Review of the Transpower South Island Grid Transmission Expansion Plans

Review of the Transpower South Island Grid Transmission Expansion Plans

Prepared for Transpower New Zealand Ltd.

Issued: 6/22/07 (revised 6/23/07; 6/26/07, 7/10/07) This report was prepared for Transpower New Zealand Ltd. This document should not be circulated to third parties without the written permission of Transpower New Zealand Ltd.

Prepared by: Pouyan Pourbeik 942 Corridor Park Boulevard Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Ph: (919) 806 8126 ppourbeik@epri.com

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI) FOR TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LTD. (TRANSPOWER). NEITHER EPRI, TRANSPOWER, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE OR TRANSPOWER OR ANY TRANSPOWER REPRENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transpower New Zealand Ltd. (Transpower), the owner and operator of the National Grid in New Zealand, is planning to enhance the supply capacity to Christchurch and the regions North of Christchurch in the South Island. By around 2010, the transmission capacity to these regions will be constrained by voltage stability even though some thermal capacity would still be available in the transmission lines. Transpower has completed planning studies assessing the need for new transmission investments as well as comparing the benefits of alternative transmission options. The transmission capacity of the existing power system was assessed using steady-state analysis techniques (QV and PV analysis). The studies indicated that the transmission system is close to the practical limit of transmission capacity with shunt reactive compensation (at the receiving end). The objective of this project, sponsored by Transpower, was to perform a detailed assessment of the work done by Transpower and thus provided professional advice, based on industry best practices worldwide, on what further work may be needed to quantify the most cost effective transmission plan for the system. Based on the review, and some limited analysis, the following key conclusions are offered: 1. In general the conclusions of the Transpower report are sound, with the exception of the 0.98 pu voltage criterion for adding more shunt compensation on the system, combined with the constant MVA load models. To our knowledge, assigning a specific voltage level limit to the nose of the PV curve is not used in the planning standards of other major utilities as a means of determining the limit on shunt compensation. This requires analysis in time-domain using detailed load modeling with proper and credible sensitivity analysis. Serving the Upper South Island load is quickly reaching its voltage stability limit and a means of mitigating this is needed. However, some time-domain analysis is warranted to more clearly define potential solution options from a technical perspective. 2. In the long-term a new transmission line from the hydro generation in the Waitaki Valley generation area to Christchurch will be needed. The key question is how long can this be deferred and by what means, subject to economic evaluation of the options. 3. It is believed that some selective time-domain simulation work, with detailed load modeling and load sensitivity analysis is needed to fully answer this question. Based on some limited power flow analysis performed here it is estimated that there may be an opportunity to defer other transmission alternatives until 2013 by adding an SVC to the Islington 220 kV substation. This needs to be confirmed by time-domain simulations. Should this be deemed feasible, then the transmission plan would be along the lines of: a. Use non-transmission options such as running local diesel generation in the Christchurch area until 2009 this may be needed to allow time for implementing an SVC at Islington. Typical lead time for an SVC is likely to be around 18 months. b. With the SVC installed in 2009, the system can be operated until 2013.

iii

c. Then by using non-transmission alternatives and/or series compensation, the system can possibly then be operated even further out in years. d. Then the building of the new transmission line can possibly be deferred in the order of 5 to 10 years beyond 2013 this of course is subject to further economic considerations and analysis. All of this requires additional power flow analysis, and selective time-domain simulations to confirm that it is technically feasible. Also, the solutions options are to be subject to economic evaluation. Finally, it should be noted that in this report the technical details of the Geraldine bussing options were reviewed but not further studied. Based on the review of the results of that option, it is believed that this option may be economically less viable than the shunt compensation options. That is, the cost of this project is likely to be similar to added smoothly controlled shunt compensation at Islington, while the additional transfer capability yielded is significantly less.

iv

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Outline ................................................................................................................1-1 2 A RIEVIEW OF THE STUDY METHODOLOGY, CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS .............2-1 2.1 Load Level, Generation Scenarios and Real Power Margins ........................................2-1 2.2 Allowable Step Change in Voltage for Switching of Shunt Devices ...............................2-3 2.3 Types of Faults, Fault Duration and Clearing Times to be Studied................................2-3 2.4 Reactive Power Margins ................................................................................................2-4 2.5 Voltage Dip Criteria ........................................................................................................2-4 2.6 Load Modeling and the General Approach to Voltage Stability Analysis .......................2-5 2.7 Need for Time-Domain Dynamic Studies.......................................................................2-8 3 A DETAILED REVIEW OF THE TRANSPOWER STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDED POSSIBLE REFINEMENTS ......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Similar Studies Performed in the US that Have Seen the Application of SVC or STATCOMs to Mitigate Voltage Instability ...........................................................................3-2 3.2 Detailed Comments on the Study ..................................................................................3-5 3.3 Risks Associated with the South Island Scenario ..........................................................3-7 3.4 Some Limited Steady-State Analysis to Augment the Study Performed........................3-9 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS .........................................................................4-1 4.1 Key Conclusions ............................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Recommended Additional Study Work ..........................................................................4-2 4.3 Recommended Additional Tools/Methods/Controls to Protect Against and Mitigate Voltage Instability .................................................................................................................4-2 5 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................5-1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Transpower New Zealand Ltd. (Transpower), the owner and operator of the National Grid in New Zealand, is planning to enhance the supply capacity to Christchurch and the regions North of Christchurch in the South Island. By around 2010, the transmission capacity to these regions will be constrained by voltage stability even though some thermal capacity would still be available in the transmission lines. Transpower has completed planning studies [1] assessing the need for new transmission investments as well as comparing the benefits of alternative transmission options. The transmission capacity of the existing power system was assessed using steady-state analysis techniques (QV and PV analysis). The studies indicated that the transmission system is close to the practical limit of transmission capacity with shunt reactive compensation (at the receiving end). The objective of this project, sponsored by Transpower, was to perform a detailed assessment of the work done by Transpower and thus provided professional advice, based on industry best practices worldwide, on what further work may be needed to truly quantify the most cost effective transmission plan for the system. The following aspects have been reviewed and commented on: 1. Review of the planning studies carried out by Transpower for determining the need date for further investments for enhancing the transmission capacity to Christchurch [1]. 2. Review of the assumptions and techniques used by Transpower in relation to industry best practice elsewhere in the world. 3. Based on 1. and 2. above to comment on the appropriateness of the conclusions on the need for the planned investments and the need dates. Finally, an outline has been provided of prudent additional analysis to be performed in order to solidify the exact timing and type of solution options. 1.2 Report Outline The report layout is as follows: Section 2: This section presents an overview of the Transpower study methodology, assumptions and planning criteria and provides a critical review of how these methods, assumptions and criteria compare to other international standards. Section 3: This section provides a step by step review of the results of the Transpower study [1] and indicates at each step what other avenues may be explored to refine the study results. In this

1-1

review ample references are made to the literature including IEEE and CIGRE documents as well as published results related to studies and solutions employed by other utilities around the world for voltage stability limited power transfer problems such as the one being experienced by Transpower. In addition, some limited power flow analysis was performed to complement the study already completed. Section 4: This section summarizes the conclusions of this review and presents detailed and specific recommendations on additional study work needed to refine and solidify the transmission plan.

1-2

A RIEVIEW OF THE STUDY CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS

METHODOLOGY,

This section of the report deals with an assessment of the Transpower planning standards and criteria in comparison to those used elsewhere in the world. Here the Transpower study is discussed in the context of the planning standards and modeling assumptions used and compares this with other comprehensive approaches used in the industry as well as other utility standards. In the next section (section 3), this discussion is utilized to take a specific look at the results of the Transpower study and makes recommendations as to might be done to further refine the study. With respect to voltage stability analysis, there are a few key aspects that are defined in most planning standards around the world. These are: o Load level to be studied o Generation scenarios to be studied o Approach to the study and the contingencies to consider o Allowable step change in voltage for switching of shunt devices o Types of faults, fault duration and clearing times to be studied o Real and reactive power margins o Voltage dip criteria o Load modeling Let us now look at each of these by comparing what is presented in the Transpower planning standards document [2] as compared to other standards of major utilities in the world. One set of references used here are those of the Western Electricity Coordination Council (WECC) in USA [3, 4, 5]. The reason for heavily referring to these documents is that they are among the most comprehensive industry standards used for voltage stability studies few other utilities and/or reliability organizations have such comprehensive standards publicly available and related to voltage stability analysis. 2.1 Load Level, Generation Scenarios and Real Power Margins The Transpower planning standard specifies that all studies shall be performed for system peak load conditions for both summer and winter periods. [2]. Of course, as indicated in [2] light load conditions are also studied were necessary, however, voltage stability is typically only a concern under heavy load conditions. In addition, in Transpowers study the criterion used with respect to load serving capability was to ensure a 5% margin. That is, voltage stability of the power system is maintained by allowing an additional 5% of demand above the forecasted peak
2-1

load. Both these assumptions are consistent with industry standards. The WECC standards [5] more specifically employ the following approach: 1. Studies should be conducted under a 1 in ten year extreme weather condition peak load scenario. That is, the forecasted load used is essentially based on an assumption that there is a 90% (nine out of ten years) chance that the system peak load will be less than or equal to the amount forecasted. 2. For load areas, post-transient voltage stability is required for the area modeled at a minimum of 105% of the reference load level for system normal conditions (Category A) and for single contingencies (Category B). For multiple contingencies (Category C), posttransient voltage stability is required with the area modeled at a minimum of 102.5% of the reference load level. For this standard, the reference load level is the maximum established planned load limit for the area under study. [5]. One added comment is that under the WECC criteria, special protection schemes (e.g. controlled automated load shedding such as under voltage load shedding) is allowed as a means of mitigation for Category C and above disturbances. To better understand the second item above, consider Figure 2.1. In essence the requirement is that PV analysis should be performed for the worst single transmission element outage (line/transformer) and for the worst double transmission element outage. Then a margin of 5% should be defined from the nose of the PV curve for the worst N-1 outage and 2.5% for the N2 outage. The lower of these two numbers is considered the maximum load (or transfer limit) than can be served.

Figure 2.1: Load serving capability defined based on post-transient PV analysis.

2-2

A few caveats are pertinent: 1. In many utilities in WECC (PG&Es Bay Area being a specific example [6]) there are specific more stringent criteria that require studying certain low local generation scenarios. In the US main regions have such reliability must-run units, and there is often a desire to minimize the dependence on their use for economic (cheaper remote generation) and environmental (old generation that does not meet newer emissions standards) reasons. This is consistent with the Transpower approach of looking at dry hydrological scenarios that emulate low hydro generation scenarios (all the major generation in the South Island is hydro). 2. In WECC and many other US regions [7] the outage of a transmission line with the prior outage of the largest unit in the system is also studied as a Category B outage this is known as a N-1-1 (or sometimes L1-G1). In this scenario, the unit is taken out, the system readjusted and then N-1 analysis performed using the new case. The goal is to consider the case, though rare, where a critical unit has been lost and a line outage occurs before the unit can be brought back into service. In the case of Transpower, it was indicated in [1] that this was not considered due to the small size of generating units. 2.2 Allowable Step Change in Voltage for Switching of Shunt Devices Based on [2], Transpower adopts the Australian standard, which for the purposes of voltage stability studies, basically limits the acceptable step change in voltage at high voltage (HV) transmission buses to 3% (for events that occur less than once per hour). This is quite typical of what is used elsewhere in the world. This is also consistent with the IEC and IEEE standards on voltage flicker. What this number does is limit the size of a single shunt capacitor bank that can be switched in one discrete unit. 2.3 Types of Faults, Fault Duration and Clearing Times to be Studied In [1] no time domain simulation work was performed. However, in [2], the Transpower planning criteria indicate that the following types of faults and clearing times to be used in studies: 1. 3-phase fault with normal clearing 2. Single-line to ground fault with normal clearing 3. Single-line to ground fault with backup clearing (presumably emulating a stuck/failed primary breaker) These are to be studied with the intent of insuring system recovery without cascading or major loss of load. Four additional scenarios are also mentioned (loss of an entire substation due to fault, back-up clearing following a 3-phase fault, etc.) that are occasionally studied with the understanding that they may lead to loss of supply. These disturbances and the deterministic approach to analysis are consistent with most other utilities at present worldwide, particularly WECC and other US regions.

2-3

The normal clearing times quoted in [2] are 6 cycles (of 50 Hz) for 220 and 400 kV circuits, and 10 cycles for 66 and 110 kV circuits. Back-up clearing is assumed to take 17.5 cycles. Presumably there is some intentional conservatism built into these numbers as is the case certainly in other utilities, to allow for relay sensing, telemetry and eventual opening of the circuit breaker. None-the-less, depending on the actual technology of the circuit breakers presently used in the Transpower system, the primary clearing times may be slightly long. For 220 and 400 kV, with modern SF6 breakers clearing times of 40 to 50ms are achievable, so even adding another two cycles for detection the total clearing time may be around 4.5 cycles. This is a rather finer detail. It is important, however, because when performing time-domain simulations the fault duration will affect the results of the analysis. 2.4 Reactive Power Margins Exact reactive margin criteria are not often used in planning standards in the US. WECC does provide a proxy to the PV criteria (Figure 2.1), however, the more accepted and enforced standard is the 5% for N-1 and 2.5% for N-2 real power margin criteria described above. Transpower also does not have a specific reactive margin standard. A few important comments should be made: 1. Maintaining some level of reactive margin (i.e. reserve of reactive supply, be it from generators, SVCs, shunt capacitor banks or a combination of all of the above) is critical. It is widely accepted that voltage collapse typically occurs when reactive resources in the system are depleted, e.g. generator reactive output is limited by overexcitation limiters (or limits on stator current this is often implemented as an automatic control loop in modern power plants), SVCs clamp at their maximum capacitive limit and all other shunt compensation being depleted[8]. 2. The PV criteria of operating the system such that there is at least a 5% margin in real power between the forecasted peak load and the point of voltage collapse, in essence provides for a means of maintaining a minimum amount of reactive resource in reserve, since the nose point on the PV curve will occur once all reactive reserves have been depleted (that is all generators, SVCs etc. have reached their reactive limits). 2.5 Voltage Dip Criteria The main WECC planning standard [9] defines frequency dip and voltage dip performance criteria. This has often been employed by some WECC members when performing voltage stability studies. These criteria obviously apply to time-domain simulations. We believe, however, that if considered within the context of the standard and the historic development of the document, it becomes clear that these voltage and frequency dip criteria are proxies for identifying the vicinity to rotor-angle stability in lieu of more detailed load modeling. Thus, we believe that in the context of voltage stability analysis the key is to model loads as accurately as possible in dynamic studies and then to perform sensitivity analysis to identify the most robust means of mitigating the problems [10]. Never-the-less, prolonged voltage sags are undesirable (e.g. delay voltage recovery following major system disturbances have been recently observed in the South Westerns regions of the US
2-4

[11]). Delayed voltage recovery is primarily driven by stalling of motor load, primarily airconditioning load. Presently, EPRI and other organizations are involved in a collaborative effort by the WECC Modeling and Validation Working Group in studying this phenomenon. During the winter peak load in the South Island of New Zealand this may also be a problem, since although there is not likely to be much air-conditioning load during such times, based on discussions with Transpower, there is likely to be a significant amount of motor driven heatpumps in the load mixture. This requires further discussion and investigation. For such loads (air-conditioner and heat-pumps) there are typically two types: (i) direct connected motors that run the compressor (scroll or reciprocating compressor), or (ii) inverter controlled motors that run the compressor. For residential applications, the direct connect motors have the typical problem of stalling for severe voltage depressions and continuing to draw current from the system for seconds before their thermal overload relays trip them. This leads to the delayed voltage recovery problem. Inverter controlled motors, since they are decoupled from the ac system and controlled by an inverter, do not display this stalling behavior. For sever voltage sags, the inverter shuts done. Once the system voltage recovers, then the inverters restart and run the motor back up (the re-start is also essentially a soft-start). 2.6 Load Modeling and the General Approach to Voltage Stability Analysis The general approach and load modeling assumptions made in the Transpower study [1] are as follows: 1. All loads were assumed to be constant power (constant real and reactive power) loads, with no dependence on voltage. 2. The load was scaled up at a constant power factor (0.984 for winter and 0.974 for summer). 3. Only PV and QV1, steady-state power flow analysis was performed. A more comprehensive approach would involve also performing time-domain dynamic simulations with significant sensitivity analysis particularly to the load model. Reference [12] discusses one such approach, which has been used successfully in many recent studies [6, 10, 13, 7, 14]. Briefly, the study approach proposed in [12] is as follows: 1. Step 1 Use power-flow contingency analysis as a screening tool to identify the critical contingencies creating low reactive margin and leading to voltage problems in the transmission system. In particular, if a contingency leads to either divergence of the power-flow solution or to severe voltage violations, then it is identified as a candidate for further analysis. In this screening phase all N-1 and combinations of N-2 (or N-1-1 such as prior loss of a unit and subsequent loss of a line) are simulated. 2. Step 2 Use optimal power flow (OPF) for those critical contingencies that led to a diverged power flow solution during the screening analysis (or severe voltage violations)

Here the term QV is used. In the Transpower report the term VQ is used. These terms both mean the same thing and are used interchangeably in the literature. 2-5

to identify the amount and optimal location of reactive compensating to mitigate the problem. 3. Step 3 Due to site related limitations, the optimal locations identified by OPF analysis may then need to be grouped into clusters and a key bus chosen for each cluster for deployment of shunt compensation. QV analysis is used to identify the required amount of shunt compensation for each cluster, and the practicality of the amount of shunt compensation at each site. PV analysis is then used for confirming the load-serving capability of the system after the proposed reactive compensation has been installed. 4. Step 4 The final step of the study procedure is time domain simulations. Time domain simulations allow one to fully appreciate the dynamics of the phenomenon and identify the right mix of dynamic and discretely switching reactive compensation devices. One alternative to step 2 is the use of modal analysis [15]. However, this approach does not in itself easily allow for formulation of an optimization problem to identify the minimum amount and best location for reactive compensation. If we compare this approach to the Transpower approach, the following comments can be made: a) Step 1 is perhaps unnecessary in the case of the South Island study. In this case the network configuration is relatively simple. The generation is almost entirely in the Waitaki Valley and carried by four 220 kV transmission lines to the dominant load center at Christchurch. Thus, the critical N-1 outage is always going to be the loss of one of these lines more specifically the loss of the Islington Tekapo-B line is the worst outage since it is the lowest impedance path between the generation and load. b) Step 2 is also perhaps unnecessary in this case since there is only one 220 kV substation that serves the major load center Islington. Thus, if a large shunt compensation device is to be deployed this is likely the only choice for its location from a practical perspective. The substations at Bromely, Addington, Papanui and Springston might also be locations for some shunt compensation this all depends on availability of space and the reactive margin at these locations. c) Thus, this leaves us with QV, PV and time-domain analysis. Performing some selective time-domain simulations can be quite helpful. As for the PV and QV analysis performed in [1], there are some refinements that might be fruitful. In [1] PV and QV analysis was performed using constant MVA load. In the past [3] other regions have, at the lack of better load data, taken a similar approach. However, presently US regions such as the WECC have recognized the need to try to better model load even for power flow analysis. In [5] there is a clear distinction made between investigating mid- to long-term impact of voltage stability, in which case loads are modeled as constant MVA at the transmission bus level for power flow analysis, versus attempting to assess the short-term impact of voltage stability using power flow analysis for which the voltage dependence of load should be captured as best as possible. One final comment is that Transpower employed a criterion of determining the maximum allowable shunt compensation based on an objective of keeping the nose point of the PV and

2-6

QV curves below 0.98 pu. Although, we fully agree that it is generally accepted that one should avoid, as much as possible, from pushing the so-called nose point (or point of bifurcation/collapse) of the PV/QV curve into the region of typical operating voltage, there is no specific criteria such as this one (stating a specific numerical value) applied by other utilities to our knowledge. The reason for this is as follows: 1. The reason for wanting to avoid pushing the nose point too high, especially where only discrete shunt compensation is used, is that in such cases voltage control by discrete devices alone may lead to hunting and/or voltage instability. However, if fast and smoothly controlled vernier dynamic reactive reserves are maintained, then stable operation can be sustained so long as the response rate of the dynamic device is faster than the rate at which load may vary, and there is some dependence of load on voltage [16]. Under such conditions, voltage collapse occurs only when all reactive reserves have been depleted so the key is to ensure that adequate reactive margin is maintained. 2. PV and QV analysis using constant MVA load is not indicative of the actual dynamics of voltage collapse. Rather, it is indicative of the load level at which mid- to long-term voltage collapse occurs. PV and QV analysis cannot accurately predict short-term voltage stability problems that are driven primarily by motor stalling [5, 8]. 3. In practice, voltage will not instantaneously collapse. Voltage instability or collapse typically occurs in two general time periods. First, within seconds after a major system disturbance (e.g. loss of a major line, fault and tripping of a line or generator). Such, short-term (or transient) voltage instability is driven primarily by stalled motors in heavy industrial areas or areas with large amounts of residential air-conditioning (the latter is a problem in south western regions of the US, which leads to delayed voltage recovery and the potential for short-term voltage instability [11]). This type of problem is difficult to investigate and certainly cannot be investigated using steady-state simulation tools alone; it requires detailed time-domain simulations with significant load sensitivity analysis [10, 5, 17]. Although this cannot be stated for certain, without more detailed analysis of the Transpower South Island case, such short-term instability might be a possibility for the Christchurch area given the potential for a high concentration of motor driven heatpumps during the winter peak load2. The second type of voltage collapse is a mid- to long-term phenomenon. Following a disturbance, there is almost always some voltage dependence of load behavior that will result in some reduction of load due to a drop in voltage. In addition, discontinuous behavior of loads (discharge lighting, motor contacts dropping out etc.) will also result in some load relief. Then, if no short-term voltage instability results, in the longer term (minutes time frame) the load will gradually restore itself by two main mechanisms: (i) the action of on-load tap-changers (OLTCs) on substation transformers, and (ii) the natural tendency of some loads to self-restore (e.g. thermostatically controlled loads [18]). As the OLTCs and self-restoring loads act to increase the demand under the weakened system condition (e.g. after the loss of a major
Again it is emphasized that much of this is determined by the concentration of and type of motor load. For example, (i) direct connected motors that run directly off of the ac system voltage are susceptible to motor stalling, while (ii) inverter (power electronic) controlled motors that are decoupled from the ac system by the power converter (inverter) will shut down for severe disturbances (and thus momentarily reduce load) and restart only after the system voltage recovers. Thus, such analysis requires careful modeling and sensitivity analysis. 2-7
2

transmission line), then if there is inadequate reactive reserves in the system the voltage will collapse once all reactive reserves have been depleted (i.e. generators are on reactive limits due to OEL action, SVCs are clamped at their maximum capacitive limit and all shunt capacitors have been switched in). In these cases discrete shunt compensation alone occasionally cannot fully resolve the problem, due to large variations in voltage for switching on/of a single shunt capacitor. This leads to the potential for hunting or voltage collapse due to the inadvertent switching out of a capacitor bank [6, 10]. However, if nearby smoothly controlled reactive sources (generator, SVCs, etc.) are maintained with adequate reactive reserves, the voltage can be controlled. 2.7 Need for Time-Domain Dynamic Studies There is a need to perform time-domain dynamic studies in cases such as that of the New Zealand South Island. The main reason is that the actual dynamics and unfolding of the potential voltage collapse cannot be fully assessed with steady-state power flow analysis. In particular, effects such as the potential for stalling of large blocks of motor load (e.g. heat pumps or airconditioners) cannot be captured in power flow analysis. To capture the actual load characteristics of a system is an extremely challenging problem at best. Present industry best practice is to develop a reasonable initial estimate of the load characteristics for the peak load case under study (i.e. including motor load dynamics, constant power loads, discharge lighting etc.) and to then perform load sensitivity studies based on engineering judgment and surveys, measurement data and other information that may be available about the load characteristics of the area under study. Thus, by looking at the range of credible load compositions, a solution should be found that is robust to the credible and expected variations in load characteristics. Time-domain studies also may show that transiently the dynamic range of an SVC may need to be greater than what is needed for steady-state. Thus, this may lead to a decision to build additional dynamic capability into the device. One possible means of reducing the cost of an SVC is by designing the device to have a short-term rating that is larger than its continuous steady-state rating. Depending on the component that is thermally overloaded by such an approach, the short-term output (that may be a significant fraction above the steady-state rating of the device) can be sustained for several seconds to a few hours. Extreme care must be taken, however, in such an approach since operators may take minutes or hours to readjust the system following a major disturbance/line outage and so there are significant advantages to a fully-rated device. For the case of the New Zealand South Island, we believe the prudent approach might be to base the continuous steady-state rating of the device on power flow type analysis (see discussions in section 3.4), while if time-domain studies show the need for additional transient range (to address the transient voltage recovery due to load dynamics) some of this might be considered for short-term capability of the device. This is all subject to further careful study. In summary, the response of the reactive device needs to be fast enough to address the dynamics of the load recovery and it needs to have adequate range to maintain a healthy reactive margin following the disturbance that is, for the worst system contingency, once the initial transient period is over and the system has settled down at a new stead-state operating point, all reactive reserves must not be depleted (e.g. for an SVC it must not be clamped at its capacitive limit).

2-8

A DETAILED REVIEW OF THE TRANSPOWER STUDY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDED POSSIBLE REFINEMENTS
In this section specific and clear comments are made on how the South Island study may be augmented to further refine the proposed transmission plan. At a high level, the following general observation may be made. 1. Building a new transmission line from the Waitaki Valley Generation to the load center at Christchurch is without argument the best technical solution. However, it is also almost certainly the most expensive and one that will require significant lead time and permitting. 2. The series compensation options studied does offer significant improvement in voltage stability. This is a well know benefit of series compensation [19]. The one caveat is that this solution, though less expensive that option 1 above, is perhaps more expensive than shunt compensation for the reason that all four lines from the Waitaki Valley will require series compensation (otherwise flows on the lines will not be evenly distributed). In addition, these lines and perhaps also the other lines emanating out of Twizel, Livingston and Islington may require replacement of the transmission line relays. Studies will need to be performed to ensure that the series compensation does not adversely affect the transient recovery voltage (TRV) of the line breakers. These are all easily addressed issues, technically, but will likely drive the cost of this option higher than a shunt compensation option. 3. A shunt compensation option, both from the perspective of lead time on construction (typical lead time for an SVC is likely to be around 18 months) and overall project cost, is the preferred solution economically for deferring the construction of a new line. The Transpower report [1] concluded that significant additional shunt compensation is not an option, however, this conclusions was based primarily on two assumptions (i) the use of a constant MVA load model for PV analysis, and (ii) a criteria of not allowing the nose of the PV curve to rise above 0.98 pu. We do not believe that these are sound assumptions for making such conclusions. In particular, we are not aware of any major utility planning standards that presently employ a specific criterion of limiting the voltage level of the nose of the PV curve. Subject to further time-domain simulation work (with more detailed load modeling) it is believed that additional shunt compensation is likely to be a feasible option. Thus, it is believed that the last option should be further investigated before it is totally abandoned. This is discussed in detail below.

3-1

3.1 Similar Studies Performed in the US that Have Seen the Application of SVC or STATCOMs to Mitigate Voltage Instability San Francisco: Load growth combined with retirement of generation in the city of San Francisco (due to environmental concerns regarding emissions of legacy generation equipment) led to the deployment of two SVCs in the Greater Bay area for voltage support [20, 21, 6]3. Some similarities with the South Island case are that the City is at the end of a Peninsula that is served by two 230 kV cables and some local generation the local generation has been steadily retired, the second cable was energized in 2006 after many years of planning4. Let us take a closer look at some aspects of this system. Figure 3.1 shows the scenario when a capacitor is switched in, then out and then another capacitor is also switched out [6]. This is done under one of the most severe contingency conditions with all other smoothly regulated reactive reserves on the Peninsula depleted (i.e. local generator on their overexcitaion limit). It can be seen that the switching of capacitors results in greater than 4% change in voltage at some buses. In addition, the switching of the last capacitor causes the voltage to rapidly decay. The load model here is quite detailed. In Figure 3.2, the same case was simulated, this time with the SVC in-service. The voltage is stable and regulated. In [1] it is sated that the flat QV plots show that under some conditions the addition of extra shunt compensation may not be able to ensure voltage stability. This is certainly true for discrete devices, however, as seen here a smoothly regulated device (e.g. SVC, STATCOM, synchronous condenser) can solve the problem in places where discrete devices might not. In fact, assuming at least some short term voltage dependence of load (which is almost certain to be the case), in [16] it is shown that an SVC can maintain stability where discrete shunt compensation may not.

3 4

http://tdworld.com/mag/power_pge_stabilizes_network/ http://www.pge.com/news/news_releases/q2_2006/060407.html 3-2

1.1 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02

Voltage (pu)

Martin 230 kV San Mateo 230 kV Ravenswood 230 kV Hunters Pt. 115 kV

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.9

20

40

60 Time (seconds)

80

100

120

Figure 3.1: The consequence of switching 75 MVAr shunt capacitor banks at the 115 kV level following a major contingency, and with all other reactive reserves depleted. (reproduced from [6], IEEE 2003).
1.1 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02
Voltage (pu)

Martin 230 kV San Mateo 230 kV Ravenswood 230 kV Hunters Pt. 115 kV

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.9

20

40

60

80

100 120 Time (seconds)

140

160

180

200

Figure 3.2: Same event as in Figure 3.1, however, this time with an SVC active and in-service at the 115 kV level. The SVC does not reach its capacitive limit, the gradual decline in voltage from roughly 110 seconds to 160 seconds is due to the deliberate action of the SVC slow-susceptance regulator which is reducing the SVC voltage reference set point in order to free up its dynamic range. (reproduced from [6], IEEE 2003).

3-3

Reference [21] presents actual operational experience with these SVCs. Tucson Arizona: The potential benefit of the reduced cost of running more expensive local generation, combined with load growth, recently led a utility to employ an SVC for voltage support [13]. The Tucson area is fed by three EHV substations and local generation. During peak load, and under minimum generation scenarios (for economic reasons), the load area is susceptible to voltage collapse. QV plots showed quite flat and high (close to 1 pu in some case) nose points. However, detailed load modeling (using a detailed survey of the load by the utility) and significant load sensitivity analysis demonstrated in time-domain simulations that an optimally sized and located SVC, with the ability to perform coordinate (automatic) switching of local shunt capacitor banks was able to ensure voltage stability over the range of the worst N-1, N-1-1 and selected N-2 contingency scenarios. One important note is that for N-2 and worst contingency scenarios, per the WECC planning criteria [9], special protection systems (SPS) are allowed for automatic load shedding. This is used in the Tucson area and many other regions in WECC (e.g. above PG&E case in California). Transpower should perhaps consider having an Under Voltage Load Shedding (UVLS) or other SPS for emergencies that would otherwise be too expensive to plan for (e.g. loss of multiple lines into Islington). Such UVLS would be done at the lower voltage levels (i.e. not at the 220 kV level). Others Cases in the US: Without going into the details, there are a few other examples of recent and similar applications of shunt compensation devices [22, 23]. Other International Cases: Another international example of a system that operates a large load center that is radial and remote from generation is the City of Tokyo in Japan. On July 23, 1987, the City of Tokyo experienced a massive blackout caused by voltage collapse [24]. The event was a long-term voltage collapse taking many minutes to unfold. The primary root cause was a lack of response from reactive resources for the extra ordinary rise in load on that day (400 MW/minute). In addition, on-load tap changing transformers restored voltages on the distribution side (thus increasing the effective load level as transmission voltage dropped one of the long term self-restoration mechanisms of load), which led to a slow voltage collapse. The lessons learned from this blackout resulted in the present voltage and reactive power control strategy adopted by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The key aspects of this strategy, which are pertinent to the present discussion, are as follows: 1. Maintain a High and Flat Voltage Profile: This means coordinate control of generator AVRs and other reactive sources. In fact, some utilities (TEPCO included) around the world use what is known as Secondary Voltage Control to help maintain this [25]. This approach uses a slow reset controller than senses the EHV transmission voltage and slowly biases the generator AVRs (in a coordinated way) to maintain that EHV voltage. One sophisticate example is that used in EFD [25], where the voltage at key EHV transmission buses (referred to as pilot nodes) are measured and based on an algorithm this is then translated into a set of targets to be sent as signals back to generating unit

3-4

AVR voltage reference set points. This secondary control loop is much slower than the AVR. One might think of it essentially as synonymous to automatic generation control for VArs instead of Watts, in order to maintain overall system voltage. 2. Installation of Additional Shunt Capacitors: Prior to the event, there were 10.6 GVAr of shunt capacitors in the system to support 40GW of load. Presently, there is an estimated 18.2 GVAr of shunt capacitors under automatic control. 3. Installation of Smoothly Controlled Dynamic Reactive Power Reserves: TEPCO installed six SVCs in the network as well as secondary voltage controllers on many generating stations to control the high-side (transmission system) voltage [24]. 4. Installation of UVLS: UVLS was installed as a backup for extremely severe outages. 5. Implementation of an On-line Voltage Security Monitoring System: TEPCO has implemented an internally developed tool that computes P-V curves and Q-V curves from on-line data. The P-V curves are drawn under the normal and critical single contingency scenarios. This provides the operator with an indication of the proximity of voltage instability. Also, the system determines automatic remedial actions. 6. Blocking OLTCs: To avoid the potentially detrimental effect of OLTCs on long-term voltage collapse, TEPCO has added a function to the automatic controls at each substation to lock the OLTC tap position when all shunt capacitors at the station are in service and the primary (transmission) side voltage is lower than a certain limit. 3.2 Detailed Comments on the Study A list of detailed comments on the study report [1] follows. o The load level, studied, the use of dry generation scenarios to consider potentially low hydro generation, the allowance for a 5% margin above the forecasted load, are all consistent with industry best practices (see discussion in section 2). o In the analysis, the worst outage (and thus the one primarily studied using PV and QV analysis) is quoted as being the loss of the Islington Tekapo B 220 kV line. A perusal of the power flow data justifies this statement as it is clear that this is the lowest impedance path from Islington to the Waitaki Valley generation (among the four 220 kV circuits). However, one question is whether or not the loss of the double-circuit line from Islington to Twizel was considered in the analysis. A quick spot check of the power flow solution shows (as might be expected) that this is a more severe outage. Admittedly, this is a far less likely event. However, since these lines are on a single-tower, the common mode of failure (loss of a tower) should be considered. In the US, this is often regarded as a Category C event and, depending on the cost of mitigating the problem, under voltage load shedding (UVLS) is a viable option [4, 9]. o Although it is stated in the report that the loss of generation was not considered due to the small size of generating units, it may still be interesting to look at an N-1-1 scenario. That is, the loss of the Islington to Twizel 220 kV line combined with the prior outage (and system readjustment, if necessary) of a Benmore unit (these are the largest units). In

3-5

this case, presumably the difference would be made up by reducing MW export on the HVDC link. o In most, if not all, the PV plots in the report, the voltage at Islington 220 kV is shown. This is not necessarily the best indicator of the point of voltage collapse since this bus is regulated by an SVC and two synchronous condensers (SCs). Thus, the voltage is kept constant while the SVC and SCs have dynamic range. As soon as they run out of reactive range the collapse occurs. What is being seen here is simply the fact that voltage collapse occurs once the system runs out of reactive resources. Also, to reiterate again, this is only an indication of mid- to long-term voltage collapse. That is, once reactive resources are depleted, the voltage will drop. Then as load self restores (through the action of OLTC, self-restoring thermostatically controlled loads etc.) the voltage will continue to drop and eventually collapse. This may take several minutes. To get a sense of the dynamics, timedomain simulations are needed. o It is stated that based on Figure 7 and 8 in [1], further addition of reactive compensation would move the critical point (bifurcation point) of the QV curve above 0.98, which is unacceptable. To our knowledge such a criterion is not used in the planning standards of other major utilities. As stated in section 2, using a constant MVA load characteristic for QV analysis depicts the long-term behavior of load and not the short-term behavior. Thus, it is not accurate to construe the point of voltage collapse in this way. In [8] a technique is presented for estimating reactive support needs for voltage stability; this technique is employed as a rough means of estimating smoothly control shunt reactive compensation versus discrete shunt reactive compensation [5]. The approach is based on comparing the QV margin between the case of calculating the QV curve using a constant MVA load (long-term load characteristic) and the case of calculating the QV curve using a voltage dependent load (short-term load characteristic). Thus, the difference between the short and long term needs for reactive power constitute the amount of smoothly control reactive resources needed. This is a rough estimated proxy to time-domain simulations with detailed load modeling. Thus, in summary, we do not believe that it is prudent to limit the application of additional shunt compensation purely based on the criteria and assumptions in [1]. o Both the PV and QV analysis was done using constant MVA load. This has certainly been common practice in the industry [3]. This type of analysis reveals the long-term characteristics of voltage stability and not the short term behavior of load and thus the unfolding of the instability [8, 5]. Therefore, some limited time domain simulations, concentrating on the loss of Islington Tekapo B 220 kV line should be performed. Such analysis would require detailed modeling of the load, including the distribution bus, OLTC, motor load and extensive sensitivity analysis [10]. o On of the interim non-transmission solutions proposed in the report is the running of local diesel generation near the load center. This is clearly an effective interim solution. It should always be held in reserve for extreme scenarios when it may be needed. The assumption, however, is that if other solutions are possible they are preferred since such local generation is perhaps expensive to run, and there may be other pressures due to environmental impact of emissions.

3-6

o The series capacitor option is a clear and effective solution option for deferring the need to build a new transmission line. o In the report it was indicated that the load power factor was kept constant at 0.984 for winter cases and 0.974 for summer cases. A perusal of the loads in the power flow case showed a variation in the power factor of the load at each bus. Some had a slightly higher power factor, while others were lower. The total system load power factor was roughly equal to the numbers quoted above. It is assumed that this is in fact an accurate representation of the real load power factor, as in practice some substation loads may be better compensated than others. Thus, we have interpreted the numbers quoted as referring to the overall total system load power factor. The load power factor was kept constant for PV analysis. This is a reasonable assumption as it assumes that on the distribution system power factor correction will be maintained at the same level as load grows. Keeping as high as possible a power factor at the loads helps to reduce the amount of compensation needed on the transmission system. o Finally, it should be noted that in this report the technical details of the Geraldine bussing options were reviewed but not further studied. Based on the review of the results of that option, it is believed that this option may be economically less viable than the shunt compensation options. That is, the cost of this project is likely to be similar to added smoothly controlled shunt compensation at Islington, while the additional transfer capability yielded is significantly less. 3.3Risks Associated with the South Island Scenario In general, there is no doubt that the [1] shows results of a system susceptible to voltage collapse. This is actually typical of a system that is heavily shunt compensated with little nearby generation and dynamic reactive compensation. The rather flat QV characteristics indicate a high dV/dQ (rate of change of voltage with reactive power), which in turn translates to large changes in voltage for small discrete changes in reactive and active power. This means that regulating voltage becomes difficult with discrete components such as mechanically switched capacitor and reactor banks. The addition of an appropriately sized SVC may allow one to operation of the system up to 2013 (see section 3.4). This is true of course if and only if the SVC is sized to remain within its limits even after the most critical outage. What are the risks of operating such a system without adequate smoothly controlled dynamic VAr support? These risks can be listed as follows: 1. Lack of voltage control/regulation: Using only discrete lumped shunt devices (capacitors and reactors) the system voltage response is quite coarse and irregular. 2. Small-signal voltage instability: It is plausible to find extreme conditions where the switching of shunt devices can lead to voltage instability. Based on the QV curves in the study report, this may be possible. However, assuming some load dependence on voltage (which is quite fair), then a sufficiently sized and tuned SVC would mitigate such an instability so long as it remains within its limits even for the worst outage [16].

3-7

3. Short-term Voltage Collapse: There may be the potential for short-term voltage instability based on the actual motor load content in the system this requires more detailed time-domain simulations. To mitigate this problem, requires a combination of clearing any transmission faults as quickly as possible and to employ adequate (and fast acting) smoothly controlled dynamic reactive support [10]. Then the question arises as to the availability and reliability of a modern SVC. Let us first define these terms. Availability means the percentage of time during the year that the SVC is on-line and fully available to support the system. Reliability refers to overall reliability of the system, that is, how many forced outages occur during a year due to component failure or a malfunction. A typical modern SVC, without any extraordinary attempt to enhance its availability, will have a total availability in excess of 98%. This number includes both forced and scheduled outages. In addition, the typical modern SVC is quite reliable with roughly only one to two forced outages a year. Maintenance outages are a prudent practice, and should be done typically twice per year during light load periods. In the case of the New Zealand South Island this might be mid spring and early autumn. Given that an SVC would be a critical element for ensuring voltage stability, Transpower should consider options to perhaps ensure higher availability (e.g. 99%) and high reliability. Some of this is discussed below. One other caveat is to give consideration to building some margin into the dynamic range of the device, since the incremental cost of additional dynamic range may be favorable. There are measures that can be taken to improve the availability and reliability of an SVC. The components that have the highest failure rates are the auxiliary systems and the control system. Fixing these problems, once they occur, is typically not a long duration task (e.g. replacing a faulty circuit board) and so these events affect reliability (number of forced outages) more than availability (total down time). Often significant redundancy is built into both of these systems. Thus, common designs will have two redundant control systems, where the backup system will take over should a failure occur on the main system. This improves both availability and reliability, since it limits the number of forced outages and also potential down time of the SVC. If a certain level of availability (e.g. 99 %) is requested, then the vendor will typically recommend the appropriate amount of spare parts to meet this requirement (i.e. facilitate quick turn around in maintenance and on-site trouble shooting). The component that is least likely to fail but would have the greatest impact on availability is the SVC transformer. The step-up transformer connecting the SVC to the transmission voltage level is a power transformer. Failure of such transformers is quite rare (in [13] the total forced outages on a power transformer in one system are listed as being 3 in ten years, a second bank had no outages for the same period also, presumably none of these outages lead to a complete failure of the bank). Nevertheless, should the unit transformer fail the SVC can be out of service for months while waiting for a replacement transformer bank. To avoid this risk, the SVC transformer can be configured from three single phase transformers with a fourth spare bank. In this way, should one of the banks fail it can be relatively quickly switched out and the spare bank connected in its place while a new transformer is ordered. Thus, in the extremely rare event that a single transformer fails the SVC downtime is reduced from months to several hours. With prudent design and redundancy the risks can be made manageable.

3-8

A final question may be as to how to effectively ensure that the SVCs dynamic range is maintained. Modern designs incorporate many simple yet effective control schemes such as automatic coordinate switching of nearby mechanically switched capacitor banks and secondary slow-susceptance regulation to preserve dynamic range. Reference [20] explains one such system in detail. The system explained in that reference has been in operation for over two years. A unit with similar controls has been in operation in the same system for nearly five years. After discussions with Transpower, it is our understanding that they are presently pursuing the installation of a reactive power control (RPC) system at Islington that would perform such a task of coordinating all the reactive resources at this substation this is definitely an important pursuit. 3.4 Some Limited Steady-State Analysis to Augment the Study Performed To complement the work performed in [1], some limited power flow analysis was performed using a power flow case provided by Transpower. Some key assumptions made were as follows: o For PV analysis all load power factor was kept constant and the load was assumed to be constant MVA. All loads in the system were scaled with the exception of the smelter load at Tiwai. The model was for only the South Island. o The HVDC at Benmore was allowed to reverse its flow to accommodate the increase in load in the South Island. That is, for the PV analysis as load was incremented the power was imported from the HVDC (first reducing HVDC export and then reversing its power up to 600 MW of import). The generation dispatch was not altered. o The synchronous condensers at Islington were moved back to the 11 kV level (tertiary of one of the substation transformers). o The existing +60/-50 MVAr SVC at Islington was combined with the existing 4 x 60 MVAr mechanically switched capacitors (MSCs) to essentially effect a +300/-50 MVAr device at Islington (represented faithfully as an impedance passive source). A number of simulations were performed. First a PV analysis was conducted to confirm the results in [1]. Figure 3.3 shows that with the existing system the total South Island load (and thus the Upper South Island load) can only be served up to 2008 (roughly 2280 MW) this assumes the 5% margin criteria (see Figure 2.1). Notice that the voltage at Islington 220 kV is flat as long as there is reactive reserve at Islington (i.e. the SVC is regulating the bus voltage). Once all the reserves are depleted, then we would see a long-term voltage collapse this PV analysis is an indication of long-term voltage instability. Now if we add another +300 MVAr SVC at Islington (for a total of +600 MVAr of shunt compensation), the load serving capability is stretched out to 2013 (roughly 2530 MW). This is shown in Figure 3.4. Again, the voltage at Islington is flat because the SVC is regulating voltage. Once all reactive reserves are depleted, voltage instability ensues. The question may be asked, Can we push the load serving even further by increasing the SVC size? As an academic exercise, the limits on the SVC were removed to allow it to indefinitely provide reactive support. This case is show in Figure 3.5. In this case it appears that the load can be extended out to 2019 (roughly 2800 MW). However, once the SVC reaches roughly 800
3-9

MVAr the system collapses this shows that at some point we simply cannot sustain the system simply with reactive compensation. To serve the load up to the 2019 level, a +800 MVAr SVC is needed. This would constitute a total of +1100 MVArs of shunt compensation at Islington this is not practical or prudent. Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8 show QV plots at various system buses in the Christchurch area for the case of 2013 winter peak load, with the outage of the Islington Tekapo-B line and with the additional +300 MVAr SVC at Islington. In Figure 3.7 it is assumed that the load is constant MVA, while in Figure 3.8 it is assumed that the load is voltage dependent (constant current real power and constant impedance reactive power). One can interpret these results roughly as follows. Figure 3.7 shows the long-term behavior of the system as load eventually restores itself. In this case there is reactive margin at all the area buses and so the system is stable. Note only one bus has a nose point above 0.98 pu, the Islington 66 kV bus. The Islington 220 kV bus QV curve is flat as long as the SVC is within its reactive range and able to hold the bus voltage at the specified value (the SVC was modeled as +360/-200 MVAr, which includes the range of the existing +60/-50 MVAr SVC). Figure 3.8 shows what might be though of as the instantaneous behavior of the system following the loss of the line, before load restoration takes place in the form of OLTC action and other self-restoration mechanisms. In this case again all area buses have reactive margin and the nose points are all below 0.98 pu. To truly visualize system response one needs to perform time-domain simulations with load sensitivity and looking at different ways of initiating the disturbance (i.e. with and without a fault). This is because the load dynamics is in reality somewhere between these curves. Furthermore, for cases when the disturbance is initiated by a fault, there is typically some discontinues behavior of certain loads, e.g. motor loads dropping out on, discharge lighting dropping out momentarily on fault, power electronic loads dropping out momentarily on severe voltage dips etc.

3-10

Figure 3.3: PV curves for case without any additional shunt compensation. Worst N-1 condition, loss of Islington to Tekapo-B 220 kV.

Figure 3.4: PV curves for case with an additional +300/-200 MVAr SVC at Islington. Worst N-1 condition, loss of Islington to Tekapo-B 220 kV.

3-11

Figure 3.5: PV curves for academic case of placing an infinitely large SVC at Islington. Worst N-1 condition, loss of Islington to Tekapo-B 220 kV.

Figure 3.6: QV curve at Islington with the system load set to the 2013 (Winter Peak) load level and no additional shunt compensation provided at the Islington bus. The solid-blue line represents the QV curve assuming contact MVA load. The dotted-red line represents the QV curve assuming constant current real power and constant impedance reactive power. Worst N-1 condition, loss of Islington to Tekapo-B 220 kV.

3-12

Figure 3.7: QV curves at various buses in the Christchurch area for the 2013 (Winter Peak) load level and with a +360/-200 MVAr SVC at Islington 220 kV. Load assumed to be constant MVA. The solid-blue lines are for 11 kV substations, magenta is 33 kV, black is 66 kV and red is 220 kV. Worst N-1 condition, loss of Islington to Tekapo-B 220 kV.

Figure 3.8: QV curves at various buses in the Christchurch area for the 2013 (Winter Peak) load level and with a +360/-200 MVAr SVC at Islington 220 kV. Load assumed to be constant current real and constant impedance reactive. The solid-blue lines are for 11 kV substations, magenta is 33 kV, black is 66 kV and red is 220 kV. Worst N-1 condition, loss of Islington to Tekapo-B 220 kV.

3-13

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

4.1 Key Conclusions The key conclusions of this review may be summaries as follows: 1. In general the conclusions of the Transpower report are sound, with the exception of the 0.98 pu voltage criterion for adding more shunt compensation on the system, combined with the constant MVA load models. To our knowledge, assigning a specific voltage level limit to the nose of the PV curve is not used in the planning standards of other major utilities as a means of determining the limit on shunt compensation. This requires analysis in time-domain using detailed load modeling with proper and credible sensitivity analysis. Serving the Upper South Island load is quickly reaching its voltage stability limit and a means of mitigating this is needed. However, some time-domain analysis is warranted to more clearly define potential solution options from a technical perspective. 2. In the long-term a new transmission line from the hydro generation in the Waitaki Valley generation area to Christchurch will be needed. The key question is how long can this be deferred and by what means, subject to economic evaluation of the various options. 3. It is believed that some selective time-domain simulation work, with detailed load modeling and load sensitivity analysis is needed to fully answer this question. Based on some limited power flow analysis performed here it is estimated that there may be an opportunity to defer other transmission alternatives until 2013 by adding an SVC to the Islington 220 kV substation. This needs to be confirmed by time-domain simulations. Should this be deemed feasible, then the transmission plan would be along the lines of: a. Use non-transmission options such as running local diesel generation in the Christchurch area until 2009 this may be needed to allow time for implementing an SVC at Islington. Typical lead time for an SVC is likely to be around 18 months. b. With the SVC installed in 2009, the system can be operated until 2013. c. Then by using non-transmission alternatives and/or series compensation, the system can possibly then be operated even further out in years. d. Then the building of the new transmission line can possibly be deferred in the order of 5 to 10 years beyond 2013 this of course is subject to further economic considerations and analysis. All of this requires additional power flow analysis, and selective time-domain simulations to confirm that it is technically feasible and economically sound.

4-1

4.2 Recommended Additional Study Work The recommended additional study work is as follows: Power-Flow Analysis: Discussions are need with Transpower to identify exactly: 1. the series capacitor locations and sizes proposed 2. the amount and location of the diesel peaking units used as non-transmission alternatives 3. the exact method of load scaling and load power factor assumptions Using this information together with the proposed SVC option at Islington to look at how far out the building of the new transmission line can be pushed using PV analysis. This would be done looking at the Islington Tekapo-B 220 kV outage. Time-Domain Simulations: Develop detailed load models including induction motor component, representation of discontinuous load behavior (e.g. discharge lighting, motor contractor drop out), as well as static load models, similar to that presented in [10]. In addition, OLTCs and generator overexcitation limiters (OEL) need to be modeled. Then based on discussions with Transpower to identify load profiles and the load mix (and pulling on knowledge and experienced related to load modeling), identify a reasonable starting point for the load model and then develop a set of credible sensitivity scenarios to capture the potential variations in load between winter peak an summer peak (e.g. winter may be dominated by heat-pumps, thermostatically controlled heating, while summer will likely be dominated by air-conditioner load). Then perform time-domain simulations for the Islington Tekapo-B 220 kV outage considering: 1. Simply tripping the line. 2. 3-phase fault and trip. 3. Single-line to ground fault and trip. 4. Other credible scenarios (e.g. backup clearing, in which case multiple lines may trip and UVLS may also be needed, see comments in next subsection). 5. Performing load sensitivity analysis for all of the above. These simulations should consider both short-term and mid- to long-term voltage stability. That is, all events between tens of seconds to many minutes. Also, consideration should be given to the loss of the line with the prior outage of for example a single Benmore unit. 4.3 Recommended Additional Tools/Methods/Controls to Protect Against and Mitigate Voltage Instability Some additional considerations that Transpower might investigate are as follows:

4-2

1. The deployment of an under voltage load shedding (UVLS) scheme in the Christchurch area to protect against more severe outages such as the loss of a tower on the double circuit line out of the Islington 220 kV substation. This is in general a good back-up scheme in case of unpredicted severe outages. Such UVLS would be applied at the lower voltage levels, closer to the load (not at the 220 kV level). 2. Consideration of having automatic blocking schemes on the OLTCs in substations to prevent their action during an event such as the loss of a 220 kV circuit out of Islington this would reduce the risk of a slow voltage collapse. 3. Considering investment in operator tools for on-line voltage security assessment that would help system operators identify the vicinity to voltage instability and thus have predeveloped mitigation plans. One of the key components would be to constantly monitor the total available MVAr reserves (in SVCs, synchronous condensers and shunt capacitors on the transmission system) at Islington and the neighboring buses. This would be a key indicator of the vicinity to voltage instability. 4. Consideration for coordinating the controls of all reactive resources at the Islington substation it is our understanding that Transpower is already pursuing this.

4-3

REFERENCES
1. C. Hill, G. Love, S. Macdonald and K. Yu, South Island Grid Upgrade Investigations, Transpower Report No. MP340, May, 2007. 2. Main Transmission system Planning Criteria, Transpower, March 2005. 3. Western Electricity Coordinating Council, Summary of WECC Voltage Stability Assessment Methodology, July 11, 2001. www.wecc.biz 4. Western Electricity Coordinating Council, Voltage Stability Criteria, Undervoltage Load Shedding Strategy, and Reactive Power Reserve Monitoring Methodology, May 1998. www.wecc.biz 5. Reactive Reserve Working Group (RRWG), Guide to WECC/NERC Planning Standards I.D: Voltage Support and Reactive Power, WECC, March 2006. www.wecc.biz 6. P. Pourbeik, R. J. Koessler and B. Ray, Addressing Voltage Stability Related Reliability Challenges of San Francisco Bay Area With a Comprehensive Reactive Analysis, Proceedings of IEEE PES General Meeting, July 2003. 7. V. S. Kolluri and S. Mandal, Determining Reactive Power Requirements in the Southern Part of the Entergy System for Improving Voltage Security: A Case Study, IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition, Oct. 29 2006-Nov. 1 2006, pp:119 - 123 8. CIGRE Technical Brouchure 101, Criteria and Countermeasures for Voltage Collapse, October 1998. Prepared by CIGRE TF 38.02.12. 9. Western Electricity Coordinating Council, NERC/WECC Planning Standards, April 20, 2003. 10. P. Pourbeik, D. Wang and K. Hoang, Load Modeling in Voltage Stability Studies, Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, June 2005, San Francisco. 11. G. L. Chinn, Modeling Stalled Induction Motors, IEEE T&D Conference, May 2006. 12. P. Pourbeik, R. J. Koessler, W. Quaintance and W. Wong, Performing Comprehensive Voltage Stability Studies for the Determination of Optimal Location, Size and Type of Reactive Compensation, Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, June 2006, Montreal. 13. P. Pourbeik, A. Meyer and M. A. Tilford, Solving a Potential Voltage Stability Problem with the Application of a Static VAr Compensator, Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, June 2007, Tampa, Florida. 14. R. J. Koessler, W. Qiu, M. Patel and H. K. Clark, Voltage Stability Study of the PJM System Following Extreme Disturbances, IEEE Trans. PWRS, Vol. 22, Issue 1, Feb. 2007, pp:285

5-1

293. 15. B. Gao, G. K. Morison and P. Kundur, Voltage Stability Evaluation using Modal Analysis, IEEE Transactions PWRS, Vol. 7, No. 4, November 1992, pp.1529 1542. 16. I. A. Hiskens and C. B. McLean, SVC Behaviour Under Voltage Collapse Conditions, IEEE Trans. PWRS, Vol. 7, No. 3, August 1992, pp. 1078-1087. 17. J. A. Diaz de Leon II and C. W. Taylor, Understanding and Solving Short-Term Voltage Stability Problems, proceedings of the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, 2002. 18. P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill, 1994. 19. P. M. Anderson and R. G. Farmer, Series Compensation of Power Systems, PBLSH! Inc., 1996. 20. P. Pourbeik, A. Bostrm and B. Ray, Modeling and Application Studies for a Modern Static VAr System Installation, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 368-377. 21. P. Pourbeik, A. P. Bostrom, E. John and M. Basu, Operational Experiences with SVCs for Local and Remote Disturbances, Proceedings of the IEEE Power Systems Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, October 29th November 1st 2006. 22. E. John; A. Oskoui and A. Petersson, "Using a STATCOM to Retire Urban Generation," Proceedings of the IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition, New York, NY, October 10-13, 2004. 23. D. Sullivan, J. Paserba, G. Reed, T. Croasdaile, R. Pape, D. Shoup, M. Takeda, Y. Tamura, J. Arai, R. Beck, B. Milosevic, Shih-Min Hsu and F. Graciaa, Design and Application of a Static VAR Compensator for Voltage Support in the Dublin, Georgia Area Proceedings of the IEEE PES T&D, May 21-24, 2006. 24. IEEE Special Publication, Blackout Experiences and Lessons, Best Practices for System Dynamic Performance, and the Role of New Technologies, prepared by the IEEE Task Force Blackout Experience, Mitigation, and Role of New Technologies, Final Report May, 2007 (presently under final review by the IEEE PSDP Committee, soon to be published) 25. CIGRE TF C4.602, Coordinated Voltage Control in Transmission Network, CIGRE Technical Brochure, February 2007.

5-2