sep 2012 to dec 2012 cluster window preliminary interconnection system impact … · 2016-03-31 ·...

Sep 2012 to Dec 2012 Cluster Window

Preliminary Interconnection System Impact Study

August 2013

Prepared by: Utility System Efficiencies, Inc. (USE)

Under Contract with: Public Service Company of New Mexico

Foreword This report is prepared for customers who submitted a Large Generator Interconnection Application during the September 2012 to December 2012 Preliminary Interconnection Cluster Window that closed on December 25, 2012. This study is performed by Utility System Efficiencies, Inc. (USE) pursuant to a consulting contract with Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) Transmission/Distribution Planning and Contracts Department. Neither USE, PNM, any member of USE, any cosponsor, nor any person acting on behalf of any of them: (a) makes any warranty or representation whatsoever, express or implied, (i) with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, process, or similar item disclosed in this document, including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or (ii) that such use does not infringe on or interfere with privately owned rights, including any party's intellectual property, or (iii) that this document is suitable to any particular user's circumstance; or (b) assumes responsibility for any damages or other liability whatsoever (including any consequential damages, even if USE or any USE representative or PNM or any PNM representative has been advised of the possibility of such damages) resulting from your selection or use of this document or any information, apparatus, method, process, or similar item disclosed in this document. Any correspondence concerning this document, including technical and commercial questions should be referred to:

Director, Transmission/Distribution Planning and Contracts Public Service Company of New Mexico

2401 Aztec Road NE, MS-Z220 Albuquerque, NM 87107

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3

3 Study Criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Generator Reactive Power Range Criterion .................................................................................. 3

3.2 Power Flow Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 4

4 Power Flow Base Case Development ................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Project Model ................................................................................................................................ 5

4.2 Generation Dispatch ..................................................................................................................... 6

4.3 Power Flow Case Attributes .......................................................................................................... 7

5 List of Contingencies ............................................................................................................................. 8

6 Reactive Power Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 9

7 Power Flow Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 9

7.1 Power Flow Results Prior to Network Upgrades ........................................................................... 9

7.2 Network Upgrades ...................................................................................................................... 10

8 Short-Circuit Analysis Results ............................................................................................................. 10

9 Cost and Construction Time estimates ............................................................................................... 11

10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 11

11 Appendix A — One-line Diagrams ...................................................................................................... 12

Table of Figures

Figure 1 — IA-PNM-2012 Project Illustration ............................................................................................... 1

Figure 2 — IA-PNM-2012-05 Power Flow Model .......................................................................................... 5

Figure 3 — 2016 Heavy Summer Pre-Project Case ..................................................................................... 13

Figure 4 — 2016 Heavy Summer Post-Project Case .................................................................................. 14

Figure 5 — 2016 Heavy Winter Pre-Project Case ....................................................................................... 15

Figure 6 — 2016 Heavy Winter Post-Project Case ..................................................................................... 16

Table of Tables

Table 1 — Power Flow Disturbance/Performance Criteria .......................................................................... 4

Table 2 — Generation Dispatch .................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3 — Power Flow Case Attributes ......................................................................................................... 7

Table 4 — Power Flow Contingencies ........................................................................................................... 8

Table 5 — Reactive Power Capability at the POI .......................................................................................... 9

Table 6 — Summer Peak Power Flow Thermal Results Prior to Network Upgrades .................................... 9

Table 7 — Heavy Winter Power Flow Thermal Results Prior to Network Upgrades .................................. 10

Sep 2012 to Dec 2012 Cluster Window; Preliminary Interconnection System Impact Study

Page 1

1 Executive Summary PNM received a single Large Generator Interconnection Application during the Preliminary Interconnection Cluster Window between September 2012 and December 2012, which closed on December 25, 2012. Brooklyn Ranch wind generating facility was assigned queue number IA-PNM-2012-05 and has a planned capacity of 197.8 MW that connects to the Taiban Mesa-Guadalupe 345 kV line in December 2015. The customer has requested the project be studied as a Network Resource. Brooklyn Ranch and PNM’s surrounding transmission system are shown below in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 — IA-PNM-2012 Project Illustration

The findings of the Preliminary Interconnection System Impact Study (PISIS) are summarized as follows: Steady-State Performance The powerflow analysis shows the following network upgrades are required to accommodate the Network Resource interconnection for IA-PNM-2012-05:

Construct a new Brooklyn Ranch three (3) terminal 345 kV ring bus.

Install a remedial action scheme (“RAS”) to trip the Project in the event of overloads for certain N-2 and breaker failure contingencies.

Short Circuit Analysis Short circuit studies were conducted to determine if the existing circuit breakers are sufficient to accommodate the increased fault currents associated with the project. Based on these results, the existing circuit breakers are adequate. Reactive Power Analysis


Page 2

The reactive power analysis indicates reactive power capability of IA-PNM-2012-05 is adequate at the Point of Interconnection (POI) to achieve a +/- 0.95 net power factor range based upon steady state analysis. Additional reactive power support may also be required to comply with the stability performance criteria that will be evaluated if this project continues on to a Definitive Interconnection System Impact Study (DISIS). It should be noted that the simplified equivalent collector system provided by the Interconnection Customers for wind facilities do not allow for a detailed evaluation of reactive requirements from each individual wind turbine to the POI. This analysis only provides an indication of reactive power requirements and it remains the Interconnection Customer’s responsibility to design their generation facilities and additional supplemental reactive support to meet the requirements at the POI. Cost and Construction Time Estimate The cost estimate and schedule for the Network Upgrades for IA-PNM-2012-05 are summarized below:

Network Upgrades Required

SYSTEM UPGRADE COST ($M) CONSTRUCTION

TIME

Construction of new 3 terminal 345 kV ring bus

(expandable to breaker and a half)* 12 20 months

Install Remedial Action Scheme for N-2 contingencies .250 20 months

Total 12.25 20 months

* This is only a planning estimate. Detailed cost estimate would come in a Facilities Study once a Definitive Interconnection System Impact Study has been performed.


Page 3

2 Introduction This Preliminary SIS determines the physical and electrical impacts to PNM’s transmission system. It then identifies any necessary Network Upgrades, certain Customer obligations, and operating procedures to accommodate the interconnection request. The results of this study are based on power flow (thermal and voltage), and short circuit analysis.

3 Study Criteria A system reliability evaluation consists of a power flow analysis for identifying thermal overloads or voltages outside criteria (too high or low) under normal and contingency conditions. The evaluation is conducted for credible contingencies that the system might sustain, such as the loss of a single or double circuit line, a transformer, a generator or a combination of these facilities. Planning analysis is conducted sufficiently in advance of potential interconnection, so that network upgrades or modifications can take place in time to prevent a reliability criteria violation. Performance of the transmission system is measured against the following planning criteria: the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Reliability Criteria, and the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) Planning Standards. If system reliability problems resulting from the interconnection of a project are discovered, the study will identify the system facilities or operational measure that will be necessary to mitigate reliability criteria violations. Addition of these new facilities would maintain the reliability to the transmission network. This PSIS investigates whether interconnecting cluster results in:

• Power system equipment overloads on transmission lines, transformers, series compensation or other devices

• Power system voltage criteria violations • Power system fault duty increases that result in short circuit current that exceeds the

interrupt rating of circuit breakers and switches

3.1 Generator Reactive Power Range Criterion The procedure used for evaluating the reactive power requirements is contained in PNM’s interconnection requirements for generators. In this approach, a power flow simulation is conducted both with and without the project generation enabled on the post-project base case. The project-enabled case represents the reactive power range at full output and control capability described in the interconnection application. The power flow simulation is conducted to determine whether voltage at the POI or adjacent transmission nodes differs by more than 1.0% for normal or contingency conditions without other generators in the area regulating voltage. These units can be taken off line if necessary when performing this evaluation. If it does, then supplemental reactive power support to achieve a ±0.95 power factor range at the POI shall be required.


Page 4

3.2 Power Flow Criteria All power flow analysis is conducted with version 18.1_01 of General Electric’s PSLF/PSDS/SCSC software. Traditional power flow analysis is used to evaluate thermal and voltage performance of the system under Category A (all elements in service), Category B (N-1) and Category C (N-2) conditions.1 The power flow performance criteria utilized to assess the impact of the interconnecting cluster throughout the PSIS are shown in the table below. The criteria are WECC/NERC performance requirements2 with applicable additions and/or exceptions for the New Mexico transmission system3. Table 1 — Power Flow Disturbance/Performance Criteria

AREA CONDITION LOADING LIMIT VOLTAGE

RANGE VOLTAGE

DEVIATION APPLICATION

EPEC (Area 11)

Normal ALIS < Normal Rating

0.950-1.05 NA 69 kV & Above

0.950-1.07 NA Artesia 345 kV

0.950-1.08 NA Arroyo 345 kV PST (source side)

0.900-1.05 NA Alamo, Sierra Blanca & Van Horn 69kV

Contingency < Emergency Rating

0.925-1.05 7% 60 kV to 115 kV

0.950-1.07 7% Artesia 345kV

0.950-1.08 7% Arroyo 345 kV PST (source side)

0.900-1.05 Alamo, Sierra Blanca & Van Horn 69kV

0.950-1.05 7% Hidalgo, Luna, or other 345 kV buses

PNM (Area 10)

Normal ALIS < Normal Rating 0.950-1.05 NA 46 kV & Above 1

Contingency N-1 < Emergency Rating 0.925-1.08 2 6% 3 46 kV to 115 kV

0.900-1.08 2 6% 3 230 kV & Above

Contingency N-2 < Emergency Rating 0.900-1.08 2 10% 46 kV & Above 1

Tri- State Zone

(120-123)

Normal ALIS < Normal Rating 0.950-1.05 NA All buses

Contingency N-1 < Emergency Rating 0.900-1.10 6%

69 kV & Above except Northeastern NM & Southern NM

0.900-1.10 7% 69 kV & Above in Northeastern NM & Southern NM

Contingency N-2 < Emergency Rating 0.900-1.10 10% All buses

1) Taiban Mesa and Guadalupe 345 kV voltage 0.950 and 1.10 pu under normal and contingency conditions 2) Provided operator action can be utilized to adjust voltages back down to 1.05 pu 3) 7% for buses in southern New Mexico

4 Power Flow Base Case Development The approved WECC 2016 heavy summer case is used to develop the PNM 2016 summer peak power flow base case, while the WECC 2015-16 heavy winter case is used to develop the PNM 2016 off-peak power flow base case. Details of the generation dispatch and resulting path/transmission element flows, and bus voltages of interest are discussed in the "Power Flow Case Attributes" section of this report.

1 For TPL-001-0.1, TPL-002-0a, TPL-002-0b, TPL-003-0a, TPL-004-0 see NERC website http://www.nerc.com 2 For TPL-001-WECC-1-CR, TPL-002-WECC-1-CR, TPL-003-WECC-1-CR, TPL-004-WECC-1-CR see http://www.wecc.biz/Standards/WECC%20Criteria/Forms/AllItems.aspx 3 For PNM exceptions to WECC criteria see http://www.oatioasis.com/PNM/PNMdocs/PNM_Study_Criteria_and_Guidelines_03-04-08.pdf

http://www.nerc.com/

http://www.wecc.biz/Standards/WECC%20Criteria/Forms/AllItems.aspx

http://www.oatioasis.com/PNM/PNMdocs/PNM_Study_Criteria_and_Guidelines_03-04-08.pdf


Page 5

4.1 Project Model Specific modeling parameters for queue IA-PNM-2012-05 was provided by the customer in the interconnection application. These parameters are used to construct the power flow model. The Point of Interconnection (POI) is halfway along the Taiban Mesa-Guadalupe 345 kV line. The project connects to the POI through a series of collector transmission lines and transformers. The power flow model aggregates the step up transformers and 34.5 kV collector lines as depicted in below. The customer provided the reactive capability curve of the wind turbines which is dependent upon the terminal voltage of the wind turbines. The appropriate terminal voltage in this region of the system is 1.02 per-unit, using interpolation the reactive limits from the curves provided are detailed below.

Figure 2 — IA-PNM-2012-05 Power Flow Model

Distance: 3.5 miles R = 0.0002 X = 0.0017 B = 0.0303

MVA1 = 220 MVA (Assumed) MVA2 = 220 MVA (Assumed)

345 kV

Distance: 35.25 miles R = 0.001730 X = 0.016785 B = 0.304300 To Taiban Mesa

18 MVAr

345 kV

To Guadalupe

18 MVAr

Distance: 35.25 miles R = 0.001730 X = 0.016785 B = 0.304300

345/34.5 kV Transformer (Tap set to 362 kV) Base MVA = 130 R = 0.0025 X = 0.1000

MVA1 = 200 MVA MVA2 = 225 MVA (Assumed)

34.5 kV

R = 0.002754 X = 0.003824 B = 0.068274

MVA1 = 220 MVA (Assumed) MVA2 = 220 MVA (Assumed)

34.5 kV

34.5/0.69 kV Transformer (Tap set to Nominal) Base MVA = 223.6 MVA R = 0.0079 X = 0.0595

MVA1 = 223.6 MVA MVA2 = 223.6 MVA

0.69 kV

2.556 MVA Wind Turbines (x 86 units) Base MVA = 219.816 MVA Pmax = 197.8 MW @.90 pf Qmax = 87.0148 MVAr Qmin = -108.308 MVAr

Point of Interconnection

18 MVAr

11.4 MVAr Shunt Capacitor (3)


Page 6

4.2 Generation Dispatch Generation dispatches of existing and planned facilities for each case used for this PSIS are itemized in the table below. Resources in CA are adjusted to offset the 197.8 MW queue IA-PNM-2012-05 wind generation project. Table 2 — Generation Dispatch

UNIT NAMEPLATE

RATING

CASE 1: HEAVY

SUMMER PRE-PROJECT

CASE 2: HEAVY

SUMMER POST-PROJECT

CASE 3: HEAVY

WINTER PRE-PROJECT

CASE 4: HEAVY

WINTER POST-PROJECT

San Juan Unit 1 370 260 260 185 185

San Juan Unit 2 370 260 260 185 185

San Juan Unit 3 544 544 544 544 544

San Juan Unit 4 (Area Swing) 544 215.5 227.7 171.7 186.5

Four Corners Unit 1 170 0 0 0 0





Existing Reeves 1 43 0 0 0 0



Existing Delta-Person 132 132 132 132 132

Existing PEGS 245 220.9 220.9 220 220

Existing Valencia Energy Facility 173 163 163 173 173

Existing Red Mesa Wind Project 102 102 102 102 102

Existing High Lonesome Mesa Project 100 100 100 100 100

Existing Taiban Mesa Wind Project 200 200 200 200 200

Existing Aragonne Mesa Wind Project 90 90 90 90 90

Existing Reeves Solar Project 2 1 1 0 0

Existing Los Morros Solar Project 7 3.5 3.5 0 0

Cimarron PV Solar facility 30 16.8 16.8 0 0

Proposed Tome Solar Project 8 4 4 0 0

Proposed Lost Horizon Solar Project 10 5 5 0 0

Proposed Taiban Mesa II Project 50 50 50 50 50

Proposed Torrance Biomass Project 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5

Proposed Granada Wind Project 300 300 300 300 300

Proposed Arabella Solar Project 300 0 0 0 0

Proposed Delta-Person Expansion 95 95 95 110 110

Proposed Reeves Re-Power Project 140 140 140 160 160

Proposed La Sierrita Wind Farm 70 0 0 0 0

Proposed El Cabo Wind 300 0 0 0 0

Proposed Mountainair Wind Project 100 0 0 0 0

Proposed Dunmoore Wind Project 700 0 0 0 0

Proposed Vaughn Wind Project 1200 0 0 0 0

Proposed La Luz Gas Turbine 42.3 40.2 40.2 42.3 42.3

Existing Afton 235 235 235 0 0

Existing Luna Energy Facility 570 570 570 570 570

Existing Lordsburg 80 0 0 0 0

Existing Pyramid 160 34.5 34.5 56.9 56.9


Page 7

4.3 Power Flow Case Attributes Table 3 provides an overview of the power flow cases after loading the project and the generation pattern into the heavy summer and heavy winter cases. Table 3 — Power Flow Case Attributes

PATH/FACILITY 01_16HS_PRE 02_16HS_PST 03_16HW_PRE 04_16HW_PST

Power Flows Path 47: SNM Imports 269.6 MW 268.0 MW 436.3 MW 437.2 MW

Path 48: NNM Imports 465.3 MW 279.8 MW 118.4 MW -62.5 MW

Blackwater Converter Imports 0.0 MW 0.0 MW 0.0 MW 0.0 MW

Arroyo Phase-Shifter 9.3 MW 9.5 MW 161.0 MW 161.5 MW

Guadalupe-BA 345 kV 636.5 MW 832.1 MW 635.9 MW 831.7 MW

Transmission Voltages BA 345 kV 1.0388 1.0293 1.0281 1.0194

Rio Puerco 345 kV 1.0429 1.0359 1.0304 1.0243

West Mesa 345 kV 1.0458 1.0391 1.0281 1.0226

Guadalupe 345 kV 1.0261 1.0232 1.0145 1.0145

Taiban Mesa 345 kV 1.0449 1.0446 1.0374 1.0394

Blackwater 345 kV 1.0499 1.0499 1.0499 1.0499

Brooklyn Ranch 345 kV -- 1.0371 -- 1.0299

Losses along the Guadalupe-BA 345 kV line and along the Taiban Mesa-Guadalupe 345 kV line increase in the post-project cases due to the increase in loading along each line section. These losses drive down the voltage at BA, Guadalupe, and Taiban Mesa. The Guadalupe 65 MVAr shunt reactor is switched out of service in each of the post-project cases to allow the 345 kV voltage to recover to the typical operating magnitude modeled in the pre-project cases. The project causes real power loss to increase 12 MW and reactive power loss to increase 123 MVAr along the Guadalupe-BA 345 kV line in the summer peak case. Real power loss increases 1 MW and reactive power loss increases 45 MVAr along the Taiban Mesa-Guadalupe 345 kV line. From an overall New Mexico perspective, summer peak load area losses increase from 144 MW pre-project to 157 MW post-project. It appears that the most of the 13 MW area power loss increase occurs along the radial facilities between the POI and BA substation. Key transmission assumptions include:

A Gallup to PEGS 115 kV line rating of 96 MVA.

A Caballo Tap – Mimbres 115 kV line rating of 60 MVA.

A second Springer – Gladstone 115 kV line with a rating of 169 MVA.

A Springer – Storrie Lake 115 kV line rating of 102 MVA.

The Rio Puerco Phase III transmission project in service.

A Clapham – Rosebud 115 kV line rating of 169 MVA rating. Key resource related assumptions included:

Retiring Four Corners Units 1, 2 and 3 and displacing the output with other Arizona resources.

Adjusting Arizona resources to offset output of senior queued interconnection projects in New Mexico.


Page 8

Adjusting Arizona resources to offset output of resources associated with transmission service requests.

Dispatching the TA-3 15 MW and 20 MW units to serve projected Los Alamos load.

Setting the planned Gladstone 230 kV phase shifting transformer to hold a 150 MW north to south schedule.

The following interconnection projects on third party transmission systems are modeled:

TI-04-12144 Wind project 88 MW The following Transmission Service Requests are modeled

TSR 73152312 (80 MW) – Ojo 345 kV to Four Corners 345 kV

TSR 74116380 (20 MW) – Ojo 345 kV to Four Corners 345 kV

TSR 73140963 (90 MW) – Willard 115 kV to Four Corners 345 kV


TSR 71639149 (90 MW) – Guadalupe 345 kV to Four Corners 345 kV

TSR 74559236 (102 MW) – Red Mesa 115 kV to Four Corners 345 kV


5 List of Contingencies The contingencies evaluated for power flow (thermal & voltage) in this PSIS are listed below. Table 4 — Power Flow Contingencies

NO. CATEGORY CONTINGENCY DESCRIPTION

1 B Brooklyn Ranch Generator

2 B Taiban Mesa-Guadalupe 345 kV Line

3 B Guadalupe-Brooklyn Ranch 345 kV Line

4 B Blackwater-Brooklyn Ranch 345 kV Line

5 B Four Corners-Rio Puerco 345 kV Line

6 B Rio Puerco-San Juan 345 kV Line

7 B Sandia-West Mesa 345 kV Line

8 B BA-Guadalupe 345 kV Line

9 B BA-Norton 345 kV Line

10 B Rio Puerco-West Mesa 345 kV Line

11 B BA-Rio Puerco 345 kV Line 1

12 B West Mesa-Arroyo 345 kV Line

13 B Rio Puerco 345/115 kV Transformer

14 B BA 345/115 kV Transformer

15 B Algodones-Pachmann 115 kV Line

16 B BA-Reeves 115 kV Line 1

17 B BA-Reeves 115 kV Line 2

18 B BA-Pachmann 115 kV Line

19 B Corrales Bluff-Pachmann 115 kV Line

20 B Person-Tome 115 kV Line

21 B Algodones-Britton 115 kV Line

22 B San Juan-Ship Rock (WAPA) 345 kV Line

23 B Four Corners - Shiprock (WAPA) 345 kV Line

24 B Four Corners - San Juan 345 kV Line

25 C BA-Pachmann-Algodones 115 kV Lines (BF-45362)

4 http://www.tristategt.org/OASIS/documents/TI-04-1214 SIS Final Report_RAL3.pdf

https://www.westtrans.net/cgi-bin/webplus.dll?script=/woa/woa-tsr-summary-displayframe.wml&NewTSR=&StartRow=1

http://www.tristategt.org/OASIS/documents/TI-04-1214%20SIS%20Final%20Report_RAL3.pdf


Page 9

NO. CATEGORY CONTINGENCY DESCRIPTION

26 C BA-Rio Puerco 345 kV Line and BA 345/115 kV Transformer (BF-11482)

27 C BA - Rio Puerco 345 kV Lines 1 & 2

28 C West Mesa-Rio Puerco 345 kV Line & West Mesa 345/115 kV Transformer #2(BF-13582)

29 C BA-Pachmann 115 kV Line and BA 345/115 kV Transformer (BF-23462)

30 C BA-Pachmann-Algodones 115 kV Lines (BF-45362)

31 C West Mesa 3-Pachmann-Algodones 115 kV Lines (BF-44262)

6 Reactive Power Analysis Generator interconnection projects are required to be capable of +/- 0.95 power factor at the point of interconnection if the project fails the reactive power requirement evaluation. The project fails the evaluation if the voltages at the point of interconnection and/or any adjacent busses change by greater than 1.0 % when the project generator is online and then turned offline. Both the peak conditions and off-peak conditions were evaluated. The IA-PNM-2012-05 project fails the evaluation at the 345 kV POI due to a 2.15 % change under peak conditions and a 2.33 % change under off-peak conditions. Therefore, the generator is required to achieve +/- 0.95 power factor at the POI. Further inspection shows that the facility sufficiently meets the power factor requirement at the POI. The table below compares the POI requirement to the estimated POI capability of the facility. Table 5 — Reactive Power Capability at the POI

DIRECTION POI CAPABILITY POI REQUIRED POI SURPLUS

Over-Excited* 91.6 MVAr 65.3 MVAr 26.3 MVAr

Under-Excited - 150.3 MVAr -65.3 MVAr 85.0 MVAr

*Assumes all three 11.4 MVAr shunt capacitors in-service.

7 Power Flow Analysis The study models interconnection of the IA-PNM-2012-05 197.8 MW wind generation project to the existing Taiban Mesa-Guadalupe 345 kV line. Losses internal to generator interconnecting facilities require the generator to be dispatched to 201.1 MW, above the rated real power output, in order to achieve 197.8 MW at the POI. The customer may elect to install additional turbines to compensate for their own internal network losses.

7.1 Power Flow Results Prior to Network Upgrades Heavy summer contingency results show that the addition of the project results in numerous thermal overloads following the Category C outage of the BA-Rio Puerco 345 kV lines 1 and 2. The highest thermal overload is 115.5 % and occurs on the B-A 345/115 kV Transformer 1. The BA 345/115 kV transformer has a continuous rating of 472 MVA. Heavy winter conditions show the same outage and resulting facility overload remains a concern. The magnitude of the overload is slightly lower than during summer peak conditions at 109.9 %. Table 6 — Summer Peak Power Flow Thermal Results Prior to Network Upgrades


Page 10

NO. CONTINGENCY DESCRIPTION OVERLOADED ELEMENT AREA PRE PST DELTA

27 BA - Rio Puerco 345 kV Lines 1 & 2 AVILA_T - NO_BERN 115 kV Line Ckt 1 10 75.8 108.0 32.2

27 BA - Rio Puerco 345 kV Lines 1 & 2 AVILA_T - ROY 115 kV Line Ckt 1 10 70.8 103.1 32.3

27 BA - Rio Puerco 345 kV Lines 1 & 2 B-A 115/345 kV Transformer Ckt 1 10 87.4 115.5 28.1

27 BA - Rio Puerco 345 kV Lines 1 & 2 B-A - NO_BERN 115 kV Line Ckt 1 10 80.2 112.4 32.2

27 BA - Rio Puerco 345 kV Lines 1 & 2 MSSIONT - REEVES_2 115 kV Line Ckt 1 10 91.1 102.5 11.4

Table 7 — Heavy Winter Power Flow Thermal Results Prior to Network Upgrades

NO. CONTINGENCY DESCRIPTION OVERLOADED ELEMENT AREA PRE PST DELTA

27 BA - Rio Puerco 345 kV Lines 1 & 2 B-A 115/345 kV Transformer Ckt 1 10 81.7 109.9 28.2

There are no voltage concerns to report for either summer peak or heavy winter conditions. The worst voltage drop and voltage rises are also triggered by the Category C outage of the BA-Rio Puerco 345 kV lines 1 and 2. However while some voltage deviations are significant, all results remain well within the acceptable limit of 10 % for Category C outages.

7.2 Network Upgrades The project causes a new thermal loading on the BA 345/115 kV transformer following a Category C outage of the BA-Rio Puerco 345 kV lines 1 and 2. The preferred Network Upgrade required to mitigate this overload is to install a Remedial Action Scheme (RAS) that trips the IA-PNM-2012-05 generation to mitigate this low probability Category C contingency.

8 Short-Circuit Analysis Results Short circuit studies were conducted to determine if the existing circuit breakers are sufficient to accommodate the increased fault currents associated with the project. Based on these results, the existing circuit breakers are adequate.


Page 11

9 Cost and Construction Time estimates The Network Upgrades for IA-PNM-2012-05 are summarized below. The corresponding cost and construction time estimates are shown for each upgrade.

Network Upgrades Required

SYSTEM UPGRADE COST ($M) CONSTRUCTION

TIME

Construction of new 3 terminal 345 kV ring bus

(expandable to breaker and a half)* 12 20 months

Install Remedial Action Scheme for N-2 contingencies .250 20 months

Total 12.25 20 months

* This is only a planning estimate. Detailed cost estimate would come in a Facilities Study once a Definitive Interconnection System Impact Study has been performed.

10 Conclusion The powerflow analysis shows the following network upgrades are required to accommodate the Network Resource interconnection for IA-PNM-2012-05:

Construct a new Brooklyn Ranch three (3) terminal 345 kV ring bus.

Install a remedial action scheme (“RAS”) to trip the Project in the event of overloads for certain N-2 and breaker failure contingencies.

Short Circuit Analysis Short circuit studies were conducted to determine if the existing circuit breakers are sufficient to accommodate the increased fault currents associated with the project. Based on these results, the existing circuit breakers are adequate. Reactive Power Analysis The reactive power analysis indicates reactive power capability of IA-PNM-2012-05 is adequate at the Point of Interconnection (POI) to achieve a +/- 0.95 net power factor range based upon steady state analysis. Additional reactive power support may also be required to comply with the stability performance criteria that will be evaluated if this project continues on to a Definitive Interconnection System Impact Study (DISIS). It should be noted that the simplified equivalent collector system provided by the Interconnection Customers for wind facilities do not allow for a detailed evaluation of reactive requirements from each individual wind turbine to the POI. This analysis only provides an indication of reactive power requirements and it remains the Interconnection Customer’s responsibility to design their generation facilities and additional supplemental reactive support to meet the requirements at the POI.


Page 12

11 Appendix A — One-line Diagrams


Page 13

Figure 3 — 2016 Heavy Summer Pre-Project Case


Page 14

Figure 4 — 2016 Heavy Summer Post-Project Case


Page 15

Figure 5 — 2016 Heavy Winter Pre-Project Case


Page 16

Figure 6 — 2016 Heavy Winter Post-Project Case

sep 2012 to dec 2012 cluster window preliminary interconnection system impact … · 2016-03-31 ·...

Documents