Connection Proposal Template · Web viewThe Executive Summary is a high-level summary of the...

Connection ProposalAESO Project Name

AESO Project Number: 0000

Date: Click and type date

Role Name Date Signature

Prepared:

Reviewed:

Approved:

Version: Click and type version number

R[x]1

PublicR1-2016-05-01

(Page intentionally blank)

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION ONE – CONNECTION STUDY SCOPE

SECTION TWO – ENGINEERING STUDY REPORT

SECTION THREE – FACILITY DESIGN

SECTION FOUR – COST ESTIMATES

SECTION FIVE – LAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYWhat to include in Executive Summary of a Connection Proposal:

Provide the Project description including scheduled In-service date, a Rate STS, a Rate DTS.

Describe all alternatives considered in the Stage 1 Connection Study Scope (CSS). Provide rationales what alternatives were initially screened out and was selected to perform studies.

Describe the preferred alternative for the Project after studies, and the rationales.

Include summary of estimated project cost for the preferred alternative.

Include summary of land impact for the preferred alternative.

SECTION ONECONNECTION STUDY

SCOPE

SECTION TWOENGINEERING STUDY

REPORT

Stage 2 Engineering Study Report AESO Project NameAESO Project Number: 0000


Role Name Date Signature

Prepared: Engineer, P. Eng.

Reviewed: Engineer, P. Eng.

Approved: Engineer, P. Eng.


Engineering Stamp

APEGA Permit to Practice: XXXXXX


R[x]4

PublicR1-2016-05-01

Executive SummaryWhat to include in Executive Summary:

The Executive Summary is a high-level summary of the report. Be brief. Make sure the information in the Executive Summary and the information in the Summary and Conclusion are consistent.

Instructional statements are italicized with 10 font size.

In order to use acronyms/short form, acronyms should be defined in Executive summary. This process will be repeated in the main body of the Engineering Study Report.

If referring to a transmission line, please use the following format: 138 kV transmission line 123L (from 345S substation to 678S substation).

If referring to a substation, please use the following format: the ABC 345S substation.

Project Overview[Market Participant Legal Name (Market Participant Short Name)] has submitted a System Access Service Request (SASR) to the Alberta Electric System Operator for [Demand Transmission Service and/or Supply Transmission Service] of XXXMW at [Project location, e.g., south of the City of Grande Prairie to serve oilfield loads] (the Project). The requested In-Service Date for the Project is [Month, Day, Year of the In-Service date as per the SASR request].

Existing SystemThe Project is located in the AESO planning area of [AESO planning area, e.g., Grande Prairie (Area 20)], as part of [The AESO Region, e.g., the AESO Northwest (NW) Region]. Only if Applicable The existing constraints in [The AESO Region, e.g., the NW Region] are managed in accordance with Section 302.1 of the ISO rules, Real Time Transmission Constraint Management.This section will then describe the ‘overview of existing system’. Please describe the Key substations/lines in the Project area and intertie connection with neighboring areas. Below is an example of the write up:[The H.R. Milner generation facility, with connection to the H.R. Milner 740S substation, connects to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) through two 144 kV transmission lines: one is transmission line 7L20, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Big Mountain 845S substation in the Grande Prairie planning area (Area 20); the other is transmission line 7L80, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Simonette 733S substation, which further connects to the Little Smoky 813S substation in the Valleyview planning area (Area 23) via transmission line 7L40.]

Study SummaryStudy Area for the ProjectThe Study Area for the Project consisted of [The AESO Planning areas, e.g., the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas], including the tie lines connecting [Specify how many planning areas will be included in the Study Area, e.g., the two] planning areas to the rest of the AIES. All

PageAESO Protected with entered content

Template Version: V2-2018-01-03

transmission facilities within [Specify how many planning areas will be included in the Study Area, e.g., the two] planning areas were studied and monitored for violations of the Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions (Reliability Criteria). The [Insert the number and voltage rating of the transmission lines connecting the Study Area to the rest of the AIES, e.g., five (5) 144 kV] transmission lines connecting the [The AESO Planning area names, e.g., the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas] to the rest of the AIES (namely transmission lines [Insert the designation of the transmission lines connecting the Study Area to the rest of the AIES, e.g. 7L73, 7L32, 7L45, 7L46 and 7L40] were also studied and monitored to identify any violations of the Reliability Criteria.

Studies Performed for the ProjectThis section will provide a high level description of the studies performed to assess the impact of connecting the Project to the AIES. Below is an example of the write up:

[Load flow analysis was performed for the 2016 summer peak (SP) and winter peak (WP) pre-Project and post-Project scenarios, with the 2016 AIES topology in the NW Region, to determine the impact of the connection of the Project on the AIES.Voltage stability analysis was performed for the 2016 WP post-Project scenario to identify violations, if any, of the voltage stability criteria. Short-circuit analysis was performed for the 2016 WP pre-Project scenario and for the 2016 WP and 2025 WP post-Project scenarios to determine the short-circuit levels in the vicinity of the Project.]

Results of the pre-Project StudiesPlease follow the structure of the pre-Project study results as follows. Below is an example of the write up: The following is a summary of the results of the pre-Project studies.

201X SPCategory A (N-G-0 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-0 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the pre-Project Category A scenario. Below is an example of the write up:[Under Category A conditions, no Reliability Criteria violations were observed for any of the pre-Project scenarios]

Category B (N-G-1 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-1 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the pre-Project Category B scenario. Below is an example of the write up:[Under Category B conditions, no Reliability Criteria violations were observed for any of the pre-Project scenarios]

Connection alternatives examined for the ProjectEach Alternative should include details on what neighbouring substations/lines will be involved and what associated equipment will be added for each alternative. Please use the same wording from the Project’s Connection Study Scope to describe each alternative. Below is a new DTS example of the write up: [Distribution Facility Owner] in [The Project area, e.g., south of Grande Prairie], examined and ruled out the use of distribution-based solutions to serve the additional load [Only if Applicable]. This engineering study report will examine the following transmission alternatives to serve [Requested Demand Transmisson Service].



Alternative 1: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138] kV transmission line [Line name] via an in/out connection configuration.

Alternative 2: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138] kV transmission line [Line name] via a T-tap connection configuration.

Alternative 3: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138] transmission line [Line name] via a radial connection configuration to the existing [substation name and number].

Alternative 4: Upgrade the capacity at the existing [Substation Name and number] substation and shift load to neighboring [Substation Name and number] substation.

Connection alternatives selected for further examinationPlease address which Alternatives are selected for this Project and state the rationale for ruling out the rest of the Alternatives.

Refer to the DFO’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR) Address Market Participant (MP)’s preference (including cost estimates) Specify Transmission Facility Owners (TFOs)’s position on any possible limitation/constraints that

would result in ruling out a specific alternative. Below is an example of the write up:[Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were selected for further study. Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require greater transmission development for no incremental benefit and were not selected for further study.]

Results of the post-Project studiesPlease compare study results between selected Alternatives under each study scenario. The following is a summary of the results of the post-Project studies.

201X SPCategory A (N-G-0 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-0 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the post-Project Cat A scenario.

Category B (N-G-1 [ for Load Addition Projects ] or N-1 [ for Generation Addition Projects – Please choose only one depending on the project type ]) conditions Please provide summary of the results for the post-Project Category B scenario. Below are examples of the write up:[Marginal thermal violations on the 144 kV line 7L50 from Battle River 757S to Buffalo Creek 726S were observed following the 144 kV line 7L53 contingency from Bonnyville 700S to Irish Creek 706S. This line has clearance issues and continuous flow above the stated ratings cannot be sustained; however, since the line loading is less than 100.8% this will be managed by real time operational practices.

or

Voltage criteria violations were observed following the loss of the transmission line designated as 7L228. The violations were observed at the Kakwa Ridge 857S, HR Milner 740S, Dome Cutbank 810S and Thornton 2091S substations. To mitigate these violations, it would require a



remedial action scheme (RAS) to trip the new Thornton 2091S substation. Following the 7L228 contingency, the load served by the Thornton 2091S substation would be left unserved. Following the loss of 7L40 (Little Smoky 813S to Simonette 733S) a minor post-transient deviation of 10.5% the Simonette 733S POD bus was noted; this is marginally higher than the 10% guideline. The TFO and DFO have confirmed that such marginal voltage deviation does not impose any operational restriction.]

Mitigation Strategy and Sensitivity Analysis [as required] Please describe how to mitigate the identified Reliability Criterial violations in these pre- and post-Project studies.

Alternative SelectedThis section will provide which Alternative is preferred based on performed studies. Please provide how the study results impacted on the Alternative selections. Below is an example of the write up:Alternative [State selected Alternative #, e.g., 2] was selected as the preferred alternative since….. [Provide solid reasons why this Alternative was selected]

RecommendationThis section will provide the recommendation of this project including selected Alternative, new equipment and mitigation measure (if required). Below is an example of the write up:[The recommended alternative to connect the Facilities is Alternative 2, building the new 144/6.9 kV POD substation Vincent 2019S. The Project will include:

Tapping the 144 kV line 7L65 and building 0.15 km of 144 kV line to connect the new Vincent 2019S POD substation.

Installing one 20/26.6/33.3 MVA, 144 kV to 6.9 kV LTC transformer, one 144 kV transformer breaker, and associated equipment.

The 25 MVAr 144 kV capacitor at Irish Creek 706S, as identified in the 2015 Long-term Transmission Plan (LTP), is required prior to the Project ISD, since the inclusion of this capacitor bank mitigates all criteria violations noted in the pre- and post-connection results.]



Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................I

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1

1.1. Project............................................................................................................................................. 11.1.1. Project Overview.................................................................................................................... 11.1.2. Load Component.................................................................................................................... 11.1.3. Generation Component..........................................................................................................2

1.2. Study Scope................................................................................................................................... 31.2.1. Study Objectives.................................................................................................................... 31.2.2. Study Area............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.2.1. Study Area Description......................................................................................................31.2.2.2. Existing Constraints...........................................................................................................41.2.2.3. AESO Long-Term Transmission Plans (LTP)....................................................................4

1.2.3. Studies Performed................................................................................................................. 41.2.4. Studies Excluded................................................................................................................... 5

1.3. Report Overview............................................................................................................................. 5

2. CRITERIA, SYSTEM DATA, AND STUDY ASSUMPTIONS..........................5

2.1 Criteria, Standards, and Requirements...........................................................................................52.1.1 Transmission Planning Standards and Reliability Criteria..........................................................52.1.2 AESO Rules............................................................................................................................... 72.1.3 Other Requirements................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Study Scenarios.............................................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Load and Generation Assumptions.................................................................................................82.3.1 Load Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 82.3.2 Generation Assumptions............................................................................................................82.3.3 Intertie Flow Assumptions..........................................................................................................92.3.4 HVDC Power Order (if applicable)............................................................................................10

2.4 System Projects............................................................................................................................ 11

2.5 Customer Connection Projects.....................................................................................................11

2.6 Facility Ratings and Shunt Elements............................................................................................12

2.7 Dynamic Data and Assumptions...................................................................................................13

2.8 Protection Fault Clearing Times....................................................................................................13

2.9 Voltage Profile Assumptions.........................................................................................................14

2.10 Motor Starting Assumptions..........................................................................................................14

3 STUDY METHODOLOGY....................................................................15



3.1 Connection Studies Carried Out...................................................................................................15

3.2 Load Flow Analysis.......................................................................................................................153.2.1 Contingencies Studied..............................................................................................................16

3.3 Voltage Stability (PV) Analysis......................................................................................................163.3.1 Contingencies Studied..............................................................................................................17

3.4 Transient Stability Analysis...........................................................................................................173.4.1 Contingencies Studied..............................................................................................................17

3.5 Short-Circuit Analysis.................................................................................................................... 17

3.6 Motor Starting Analysis................................................................................................................. 17

3.7 Sub-Synchronous Studies [as required]........................................................................................183.7.1 Sub-Synchronous Torsional Interaction Study (SSTI)..............................................................183.7.2 Sub-Synchronous Resonance (SSR) and Sub-Synchronous Control Interaction (SSCI) Studies

18

3.8 Effectiveness Factor Analysis Studies [as required].....................................................................18

3.9 Sensitivity Studies [as required]....................................................................................................18

3.10 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................................18

4 PRE-PROJECT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT.................................................19

4.1 Pre-Project Load Flow Analysis....................................................................................................194.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP) 19

4.2 Pre-Project Voltage Stability Analysis [as required]......................................................................20

4.3 Pre-Project Transient Stability Analysis [as required]...................................................................20

5 CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES...........................................................21

5.1 Overview....................................................................................................................................... 21

5.2 Connection Alternatives Identified................................................................................................215.2.1 Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies..............................................................215.2.2 Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies........................................................21

6 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES...............22

6.1 Load Flow..................................................................................................................................... 236.1.1 Alternative 3.............................................................................................................................. 236.1.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016SP, Scenario 4)............................................................................................................................. 236.1.1.2 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)............................................................................................................................ 246.1.2 Alternative 4.............................................................................................................................. 246.1.2.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016SP, Scenario 4)............................................................................................................................. 24



6.1.2.2 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)............................................................................................................................ 246.1.3 Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................................................24

6.2 Voltage Stability............................................................................................................................ 256.2.1 Alternative 3.............................................................................................................................. 256.2.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)............................................................................................................................ 256.2.2 Alternative 4.............................................................................................................................. 256.2.2.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)............................................................................................................................ 256.2.3 Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................................................25

6.3 Transient Stability.........................................................................................................................256.3.1 Alternative 3.............................................................................................................................. 266.3.1.1 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP, Scenarios 4)................................................................................................266.3.1.2 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016 WP, Scenarios 5)..................................................................................................266.3.2 Alternative 4.............................................................................................................................. 266.3.2.1 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP, Scenarios 4)................................................................................................266.3.2.2 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016 WP, Scenarios 5)..................................................................................................266.3.3 Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................................................26

6.4 Motor Starting Analysis [as required]............................................................................................266.4.1 Motor Starting Results for Alternative 1....................................................................................28

6.5 Sub-Synchronous Studies Analysis..............................................................................................29

6.6 Sensitivity Studies [as required]....................................................................................................29

6.7 Effectiveness Factor Analysis [as required]..................................................................................29

7 MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................30

8 SHORT-CIRCUIT ANALYSIS...............................................................30

8.1 Pre-Project.................................................................................................................................... 31

8.2 Post-Project.................................................................................................................................. 31

9 PROJECT INTERDEPENDENCIES.........................................................32

10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...........................................................33



AttachmentsAttachment A Dynamic Data and Assumptions of All Equipment Proposed for Connection Attachment B Pre-Project Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment C Pre-Project Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment D Pre-Project Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX) Attachment E Alternative 1: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment F Alternative XX: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment G Alternative 1: Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment H Alternative XX: Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment I Alternative 1: Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment J Alternative XX: Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)Attachment K Motor Starting Analysis and DiagramsAttachment L Category B Loading and Voltage Performance Attachment M Generation/Load Effectiveness Factor (if necessary)Attachment N Power Flow Diagrams after Mitigation Measures

FiguresFigure 1-1: Existing Study Area Transmission System.......................................................................3Figure 6.4-1: Equivalent Circuit of Induction Motor...........................................................................28

TablesTable 1.2-1: Planned Central East Near-term Developments............................................................4Table 2.1-1: Post Contingency Voltage Deviation Guidelines............................................................6Table 2.2-1: List of the Connection Study Scenarios..........................................................................7Table 2.3-1: Forecast Area Load (201X LTO at AIL Peak).................................................................8Table 2.3-2: Local Generation (MW) in the Study Cases...................................................................9Table 2.3-3: Intertie Assumptions – Example.....................................................................................9Table 2.3-4: HVDC Power Order by Scenario..................................................................................10Table 2.4-1: Summary of System Projects Included in the Study Cases.........................................11Table 2.5-1: Summary of Customer Connection Assumptions.........................................................11Table 2.6-1: Summary of Transmission Line Ratings in the Study Area (MVA on 138 kV Base).....12Table 2.6-2: Summary of Transformer Ratings in the Study Area....................................................12Table 2.6-3: Summary of Shunt Elements in the Study Area (MVAr on 138 kV Base)....................13Table 2.8-1: Summary of Protection Fault Clearing Times...............................................................13Table 3.1-1: Summary of Studies Performed*..................................................................................15Table 4.1-1: Summary of System Performance (Element Loading) [2017SP Pre-Project N-G-1 Line Loading Above Rate A]..............................................................................................................................................20Table 6.1-1: Summary of System Performance (Element Loading) [Scenario 4- 2017 SP Post-Project N-G-1 Line Loading Above Rate A].....................................................................................................................24Table 6.1-2: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Range)....................................................24Table 6.1-3: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Deviation)................................................24Table 6.2-1: Scenario 4: 2016 WP– Voltage stability analysis results (Minimum transfer = 22.5 MW)25Table 6.3-1: Summary of Transient Instability..................................................................................26Table 6.4-1: Motor Nameplate and Calculated Data........................................................................27Table 6.4-2: Equivalent Circuit Data.................................................................................................28Table 6.4-3: Motor Starting Performance for Alternative 1...............................................................28Table 8.1-1: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX)..........................31Table 8.1-2: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed Connection + 10 Years])..............................................................................................................................................31Table 8.2-1: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX)........................31Table 8.2-2: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed Connection + 10 Years])..............................................................................................................................................31



1. IntroductionPresent a brief overview of the project using the headings provided. Note

If a subsection heading is not relevant to the project write "Not Applicable" under the heading in the first draft of the report submitted for AESO review. Such headings must be removed before submission of the final report.)

Acronym should be defined in the main body of the Engineering Study Report.

This Customer Connection Engineering Study Report (ESR) presents the results of the study conducted to analyze the recommended connection alternative of [Project Name] (the Project) to the Alberta Interconnected Electrical System (AIES).

1.1. Project

1.1.1. Project OverviewThis section is to describe the following: • Organization submitting SASR• SASR request (load DTS, gen STS, transformer add, breaker add, new POD, …) and why needed

(load growth, new load, new generator, DFO reliability – N-1, feeder loading, …)• location• Requested In-Service date

[Market Participant Legal Name (Market Participant Short Name)] has submitted a System Access Service Request (SASR) to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) for [Demand Transmission Service (DTS) and/or Supply Transmission Service (STS)] of [XXX] MW at [Project location, e.g., south of the City of Grande Prairie to serve oilfield loads] (the Project). The requested In-Service Date (ISD) for the Project is [Month, Day, Year of the In-Service date as per the SASR request].

1.1.2. Load ComponentDescribe the load component of the project. Include the following:• State existing Demand Transmission Service (DTS) if applicable. • State the requested DTS along with the anticipated power factor;• Describe the type of load either Residential, Rural, Commercial, Industrial, and/or Oil Sands(these

are the sectors identified in the LTO);

o Motor sizes if applicable

o Motor starting methods (Across-the-line vs Variable Frequency Drive)

• State the magnitude of the potential DTS that the Market Participant intends to apply for; and • Comment on possible future expansion plans and anticipated timing for such expansion.

Page 1AESO Protected with entered content


Below are two examples of the write up:[1. The requested load addition is 17.9 MW by August 17, 2016. 2. Load Type: Residential, rural, commercial, or light industrial services.3. DTS contract capacity at South Mayerthorpe 443S to remain at the existing level of 12.5 MW.4. Currently there is no plan for future expansion.5. The load will be studied assuming at 0.9 power factor (pf) lagging.]or[Current DTS is 14 MW. There will be an addition four 6600 HP motors with three in operation at any one time. All motors will have dedicated Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). The requested DTS increase is for an additional 25 MW for a total DTS 29 MW.]

1.1.3. Generation Component Describe the generation component of the project. Include the following:• State size of the generator(s) and estimated Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP) and Maximum

Capability (MC) levels;1 • Describe type of generator(s);• State estimated reactive power capability of the generator(s) when producing MARP. If this value

does not meet the generation interconnection standard specify the intended supplemental strategy. If available, provide maximum capability curve based on pf/temperature.

• State the potential magnitude of the Supply Transmission Service (STS) that the Market Participant intends to apply for and operate at when connected to the grid;

• State the seasonal generator capacity (if information available); • State station service load if applicable; and• Comment on possible future expansion plans and anticipated timing for such expansion; Below is an example of the write up:

[Market Participant Short Name plans to install a co-generation facility consisting of a single 85 MW (nominal) natural gas fuelled combustion turbine-generator. With the addition of this generator, Market Participant Short Name has requested an anticipated STS capacity of 85 MW.

1. Generators:

Designation Type Model

G1 Round Rotor GE 7A6

2. Supply Transmission Service (STS): 85 MW

3. Rated Nameplate Capacity: 93.9 MVA @ 0.85 pf, nominal

4. Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP): 100 MW

5. Maximum Capability (MC): 85 MW

6. Reactive Power Capability (preliminary): 48 MVar (0.9 pf lagging) / 33 Mvar (0.95 pf leading) at MARP,

1 Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP) and Maximum Capability (MC) are defined in the Consolidated Authoritative Document Glossary posted on the AESO website: https://www.aeso.ca/rules-standards-and-tariff/consolidated-authoritative-document-glossary/



https://www.aeso.ca/rules-standards-and-tariff/consolidated-authoritative-document-glossary/

https://www.aeso.ca/rules-standards-and-tariff/consolidated-authoritative-document-glossary/

7. The customer advised that there is no future expansion planned.]

1.2. Study Scope

1.2.1. Study Objectives The objective of the study is as follows:

1. Assess the impact of the Project connection on the AIES. 2. Evaluate the Project connection alternatives based on technical performance.3. Recommend the Project connection alternative and any mitigation measures to address

system performance concerns, if any, to enable the reliable integration of the Project into the AIES.

1.2.2. Study Area

1.2.2.1. Study Area DescriptionDefine and describe the Study Area. Include a diagram of the Study Area that clearly shows salient features such as transmission lines, substations, generating assets, and reactive elements in the area and indicates their voltage classes. In the Single Line Diagram (the Study Area diagram) show how the Study Area is connected to the rest of the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES). The Project is located in the AESO planning area of [AESO planning area, e.g., Grande Prairie (Area 20)], as part of [The AESO region, e.g., the AESO Northwest (NW) Region].

This section will then describe the Study Area and the ‘Overview of existing system’. Please describe the Key substations/lines in the Project area and intertie connection with neighbouring areas. Below is an example of the write up:

[The Study Area for the Project consisted of the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area 20) areas, including the tie lines connecting the two planning areas to the rest of the AIES. All transmission facilities within the two planning areas will be studied and monitored for violations of the Reliability Criteria (defined in Section 2.1.1). The five 144 kV transmission lines connecting the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas to the rest of the AIES (namely transmission lines 7L73, 7L32, 7L45, 7L46 and 7L40) will also be studied and monitored to identify any violations of the Reliability Criteria.The H.R. Milner generation facility, with connection to the H.R. Milner 740S substation, connects to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) through two 144 kV transmission lines: one is transmission line 7L20, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Big Mountain 845S substation in the Grande Prairie area; the other is transmission line 7L80, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Simonette 733S substation, which further connects to the Little Smoky 813S substation in the Valleyview planning area (Area 23) via the 144 kV transmission line 7L40. Figure 1-1 shows the existing study area transmission system.Figure 1-1: Existing Study Area Transmission System

Please add SLD here



1.2.2.2. Existing ConstraintsIf applicable, describe any known constraint(s) in the Study Area. Explain how the constraint(s) are managed. Discuss any Information Documents (IDs)/Authoritative Documents (ADs) presently applied in the area. Outline relevant existing manual or automatic Remedial Action Schemes (RASs) in the Study Area. Below is an example of the write up:[The existing constraints in [AESO Region where the Project is located, e.g., the Northwest Region] are managed in accordance with Section 302.1 of the ISO Rules, Real Time Transmission Constraint Management (TCM).]

1.2.2.3. AESO Long-Term Transmission Plans (LTP)

Describe the relevant AESO long-term transmission development plans for the Study Area and its vicinity (either approved NID System Projects or developments identified in the AESO’s most recently published Long Term Plan). List the anticipated in-service dates of those plans. Use a table. Discuss the known impact(s) of any delays in the AESO Long-term Transmission Plans (LTP) for the area on the project. Please specify if the AESO LTP topologies are included in the study scenarios here. Below is an example of the write up:[The AESO Central East sub-region near-term developments are listed in Table 1.2-1. These developments are part of the AESO’s 2015 Long-Term Transmission Plan. These components will not be considered in service unless triggered by the project or study results dictate.]

Table 1.2-1: Planned Central East Near-term DevelopmentsDescription

Add voltage reinforcement at Strome substation east of Camrose, Irish Creek substation north of Kitscoty and Whitby Lake substation near Vilna

Add new 240/144 kV substation near Vermilion Add new 240 kV line from Tinchebray substation northeast of Halkirk to new substation near

Vermilion energized at 144 kV Reconfigure 144 kV lines in vicinity of Vermilion to terminate at new substation Add new 240 kV line from Hansman Lake substation southeast of Hughenden to Edgerton

substation energized at 144 kV Rebuild 144 kV line from Vermilion to Irish Creek to higher capacity

1.2.3. Studies PerformedProvide a high-level summary of the system conditions (20XX WP for example) and the studies performed, such as analysis of the existing system before the connection and analysis of the system performance after the connection. Include the contingency categories applicable to the project. Below is an example. Please delete the bullets that are not relevant to the project:The following studies were performed in the connection study:• Load flow analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5), pre-Project and

post-Project conditions



• Voltage stability analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5), post-Project conditions

• Transient stability analysis (Category B, and selected Category C5), post-Project conditions• Motor starting analysis, post-Project conditions• Short-Circuit fault studies, pre-Project and post-Project conditions• In cases where transmission congestion is identified through the connection studies

conducted, the AESO will provide further direction on additional studies to identify mitigation measures for congestion management under system normal (N-0) and abnormal conditions (N-1).

1.2.4. Studies ExcludedProvide a high-level summary of the studies excluded. See below for an example:[The following studies were not performed in the connection study:• Load flow analysis (Category C)• Voltage stability analysis (Category C)• Transient stability analysis ( Category C)]

1.3. Report OverviewThe Executive Summary provides a high-level summary of the study and its conclusions. Section 1 introduces this engineering study report. Section 2 describes the reliability criteria, system data, and other study assumptions used in this study. Section 3 describes the methodology used for this study. Section 4 discusses the pre-Project assessment of the system. Section 4 presents all the connection alternatives contemplated. Section 6 provides a technical analysis of the connection alternatives considered for further study. Section 8 provides the results of the short-circuit analysis. Section 9 identifies any interdependencies this project may have. Section 10 presents the summary and conclusions of this study.

2. Criteria, System Data, and Study Assumptions

2.1Criteria, Standards, and Requirements

2.1.1 Transmission Planning Standards and Reliability Criteria

The Transmission Planning (TPL) Standards, which are included in the Alberta Reliability Standards, and the AESO’s Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions (Reliability Criteria)2 were applied to evaluate system performance under Category A system conditions (i.e., all elements in-service) and following Category B contingencies (i.e., single element outage) and selected Category C5 contingencies (i.e., double circuit common tower contingency), prior to and following the studied alternatives. Below is a summary of Category A 2 Please refer to Attachment A



and Category B system conditions as well as a summary of Category C5 system conditions. [NOTE: If Category C5 contingency assessment is not required, remove the reference to Category C5]

Category A, often referred to as the N-0 condition, represents a normal system with no contingencies and all facilities in service. Under this condition, the system must be able to supply all firm load and firm transfers to other areas. All equipment must operate within its applicable rating, voltages must be within their applicable range, and the system must be stable with no cascading outages.Category B events, often referred to as an N-1 or N-G-1 with the most critical generator out of service, result in the loss of any single specified system element under specified fault conditions with normal clearing. These elements are a generator, a transmission circuit, a transformer, or a single pole of a DC transmission line. The acceptable impact on the system is the same as Category A. Planned or controlled interruptions of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers, connected to or supplied by the faulted element or by the affected area, may occur in certain areas without impacting the overall reliability of the interconnected transmission systems. To prepare for the next contingency, system adjustments are permitted, including curtailments of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) transmission service electric power transfers.Category C5 events [NOTE: Category C wording may need to be adjusted on a project-by-project basis] results in loss of two circuits of a multiple circuit tower. All equipment must operate within its applicable rating, voltages must be within their applicable range, and the system must be stable with no cascading outages. For Category C5, the controlled interruption of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) transmission service electric power transfers may be necessary to maintain the overall reliability of the interconnected transmission systems.

The Alberta Reliability Standards include the Transmission Planning (TPL) standards that specify the desired system performance under different contingency categories with respect to the Applicable Ratings. The transmission system performance under various system conditions is defined in Appendix 1 of the TPL standards. For the purpose of applying the TPL standards to this study, the Applicable Ratings shall mean:

Seasonal continuous thermal rating of the line’s loading limits. Highest specified loading limits for transformers.

For Category A conditions: Voltage range under normal operating condition should follow the AESO Information Document ID# 2010-007RS. For the busses not listed in ID#2010-007RS, Table 2-1 in the Reliability Criteria applies.

For Category B and Category C5 conditions: The extreme voltage range values per Table 2-1 in the Reliability Criteria.

Desired post-contingency voltage change limits for three defined post event timeframes as provided in Error: Reference source not found.

Table 2.1-2: Post Contingency Voltage Deviation Guidelines



Parameter and reference point

Time PeriodPost Transient (up to 30 sec)

Post Auto Control (30 sec to 5 min)

Post Manual Control (Steady

State)Voltage deviation from steady state at

POD low voltage bus. ±10% ±7% ±5%

2.1.2 AESO Rules The AESO Voltage Control Practice ID # 2010-007RS will be applied to establish pre- contingency voltage profiles in the Study Area. The Section 302.1 of the ISO Rules, Real Time Transmission Constraint Management (TCM) will be followed in setting up the study scenarios and assessment of the impact of the Project connection. In addition, due regard will be given to the AESO’s Connection Study Requirements and the AESO’s Generation and Load Interconnection Standard.The Reliability Criteria is the basis for planning the AIES. The transmission system will normally be designed to meet or exceed the Reliability Criteria under credible worst-case loading and generation conditions.

2.1.3 Other Requirements Other AESO requirements to be applied when performing connection studies are outlined below:

if applicable Describe in detail the application of any other AESO requirements, criteria, standards, rules, practices, and guidelines (market or otherwise) when the connection studies were carried out. Use subsection headings that clearly identify the requirement being discussed or add another bullet.

2.2Study ScenariosOutline the scenarios (system conditions) studied and the study years. These scenarios should represent a range of potential system conditions, assumed loading conditions, and assumed generation dispatches sufficient to allow an analysis of the transmission system performance in the Study Area. The scenarios may include the following:• Low and high loading levels• Low and high generation levels• Interchange conditions (for example, high, medium, or low export from Alberta to British Columbia or

high, medium, or low import from British Columbia to Alberta)• Transmission flow variations, such as South of Keephills/Ellerslie/Genesee (SOK), Fort McMurray

transfer in and out, HVDC power order and other relevant area transfers

[Table 2.2-3 provides a list of the study scenarios. Scenarios 1 and 2 are the pre-Project scenarios for 2016 SP and WP. Scenarios 3 and 4 are the post-Project scenarios for 2016 SP and WP with the requested DTS 20 MW addition at the Thornton 2091S. A power factor of 0.9 lagging was used for the new Project load]

Table 2.2-3: List of the Connection Study Scenarios



ScenarioYear/

Season Load

Condition Project Load (MW)

Project Generation

(MW)

System Generation Dispatch

Conditions

1 2016 SP Pre-Project 0 0 High Wind, High Import

2 2016 WP Pre-Project 0 0 High Wind, High Import

3 2016 SP Post-Project 20 0

4 2016 WP Post-Project 20 0

2.3Load and Generation Assumptions

2.3.1 Load AssumptionsThe Study Area and Region load forecasts used for this connection study is shown in

and is from [The AESO Forecast specified in the Study Scope, e.g., the AESO 2014 Long-term Outlook (2014 LTO)]. In this study the active power to reactive power ratio in the base case scenarios was maintained when modifying the planning area loads.

Table 2.3-4: Forecast Area Load (201X LTO at AIL Peak)

Area or Region Name and SeasonForecast Peak Load (MW)2016 2018

Area 37 (Provost)SPWPSL

Central Region

SP

WP

SL

South Region

SP

WP

SL

AIL w/o Losses

SP

WP

SL

2.3.2 Generation AssumptionsDescribe the generation assumptions (including N-G) and the AESO forecast applied (e.g., 2014LTO). Present existing and future units for consideration in the project studies (local generators) and the dispatch level of each. Describe the notable features of the local generators, as required. Below is an example of the write up:[The generation conditions for this connection study are described in . The study identified the HR Milner Generator at H.R. Milner 740S substation as the critical generator and it is turned off



to represent the N-G study condition in the Grand Cache area for all analysis except for the short circuit analysis]

Table 2.3-5: Local Generation (MW) in the Study Cases

Existing/Future

Unit Nam

eBus

NumberAre

aPmax (MW)

20xx SL

Unit Net

Gener-ation3 (MW)

20xx SP

Unit Net

Gener-ation (MW)

20xx WPUnit Net

Gener-ation (MW)

20yy SL

Unit Net

Gener-ation (MW)

20yy SP

Unit Net

Gener-

ation (MW)

20yy WPUnit Net

Gener-ation (MW)

Existing Gen A … … …Gen B

#29 … … …

Gen C … … …

Gen D … … …

Future Gen E … … …

Total

2.3.3 Intertie Flow AssumptionsIndicate the assumptions regarding the intertie flow between Alberta and neighbouring jurisdictions. If Intertie flow is not a key assumption in a Connection project, please discard this section. Below are examples of the write up:[Intertie assumptions are included for the B.C., MATL, and Saskatchewan interties. Details on the assumptions can be found in Table 2.3-6.]or[The intertie points are deemed to be too far away to have an effect on the assessment of the proposed connection. The flows in the Study Area are not influenced by the AIES HVDC facilities. As a result, the intertie and HVDC assumptions are kept consistent with that in the AESO planning base cases and not adjusted for this study.]

Table 2.3-6: Intertie Assumptions – Example4

Case No. Year / Condition

IntertieImport (+)

/Export (-) to BC

Import (+) /Export (-) to

Saskatchewan


MATL

12016 SL

(Pre-Project) -1000 -150 0

22016 SP

(Pre- Project) 800 150 300

3 Unit Net Generation refers to Gross Generating unit MW output less Unit Service Load.4 Intertie assumption shall meet the AESO Available Transfer Capability and Transfer Path Management ID#2011-001R



Case No. Year / Condition

IntertieImport (+)

/Export (-) to BC


Saskatchewan


MATL

32016 WP

(Pre- Project) 800 150 300

42016 SL

(Post- Project) -1000 -150 0

52016 SP

(Post-Project) 800 150 300

62016 WP

(Post-Project) 480 150 300

72018 SL

(Post-Project) -800 -150 0

82018 SP

(Post- Project) 480 150 300

92018 WP

(Post- Project) 480 150 300

2.3.4 HVDC Power Order (if applicable)

In general, the majority of connections to the AIES will not require adjustment to the planned load flow order levels for the WATL and EATL HVDC links during studies. For major projects and where the scoped study scenarios require adjustments to the pre-set HVDC flow level provided by the AESO in the Base Cases, the AESO Planning Engineer will provide guidance as to the new flow settings and associated VAR adjustments as required. In these cases, below are examples of wording:[The power orders shown in Table 2.3-7 were assumed in this Study. HVDC dispatch aligns with the AESO’s planned HVDC operating procedures. Under some scenarios, EATL was dispatched to a higher power order in a South-to-North direction to reduce congestion on the Central East 138/144 kV existing transmission system. The pre-Project and post-Project dispatches were the same for each alternative.]or

[The HVDC power orders will be set based on the minimum loss per the assumptions in pre- and post-Project study scenarios.]

Table 2.3-7: HVDC Power Order by Scenario

Case No Scenario WATL5 (MW) EATL6 (MW)

1 2016 SL (Pre-Project) 475 N S7 Blocked

2 2016 SP (Pre- Project) 250 S N 450 S N

3 2016 WP (Pre- Project) 475 N S Blocked

4 2018 WP (Post- Project) 250 S N 800 S N

5 Western Alberta Transmission Line (the west HVDC line)6 Eastern Alberta Transmission Line (the east HVDC line)7 N S: HVDC flow direction is North to South S N: HVDC flow direction is South to North



2.4System ProjectsList the relevant transmission facilities that are not in service but were included in the study cases. Use a table. Briefly discuss any relevant information regarding system projects, such as developments proposed for each project. Below is an example of the write up:[Table 2.4-8 lists the system reinforcement subprojects that are part of CETD and that have been included in this study.]

Table 2.4-8: Summary of System Projects Included in the Study Cases

Project Subproject Subproject Name In-Service Date

P850 South and

West Edmonton Reinforce

ment

1 Harry Smith Sub

September 2017

2

New Saunders Lake 240/138kV Substation; re-terminate 910L, 914L, 780L & 858L at Saunders Lake; build lines between Nisku & proposed Saunders Lake; and reconfiguration of affected substations.

3 New 138kV Lines from 780L to Cooking Lake & 174L; and reconfiguration of affected substations

4 133L from Wabamun to 234L tap

5 New Capacitor Bank at Leduc 325S

2.5Customer Connection ProjectsList the relevant customer connection facilities that are not in the existing system but were included in the study cases. Use a table. Include relevant information such as size of the load and/or generation for each project. Below is an example of the write up:[The list of the customer projects included in the study is shown in Table 2.5-9]

Table 2.5-9: Summary of Customer Connection Assumptions

Planning Area

Queue Position*

Planned In-Service

DateProject Name Projec

t #Gen (MW)

Load(MW)

Included/Excluded from Studies

53 54 Jul. 2017 RESL McLaughlin WAGF 1500 47.0 1.0 Included

54 19 Apr. 2016 Lethbridge Chinook NW POD 1260 0 30.0 Included

55 Energized

Oct. 2014 Fortis Spring Coulee Upgrade 1338 0 2.0 Included

55 57 Feb. 2017

BowArk Energy Drywood Power Gas Plant 1522 18.6 1.0 Excluded

* Per the AESO Connection Queue posted in December 2015.

Provide any other relevant information for each project, such as whether it has already been approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC).



2.6Facility Ratings and Shunt ElementsInclude tables that show the facility ratings for key existing and proposed equipment rated XX kV and above and any other relevant equipment ratings. Show only the most important equipment. Below is an example of the write up:

[The Transmission Facility Owner (TFO) provided the ratings of the existing transmission lines (Table 2.6-10) and the existing transformers (

Error: Reference source not found) in the Study Area.]Table 2.6-10: Summary of Transmission Line Ratings in the Study Area (MVA on 138 kV Base)

Line ID Line DescriptionVoltage Class (kV)

Nominal Rating (MVA)

Short-term8

Rating (MVA)Summer Winter Summer Winter

7L84 Flyingshot 749S – Crystal 722S 138 142.8 142.8 180 181

7L03 Flyingshot 749S – Elmworth 731S 138 109.3 139 123.6 150.5

7L68 Clairmont Lake 811S – Rycroft 730S 138 94.9 CT9 94.9 CT 94.9 CT 94.9

CT

Table 2.6-11: Summary of Transformer Ratings in the Study Area

Substation Name and Number Transformer ID Transformer Voltages (kV) MVA Rating

Battle River 757S 912T 240/144 224

Battle River 757S 701T 144/72 75

Nevis 766S 901T 240/144 100

Nevis 766S 701T 144/72/25H-M: 33.3X-M: 33.3Y-M: 16.6

List the shunt elements in the Study Area, including shunt element size and status. Use a table. Present all assumptions made regarding the shunt elements, such as whether they were switched on or off in the studies. Below is an example of the write up:

[The details of shunt elements in the Study Area are given in .]

8 When line loading in post Category B contingency is observed to exceed nominal rating and is less than the Short-term (emergency) rating, it is assumed that AESO and TFO operating practices can manage the constraint within the time requirements of TFO short time (emergency) rating.9 The limitation factor for the line rating is due to a current transformer.



Table 2.6-12: Summary of Shunt Elements in the Study Area (MVAr on 138 kV Base)

Substation Name and Number

Voltage Class (kV)

Capacitors Reactors

Number of Switched

Shunt Blocks

Total at Nomina

l Voltage (MVAr)

Status in Study

(on or off)Number of Switched

Shunt Blocks

Total at Nominal Voltage (MVAr)

Status in Study

(on or off)2017SP

(MVAr)

2017WP

(MVAr)

2017SP

(MVAr)

2017WP

(MVAr)

Hardisty 377S 1381 x 27 MVAr

1 x 44.9 MVAr71.9 27

(on)27

(on) - - - -

Tucuman 478S 138 1 x 27.17 MVAr 27.17 (off) (off) - - - -

Hill 751S 1381 x 20 MVAr

1 x 25 MVAr45

45 (both on)

45 (both on)

- - - -

2.7Dynamic Data and AssumptionsDynamic data and Assumption including motor composition information will be a part of Attachment section. Below is an example of the write up:[Dynamic data and assumptions including motor composition information are provided in Attachment A. Dynamic data for the Project is based on the submitted stage 2 Project Data Update Package (PDUP-2).

2.8Protection Fault Clearing TimesList the fault clearing times used for the transient stability analysis. Use a table. When providing near-end and far-end fault clearing times, include different directions with the clearing times only when the clearing times are not the same for faults at each end. Indicate if the fault clearing time assumptions have been verified by the Transmission Facility Owner (TFO). Below is an example of the write up:

[Fault clearing times for existing facilities were provided by TFO and are listed in Table 2.8-13.]

Table 2.8-13: Summary of Protection Fault Clearing Times

LineNominal

Bus Voltage

(kV)

Terminal Location

Faulted Locatio

n

Total Clearing Time State if it is

calculated (actual) or estimated (generic)Faulted

Location

Terminal 1

Terminal 2

Terminal 3

Terminal 1

Terminal 2

Terminal 3

9Lxx 240 SUB 1S SUB 2S SUB 3S

SUB 1S 6 7 8 actual

SUB 2S 6 7 8 generic

SUB 3S 6 7 9 generic



2.9Voltage Profile AssumptionsPlease keep the following description unless any change is required.

The AESO Voltage Control Practice ID # 2010-007RS is used to establish normal system (i.e. pre-contingency) voltage profiles for key area busses prior to commencing any studies. Table 2-1 of the Reliability Criteria applies for all the busses not included in the ID 2010-007RS. These voltages were utilized to set the voltage profile for the study base cases prior to load flow analysis.

2.10 Motor Starting AssumptionsThe section is to evaluate the potential impacts of motor starting operation on the surrounding system. The customer must provide details of study assumptions (including how frequent the motor starts and then find the voltage dip percentage for different voltage levels), motor model, and software used to perform the studies. Also the type of motor starting equipment and/or starting methodology that would be implemented must be specified. If Motor starting analysis is no longer required, remove the subsection – The example below assumes that VFD will be installed with across the line staring capability as backup. If the Market Participant confirms that the motors in the Project will not start motors across the line, Motor starting analysis is no longer required.Below is an example of the write up for motor starting assumption portion:

[The following assumptions were used in conducting motor starting analysis:

The transient voltage dip at the 138 kV transmission bus should not exceed 5% when starting a single motor.

The motors will not start simultaneously. Only one motor will be allowed to start in VFD bypass mode while the other motors are running at full load.]



3 Study Methodology

3.1 Connection Studies Carried Out The studies to be carried out for this connection study were identified in Error: Reference source not found:Please delete the rows that are not applicable to the Project.

Table 3.1-14: Summary of Studies Performed*

Scenario and Condition

Project 1234

System ConditionsLoad Flow10

Voltage

Stability9

Transient

Stability9

Motor Startin

g9

Short-

circuit11

Load

(MW)

Genera-tion (MW)

1 2016 SP Pre-project 0 0 Category A and Category B X

2 2016 WP Pre-Project 0 0 Category A and Category B X X

3 2016 SP Post-Project 20 0 Category A and Category B X

4 2016 WP Post-Project 20 0 Category A and Category B X X X X X

3.2 Load Flow AnalysisEach project has different loadflow analysis methodology based on Study Area characteristics and study assumptions. Please describe the methodology used in the loadflow analysis in this section. If any abnormal thermal loadings (above 100% thermal loading) are observed, perform Category B load flow analysis on the identified contingencies by stepping Transformer tap adjustment. The identified abnormal thermal loadings are still observed, it should be addressed in the load flow results.Below is an example of the write up:

[Load flow analysis will be completed for all study scenarios to identify any thermal or transmission voltage violations as per the Reliability Criteria. Transformer tap and switched shunt reactive compensation devices such as shunt capacitors and reactors will be locked and continuous shunt devices will be enabled when performing Category B load flow analysis. POD low voltage bus deviations will also be assessed by first locking all tap changers and area capacitors to identify any post-transient voltage deviations above 10%. Tap changers will then be allowed to adjust, while shunt reactive compensating devices remained locked; to determine if any voltage deviations above 7% would occur in the area. Once all taps and shunt reactive compensating devices have been adjusted, voltage deviations above 5% will be reported, for both the pre-Project and post-Project networks.]

10 The critical generator identified for this study was [Name N-G unit, e.g., the H.R. Milner unit]. 11 Only Category A with all generators on.



3.2.1 Contingencies StudiedLoad flow analysis was performed for the Category A condition and all Category B contingencies in [the Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area 20) planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.

3.3 Voltage Stability (PV) AnalysisIf this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.The objective of the Power-Voltage (PV) curve is to determine the ability of the network to maintain voltage stability at all the busses in the system under normal and abnormal system conditions. The PV curve is a representation of voltage change as a result of increased power transfer between two systems. The reported incremental transfers will be to the collapse point. As per the AESO requirements, no assessment based upon other criteria such as minimum voltage will be made at the PV minimum transfer. Voltage stability analysis for post-connection scenarios will be performed. For load connection projects, the load level modelled in post-connection scenarios are the same or higher than in pre-connection scenarios. Therefore, voltage stability analysis for pre-connection scenarios will only be performed if post-Project scenarios show voltage stability criteria violations.

Voltage stability (PV) analysis will be performed according to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Voltage Stability Assessment Methodology. The voltage stability criteria states, for load areas, post-transient voltage stability is required for the area modeled at a minimum of 105% of the reference load level for system normal conditions (Category A) and for single contingencies (Category B). For this standard, the reference load level is the maximum established planned load.

Typically, voltage stability analysis is carried out assuming the worst case scenarios in terms of loading. The voltage stability analysis was performed by increasing load in [Study Areas, e.g., the Grande Prairie and Grande Cache Areas (AESO planning areas 20 and 22, respectively)], and increasing the corresponding generation in the following AESO Planning Areas:

[Source area, e.g., the Wabamun planning area (Area 40)] [Source area] [Source area]

As per the voltage stability criteria, post transient techniques (all tap changers, all discrete capacitors locked, but SVCs will be allowed to adjust) will used in applying the criteria and this information is reflected in all tables and graphs. Also for this analysis, no limits will be selected for the generation sources, non-negative active power constant MVA loads will be enforced and the existing power factor for the reference will be maintained.



3.3.1 Contingencies StudiedVoltage stability analysis was performed for the Category A condition and all Category B contingencies in [Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area 20) planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.

3.4 Transient Stability AnalysisIf this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.Transient stability analysis will be performed following the post-Project scenarios using [Study scenarios, e.g., the 2017 SL and 2017 SP scenarios].Stability plots for [State Monitoring quantities , e.g., bus voltage, machine relative angle and active and reactive power outputs.etc] for all available generation units in [Study Area, e.g., the Cold Lake (Area 28) planning area] are provided. [State reference generator, e.g., Genesee #1] will be used as the system reference.

3.4.1 Contingencies StudiedTransient stability analysis was performed for the Category A condition and all Category B contingencies in [Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area 20) planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.

3.5 Short-Circuit AnalysisShort-circuit analysis was performed for [Study scenarios, e.g., the 2016 WP pre Project scenario and 2016 WP and 2025 WP post-Project scenarios] to determine the short-circuit levels in the vicinity of the Project. The short-circuit analysis includes three phase and single line to ground faults. Fault levels are provided in the form of currents in kilo amperes and per unit positive and zero sequence impedances.

3.6 Motor Starting AnalysisIf this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.This section is to describe the study methodology of motor starting analysis. Below is an example of the write up:

[Motor starting analysis will be performed for the proposed motors under system normal (Category A) conditions and worst case contingencies identified in the voltage stability and power flow analyses. The analysis considered the starting of one motor, with its Variable Frequency Driver (VFD) out of service, while the other motors will be running at full load.]



3.7 Sub-Synchronous Studies [as required]

3.7.1 Sub-Synchronous Torsional Interaction Study (SSTI) 12

This study and analysis will be required when there is a concern of sub-synchronous torsional interaction between turbine-generator units and the nearby HVDC.

3.7.2 Sub-Synchronous Resonance (SSR) and Sub-Synchronous Control Interaction (SSCI) Studies

Studies and analyses will be required when there is a concern of sub-synchronous resonance between turbine-generator units and the nearby serious capacitor compensated AC transmission lines. Studies are also required when there is a potential sub-synchronous control interaction (SSCI) between the wind farms, particularly the DFIG (Type III), and series capacitor compensated lines or a nearby HVDC terminal. The AESO, TFO or the Consultant will identify the need for SSR or SSCI studies.

3.8 Effectiveness Factor Analysis Studies [as required]

Effectiveness factor analysis studies are carried out to determine the generator/load effectiveness factors and identify the most effective generator/load(s) to be curtailed in order to mitigate the thermal violations observed following some Category B contingencies in the Study Area.

3.9 Sensitivity Studies [as required]

Describe the methodology used for any other studies carried out. Use a separate heading for each study. The headings should match the headings used in section 2.2. Include the intent, the assumptions, and any relevant discussions regarding the study methodology. Use a table.

3.10Mitigation MeasuresIf study results indicate transmission constraints associated with or exacerbated by the project addition, modification to existing procedures and/or Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) or addition of new procedures and/or RAS may be required.

The Studies Consultant must identify those anticipated constraints in a timely manner to the AESO as they arise. The AESO Planning Engineer will guide the Studies Consultant to;

- List study results in the constraint table in Attachment N.

12 Detailed ‘Process for SSTI Studies and Mitigation-protection’ between HVDC and Thermal Turbine-generators is published at https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/process-for-SSTI-studies-and-mitigation-protection.docx. Further SSTI studies documents will be published to the AESO website accordingly.



https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/process-for-SSTI-studies-and-mitigation-protection.docx

- If N-0 overloads are observed in the post connection system, develop generation or load effectiveness factor tables based on identified thermal constraints for N-0 system.

- Develop generation or load effectiveness factor13 tables based on identified thermal constraints under Category B contingencies.

- Identify the components of the AESO system development plan which will alleviate the identified constraint.

- Propose adjustments to the original preliminary connection alternatives to avoid proposing permanent RAS for Category B contingencies.

- Study and propose possible modifications to existing RAS to ensure coordination of proposed protection additions with the existing schemes.

- Study and propose new temporary RAS required to ensure system reliability until such time the planned system reinforcements are in place.

- Proper study scenarios with the planned system reinforcements will be studied to reflect removal of the identified constraints and the temporary nature of the RAS.

The AESO Planning Engineer will closely work with the Consultant and guide the development and/or modifications of the proposed RAS to ensure system reliability, security and compliance with AESO system access business practices.

4 Pre-Project System Assessment

4.1 Pre-Project Load Flow Analysis For each scenario, report and discuss the load flow analysis results. If any violation appears, please include tables that summarize the results with respect to thermal overloads, voltage violation and deviations. Describe the results of the contingency categories that were analyzed. Present the results for each scenario separately. In the appropriate attachments, include load flow diagrams that provide a general representation of the overall Study Area.

4.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP)

Provide the results for all system conditions and contingencies considered, as outlined in Section 3 (Category A, Category B, and Category C5 analysis). Summarize the thermal overload results based on a 100% seasonal static thermal rating (specify the season). Use a table as the example tables below. In the appropriate attachment sections, include load flow diagrams that encompass a general representation of the overall Study Area. For each scenario, include a diagram that shows generator output, the switched shunts, and the SVCs, as appropriate, in the attachment to this section.Below is an example of the write up for load flow analysis portion:

13 Effectiveness factor analysis is carried out to determine the generator/load effectiveness factors which are used to estimate the ability of each generator/load to relieve transmission element constraints. A generator/load’s effectiveness factor is defined as the change in power flow over a specific line following a change in the generator’s output power/ the load. As such, the larger the generator/load effectiveness factor the more helpful it can be in alleviating a thermal violation on the transmission line associated to it.



[No criteria violations for the Category A condition were found. No thermal or voltage violations for the selected Category C5 contingencies were found.No transmission voltage criteria violations for the Category B contingencies were found. Transmission line flows above the short-term summer rating (Rate A) were identified for the Category B contingency as shown in Table 4.1-15. 749L contingency leaves 7L130 to radially feed the area load which causes a slight overload on this line. Please refer to Attachment B for pre-Project load flow diagram.]

Table 4.1-15: Summary of System Performance14 (Element Loading) [2017SP Pre-Project N-G-1 Line Loading Above Rate A]

Contingency Limiting Branch

Continuous Line

Rating (MVA)

Short-term Rating (MVA)

Pre-Project

Load Flow15 (MVA)

% Loading16

749L (Metiskow 267S – Edgerton 899S)

7L130 (Vermilion 710S- Kitscoty 705S) 72 72 72.1 100.1

4.2 Pre-Project Voltage Stability Analysis [as required]

Use Power Voltage (PV) curves and tables to show the critical steady state voltage stability analysis results. For each scenario, provide complete information regarding any Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5 analyses carried out and the outcomes of each. Present the results for each scenario separately. If any constraints are identified, AESO will advise the study consultant if these constraint(s) has previously been identified in other studies done by or for the AESO. If so, specify how the constraints are currently managed. In the appropriate attachment sections, include voltage stability diagrams.

4.3 Pre-Project Transient Stability Analysis [as required]

Discuss the main study outcomes of the transient stability analysis. The complete transient stability diagrams should be included in an attachment. This section, please use tables to show summarize results of all Category A, Category B and Category C5 contingencies examined. If any constraints are identified, AESO will advise the study consultant if these constraint(s) has previously been identified in other studies done by or for the AESO. If so, specify how the constraints are currently managed. In the appropriate attachment sections, include transient stability diagrams.

14 All line flows of load flow analysis are reported as percentage loading relative to normal line rating as shown in Table 2.6-10.15 Load flow (MVA) is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x Vbase x Iactual)16 % loading is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x Vbase x Iactual)



5 Connection Alternatives

5.1 OverviewSection 5 is to list all the conceptual connection alternatives considered. Please refer to the alternative section in the signed study scope. If any additional alternatives were added during the studies, please include the additional alternatives and explain why the alternatives were proposed. Below is an example of the write up:[The DFO examined and ruled out the use of distribution-based solutions to serve the load additions17. This engineering study report examined four transmission alternatives to serve the Project, as detailed in Section 5.2.]

5.2 Connection Alternatives IdentifiedDescribe each connection alternative separately. For each alternative, include a connection diagram that shows the main transmission network in the Study Area post-connection. Provide single-line diagrams (SLDs) for the proposed facilities. The connection diagrams and proposed facilities SLDs can be presented in the appropriate attachment. Below is an example of the write up:

[Four alternatives were examined in this report. A description of the developments associated with each alternative is provided below.

Alternative 1: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing transmission line [Line name] via an in/out connection configuration.

Alternative 2: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing transmission line [Line name] via a T-tap connection configuration.

Alternative 3: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD to the existing transmission line [Line name] via a radial connection configuration to the existing [substation name and number].

Alternative 4: Upgrade the capacity at the existing [Substation Name and number] substation and shift load to neighboring [Substation Name and number] substation.

The line length of each alternative will be subject to change after line routing by TFO.]

5.2.1 Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies

Please address which Alternatives are selected for this Project.[Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were selected for further study.]

17 The DFO’s report detailing this analysis is included in section [YY] of the [DFO Legal Name] Distribution Deficiency Report, [DDR Report Title], which is filed under a separate cover.



5.2.2 Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies

Please state the rationale for ruling out the Alternatives.If available,

Refer to the DFO’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR) Address Market Participant (MP)’s preference (including cost estimates) Specify Transmission Facility Owners (TFOs)’s position on any possible limitation/constraints that

would result in ruling out a specific alternative. Below is an example of the write up:[Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require greater transmission development and were not selected for further studies. Alternative 3: In addition to adding a new POD and converting the existing T-tap connection configuration of Dome Cutbank 810S to an in/out connection configuration, ATCO has advised that Alternative 3 involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the 25 kV and 144 kV busses, and mitigation of substation outages. ATCO has also advised that the existing Dome Cutbank 810S substation is constrained on all sides. Therefore, Alternative 3 involves relocating the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new greenfield site to accommodate the transmission developments. Alternative 4: Alternative 4 involves upgrading the existing Dome Cutbank 810S substation, including either (i) adding two 144 kV breakers and replacing the two existing 144/25 kV 10/13 MVA transformers and one voltage regulator with two 144/25 kV transformers of a higher capacity, or (ii) adding one 144 kV breaker and a 144/25 kV 30/40/50 MVA LTC transformer. ATCO has advised that Alternative 4 also involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the 25 kV and 144 kV busses, and mitigation of substation outages. As with Alternative 3, this transmission alternative involves relocating the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new greenfield site to accommodate the transmission developments.]

6 Technical Analysis of the Connection Alternatives

Using the structure below, detail the results of the studies carried out for each connection alternative. Exclude any subsection that does not apply to the connection studies.If criteria violations were observed based on the study results for Alternatives, investigate and propose the needed mitigation method(s) -in consultation with AESO- to alleviate or manage the condition(s). System performance issues may include, for example, the following: • Thermal loading violations of transformers based on 100% static seasonal thermal rating • Thermal loading of lines exceeding 100% nominal seasonal thermal rating and less than TFO

declared short-term seasonal rating which would require real time operation adjustments.• Thermal loading of lines exceeding TFO declared short-term seasonal rating which would be

managed by the remedial action scheme or by procedure in curtailing load or generation in pre contingency or by re-configuration.

• Voltage levels and deviations beyond the allowed levels indicated in the AESO Transmission Reliability Criteria.



• Inadequate Voltage stability margin. • Transient instability

6.1 Load Flow For each scenario, report and discuss the load flow analysis results by comparing Alternatives. If any violation(s) are observed, please include tables that summarize the results with respect to thermal overloads, voltage violations, and deviations. Describe the results of the contingency categories that were analyzed. Present the results for each scenario separately. In the appropriate attachments, include load flow diagrams that provide a general representation of the overall Study Area.

6.1.1 Alternative 3Below is an example of the write up:[The following is a summary of the Alternative 3 load flow analysis.]

6.1.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016SP, Scenario 4)

Provide the results for all system conditions and contingencies considered, as outlined in Section 3 (Category A, Category B, and Category C5 analysis). Summarize any observed thermal overload results based on a 100% seasonal static thermal rating (specify the season). Use a table as the example tables below. In the appropriate attachment sections, include load flow diagrams that encompass a general representation of the overall Study Area. For each scenario, include a diagram that shows generator output, the switched shunts, and the SVCs, as appropriate, in the attachment to this section.Below is an example of the write up:[Category A:

No criteria violations for the Category A condition were found in this scenario. Category B:

Marginal thermal violations on the 138 kV line 174L between Bardo 197S to North Holden 395S were observed following the loss of the 912L/9L912 from Red Deer 63S to Nevis 766S in Table 6.1-16. The 174L thermal loading under the loss of the 912L/9L912 was only identified in the 2016 SP post-Project scenario

Error: Reference source not found for the Category B voltage criteria violations identified. Voltage criteria violations were observed following the loss of the transmission line designated as 7L228. The violations were observed at the H.R Milner 740S substation.

Following the loss of 7L40 (Little Smoky 813S to Simonette 733S) a minor post-transient deviation of 10.5% at the Simonette 733S POD bus in

Error: Reference source not found; this is marginally higher than the 10% guideline. The TFO and DFO have confirmed that such marginal voltage deviation does not impose any operational restriction.

The load flow diagrams are shown in Attachment E and F. The possible mitigation measures to alleviate theses loadings are provided in Attachment L and the associated Generation/Load Effectiveness factor tables under thermal constraint lines under Category



B contingencies are provided in Attachment M. The load flow diagrams after mitigation measures’ actions are provided in Attachment N.]

Table 6.1-16: Summary of System Performance18 (Element Loading) [Scenario 4- 2017 SP Post-Project N-G-1 Line Loading Above Rate A]

Contingency Limiting Branch

Continuous LineRating (MVA)

Short-term

Rating (MVA)

Pre- Project Post- Project%

Loading Differ-ence

Load Flow

19(MVA)%

Loading20

Load Flow

(MVA)%

LoadingPost-Pre

912L\9L912 (Red 63S Deer to Nevis

766S)

174L (Bardo 197S to North Holden 395S)

85.0 94.0 57.0 67.0 89.1 104.8 37.8

Table 6.1-17: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Range)

ContingencySubstation Name and Number

Bus No.

Nominal kV

Emergency Minimum Voltage

(kV)

Emergency Maximum Voltage

(kV)

Initial Voltage

(kV)

Steady State (kV)

7L228 (Big Mountain 845S to Thornton 2091S)

H.R Milner 740S 1147 144 130 155 143.4 112.7

Table 6.1-18: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Deviation)

ContingencySubstation Name and Number

Bus No.

Nominal kV

Initial Voltage

(kV)

Voltage Deviations for POD Busses Only

Post Transient

(kV)%

ChangePost Auto (kV)

% Change

Post Manual

(kV)%

Change

7L40 (Little Smoky 813S to Simonette

733S)

Simonette 733S 19170 25 25.9 23.3 10.5 -- -- -- --

18 All line flows of load flow analysis are reported as percentage loading relative to normal line rating as shown in Table 2.6-10.19 Load flow (MVA) is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x Vbase x Iactual)20 % loading is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x Vbase x Iactual)



6.1.1.2 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)

6.1.2 Alternative 4

6.1.2.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016SP, Scenario 4)


6.1.3 Comparison of AlternativesCompare the load flow results amoung selected Alternatives.

6.2 Voltage StabilityPresent the critical voltage stability results using tables. Provide the complete study results regarding the Category A, Category B, and Category C5 events studied. Present the voltage stability analysis results for each scenario separately. Discuss the study results in this section and include the corresponding PV curves diagrams in the appropriate attachment.

6.2.1 Alternative 3


Provide explanation to clarify the study results and conclusions, as appropriate. Include any var support devices required to alleviate voltage instability or voltage collapse. Below is an example of the write up for voltage stability analysis portion:

[Voltage stability analysis was performed for the 2016 WP scenario. The reference load level for the Grande Prairie area and Grande Cache area (AESO Planning Areas 20 and 22) is 449.1 MW.

The minimum incremental load transfer for the Category B contingencies is 5.0% of the reference load or 22.5 MW to meet the voltage stability criteria (0.05 x 449.1 MW = 22.5 MW).

summarizes the voltage stability results for Category A and the worst contingencies for voltage stability transfer margins. The voltage stability diagrams are shown in Attachment G and H]

Table 6.2-19: Scenario 4: 2016 WP– Voltage stability analysis results (Minimum transfer = 22.5 MW)



Contingency From ToMaximum

incremental transfer (MW)

Meets 105% transfer criteria?

N-G System Normal 73.8 Yes

7L46 Little Smoky 813S Big Mountain 845S 30.6 Yes7L73 Rycroft 730S Friedenstal 800S 38.1 Yes

6.2.2 Alternative 4


6.2.3 Comparison of AlternativesCompare Voltage Stability results amoung selected Alternatives.

6.3 Transient StabilityPresent the transient stability analysis results for each scenario separately and include the corresponding transient stability result diagrams in the appropriate attachment. Below is an example of the write up for transient stability analysis portion:

6.3.1 Alternative 3

6.3.1.1 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP, Scenarios 4)

[Transient stability analysis shows well damped responses with no stability concerns. Table 6.3-20 shows all the contingencies that were studied. The transient stability results are provided in Attachment I and J.

Transient Stability analysis was not conducted for the pre-Project study scenarios because transient stability analysis results for the post-Project scenarios demonstrated system stability without any stability concerns.]

Table 6.3-20: Summary of Transient InstabilitySystem

Condition Contingency Fault Description (fault location) Figure #

Category B (N-1)1001L

(sub A to sub B)

Fault Location (ex Sub A)



6.3.1.2 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016 WP, Scenarios 5)

6.3.2 Alternative 4

6.3.2.1 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP, Scenarios 4)

6.3.2.2 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016 WP, Scenarios 5)

6.3.3 Comparison of AlternativesCompare the transient stability results amoung selected Alternatives.

6.4 Motor Starting Analysis [as required]

If the MP has confirmed that the motors will not start with VFD, then motor starting analysis will not be required. Present the motor starting analysis results by using “across-the-line” starting of the motors at the proposed substation. Please list the nameplate data of the proposed motors in a table. Specify equivalent circuit diagram and corresponding data (parameter). Below is an example of the write up for motor starting analysis portion:

[Motor starting analysis was performed to assess the feasibility of the “across-the-line” starting of the 7,000 HP motors at the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation. Although Enbridge has indicated that Variable Frequency Drivers (VFDs) will be used to start the motors, the analysis assesses the voltage dip at the transmission busses in the case of a VFD failure (VFD by-pass condition) and to determine if starting restrictions would be imposed.

Motor starting analysis was conducted for the start-up of a single motor with all other motors in the station already running at full load. All four motors were supplied by one 138/6.9 kV, 25/33 MVA transformer. The 2017 WP post-Project scenario was used in the analysis. The analysis was based on the dynamic analysis method in PSS/E 33. ]

Table 6.4-21 shows the nameplate data of the 7,000 HP induction motors.

Table 6.4-21: Motor Nameplate and Calculated Data

Motor Rating ValueRated power 7,000 HPRated voltage 6,600 VRated current 516 ARated speed 1780 rpmRated torque 20,676 lb-ft

Nominal power factor 0.92



Motor Rating ValueNominal efficiency 0.964

Moment of inertia (motor) 4667 lb-ft2

Moment of inertia (Driven Machine) 400 lb-ft2

Locked-rotor torque 75.7%Breakdown torque 196.2%

Locked-rotor current 650%MVA base 5.889 MVA

Rated motor speed pu 0.9889Driven machine torque pu @ n=ns 0.8

H (combined motor and driven machine) 0.6297

Figure 6.4-2 shows the equivalent circuit that was used to model the motors.Figure 6.4-2: Equivalent Circuit of Induction Motor

Ra La

Lm R1

R2

L2

L1

S

S

Table 6.4-22 lists the equivalent circuit parameters.

Table 6.4-22: Equivalent Circuit Data

Equivalent Circuit Parameter Value in Per Unit

Ra 0.037La 0.071Lm 3.4R1 0.025L1 0.07R2 0.0195L2 0.024



6.4.1 Motor Starting Results for Alternative 1 Please provide the motor starting results in a table. Below is an example of the write up for motor starting results portion:

[Motor starting analysis was conducted for the 2017 WP post-Project Alternative 1 configuration. The analysis was conducted under system normal Category A and critical contingency conditions extracted from the power flow analysis. Table 6.4-23 shows the summary for Alternative 1.

Table 6.4-23: Motor Starting Performance for Alternative 1

Contingencies

SubstationCategory A

(N-0)

Category B(N-1)

681L (From Hardisty 377S to Tucuman

478S)

Category C5 (N-2)

679L and 680L (From Nilrem 574S to Tucuman

478S)

… …

Substation A

Nominal Bus Voltage (kV) 138 138 138

Before Motor Start (kV) 142.83 129.38 129.38

After Motor Start (kV) 139.66 123.86 123.86

Voltage Dip (kV) 3.17 5.52 5.52

% Voltage Dip 2.22 4.27 4.27

Substation B

Nominal Bus Voltage (kV) … .. ..

Before Motor Start (kV)

After Motor Start (kV)

Voltage Dip (kV)

% Voltage Dip

The motor starting results show that the voltage dip caused by “across-the-line” motor starting at Substation A and B 138 kV busses are below 5% under both system normal and contingency conditions. The simulation results suggest that the impact on the voltage due to “across-the-line”



starting of one motor is acceptable. The induction motor curves and the voltages at Substation A and B busses are provided in Attachment K.]

6.5 Sub-Synchronous Studies AnalysisThe AESO will provide detailed guidance if sub-synchronous studies are required.

6.6 Sensitivity Studies [as required]

Discuss the results obtained from all sensitivity tests carried out to determine the robustness of the study conclusions.

6.7 Effectiveness Factor Analysis [as required]

Describe the analysis carried out to determine the generator/load effectiveness factors which are used to estimate the ability of each generator/load to relieve transmission element constraints. The effectiveness factor is defined as the proportional change in MW over a specific line as a result of a change in the generator’s output power or the load to be supplied. As such, the larger the generator/load effectiveness factor the more helpful it can be in alleviating a thermal violation on the transmission line associated with that particular effectiveness factor. The results of the effectiveness factor analysis are presented in detail in Attachment M.

7 Mitigation MeasuresThis section summarizes the mitigation measures identified in Section 6. If any constraints are identified, AESO will advise the study consultant if any constraints are identified. Please make sure to check and answer the following questions.

1. Is it the existing constraint and captured in pre-Project scenarios? If so, please describe how the addition of the Project worsen or improve a pre-existing condition? Also specify how the existing constraints are currently managed.

2. If this is not a previously identified constraint in the Study Area, will AESO and the consultant identify solutions for mitigating the identified constraints?

Demonstrate the generation/load effectiveness (depending on the Project) of the proposed mitigation methods using the study results. Use tables and figures where possible. Include any explanations required to clarify the study outcome and conclusions. Below is an example of the write up:

[The steady state analysis showed N-1 thermal violations for the studied 2017 scenarios. Operational measures will be utilized to alleviate line loadings above continuous loading limit and below emergency rating. Loadings beyond emergency rating will be mitigated by the existing RAS already in service, RASs specified for the other projects connections, and proposed new connection RASs. The application of these RASs in alleviating the thermal violations is demonstrated in Attachment L and the associated power flow diagrams after mitigation measures are shown in Attachment N. The corresponding Generation/Load Effectiveness factor tables under thermal constraint lines under Category B contingencies are provided in Attachment M.



AESO will specify new RASs in the Functional Specifications for the EON and Mainstream Wainwright WAGFs to include the additional needed functionality and equipment.

Several thermal violations were observed for double circuit Category C5 contingencies. These existing violations will be mitigated by the real-time measures.]

8 Short-Circuit AnalysisFor load and generator connection, all the generators in the Study Area should be on-line. Include the short-circuit analysis for the preferred alternative amoung the listed alternatives in Section 5.2. If connection alternatives will impact short-circuit current, provide the results, include the short-circuit analysis for the studied alternative. Explain if the short-circuit current levels21 would not be materially changed or not.

Highlight the short circuit current levels which are above 90% of equipment rating. Market participants can approach the AESO for advice with respect to long-term anticipated short circuit levels and can collaborate with the AESO on a system-based solution if a more locally-based solution cannot solve it.

8.1 Pre-Project Provide pre-Project short-circuit current levels for the studied alternative. Use a table.

Table 8.1-24: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX)


Base Voltage (kV)

Pre-Fault

Voltage

(kV)

3-Φ Fault (kA)

Positive Sequence Thevenin Source

Impedance (R1+jX1)

(pu)

1-Φ Fault (kA)

Zero SequenceThevenin Source

Impedance (R0+jX0)(pu)

Table 8.1-25: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed Connection + 10 Years])


Base Voltage (kV)

Pre-Fault

Voltage

(kV)

3-Φ Fault (kA)


Impedance (R1+jX1)

(pu)

1-Φ Fault (kA)



21 Short-circuit current studies were based on modeling information provided to the AESO by third parties. The authenticity of the modeling information has not been validated. Fault levels could change as a result of system developments, new customer connections, or additional generation in the area. It is recommended that these changes be monitored and fault levels reviewed to ensure that the fault levels are within equipment operating limits. The information provided in this study should not be used as the sole source of information for electrical equipment specifications or for the design of safety-grounding systems.




Base Voltage (kV)

Pre-Fault

Voltage

(kV)

3-Φ Fault (kA)


Impedance (R1+jX1)

(pu)

1-Φ Fault (kA)



8.2 Post-ProjectProvide post-Project short-circuit current levels for the preferred alternative. Use a table.

Table 8.2-26: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX)


Base Voltage (kV)

Pre-Fault

Voltage

(kV)

3-Φ Fault (kA)


Impedance (R1+jX1)

(pu)

1-Φ Fault (kA)



Table 8.2-27: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed Connection + 10 Years])


Base Voltage (kV)

Pre-Fault

Voltage

(kV)

3-Φ Fault (kA)


Impedance (R1+jX1)

(pu)

1-Φ Fault (kA)



9 Project InterdependenciesDiscuss if there are any interdependencies between this project and other system projects and customer connection projects. Indicate the impact of such interdependencies between the projects. Below are some examples of the write up:Example for no project independency[The Projects are not dependent on the future developments of the AESO Long Term Plan for the region.]

Examples for project dependency [Transmission voltage criteria violations identified both pre- and post-Projects indicate the need for the Irish Creek 706S capacitor addition, as identified in the 2015LTP, prior to the 2017WP.]Another example



[The Project is dependent on line 7L44 relay tele-communication upgrade to mitigate instability of Lowe Lake (NPP1) generator on a fault on line 7L44. The existing relay upgrade at Flyingshot 749S and Big Mountain 847S substation is scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2016 (ATCO capital maintenance project). This upgrade will incorporate tele-communication functionality, i.e. communications assisted tripping, and will allow for reduced fault clearing times of 8 cycles for a remote fault on line 7L44.

Upon the completion of this capital maintenance project, the NPP1 request to increase its STS contract from 93 MW to 105 MW can be realized.]



10 Summary and ConclusionCopy and paste the executive summary here in its entirety.



Attachment A

Dynamic Data and Assumptions of All Equipment Proposed for Connection

Page 35 AESO Protected with entered contentTemplate Version: V2-2018-01-03

Study Area load representation assumed for the transient studies is in Table A-1

Table A-1: Transient Stability Analysis Load Representation

Planning Areas% of load

specified as Large Motors

% of load specified as

Small Motors

The Remainder of the Load (excluding Motor loads)

Active Power

Reactive Power

Constant Current

Constant Impedance

Areas in NW and NE regions 40% 30% 100% 100%

Areas in other regions 10% 10% 100% 100%

In Attachment A, list the dynamic data of all equipment proposed for connection to the grid, such as generators, excitation systems and their limiters, power system stabilizers (PSSs), turbine governors, wind turbines, static VAR compensators (SVCs), large motors, as well as all other relevant dynamic representations of the proposed facilities. Use a table. If it is not possible to present the information in a table, attach the detailed dynamic data in a comprehensive format or attach it directly as a dyr file.

Table A-2: Generator Dynamic (Example)Generator Dynamic Data (GENROU model)

T’do T"do T’qo T"qo H D Xd Xq X’d X’q X"d Xl

S(1.0) S(1.2)

Table A-3: Exciter Dynamic Data (Example)Exciter Dynamic Data (EXAC2 model)

TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR TR

KH KH KH KH KH KH KH KH KH KH KH KH

Table A-4: Stabilizer Dynamic Data (Example)Stabilizer Dynamic Data (PSS2B model)

Tw1 Tw2 T6 Tw3 Tw4 T7 KS2 KS3 T8 T9 KS1 T1

T2 T3 T4 T10 T11 VSI1MAX

VSI2MIN

VSI1MAX

VSI2MIN

VSTMAX

VSTMIN ICS1


Stabilizer Dynamic Data (PSS2B model)

REMBUS1 ICS2 REMB

US2 M N

Table A-5: Governor Dynamic Data (Example)Governor Dynamic Data (GGOV1 model)

R Tpelec

Maxerr

Minerr Kpgov Kigo

v Kdgov Tdgov Vmax Vmin Tact Kturb

Wfnl Tb Tc Teng Tfload Kpload kiload Ldref Dm Rope

nRclos

e Kimw

Aact Ka Ta Trate db Tsa Tsb Rup Rdown

Rselect Flag

Provide a high-level summary of the modelling assumptions made for all other generators, such as the dynamic data provided by AESO used, the generator test reports used (where such test reports were available), and/or the standard generator data used (where such test reports were not available).


Attachment B

Pre-Project Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Attachment C

Pre-Project Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Table C-1: Summary of Voltage Stability Outages; Initial Load Level for Area XX is YY MW

System Condition Worst Case OutageIncremental Area

Load Increase before Collapse

Point (MW)

Available Voltage Stability Margin

(%)

All figures must be easy to read and have proper labels for both the x axis and the y axis. See Figure C-1 for an example. The table headings must identify the initial amount of static load in the study region or the initial transfer level, whichever is applicable. Figure C-1: Overview of Voltage Stability Outages (Example)

Figure C-1: Overview of Voltage Stability Outages (Example) System Condition: N-FNG,

Area Capacitor banks utilized to prepare for next outage,RB Area Load = ~140 MW including losses, Examined: N-FNG-RL1

Rainbow Lake 791S 144kV Bus

130

135

140

145

150

155

135 140 145 150 155 160 165

Rainbow Area Total Load (MW)

Volta

ge (k

V) t

N-FNG N-FNG-RL1+LS1 N-FNG-RL1+LS2 N-FNG-RL1+LS3 N-FNG-RL1+LS4


Attachment D

Pre-Project Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Use figures to illustrate the system dynamic responses following Category A, Category B, and Category C5 contingencies. The figures must be easy to read and properly labelled. The figure numbers should be noted in the Summary of Transient Stability table and in the attachment. Include figures for system voltages at key nodes in the Study Area, relevant generator angles with respect to the reference generator, the power output of the relevant generators in the area, and any other relevant information. Figure D-1 and Figure D-2 are examples of figures that show system response.

Figure D-1: Three-Phase Fault near Example 1S Substation on 1001L (Example)

Bus Voltage (kV)

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Blumenort Ft.Nelson High Level Hotchkiss Keg River Rainbow Lake

Figure D-2: Transient System Response following Loss of Example Generator (Example)

Example


NW generators angle: N-FNG

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

RB2 RL1 RB5 Bear Creek (Gas) Bear Creek (Steam) H.R.Milner

Example


Attachment E

Alternative 1: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Attachment F

Alternative XX: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Attachment G

Alternative 1: Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Attachment H

Alternative XX: Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Attachment I

Alternative 1: Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Attachment J

Alternative XX: Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Attachment K

Motor Starting Analysis and Diagrams


Attachment L

Category B Loading and Voltage Performance (Scenarios 1 to XX)


Table L-1: Remedial Action Scheme

RAS Number RAS Name134 174L-395S North Holden overload mitigation scheme

Table L-2: Performance Violations and Potential Mitigation Options

Triggering Events(Element out of Service)

Type of System

Constraint(Nature of constraint)

(ex. thermal violation, instability,

voltage range violation)

Details of Constraint22

(ex. %I of MVA loading of nominal rating, nominal and short-term emergency rating, and direction of flow, or what type of instability, or voltage level)

Assumed System Conditions

(ex. Summer peak, year, and other critical project assumptions)

Mitigation Approach6

(RAS or Procedure, also include post-RAS system

performance, ex. %I of MVA loading of nominal rating)

Temporary

or Permanent Mitigation

Measure

Proposed Long-

Term Plannin

g Solution

Thermal Voltage (Steady-State)

Stability

Automatic

(RAS) OR

Real Time

Operating

Practice

Post RAS Action

Nominal

rating(MVA)

Short-term ratin

g(MVA

)

Load Flow(MVA

)

%I of MVA

continuous

ratings

Location Voltage

Action 1

% of MVA

continuous

Rating

Action 2 % of MVA

continuous

Rating

xxxL (xxx xxxS

to xxx xxxS

Thermal Violation xxxL (xxx xxxS to

xxx xxxS)

85 94 89.0 104.7

20xx Summer Peak

Scenario 1(List other critical

project assumption)

Temporary

201xLTP(Please

specify on what

portion of LTP will remove

the temporary mitigation measure)

22 May include sub-columns for details


AESO Protected with entered contentTemplate Version: V2-2018-01-03

Attachment M

Generation/Load Effectiveness Factor (if necessary)


Regarding Generation Effectiveness Factor analysis, please address generator types in the Study Area and created effectiveness analysis table for N-0 and N-1 contingencies.

Table M-0: Generator Types

Plant xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Type Wind Wind Wind Gas Gas Hydro Hydro Coal Coal Coal

Table M-1: 20xxSL (Post-Project), Generators Effectiveness Factors under Normal Condition (N-0)

Plant

Linexxx xxx xxx Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Table M-2: 20xxSL (Post- Project), Generators Effectiveness Factors under Normal Condition (N-1)

Plant

Linexxx xxx xxx Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx


Attachment N

Load Flow Diagrams after RAS Action (Scenarios 1 to XX)


SECTION THREEFACILITY DESIGN

Facility DesignAESO Project NameAESO Project Number: 0000


Company Name Name Signature Date


APEGA Permit to Practice: XXXXXX

Engineering Stamp

Table of Contents1 PROPOSED FACILITY ADDITION/UPGRADES.........................................2

2 SCOPE OF WORK...............................................................................2

2.1 Standard Compliance..................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Substation Equipment Specifications..............................................................................................2

2.3 Maximum Fault Level...................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Maximum and Minimum Continuous Voltage Ratings (kV).............................................................3

2.5 Minimum Continuous Current Ratings (A)......................................................................................3

2.6 Insulation Level............................................................................................................................... 3

2.7 Facilities and Equipment Details for the Preferred Alternative........................................................4

2.8 Transmission lines.......................................................................................................................... 4

2.9 Substations..................................................................................................................................... 4

2.10 Protection, Control Requirements...................................................................................................4

2.11 SCADA........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.12 Telecommunication......................................................................................................................... 4

2.13 Revenue Metering.......................................................................................................................... 4

3 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OPERATING REQUIREMENTS..........................4

3.1 Short Circuit Current Levels............................................................................................................5

3.2 Operational Constraints.................................................................................................................. 5

3.2.1 Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)...................................................................................................5

3.2.2 Generator Synchronization.............................................................................................................5

3.2.3 Sync-Check or Anti-Islanding..........................................................................................................5

4 REVISION HISTORY...........................................................................6

APPENDIX A. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE...................................................7


AESO Protected with entered contentTemplate Version: V2-2018-01-03

1 Proposed Facility Addition/UpgradesThis section is compiled by the Market Participant and is to describe the following:

• Organization submitting SASR• SASR request (load DTS, gen STS, transformer add, breaker add, new POD, …) and why needed

(load growth, new load, new generator, DFO reliability – N-1, feeder loading, …)• location• Requested In-Service date

The Engineering Study Report (ESR) evaluated multiple alternates. The AESO or TFO or Studies Consultant proposes to implement the preferred alternate which requires the following facilities (list the facilities herein):

• Line nominal voltage, minimum capacity, and approximate length • Transformer voltage (high/low voltage), minimum capacity and the type of tap changer (on-load or off-

load)• Salvage of any existing transmission facilities• Bus arrangement and breakers (25 kV or higher voltage)• Tele-protection requirement to meet the ESR (stability) and AESO (protection rule) fault clearing

requirements• Remedial Action Schemes (RAS), if needed, for the preferred alternate• Anything else (incl. SVC or other voltage control devices, etc.)

Please include a relevant single line diagrams for the existing transmission system in the project area.

2 Scope of Work

2.1 Standard ComplianceAll work undertaken by TFOs or customers must be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the standards, guidelines, codes and regulations governing such installations including, but not limited to those listed below. All AESO documentation can be found on the AESO website.

List only the applicable standards related to the facilities listed in Section 1.

2.2 Substation Equipment Specifications All proposed new transmission equipment must meet the minimum specifications provided below or in the following subsections:

Any exceptions from the Alberta Reliability Standards (e.g., there may be different temperature rating for the north region vs. the south region, exceptions to line and tower design, exceptions to protection requirements, etc.)


Maximum Fault Level as indicated in Section 2.2.1. Equipment maximum and minimum voltage ratings as indicated in Section 2.2.2. Minimum continuous equipment current ratings as indicated in Section 2.2.3.

2.3 Maximum Fault LevelProvide the maximum fault level for the nominal voltage. The Alberta standard fault duty levels are: 31.5 kA for 138/144 kV, and 40 kA for 240 kV. These values may need to be changed, depending on the short circuit study results.

2.4 Maximum and Minimum Continuous Voltage Ratings (kV)

Provide appropriate nominal voltages in Table 1 based on the connection area and modify the column headers accordingly.

Table 1: Equipment Maximum and Minimum Continuous Voltage Ratings (kV)Area 25 kV 69/72 kV 138/144 kV 240 kV 500 kV

Minimum

Maximum

2.5 Minimum Continuous Current Ratings (A)Provide appropriate values in Table 2 based on the connection area and modify the column headers accordingly.

Table 2: Equipment Minimum Continuous Current Ratings (A)Component 25 kV 69/72 kV 138/144 kV 240 kV 500 kV

Main Bus

Cross Bus

Feeder

Provide Single Line Diagrams (SLD) of the proposed facilities showing substation ampacities and other information, detailed as follows.

2.6 Insulation LevelTable 3: Basic Insulation Level (kV)

Nominal Voltage Classification (kV rms) 25 kV 69/72 kV 138/144 kV 240 kV 500 kV

Station Post Insulators and Airbreaks


Nominal Voltage Classification (kV rms) 25 kV 69/72 kV 138/144 kV 240 kV 500 kV

Circuit Breakers

Current and Potential Transformers

Transformer Windings

2.7 Facilities and Equipment Details for the Preferred Alternative

Describe preferred alternative as the outcome of Stage 2 Engineering Study Report (ESR). Include the pre- and post-Project diagrams.

2.8 Transmission linesSpecify number of circuits, the approximate length of the new line(s) to be constructed and the minimum capacity (summer/winter) requirement.

2.9 SubstationsItemize all major equipment as follows.

Bus arrangement

Transformer size and type of tap changer

Number of breakers at ≥25 kV

Number of motor operated disconnect (MOD) switches at 138 kV or higher voltage

Cap banks (if any and if at or higher than 25 kV voltage)

Transformer neutral reactor/resistor

2.10Protection, Control RequirementsThe protection and control will be designed to meet ISO Rules.

2.11SCADAAll SCADA requirements will be designed as per ISO Rules.

2.12TelecommunicationAll Telecommunication requirements will be designed as per ISO Rules.


2.13Revenue MeteringThe Revenue metering will be designed to meet the current AESO’s Measurement System Standard23.

3 Transmission System Operating RequirementsIn the following sections provide brief description to outline the need for mitigation measures to connect commission and operate the new connection as per the electrical environment in which the facilities outlined in this document will operate.

3.1 Short Circuit Current LevelsSummarize the short circuit current levels from the Stage 2 Engineering Study Report, pre- and post-Project, and 10 years into the future.

Highlight the short circuit current levels which are above 90% of equipment rating. Market participants can approach the AESO for advice with respect to long-term anticipated short circuit levels and can collaborate with the AESO on a system-based solution if a more locally-based solution cannot solve it.

3.2 Operational Constraints The following sections identify the need for new or potential changes to existing mitigation measures to successfully commission and operate the new connection to meet AESO reliability standards in operations domain.

3.2.1 Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)Provide brief description of the identified constraints as identified in the Stage 2 Engineering Study Report. Briefly describe new RAS requirement, or the necessary changes to existing RAS schemes or procedures for the project or in the project area.

3.2.2 Generator SynchronizationRefer to the AESO’s Generation and Load Interconnection Standard24 related to synchronization requirements. Provide detailed information of any synchronization plan which deviates from the standard.

3.2.3 Sync-Check or Anti-IslandingIf there is an existing anti-islanding scheme in the project area, specify the modifications needed. If no existing scheme, provide suggested options to address anti-islanding requirements.

23 https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/AESO-Measurement-System-Standard1.pdf 24 http:// www .aeso.ca/downloads/Generation_and_Load_Standard_Rev1.pdf


http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/Generation_and_Load_Standard_Rev1.pdf

https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/AESO-Measurement-System-Standard1.pdf

4 Revision HistoryRevision Issue Date Author Change Tracking


Appendix A. Preferred Alternative

A.1 Customer connection – Preferred AlternativeProvide a drawing showing the proposed area transmission system including the development described in the Specification.

A.1.1 SLD25 – ###S Substation – Preferred AlternativeProvide a drawing showing the proposed configuration of each substation that will be affected by the development described in the Specification. Each drawing should clearly indicate the following as a minimum:

Station layout and bus configuration

Switches at 138 kV or higher voltage

Interrupting devices at 25 kV or higher voltage

Voltage control equipment (e.g. capacitors and reactors)

Transformers complete with configuration, tap changing and grounding

Proposed additions/changes/salvages clearly indicated

Current ratings of bus sections (only if bus upgrades are required)

Delineation of ownership

Provide information of other subsections as necessary.

A.1.2. Tele-communication Connection – Preferred AlternativeProvide a drawing(s) showing the proposed area tele-communication system including the development described in this Functional Specification. Each drawing should clearly indicate the following as a minimum:

Proposed connection and upgrades to existing tele-communication system.

Proposed type (microwave, fiber, and etc.) of new and upgraded tele-communication systems.

Specify for all new and upgraded tele-communication systems what (if any) TPR or protection applications will be carried.

Note – that RAS requirements determined at a later date may modify the tele-communication requirement

25 SLD in Microsoft Visio format is required to be submitted to the AESO


SECTION FOURCOST ESTIMATES

Refer to the AESO website for the Cost Estimate Template. For more information, see Information Document ID #2015-002R – Service Proposals and Cost Estimating.

SECTION FIVELAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Land Impact AssessmentAESO Project NameAESO Project Number: 0000


Company Name Name Signature Date


1 Land Impact AssessmentTo meet the AUC Rule 007 requirements, a land impact assessment may be needed depending on the scope of development being proposed to connect the Market Participant project.

Provide a summary of the land assessment for the technically feasible connection alternatives as advised by AESO.


Connection Proposal Template · Web viewThe Executive Summary is a high-level summary of the...

Documents

Transcript of Connection Proposal Template · Web viewThe Executive Summary is a high-level summary of the...