12/18/2012 | Westborough ma

12/18/2012 | WESTBOROUGH MA

Load Power Factor Audit - 2011/2012

and Area Load Power Factor

Standards revised for 2013

Dean LaForestMANAGER,

REAL TIME STUDIES

Presentation to RC - 2012

• Review Annual Load Power Factor Audit and needs for revising Area Standards

• Examine Load Power Factor Compliance Results for the 2011/2012 Audit period

• Present Updated 2013 Load Power Standards for 3 Areas

• Forecast Compliance into next LPF Audit period

2

Review of Load Power Factor (LPF) Correction Program

• Eleven LPF Areas are defined in NEPOOL OP17 - Load Power Factor Correction (new revision)

– Assess the Voltage/Reactive limitations of each Area– LPF Area interface definitions reside in OP17

• OP17 and annual LPF audit managed by the Voltage Task Force (VTF).

• Each Area is assessed individually to determine its own reactive needs.

– Voltage/Reactive Performance criterion– Net Zero MVAR Interchange criterion

3

Graphical Representation of the 11 LPF Areas

4

ME

NH

VT

MA

RICT

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Boston

Northeast Western MA

Connecticut Southwest Connecticut

Southeast

Harriman Central MA

Reasons for Updating Allowable LPF Standards

• Changes in area voltage/reactive performance due to transmission changes.– New transmission lines– New bulk transformers – Changes in transfer conditions– Additional static or dynamic reactive compensation– Changes in generator reactive capability– Load growth since last Area LPF study– Change of Area definition

5

Annual Load Power Factor Survey

• ISO-NE and VTF are responsible for– Administering the annual LPF survey– Evaluating and reporting results– Requesting remedial action plans from Participants

• Specific historic hours are selected and actual LPF is surveyed on a Participant basis

• Evaluation is done by comparing a Participant’s surveyed LPFs to the corresponding Area’s allowable LPFs for the specified load levels

• The degree of noncompliance for each Participant is identified in terms of surplus or shortfall of reactive capability– Changes in the underlying networks (i.e. adding caps) can impact

compliance with survey requirements6

Annual Load Power Factor Survey

• Two Area LPF standards (graphs) are maintained– One LPF Standard is applicable to the year which is being audited for

compliance (2011/2012 Standard)– A second LPF Standard applies to the next year and is used to

determine how much action is needed to meet future LPF standards (2013 audit using new Standards)

– OP17 program cited by NERC as an Example of Excellence.

7

LPF Compliance Results for 2011/2012 Audit

• Eighty one participants submitted LPF audit data for six loads points identified by ISO New England:– Spring Light Load (9,205 MW)– Summer Intermediate and Peak Loads (21,882 MW and 27,707 MW)– Fall Light Load (9,323 MW)– Winter Intermediate and Peak Loads (18,032 MW and 19,905 MW)

• The Spring and Fall light load periods show no improvement in compliance since the last LPF audit. – 26 participants were noncompliant for Spring Light load in 2011/12

and 25 in Spring of 2010/11 audits;– 31 participants were noncompliant for Fall Light load in 2011/12 and

in Fall of 2010/11 audits; – A relatively large number of non-compliant participants reside in

Harriman/Central area (Of the 19 participants, 11 were non-compliant for the spring and 13 for the fall light loads ).

8


• Both summer and winter peak loads showed a slight decline in LPF compliance due to higher load for summer peak and lighter load for the winter peak.

• The summer intermediate load remained about the same compared to last year’s LPF audit and the winter intermediate load showed a decline in compliance of 2%.

9

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Spring Summer Fall Winter

New England Load 9155 9205 21528 21882 27102 27707 9321 9323 18551 18032 21060 19905

Compliant Participants 69% 68% 89% 89% 74% 73% 63% 63% 85% 83% 93% 90%

Compliance change 2009/10 -2010/11 -1% 0% -1% 0% -2% -3%

Positive Value = Improvement; 81 participants are 100% compliant


• In the 2011/2012 audit period 32 participants were fully compliant:Harriman / Central Mass: Green Mountain PowerConnecticut area: Bozrah Light & Power, Groton Utilities, Mohegan Tribal

Utility Authority, Norwich PU, Northeast Utilities, The United Illuminated Company, The Town of Wallingford

Maine: Bangor Hydro, CMPNew Hampshire: Littleton, NH Electric Coop, PSNH, Unitil Energy System

Northeast Mass: Middleton, Peabody, Reading, RowleyRhode Island: Narragansett, PascoagSoutheast: Mansfield, Mass Electric, Middleborough, North Attenborough,

Norwood SWCT: Northeast Utility, South Norwalk, The Third District - Norwalk, Town

of Wallingford,Western Mass: Chicopee Electric Light, Holyoke Gas & Electric, Westfield

10

LPF Compliance Results

Review Compliance by Area for this year’s LPF audit

11

16 % of the New England load is noncompliant

24 % of the New England load

is noncompliant


12


13

Revised Load Power Factor for 2013

• Three of eleven Areas revised LPF Standards for 2013– Connecticut

– New Hampshire

– Western Massachusetts

14

Revised Connecticut Load Power Factor Standards for 2013

• The following topology upgrades are the reason for the Connecticut LPF revision for 2013:– Completion of 3216 Line from North Bloomfield Substation to

Agawam Substation;– Addition of 2nd 345/115 kV Autotransformer at N. Bloomfield;– Addition of Beseck Shunt Reactor (-150 MVAR); – The new standards (shown in the table below) became less restrictive

compared to 2012 standards. The 2013 LPF standards were developed based on Zero VAR interchange.

15

Load Level Minimum Power Factor Maximum Power Factor

Peak 100% 0.9448 Lagging Not Applicable

Shoulder 75% 0.9316 Lagging 0.9755 Leading

Light 35% Not Applicable 0.9897 Leading

16

Revised New Hampshire Load Power Factor Standards for 2013

• The new transmission enhancements in New Hampshire in 2013 include the following system upgrade:– Webster Capacitors (4 banks at 25 MVAR each)– Weare Capacitors (2 banks at 13.3 MVAR each)– Rebuild H137 line with 1590 ACSS conductor– Rerate the 326 line to 1780 MVA summer LTE– Reconducting 381 line with bundled 795 ACSS– New Portsmouth Distribution Substation (115/12.47 kV)

17



Shoulder 75%

0.9575 Lagging 0.9716 Leading

Light 35% Not Applicable 0.9992 Lagging

Revised New Hampshire Load Power Factor Standards for 2013

• The 2013 LPF standards were developed based on Zero VAR interchange. A comparison between the 2011 and the 2013 LPF standard shows how the LPF requirements have changed as a result of the transmission enhancement to the area, the results of the NEPOOL Generator Reactive Capability Audits completed during 2012, and the use of more realistic operating assumptions during stressed conditions

18

19

Revised Western Massachusetts LPF Standards

• The previous LPF standards were evaluated in 2012

• This year area upgrades included a portion of Greater Springfield Reliability Project:- Agawam 345-kV Substation with two 345/115-kV Autotransformers- A new 345-kV 3196 Line from Agawam Substation to Ludlow

Substation- A new 345-kV 3216 Line from Agawam Substation to N. Bloomfield

Substation- Replacement of two Ludlow 345/115 kV Autotransformers with two

new 345/115 kV Autotransformers

20

Load Power Factor Requirements for Western Massachusetts Area

• The 2013 LPF standards were developed based on Zero VAR interchange. A comparison between the 2012 and the 2013 LPF standard shows how the LPF requirements have changed as a result of the transmission enhancements, changes in generator voltage schedule assumptions, and the results of the NEPOOL Generator Reactive Capability Audits completed during 2012

21



Shoulder 75% 0.9667 Lagging 0.9964 Leading

Light 35% Not Applicable 0.9645 Lagging

Load Power Factor Requirements for Western Massachusetts Area

• The first graph that follows shows the old and new LPF standards as well as the audit points– The light load points (spring and fall) fall well above the 2013 standard – The standard was set by Zero VAR interchange– The system’s performance was impacted by recent additions in nearby

areas (reactors in VT and CT) and in the evaluation of N-1-1 performance

– No system voltage criteria was violated

• The second graph shows the standard had it been based upon voltage – The LPF minimum standard would improve with western MA closer to

compliance– This finding may lead to a change in study criteria

22

23

24

Forecast for reactive deficiencies for 2013

• The summer peak forecast didn’t show any reactive deficiency in New England

• The spring light condition exhibited some deficiencies

25

26

Dean LaForest [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

12/18/2012 | Westborough ma