Automation of Hungry Horse PowerplantSteven Jarsky, USBR BoiseDennis Philmon, Hungry Horse Dam

May 8, 2013

Overview

• Statistics• Automation History• Automation Equipment• Water Bypass

Provisions• Implementation

Challenges• Lessons Learned• Closing Comments

Statistics

• South Fork Flathead River• Construction complete in 1952• Four Generating Units – 107 MW each• Head = 447’, 3,150 cfs each• About a billion kilowatt-hours annually• The 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System

Biological Opinions affect ramp rate and minimum flow

Automation History

• Automation studies as part of 1990-1993 uprate and overhaul program

• Decided on operation from Grand Coulee (300 miles)• Switchyard also rebuilt in 1995

Automation Equipment

• Generators– Monitoring– Control– Start/stop– Protection

• Outlet Works– Flow bypass

• Spillway

Automation Equipment

GDACS Equipment

Water Bypass Provisions

• Spillway• Selective Withdrawal• Outlet Works• Federal Columbia

Power System Biological Opinions

Spillway

Outlet Works

Implementation Challenges

• Drawings• Emergency backup• Operations staff• Operations training of

crafts• Call-out provisions

Implementation Challenges

• Communications• Security• Transmission restrictions• Rough zones• Unit dispatching

Lessons Learned

• Be sure roles and responsibilities are clear• Provide sufficient support for the project• Perform rigorous functional testing• Recognize and mitigate risks of remote operation• Plan for staff transition early

– Identify operations functions needed– Address the people side– Provide training– Document the plan

Closing Comments

• With good planning and implementation, automation and remote operation have proven to:– enhance operation– minimize risk– save money

Questions?