team nile ee416 final report

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Big Bend Transmission Report

Final Report

Sponsor: Avista Corp. 1411 East Mission Avenue

P.O. Box 3727 Spokane, WA 99220-32727 Mentor: Richard Maguire

Team Nile:

Simon Miller Brian Rossi

Chris Rusnak Roland Schafer

Duration: January 13, 2014 – December 20, 2014

Course: EE416 Electrical Engineering Design Instructor: Dr. Jose G. Delgado-Frias

School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Pullman, WA 99164

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary 3 2 Introduction 3

a. General b. Scope of Feasibility Study

3 Project Management 5 4 Results 7

a. Concept Generation b. Concept Selection c. Subsystem Prototype d. Power Flow Study Plan – Procedure e. Modeling and Simulation f. Demonstration Prototype g. Description of Final Design

5 Impact Analysis 21 a. Generation vs. Environment b. Reliability vs. Longevity c. Public vs. Private

6 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work 23 7 Conclusion 23 8 Acknowledgments 24 9 Appendix 25

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

1. Executive Summary

The requirements that have been set forth are to analyze both the high transfer case and the heavy summer case each having their own different solutions for the transmission system in the Big Bend area when we operate three 115 kV transmission lines that are currently in a non-operational setting. We will be closing in these three transmission line sections: 1) Davenport 2) Sprague 3) Damon-Marengo. Currently, when we close all three of these lines and operate them, too much power wants to travel down these lines during a high transfer case. These lines as they stand now cannot accommodate power transfer required and have many instances of maximum power transfer violations which will cause damage to these lines if operated. For the design the group is to decide what electrical projects need to be done to prevent overload conditions from occurring with these lines closed in. The system needs to be able to handle a list of contingencies, which is a pre made list of outages generated by Avista to ensure compliance to NERC and WECC (governing bodies for large electrical utilities) and ensure that the lines are not overloaded. Considerations for this project include the cost of new generation facilities, substations, transformers, adding in new transmission lines and reconductoring existing transmission lines [1].

The Avista Corporation is potentially going to be investing millions of dollars if they decide to build the proposed design. A feasibility report is going to be needed to show the investors the benefits of doing the project. We need to show that in the long run it will be beneficial to stop the current interconnection agreement with Grant PUD. When Avista presents their system plans for the years to come they use the software PowerWorld to analyze their own power systems and look at the feedback given by the software to determine plans of action [2].

The analysis will be done by using PowerWorld simulator [3]. The group will be making electrical changes to the Big Bend power grid and use a contingency analysis tool to test each change that we make in order to see how our changes affects the system. In the end, the separate solutions will be combined into one case showing that the system will be stable and able to support the growth in the region for years to come. 2. Introduction 2.1 General Team Nile of Washington State University teamed up with Avista Corporation on the design of closing in three transmission lines in the Big Bend area. The team was required to research the Big Bend area, select the appropriate transmission line to use, then conduct an interconnection study with the transmission lines closed in Avista’s system.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Figure:1 shows the three transmission lines we will be working on for this project

The client of this project is Richard Maguire, a system-planning engineer, who works at Avista Corporation. Grant County PUD currently owns a section of line that is the only way to deliver power to certain section of Avista’s customers. This has been causing problems on their system during a few N-1-1 contingency scenarios. The stakeholders of this project include possible landowners where Avista will be constructing new transmission lines. These landowners will be paid in order to place the transmission lines on their property. The next stakeholder would be utility company since they rely on receiving power from the lines in order to provide the required amount of energy a town or city needs. Owners of the lines and corporate investors will also be stakeholders because their money will be used to construct the projects, and they will receive the proceeds from the wind farm. Team Nile of Washington State University has performed power flow analysis for the Avista grid only and will not deal with lines that belong to Avista. The team has two simulation cases to monitor the effects the new Big Bend design in certain conditions, with different scenarios for the power flow. The two cases were heavy summer and high transfer. Each case was then conducted under no Automatic Generation Control (AGC) and the other with only Avista systems responding for any disturbances. In each of the simulations cases, the team has analyzed the system for any violations, and then confirmed if the violations issued were caused by the new design. The team has also produced feasible solutions in order to correct the violations created by the new design. 2.2 Scope of the Feasibility Study This report will cover various topics of all the design work and solutions created by Team Nile of Washington State University. The first topic that will be discussed is the design to

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

fix the Big Bend area and the logistics of the type of transmission lines that will be implemented. The report will also go over what substation design we will be using for certain Avista stations. Then the report will discuss how the team will go on about testing the new design implemented in the Big Bend area. It will discuss the heavy summer case and the high transfer case and the procedures of the simulations. We will also include the results of the simulations and will talk about all of the violations in our project. The discussion will be about the type of violations, what caused the violations, the relevance of each violation compared to others, and the solutions to the violations. 3. Project Management

Team Nile Gantt Chart end of semester

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Team Nile full semester Gantt Chart

The charts above are the schedule Team Nile followed throughout the semester for their project. You can see that each member of the group had their own unique tasks to accomplish while all of them would be working on the same case. For the cases, each member was working to solve the same goal but each case they had been different. Team Nile wanted to finish the final design for the project weeks before the presentation so they would have plenty of time to work on their final presentation.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

4. Results 4.1 Concept Generation

Our mentor from Avista talked about the basic designs that are needed for our project in order to complete it. We found that there is a certain amount of solutions that we can use in order to achieve our end goal. The following is what we came up with, adding new transmission lines, reconductoring existing transmission lines, adding reactor and capacitor banks, and substation redesign.

When we were researching we found that Avista has two transmission lines which they currently use. The lines that Avista use are the 795 Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR) and 1590 ACSR [3, 4]. Both of these transmission lines are suitable for the project at hand and are able to handle the power flow that is expected.

Looking at what we can use for the next solution for our goals is that we can use capacitors and reactor banks. These banks provide an increased voltage stability, can help improve the power quality of the transmission line, these types of banks also help increase the loading possibilities on the existing transmission system [1,3]. It is up to us to find the advantages and disadvantages of picking either one of these and viewing the effects that it has on the system.

The final thing that we need to consider is redesigning substations and changing the bus configuration or completely building a new substation. We will have to consider different types of bus configurations and while changing the setup see the effects that it has on the system.

Table 1: Below in the table it shows the project solutions:

Transmission Line Banks Substation Redesign

795 ACSR Reactor banks New substations

1590 ACSR Capacitor banks Redesigned substations 4. 2 Concept Selection

When it comes time to present to Avista there needs to be multiple options. Therefore, for the high transfer case we will have three separate solutions. The reason for using the high transfer case is due to if nothing fails during the contingency analysis for this case then it will pass for any other conditions. The three options that are going to be considered are

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

the most expensive, least expensive, and most cost effective/efficient. For each case a contingency analysis will be ran for N-1 violations. A N-1 violation is where there is one part of the system that is taken out due to a condition and system analysis is performed for each violation. Each case is going to have a cost analysis performed so Avista knows how much each option will cost.

We are going to first look at the most expensive case. The goals for this case are to make the most robust system and plan for the longevity of the system without a budget concern. This will be where the group is divided into three teams with one person working on the Devils Gap to Davenport, one on Ewan to Lind, and two on Devils Gap to Lind line since this line causes the most problems when closed in. From here each line will be closed in individually where a contingency analysis is ran. This will essentially be solving for a n-2 contingency situation because we will have two out of the three lines in the Big Bend area out of service. Once each line is solved individually they will be combined into one system with all the changes made. The system will then be rerun against the contingency analysis and any remaining issues will be addressed which will be very few, if any. This should insure a really robust system that will be able to support load growth in the future, but will more than likely be way overpriced, and more than what Avista would be willing to pay. As seen in Figure 2 below this is an example of how each line will be solved. In this example the Devils gap to Davenport line is closed-in and changes to the system were made to fix the contingency violations. Changes can vary for each line but as seen here a line was added in and other lines were reconductored, shown in the highlighted region. When new lines are added a right of way study has to be performed to make sure that the new line is not going through Native American land, towns, or anything that could be in the way of the transmission line.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Figure 2: Devils gap to Davenport

The next case that will be examined will be the least expensive. This case will focus on fixing the short term problems and not looking at longevity. Therefore, future load growth will not be taken into consideration. The way this case will be solved is having 2 members focusing on low voltage violations, and the other two on high voltage violations. This method will involve using mostly capacitor or reactor banks to fix the violations along with updating the substations bus schemes, but not adding new ones. Reconductoring the lines will try to be avoided, while adding in new lines will be a last resort. The reason for this is that the transmission lines can be very expensive per mile of conductor.

The last case that will be looked at will be the most cost effective model. This one will be similar to the most expensive one but will focus more on cost effectiveness. For this solution we will be assigning people to focus on their own task. The tasks are fixing contingencies for breaker failures, low voltage violations, high voltage violations, and overloaded lines. For the breaker failure violations, the substations will be examined and updated or changed. Along with this it will examine if it is possible to change the bus configuration to fix these violations. The low voltage violations will be handled in a similar manner where the substation will be examined and updated and to see if a capacitor bank can be added. The high voltage is the same as the low voltage case for fixing the violations but instead of capacitor banks reactor banks will be used. Last are

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

the overloaded line violations. These will be handled by seeing if it will be possible to add new lines and whether it is possible to reconductor the existing lines. We will then combine all the projects and check the system. When all of these changes are combined into one case the system should be very stable, accommodate future load growth, and be cost effective. This case will more than likely be the one that Avista would implement when closing in the three lines in the big bend.

4.3 Subsystem Prototype The subsystem prototype was designed and simulated on PowerWorld simulator. The power network that was being studied was given to the team to work on. The plan was to close in existing 115kv lines that had a low MVA rating, and fix the system to be how it sits today. The transmission line that was used for this was the795 ACSS. The design process was long and required a lot of testing. It was not a matter of just reconductoring the overloaded line and calling it good. The data taken from the contingency analysis had to be analyzed to see what violations had to be fixed. From here we ended up adding in new lines, and further reconductoring lines that were not in the area of study but lines that were affected by the changes that were being made. For this system two new transmission lines were needed in order to make the system reliable. The first line would run from Gaffney to Fairchild, and the second line will run next to an existing line that is owned by Grant PUD. Since the line from Gaffney to Fairchild is new and there is not an existing substation at either location we had to come up with a design for them which we chose a ring bus. A ring bus is ideal because it is reliable, handle up to 6 feeders, and be upgraded to a breaker and a half if the area grows too much for the ring bus. Another design change that is pertinent is upgrading the substation at Devils Gap to a breaker in a half. As that station sits it is a main aux bus so when the bus tie breaker fails the station fails to deliver power. The new design would be a breaker in a half which would make the system more reliable because the station wouldn’t be relying on one breaker to operate. 4.4 Power Flow Study Plan Procedure For our team’s project, there will be multiple tests simulated on different cases. There are four cases, heavy summer with Saddle Mountain, heavy summer without Saddle Mountain, high transfer with Saddle Mountain, and high transfer without Saddle Mountain. The goal is to determine the violations we have caused, analyze them, and to come up with a viable solution to solve them. Each member of the team is assigned one of the four cases and each one of us will be studying our individual cases and will come

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

up with our own unique solution. We will be looking at the comparison between the base case scenario, which is when the three lines are open, and to our modified cases. We will be testing our cases in PowerWorld using the contingency analysis tool. When running the contingency analysis, it will take your case and will display voltages and powers at each bus, the amount of current through the transmission lines, and will check for any type of violation that would violate FERC standards. Table 2 shows how the violations are displayed in PowerWorld after the contingency analysis is completed.

Table 2: Contingency Analysis After running the contingency analysis, all of the violations will be displayed. This is very useful for our team to determine if our solution satisfies our client’s requirements or see why we haven’t met them. We need to make sure our changes our solving more violations than creating new violations. Using this also helps organize all of the violations and makes it easier to detect a bus or line that have multiple violations and will need to be fixed to make the system stable and reliable. The validation of our results is very important to us and there are a couple ways to prove it. The software PowerWorld is tested by FERC with an actual case that occurred. They will simulate that case in PowerWorld and will compare the results to what actually happened. Also, each one of us will run our cases multiple times to make sure you keep getting the same results. Then we will look over the system and confirm that the results are what we thought they would be. Each member will then look at each other’s results and will see if they can detect any problems. Also our client will check our case and will help us fix any problems he finds. Figure 3 below shows one of our team member’s solutions to the high transfer with saddle mountain case. He has reconductored all three lines we are working with in the Big Bend and then added a new transmission line connection Fairchild to Gaffney. After running the contingency analysis on the system, we had only three new violations left compared to the base case. Currently we are looking for possible causes and solutions to

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

the remaining violations and will start to combine the high transfer cases with the heavy summer cases.

Figure 3: Online of the high transfer case with saddle mountain 4.5 Modeling and Simulations TransLine Calc When we are reconductoring old rated transmission lines in the Big Bend, we have to determine the new parameters for the lines. To calculate these new parameters, we use a program called TransLine Calc. In the program, we will enter how long the transmission line is, the conductor type, tower configuration, power base, and voltage base. With the data, it will calculate the resistance, reactance, susceptance, and conductance of the new line. In figure 4, we are trying to calculate the new parameters for the line that runs from Devils Gap to Reardan. After entering the input data for the line, the TransLine Calc outputs our new parameters as shown below.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Figure 4: TransLine Calc PowerWorld Simulator

For our project, the main software we use is PowerWorld. After we determine the new parameters from the TransLine Calc, we can enter them in PowerWorld for the transmission lines we are reconductoring. Using PowerWorld, we will run a simulation test that will check through all the lines and buses and will display the violations in our system. Figure 5 shows only a couple of the buses and transmission lines that we will be working with for our project. In figure 7, this is how we are able to see and edit the transmission line parameters in PowerWorld.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Figure 5: Oneline for a selected area in the Big Bend.

Figure 6: Big Bend Region

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Figure 7: Transmission Line Parameters

In PowerWorld we our able to view a single bus individually and can look how the stations are set up. This is a nice feature to use to see if the possibility of re-designing a bus station where a lot of violations occur would be a viable solution. Currently, Devils Gap bus station is poorly designed and creates many problems in the system so our team has already started to look into redesigning this station. Figure 8 below displays how bus

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

stations are displayed in PowerWorld.

Figure 8: Bus layout of Devil’s Gap west. Once we have applied our new changes to the system, we can run the contingency analysis. This simulation will run through our case and will display voltages and powers at each bus, the amount of current through the transmission lines, and will check for any type of violation that would violate FERC standards. Using this tool in PowerWorld we are able to display all the violations. The goal of our project is to eliminate all the violations the three lines in the Big Bend create when we close them in to make a stable solution. The next step will be to start working through each violation and coming up with a solution for them. We will be analyzing possible fixes and seeing if they will make the system more reliable while being cost efficient. Pivot Table Once the contingency analysis is finished the data can be imported into an excel sheet where pivot tables can be used to help interpret all of the violations that have occurred. The reason these tables are important is because you can compare multiple cases such as with certain breakers open or closed, with new transmission lines added or any combination of such. Different seasons can also be compared next to each other, along with a high power transfer case for when lots of power is going through the system to other states instead of a local heavy power load. The info can then be clearly interpreted due to the pivot tables, which helps us further gain an understanding of where and how problems in the power grid are caused for each case we are looking at. This allows us to quickly find problems, which in return allows for more time to be spent working on a solution for the given case.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Shown in table 3 is an example of what a pivot table looks like. For this system the base case is shown in the light blue column, the red column shows when a transmission line is closed in, and the green column shows a potential solution to fix the violations that occurred. At a quick glance it is shown that there is a total of 35, 343, and 53 violations. The rows can also be expanded to show more information about the system. The “BUS: Larson 115 kV” row is expanded and it shows that the potential solution fixed the 3 violations but in return it created a new violation in row 16. This is just one of the various uses of pivot tables and why we use them in analyzing the results.

Table 3: Example pivot table showing different cases 4.6 Demonstration Prototype Team Nile did not have a physical device to present because most of the work was with simulations; Nile had two monitors running on the table with the poster. On one of the monitors displayed the PowerWorld Simulator running Avista’s current system with none of team Niles changes applied. The three transmission lines in the Big Bend were open first and then the team showed what happens to the system when the lines are closed. The other monitor showed the same systems as monitor one but with team Nile’s alterations added.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Figure 9: Team Nile Design Poster

4.7 Description of Final Design

The subsystem prototype just addressed the MVA violations. In order for this design to be implemented by Avista further design and testing would be needed to address voltage violations by adding capacitor banks or inductor banks to keep the lines loaded properly. However when just looking at the MVA violations the final design is more reliable than the system is now and some old violations were fixed by the projects that were done to the system.

The key points for this project are: reconductoring lines from Devils Gap to Odessa, Devils Gap to Lind, Lind to Shawnee, and Lind to Othello. The new lines are from Gaffney to Fairchild, and Larson to Stratford with a new substation at these two locations.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

Figure 10: One line from Devils Gap to lind

The one line shown above in figure 10 shows the length of the transmission line that will be reconductored as well as the describing what the new line will be reconductored with. These were done for each section of line for both reconductored and new lines. Along with each of the one lines a paragraph with explaining what is happening and why was written. This would look like as follow:

The length of line from Devils Gap down to Lind will all be reconductored to 795 ACSS since the existing line fails to meet the performance requirements of 2014 for all segments when closed in. When looking at the contingency analysis for an N-1 where the Bell-Coulee #6 fails every line in this section fails to support the load across it because it does not have a high enough MVA rating. The same problem arises when N-1 Larson-Stratford contingency happens. The segment lengths to be replaced are: Devils Gap- Reardan 13.9 miles, Reardan- Gaffney 18 miles, Gaffney- Sprague 6.3 miles, Sprague- Ritzville 18.8 miles, and Ritzville-Lind 16.8 miles. The 795 ACSS will have a high enough rating to mitigate thermal violations for well over the ten year planning horizon.

Along with the one lines we drew up the design of the new substations. For the new substations the team decided on a ring bus. The ring bus is practical for this more remote

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

region because of its size and there are not more than 6 feeders for each station. Also if the area does grow a lot then these substations can be upgraded to a breaker and a half scheme.

Figure 11: Ring bus for Fairchild

Table 4: Table of projects, price, and completion time

The table above gives a timeline for completion under ideal conditions if Avista were to implement this project. The final end of this project if it started in 2015 wouldn’t be completed till after 2020 like the table shows. This is because weather affects the construction of the line, and construction usually only happens in the fall and spring since that is when the ideal load and power transfer happens. Also it depends on the availability of the line crew.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

For the new line added from Gaffney to Fairchild, we needed to do a feasibility study. To do this we had to look at the land using Google maps to make sure that there are no obstacles in the way of where the new line will go which is what Avista uses. Also we needed to make sure that the new lines will not go where native lands are which in this case it does not. The line is south of the Spokane and Colville tribal lands When looking at the map the area the new line will travel through is farm lands and empty lands that are lightly wooded. When the line is put in it will have to go around a few lakes in the medical lake area. Based on the findings there should be no issue with putting in this new line.

Figure 12: Shows the general path the new line would take

5. Impact Analysis

5.1. Generation VS. Environment

a) Define: If our project calls for adding a generation plant then many other dynamics will have to be taken into account, such as the environmental impacts of adding a generation unit to the grid. We do not want our project to turn into an ecological concern, which could reduce the reputation of Avista. If a generation plant is taken into consideration than the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) and The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regulations will have to be strictly followed [4,5].

b) Explore: Electricity can be generated in numerous ways. This allows us choose a method that has the right balance between the power that is generated and the impact that is caused by it.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

c) Summary: This is was not a feasible solution for our project due to cost and other variables. We ran studies in the Big Bend area to see if adding generation would be beneficial while helping maintain the system. After the studies were conducted, we came to a conclusion that the cost of adding generation would have be too expensive and would only solve a couple contingencies while they are cheaper solutions that fixes more contingencies. The modifications we did make to the system do allow Avista to add future generation to the grid if there is a future power growth in the Big Bend area.

5.2. Reliability VS. Longevity

a) Define: An issue that is always prevalent with creating new transmission lines and new generators is the reliability and how useful they will be in 30 years. Due to the ever growing and expanding electrical network, there is always a constant demand to be able to deliver more power. b) Explore: When exploring the reliability of transmission lines there are lots of questions that need to be answered, such as will the poles and wire hold up in extreme weather? Will it still be standing and working properly after 30 or 40 years? How do we know that it will last? c) Summary: The group decided to use the 795 ACSS 115 kV transmission line to do all of our reconudctoring of the old rated lines. With this line, we will increase the MVA ratings almost 4 times the old transmission lines ratings so using this line increases the reliability of the system as well as thinking long term. Thinking about the cost of constructing the 795 ACSS, it isn’t the cheapest line that Avista uses but for the design, we are making a design that will last and not just a cheap fix so using a little more expensive line is worth spending to make a better system. We also had to think about the costs of redesigning substations while our reliable each design is. For the new substation, we decided with a ring bus due to the high reliability and cheap cost compared to a breaker and a half. 5.3. Public VS. Private

a) Define: Avista Utilities is a private company. The objective for Avista is to deliver reliable power to its customers at a fair price and to sell excess transmission capabilities to other entities. Avista is currently leaning on Grant PUD system and there is a potential of being charged for usage of their transmission lines. To avoid this Avista wants to close in the big bend and update the system to accommodate for the the growing load in the area.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

b) Explore: How can Avista continue to operate without being charged 3 million a year, or how to move on without causing too much collateral damage to Grant County utilities. c) Summary: The proposed design for the Big Bend will allow Avista to provide power to all of the customers without leaning on Grand PUD system. When a contingency happens to the system, Avista can provide power to all of the customers, as that’s not the case for them today. With the new transmission lines added, this will benefit both Avista and stakeholders since Avista can sell part of the transmission lines to make up for any extra expenses. 6. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work If Avista was to continue with the new design for the Big Bend area, there are a couple options they have to consider. One option would be for Avista to work with more students at Washington State University and take the feasibility report to the Construction Management, Civil Engineering, Economics, and Business schools and have them work on a collaborative work in the final stages of legal work, cost estimates, and planning to actually develop the design. This would allow WSU and Avista to keep working together and continue our partnership with them. Another option would be that Avista would be to entrust the final portions of the study to their planning department and allow investors to take claims to building the new Big Bend design. 7. Conclusion The new design for closing in the transmission lines in the Big Bend area is feasible based on the preliminary analysis performed. Power flow studies were done in the Big Bend area to compare the effects the new design will have on the existing Avista system in two cases, the heavy summer case and the high transfer case. Each test will be compared to our base case to make sure that every violation we created by closing in the lines are accounted for and have a solution for them. The studies we have done show that all of the thermal violations that we have created when the lines are closed were fixed when our new design is implemented. We have also came up with solutions to fix all of the other violations unless the team determined that they could disregard that violation due to other reasons. Implementing the new Big Bend design is feasible and analysis shows it has made the area more stable and reliable for the future.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

8. Acknowledgement

Team Nile would like to give a special thanks to our team mentor, Richard Maguire of AVISTA Corporation, who went above and beyond to ensure completion of this project and to make sure that we understood the engineering concepts of power flow implementation.

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

9. Appendix

Figure 13: Team Picture

Figure 14: 1st place trophy

T e a m N i l e F a l l 2 0 1 4

[1] Richard Maguire. (System Planning Engineer for Avista) [2] Avista. (Avista System Planning Assessment for 2013) www.columbiagrid.org/download.cfm?DVID=3405 [3] Contingency Analysis (PowerWorld) http://www.powerworld.com/training/online-training/contingency-analysis [4] Western Electricity Coordinating Council (Western Electricity Coordinating Council) http://www.wecc.biz/ [5] NERC (NERC) http://www.nerc.com/Pages/default.aspx [6] The University of Sydney. (ISA Nuclear Report), http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf [7] Open Rack Shunt Bank (ABB Open-rack shunt bank (QBank)) http://www.abb.us/product/db0003db002618/c12573e7003302adc12568100046a069.asx [8] Product Design and Development, by Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, fifth edition, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2012. [9] Avista. (PowerWorld Simulations) [10] Avista. (Pathway Maps)

team nile ee416 final report

Documents