Q219 Generator Interconnection Project

Transcription

Q219 Generator
Interconnection Project
System Impact Study
APS Contract No. 52698
By
Arizona Public Service Company
Transmission Planning
June 5, 2015
Version 3.1
Prepared by
Jason Spitzkoff
Ben Stephenson, P.E.
Arizona Public Service Company
Utility System Efficiencies, Inc.
Q219 SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 4
1
Study Description and Assumptions ................................................................................................. 7
1.1
Study Cases ................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2
Interconnection Modeling .......................................................................................................... 13
1.3
Dynamic Data .............................................................................................................................. 14
1.4
Reliability Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 14
1.4.1
Power Factor Criteria ....................................................................................................... 14
1.4.2
(Steady State) Power Flow Criteria ............................................................................... 14
1.4.3
Transient Stability Criteria ............................................................................................... 15
2
Study Methodology......................................................................................................................... 16
2.1
Power Factor Requirements ....................................................................................................... 16
2.2
Power Flow ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.3
Post-Transient ............................................................................................................................. 17
2.4
Transient Stability ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.5
Short Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 18
3
Results and Findings........................................................................................................................ 18
3.1
Power Factor Capability Results ................................................................................................. 18
3.2
Peak Load Thermal Results ......................................................................................................... 19
3.3
Light Load Thermal Results ......................................................................................................... 20
3.4
Follow-Up Scenario Thermal Results .......................................................................................... 22
3.5
Affected Systems Review ............................................................................................................ 22
3.6
Voltage Results............................................................................................................................ 23
3.7
Transient Stability Analysis ......................................................................................................... 23
3.8
Short Circuit / Fault Duty Analysis .............................................................................................. 25
3.9
Results & Findings Summary ....................................................................................................... 26
3.10 Network Resource Interconnection Service ............................................................................... 28
4
Cost & Construction Time Estimates .............................................................................................. 28
4.1
Network Upgrades ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.2
Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities (TPIF) .......................................................... 31
4.3
Project Estimate Summary.......................................................................................................... 32
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – List of Contingencies
Appendix B – Power Flow Diagrams
Appendix C – Dynamic Data
Appendix D – Transient Stability Plots
Appendix E – Supplemental Mitigation Study
Page 1
List of Acronyms
ACC
ACSS
ANPP
APS
ASLD
ATC
CAISO
CAWCD
CCVT
COD
COO
CSP
CT
DCTL
EA
EPE
EPNG
ER
ERIS
FaS
FERC
FeS
GT
IC
IID
IR
LADWP
LGIA
NEC
NEPA
NERC
NR
NRIS
NTUA
OASIS
OATT
PG&E
PNM
POI
PPA
PSLF/PSDS/SCSC
PST
PV
RAS
RFP
ROW
SCE
SDG&E
Arizona Corporation Commission
Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported
Arizona Nuclear Power Project
Arizona Public Service
Arizona State Land Department
Available Transfer Capability
California Independent System Operator Corporation
Central Arizona Water Conservation District
Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer
Commercial Operation Date
Change of Ownership
Concentrated Solar Power
Combustion Turbine or Current Transformer
Double-Circuit Tower Line
Environmental Assessment
El Paso Electric
El Paso Natural Gas
Energy Resource
Energy Resource Interconnection Service
Facilities Study
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Feasibility Study
Gas Turbine
Interconnection Customer
Imperial Irrigation District
Interconnection Request
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Large Generator Interconnection Agreement
Navopache Electric Cooperative
National Environmental Policy Act
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Network Resource
Network Resource Interconnection Service
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
Open Access Same Time Information System
Open Access Transmission Tariff
Pacific Gas & Electric
Public Service Company of New Mexico
Point Of Interconnection
Purchase Power Agreement
Positive Sequence Load Flow/Positive Sequence Dynamic
Simulation/Short-Circuit Saturation Curve
Phase-Shifting Transformer
Photovoltaic
Remedial Action Scheme (also known as SPS)
Request for Proposal
Right-of-Way
Southern California Edison Company
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
Page 2
SIS
SLG fault
SPS
SRP
SSVEC
SVC
SVD
SWTC
TEP
TPIF
WAPA or Western
WECC
System Impact Study
Single Line-to-Ground fault
Special Protection System (also known as RAS)
Salt River Project
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Static VAR Compensator
Static VAR Device
Southwest Transmission Cooperative
Tucson Electric Power
Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities
Western Area Power Administration
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
Page 3
Q219 System Impact Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the System Impact Study (SIS) results for a proposed generator interconnection
facility connected to the Arizona Public Service (APS) proposed future Jojoba 230 kV bus. The gaspowered facility is planned to be completed in 2018 and capable of 577 MW in the summer and 626 MW
in the winter. The customer has requested the project be studied as both a Network and as an Energy
Resource.
The results of this SIS indicate that the addition of Q219 creates overloads to the following facilities:
 Gila River 500/230 kV transformer
 Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line
 Jojoba-TS4 230 kV line
 TS4-Liberty 230 kV line
 Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV line
 Patterson-Komatke 69 kV line
Due to the already-constrained 69 kV network, the project may interconnect up to 5 MW without any
network upgrade. Table E-1 summarizes the network upgrades required to achieve full output of the
project. Two transmission network upgrade alternatives are evaluated for consideration. Alternative 1 is
1
to add a new Jojoba 500/230 kV transformer . Alternative 2 is to construct a second circuit from Jojoba to
TS4. Alternative 2 will also require a RAS to trip the Q219 project in the unlikely event of a double circuit
tower line outage between Jojoba and TS4. This study found that neither Alternative alone is sufficient.
Additional miscellaneous network upgrades are also required as listed.
Table E-1. Network Upgrades for Q219
Upgrades Required
Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV Upgrade
Patterson-Komatke 69 kV Upgrade
Jojoba-TS4-Liberty 230 kV Upgrade
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV Mitigation and/or Upgrade
Alternative 1: Jojoba 500/230 kV Transformer
Alternative 2: Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV Line, Q219 RAS
The results of both Alternatives are shown throughout the report. Both options give similar reliability
benefits. However, after investigating both options the feasibility of constructing Alternative 2 has
significantly more risk along with a longer timeframe and higher cost. Alternative 1 will be the mitigation
APS is proposing for this interconnection and will be the option estimated in Section 4 of this report.
Short Circuit studies for Palo Verde and Hassayampa switchyards are currently being performed by
ANPP owners. At this point of time, any conclusions with regard of fault duties at Palo Verde and
Hassayampa are premature. The interconnector Q219 is to be aware that high costs associated with
mitigation of short circuit problems are probable and might be imposed on the interconnector.
Additional information and specific details of the project's impact on the surrounding transmission system
can be found in the “Results and Findings Summary” Section 3.7 of this report.
Western Area Power Administration (Western) and Salt River Project (SRP) have been identified as
Affected Systems. A copy of this study report was provided to them for review and comment. Their
1
This option will require an interconnection request to ANPP; the joint owners of the Jojoba 500 kV
switchyard.
Page 4
comments have been incorporated into this report along with the need for further follow-up by the IC with
both companies.
Disclaimer
Nothing in this report constitutes an offer of transmission service or confers upon the Interconnection
Customer (IC or customer) any right to receive transmission service. APS and other interconnected
utilities may not have the Available Transmission Capacity (ATC) to support the interconnection described
in this report. It should also be noted that all results for the SIS are highly dependent upon the assumed
topology and timing of new projects in the vicinity of the interconnection, which are subject to change.
Background:
APS received a valid large generator interconnection request for a proposed interconnection to the
2
location of a potential future 230kV substation; Jojoba 230 kV bus . Currently, APS has no commitment to
build this 230kV substation. This site is only identified in APS’s plans as the potential site of a future
substation if system conditions warrant its construction. On behalf of, and with the oversight of APS,
Utility System Efficiencies, Inc. (USE) performed this SIS under the APS Tariff.
Power flow, post-transient, transient stability, and short circuit analysis are performed for this study.
Machine parameters and characteristics provided by the customer are applied to the power flow,
dynamic, and short circuit models. This study considers the interconnection under anticipated 2018
summer peak and light load conditions with various sensitivity scenarios applied. Select contingencies
which stress the transmission system to various degrees are simulated for all analyses. Results are
monitored for APS, SRP, WAPA, and other neighboring systems.
Figure E-2 illustrates this proposed generator interconnection location and the nearby transmission
facilities.
2
APS is currently in the process of construction a 69 kV substation at this site which was recently
renamed as the Komatke switchyard. The 230 kV portion of the yard may be alternatively referred to in
various documents as Komatke or Jojoba.
Page 5
Figure E-2. Q219 and Nearby Transmission Facilities
(Liberty)
(Hassayampa)
(Palm Valley)
(Pinal West)
TS4
(Kyrene)
Jojoba
500 kV
230 kV
Q#219
577 MW (S)
626 MW (W)
#1-11
Gila River
500 kV
Panda
230 kV
CT
230 kV
230 kV
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
Gila Bend
Solana
(69 kV)
#1
#2
Nearby generation interconnection projects in the APS queue of interest are:
 APS Q192 – 20 MW of solar at Komatke 69 kV as ER.
Non-FERC Gila Bend Interconnection Projects
 Gila Bend: 36 MW at the Gila Bend 12.47 kV buses - planned in-service in 2014.
 Gillespie: 10 MW at the Gillespie 12.47 kV bus - planned in-service in 2015.
 Lukefield: 10 MW at the Lukefield 12.47 kV bus - planned in-service in 2015.
System performance criteria used in the study:
The criteria applied in this study are consistent with NERC/WECC Reliability Criteria. For more detailed
information on the criteria used for each analysis see section 1.4 “Reliability Criteria.”
The APS Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) policy regarding power factor requires all
Interconnection Customers, with the exception of wind generators, to maintain an acceptable power factor
(typically near unity) at the Point of Interconnection (POI), subject to system conditions. The APS OATT
also requires Interconnection Customers to be able to achieve +/- 0.95 power factor at the POI, with the
maximum "full-output" reactive capability available at all outputs. Furthermore, APS requires
Interconnection Customers to have dynamic voltage control and maintain the voltage as specified by the
transmission operator within the limitation of +/- 0.95 power factor, as long as the Project is online and
generating. If the Project’s equipment is not capable of this type of response, a dynamic reactive device
will be required. APS has the right to disconnect the Project if system conditions dictate the need to do so
in order to maintain system reliability.
Page 6
1
Study Description and Assumptions
This section of the report provides details pertaining to the power flow case development and an overview
of the major study assumptions. All power flow, post-transient, and transient stability study work is
performed using General Electric’s Positive Sequence Load Flow (GE-PSLF), version 18.1_02.
The 2018 Heavy Summer APS detailed planning case “sm18#14.sav” is used for this study. This case
has undergone review and updates by all of the Arizona utilities including: SRP, APS, WAPA, SWTC, and
TEP. The case originates from the WECC 2018 HS2A approved base case. The corresponding dynamic
data file is used for transient stability analysis. The light load case is derived from the heavy summer
case.
Transmission Projects Assumed In-Service For All Scenarios
The following nearby transmission projects are modeled in all cases:
 Hassayampa-North Gila #2 500kV line planned for 2015.
 Delaney-Sun Valley 500kV line planned for 2016.
 Palo Verde-Delaney 500kV line planned for 2016.
 Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV line planned for 2016.
 Trilby Wash-Palm Valley 230kV line planned for 2015.
 Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line planned for 2018.
Generation Assumed Online For All Scenarios
The following nearby generation interconnection projects are modeled in all cases:
 APS Q192 – 20 MW of solar at Komatke 69 kV as ER.
Non-FERC Gila Bend Interconnection Projects
 County Line: 17 MW at the County Line 12.47 kV bus #1 - in-service.
 County Line: 18 MW at the County Line 12.47 kV bus #2 - in-service.
 Cotton Center: 18 MW at the Cotton Center 12.47 kV bus #1 - in-service.
 Cotton Center: 18 MW at the Cotton Center 12.47 kV bus #2 - in-service.
 Saddle Mountain: 15 MW at the Saddle Mountain 12.47 kV bus - in-service.
 Gila Bend: 36 MW at the Gila Bend 12.47 kV buses - planned in-service in 2014.
 Badger: 15 MW at the Badger 12.47 kV bus - in-service.
 Gillespie: 15 MW at the Gillespie West 12.47 kV bus - in-service.
 Gillespie: 10 MW at the Gillespie 12.47 kV bus - planned in-service in 2015.
 Lukefield: 10 MW at the Lukefield 12.47 kV bus - planned in-service in 2015.
Generation Dispatch Assumptions
Sensitivity cases are run to assess the impacts of offsetting Q219 at various locations:
 Offset output of Q219 within the APS network or resources APS currently has contracts for.
The generation is offset at Gila River and Arlington in the heavy summer case. The
generation is offset at Rocking Chair East and West, Yucca CT 5 and 6, Cholla 1, and the
remaining 278.8 MW is offset in CA in the light load case.
 Offset output of Q219 throughout the AZ and adjacent systems as described in Table 1-1.
All new generation added to the cases are offset throughout the AZ and adjacent systems proportionally
according to load as follows:
Page 7
Table 1-1. Generation System Distribution
Area
Area 10 (NM)
Area 11 (EPE)
Area 14 (AZ)
Area 18 (NV)
Area 21 (IID)
Area 22 (SDG&E)
Area 24 (SCE)
Area 26 (LADWP)
Area 30 (PG&E)
Area 70 (CO)
Area 73 (WAPA RM)
2018 Case
Load
Allocation
3,169
3%
2,113
2%
22,113
19%
6,817
6%
1,188
1%
5,656
5%
25,003
21%
7,740
7%
28,941
25%
8,299
7%
5,736
5%
The generation reduction will be distributed across each area according to their generation output. Base
loaded units will be ignored.
Page 8
1.1
Study Cases
A total of 16 initial cases and 5 follow-up cases are necessary to evaluate the potential network
upgrade projects required to allow full output of Q219 under both peak load and light load conditions.
The impact of ER interconnection (generation offset distributed to the system) and NR
interconnection (generation offset within the APS network) are evaluated. The sufficiency of the
following network upgrade projects are evaluated under NR/ER and heavy/light load conditions:
 Panda-Jojoba-TS4-Liberty 230 kV line upgrade to 3000 A
 Gillespie-Patterson-Komatke 69 kV line upgrade to 1600 A
 Jojoba 500/230 kV transformer (as a sensitivity; Alternative 1)
 Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV line (as a sensitivity; Alternative 2)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
System
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
APS Network
Alt. 1: Jojoba 500/230 kV Transformer
Q192
Pre-Project
Post-Project
Post-Project, upgrades
Post-Project, upgrades, JJ 500/230 kV xfmr
Post-Project, upgrades, JJ-TS4 230 kV #2
Offset
Alt. 2: Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV Line
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Gillespie-Patterson-Komatke Upgrade
#
Scenario Description
2018 Heavy Summer (peak)
Panda-Jojoba-TS4-Liberty Upgrade
Table 1-2. Study Case Summary
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
2018 Light Load (off-peak)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Pre-Project
Post-Project
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
2018 Follow-Up Scenarios
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Pre-Project, JJ 500/230 kV xfmr (peak)
Post-Project, JJ 500/230 kV xfmr (peak)
Post-Project, JJ 500/230 kV xfmr, 69 kV upgrades (peak)
Post-Project, JJ 500/230 kV xfmr, 230 kV upgrades (peak)
Post-Project, JJ 500/230 kV xfmr (off-peak)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
The resulting power flow attributes observed in the case described above are listed in Tables 1-3 and 1-4
on the following pages.
Page 9
Table 1-3. Heavy Summer Study Case Attributes
Base Scenario
PreProject
Major Branch Flows (MW)
Path 46: West of River
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
PostProject
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba 500/230
PostProject
PostProject
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba-TS4 #2
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
(Sys)
(Sys)
(APS)
(Sys)
(APS)
(Sys)
(APS)
5,108
5,359
5,358
5,115
5,358
5,116
5,359
5,118
2,378
2,691
2,690
2,383
2,690
2,382
2,691
2,383
Path 50: Cholla-Pinnacle Peak
704
686
685
699
685
700
683
698
Palo Verde East + Delaney-SV
8,070
8,101
8,062
7,701
8,083
7,735
7,960
7,604
Delaney-Sun Valley 500 kV Line
694
690
686
651
688
655
675
640
Palo Verde-Delaney 500 kV Line
695
691
687
652
689
655
675
641
Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV Line
368
402
403
370
403
370
403
371
1,386
1,454
1,454
1,378
1,454
1,379
1,451
1,376
510
549
549
505
549
505
547
503
1,012
1,051
1,051
1,007
1,051
1,007
1,049
1,005
597
634
634
592
634
592
632
590
1,217
1,224
1,222
1,198
1,223
1,200
1,217
1,193
-170
-319
-290
96
-305
71
-212
170
Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV Line
1,943
1,983
1,972
1,842
1,979
1,853
1,943
1,814
Gila River-Jojoba #1 500 kV Line
1,059
1,154
1,133
874
1,128
865
1,079
823
Path 49: East of River
N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500 kV Line
Hassayampa-Qx #1 500 kV Line
Hoodoo Wash-N.Gila 500 kV Line
Hassayampa-N.Gila #2 500 kV Line
Hassayampa-Pinal West 500 kV Line
Hassayampa-Jojoba 500 kV Line
1,059
1,154
1,133
874
1,128
865
1,079
823
Gila River 500/230 kV Xfmr
Panda-Gila Bend 230 kV Line
Panda-Jojoba 230 kV Line
97
59
317
-94
70
115
-53
67
160
-89
62
128
-42
66
171
-71
62
147
55
57
277
14
53
240
Jojoba-TS4 #1 230 kV Line
313
692
736
704
715
669
426
408
TS4-Liberty 230 kV Line
149
433
465
433
449
408
555
519
TS4-Palm Valley 230 kV Line
161
244
262
263
257
254
292
291
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV Line
147
252
264
269
257
258
300
304
Alt 1: Jojoba 500/230 kV Xfmr
0
0
0
0
-33
-54
0
0
Alt 2: Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV Line
0
0
0
0
0
0
426
408
21,275
21,282
21,282
21,282
21,282
21,282
21,282
21,282
833
837
830
831
830
830
825
826
Arizona Generation
27,498
27,978
27,970
27,504
27,970
27,503
27,965
27,499
Arizona Interchange
5,390
5,858
5,858
5,391
5,859
5,390
5,858
5,390
Arizona Area 14 (incl. WALC)
Arizona Load
Arizona Losses
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page 10
Table 1-4. Light Load Study Case Attributes
Base Scenario
PreProject
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
PostProject
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba 500/230
PostProject
PostProject
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba-TS4 #2
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
(Sys)
(Sys)
(APS)
(Sys)
(APS)
(Sys)
(APS)
5,139
5,431
5,431
5,358
5,429
5,356
5,432
5,359
2,399
2,756
2,756
2,596
2,753
2,594
2,756
2,596
492
472
472
433
474
435
471
432
3,897
3,921
3,894
3,860
3,123
3,999
3,808
3,774
276
272
269
261
285
277
259
251
276
272
269
261
285
277
259
251
91
128
128
120
128
120
129
121
1,308
1,387
1,387
1,404
1,390
1,408
1,385
1,402
460
504
504
543
506
545
503
542
962
1,006
1,006
1,045
1,008
1,047
1,005
1,043
549
591
591
628
593
630
589
627
900
903
902
908
908
914
898
904
307
141
160
167
55
61
226
233
975
1,016
1,008
1,016
1,048
1,057
983
991
334
438
424
425
383
384
379
380
334
438
424
425
383
384
379
380
-117
-324
-297
-298
-215
-216
-206
-208
-25
187
185
-13
-32
594
-15
-3
623
-16
-4
622
-18
82
481
-19
82
478
-23
96
361
-24
95
361
133
441
462
459
358
354
538
534
51
141
155
157
119
121
181
183
52
167
175
179
129
133
205
210
0
0
0
0
-227
-229
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
361
361
13,509
13,517
13,517
13,517
13,517
13,517
13,517
13,517
581
586
581
578
578
574
579
575
Arizona Generation
19,480
20,038
20,033
19,764
20,030
19,760
20,030
19,761
Arizona Interchange
5,390
5,935
5,935
5,669
5,935
5,669
5,935
5,669
Arizona Load
Arizona Losses
Case
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Page 11
Table 1-5. Follow-Up Study Case Attributes
wJJ Xfmr
wJJ Xfmr
69 kV Upg
wJJ Xfmr
230 kV Upg
wJJ Xfmr
Off-Peak
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
(Sys)
(Sys)
(APS)
(Sys)
5,110
5,357
5,357
5,358
5,428
PreProject
2,380
2,690
2,690
2,690
2,753
703
686
686
685
475
7,958
8,143
8,142
8,087
4,072
681
695
695
689
289
682
696
696
689
289
369
402
402
403
127
1,383
1,455
1,455
1,454
1,391
508
550
550
549
507
1,011
1,052
1,052
1,051
1,009
595
635
635
634
593
1,212
1,226
1,226
1,223
910
-83
-351
-350
-308
24
1,912
1,997
1,997
1,980
1,060
1,095
1,141
1,141
1,134
391
1,095
1,141
1,141
1,134
391
24
-69
-69
-54
-231
62
242
430
69
140
647
71
140
647
67
158
709
-17
64
436
234
401
400
445
327
189
233
233
255
103
184
238
238
256
117
190
-69
-69
-25
-254
0
0
0
0
0
21,275
21,282
21,282
21,282
13,517
Arizona Load
Arizona Losses
834
836
835
830
580
Arizona Generation
27,499
27,976
27,976
27,970
20,032
Arizona Interchange
5,390
5,858
5,858
5,858
5,935
Case
20
21
22
23
24
Page 12
1.2
Interconnection Modeling
APS Q219 connects to a 230 kV bus at the Jojoba location. The detailed power flow model of the project
is depicted in Figure 1-6 below. The project is comprised of six combustion turbines (CT) that total 577
MW net. Each CT unit has a dedicated 13.8/230 kV Generator Step-Up (GSU) transformer. Each GSU
connects to a common 230 kV bus that is then connected to the Jojoba 230 kV bus. The gross power
capability for each CT unit is 97.5 MW in the summer and 105.7 MW in the winter. The reactive power
capability for each CT unit is +60.4/-35.8 MVAr in the summer and +65.6/-38.8 MVAr in the winter. The
project is required to be capable of +/- 0.95 power factor at the Point of Interconnection.
Figure 1-6. Q219 Power Flow Model
Jojoba 230 kV
Q219
Gross Pmax: 585 (S)/634.2 (W)
Net Pmax: 577 (S)/626 (W)
230 kV
MVAbase: 75
Rating: 125
235/13.8 kV
Z: 10%
X/R: 34
13.8 kV
Each CTG
155.059 MVA
Pmax: 97.5 MW (S) 105.7 MW (W)
Qmin/max: +60.4/-35.8 MVAr (S) +65.6/-38.8 MVAr (W)
Power flow diagrams of the transmission system along with the new generation interconnection are
provided in Appendix A.
Page 13
1.3
Dynamic Data
Appendix C provides details of the dynamic model used to model the project. Modeling for the new
generation utilizes machine characteristics provided by the Applicant in the Large Generator
Interconnection Application (LGIA). The exciter model parameters required adjustment in order to
achieve a flat run. Specifically, "Kp" the exciter field voltage source gain was adjusted to 11.3724 from
32.6746, and "Kd" the exciter internal reactance was adjusted to 1.623 from 5.866. Additionally, the
inertia constant, "H," was adjusted from 1.1 to 1.99 after follow up interaction with the customer. All
changes were agreed upon between APS and the Q219 customer.
Transient stability plots of the outages simulated are provided in Appendix D.
1.4
Reliability Criteria
In general, an evaluation of the system reliability investigates the system’s thermal loading capability,
voltage performance (not too high or low), and transient stability (the system should not oscillate
excessively and generators should remain synchronized). The evaluation of these criteria must be
conducted for credible ‘emergency’ conditions, such as loss of a single (TPL-002) or double circuit (TPL003) line, a transformer, or a generator. Performance of the transmission system and neighboring Control
Areas are measured against the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Reliability Standards
and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Planning Standards described in the
following subsections. The criteria for Category A (TPL-001, “All lines in service”), Category B (TPL-002,
single element outage), and Category C (TPL-003, multiple element outage) conditions are explicitly
applied both internally (within APS system) and to external Control Areas. Select Category D (TPL-004,
catastrophic outage) are selectively applied to the transient stability portion of the study.
1.4.1
Power Factor Criteria
The study applies APS power factor criteria which state that a generator must be capable of providing
dynamic reactive support within the range of +/-0.95 power factor at the POI.
1.4.2
(Steady State) Power Flow Criteria
Normal conditions
 All line loadings must be less than 100% of the continuous (normal) thermal ratings.
 All transformer loadings must be less than 100% of the continuous (normal) ratings.
Contingency Conditions
 For TPL-002, a single (N-1) contingency or TPL-003, a double (N-2) contingency, no transmission
element will be loaded above the emergency rating.
 Depending upon the type of analysis and applied case/sensitivity, applicable criteria for system
performance will be identified. In some instances, resulting local circuit overloads and/or voltage
deviations may be deemed acceptable per local criteria; as long as the local system’s postcontingency performance does not result in cascading outages.
 Established loading limits and voltage performance for other neighboring utilities will be
monitored.
 Voltage deviations at any bus must be no more than 5% for TPL-002, N-1 contingencies, and no
more than 10% for TPL-003, N-2 contingencies.
Page 14
1.4.3
Transient Stability Criteria
The study applies reliability criteria contained within the WECC disturbance-performance table of
allowable effects on other systems. Table 1-7 and Figure 1-8 are excerpts from the WECC Reliability
Criteria.
Table 1-7. WECC Disturbance-Performance Table of Allowable Effects on Other Systems
NERC and WECC
Categories
Outage Frequency
Associated with the
Performance
Category
(outage/year)
A
System normal
(TPL-001)
Not Applicable
B
One element
out-of-service
(TPL-002)
C
Two or more
elements
out-of-service
(TPL-003)
D
Extreme multipleelement outages
(TPL-004)
 0.33
0.033 – 0.33
< 0.033
Transient Voltage Dip
Standard
Minimum Transient
Frequency Standard
Post Transient Voltage
Deviation Standard
Nothing in addition to NERC
Not to exceed 25% at
load buses or 30% at
non-load buses.
Not to exceed 20% for
more than 20 cycles at
load buses.
any bus.
Not to exceed 20% for
more than 40 cycles at
load buses.
Not below 59.6Hz for 6
cycles or more at a load
bus.
Not to exceed 5% at any
bus.
Not below 59.0Hz for 6
cycles or more at a load
bus.
any bus.
Nothing in addition to NERC
Figure 1-8. NERC/WECC Voltage Performance Parameters
Page 15
2
Study Methodology
This section summarizes the methods used to derive the power factor requirements, power flow, post
transient, transient stability, and fault duty results. Appendix A lists the details of the contingencies run
for the study.
2.1
Power Factor Requirements
The APS Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) policy regarding power factor requires all
Interconnection Customers, with the exception of wind generators, to maintain an acceptable power factor
(typically near unity) at the Point of Interconnection (POI), subject to system conditions. The APS OATT
also requires Interconnection Customers to be able to achieve +/- 0.95 power factor at the POI, with the
maximum "full-output" reactive capability available at all outputs. Furthermore, APS requires
Interconnection Customers to have dynamic voltage control and maintain the voltage as specified by the
transmission operator within the limitation of +/- 0.95 power factor, as long as the project is online and
generating. If the project’s equipment is not capable of this type of response, a dynamic reactive device
will be required. APS has the right to disconnect the project from the power grid if system conditions
dictate the need to do so in order to maintain system reliability.
The method for determining whether or not the generator meets these requirements is to first record the
pre-project POI bus voltage. Next, model the project online at full output with zero reactive capability. All
shunt devices are turned off. Two fictitious synchronous condensers are added to the case with infinite
reactive capability. One is placed at the terminal bus of each generating unit set to regulate the bus
voltage to 1.0 pu. The second is placed one bus away from the POI regulating the POI to the pre-project
voltage level. The amount of plant losses is determined by recording the MVAR flow at the POI and
adding that value to the sum of the synchronous condenser output. Based on the maximum output of the
plant, determine the minimum reactive capabilities required to meet the +/-0.95 power factor range. The
sum of the two numbers determines the maximum amount of reactive support the project must provide.
2.2
Power Flow
Power flow analysis considers a snapshot in time where the transformer tap changers, and phase shifters
have not adjusted, and the system swing bus balances the system during each contingency scenario.
SVDs are allowed to adjust. All power flow analysis is conducted with version 18.1_01 of General
Electric’s PSLF/PSDS/SCSC software. Power flow results are monitored and reported for APS and other
neighboring systems, including TEP and SRP. Pre-project issues (if any) are addressed with the
appropriate entity.
Traditional power flow analysis is used to evaluate the thermal and voltage performance of the system
under Category A (TPL-001, all elements in service), Category B (TPL-002, N-1, single contingency), and
select Category C (TPL-003, multiple contingency) conditions. The applicable WECC reliability planning
criteria is listed below.
 Changes in bus voltages from pre- to post-contingency must be less than 5% for single
contingencies.
 All equipment loadings must be below their normal ratings under normal conditions.
 All equipment loadings must be below their emergency ratings for single contingencies.
 Depending upon the type of analysis and applied case/sensitivity, applicable criteria for system
performance is identified. In some instances, resulting local circuit overloads and/or voltage
deviations may be deemed acceptable per local criteria; as long as the local system’s postcontingency performance does not result in cascading outages.
Thermal loading is reported when a modeled transmission element is loaded over 98% of its appropriate
MVA rating modeled in the power flow database, and when the incremental change in loading between
Pre-Project and Post-Project case exceeded 1%.
Page 16
Transmission voltage violations for Category A (TPL-001, no contingency) conditions are reported where
per unit voltages are less than 0.95 or greater than 1.05. For Category B outages (TPL-002, N-1) the
voltage violations are reported when the post-contingency voltage deviation is greater than 5%.
2.3
Post-Transient
Post-transient analysis determines if the voltage deviations at critical buses meet the maximum allowable
voltage deviation criteria, and if any transmission elements exceed their maximum rating for selected
Category B (TPL-002, N-1) disturbances. This snapshot focuses on the first few minutes following an
outage where the transformer tap changers, and phase shifters, have not adjusted, and all of the system
generation reacts by governor control to balance the system during each contingency scenario. SVDs are
allowed to adjust. All loads are modeled as constant power during the Post-Transient time frame.
Generator reactive limits are modeled as a constant single value for each generator since the reactive
power capability curve will not be modeled in the power flow program.
2.4
Transient Stability
Transient stability analysis is a time-based simulation that assesses the performance of the power system
during (and shortly following) a contingency. Dynamic simulations are performed to verify the system
stability following a critical fault on the system. Prior to finalization of the power flow and dynamic data
set, a flat–run is used to ensure true power system behavior is not masked by any remote dynamic
modeling anomalies.
Transient stability analysis is performed based on WECC Disturbance-Performance Criteria for selected
system contingencies. Dynamic simulation is modeled out to 11 seconds to ensure a damped system
performance. Most simulated faults are assumed to be three-phase unless otherwise noted. Table 2-1
identifies the breaker clearing times for faults on different voltage levels.
Table 2-1. Breaker Clearing Times
Voltage Level
69 kV
115/161 kV
345/230 kV
500 kV
Breaker
clearing times
7-cycles
6-cycles
5-cycles
4-cycles
All transient stability simulations are conducted using version 18.1_02 of General Electric’s
PSLF/PSDS/SCSC software.
The Worst Condition Analysis (WCA) tool, available in the PSDS software package, tracks and records
the transient stability behavior of all output channels contained within the binary output file of a transient
stability simulation. The monitoring of channel output is initiated two cycles after fault clearing, to ensure
that all post-fault stability behavior is captured. System damping is assessed visually with the aid of
stability plots.
Page 17
Parameters Monitored to Evaluate System Stability Performance:
Rotor Angle
Rotor angle plots provide a measure for determining how the proposed generation unit would
swing with respect to other generating units in the area. This information is used to determine if a
machine would remain in synchronism or go out-of-step from the rest of the system following a
disturbance.
Bus Voltage
Bus voltage plots, in conjunction with the relative rotor angle plots, provide a means of detecting
out-of-step conditions. The bus voltage plots are useful in assessing the magnitude and duration
of post-disturbance voltage dips and peak-to-peak voltage oscillations. Bus voltage plots also
give an indication of system damping and the level to which voltages are expected to recover in
the steady state conditions.
Bus Frequency
Bus frequency plots provide information on magnitude and duration of post-fault frequency
swings with the new project(s) in service. These plots indicate the extent of possible overfrequency or under-frequency excursions, which can occur due to an area’s imbalance between
load and generation.
Other plotted Parameters
Real Power Output
2.5
Short Circuit
Short Circuit Analysis is performed by the APS Transmission Planning Department using the CAPE
program and parameters supplied by the applicant. Fault duties are calculated for both single phase to
ground and three phase faults at substation busses in the immediate surrounding area before and after
the proposed generator interconnection. If fault currents are of such magnitude that series capacitors are
removed from the system, they are removed from the modeling.
3
Results and Findings
This section provides the results obtained by applying the previously-discussed assumptions and
methodology. It illustrates all findings associated with the impact of the interconnection.
3.1
Power Factor Capability Results
The project satisfies the minimum power factor requirement. A minimum of +/- 189.65 MVAr capability in
the summer and +/- 205.76 MVAr in the winter at the POI is required to meet the +/- 0.95 power factor
requirement. The calculated plant losses are 86.9 MVAr in the summer and 100.8 MVAr in the winter. The
gross dynamic reactive capability of the project is +362.4/-214.8 MVAr in the summer and
+393.6/-232.8 MVAr in the winter. The resulting net power factor capability of the project after accounting
for losses is +0.902/-0.886 in the summer and +0.906/-0.883. No additional reactive support is required to
meet the APS power factor requirement.
Page 18
3.2
Peak Load Thermal Results
Base Scenario (Cases 1-2)
Addition of Q219 without any network upgrade causes a pre-contingency overload of the Jojoba-TS4 230
kV line and numerous post-contingency overloads. The most severe outage results are listed in Table
3-1 below. The worst post-contingency loading of the Jojoba-TS4 230 kV is caused by an outage of the
Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV line. An outage of the Jojoba-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV line overloads the
Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV line, Patterson-Komatke 69 kV line, Jojoba-Panda 230 kV line, and Gila River
500/230 kV transformer. The Gillespie-Patterson and Patterson-Komatke 69 kV lines are also overloaded
following an outage of the Lower River-Gillespie 69 kV line (with 9 MW of PV generation tripping at
Gillespie).
Table 3-1. Heavy Summer Thermal Results (Summer Rating Applied)
Base Scenario
Contingency Description
Overloaded Element
12
58
25
45
16
17
81
(Sys)
(AZ)
1097
All Lines in Service
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV
70.2 154.5
60.32
57.62
Amps
1367
N-1 Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV1
76.0 144.8
70.82
67.22
Amps
1367
N-1 Gila River 500/230 kV
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV1
41.3 138.9
64.22
64.32
Amps
N-1 Jojoba-Liberty536
Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV1
92.7 125.3
42.12
40.52
Palm Valley 230 kV
Amps
536
Patterson-Komatke 69 kV1
81.9 115.2
37.82
37.02
Amps
1367
Jojoba-Panda 230 kV
1.4 104.4
104.4 104.4
Amps
725
Gila River 500/230 kV
26.9 101.7
102.1 103.1
MVA
N-1 Lower R-Gillespie 69 kV
536
Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV1
99.4 111.1
35.92
34.62
(Trip 9 MW of Gillespie PV Gen)
Amps
536
Patterson-Komatke 69 kV1
88.4 100.1
32.22
30.92
Amps
1367
N-1 Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV1
72.3 139.8
68.3
65.5
Amps
1600
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV
81.4
95.7
97.6
97.6
Amps
1600
Open Sun Valley-Hassy Tap 230 kV
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV
74.2
89.3
91.3
91.4
Amps
N-2 Jojoba-TS4 230 kV
725
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 and 2
MVA
Case
1
2
3
4
Note 1: Numerous Outages were shown to have overloaded the facility; only the worst are shown.
Note 2: Facility Upgraded; Percent loading reflects new rating.
Note 3: Network Upgrade deems contingency invalid; comparable contingency result listed
1
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba 500/230
PrePostPostPostPostRating Project Project Project Project Project
(Sys)
0
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
(Sys)
2
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba-TS4 #2
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
(AZ)
(Sys)
(AZ)
58.7
54.9
34.8
33.32
77.52
72.22
40.72
38.72
60.02
57.12
32.82
32.82
32.92
31.42
26.33
25.33
29.42
27.92
22.63
21.63
11.2
12.7
28.73
23.03
32.7
35.0
7.33
12.43
35.82
34.42
32.62
31.52
32.12
30.72
28.92
27.82
73.1
69.1
39.3
37.7
99.9
99.3
102.6
102.4
94.1
93.6
96.7
96.6
N/A
N/A
101.9
102.9
5
2
6
2
7
With 230 kV and 69 kV Upgrades Scenario (Cases 3-4)
3
The overloads noted above trigger the need to upgrade the Panda-Jojoba 230 kV line , Jojoba-LibertyPalm Valley 230 kV line, Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV line, and Patterson-Komatke 69 kV line. It is assumed
that these facilities will be re-conductored. The challenging constraint that remains is the overload of the
Gila River 500/230 kV transformer. An outage of the Jojoba-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV line overloads
the transformer to 103.1 % beyond its 725 MVA short term (30 minute) emergency rating.
3
The upgrade of this line section is not required with the addition of the recommended Jojoba 500/230 kV
transformer.
Page 19
8
Mitigation of the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer overload requires a more significant network upgrade
project. The effectiveness of two potential upgrades was evaluated: (Alternative 1) Add a 500/230 kV
transformer at Jojoba, and (Alternative 2) Add a second 230 kV line between Jojoba and TS4. The
results of both options are described below. Both options give similar reliability benefits and mitigate the
Gila River transformer overload. However, after investigating both options the feasibility of actually
constructing Alternative 2 has significantly more risk along with a longer timeframe and higher cost.
Alternative 1 is the mitigation APS is proposing for this interconnection and is the option estimated in
Section 4 of this report.
Alternative 1: Jojoba 500/230 kV Transformer Scenario (Cases 5-6)
The Gila River 500/230 kV transformer overload is fully-mitigated by the addition of the Jojoba
500/230 kV transformer. The Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line is heavily loaded with the addition of Q219. After
the Jojoba transformer addition the loading on the Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line following an outage of the
Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV line goes right up to 99.9%. This loading level is close enough to the
emergency rating to consider that as an overload requiring mitigation. Two SPS projects could be used
as an interim project. Reducing the output of the Q219 project would relieve the loading concern. Also,
opening the planned Sun Valley-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line would mitigate the line loading. An
increase in the Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line will need to be investigated as a long term solution. The 230 kV
line is owned by SRP, with the Liberty substation being owned by Western and the Rudd substation being
jointly owned by APS and SRP, but operated by SRP. All parties will need to coordinate in determining
what would be required to increase the rating of the line.
Alternative 2: Jojoba-TS4 230 kV Line #2 Scenario (Cases 7-8)
The addition of a second Jojoba-TS4 230 kV line has a similar impact as the Jojoba 500/230 kV
transformer, however the Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line is overloaded. The second line section will require an
additional upgrade. One option is the addition of an automatic scheme that opens the Sun ValleyHassayampa Tap 230 kV line following an outage of the Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV line in order to
sufficiently mitigate the Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line overload.
It is assumed that the second Jojoba-TS4 230 kV line will be a double-circuit tower line (DCTL) installed
when the #1 line is upgraded for the segment of the line that runs generally north from Jojoba. Once the
line turns east the existing line is already the second circuit on 500/230 kV double circuit poles.
Therefore, the second Jojoba-TS4 230 kV circuit is assumed in a new corridor as it heads to TS4. This
configuration creates a new potential for a common tower N-2 outage of both Jojoba-TS4 230 kV lines.
This TPL-003 outage causes an overload of the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer. A generator tripping
4
scheme will need to be in place to trip or ramp back Q219 generation should the DCTL outage occur .
3.3
Light Load Thermal Results
The light load scenario models Q219 at the winter capacity of 626 MW (net) and applies the winter rating.
Base Scenario (Cases 9-10)
Addition of Q219 without any network upgrade causes a pre-contingency overload of the TS4-Liberty 230
kV line. All outage results are listed in Table 3-2 on the following page. The worst post-contingency
loading of the TS4-Liberty 230 kV line is caused by an outage of the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer.
An outage of the Jojoba-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV line overloads the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer.
With 230 kV and 69 kV Upgrades Scenario (Cases 11-12)
As with the peak load result, the constraint that remains after upgrading the 230 kV and 69 kV lines, is the
overload of the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer. An outage of the Jojoba-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV
line overloads the transformer to 122.6% beyond its 725 MVA short term emergency rating.
4
The ultimate mitigation will need to be coordinated with the owner of the transformer; Gila River Plant.
Page 20
Jojoba 500/230 kV Transformer Scenario (Cases 13-14)
The addition of the Jojoba 500/230 kV transformer fully-mitigates the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer
loading concerns without creating any new overloads in the light load condition.
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV Line #2 Scenario (Cases 15-16)
The addition of a second Jojoba-TS4 230 kV line has a similar impact as the Jojoba 500/230 kV
transformer. The new common tower N-2 outage of both Jojoba-TS4 230 kV lines causes an overload of
the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer, similar to the peak scenario. A generator tripping scheme will
3
need to be in place to trip or ramp back Q219 generation should the DCTL outage occur .
Table 3-2. Light Load Thermal Results (Winter Rating Applied)
Base Scenario
Overloaded Element
25
N-1 Jojoba-LibertyPalm Valley 230 kV
58 N-1 Gila River 500/230 kV
75
N-2 Jojoba-Gila River 500 kV
1 and 2 (with RAS)
81
N-2 Jojoba-TS4 230 kV
1 and 2
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba 500/230
PrePostPostPostPostRating Project Project Project Project Project
(Sys)
0 All Lines in Service
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
(Sys)
(AZ)
(Sys)
TS4-Liberty 230 kV
1099
Amps
29.9
100.1
38.2
37.9
725
MVA
40.0
122.1
122.5
122.6
48.2
TS4-Liberty 230 kV
1368
Amps
37.6
119.2
54.62
54.42
TS4-Liberty 230 kV
1368
Amps
36.1
117.7
53.92
725
MVA
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Case
9
10
11
Note 3: Network Upgrade deems contingency invalid; comparable contingency result listed.
2
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
(AZ)
(Sys)
(AZ)
2
44.2
43.92
48.2
41.43
41.63
34.42
34.12
55.72
55.52
53.72
31.62
31.32
55.02
54.82
N/A
N/A
N/A
122.4
122.4
15
16
12
2
With 230 kV &
69 kV Upgrades
Jojoba-TS4 #2
29.6
13
2
29.2
14
Page 21
3.4
Follow-Up Scenario Thermal Results
Follow-up scenarios evaluated at the request of the customer demonstrate that both the 69 kV and the
230 kV line upgrades are necessary with the Jojoba 500/230 kV transformer in-service during peak load
conditions. No off-peak overload concerns are observed in the off-peak condition.
Case 20 demonstrates that the addition of the Jojoba 500/230 kV transformer alone creates overloads in
both the 230 kV and 69 kV systems without the Q219 project online. It is critical that the 230 kV and
69 kV facilities be re-enforced prior to placing the transformer into service.
Table 3-3. Heavy Summer Thermal Results (Summer Rating Applied)
0 All Lines in Service
12 N-1 Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV
58 N-1 Gila River 500/230 kV
25
N-1 Jojoba-LibertyPalm Valley 230 kV
Lower R-Gillespie 69 kV
45 N-1
(Trip 9 MW of Gillespie PV Gen)
50
Watson-Valencia-BaselineLower R 69 kV Line
16 N-1 Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV
17
Open Sun Valley-Hassy Tap 230 kV
Overloaded Element
Rating
PreProject
wJJ Xfmr
wJJ Xfmr
wJJ Xfmr
69 kV Upg
wJJ Xfmr
230 kV Upg
PreProject
PostProject
PostProject
PostProject
(Sys)
(Sys)
(Sys)
1097
Amps
70.2
96.9
154.3
145.2
58.32
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV1
1367
Amps
76.0
113.4
154.2
154.1
76.92
TS4-Liberty 230 kV
1367
Amps
44.5
72.6
104.9
104.9
52.22
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV1
1367
Amps
41.3
76.4
120.8
120.6
59.92
Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV
536
Amps
92.7
86.2
98.1
34.62
98.1
Patterson-Komatke 69 kV
536
Amps
81.9
75.4
87.5
30.92
87.5
536
Amps
99.4
102.4
110.1
38.32
107.8
Patterson-Komatke 69 kV
536
Amps
88.4
91.4
99.1
34.62
96.8
536
Amps
90.5
93.2
100.1
35.12
98.1
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV1
1367
Amps
72.3
106.8
145.3
145.3
72.52
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV
1600
Amps
81.4
89.4
96.9
96.9
99.6
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV
1600
Amps
74.2
83.1
90.9
90.9
93.8
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV
1
Case
1
20
21
22
Note 1: Numerous Outages were shown to have overloaded the facility; only the worst are shown.
3.5
23
Affected Systems Review
As part of this interconnection study, SRP and Western have been identified as affected systems. A
coordinated meeting with APS, SRP, Western and the IC was held to discuss the results identified in
APS’s initial SIS.
Western identified some network upgrades they will require. They also indicated they do not require any
additional studies to be performed. Western provided the following statement:
Western staff is concerned that the near-overloads on the Liberty-Rudd 230 kV
line and the Liberty 230 kV fault current could increase if different dispatch
scenarios or planning horizon years beyond 2018 were modeled. However, the
Page 22
study performed is thorough, and as along long as some margin is provided on
these facilities, Western staff is comfortable with the simulation results.
Therefore, no further analysis is needed as long as we agree that a conclusion of
the study is that the Liberty 230 kV buswork, three disconnects, and two breakers
need upgrades to accommodate this project
SRP was concerned about the interconnection’s effect on the metro Phoenix Maximum Load Serving
Capability (MLSC). SRP performed a short MLSC study and found that the Phoenix MLSC would drop by
2000 MW with the existing rating of the Liberty-Rudd 230kV line. If the Liberty-Rudd 230kV line rating is
upgraded so that the emergency rating becomes the conductor rating of 2090 A there is no impact on
MLSC.
3.6
Voltage Results
Results indicate that the addition of Q219 does not create any voltage concerns under peak load and light
load conditions.
3.7
Transient Stability Analysis
Seventy-two (72) outages were selected for transient stability evaluation. Results indicate that the project
does not create any transient stability issues beyond its own facilities, as is discussed in this section. The
in-service Agua Caliente project is observed to trip post-contingency for the following outage outages:
 Palo Verde-Colorado River 500 kV Line
 Hassayampa-Qx 500 kV Line
 Qx-Hoodoo Wash 500 kV Line
 Hassayampa-N.Gila 500 kV Line
 Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV Line
The generator trips in both the pre-project and post-project cases; the Q219 project appears to have little
bearing on the performance of the Agua Caliente project. Addition of either the Jojoba 500/230 kV
transformer or of the Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV line causes Q43 to remain online for the Palo Verde-Rudd
500 kV contingency. Due to the pre-existing nature of this event, this generator tripping is not attributed
5
to the Q219 project and will not be discussed further in this report .
Base Scenario (Cases 1-2 and 9-10)
An unacceptable transient frequency dip is observed at each of the six Q219 generation terminals
following an outage of the Jojoba-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV line under heavy summer and light load
conditions. An additional unacceptable frequency dip is observed following an outage of the
Panda-Jojoba 230 kV line under light load conditions only.
With 230 kV and 69 kV Upgrades Scenario (Cases 3-4 and 11-12)
The frequency dip following the Jojoba-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV line is still detected after applying the
230 kV and 69 kV upgrades. The light load frequency dip following the Panda-Jojoba 230 kV line outage
is no longer detected.
Jojoba 500/230 kV Transformer Scenario (Cases 5-6 and 13-14)
No transient stability violations detected.
5
This performance has not been observed in other studies and is likely a modeling anomaly in this power
flow case. These results will be examined in more detail outside this SIS to determine if it is a modeling
issue or if there is a reliability concern.
Page 23
Jojoba-TS4 230 kV Line #2 Scenario (Cases 7-8 and 15-16)
No transient stability violations detected. Slow Voltage Recovery (SVR) was observed at the Valencia #3
12.0 kV bus following an outage of the Buckeye-Liberty 230 kV line in the heavy summer condition. SVR
is not a criteria violation.
Figure 3-4 illustrates the frequency dip violation and demonstrates the mitigation of the violation by
adding either the Jojoba 500/230 kV transformer or the Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV line. Results of the heavy
summer condition with the project offset by the system resources (cases 3, 5, and 7) is used to plot the
impact. Similar impact is observed in the light load and AZ offset scenarios.
Figure 3-4. Transient Frequency Response of Q219 Unit 1
During an Outage of the Jojoba-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV Line
Appendix D contains transient stability plots of all contingencies that provide a representative illustration
of the transmission system’s pre-project and post-project transient response.
Page 24
3.8
Short Circuit / Fault Duty Analysis
Short-circuit analysis of the proposed generator was performed by the APS Transmission Planning
Department, using the CAPE program and parameters supplied by the Applicant. Fault duties were
calculated for both single-phase–to-ground and three-phase faults at substation busses in the immediate
surrounding area before and after the proposed generator installation. The results presented here
assume a “worst-case” scenario.
The results show an increase in the fault currents at Liberty. The fault currents are under the minimum
6
breaker rating, but they are over 90% of their rated fault current . Western has indicate the IC should plan
to replace two 230kV breakers at Liberty which are rated at 40 kA. As the Transmission Operator and
Planning Coordinator for Palo Verde and Hassayampa SRP, in coordination with the other participants, is
in the process of performing a detailed analysis. At this point of time, any conclusions with regard of fault
duties at Palo Verde and Hassayampa are premature. The interconnector Q219 is to be aware that high
costs associated with mitigation of short circuit problems are probable and might be imposed on the
interconnector. Table 3-5 describes the short-circuit results.
Table 3-5. Short-Circuit Analysis Results - 1.05 Pre-Fault Voltage
Station
Q219 230kV
Jojoba 230kV
Kyrene 500kV
Gila River 500kV
Panda 230kV
Gila Bend 230kV
Liberty 230kV
Rudd 230kV
Palm Valley 230kV
Notes:
Pre-Project including
Q62 & Q90
Post-Project (W/500/230xfmr)
3 Ph. (kA)
Ph-G (kA)
3 Ph. (kA)
ΔI
N/A
N/A
21.7
29.2
16.0
10.9
34.4
49.9
22.8
N/A
N/A
19.2
28.6
16.2
10.0
28.1
42.2
16.6
20.5
22.5
22.3
29.8
17.4
11.5
37.0
50.2
23.7
N/A
N/A
0.6
0.6
1.4
0.6
2.6
0.3
0.9
Ph-G
(kA)
24.0
26.1
19.7
29.4
17.5
10.5
30.3
42.3
17.4
ΔI
N/A
N/A
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.5
2.2
0.1
0.8
Min
Brkr.
Rating
(kA)
TBD
TBD
40
63
40
2
N/A
40
63
1. Values in red are >90% of minimum breaker rating
2. There are no 230kV breakers at Gila Bend.
6
Western is the owner and operator of the Liberty substation and is identified as an affected system.
Western has identified the threshold for breaker replacement as 90% of the rated interrupting current.
Page 25
3.9
Results & Findings Summary
As discussed in Section 3.3, the results of the SIS indicate that the addition of Q219 creates postcontingency thermal loading concerns at multiple facilities within the AZ network. Facilities of concern
include the following:
 Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV line
 Patterson-Komatke 69 kV line
 Jojoba-TS4 230 kV line
 TS4-Liberty 230 kV line
 Gila River 500/230 kV transformer
 Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line
In addition to the thermal loading concerns, Q219 also experiences unacceptable transient frequency dips
at full output prior to Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, as discussed in Section 3.5.
The following briefly describes the network upgrade projects required to adequately mitigate the reliability
concerns noted above.
Gillespie-Patterson-Komatke 69 kV Upgrade
This project assumes that the existing Gillespie-Patterson-Komatke 69 kV line can be re-conductored with
795 ACSS conductor capable of 1600 Amps normal and emergency.
This project assumes that the existing Jojoba-TS4 and TS4-Liberty 230 kV line sections can be reconductored with 2156 ACSS conductor capable of 3000 Amps normal and emergency. Most of the TS4Palm Valley 230 kV line section is already 2156 ACSS. The first two spans beyond TS4 are smaller
conductor and the limiting elements of the line and would be upgraded at the same time the Jojoba-TS4
and TS4-Liberty 230 kV line sections.
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV Mitigation
There are a few projects that address this line overload. One project is an automatic scheme that trips the
Hassayampa Tap-Sun Valley 230 kV line following an outage of the Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV line. This
scheme can monitor the status of the Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV line and/or the loading of the Liberty-Rudd
230 kV line to initiate. Another option is an SPS to trip some amount of generation from the Q219 project
to mitigate the overload. An SPS would generally be used as a temporary solution until a system upgrade
can be completed.
A long-term solution would be to upgrade the Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line. Coordination with SRP and
Western has determined that the Liberty 230kV bus work and three limiting disconnect switches should
be planned to be upgraded. The upgrades would yield a rating of about 1900 A. SRP identified a desire to
upgrade the line up to the conductor limit of 2090 A. This may require the replacement of additional
equipment at Liberty; the jumpers from the Transmission line to the CT, the CT to the rigid bus, the
bushing CT, one disconnect switch on the transfer bus. An estimate of these upgrades is not included in
this report. The IC will be required to coordinate these upgrades with SRP and Western.
Alternative 1: New Jojoba 500/230 kV Transformer
This project assumes that a new 500/230 kV transformer will be added that ties the existing
SRP-operated 500 kV bus to the proposed APS-owned Jojoba 230 kV bus. It is assumed that the
transformer is a 600 MVA transformer similar to the APS standard 500/230 kV transformers. The facility
will have a 600 MVA normal rating and a 896 MVA emergency rating. This network upgrade is required to
mitigate the Q219 transient frequency dips and Gila River 500/230 kV transformer overload. The
frequency dips are more limiting than the thermal overload concerns. In addition, this alternative would
preclude the requirement to upgrade the Panda-Jojoba portion of the existing 230 kV line.
Follow-up scenario analysis demonstrates that both the 230 kV and 69 kV upgrades are required prior to
allowing the new Jojoba 500/230 kV transformer to be placed into service regardless of the status of the
Page 26
Q219 project. Installation of a facility and generator tripping scheme would allow approximately 40 MW of
generation online without the 230 kV upgrades. The scheme would be required to trip the new Jojoba
500/230 kV transformer even without the generator online.
Alternative 2: New Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV Line
This project assumes that a second line can be constructed from Jojoba to TS4 as a double-circuit tower
line when the existing line is re-conductored. It is assumed that this second line is also 2156 ACSS
conductor capable of 3000 Amps. This second line will require TS4 to be upgraded to a ring bus in order
to accommodate a fourth termination. The second line segment is only required from Jojoba to TS4 and is
not required to extend to Liberty or Palm Valley. This network upgrade is required to mitigate the Q219
transient frequency dips and Gila River 500/230 kV transformer overload. The frequency dips are more
limiting than the thermal overload concerns.
Alternative 2: Q219 RAS
Applicable only under Alternative 2 conditions where a second Jojoba-TS4 230 kV line is constructed, an
automatic generation shedding scheme is required to trip either the entire project or the portion above
440 MW (limited by the light load condition) following the simultaneous outage of both Jojoba-TS4 230 kV
lines.
The following Tables 3-6 and 3-7 show the generator output at which each project is required.
Table 3-6. Heavy Summer Upgrade Requirements to Achieve Full Output
Peak Load
NR
ER
(APS)
(Sys)
0
0
188-382
188-382
Upgrade Required
Gillespie-Patterson 69 kV Upgrade
Patterson-Komatke 69 kV Upgrade
382-577
577
382-577
Jojoba 500/230 kV Xfmr
577
Alternative 2: Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV Line
382-470
382-460
470-555
460-555
555-577
555-577
Q219 RAS
Table 3-7. Light Load Upgrade Requirements to Achieve Full Output
Light Load
NR
ER
(APS)
(Sys)
0-382
0-382
Upgrade Required
None
382-626
382-626
Jojoba 500/230 kV Xfmr
Alternative 2: Jojoba-TS4 #2 230 kV Line
382-440
382-440
440-626
440-626
Q219 RAS
Page 27
3.10 Network Resource Interconnection Service
This interconnection request requested to be studied with both Energy Resource Interconnection Service
(ERIS) and Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS). The results and mitigation projects
discussed in sections 3.1 thru 3.7 of this report identify the requirements for ERIS. In order for Q219 to
receive NRIS all of the projects identified in those sections would need to be completed.
At the requested POI there would be two possible paths for the project to deliver its output to APS’s retail
load. One possible path would be through the 500/230 kV transformer that is one of the proposed
mitigation projects. However, APS does not have any ATC to be able to deliver the power from the
Jojoba 500 kV bus to our load.
A second path would be from the POI back to Panda. That line section is rated at 437 MVA. That line
section would have to be rebuilt to accommodate the full output of the Q219 project. Plus, if that line is
rebuilt to a higher capacity APS still would not be able to deliver the power from the Panda substation to
retail load. At Panda even if there is enough ATC to go up the 500/230 kV transformer to the Gila River
500kV bus there is only one path from there and that is to the Jojoba 500 kV bus. As stated above, APS
does not have ATC to deliver the power from the Jojoba 500 kV bus to our load. Another option at Panda
is the 230 kV line to Gila Bend and that line section is fully scheduled.
The third possible path from the Jojoba 230 kV substation would be the Jojoba-TS4-Liberty-Palm Valley
230 kV line. Currently, the Panda-TS4-Liberty-Palm Valley 230 kV line is fully scheduled. However, one
of the mitigation projects identified is to rebuild that line. Once the line is rebuilt there would be enough
scheduling capacity to deliver the output of Q219 into APS’s retail load. Therefore, the 230kV line
upgrade identified as one of the mitigation projects is required to achieve NRIS. The 500/230 kV
transformer is also required as this would protect for contingency conditions and would enable the rebuilt
230 kV line to achieve its full rating.
4
Cost & Construction Time Estimates
The cost and time estimates represent good faith estimates necessary to interconnect to the system. The
information in this section refers to the Network Upgrades and Transmission Provider’s Interconnection
Facilities (TPIF). This section does not contain estimates for mitigations that are identified on affected
systems. Network Upgrades refer to upgrades on the APS transmission system due to voltage, capacity
and/or stability issues and are identified as mitigations in the prior section of this report. TPIF refer to
facilities within an APS substation/switchyard for the sole use of connecting a particular generator
project(s). The non-binding, good faith cost and time estimates are detailed and tabulated in the sections
below.
4.1
Network Upgrades
Gillespie-Patterson-Komatke 69 kV Line Upgrade
These projects are to rebuild the existing 69 kV lines using 795 ACSS conductor. Approximately 6.5
miles of the 69 kV lines need to be rebuilt. The two lines are longer than 6.5 miles, however portions of
the lines have already been or are scheduled to be rebuilt for other projects. Those sections are not
included in this estimate. Both lines have multiple sections with 12 kV underbuild. The 12 kV lines will
need to be transferred along with the dips, taps and line equipment. No substation upgrades at Gillespie,
Patterson, or Komatke substations would be required to achieve the 1600A rating. This rebuild also
assumes the line will be rebuilt with OPGW. The estimate assumes the work will be done so that it is
capable of being released back to operation daily. There may be windows where longer outage windows
are possible, but this estimate assumes a worst case cost.
The existing Rights-Of-Way (ROW) with the lines are 10 feet at its narrowest point, crossing the El Paso
Natural Gas (EPNG) pipeline, and 35 feet at its widest point within Arizona State Land Department
(ASLD) property. It is assumed the line would be rebuilt in the existing rights-of-way, however APS’s
Page 28
current standard for 69 kV infrastructure is 40 feet. Given this standard additional ROW will need to be
acquired. The average width of ROW acquisition is 28 feet. The ROW in this area includes small
segments of ASLD property, but is otherwise privately owned or municipally owned.
The estimate for the line rebuild is $6.3 million. The estimate for the additional ROW needed is $200,000.
The ROW estimates were obtained without the benefit of any appraisals. The estimate could increase or
decrease based on future market values. It is also estimated that this upgrade would take approximately
36-42 months to complete; 18-24 months for ROW acquisition, 6 months for design and engineering, and
12 months for construction. This timeline assumes that the ROW acquisition will not involve
condemnation proceedings.
Table 4-1. Gillespie-Patterson-Komatke 69 kV Line Upgrade
6.5 miles of 69 kV line Rebuild
ROW Acquisition
Total
Cost Estimate
$6.3 M
$200,000
$6.5 M
Time Estimate
18 months
18-24 months
36-42 months
This project is to rebuild the existing 230 kV line using 2156 ACSS conductor. Approximately 21 miles of
line would be rebuilt to achieve a 3000 Amp rating. This is the portion of the Panda-TS4-Liberty 230 kV
from the proposed Jojoba 230kV substation to the TS4 tap point and from the TS4 tap point into the
Liberty 230kV substation. This also includes a few spans of the 230 kV line leaving the TS4 tap point to
Palm Valley which are limiting the rating of that section of line. The estimate also includes replacing
some switches and CTs in the Liberty substation. This rebuild also assumes the line will be rebuilt with
OPGW.
The estimate for the line rebuild is $21.4 million. It is also estimated that this portion of the upgrade would
take approximately 24 months to complete.
The existing ROW associated with the Liberty-Jojoba-Panda 230 kV varies in width from 50’ to 120’.
Because the 230 kV transmission line towers are to be replaced, additional ROW will be required and
have to be obtained in the areas where the ROW is less than 100’. The majority of the 50’ ROW is
located along the north-south alignment between W. Lower Buckeye Road and the Arlington Canal and
totals approximately 5.4 miles. The ROW in this area is generally limited to private property, but includes
one railroad crossing, two canal crossings, and both single-family and agricultural land uses. Some
shorter segments have ROW widths varying between 50’ and 77’; these segments are located at the
eastern and southern ends of the line near the Liberty and Gila Bend Substations, respectively. It should
be noted that estimate values were obtained without the benefit of any appraisals. The estimates could
increase or decrease based on future market values. The estimate as of this report is approximately $9.3
million. This estimate assumes the line will be rebuilt in the same alignment and not in a new corridor.
In addition to the construction and ROW acquisition costs, there could be significant costs and time
impact due to the possible needs of environmental studies and Arizona transmission line siting statutes.
Rebuilding the existing 230 kV line will entail replacing all or most of the existing structures. There is a
mix of old wood monopoles, some new steel poles, some old wood H frame structures and then the
lattice USBR structures that we share. A good portion of this line is on BLM land and therefore any action
will fall into a NEPA process. Depending on what they require it may be at a minimum an EA since we
are replacing structures and potentially doing other land disturbing activities. If the lattice towers need
work there will be some contractual issues that need to be done to allow the upgrade and it is possible
that they too, as a Federal agency, could require some level of NEPA. As noted above, depending on the
Page 29
requirements of BLM and the level of NEPA, the IC’s plant and gen-tie line could get pulled into the
process as well.
Until a detailed design is done and we know how many structures will need to be changed/modified and
the type of structures, we won’t know what action we will need to take in regards to the State Siting
Statute. At a minimum we would likely have to file something informing the Arizona Corporation
Commission (ACC) as to what we are doing and this could lead to an amendment to the CEC of the
existing line. It is also possible, since the original CEC is so old, we could be required to obtain a new
CEC due to significant changes as to what was originally certificated.
If a notification to the ACC is required, including amending the old CEC and if the BLM would keep NEPA
to a minimum we would be looking at 12 to 18 months and a cost of between $750k and $1M. If we get
into an Environmental Assessment (EA) and we need to obtain a new CEC the cost would go up to $2.5M
to $3M and we would be looking at 18 to 36 months. It is not assumed that this would go to an EIS, but it
is possible especially if BLM decides to include the Plant and Gen-tie as a connected action under NEPA.
If this evolves into an EIS the costs could be much higher, possibly up to $5M and the timing would be 3
to 4 years or even longer.
Table 4-2. Jojoba-TS4-Liberty 230 kV Line Upgrade
21 miles of 230 kV line Rebuild
Siting/Environmental Activities
ROW Acquisition
Total
Cost Estimate
$21.4 M
$750,000 - $5,000,000
$9.3 M
$31.45 M - $35.7 M
Time Estimate
24 months
12 months – 48 months
7
18 months
8
54 - 90 months
Jojoba 230 kV Substation and 500/230 kV transformer
This project is to build a four breaker ring bus at the APS proposed Jojoba 230kV substation site and add
a 500/230 kV transformer connecting this new 230 kV bus to the existing Jojoba 500kV bus. This
estimate includes the cost for cutting the Panda-TS4 230 kV line in & out of the substation, terminating
9
the 230 kV side of the 500/230 kV transformer, a new 500/230 kV transformer , and termination of the
230 kV gen-tie. The estimate also includes the cost for the site prep, grading, and 230 kV control
equipment. APS already owns the property and is currently planning to construct a 69 kV switchyard
(Komatke) at this location.
Figure 4.1 below shows the conceptual layout of the Jojoba 230 kV substation and transformer. The
facilities shown in green are the network upgrades included in this estimate. The conceptual layout
shows the initial substation set-up as a four breaker ring with the capability of being converted to a
breaker-and-a-half layout as the substation expands.
The estimate does not include the 500 kV termination equipment required to connect the transformer into
the Jojoba 500 kV substation. Since the 500 kV switchyard is operated by SRP they will provide the final
estimate for this portion of the project if and when a formal interconnection request is made at the Jojoba
500 kV switchyard.
The estimate for this upgrade is $17 million. This estimate assumes the 500/230 kV transformer will be
located within the Jojoba 230 kV yard. It includes four 230 kV breakers, 230 kV structures, switches,
7
ROW Acquisition time does not include the possibility of having to go through a condemnation
procedure, which could add significant time.
8
Some of these activities may overlap and can reduce this timeframe.
9
The new transformer is assumed to be similar to all of the new transformers APS has recently installed
and is planning to install for our planned projects. It is a three-phase 600 MVA rated transformer.
Page 30
PTs, CTs, a 230 kV control house, and all required P&C work at the site. Relay upgrades/coordination at
the Panda, Palm Valley, and Liberty ends of the line are also included. It is also assumed that the site will
not require significant grading and drainage activities and the soil is not contaminated which would
require special provisions. It is estimated that this project would take approximately 30 months to
complete. The lead time for a 500/230 kV transformer is about 24 months, plus delivery time and
energizing the unit. The design and construction can overlap the procurement time.
Table 4-3. Jojoba 230 kV Substation and 500/230 kV transformer
Substation & transformer
Total
Cost Estimate
$17 M
$17 M
Time Estimate
30 months
30 months
The option to set-up either SPS option that may be required to prevent the overload of the Liberty-Rudd
230 kV line consists of relay and communications equipment, logic, and programming. The estimate for
this project is $100,000 and could be completed in no more than 12 months if this is an acceptable shortterm solution determined in consultation with the other affected utilities. The project to upgrade the
Liberty-Rudd 230 kV line would require a Facilities Study by Western and/or SRP; Western being the
owner of the Liberty substation and SRP owning the 230 kV line and the Rudd termination.
4.2
Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities (TPIF)
This estimate includes the portion of the customer’s generator tie-line that APS would construct, operate
and maintain. These facilities include the 230 kV line that APS would take from the Point of
Interconnection (POI) at the 230 kV bus up to the first structure outside of the Jojoba substation fence,
which would be the Change of Ownership (COO). This would include the 230 kV line switch, CTs, PTs,
and the 230 kV structures required to bring the line from the bus structure to the COO. The TPIF are
depicted in Figure 4-6 and are the facilities shown in red.
The estimate for the TPIF is $881,000 and is estimated that it could be in-service at the same time as the
230 kV substation.
Table 4-4. Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities
230 kV TPIF
Total
Cost Estimate
$881,000
$881,000
Time Estimate
< 30 months
< 30 months
Page 31
4.3
Project Estimate Summary
Table 4-5 below summarizes the costs for the various mitigations required to achieve the full requested
output for this interconnection request. Due to the uncertainty regarding the rebuild of the Jojoba-TS4Libery 230 kV line the cost estimate and estimated time to complete the required upgrades is shown over
a range.
Table 4-5. Estimate Summary
Upgrade
Gillespie-Patterson-Komatke 69 kV line
Jojoba-TS4-Liberty 230 kV line
Jojoba 230 kV substation and
500/230 kV transformer
Sun Valley SPS
TPIF
Cost Estimate
$6,500,000
$31,450,000 - $35,700,000
$17,000,000
Time Estimate
36-42 months
54-90 months
30 months
$100,000
$881,000
< 30 months
< 30 months
Page 32
Figure 4-6. Conceptual Layout of Jojoba 230 kV substation
Page 33
Appendix A
Contingency List
Page 34
TPL-002 (Category B) Outages
500 kV Lines
1. N-1 N.GILA-IMPERIAL VALLEY 500kV Line 1
 3 phase fault at N.Gila 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
2. N-1 PALO VERDE-COLORADO RIVER 500kV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
3. N-1 PALO VERDE-DELANEY 500kV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Delaney 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
4. N-1 DELANEY-SNVLY 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Sun Valley 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
5. N-1 MORGAN-SUN VALLEY 500KV Line 1
6. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-JOJOBA 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Jojoba 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
7. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-QX 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Hassayampa 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
8. N-1 QX-HOODOO WASH 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Qx 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
9. N-1 HOODOO WASH-N.GILA 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at HOODOO WASH 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
10. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-N.GILA 500KV Line 2
11. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-PINAL WEST 500KV Line 1
12. N-1 JOJOBA-KYRENE 500KV Line 1
13. N-1 KYRENE-BROWNING 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Kyrene 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
14. N-1 DUGAS-MORGAN 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Morgan 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
15. N-1 MORGAN-WESTWING 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Westwing 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
16. N-1 PALOVRDE-RUDD 500KV Line 1
17. N-1 PALO VERDE-RUDD 500KV Line 1 (w Hassayampa SPS) - Exploratory
 Open the Sun Valley-Hassayampa Tap 230kV line in 5 cycles
18. N-1 PALO VERDE-WESTWING 500KV Line 1
19. N-1 PALO VERDE-WESTWING 500KV Line 2
20. N-1 IMPERIAL VALLEY-MIGUEL 500KV Line 1 (W SPS)
 3 phase fault at Imperial Valley 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
 Trip IV Gen Units 1-3 and INTB CT and ST in 8 cycles
 Trip Otay Mesa-Tijuana 230kV line in 120 cycles
21. N-1 JOJOBA-GILARIVR 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Gila River 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
22. N-1 MORGAN-PINNACLE PEAK 500KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Morgan 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
Page 35
345 kV Lines
23. N-1 PEACOCK-LIBERTY 345KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Liberty 345kV cleared in 4 cycles
230 kV Lines
24. N-1 PANDA-JOJOBA 230KV Line 1
25. N-1 JOJOBA-TS4-LIBERTY-PALM VALLEY 230KV Line 1 (without JJ-TS4 #2)
26. N-1 JOJOBA-TS4 230KV Line 1 (with JJ-TS4 #2)
27. N-1 TS4-LIBERTY 230KV Line 1 (with JJ-TS4 #2)
 3 phase fault at TS4 230kV cleared in 5 cycles
28. N-1 TS4-PALM VALLEY 230KV Line 1 (with JJ-TS4 #2)
 3 phase fault at TS4 230kV cleared in 5 cycles
29. N-1 JOJOBA-TS4 230KV Line 2 (with JJ-TS4 #2)
30. N-1 RUDD-PLMVLY 230KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Palm Valley 230kV cleared in 5 cycles
31. N-1 BUCKEYE-LIBERTY 230KV Line 1
 Close the Buckey-Buckey2 230kV line in 5 cycles
32. N-1 BUCKEYE-LIBERTY 230KV Line 2
33. N-1 SUN VALLEY-TRILBY WASH 230KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Trilby Wash 230kV cleared in 5 cycles
34. N-1 SUN VALLEY-TRILBY WASH 230KV Line 1 (w Hassayampa SPS) –
Exploratory
 Open the Sun Valley-Hassayampa Tap 230kV line in 5 cycles
35. N-1 TRILBY WASH-TS2-PALM VALLEY 230KV Line 1
36. N-1 SUN VALLEY-HASSYAMPA PUMP 230KV Line 1
37. N-1 SUN VALLEY-HASSYAMPA TAP 230KV Line 1
38. N-1 HARCUVAR-HASSYAMPA TAP 230KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Hassyampa Tap 230kV cleared in 5 cycles
39. N-1 LIBERTY-HASSYAMP TAP 230KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Hassyampa Tap 230KV cleared in 5 cycles
40. N-1 LIBERTY-LONE BUTTE 230KV Line 1
 3 phase fault at Liberty 230KV cleared in 5 cycles
41. N-1 LIBERTY-PHXWAPA 230KV Line 1
42. N-1 LIBERTY-RUDD 230KV Line 1
43. N-1 LIBERTY-WESTWING 230KV Line 1
Page 36
TPL-002 (Category B) Outages (Power flow only)
69 kV Lines
44. N-1 GILA BEND-COTTON CENTER-GILLESPIE 69KV Line 1
45. N-1 PVNGPUMP-GILLESPIE 69KV Line 1 (Trip 9 MW of Gillespie PV Generation)
46. N-1 GILLESPIE-PATTERSON-JOJOBA 69KV Line 1
47. N-1 JOJOBA-RAINBOW 69KV Line 1
48. N-1 JOJOBA-ROBBINS BUTTE-BUCKEYE 69KV Line 1
49. N-1 BUCKEYE-WATSON 69KV Line 1
50. N-1 WATSON-VALENCIA-BASELINE-PVNGPUMP 69KV Line 1
51. N-1 SADDLE MT-PHILLIPS 69KV Line 1
52. N-1 BUCKEYE-TARTESSO TEMP-DESERT SKY-BADGER 69KV Line 1
53. N-1 PHILLIPS-WINTERSBURG 69KV Line 1
54. N-1 WINTERSBURG-ARLINGTON-PVNGPUMP 69KV Line 1
55. N-1 GILA BEND-PALOMA-BUNYAN 69KV Line 1 (DROPS BUNYAN LOAD)
56. N-1 SADDLE MT-COUNTY LINE 69KV Line 1
57. N-1 COUNTY LINE-BUNYAN 69KV Line 1
Transformers
58. N-1 GILA RIVER 500/230KV XFMR 1
 3 phase fault at Panda 230KV cleared in 4 cycles
59. N-1 GILA BEND 230/69KV XFMR 8
 3 phase fault at Gila Bend 230KV cleared in 5 cycles
60. N-1 GILA BEND 230/69KV XFMR 12
 3 phase fault at Gila Bend 230KV cleared in 5 cycles
61. N-1 BUCKEYE 230/69KV XFMR 1
 3 phase fault at Buckeye 230KV cleared in 5 cycles
62. N-1 BUCKEYE 230/69KV XFMR 2
 3 phase fault at Buckeye 230KV cleared in 5 cycles
63. N-1 PALM VALLEY 230/69KV XFMR 1
64. N-1 SNVLY 500/230KV XFMR
65. N-1 TRILBY WASH 230/69KV XFMR
66. N-1 RUDD 500/230KV XFMR 4
 3 phase fault at Rudd 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
67. N-1 WESTWING (E) 500/230KV XFMR 1
 3 phase fault at Westwing 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
68. N-1 MORGAN 500/230KV XFMR 1
 3 phase fault at Raceway 230kV cleared in 4 cycles
69. N-1 KYRENE 500/230KV XFMR 6
Page 37
72. N-1 JOJOBA 500/230KV XFMR 1 (when Modeled)
 3 phase fault at Jojoba 230 kV cleared in 5 cycles
Generators
73. N-1 Q219 Unit 1
 no fault trip
74. N-1 Q219 gen tie
 3 phase fault at Jojoba 230 kV cleared in 5 cycles
TPL-003 (Category C) Outages
500kV Lines
75. N-2 Jojoba-Gila River 1 &2 500 kV Lines
 3 phase fault at Jojoba 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)
 Gila River SPS Action: Open the Gila River 500/230 kV Xfmr at 12 cycles
dropping all Gila River generation
76. N-2 Palo Verde Unit 1 & Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Line 1
 SLG fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 10 cycles (C6)
77. N-2 Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Line 1 & Westwing 500/230 kV Xfmr 10
 SLG fault at Westwing 500 kV cleared in 10 cycles (C7)
78. N-1-1 Morgan-Pinnacle Peak 500 kV line & Avery-Raceway 230 kV line
 SLG phase fault at Pinnacle Peak 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)
79. N-2 Morgan-Westwing or Dugas (failed breaker or breaker failure protection)
500 kV line & Morgan #1 500/230 kV xfmr
 3-phase fault at Morgan 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles
80. N-2 IPP DC Bi-pole
 No Fault DC Outage
 Trip Intermountain and Adelanto shunt caps in 4 cycles
 Trip Intermountain Units 1 & 2 in 10.2 cycles
81. N-2 Jojoba-TS4 1&2 230 kV Lines (When JJ-TS4 #2 is modeled)
 3-phase fault at Jojoba 230 kV cleared in 5 cycles
TPL-004 (Category D) Outages
500kV Lines
82. Simultaneous Outage of the Hassayampa-Jojoba & Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV Lines
 3 phase fault at Jojoba 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (D3)
 Gila River SPS Action: Open the Gila River 500/230 kV transformer at
12 cycles dropping all Gila River generation
 Open the Jojoba 500/230 kV at 12 cycles (when modeled)
83. Simultaneous Outage of the Hassayampa-Jojoba 500 kV line &
Hassayampa-Pinal West 500 kV line (Category D)
 SLG fault at Hassayampa 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles
84. Simultaneous Outage of the Palo Verde-Westwing #1 500 kV line &
Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV line (Category D)
 SLG fault at Palo Verde 500kV cleared in 4 cycles
85. Simultaneous Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Lines 1 & 2
 SLG fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (D3)
Page 38
86. Simultaneous Outage of Palo Verde Units 1 & 2
 No Fault Outage of Palo Verde Units 1 and 2
 Drop APS load at Marinette and Papago (45 MW)
 Drop SRP load at Zimmerman, Corbell, Shaw, Apache (75 MW)
Page 39

Q219 Generator Interconnection Project

Transcription

Similar documents

ON`S Industry Germany - ON`S Industry Germany

$10 off - La Bella Spa Salon

2014 hinkle - Albuquerque Public Schools

view/download

Hot VWs March 1982

04 Week 3, Term 3, 2016 Newsletter Week 32

Epoxy Intumescent Fireproofing Systems

TDR / Toner – Cable Fault Locator