You are on page 1of 46

Wind Integration: International Experience

WP2: Review of Grid Codes


2nd October 2011

Contents
1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction and Background .................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Work Package 2 ........................................................................................................... 1 Approach to Work Package 2 ..................................................................................................... 2 Grid Codes in General ................................................................................................................ 3 4.1. 4.2. 5. Background to Grid Codes .................................................................................................. 3 Grid Codes and Wind Generation ....................................................................................... 4

Contingency Performance and Fault Ride Through ..................................................................... 6 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.3.3. 5.3.4. 5.3.5. 5.4. 5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 Wind Turbine Generators ................................................................................................... 6 Specification of Voltage Ride through in Grid Codes ........................................................... 6 Conditions for which Wind Turbine Generators Must Remain Connected ....................... 6 Voltage Support during the Fault .................................................................................... 8 Active Power Provision during the Fault ......................................................................... 9 Active Power Recovery after Fault Clearance .................................................................. 9 Additional Requirements Related to Voltage Ride Through........................................... 10 NER Specification ............................................................................................................. 10 Conditions for which Wind Turbine Generators Must Remain Connected ..................... 10 Voltage Support during the Fault .................................................................................. 11 Active Power Recovery after Fault Clearance................................................................ 11

6.

Active Power Control Requirements ........................................................................................ 11 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 Wind Turbine Generators ................................................................................................. 11 Specification of Active Power Control Requirements in Grid Codes................................... 12 NER Specification ............................................................................................................. 14

7.

Frequency Control ................................................................................................................... 14 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.3.1. 7.3.2. 7.3.3. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 14 Wind Turbine Generators ................................................................................................. 14 Specification of Frequency Control Capability in Grid Codes ............................................. 14 Limited Frequency Sensitivity mode and Frequency Control Mode ............................... 14 Limited Frequency Sensitivity Mode ............................................................................. 15 Frequency Regulation using Configurable Droop Characteristic with Deadband Control 15

Page i

7.3.4. 7.3.5. 7.3.6. 7.4. 7.4.1. 7.4.2. 7.4.3. 8.

Frequency Regulation with Multi-Stage Response ........................................................ 16 Frequency Remain Connected Range............................................................................ 17 Additional Frequency Control Requirements ................................................................ 19 NER Specification ............................................................................................................. 20 Disturbed Operation..................................................................................................... 20 Rate of Change of Frequency ........................................................................................ 20 Frequency Control ........................................................................................................ 20

Reactive Power and Voltage Control ........................................................................................ 21 8.1. 8.1.1. 8.1.2. 8.1.3. 8.1.4. 8.2. 8.2.1. 8.2.2. 8.2.3. Reactive Power Capability Requirements ......................................................................... 21 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 21 Wind Turbine Generators ............................................................................................. 21 Specification of Reactive Requirements in Grid Codes .................................................. 22 NER Specification ......................................................................................................... 25 Voltage Control Capability ................................................................................................ 25 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 25 Voltage control requirements in grid codes .................................................................. 26 NER Requirements ....................................................................................................... 28

9.

Requirement to provide a dynamic model ............................................................................... 29 9.1. 9.2. 9.2.1. 9.2.2. 9.2.3. 9.2.4. 9.3. 9.3.1. 9.3.2. 9.3.3. 9.3.4. 9.3.5. 9.4. 9.4.1. 9.4.2. 9.4.3. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 29 Issues relating to modelling of WTGs ................................................................................ 29 Initial development of models for transient stability studies ......................................... 29 System Operator and Manufacturer Perspectives ......................................................... 30 Standard Models or Manufacturer-Specific Models ...................................................... 30 Wind Farm Modelling and Aggregation ........................................................................ 31 Modelling Requirements in Grid Codes ............................................................................ 31 Summary of requirements ............................................................................................ 31 Form of Model (Block Diagram or Specific Software Compatibility)............................... 33 Scope of Models ........................................................................................................... 33 Aggregation.................................................................................................................. 34 Documentation ............................................................................................................ 35 Model Validation.............................................................................................................. 35 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 35 Validation Requirements in Grid Codes ........................................................................ 35 Modelling Data and Validation Requirements in Australia ............................................ 38

Page ii

9.5. 10. 11.

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 38 Emergency Conditions and Black Start ................................................................................. 39 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 40 Framework for Negotiation .......................................................................................... 40 Contingency Performance and Fault Ride Through ....................................................... 41 Active Power and Frequency Control ............................................................................ 41 Reactive Power and Voltage Control............................................................................. 42 Requirement to provide a validated dynamic model ..................................................... 42 Emergency Conditions and Black Start .......................................................................... 42

11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 11.5. 11.6.

Page iii

1. Introduction and Background


The 2010 National Transmission Network Development Plan (NTNDP) for Australia shows that in some scenarios between 7,000 and 8,000 MW of new wind generation could be added to the existing 2,000 MW of wind generation over the next 20 years. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is seeking to understand the technical performance issues that might arise should this level of wind generation penetration occur, and the means by which they have been addressed in other parts of the world. In this context, ECAR Ltd. is undertaking two work packages for AEMO: WP1: International practice, a general review of technical issues observed or discussed internationally WP2: Review of Grid Codes: o a review of international grid codes and how they deal with the matters described in WP1 o a review of the current Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) National Electricity Rules (NER), in terms of: how adequately they deal with the issues described in WP1 how they align with international grid codes for those issues This report deals with WP2, the Review of Grid Codes.

2. Scope of Work Package 2


This work package includes a review of international Grid Codes, including recent changes to, and developments of, international codes that specify technical requirements for new wind generation. The work will review and summarise: Grid connection codes relating to the technical performance of wind farms Requirements for validation of wind farm or wind turbine performance Modelling requirements for simulating the performance of a wind farm in the power system The work should identify particularly any grid code issues that may be relevant to the National Electricity Market (NEM). This work package will identify how international Grid Codes deal with the issues identified in WP1 and review the NER on similar terms. In terms of a review of the NER, it is proposed that the Work be limited to a review of the technical performance standards for generation plant and generating systems (including power stations and wind farms), described in Schedule 5.2 of the NER. In carrying out this review, it is important to note that the NER performance requirements for generating plant: Attempt to be technology neutral, where possible i.e. the requirements for wind farms are the same as those for conventional power plant, with some explicit exceptions (i.e. requirements relating to synchronous versus asynchronous generating units)

Page 1

Allow for a negotiation framework with automatic and minimum access standards, where the requirements might be location specific, such that: o plant that meets the automatic access standard would not be denied access because of that technical requirement o plant that does not meet the minimum access standard will be denied connection. In reviewing the NER, the Work should address: Whether the automatic access standard sufficiently addresses the technical issue If the automatic access standard does not adequately address the issue, how the automatic access standard might be changed (with reference to other Grid Codes) and Whether the minimum access standard is unnecessarily onerous in relation to wind technologies, and the reasons why those wind technologies would not need to meet that requirement

3. Approach to Work Package 2


ECARs approach to Work Package is as follows: Grid codes or equivalent documents as shown in Table 3.1 were obtained and relevant provisions reviewed Some recent comparative literature dealing with grid code requirements for wind generation was reviewed System and plant performance issues that may be addressed by codes (including issues identified in Work Package 1) were identified. Each issue was assessed on the basis of: o How its addressed in various codes, with commentary as appropriate o How its addressed in NER; is Automatic standard adequate? i s minimum standard excessive? Are guidelines for negotiated standard adequate? The issues addressed in this WP2 report are: o Contingency performance and fault ride through (Section 5) o Active power control requirements (Section 6) o Frequency control (Section 7) o Reactive power and voltage control (Section 8) o Requirement to provide a dynamic model, and model validation requirements (Section 9) o Black start (Section 10)

Page 2

Table 3.1
Country / Region Ireland: UK Germany Issuer

Grid Codes and Equivalent Documents Reviewed


Document Grid Code version 3.5, 15 March 2011 st The Grid Code, Issue 4, Revision 5, 31 December 2010 Transmission Code 2007 Netzanschluss- und Netzzugangsregeln, May 2008 Grid Code for high and extra high voltage, 1st April 2009. Technical Guidelines for Power Generating Units, Part 4, Demands on modelling and validating simulation models of the electrical characteristics of power generating units and systems, revision 5, 23.03.2010 Technical regulation 3.2.5 for wind power plants with a power output greater than 11 kW, 30.9.2010 P. O. 12.2, Installations connected t the transmission system, minimum requirements for design, operation and safety and commissioning, Nov 2009, unofficial translation. Link to Spanish version. Summary incorporating extracts from ERCOT documents. Wind power facility technical requirements, November 15 2004 Transmission Provider Technical Requirements for the Connection of Power Plants to the Hydro Qubec Transmission System, February 2009 Market Rules, Chapter 4, Grid Connection Requirements Appendices, March 6, 2010 Draft Requirements for Grid Connection Applicable to all Generators, 22 March 2011
th

EirGrid National Grid Electricity Transmission VDN 50 Hz Transmission Transpower (Tennet)

FGW

Denmark

Energinet.dk Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism ERCOT Alberta Electric System Operator Hydro Qubec Trans nergie Ontario IESO

Spain

Texas Canada

Europe

ENTSO-E

4. Grid Codes in General


4.1. Background to Grid Codes
With the unbundling of the electricity industry and the opening of generation to competition, it was necessary to introduce transparent technical rules for the connection of generators to the grid, so as to ensure the continued reliable and economical operation of power systems, while facilitating a level playing field for all market entrants. These technical rules form part of what have become generically known as grid codes, or Interconnection Standards in North America. Grid code technical requirements, including requirements relating to the provision of technical information, were first developed based on the characteristics and capabilities of large synchronous generators. The process for drafting and approval of grid codes varies from one jurisdiction to another, but typically a grid code is drafted by the transmission system operator through a consultative process and approved by the regulator. The grid code is not the only source of technical requirements for connections to a power system. Technical requirements may be included in legislation, in licences issued to various parties, in standard connection and use-of-system agreements or in the specific terms of individual connection and use-of-system agreements. Page 3

While the intention of grid codes and other documents is to set out what is required for connection to a particular system, these codes are not the only vehicle by which system operators and regulators obtain desired performance standards. Grid codes reflect the concept of mandating certain desirable technical capabilities, but delivery of the associated services is a separate, often commercial, issue that may be managed through market mechanisms. There is a school of thought that there should be minimal mandatory requirements and that the provision of necessary system services should be incentivised through appropriate commercial mechanisms. The contrary view is that the provision of necessary capabilities can only be ensured through mandatory provisions in grid codes, licences, connection agreements or other documents. The standing which grid codes / rules have and the degree of enforceability which results varies from one jurisdiction to another, so any review of these rules should be complemented by looking at the penalty and incentive mechanisms which also exist internationally. There are derogation procedures associated with grid codes to handle temporary non-compliance which may arise due to plant breakdowns, and permanent non-compliance where it may be infeasible or unreasonable to require full compliance.

4.2.

Grid Codes and Wind Generation

The modern development of wind power plants began with small units that were connected to distribution systems. Standards or codes were applied to such generators with a view to ensuring that they would not degrade system performance. It was expected that they would disconnect in the event of any disturbance (both for distribution network safety and to protect the wind power plant). The potential technical issues arising from large scale integration of such machines was not recognized from the outset and so the needs of power systems were not considered in their design. As wind generation developed to the point where it would form a significant part of the total generation in a system or region, it became clear that a higher standard of performance would be required. Once wind generation reaches a level where it may displace other generators, the need to provide services such as frequency regulation and control, operating reserves, reactive power and voltage control etc. that would otherwise be provided by the displaced generators must be considered. However, many grid code requirements then in force were not applicable to wind turbine generators, or even if they were, the developers sought derogations from the codes on the basis that it would be unreasonable or uneconomical for them to comply. Therefore special grid code requirements for wind generators were developed and introduced in a number of countries/regions.1
Since then there has been conflict between wind plant developers and manufacturers on one hand, and system operators on the other with regard to the reasonableness of grid code requirements. It may be argued that services that can be provided economically by a synchronous generator cannot be provided by a wind turbine generator without significant cost penalties, or that location-specific services such as reactive power and voltage control are not required at the locations of many wind farms. There is a considerable amount of literature on the topic, some academic, and some driven by

See for example: Fagan, E., Grimes, S., McArdle, J., Smith, P. and Stronge, M., Grid code provisions for wind generators in Ireland, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, San Francisco, vol. 2, pp. 1241-1247, 2005.

Page 4

the interests of the parties concerned.2 Furthermore, the scope of grid codes and the form in which requirements are expressed varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Manufacturers find it impractical to develop a standard product to comply with all the different requirements, and have in some cases indicated that they may not supply certain markets because of the difficulties of grid code compliance. These issues have led, in Europe, to an initiative to harmonise grid codes. The European Network of System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) has produced a common set of draft requirements for grid connection3 where specific values to be assigned to various parameters can vary for different synchronous areas. The objective is eventual complete harmonisation which gives rise to the risk of failing to take account of the genuinely different requirements of different power systems depending on such issues as their size and the characteristics of other generation plant. In the same way that the needs and issues of small synchronous system like Ireland and Northern Ireland differ from those of mainland Europe, different requirements are likely to be appropriate for Tasmania than for eastern and south eastern Australia. So a balance needs to be struck between, on one hand, the benefits that arise from standardised requirements and the impact this may have on future turbine development and on the other hand, the unique needs of each power system. The integration of high levels of wind and other variable generation requires specific performance not just from the variable generators, but also from the other conventional plant in the generation portfolio. This may require review of technical requirements for conventional plant, or increased emphasis on compliance with existing requirements. Experience has shown that it is important to consider carefully the manner in which new requirements are introduced and whether these requirements should apply to pre-existing wind farms or not. Ill thought through or rushed implementation of new requirements, particularly if onerous or expensive to comply with can cause long running issues in the industry which can be difficult to resolve. As well as technical performance requirements, grid codes also deal with the provision of technical data on the plant to be connected to the grid, including all data necessary to carry out the full range of system studies. In the case of wind turbine generators, particular issues have arisen in relation to models for use in time domain dynamic simulation (transient stability studies). Ireland was at the forefront in including a requirement for such models in the Grid Code. Subsequently in North America the Western Electricity Co-ordinating Council distinguished between standard models that could be used in system-wide studies, and specific models for use in interconnection studies. This is discussed further in Section 9 below. In comparing grid codes for wind generation it must be borne in mind that these codes were not developed independently. The drafters of a grid code may be expected to have taken into account provisions include in codes previously developed for other countries and systems.

See for example Van Hulle, Christensen, Seman, Schulz, European Grid Code Development the Road towards Structural Harmonization, Workshop on Large Scale Integration of Wind into Power Systems, Qubec City, October 2010, or Christensen, Grid codes, The Manufacturers Nightmare EWEC 2010, Warsaw - April 22. 2010 3 ENTSO-E Draft Requirements for Grid Connection Applicable to all Generators, March 2011, https://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/_library/news/110322_Pilot_Network_Code_Connections.pdf

Page 5

5. Contingency Performance and Fault Ride Through


5.1. Introduction
The capability to withstand disturbances on the network which result in temporarily depressed voltages is critical in maintaining power system stability and in preventing exacerbation of disturbances leading to the risk of cascading outages. It is generally desirable that generators remain connected for durations sufficient for the clearance of faults by the automatic actions of power system protection, contribute to restoration of the voltage within normal limits and restore active power contributions as soon as possible. Network faults and the corresponding voltage dips can lead to significant imbalances between instantaneous mechanical power input and electrical power output. This typically results in oscillations in active power output which must be adequately damped following a disturbance.

5.2.

Wind Turbine Generators

In the initial phase of wind power integration, no specific performance standards were required of wind turbines which were typically required to disconnect in the event of a disturbance to prevent exacerbation of the fault and to protect the turbines themselves. As the potential for large scale integration of wind power became apparent, the need for a contribution to system stability was recognised leading to requirements for low voltage ride through in most of todays grid codes.

5.3.

Specification of Voltage Ride through in Grid Codes

Grid codes generally specify four main characteristic in relation to wind farm performance in the event of a voltage disturbance: Conditions for which the turbines must remain connected Active power provision during fault Voltage support requirements during the disturbance Restoration of active power after the fault has been cleared

5.3.1.

Conditions for which Wind Turbine Generators Must Remain Connected

The requirements in grid code specifying the conditions under which wind turbines must remain connected generally take the form of a voltage vs. time profile which dictates the level of voltage drop a turbine must be capable of withstanding along with the time for which the voltage drop should be endured. Figure 5.1 below, illustrates this profile for all the grid codes examined in this study. For each particular profile, during a fault, if the voltage at the grid connection point remains above the corresponding line, the turbine must remain connected to the system. While this voltage vs. time profile is a feature common to many grid codes, the type of fault to which it applies is not consistent. For Ireland, UK, Denmark, Alberta and the draft ENTSO-E requirements, the profile applies to faults on any or all phases, symmetrical or unbalanced faults. In the grid codes of Spain and Quebec, there are reduced requirements for some types of fault, for example, in the Spanish grid code, a three-phase symmetrical fault resulting in a voltage of 20% pu at the grid connection point must be withstood for 500ms. However, for two-phase to ground faults, a voltage drop to 60% must only be withstood.

Page 6

V (pu)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -0.5 0 0.15 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Quebec ENTSO-E - Type D Upper Bound ENTSO-E - Type D Lower Bound Denmark Ireland, Alberta

UK
Germany Borderline 2 Germany Borderline 1 Spain

Time (s)

Figure 5.1: Voltage ride through Remain connected conditions in the grid codes examined.

The draft ENTSO-E requirements define two such voltage/time profiles, one representing the most severe profile the TSO can require at its discretion, depending on system needs and the other defining the minimum requirement. This envelope of allowed profiles is illustrated in Figure 5.2, below.

Figure 5.2: Allowed voltage ride through requirements envelope for transmission connected wind farms, from the draft ENTSO-E requirements.

The German transmission code also defines two profiles, denoted borderline 1 and borderline 2. If a generator cannot meet the requirement defined by borderline 2, it may be possible to negotiate a requirement between the two curves if a minimum reactive current feed-in during the fault can be guaranteed and if resynchronisation time is decreased.

Page 7

Figure 5.3: Voltage ride through requirement from German Transmission Code 2007, showing borderline 1 and borderline 2. A capability between these two curves can be negotiated with the TSO subject to the ability to deliver reactive current during a fault.

5.3.2.

Voltage Support during the Fault

In addition to remaining connected for the duration of a fault and the recovery period, many grid codes also specify requirements for voltage support during the fault by means of a reactive current injection. While all grid codes, with the exception of Alberta, Quebec and the UK, require some form of reactive support during the fault, there is no consistent formulation of the requirement. The Irish grid code contains the requirement that reactive current should be maximised for 600ms or until the voltage has recovered to normal limits. The ENTSO-E draft requirements allow TSOs to require reactive current to be prioritised. It is presumed that the intention of this provision is to allow individual TSOs to require reactive current maximisation during a fault. The German, Spanish and Danish grid codes require a specific amount of reactive current as a percentage of rated current, depending on the extent of the voltage drop. The German Transmission Code 2007 requires that reactive current of 2% of rated current is provided per percent voltage drop up to 100% rated current and that this is provided within 20ms. Similarly, the Spanish grid code requires that for voltage dips below 0.85pu, the facility must provide reactive current at a rate of approximately 2.7% of rated current per percent voltage below 0.85pu. The Danish grid code contains the requirement that reactive power should be prioritised over active power during a fault. For voltage dips below 0.9pu voltage at the point of connection, the ratio of reactive to rated current should be as in Figure 5.4, below.

Page 8

Figure 5.4: Required ratio of reactive current to rated current for voltage dips in the Danish grid code.

5.3.3.

Active Power Provision during the Fault

All grid codes examined either implicitly or explicitly permit some reduction in active power for the duration of a fault on the network. The Irish and UK grid codes contain the statement that acti ve power should be provided in proportion to the retained voltage. The Danish grid code states that if possible, active power should be maintained and reduction in active power is allowed (within plants design specifications). The Spanish grid code has detailed requirements on consumption of active and reactive power during a disturbance, depending on the nature of the fault. These generally prohibit active and reactive power consumption except in the first 150ms immediately after the fault occurs and in the first 150ms after the fault has been cleared.

5.3.4.

Active Power Recovery after Fault Clearance

The Irish grid code requires that active power is restored to 90% of maximum available active power as fast as the technology allows and faster than 1 second in any case. The UK grid code requires that 90% of active power is provided within 1 second of recovery of the voltage at the point of grid connection. The grid code in Quebec contains the general requirement that Power producer facilities must also help restore the power system to normal operating conditions after a disturbance while the Spanish grid code requires that a facility must provide maximum current possible (post fault and post clearance). The German Transmission Code 2007 requires that i f a facility is not disconnected, it must restore active power at a rate of 20% nominal capacity per second, immediately after fault clearance. It also states that if a facility is disconnected, it must reconnect with 2 seconds and increase active power output at a rate of 10% of the pre-fault active power level per second. The draft ENTSO-E requirements require a TSO to specify the time within

Page 9

which a facility must restore its active power output to 85% of its pre-fault value and that this time must be between 0.5 and 10 seconds (inclusive).

5.3.5. 5.4. 5.4.1.

Additional Requirements Related to Voltage Ride Through NER Specification Conditions for which Wind Turbine Generators Must Remain Connected

The UK and the draft ENTSO-E code require that active power oscillations are adequately damped.

The requirements for low voltage ride through in the NER are expressed differently to the corresponding requirements found in other grid codes making a direct comparison difficult. However, with a number of assumptions, an equivalent voltage vs. time profile for specific cases in the automatic access standard in NER can be derived for the purpose of comparison. From Table S5.1a.2 of the National Electricity Rules, a three-phase fault must be cleared in 220ms at 100kV and 120ms at 250kV at worst,, with actual values depending on the clearing times of relevant primary protection. Assuming a nearby generator sees a voltage of zero in each case, the voltage vs. time profiles illustrated in Figure 5.6 result when assuming voltage recovery to 0.9pu in three seconds. The actual recovery time is linked to the generating system performance for voltage disturbance, and is worded such that the generating system must remain in continuous uninterrupted operation. For comparison purposes, Figure 5.6 also shows the envelope of permitted voltage ride through requirements for transmission connected wind farms in the ENTSO-E draft connection code. In NER, a three phase fault at 220kV requires that a nearby generator must be capable of withstanding zerovoltage for 120ms, whereas the ENTSO-E draft requirements require that zero voltage must be withstood for 150ms meaning that this cannot be considered excessive. However, the voltage ride through requirement for a fault at 100kV would require a nearby generator to withstand zero voltage for 220ms meaning that this is more onerous than any of the grid codes considered in this study.
V (pu)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -0.5 0
0.15
ENTSO-E - Type D Upper Bound ENTSO-E - Type D Lower Bound NER 250KV NER 100KV

0.5

1.5

2.5

Time (s)

Figure 5.6: NER voltage ride through requirement for a 100kV and a 250kV connected wind farm seeing zero-voltage following a three phase fault and assuming voltage recovery to 0.9pu within 3 seconds. Figure also shows ENTSO-E envelope of permitted requirements.

Page 10

The minimum access standard in NER is similar to the Automatic standard with notable exception being that there is no requirement to remain connected in the event of a three-phase fault. All the grid codes examined in this study require wind turbine generators to withstand a three phase fault on the transmission system.

5.4.2.

Voltage Support during the Fault

The automatic access standard in NER is that a generator provide reactive current equal to 4% of rated current for each 1% reduction in system voltage. This is higher than the Spanish requirement for 2.7% reactive current for each 1% voltage drop which is the highest equivalent requirement in the grid codes studied here. No reactive current injection is required in the minimum access standard. This may not be consistent with a do no harm approach if generators are permitted to consume reactive power in the event of depressed system voltage.

5.4.3.

Active Power Recovery after Fault Clearance

The automatic access standard in NER is that active power most be restored to 95% of the pre-fault level within 100ms of fault clearance. This requirement is higher than that seen in any of the grid codes studied here. In particular, the draft ENTSO-E requirements mention a range of 0.5 seconds to 10 seconds within which TSOs can require restoration of active power to 85% of the pre-fault level. The minimum access standard is that after fault clearance, a generator must deliver sufficient active power and supply or absorb reactive power necessary to restore the connection point voltage to the normal operating range. This is consistent with a do no harm approach.

6. Active Power Control Requirements


6.1. Introduction
Control of the active power output of generators in the electricity network is of fundamental importance to system operators in order to maintain the supply/demand balance, thus maintaining system frequency within acceptable limits and in order to control network flows and manage congestion. In the early days of wind power integration where wind was simply treated as negative demand, little was required by way of controllability of active power. As the percentage of wind power became significant in many regions, the need for controllability was recognised and specific requirements akin to requirements from conventional generators have become common place in grid codes.

6.2.

Wind Turbine Generators

While the output of a wind turbine will always be subject to primary energy source availability, some control of active power output has generally been possible in wind turbine generators. With the first fixed speed induction generator machines, crude control of active power was possible by disconnection of individual turbines within the wind farm network. Fixed speed machines with blade pitch control then emerged where continuous control of an individual turbines output was possible. Since the advent of fixed speed, doubly fed induction generators and full convertor based machines, power electronics permit arbitrary control of a turbines output subject to availability of the primary energy source.

Page 11

6.3.

Specification of Active Power Control Requirements in Grid Codes

The requirements in grid codes for controllability of active power differ in the amount of control required, methods by which instructions should be accepted, the capability to limit the rate of change of output and the time by which instructions should be acted upon and achieved. Standards range from the requirement to disconnect in the event of a system constraint to the requirement to accept a range of instructions containing active power and gradient set points automatically (as in the Danish Grid Code, illustrated in Figure 6.1, below). The following section lists the various requirements along with the grid codes in which they are required and this information is summarised in Table 6.1, below. Active Power Cap: This is where a wind farm is required to constrain its active power output below a certain value. Of the codes examined, this is required in the vast majority of cases. Gradient Constraint: This is where the rate of change of active power is limited to a certain value, either on a standing basis as a static constraint agreed at the time of connection (as in Ireland), or issued dynamically by the system operator as a setpoint (as in Denmark). Delta Control: This is where a wind farm is required to operate at a certain amount below its maximum output to provide upward regulation and/or reserve capability. This is required explicitly in Ireland and Denmark and implicitly (by virtue of the frequency control capability required) in Spain and in the ENTSO-E draft requirements. In the Irish grid code, the percentage amount by which a unit must operate below its maximum in order to provide frequency regulation capability is a static value which does not change frequently. In the case of the Danish grid code, this amount is variable and can be issued as a set point instruction. Requirement to Accept Electronic Dispatch Instructions: This capability is explicitly required in Demark and Ireland and in the ENTSO-E requirements. It may be implied in other codes, depending on the interpretation of terms such as accept instructions in real time. Accuracy of Compliance: The Danish grid code specifies minimum accuracies within which active power output and the instructed level must agree. This is 2% of the instructed level or 5% of rated power, whichever yields the higher tolerance. Time of Compliance: The codes of Ireland, Denmark and Alberta specify maximum times for compliance with dispatch instructions. Demark requires implementation of instructions to commence within 2 seconds of receipt of the instruction and to be fully implemented within 30 seconds. Ireland requires implementation of instructions to commence within 10 seconds and the instruction to be implemented as soon as possible thereafter. Alberta requires that the facility in question disconnect if the instruction to reduce output is not implemented within 30 minutes.

Page 12

Figure 6.1: Instruction types illustration from the Danish Grid code.

Table 6.1 Summary of active power control requirements in the grid codes examined
Grid Code Output Cap Delta Control Gradient Limit Commence Implementation Implementation Time Time ASAP

Ireland

Yes

Yes

As set by TSO 10 seconds between 1 and 30MW/min

UK Denmark Spain Germany Alberta

No requirements specified Yes Yes Yes Must disconnect if not capable No requirements specified Yes Yes (Types 20%/min C,D) Yes Yes 10%/min 10%/min 10 minutes As instructed 2 seconds by TSO 30 seconds

Quebec ERCOT

ENTSO-E Draft Yes Requirements

Page 13

6.4.

NER Specification

The automatic access standard in the NER requires that output be increased or decreased within 5 minutes to a level at or below that instructed by AEMO and that output does not change by more than instructed raise/lower amounts for 5 minutes. Furthermore, the facility must ramp linearly from one dispatch level to another. This standard is consistent with some of the most advanced requirements examined here with the possible exception of the capability to operate in delta control mode and specific requirements around time to and accuracy of compliance. A limit on the rate of change of output is implicit in the requirement to ramp linearly within 5 minutes. The minimum NER standard is the capability to maintain and change active power output in accordance with dispatch instructions. The negotiated standard also allows for requiring a generator to upgrade its systems to implement electronic instructions if the frequency of instructions becomes difficult to manage. The minimum standard together with the right to require upgraded systems in the event that they are required is consistent with the do no harm philosophy.

7. Frequency Control
7.1. Introduction
The rotating masses of conventional synchronous machines contribute fundamentally to frequency stability and control in the system. Regulation of rotational speed through governor action controls frequency while inertia of the rotational masses of synchronous machines acts to limit the rate of change of frequency in the event of a disturbance.

7.2.

Wind Turbine Generators

In the most common types of wind turbines being deployed today, namely doubly fed induction generators and full converter based machines, the rotational masses are decoupled from system frequency through the use of power electronics. Even so-called fixed-speed machines using induction generators are only loosely coupled to system frequency. Significant deployment of these technologies can decrease total inertia on the system thus increasing the need for frequency regulation but reducing the total regulation capability available. If system stability is not to be degraded by deployment of these technologies, the inertia and frequency control capability of the conventional machines which are displaced must be replaced.

7.3.

Specification of Frequency Control Capability in Grid Codes

The grid codes of the countries examined in this study almost universally require a degree of frequency control capability from wind turbine generators. This can vary from a requirement to proportionally reduce output in the event of over frequency (as in Germany), to providing multistage frequency response with a controller capable of implementing multiple configurable droop characteristics with configurable dead-band (as in Denmark).

7.3.1.

Limited Frequency Sensitivity mode and Frequency Control Mode

The grid codes of Ireland, the UK and the draft ENTSO-E requirements provide for two types of frequency response and require that wind farms are capable of both and can be switched from one to the other as the need arises. The first of these is referred to as Limited Frequency Sensitivity

Page 14

mode in the UK and ENTSO-E requirements and as Frequency Control Curve 1 in the Irish Grid code. The second type of response provides for frequency regulation capability from wind farms.

7.3.2.

Limited Frequency Sensitivity Mode

This frequency control capability is required in Germany, Ireland, the UK, in the draft ENTSO-E and in ERCOT requirements. This response requires that wind turbines reduce power output at a rate of 40% of the generators instantaneous available capacity per Hertz when the system frequency rises above 50.2Hz. Figure 7.1, below, is taken from the German Transmission Code 2007 and illustrates this capability requirement. The UK grid code provides for a similar type response on the low frequency side also.

Figure 7.1: Frequency control capability required in German Transmission Code 2007

7.3.3.

Frequency Regulation using Configurable Droop Characteristic with Deadband Control

This type of control requires a wind farm to operate at a level below its instantaneous available capacity to provide upward and downward frequency regulation capability. Typically, there is a control dead-band which is configured according to TSO requirements within which generator output is independent of frequency. Above this, on the high frequency side, the generator output will decrease linearly with frequency at a rate specified by the TSO until the high frequency limit is reached where it is permissible to disconnect. Similarly, on the low frequency side, the generator output will increase linearly with frequency at a rate specified by the TSO until the low frequency limit is reached or output is limited by primary energy source availability. This type of control capability is required in Ireland, the UK and Spain. The implementation of this requirement is slightly different in the Irish grid code in that the amount of downward regulation required to provide under-frequency response in essentially fixed (i.e. is parameter specified by the TSO at the time of connection). Most other grid codes (UK, Spain and Denmark for example) formulate the frequency control requirement with reference to an arbitrary operating point below the instantaneous capability which allows for frequency regulation at any dispatch level below this point.

Page 15

Figure 7.2: Frequency Response Curve Required in Irish grid code.

7.3.4.

Frequency Regulation with Multi-Stage Response

This type of control is similar to the configurable droop characteristic mentioned above, but features additional configurable points which provide for a two-stage response with different droop characteristics and frequency insensitivity ranges. Figure 7.3, below, is taken from the draft ENTSO-E requirement and illustrates this frequency response requirement. This requirement applies to wind farms of 400MW or those connected to the transmission system in the draft ENTSO-E requirements. The Danish grid code has a similar, but more generally configurable response which is illustrated in Figure 7.4, below. The Danish code allows for 7 TSO-specified frequency points providing for 4 distinct droop values in total.

Figure 7.3: Frequency control capability from the ENTSO-E Draft connection code.

Page 16

Figure 7.4 Frequency Response Curve from the Danish Grid Code

7.3.5.

Frequency Remain Connected Range

Most grid codes specify the range of frequencies within which a wind turbine must remain connected and also the length of time for which they must remain connected for. Some countries also specify what rates of change of frequencies must be withstood. Figure 7.5 and Table 7.1, below, summarise these for the grid codes studied.

Table 7.1 Frequency and Rate of Change of Frequency (ROCOF) Limits

Grid Code Ireland UK Denmark Spain Germany Alberta Quebec ENTSO-E Requirements Draft

Frequency Minimum 47 Hz 47 Hz 47 Hz 47.5 Hz 47.5 Hz 57 Hz 55.5 Hz

Frequency Maximum 52 Hz 52 Hz 52 Hz 51.5 Hz 51.5 Hz 61.7 Hz 61.7 Hz

ROCOF 0.5Hz/s 2.5Hz/s 2Hz/s

2Hz/s Remain connected 1.25s over 2Hz/s

for

Page 17

Frequency Remain Connected Ranges


52 51.5 51 50.5 50 49.5 49 48.5 48 47.5 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (Minutes)
Figure 7.5 Graph showing the length of time a wind power plant must remain connected to the transmission for different frequency ranges for different 50Hz systems.

Frequency (Hz)

Germany Denmark Ireland

UK

Australian Remain Connected Ranges


52 51.5 51 50.5 50 49.5 49 48.5 48 47.5 47 0
9 seconds

Frequency (Hz)

Continuous

10

20

30

Mainland Automatic Standard Mainland Minimum

Time (Minutes)

Figure 7.6 Graph showing the Automatic and Minimum Access Standards governing the length of time a wind power plant must remain connected to the Australian Mainland transmission system.

Page 18

Tasmanian Remain Connected Ranges


55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 0
9 seconds

Frequency (Hz)

Continuous

Tasmania Automatic Standard 10 20 30

Tasmania Minimum

Time (Minutes)

Figure 7.7 Graph showing the Automatic and Minimum Access Standards governing the length of time a wind power plant must remain connected to the Tasmanian transmission system.

7.3.6.

Additional Frequency Control Requirements


Accuracy of frequency measurement: The Danish grid code requires that the controller frequency measurements are accurate within 10mHz. Controller Cut-out on under-voltage: The Spanish grid code requires the frequency controller to cut-out momentarily when the voltage falls below 0.85pu in order to avoid conflicting actions interfering with local voltage control. Inertia Emulation: The Grid code of Quebec requires wind farms over 10MW to have a frequency control capability which can reduce short term frequency deviations by an amount equal to that of a conventional generator with an inertial constant (H) of 3.5s. The Spanish grid code does not require inertia emulation capability, but does impose specific requirements on the operation and design of the control where a wind turbine generator has this capability. Requirements are specified regarding the gain adjustability, speed of response, magnitude of response available and the requirement to have energy storage available which allows injection of 10% rated power within two seconds. Turbine vs. aggregate control: The UK grid code explicitly states that the frequency controller may act on individual turbine outputs or on the output of the wind farm in aggregate or on a combination of both.

Page 19

7.4. 7.4.1.

NER Specification Disturbed Operation

The NER specifies requirements for remaining connected to the transmission system during frequency deviations following a system disturbance and these cover rate of change of frequency as well as remaining in operation for particular frequency ranges for certain times. The rules are defined in terms of frequency ranges and times defined in the relevant frequency standard for that area as determined by the Reliability Panel. This allows for different frequency standards in different regions (for example, Tasmania has wider frequency bands, as it is an island, with a HVDC connection to the main system, whereas in the mainland the frequency bands are tighter). Figure 7.5, above, shows the length of time for which a unit must remain connected for given system frequencies.

7.4.2.

Rate of Change of Frequency

The preceding requirements in NER for remaining connected during a frequency disturbance apply when the rate of change of frequency is within certain limits. Outside these limits, the unit is not obliged to remain connected. The automatic standard is that generators are not bound by the conditions in Section 7.3.1 when the magnitude of the rate of change of frequency exceeds 4Hz/s. The next most onerous condition observed in the grid codes examined is that of Denmark where the equivalent rate of change of frequency limit is 2.5Hz/s. The minimum access standard in the NER is that units must remain connected for the durations specified unless the magnitude of the rate of change of frequency exceeds 1Hz/s. The least onerous equivalent condition observed in the grid codes examined (where rate of change of frequency is mentioned) is that of Ireland where the equivalent limit is 0.5Hz/s. However, the recent TSO Facilitation of Renewables studies commissioned by EirGrid found that if generation actually disconnects during voltage or frequency disturbances which result in a rate of change of frequency in excess of 0.5Hz/s, this would pose a serious risk to system stability to the extent that instantaneous wind penetration has been limited to 50% until this issue is resolved. It is concluded that 1Hz/s would appear to be broadly consistent with the do-no-harm principle. However, appropriate studies of the Australian system would be required to confirm this.

7.4.3.

Frequency Control

The automatic access standard for frequency control in NER is that a generator must be capable of automatically adjusting output when system frequency is outside of the normal operating frequency range. This is similar to the droop characteristic described above, except that the maximum droop is specified in the rules rather than being specified by the network operator. The minimum access standard is that generator output does not increase in response to a rise in system frequency and that output does not decrease by more than 2% per Hz in response to a fall in system frequency. The negotiated access standard requires that the frequency response from the generation system is as close to the automatic access standard as the technology allows.

Page 20

The minimum standard in the grid codes examined in this study is that a generator is capable of automatically reducing output proportionally in response to a rise in system frequency above a certain threshold level.

8. Reactive Power and Voltage Control


8.1. 8.1.1. Reactive Power Capability Requirements Introduction

Synchronous machines have an inherent reactive power capability, controlled by excitation control. Over-excitation, delivering capacitive reactive power to the system is normally limited by either exciter current limits or stator current limits. Under-excitation, delivering inductive reactive power, is normally limited by stability considerations. In integrated utilities, the reactive capabilities of individual machines were normally a matter for negotiation internally. Greater capacitive capability could normally be achieved at some cost increase due to the greater alternator and exciter ratings required. On the other hand turbine improvements leading to increased output could lead to reduced reactive capability if the alternator rating was not also increased. With the opening of electricity generation to competition, grid codes specified minimum reactive capabilities, as measured at the generator terminals, as these were the parameters generally known to generator owners.

8.1.2.

Wind Turbine Generators

When wind generation began to be developed on a significant scale, the generators were fixed speed induction machines which draw inductive reactive power from the system. The reactive power requirements of an individual machine at any particular level of output and terminal voltage are fixed in the steady state, but will vary under transient conditions. It will also vary as output varies and as terminal voltage varies. For most installations some or all of this reactive requirement is compensated by the installation of shunt capacitors. Compensation is sometimes limited by concerns about self-excitation if the generator becomes isolated from the system. The level of compensation is normally agreed between the wind generation owner/developer and the (usually distribution) network operator. The level might vary depending on network conditions, or a network operator might adopt a standard range of acceptable power factors. This might have been expressed as an acceptable power factor at full output, enabling a fixed capacitor installation, or an acceptable range of power factors throughout the operating range, which would be likely to lead to a requirement for switched capacitor stages. When larger wind generation installations requiring connection at higher voltages and thus compliance with grid codes began to be developed, the difficulty of designing a wind installation to match a performance that was specified with synchronous machines in mind emerged. Wind developers began to look for derogations from grid codes, and TSOs began to develop grid code requirements more suited to wind generation technology. At the same time wind turbine generator technology evolved with the development of variable speed technologies using power electronic converters, which enabled variable power factor operation.

Page 21

A number of issues arise when considering the specification of generally-applicable reactive ranges for wind generation installations: In many codes, requirements for synchronous machines are specified at the machine terminals as these are well understood and this is traditionally the point at which the output is metered, although it is conceptually more appropriate to specify requirements at the interface between the network and generation installation. However, a wind installation is typically widely dispersed with multiple generators and an extensive collector network. Therefore the relationship between machine capability and capability at the interface point will vary from one installation to another. The design implications of different reactive capability requirements are not certain, and will vary between installations, technologies, manufacturers etc. Therefore the cost implications are not necessarily well understood. For synchronous machines, the dependence of the reactive capability on terminal voltage is understood, as the limits are virtually all current limits, and the machine terminal voltage can normally be controlled within tight limits. The variation of wind farm reactive capability as interface point voltage varies is more complex. System reactive power requirements are location dependent and wind generation is often located in weak parts of the network. Therefore a general reactive requirement based on synchronous machine capability could result in investment in reactive power capability which is never needed at its location. Furthermore, utilisation of the full reactive power capability of a generator located in a weak part of the network may result in unacceptably high voltages near the generator site without impacting significantly on the grid voltage, therefore resulting in unusable reactive capability due to the characteristics of the local network Synchronous machines are dynamic reactive power sources, and thus contribute to voltage regulation and voltage stability. Wind farms may depend on static devices (such as capacitors which in addition have voltage squared output dependence) and thus may not deliver the same performance even if they have the same nominal capacity.

8.1.3.

Specification of Reactive Requirements in Grid Codes

All Grid Codes reviewed include specific reactive power specifications for wind (or renewable) generation. However they vary in respect of the point at which the requirement is specified, range of voltage at the connection point considered, the extent to which exceptions are envisaged, as well as the actual specification of the capability, whether it is expressed in terms of power factor, reactive power expressed as a fraction of rated power or otherwise. It should be borne in mind that grid codes will to a greater or lesser extent have been influenced by codes developed earlier in other jurisdictions. The reactive power specifications are summarised in Table 8.1 and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Several codes express the reactive power requirement at the interface point or point of connection, whereas others express requirements at the low voltage side of the main grid transformer, perhaps because this is closer to the way requirements for synchronous machines were expressed, metered and understood traditionally.

Page 22

Table 8.1 - Reactive Power Requirements


Code Reactive Requirement Specified at Reactive Power Range (p.u. of full output) -0.33 0.33 -0.228 0.48 -0.33 0.41 -0.41 0.33 * Equivalent full load power factor 0.95 0.95 0.975 0.9 0.05 0.925 0.925 0.95 0.95 0.95 -0.33 0.33 -0.3 0.3 Point of interconnection Low voltage side of transmission transformer HV side of transformer at point of interconnection Connection point High-voltage terminals of the step-up transformer to the voltage level of the Connection Point -0.33 0.33 Range equivalent to 0.75 pu Must lie between -0.5 ind and 0.65 cap Must lie between 0.894 ind and 0.838 cap 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.95 - .95 0.95 0.95

Denmark Grid Connection Point Grid Connection Point Germany (Transmission Code) UK Ireland Spain Texas Alberta Qubec Ontario ENTSO-E Grid Entry Point LV side of grid transformer

Australia
*

Connection Point

0.395 (automatic)

The German Transmission Codes provides for three variants, one of which is selected by the TSO, depending on network requirements

Figs 16 and 17 of the Danish Technical regulation 3.2.5 for wind power plants with a power output greater than 11 kW, September 2010, shown below (Figs 8.1 and 8.2 in this document), illustrate how these requirements are expressed in many codes. Fig 16 shows that the reactive requirement is specified as a fraction of rated power over most of the operating range. This is generally deemed reasonable as it is likely that most wind turbine generators in a farm will be operating over a wide range of output. In Denmark, Spain, this range goes down to 20% of rated output, in Ireland 50% and in Texas 10%. In Quebec, the requirement is related to the wind generators in service. In many other countries and systems such as Germany and the UK the requirement is expressed in terms of power factor. Below the constant reactive requirement range a constant (minimum) power factor is specified.

Page 23

Figure 8.1 (Figure 16 from Danish Technical regulation 3.2.5) showing reactive power requirements for wind power plants greater than 25MW

Figure 8.2 (Figure 17 from Danish Technical regulation 3.2.5) showing the voltage control range for wind power plants greater than 25MW

These Danish requirements illustrate a number of other features: The reactive requirement, both capacitive and inductive, is reduced above 80% output, going from reactive power equivalent to 0.95 power factor at full load at 80% output to 0.975 power factor at full load. This probably reflects a reduced requirement for reactive at high levels of active power, coupled with the increased cost of providing for simultaneous maximum active and reactive output. In Spain only the capacitive requirement is reduced above 80% output. In Ireland there is no reduction. In Qubec it is stated that if studies show that the reactive power cannot be completely utilised, a higher power factor (than 0.95) may be accepted, but never higher than 0.97.

Page 24

The reactive requirement is reduced for voltages above or below nominal voltage, on the basis that maximum inductive reactive capability is unlikely to be required at low system voltage or maximum capacitive capability at high system voltage. The German variants also display voltage dependent requirements. The Alberta code, which expresses requirements in terms of power factor, explicitly requires that a substantial proportion of the reactive capability be dynamic. Other codes do not have such a specific provision, but other code requirements such as those related to fault ride through and voltage regulation are likely to require that a substantial proportion of the reactive capability be dynamic. As summarised in Table 8.1, there are some variations in the actual values of reactive power specified, but a power factor of 0.95 is common.

8.1.4.

NER Specification

The Automatic Access Standard requires reactive capability at the connection point equivalent to a power factor of 0.93 at full output throughout the operating range of voltage (+/- 10% of normal voltage) and active power. The minimum access standard is no capability to supply or absorb. The guidelines for negotiation require that a negotiated standard be sufficient to ensure that all system standards are met, and provide for a requirement to install supplementary equipment or for the generator and NSP enter into an appropriate commercial arrangement. In South Australia a reactive capability equivalent to a power factor of 0.93 at full output is specified. In addition, 50% of the capability must be dynamic. Comments: The minimum standard, stated as no capability to supply or absorb is taken to mean that the generator must at least be able to maintain zero reactive exchange with the system. This standard would seem to be below the no harm level, as varying output from a generator with zero reactive exchange will lead to voltage variations, depending on the strength and reactance to resistance ratio of the network at the point of connection. Furthermore, this zero reactive exchange requirement does not exploit the inherent capability of virtually any generation installation. The negotiated approach facilitates system optimisation, but imposes a significant burden on NSP/AEMO to carry out studies and establish long-term system requirements. Can long term envisaged developments be taken into account? Is there a need for a longer-term plan including reactive power to inform the negotiated approach?

8.2. 8.2.1.

Voltage Control Capability Introduction

Voltage control by synchronous generators is fundamental to the control and stability of power systems, and voltage control capability is a requirement of virtually all grid codes. With the widespread deployment of wind generation voltage control requirements were deemed to apply for transmission level connections. However, it was necessary to re-draft code requirements because of the different generator technologies used. Voltage control capability is sought from wind generation because: Page 25

Wind generation is perceived as displacing conventional generation which has voltage control capability Wind generation, due to its variations, can lead to voltage fluctuations on the system. A voltage control capability would mitigate these variations. The use of voltage source converters in the interface between the wind generator and the power system would tend to facilitate voltage control. However, it would appear that voltage control for a wind farm is normally implemented through a centralised controller which determines reactive power set points for the individual wind turbines or other devices in the wind farm. This can inhibit rapid response to system changes.

8.2.2.

Voltage control requirements in grid codes

Voltage control requirements are expressed in a variety of ways in grid codes. The issues specified can include: The ability to receive a set point (which may be local to the wind farm or remote) Range of set points Droop settings Time to change a set point Transient response to step changes The requirements in various grid codes are summarised in Table 8.2, and are discussed in further detail below. The UK Grid Code requires continuous steady state control of voltage at the grid entry point, with a set point voltage and slope characteristic as shown in Fig CC.A.7.2.2a reproduced below (Figure 8.3 in this document). The controller must be capable of the following The slope must be adjustable over a range of 2% to 7%. Deviations from set point to be corrected within 5s. The time to implement a new set point or slope does not appear to be stated. The response to a step change to commence within 0.2s, with 90% of the plant capability to be produced within 1s. The settling time must be less than 2s, with peak to peak reactive power oscillations no more than 5% by that time. The Irish Grid Code is similar albeit less specific. It requires a similar response to that of a synchronous generators automatic voltage regulator. The voltage set point is at the HV side of the interface transformer, which is normally also the connection point. The slope must be adjustable over a range of 2% to 10%. A change to the voltage set point must be capable of being received automatically and of being implemented within 20s. Two weeks notice is required for a change in the slope setting. 90% of the steady state response to a step change in set point or voltage must be achieved within 1s.

Page 26

Table 8.2 Voltage Control Requirements


Code
Denmark

Control Specified
Reactive Power Control Power Factor Control Voltage Control (> 25 MW) Reactive Power Control Power Factor Control Voltage Control

Set Points Specified

Droop Settings
Required

Transient Response

Set Point Changes


10 s

Germany UK Ireland Spain

Immediate 95% - 105% 2% - 7% 1% - 10% 0 25 (Mvar pu/Voltage dev pu) 90% within 1 s 90% within 1 s Full response in 1 min

1 min

Voltage regulation similar to AVR AVR Must be capable of producing a defined quantity of Reactive Power to maintain a Voltage Profile established by ERCOT Continuously-variable, continuously-acting, closed loop control voltage regulation system. AVR system comparable with synchronous generator AVR Reactive Power Control Power Factor Control Voltage Control

HV side of grid transformer Voltage, Reactive or Power Factor set points

20 s

Texas

Alberta

95% - 105% Reactive current compensation

0 10%

95% in 0.1s to 1s

Qubec

0 10% 95% - 105% of rated voltage Not more than 13% impedance from HV terminal 95% - 105% 2% - 7%

Ontario

50 ms for 5% step

ENTSO-E

90% within 1 s

Australia (Automatic)

95% - 105% of normal voltage Reactive current compensation

<2 s for 5% step

Page 27

Figure 8.3 (Figure CC.A.7.2.2a from National Grid UK Grid Code) showing the UK voltage control requirement for wind power plants.

In Denmark, Germany and Spain there is provision for power factor control, reactive power control or voltage control. The German Transmission Code states only that the generator voltage control must take immediate action in the case of voltage changes. A new set point must be implemented within 1 minute. In Denmark, set point changes must be implanted within 10s. There is provision for a droop setting. In Spain, the slope can range between 0 and 25 (Mvar p.u. / Voltage deviation p.u.); the entire response to a change must be achieved within 1 minute. Alberta requires a continuously-variable, continuously-acting, closed loop control voltage regulation system. The set point can range from 95% to 105%, and the droop 0-10%. Reactive current compensation may be required. 95% of the response to a step change must be achieved between 0.1s to 1s after change. Qubec also requires a droop setting between 0 and 10%.

8.2.3.

NER Requirements

The NER requirements with regard to voltage control are largely technology neutral without specific requirements for wind or asynchronous generation. The NER minimum access standard is essentially that the generator should not degrade system performance or inhibit the NSP in achieving its performance standards. It should have power factor or reactive power control. The automatic access standard provides for a voltage set point range of 95% to 105% of normal voltage, and for reactive current compensation. It specifies transient response requirements as a rise time of less than 2s for a 5% step and for a settling time of 5s to 7.5s. The negotiated standard must be the highest level that the generator can reasonably achieve including by installation of additional dynamic reactive power equipment, and through optimising its control systems.

Page 28

The Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) Licence Conditions for wind generation in South Australia provide for reactive power or power factor control, with the capability of switching to a voltage support mode during disturbances. The negotiated standard requirements appear to allow AEMO and the relevant NSP to obtain a high level of voltage control capability from generators, where it is required.

9. Requirement to provide a dynamic model


9.1. Introduction
Time domain dynamic simulation is widely used to investigate transient stability in power systems, and standard models have been developed for most power system equipment such as round-rotor and salient pole synchronous machines, excitation/automatic voltage regulation systems, power system stabilisers, speed governing systems, static Var compensators, DC links etc. Power system analysis suites generally include a library of standard models together with a facility for userdeveloped models. Standard models for some equipment such as governors and excitation systems have been proposed through IEEE to encompass most types of these devices encountered on power systems. When commercial wind generation first became a reality, incorporation of wind generation in dynamic simulations was not a significant issue because (1) the proportion of wind generation was small and was not therefore expected to have a significant impact on system performance and (2) most wind generation was expected to be tripped by interface protection during system disturbances and thus would not impact on system performance in the critical period immediately after the disturbance. However, as penetration of wind generation increased, automatic disconnection for system disturbances was no longer acceptable. This combined with the increased impact of the larger amount of wind generation meant that wind could potentially affect system transient stability, and it would therefore be necessary to include wind generation in dynamic simulations.

9.2. 9.2.1.

Issues relating to modelling of WTGs Initial development of models for transient stability studies

Early wind turbines used fixed speed induction generators, possibly with pitch control to improve energy capture over a range of wind speeds. Although stability programs typically included models for induction generators, these did not take account of the effect of the wind turbine, and its controls, on the power system. A considerable amount of research on modelling wind turbine generators for system stability studies was published, especially in the early 2000s4. At the same time, wind turbine generators were becoming more sophisticated with the adoption of variable speed technologies with power electronic converters. The introduction of requirements to ride through disturbances rather than trip meant manufacturers had to develop ride through strategies
4

See, for example; Akhmatov, V., Analysis of dynamic behaviour of electric power systems with large amount of wind power, PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, April 2003. Available at http://www.dtu.dk/upload/centre/cet/projekter/99-05/05-va-thesis.pdf and Slootweg J. G., de Haan, S. W. H, Polinder, H., Kling, W. L., General Model for Representing Variable Speed Wind Turbines in Power System Dynamics Simulations, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2003

Page 29

that would protect the converters from over voltage or over current, while remaining connected to the network. Manufacturers were anxious to protect their intellectual property in these concepts and designs, and were (still are?) unwilling to divulge details of their control systems.

9.2.2.

System Operator and Manufacturer Perspectives

There are also conflicting perspectives from network operators on the one hand and WTG manufacturers on the other with regard to the development of dynamic models. Network operators require models that will represent with sufficient accuracy those aspects of WTG performance that will affect system stability, but without unnecessary detail that might affect the ability to run simulations for extensive networks with large numbers of machines. Models must be able to self-initialise successfully (i.e. determine values for all internal variables from boundary conditions in a loadflow study). In the event of a simulation failing, network operators will want to be able to investigate and find the source of the problem. Network operators will want the models to be validated, so that they can have confidence in simulation results. It would be preferable to use standard models that are incorporated in the power system analysis package by its developers, rather than special-purpose user-written models that must be incorporated by others, leading to additional risks of difficulty setting up and running simulations. Wind turbine generator manufacturers are concerned with achieving a high degree of modelling accuracy: they want to avoid the risk of actual plant performance differing from model-predicted performance under any conditions. They also want to protect their intellectual property. They also appear to have attempted to adapt models developed for machine design purposes for use in transient stability models. The resulting models have been found to be excessively complex, to incorporate very short time constants and to be unsuitable for use in large scale system simulations5.

9.2.3.

Standard Models or Manufacturer-Specific Models

The system operators preference, mentioned above, for models that would be integrated easily in stability studies, and that would self-initialise successfully (and that would be supported by the power system analysis software vendors) meant that the development of a suite of standard models, with parameters provided for different wind turbine generators would be a preferred approach6. The manufacturers desire for accuracy and confidentiality tended to favour the development by the manufacturers themselves, or experts working on their behalf, of machinespecific models. The WECC in western North America, where stability is seen as a significant issue, began to adopt a two-track approach: standard models, for which manufacturers would provide appropriate data, would be used for general system stability studies; however, for specific studies related to the connection of individual facilities, special models might be required if standard models could not represent the wind installation with sufficient accuracy. An initiative was undertaken to develop a suite of standard models and to obtain the co-operation of power system analysis software
5

Coughlan, Y., Smith, P,; Mullane, A,; O'Malley, M: Wind Turbine Modelling for Power System Stability AnalysisA System Operator Perspective, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 22, No. 3, August 2007 6 Special Report: Standard Models for Variable Generation, North American Electric Reliability Corporation, May 2010,

Page 30

developers to incorporate the standard models, and the co-operation of wind turbine generator manufacturers to provide parameters and validate the resulting standard models7. In the first instance these models were to be developed for the GE PSLF package, as this is the standard analysis tool for the WECC. The effort was also focussed on the range of WTGs sold for installation in North America. This did not incorporate the full range of WTGs deployed elsewhere.

9.2.4.

Wind Farm Modelling and Aggregation

In time-domain dynamic simulation multiple identical devices connected at the same point in a network can normally be represented by a single model, normally by selecting a value for the rating that corresponds to the aggregated total of the devices being modelled: e.g. six 100 MW generators connected at the same point could be modelled by a model of one of the generators with the rating set to 600 MW and all other parameters unchanged. It has been recognised that wind farms with multiple generators and extensive collector networks can be represented by a simplified model with a single wind turbine generator model and lumped equivalents to represent the collector network and associated transformers. Therefore WTG dynamic models must facilitate this aggregation. It is also important to distinguish between dynamic models of individual wind turbine generators (which could be integrated to represent a number of identical machines with one model) and a model to represent a complete wind farm or wind park including centralised controllers, protective devices and other dynamic devices such as Statcoms, and also representing the effect of the collector network.

9.3.

Modelling Requirements in Grid Codes

In some countries, system operators began to use Grid Code requirements as a means to make the provision of modelling information a condition of connection to the power system. (The provision of appropriate data was already included for connection of conventional generation). The way in which these requirements have been expressed in various codes are discussed below. Modelling Requirements in Grid Codes In the following discussion, the requirement to provide modelling information in the Irish Grid Code will be used as a reference in discussing the requirements in the other codes reviewed.

9.3.1.

Summary of requirements

Table 9.1 summarises dynamic model requirements expressed in Grid Codes. These requirements are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Ellis, A., Muljadi, E., Wind power plant representation in large-scale power flow simulations in WECC, IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting 2008

Page 31

Table 9.1 Summary of Grid Code Requirements to Provide Dynamic Models


Code Block Diagram or Specific software Source Code Features to be modelled Wind turbine generator types Wind power plant controller, Other components and parts. Types of study specified Diagram Model functional requirements stated, incl all protection and controls Types of study specified On request Features to be modelled listed Time step/time constants Aggregation Documentation Function descriptions of main model elements Detailed descriptions of individual model components and associated parameters.

Denmark Block Diagram

Solvers with variable time step

Germany

Block (Transpower) Block Diagram

UK

Sufficient to accurately represent behaviour Time step 5 ms Time step 4 ms Specified Specified Equivalent to documentation standard PSS/E

Ireland Alberta Qubec ENTSO-E

PSS/E PSS/E PSS/E Determined by TSO

Relevant technical documentation Fully documented

Some features to be modelled listed Types of study specified Explicit representation devices within plant of Specified

Australia

Block diagram Un-encrypted Code for AEMO software source code

Specified

Page 32

9.3.2.

Form of Model (Block Diagram or Specific Software Compatibility)

The Irish code explicitly assumes no standard PSS/E model and asks for a model written for PSS/E. Alberta and Qubec specifically request models for use with PSS/E either data for appropriate PSS/E standard models or a complete model for use with PSS/E. The UK, Denmark and Germany8 (Transpower) require models in block diagram form, implying that these TSOs expect to perform the work of integrating the models supplied in their power system analysis software. The draft ENTSO-E harmonised code states that a network operator shall have the right to require simulation models, leaving it to the network operator in conjunction with the TSO to specify the format of the model. The Irish code recognises that many manufacturers wish to supply models in compiled form only, to protect their intellectual property, but requires that source code must be provided if requested specifically. Like all other planning data, the Grid Code indicates that the models could be provided to the Northern Ireland TSO or to other Grid Users. The source code, if it is obtained, is treated as confidential. The Alberta and Qubec codes do not appear to include any provision requiring source code, but do state that the model may be made available to other transmission providers. Those codes requiring block diagrams do not make any specific provision in relation to confidentiality provisions to protect intellectual property. The Irish, UK and Danish codes set out detailed requirements about integration step sizes or types of simulations for which the model must be suitable, and with regard to the features to be represented in the model. The Irish code specifies that the wind farm model should not require an integration step size of less than 5 ms. This requirement was included as some manufacturers had provided models incorporating very short time constants requiring a short integration time step and therefore very long simulation times. The UK code states that model resolution should be sufficient to accurately represent behaviour both in response to operation of transmission system protection and in the context of longer-term simulations. The Danish requirement is that simulation models must be numerically stable and capable of utilising numerical equation solvers with variable time step9. It must be possible to initialise the simulation models direct on the basis of a load-flow solution without subsequent iterations. Qubec requires a model that is able to work with a time step exceeding 4 ms (4 ms for a 60 Hz system is equivalent to 5 ms for a 50 Hz system).

9.3.3.

Scope of Models

The Irish code specifies that the model should represent the features and phenomena likely to be relevant to angular and voltage stability, and goes on to list: a) the electrical characteristics of the Generator; b) the separate mechanical characteristics of the turbine and the Generator and the drive train between them; c) variation of power co-efficient with pitch angle and tip speed ratio; d) blade pitch control;
8

The German Transmission Code requires exchange of all information required for implementation of static and dynamic system analyses. The individual TSOs can make more specific requirements. 9 The Danish TSO, Energinet.dk, uses DigSilent Power Factory software which uses a variable time step technique. PSS/E uses a fixed user-specified time step.

Page 33

e) converter controls; f) reactive compensation; g) protection relays. The UK Grid Code says that the model should be capable of representing its transient and dynamic behaviour under both small and large disturbance conditions. The model shall include non-linear effects and represent all equipment relevant to the dynamic performance of the Power Park Unit as agreed with NGET. The model shall be suitable for the study of balanced, root mean square, positive phase sequence time-domain behaviour, excluding the effects of electromagnetic transients, harmonic and sub-harmonic frequencies. The model shall accurately represent the overall performance of the Power Park Unit over its entire operating range including that which is inherent to the Power Park Unit and that which is achieved by use of supplementary control systems providing either continuous or stepwise control. The overall structure of the model shall include: (i) any supplementary control signal modules. (ii) any blocking, deblocking and protective trip features that are part of the Power Park Unit (e.g. crowbar). (iii) any other information required to model the Power Park Unit behaviour to meet the model functional requirement described above. The Danish requirement is for simulation models of the various types of wind turbine generator systems and the wind power plant controller, as well as data for components and parts forming part of the power infrastructure. Simulation models of each individual type of wind turbine generator systems and the entire wind power plant must dynamically describe the electrical properties seen from the public electricity supply network. Simulation models must comprise all control functions and all protection functions that can be activated in connection with any incident and fault in the public electricity supply network. It must be possible to use simulation models for simulating RMS values in the synchronous system (positive sequence) and for simulating RMS values in the individual phases during asymmetrical incidents and faults in the public electricity supply network. It must as a minimum be possible to use the simulation models in the 47-53 Hz frequency range and in the 0-1.4 p.u. voltage range. Simulation models must be able to describe the dynamic response from the wind power plant for at least 30 seconds after any incident and fault in the public electricity supply network. The Qubec requirements include a model suitable for use with EMTP. The ENTSO-E draft harmonised code states that for the purpose of dynamic simulations, the model provided shall contain sub-models for speed and power control, voltage control, including PSS, and excitation system and limiters, generator protection models and converter models for power park modules.

9.3.4.

Aggregation

The Irish code specifies that the models must be capable of being aggregated to represent a number of identical wind turbines with a single model. Qubec requires that the model must be able to represent all generating plant wind generators as a single generator.

Page 34

9.3.5.

Documentation

The Irish code specifies that the model should be fully documented. The documentation should describe in detail the model structure, inputs, outputs and how to set up and use the model and should be based on the documentation of standard PSS/E library models. The Danish requirement states that simulation models must be accompanied by model descriptions as a minimum comprising function descriptions of the main elements of the model and detailed descriptions of the individual model components and associated model parameters. The Qubec requirements state that where a black box model rather than a model based on an IEEE standard model is being provided, it must include relevant technical documentation. The ENTSO-E draft harmonised code states that the structure and block diagrams of the model shall be fully documented, according the requirements of the Relevant Network Operator agreed in coordination with the Relevant TSO. Alberta and UK have no explicit requirement with regard to model documentation.

9.4. 9.4.1.

Model Validation Introduction

To enable network operators and others to have confidence in the results of system studies based on dynamic simulation, the dynamic models and associated parameters used must be validated. The dynamic models used for synchronous generators and other more conventional power system equipment are well understood, as is the derivation of many of the parameters used. Nevertheless, these models must be validated, especially in a stability-limited system. For wind generators where the models are not standardised, and where there are active control systems deployed, whose functionality and parameters will vary greatly from one installation to another, validation to ensure confidence in models is even more important. Validation can be approached on a number of different levels. Ideally a model would be validated on the basis of on-site measurements conducted for the full range of disturbances and transients that could occur and for which the model is required to be valid. These measurements would then be compared with the results of system simulations for the same conditions. This situation could only arise after many years of field experience, and requires the capture of large amounts of data for each event to be simulated. Alternatively, validation may be based on a range of commissioning tests on a real installation, or on measurements conducted at a specifically designed test site or test laboratory. Validation may also be proposed through a comparison of results obtained with a transient stability model with results obtained from a highly detailed design model of the equipment. Furthermore, validation is a continuing process. Every system disturbance provides further opportunities for model and parameter refinement and validation, provided sufficient transient data is captured. It is unlikely ever to be possible to prove a models validity; rather its validity can be said to be demonstrated by whatever range of validation tests and measurements have been carried out.

9.4.2.

Validation Requirements in Grid Codes

Validation requirements in grid codes for wind turbines are summarised in Table 9.2.

Page 35

Table 9.2 Summary of Grid Code Requirements for Dynamic Model Validation

Code

Validation Requirement Individual WTG models Wind plant models accuracy of models within 10% for voltage, active power, active current, reactive power and reactive current

Tests required

Conditions to be validated

Information to be submitted Validation report indicating accuracy achieved by simulation model detailed information about the validated simulation model accuracy documented in validation report.

Denmark

IEC 61400/21

Germany UK Ireland Alberta model shall have been validated all models must be validated all modelling data to be validated comparing the submitted model simulation results against measured test results specific tests to be agreed with the TSO Physical performance test include appropriate shortcircuit tests similar to those of interest Primary voltage regulation, Low Voltage Ride Through, inertial response , Secondary voltage regulation, Power factor, Maximum ramp rates and Power quality simulation and measured test results

Qubec

ENTSO-E Demonstrate that model meets accuracy requirements. Model rigorously derived from design information Not explicitly stated in NER, but AEMO requires evidence of validation before accepting model.

Australia

Key parameters derived from on-site tests, where possible.

Page 36

The Irish Grid Code provisions for wind generation state that all models must be validated. The wind generator is required to ensure that appropriate tests are performed, the specific tests to be agreed with the TSO. The wind generator is required to provide information showing how the predicted behaviour of the dynamic model to be verified compares with the actual observed behaviour of a prototype or production WTG under laboratory conditions and/or actual observed behaviour of the real WTG as installed and connected to a transmission or distribution network. The code requires that the conditions validated should as far as possible be similar to those of interest, e.g. low short circuit level at connection point, close up, severe faults, nearby moderate faults, remote faults, voltage excursions, frequency excursions, large wind speed variations. The UK Grid Code requires that the model shall have been validated. The validation shall be based on comparing the submitted model simulation results against measured test results. Validation evidence shall also be submitted and this shall include the simulation and measured test results. The latter shall include appropriate short-circuit tests. Alberta also requires that modelling data be validated demonstrated by a physical performance test. The Danish regulation requires validation of individual wind turbine generator models and models of the entire wind plant. Wind turbine model validation for voltage drops is related to the requirements of IEC Standard 61400 (Wind Turbines) Part 21: Measurement and assessment of power quality characteristics of grid connected wind turbines. The validation must be documented in a validation report indicating the accuracy actually achieved by the simulation model. The report must also contain detailed information about the simulation model on the basis of which the validated simulation model has been implemented. It must be endeavoured to keep the accuracy of simulation models within 10% for voltage, active power, active current, reactive power and reactive current, with the actual accuracy being documented in the validation report. In Qubec there is a specific document General Validation Test Program for Wind Power Plants Connected to the Hydro-Qubec Transmission System (February 2011). Tests are conducted to demonstrate that the wind power plant meets Transmission Provider technical requirements related to wind generation and to validate numerical models and parameters associated with the wind power plant by comparing model response to readings taken during the tests. The tests prescribed cover Primary voltage regulation, undervoltage response (Low Voltage Ride Through), inertial response (controlled by a frequency regulator), Secondary voltage regulation, Power factor, Maximum ramp rates and Power quality. In Germany there is a guideline document issued by FGW, the Federation of German Wind Power: Technical Guidelines for Power Generating Units, Part 4 Demands on Modelling and Validating Simulation Models of the Electrical Characteristics of Power Generating Units a nd Systems. This document is essentially a guideline document for manufacturers and owners of wind generation facilitates. It sets out principles to be considered in specifying and developing models for power generation units and power generation systems (such as wind farms). It proposes test-site tests that should be performed to validate a model. Its approach to modelling appears to be based on meeting the requirements of designers of generation installations such as wind farms, and on achieving compliance with grid code requirements.

Page 37

9.4.3.

Modelling Data and Validation Requirements in Australia

Modelling data requirements are set out in AEMO Generating System Model Guidelines, document 118-0009, 29 February 2008. This document describes: the functional requirements for static and dynamic models; the requirements for accuracy of such models; the documentation that must accompany a suitable model; and the requirements for validating the model. It covers the requirements for: steady state analysis (load flow); fault calculations; transient stability analysis (10 ms to 30 s timeframe); oscillatory stability (eigenvalue) analysis; medium and long term dynamic studies (30 s to 10 min); sub-synchronous resonance studies; and harmonics analysis These rules are not technology-specific; they apply to all generating systems. The rules are set out in functional terms, setting out the effects to be represented and the types of disturbance to be analysed. The model should be in block diagram format; documentation should include unencrypted source code suitable for at least one software package nominated by AEMO. The model must provide for explicit representation of generating units, tap-changing transformers , reactive power devices etc. within the plant. The model is required to be suitable for aggregation. Accuracy requirements are specified. The model is required to be validated to establish that it will meet the accuracy requirements. The validation requirement is that the model should be rigorously derived from design information and that key parameters must be derived from on-site tests, where possible.

9.5.

Conclusions

The level of detail in a dynamic model is a compromise between faithful representation of all processes in the plant being modelled, and the need for a model that can be integrated in a large scale system study without imposing an undue computational burden. It may be necessary to recognise, as in the case of the WECC in North America, that there is a need for two levels of modelling detail: (i) A detailed model that will be used to represent a plant where the response of that plant is key to the study being undertaken (ii) A model with a lower level of detail, ideally an industry-standard model, that will be used for large scale system studies where the response of the plant in question is not of special interest. The AEMO requirement described above is directed towards a model as described in (i) above. As standard models become accepted, and become refined to suit the WTGs available in the market, Page 38

generators could be asked to identify an appropriate standard model and provide validated parameters for that model. With regard to validation, the AEMO rules appear to require that the model be validated, but do not explicitly require the production of evidence to support the validation. It is understood that a model is unlikely to be accepted by AEMO without appropriate supporting evidence of validation. It must be recognised that dynamic simulation of power systems with high levels of asynchronous generation (such as wind) and DC converters (such as are found in wind and PV installations as well as DC transmission links) could be regarded as being in its infancy. As more experience is gained throughout the world, efficient, standard models suitable for large scale simulations may be expected to be developed and generally accepted. With time, modelling approaches and parameters will be validated through simulation of real incidents on power systems. More detailed models will continue to be required for detailed simulation of individual installations; the techniques for developing and validating these detailed models can also be expected to improve with time. It is important that the requirement to provide models and data for system studies is incorporated in grid codes or other connection requirements to ensure that the industry continues to focus on the need for models, model development and improvement and model validation.

10.

Emergency Conditions and Black Start

System Operators will generally have a black start plan to re-start the power system following a total black out. Black start plans are likely to be constructed around black start stations: power plants that have the ability to start without external electricity supply, energise a part of the transmission system, operate with little or no load connected, and enable auxiliary plant in larger power plants to be started. Systems with interconnections to neighbours may depend on neighbours for black start capability. Wind power plants are unlikely to be involved in any way in a black start. The Irish Grid Code provides that the TSO can disconnect the wind power plant and prevent reconnection in the event of a black start. The UK Grid Code provides that a system to generator intertripping scheme may be required, and will be specified in the connection agreement. The Alberta rules provide that a wind power facility may be disconnected by order of the system operator for reasons of system reliability. In Denmark, wind power plants must be capable of receiving an external stop (and depending on size, an external start) signal. In Australia, the NER do not appear contain a provision relating to the prevention of start-up of wind generation under black start conditions. NER Clause S5.2.5.8 allows for automatic disconnection for a number of conditions to be included as part of an access standard. However, prevention of startup during black-start or other system emergency conditions is not explicitly included. The impact of automatic start-up of wind generation following a widespread system shut-down should be considered as part of the emergency or black start planning process and any provisions necessary should be added to the NER or other document governing connections.

Page 39

11.

Summary and Conclusions

The Australian National Transmission Network Development Plan has considered scenarios of up 8000MW of new wind generation on the Australian power system over and above the existing 2000MW over the next 20 years. International studies and experience have shown that as wind power becomes a significant proportion of the generation portfolio, there are operational and technical challenges which must be addressed. In this report, the grid codes of power systems with large amounts of wind power have been reviewed and the approaches taken to address these challenges have been summarised. In addition, the National Electricity Rules (NER) have been examined and a comparison between how various issues have been addressed in these rules and in the various international grid codes has been presented. The NER is unique amongst international connection standards in that, subject to minimum and maximum capabilities which can be mandated, it allows for negotiation of performance requirements depending on the specific needs of the system in a particular location. The NER Automatic Access Standard defines the maximum level of performance which can be required by the network operator. If the automatic standard is attained, a connection cannot be refused on technical grounds. The minimum standard is the minimum which should be provided by a connecting generator. A generator must at least meet this standard to connect to the system. In the review of international requirements, it has been attempted to assess the adequacy of the NER minimum standards with respect to the do no harm principle. If all ge nerators connected with this level of performance, is it likely that system performance would be degraded over the long term? Similarly, with respect to the Automatic Access Standard, an attempt has been made to compare this with international codes to form a view regarding whether or not this standard could be considered excessive in the opinion of the authors.

11.1. Framework for Negotiation


As mentioned above, the Australian NER are not written as a series of technical standards which all connecting generation plant must meet. Instead, the rules allow for negotiation of the required level of performance on a case by case basis so that the actual needs of the power system in the area of connection can be considered. This has the benefit of avoiding the unnecessary costs associated with mandating the highest level of performance which could conceivably be required across the network whilst also allowing network operators to require such a level of performance in the areas/cases where it is actually required. However, the authors note that the current rules for what future scenarios can be considered when negotiating performance levels, limit the scope for speculation on what the future system will look like and what technical challenges will arise. For example, whilst there is commitment at government level to increase the amount of renewable generation on the system, and that it is quite likely significant wind power will be deployed, there is no scope for considering these plans when it comes to negotiating the performance standards for a particular connection. This is because the rules for negotiation of standards only allow the consideration of considered projects and other projects deemed relevant. This may mean that in the future, if significant levels of wind power materialise, higher levels of performance will be required by later tranches of connecting generators rather than the burden being shared more equally over a greater proportion of the generation fleet. Page 40

11.2. Contingency Performance and Fault Ride Through


For a fault on the 100kV network, the NER automatic standard is formulated in a way that would require a nearby generator to withstand zero voltage for 220ms in the worst case. This may result in some cases (depending on primary protection clearing times in the area) tos a more onerous requirement than any of the grid codes considered in this study. For faults at higher voltage levels, the worst case requirement is less onerous. With regard to the NER minimum standard, this does not require a generator to remain connected for a 3-phase fault whilst all other grid codes studied do. However, since this is a relatively low probability event, it could still be considered consistent with the do-no-harm principle. The automatic access standard in NER for reactive support during a fault is that a generator provide reactive current equal to 4% of rated current for each 1% reduction in system voltage. The next highest equivalent standard observed in other grid codes is the case of Spain where an injection of 2.7% reactive current is required. No reactive current injection is required in the minimum access standard. This may not be consistent with a do no harm approach if generators are permitted to consume reactive power in the event of depressed system voltage. Regarding restoration of active power after a disturbance, the NER automatic access standard is that active power most be restored to 95% of the pre-fault level within 100ms of fault clearance. The next most onerous is found in the draft ENTSO-E requirements which mention a range of 0.5 seconds to 10 seconds within which TSOs can require restoration of active power to 85% of the pre-fault level. While the NER Automatic Access Standard is higher than that seen in any of the grid codes studied, the requirement is not technologically specific and there are some technologies which can achieve it. Those which cant may be able to negotiate a lower standard.

11.3. Active Power and Frequency Control


The requirements found in the grid codes studied vary significantly both in the level and sophistication of control required and the level of detail to which the control requirements are specified. The automatic access standards in NER relating to active power and frequency control are consistent with the trend in requiring wind power output to be controlled down and that wind power plants are capable of implementing frequency control with a set droop characteristic. One potentially important difference in the NER automatic access standard with respect to frequency control is that the rules specify a maximum droop of the frequency controller rather than this being set by the system operator thus allowing, a lower standard to be negotiated if a particular generator cannot meet this. In the opinion of the authors the minimum access standard is consistent with the do-noharm principle where behaviour which does not impact negatively on system frequency response in the event of a disturbance is set as the minimum level of performance. The guidelines for a negotiated access standard require that the actual level of performance is as close to the automatic standard as the technology allows which should ensure an adequate level of frequency control is available across the generation portfolio including in potential scenarios with large amounts of asynchronous wind generation.

Page 41

11.4. Reactive Power and Voltage Control


Most grid codes express reactive power requirements as MVAr equivalent to a specified power factor at rated output. This is often 0.95 leading or lagging. Some deviation from this reactive rating may be permitted at high and low output. Some networks have a specific requirement for some dynamic reactive capability. The NER automatic access standard is also expressed in this way, but has a somewhat greater reactive requirement equivalent to a full load power factor of 0.93. The NER minimum requirement of no reactive power capability may be below the do no harm level and does not exploit the equipments inherent capability. A minimum requirement of a fixed power factor or power factor range to be specified by the NSP or AEMO might better achieve the do no harm objective. There is considerable variation in the extent to which voltage control capability is specified and the manner of the specification. This may well reflect the relative lack of experience of voltage regulation by wind generation, and the different characteristics of different power systems. The requirements in the NER, especially the framework for a negotiated standard, enable AEMO and the NSP to achieve a standard in each case that meets system requirements. The requirement in South Australia, which is equivalent to the automatic standard, with the additional requirement that 50% of the reactive capability be dynamic, may be excessive for some installations. The negotiation framework in the NER should yield the desired results in all cases.

11.5. Requirement to provide a validated dynamic model


The modelling requirements in grid codes reflect the varying experiences in different countries in obtaining dynamic models for wind generation and in running large-scale system simulations (stability studies) incorporating many different wind-turbine models. The Australian modelling requirements require detailed validated models for all connected plant. While such detailed models are required for some studies, there is also a need for parameters to be provided for a standard model, ideally one developed and supported by the relevant power system analysis software vendor.

11.6. Emergency Conditions and Black Start


Every system is likely to have emergency procedures including a black-start plan. Where there is wind generation, it is important that the black-start plan takes account of wind generation. Since varying wind generation could destabilise a recovering power system, some means of inhibiting the automatic re-start of wind generation may be required. However, this provision could be arranged through mechanisms other than inclusion in a grid code.

Page 42