Combustion Turbines and Reciprocating Engines For Grid Support

Combustion Turbines and Reciprocating
Engines for Grid Support
SED
R I
A L
LICE
M AT E
WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement
on the back cover before removing
the Wrapping Material.
Technical Report
Combustion Turbines and

Reciprocating Engines for Grid
Support
1003962
Final Report, November 2001
EPRIsolutions Project Manager

B. Freeman
EPRIsolutions 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10414, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT
OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY EPRISOLUTIONS, INC. NEITHER
EPRISOLUTIONS, THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI), ANY MEMBER
OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON
ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRISOLUTIONS OR ANY
EPRISOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS
REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
Power System Engineering Inc.
EPRIsolutions
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 1355 Willow Way,
Suite 2478, Concord, CA 94520, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
EPRIsolutions is a registered service mark of EPRIsolutions, Inc.
Copyright 2001 EPRIsolutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Power System Engineering, Inc.
2000 Engel Street
Madison, WI 53713
Principal Investigators
T. Bartel
P. Daly
W. Stroess
This report describes research sponsored by EPRIsolutions.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Combustion Turbines and Reciprocating Engines for Grid Support, EPRIsolutions, Palo Alto,
CA: 2001. 1003962.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
This report critically reviews specific examples of utilities using combustion turbines or
reciprocating engines to support the power grid. The report describes common challenges in
planning, developing, installing, and operating distributed resources in grid support.
Background
Distributed resources can support power delivery systems and defer significant capital
transmission and distribution (T&D) projects. This potential, however, has yet to be widely
realized due to the lack of well-documented case examples. Too often, the role of distributed
resources in grid support is overly simplified by both advocates and skeptics, without
consideration of actual evidence.
Objectives
To describe how utilities currently use combustion turbines and reciprocating engines to support
the power delivery system; to improve industry knowledge of distributed resources and advance
the debate from generalities to utility engineering and economic analysis that is proven by
specific case studies; to reveal the difficulties and successes of applying distributed resources to
solve T&D expansion problems; and, to provide case studies of current projects that give utility
engineers and their managers examples they need to evaluate distributed resources within the
context of power delivery planning.
Approach
The project team started by identifying utilities across the country that might be using distributed
resources for grid support, then developed a survey to elicit information about these projects.
Since distributed resources can provide both utility power-supply requirements and grid support,
the team asked questions to help confirm that grid support was a primary objective of these
projects. They followed up by calling each utility and encouraging them to assign a specific
person to complete the survey promptly and conducted phone interviews with utilities that did
not provide a written response.
The utilities survey responses were the primary source of information for this report. The team
analyzed responses for successes, failures, and trends that would help indicate the potential of,
and challenges with, distributed resources.
Results
The case studies strongly suggest that power delivery system planners should routinely consider
short-term and long-term distributed resources for grid support. Distributed resources are
available in a range from 30 kW to 25,000 kW, which is sufficient to meet almost any need for
grid support. If necessary, units can be combined in parallel for unusually large spot
requirements.
Distributed resources are available on a short-term basis and can be connected to a system to
reduce unexpected overloads or temporarily restore service while extensive repairs are
completed. Distributed resources can support local areas where the cost of traditional grid
capacity additions is prohibitive or where the time required to make such additions is too great.
Distributed resources may be transportable, so they can be moved to new areas after the current
need has been satisfied. The case studies show that distributed resources are being used to
improve service at the regional, local, and individual customer level in a cost-effective manner.
The case studies identified a few common pitfalls that can hamper project performance if not
recognized from the beginning. For example, most proposed permanent installations of
distributed resources that require some type of air emissions and zoning permits. Using
standardized system designs will speed procurement, reduce installation costs, and improve
operating reliability. Investing extra effort during final testing and startup will improve
performance after the project is placed in service. Units should be tested and checked regularly to
ensure their readiness for unexpected needs. All readers, especially system planners, are
encouraged to fully review the survey responses in Appendix A. Each response presents a unique
experience and provides insight into how distributed resources can be used as a power delivery
tool.
EPRI Perspective
The cases presented in this report and insights gained from these demonstrate that it is possible to
use combustion turbines (CTs) and internal combustion engines (ICEs) for grid support. There
are still significant barriers in place that will inhibit broad proliferation, but the distributed
resource technologies are mature.
Keywords
Combustion turbine
Distributed generation
Distributed resources
Grid support
Internal combustion engine
Power delivery
Reciprocating engine
vi
EPRIsolutions Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
Distributed resources can support power delivery systems and defer capital transmission and
distribution (T&D) projects. This potential, however, has yet to be widely understood due to the
lack of well-documented examples. Too often, the role of distributed resources in grid support is
overly simplified by both advocates and skeptics, without consideration of actual evidence. This
report reviews specific examples of utilities using combustion turbines and reciprocating engines
to support the power grid. The report describes common challenges in planning, developing,
installing, and operating distributed resources in grid support. The project team started by
identifying utilities across the country that were known to be using distributed resources for grid
support, then developed a survey to elicit information about these projects. Since distributed
resources can provide both utility power-supply requirements and grid support, the survey
questions help confirm the primary objectives of these projects. The cases presented in this
report and insights gained from these demonstrate that it is possible to use combustion turbines
(CTs) and internal combustion engines (ICEs) for grid support. There are still significant barriers
in place that will inhibit broad proliferation, but the technologies are proven.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the following utilities, without whom this report
would not have been possible:
Alliant Energy, Cedar Rapids, IA
Central Hudson Gas & Electric, Poughkeepsie, NY
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, Lovingston, VA
Dakota Electric Association, Farmington, MN
East Mississippi Electric Power Association, Meridian, MS
Exelon/ComEd, Chicago, IL
Grant County Public Utility District, Ephrata, WA
Madison Gas & Electric, Madison, WI
New York Power Authority, Albany, NY
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Glen Allen, VA
Powder River Energy Cooperative, Sundance, WY
Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corporation, Covington, GA
Wisconsin Public Service, Green Bay, WI
ix
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1-1

2 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ........................................................................................... 2-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
Report Overview................................................................................................................. 2-1
3 GRID SUPPORT WITH DISTRIBUTED RESOURCES........................................................ 3-1
4 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW................................................................................................ 4-1
Reciprocating Engines........................................................................................................ 4-1
Combustion Turbines ......................................................................................................... 4-2
Conventional CTs .......................................................................................................... 4-2
Microturbines ................................................................................................................. 4-3
Generator Comparisons, Specifications, and Related Technologies................................... 4-4
5 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................... 5-1
6 CASE STUDY PROFILES ................................................................................................... 6-1
Summary of Responses ..................................................................................................... 6-2
Summary Discussion by Case............................................................................................ 6-4
Alliant Energy ................................................................................................................ 6-4
Central Hudson Gas & Electric ...................................................................................... 6-5
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative.............................................................................. 6-5
Exelon/ComEd............................................................................................................... 6-7
Dakota Electric Association ........................................................................................... 6-7
East Mississippi Electric Power Association and Tennessee Valley Authority................ 6-7
Grant County Public Utility District ................................................................................6-10
Madison Gas & Electric.................................................................................................6-11
New York Power Authority ............................................................................................6-11
xi
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative ...............................................................................6-13

Powder River Energy Cooperative................................................................................6-13
Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corporation ......................................................6-14
Wisconsin Public Service..............................................................................................6-14
7 LESSONS LEARNED.......................................................................................................... 7-1
Lessons for Planners.......................................................................................................... 7-2
A CASE SURVEY RESPONSES............................................................................................ A-1
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Distributed Resources at a Distribution Substation East Mississippi Electric
Power Association and Tennessee Valley Authority ........................................................ 1-2
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Primary Reasons for Distributed Resource Grid Support by Beneficiary ............... 3-2
Table 3-2 Rationales for Grid Support Using Distributed Resources ..................................... 3-3
Table 3-3 Distributed Resource Project Implementation, Operations, and Maintenance ....... 3-4
Table 6-1 Study Participants, Separated by Ownership Structure ......................................... 6-1
Table 6-2 Summary of Generators used by Case Participants .............................................. 6-1
Table 6-3 Case Summaries and Comparisons ...................................................................... 6-3
Table 6-4 EMEPAs 10-Year Net Present Value Comparison of Alternatives ........................ 6-9
xv
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The thirteen case examples presented in this report demonstrate that grid support can be achieved
through creative application of distributed resource technology. Combustion turbines and
reciprocating engines dominated these cases as the most readily available technology and the
best suited for grid support applications. More importantly, the case studies illustrate the highly
situational nature of using distributed resources for grid support. It takes a combination of
customer and utility needs, a suitable site, and a willingness to examine conventional thinking to
realize grid support benefits.
The case studies demonstrate that the use of distributed resources for grid support is no longer a
lofty, unattainable concept, but is truly occurring at utilities of all sizes around the country.
Providing grid support from distributed resources can be difficult, but the case studies show that
a variety of approaches can help utilities achieve their objectives.
The primary drivers for utilities profiled include:
Deferral of capacity increases in substations or transmission lines
More reliable customer service through a redundant electric service source at the customer
location, or at a substation that is close to the customer
Reduction of distribution circuit overload and improvement in outage restoration time
Relief of transmission system congestion
The examples of distributed resources for grid support encompass several generation
technologies, various placements on the power delivery system, and utility types that range from
investor-owned to cooperatives and public power. The case studies show through actual practice
that distributed resources for grid support cannot be narrowly defined; they are not a solution for
only one type of problem, nor is there any one best approach. The range of power delivery
problems and available creative resources are the only defining elements.
Grid support is not realized in every application of distributed resources. Grid benefits result
only after careful planning and implementation focused on solving power delivery problems.
Distributed resources can have unintended effects, such as burdening the grid through improper
siting or incompatible operations. Distributed resources can also be of negligible support when
existing power delivery systems already have sufficient capacity and reliability. Applications
that do not support the grid help underscore the significance of the featured cases that do; in the
presented cases, significant grid support occurred while other objectives were met, often with
direct customer benefits.
1-1

Executive Summary
The case studies in this report span the entire United States and solve several power grid needs,
from short- to long-term and from narrowly peaking to broader-based applications. From
Manhattan to the open deserts, distributed resources work in support of, and in conjunction with,
utility wires businesses. Figure 1-1 depicts one of the cases (reciprocating engines at a
distribution substation).
Source: Wayne Henson East Mississippi Electric Power Association

Figure 1-1
Distributed Resources at a Distribution Substation East Mississippi Electric Power
Association and Tennessee Valley Authority
The following thirteen utilities offered case studies for this report:
Alliant Energy
Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
Dakota Electric Association
East Mississippi Electric Power Association and Tennessee Valley Authority
Exelon/ComEd (Commonwealth Edison)
Grant County Public Utility District
Madison Gas & Electric
New York Power Authority
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
Powder River Energy Cooperative
Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corporation
Wisconsin Public Service
1-2

Executive Summary
The case study examples in this report show how the potential of distributed resources to support
electric power delivery systems can be realized. Although every case had its own problems with
the technology, the local site, and public acceptance, none of these problems proved to be
overwhelming obstacles.
These cases are far from the entire population (of possible cases), however their diversity
represents it well. As these cases illustrate, the potential for grid support is real and the benefits
are achievable. These cases should convince many in the industry that distributed resources are
now a serious alternative in terms of capacity and reliability, and are worthy of consideration in
planning electric power delivery systems.
1-3
2
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
Introduction
Distributed resources can support power delivery systems and defer significant capital
transmission and distribution (T&D) projects. However, this potential has yet to be widely
realized due to the lack of well-documented case examples. Too often, the role of distributed
resources in grid support is overly simplified by both advocates and skeptics, without
consideration of actual evidence.
This report critically reviews specific examples of utilities using combustion turbines or
reciprocating engines to support the power grid. The report also describes common challenges in
the planning, development, installation, and operation of distributed resources in grid support.
This report seeks to improve industry knowledge of distributed resources and advance the debate
from generalities to utility engineering and economic analysis that is proven by specific case
studies.
The report reveals the difficulties and successes of applying distributed resources to solve T&D
expansion problems. The case studies of current projects provide utility engineers and their
managers with the examples they need to evaluate distributed resources within the context of
power delivery planning.
Report Overview
The remainder of the report is divided into the following sections:
Section 3 discusses how utilities are currently using distributed resources (DR) to provide
grid support.
Section 4 discusses the background of the combustion turbines and reciprocating engines
used in the case studies.
Section 5 provides background on environmental considerations for the case studies.
Section 6 profiles utility case studies and presents tabular summaries of key data.
Section 7 provides a synopsis of tips and insights gleaned from the case studies.
Section 8 highlights key points that power delivery system planners should consider when
reviewing system performance and developing plans to meet future needs.
Appendix A presents the complete survey responses submitted by the 13 utilities that
provided case-study information for this report.
2-1
3
GRID SUPPORT WITH DISTRIBUTED RESOURCES
All 13 utilities that provided information for this study indicated that their distributed resource
projects offered some form of grid support. The following list illustrates which types of grid
support were offered and which utilities offered them:
Deferral of distribution substation capacity increases Alliant Energy, Dakota Electric

Association, Exelon/ComEd
Deferral of providing a looped transmission system Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Provide a redundant supply source to a distribution substation bus Central Hudson Gas &
Electric, Grant County Public Utility District
Provide a redundant supply source to a group of customers demanding improved service

reliability Central Hudson Gas & Electric, Dakota Electric Association, East Mississippi
Electric Power Association, Madison Gas & Electric, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative,
Snapping Shoals EMC
Provide transmission or distribution system voltage support East Mississippi Electric

Power Association, Madison Gas & Electric, Powder River Energy, Wisconsin Public
Service
Improve outage restoration time Exelon/ComEd
Reduce overloads on distribution circuits Exelon/ComEd
Relieve transmission system congestion New York Power Authority, Old Dominion
Electric Cooperative
As can be seen, these utilities had a variety of reasons for installing distributed resources. Table
3-1 summarizes the primary reasons and indicates which portion of the system benefited from
the installation. Some utilities indicated more than one area of primary emphasis. This explains
why there are sum of the counts is greater than thirteen.
3-1

Grid Support with Distributed Resources
Table 3-1
Primary Reasons for Distributed Resource Grid Support by Beneficiary
DR Support Type
Customer
Defer System Capacity

Upgrade
Distribution
1
Inadequate Distribution
Capacity in Line
Defer New Line
Defer Transformer Upgrade
Improve Reliability
Transmission
Improve Voltage Support
2
2
3
Provide Redundant Capacity
Customer Retention
Limit Outage Duration
The primary driver indicated by the respondents for using DR was to improve reliability. In
numerous cases a load with poor reliability was served with a single distribution line. For
various reason, it was not practical to upgrade the existing line or bring addition lines. Mostly
because of the very long time required to make the changes. Faced with few other alternative,
DR emerged as the best solution to reliability problem. The units were place in or very near the
load in question and the generator provide options for baseload, peak-shave or emergency
operation. In some cases, a DR units was leased which provided enough time to complete
distribution upgrades or new line construction.
A second common scenario occurs when a significant element or group of elements in the
existing power delivery system do not have adequate capacity to supply peak load demands and
the peak load duration is only a small portion of the year (typically less than 300 hours per year).
Distributed resources can offer a possible solution because the combination of their capital and
operating costs, coupled with the economic savings from avoided power supply costs, may be
less than the cost of upgrading power delivery systems by alternative methods. Distributed
resources can be moved to another location later when the load duration increases to a point that
the alternative upgrade becomes justified.
Table 3-2 summarizes the rationales that each utility provided for using distributed resources.
For more details on each utilitys circumstances and needs, see Section 6 and the case-study
information in Appendix A.
Table 3-3 summarizes the project implementation methods, project installation costs, operating
experience, and maintenance experience associated with development of distributed resources.
Some utilities used the design-bid-build project implementation process; others used the designbuild process.
3-2

Table 3-2
1
Rationales for Grid Support Using Distributed Resources
Survey Topic
T&D System Capacity Addition Deferral
Power Supply/Generation Deferral
Any Reliability Improvement?
At what level (single customer, dist., trans.)?
Transmission voltage support?
Distribution voltage support?
Provide redundant capacity for contingencies?
Survey Topic
T&D System Capacity Addition Deferral
Power Supply/Generation Deferral
Any Reliability Improvement?
At what level (single customer, dist., trans.)?
Transmission voltage support?
Distribution voltage support?
Provide redundant capacity for contingencies?
Central
Hudson Gas & Dakota Electric Madison Gas &
Alliant Energy
Electric
Association
Electric
East Mississippi
EPA & TVA
Exelon/ComEd
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
single customer
Yes
customer &
distribution
Yes
n/a
Yes
transmission &
distribution
all
Yes
customer &
distribution
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Central
Virginia
Electric
Cooperative
New York
Power
Authority
Old Dominion
Electric
Cooperative
Grant County
Public Utility
District
Powder River
Energy Corp./
Basin Electric
Snapping Shoals Wisconsin

EMC
Public Service
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
distribution
Yes
transmission &
distribution
distribution
all
transmission
single customer
Yes
transmission &
distribution
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
For more detailed information than this table can provide, see Appendix A.
3-3

Table 3-3
Distributed Resource Project Implementation, Operations, and Maintenance
Survey Topic
W hat might b ring the project to an end?

How was project implemented?
W hat permits were required/how long to get?

Cost per k W - installed?
Average fuel cost?
Maintenance costs?
Failures? (after commissioning)
Operations?
Monitoring?
Survey Topic
W hat might b ring the project to an end?

How was project implemented?
Alliant Energy
see A ppendix A
design-build
not provided
Zoning - 1 month
n/a
A ll
$1,400
n/a
$0.1057/kWH
not provided
not provided
Conf idential
w arranty
w arranty
not provided
None
Conf idential
see A ppendix A
see A ppendix A
see A ppendix A
n/a
Dial up
MV -90/meters
SCA DA
SCA DA
SCA DA & dial in

SCA DA & dial in
SCA DA & dial in

SCA DA & dial in
SCA DA & dial in

SCA DA & dial in
manual
n/a
Central
Virginia
Electric
Cooperative
New York
Power
Authority
Old Dominion
Electric
Cooperative
Grant County
Public Utility
Dis trict
Powder River
Energy Corp./
Bas in Electric
S napping
S hoals EMC
Wis cons in
Public Service
Transmission
improvements to
relieve congestion
w ould permit units
to be relocated to
improve reliability
1 year emergency
license provision
Pursuing
permanent license
now
None f oreseen
Changes in EPA
pollution
requirements
The addition of a
large base load
or large peaking
generator
peaking unit
Design-bid-build
Design-build
A ir quality 4
months
Premature
customer contract Ongoing litigation
termination, sale to to limit operation
to 3 years
third party
Turnkey to
design build by
customer
NY PA

Average fuel cost?
$0.0365/kWh
Operations?
Monitoring?
3-4
Base could close,

Rate may end, T
line could be built
Poor
perf ormance,
lack of
application,
excessive O&M
costs
Future air quality

restrictions
turnkey to
customer
emissions - 3
months
Failures? (after commissioning)
Madis on Gas & Eas t Mis s is s ippi

Electric
EPA & TVA
Exelon/ComEd
nothing
anticipated
W hat permits were required/how long to get?
Maintenance costs?
Central Huds on Dakota Electric

Gas & Electric
As s ociation
$262
$71,233/yr total
f or 13 units
Several under
w arranty
SCA DA and
manned
SCA DA and
manned
not provided
see A ppendix A
Emissions-6-12
months
design-bid-build+
Emissions & oil
retainage - 4
months
$300-$400
$300
$385
$300-$400
$0.075/kWH
not provided
$0.055/kWH
not provided
not enough
experience
Design-bid-build
all done in-house
emissions - 3-4
months
not provided
Design-build
Emissions & zoning
8 w eeks,
acoustical 4
w eeks
$1,000
$300 estimated
$844
SCA DA
SCA DA
SCA DA & onsite
metering
Design-bid-build
Emissions 2
months,
interconnection 3
months
$670
A ir quality, f uel
storage
$216 +f ound &
f uel storage
$0.050 est.
$0.060 est
see A ppendix A
no experience
$10/MWh
see A ppendix A
n/a
see A ppendix A
see A ppendix A
manual
SCA DA
SCA DA
manually
SCA DA
SCA DA
SCA DA
SCA DA
not available yet

$0.07/kWh est.
$0.07
Still in shakedow n mode. See
A pprox. $10/kW/yr
A ppendix A .
$10,000/unit-yr est.
est.
Still in shakedow n mode
n/a
None
SCA DA
n/a
see A ppendix A

In most cases, some permits or licenses were required; these applications need to be made at the
very beginning of project design so that authorization can be obtained in time for project
construction. Air emissions and zoning/land use permits were the most common requirements.
Temporary installations with less than a one-year lifetime require fewer permits than permanent
or long-term installations.
Several utilities split the project implementation into two parts. They hired a turnkey vendor to
do the complete generator design, procurement, and installation, then used their own personnel to
complete the electrical connections to the utility grid, complete the control system connections,
and perform the final check-out and startup.
Diesel generators typically cost $300 to $400 per kW for permanent installations, or they are
leased for short-term projects. Operating costs are ten cents per kilowatt-hour or less, depending
on fuel prices. Combustion turbines tend to cost more to install, but are less expensive to
operate. Combustion turbine projects should be evaluated individually to account for specific
design and construction variations. Most utilities use their system control and data acquisition
system or dial-up methods to monitor the project equipment.
3-5
4
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
While a number of technologies may be suitable for grid support, the scope of this report was
combustion turbines and reciprocating engines. The discussion in this section provides a general
overview of the distributed resource technologies used in the cases.
Reciprocating Engines
Nine of the thriteen case studies were projects using reciprocating engines. Although these nine
reciprocating engine projects were unique, each used diesel engines. These engines typically
offer the following advantages:
Low cost
Utilities have used them previously with favorable results.
The economic benefits from wholesale rate incentives for peak shaving adequately cover the
cost of using diesel generators, if they are operated less than 300 hours per year.
Diesel projects can be implemented within a relatively short time (2 to 6 months).
Rental equipment is readily available.
Generators can be easily moved from one location to another.
Diesel engines have quick start capability.
Most study participants agreed on the above advantages and often used these points as a rationale
for their projects. Some of their comments include:
The generators provide savings to the cooperative. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
Sixty to 70% of the units are customer leased, based on favorable economics. Dakota
Electric Association
Reciprocating engines are the best choice for back-up generators. Madison Gas &
Electric
The project was completed in six months. East Mississippi Electric Power Association
Mobile generators were identified as the best solution to improve customer satisfaction.
Exelon/ComEd
Fast track distributed generationmay be dispatched to relieve congestion. Old

Dominion Electric Cooperative
4-1

Technology Overview
These generators were available to us at the time the project was approved. Grant
County Public Utility District
Diesel engines provide quick-start capabilities. Snapping Shoals EMC
Leasing portable units was the quickest and most economical solution to the problem.
As demonstrated in the above comments, mobility and quick installation were recurring themes
that made diesel generation more attractive than other alternatives. However, diesel reciprocating
engines have their limitations of their own:
Diesel reciprocating engines require regular test starts to confirm that the units are ready for
fast start-up.
Reliability issues such as overheating problems, lubrication problems, and air intake
problems can cause unplanned shutdowns. For more details, see Appendix A (questions 4.3
and 5.6 in the survey responses).
The possibility exists for diesel engines to run out of fuel if not routinely monitored and
regularly supplied.
The potential exists for fuel leaks and spills.
Diesel engines create high noise and emissions levels.
These issues are important and can be addressed in a variety of ways. Under the case
circumstances, however, these limitations were either outweighed by other factors, temporarily
deferred, or of little concern, depending on the case. For more discussion of these issues and the
technologies to address them, see Section 6.
Combustion Turbines
Four of the thirteen case studies were projects that used combustion turbines. Some slight
variations were found in turbine and fuel type. Three of the four cases employed traditional CT
technology, using natural gas or coal bed methane as fuel, and another used microturbine
technology running propane fuel. Differences between CTs and diesel reciprocating engines are
evident.
The CT market was almost exclusively made up of Conventional CTs (those generally sized on
the order of megawatts) until recently. Microturbines in the kW range are a relatively recent
development.
Conventional CTs
Given the longer history and predominance of conventional CTs, it was no surprise to find that
three of four CT projects were using them. As representative of the market in general, they
differed in size and fuel type. (Specific details are provided in Section 6.) Using conventional
CT technologies for grid support has several advantages:
4-2
Conventional CT units are manufactured in sizes large enough to meet project requirements.

Technology Overview
They operate well using natural gas fuel.
CT units can be installed quickly to meet project requirements.
Again, our study showed a high degree of overlap between the characteristics of the technology
and the reasons cited for its selection. Specific examples include:
No alternative other than this was available to meet [grid] capacity needs [for 2001].
This DG option is simply the most practical and expedient. Powder River Energy
Corporation
However, utilities that consider using conventional CTs must also consider the following
limitations of the technology:
They are much less mobile than small diesel units.
They require more planning and more site work for a typical installation.
They are not commonly available on a rental basis.
Renewal of emissions permits may become more difficult in future years.
In fact, changing emissions requirements may limit the total number of years certain large scale
DG installations can operate before they must be shut down or modified to meet stricter limits.
For more discussion of these issues and the technologies to address them, see Section 6 and
Appendices B and C.
Microturbines
Microturbines typically range from 30 to 75 kW, and are seen by some as offering great potential
for grid support. Beyond the benefits of conventional CTs, microturbines promise:
Similarly cost-effective to CTs when deployed in multi-unit packs
Low emissions without supplementary equipment
Small, compact installation suitable for individual customer environments
As with any developing technology, however, price alone may be a prohibitive factor until
economies of scale are reached. Other challenges faced by microturbines include:
Optimizing the technology to obtain many hours of trouble-free operation
Developing cost-effective inverter systems that can easily handle both interconnected and
stand-alone operation
This balancing of opposing forces is demonstrated in the following response from Alliant:
4-3

Technology Overview
This project will enable Alliant Energy to better understand the operation of Capstone
MicroturbinesWe are particularly interested in how the units will respond through numerous
start-stop sequences.
Generator Comparisons, Specifications, and Related Technologies

A wide breadth of technologies can be used effectively for grid support, including reciprocating
engines and CTs, among others. Additionally, many meaningful differences exist within a
particular technology, such as the availability of intercooled recuperated cycle combustion
turbines and high-pressure gas-injected dual-fuel engines. Incorporating DR into a system is
not a simple process of selecting reciprocating engine or CT and then moving forward with
the permits. Narrowing the possibilities to the most appropriate technologies requires answers to
the following questions:
What unit sizes are desired?
What are the anticipated hours of operation per year?
What fuel options are available?
What installation timeframe is required?
From there, case specifics will likely determine the next considerations or series of questions.
4-4
5
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Although distributed resource technologies offer significant potential for grid support, their
benefits, costs, and viability as a whole must be viewed within the context of their environmental
impacts. Permitting and siting requirements will differ from project to project, but typically
include the following factors:
Air emissions
Land use
Noise (acoustical)
Oil spill containment
Factors that influence permitting and siting requirements, along with the time and effort to obtain
such permits, are:
Location relative to adjacent land uses
How long the project will operate
The size and number of units at one location
In our study, each utility faced particular environmental considerations. We asked in Question
5.1 of the survey, What permits were needed and how long did it take to get each of them
approved (emissions, water, waste water, interconnection, acoustical, zoning, other)?
Generally speaking, air emissions represented the most common permit requirement; such
permits took two to four months to obtain. Air emissions concerns mainly focused on NOx, but
in some cases addressed greenhouse emissions and other air quality issues. The permits that were
required, and the time needed to obtain them in each case, are presented in Table 3-3 of
Section 3. Additional discussion of the environmental considerations in each case is reported in
Section 6, and the direct survey responses are available as Appendix A.
5-1
6
CASE STUDY PROFILES
Twenty-three utilities thought to be using DG for grid support were contacted. Thirteen utilities
responded with information about their programs and projects. Four utilities did not respond to
our inquiries; the rest were either unable to respond fully because they had no qualifying
projects, were prohibited from responding due to management direction, or did not have the
time. This section presents a general summary of the 13 utility responses that became case
studies for this project.
The participating utilities represented three separate types of corporate governance and
ownership, as shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1
Study Participants, Separated by Ownership Structure
Investor Owned Utilities
Public Power Authorities
Electric Cooperatives
Alliant Energy
Central Hudson Gas &

Electric
Grant County Public Utility

District
East Mississippi Electric Power

Association/TVA (not a cooperative)
Exelon/ComEd
Powder River Energy Corp/Basin

Electric
Snapping Shoals EMC
The respondants indicated that the following types of DR units were used by the participating
utilities:
Table 6-2
Summary of Generators used by Case Participants
Total
Units
Total Net
Capacity
3 utilities used combustion

turbines
16
549 MW
9 utilities used internal

combustion engines
235
352.5 MW
1 utility used Capstone

Microturbines
120 kW
Generator Types
Fuel Type
Natural gas or coal bed
methane
Diesel
Propane
6-1

Case Study Profiles
The majority of these projects were installed between 1998 and 2001; the earliest project was
installed in the 1970s, and one project is currently being completed. All thirteen projects provide
generation capacity to the grid, although three do so indirectly by providing standby power to
individual customers who voluntarily interrupt their load at times of system peak. All 13
projects in some form, improve service reliability at the customer, distribution system, or
transmission system level.
Summary of Responses
Table 6-3 summarizes the cases, listing the utilities in alphabetical order. The table has been
split into two sections to improve readability. The table portrays the key characteristics of the
DR projects and the primary justification for installing them.
The 13 responses broadly illustrate the types of distributed resources used across the United
States. Other DR projects are in operation and could be surveyed in the future to build a stronger
database. For example, Wisconsin alone has approximately 10 investor-owned utilities, 70
municipal utilities, and 25 cooperative electric utilities. Various contacts and reports suggest
that at least half these utilities have some type of distributed resource installations, or have
utility-sponsored customer ownership programs. This indicates that DR technologies have broad
recognition and acceptance as a way of meeting the electric energy needs of individual
customers. These examples show that distributed resources can be used effectively to support
various transmission and distribution system deficiencies, in addition to meeting electric system
generation requirements.
Table 6-3 shows that diesel-fueled combustion turbines and reciprocating engines are commonly
used in a variety of applications. In every case, the installations provided better service
reliability to customers, along with various levels of support for transmission and/or distribution
system voltage and other forms of capacity relief.
6-2

Case Study Profiles
Table 6-3
Case Summaries and Comparisons
Survey Topic
Generator Type
Size k W & Install Date

Voltage of Generator
Voltage of Interc onnection
Fuel Type
Top 2-3 Reasons For Project
Expec ted projec t life

Time from project authorization
to commercial service?
S urvey Topic
Generator Type
S iz e k W & Ins tall Date

V oltage of G enerator
V oltage of Interc onnec tion
Fuel Type
Top 2-3 Reas ons For P rojec t
Alliant Energy
Capstone
Microturnbines
Four 30 kW 6/29/01
Combustion
Turbines
Reciprocating
Engines
Tw o 25 MW - late Seventy - 50 kW
70's
to 14 MW 2000-01
Reciprocating
Engines
Forty - 550 to
2250 kW - 200001
Reciprocating
Engines
Reciprocating
Engines
Five - 1825 kW
1/1/98
Three - 2000 kW
Spring, 2001
480 v
13.8 kV
480v - 4.16 kV
208 & 480 v
4.16 kV
12.5 kV
12.47 kV
13.8 kV
12.5 kV
46 kV
12.5 kV
Propane
Natural Gas
Diesel
4.16 & 13.8 kV

all Diesel, nat'l gas
of f ered
1. Def er Sub
transf ormer
upgrade
1. Transmission
is radial
1. Customer
economics
1. Customers
w anted backup
w /o ow nership
2. Understand
Capstone
Microturbines
2. Backup f or
dist. transf ormer
f ailure
2. Customer
reliability
2. Generators
available f or grid
support
not provided
3. System
generation
capacity
not provided
not provided
5 yrs
30+ yrs
20+ yrs
30 years
20 years
Indef inite
7 months
not provided
6 - 9 months
6 months
6 months
not provided
$1,400
not provided
$300-$400
$300
$385
$300-$400
Central
Virg inia
Electric
Cooperative
New York
Power
Authority
Old Dominion
Electric
Cooperative
Grant County
Public Utility
Dis trict
Powder River
Energ y Corp./
B as in Electric
S napping
S hoals EMC
Rec iproc ating

Engines
Combus tion
Turbines
Rec iproc ating

Engines
Rec iproc ating

Engines
Combus tion
Turbines
One of Tw elv e 2000 kW 11/1999
Elev en - 44 MW
6/1/2001
Ten - 2000 kW
In progres s .
Tw enty - 1600 kW
7/2001
Three - 5 MW
1s t Qtr, 2002
480 v
13.8 kV
480 v
13.8 kV
13.8 kV
not prov ided
12.5 kV
138 kV
15, 25, 35 kV
115 kV
69 kV
not prov ided
480 v
24.9, 69, 115, &
138 kV
Dies el
Natural Gas
Dies el
Coal bed methane
Dies el
Dies el
1. Competitiv e
reas on to improv e
reliability
1. NY PA
obligation to
s upply 80% of
NY C peak
demand In City
Dies el
1. Reliability
improv ement @
deliv ery points
w ith c ritic al loads
or undes irable
reliability
1. Capac ity to
c ov er low w ater
y ear f or hy dro
units
1. V oltage s upport
f or radial 69 kV
trans mis s ion
1. Prov ides low er

c os t peaking
pow er during
Summer
1. Meet res erv e

c apac ity
requirement of
MA IN
2. Trans mis s ion

s y s tem
c ons traints into
NY C
2. Trans mis s ion

c onges tion
2. Market s urplus
c apac ity into
market w hen pric e
is high
2. Load grow th/

load s erv ing
2. Prov ides
s pinning
res erv es ow ed
to s y s tem
2. Prov ide v oltage

& s y s tem s upport
to trans mis s ion
s ys tem
3. Capac ity
c ons traints on
NY C 138 kV
trans mis s ion
3. Prov ide low er

pric ed energy
during high c os t
periods
3. Blac k start
c apability if grid
f ails
3. Reliability
20+ y ears
Undetermined
1-20 y ears
20 y ears
7 months
8 months
antic ipated
8 w eeks
2. Prov ide
c ontingenc y
c apability
3. Ec onomic s w holes ale
s upplier's demand
c harge
$16/kW/month
E xpec ted projec t life
5 y ears
1 y ear 1s t projec t,
6 months
Tim e from projec t authoriz ation
s ubs equent
to c om m erc ial s ervic e?
projec ts
Cos t per k W - ins talled?
Central Huds on Dak ota Electric Madis on Gas & Eas t Mis s is s ippi
Gas & Electric
As s ociation
Electric
EPA & TVA
Exelon/ComEd
$262
$1,000
$300 es timated
$844
Diesel
Diesel
1. Prevent
extended
outages to large
customers,
1. Load retention
buildings,
of NA S Base
neighborhoods
2. Prevent
distribution sub
2. Improve system
and circuit
reliability
overloads
3. Provide
standby capacity
3. Improve voltage to reduce outage
duration
regulation
W is cons in
Public S ervice
Rec iproc ating

Rec iproc ating
Engines
Engines
Fiv e - 1.85 MW
Sev enty - 68 to
3/1999
Three - 1500 kW Total
1.85 MW In102 MW
progres s
6/1/2001
3. Prov ides
bac kup f or HQ
w hen Subs tation 3. Reduc e ris k to
is outaged
market pric ing
Until 2003
Continuing bas ed
on generation
needs
18 months
estimated
9 months
5-7 months
$670
$216 +f oundation
& f uel s torage
"$47/kW /yr"
6-3

Case Study Profiles
Summary Discussion by Case

A condensed profile of each case study is provided in the following summaries. The survey
responses were the primary source of information for most of the report. Confidentiality
concerns limited the information that some utilities were willing to provide. Utility web sites
and presentations provided additional information for the Alliant Energy, East Mississippi, and
New York Power Authority case studies.
Alliant Energy
Alliant Energy (Cedar Rapids, IA) presented its Capstone Microturbine project to defer a
distribution substation capacity upgrade in a straightforward application of distributed resources
near Racine, Minnesota. Alliant reports that the project construction and startup was completed
with relative ease. The project started operating on June 29, 2001, and the longest-running unit
has logged 66 hours to date with no problems.
Alliant Energys utility operations serve more than 1.2 million customers in mid-sized cities and
rural areas within Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Alliants service territory covers
54,000 square miles, with more than 9,700 miles of transmission lines and 8,000 miles of natural
gas mains. Alliant was formed by the merger of IES Utilities, Interstate Power Company, and
Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
Alliants rural Racine Junction Substation is a 24.9-12.47 kV, 750-kVA substation. The peak
load on the substation was 842 kW (112% of capacity) in 1999. Alliant examined three
alternatives to resolve the substation transformer overload:
Alternative #1 involved upgrading the substation and replacing the substation transformers
with three new 500-kVA units at an expected cost of $111,000.
Alternative #2 involved converting the circuit to 24.9 kV from 12.47 kV.
Alternative #3 was to install four 30-kW Capstone Microturbines to alleviate substation

transformer overloading during peak load periods.
Alliant opted to use the Capstone Microturbines to gain firsthand, working knowledge of the use
of distributed resources on the utility system. The Capstone Microturbines were placed in
service on June 29, 2001 and are fueled with propane. The generators are to be used during the
substation peak load period to defer a capacity upgrade and permit Alliant to better understand
the load growth in the area before committing to a final, long-term solution. Alliant also hopes
to gain operating experience to better understand the performance of the Capstone
Microturbines.
This project was developed in a design-build fashion using Alliant engineers. Planning and
design began in November 2000. Air quality permits were not required, but the County Planning
and Zoning Committee required a Conditional Land Use Permit for the site, which took four
weeks to obtain.
6-4

Case Study Profiles
The total cost for the project was $1,400 per kW. Maintenance is supplied by Capstone under
contract. The turbines are monitored via a dial-up modem, which allows Alliant to download
operating performance information. The substation also has two electronic meters to log the
output of the turbines and the load on the substation transformers. The meters are MV-90
compatible.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Central Hudson Gas & Electric (Poughkeepsie, NY) profiled their two 25-MVA combustion
turbine units installed on its system during the mid-1970s. Each unit was connected to a 13.8-kV
bus at one of the substations, where the transmission supply was from a radial source. Each
generator is large enough to supply the local load while the transmission service is interrupted.
The units use natural gas and operate about 100 hours per year based on peak load and reliability
requirements. These projects were designed to improve service reliability at two remote
distribution substations, where the cost of looping the transmission system was prohibitive.
This project has performed well and is meeting the project objectives. It has allowed Central
Hudson to defer the addition of a second transmission line to the areas served by the combustion
turbine installations for more than 25 years. Central Hudson expects to continue operation of
these units for at least five more years, then will evaluate alternative options to extend the project
life even longer.
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (CVEC of Lovingston, VA), through its distributed
resource subsidiary, provided information about its DR programs to improve distribution system
reliability to a developing subdivision.
CVEC created the wholly owned subsidiary, Central Virginia Service, Inc., to supply distributed
resource services and systems. Electric distribution cooperatives have found this strategy to be
necessary because they generally are bound by wholesale power agreements that preclude them
from supplying their own power.
CVEC has a residential subdivision, the Keswick Development, at the edge of its service
territory. A neighboring utility also provides electric service to a portion of the development.
CVECs service to the development was experiencing reliability problems and the area
homeowners association was petitioning for a transfer of service. CVEC had exhausted all
reasonable efforts to improve reliability with its existing facilities. The capacity of the
distribution system was adequate to the supply load but, the right-of-way (ROW) for the
distribution line crossed heavily wooded areas that are not easily accessible, and the mature
timber on the ROW continued to cause outages.
CVEC considered three alternatives to improve service to the area:
Alternative #1: Build a transmission line tap and construct a substation at the edge of the
service area at an estimated cost of $1.8M.
6-5

Case Study Profiles
Alternative #2: Convert the area to 25-kV distribution and establish a secondary feed to the
development at an estimated cost of $400,000.
Alternative #3: Install local generation using a 2,000-kW diesel generator connected to the
grid with a padmounted distribution transformer. The installed cost of the 2,000-kW DR unit
was $525,000, or $262 per kW.
The distributed resource option was chosen in part because the wholesale power supplier
provides a $16/kW/month incentive for peak shaving operations. CVEC already had five years
of experience with diesel generators used for peak shaving at one of the cooperatives
substations. The cooperative also had a rate in place that gave 50% of the savings ($8/kW) to
any customer who had generation and would operate it on the monthly coincident peak. The
CVEC subsidiary proposed that if the customer would release their monthly load management
credits of $8/kW/month to the subsidiary, it would install, operate, and maintain the generator
set. Using an isolation switch controlled from the generator, the Keswick Development could be
isolated from the utility system in the event of a power outage and the entire subdivision could
be provided with standby generation with one large 2,000-kW generator.
At the distribution utility grid level, the reliability of service to the Keswick development was
markedly improved. CVEC also avoided investment in a distribution reinforcement project
solely to improve reliability. At the wholesale power level, CVEC saw a reduction in monthly
power bills on the interruptible credit. The CVEC subsidiary also earns a margin on the
installation. The project was operational beginning in November 1999.
The project life is set to coincide with the end of the Cooperatives wholesale power supply
contract in January 2003. The useful life of the generator is much greater.
CVECs subsidiary has a total of 21 MW in 13 diesel generator units operating under similar
circumstances. An $8 per kW credit goes to the subsidiary each month to cover the debt service
and to operate and maintain the generator. The cooperative also enjoys an annual benefit of
$8/kW in reduced wholesale power costs. Although the annual cost is $781,000, the annual
wholesale power cost reduction to the cooperative is $2,016,000. Not only is there then no net
cost to the cooperative for this program, but there is a significant savings.
CVECs overall experience with the larger program provides an average fuel cost of $0.0365 per
kWh. The actual maintenance costs are $71,233 per year for all 13 generating units. In general,
the units are planned to operate approximately 120 hours per year.
The first generator installation required one year from authorization to being placed into service.
Subsequent installations required six months. The units are monitored but not remotely
controlled by SCADA. The units are also manned at the one-hour monthly wholesale demand
peak to assure operation at peak.
A maintenance agreement is in place with the local Caterpillar dealer; it includes quarterly fluid
testing and changing, and filter changes. An extended warranty covers major parts of the
generator set for five years or 2,500 hours, whichever comes first. The generators are also run
tested and inspected, and the meters are read at least once a month by CVEC.
6-6

Case Study Profiles
Exelon/ComEd
Commonwealth Edison (ComEd, a unit of Exelon, and headquartered in Chicago) profiled its
mobile distributed resource program. The programs primary purpose is to improve service
reliability to customers who are interrupted by long service outages. The units are stored at
Exelon/ComEds maintenance shops and are brought out when they can provide restored service
faster than the time required to repair the power delivery system.
Exelon/ComEd currently owns three 2,000-kW, diesel-fueled units and has leased five other
units. The units can supply 480-volt or 12,500-volt service on a stand-alone or parallel operation
basis. Exelon/ComEd uses these units to shorten outage durations to large industrial customers,
commercial complexes, and residential neighborhoods. Since the units can operate in parallel
with their other systems, Exelon/ComEd will use them in grid support situations where loads
temporarily exceed equipment ratings and the cost of traditional grid expansion alternatives is
more expensive.
Because this program was started in 2001, limited operating history was available at the time of
this report. Exelon/ComEd has learned that transportation restrictions, local sound ordinances,
and emission limits can affect where the generators can be used.
Dakota Electric Association (Farmington, MN) profiled a distributed resource program it started
in 1998. This program uses diesel-fueled reciprocating generator units installed at customer
locations or cooperative-owned substations. All of the units are either customer-owned or
leased. This program provides economic incentives to the customers for peak shaving benefits
and provides back-up generation at or very near the customers location for improved service
reliability. Approximately 70 units are installed, with total site capacity ranging from 50 to
14,000 kW. The larger sites have multiple generators connected in parallel at the substation
closest to the customer location.
Dakota Electric schedules the generator operation based on system load, and the units can start
by themselves during service interruptions. The units typically operate less than 100 hours per
year and are permanent installations.
Dakota Electric has found the program to be cost-effective, and is planning to continue it for at
least 20 years. Originally, the utility had occasional problems starting some units. It found that
more effort was needed during project start-up to set controls correctly, and it standardized the
design and vendor requirements for better performance. The units now have a 98% availability
rating.
East Mississippi Electric Power Association and Tennessee Valley Authority
East Mississippi Electric Power Association (EMEPA of Meridian, MS) reported on successful
efforts to retain its largest customer, the Naval Air Station Base in Meridian, by using multiple
diesel generator sets. This project permanently deferred a $5.2M transmission line, improved
6-7

Case Study Profiles
reliability, and provided tangible financial benefits to the Naval Air Station (NAS), the wholesale
supplier, and EMEPA itself.
EMEPA is an electric cooperative that serves 32,000 customers with 131 miles of transmission
lines and 5,154 miles of distribution lines in five counties of east-central Mississippi. EMEPAs
largest customer, NAS-Meridian, is one of two NAS bases that provide flight training for U.S.
Navy aircraft carrier battle groups.
In the mid-1990s, the U.S. Congress authorized a review of possible military base closures by the
Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC). EMEPA was concerned, as NASMeridian was on the initial closure list and a base closure was estimated to affect 30% of the
local economy. NAS-Meridian was also served by a 20-mile long, 46-kV radial transmission
line, which had an unacceptable extended outage record and marginal voltage conditions in
serving the bases 8,500-kW peak load.
The EMEPA service area is composed of three non-contiguous areas. EMEPAs wholesale
power suppliers are TVA for the NAS-Meridian base, as well as Mississippi Power and the
Southeastern Power Administration for areas outside the base. The NAS-Meridian base is
located in a portion of Mississippi that has no high-capacity transmission system, and it also
lacks interconnections between the three power suppliers. In order to reinforce the transmission
system to the NAS-Meridian base, TVA would need to extend a 161-kV line radially and parallel
with EMEPAs existing 20-mile line to address reliability and voltage regulation deficiencies on
the EMEPA transmission line. The new 161-kV transmission line was in the TVA 5-year plan at
a projected cost of $5.2M.
In November 1995 the commanding officer at NAS-Meridian requested EMEPAs help to:
Replace the NAS switching stations.
Develop funding options for infrastructure improvements.
Review the BRAC analysis of possible military base closures.
Explore cooperative opportunities between the military and business community.
This request ultimately led to the distributed resources project.

EMEPAs largest customer could be lost and the local economy devastated if the BRAC process
resulted in closing NAS-Meridian. The utility was also concerned because it had one unreliable,
46-kV transmission line and another 161-kV transmission line planned for the same right-of-way
corridor. EMEPAs evaluation process included:
A review of TVAs commitment to build a $5.2M, 161-kV transmission line
Determining the costs of providing alternative generation
Determining the annual saving to NAS-Meridian by switching to an interruptible rate in

conjunction with local generation
Determining the added costs of replacing NAS-Meridian base switching structures
Determining an amortization period that would not increase annual costs to NAS-Meridian
6-8

Case Study Profiles
EMEPAs analysis included three options and a no-change case. The comparison period of 10
years was chosen to align with a potential EMEPA-NAS contract. Calculations were based on
the A summary of the options and 10-year net present value are presented in the Table 6-4.
Table 6-4
EMEPAs 10-Year Net Present Value Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative
Net Present Value
No change, no facilities, no generation
$17,880,211
Option A: Convert to interruptible rate, install generation and facilities
$16,637,709
Option B: Existing rate for five years with deregulation thereafter; power
purchased at $0.01783/kWh; no facilities or generation added
$16,637,226
Option C: Existing rate; electrical grid facilities added, but no generation
$19,176,742
EMEPA selected Option A, which included development of a 46 kV 4.16 kV substation near

the NAS base. The substation was equipped with five Caterpillar Model 3516, 1825-kW diesel
generators, and the TVA 161-kV line was deferred. After negotiations between TVA and
EMEPA, TVA agreed to develop, own, and operate the upgraded NAS-2 Substation.
The proposed 161-kV transmission line was in the preliminary stages of construction by EMEPA
under contract to TVA when all three parties reached agreement on this change in direction.
Thus, although the transmission line deferral was quite challenging, the project was completed
and in service on January 1, 1998.
The efficacy of this approach was demonstrated within three months of project completion. Two
tornadoes and an ice storm severely damaged the 46-kV transmission line and could have done
the same to a TVA transmission line on the same corridor. The NAS-Meridian base remained in
service through this severe weather by running the DR units at the NAS-2 Substation.
EMEPA points out that TVA, NAS-Meridian, and EMEPA succeeded in the following ways:
NAS-Meridian
Improved infrastructure
Increased reliability
Improved efficiencies
No increase in total energy costs
TVA
Improved voltage support
Secured large customer
Added peaking capacity
Reduced capital expenditures

6-9

Case Study Profiles
EMEPA (Community)
Long-term contract
Reduced outage exposure
Improved voltage support
Additional infrastructure margins
Basic ordering agreement
Indirectly helped secure 30% of local economy
EMEPA completed a preliminary design of the NAS-2 Substation prior to negotiations with
TVA. TVA further refined the design and completed the project. TVA monitors and operates
the project out of TVAs Chattanooga Control Center via SCADA. EMEPA is also authorized to
manually start and run these DR units.
Normal operating procedures allow for the generators to be brought on line when TVA calls for
an interruptible load shed, to sell into the system, or run them as backup for a transmission
outage.
The units have black-start capability. In grid operation mode, the units are run at full capacity.
In load following mode, the units serve only the NAS base. When the grid is connected, the
generators deliver a 10% voltage improvement to the 46-kV transmission system. TVA inspects
and starts the units twice per month; EMEPA and the Caterpillar dealer provide witnesses once
per month. EMEPA also runs a complete functional test once per quarter. EMEPA and
Caterpillar can also remotely access a remote terminal unit at the NAS-2 Substation, which
provides real-time analogs of kW, kVAR, volts, amperes, water temperature, battery voltage,
fuel levels, oil temperatures, and other operating parameters.
Grant County Public Utility District
The Grant County PUD (Ephrata, WA) described a mobile generation installation it completed in
2001. The installation included twenty 1,600-kW diesel-fueled units connected at 13.8 kV to an
existing 115-13.8 kV distribution substation.
The primary objective for this project was to cover expected power supply shortages during
2001, which resulted from low water supplies for hydro plants and regional power supply
shortages on the West Coast. The project has black-start capability, so it can provide back-up
service to the distribution substation during transmission supply interruptions or a substation
transformer failure.
The district was able to site this amount of generation supply at one location by securing a oneyear temporary emissions license based on the water shortage. The one-year license was
necessary because the project was large enough to require a full EPA review for a permanent
license, which would have taken more time than the project schedule allowed. The district is
currently pursuing a long-term license to extend the project several years. The district completed
the project in eight weeks using leased generation equipment.
6-10

Case Study Profiles
The Grant County project has been operating since July 2001 and is performing well to date.
The project has had no failures. The projects future hinges on the districts ability to extend its
temporary site license, which expires in July 2002.
Madison Gas & Electric (MG&E of Madison, WI) described its utility-owned distribution
generation program. This program began during the Y2K concerns as they related to potential
electric supply interruptions, and it continues under a general service reliability improvement
program. Customers agree to provide space for these permanently installed, diesel-fueled,
engine-driven units at their sites. There are 55 units in the program, ranging in size from 550 to
2,250 kW.
The units are dispatched by MG&E for grid support and power supply reasons, but the
generators can provide isolated back-up service to individual customers during power delivery
system interruptions. Customers pay a fixed service charge to the utility for the service
reliability improvement, which is derived from having the back-up generation on-site. MG&E
assumes all costs of ownership and operation.
The utility believes the project is going well and has learned how to make the units more reliable.
MG&E test runs each unit at least monthly and has identified problems with batteries and control
modules that require occasional repair or replacement. The units only operate about 20 hours per
year for extreme peak shaving or back-up purposes.
New York Power Authority (Albany, NY) described how it added eleven 44-MW combustion
turbine generators at seven New York City sites in only seven months to address transmission
system constraints, the possibility of rolling summer blackouts, and transmission congestion
pricing risk.
The New York State control area has three major transmission constraint paths that show
consistent pricing congestion. Two of them are the interface of the transmission service into New
York City and then into Long Island. Transmission congestion into New York City increases
prices for electricity in the eastern part of the state, including the City and Long Island. The New
York ISO (NYISO) uses a locational-based marginal pricing system (LBMP); LBMP is the cost
to provide the next megawatt of electricity to the grid at a specific location. To avoid overloading
certain lines and equipment, the NYISO may deviate from its least expensive bid-price and redispatch higher-cost electricity to ensure that no constraints are violated. This causes a locational
difference in costs and, because many bidders compete for existing transmission capacity across
key interfaces, the price increases. The increases are the cost of congestion, which can
significantly affect the price of electricity in the eastern part of the state, New York City, and
Long Island. One transmission interface of concern is the Sprain Brook/Dunwoodie Interface.
The last major transmission line built in New York state was completed in 1990; it consists of
the underground and submarine extra high-voltage cables from Westchester County into the New
6-11

Case Study Profiles
York City and Long Island load zones. This interface may limit the total electricity it can transfer
into these zones from upstate New York to approximately 4,500 MW. Another interface of
concern is the PJM-New York Interface. The New York import capability from PJM under
emergency conditions is 2,400-2,900 MW, depending on regulatory controls on the PJM-New
York Interface.
New Yorks electric power system is made up of four parts: upstate east and west, New York
City, and Long Island. New York City and Long Island are load pockets, areas where most of the
capacity needed to serve the load must be locally installed due to existing transmission
limitations. These areas have additional location reliability requirements. To meet peak demand
with adequate reserves in the city, 80% of the peak demand capacity must be located physically
in-city. Long Island requires 98% of peak load capacity to be located on-island.
Without new generation sited in-city and on-island, and increased transmission capacity for
imports into the city and the island, the probability of rolling blackouts increases as reserve
margins decline.
New York Power Authority purchased 10 simple-cycle, 44-MW, natural gas combustion turbine
generators for installation at six sites in New York City, and one generating unit for a Long
Island site. The units were General Electric LM6000 combustion turbines generating at 13.8 kV
nominal; they would be interconnected to the Consolidated Edison 138-kV underground
transmission system grid. The six New York City project sites are about 1 to 1.5 acres in size.
The LM6000 units are currently the most fuel-efficient, simple-cycle natural gas turbine
generators in the world. These units had to be operational by June 1, 2001.
The final siting process criteria for site selection included requirements that the sites:
possess the ability for Consolidated Edison or KeySpan to deliver high-pressure gas to the
site by June 1
possess the ability to connect to a high-voltage (138 kV) substation with sufficient capacity
to accept the electricity from the new turbines by June 1
not have significant environmental impacts in the communities in which they are to be sited
be dispersed to the maximum degree feasible among the boroughs, and
be able to facilitate completion of the essential real estate, engineering, and licensing
activities unique to a site to enable the generators to go in service by the June 1 deadline
The steps NYPA found necessary to find viable sites included:
community outreach activities
land acquisition (appraisal, negotiation of terms, survey, mapping, environmental test

borings)
gas and electric engineering
geotechnical investigation
site design and engineering
6-12

Case Study Profiles
detailed environmental assessment to determine whether any site(s) would have adverse
environmental impacts, either individually or cumulatively
After completing the Environmental Assessment, NYPA selected five NYC sites and one Long
Island site by November 22, 2000. Hearings were conducted on December 14, 2000 by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). On January 12, 2001, the DEC
issued state air permits that are valid for three years. NOx is limited to 25 tons per site per year,
which required two unit sites to reduce peak output to 79.9 MW. The combustion turbine
generators are guaranteed to meet 2.5 PPM of NOx, and use water injection and catalytic
reduction. Noise control measures included enclosing transformers in sound barriers, special
louvers on air intakes, and silencers on the exhaust stacks.
The units operate unattended. All units are monitored and controlled by SCADA systems from
major, nearby power plants. Work crews from these plants provide maintenance.
The In City projects added eleven 44-MW combustion turbines distributed among the
boroughs of NYC and Long Island. The project improves the reliability of the transmission
system and provides voltage support and redundant capacity for contingencies. The project was
fast tracked from project authorization to commercial service in only seven months.
There were no other reasonable alternatives for this project if design and system operating
criteria were to be met. Adequate generation capacity would not have been available in NYC
during the summer of 2001, and transmission system constraints and the risk of transmission
congestion pricing would have been exaggerated if this DR capacity had not been installed by
NYPA.
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC of Glen Allen, VA) reported on its distributed
resources program that involves cooperative-owned diesel engine-generator sets. ODEC is a
generation and transmission cooperative that provides electric energy to its distribution
cooperative members. ODEC has ten 2,000-kW engines installed at member distribution
substations or with critical customers where transmission capacity constraints have restricted the
amount of supply available during peak load periods. The units are mobile and can be moved
around the system to provide backup to interrupted customers during outages.
Limited operational data is available because the project was recently initiated in 2001. The
planned annual usage is up to 500 hours per unit. The cooperative is finding that air permits are
taking up to four months per location. Some locations require sound permits. The expected
installation cost is $300/kW and expected fuel costs are $0.07/kWh.
Powder River Energy Cooperative
Powder River Energy (Sundance, WY) provided information about their combustion turbine
distributed resources project. The project uses 5-MW units that are fueled with methane gas
obtained from coal beds. The three units planned for this project are being installed at the end of
6-13

Case Study Profiles
a long, radial 69-kV transmission line to provide voltage support during peak load period. The
project is planned for completion during the first quarter of 2002, which would total 18 months
of project implementation time. The anticipated installation cost is approximately $700/kW with
expected fuel costs of $0.05/kWh. Basin Electric will own the generators and operate them with
their SCADA system, based on the 69-kV system voltage support requirements.
Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corporation
Snapping Shoals EMC (Covington, GA) provided information about seven diesel generators
installed on its system at the distribution voltage level. The units range from 1.8 to 1.85 MW
and are primarily operated in system parallel mode to provide peaking capacity during high load
periods and to provide backup service to critical customers during system outages. The units
operate for approximately 200 hours per year and have been in service since 1999.
The units have had some reliability issues, and extra care and regular testing are required to keep
availability as high as possible. Installation costs were approximately $250/kW and operating
costs are about $0.07/kWh.
Snapping Shoals EMC expects to continue operating these units at least through 2003. If new
EPA regulations are enacted in 2003 then Snapping Shoals may need to re-evaluate project
economics and decide whether the project should continue.
Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) of Green Bay, Wisconsin provided information about its
distributed resources project that was completed during June 2001. WPS placed sixty-eight
1,500-kW diesel-fueled reciprocating engine units in service at six substations across its system.
The primary project objective was to provide additional generation reserves in an area where
transmission capacity was marginal. The units are either connected at the distribution or
transmission voltage level. The project was completed in seven months using leased generation
equipment.
The units are controlled by system operating personnel based on power supply and transmission
support requirements. WPS plans to operate the units up to 300 hours per year. Operators are
on-site to monitor generator performance when the units are in operation.
Several options were considered when WPS needed to add power supply resources.
Transmission system capacity constraints eliminated options for purchased power imports in its
service territory. WPS considered central station and transmission grid additions, but determined
that the projects could not be completed in time for the next seasons peak load. Ultimately,
WPS selected leased diesel generators and installed them in the weakest areas of its transmission
system.
6-14
7
LESSONS LEARNED
The cases presented in this report and insights gained from these cases can assist other utilities in
considering grid support using engines or combustion turbines. The following section highlights
some of the important lessons learned by utilities participating in this study, provides tips and
insights that are relevant in the deployment of distributed resources, and summarize the key
messages that may further the utilization of DR in grid support.
Several germane comments from the utilities include:
We came up with some alternatives to alleviate the substation overload. Alliant Energy
(These alternatives included a transformer upgrade, a distribution circuit voltage upgrade that
would transfer the load to an alternate source, and the installation of microturbines at the
overloaded substation distribution bus. Alliant chose the microturbine alternative, even
though it cost more than the transformer replacement, because it wanted to gain experience
for future evaluations.)
Once the design was established, the same design and layout was used at all 13 sites.
DEA [Dakota Electric Association] devotes a lot of time up-front during project start-up,
which improves start and run performance [during normal operation and use]. Dakota
Electric Association
East Mississippi Electric Power (EMEPA) initially had an all requirements contract with
Tennessee Valley Association (TVA), its power supplier. (An all-requirements contract
enables smaller utilities to purchase guaranteed power from larger utilities at wholesale
prices; in return, the smaller utility agrees to purchase all power exclusively from the larger
one.) When faced with a crisis, EMEPA negotiated an exception to the contract and TVA
completed the generator installation. Refer to the East Mississippi case profile in Section 6
for details.
Application of mobile generators connected to distribution circuits for peak load shaving is
expected to prevent damaging circuit and substation overload conditions. Exelon/ComEd
The Grant County Public Utility District chose diesel generators for their project because
there is only one small natural gas line into our county and other commercial customers
have its capacity tied up.
The system packagers were the weakest link [didnt live up to expectations] in our
projects. Madison Gas & Electric
No other alternative other than this [43.4 MW combustion turbine] was available to meet
[grid] capacity needs [in time for the implementation deadline]. New York Power
Authority
7-1

Lessons Learned
The project was originally conceived in early 2000 as a temporary [solution] to relieve
congestion costs and provide additional generation to address reliability concerns on the
Delmarva peninsula. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
(Old Dominion used rental units for the 2000 season and purchased ten 2,000-kW diesel
units for 2001.)
The DG [DR] option is simply the most practical and expedient manner to provide voltage
support, reliability, and load serving capability. Powder River Electric Cooperative
(Powder River and Basin Electric, Powder Rivers power supplier, installed three 5-MW
combustion turbines connected to three different distribution substations.)
The reliability of each unit, as far as a guaranteed start, is not 100%. Snapping Shoals
EMC
Wisconsin Public Service opted to use leased diesel generation instead of other alternatives
for its 2001 summer peak load requirements, because it needed voltage support at several
different transmission substations and rental units were available.
The following tips and insights could prove useful to planners of power delivery systems:
A good supply of rental diesel fueled generation is available to meet short-term capacity and
reliability needs. Experience has shown that significant blocks of rental generation can be
installed and connected to a distribution system within eight weeks. With some advance
planning, units can be installed in a very short time to temporarily restore service while more
time-consuming delivery system repairs are completed. (See the Exelon/ComEd survey
response in Appendix A for more information about an example of emergency service
restoration.)
Distributed resource deployment is sometimes the only option for meeting unexpected, shortterm grid support needs where the available time frame for implementation is short. Permits
are easier to obtain for short-term, temporary applications.
Distributed resources can be used as a mobile resource to provide temporary solutions for
grid support problems while other longer-term solutions are put in place.
Distributed resource installations can be standardized to shorten project installation times and
make them more reliable.
Some additional effort is worthwhile during distributed resource implementations to assure

reliable performance afterward.
Distributed resources should be considered as a possible solution for areas where service
reliability is deficient.
Lessons for Planners

The case studies in this report show that DR can often provide a solution for grid support. In
summary, the projects described in this study revealed the following insights:
7-2

Lessons Learned
Small diesel, internal-combustion distributed generators (under 2 MW per unit) are

considered a transportable resource, so they can be moved to different locations as needs
change.
After a decision has been made to proceed with a project, distributed resources can be
installed within six to nine months, which is faster than the time required to construct
traditional major system improvements such as new substations and transmission lines.
The need for improved system reliability was a primary driver in eight of the 13 cases
described in this report.
Distributed resources can be effective in deferring significant expansions of power delivery

systems, but usually do not permanently replace the need for them.
Existing all requirements contracts with power suppliers can be revised to accommodate
distributed resource installations by distribution utilities. Some organizations have
implemented customer ownership programs, and others have negotiated exceptions with their
power suppliers for specific projects.
Some of the project responses indicate that the value of avoided power supply costs or
potential profits from open market sales can help justify distribution generator applications
where the value of grid support alone is not sufficient.
Standardization in the areas of design and interconnection can reduce the costs of project
design and implementation, and can shorten lead times for project implementation.
Distributed resources are likely to be used as part of a grid support solution in the following
situations:
When service reliability improvements are needed at the customers location
When service reliability improvements are needed at the end of a long radial transmission
supply point or for radial distribution feeders
When sudden load additions prevent a utility from having enough time to construct the usual
improvements
When voltage or other capacity support needs during peak load periods total 300 hours per
year or less
The case studies strongly suggest that power delivery system planners should routinely consider
short-term and long-term distributed resource applications along with other alternatives when
analyzing opportunities to better serve customers. Distributed resources are available in a range
from 30 kW to 25,000 kW, which is sufficient to meet almost any need for grid support. If
necessary, the units can be combined in parallel for unusually large spot requirements.
Some distributed resources are available on a short-term basis, and can be connected to a system
within hours to reduce unexpected overloads or temporarily restore service while extensive
repairs are completed. Distributed resources can support local areas where the cost of traditional
grid capacity additions is prohibitive, or where the time required to make such additions is too
great. Distributed resources may be transportable, so they can be quickly moved to new areas
after the current need has been satisfied. The case studies show that distributed resources are
7-3

Lessons Learned
being used to improve service at the regional, local, and individual customer level in a costeffective manner.
The case studies identified a few common pitfalls that can hamper project performance if not
recognized from the beginning. For example, most proposed permanent installations of
distributed resources require some type of air emissions and zoning permits. Using standardized
system designs will speed procurement, reduce installation costs, and improve operating
reliability. Investing extra effort during final testing and start-up will improve performance after
the project is placed in service. The units should be tested and checked regularly to ensure their
readiness for unexpected needs. We encourage all readers, especially system planners, to fully
review the survey responses in Appendix A. Each response presents a unique experience and
provides insight into how distributed resources can be used as a power delivery tool.
7-4
A
CASE SURVEY RESPONSES
This appendix presents the complete survey responses submitted by the 13 utilities that provided
information for this study.
A-1

Case Survey Responses
A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

A-11

A-12

A-13

A-14

A-15

A-16

A-17

A-18

A-19

A-20

A-21

A-22

A-23

A-24

A-25

A-26

A-27

A-28

A-29

A-30

A-31

A-32

A-33

A-34

A-35

A-36

A-37

A-38

A-39

A-40

A-41

A-42

A-43

A-44

A-45
Targets:
Advanced Engine Products and DR Applications
Small Gas Turbines (1 - 10 MW) for Distributed
Power Markets
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVINGTHE WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENINGTHIS SEALED PACKAGEYOU ARE AGREEINGTOTHETERMS OFTHIS AGREEMENT. IFYOU DO NOT AGREETO
THETERMS OFTHISAGREEMENT,PROMPTLY RETURNTHE UNOPENED PACKAGETO EPRIANDTHE PURCHASE PRICEWILL
BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package only for your own
benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned
or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities,
if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for
its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U.S. EPRI
member utilities and EPRI.Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
the global energy and energy services industry. U.S.
electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by United States
and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this
package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information contained in this
package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written
permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package.Except as specified
above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other
intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this package.
4.TERM ANDTERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this package. EPRI has
the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement.
Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI,ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF
OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE
OF ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS
PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROMYOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS,
METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and you agree not to
export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign
government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California
between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between you
and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different
terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
2001 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights

reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
1003962
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

Combustion Turbines and Reciprocating Engines For Grid Support

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combustion Turbines and Reciprocating Engines For Grid Support

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combustion Turbines and Reciprocating

Engines for Grid Support

Combustion Turbines and

Final Report, November 2001

EPRIsolutions Project Manager

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Alliant Energy, Cedar Rapids, IA

Central Hudson Gas & Electric, Poughkeepsie, NY

Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, Lovingston, VA

Dakota Electric Association, Farmington, MN

East Mississippi Electric Power Association, Meridian, MS

Grant County Public Utility District, Ephrata, WA

Madison Gas & Electric, Madison, WI

New York Power Authority, Albany, NY

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Glen Allen, VA

Powder River Energy Cooperative, Sundance, WY

Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corporation, Covington, GA

Wisconsin Public Service, Green Bay, WI

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1-1

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative ...............................................................................6-13

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Deferral of capacity increases in substations or transmission lines

Reduction of distribution circuit overload and improvement in outage restoration time

Relief of transmission system congestion

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Source: Wayne Henson East Mississippi Electric Power Association

Central Hudson Gas & Electric

Central Virginia Electric Cooperative

Dakota Electric Association

East Mississippi Electric Power Association and Tennessee Valley Authority

Exelon/ComEd (Commonwealth Edison)

Grant County Public Utility District

Madison Gas & Electric

New York Power Authority

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative

Powder River Energy Cooperative

Snapping Shoals Electric Membership Corporation

Wisconsin Public Service

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Section 5 provides background on environmental considerations for the case studies.

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Deferral of distribution substation capacity increases Alliant Energy, Dakota Electric

Provide a redundant supply source to a group of customers demanding improved service

Provide transmission or distribution system voltage support East Mississippi Electric

Improve outage restoration time Exelon/ComEd

Reduce overloads on distribution circuits Exelon/ComEd

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Defer System Capacity

Defer Transformer Upgrade

Improve Voltage Support

Provide Redundant Capacity

Limit Outage Duration

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

Snapping Shoals Wisconsin

EPRIsolutions Licensed Material

W hat might b ring the project to an end?