104.9 *
0.2
156.0
10
WM-SANDIA 345
PROSPER
115
PERSON
115
104.7
104.9 *
0.2
156.0
10
SANDIA TR2
345/115
*
These overloads occur in every case under the same single line contingencies. These
violations are existing issues and not due to the XXXXX project.
In the various cases studied, the power flows of the FT. CRAIG Phase-Shifting Transformer
(PST) were modeled flowing from the north to the south with one exception, a PST 30 MW
south-to-north (S2N) case, (i.e. PST 60 MW, PST 10 MW, 60% (off Peak) PST 201 MW, and
PST 30 MW-S2N.) These cases were used for sensitivity assessment. In these sensitivity
analyses, the potential loading/capacity problems found were the same as those shown in Tables
3.1 and 3.2. These criteria violations occur in both the cases with and without the XXXXX
generation and therefore are not caused by the XXXXX generation. .
3.1 Sensitivity Studies
3.1.1
PNM to EPE Control Area Firm Schedule at West Mesa for 201 MW North to
South
For this sensitivity the Off-Peak case was used with the Ft. Craig Phase-Shifter set
with a 210 MW schedule from North to South. The results show that there are not
any overloads in the region for this case with the XXXXX Project or without the
XXXXX Project. The most stressful case is when the PNM to EPE control area
firm schedule at West Mesa is at 60 MW.
3.1.2
PNM to EPE Control Area Firm Schedule at West Mesa for 10 MW North to South
The Peak Case with the Ft. Craig Phase-Shifter set at 60 MW N-S was modified to
a 10 MW N-S Case. Sensitivity analysis on transmission loading was conducted
using the same contingency set. The overload criteria violations found under this
scenario are the same as the ones found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 shown above.
3.1.3
EPE to PNM Control Area Firm Schedule at West Mesa of 30 MW South to North
Under the EPE/PNM Settlement Agreement, a 30 MW south to north schedule at
West Mesa 345 kV should be accommodated with the Afton generation. The Ft.
Craig Phase-Shifter is adjusted to make this schedule. This sensitivity study uses
the same contingency set. The overload criteria violations found under this
scenario are the same as the ones found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 shown above.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
11
4.0
Voltage Analysis Results
A voltage delta comparison of contingencies with and without the XXXXX Project was
performed. The criterion used was a +/-5% voltage deviation for contingencies. Where
voltage violations did not exceed +/-5%, the criterion used was voltages greater than 1.05
pu voltage and less than 0.925 pu voltage. All of the Ft. Craig PST power flows were
reviewed including a 100% Summer Peak and a 60% Off Peak base cases (i.e. PST60MW,
PST30MW-S2N, PST10MW, and an Off-Peak 60% PST201MW). No voltage criteria
violations were found in the EPE and NM control areas for the single contingency
analyses that were performed. The potential for any impacts to the AZ area are covered
by these contingency events as well. After thorough review of the resulting bus voltages it
was found that the XXXXX generation interconnection project did not have any adverse
impacts on area.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
12
5.0
Stability Analysis
The stability study was conducted to assess the impact of the XXXXX Project on the EPE
and Southwestern New Mexico Transmission System.
EPE provided a list of contingencies along with the base cases and dynamic file data base
for this part of the study. The GE wind turbine models are a standard part of the PSLF
Library. Since the Developer did not give the detailed model data sheets with their LGIR,
the parameters used were typical values for turbines with Zero Voltage Ride Though
(ZVRT) so that the units meet FERC 661a requirements for Low Voltage Ride Through
(LVRT). PSLF model data for the XXXXX turbines can be found in Appendix 5.
Two base cases were used to simulate Peak and Off-Peak conditions. These were
modified to include the XXXXX Project and are the same ones that were used for the
Steady State Analysis. The analysis compares the system fault simulations before and
after the XXXXX Project is added.
The stability analysis showed that the EPE and Southwestern New Mexico Transmission
System remained stable before and after the Project was added for the faults that were
specified. Table 5-1 shows the fault locations and durations. The stability plots of these
faults can be found in Appendix 6. Worst Condition Analysis did not reveal any
frequency or voltage criteria violations. This output can be found in Appendix 7.
Table 5-1 Contingency List for Stability Studies for Peak Case
Fault #
Type
Location
Duration
Trip
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
None
Luna 345 kV
SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
SLPOI345 345 KV
Luna 345 kV
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
3 cycles
LUNA - SLPOI345 345 KV
LUNA - SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP - SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP - SPRINGERVILLE 345 KV
VL-TAP - FT. Craig 345 KV
SLPOI345 345/115 KV XFMR
LUNA 345/115 KV XFMR
XXXXX Generation
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Stable
W/O
W/XX
XX
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
TRC
13
Table 5-2 Contingency List for Stability Studies for Off-Peak Case
Fault #
Type
Location
Duration
Trip
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
None
Luna 345 kV
SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
SLPOI345 345 KV
Luna 345 kV
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
3 cycles
LUNA - SLPOI345 345 KV
LUNA - SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP - SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP - SPRINGERVILLE 345 KV
VL-TAP - FT. Craig 345 KV
SLPOI345 345/115 KV XFMR
LUNA 345/115 KV XFMR
XXXXX Generation
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Stable
W/O
W/XX
XX
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
TRC
14
6.0
Short-Circuit Analysis
The interconnection of new generating units into a transmission system increases the fault
current contribution into the system. Therefore, as part of this SIS Study, a short circuit
analysis was performed to determine if the additional fault current contribution from the
XXXXX wind generators into the EPE transmission system will cause any of EPE’s
existing substation circuit breakers to exceed their interruption ratings.
The XXXXX project was analyzed at its maximum net output level of 99 MW. This
analysis evaluated the impact of the XXXXX generation interconnection by comparing
fault current levels in the benchmark case, without XXXXX, to fault current levels in the
system modeling the XXXXX project at its maximum net output level.
Short Circuit Analysis Modeling
The wind generation proposed by XXXXX is sited approximately 30 miles northeast of
EPE’s Luna 345 kV substation. Data provided by XXXXX indicates that the wind
turbines will be interconnected on the Springerville-Luna (SL) 345 kV transmission line
through a 100/167 MVA, 34.5/115 kV (Y-D, delta lags) step-up transformer. A second
200/224 MVA 115/345 kV (Y-Y) transformer will also be needed to interconnect the
XXXXX project to the POI on the SL 345 kV line. Both transformers were modeled as
having the same positive sequence and zero sequence impedances that were provided by
the interconnection customer. The impedances modeled for both transformers are on a
100 MVA base and are listed below:
Z1 = 0 + J0.075 per unit
Z0 = 0 + J0.075 per unit
Equivalent reactance data taken from a previous Generation Interconnection Study that
modeled the GE 1.5 MW wind turbines was used to model the XXXXX wind turbines in
this study. The following equivalent reactance values for the wind machines were
modeled in the EPE short circuit data base:
Xd
= Direct Axis Synchronous Reactance = 0.2 per unit
X’d
= Direct Axis Transient Reactance = 0.2 per unit
X’’d
= Direct Axis Subtransient Reactance = 0.2 per unit
X2 = Negative Sequence Reactance = 0.2 per unit
X0
= Zero Sequence Reactance = 9999.0 per unit
The location of the XXXXX wind machines on the Springerville-Luna (SL) 345 kV line,
along with the addition of a new generator interconnection senior to the XXXXX project
made it necessary to recalculate the line impedances on the Springerville-Luna 345 kV
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
15
line. In order to model the XXXXX and senior generator interconnections properly, the
SL 345 kV line was divided into five sections. The line impedance and series
compensation on the SL line (226 miles in length) were proportioned according to the
location of the XXXXX and the senior generator interconnection’s POI. Therefore, the
SL 345 kV line was modeled as shown on the following:
SL - SLPOI 345 KV LINE (30 miles; Interconnection Point of XXXXX Project)
Z1 =
0.00140 + j 0.01450
Z0 =
0.001233 + j 0.05301
SLPOI - SLPOICAP 345 KV LINE (1ST Portion of SL Series Compensation)
Z1 =
0.0000 - j
0.0179
Z0 = 0.0000 - j 0.0179
SLPOICAP – VL TAP 345 KV LINE (111.4 miles; Interconnection Point for Senior
Project)
Z1 =
0.00512 + j
0.05389
Z0 = 0.0458 + j 0.19684
VL TAP – VL TAPSC 345 KV LINE (2ND Portion of SL Series Compensation)
Z1 =
0.0000 - j 0.0107
Z0 = 0.0000 - j 0.0107
VL TAPSC – SPRINGERVILLE 345 KV LINE (84.8 miles)
Z1 =
0.00391 + j 0.04105
Z0 = 0.03487 + j 0.14989
Two cases were developed to perform this analysis, one with and one without the
XXXXX generation. Any planned or proposed third party generation listed in EPE’s
study queue ahead of the XXXXX project were also modeled in the two cases.
Three phase, two phase, and single-phase line-to-ground faults were simulated at the 345
kV and 115 kV buses near the XXXXX POI. Faults were also simulated at the XXXXX
POI for informational purposes. The difference between the fault current values in the
two cases, with and without XXXXX, is the additional fault current contribution from the
XXXXX wind generation.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
16
Fault currents were monitored at each of the faulted buses. The resulting fault currents
were then compared to the circuit breaker interruption ratings of the breakers at each of
the substations.
Maximum fault currents were then determined at the following faulted buses: Arroyo 345
kV, Arroyo 115 kV, LEF 345 kV, Luna 345 kV, Luna 115 kV, Newman 345 kV, Newman
115 kV, Rio Grande 115 kV, and Rio Grande 69 kV Ft. Craig 345 kV, VL-Tap 345 kV,
West Mesa 345 kV, XXXXX Point Of Interconnection (SLPOI) 345 kV, and SLPOI 115
kV buses.
The resulting fault currents were then compared to the circuit breaker interruption ratings
of the breakers at each of the above mentioned existing substations.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
17
Results of the Short Circuit Analysis
The circuit breakers used in the existing 345 kV and 115 kV buses considered in this study
vary between the substations. The following is a list of the existing circuit breakers, along
with the interruption rating, at each of the relevant substations:
Breaker
Voltage
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
Breaker
Number
2418B
2458B
4348B
3018B
5428B
7548B
2098B
Arroyo
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
2786B
4666B
9146B
8406B
3876B
2176B
1096B
1286B
2546B
22,000
22,000
40,000
22,000
22,000
22,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
Luna
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
01982
03082
04182
07482
09682
08582
10682
11782
15082
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
Luna
115
115
115
32162
34362
33262
20,000
20,000
20,000
Newman
345
345
345
345
2448B
6018B
8378B
0538B
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
Substation
Arroyo
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Interruption
Rating (Amps)
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
TRC
18
Substation
Newman
*
Breaker
Number
11950
11101
15601
N-115-1
11951
11401
N-115-7
11957
N-115-8
11952
11601
N-115-3
11953
15501
N-115-19
11967
N-115-20
N-115-21
11968
N-115-22
N-115-23
11969
N-115-24
N-115-2
Interruption
Rating (Amps)
40,000 *
50,000
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
43,000 *
43,000 *
43,000 *
40,000 *
50,000
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
40,000 *
These breakers are currently being replaced with breakers having 50,000 ampere ratings.
Rio Grande
*
Breaker
Voltage
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
1516B
3316B
4456B
4616B
1766B
2296B
2426B
5146B
1126B
2186B
3856B
5376B
40,000
23,000 *
23,000 *
40,000
40,000
23,000 *
23,000 *
40,000
40,000
23,000 *
23,000 *
40,000
These breakers will be replaced with the 40,000 ampere rated breakers that are removed from
the Newman 115 kV bus.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
19
Substation
Rio Grande
*
Breaker
Voltage
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Breaker
Number
5009
5003
5907
5005
5006
5007
5701
5501
1254B
5601
5918
5401B
5010
5032
Interruption
Rating (Amps)
40,000
40,000
24,000 *
40,000
40,000
26,000 *
40,000
31,500 *
31,500 *
31,500 *
40,000
31,500
40,000
40,000
These breakers will be replaced with the 40,000 ampere rated breakers that are removed from
the Newman 115 kV bus.
The short circuit analysis was performed without the XXXXX project modeled and with all
other third-party generation projects ahead of the XXXXX project in the study queue in
service. This identified the “base case” fault duties of the circuit breakers. The short circuit
analysis was performed again with the 99 MW XXXXX project modeled in the case. The
incremental difference between these two analyses shows the impact of the new generators on
the existing circuit breakers in the EPE system.
The short circuit fault currents for the impacted buses are shown below. N/A below refers to
“not applicable” meaning that these buses do not exist without the XXXXX Generation
Interconnection Project.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
20
Three Phase Line to Ground:
Without Project
Faulted Bus
Fault Current (Amps
Arroyo 345 kV Bus
7,860
Arroyo 115 kV Bus
16,784
LEF 345 kV Bus
13,339
Luna 345 kV Bus
13,471
Luna 115 kV Bus
10,696
Newman 345 kV Bus
9,863
Newman 115 kV Bus
33,591
Rio Grande 115 kV Bus
23,888
Rio Grande 69 kV Bus
21,609
Fort Craig 345 kV Bus
8,617
VL-Tap 345 kV Bus
9,266
Westmesa 345 kV Bus
11,016
SLPOI 345 kV Bus
N/A
SLPOI 115 kV Bus
N/A
With Project
Fault Current (Amps)
7,889
16,828
13,844
13,994
10,767
9,916
33,675
23,984
21,646
8,633
9,295
11,018
9,260
7,979
Fault Current
Contribution of
Project (Amps)
29
44
505
523
71
53
84
96
37
16
29
2
N/A
N/A
Two Phase Line to Ground (Maximum for One Phase):
Fault Current
With Project
Contribution of
Fault Current (Amps) Project (Amps)
7,835
24
16,181
36
14,043
572
14,164
526
12,193
72
10,044
45
39,046
81
24,589
82
24,605
34
8,055
5
8,492
27
10,748
2
8,614
N/A
8,072
N/A
Without Project
Faulted Bus
Fault Current (Amps)
Arroyo 345 kV Bus
7,811
Arroyo 115 kV Bus
16,145
LEF 345 kV Bus
13,537
Luna 345 kV Bus
13,638
Luna 115 kV Bus
12,121
Newman 345 kV Bus
9,999
Newman 115 kV Bus
38,965
Rio Grande 115 kV Bus
24,507
Rio Grande 69 kV Bus
24,571
Fort Craig 345 kV Bus
8,050
VL-Tap 345 kV Bus
8,465
Westmesa 345 kV Bus
10,746
SLPOI 345 kV Bus
N/A
SLPOI 115 kV Bus
N/A
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
21
Single Phase Line to Ground:
Fault Current
With Project
Contribution of
Fault Current (Amps) Project (Amps)
7,530
24
15,105
36
14,104
572
14,142
526
12,524
72
9,793
45
40,789
81
25,033
82
25,604
34
5,750
5
5,424
27
10,393
2
6,514
N/A
7,738
N/A
Without Project
Faulted Bus
Fault Current (Amps)
Arroyo 345 kV Bus
7,512
Arroyo 115 kV Bus
15,080
LEF 345 kV Bus
13,622
Luna 345 kV Bus
13,639
Luna 115 kV Bus
12,450
Newman 345 kV Bus
9,758
Newman 115 kV Bus
40,705
Rio Grande 115 kV Bus
24,962
Rio Grande 69 kV Bus
25,569
Fort Craig 345 kV Bus
5,739
VL-Tap 345 kV Bus
5,392
Westmesa 345 kV Bus
10,392
SLPOI 345 kV Bus
N/A
SLPOI 115 kV Bus
N/A
Line to Line:
Without Project
Faulted Bus
Fault Current (Amps)
Arroyo 345 kV Bus
6,809
Arroyo 115 kV Bus
14,537
LEF 345 kV Bus
11,556
Luna 345 kV Bus
11,670
Luna 115 kV Bus
9,263
Newman 345 kV Bus
8,545
Newman 115 kV Bus
29,077
Rio Grande 115 kV Bus
20,687
Rio Grande 69 kV Bus
18,713
Fort Craig 345 kV Bus
7,463
VL-Tap 345 kV Bus
8,025
Westmesa 345 kV Bus
9,540
SLPOI 345 kV Bus
N/A
SLPOI 115 kV Bus
N/A
With Project
Fault Current (Amps)
6,833
14,575
11,993
12,123
9,325
8,591
29,151
20,771
18,746
7,477
8,050
9,542
8,021
6,911
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Fault Current
Contribution of
Project (Amps)
24
36
572
526
72
45
81
82
34
5
27
2
N/A
N/A
TRC
22
Short Circuit Analysis Conclusions
Results of the short circuit study show that the maximum fault current with the XXXXX
project is less than the lowest rated interruption rating of any affected existing circuit breaker.
Substation
Arroyo 345 kV Bus
Arroyo 115 kV Bus
Luna 345 kV Bus
Luna 115 kV Bus
Newman 345 kV Bus
Newman 115 kV Bus
Rio Grande 115 kV Bus
Rio Grande 69 kV Bus
Fort Craig 345 kV Bus
VL-Tap 345 kV Bus
Westmesa 345 kV Bus
SLPOI 345 kV Bus
SLPOI 115 kV Bus
Lowest Circuit Breaker
Interruption Rating at
Faulted Bus (Amps)
40,000
22,000
40,000
20,000
50,000
50,000
40,000
40,000
N/A
N/A
40,000
N/A
N/A
Maximum Fault Current
with project
(Amps)
_
7,889
16,828
14,164
12,524
10,044
40,789
25,033
25,604
8,633
9,295
11,018
9,260
7,979
Comparing the maximum fault currents to the lowest rated existing circuit breaker interruption
ratings at the faulted bus shows that the interconnection of the XXXXX project, as modeled in
the short-circuit database, will not cause any existing circuit breaker to operate outside of its
design rating. Therefore, interconnecting the XXXXX project into the EPE transmission
system will not require replacement of any of the existing circuit breakers on the EPE
transmission system. The replacements listed are due to normal course of business and not due
to XXXXX. They are listed as reference only since they have not yet taken place.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
23
7.0
Cost Estimates
Scoping level cost estimates (+/- 30%) has been determined. The cost (+/-30%) estimates
are in 2009 dollars (no escalation applied) and are based upon typical construction costs
for previously performed similar construction. These estimated costs include all
applicable labor and overheads associated with the engineering, design, and construction
of these new EPE facilities. This estimate did not include the cost for any other Developer
owned equipment and associated design and engineering except for those located at the
POI.
The estimated total cost for the required upgrades is $ 16.1 Million. This breaks down to
$9.8 Million for the 345 kV POI ring bus, $5.3 Million for the 345/115 kV Developers
transformer and associated equipment located at the POI, $0.7 Million for removal and
relocation of series compensation and shunt devices from Luna to the POI, and $0.3
Million for new 345 kV transmission structure for in/out tap to POI. The estimated time
frame for Engineering and Construction is a minimum of two years depending upon the
delivery of the transformer.
The cost responsibilities associated with these facilities shall be handled as per current
FERC guidelines.
The one-line diagram below shows the XXXXX WIND PARK generation point of
interconnection (POI) on the Springerville-Luna 345 kV transmission line. The estimated
equipment costs reflect the developer’s equipment located within the POI substation.
The estimate includes the following developer’s equipment: A 115 kV breaker, line
arresters, associated switches, a 100/167 MVA, 345/115 kV power transformer, high-side
revenue metering (345 kV), and associated relaying and controls for all the developer’s
equipment. The transformer is two winding transformer, 115kV wye / 345 kV delta,
with 4 +/- 2.5% taps (2 taps each side of nominal 345 kV). A LTC on the 345/115 kV
transformer is not required.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
24
To
Springerville Substation
Via VL-TAP Substation
Series Capacitors, Line
Reactors, and Their Circuit
Breakers Relocated from
Luna Substation
Developer’s
Point of
Interconnection
Revenue
Metering
Macho Springs Wind Park
99 MW
Total
Generation
M
34.5/115 kV
100/167 MVA
115/345 kV
100/167 MVA
SLPOI
345 kV Substation
Developer’s 115 kV
Transmissi on Line
6 Miles
To
Luna Substation
30 Miles
Color Code
Existing Facilities
Network Upgrades Required for Interconnection
Developer Equipment Located at POI
Developer Equipment
Figure 7-1 POI One-line
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
25
Table 7-1 – Developer Interconnection Facilities
Element
Description
Cost Est.
Millions
POI
115/345 kV
Substation
Interconnect Developer to tap EPE’s 345 kV bus. The
new equipment includes:
$5.3
• 345 kV bi-directional metering, relaying and
associated equipment and material.
• 345/115 kV 100/167 MVA transformer
• One 345 kV 2000 Amp switch
• One 115 kV 2000 Amp circuit Breaker
• Two 115 kV 2000 Amp switches
• One lot 115 kV and 345 kV bus, insulators, and
structural supports
• One lot fencing, ground grid, concrete, conduit
• One Control Building
• One lot yard work
Total Cost Estimate for Developer Interconnection
Facilities
$5.3
24
Months
Time Frame
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
26
Table 7-2 – EPE Network Upgrades for Interconnection
Element
Description
Cost Est.
Millions
POI 345 kV
Substation
New 345 kV 3 breaker ring bus Substation Tapping the
Springerville-Luna 345 kV line. The new equipment
required includes:
•
•
•
Three 345 kV 2000 Amp circuit breakers
Ten 345 kV, 2000 Amp switches
One lot 115 kV and 345 kV bus, insulators, and
structural supports
•
One lot fencing, grounding, concrete
•
•
•
transmission line relaying and testing
One Control Building
One lot fencing, ground grid, concrete, conduit
•
•
•
Relocated Shunt Reactor from Luna
Relocated Series Compensation from Luna
Relocated Switching Devices from Luna
$9.8
Transmission line tap into substation. One double circuit
steel pole, conductor, hardware and installation labor.
$0.3
Total Cost Estimate for EPE Network Upgrades for
Interconnection
$10.1
Time Frame
18
Months
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
27
Table 7-3 – EPE Equipment Relocation from Luna to POI
Element
Description
Cost Est.
Millions
Luna
Substation
Relocate the following equipment from Luna to POI
$0.7
• Remove two 54 MVAR, 345 kV Shunt Reactors &
Relocate to XXXXX
• Remove Three 345 kV Circuit Breakers & Relocate to
XXXXX
• 1 Lot Remove 345 kV Series Capacitor Facilities &
Relocate to XXXXX
• 1 Lot Remove 345 kV Three Phase Tubing Bus
Facilities and Relocate Steel Bus Support Structures to
XXXXX
• Demolish and Restore Pad for Eight 345 kV Reactor
and Capacitor Breaker Foundations
• Demolish and Restore Pad for sixteen 345 kV Switch
Stand Foundations
• Demolish and Restore 25 Pads for 345 kV Bus Support
Foundations
• Remove protection and controls for the three 345 Shunt
Reactors and 345 Series Capacitors
Total Cost Estimate for EPE Equipment Relocation
from Luna to POI
Time Frame
$0.7
6 Months
Total Cost of Project
$16.1
Million
Time Frame
24
Months
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
28
Assumptions
1. The cost estimates provided are “scoping estimates” with an accuracy of +/- 30%.
2. Costs do not include land
3. Permitting costs and time frames are additional
4. Developer to secure POI site and transfer ownership to EPE
5. Estimates are in 2009 Dollars
6. The Developer will be responsible for funding and constructing approximately 6 miles
of transmission line from the proposed collector substation to the point of
interconnection.
8.0
Disclaimer
This study assumes that transmission service has not been obtained by the Developer to
deliver its XXXXX Wind Park generation output. Therefore, this Study modeled the
XXXXX Wind Park power output as being distributed evenly across the entire WECC
electrical grid. Whenever the Developer determines where it will deliver its generation
output, the developer will have to purchase the required transmission service from the
appropriate entity and a Transmission Service Study will be performed to determine the
impacts of the XXXXX Wind Park transmission path on the EPE and surrounding
transmission systems. This study makes no warranties as to the existence or availability of
any transmission service the developer will need in order to deliver its XXXXX W
generation output. Also, the transfer capacities of certain transmission lines and paths
within the southern New Mexico transmission system are limited by contracts between the
New Mexico transmission owners and any use of the transfer capacities above the
contractual limits will require approval by the contractual parties and renegotiation of the
applicable contract(s).
If any of the project data used in this study and provided by developer varies significantly
from the actual data once the XXXXX Wind Park equipment is installed, the results from
this study will need to be verified with the actual data at the Project developer's expense.
Additionally, any change in the generation in EPE’s Interconnection Queue that is senior
to the XXXXX Wind Park Project will require a re-evaluation of this Study.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
29
9.0
Conclusion
This SIS consisting of Steady State, Short Circuit, and Stability Analyses for a net 99 MW
of wind powered generation interconnecting on the EPE Springerville-Luna 345 kV line
has determined that the project does not have any adverse or negative impact on the EPE
or Regional Transmission System. This study also has determined that system
reinforcements or Network Upgrades are not required.
The cost of the 345 kV POI is $16.1 million and will take at least 24 months to Engineer,
Procure, and Construct the POI.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
30
APPENDIX 1
GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION
SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY SCOPE
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
0
Appendix 1
TRC
Scope of Work:
a. Use PSLF to perform load flow and stability analysis on the EPE and Affected Utilities
in the WECC transmission system (System) as follows:
i.
ii.
Base case:
1. Study the System as in the base case to determine if there are any existing
EPE/WECC criteria violations
2. Document the violations and report back to EPE.
New Generator (Project) Case.
1. Study the System with the Project in the base case to determine if there are
any EPE/WECC criteria violations and document.
2. Monitor any base case violations for increase.
3. Determine remedies for violations.
b. Prepare an estimate of cost and time frame for Project to interconnect to the EPE
transmission system.
c. Prepare an estimate of cost for any Network Upgrades required for Interconnection and
Delivery onto the System.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
1
Appendix 1
TRC
APPENDIX 2
DEVELOPER PROPOSED INTERCONNECTION DIAGRAM
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
TRC
1
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
2
Appendix 2
TRC
APPENDIX 3
STABILITY MODEL DATA SHEETS
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
1
Appendix 3
TRC
Dynamic Simulation Modeling
Stability Models
– Generator Model (GEWTG):
MACHINE MODELS
Model Name
gewtg
Model Name:
Description
Generator/converter model for GE 1.5 and 3.6 MW wind turbines
gewtg
Description
Generator/converter model for GE wind turbines - Doubly
Fed Asynchronous Generator (DFAG) and Full Converter
(FC) Models
Prerequisites:
Generator present in load flow working case
Inputs:
Network boundary variables, generator active current and
flux commands from exwtge model (DFAG) or active and
reactive current commands from ewtgfc model (FC).
gewtg [<n>] {<name> <kv>} <id>} : #<rl> {mva=<value>}
Invocation:
Parameters:
EPCL Developer’s
Variable
Data
lpp
dVtrp1
dVtrp2
dVtrp3
dVtrp4
dVtrp5
dVtrp6
dTtrp1
dTtrp2
dTtrp3
dTtrp4
dTtrp5
dTtrp6
fcflg
Default
Data
0.80
-0.25
-0.50
-0.70
-0.85
0.10
0.15
1.90
1.20
0.70
0.20
1.00
0.10
0.00
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
0.80
-0.25
-0.50
-0.70
-0.85
0.10
0.15
1.90
1.20
0.70
0.20
1.00
0.10
0.00
Description
Generator effective reactance (X’’), p.u.
Delta voltage trip level, p.u.
Delta voltage trip level, p.u.
Delta voltage trip level, p.u.
Delta voltage trip level, p.u.
Delta voltage trip level, p.u.
Delta voltage trip level, p.u.
Voltage trip time, sec.
Voltage trip time, sec.
Voltage trip time, sec.
Voltage trip time, sec.
Voltage trip time, sec.
Voltage trip time, sec.
Flag: 0 = DFAG; 1 = FC
2
Appendix 3
TRC
Notes:
a) The generator reactance and generator variables are in per unit on the generator MVA base. It
is recommended that the MVA base be specified in the dyd file by the entry mva=value after
the record level.
b) The flux and active current commands from the converter control model, exwtge, are
transferred via the variables genbc[k].efd and genbc[k].ladifd, respectively.
c) The reactive and active current commands from the converter control model, ewtgfc, are
transferred via the variables genbc[k].efd and genbc[k].ladifd, respectively.
d) The generator will be tripped if the terminal voltage deviates from nominal (1 p.u.) by more
than any of the voltage trip levels for more than the corresponding trip time. If any of the
dVtrp values are set to zero, that trip level is ignored.
e) The voltage trip levels will vary for different wind farms.
f) A trip signal stored in genbc[k].glimt, which may be set by the exwtge, ewtgfc and wndtge
models, will also cause the generator to trip.
g) The actual converter controls include a phase locked loop (PLL). This fast regulator and PLL
action is captured in the model by a linear reduction of active current injection for terminal
voltage depression below a threshold, as shown in the Low Voltage Active Current Regulation
graph.
Output Channels:
Record
Level
Name
1
1
1
2
2
vt
pg
qg
ipcd
iqcd
2
2
ip
iq
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Description
Terminal voltage, p.u.
Electrical power, MW
Reactive power, MVAr
Active current command (Ipcmd), p.u.
Flux command (DFAG) or reactive current command (FC)
(E”q cmd), p.u.
Active current, (Pgen/Vt), p.u.
Reactive current, (Qgen/Vt), p.u.
3
Appendix 3
TRC
Block Diagram:
Eq"cmd
(efd)
From
exwtge
IPcmd
(ladifd)
From
exwtge
Eq"
1
1+ 0.02s
Isorc
IYinj
-1
X"
s0
T
IP
1
1+ 0.02s
Low Voltage
Active Current
Regulation
IXinj
s1
Vterm /θ
jX"
DFAG Generator/Converter Model
Eq"cmd
(efd)
From
exwtge
IPcmd
(ladifd)
From
exwtge
Eq"
1
1+ 0.02s
Isorc
IYinj
-1
s0
T
IP
1
1+ 0.02s
Low Voltage
Active Current
Regulation
IXinj
s1
Vterm /θ
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
4
Appendix 3
TRC
Full Converter Generator/Converter Model
Real Current
Injection Multiplier
1.0
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Terminal Voltage (pu)
Low Voltage Active Current Regulation
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
5
Appendix 3
TRC
EXCITATION MODEL
Model Name
exwtge
Description
Excitation (converter) control model for GE wind-turbine generators
Model Name:
exwtge
Description
Excitation (converter) control model for Double Fed
Asynchronous Generator (DFAG) GE wind-turbine
generators
Prerequisites:
gewtg model ahead of this model in dynamic models table
Inputs:
Q order from separate WindCONTROL model, if used;
P order from wndtge model; Voltages at generator terminals
and at regulated bus
exwtge [<n>] {<name> <kv>} <id> [<nr>] {<namer>
<kvr>}:
Invocation:
Parameters:
EPCL Developer’s
Variable
Data
Default
Data
varflg
1.00
1.00
Kqi
Kvi
Vmax
Vmin
Qmax
Qmin
XIqmax
XIqmin
Tr
Tc
0.10
40.00
1.10
0.90
0.296
-0.436
0.40
-0.50
0.05
0.15
0.10
120.00
1.10
0.90
0.436
-0.436
1.55
0.55
0.02
0.15
Kpv
Kiv
Vl1
Vh1
Tl1
Tl2
Th1
18.00
5.00
-9999.00
9999.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
5.00
-9999.00
9999.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Description
1 = Qord from WindCONTROL emulation; -1 = Qord
from vref (i.e., separate model); 0 = constant
Q control integral gain (see note f)
V control integral gain
Maximum V at regulated bus (p.u.)
Minimum V at regulated bus (p.u.)
Maximum Q command (p.u.)
Minimum Q command (p.u.)
Maximum Eq” (flux) command (pu) (see note h)
Minimum Eq” (flux) command (pu) (see note h)
WindCONTROL voltage measurement lag, sec.
Lag between WindCONTROL output and wind turbine,
sec.
WindCONTROL regulator proportional gain (see note g)
WindCONTROL regulator integral gain (see note g)
Open Loop Control: Low voltage limit, p.u.
Open Loop Control: High voltage limit, p.u.
Open Loop Control: First low voltage time, sec.
Open Loop Control: Second low voltage time, sec.
Open Loop Control: First high voltage time, sec.
6
Appendix 3
TRC
Th2
Ql1
Ql2
Ql3
Qh1
Qh2
Qh3
pfaflg
Fn
Tv
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.05
Tpwr
0.05
0.05
Ipmax
Xc
Tlvpl
1.10
0.00
0.00
1.10
0.00
0.25
Open Loop Control: Second high voltage time, sec.
Open Loop Control: First low voltage Q command, p.u.
Open Loop Control: Second low voltage Q command, p.u.
Open Loop Control: Third low voltage Q command, p.u.
Open Loop Control: First high voltage Q command, p.u.
Open Loop Control: Second high voltage Q command, p.u.
Open Loop Control: Third high voltage Q command, p.u.
1 = regulate power factor angle; 0 = regulate Q
fraction of WTGs in wind farm that are on-line
Time constant in proportional path of WindCONTROL
emulator, sec.
Time constant in power measurement for PFA control
(Tp), sec.
Max. Ip command, p.u.
Compensating reactance for voltage control p.u.
Low Voltage Power Logic time constant, sec.
Notes:
a) The Q order can either come from a separate model via the genbc[k].vref signal (varflg = -1)
or from the WindCONTROL emulation part of this model (varflg = 1). The WindCONTROL
emulation represents the effect of a centralized WindCONTROL (aka Wind Farm Management
System) control by an equivalent control on each wind turbine-generator model.
b) For the WindCONTROL emulator, voltage at a remote bus (e.g. system interface) can be
regulated by entering the bus identification as the second bus ([<nr>] {<namer> <kvr>}) on the
input record. Alternatively, generator terminal bus voltage can be regulated by omitting the
second bus identification. The voltage reference, Vrfq, for the WindCONTROL emulator is
stored in genbc[k].vref when varflg = 1.
c) Any of the time constants may be zero.
d) The time constant Tc reflects the delays associated with cycle time, communication (SCADA)
delay to the individual WTGs, and additional filtering in the WTG control.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
7
Appendix 3
TRC
e) The operation of the open loop Q control (parameters Vl1 to Qh3) is defined by the table
below. The parameters can be set in various ways to model different control strategies.
Setting a Q command parameter (e.g. Qh1) to 0 indicates that Qpfc from the “power factor
control” is transmitted without modification. The open loop controls will reset if the voltage
recovers beyond Vl1, Vl2, or Vh1, respectively. The default data disables this control as is the
case on most units.
f) Kqi can be tuned to obtain faster or slower response from the WindCONTROL. The time
constant of the Q control loop is approximately equal to the equivalent reactance looking out
from the generator terminals (= dV/dQ) divided by Kqi. The default value (0.1) assumes a
desired time constant of 0.5 sec. and an equivalent reactance of 0.05 p.u. (on gen. MW base).
This is appropriate for a single WTG connected to a stiff system and is currently the
recommended setting.
For constant Q regulation (varflg = pfaflg = 0), the value of Kqi should be set to a very small
number, e.g. 0.001) since this control is a slow reset.
Rapid power factor angle regulation (varflg = 0, pfaflg = 1) is currently used for European
units when WindCONTROL is not employed. Kqi may need to be set to a larger value for
these units.
g) The default WindCONTROL gains, Kpv and Kiv, are appropriate when the system short
circuit capacity beyond the point of interconnection of the wind farm is 5 or more times the
MW capacity of the wind farm. For weaker systems, these values should be reduced, e.g. for
SCC = 2, Kpv = 13 and Kiv = 2 are recommended.
h) The “fix bad data” option will do the following: If non-zero, set Tr, Tc, Tv, Tpwr to a
minimum of 4*delt
i) If the Low Voltage Power Logic (LVPL) time constant, Tlvpl, is zero, the LVPL is turned off.
Voltage Condition
Vterm < Vl1
Vterm > Vh1
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Open Loop Control Logic
For time duration
t < Tl1
Tl1< t < Tl2
t > Tl2
t < Th1
Th1< t < Th2
t > Th2
8
Appendix 3
Open Loop Reactive
Power Command - qcmd
Ql1
Ql2
Ql3
Qh1
Qh2
Qh3
TRC
Output Channels:
Record
Level
Name
1
1
porx
qord
2
2
2
2
2
2
qcmd
vref
vrfq
vreg
qwv
lvpl
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
Description
P order from the turbine control (wndtge), p.u.
Q order from the WindCONTROL emulator or from a
separate model, p.u.
Q command after open loop control and limits, p.u.
Local voltage reference, p.u.
WindCONTROL emulator reference voltage, p.u.
WindCONTROL emulator regulated voltage, p.u.
WindCONTROL emulator PI control output, p.u.
Low Voltage Power Logic output
9
Appendix 3
TRC
Block Diagram:
WindCONTROL Emulation
Vrfq
(vref)
Vreg
+
1
1+ sTr
Σ
-
+
s4
1/fN
Σ
PFAref
Qref
tan
s2
(vref)
1
1+ sTpwr
Qord from separate model
0
(vref)
1
x
s6
0
pfaflg
-1
1
Qord
Qgen
Qcmd
Qmax
Open
Loop
Control
Qcmd
Qmin
varflg
+
Qord
s5
Qmin
1+ sTv
(vref)
1
1+ sTc
Qwv
+
Kpv
s3
Pelec
Qmax
Kiv/s
Vterm
Vmax
Σ
Vref
KQi / s
Vmin
KVi / s
s1
XIQmin
P
.
.
orx
*
From
Wind Turbine
Model
Σ
+
s0
Pord
(vsig)
XIQmax
-
Eq"cmd
(efd)
To Generator
Model
IPmax
IPcmd
(ladifd)
Vterm
Lvpl
LVPL Factor
1.0
V
0.90
Low Voltage Power Logic
1
1+ Tlvpls
s7
Regulated
Bus Voltage
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
10
Appendix 3
TRC
PRIME MOVER MODEL
Model Name
wndtge
Description
Wind turbine and turbine control model for GE 1.5 and 3.6 MW wind
turbines
Model Name:
wndtge
Description
Wind turbine and turbine control model
for GE wind turbines – Double Fed Asynchronous
Generator (DFAG) and Full Converter (FC) Models
Prerequisites:
gewtg and exwtge (DFAG) or ewtgfc (FC) models ahead
of this model in dynamic models table
Inputs:
Wind speed, generator electrical power, dynamic brake
power
wndtrb [<n>] {<name> <kv>} <id> : [mwcap=<value>]
Invocation:
Parameters:
EPCL Developer’s
Variable
Data
Default
Data
Description
mwcap
usize
spdw1
Tp
Tpc
Kpp
Kip
Kptrq
Kitrq
Kpc
Kic
PImax
PImin
PIrat
PWmax
PWmin
PWrat
H
nmass
note a
1.50
14.00
0.30
0.05
150.00
25.00
3.00
0.60
3.00
30.00
27.00
0.00
10.00
1.12
0.10
0.45
4.94
1.00
Base of turbine MW capability.
WTG unit size (1.5 or 3.6 for DFAG or 2.5 for FC)
Initial wind speed, m/s
Pitch control constant, sec.
Power control time constant, sec.
Pitch control proportional gain
Pitch control integral gain
Torque control proportional gain
Torque control integral gain
Pitch compensation proportional gain
Pitch compensation integral gain
Maximum blade pitch, deg
Minimum blade pitch, deg
Blade pitch rate limit, deg/sec.
Maximum power order, p.u. (see note g)
Minimum power order, p.u.
Power order rate limit, p.u./sec
Rotor inertia constant, p.u. (on turbine MW base)
= 1 for 1-mass model ; = 2 for 2-mass model
99.0
1.50
14.00
0.30
0.05
150.00
25.00
3.00
0.60
3.00
30.00
27.00
0.00
10.00
1.12
0.10
0.45
4.94
1.00
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
11
Appendix 3
TRC
Hg
Ktg
Dtg
Wbase
Tw
Apcflg
Tpav
Pa
Pbc
Pd
Fa
Fb
Fc
Fd
Pmax
Pmin
note g
note g
note g
note g
1.00
0
0.15
1.00
0.95
0.40
0.96
0.996
1.004
1.04
1.00
0.20
Generator rotor inertia constant, p.u. (on turb. MW base)
Shaft stiffness (p.u. torque / rad.)
Shaft damping (p.u. torque / p.u. speed)
Base mechanical speed (rad./sec.)
Rate limit washout time constant, sec.
Active power control enable flag
Filter time constant on Pavail, sec.
Active power point in frequency response curve, p.u.
Active power point in frequency response curve, p.u.
Active power point in frequency response curve, p.u.
Frequency value for Pa frequency response curve, p.u.
Frequency value for Pbc frequency response curve, p.u.
Frequency value for Pbc frequency response curve, p.u.
Frequency value for Pd frequency response curve, p.u.
Maximum wind plant power, p.u.
Minimum wind plant power, p.u.
Notes:
a) Per unit parameters, including H, are on base of turbine MW capability. If no value is entered
for mwcap, the generator MVA base is used. For an aggregate model of several wind turbines,
mwcap should be the total rating.
b) The wind speed (m/s) is stored in genbc[k].glimv and can be stepped in the edic table or
varied by a user-written model.
c) The model will always attempt to initialize to the initial generator power from the load flow,
unless it exceeds PWmax or is less than PWmin. The wind speed required to produce the
initial power with the blade pitch at its minimum, PIimin, is calculated. This will be used as
the initial wind speed unless P is near PWmax and the specified wind speed, SPDw1, is
greater than required. In this case, the wind speed is set at SPDw1 and the blade pitch is
adjusted.
d) The usize parameter is used to select the appropriate built-in values to model the different sizes
of GE wind turbines.
e) The default parameter values correspond to the DFAG wind turbine control model. Generally,
the default values should be used, except usize, spdw1, and H (5.23 p.u. for usize = 3.6; 4.18
for usize = 2.5) unless different information is supplied by the manufacturer.
f) The turbine-generator rotor speed is automatically initialized according to the turbine control
design. The speed will be 1.2 p.u. for power levels above 0.75 p.u., but will decrease at lower
power levels.
g) A two-mass torsional model can be represented by including these parameters and changing
the value of H to the turbine inertia constant. See Application Note 08-1 for typical values.
h) The model includes high and low wind speed cut-out for the turbine. For the DFAG machine
this results in a generator trip. For a FC machine it is possible to inject or absorb reactive
power (e.g., regulate voltage) at zero real power. Zero power may be the result of no wind,
excessive wind, or an operator directive to curtail output. All scenarios may be simulated with
this model. See Application Note 08-1 for details.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
12
Appendix 3
TRC
i) The active power control (APC) model and rate limiting function are shown in the lower
portions of the block diagram. The APC model is a simple representation of the active power
control requires by many European grid codes. See Application Note 08-1 for a detailed
description.
j) When this model is used to represent DFAG machines, i.e., the 1.5 or 3.6 WTG, the dynamic
braking resistor power is automatically set to zero.
k) The FC machine allows zero power voltage regulation and does not trip on low rotor speed;
low rotor speed tripping is enforced for DFAG machines, i.e., if genbc[k].speed < 0.1, the
machine is tripped.
Output Channels:
Record
Level
Name
Description
1
1
2
2
2
spd
pm
ptch
pord
wspd
Rotor speed, p.u.
Mechanical power, MW
Blade pitch, deg.
Power order signal, p.u.
Wind speed, m/s
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
13
Appendix 3
TRC
Block Diagram:
From
ewtgfc
(elimt)
+
Pdbr
+
Σ
From
Pelec getwg
(pelec)
Wind
Speed
(glimv)
Wind
Power
Model
Pmech
s6
ωrotor
Blade
Pitch
θ
θ cmd
Σ
Kpp+ Kip/s
θ
min & d /dt min
To
getwg
(glimt )
ω
+
Σ
ω err
s1
+
s0
θ
+
Trip
Signal
Under
Speed
Trip
s9
Anti-windup on
Pitch Limits
θ
d θ /dt max
max &
1
1+ sT p
ω
Rotor
Model
1
ω ref 1 + s5
- 0.67P2elec+ 1.42Pelec+ 0.51
s5
Pitch Control
Torque Control
Anti-windup on
Power Limits
K ptrq + Kitrq / s
ω
P
wmax
& d P /dt
max
1
1+ sTpc
X
s2
s4
Pwmin& d P /dt min
Anti-windup on
Pitch
Pitch Limits
Compensation
Σ
K pc+ K ic / s
+
pinp
s3
Wind
Power
Model
Active Power Control
(optional)
Power Response
Rate Limit
pstl
PsetAPC
pavl
1
1+sTpav
WTG Terminal
Bus Frequency
+
Σ
plim
1.
s11
pavf
Pmax
0
fbus
+
Frequency
Response
Curve
pset
Auxiliary
Signal
(psig)
if( fbus < fb OR
fbus > fc )
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
perr
1
sTw
1 + sTw
+
Pmin
To gewtg
Trip Signal
(glimt)
fflg
1
14
Appendix 3
s10
Σ
apcflg
Release
Pmax
if fflg set
+
Σ
+
wsho
Pord
To extwge
or ewtgfc
(vsig)
TRC
1.2
Point A
(Fa,Pa)
Point B
(Fb,Pbc)
Active Power Output (pu)
1
Point C
(Fc,Pbc)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Point D
(Fd,Pd)
0.2
0
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
Frequency (pu)
Example of Frequency Response Curve in Active Power Control
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
15
Appendix 3
TRC
APPENDIX 4
STABILITY RESULTS
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
1
Appendix 4
TRC
Peak Case
Fault #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Off Peak
Case Fault
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Type
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
None
Location
Luna 345 kV
SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
SLPOI345 345 KV
Luna 345 kV
Duration
Trip
4 cycles
LUNA-SLPOI345 345 KV
4 cycles
LUNA-SLPOI345 345 KV
4 cycles
VL-TAP-SLPOI345 345 KV
4 cycles VL-TAP-SPRINGERVILLE 345 KV
4 cycles
VL-TAP - FT. Craig 345 KV
4 cycles
SLPOI345 345/115 KV XFMR
4 cycles
LUNA 345/115 KV XFMR
3 cycles
XXXXX Generation
Stable
W/O XX
W/XX
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
N/A
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
Stable
W/O XX
W/XX
Type
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
3-Phase
None
Location
Luna 345 kV
SLPOI345 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
VL-TAP 345 KV
SLPOI345 345 KV
Luna 345 kV
Duration
Trip
4 cycles
LUNA-SLPOI345 345 KV
4 cycles
LUNA-SLPOI345 345 KV
4 cycles
VL-TAP-SLPOI345 345 KV
4 cycles VL-TAP-SPRINGERVILLE 345 KV
4 cycles
VL-TAP - FT. Craig 345 KV
4 cycles
SLPOI345 345/115 KV XFMR
4 cycles
LUNA 345/115 KV XFMR
3 cycles
XXXXX Generation
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
N/A
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
Plots for these simulated faults are available upon request.
XXXXX 99 MW Wind Park
System Impact Study 9/28/2009
2
Appendix 4
TRC