Q217 Generator Interconnection Project · 2013-12-31 · Q217 System Impact Study APS Contract...

Q217 Generator

Interconnection Project

System Impact Study

APS Contract No. 52588

By

Arizona Public Service Company

Transmission Planning

November 25, 2013 Version 2.0

Prepared by

Utility System Efficiencies, Inc.

Q217 System Impact Study APS Contract No.52588

Page 1

Q217 SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2

1 Study Description and Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Post Project Case Modeling .......................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Dynamic Data ................................................................................................................................ 7

1.3 Reliability Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 7

1.3.1 Power Factor Criteria ............................................................................................................ 7

1.3.2 (Steady State) Power Flow Criteria ................................................................................. 7

1.3.3 Transient Stability Criteria .................................................................................................... 7

2 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Power Factor Requirements ......................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Power Flow ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Post-Transient ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.4 Transient Stability ....................................................................................................................... 10

3 Results and Findings ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Reactive Support ......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Power Flow and Post-Transient Analysis .................................................................................... 11

3.3 Voltage Flicker Analysis ............................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Transient Stability Analysis ......................................................................................................... 27

3.5 Short Circuit / Fault Duty Analysis .............................................................................................. 28

3.6 Results & Findings Summary ....................................................................................................... 28

4 Cost & Construction Time Estimates .................................................................................................. 28

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Power Flow Diagrams Appendix B – List of Contingencies Appendix C – Transient Stability Data Appendix D – Transient Stability Plots


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section summarizes the System Impact Study (SIS) results for a proposed photovoltaic generation interconnection of 35 MW in the Arizona Public Service (APS) transmission system. Additional specific details of the proposed interconnection’s impact on the surrounding transmission system can be found in the “Results and Findings” section of this report. Disclaimer Nothing in this report constitutes an offer of transmission service or confers upon the Interconnection Customer (IC) any right to receive transmission service. APS and other interconnected utilities may not have the Available Transmission Capacity (ATC) to support the interconnection described in this report. It should also be noted that all results for the SIS are highly dependent upon the assumed topology and timing of new projects in the vicinity of the interconnection, which are subject to change. Background: APS received a valid large generator interconnection request for a proposed interconnection to the Desert Sands 69 kV switchyard. On behalf of, and with the oversight of APS, Utility System Efficiencies, Inc. (USE) performed a SIS under the APS Tariff. The interconnection request was assigned queue position #217. The Applicant has proposed to add solar photo-voltaic generation with a maximum net output of 35 MW, connecting directly to the Desert Sands 69 kV switchyard in the second quarter of 2014. A Network & Energy Resource interconnection evaluation was requested. Figure E.1 illustrates this proposed interconnection and the nearby transmission facilities. This SIS used the machine parameters and characteristics provided by the Applicant. Studies consisted of computer-based power flow, post-transient, transient stability, voltage flicker, and short-circuit/fault duty analyses. This study modeled the proposed generation interconnection under anticipated 2014 summer peak conditions. Select contingencies which stressed the transmission system were simulated. Power flow, transient stability, and post-transient results were monitored for APS, WAPA, and other neighboring systems. Voltage Flicker was monitored for the buses in the immediate project area. System performance criteria used in the study: The criteria applied in this study are consistent with NERC/WECC Reliability Criteria. For more detailed information on the criteria used for each analysis see section 1.3 “Reliability Criteria.” The APS Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) policy regarding power factor requires all Interconnection Customers, with the exception of wind generators, to maintain an acceptable power factor (typically near unity) at the Point of Interconnection (POI), subject to system conditions. The APS OATT also requires Interconnection Customers to be able to achieve +/- 0.95 power factor at the POI, with the maximum “full-output” Var capability available at all outputs. Furthermore, APS requires Interconnection Customers to have dynamic voltage control (operational time of less than 5 seconds) and maintain the voltage as specified by the transmission operator within the limitation of +/- 0.95 power factor, as long as the Project is online and generating. If the Project’s equipment is not capable of this type of response, a dynamic reactive device will be required. APS has the right to disconnect the Project if system conditions dictate the need to do so in order to maintain system reliability. Results:

The results of the SIS indicate that the addition of Q217 results in no post-project reliability violations.

However, the project as designed is not able to meet the power factor requirements at this time. An

additional 5.5 Mvar reactive support is necessary to compensate for losses from the generator terminals

to the POI.


Page 3

Table 1.1 Summary of Project Interconnection Cost and Lead Times

Facility Costs

($000)

Timeline

(months)

Network Upgrades 127 3

Q217 Trans. Provider’s

Interconnection Facilities

1132 18-24

Grand Total 1259 18-24

The total estimated completion time for interconnecting the Q217 project is 18-24 months. The long lead time component for this project is getting Right Of Way from the State of Arizona that will be required for the rebuild of up to two miles of an existing APS 69kv line and the routing of the generator interconnection tie line as it gets set to enter the switchyard. Since the requested interconnection date can’t be met, APS and the Interconnection Customer must discuss and mutually agree to a new and acceptable projected In-Service Date. The customer requested a Network Resource interconnection and as such an evaluation was made and conclusions are that in the 2014 timeframe, APS would be able to accommodate this project as a Network Resource. However, this evaluation result is only good for the time in which it was performed. APS could sell transmission service over the local facilities at any time which could then result in insufficient transmission to accommodate this project as a Network Resource.

Figure E-1. Q217 and Nearby Transmission Facilities


Page 4

1 Study Description and Assumptions This section of the report provides details pertaining to the power flow case development and an overview of the major study assumptions. All power flow, voltage flicker, transient stability and post-transient study work was completed using General Electric’s Positive Sequence Load Flow (GE-PSLF), version 18.0_01.

The study used the 2014 Heavy Summer APS detailed planning case “sm14#16.sav”. This case has undergone review and updates by all of the Arizona utilities for planning purposes. Pre- and post-project base cases were developed. The new generation was offset with the Palo Verde (PV) generation group. Sensitivities were run for the following scenarios. Pre- and Post-project cases were developed for each scenario.

1) Max Yuma Load/Generation pattern 2) 2016 Yuma configuration 3) 2016 Yuma configuration with max Yuma Load/Generation pattern 4) 2016 Yuma configuration with max Yuma Load/Generation pattern and TS8 project 5) 2016 Yuma configuration with max Yuma Load/Generation pattern, TS8 project, and Q43 with

max output.

1.1 Post Project Case Modeling Requestor Q217 was represented in the power flow model as a single 35 MW unit connected to a 0.27 kV

bus. A transformer steps the voltage up from 0.27kV to 34.5kV. Another transformer steps the voltage up

from 34.5kV to 69kV. The project was connected via a 1.5 mile 69kV line to Desert Sands 69kV

switchyard. Figure 1-1 represents the Q217 power flow model.

Figure 1-1: Q217 Power Flow Model

Power scheduled to Palo Verde

35 MW

+/-11.99 MVAR

69 kV

34.5 kV

R=0.00283

X=0.08495

1.5 miles

R=0.00713

X=0.05706

Desert Sands 69 kV


Page 5

Mesquite generation was reduced to offset the interconnection

Power flow diagrams of the transmission system along with the new generation interconnection are provided in Appendix A. Table 1.2 summarizes the case attributes for each scenario.

Table 1.2 2014 Case Attributes

Major Branch Flows Pre-

Project Post-

Project

Pre-Project

HYL

Post-Project

HYL

Pre-Project

2016 config

Post-Project

2016 config

N.Gila-Gila 69kV 73 78 78 83 56 54

Gila-AR FH TP 69kV 57 57 76 75 0 0

N.Gila-Mittry 69kV 44 38 62 56 53 51

Sanguine-Mittry 69kV -40 -34 -55 -49 -48 -46

Redondo-Sanguine 69kV -2 11 -12 1 -17 -12

Foothill Tap-Redondo 69kV 10 22 6 18 0 0

Foothill Tap-Foothill 69kV -10 -22 -6 -18 0 0

Pacific-N.Gila 69kV -43 -44 -54 -56 -43 -44

Quechan-Pacific 69kV -30 -32 -35 -37 -30 -31

10th St-Quechan 69kV 4 3 16 15 5 4

Sanguine-SW7 69kV 38 44 44 50 31 34

SW7-Ivalon 69kV 38 44 44 50 31 34

Araby-AR FH TP 69kV -57 -57 -75 -75 0 0

MAB-Araby 69kV -29 -29 -34 -33 -33 -35

S.Oneill-MAB 69kV -7 -6 -11 -11 -10 -13

Waldrip-S.Oneill 69kV 18 19 14 14 15 12

Waldrip-Baja 69kV 17 17 22 22 17 18

San Luis-Baja 69kV -6 -7 -6 -6 -6 -7

Laguna-San Luis 69kV 32 32 41 40 32 31

Yuca W-Laguna 69kV 51 51 69 69 51 50

Yuca W-Dupont 69kV 43 41 70 67 44 42

Dupont-32nd St 69kV 29 27 49 46 30 28

10th St-32nd St 69kV 28 27 35 33 30 28

Cocopah-32nd St 69kV 25 23 36 34 26 25

10th St-Cocopah 69kV -14 -13 -28 -27 -15 -14

Riverside-10th St 69kV 43 41 60 58 44 43

Riverside-Cocopah 69kV 32 32 38 38 33 33

Yucca E-Riverside 69kV 28 26 53 51 30 28

Hoodoo Wash-N.Gila 500kV 1,387 1,366 1,054 1,041 1,388 1,367

N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500kV 1,192 1,193 812 821 1,191 1,191

Pilot Knob-Yucca 161kV 14 7 29 22 18 12

Gila-Araby TP-W 69kV 0 0 0 0 35 25

Araby TP-E-Redondo 69kV 0 0 0 0 -5 0

Foothills-Araby S 69kV 0 0 0 0 21 38

Araby N-Araby TP-W 69kV 0 0 0 0 -35 -25

Araby N-Araby TP-E 69kV 0 0 0 0 -5 0

Control Area Information

AZ Load 19,550 19,550 19,724 19,724 19,550 19,550

AZ Lossess 701 701 702 701 700 700

AZ Generation 26,559 26,558 25,934 25,933 26,559 26,558

AZ Exports 6,308 6,308 5,508 5,508 6,308 6,308

Case 1 2 3 4 5 6


Page 6

Major Branch Flows

Pre-Project

2016 config/

HYL

Post-Project

2016 config/

HYL

Pre-Project

2016 config/

HYL/TS8

Post-Project

2016 config/

HYL/TS8

Pre-Project 2016 config/ HYL/TS8/Q43

max

Post-Project 2016 config/ HYL/TS8/Q43

max

N.Gila-Gila 69kV 65 64 51 51 52 52

Gila-AR FH TP 69kV 0 0 0 0 0 0

N.Gila-Mittry 69kV 69 67 49 49 49 49

Sanguine-Mittry 69kV -61 -60 -42 -42 -43 -42

Redondo-Sanguine 69kV -22 -18 -12 -10 -12 -10

Foothill Tap-Redondo 69kV 0 0 0 0 0 0

Foothill Tap-Foothill 69kV 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pacific-N.Gila 69kV -54 -55 -41 -43 -42 -43

Quechan-Pacific 69kV -36 -37 -22 -24 -23 -24

10th St-Quechan 69kV 16 15 29 28 29 27

Sanguine-SW7 69kV 39 42 30 32 30 33

SW7-Ivalon 69kV 39 42 30 32 30 32

Araby-AR FH TP 69kV 0 0 0 0 0 0

MAB-Araby 69kV -35 -37 3 -1 3 0

S.Oneill-MAB 69kV -12 -15 -20 -21 -21 -22

Waldrip-S.Oneill 69kV 13 10 5 4 4 3

Waldrip-Baja 69kV 22 22 34 34 34 34

San Luis-Baja 69kV -6 -6 -17 -18 -18 -18

Laguna-San Luis 69kV 41 40 30 30 30 29

Yuca W-Laguna 69kV 69 68 58 57 58 57

Yuca W-Dupont 69kV 71 69 57 56 56 55

Dupont-32nd St 69kV 49 47 36 35 35 34

10th St-32nd St 69kV 36 35 17 17 17 16

Cocopah-32nd St 69kV 37 36 24 23 24 23

10th St-Cocopah 69kV -28 -27 -26 -25 -26 -25

Riverside-10th St 69kV 61 60 57 56 57 56

Riverside-Cocopah 69kV 39 39 37 36 36 36

Yucca E-Riverside 69kV 55 54 48 47 48 47

Hoodoo Wash-N.Gila 500kV 1,055 1,043 690 683 787 779

N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500kV 811 819 876 884 921 930

Pilot Knob-Yucca 161kV 33 26 -12 -16 -13 -18

Gila-Araby TP-W 69kV 58 48 19 12 18 11

Araby TP-E-Redondo 69kV -5 0 5 8 5 8

Foothills-Araby S 69kV 14 31 -2 17 -1 17

Araby N-Araby TP-W 69kV -58 -48 -18 -12 -18 -11

Araby N-Araby TP-E 69kV -4 0 5 8 5 8

Control Area Information

AZ Load 19,724 19,724 19,724 19,724 19,749 19,749

AZ Lossess 703 701 700 698 706 704

AZ Generation 25,934 25,933 25,932 25,930 26,172 26,171

AZ Exports 5,508 5,508 5,508 5,508 5,718 5,718

Case 7 8 9 10 11 12


Page 7

1.2 Dynamic Data Appendix C provides the transient stability model used in this study, and the details of these

assumptions. Modeling for the new generation utilized machine characteristics provided by the Applicant.

Dynamic data file “sm14_V2.dyd” (developed by APS) was obtained from APS Transmission Planning. A

stability plot of the flat run simulation is also provided in Appendix D.

1.3 Reliability Criteria In general, an evaluation of the system reliability investigates the system’s thermal loading capability,

voltage performance (not too high or low), and transient stability (the system should not oscillate

excessively and generators should remain synchronized). The evaluation of these criteria must be

conducted for credible ‘emergency’ conditions, such as loss of a single or double circuit line, a

transformer, or a generator. Performance of the transmission system and neighboring Control Areas were

measured against the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Reliability Standards and the

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Planning Standards described in the following

subsections. The criteria for Category A (TPL-001, “All lines in service”), Category B (TPL-002, single

element outage), and Category C (TPL-003, multiple element outage) conditions were explicitly applied

both internally (within APS system) and to external Control Areas (where appropriate).

1.3.1 Power Factor Criteria The study applies APS power factor criteria states that a generator must be capable of providing dynamic

reactive support within the range of +/-0.95 power factor at the POI.

1.3.2 (Steady State) Power Flow Criteria Normal conditions

All line loading must be less than 100% of the continuous (normal) thermal ratings.

All transformer loading must be less than 100% of the continuous (normal) ratings.

Contingency Conditions

For any contingency, no transmission element will be loaded above the emergency rating.

Depending upon the type of analysis and applied case/sensitivity, applicable criteria for system

performance will be identified. In some instances, resulting local circuit overloads and/or voltage

deviations may be deemed acceptable per local criteria; as long as the local system’s post-

contingency performance does not result in cascading outages.

Established loading limits and voltage performance for other neighboring utilities will be

monitored.

Voltage deviations at any bus must be no more than 5% for N-1 contingencies and no more than

10% for N-2.

1.3.3 Transient Stability Criteria The SIS applies reliability criteria contained within the WECC disturbance-performance table of allowable

effects on other systems. Table 1.3 and Figure 1-2 are excerpts from the WECC Reliability Criteria.


Page 8

Table 1.3 WECC Disturbance-Performance Table of Allowable Effects on Other Systems

NERC and WECC Categories

Outage Frequency Associated with the

Performance Category

(outage/year)

Transient Voltage Dip Standard

Minimum Transient Frequency Standard

Post Transient Voltage Deviation Standard

A

System normal Not Applicable Nothing in addition to NERC

B

One element

out-of-service

0.33

Not to exceed 25% at

load buses or 30% at

non-load buses.

Not to exceed 20% for

more than 20 cycles at

load buses.

Not below 59.6Hz for 6

cycles or more at a load

bus.

Not to exceed 5% at any

bus.

C

Two or more

elements

out-of-service

0.033 – 0.33


any bus.

Not to exceed 20% for

more than 40 cycles at

load buses.

Not below 59.0Hz for 6

cycles or more at a load

bus.


any bus.

D

Extreme multiple-

element outages

< 0.033 Nothing in addition to NERC

Figure 1-2. NERC/WECC Voltage Performance Parameters


Page 9

2 Study Methodology This section summarizes the methods used to derive the power flow, post transient, transient stability and

voltage flicker results. Appendix B details the contingencies simulated for the study.

2.1 Power Factor Requirements The APS Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) policy regarding power factor requires all

Interconnection Customers, with the exception of wind generators, to maintain an acceptable power factor

(typically near unity) at the Point of Interconnection (POI), subject to system conditions. The APS OATT

also requires Interconnection Customers to be able to achieve +/- 0.95 power factor at the POI, with the

maximum “full-output” Var capability available at all outputs. Furthermore, APS requires Interconnection

Customers to have dynamic voltage control (operational time of less than 5 seconds) and maintain the

voltage as specified by the transmission operator within the limitation of +/- 0.95 power factor, as long as

the Project is online and generating. If the Project’s equipment is not capable of this type of response, a

dynamic reactive device will be required. APS has the right to disconnect the Project from the power grid

if system conditions dictate the need to do so in order to maintain system reliability.

The method for determining whether or not the generator meets these requirements is to first record the

pre-project POI bus voltage. Next, model the generator with zero reactive capabilities at full output. Any

shunt devices are turned off. Two synchronous condensers are added to the case with infinite reactive

capability. One is at the terminal bus of the unit regulating the bus voltage to 1.0 pu. The other is one bus

away from the POI regulating the POI to the pre-project voltage level. The amount of plant losses can be

determined by recording the MVAR flow at the POI and adding that to the sum of the synchronous

condenser output. Based on the maximum output of the plant, determine the minimum reactive

capabilities required to meet the +/-0.95 power factor range. The sum of the two numbers determines the

maximum amount of reactive support the project must provide.

2.2 Power Flow Power flow analysis considers a snapshot in time where the transformer tap changers, SVDs and, the

phase shifters have not adjusted, and the system swing bus balances the system during each

contingency scenario. All power flow analysis was conducted with version 18.0_01 of General Electric’s

PSLF/PSDS/SCSC software. Power flow results are monitored and reported for APS and other

neighboring systems, including WAPA.

Traditional power flow analysis is used to evaluate the thermal and voltage performance of the system

under Category A (TPL-001, all elements in service) and Category B (TPL-002, N-1, single contingency)

conditions. The applicable WECC reliability planning criteria is listed below.

Changes in bus voltages from pre- to post-contingency must be less than 5% for single

contingencies.

All equipment loadings must be below their normal ratings under normal conditions.

All equipment loadings must be below their emergency ratings for single contingencies.

Depending upon the type of analysis and applied case/sensitivity, applicable criteria for system

performance will be identified. In some instances, resulting local circuit overloads and/or voltage

deviations may be deemed acceptable per local criteria; as long as the local system’s post-

contingency performance does not result in cascading outages.

Thermal loading is reported when a modeled transmission element is loaded over 98% of its appropriate

MVA rating modeled in the power flow database.


Page 10

Transmission voltage violations for Category A (TPL-001, no contingency) conditions are reported where

per unit voltages are less than 0.95 or greater than 1.05. For Category B outages (TPL-002, N-1) the

voltage violations were reported when the post-contingency voltage deviation was greater than 5%.

2.3 Post-Transient Post-transient analysis determines if the voltage deviations at critical buses meet the maximum allowable

voltage dip criteria and if any transmission elements exceed their maximum rating for selected Category B

(TPL-002, N-1) and Category C (TPL-002, N-2) disturbances. This snapshot focuses on the first few

minutes following an outage where the transformer tap changers, the phase shifters, and SVDs have not

adjusted, and all of the system generation reacts by governor control to balance the system during each

contingency scenario. All loads are modeled as constant power during the Post-Transient time frame.

Generator VAR limits will be modeled as a constant single value for each generator since the reactive

power capability curve will not be modeled in the power flow program. Alpha min and Gamma min of the

PDCI and IPPDC will be adjusted to 5 degrees and 13 degrees, respectively. Shunt capacitors (132

MVAR) at Adelanto and Marketplace will be used if the post-transient voltage deviation exceeds 5% at

those buses.

2.4 Transient Stability

Transient stability analysis is a time-based simulation that assesses the performance of the power system

during (and shortly following) a contingency. Transient stability studies were performed to verify the

system stability following a critical fault on the system. Prior to finalization of the power flow and dynamic

data set, a flat–run is run to ensure true power system behavior is not masked by any remote dynamic

modeling anomalies.

Transient stability analysis was performed based on WECC Disturbance-Performance Criteria for

selected system contingencies. Initial transient stability contingencies are simulated out to 11 seconds to

ensure a damped system performance. All simulated faults are assumed to be three-phase. Table 2.1

identifies the breaker clearing times for faults on different voltage levels.

Table 2.1 Breaker Clearing Times

Voltage Level Breaker

clearing times

69 kV 7-cycles

115/161 kV 6-cycles

230 kV 5-cycles

500 kV 4-cycles

All transient stability simulations were conducted using version 17.0_06 of General Electric’s

PSLF/PSDS/SCSC software.

The Worst Condition Analysis (WCA) tool, available in the PSDS software package, tracks and records

the transient stability behavior of all output channels contained within the binary output file of a transient

stability simulation. The monitoring of channel output was initiated two cycles after fault clearing, to

ensure that all post-fault stability behavior would be captured. System damping was assessed visually

with the aid of stability plots.


Page 11

Parameters Monitored to Evaluate System Stability Performance:

Rotor Angle

Rotor angle plots provide a measure for determining how the proposed generation unit would

swing with respect to other generating units in the area. This information is used to determine if a

machine would remain in synchronism or go out-of-step from the rest of the system following a

disturbance.

Bus Voltage

Bus voltage plots, in conjunction with the relative rotor angle plots, provide a means of detecting

out-of-step conditions. The bus voltage plots are useful in assessing the magnitude and duration

of post-disturbance voltage dips and peak-to-peak voltage oscillations. Bus voltage plots also

give an indication of system damping and the level to which voltages are expected to recover in

the steady state conditions.

Bus Frequency

Bus frequency plots provide information on magnitude and duration of post-fault frequency

swings with the new project(s) in service. These plots indicate the extent of possible over-

frequency or under-frequency, which can occur due to an area’s imbalance between load and

generation.

Other plotted Parameters

Generator Terminal Voltage

Generator Rotor Speed

3 Results and Findings This section provides the results obtained by applying the previous assumptions and methodology. It

illustrates all findings associated with the power flow, post-transient, transient stability, and voltage flicker.

3.1 Reactive Support The project satisfies the minimum power factor requirement. The project online at 35 MW requires a

minimum of +/-11.5 MVAR capability at the POI to meet the +/-0.95 power factor requirement. The

calculated plant losses are 6.0 MVAR. The aggregated inverter dynamic capability is +/-11.99 MVAR. The

resultant capability at the POI is 5.99 MVAR. An additional 5.5 Mvar reactive support is required to meet

the APS power factor requirement. A static capacitor bank can be added to compensate for the reactive

losses.

3.2 Power Flow and Post-Transient Analysis The power flow and post-transient analysis focuses on high load and generation conditions for summer of

2014. The Pre-Project cases are used as a baseline to measure the impact of the new generation.

Contingencies are then applied to the cases. A list of contingencies that were simulated is provided in

Appendix B. Power flow plots from the Pre-Project and Post-Project cases are included in Appendix A.

Thermal Results

2014 Heavy Summer Case

Results indicate that there are 2 pre-project violations for this scenario. APS is aware of these and has

mitigation plans to reduce the flow. The addition of the Q217 project does not exacerbate the violation.


Page 12

Table 3.1 Thermal Results

Monitored Element Rating (AMPS/MVA)

Pre-Project Post-Project

Amps/MVA % Amps/MVA %

N-1 Yucca E-Yucca C 69 kV

Riverside-Yucca E 69 kV 999.9 A 1153.4 A 115.0 1153.2 A 115.0

N-1 Gila-Sonora 69 kV

San Luis 69/34.5 kV Bank 20 MVA 23.4 MVA 117.0 23.4 MVA 117.0

Case 1 2


Page 13

2014 Heavy Summer Case w/High Yuma Load/Gen



Table 3.2 Thermal Results w/High Yuma Generation




N-1 Yucca E-Yucca C 69 kV

Riverside-Yucca E 69 kV 999.9 A 1126.4 A 112.7 1126.5 A 112.7

N-1 Foothill-Desert Sands 69 kV

Foothill Tap-Redondo 69kV 518.78A 566.4 A 109.2 567.67 A 109.4

N-1 Waldrip-South O'Neill 69 kV

San Luis 69/34.5 kV Bank 20 MVA 20 MVA 100.0 20.1 MVA 100.5

N-1 North Gila-Gila 69 kV


N-1 North Gila 500/69 kV 1 or 2


N-1 Gila-Knob 161 kV


N-1 Knob-Pilot Knob 161 kV




Case 3 4

2014 Heavy Summer Case w//2016 configuration

Results indicate that there is 1 pre-project violations for this scenario. APS is aware of these and has


Table 3.3 Thermal Results w/2016 configuration






Case 5 6


Page 14

2014 Heavy Summer Case w//2016 configuration, High Yuma Load/Gen



Table 3.4 Thermal Results w/2016 configuration, High Yuma Generation












Case 7 8

2014 Heavy Summer Case w//2016 configuration, High Yuma Load/Gen, TS8 project



Table 3.5 Thermal Results w/2016 configuration, High Yuma Generation, TS8 project




N-1 Tenth St-Quechan 69 kV




N-1 Araby Bus Tie


N-1 North Gila 500/69 kV 1 or 2






N-1 Pilot Knob-Yucca 161 kV




Case 9 10


Page 15

2014 Heavy Summer Case w//2016 configuration, High Yuma Load/Gen, TS8 project, Q43 full output



Table 3.6 Thermal Results w/2016 configuration, High Yuma Generation, TS8 project, Q43 full

output




N-1 Tenth St-Quechan 69 kV




N-1 Araby Bus Tie






N-1 Pilot Knob-Yucca 161 kV




Case 11 12


Page 16

Voltage Results

2014 Heavy Summer Case

Results indicate that there are both pre-project and post-project voltage violations for multiple

contingencies in the Yuma area. This is a known problem to APS planning and mitigation is being

assessed. The addition of the Q217 project does not exacerbate the violations.

Table 3.7 Voltage Results

Monitored Element


% change % change

N-1 Laguna-San Luis 69 kV line

BAJA 69.0 7.00% 7.00%

BOSE 34.5 7.90% 7.90%

SANLUIS 34.5 8.30% 8.20%

SANLUS 3 12.5 8.60% 8.50%

MEX TAP 34.5 7.90% 7.90%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 6.40% 6.40%

SANLUIS 69.0 8.30% 8.20%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 8.10% 8.00%

SNL-WALC 34.5 8.30% 8.20%

BAJA 12.5 7.20% 7.20%

SANLUS11 12.5 9.00% 8.90%

CFE TIE 34.5 8.30% 8.20%

N-1 Yucca-Laguna 69 kV line

BOSE 34.5 5.90% 5.80%

SANLUIS 34.5 6.10% 6.00%

SANLUS 3 12.5 5.50% 5.40%

MEX TAP 34.5 5.90% 5.80%

SANLUIS 69.0 5.30% 5.20%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 6.00% 5.90%

SNL-WALC 34.5 6.10% 6.00%

LAGUNA11 12.5 7.20% 7.10%

LAGUNA 3 12.5 7.20% 7.10%

LAGUNA 69.0 6.90% 6.90%

SANLUS11 12.5 5.70% 5.70%

CFE TIE 34.5 6.10% 6.00%

N-1 Mex Tap-Bose 34.5 kV line

MEX TAP 34.5 -5.00% <5%

N-1 Gila-Sonora 69 kV line

SONORA 69.0 5.70% 5.70%

SNLWALCX 34.5 5.50% 5.50%

Case 1 2


Page 17





Table 3.8 Thermal Results w/High Yuma Generation

Monitored Element

Pre-Project

Post-Project

% change % change


BAJA 69.0 8.70% 8.60%

BOSE 34.5 10.50% 10.40%

SANLUIS 34.5 10.70% 10.60%

SNLWALCX 34.5 5.10% <5%

SANLUS 3 12.5 10.80% 10.70%

MEX TAP 34.5 10.50% 10.40%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 8.60% 8.40%

SANLUIS 69.0 10.10% 10.00%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 10.60% 10.50%

SNL-WALC 34.5 10.70% 10.60%

BAJA 12.5 9.20% 9.10%

SANLUS11 12.5 11.00% 10.90%

CFE TIE 34.5 10.70% 10.60%


SONORA 69.0 6.00% 5.80%

BAJA 69.0 12.30% 12.00%

BOSE 34.5 15.50% 15.10%

SANLUIS 34.5 15.70% 15.30%

SNLWALCX 34.5 7.80% 7.60%

SANLUS 3 12.5 15.20% 14.80%

MEX TAP 34.5 15.50% 15.10%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 12.90% 12.60%

SANLUIS 69.0 14.10% 13.80%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 15.60% 15.20%

SNL-WALC 34.5 15.70% 15.30%

LAGUNA11 12.5 18.60% 18.20%

BAJA 12.5 13.00% 12.70%

LAGUNA 3 12.5 18.80% 18.40%

LAGUNA 69.0 17.40% 17.10%

SANLUS11 12.5 15.40% 15.00%

CFE TIE 34.5 15.70% 15.30%


SANLUIS 34.5 -6.10% -6.10%

MEX TAP 34.5 -8.10% -8.00%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 -6.40% -6.40%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 -7.10% -7.00%

SNL-WALC 34.5 -6.10% -6.10%

CFE TIE 34.5 -6.10% -6.10%


SONORA 69.0 9.10% 9.10%

SNLWALCX 34.5 8.50% 8.50%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 5.10% 5.10%

Case 3 4


Page 18





Table 3.9 Voltage Results w/2016 configuration

Monitored Element

Pre-Project

Post-Project

% change % change


BAJA 69.0 7.10% 7.00%

BOSE 34.5 8.00% 7.90%

SANLUIS 34.5 8.40% 8.20%

SANLUS 3 12.5 8.70% 8.60%

MEX TAP 34.5 8.00% 7.90%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 6.50% 6.40%

SANLUIS 69.0 8.30% 8.20%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 8.20% 8.00%

SNL-WALC 34.5 8.30% 8.20%

BAJA 12.5 7.30% 7.20%

SANLUS11 12.5 9.00% 8.90%

CFE TIE 34.5 8.40% 8.20%


BOSE 34.5 6.00% 5.90%

SANLUIS 34.5 6.20% 6.10%

SANLUS 3 12.5 5.60% 5.50%

MEX TAP 34.5 6.00% 5.90%

SANLUIS 69.0 5.40% 5.30%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 6.10% 6.00%

SNL-WALC 34.5 6.20% 6.10%

LAGUNA11 12.5 7.40% 7.20%

LAGUNA 3 12.5 7.40% 7.20%

LAGUNA 69.0 7.10% 7.00%

SANLUS11 12.5 5.90% 5.70%

CFE TIE 34.5 6.20% 6.10%


MEX TAP 34.5 -5.00% <5%


SONORA 69.0 5.50% 5.50%

SNLWALCX 34.5 5.30% 5.30%

Case 5 6


Page 19





Table 3.10 Volatge Results w/2016 configuration, High Yuma Generation

Monitored Element

Pre-Project

Post-Project

% change % change


BAJA 69.0 8.50% 8.50%

BOSE 34.5 10.30% 10.30%

SANLUIS 34.5 10.60% 10.50%

SANLUS 3 12.5 10.70% 10.60%

MEX TAP 34.5 10.30% 10.30%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 8.40% 8.30%

SANLUIS 69.0 10.00% 10.00%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 10.50% 10.40%

SNL-WALC 34.5 10.60% 10.50%

BAJA 12.5 9.00% 9.00%

SANLUS11 12.5 10.90% 10.80%

CFE TIE 34.5 10.60% 10.50%


SONORA 69.0 5.50% 5.50%

BAJA 69.0 11.90% 11.80%

BOSE 34.5 15.10% 14.90%

SANLUIS 34.5 15.30% 15.10%

SNLWALCX 34.5 7.40% 7.30%

SANLUS 3 12.5 14.70% 14.50%

MEX TAP 34.5 15.10% 14.90%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 12.50% 12.40%

SANLUIS 69.0 13.70% 13.60%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 15.20% 15.00%

SNL-WALC 34.5 15.30% 15.10%

LAGUNA11 12.5 18.20% 18.00%

BAJA 12.5 12.60% 12.50%

LAGUNA 3 12.5 18.30% 18.10%

LAGUNA 69.0 17.00% 16.80%

SANLUS11 12.5 15.00% 14.80%

CFE TIE 34.5 15.30% 15.10%


SANLUIS 34.5 -6.10% -6.10%

MEX TAP 34.5 -8.00% -8.00%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 -6.40% -6.40%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 -7.00% -7.00%

SNL-WALC 34.5 -6.10% -6.10%

CFE TIE 34.5 -6.10% -6.10%


SONORA 69.0 9.10% 9.10%

SNLWALCX 34.5 8.50% 8.50%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 5.00% 5.00%

Case 7 8


Page 20





Table 3.11 Voltage Results w/2016 configuration, High Yuma Generation, TS8 project

Monitored Element

Pre-Project

Post-Project

% change % change


BAJA 69.0 6.20% 6.20%

BOSE 34.5 7.30% 7.30%

SANLUIS 34.5 7.60% 7.50%

SANLUS 3 12.5 7.90% 7.90%

MEX TAP 34.5 7.30% 7.30%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 5.90% 5.90%

SANLUIS 69.0 7.40% 7.40%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 7.50% 7.40%

SNL-WALC 34.5 7.60% 7.50%

BAJA 12.5 6.50% 6.50%

SANLUS11 12.5 8.00% 8.00%

CFE TIE 34.5 7.60% 7.50%


BAJA 69.0 7.00% 6.90%

BOSE 34.5 8.90% 8.80%

SANLUIS 34.5 9.10% 9.00%

SANLUS 3 12.5 8.70% 8.60%

MEX TAP 34.5 8.90% 8.80%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 7.30% 7.20%

SANLUIS 69.0 8.20% 8.10%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 9.00% 8.90%

SNL-WALC 34.5 9.10% 9.00%

LAGUNA11 12.5 11.30% 11.20%

BAJA 12.5 7.40% 7.30%

LAGUNA 3 12.5 11.40% 11.30%

LAGUNA 69.0 10.60% 10.60%

SANLUS11 12.5 8.80% 8.80%

CFE TIE 34.5 9.10% 9.00%


SANLUIS 34.5 -5.70% -5.70%

MEX TAP 34.5 -7.60% -7.60%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 -6.00% -6.00%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 -6.60% -6.60%

SNL-WALC 34.5 -5.70% -5.70%

CFE TIE 34.5 -5.70% -5.70%


SONORA 69.0 8.50% 8.40%

SNLWALCX 34.5 7.90% 7.90%

Case 9 10


Page 21





Table 3.12 Voltage Results w/2016 configuration, High Yuma Generation, TS8 project, Q43 full

output

Monitored Element

Pre-Project

Post-Project

% change % change


BAJA 69.0 6.20% 6.20%

BOSE 34.5 7.30% 7.40%

SANLUIS 34.5 7.60% 7.60%

SANLUS 3 12.5 7.90% 7.90%

MEX TAP 34.5 7.30% 7.40%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 5.90% 5.90%

SANLUIS 69.0 7.40% 7.40%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 7.50% 7.50%

SNL-WALC 34.5 7.60% 7.60%

BAJA 12.5 6.50% 6.50%

SANLUS11 12.5 8.00% 8.10%

CFE TIE 34.5 7.60% 7.60%


BAJA 69.0 7.00% 7.00%

BOSE 34.5 8.80% 8.90%

SANLUIS 34.5 9.00% 9.10%

SANLUS 3 12.5 8.70% 8.70%

MEX TAP 34.5 8.80% 8.90%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 7.20% 7.20%

SANLUIS 69.0 8.20% 8.20%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 8.90% 9.00%

SNL-WALC 34.5 9.00% 9.10%

LAGUNA11 12.5 11.30% 11.40%

BAJA 12.5 7.30% 7.40%

LAGUNA 3 12.5 11.40% 11.40%

LAGUNA 69.0 10.70% 10.70%

SANLUS11 12.5 8.80% 8.90%

CFE TIE 34.5 9.00% 9.10%


SANLUIS 34.5 -5.70% -5.70%

MEX TAP 34.5 -7.60% -7.60%

WF_EQLD1 34.5 -6.00% -6.00%

WF_EQLD2 34.5 -6.60% -6.60%

SNL-WALC 34.5 -5.70% -5.70%

CFE TIE 34.5 -5.70% -5.70%


SONORA 69.0 8.40% 8.40%

SNLWALCX 34.5 7.90% 7.90%

Case 11 12


Page 22

3.3 Voltage Flicker Analysis 2014 Heavy Summer Case

Results of the voltage flicker analysis indicate that there are no deviations greater than 1.5%. Table 3.13

details the results of the voltage flicker analysis. The greatest flicker is observed at the Foothills 69.0 kV

bus with a 0.2978% decrease with Q217. This occurs as the unit(s) adjusts from 100% to 10% output.

Table 3.13 Voltage Flicker Results, Q217

100% Generation (base) 10% Generation 30% Generation 60% Generation 90% Generation

Bus Voltage

(pu) Voltage

(pu) Deviation Voltage



(pu) Deviation

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 0.9987 0.9957 -0.2978 0.9979 -0.0839 0.9995 0.0792 0.9992 0.0523

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0143 1.0137 -0.059 1.0147 0.0374 1.0152 0.093 1.0147 0.0415

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.0003 0.999 -0.1344 1.0004 0.0104 1.0014 0.1048 1.0008 0.0515

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0107 1.0099 -0.0783 1.011 0.0272 1.0116 0.0913 1.0111 0.0422

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.0084 1.0077 -0.073 1.0085 0.009 1.009 0.0616 1.0087 0.0298

MAB S 69.00kV 1.002 1.0013 -0.0687 1.002 0.0086 1.0025 0.0582 1.0022 0.0281

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.0023 1.0013 -0.1039 1.0025 0.0205 1.0033 0.0989 1.0028 0.047

GILA 69.00kV 1.0111 1.0104 -0.0683 1.0112 0.0125 1.0117 0.0636 1.0114 0.0303

SONEILL 69.00kV 1.0008 1.0001 -0.0648 1.0009 0.0101 1.0013 0.0577 1.001 0.0277

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0071 1.0067 -0.0386 1.0074 0.0307 1.0078 0.0698 1.0074 0.0308

SW7 69.00kV 1.0014 1.0006 -0.0777 1.0017 0.0314 1.0024 0.097 1.0019 0.0444

QUECHAN 69.00kV 1.0073 1.0069 -0.0384 1.0076 0.0259 1.008 0.0627 1.0076 0.0279

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0014 1.0008 -0.0611 1.0015 0.0112 1.002 0.0569 1.0017 0.0271

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9937 0.9931 -0.0625 0.9938 0.0048 0.9942 0.0486 0.994 0.0238

LAGUNA 69.00kV 1.0255 1.0251 -0.0456 1.0256 0.0087 1.026 0.0429 1.0258 0.0204

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 0.9987 0.9957 -0.2978 0.9979 -0.0839 0.9995 0.0792 0.9992 0.0523

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0143 1.0137 -0.059 1.0147 0.0374 1.0152 0.093 1.0147 0.0415

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.0003 0.999 -0.1344 1.0004 0.0104 1.0014 0.1048 1.0008 0.0515

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0107 1.0099 -0.0783 1.011 0.0272 1.0116 0.0913 1.0111 0.0422

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.0084 1.0077 -0.073 1.0085 0.009 1.009 0.0616 1.0087 0.0298

MAB S 69.00kV 1.002 1.0013 -0.0687 1.002 0.0086 1.0025 0.0582 1.0022 0.0281

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.0023 1.0013 -0.1039 1.0025 0.0205 1.0033 0.0989 1.0028 0.047

GILA 69.00kV 1.0111 1.0104 -0.0683 1.0112 0.0125 1.0117 0.0636 1.0114 0.0303

SONEILL 69.00kV 1.0008 1.0001 -0.0648 1.0009 0.0101 1.0013 0.0577 1.001 0.0277

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0071 1.0067 -0.0386 1.0074 0.0307 1.0078 0.0698 1.0074 0.0308

SW7 69.00kV 1.0014 1.0006 -0.0777 1.0017 0.0314 1.0024 0.097 1.0019 0.0444

QUECHAN 69.00kV 1.0073 1.0069 -0.0384 1.0076 0.0259 1.008 0.0627 1.0076 0.0279

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0014 1.0008 -0.0611 1.0015 0.0112 1.002 0.0569 1.0017 0.0271

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9937 0.9931 -0.0625 0.9938 0.0048 0.9942 0.0486 0.994 0.0238


Page 23







Bus Voltage

(pu) Voltage




(pu) Deviation

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0025 0.9971 -0.5345 0.9998 -0.2688 1.0022 -0.0283 1.0027 0.0248

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0115 1.0088 -0.2667 1.0102 -0.1277 1.0115 -0.0053 1.0117 0.0158

REDONDO 69.00kV 0.9962 0.9926 -0.3548 0.9945 -0.1643 0.9962 0.0013 0.9964 0.0245

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0067 1.0037 -0.2902 1.0052 -0.1413 1.0066 -0.0089 1.0068 0.0159

ARABY S 69.00kV 0.9971 0.9947 -0.2433 0.9959 -0.1286 0.9969 -0.022 0.9972 0.0075

MAB S 69.00kV 0.9886 0.9865 -0.2135 0.9875 -0.1127 0.9884 -0.0192 0.9886 0.0066

SANGUINE 69.00kV 0.9959 0.9928 -0.311 0.9945 -0.145 0.9959 -0.0003 0.9961 0.0209

GILA 69.00kV 1.0025 1.0001 -0.2394 1.0012 -0.1253 1.0023 -0.02 1.0025 0.0081

SONEILL 69.00kV 0.9869 0.985 -0.2007 0.9859 -0.1054 0.9868 -0.0171 0.987 0.0066

PACIFIC 69.00kV 0.993 0.9914 -0.1606 0.9923 -0.0764 0.993 -0.0023 0.9931 0.0098

SW7 69.00kV 0.9921 0.9895 -0.2637 0.9909 -0.1193 0.9921 0.0049 0.9923 0.0198

QUECHAN 69.00kV 0.992 0.9906 -0.1421 0.9913 -0.0689 0.992 -0.0041 0.9921 0.0079

WALDRIP 69.00kV 0.9872 0.9853 -0.1877 0.9862 -0.098 0.987 -0.0152 0.9873 0.0065

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9769 0.9751 -0.1827 0.976 -0.0993 0.9767 -0.0205 0.977 0.0041

LAGUNA 69.00kV 1.0106 1.0092 -0.1386 1.0099 -0.0751 1.0105 -0.0152 1.0107 0.0032

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0025 0.9971 -0.5345 0.9998 -0.2688 1.0022 -0.0283 1.0027 0.0248

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0115 1.0088 -0.2667 1.0102 -0.1277 1.0115 -0.0053 1.0117 0.0158

REDONDO 69.00kV 0.9962 0.9926 -0.3548 0.9945 -0.1643 0.9962 0.0013 0.9964 0.0245

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0067 1.0037 -0.2902 1.0052 -0.1413 1.0066 -0.0089 1.0068 0.0159

ARABY S 69.00kV 0.9971 0.9947 -0.2433 0.9959 -0.1286 0.9969 -0.022 0.9972 0.0075

MAB S 69.00kV 0.9886 0.9865 -0.2135 0.9875 -0.1127 0.9884 -0.0192 0.9886 0.0066

SANGUINE 69.00kV 0.9959 0.9928 -0.311 0.9945 -0.145 0.9959 -0.0003 0.9961 0.0209

GILA 69.00kV 1.0025 1.0001 -0.2394 1.0012 -0.1253 1.0023 -0.02 1.0025 0.0081

SONEILL 69.00kV 0.9869 0.985 -0.2007 0.9859 -0.1054 0.9868 -0.0171 0.987 0.0066

PACIFIC 69.00kV 0.993 0.9914 -0.1606 0.9923 -0.0764 0.993 -0.0023 0.9931 0.0098

SW7 69.00kV 0.9921 0.9895 -0.2637 0.9909 -0.1193 0.9921 0.0049 0.9923 0.0198

QUECHAN 69.00kV 0.992 0.9906 -0.1421 0.9913 -0.0689 0.992 -0.0041 0.9921 0.0079

WALDRIP 69.00kV 0.9872 0.9853 -0.1877 0.9862 -0.098 0.987 -0.0152 0.9873 0.0065

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9769 0.9751 -0.1827 0.976 -0.0993 0.9767 -0.0205 0.977 0.0041


Page 24







Bus Voltage

(pu) Voltage




(pu) Deviation

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0016 0.9991 -0.2581 1.0008 -0.0826 1.0022 0.0544 1.002 0.0395

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0152 1.0138 -0.1323 1.0149 -0.0279 1.0157 0.0485 1.0155 0.0285

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.004 1.0026 -0.1327 1.0038 -0.0201 1.0046 0.06 1.0043 0.0332

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.012 1.0106 -0.1353 1.0117 -0.0295 1.0125 0.0483 1.0123 0.0286

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.004 1.0022 -0.1832 1.0035 -0.0489 1.0046 0.0526 1.0044 0.0336

MAB S 69.00kV 0.9998 0.9984 -0.1402 0.9994 -0.0342 1.0002 0.0448 1 0.0276

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.005 1.0037 -0.1301 1.0048 -0.0238 1.0056 0.0529 1.0053 0.0301

GILA 69.00kV 1.0081 1.0067 -0.1396 1.0078 -0.0295 1.0086 0.0511 1.0084 0.03

SONEILL 69.00kV 0.9993 0.9979 -0.1383 0.9989 -0.0388 0.9997 0.037 0.9996 0.0243

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0078 1.0067 -0.1037 1.0075 -0.0251 1.0081 0.0334 1.008 0.0205

SW7 69.00kV 1.0038 1.0026 -0.122 1.0036 -0.0229 1.0043 0.0487 1.0041 0.0279

QUECHAN 69.00kV 1.0079 1.0069 -0.1001 1.0076 -0.0266 1.0082 0.0288 1.0081 0.0184

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0007 0.9994 -0.1347 1.0003 -0.0421 1.001 0.0297 1.0009 0.0211

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9934 0.992 -0.1331 0.9929 -0.0478 0.9936 0.0205 0.9935 0.0173

LAGUNA 69.00kV 1.0254 1.0244 -0.0974 1.0251 -0.031 1.0256 0.0207 1.0256 0.0149

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0016 0.9991 -0.2581 1.0008 -0.0826 1.0022 0.0544 1.002 0.0395

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0152 1.0138 -0.1323 1.0149 -0.0279 1.0157 0.0485 1.0155 0.0285

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.004 1.0026 -0.1327 1.0038 -0.0201 1.0046 0.06 1.0043 0.0332

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.012 1.0106 -0.1353 1.0117 -0.0295 1.0125 0.0483 1.0123 0.0286

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.004 1.0022 -0.1832 1.0035 -0.0489 1.0046 0.0526 1.0044 0.0336

MAB S 69.00kV 0.9998 0.9984 -0.1402 0.9994 -0.0342 1.0002 0.0448 1 0.0276

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.005 1.0037 -0.1301 1.0048 -0.0238 1.0056 0.0529 1.0053 0.0301

GILA 69.00kV 1.0081 1.0067 -0.1396 1.0078 -0.0295 1.0086 0.0511 1.0084 0.03

SONEILL 69.00kV 0.9993 0.9979 -0.1383 0.9989 -0.0388 0.9997 0.037 0.9996 0.0243

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0078 1.0067 -0.1037 1.0075 -0.0251 1.0081 0.0334 1.008 0.0205

SW7 69.00kV 1.0038 1.0026 -0.122 1.0036 -0.0229 1.0043 0.0487 1.0041 0.0279

QUECHAN 69.00kV 1.0079 1.0069 -0.1001 1.0076 -0.0266 1.0082 0.0288 1.0081 0.0184

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0007 0.9994 -0.1347 1.0003 -0.0421 1.001 0.0297 1.0009 0.0211

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9934 0.992 -0.1331 0.9929 -0.0478 0.9936 0.0205 0.9935 0.0173


Page 25







Bus Voltage

(pu) Voltage




(pu) Deviation

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0011 0.9967 -0.437 0.9988 -0.2237 1.0008 -0.0286 1.0012 0.018

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0117 1.0086 -0.303 1.01 -0.1643 1.0113 -0.0331 1.0117 0.0071

REDONDO 69.00kV 0.9947 0.9918 -0.2913 0.9932 -0.1479 0.9945 -0.0175 0.9948 0.0126

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0064 1.0034 -0.3027 1.0048 -0.1636 1.0061 -0.0324 1.0065 0.0073

ARABY S 69.00kV 0.9976 0.9941 -0.3545 0.9958 -0.1855 0.9974 -0.029 0.9978 0.0122

MAB S 69.00kV 0.9887 0.986 -0.268 0.9873 -0.1409 0.9885 -0.023 0.9888 0.0088

SANGUINE 69.00kV 0.9949 0.9921 -0.2805 0.9934 -0.1461 0.9947 -0.0221 0.995 0.01

GILA 69.00kV 1.0029 0.9998 -0.308 1.0012 -0.164 1.0026 -0.0294 1.003 0.0089

SONEILL 69.00kV 0.987 0.9845 -0.2532 0.9857 -0.1366 0.9868 -0.0267 0.9871 0.0063

PACIFIC 69.00kV 0.9931 0.9912 -0.1916 0.992 -0.1049 0.9929 -0.0224 0.9931 0.0039

SW7 69.00kV 0.9914 0.9888 -0.2562 0.9901 -0.134 0.9912 -0.0209 0.9915 0.0088

QUECHAN 69.00kV 0.992 0.9904 -0.1698 0.9911 -0.0942 0.9918 -0.0216 0.9921 0.0027

WALDRIP 69.00kV 0.9873 0.9849 -0.2368 0.986 -0.1311 0.987 -0.0298 0.9873 0.004

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9771 0.9749 -0.2328 0.9758 -0.1346 0.9768 -0.0374 0.9771 0.0006

LAGUNA 69.00kV 1.0108 1.0091 -0.1705 1.0098 -0.0983 1.0105 -0.0271 1.0108 0.0006

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0011 0.9967 -0.437 0.9988 -0.2237 1.0008 -0.0286 1.0012 0.018

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0117 1.0086 -0.303 1.01 -0.1643 1.0113 -0.0331 1.0117 0.0071

REDONDO 69.00kV 0.9947 0.9918 -0.2913 0.9932 -0.1479 0.9945 -0.0175 0.9948 0.0126

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0064 1.0034 -0.3027 1.0048 -0.1636 1.0061 -0.0324 1.0065 0.0073

ARABY S 69.00kV 0.9976 0.9941 -0.3545 0.9958 -0.1855 0.9974 -0.029 0.9978 0.0122

MAB S 69.00kV 0.9887 0.986 -0.268 0.9873 -0.1409 0.9885 -0.023 0.9888 0.0088

SANGUINE 69.00kV 0.9949 0.9921 -0.2805 0.9934 -0.1461 0.9947 -0.0221 0.995 0.01

GILA 69.00kV 1.0029 0.9998 -0.308 1.0012 -0.164 1.0026 -0.0294 1.003 0.0089

SONEILL 69.00kV 0.987 0.9845 -0.2532 0.9857 -0.1366 0.9868 -0.0267 0.9871 0.0063

PACIFIC 69.00kV 0.9931 0.9912 -0.1916 0.992 -0.1049 0.9929 -0.0224 0.9931 0.0039

SW7 69.00kV 0.9914 0.9888 -0.2562 0.9901 -0.134 0.9912 -0.0209 0.9915 0.0088

QUECHAN 69.00kV 0.992 0.9904 -0.1698 0.9911 -0.0942 0.9918 -0.0216 0.9921 0.0027

WALDRIP 69.00kV 0.9873 0.9849 -0.2368 0.986 -0.1311 0.987 -0.0298 0.9873 0.004

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9771 0.9749 -0.2328 0.9758 -0.1346 0.9768 -0.0374 0.9771 0.0006


Page 26







Bus Voltage

(pu) Voltage




(pu) Deviation

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0122 1.01 -0.2137 1.0115 -0.0697 1.0126 0.0432 1.0125 0.032

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0201 1.0193 -0.0759 1.0201 -0.001 1.0206 0.0492 1.0204 0.025

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.0061 1.0052 -0.0891 1.006 -0.0073 1.0066 0.0491 1.0064 0.0258

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0157 1.0149 -0.0786 1.0157 -0.0031 1.0162 0.0481 1.0159 0.0247

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.0102 1.0088 -0.1321 1.0098 -0.0335 1.0106 0.0403 1.0104 0.0252

MAB S 69.00kV 1.0083 1.0072 -0.1172 1.0079 -0.0402 1.0086 0.0207 1.0085 0.0163

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.006 1.0052 -0.0824 1.0059 -0.0063 1.0065 0.046 1.0062 0.0241

GILA 69.00kV 1.0128 1.012 -0.0806 1.0128 -0.004 1.0133 0.0481 1.0131 0.0248

SONEILL 69.00kV 1.0061 1.005 -0.1101 1.0058 -0.0376 1.0063 0.0198 1.0063 0.0154

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0016 1.001 -0.0594 1.0015 -0.0056 1.0019 0.0316 1.0017 0.0168

SW7 69.00kV 1.0026 1.0018 -0.0763 1.0025 -0.0059 1.003 0.0425 1.0028 0.0223

QUECHAN 69.00kV 1.0002 0.9996 -0.0593 1.0001 -0.0095 1.0005 0.026 1.0004 0.0145

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0058 1.0047 -0.1027 1.0054 -0.0348 1.006 0.0188 1.0059 0.0145

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9916 0.9907 -0.0878 0.9913 -0.0283 0.9918 0.0182 0.9917 0.0133

LAGUNA 69.00kV 1.0205 1.0199 -0.0608 1.0203 -0.0166 1.0207 0.0168 1.0206 0.0109

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0122 1.01 -0.2137 1.0115 -0.0697 1.0126 0.0432 1.0125 0.032

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.0201 1.0193 -0.0759 1.0201 -0.001 1.0206 0.0492 1.0204 0.025

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.0061 1.0052 -0.0891 1.006 -0.0073 1.0066 0.0491 1.0064 0.0258

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0157 1.0149 -0.0786 1.0157 -0.0031 1.0162 0.0481 1.0159 0.0247

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.0102 1.0088 -0.1321 1.0098 -0.0335 1.0106 0.0403 1.0104 0.0252

MAB S 69.00kV 1.0083 1.0072 -0.1172 1.0079 -0.0402 1.0086 0.0207 1.0085 0.0163

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.006 1.0052 -0.0824 1.0059 -0.0063 1.0065 0.046 1.0062 0.0241

GILA 69.00kV 1.0128 1.012 -0.0806 1.0128 -0.004 1.0133 0.0481 1.0131 0.0248

SONEILL 69.00kV 1.0061 1.005 -0.1101 1.0058 -0.0376 1.0063 0.0198 1.0063 0.0154

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0016 1.001 -0.0594 1.0015 -0.0056 1.0019 0.0316 1.0017 0.0168

SW7 69.00kV 1.0026 1.0018 -0.0763 1.0025 -0.0059 1.003 0.0425 1.0028 0.0223

QUECHAN 69.00kV 1.0002 0.9996 -0.0593 1.0001 -0.0095 1.0005 0.026 1.0004 0.0145

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0058 1.0047 -0.1027 1.0054 -0.0348 1.006 0.0188 1.0059 0.0145

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9916 0.9907 -0.0878 0.9913 -0.0283 0.9918 0.0182 0.9917 0.0133


Page 27







Bus Voltage

(pu) Voltage




(pu) Deviation

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0112 1.009 -0.2151 1.0105 -0.0705 1.0116 0.043 1.0115 0.032

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.019 1.0182 -0.0781 1.019 -0.0025 1.0195 0.0485 1.0192 0.0249

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.0051 1.0042 -0.0903 1.005 -0.008 1.0056 0.0489 1.0054 0.0258

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0146 1.0138 -0.0807 1.0146 -0.0044 1.0151 0.0475 1.0149 0.0246

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.0091 1.0078 -0.1332 1.0088 -0.0341 1.0095 0.0402 1.0094 0.0253

MAB S 69.00kV 1.0073 1.0061 -0.1192 1.0069 -0.0415 1.0075 0.0202 1.0074 0.0162

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.005 1.0042 -0.0836 1.0049 -0.007 1.0055 0.0458 1.0052 0.0241

GILA 69.00kV 1.0118 1.011 -0.0805 1.0118 -0.0037 1.0123 0.0484 1.0121 0.025

SONEILL 69.00kV 1.0051 1.004 -0.1119 1.0047 -0.0387 1.0053 0.0193 1.0053 0.0153

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0007 1.0001 -0.0602 1.0007 -0.006 1.0011 0.0315 1.0009 0.0168

SW7 69.00kV 1.0016 1.0008 -0.0774 1.0015 -0.0065 1.002 0.0423 1.0018 0.0223

QUECHAN 69.00kV 0.9995 0.9989 -0.0598 0.9994 -0.0097 0.9998 0.026 0.9996 0.0145

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0048 1.0037 -0.1043 1.0044 -0.0359 1.005 0.0183 1.0049 0.0145

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9908 0.9899 -0.0884 0.9905 -0.0286 0.9909 0.0181 0.9909 0.0133

LAGUNA 69.00kV 1.0198 1.0192 -0.0608 1.0197 -0.0165 1.02 0.0169 1.0199 0.0109

FOOTHILS 69.00kV 1.0112 1.009 -0.2151 1.0105 -0.0705 1.0116 0.043 1.0115 0.032

N.GILA 69.00kV 1.019 1.0182 -0.0781 1.019 -0.0025 1.0195 0.0485 1.0192 0.0249

REDONDO 69.00kV 1.0051 1.0042 -0.0903 1.005 -0.008 1.0056 0.0489 1.0054 0.0258

MITTRY 69.00kV 1.0146 1.0138 -0.0807 1.0146 -0.0044 1.0151 0.0475 1.0149 0.0246

ARABY S 69.00kV 1.0091 1.0078 -0.1332 1.0088 -0.0341 1.0095 0.0402 1.0094 0.0253

MAB S 69.00kV 1.0073 1.0061 -0.1192 1.0069 -0.0415 1.0075 0.0202 1.0074 0.0162

SANGUINE 69.00kV 1.005 1.0042 -0.0836 1.0049 -0.007 1.0055 0.0458 1.0052 0.0241

GILA 69.00kV 1.0118 1.011 -0.0805 1.0118 -0.0037 1.0123 0.0484 1.0121 0.025

SONEILL 69.00kV 1.0051 1.004 -0.1119 1.0047 -0.0387 1.0053 0.0193 1.0053 0.0153

PACIFIC 69.00kV 1.0007 1.0001 -0.0602 1.0007 -0.006 1.0011 0.0315 1.0009 0.0168

SW7 69.00kV 1.0016 1.0008 -0.0774 1.0015 -0.0065 1.002 0.0423 1.0018 0.0223

QUECHAN 69.00kV 0.9995 0.9989 -0.0598 0.9994 -0.0097 0.9998 0.026 0.9996 0.0145

WALDRIP 69.00kV 1.0048 1.0037 -0.1043 1.0044 -0.0359 1.005 0.0183 1.0049 0.0145

SANLUIS 69.00kV 0.9908 0.9899 -0.0884 0.9905 -0.0286 0.9909 0.0181 0.9909 0.0133

3.4 Transient Stability Analysis

Sixty-Seven (67) outages were selected for transient stability evaluation. As referenced in the Reliability

Criteria section of this report, the system should meet the following transient stability performance criteria

for a NERC/WECC Category ‘B’ disturbance (N-1):

Transient voltage dip should not be below 25% at any load busses or 30% at any non-load busses at

any time.

The duration of a transient voltage dip greater than 20% should not exceed 20 cycles at load busses.

The minimum transient frequency should not fall below 59.6 Hz for more than 6 cycles at load

busses.

Appendix D contains transient stability plots of selected contingencies that provide a representative

illustration of the transmission system’s Post-Project voltage response.

Results indicate that there are no transient stability violations in the pre- or post-project cases.


Page 28

3.5 Short Circuit / Fault Duty Analysis Short circuit analysis of the proposed generator was performed by the APS Protection Department, using

the CAPE program and parameters supplied by the Applicant. Fault duties were calculated for both

single-phase –to-ground and three-phase faults at substation busses in the immediate surrounding area

before and after the proposed generator installation. The model also included the 2016 system

representation which included the Hassayampa-North Gila 500kv line, the North Gila-Orchard 230kv

project and some local 69kv planned upgrades. The results presented here assume a “worst-case”

scenario. The interconnection of the Q217 project does not cause any existing substation breakers to

exceed their rating. Table 3.19 Summarizes the results of the Short-Circuit analysis

Table 3.19 Short Circuit Results

Station Base Case With Q217 Min. Brkr

Rating -kA 3 Ph. (kA) X/R

Ph-G (kA) X/R

3 Ph. (kA) X/R

Ph-G (kA) X/R

Desert Sands 69kv 8.1 5.2 5.3 4.6 8.7 5.4 7.3 5.8 40

Gila 69kv 15.9 7.4 14.3 7.6 16.0 7.4 14.5 7.6 N/A

North Gila 69kv 19.8 9.3 22.5 10.5 20.1 9.4 22.9 10.5 31.5

3.6 Results & Findings Summary The results of the SIS indicate that the addition of Q217 results in no new post-project reliability violations

nor aggravation of pre-existing violations. However, the project as designed is not able to meet the power

factor requirements at this time. An additional 5.5 Mvar reactive support is necessary to compensate for

losses from the generators to the POI.

4 Cost & Construction Time Estimates

The cost estimates represent good faith estimates necessary to interconnect to the system. Not included

in these estimates are the additional reactive needs of the project, nor any costs associated with the

generator tie line after it leaves the new double circuited part. The non-binding, good faith cost and time

estimates are tabulated below. There are Right of Way and line construction costs associated with the

facilities APS is responsible to construct. Acquiring the Right of Way from the State of Arizona is

estimated to be the longest lead time for the project. Up to two miles of an existing APS 69kv line will

need to be rebuilt as double circuit 69kv which will require additional Right of Way. The substation costs

will consist of both Network Upgrades and Transmission Providers Interconnection Facilities.

Table 4

Q217 Estimates

Equipment Description Design

Time

(MO.)

Construction

Time

(MO.)

Network

Upgrades

($000)

Transmission

Providers

Interconnection

Facilities

($000)

Desert Sands: 69kV Switchyard Upgrades 3 3 127 145

Line Right of Way 18-24 N/A 0 70

Line Construction (double circuit 69kv-2 miles) 3 2 0 917

Totals 18-24 3 127 1132

Total Cost = $1,259,000


Page 29


Page 30

List of Acronyms

ACC Arizona Corporation Commission

ACSS Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported

ANPP Arizona Nuclear Power Project

APS Arizona Public Service

ATC Available Transfer Capability

CAISO California Independent System Operator Corporation

CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District

CCVT Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer

COD Commercial Operation Date

CSP Concentrated Solar Power

CT Combustion Turbine or Current Transformer

EPE El Paso Electric

ER Energy Resource

ERIS Energy Resource Interconnection Service

FaS Facilities Study

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FeS Feasibility Study

GT Gas Turbine

IC Interconnection Customer

IID Imperial Irrigation District

IR Interconnection Request

LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

LGIA Large Generator Interconnection Agreement

NEC Navopache Electric Cooperative

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NR Network Resource

NRIS Network Resource Interconnection Service

NTUA Navajo Tribal Utility Authority

OASIS Open Access Same Time Information System

OATT Open Access Transmission Tariff

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric

PNM Public Service Company of New Mexico

POI Point Of Interconnection

PPA Purchase Power Agreement

PSLF/PSDS/SCSC Positive Sequence Load Flow/Positive Sequence Dynamic

Simulation/Short-Circuit Saturation Curve

PST Phase-Shifting Transformer

PV Photovoltaic

RAS Remedial Action Scheme (also known as SPS)

RFP Request for Proposal


Page 31

SCE Southern California Edison Company

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company

SIS System Impact Study

SLG fault Single Line-to-Ground fault

SPS Special Protection System (also known as RAS)

SRP Salt River Project

SSVEC Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.

SVC Static VAR Compensator

SVD Static VAR Device

SWTC Southwest Transmission Cooperative

TEP Tucson Electric Power

TPIF Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities

WAPA Western Area Power Administration

WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Q217 Generator Interconnection Project · 2013-12-31 · Q217 System Impact Study APS Contract...

Documents

Transcript of Q217 Generator Interconnection Project · 2013-12-31 · Q217 System Impact Study APS Contract...