* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Springerville-Luna 345 kV line-99 MW Wind (SIS)
Survey
Document related concepts
Three-phase electric power wikipedia , lookup
Opto-isolator wikipedia , lookup
Variable-frequency drive wikipedia , lookup
Power electronics wikipedia , lookup
Stray voltage wikipedia , lookup
Power engineering wikipedia , lookup
Buck converter wikipedia , lookup
Voltage optimisation wikipedia , lookup
Switched-mode power supply wikipedia , lookup
Distribution management system wikipedia , lookup
Wind turbine wikipedia , lookup
Intermittent energy source wikipedia , lookup
Rectiverter wikipedia , lookup
History of electric power transmission wikipedia , lookup
Mains electricity wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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