OPTIMISED SMALL SCALE REACTIVE COMPENSATION FOR … · i OPTIMISED SMALL SCALE REACTIVE COMPENSATION FOR ESKOM’S ALBANY-WESLEY 66/22KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM By: Alexis Ndimurwimo

i

OPTIMISED SMALL SCALE REACTIVE COMPENSATION

FOR ESKOM’S ALBANY-WESLEY 66/22KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

By: Alexis Ndimurwimo

BTech Engineering: Electrical

Dissertation submitted in full compliance with the requirements for the degree Magister Technologiae: Engineering: Electrical

In the Faculty of Engineering, the Built Environment and Information Technology

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Submission Date: June, 2012

Promoter: Dr. R.T.HARRIS Pr Tech Eng

Co-promoter: Mr. A.G. ROBERTS Pr Tech Eng

ii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my brother NTINDETSE FAUSTIN RWIKOZE who passed

away untimely on 28th December 2008. May his soul rest in peace.

iii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

The copy of this dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who

consults it, is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and that no information derived from it, may be published without the author‟s prior consent, unless correctly referenced

iv

DECLARATION

I, Alexis Ndimurwimo, hereby declare that: At no time during the registration for the degree of Magister Technologiae

have I registered for any other university degree. The work in this dissertation is my original work and

All sources used have been acknowledged and referenced.

Alexis Ndimurwimo.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the following companies and people for their

contributions:

The successful completion of this research would not have been possible without the

support, guidance and encouragement I received from certain individuals. In

particular, the following persons are acknowledged: Dr R.Harris, Mr L Pittorino and

Mr A Roberts I thank them for their professional guidance and willingness to assist

me at all the times. Their constructive input is highly appreciated. Also my gratitude is

due to Mrs D J Greyling for her meticulous proof reading

I am indebted to ESKOM staff in Technology and Quality, Distribution Department

Southern Region for their assistance in providing me with pertinent information that

enabled me to achieve the aims set for this dissertation.

Many unnamed electrical consultants are acknowledged. I am also particularly

grateful to Kevin Kallis for his unfailing and generous assistance.

My heartfelt gratitude also is due to the Electrical department administration and

Research development at the NMMU for their support.

Lastly, but not least, I am grateful for the assistance encouragement and unwavering

support from; my wife Leah and our daughters: Nancy, Wimana, Shimwe and

Phoebe; May our Lord bless the works of your hands.

vi

ABSTRACT

Reactive power compensation, as generated by capacitors, has been used to

mitigate the constraints of power transmission and improve the power transfer of the

transmission system of the South African power utility, Eskom‟s 66/22kV Albany-

Wesley transmission system.

An investigation was carried out on a number of current compensation schemes, and

their operations, by means of load flow analysis. Different capacitor qualities and

technologies were applied to alter the transmission line characteristics that resulted

in acceptable voltage regulation. This resulted in easing the load on the lines and

transformers and hence reducing line losses.

For long transmission lines, utilities need voltage support, as provided for by different

voltage compensators, to keep the terminal voltage within standard voltage

regulation, and meet the designed power demand. The approach to large and small

scale compensation was tested and the outcomes revealed distinct patterns that

were used to confirm the hypothesis and improve the transfer of power.

The templating temperature and thermal perspective as used by Eskom on line

design was discussed and used to design a new transmission line. Load flow

solutions were also used to plan and design the optimised transmission system as

well as to determine the specification and location of the compensating capacitor

banks.

Capacitor banks, as a source of reactive power, were used to model the

compensation in this research. Electrical protection and faults associated with the

capacitors banks were discussed, as prevention to total blackout or load shedding on

the transmission line in case of established contingency. Long term investment plans,

to meet future electricity demands, require substantial investment hence a financial

survey was carried out

Finally this dissertation selects a viable solution to meet the electrical power

demands and then recommends a way forward for the Eskom‟s 66/22kV Albany-

Wesley line.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page number

DEDICATION......................................................................................................................................ii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ...............................................................................................................iii

DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................v

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. xvii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... xvii

LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................................xx

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... xxii

LIST OF EQUATIONS AND SYMBOLS AS USED IN THIS DISSERTATION ................................. xxiv

CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................1

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

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..............................................................................................................1

1.3 SUB-PROBLEM STATEMENTS....................................................................................................2

1.4 HYPOTHESIS ...............................................................................................................................2

1.5 DELIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH ...........................................................................................2

1.6 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................3

1.7 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS .......................................................................................................3

1.8 ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................4

1.9 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................4

1.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH.........................................................................................5

1.11 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION .....................................................................................5

CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................................8

LITERATURE SURVEY ......................................................................................................................8

2.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................8

2.2 PHYSICAL AND ELECTRICAL DATA ...........................................................................................8

2.2 RELATED PROBLEMS ...............................................................................................................10

2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION OF THERMAL CONSTRAINTS ..................................................15

2.2.2 CAPACITORS AS A MITIGATION OF THERMAL CONSTRAINTS ..........................................17

2.2.2.1 CAPACITOR BANK CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................17

2.3 COMPENSATION SCHEMES .....................................................................................................18

2.4 APPLICATION OF FACTS ..........................................................................................................20

2.4.1 PHASE SHIFTING TRANSFORMER (PST) COMPENSATION ................................................20

2.4.2 VOLTAGE SOURCE VAr COMPENSATION ............................................................................21

2.4.2.1 STATIC SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS (SSG). ................................................................22

2.4.2.2 STATCOM ............................................................................................................................22

viii

2.4.2.3 SYNCHRONOUS STATIC SERIES COMPENSATOR (SSSC) ..............................................22

2.4.2.4 UNIFIED POWER FLOW CONTROLLER (UPFC) .................................................................22

2.4.3 REACTIVE VAr COMPENSATION ...........................................................................................22

2.4.3.1 STATIC VAr COMPENSATOR (SVC) ....................................................................................23

2.4.3.2 FIXED CAPACITOR or MECHANICALLY SWITCHED CAPACITOR (FC/MSC).....................23

2.4.3.3 FC-TCR ................................................................................................................................23

2.4.3.4 TSC-TCR ..............................................................................................................................23

2.4.3.5 TCR and TSR........................................................................................................................23

2.5 SUMMARY ON COMPENSATION SCHEMES ............................................................................24

2.6 COMPENSATION CONTROL .....................................................................................................24

2.6.1 THYRISTOR CONTROL ..........................................................................................................25

2.6.2 GTO-CONTROL.......................................................................................................................26

2.7 LOAD FLOW ...............................................................................................................................26

2.7.1 LOAD FLOW APPLICATION ....................................................................................................27

2.7.2 SHORT AND LONG LINES ......................................................................................................28

2.7.3 ELEMENTARY EQUATIONS FOR TRANSMITTED REAL AND REACTIVE POWER ...............28

2.7.4 LOSS LESS LINE ....................................................................................................................29

2.7.5 SURGE IMPEDANCE LOADING ..............................................................................................29

2.7.6 ALBANY-WESLEY 66/22KV TRANSMISSION LINE A MEDIUM LENGTH LINE ......................30

2.7.7 CRITERIA FOR CONTROLLING POWER TRANSMISSION. ...................................................31

2.7.8 THERMAL LOADING. ..............................................................................................................31

2.7.9 TYPES OF BUSES FOR POWER-FLOW STUDIES .................................................................32

2.8 APPARENT POWER AND THERMAL LIMIT ...............................................................................33

2.9 REACTIVE POWER ....................................................................................................................33

2.10 LARGE AND SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION .......................................................................35

2.11 SERIES AND SHUNT COMPENSATION ..................................................................................35

2.11.1. DIGSILENT C, RL, AND RLC CAPACITORS ........................................................................38

2.11.1.1 C SHUNT ............................................................................................................................38

2.11.1.2 RL SHUNT ..........................................................................................................................39

2.11.1.3 RLC SHUNT........................................................................................................................40

2.12 EVALUATION OF SERIES AND SHUNT COMPENSATION .....................................................43

2.12.1 PREVENTION OF VOLTAGE COLLAPSE .............................................................................43

2.12.2 CAUSES OF VOLTAGE COLLAPSE......................................................................................43

2.12.3 VOLTAGE REGULATION AND STEADY STATE VAR CONTROL .........................................43

2.12.4 OPTIMAL POWER FLOW ......................................................................................................44

2.12.5 CENTRALLY AND DISPERSED COMPENSATION ...............................................................45

2.13 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER TWO .........................................................................................46

CHAPTER THREE............................................................................................................................47

METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................47

3.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................47

3.2 MODEL SIMULATION.................................................................................................................47

ix

3.2.1 CREATING THE POWER SYSTEM ELEMENTS .....................................................................48

3.3 APPROACH TO OPTIMISED POWER TRANSFER ....................................................................50

3.3.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION .....................................................................................52

3.3.2 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION ...........................................................................................52

3.3.3 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION ...........................................................................................53

3.3.4 COMPARISON AND FEEDBACK.............................................................................................53

3.4 OPTIMISED POWER TRANSFER CRITERIA .............................................................................53

3.4.1 OPTIMISED MODEL SELECTION ...........................................................................................54

3.5 NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION .....................................................................................................54

3.6 FINANCIAL SURVEY ..................................................................................................................55

3.7 CONTIGENCY ............................................................................................................................55

3.8 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER THREE........................................................................................56

CHAPTER FOUR..............................................................................................................................57

MODEL SET UP ...............................................................................................................................57

4.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................57

4.2 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL...........................................................................57

4.2.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LOAD FLOW RESULTS ...............................................60

4.2.2 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................................60

4.2.2.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LINE LOADING OBSERVATIONS.............................62

4.2.2.2 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION TRANSFORMERS LOADING OBSERVATION .........62

4.2.2.3 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LOAD ANGLE OBSERVATION .................................63

4.2.3 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LOADFLOW.................................................................65

4.2.4 CONCLUSION ON UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL .........................................65

4.3 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL.......................................................66

4.3.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE..............................................................................67

4.3.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE ................................................................................67

4.3.3 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION : ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION...........................67

4.3.3.1 VOLTAGE RESPONSE .........................................................................................................68

4.3.3.2 TRANSFORMER LOADING ..................................................................................................70

4.3.3.3 LINE LOADING .....................................................................................................................71

4.3.3.4 LOAD ANGLE .......................................................................................................................73

4.4 CONCLUSION ON LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION MODELLING ..........................................74

4.5 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL .......................................................75



5.5.3 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION: ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION ............................76



4.5.3.3 LINE LOADING .....................................................................................................................78

4.5.3.4 LOAD ANGLE .......................................................................................................................79

4.6 CONCLUSION ON SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED : 4MVAr COMPENSATOR ........................79

4.7 MODELING TWO 4 MVAr COMPENSATORS.............................................................................80

x



4.7.3 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION ...................................................................................80



4.7.3.3 LINE LOADING .....................................................................................................................81

4.7.3.4 OBSERVATIONS ON TWO 4 MVAr COMPENSATORS ........................................................82

4.7.4 REDUCED REACTIVE POWER SHUNT COMPENSATION .....................................................82

4.7.4.1 PLAN AND OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................82

4.7.4.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE..............................................................................82



4.7.4.5 LINE LOADING .....................................................................................................................83

4.7.4.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON REDUCED COMPENSATION ..............................................83

4.8 SERIES COMPENSATION SIMULATION ...................................................................................84

4.8.1 PLAN AND OBJECTIVE ...........................................................................................................84

4.8.1.1 SIMULATION PROCEDURE .................................................................................................84

4.8.2 PROBABLE LOCATIONS OF THE SERIES CAPACITOR ........................................................85

4.8.3 OPTION1- SERIES CAPACITOR LOCATION AND SUSCEPTANCE .......................................85


4.8.3.2 LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE ...................................................................................................86

4.8.3.3 LINE LOADING RESPONSE .................................................................................................87

4.8.3.4 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE ..............................................................................88

4.8.3.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OPTION 1.............................................................................89

4.9 OPTION 2-SERIES CAPACITOR AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR ..............................................89

4.9.1 VOLTAGE RESPONSE............................................................................................................89

4.9.2 LINE LOADING RESPONSE ....................................................................................................90

4.9.3 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE.................................................................................90

4.9.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OPTION 2 ...............................................................................91

4.9.5 ALTERNATIVE CONNECTION OF SERIES CAPACITOR........................................................91

4.9.5.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE...........................................................................91

4.9.5.2 MODELLING AND SIMULATION PROCEDURE OPTION 3 ..................................................92

4.9.5.3 LINE LOADING OBSERVATION ...........................................................................................92

4.9.5.4 TRANSFORMER LOADING OBSERVATION ........................................................................93

4.9.5.5 VOLTAGE RESPONSE OBSERVATION (Option 3) ..............................................................94

4.9.5.6 VOLTAGE RESPONSE OBSERVATION (Option 4) ..............................................................95

4.9.5.7 LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE OBSERVATION .........................................................................95

4.9.5.8 LINE LOADING OBSERVATION ...........................................................................................96

4.9.5.9 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE OBSERVATION (option 4) ....................................96

4.9.6 SUMMARY ON SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR......................................................................97

4.9.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON ONE SERIES CAPACITOR .....................................................97

4.9.8 SPECIFICATION OF SERIES CAPACITOR SUSCEPTANCE ..................................................98

xi

4.9.8.1 PLAN AND OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................98

4.9.8.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE..............................................................................98

4.9.9 SERIES CAPACITOR SUSCEPTANCE SPECIFICATION SIMULATION..................................98

4.10 CONCLUSION ON SERIES CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION ................................................... 100

CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................................. 101

THERMAL LOADING ...................................................................................................................... 101

5.1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 101

5.1.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE............................................................................ 101

5.1.2 MODELING AND SIMULATION PROCEDURE ...................................................................... 102

5.1.3 C-TYPE SHUNT AT FISHRIVER AND PEDDIE LV SUBSTATIONS ....................................... 102

5.1.3.1 VOLTAGE RESPONSE OBSERVATION ............................................................................. 103

5.1.3.2 TRANSFORMER LOADING OBSERVATION ...................................................................... 104


5.1.3.4 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE OBSERVATION .................................................. 104

5.1.3.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON C-TYPE CAPACITOR COMPENSATION AT FISHRIVER AND

PEDDIE LV SUBSTATIONS ....................................................................................................... 105

5.1.4 RLC-TYPE SHUNT ................................................................................................................ 105

5.1.4.1 TRANSFORMER LOADING OBSERVATION ...................................................................... 106


5.1.4.3 LINE LOADING OBSERVATION ......................................................................................... 107

5.1.4.4 LOAD ANGLE OBSERVATION ........................................................................................... 108

5.1.5 RL-TYPE SHUNT AT FISHRIVER AND PEDDIE LV SUBSTATIONS ..................................... 108


5.1.5.2 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE OBSERVATION .................................................. 109

5.1.5.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OPTIONS TO RAISE PEDDIE AND FISHRIVER VOLTAGES

................................................................................................................................................... 109

5.2 SHUNT CAPACITOR COMPENSATION SPECIFICATIONS BACKGROUND ........................... 110

5.3 SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION AT THE PEDDIE LV .................................................... 110

5.3.1 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION FOR RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION ..... 110

5.3.1.1 OBSERVATIONS ON RL-CAPACITOR SHUNT SIMULATION. ........................................... 111

5.3.2 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION FOR RLC-SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION... 111

5.3.2.1 OBSERVATION ON RLC –SHUNT SPECIFICATION .......................................................... 111

5.3.3 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION C-TYPE SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION ..... 112

5.3.3.1 OBSERVATION ON C-CAPACITOR SHUNT SIMULATION ................................................ 113

5.4 RL-TYPE SHUNT CONNECTED AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR ANALYSIS ..................................... 114

5.4.1 OBSERVATIONS ON RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDDIE HV BUSBARS .......................... 115

5.5 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED OPTIMISED MODEL ............................................................ 116

5.6. CONCLUSION REMARKS ON SMALL SCALE OPTIMISED TRANSMISSION MODEL ........... 119

5.6.1 COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE ..................................................................................... 119

5.6.1.1 FROM TABLE 5.1: OBSERVATIONS MADE FOR UNCOMPENSATED MODEL ................. 120

xii

5.6.1.2 FROM TABLE 5.1: OBSERVATIONS MADE FOR LARGE SCALE COMPENSATED MODEL

................................................................................................................................................... 121

5.6.1.3 FROM TABLE 5.1: OBSERVATIONS MADE FOR SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED MODEL

................................................................................................................................................... 121

5.6.1.4 COMMENTS ON THE OBSERVATIONS ON TABLE 5.1 ..................................................... 122

5.6.2 COMPARISON OF MODELS RESULTS ................................................................................ 122

5.6.2.1 TRANSFORMER LOADING ................................................................................................ 122

5.6.2.2 LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE ................................................................................................. 123

5.6.2.3 LINE LOADING RESPONSE ............................................................................................... 125

5.6.2.4 VOLTAGE RESPONSE ....................................................................................................... 125

5. 7 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER FIVE ......................................................................................... 126

CHAPTER SIX ................................................................................................................................ 127

SIMULATION RESULTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 127

6.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 127

6.1.1 OPTIMISATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 127

6.1.2 THERMAL LOADING ............................................................................................................. 127

6.1.3 REACTIVE POWER ............................................................................................................... 128

6.1.4 VOLTAGE .............................................................................................................................. 128

6.2 COMPENSATION ..................................................................................................................... 128

6.2.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION ................................................................................... 128

6.2.2 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION SIMULATION ................................................................... 129

6.2.3 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SIMULATION ................................................................... 130

6.2.4 OPTIMISED POWER FLOW .................................................................................................. 131

6.3 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................ 132

CHAPTER SEVEN.......................................................................................................................... 133

CONSTRAINTS MITIGATION ......................................................................................................... 133

7.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 133

7.1.1 STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR (SVC) ................................................................................... 133

7.1.1.1 SVC RATINGS AND VOLTAGE SUPPORT ........................................................................ 133

7.1.1.2 SVC LOCATIONS ............................................................................................................... 134

7.1.2 POWER FACTOR CORRECTION.......................................................................................... 134

7.1.3 REDUCTION OF KVA DEMAND BY MEANS OF POWER FACTOR CORRECTION. ............. 134

7.1.4 TRANSMISSION OF MORE EFFECTIVE POWER................................................................. 135

7.2. CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE PERSPECTIVE ..................................................................... 135

7.2.1 PRESENT PRACTICE IN THE PLANNING FIELD ................................................................. 135

7.2.2 TEMPLATING TEMPERATURE ............................................................................................. 137

7.2.2.1 OTHER VARIABLES IN RELATION TO CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE ............................ 137

7.3 NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION OPTION ..................................................................................... 138

7.3.1 INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING AUTHORITIES ....................................... 138

7.3.2 NEW LINE DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 139

7.3.2.1 STRUCTURE DESIGN: POLE SELECTION ........................................................................ 140

xiii

7.3.2.2 TRANSMISSION ORIENTATION ........................................................................................ 140

7.3.2.3 TOWERS AND LEG QUANTITIES ...................................................................................... 141

7.3.2.3 TOWERS AND LEG QUANTITIES ...................................................................................... 141

7.4 VIABILITY OF NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 142

7.4.1 SIMULATION OF THE NEW LINE.......................................................................................... 142

7.4.2 SYSTEM SIMULATION PROCEDURE ................................................................................... 142

7.4.2.1 AFTER NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION: SIMULATION ANALYSIS ........................................ 144

7.4.2.2 OBSERVATION ON LINE LOADING ................................................................................... 145

7.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON NEW LINE ................................................................................ 146

7.6 ECONOMY SURVEY ................................................................................................................ 146

7.6.1 ECONOMIC CONCERNS FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PLANNING ................................. 146

7.6.2 LEADING COMPANIES FOR SCVs AND LARGE REACTIVE POWER COMPENSATION.... 147

7.6.3 NEW LINE BILL OF MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 147

7.6.4 ADDITIONAL COSTS ............................................................................................................ 149

7.6.5 MANPOWER AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT COSTS. ........................................................ 149

7.7 CONTIGENCY PLANS .............................................................................................................. 149

7.7.1 SHUNT CAPACITORS ........................................................................................................... 150

7.7.2 SERIES CAPACITOR ............................................................................................................ 150

7.8 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH COMPENSATORS .............................................................. 150

7.8.1 HARMONICS ......................................................................................................................... 151

7.8.1.1 EFFECTS OF HARMONICS................................................................................................ 151

7.8.1.2 HARMONICS OVERLOADING AND PROTECTION ............................................................ 151

7.8.2 SUB SYNCHRONOUS RESONANCE .................................................................................... 152

7.8.3 OTHER CAPACITOR PROBLEMS ......................................................................................... 152

7.8.3.1 FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY LOADING AND PROTECTION .......................................... 153

7.8.4 SERIES CAPACITOR SCHEME ............................................................................................ 153

CHAPTER EIGHT ........................................................................................................................... 154

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 154

8.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 154

8.1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 154

8.1.1.1 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED CAPACITORS ................................................................ 154

8.1.2 LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 155

8.1.3 REACTIVE POWER GENERATED ........................................................................................ 157

8.2 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL ADVANTAGES ............................ 157

8.3 ECONOMY SURVEY ................................................................................................................ 159

8.4 SELECTION AND WAY FORWARD ......................................................................................... 159

8.5 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 160

8.6 GENERIC APPLICATION ......................................................................................................... 160

8.6.1 LOADFLOW ........................................................................................................................... 160

8.6.2 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION NOT NEW INSTALLATION .............................................. 161

8.6.3 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM UPGRADE. ................................................................................. 161

8.7 RESEARCH LIMITATION AND SHORTCOMINGS ................................................................... 161

xiv

8.7.1 HIGH INVESTMENT CAPITAL ............................................................................................... 161

8.7.2 PARALLELING TRANSFORMERS ........................................................................................ 161

8.7.3 COMPENSATORS CONTROL ............................................................................................... 161

8.7.4 LOADS LESS THAN A FULL LOAD. ...................................................................................... 162

8.8 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................................. 162

8.8.1 CAPITAL REVENUE .............................................................................................................. 162

8.8.2 INTELLIGENT CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 162

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 163

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

UNCOMPENSATED SIMULATION 100% LOADING

APPENDIX A.1:AT 0.5 POWER FACTOR ....................................................................................... 167

APPENDIX A.2: AT 0.6 POWER FACTOR ...................................................................................... 168

APPENDIXA.3: AT 0.65 POWER FACTOR ..................................................................................... 169


APPENDIX A.5: AT 0.75 POWER FACTOR .................................................................................... 171


APPENDIX A.7: AT 0.85 POWER FACTOR .................................................................................... 173

APPENDIXA.8: AT 0.9 POWER FACTOR ....................................................................................... 174

APPENDIXA.9 AT 0.95 POWER FACTOR ...................................................................................... 175

APPENDIX A.10: AT 0.975 POWER FACTOR ................................................................................ 189

APPENDIX A.11: AT UNITY POWER FACTOR .............................................................................. 190

LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION

APPENDIXB.1: AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR) ........................................ 191

APPENDIXB.2: AT COMMITTEES11kV SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR) ........................... 192

APPENDIX B.3: AT COMMITTEES22kV SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR) .......................... 193

APPENDIX B.4: AT GRAHAMSTOWN SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR) ............................. 194

APPENDIX B.5: AT PEDDIE SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR) ............................................ 195

APPENDIX B.6: AT COMMITTEES11kV SUBSTATION (0.8 POWER FACTOR) ............................ 196

APPENDIX B.7: AT COMMITTEES22kV SUBSTATION (0.8 POWER FACTOR) ............................ 197

APPENDIX B.8: AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION (0.8 POWER FACTOR) ......................................... 198

APPENDIX B.9:AT GRAHAMSTOWN SUBSTATION (0.8 POWER FACTOR) ................................ 199

APPENDIX B.10:AT PEDDIE (0.8 POWER FACTOR)..................................................................... 200

APPENDIX B.11: AT COMMITTEES 22 (0.95 POWER FACTOR)................................................... 201

APPENDIX B.12: AT COMMITTEES 11 (0.95 POWER FACTOR)................................................... 202

APPENDIX B.13: AT FISHRIVER (0.95 POWER FACTOR) ............................................................ 203

APPENDIX B.14: AT GRAHAMSTOWN (0.95 POWER FACTOR) .................................................. 204

APPENDIX B.15: AT PEDDIE (0.95 POWER FACTOR) .................................................................. 205

SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR

APPENDIX C.1:AT WESLEY LV BUSBAR (0.95pf) ......................................................................... 206

APPENDIX C.2: AT WESLEY HV BUSBAR (0.95pf) ....................................................................... 207

APPENDIX C.3:AT PEDDIE LV BUSBAR (0.95pf) .......................................................................... 208

APPENDIX C.4: AT PEDDIE HV BUSBAR (0.95pf) ......................................................................... 209

APPENDIX C.5: AT ALBANY 66 BUSBAR (0.95pf) ......................................................................... 210

APPENDIX C.6:AT FISHRIVER LV BUSBAR (0.95pf) ..................................................................... 211

APPENDIX C.7: AT COMMITEES BUSBAR (0.95pf) ...................................................................... 212

APPENDIX C.8:AT COMMITEES22kV BUSBAR (0.95pf)................................................................ 213

APPENDIX C.9: AT COMMITEES11kV BUSBAR (0.95pf)............................................................... 214

APPENDIX C.10: AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (0.95pf) ............................................................. 215

COMPENSATION AT BOTH COMMITTEES 11Kv AND COMMITTEES 22kV

APPENDIX D.1:(4MVAr) (0.95pf) .................................................................................................... 216

xvi

APPENDIX D.2: (2.25MVAr)(0.95pf) ............................................................................................... 217

OPTION1- SERIES CAPACITOR

APPENDIX E.1.1: AT COMMITTEES BUSBAR B=1 ....................................................................... 218

APPENDIX E.1.2:AT COMMITTEES BUSBAR B=0.1 ..................................................................... 219

APPENDIX E.1.3:AT COMMITTEES BUSBAR B=0.0065 ................................................................ 220

APPENDIX E.1.4: AT COMMITTEES BUSBAR B=0.006................................................................. 221

APPENDIX E.1.5: AT PEDDIE BUSBAR B=1.................................................................................. 222

APPENDIX E.1.6: AT PEDDIE BUSBAR B=0.1 ............................................................................... 223

APPENDIX E.1.7: AT PEDDIE B=0.006 .......................................................................................... 224

OPTION2- SERIES COMPENSATION

APPENDIX E.2.1:AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR B=0.0065........................................................... 225

APPENDIX E.2.2:AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR B=0.006............................................................. 226

OPTION3-SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR IN PEDDIE-WESLEY LINE

APPENDIX E.3.1:AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR (B=1) ........................................................................... 227

APPENDIX E.3.2:AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR ( B=0.5)........................................................................ 228

APPENDIX E.3.3:AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR ( B=0.25)...................................................................... 229

APPENDIX E.3.4:AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR (B=0.1)......................................................................... 230

APPENDIX E.3.5:AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR (B=0.05)....................................................................... 231

APPENDIX E.3.6:AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR ( B=0.025) .................................................................... 232

APPENDIX E.3.7:AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR (B=0.0065) ................................................................... 233

OPTION4-SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR IN COMMITTEES-PEDDIE LINE

APPENDIX E4.1:AT BREAKTASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=0.5) ............................................................... 234

APPENDIX E.4.2:AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=1) ................................................................. 235

APPENDIX E.4.3:AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=0.25) ............................................................ 236

APPENDIX E.4.4:AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR ( B=0.1) ............................................................. 237

APPENDIX E.4.5:AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=0.05) ............................................................ 238

APPENDIX E.4.6:AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=0.125) .......................................................... 239

SERIES CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION

APPENDIX F.1.1: B=0.0095............................................................................................................ 240

APPENDIX F.1.2: B=0.006.............................................................................................................. 241

APPENDIX F.1.3: B=0.007.............................................................................................................. 242

APPENDIX F.1.4: B=0.008.............................................................................................................. 243

APPENDIX F.1.5: B=0.0085............................................................................................................ 244

APPENDIX F.1.6:B=0.009............................................................................................................... 245

APPENDIX F.1.7: B=0.0095............................................................................................................ 246

APPENDIX F.1.8: B=0.01 ............................................................................................................... 247

APPENDIX F.1.9: B=0.0125............................................................................................................ 248

SHUNT CAPACITOR CONNECTED AT FISHRIVER

APPENDIX G.1.1:C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.005MVAR ............................................................... 249

APPENDIX G.1.2:C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.5MVAR................................................................... 250

APPENDIX G.1.3:C REACTIVE POWER Q=2MVAR ...................................................................... 251

xvii

SHUNT CAPACITOR CONNECTED AT PEDDIE LV

APPENDIX G.1.4:C REACTIVE POWER 5.5MVAr.......................................................................... 252

APPENDIX G.1.5:C REACTIVE POWER 2.5MVAr.......................................................................... 253

APPENDIX G.1.6:C REACTIVE POWER Q =2MVAr ....................................................................... 254

APPENDIX G.1.7:C REACTIVE POWER 1MVAr ............................................................................ 255

APPENDIX G.1.8: C REACTIVE POWER 0.025MVAr ..................................................................... 256

APPENDIX G.1.9:C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.005MVAr ................................................................ 257

APPENDIX G.1.10:C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.0005MVAr ............................................................ 258

APPENDIX G.1.11:C REACTIVE POWER Q=0.00005MVAr ........................................................... 259

RLC SHUNT CAPACITOR

APPENDIX G.2.1: AT FISHRIVER LV(2.5 MVAr) ............................................................................ 260

APPENDIX G.2.2: AT PEDLV (1.5MVAr) ........................................................................................ 261

APPENDIX G.2.3:AT PEDLV(2MVAr) ............................................................................................. 262

APPENDIX G.2.4:AT PEDLV (2.5MVAr) ......................................................................................... 263

RL SHUNT CAPACITOR

APPENDIX G.3.1:AT PEDDIE LV BUSBAR( 1MVAr) ...................................................................... 264

APPENDIX G.3.2:AT FISHRIVER LV( 2MVAr) ................................................................................ 265

APPENDIX G.3.3: AT FISHRIVER LV(3MVAr) ................................................................................ 266

RLC SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION AT PEDDIE LV BUSBAR

APPENDIX H.1.1: REACTIVE POWER 5.5MVAr ............................................................................ 267

APPENDIX H.1.2:REACTIVE POWER 5MVAr ................................................................................ 268


APPENDIX H.1.4: REACTIVE POWER 4MVAr ............................................................................... 270

APPENDIX H.1.5:REACTIVE POWER 3.5MVAr ............................................................................. 271


APPENDIX H.1.7:REACTIVE POWER 2.5MVAr ............................................................................. 273



RLC SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION AT PEDDIE HV BUSBAR

APPENDIX H.1.10: REACTIVE POWER(5.5MVAr) ......................................................................... 276

APPENDIX H.2:TEXTUAL ANALYSIS REPORT SMALL SCALE OPTIMISED TRANSMISSION ..... 277

APPENDIX I: TEMPLATING TEMPERATURE ................................................................................ 290

APPENDIX J: ESKOM PLANNING ................................................................................................. 291

APPENDIX K: FITTINGS SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 292

APPENDIX L.1: CABLES DATASHEET .......................................................................................... 295

APPENDIX L.2 : ABB PRODUCTS ................................................................................................. 297

APPENDIX.M: NEW LINE SIMULATION TEXTUAL REPORT......................................................... 299

APPENDIX.N: PUBLISHED ARTICLE ............................................................................................. 308

FACTS Compensation Modeling of the Eskom‟s Albany-Wesley 66/22kV Transmission System for

Optimal Power Transfer .................................................................................................................. 308

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM TRANSMISSION LINE LAYOUT .................................................8

Figure 2.2 COMPENSATION SCHEMES ..........................................................................................19

Figure 2.3 COMPENSATION CONTROL ..........................................................................................26

Figure 2.4: POWER FLOW ...............................................................................................................28

Figure 2.5: C-TYPE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................38

Figure 2.6: RL-TYPE TECHNOLOGY ...............................................................................................39

Figure 2.7: RLC -TYPE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................40

Figure 3.1: DATA MANAGER............................................................................................................50

Figure 3.2: FLOW CHART APPROACH TO OPTIMISED POWER TRANSFER ................................51

Figure 4.1 SINGLE LINE TOPOLOGY WITH 100% LOADING ..........................................................58

Figure 4.2: MAIN POWER FACTORY WINDOWS.............................................................................59

Figure 4.3 VOLTAGE vs POWER FACTOR: Uncompensated transmission system...........................61

Figure 4.4: TRANSMISSION LINE LOADING ....................................................................................62

Figure 4.5: TRANSFORMER LOADING ............................................................................................63

Figure 4.6: LOAD ANGLE vs POWER FACTOR ...............................................................................64

Figure 4.7: WESLEY SUBSTATION ..................................................................................................65

Figure 4.8 VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.65PF LAGGING ......................................................................68

Figure 4.9: VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.8PF LAGGING .......................................................................68

Figure 4:10: VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.95PF LAGGING ...................................................................69

Figure 4.11: TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.65PF LAGGING ........................................................70

Figure 4.12: TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.8PF LAGGING ..........................................................71

Figure 4.13 TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.95PF LAGGING .........................................................71

Figure 4.14: LINE LOADING AT 0.65PF LAGGING ...........................................................................72

Figure 4.15 : LINE LOADING AT 0.8PF LAGGING ............................................................................72

Figure 4.16:LINE LOADING AT0.95PF LAGGING .............................................................................73

Figure 4.17:LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE ............................................................................................73

Figure 4.18: VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.95PF ....................................................................................77

Figure 4.19: SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.95PF ...................77

Figure 4.20 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION LINE LOADING AT 0.95 PF ......................................78

Figure 4.21 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION LOAD ANGLE RESPONSES AT 0.95PF ..................79

Figure 4.22 VOLTAGE PROFILE ......................................................................................................80

Figure 4.23 TRANSFORMER LOADING ...........................................................................................81

Figure 4:24 LINE LOADING ..............................................................................................................81

Figure 4:25 COM11&22 VOLTAGE PROFILE (2.25MVAr) ................................................................82

Figure 4.26 TRANSFORMER LOADING ...........................................................................................83

Figure 4.27 LINES LOADING ............................................................................................................83

Figure 4.28: SERIES COMPENSATION VOLTAGE RESPONSE ......................................................86

Figure 4.29: SERIES COMPENSATION LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE ................................................87

Figure 4.30: SERIES COMPENSATION LINE LOADING ..................................................................87

Figure 4.31: TRANSFORMER LOADING COMPARISON .................................................................88

Figure 4.32: BREAKFASTVLEI SERIES CAPACITOR VOLTAGE RESPONSE ............................... 889

xix

Figure 4.33: BREAKFASTVLEI SERIES CAPACITOR LINE LOADING .............................................90

Figure 4.34: BREAKFASTVLEI SERIES CAPACITOR TRANSFORMER LOADING ..........................91

Figure 4.35: LINE LOADING AFTER SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR (OPTION3)............................93

Figure 4.36: TRANSFORMER LOADING AFTER SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR (OPTION 3)........93

Figure 4.37: VOLTAGE RESPONSE (OPTION3) ..............................................................................94

Figure 4.38: VOLTAGE RESPONSE (OPTION4) ..............................................................................95

Figure 4.39: LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE (OPTION 4)........................................................................95

Figure 4.40: LINE LOADING (OPTION4)...........................................................................................96

Figure 4.41: TRANSFORMER LOADING (OPTION4)........................................................................97

Figure 4.42: SERIES CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION ........................................................................99

Figure 5.1: WESLEY TRANSFORMER ........................................................................................... 101

Figure 5.2: C- SHUNT AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION VOLTAGE RESPONSE ............................... 102

Figure 5.3: C- SHUNT AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER LOADING ........................ 103

Figure 5.4: C- SHUNT AT PEDDIE LV SUBSTATION VOLTAGE RESPONSE................................ 103

Figure 5.5: C-SHUNT AT PEDDIE LV SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER LOADING .......................... 105

Figure 5.6: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR TRANSFORMER LOADING ................................................... 106

Figure 5.7: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR VOLTAGE RESPONSE ......................................................... 106

Figure 5.8: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR LINE LOADING ...................................................................... 107

Figure 5.9: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE.................................................... 107

Figure 5.10: RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR VOLTAGE RESPONSE ....................................................... 108

Figure 5.11: RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR TRANSFORMER LOADING ................................................ 109

Figure 5.12: RL-SHUNT SPECIFICATION ...................................................................................... 111

Figure 5.13: RLC-SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION............................................................... 112

Figure 5.14: C-SHUNT AT PEDDIE BUSBAR SPECIFICATION ...................................................... 112

Figure 5.15: PEDDIE SUBSTATION ISOLATOR ............................................................................. 113

Figure 5.16: VOLTAGE RESPONSE ............................................................................................... 114

Figure 5.17: LINE LOADING ........................................................................................................... 114

Figure 5.18: LOAD ANGLE ............................................................................................................. 115

Figure 5.19: TRANSFORMER LOADING ........................................................................................ 115

Figure 5.20 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED OPTIMISED TRANSMISSION MODEL .................... 118

Figure 5.21: COMPARISON TRANSFORMER LOADING ............................................................... 123

Figure 5.22: COMPARISON LOAD ANGLE..................................................................................... 124

Figure 5.23: COMPARISON OF LINE LOADING ............................................................................. 124

Figure 5.24: COMPARISON VOLTAGE RESPONSE ...................................................................... 125

Figure 7:1 ALLOWABLE POWER TRANSFER WITH TEMPLATING TEMPERATURE ................... 136

Figure 7.2a: SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LEG ORIENTATION .................................................... 141

Figure 7.2b: CONDUCTOR PHASING- SINGLE ACSR ................................................................... 141

1, 2&3 are phases ........................................................................................................................... 141

Figure 7.2c: OPGW ......................................................................................................................... 141

Figure 7.2d: EARTH WIRE .............................................................................................................. 141

Figure 7.3: SYSTEM LOAD FLOW INCLUDING NEW LINE ............................................................ 143

Figure 7.4: VOLTAGE COMPARISON ............................................................................................ 144

xx

Figure 7.5: LOAD ANGLE SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED vs NEW LINE MODELS ..................... 144

Figure 7.6: LINE LOADING SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED vs NEW LINE .................................. 145

Figure 7.7: TRANSFORMER LOADING: SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED vs NEW LINE MODELS

................................................................................................................................................... 145

xxi

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Transformers data ..............................................................................................................9

Table 2.2 Fault levels ........................................................................................................................10

Table 3.1 Editing busbars..................................................................................................................48

Table 3.2 Editing Transformers .........................................................................................................49

Table 3.3: Editing lines ......................................................................................................................49

Table 3.4: loads ................................................................................................................................49

Table 3.5: Selection criteria ...............................................................................................................54

Table 4.1: Peak demand ...................................................................................................................66

Table 5.1: Performance comparison ................................................................................................ 120

Table 7.1: Compensation equipment budget prices ......................................................................... 148

Table 7.2: Total purchasing cost of the compensation project .......................................................... 148

Table 7.3: New line cost .................................................................................................................. 148

Table 8.1: Loads ............................................................................................................................. 155

Table 8.2: Line losses ..................................................................................................................... 156

Table 8.3: OPTIMISED MODEL ...................................................................................................... 158

xxii

ABBREVIATIONS

ACSR=Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced

APST =Assisted PST

B =charging susceptance (Siemens/unit) BLK =thyristor valve blocked

BP =controlled valve bypass

CAP=capacitive voltage boost

CT= Current transformer

FACTS= Flexible AC Transmission Systems

FACTS =Flexible AC Transmission Systems.

FC/MSC=fixed capacitor/mechanically switched capacitor

FC-TCR= fixed capacitor, thyristor-controlled reactor

FSC= Fixed series compensator

IPC= Inter-phase power controller Inter-phase power controller

ISO 9000= International Standard organisation

K= XC/XL= compensation factor

MD= Maximum demand

NDP= Network development planning

NMP=Network master planning

PBP=protective bypass.

pf= power factor

PST=Phase shifting transformer

pu= per unit

RMS=Root mean square

SIL= Surge Impedance Loading

SSR= Super synchronous resonance

SSSC=Synchronous static series compensator

SSSC=synchronous static series compensator

STATCOM (STATCON) = Static Synchronous Compensator (Condenser)

SVC= Static VAr compensator

SVC =Static VAr compensator

TCR and TSR= thyristorcontrolled and thyristor-switched reactor

TCSC= Thyristor controlled series compensator

TSC=thyristor-switched capacitor

xxiii

TSC-TCR= Thyristor-switched capacitor- Thyristor-controlled reactor

UPFC=unified power flow controller

VAr = Reactive power

VSC= voltage-sourced converter

XC= capacitive reactance

XL.= inductive reactance

ZnO=Zinc Oxide

xxiv

LIST OF EQUATIONS AND SYMBOLS AS USED IN THIS DISSERTATION TCR switching delay angle

rS = transmission angle

= Phase angle of the voltage

I =

22

QP II

P= (v2/ X) sin δ= Active/ Real power P= real power, Q=reactive power

srsrsr jbgy

rsP=

Xsr

VrVs sin||||

rsQ=

Xsr

rVVrVs ||cos|||| 2

P=

SENDING POWER

rssrssssr VVyVIVS

= rsj

rsVVV

2 srsr jbg

Active power= rrsrssrrssssr bVVgVVP sincos2

…………………. (1)

Reactive power= srrsrssr gVVQ sin

- rrsrsr bVVV cos2

…………… (2)

RECEIVING END

srsrsrsrsrsrrrs bVVgVVVP sincos2

………………………………. (3)

srsrsrrs gVVQ sin srsrsrr bVVV cos2

…………………………………… (4)

If rg is neglected

rsP=

Xsr

VrVs sin||||

rsQ=

Xsr

rVVrVs ||cos|||| 2

= s - r

Power transmitted on an ideal loss less line (with no resistance) is

P=

Surge Impedance Loading SIL= V2/

1

CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND

1. INTRODUCTION

Voltage on transmission lines tends to drop from the sending end to the receiving end.

The voltage and current levels determine the maximum level of power that can be

delivered to customers. Although the voltage drop along the alternating current (AC)

transmission system is almost directly proportional to the reactive power transferred and

line reactance. Nevertheless as power increases, the voltage at the receiving end

decreases.

The voltage drop can also be caused by cable sizes, the selection of line design such as

single or double circuit or cable spacing, and the transformer impedances. In a

transmission line the voltage variation at a node is an indication of the unbalance between

the reactive power generated and consumed by that node. Therefore whenever the

voltage level of a particular bus undergoes variation it is due to the imbalance between the

two reactive powers (VArs) at the bus. (Wadhwa, 1994).

The Static VAr Compensator (SVC) is a shunt device of the Flexible AC Transmission

Systems (FACTS) family, using power electronic switching devices to control power flow

and improve transient stability on power grids (Matlab & Simulink, 2005). The SVC

susceptance is one of the determining factors in the reactive power control.

In Eskom„s situation, shunt compensators are used to support the voltage but they can

only be switched in discrete steps which limits their performance. Owing to the length of

the power lines, the voltage limit is usually reached before the thermal limit of the

transmission system.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Owing to the characteristic of long transmission lines usually above 50km, the voltage

drop is compensated for by Static VAr Compensator (SVC); its rating and control

2

technology is of concern as after switching on the SVC the thermal limit of the line is

reached and this limits its current carrying capacity.

1.3 SUB-PROBLEM STATEMENTS

1.3.1. Fixed Capacitor Compensators generate harmonics and the inductance in the circuit

may result in resonance (Pretorius, 1989), (Wood, 1992).

1.3.2. The influence and duration of seasonal and persistent abnormal voltage variations

caused by faults, unbalanced loading and low or peak hour demands. (Slabbert et

al, 2003).

1.3.3. A series capacitor in the transmission line reduces the reactance and can increase

the magnitude of the fault current. This fault current can impose severe over voltage

on the capacitor (Wood, 1992).

1.4 HYPOTHESIS

Adequate reactive compensation designed to mitigate different constraints in a

transmission system will result in increased system capacity, improved voltage regulation,

improved power factor correction and reduction of line losses that include copper and

other reactive losses such as corona. Small scale compensation will enable the

transmission line to operate below the thermal overloading constraint and hence improve

the transfer capacity of the transmission system. The optimum capacity is reached when

the voltage and thermal limits are attained at the same loading. After simulations, a

suitable option, characterized by minimal voltage regulation and transmission losses while

the system delivers its designed full load, was selected.

1.5 DELIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH

This research considered: The Eskom‟s Eastern Cape Albany-Wesley, 66/22 kV line, and

the compensator at Wesley substation will form the focus of this case study and includes :

1.5.1 Large and small scale compensation Flexible AC Transmission systems (FACTS)

compensation.

1.5.2 Use of Digital SImuLator for Electrical NeTwork (DigSilent) for modeling of the

transmission systems.

3

1.5.3 Recommend possible solutions and contingency plans in order to transfer rated

power of the transmission line.

1.5.4 Cost analysis on compensation equipment and a construction of a new line was

carried out.

1.6 OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this research is to;

1.6.1 Evaluate the reliability of different FACTS technologies and develop a suitable

specification for FACTS.

1.6.2 Identify a suitable compensation technology for use on the distribution networks.

1.6.3 Evaluate economics of different FACTS technology versus traditional upgrade paths

for example, building second line.

1.6.4. Increase the power transfer capacity of the transmission system by optimising its

physical and electrical design.

1.6.5 Develop contingency plans in the event of FACTS failure.

1.7 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS

Thermal limit: A constraint that limits the capability of a transmission line to transmit

power, whereby heat is produced. Depending on line current flow and ambient weather

conditions, the thermal limit is usually expressed in terms of current flow.

Reactive power: Power provided and maintained for the explicit purpose of ensuring

continuous and steady voltage on transmission lines. Its value oscillates around a zero

average in a sinusoidal system.

Active power: The power that does work at the consumer loads. This value oscillates

around an arbitrary average value.

Transmission System: A network of cables, transformers and control systems designed

to transmit electrical power.

Thyristor: a unidirectional switch once turned on by trigger pulses, latches unit into

conduction.

Gate turn-off Thyristor (GTO): Like the thyristor, is a latch-on device, but is also a latch-

off device.

4

Harmonic frequency: frequency that is a multiple of the fundamental frequency.

Dynamic range: (e.g) 150MVAr (+/- 75MVar).

Dynamic compensation: changes the physical parameters of the transmission line.

Power Quality: voltage supplied by the utility at the customer‟s service entrance is steady

and within the prescribed range. Frequency is steady and close to its normal value (within

a fraction of a percentage) or absence of harmonic distortion.

Contingency: measures after loss of power in the system.

Steady State Stability: System‟s stability under some fixed set of operating conditions

including the generator output and loads, a crucial factor is the length of transmission

times in relation to the amount of power they transmit.

Transient stability: System‟s ability to accommodate sudden changes e.g. faults (short

circuit) loss of a transmission link.

Dynamic Stability: Transient stability

Voltage Stability: The voltage remains constant as load increases

Voltage collapse: This is a form of instability where the voltages do not necessarily

decrease to zero but to low values making continued proper operation of small or large

parts of a system impossible.

Load-voltage characteristics: The real and the reactive power of actual loads versus the

voltage

Power factor correction: Method of generating reactive power relatively close to the

loads consuming it.

1.8 ASSUMPTIONS This research considered the Albany-Wesley 66/22kV transmission line in both negative

and positive phase sequences and the system will remain within the steady state stability

limit.

1.9 METHODOLOGY

The methodology outlines the approach and methods applied in this research and are

outlined below:

1.9.1 Literature survey, problem and sub problem establishment, and definition.

1.9.2 Setting up the research proposal.

5

1.9.3 Explore new SVC schemes, technologies and cost.

1.9.4 Learn DigSilent software applications.

1.9.5 Site visits to get information on the transmission line; physical and electrical designs,

loading and voltage profile, compensator specifications, control and reliability

1.9.6 Voltage seasonal and abnormal variations, harmonics.

1.9.7 Types of faults and protection.

1.9.8 Do load flow simulation, for parameters calculations (voltage, current, active and

reactive power and power factor) and modeling of the transmission line.

1.9.9 Economy of the line construction and capital expenditure survey.

1.9.10 Progress reports presentations.

1.9.11 Draw up conclusion.

1.9.12 Dissertation writing.

1.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

This research aims to raise the power delivered, by Eskom‟s 66/22kV Albany-

Breakfastvlei-Wesley transmission line, to consumers under the present conditions. It is

expected that improvement on the quality of electrical supply and nominal voltage supplied

to consumers will be achieved.

It is hoped that the success of this research will also mean a reduction in reactive power

on the Albany-Wesley transmission line and its allied elements and help to reduce

electrical stress on the system and avoid blackouts. It is also hoped that there will be a

financial saving on the part of Eskom and consumers because of reduced reactive power

and operational costs.

1.11 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION

This dissertation consists of eight chapters with twelve appendices. It is structured as

follows:

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION

This chapter is an introduction to the dissertation. It discusses the problem and sub-

problems, the hypothesis of the research, the delimitations of the research, the

assumptions made, the methodology and the significance of the research.

6

Chapter Two: LITERATURE SURVEY

This chapter relates to literature consulted, it also presents the physical layout and

electrical data of the transmission system referred to. In this chapter two, compensation

theories and applications relevant to the research are discussed more fully. This chapter

also discusses the classical mathematical solution and interpretation of a power system

through the elementary equations for transmitted real and reactive power, the types of

buses and voltage angle in a transmission system. In addition it also discusses the impact

of the resistance and reactance on the loss less short lines and long transmission lines.

The surge impedance and thermal loading as the criteria for transmission system by

considering the constraints to transmission loading capacity are discussed as well. From

the literature survey, the solution to optimise power transfer and reliability is formulated.

Chapter Three: METHODOLOGY

This is an outline of how the research was carried out, the gathering of relevant data and

information, adapting the information into models and analysing results from the program

used and hence establishment of an approach to attain the optimised model. The criteria

of the optimized model are mentioned in this chapter. Alternatives to the envisaged

solution and economic survey are mentioned as well as underlying principles of decisions

and choices used in the course of this research that led to the findings and conclusions.

Chapter Four: MODEL SET UP

This chapter presents the set up the models applied in this research. The models are: The

uncompensated, large and small scale compensated whose simulation results are

documented in the appendices. This chapter also gives the observations from the results

that enable the determination of the optimised model of the Albany-Wesley 66/22kV

transmission system to transmit its designed full load. From the results the critical lines of

the transmission system are identified as well as the working power factor.

Chapter Five: THERMAL LOADING

Chapter five presents simulations done on different transmission models. Namely the

large compensated and small scale compensated scenarios. Most simulations in this

chapter are intended to mitigate the low voltage and thermal overloading in the

transmission system. The simulation results as found in the appendices were analysed in

order to determine the optimised model of the system (Albany-Wesley 66/22kV

transmission system).

7

Chapter six: SIMULATIONS ANALYSIS

Chapter six analyses the simulation results. The reactive compensation is applied in the

simulations to mitigate the constraints to transfer the designed full load. The design criteria

of the transmission system is based the allowable current flow, this currents sets the limit

of the thermal capacity of the transmission system. likewise the optimisation criteria for the

transmission is observed by adhering to acceptable thermal loading, voltage and load

angle standards. The simulation results revealed different constraints to full load

transmission and so reactive compensation is applied to solve the problem.

Chapter seven: CONSTRAINTS MITIGATION

chapter seven, presents different applications of SVCs that include voltage support and

power factor correction are discussed. Other matters considered are power transfer and

temperature templating. The current flow used as the deciding factor to build a new

transmission line and the planning procedure before the line construction when planning

officers engage with various authorities is also discussed. Thereafter, simulations were

done for the proposed new line, is outlined. The economy survey undertaken for the

compensation equipment, as well as to the proposed new line is outlined. Contingency

measures, apart from the conventional transmission protection schemes, are explained for

the capacitors, as well as operational problems related to capacitors.

Chapter eight: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter the optimised transmission model is presented with the maximum

designed power transfer within safe operating capacity of the transmission line.

Specifications of compensating capacitors and technologies used to increase the

transmission system are outlined. The financial survey carried out in this research is used

to classify this project according to Eskom planning. The dissertation concludes with the

selection of the most viable option and recommendations for the way forward.

Appendices:

These are results obtained during simulations in case studies and system stages of

modeling. The appendices also contain the simulations graphical and textual reports

as well as additional data or information.

8

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 INTRODUCTION Electrical power reliability is a concern for any growing economy, this reliability entails

meeting the electrical power demand for consumers and supply of standard nominal

voltage. FACTS are presently used to control the power flow and achieve the reliability of

a transmission system. This chapter discusses the study done and information gained

through perusal of different publications, relating to nominal voltage support and power

factor correction. The results of this research are applied to optimise the power transfer of

the Albany-Wesley transmission line.

2.2 PHYSICAL AND ELECTRICAL DATA

Figure.2.1 shows the layout of the Albany-Wesley transmission line and the tables 2.1 and

2.2 give the equipment and design data and fault levels on the existing transmission

system (Eskom- Distribution, Southern Region, 2008)

Figure 2.1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM TRANSMISSION LINE LAYOUT

9

Table 2.1: Transformers data

DESCRIPTION

ALBANY 132/66/22 kV TRFR2

ALBANY 132/66/22 kV TRFR3

COMMITEES 66/11 kV TRFR11

COMMITTES 66/22 kV TRFR1

PEDDIE 66/22kV TRFR1

WESLEY 66/22 kV TRFR1

SUBNAME ALBANY ALBANY COMMITTEES COMMITTEES PEDDIE WESLEY

TRFR NO

2 3 11 1 1 1

PRIM KV

132 132 66 66 66 66

SEC KV

66 66 11 22 22 22

TER KV

22 22

Z

9.83 9.84 8.27 9.2 8.97 8.39

VECTOR

YNyn0d1 YNyn0d1 Dyn1 YNd1 YNd1 YNd1

MVA 40 40 2.5 5 10 5

TAPNUM 17

17

17

17

17

17

MAX PRIM KV 138.6 138.6 69.3 69.3 69.3 69.3

MIN PRIM KV 112.2 112.2 56.1 56.1 56.1 56.1

VMAX SET 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05

VMIN SET 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02

NOM TAP 5 5 4 5 5 5

TAPTYPE OLTC OLTC OLTC OLTC OLTC OLTC

X1 9.83 9.84 8.27 9.2 9 8.39

X0 8.68 8.68 7.03 7.82 7.4 7.13

XHM1 9.83 9.84 8.27 9.2 9 8.39

XML1 45.1 45.1 0 0 0

XHL1 56.5 56.5 0 0 0

XML0 40.1 40.1 0

XHL0

45.01 45.1 0

NEC N N N Y Y Y

NECRT RN 2.74 28.3 0

NECRT X0 49.2 50 47.35

NECRT DEVICE TYPE

NEC/R NEC/R NEC/R

NECRT DEVICE RATING

630 360 360

TrfrType 3 winding 3 winding 2 winding 2 winding 2 winding

2 winding

X1,X0= positive and negative distribution leakages XHM1, XML1, XHL1, XML0= Mutual inductances

10

Table 2.2 Fault levels

2.2 RELATED PROBLEMS

Slabert et al (2003) wrote about this transmission line that Eskom is experiencing an

imbalance on medium voltage (MV) distribution lines due to growth in single-phase loads.

A voltage imbalance between the phases exceeds the NRS 048 specification of 3%. Their

project focused on the development of a system to balance the load on the transmission

system using discrete banks of capacitors, controlled by a Digital Signal Processor. The

capacitors are switched in by a specially designed zero-crossing thyristor-fired system.

The control loop focuses on minimizing the negative sequence voltage vector that brings

about voltage unbalance.

In order to solve this problem as mentioned above, Eskom installed a three phase load

compensator using discrete banks of capacitors, so as to counter phase imbalance

voltage problems. Even after this the transmission system remained below its designed

thermal limit that resulted in the system not meeting the maximum demand from

consumers. Unbalanced operating conditions in an electric power system are caused

mainly by the operation of unbalanced loads. Mostly low voltage loads and certain

medium–voltage ones, for example; an electric traction motor together with other single

phase appliances. Operation of such equipment in the 3-phase system results in

unbalanced load currents. Consequently unsymmetrical voltage drops, in individual

phases of the supply system, are produced; thus voltage at nodes of the network becomes

unbalanced. Consumers for the Albany-Wesley transmission line are farmers, schools,

residential users and hospitality businesses.

Conventional SVCs are systems which include thyristor–controlled reactors and fixed

capacitors, connected to a node of an electric power network. They may be considered as

a controlled parallel susceptance. Load balancing is one of the tasks which can be

accomplished by these devices. Compensation on load unbalance is usually

SUBSTATION VOLTAGE LEVEL CURRENT ANGLE

ALBANY

132kV 2.484kA -72.14˚

66kV 2.97kA -78.5˚

WESLEY 22kV 0.9kA -77.25˚

11

accomplished by means of parallel compensators. However, units connected in series can

also be applied for the supply voltage unbalance. Baggini (2008) and Acha et al (2005)

mention that in the past, line transposition was a popular resource for restoring geometric

balance but nowadays the tendency is to avoid them on economic and design grounds.

Under normal circumstances, other power plant equipment such transformers, generators,

shunt and series banks of capacitors introduce little geometric imbalance and are no

cause for concern. The researcher is of the view that, an alternative solution should have

been considered by using localized load balancing. This would mean, physically

overseeing that the loads are evenly distributed among the three phases. Nevertheless

different voltage levels on the phases can influence an unbalanced system. Short (2006)

says that; ”Voltage complaints (normally under voltage) are regular trouble calls for

utilities”, he also advises to check the system loading. Voltage unbalance normally is the

consequence stemming from an unreliable terminal voltage. This results from a large

voltage drop that happens on the line. Hence, single phase load consumers prefer to be

connected to a certain phase that seems to have a better nominal value. The main cause

of voltage instability is the inability of the power system to meet the demand for reactive

power (Wadhwa, 1991). Therefore voltage instability is also the cause of system voltage

collapse, in which the system voltage decays to a level from which it is unable to recover,

and then the voltage collapse may lead to partial or full power interruption in the system

and therefore the relevance of this research is to contribute to the solution of the problem.

Discrete capacitors cannot make an effective three phase load compensator, but a voltage

sourced converter like (Static Synchronous Compensator) STATCOM can, as it

possesses a natural tendency to compensate for changes in system voltage. However

capacitors provide tremendous benefits to distribution system performance. According to

Short (2006) mostly noticeable are that; capacitors reduce losses, free up capacity and

reduce voltage drop. Also, capacitor banks used for compensation of fundamental reactive

power are essential for economic operation of systems that include resistive–inductive

loads (Baggini, 2008). Generally the rating of a fixed capacitor bank will be equal to the

minimum reactive power consumed by the loads connected to the feeder at the light load

condition. At the same time, it should be noted that, one disadvantage of the power

capacitors is that the amount of the reactive compensation is not continuously adjustable.

12

Therefore the capacitor or compensator rating has to be based on a model that has been

preconceived through mathematical solutions. It is for this reason that different

transmission models will be created for the maximum power transfer on this transmission

system.

The reactive power as generated by compensators is provided and maintained for the

explicit purpose of ensuring continuous and steady voltage on transmission networks. The

VArs demand on the grid network is fixed in magnitude and location by the voltage at the

consumers‟ terminals (Guile & Paterson, 1977). A compensator tends to remedy a certain

parameter in the transmission system namely; voltage or power factor, at the same time

the impact on transmission loading due to compensator existence in the transmission

system is of little concern. However the capacity and location of the compensator are of

much importance and do matter in the performance of a transmission system, because

both aspects of the compensator influence the maximum power transfer as seen in this

research. Thus, the loadability of a bus in a system depends on the reactive power

support that the bus can receive from the system. When the system approaches the

maximum loading point or voltage collapse point, both real and reactive power losses

increase rapidly. (Yome, S, Arthit et al, 2004). The principle applied in this research is to

control and manage the reactive power, so as to obtain sufficient compensation for the

transmission system and deliver the maximum designed power. Based on the inductance

and capacitor shunt schemes, whereby the shunt connected inductance absorbs the VArs,

while the shunt-connected capacitor generates the VArs.

It has been noted that, the thermal capacity of a line sets a limit to the maximum apparent

power transfer otherwise the transmission system loading. Nevertheless, the transfer

capacity of the transmission line can be increased provided the line has not been loaded

to the thermal limit. The thermal limitations that are related to actual temperatures

occurring on a transmission line and equipment depend on the current flowing and the

ambient weather conditions. In this research thermal overloading as caused by a large

compensator is one of the most common constraints that limit the capability of a

transmission line.

13

Thermal limits are imposed because overheating leads to two possible problems: The

transmission line loses mechanical strength because of overheating which can reduce the

expected life of the line and the transmission line expands and sags in the center of each

span between the supporting towers. If the temperature is repeatedly too high, an

overhead line will permanently stretch and may cause its clearance from the ground to be

less than required for safety reasons. This overheating is a gradual process; higher

current flows can be allowed for limited time periods. A "normal" thermal rating for a line is

the current flow level it can support indefinitely. Emergency ratings are levels the line can

support for specific periods, for example, several hours. (IEEE Website, 2006).

The thermal ratings for transmission lines are usually expressed in terms of current flow,

rather than actual temperatures for ease of measurement. This is due to the fact that the

transmission line resists the flow of electrons through it, causing heat to be produced.

Hence the actual temperatures occurring in the transmission line equipment depends on

the current, that is the rate of flow of the electrons, and also on ambient weather

conditions, such as temperature, wind speed, and wind direction, because the weather

effects the dissipation of the heat into the air. When a large compensator was added into a

transmission system its generated or absorbed reactive power had an effect on the

transmission system that resulted in more current and temperature rising and then limiting

the power carrying capacity of the line. The researcher shares the view that before

considering the construction of a new transmission line, it is desirable to explore other

ways to Increase usage of existing transmission lines by increasing their power flow (Sen,

2009).

The United States of America‟s Energy policy (EPACT) states that when transmission

capacity is constrained, an electric utility must offer to enlarge its transmission capacity

and if necessary, to provide transmission services. However, obtaining approval to site

and build new transmission capacity is becoming more difficult due to environmental

concerns, potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF), special interest

groups' concerns, such that the property values would decline along transmission line

routes. Currently, 10,126.8 miles lines of transmission additions are planned for the United

States of America, Canada, and the northern portion of Baja California in Mexico; from

14

1995 the lines are in different stages of planning and/or construction. Many of these

transmission lines may be delayed for many years or may never be constructed. Owing to

problems associated with constructing new transmission lines, it is important to examine

the possible options for increasing transmission capability on present sites and making

maximum use of existing transmission systems through upgrades. When feasible,

upgrades are an attractive alternative, because the costs and lead times are less than

those for constructing new transmission lines.

The researcher concurs with the US policy as communicated by the US Energy

Information Administration to policy makers and regulators of the bulk electric power

system. The identification of operating constraints on a system's capability to transmit

power from one area to another that includes thermal loading and voltage. Some of the

potential remedies for these constraints through upgrades are presented along with a

comparison of the cost to upgrade compared to the costs for a new transmission line.

Likewise this research will present a mitigation to optimise the power transfer as well as to

indicate costs involved.

For the bulk power system to operate reliably it should be designed and operated based

on the following principles; the total generation at any moment must be kept equal to total

electricity consumption and losses on the system including transmission and distribution.

The electricity is allowed to flow through the transmission system in accordance with

physical laws. The system must be designed with reserve capacity in generation and

transmission to allow for uninterrupted service when contingencies occur. Despite all the

above, the thermal limitations in any transmission system are the most common

constraints that limit the capability of a transmission line, cable, or transformer heat to be

produced. The actual temperatures occurring in the transmission line equipment depend

on the current, that is the rate of flow of the electrons, and also on ambient weather

conditions, such as temperature, wind speed, and wind direction, because the weather

effects the dissipation of the heat into the air. The thermal ratings for transmission lines,

however, are usually expressed in terms of current flows, rather than actual temperatures

for ease of measurement. Thermal limits are imposed because overheating leads to two

possible problems; the transmission line loses strength because of overheating which can

15

reduce the expected life of the line; and the transmission line expands and sags in the

center of each span between the supporting towers. If the temperature is repeatedly too

high, an overhead line will permanently stretch and may cause its clearance from the

ground to be less than required for safety reasons. Because this overheating is a gradual

process, higher current flows can be allowed for limited time periods. A "normal" thermal

rating for a line is the current flow level it can support indefinitely. Emergency ratings are

levels the line can support for specific periods, for example, several hours.

2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION OF THERMAL CONSTRAINTS

Alternatively, it may be acceptable to increase allowable temperatures and plan for a

decrease in the life of the lines. This approach may produce sags in the line such that the

allowable clearance to the ground is not maintained. If inadequate clearances occur at a

limited number of spans on the line, it may also be possible to increase the transfer

capability of the line by monitoring the line sag to allow higher temperatures/currents.

There are two possible approaches; one direct and another indirect.

The direct approach involves calculating the actual sag of the line at its mid-span using

actual information provided by special sensors on the towers about the horizontal tension

and ambient temperature. Using this method, the control center calculates the actual limit

on the current that the line can handle under actual conditions. The indirect method entails

transmitting temperatures and wind velocity and locations of the critical sag sites to the

control center by radio or telephone. With this information, the control center calculates

what the sag is and determines any dangerous trend.

Also it may be economically justifiable to rebuild the towers, increasing their height to

restore sag clearances, or to fence the affected parts of the right-of-way to make them

inaccessible. If the excessive sag occurs throughout the line, however, increasing the

height of towers would be very expensive. Sometimes it is possible to re-tension the line

or span to increase the clearance to the ground. The most obvious, but also most

expensive method for alleviating the thermal constraints on a line is to replace the lines

with larger ones (conductors) through "restringing" or to add one or more lines, forming

16

"bundled" lines. This approach requires consideration of the tower structures that support

power lines.

Normally towers are designed to hold the weight of the existing lines and the weight of any

possible ice formations. They require lateral strength to withstand the sometimes very

substantial forces of winds blowing perpendicular to the direction of the line. Replacing

lines with larger ones, or bundling them, usually requires substantial reinforcement of the

tower structures and, possibly, the concrete footings of the towers. Restringing or bundling

lines to increase the transfer capability also requires enhancing substation equipment so

that it does not become a limiting factor. Substation enhancements cost approximately

$600,000 per substation (US Energy Information, 2011).

Other methods of mitigating power transfer constraints due to individual components

include: converting single circuit towers to multiple-circuit towers and converting

alternating current (AC) lines to high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines. Most

transmission circuits for 230 kV and below are built on two-circuit tower lines. Circuits for

higher voltages are generally built on single-circuit towers. Substantial increases in either

right-of-way width or in tower height are required for conversion of a single-circuit line to a

double-circuit line. The conversion of an AC line to HVDC, or the replacement of an AC

line, is a consideration when large amounts of power are transmitted over long distances.

HVDC circuits have resistance but do not have reactance associated with AC, so they

have less voltage drop than AC circuits. However the HVDC circuits have a major

disadvantage in that they require converter stations at each end of the circuit that are very

expensive, making HVDC uneconomical except when power is transmitted for long

distances. HVDC circuits also do not have the system instability problems that AC circuits

have.

Many options are available for reducing the limitations on power transfers due to the

thermal rating of overhead transmission lines. Available measures are much more limited

for underground cables and transformers. A review of the process used to set the present

thermal rating for a transmission line may reveal ways to increase the rating at little or no

cost. In the past, it was common practice to use approximations and simplifications to

17

determine thermal ratings for lines, with the result that the lowest possible rating and

greatest reliability were selected. Modern methods for computing thermal ratings for

different conditions may allow higher ratings without any physical changes to the line. In

this research simulations are done, load flow produced then thermal loading is visualized

after which reactive compensation proposed to ease the thermal loading (US Energy

Information, 2011).

Thermal loading on the transmission line, is complex, and different means were devised

so as to quantify and reach a decision for the power transfer. (Stevens, Nd), used

empirical data, in order derive a factor by which the Joule heating terms could be

multiplied so as determine the power flow for Eskom. This method will be applied in

chapter seven.

2.2.2 CAPACITORS AS A MITIGATION OF THERMAL CONSTRAINTS

If applied properly and controlled, capacitors can significantly improve the performance of

the distribution circuits. Good planning helps ensure that capacitors are sited properly.

Most feeder capacitor banks are pole mounted, the least expensive way to install

distribution capacitors. Pole mounted capacitors normally range between 300-3600kVAr.

Many capacitors are switched either based on local controller or from a centralised

controller through communication medium (Short, 2006).

The power flow can also be altered by reducing the impedance of the line by inserting a

series capacitor or increasing the impedance by inserting a series reactor (actually a coil).

Series capacitors are often used on long transmission lines to reduce impedance, thus

reducing the voltage drop along the line and decreasing the amount of losses due to

reactive power. Series reactors reduce the power flowing through a line which otherwise

would be overloaded, but are used less often than capacitors. Series reactors are often

used to limit short circuit currents. They have one disadvantage in that they increase the

voltage drop on the line reducing power transfer capability.

2.2.2.1 CAPACITOR BANK CONSTRUCTION

The capacitor bank is built from modular components. The smallest main constructional

18

component is the capacitor unit, which consists of capacitor elements connected in

parallel-series or in some cases a bank may consist of capacitor units connected in both

parallel and series.

Degree of compensation

With the reactance of the capacitive element i.e. the series capacitor equal to Xc and the

inductive reactance of the line equal to XL The degree of series compensation can be

defined as K, where; K= XC/XL

.In power transmission applications, the degree of compensation is usually chosen

somewhere in the range of 0.3 ≤ k ≥ 0.7

Here, the quantity K is the degree of compensation of the series capacitor, equal to the

relationship between the capacitive reactance of the series capacitor (XC) and the

inductive reactance of the transmission line (XL). For a fixed angular difference, the active

power transmission capability of the line increases as the degree of compensation

increases.

Vice versa, for a fixed amount of power transmission over the line, the angular difference

decreases as K increases, which is a measure of increased dynamic stability of the

transmission system. Whether a series capacitor is installed to bring about an increase in

power transmission capacity or increased dynamic stability at a fixed power transmission

level, is purely a matter of application in each particular case.

2.3 COMPENSATION SCHEMES

Compensators are additional equipment provided to generate or absorb the VArs (Guile,

1977). Reference is made to Figure 2.2 which outlines various compensation schemes,

representative of the best known compensation schemes, where FACTS can be divided

into three main types; Reactive compensation, phase shifting transformer (PST/APST)

and voltage sourced FACTS, is a family of compensators whose technology is not a single

high power controller but rather a collection of controllers, which can be applied

individually or in connection with others to control one or more of the interrelated system

parameters.

Continuously variable VAr generation or absorption for dynamic system compensation

was originally provided by over-excited or under-excited rotating synchronous machines

(Synchronous generator) and later, by saturating reactors in conjunction with fixed

19

capacitors. These reactors and capacitors perform as ideal synchronous compensators

(condensers), in which the magnitude of the internally generated AC voltage is varied to

control the output. The tap changer-based voltage regulation cannot supply or absorb

Figure 2.2 COMPENSATION SCHEMES

TA

P C

HA

NG

ER

F

AC

TS

Volta

ge s

ourc

ed type

PS

T/A

PS

T

Re

ac

tive

co

mp

en

sa

tio

n

SY

NC

HR

ON

OU

S

GE

NE

RA

TO

R

CO

ND

EN

SO

R

ST

AT

CO

M

SS

S

C

UP

F

C

Imp

ed

an

ce t

ype

TC

R/T

SR

FC

TS

C

FC

TC

R

SE

RIE

S D

EV

ICE

S

T

CS

C

F

ixed S

eries

ca

pa

cito

rs

FC

-TC

R

(Dyn

am

ic)

TS

C-T

CR

(fle

xib

ility

)

(fle

xib

ility

)

(F

lexib

ility

)

SH

UN

T

DE

VIC

ES

SV

C

ST

AT

CO

M

Sta

tic s

ynchro

no

us g

ene

rato

r (S

SG

)

20

reactive power. It directly manages the transmission voltage on one side and leaves it to

the power system to provide the necessary reactive power for the maintenance of that

voltage. The voltage regulator is a tap changing auto transformer with the ability to

continuously monitor the terminal voltage and automatically adjust itself by changing taps

until the desired voltage is obtained. The problem with this design is that the on-load tap

changer reacts to various load conditions detected at the bus bars and the resultant

voltage fluctuation that occurs. The tap changer-based voltage regulator directly manages

reactive power to maintain that voltage, should the power system be unable to provide the

reactive power demand, overall voltage collapse in the system could occur. The reactive

compensation generates or absorbs reactive power to or from a system to change the

prevailing reactive power flow and thereby indirectly control the transmission line voltage.

Power factor correction and voltage support can be done by compensation. Well-chosen

FACTS controller can overcome the specific limitation of a designated transmission line or

corridor (Hingorani & Gyugyi, 2000).

2.4 APPLICATION OF FACTS

FACTS is a group of technologies designed to improve the capacity of long transmission

lines by making the distance between the power generation plant and

the load centre seem, in electrical sense, shorter. As a result, power can be transmitted at

levels higher than the 'natural' loading of the transmission lines. Aside from the application

of synchronous generator as an early means of power compensation as well the

transformer tap changer used to respond to voltage variation in a transmission system, the

applications of the three main parts of FACTS are briefly discussed in this section as it

forms a basis of choice of a suitable compensator for this research. Although some

compensators are dedicated for shunt or series applications, only or both, the

transmission system needs, will dictate their use of shunt or series and where the

compensator should be connected (Jones, 2007).

2.4.1 PHASE SHIFTING TRANSFORMER (PST) COMPENSATION

PST compensation includes: the APST (Assisted PST), SSSC (Synchronous static series

compensator) Phase shifting transformer (PST) and Phase angle regulating transformers

21

(Phase shifters). Together they are used to control the flow of electric power over

transmission lines. The magnitude and direction of the power flow can be controlled by

varying the phase shift across the series transformer

Assisted phase shifting transformer (APST)

APST is a reactive element in parallel with the PST, together with the PST force higher

power transfer. The susceptance of the reactive element is chosen many times smaller

than that of the PST. Other schemes include the Inter-phase power controller (IPC).

2.4.2 VOLTAGE SOURCE VAr COMPENSATION

Generating controllable reactive power directly, without the use of ac capacitors or

reactors, by various switching power converters was disclosed by Gyugyi in 1976. These

(DC to AC or AC to AC) converters are operated as voltage and current sources and they

produce reactive power essentially without reactive energy storage components by

circulating alternating current among the phases of the ac system. Like the mechanically

powered machine, they can also exchange real power with the ac system if supplied from

an appropriate, usually DC energy source. Because of these similarities with a rotating

synchronous generator, they are termed Static Synchronous Generators (SSGs).

When an SSG is operated without an energy source, and with appropriate controls to

function as a shunt-connected reactive compensator, it is termed, analogously to the

rotating synchronous compensator (condenser), a Static Synchronous Compensator

(Condenser) or STATCOM (STATCON).

The magnitude and angle of the output voltage are those internal parameters which

determine the real and reactive current the converters draw from. In this way the real and

reactive power exchanges with the ac system.

The converter-based static VAr generator can be viewed as a synchronous voltage source

that can be controlled to draw either capacitive or inductive current up to a maximum value

determined by its MVA rating. It is important to note that the maximum reactive current can

be maintained even if the system voltage is significantly depressed from its nominal value.

However, the basic operating principles of the STATCOM, with a converter-based VAr

22

generator, functions as a shunt-connected synchronous voltage source, are fundamentally

different from those of SVC, which, with thyristor-controlled reactors and thyristor-switched

capacitors, functions as shunt-connected, controlled reactive admittance

2.4.2.1 STATIC SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS (SSG).

A voltage-sourced and current-sourced converter, the SSG is distinguished according to

whether it is shunted by a voltage source (capacitor) or by a current source (inductor).

Converters presently employed in FACTS Controllers are the voltage-sourced type, but

current-sourced type converters may also be used in the future.

2.4.2.2 STATCOM

STATCOM is a voltage-sourced converter (VSC), which uses power electronic switches to

derive an approximately sinusoidal output voltage from a DC source. By appropriate

control of the output voltage whether higher or lower than the system voltage, the

STATCOM will draw a capacitive or inductive current from the system. Like a synchronous

compensator a STATCOM has a natural tendency to compensate for changes in system

voltage, even without control action, but its low stored energy means it can do this much

more rapidly. Also unlike a constant impedance device, such as a capacitor, or reactor

whose output current will decrease with voltage, the STATCOM can continue to generate

its maximum output current even at low system voltage (Zhang et al, 2006).

2.4.2.3 SYNCHRONOUS STATIC SERIES COMPENSATOR (SSSC)

A voltage source converter can be connected in series, in a power transmission system

used for low and high loading.

2.4.2.4 UNIFIED POWER FLOW CONTROLLER (UPFC)

UPFC consists of two converters; operated from a common DC link. Converter 2 performs

the main function of the UPFC by injecting, via a series transformer, an AC voltage with

controllable magnitude and phase angle in series with transmission. convertor 1 supplies

or absorbs the real power demanded by converter 2 at the common DC link; it can also

generate or absorb controllable reactive power and provide independent shunt reactive

compensation of the line. It has three control variables.

2.4.3 REACTIVE VAr COMPENSATION

The purpose of this reactive compensation otherwise known as the impedance type is to

23

change the natural electrical characteristics of the transmission line to make it more

compatible with the prevailing situation

2.4.3.1 STATIC VAr COMPENSATOR (SVC)

SVC is a static VAr generator whose output is varied so as to maintain or control specific

parameters (for example. voltage, frequency) of the electric power system.

Static (VAr) generator converter comprises a large number of gate-controlled

semiconductor power switches (GTO thyristors) while Static VAr compensator SVC

includes the:

The impedance of reactors and capacitors.

Power transformer in order to define the operating range of the SVC

2.4.3.2 FIXED CAPACITOR or MECHANICALLY SWITCHED CAPACITOR (FC/MSC)

These capacitors are designed to be switched on by means of a circuit breaker; they

can be switched on more than a few times a day. The purpose is to meet steady-

state reactive power demand.

2.4.3.3 FIXED CAPACITOR, THYRISTOR-CONTROLLED REACTOR TYPE VAR

GENERATOR. (FC-TCR)

The fixed capacitor, thyristor-controlled reactor type VAr generator may be

considered essentially to consist of a variable reactor (controlled by delay angle) and a

fixed capacitor. The FC-TCR type VAr generator can be considered as a controllable

reactive admittance, when connected to the ac system.

2.4.3.4 THYRISTOR SWITCHED CAPACITOR-THYRISTOR CONTROLLED REACTOR COMPENSATOR (TSC-TCR)

The TSC-TCR type compensator was developed primarily for dynamic compensation of

power transmission systems with the intention of minimizing standby losses and providing

increased operating flexibility. A single-phase thyristor-switched capacitor (TSC) consists

of a capacitor, a bidirectional thyristor valve and a relatively small surge current limiting

reactor. This reactor is needed primarily to limit the surge current in the thyristor valve

under abnormal operating conditions.

2.4.3.5 THE THYRISTOR-CONTROLLED AND THYRISTOR-SWITCHED REACTOR

(TCR and TSR).

If the TCR switching is restricted to a fixed delay angle, usually 0 , if not then it

24

becomes a thyristor-switched reactor (TSR). The TSR provides a fixed inductive

admittance and thus, when connected to the ac transmission system.

2.5 SUMMARY ON COMPENSATION SCHEMES

FACTS is one of the modern ways used in power transmission systems to enhance

reliability of power delivery. It is becoming more and more difficult to invest in new

generation and transmission system, so the FACTS is introduced into existing system in

order to effectively transmit power. The present practice of installing a compensator in

order to control or manage one parameter of the transmission has to be looked into,

because this can be done at the expense of other crucial parameters necessary for the

optimum power transfer. Normally in order to control one parameter of a transmission

system a large rated compensator has to be installed, this practice has to change and

means found to obtain a number of smaller rated compensators that are able to control

different parameters of a transmission system simultaneously in order to increase the

power transfer. Load flow simulations are necessary in order to arrive at the satisfactory

rating, and suitable type and technology of compensation.

2.6 COMPENSATION CONTROL Figure 2.3 shows an outline of principles of different compensation control; this figure

highlights the technology underlying the schemes shown in Figure 2.2 and hence serves

as a guide for troubleshooting in case of compensator failure. The key to the performance

of compensators is the compensation control offered by the power semiconductors,

though they are presently showing up some limitations in terms of; robustness, for

example the ability to handle maximum power and the thermal stability that entails heat

losses and cooling. The tap changer varies the transformer turns in order to control the

voltage, and it is relevant where reactive power is not a concern. While the synchronous

generator operates by varying its excitation, but this limits its applications.

The STATCOM, like a synchronous generator, are condensors and exchange reactive

power with the transmission system. The voltage source compensators use

semiconductors to convert input DC or AC voltage. The reactive power compensators

control for the reactors and capacitors is done in steps when they generate or absorb

25

reactive power to or from the transmission system. The location and how the

compensators are connected can result in effective changes in the transmission system

such as with the series capacitance; the compensation decreases the overall effective

impedance of the transmission while the shunt capacitance minimizes line voltage under

light condition. Series compensation is the ideal low cost solution for bulk power long

distance AC transmission. Series compensation can also be applied very effectively in

meshed systems for balancing the load flow by means of load displacement.(Hingoran&

Gyugi, 2000).

TCSC (Thyristor controlled series compensator) is used if fast control of line impedance is

required, for load flow control and for damping power oscillations. However, the design

also has to take into account the fact that series compensated lines can excite torsional

oscillations in generators with long shafts. The rated nominal technical data of the world‟s

biggest FSC/TCSC project are for the Purnea substation, 420kV, 743MVAr FSC and

112MVArTCSC and, for Garakhpur substation 420kV, 716MVAr FSC and 108MVAr

TCSC. (Braun, K et al (2007)).The popular power semiconductor compensation control is

as shown in Figure 2.3.

2.6.1 THYRISTOR CONTROL Since the early 1970s high power, line-commutated thyristors, in conjunction with

capacitors and reactors, have been employed in various circuit configurations to produce

variable reactive output. These in effect provide a variable shunt impedance by

synchronously switching shunt capacitors and/or reactors "in" and "out" of the network.

Using appropriate switch control, the VAr output can be controlled continuously from

maximum capacitive to maximum inductive at a given bus voltage. Static VAr generators

(discussed in section of compensation control), generate or absorb controllable reactive

power (VAr) by synchronously switching capacitor and reactor banks "in" and "out" of the

network. The aim of this approach is to produce a variable reactive shunt impedance that

can be adjusted (continuously or in a step-like manner) to meet the compensation

requirements of the transmission network.

26

Figure 2.3 COMPENSATION CONTROL

2.6.2 GTO-CONTROL More recently gate turn-off thyristors and other power semiconductors with internal turn-off

capability have been used in switching converter circuits to generate and absorb reactive

power without the use of AC capacitors or reactors. A power converter of either type

consists of an array of solid state switches which connect the input terminals to the output

terminals. Consequently, a power converter has no internal energy storage and therefore

the instantaneous input power must be equal to the instantaneous output power.

2.7 LOAD FLOW

Load flow analysis is the most popular analysis tool used by planning and operation

engineers (Acha E, 2005). Load flow is a solution of the steady-state operating conditions

27

of a power system. It presents a frozen picture of a scenario with a given set of conditions

and constraints; this can be a limitation, as the power system‟s operations are dynamic. In

an industrial distribution system the load demand for a specific process can be predicted

fairly accurately and a few load flow calculations will adequately describe the system.

Thus the spectrum of load flow (power flow) embraces a large area of calculations, from

calculating the voltage profiles and power flows in small systems to problems of on-line

energy management and optimisation strategies in interconnected large power systems.

Load flow studies are performed using digital computer simulations. These simulations

address operations, planning, running, and development of control strategies. Applied to

large systems for optimisation, security, and stability, the algorithms become complex and

involved. (Das, 2002).

The calculation program called: DIgital SImuLation and Electrical NeTwork (DIGSILENT

versions13 and 14) perform power system analysis. This is done by constructing

mathematical models for the physical equipment present in the system under

consideration. The DigSilent program was used in this research. Different models of the

transmission system were implemented based on the existing physical design and

simulations done to determine the load flow. The subsequent results were used to

evaluate the performance of the system based on the known effects when adding

compensators, connecting new loads and constructing new transmission lines beforehand.

2.7.1 LOAD FLOW APPLICATION

The load flow will be used to study the transmission system with respect to steady state

and dynamic performance as seen in the basic transmission diagram in Figure 2.4. It will

be shown that the power transmission is a function of sending and receiving end voltages,

angular difference and transfer reactance. The load flow is the mathematical solution of a

transmission system. In this research the load flow will show the real and reactive power,

voltage and voltage angle, together with the loading of the lines and transformers. In

chapters four and five, it will be shown how the reactive power relates to other parameters

in the transmission system. The transformer and line loading are seen as crucial indicators

of the Albany-Wesley transmission system performance. The overloading will be

converted into heat in the conductor coils, as well as in the magnetic core hence resulting

28

in chronic overheating that eventually damage or shorten the transformer and other

equipment‟s lifespan, that will necessitate huge cost for repair and maintenance. From the

loadflow, reactive power, as supplied by compensators, is used to enable the transmission

line to transmit the full load designed power under normal loading and standard voltage.

Hence the nodal voltage magnitude and system frequency will be kept within of narrow

boundary of ±5%, and the transmission lines will be operated below their thermal and

stability limits.

2.7.2 SHORT AND LONG LINES In order to handle capacitance on transmission line, lines are categorized according to

length. Otherwise the electrical power flows according to physical laws; this way the

transferred power will be dependent on the line‟s; length, impedance, admittance,

conductance and susceptance. Also sending and receiving ends; voltages and difference

between vector angles.

2.7.3 ELEMENTARY EQUATIONS FOR TRANSMITTED REAL AND REACTIVE

POWER

The power flow in a transmission line is illustrated in Figure 2.4. The elementary equations

(1) and (2) below, explain the determination of transmitted real power, P, and reactive line

power, Q,

Figure 2.4: POWER FLOW

SENDING

END

Vs˂θs

RECEIVING END

R L

RECEIVING

END

Vr˂θrYsr

G-jB

indicate that both are functions of the transmission line impedance, the magnitude of the

sending end and receiving end voltages, and the angle between these voltages.

Figure 2.4 is the line whose length is L

ssV = Sending end voltage

rrV =Receiving end voltage

Z=R+jL= line impedance

29

Ysr= G-jB =Admittance

G=Conductance

B= Susceptance

sr= s -

r =Difference between the sending end and receiving end vector angles

If receiving end conductance rg is neglected, the received power is:

rsP = Xsr

VrVs srsin||||

…………………………………..(1)

rsQ =Xsr

rVVrVs sr ||cos|||| 2

……………………………(2)

2.7.4 LOSS LESS LINE

Where, line has zero resistance and only reactance.

Power transmitted on an ideal loss less line (with no resistance) is;

xVV sr

rs

sin, Where srsin is the difference in power angles between the sending and

receiving end of the line.

sV & rV are the voltage magnitudes at either end.

X is the reactance of the line in between.

In order to transmit a large amount of power on a given line, it is necessary to increase the

angle difference sr ; however, this difference cannot be made arbitrally great.

2.7.5 SURGE IMPEDANCE LOADING

The Surge Impedance Loading (SIL) does not measure a line‟s power carrying capacity

but rather states the amount of real power transmission in the situation where the line‟s‟.

inductive and capacitive properties are completely balanced in other words, power

transmitted along a line at unity power factor SIL= V2/

When the inductive and capacitive reactive properties are completely balanced, the real

power in MW is given by the square of transmission voltage divided by the surge

impedance. But in the case where the power is less than SIL, the line appears as a

capacitance that injects reactive power VArs. If the Power exceeds the SIL, the line

appears as an inductive that consumes VArs and thus contributes to reactive losses in the

system.

30

2.7.6 ALBANY-WESLEY 66/22KV TRANSMISSION LINE A MEDIUM LENGTH LINE

In so far as handling of capacitance on open wire is concerned, a line less than 80km is

called short line, 80km to 240 km is medium and longer than 240km is considered medium

lines. (Stevenson, 1982). Therefore the line in this research will

be categorized as a medium length line. Hence for short line the reactance X in the

denominator is usually small; so that small srsin still results in a large amount of power

being transmitted consequently if one were to apply the maximum permissible srsin to

such line power transmitted could easily exceed the line‟s thermal capacity. The reactance

becomes more significant. In this case a dangerous srsin as well may be reached before

the thermal limit of the line. Hence a more stringent limit on power transmitted called

stability limit is imposed, while the thermal limit is expressed in terms of current (amps) or

apparent power (MVA) the stability limit has units of real power (MW). Because of its

length, the Albany-Wesley line will be regarded as a medium line as opposed to the short

line. The voltage phase difference which determines power flow between adjacent buses

is very small and an angle difference on the order of 0.1 degree can force large power

flows in the transmission line (Kusic, 2009). From the above, it should be noted that in

order to optimise the power transfer of this line;

Transfer of real power depends on the angle transmission angle and the relative

magnitudes of sending/receiving end voltages

Its real power transfer rises with the rise in the Transmission voltage.

The reactive power flow is proportional to the voltage drop in the line, and is

independent of .

The receiving end voltage falls with increase in reactive power demand.

It was established that controlled reactive shunt compensation is highly effective in

maintaining the desired voltage profile along the transmission line in spite of changing real

power demand. Although reactive compensation and voltage regulation by on-load tap

changers appear to provide the same transmission control function, there is an important

operating difference to note between them. Whereas a reactive compensator supplies

reactive power to, or absorbs that from the AC system to change the prevailing reactive

31

power flow and thereby indirectly control the transmission line voltage. A case in point

would be, studies relating to placement and sizing of shunt and series compensation of

long distance transmission. At frequency application higher than the fundamental

frequency, it is certainly mandatory to incorporate long-line effects since the electrical

distance increases rapidly with frequency. Even transmission lines of only a few tens of

kilometres may be seen as a very long line at 1kHz (Acha, 2005).

2.7.7 CRITERIA FOR CONTROLLING POWER TRANSMISSION.

The ability to control the line impedance and nodal voltage magnitudes and phase angles

at both the sending and receiving ends of key transmission lines, with almost no delay

has significantly increased the transmission capabilities of the network while considerably

enhancing the security of the system (Acha, 2005).

The controlling criteria can be described in broad terms as following:

Up to 22kV- Voltage drop is the main criteria in the range and the line will

exhibit poor voltage regulation before the thermal or stability limits are met.

33kV-275kV- Although voltage is occasionally the limiting criterion in this range of

voltages the thermal limit of the lines forms a limiting criterion in many cases

Also other considerations when controlling power transmission are as following:

Stability of the system: Due to the transmission line length contributing to the

significant amount to the total of reactance of the line the stability limit will be

compromised.

The power transfer rating of terminal equipment and how it relates to the thermal rating

of overhead conductors, because any transmission system should be able to transmit

full load power within the designed thermal limit.

2.7.8 THERMAL LOADING. The total current in the network is as a rule the basic criteria for designing an electrical

system. At low voltage the thermal current limit of the network is the critical factor.

Whereas at high voltage, other considerations such as short circuit power and voltage also

become critical. Theoretically one can use as many single-phase voltage regulators as

preferred on a line in order to compensate voltage drop. However in practice the thermal

capacity of the line and line losses would limit their numbers. It is known that a large

number of supply authorities in South Africa and abroad for example TEPCO in Japan use

32

the current flowing in the conductor as the deciding factor when operating an electrical

system. The atmospheric conditions are considered constant for any time of the day. The

fact that current is used as the deciding factor means that load will be shed if a certain

current or power transfer limit is exceeded on the line irrespective of whether the line is

running through the Drakensburg mountain range at midnight in winter. It also means that,

on certain extremely hot days, the temperature may exceed the templating temperature of

the line though the current is far below the set normal operating limit. The line may be

operating under clearance with the operator totally unaware of the fact.

2.7.9 TYPES OF BUSES FOR POWER-FLOW STUDIES

The buses in an electric power system network are generally divided into three categories:

generation bus, load bus, and slack bus, and two of the following quantities are specified

at each bus;

Magnitudes of the voltage that is, |V|

Phase angle of the voltage, that is, θ

Active or real power, that is, P

Reactive power, that is, Q

The quantities specified at each of the bus types are:

Generation Bus (or voltage-controlled bus): this is called the P-V bus, with the voltage

magnitude | V | and real power P specified.

Load Bus: this is also called the P-Q bus and here the real power P and reactive power Q

are specified.

Slack or Swing Bus: this is also known as the reference bus where the voltage magnitude

|V| and phase angle θ are specified. This bus is selected to provide additional real and

active power to supply transmission losses since these are unknown until the final solution

is obtained. If the slack bus is not specified, then a generation bus (usually with maximum

real power P) is taken as the slack bus. There can be more than one slack bus.

At the Slack bus, only voltage and angle are specified, this bus is assigned to maintain

real power balance in the system (holding the angle voltage constant). Specifying that the

bus voltage magnitude should be kept constant effectively the system reactive power is

33

kept balanced. Specifying a constant voltage angle at the generator bus amounts to

saying that the generator should do whatever it takes to keep real power balanced.

By convention, the voltage angle at the slack bus is the reference; therefore as a result the

following will happen;

A more positive voltage angle corresponds to an injection of power into the system.

A more negative voltage angle corresponds to a consumption of real power.

It is worth noting that the voltage angle difference between two ends of a link is not

explicitly a function of length it depends on the amount of power flow and impedance of

the link, also the stability limit (where more power flow would cause excessive separation

of voltage angle) tend to be a concern only for long transmission lines.

2.8 APPARENT POWER AND THERMAL LIMIT

On the transmission line being studied, there are discrete banks of capacitors installed on

the Medium Voltage distribution line. These capacitors are switched on by a voltage zero

crossing thyristor-fired system. According to Vores and Gareth (2004). A disadvantage of

the power capacitors is that the amount of reactive compensation is not continuously

adjustable. One should bear in mind that thermal capacity of a line sets a limit to the

maximum apparent power (MVA) transfer. Hence the intention of; introducing the small

scale compensators, with flexible technology and small total MVA. The important

component of the apparent power is the reactive power. This can be easily controlled and

by so doing, the nominal voltage and thermal loading of a transmission can be attained for

the optimum power transfer capacity of this transmission line. The active power oscillates

around an arbitrary average value while the reactive power oscillates around a zero

average power as the average value of a cos and sin function is zero. This observation is

valid under any conditions as long as the oscillations are sinusoidal (Fetea & Petroianu,

2000).

2.9 REACTIVE POWER The reactive power loss is explained to be the reactive power produced or absorbed by

the line, depending on its sign. Accordingly, for a piece of electric network, the reactive

34

power injected at one end will be the reactive power at the other end plus the reactive

power produced or absorbed by the network element (Fetea & Petroianu, 2000). On the

other hand; reactive power is power provided and maintained for the explicit purpose of

ensuring continuous, steady voltage on transmission networks. Reactive power is energy,

which must be produced for the maintenance of the system and is not produced for end-

use consumption. Electric motors, electromagnetic generators and alternators used for

creating alternating current are all components of the energy delivery chain, which require

reactive power. Losses incurred in transmission lines from heat and electromagnetic

emissions are included in total reactive power. This power is supplied for many purposes

by condensers, capacitors and similar devices which can react to changes in current flow

by releasing energy to normalize the flow, and regulating generators may also have this

capability. (Vortex website, 2006). By varying the reactive power on the transmission line

its loadability can change and the thermal limit constraint of the transmission line will be

avoided by reducing the reactive power on the transmission line. Normally the reactive

power is obtained from the generators connected to the system. But there is a limit to the

VArs they can generate during maximum load on the grid; also there is a limit of VArs they

can absorb during the minimum load time. The VArs demand on the grid network is fixed

in magnitude and location by the voltage at the consumers‟ terminals. A transformer

always absorbs reactive power that is proportional to its kVA ratings. (Wadhwa, 1994)

A shunt-connected inductance absorbs VArs while the shunt-connected capacitor

generates VArs, hence transfer capacity of the transmission line can be increased

provided the line has not been loaded to the thermal limit. The static compensators such

as the power capacitor bank or reactors have no moving parts, unlike the synchronous

compensators; their connections may be fixed or switched, depending on their primary

functions (Chow, 1995). The transformer voltage drop is usually expressed in percentage

of nominal voltage drop. The voltage rating of the capacitor units is selected based on

their nominal line to neutral system voltage (Bosela, 1997).

This research will show that there is a minimum reactive power necessary for

compensation, hence the importance of the availability reactive power in order to avoid the

power disruptions and voltage fluctuation in the phenomena that determines the quality of


35

2.10 LARGE AND SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION

It is intended to show in this dissertation that the common practice of a large centralised

capacitor or large scale compensation is not a solution to every problem on a transmission

line. To achieve this, on any transmission system there are a number of parameters that

must be optimised in order to transmit power at the full potential of the line. The smaller

and distributed capacitors on a transmission line or small scale compensation as referred

to can greatly improve the power transfer and so will be the foundation to the solution of

this transmission line problem under study.

2.11 SERIES AND SHUNT COMPENSATION

The series compensator can be implemented either as variable reactive impedance or as

a controlled voltage source in series with the line. The series compensation reference is

the line current, and hence the series connected compensator regulates the active and

reactive power or active power and the voltage at the series connected node. W hile the

shunt connected compensator is to regulate the bus voltage In other words, in shunt

compensation the basic reference parameter is the transmission voltage.

The basic idea behind series capacitive compensations is to decrease the overall effective

series transmission impedance from the sending end to the receiving end, while the shunt

connected, fixed or mechanically switched reactors are applied to minimize line over

voltage under light load conditions.

The series compensator is a reciprocal of the shunt compensator and can be implemented

either as variable reactive impedance or as a controlled voltage source in series with the

line to control its current.

Series devices include:

Fixed series capacitors

Thyristor-controlled series capacitors (TCSC) or a combination of both.

Thyristor controlled reactor (TCR) and

Thyristor switched capacitor (TSC)

Principle of operation of series capacitor

36

The series capacitor works by inserting capacitive voltage to compensate for the inductive

voltage drop in the line, in other words they reduce the effective reactanceof the

transmission line. There must always be a difference between the voltage phase angles at

either end of power lines to enable transmission, this difference increases with power. The

series capacitor also keeps the angular difference within safe limits as it ensures that the

angular difference does not increase so much that it could jeopardize the angle stability.

The usefulness of the concept can be demonstrated by well-known expressions relating to

active power transfer and voltage:

P = V1V2sinδ/X ……………………. ……. (1)

V = f (P, Q) ……………………………….. (2)

Here, V1 and V2 denote the voltages at either end of the interconnection, whereas

δ denotes the angular difference of the said voltages.

X is the reactance of the transmission circuit, while

P and Q denote the active and reactive power flow.

From (1) it is evident that the flow of active power can be increased by decreasing the

effective reactance of the line. Similarly it is demonstrated that by introducing a capacitive

reactance in the denominator, it is possible to achieve a decrease of the angular

separation with power transmission capability unaffected, in other words an increase of

the angular stability of the link. From (2) it is seen that the voltage of a transmission circuit

depends on the flow of active as well as reactive power. The explicit relationship between

the quantities in the formula is not simple.

The Thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor

The thyristor Controlled Series Capacitor (TCSC) is one of the members within the FACTS

family, beside the SVC that was established long time ago, the capacitor is inserted

directly in series with the transmission line and the thyristor controlled inductor is mounted

directly in parallel with the capacitor. TCSC is an „impedance‟ type control, in other words,

the inserted voltage is proportional to line current. This type of control is normally best

suited to applications in power flow corridors, where a well-defined phase angle difference

exists between the ends of the transmission line to be compensated and controlled. In

TCSC, the whole capacitor bank or, alternatively, a section of it is provided with a parallel

thyristor controlled inductor which circulates current pulses that add in phase, with the line

37

current, so as to boost the capacitive voltage beyond the level that would be obtained by

the line current alone. Each thyristor is triggered once per cycle of the rated mains

frequency. By controlling the additional voltage to be proportional to the line current, the

TCSC will be seen by the transmission system as having a virtually increased reactance

beyond the physical reactance of the capacitor.

The TCSC features four different modes of operation and these are;

CAP (capacitive voltage boost)

BLK (thyristor valve blocked)

CBP (controlled valve bypass)

PBP (protective bypass).

In principle, a TCSC is capable of fast control of the active power through a transmission

line. A possible control of transmittable power, points to this device being used to damp

electromechanical oscillations in the power system. TCSC configurations are comprised of

controlled reactors in parallel with sections of a capacitor bank; this combination allows

smooth control of the fundamental frequency capacitive reactance over a wide range

Series compensation modes

Blocking mode:When the thyristor valve is not triggered and the thyristors remain non-

conducting the TCSC will operate in blocking mode.

Bypass mode: If the thyristor valve is triggered continuously it will remain conducting all

the time and the TCSC will behave like a parallel connection of the series capacitor bank

and the inductor of the thyristor valve branch. In this mode the capacitor voltage at a given

line current is much lower than in the blocking mode. The bypass mode is therefore used

to reduce the capacitor stress during faults.

Capacitive boost mode: If a trigger pulse is supplied to the thyristor with forward voltage

just before the capacitor voltage crosses the zero line, a capacitor discharge current pulse

will circulate through the parallel inductive branch.

The shunt compensator is functionally a controlled reactive current source, which is

connected in parallel with the transmission lines to control its voltage. Thus, shunt

connected, fixed or mechanically switched reactors are applied to minimize line over

voltage under light load conditions, and a shunt connected pole mounted shunt capacitor

38

can be used to compensate for low voltages resulting from high impedances or poor

power factor. Fixed and switched capacitor banks offer economical voltage regulation for

changing system conditions. Shunt Capacitors, are recommended whenever VAr support

is needed anywhere in the power systems to reduce the generator VAr requirements and

release generation capacity (Hingorani & Gyugi, 2000).

The shunt devices include:

Static VAr Compensators (SVC)

STATCOMS

2.11.1. DIGSILENT C, RL, AND RLC CAPACITORS

The Digsilent powerfactory graphic offers three different types of shunt models in the

graphic toolbox, namely: C, RL and RLC, these are single port elements for single line

diagram. These models were used in the simulation in this dissertation. These shunts are

3-phase delta connected technology whose input modes are described by design and

layout parameters (GmbH, 2008).

2.11.1.1 C SHUNT

This is a pure capacitance described by susceptance/ capacitance and has two input

modes as seen in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: C-TYPE TECHNOLOGY CB

C

A

C C

INPUT MODES

Design parameter: The parameter is

defined by the capacitance power or

rated current

Layout parameter: The parameter is

defined by the susceptance or

capacitance.

39

Relationship between the susceptance Bcap and the capacitance Ccap.

Ccap= , where capacitance is in µF

Bcap= Susceptance in µS

f= Nominal frequency in Hz

Relationship between the susceptance Bcap and capacitive power Qcap

where = Rated Power in MVAr

V= Nominal line-line voltage in kV

= Susceptance in µS

Relationship between the capacitive power Qcap and rated current Icap

Qcap= (MVAr)

where V= Nominal line-line voltage in kV

Icap = Rated Current in A

2.11.1.2 RL SHUNT

This is a shunt reactance and a resistance series, it is described by the reactance and

resistance there are two input modes as seen in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: RL-TYPE TECHNOLOGY

C

B

A

L

R

R

L

R

L

INPUT MODES


defined by the rated power or rated

current and quality factor

Layout parameter : The parameter is

defined by the reactance or

inductance and resistance in ohms

40

Relationship between the reactance Xr and the inductance L

where inductance is in H

= Reactance in Ohms

Nominal frequency in Ohms

Relationship between reactance Xr resistance Rr and reactive power Qr

and

Where V= Nominal line-line voltage in kV

Qr = Rated reactive power in MVAr

= quality factor at nominal frequency ( For a quality factor of zero the resistance is

set to zero)

2.11.1.3 RLC SHUNT

This is the reactance, resistance and capacitance in series, it has two inputs modes as

seen in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: RLC -TYPE TECHNOLOGY

L

CR

A

L

L

CR

B

CR

C

INPUT MODES


defined by the reactive power (L-C)

or the rated current, the degree of

inductance or the resonance

frequency or the tuning order and the

quality factor at nominal frequency or

the quality factor at resonance

frequency.

Layout parameter: the parameter is

defined by the reactance (Ohms) or

inductance(mH),the susceptance

(µS) or capacitance (µF) and the

resistance (Ohms)

41

Relationship between susceptance Bcap and the capacitance Ccap

Ccap= (µF)

Bcap = Susceptance in µS

f = Nominal frequency (Hz)

Relation between the reactance Xr and inductance L

L= where inductance is (H)

Xr = reactance (Ohms)

f =Nominal frequency (Hz)

Relationship between Degree of inductance, Resonance frequency and tuning order

fres = =Resonance frequency

Ƞres= = Tuning order

Pgrad = Degree of inductance in %

f= Nominal frequency (Hz)

Ƞres= Tuning order

Relationship between quality factor f (normal frequency) and quality factor at fres

(resonance frequency) : ᵍreaf0= ᵍrea* Ƞres== ᵍrea *

ᵍrea= Quality factor at nominal frequency f

ᵍreaf0 = Quality factor at resonance frequency

Ƞres= Tuning order

Rated Capacitive Power Qcap and rated reactive power, L-C Qtot

Qcap= Qtot(1-Pgrad/100)=Qtot(1- )= Qtot{1-( )2} in MVAr

Rated reactive power Qrea and rated reactive power, L-C Qtot

Qrea= Qtot(100/Pgrad-1)=Qtot{Ƞ2res-1)=Qtot{( -1}, Rated reactive power for L in MVAr

42

For the above ;

Qtot= rated reactive power L-C in MVAr

Pgrad= degree of Inductance in %

fres= resonance frequency in Hz

Ƞres= Tuning order

f= frequency

Resonance frequency fres

fres=

L= inductance

Ccap= capacitance

Relationship between inductance L, Resonance frequency fres and Capacitance C

L= mH

Ccap= capacitance µF

fres = resonance frequency Hz

Relationship between rated capacitive power Qcap and susceptance Bcap

Bcap= , in µSBcap= Susceptance (µS)

Relationship between reactance in one phase Xrea,and rated reactive power of the reactor

Qrea

Xrea= 3. (mH) and Rrea= Ohms

Qrea =rated reactive power of the reactor in MVAr

V= Nominal line to line voltage kV

Xrea= Reactive in one phase in (mH)

= quality factor at nominal frequency

In this research the C, RL and RLC shunts are defined by the rated reactive power (MVAr)

at the busbar‟s rated voltage. Likewise the series capacitor is defined at the busbar rated

nominal voltage, current and capacitor‟s susceptance

43

2.12 EVALUATION OF SERIES AND SHUNT COMPENSATION

Closer analysis reveals, however, that the reactive power contribution from a

capacitive element in series with the line acts to improve the reactive power balance

of the circuit, thereby bringing about a stabilization of the transmission voltage. It can

further be shown that this reactive power contribution is instantaneous and of a self -

regulatory nature, in other words it increases when the line load increases, and vice

versa. It consequently contributes to voltage stability in a truly dynamic fashion. This

makes series compensation a highly effective means for upkeep or even increasing

voltage stability in a heavily loaded transmission circuit. And likewise, it allows

additional power transmission over the circuit without upsetting voltage stability.

2.12.1 PREVENTION OF VOLTAGE COLLAPSE

The reactive output power (capacitive or inductive) of the compensator is varied to

control the voltage at given terminals of the transmission network so as to maintain

the desired power flow under possible system disturbances and contingencies. When

a fixed or a mechanically switched shunt capacitor is used for the purpose of voltage

control, this is the most economic means available for reactive power supply.

2.12.2 CAUSES OF VOLTAGE COLLAPSE

The problems listed below are some of the causes of voltage collapse, they result in

the inability of the transmission system not transmit the designed power;

High transfer impedances

High load content of induction motors

Insufficient reactive power reserves

Temporary operating conditions

Generator, line or transformer outages

High system loading

Erroneous human action

Equipment malfunction

Automatic controls of transformer on-load tap changers

Action of generator current limiters

2.12.3 VOLTAGE REGULATION AND STEADY STATE VAR CONTROL

The VAr control is achieved by the dynamic performance (for example the frequency

band) of the VAr generator and this is limited by the firing angle delay control. This

44

control mechanism results in a time lag or transport lag with respect to the input

reference signal. Normally the voltage at the consumer terminals should be within a

certain range around the nominal voltage. The aim of steady-state voltage regulation

is to keep the transmission bus voltages within fairly narrow limits, while the load

transferred varies. The limits vary between different countries, different classes of

services, and so forth. The desirable voltage range under normal operating

conditions is usually defined by the nominal voltage ±5 to 10 percent, usually with

higher voltage during heavy load conditions than during light load conditions, the

larger voltage deviation is allowed under certain outage operating conditions.

Alternatives to meet voltage regulation;

Different approaches are undertaken in order to maintain the terminal voltage within

standard regulation, these include;

Load tap-charging transformer

This automatically adjusts its tap to maintain the desired voltage though it is

impossible to maintain, an acceptable level at the end.

Upgrade the system voltage.

This reduces current and loss in the transmission system

Constructing new substation feeders lowers the impedance and corresponding

losses of the transmission.

The single phase load growth that causes phase unbalance on the Albany-Wesley

transmission line is mainly attributed to the unreliable nominal voltage that happens

when the system strives to meet the power demand. The consumers can easily pick

up low voltage, but Eskom cannot transmit their designed power while their

equipment is experiencing a thermal overload that will eventually damage the


2.12.4 OPTIMAL POWER FLOW The idea of optimal power flow (OPF) was introduced in the early 1960s as an

extension of conventional economic dispatch to determine the optimal settings for

control variables while respecting various constraints. The term is used as a generic

name for a long series of related network optimisation. The power system is modeled

at the main transmission level, including generating units. The model may also

include other auxiliary generating units and representation of internal or external

parts used in deciding the optimum state of a system (Momoh, 2009). The power

45

optimisation includes; sizing, placement, number of banks and switching time. In

order to provide an optimal yet simple method of placing fixed capacitors on a circuit

with any load profile, the reactive load profile of a circuit is used to place capacitors.

The basic idea is to locate banks at points on the circuit where the reactive power

equals one and a half of capacitor VAr rating using the ½ kVAr rule (Short, 2006).

Some utilities use automatic models to determine the optimum system; here the

optimality claim is mathematical. That is the optimum system is the one that

minimizes an objective function or performance function, subject to restriction.

(Gonen, 2009) Heuristic Models can be considered custom-made, contrary to

mathematical models. Some help to simulate the way a system planner uses

analytical tools, Network design tools & Network analysis tools such as load flow

programs and reliability of the analysis involves simulations of the planning process

through automated design logic. Time-phase optimisation models, a time –phased or

multi-state or so called “dynamic” optimisation model can include inflation and

interest rates, as well as yearly operating costs in the comparison in comparison of

various network expansion plans (Gonen, 2009).Therefore, in this research, in order

to optimise the power transfer from the loadflow, appropriately–sized capacitors be

placed at accordingly.

2.12.5 CENTRALLY AND DISPERSED COMPENSATION

Centralized compensation is often believed to be cheaper because the central unit is

less costly to purchase. The installed compensation capacity can also be lower

because it can be assumed that not every reactive current consumer will be

simultaneously active. Centralized compensation does nothing to reduce the losses

but merely reduces power factor charges levied by the utility. On the other hand

when compensation is dispersed the total cost of the individual unit will be greater

than the cost of a single large centralized unit and total installed compensation

capacity will usually be greater. It should be evident at this point that reactive power

is not always undesired rather the proper amount of capacitive reactive power needs

to be generated to offset the inductive reactive power (Baggini, 2008). Capacitors are

usually installed in relatively large capacitor banks and it is usually necessary to

switch off portions of capacitors at periods of light load to prevent excessively high

outgoing voltage. In many instances the principle reason for capacitor at distribution

bus is not necessary to control the bus voltage but is necessary to counteract the

effect of induction reactance, in order to reduce the required current. Hence to supply

46

load at approximately unity power factor, thereby permitting large loads to be

supplied by the same transmission and substation facilities (Pansini, 2006 ). In order

to optimise different parameters of the transmission system the capacitors will have

to be dispersed. The researcher is of the view that this is a worthwhile price to be

paid for a system delivering a maximum designed power.

2.13 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER TWO

This chapter has considered the Eskom‟s Albany-Wesley transmission system,

whose voltage is supported by discrete capacitors, it was mentioned that efforts were

made to solve its voltage imbalance; still the transmission cannot deliver the

designed full load. In this chapter the compensation theory, schemes and

applications as found in the literature survey were presented. Thermal capacity of a

line was highlighted that it sets a limit to the maximum apparent power (MVA)

transfer of transmission. Different constraints to the power transmission were also

presented, and include; voltage drop and thermal loading. Also in this chapter it was

highlighted that uncontrolled compensation can cause thermal overloading.

The classic mathematical way of solving and interpreting a transmission system

loadflow was mentioned in this chapter, also the electrical transmission parameters

such as: voltage, load angle, active power, reactive power, transmission reactance

and the current were highlighted. Current was mentioned as basic criteria for

designing electrical system. In this chapter it can be seen that power transmission

can be controlled and different criteria for controlling the power were mentioned. The

Digsilent power factory graphics applied in this research were explained namely the:

pure capacitor, shunt reactance and resistance series also the reactance, resistance

and capacitance series C, RL and RLC. Also important parts of the transmission

system such as busbars and their roles were mentioned. In chapter two, the

researcher introduced the large and small scale compensation concept. Different

mitigations to the transmission constraints were mentioned, as well as the theory of

optimal power flow and centralized and dispersed compensation. The next chapter

will discuss the approach to the research.

47

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY 3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter explains how the research and the analysis were carried out in order to

acquire the desired results. Thereafter, through the observations in the methodology

suitable recommendations were arrived at. The methodology included a literature

survey on compensation, reference to the line data and its performance. Then

simulation was carried out on the small and large scale compensation models of the

line. The literature survey highlighted various concepts on parameters of power

transmission such as: voltage, power factor, reactive power and thermal limit. The

simulations in this research were based on creating models of a transmission line

under different scenarios. Using a DigSilent program, load flow (power flow) solutions

were generated. The DigSilent program allowed analysis of the system based on line

and transformer loading, voltage angle (load angle) and voltage regulation trends and

characteristics which determined the compensation technology and rating to be used.

A suitable compensation scheme was proposed based on the design specifications

of the line. However an alternative idea to the compensation was contemplated in the

form of building a new line in order to resolve the power delivery problem. As such a

new line was implemented to supply the most-affected substations. Simulations were

carried out on the new line, and cost exploration on new line construction was done.

A cost-analysis was conducted to determine the financial cost for the compensation

earmarked for the optimised power transfer or construction of the new line in order to

meet the line demand. This research concludes with a selection of an optimised

compensated system and recommendations.

3.2 MODEL SIMULATION

Mathematical models of the transmission line physical equipment were constructed.

The system was loaded at full load (100%). The calculation report was obtained in

DigSilent results box although in some cases, the detailed calculation report was

needed in order to obtain more information.

The results box was assigned to display the following parameters at:

Nodes:

Line-line Voltage, Magnitude (kV)

Voltage, Magnitude (pu)

Voltage, Angle (degree) and

48

Branches:

Active power (MW)

Reactive power (MVAr)

Loading percentage (%).

3.2.1 CREATING THE POWER SYSTEM ELEMENTS The network topology of the single line transmission system was created on the Dig

Silent Power Factory program and hence a project was created to do load flow. The

power system components were edited and drawn; data was assigned and

maintained as a project in the DigSilent data manager as seen in Figure 3.1. From

the data contained in Figure 3.1 where the case studies and system stages were

created in order to suit the desired model.

Project library

A library was created for this research project comprising all elements and settings

applicable. as listed below:

Busbars

Basic data: Each busbar was given a name related to their location as seen in Table

3.1.

Table 3.1 Editing busbars

Data name Busbar name

Type

ALBANY HV1 Albany high voltage 1 132kV

ALBANY HV2 Albany high voltage 2 132kV

ALBANY LV1 Albany low voltage 1 66kV

ALBANY LV2 Albany low voltage 2 66kV

COMM11KV Committees 11Kv 11kV

COMM22KV Committees 22kV 22kV

COMMITTEES Committees 66kV 66kV

BREAKFASTVLEI Breakfastvlei 66kV

PEDDIE HV Peddie 66kV 66kV

PEDDIE LV Peddie 22kV 22kV

WESLEY HV Wesley66kV 66kV

WESLEY LV Wesley22kV 22kV

FISH LV Fishriver 11kV

(ALBANY LV1 and ALBANY LV2 were also referred to ALBANY 66 or Grahamstown)

Busbar type was given based on busbar particular voltage level and nominal voltage

was taken as line voltage at the particular busbar.

49

Transformers

Basic data: Each transformer was given a name as seen in Table 3.2. Type 2

winding transformer and capacity of the transformer were used, it was important to

mention whether the transformer is in parallel with another transformer or not.

Table 3.2 Editing Transformers

Data Transformer Type

Parallel ALBANY1 Albany transformer1 2 winding Yes

ALBANY2 Albany transformer2 2 winding Yes

COMM11TR Committees 11kV 2 winding No

COMM22TR Committees 22kV 2 winding No

PEDDIETR Peddie 2 winding No

WESTR Wesley 2 winding No

FISH1TR Fishriver transformer1 2 winding Yes

FISH2TR

Fishriver transformer2

2 winding Yes

Loadflow data: parameters of the transformers were given rated: power, frequency,

voltage and vector groups refer to Table 2.1 on page 9. The voltage taps were from 1

to 17 and 9 set as neutral position.

Cables: The transmission line consists of 3 phase overhead lines; each distributor

was given an individual name, length, current rating and type of circuit applicable to

the cable as seen in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Editing lines

Data Line name

Length

Current Parallel circuit

ALB-COMM Albany to

Committees

25.5km 0.285kA 1

COMM-BREAK Committees to Breakfastvlei 15.4km 1

15.4km 0.219kA 1

BREAK-PED Breakfastvlei to

Peddie

21.5km 0.219kA 1

PEDD-WES Peddie to Wesley

30km 0.088kA 1

Cable Type was given to each cable based on the its nominal frequency and current.

They were rated 66 kV rated voltage and 50Hz frequency

Table 3.4: loads

Data Substation Apparent power

GRAHAMSLD Grahamstown 47.5 MVA

COMM22LD Committees 22kV 5MVA

COM11LD Committees 11Kv 2.5MVA

PEDDLD Peddie 10MVA

FISHLD Fishriver 5MVA

Loads: All loads were edited as general load type and were given data names and

apparent power as seen in Table 3.4.

50

Each simulation was taken as a project managed from the project manager as seen

in figure 3.1.The simulations were divided into three major scenarios:

Uncompensated transmission, large scale compensation and small scale

compensation. Each group had a specific parameter as System Case and these

parameters were varied in each System stage.

Figure 3.1: DATA MANAGER

3.3 APPROACH TO OPTIMISED POWER TRANSFER

In order to arrive, at the optimised power transfer model, as seen from figure 3.2

models were created and simulations done. The transmission system was loaded at

51

Figure 3.2: FLOW CHART APPROACH TO OPTIMISED POWER TRANSFER

VARY

CAPACITOR RATING

or PARAMETER

CHANGE LOCATION

OR ADD SECOND CAPACITOR

SIMULATION

TECHNOLOGY.VARIABLE RATING

POWER FACTOR

VOLTAGE SUPPORT VOLTAGE ANGLE

LINE LOSSES

LINE & TRANSFORMER

LOADING LESS THAN 100%?

SHUNT OR SERIES CAPACITO

R

SIMULATION

TECHNOLOGY.FIXED

RATING POWER FACTOR

VOLTAGE SUPPORT VOLTAGE ANGLE

LINE LOSSES LINE &

TRANSFORMER

LOADING LESS THAN 100%?

COMPARE

OPTIMISED POWER

TRANSFER

SIMULATION

CRITICAL LINE,

NOMINAL VOLTAGE, WORKING POWER FACTOR,

VARIABLES (POWER FACTOR)

U

NC

OM

PE

NS

AT

ED

L

AR

GE

S

CA

LE

CO

MP

EN

SA

TIO

N

SM

AL

L S

CA

LE

CO

MP

EN

SA

TIO

N

52

100%, its designed physical and electrical parameters were kept constant. The aim

was to deliver terminal voltage within acceptable standard, also the designed load

had to be delivered, while line and equipment thermal loading to remain within

allowable limits.

3.3.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION The power factor was varied from 0.5 to unity at 0.05 intervals on each busbar

(substation) at a time. After each simulation the DigSilent calculation report was

recorded. Then the graphical analysis was done whereby each substation voltage

and voltage angle was plotted against its busbar, and then line loading plotted

against its corresponding line, likewise the transformer loading against its

corresponding transformer. This analysis highlighted the critical lines and

transformers, that is the transformers and lines that are mostly affected when the

transmission system attempts to meet its designed demand. The system nominal

voltage and regulation as well as line losses were later compared to the recorded

power demand of the line. Also the results obtained formed the basis for ideas to

maximize the power transfer by means of compensation, after identifying the working

power factor range for the simulations. The compensation was intended to result in

maintaining the following at each substation: standard voltage regulation, minimum

line losses and safe line and transformer loading when the transmission system

delivers the designed full load power.

Following simulations, comparison of results was done in order to ascertain the

recorded maximum power above mentioned in relation to: voltage, losses and

loading. In each case remedies were undertaken by varying the rating or changing

the compensation type. The location of the compensator played an important role in

improving the power transfer, as different locations were considered during

simulations with the ultimate goal of producing reliable voltage support and optimised

transmission.

3.3.2 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION The large scale compensation was adopted based on the relative larger rating of the

compensator for the purpose of improving one parameter of the transmission system

in this case, to improve voltage the shunt capacitor was applied to raise the voltage

so that the voltage regulation stays within the standard range. The suitable rating of

the capacitor needed to raise the voltage was found by simulations, and then the

53

same capacitor was applied to each busbar at power factors between 0.5 and unity

as applied to an uncompensated transmission system. Fixed capacitors were used;

the rating and type or the capacitor technologies were varied in order to get the

optimised model. From the large scale compensation the transformer loadings results

were applied on the Eskom imperial thermal design to deduce the allowable system

temperature rise and see that this fitted into the criteria of building a new line.

3.3.3 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION Small scale compensation simulation was implemented using a number of smaller

rated compensation schemes that aimed at mitigating a number of constraints

(voltage drop and voltage angle, thermal and line loading) on the transmission at one

time. The idea was to combine a number of capacitors to achieve an optimised

compensation, as opposed to the large scale compensation that aimed at raising the

nominal voltage, with the expectation that this will solve the power transfer constraint

of the system.

3.3.4 COMPARISON AND FEEDBACK In Figure 3.2, COMPARE is an important stage in this approach to optimised power

transfer whereby: the nominal voltage, voltage angle, line losses, line and

transformer loading are compared. The large scale compensation was typical as only

one parameter (voltage) was controlled, but after every small scale compensation

simulation feedback was done to improve the performance by changing the capacitor

rating or parameter altogether. In other cases changes of locations or addition of a

second capacitor in order to get the best results were implemented and simulations

done accordingly. The small scale compensation also entailed making a decision as

to how the compensator would be connected either being shunt or series. Series

capacitors were used to alter the inherent characteristics of the transmission system

where necessary. And as for the shunt compensation the rating or technology type

were varied, and in some cases also addition of a second capacitor was done in

order to get better results, in all cases different technologies were explored as will be

shown in the next chapter.

3.4 OPTIMISED POWER TRANSFER CRITERIA

The optimised power transfer model was reached at after simulating a number of

models, namely: large and small scale compensation. As seen in Table 3.5 a number

of criteria on the performance of the lines, transformers and busbars under different

conditions were considered.

54

Exploration was also carried out on various compensation technologies with the

ultimate objective being to operate a relieved and reliable transmission system and

to attain maximum power transfer. The following essential criteria for selection

considered:

Avoiding the overloading lines and transformers, hence the line and transformer

loading must be less or equal to 100% at full load demand.

Delivery of rated voltage to customers at all times, hence the nominal voltage must

be within the Voltage regulation of ±5%.

The stability and efficiency of the transmission system depend on the voltage angle

(load angle), therefore the recommended model must be characterized by a positive

voltage angle.

3.4.1 OPTIMISED MODEL SELECTION

In order to determine a recommended model, that aims to transmit the designed full

load power. The suitable model was compared against the proposed new Eskom

Albany-Wesley transmission line. The model selection was based not only on the

costs but pre-eminently on the ability to deliver the maximum rated power with

minimum losses and better voltage regulation: Key considerations for the selection

applicable to all transformers, lines and busbars are as indicated in the Table 3.5

below.

Table 3.5: Selection criteria

TRANSMISSION

PART PARAMETER CRITERIA

LINE LOADING ≤100%

TRANSFORMER LOADING ≤100%

BUSBAR VOLTAGE REGULATION

+/-5%

BUSBAR VOLTAGE

ANGLE

≥Оº

3.5 NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION

During discussions with the appropriate Eskom staff, it became apparent that in

addition to investigating small scale compensation on the transmission system, an

alternative option of upgrading the transmission system had to be explored. This

meant building a new line so as to cater for the critical line and meet the consumers‟

power demand. This idea was implemented in this research, and the new line

construction was modeled and simulation done in order to investigate its

performance.

55

3.6 FINANCIAL SURVEY

After establishing the optimised small scale compensation scheme for the

transmission line, this research included an economic based survey in order to

highlight the financial cost involved. First the optimised compensated model was

discussed with prominent manufacturers and dealers of compensating equipment, in

order to obtain their opinion on its practicability. After establishing the model‟s

functionality a direct-cost price was considered and supplied. In addition expert

opinion was sought for a new constructed line option. The construction of a new line

was seen as a likely option at the beginning. A model cost schedule was created and

several enquiries were carried out with different transmission line consultants in

order to establish the Bill of materials named in the fittings summary, as documented

in appendix K. Thereafter, this research came up with “supplied and installed” cost

per kilometer as seen in Table 7.3 on page 149.

The financial survey was not the basis of selection of the optimised model but rather

an indication of the need for, careful planning and vision on the Utility‟s responsibility

to deliver a sustainable and reliable power supply. It was understood that the

implementation of recommendations is a high capital investment. Recommendations

were made as how implementation could be incorporated in Eskom‟s planning

philosophy.

3.7 CONTIGENCY

Blackout or load shedding is a common recourse when a transmission system

encounters a problem or a fault. As for the transmission line under consideration and

the recommended model there is not much option if a situation arises beyond this

line that calls for loading shedding. However should the optimised model develop a

problem emanating from the new installed compensators, this research indicates the

most common faults on the compensators and the protection schemes required for

their maximum performance. These required protection schemes for the

transmission system under consideration should be operational, according to

Eskom‟s policy, before installation of the compensators is done. The compensator

protection schemes, to be mentioned later in chapter seven, will allow the

transmission to meet the essential demand in case of the compensator‟s failure.

56

3.8 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER THREE

The methodology employed in this research as explained in this chapter;

characterizes the work done throughout the study and finally leads to the

recommendations of this research. The methodology sets up the criteria for the

optimised power transfer of the Albany-Wesley transmission system. Simulations,

involving creating compensation models for the system, also the viability of

constructing a new line will be tested. Financial exploration expected to be carried

out for the upgrading of the transmission system by means of compensation and

alternatively building a new line. The optimised transmission model is also expected

to ensure a reliable supply by incorporating contingency plans in case of fault within

the compensating scheme. The next chapter will deal with model set up of the


57

CHAPTER FOUR MODEL SET UP

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the analysis of the mathematical results obtained after

simulations of the models that represented the physical and electrical design of the

transmission line. The analysis established the performance of the system under

different conditions and the trends formed the basis of optimised compensation

selection. The simulations modeled the transmission line under three transmission

scenarios namely: uncompensated, large scale compensated and small scale

compensated.

Figure 4.1 shows the topology of the single line of the transmission system

Reference for line impedance is documented APPENDIX L.1. Line impedance per

kilometer applied to the Albany-Wesley line is as follows:

ALB-COMM = 0.334+j0.353Ω/km

COMM-BREAK = 0.664+J0.377Ω/km

PEDD-WES = 1.671+j0.404Ω/km

Based on the current carrying capacity the Committees-Break fastvlei line (COMM-

BRK) is the same as Breakfastvlei-Peddie line (BRK-PED).The single line

transmission system as seen in Figure 4.1; was adapted and entered into the

DigSilent program through the DigSilent main window as described in Figure 4.2.

4.2 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL

Simulations were carried out on the transmission system under its current physical

and electrical set up. The intention was to relate the simulation results with the

available transmission system readings. The simulations revealed the load-voltage

characteristic and the following were observed:

The transmission line loading

Transformer loading

The change in load angle at the busbars

Load-voltage dependency

Critical line

58

Figure 4.1 SINGLE LINE TOPOLOGY WITH 100% LOADING

COMMITEES 11

TRANSFORMER

.

PEDDIE LV

(PEDLV)

-BUSBAR 7

PEDDIE

TRANSFORMER

ALBANY HV

- BUSBAR 1 A

ALBANY HV

-BUSBAR 1B

COUPLINGSWITCH HV

COUPLINGSWITCH LV

ALBANY

TRANSFORMER1

(ALB TR1)

40MVA,132/66kV

132 kV

COMMITEES (COMM)

-BUSBAR 3

ALBANY- COMMITEES LINE (ALB -COM

25.50Km

0.334 + j 0353

66kV

WESLEY LV

(WES HV)

-BUSBAR10

PEDDIE HV BUSBAR(PED HV)

-BUSBAR 8

BREAKFASTVLEI

(BRK)

-BUSBAR 6COMMITEES 11

(COM 11)

-BUSBAR 4

WESLEY HV

(WESHV)

-BUSBAR 9 FISHRIVER LV

(FISH LV)

-BUSBAR 11

COMMITEES-BREAKFASTVLEI

LINE

(COMM-BRK)

-15 .40 Km

0.663+j 0375

Ώ/km 66kV

BREAKFASTVLEI --

PEDDIE LINE

((BRK -PED )

21.5 Km

0.663+J0.376

Ώ/km

66kV

COMMITEES 22

TRANSFORMER( COM 22 TR )

5 MVA 66 / 22 kV,(COM 11 TR)

2.5 MVA, 66/11kV

,

PEDDIE - WESLEY-

LINE

(PED-WES)

30 km

1.671+J0.404Ώ/Km

WESLEY

TRANSFORMER

( WES TR)

5MVA,66/22kV,

FISHRIVER

TRANSFORMER1

( FISH TR1)

2.5. MVA , 22/11 k V

GRAHAMSTOWN LOAD

47.5MVA

COMMITEES 22 LOAD5MVA

( COM 22)

COMMITEES 11 LOAD2,5MVA

( COM11)

PEDDIE LV

LOAD

10 MVA

( PED )

FISH RIVER LOAD5MVA

( FISH LD)

ALBANY

TRANSFORMER 2

(ALB TR 2)

40MVA,132/66kV

ALBANY 66

-BUSBAR 2A

ALBANY 66

-BUSBAR 2B

COMMITEES 22

(COM 22)

-BUSBAR 5

FISHRIVER

TRANSFORMER 2

(FISH TR2)2.5 MVA

22/11 k V

(PED TR)

10 MVA 66/22 kV

Ώ/km

59

Figure 4.2: MAIN POWER FACTORY WINDOWS

Main window features; 1. The title bar 4.The work space

2. The menu bar 5.The graphic toolbox 3. The tool bar 6. The status bar

The transmission system was modeled at full load that means 100% loading and the

power factors were varied between 0.5-1.0, at intervals of 0.05.and this procedure

was followed;

Editing the transformer setting.

Editing the lines

60

Editing the loads

Do load flow.

In the Digsilent projects, components of the transmission system were adapted as

follows;

Loads: Individual name given to each load

Type: was given as General load.

Load flow: Active and reactive power of each load was given as the designed full

load

4.2.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LOAD FLOW RESULTS

The uncompensated transmission line simulation results as recorded in appendices

A.1 to A.11, the variable parameter was power factor; this was incremented by 0.05

between 0.5 and Unity.

From the results obtained from simulations, observations were made on:

Nominal voltage at the load busbars

Line and Transformer loading

Voltage load angle

Graphs were used to illustrate the analysis, whereby the results at each power factor

(p.f) were compared to the rest in the range of 0.5 to unity power factors. The results

or solutions to load flow as obtained from the DigSilent program were twofold:

Result box: a summary of all key parameters namely; voltage loading, active and

reactive power on the system

Textual report: a detailed report on the line

The analysis gave out the trends and profiles, illustrating the performance of the

transmission system without any compensation, this led to some conclusions and

further plan of action after simulation of a particular model.

4.2.2 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION Figure 4.3 is a graphical representation of the voltage behaviour as power factor (pf)

was being varied. This was done because the connected load determines power

factor, also the interest was to determine how the 0.05 interval change will affect the

voltage, and to see the voltage response as the power factor tends towards unity.

61

Figure 4.3 VOLTAGE vs POWER FACTOR: Uncompensated transmission system

The following observations were made:

Voltage at Grahamstown (Grahams) remains constant around unity.

Peddie and Fishriver substations is where a large voltage drop happens below

0.8 per unit (p.u) at all power factors between 0.5 and unity.

Voltage at Fishriver (receiving end) is the lowest where the drop is recorded at

below the acceptable standard (greater than 5%)

Voltage (pu) at Fishriver is equal to the voltage (pu) at Wesley LV.

At unity power factor the voltage shows a significant voltage rise although the

voltage regulation remains poor.

All the above observations confirm the effect of the transmission system length, that

causes a large voltage drop at the transmission‟s receiving end.

62

4.2.2.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LINE LOADING OBSERVATIONS

Figure 4.4 shows the comparison of the line loading throughout the simulated power

factors(p.f) range (0.5-1).

Figure 4.4: TRANSMISSION LINE LOADING


The loading of Commitees-Breakfastvlei line (COMM-BREAK) equals

Breakfastvlei-Peddie line (BREAK-PED) and the loading is 75-82% range

The Albany-Committess line (ALB-COMM) is loaded between 80-90% range

The Peddie-Wesley line (PED-WESL) is loaded between 68-74.66 %.

Maximum loading happens at around 0.75 power factor.

The lines loading remain almost constant, as the power factor increases from 0.5

to Unity.

The above results are strongly influenced by the connected loads and the

transmission lines inherent impedances. The uncompensated transmission system

line loading is generally within acceptable values for example less than 100%

loading.

4.2.2.2 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION TRANSFORMERS LOADING

OBSERVATION

Figure 4.5 shows a comparison of transformers loadings namely: the infeed

transformers: Albany transformer1 ALBANYTR1, Albany transformer2 ALBANYTR2,

then distribution transformers;COMM11TR1 (Transformer connected at the

63

Committees 11kV busbar), COMM11TR22 (Transformer connected at the

Committees 22kV busbar), PEDDIETR (transformer connected at the Peddie

busbar),WESLTR (transformer connected at the Wesley busbar) and the FISH1TR

and FISH2TR are transformers connected at the Fishriver busbars1 and 2. The

following are the observations after the uncompensated transmission modulation as

the power factors (p.f) varied between 0.5 and Unity

Figure 4.5: TRANSFORMER LOADING


The loadings of Albany transformers 1 and 2 are the same throughout the power

factors 0.5 p.f to1.0 p.f, the loading is about 47%.

Fishriver transformers 1&2 have the same loading constant at about 77%.

The transformers at busbars Commitees11kV and Commitees 22kV are also

equal and constant at about 110%.

The Wesley transformer is loaded about 150%.

After 0.95 p.f Wesley and Peddie transformers experience a sudden and slight drop

in their loading. The above show that the infeed transformers at Albany substation

are underutilised and hence have the potential to transmit more power. The same

can be said for Fishriver transformers. The remaining transformers at Committees

22kV and 11kV busbars, as well as the Peddie transformer all are overloaded. The

Wesley transformer feeding the receiving end is heavily overloaded.

4.2.2.3 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LOAD ANGLE OBSERVATION

Figure 4.6 shows a comparison of load angles of the uncompensated transmission

system as the power factors (p.f) vary between 0.5 and unity. The load angle is

64

measured at the following busbars: Albany 66kV or Grahamstown (ALBANY66kV,

Committees 66kV, 22kV and 11kV busbars (COMM66KV, COMM22kV and

COMM11KV) then Breakfastvlei (BREAKFASTVLEI) busbar, Peddie 66kV and 22kV

(PEDDIE 66kV and PEDDIE 22) busbars as well as Wesley 66kV and 22kV

(WESLEY 66kV and WESLEY 22kV) and finally the Fishriver busbar (FISHRIVER)

Figure 4.6: LOAD ANGLE vs POWER FACTOR

The following were observed:

At 0.5 p.f all the substations‟ voltage load angles are positive with the exception

of Committees 11kV and Albany 66kV busbars.

As power factor increases the voltage load angles decrease becoming more

negative with exception of Committees 66kV busbar.

From about 0.85 p.f, the load angles are all negative and Fishriver records the

minimum load angle.

Committees 66kV, WesleyLV and Fishriver busbars experience a drastic load

angle change from positive to negative.

The ALBANY66kV (Grahamstown) busbar remains unchanged.

From the above the load angle polarity varies from positive to negative or close to

zero, as the power factor changes. Altogether they show how the load angle affects

the voltage response. The voltage response in Fig 4.3 shows that the voltage

increases as power factor increases towards unity and as such from Fig 4.6 the load

65

angle becomes more positive as the power factor increases. As seen from the

uncompensated transmission model implemented in different simulations, the

Wesley substation is very critical in solving the power transfer in the Albany-Wesley


Figure 4.7: WESLEY SUBSTATION

4.2.3 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION LOADFLOW

The loadflow textual report of the uncompensated transmission at 0.95 power factor

lagging is seen in appendix A.9. It is a detailed report containing all the results

discussed so far, such as: Nominal voltage and voltage angle (load angle),

transformer and line loadings at 0.95 p.f (at which power factor, the receiving end

load angle is the lowest), the report also gives details of the transmission system‟s

physical and electrical characteristics. The power flow also shows the active and

reactive power, power interchange line, load and total losses. More discussion on

the power flow will take place in chapters five and eight.

4.2.4 CONCLUSION ON UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL

The following were observed when the transmission system was modeled to transmit

the designed full load without any compensation;

Fishriver and Peddie LV substations nominal voltages are the lowest throughout

the range power factors from 0.5 to unity.

66

The power factor interval of 0.05 is too close to realise the effect of parameter

change. The higher the power factor the more negative the load angle at Fishriver

The Fishriver substation being at the receiving end of transmission system is

mostly affected in terms of nominal voltage.

The Wesley transformer being the source for Fishriver substation is affected as

its thermal loading rises.

Under these circumstances this transmission system can never be expected to

deliver maximum power based on its designed specification. Based on low nominal

voltage and overloading in lines and transformers, the only option, is to supply a

fraction of the rated power as evidenced in Table 4.1; which is the record of annual

maximum power demand for 2006 and 2007 period, which shows that the

transmission system does not deliver full load as per design.

The uncompensated model was considered in this part of the research. Though the

transmission was loaded at its designed full capacity most transformers are

overloaded and there is generally a poor voltage regulation. Below in Table 4.1 is the

recorded Peak demand on the line for 2006/2007. From this record it is possible to

gauge how the line was unable to deliver the designed load.

Table 4.1: Peak demand

Substation Feeder 2006 Peak Demand (MVA) Till June 2007 Peak Demand (MVA)

Committees 1.8 1.1

Wesley Wesley - Hamburg 2.7 2.4

Wesley Wesley - Peddie 3.1 2.8

Peddie 6.5 6.9

Source: Technology and Quality Distribution Department ESKOM Southern Region-2007

The next simulation is the large scale compensated model. The study will focus on

0.65 to 0.95 power factor range. This is because the power factor changes from 0.5

to unity. At a 0.05 increment the voltage does not display significant discrepancies

on the terminal voltages busbar.

4.3 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL

The large scale compensation aimed at solving a particular transmission problem

such as raising the nominal voltage. The solutions for this model, after different

67

simulations, are recorded in appendices B.1 to B.15. A graphical analysis of the

results was undertaken in this section. A comparison was made in terms of the

system response in relation to terms of nominal voltage, voltage angle, line and

transformer loading, as the power factor and location of the compensator in this large

scale compensation were changed.

4.3.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of the compensator is to provide reactive power that can raise the far end

busbar and the least nominal voltage (Fishriver busbar) to unity voltage, from the

current 0.7 p.u voltage, which is the highest voltage obtained in the uncompensated

transmission when the system supplies full load. As such the reactive power used to

raise this terminal voltage at the end of the line (the Fishriver substation) to 1 p.u. will

be considered the large scale compensation. The system was loaded at full load

(100%),a shunt capacitor of reactive power varying between 10MVAr-30MVAr was

injected at each load center at each power factor. Simulations indicated that 20MVAr

is the required compensating power to achieve this 1 p.u. voltage. The power factors

applicable are; 0.65, 0.8 and 0.95. Hence, the reactive power needed for

compensation should be the maximum for the system at 0.65 power factor. The

following trends were observed: nominal voltage, load angle, transformer and line

loading.

4.3.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE

The 20MVAr shunt compensator was alternately injected at load substations at

Fishriver, Committees 22kV, Committees 11kV, Grahamstown and Peddie after

large scale compensation the substations were renamed as following;

comp@FISH,comp@COMM22, comp@COMM11, comp@GRAHM and

comp@PEDDIE .This connotation is used in the large scale compensation analysis

Each time the compensator is injected at one substation observation will be carried

out to see the effects on the entire transmission system as follows:

Busbar voltage and load angle.

Line loadings.

Transformer loading.

4.3.3 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION : ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION From the results obtained, graphical representations are presented as follows;

nominal voltage (p.u) against load busbar, transformer or line loading percentage

68

against own transformer or line and the load angles at each busbar. Key findings will

be highlighted and a plan of action taken.

4.3.3.1 VOLTAGE RESPONSE

Figures 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 are graphical representations of the comparison of the

transmission voltage response at 0.65, 0.8 and 0.95 power factors as the large scale

compensation is injected at the aforementioned busbars.

Figure 4.8 VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.65PF LAGGING

Figure 4.9: VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.8PF LAGGING

69

Figure 4:10: VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.95PF LAGGING

Observations: A pattern resulted for the voltage response as seen in Figs.4.8- 4.10

after the large scale compensation (20MVAr), at 0.65, 0.8 and 0.95 power factors

lagging. The pattern is in terms of where the compensator is installed, the location of

substation, the transformer rating and how transformers are connected, namely

parallel connection or sharing the source.

The large scale compensation raised the nominal voltage at Fishriver to about 1 p.u.

when compensation was connected at this busbar. For Commitees11kV and

Commitees 22 kV busbars that share the same source, when the compensation was

injected at any other busbar apart from the two Commitees11 and Commitees 22

substations nominal voltages were equal despite their different ratings. When the

shunt reactive power (20 MVAr) was injected at the Committees 11kV busbar its

nominal voltage raised to 1.25 pu, while that of Committees 22kV busbar raised to

1.07pu. It is worth noting that Committees 11kV transformer rating is the smallest in

the transmission system. Also when the compensation was connected at

Committees 22kV whose transformer rating is twice the Committees11kV and its

nominal voltage rose to slightly above 1.p.u. The change of power factor between

0.65, 0.8 and 0.95 did not exhibit significant effects on the nominal voltage. Hence

the large scale compensation raised the voltage at the busbar to which it was

connected

70

4.3.3.2 TRANSFORMER LOADING

Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 are the graphical representations of the transformer

loading response as power factors varied between 0.65, 0.8 and 0.95 while the

location of the compensator was alternately changed as recorded in 4.3.2, that is;

the Fishriver, Committees 11kV&22kV, Grahamstown and Peddie busbars.

Observations : Large scale compensation injected from Grahamstown substation

did not cause overloading to any transformer in the transmission system. However,

the large scale compensation at Fishriver resulted in overloading the Wesley

transformer to more than 370% of its rated capacity. And then the large scale

compensation injected from busbars: Peddie, Committees11kV and Committees

22kV resulted into overloading its own transformer to 110%, 940% and 410%

respectively. The excessive loading is inversely proportional to the transformer

loading. In other words, the smallest rated transformer experienced the highest

loading of above 900%. The normal and acceptable loading should be equal or less

than 100% of the transformer full load.

Figure 4.11: TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.65PF LAGGING

71

Figure 4.12: TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.8PF LAGGING

Figure 4.13 TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.95PF LAGGING

4.3.3.3 LINE LOADING

Figures 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16 are the graphical representations of the comparison of

lines loading of the transmission system. The lines are: Albany-Commitees (ALB-

COMM), Committees-Breakfastvlei (COMM-BREAK), Breakfastvlei-Peddie(BREAK-

72

PED) and Peddie- Wesley(PED-WESL). The graphs show the lines loading when

large scale compensation was implemented alternatively at the busbars as

mentioned in 4.3.2 The results were obtained at 0.65, 0.8 and 0.95 power factors

lagging.

Figure 4.14: LINE LOADING AT 0.65PF LAGGING

Figure 4.15 : LINE LOADING AT 0.8PF LAGGING

73

Figure 4.16:LINE LOADING AT0.95PF LAGGING

Observations: Large scale Compensation injected from the Fishriver substation

caused the Peddie-Wesley line (PED-WESL) loading to rise to 166.13%, other shunt

locations resulted in line loading below 100%. The normal and acceptable line

loading should be equal to or less than a 100% loading.

Note: The loading of Commitees-Breakfastvlei line is the same as the Breakfastvlei-

Peddie line

4.3.3.4 LOAD ANGLE

Figure 4.17 is the load angle response following the large scale compensation

simulations at different power factors (0.65, 0.8 and 0.95) and different locations of

compensators at the busbars as indicated earlier.

Figure 4.17:LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE

74

Observations: Large scale compensation at Grahamstown and Committees 22kV

substations, were the only locations that resulted in positive load angle at Fishriver

substation at 0.65 power factor. Otherwise Large scale compensation injected from

the Fishriver substation resulted in a large negative load angle at the same busbar

decreasing as power factor increases. A noticeable change of load angle happens at

0.95 power factor, where the load angle is more negative in the transmission system

after large scale compensation. The expected load angle for the transmission system

that delivers the full load designed power together with reliable voltage should be

close to zero degrees or more positive.

4.4 CONCLUSION ON LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION MODELLING The 20MVAr compensation at the receiving end of the transmission system, despite

power factor variation (0.65, 08 & 0.95) supported the terminal voltage at that

particular busbar (Fishriver), within acceptable limits, ± 5% voltage regulation

which is the Eskom standard.

A pattern of overvoltage at Committees11& Committees 22 busbars of over 1pu was

noticed, when the 20MVAr compensation was installed at any of these substations. It

was also noted that compensation at one busbar caused a bigger voltage increase at

the other busbar at these two busbars (Committees11& Committees 22). The

transformer loading rose at the Committees11&22 transformers (smallest

transformers in the transmission system) and was also inversely proportional to their

ratings when the compensator was connected to their common busbar. When the

Wesley transformer feeds the receiving end its thermal loading rises as the

compensator is connected at the receiving end.The Peddie-Wesley line remained

more dangerously overloaded throughout the power factor variation range.The

Fishriver substation load angle remained more negative.

The large scale compensation exhibited diverse situations for the system under

study. The most affected busbars in terms of nominal voltage were improved, when

the compensator was connected at a particular busbar, but this happened to the

detriment of other aspects of the transmission system such as transformer and

transmission lines. As when transformers and lines overloading caused thermal

overloading, this is a constraint to power carrying capacity of the line.

Notwithstanding the negative load angle characterized the power loss in the system.

75

The next model introduces the concept of small scale compensation, whereby

smaller rated reactive power compensators are distributed into the transmission

system for the purpose of improving the performance of the transmission line so as

to deliver reliable voltage and enable the system to deliver power as designed. The

small scale compensation of the system which culminates in an optimised system

will constitute progressive revisions in terms of ratings and technologies. As new

situations call for changes in the transmission system inherent parameters in order to

optimise power transfer.

4.5 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL Following the overloading of the smaller rated transformers, the compensating

reactive power was reduced and the response was observed.

4.5.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE The large scale compensation caused the smaller rated transformers:

Committees11kV and Committees 22kV to experience excessive loading. Therefore

the small scale compensation will initially focus on these two transformers, by

providing smaller rated reactive power that will bring down the transformer loading

within range and then develop similar approaches throughout the transmission

system. Apart from reducing the transformer loading, the voltage regulation is

expected to be within the standard ±5% of the nominal voltage. Different capacitor

types and capacitors will be explored in order to implement this small scale

compensated transmission and ultimately the optimised model. The simulation will

be done at 0.95 power factor lagging, because as seen early in the large scale

compensation the pattern is similar at 0.65, 0.8, 0.95 power factors.

4.5.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE Shunt compensation was carried out as following: A shunt compensator between 2

MVAr to 4 MVAr was modeled at Committees 11 and Committees 22 at 0.95 power

factor. Thereafter the same compensator reactive power was injected at other

busbars: 66kV, 22kVor 11kV voltage and the system response on voltage, load

angle, line and transformer loading were observed. The effect on Committees 11kV

and Committees 22 kV substations, resulting by locating the compensator away from

these busbars was also observed. The effect on the overall system after the shunt

compensator was connected at 66kV, 22kVor 11kV voltages was also observed.

76

Series compensation was carried out as following: Series compensation was

executed where necessary, in order to alter some of inherent transmission system

characteristics. The series compensation required an additional busbar(s):

depending on where the series capacitors were needed. The power factor used for

simulations was 0.95 lagging. The compensator (capacitor) were connected at the

following busbars: Grahamstown (GHM), Committees (COMM), PeddieHV (PEDHV),

Fishriver LV(FISH),CommitteesHV (COMHV),Breakfastvlei BRKVLEI),Committees22

(COMM22), Committees 11(COMM11), and PeddieLV (PEDLV).

The compensators were named after the busbar they were connected to as

following; Grahamstown-comp@GRAHM,Committees-comp@COMM,PeddieHV-

comp@PedHV,Fishriver-comp@FISH,WesleyLV-comp@WesLV,CommitteesHV-

compCOMHV.Breakfastvlei -comp@BRKVLEI ,Committees22kV- omp@COMM22,

Committees11kV-comp@COMM11, and PeddieLV-comp@PEDLV. The Small

scale compensation results are documented in Appendices C.1 to C.10.

5.5.3 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION: ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION

The following is a graphical analysis of the results obtained after 4MVAr reactive

power was injected at the busbar as indicated at 0.95 power factor.


Figure 4.18 is a profile of small scale compensated transmission model voltage

response at Grahamstown(GHM), Committees11(COM11). Committees22 (COM11),

PeddieLV (PEDLV) and Fishriver LV(FISHLV).

Observations: The Committees11kV busbar voltage rose the most of all busbars in

transmission systems above 0.96 p.u. This is because Committees11kV busbar has

the smallest rating transformer. Committees 22kV busbar voltage is slightly less than

that at Committees 11kV busbar. Fishriver busbar experiences no change in voltage;

its nominal voltage remains very low at about 0.7 p,u. Injecting compensation at any

other busbar only benefits the Committees11kV and Committees 22kV whose

nominal voltages values showed acceptable voltage regulation. Peddie busbar like

Fishriver does not benefit either.

77

Figure 4.18: VOLTAGE PROFILE AT 0.95PF


Figure 4.19 is a comparison of graphical response of the transformer loading for

transformers: Albany (ALBTR), Committees11kV (COM11TR), Committees22kV

(COM22TR), Peddie (PEDTR), Wesley (WESTR) and Fishriver(FISHTR).

N.B The Albany and Fishriver substations have two identical transformers each in

parallel, and for the sake of analysis one transformer was mentioned.

Figure 4.19: SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION TRANSFORMER LOADING AT 0.95PF

78

After simulation the following were noted on the transformer loading:

The Albany transformer (ALBTR) and the Fishriver transformer (FISHTR) are

experiencing a loading less than 100% and hence no problems were noted.

Other transformers like Committees 22kV and Peddie are loaded above 100%

and it is dangerous for the transmission line.

The Committees 11kV transformer is greatly affected by the VAr compensation

on its own busbar, its loading shoots to more than 150%.

When the compensator was connected to the Peddie HV (PEDHV) busbar, the

Committees 11kV transformer loading rose to nearly 160%.

When the compensator is connected to other busbars the loading on

Committees 11kV transformer remains above the limit.

The Wesley transformer deserves attention; its loading varies between 130%-150%

depending on how close the compensator is connected from the transformer.


Figure 4.20 is the line loading response as the 4 MVAr compensator was connected

at the busbars as mentioned earlier above in 5.5.2. The lines are: Albany-Commitees

(ALB-COMM), Committees-Breakfastvlei (COMM-BREAK), Breakfastvlei-Peddie

(BREAK-PED) and Peddie-Wesley (PED-WESL). Because of how the system is

connected, the loading at COMM-BREAK line is equal to the BREAK-PED line.

Figure 4.20 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION LINE LOADING AT 0.95 PF

79

The line loading observation was: Unlike the large scale compensation, the

Peddie-Wesley line loading has dropped to below 100%, as such; with this loading

the transmission line like other lines in the system is safe to operate as it carries the

least load throughout.

4.5.3.4 LOAD ANGLE

Figure 4.21 is a graphical representation of the load angle response when a 4MVAr

reactive power was injected at the busbars as indicated. Albany(ALBANY66),

Committees (COMM), Peddie (PEDDIE66),Wesley LV (WESLV), Fishriver LV

(FISHLV), Wesley HV (WESHV), Breakfastvlei (BFAST), Committees

22kV(COMM22), Committees 11kV(COMM11) and Peddie LV(PEDLV).

Figure 4.21 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION LOAD ANGLE RESPONSES AT 0.95PF

Observations: When the small scale compensation was injected at Committees

22kV, the maximum positive load angle (8°) resulted at Fishriver substation, also the

minimum load angle (-11°) occurs at the same substation when the compensation is

injected at Wesley HV busbar. Otherwise the load angle response remains constant

between -1° and 8°.

4.6 CONCLUSION ON SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED : 4MVAr COMPENSATOR

This section considered small scale compensation of a 4MVAr capacitor, a rating

that is relatively smaller compared to the large scale compensation rating.

Committees 11kV was taken as the smallest transformer its response indicated the

need to reduce MVAr rating of the compensator and the following was observed:

Committees11kV transformer is still experiencing excessive loading.

80

Committtees11 kV and Committees 22kV busbars have improved their nominal

voltages.

The small scale compensation (4MVAr) has relieved the lines loading on the


4.7 MODELING TWO 4 MVAr COMPENSATORS

The next model will consider two capacitors connected at the same time at different

load busbars. at both Committees 11kV and Commitees 22kV

4.7.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE By capitalizing on the Nominal Voltage improvement at Committees11kV and

Committees 22 kV busbars, and the concern on the overloading on Committees

11kV transformer (COM 11TR). The next model aims to investigate whether by

adding a second compensator to another busbar will effect some changes on the two

busbars (Committees11kV and Committees22 kV) or any other part of the system.

4.7.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE The system will be modeled at 0.95 power factor at full load.

4MVAr shunt compensation will be injected simultaneously at Committees11kV and

Committees 22kV. The compensation simulation results at both Committees11kV

and committees22 kV with 4MVAr capacitors are documented in Appendix D.1

4.7.3 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION

After simulations of 4 MVAr compensation at both Committees 11kV and after Committees 22kV, the results were analysed as follows:


Figure 4.22 is the voltage response as the 4MVAr capacitor was connected

simultaneously at both Committees11kV and Committees22kV busbars.

Figure 4.22 VOLTAGE PROFILE

81

The voltage response was taken at the following busbars: Grahamstown(GHM),

Committees11(COM11). Committees22 (COM22), PeddieLV (PEDLV) and Fishriver

LV (FISHLV)


Figure 4.23 is the transformer loading response as the 4MVAr capacitor was

simultaneously connected each at Committees11kV and Committees22kV busbars.

The responses were taken at transformers: Albany (ALBTR), Committees11kV

(COM11TR), Committees22kV (COM22TR),Peddie (PEDTR),Wesley (WESTR) and

Fishriver (FISHTR).

Figure 4.23 TRANSFORMER LOADING


Figure 4.24 is the line loading response as the 4MVAr capacitor was connected

simultaneously at Committees11kV and Committees 22kV busbars , the lines are:

Albany-Commitees (ALB-COMM).Committees-Breakfastvlei (COMM-BREAK),

Breakfastvlei-Peddie(BREAK-PED) and Peddie-Wesley(PED-WESL). The loading at

COMM-BREAK is equal to BREAK-PED because of how the system is connected

Figure 4:24 LINE LOADING

82

4.7.3.4 OBSERVATIONS ON TWO 4 MVAr COMPENSATORS

Committees 22kV and Committees 11kV bubars are within an acceptable (±5%)

range which is a fundamental parameter. The transformer at Committees 11kV

busbar remains overloaded, while at the other busbars this reactive power is too

small to support higher voltages, hence the compensating reactive power will be

reduced to an acceptable value without compromising the busbars nominal voltage,

while at the same time reducing the transformer loading to normal.

4.7.4 REDUCED REACTIVE POWER SHUNT COMPENSATION Because Committees11kV transformer sees 4MVAr as too much as a reactive

power, at both Committees11kv & Commitees22kV. the next model will consider the

reduced shunt reactive power.

4.7.4.1 PLAN AND OBJECTIVES

Based on the results and observations in section 4.7.3.4 whereby the 4MVAr was

injected at these busbars the capacitive reactive power was reduced and then

simulations done. The aim was to avoid excessive overloading on the

Committees11kV transformer while at the same time reducing costs by installing a

smaller rated compensator.

4.7.4.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE

The reactive power of 2.25 MVAr was connected at both Committees11kV&22kV

busbars and simulations were done at 0.95 power factor, the results are as captured

in Appendix D.2. A generalized overview of the results will be presented in the

concluding remarks of this section the voltage response is in Figure 4.25.


Figure 4.25 is the voltage response at the busbars as 2.25MVAr capacitor was

injected at Committees 11kV and 22kV at the same time.

Figure 4:25 COM11&22 VOLTAGE PROFILE (2.25MVAr)

83


Figure 4.26 is the transformer loading response at transformers after the 2.25MVAr

capacitor was injected at Committees 11kVand 22kV at the same time.

The responses were taken at transformers: Albany (ALBTR), Committees11

(COM11TR), Committees22 (COM22TR), Peddie (PEDTR), Wesley (WESTR) and

Fishriver (FISHTR).

Figure 4.26 TRANSFORMER LOADING


Figure 4.27 is the line loading response as the 2.25 MVAr capacitor was connected

each at Committees11 and Committees22 busbars at the same time.

Figure 4.27 LINES LOADING

4.7.4.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON REDUCED COMPENSATION

At both Committees11kV and Committees 22 kV, the 2.25 MVAr, C-type capacitive

shunt compensation was used so far for the small scale compensation at both

Committees 11kV and 22kV busbars. The 2.25 MVAr rating is sufficient to keep the

nominal voltage, transformers and line loadings within acceptable limits. The voltage

response at Albany 66, Committees 11kV and Committees 22kV is within acceptable

84

regulation, while for PEDLV and FISHLV the that FISHTR and ALBTR to be below

100%, while the rest are above. The Committees11kV transformer overloading came

down slightly, though the Wesley transformer is greatly affected with higher loading.

The load angle response was not different from the 4MVAr. The line loading

response is within limits. Apart from the Grahamstown substation which is not

affected in terms of voltage, the other substations, Peddie and Fishriver and their

allied transformers, must be improved.

4.8 SERIES COMPENSATION SIMULATION The shunt connected compensators could not bring the transmission system to the

required standard in terms of voltage and thermal loading. Therefore in the next

model the inherent characteristics of the system will have to be altered by series

compensation.

4.8.1 PLAN AND OBJECTIVE The following model will simulate the series compensation, unlike shunt

compensation that was connected in parallel with the concerned busbar, during large

and small scale compensation. The series compensation is expected to change the

natural impedance of the transmission line. However in order to achieve the

optimised state of the transmission system, whereby the system will transmit the

maximum power, the right value of reactive power will have to be found. Other

aspects for consideration are the location and technology type of the series

compensator.

4.8.1.1 SIMULATION PROCEDURE

SUSCEPTANCE (B) is the series capacitor main parameter. In the following

simulation, the series capacitor was modeled within a susceptance (B) range

between; 0.002S and 1S. Outside this susceptance range, the loadflow could not

converge. The addition of the series capacitor necessitated the creation of another

busbar on the transmission system topology. The series capacitor could only be

connected between Committees and Peddie busbars. This being the case, at least

four probable locations of the series capacitor were simulated, and thereafter a

suitable location was chosen. The following locations were identified for the series

compensation, referring to the single line topology in Figure 4.1.

85

4.8.2 PROBABLE LOCATIONS OF THE SERIES CAPACITOR In order to change the transmission system characteristics, simulation of the series

capacitor was carried out at the following likely locations:

Connect the capacitor at the Committees busbar, in the COMM-BRK line.

Connect the capacitor at the Breakfastvlei busbar, in the COMM-BRK line

Connect the capacitor at the Peddie busbar, in the BRK-PED line

Connect the capacitor at the Breakfastvlei busbar, in the BRK-PED line.

After choosing the series capacitor location, the following was carried out in order to

adapt the system on the Digsilent program:

Create another busbar to support the capacitor in all locations as stated above.

Editing the capacitor

Basic data: Name; give the series capacitor a name relating to the location above.

Rated voltage 66kV, rated current 0.219kA

Load Flow: Balanced Load Susceptance (B) (1-0.002)

The Shunt compensation at Committees 11kV and Committees 22kV is kept in the

transmission system as explained in section 4.7.2.

4.8.3 OPTION1- SERIES CAPACITOR LOCATION AND SUSCEPTANCE This model considered the series capacitor connected at either; Committees or

PeddieHV busbar. The susceptance was varied between 0.006S and 1S. Outside

this range the loadflow could not converge. The analysis compared the voltage, load

angle, line and transformer loading response. The simulation results are documented

in Appendices E.1.1 to E.1.7. The susceptance was varied at Committees and

Peddie HV busbars and the graphical series was named accordingly for the sake of

analysis as follows:

At susceptance= 0.0065S, when the capacitor was connected at Committees

busbar, the series was named COMMb0.0065, while when the capacitor was

connected at PeddieHV busbar the series was named PEDHVb0.0065.

At susceptance=0. 1S, when the capacitor was connected at Committees busbar,

the series was named COMMb0.1, while when the capacitor was connected at

PeddieHV busbar the series was named PEDHVb0.1

At susceptance= 1S, when the capacitor was connected at Committees busbar, the

series was named COMMb1, while when the capacitor was connected

PeddieHV busbar the series was named PEDHVb1, after simulations as mentioned

in 4.8.3, the transmission system was loaded 100% at 0.95 power factor and the

86

capacitor connected at either Committees or PeddieHV busbar. The following

information is from the observations made.


Figure 4.28 is the voltage response; readings were taken at the indicated busbars: Grahamstown(GHM), Committees66 (COMM66). Committees11 (COMM11).

Committees22 (COMM11), Breakfastvlei (BRK/VLEI), PeddieHV (PEDHV),

PeddieLV (PEDLV), WesleyHV (WESHV), WesleyLV (WESLV) and Fishriver LV

(FISH)

Figure 4.28: SERIES COMPENSATION VOLTAGE RESPONSE

After the series compensation simulation, the voltage response was the following:

Susceptance variation showed that for values below 0.005 and above 1, the loadflow

did not converge in other words, there was no solution. At any location, either

Committees 66 or Peddie HV busbars, for the series capacitor of a susceptance

higher than 0.005S, the voltage response at the busbars gradually decreased.

Fishriver substation remained with the minimal nominal voltage below the standard

at around 0.7p.u.

4.8.3.2 LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE

Figure 4.29 is the load angle response when the transmission system was loaded

100% at 0.95 power factor, and the capacitor connected at either Committees or

PeddieHV busbar and readings taken at the indicated busbars as mentioned above.

After the series compensation simulation, the load angle response was the following:

87

Locating the series capacitor at Committees busbar resulted in the highest

positive load angle response at susceptance = 0.006S as well as lowest negative

load angle response at; susceptance=1S.

Fishriver substation experiences the lowest positive load angle at every

simulation to around 27˚.

Figure 4.29: SERIES COMPENSATION LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE

4.8.3.3 LINE LOADING RESPONSE

Figure 4.30 is the line loading response when the transmission system was fully

loaded at 0.95 power factor and the series capacitor connected at either Committees

or PeddieHV busbar and readings taken at the indicated busbars as mentioned

above.

Figure 4.30: SERIES COMPENSATION LINE LOADING

88

After the series compensation simulation, the line loading response was the

following:

The higher the susceptance from 0.006S to 1S the higher the loading, regardless

of the position of the series capacitor

Series capacitor located at PeddieHV busbar resulted into the lowest line loading.

The presence of the capacitor at the PeddieHV busbar adds more loading to the

Peddie-Wesley line.

4.8.3.4 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE

Figure 4.31 is the transformer loading response when the transmission system was

fully loaded at 0.95 power factor and the capacitor connected at either Committees

or PeddieHV busbar and readings taken at the indicated busbars as mentioned

above.

Figure 4.31: TRANSFORMER LOADING COMPARISON

After the series compensation simulation, the transformer loading response was the

following:

Wesley transformer is still experiencing overloading between 120%-140%

Capacitor with B =0.006S connected at PeddieLV, produces the lowest Wesley

transformer thermal loading.

89

4.8.3.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OPTION 1

The following are findings, after the series capacitor‟s susceptance was varied

between 0.006S and 1S:

Load angle in the transmission system was generally positive, hence good result

Wesley Transformer remains with an overloading problem

The series capacitor suitable; Voltage: 66kV, Current: 0.219kA,Susceptance:

0.006S-0.007S, Position: Connect to Peddie HV busbar.

The next model considered was option 2 of locating a series capacitor of

susceptance 0.006S-0.007S at the Breakfastvlei busbar.

4.9 OPTION 2-SERIES CAPACITOR AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR

The layout and simulation results of option 2 are documented in Appendices E.2.1

to E.2.2.The option 2 performance was compared to option 1 at susceptance

0.0065S.The following is the analysis and characterization of the series capacitor

modeled at the Breakfastvlei busbar.

4.9.1 VOLTAGE RESPONSE Figure 4.32 is the voltage response of one capacitor connected at Breakfastvlei

busbar when the susceptance was varied at B=0.006S and B=0.0065S.The readings

were taken against the busbars as shown in the graph.

Figure 4.32: BREAKFASTVLEI SERIES CAPACITOR VOLTAGE RESPONSE

The voltage response shows the following:

90

Busbars: Wesley HV, Wesley LV and Fishriver LV per unit voltage is around 0.8.

This is a large voltage drop, compared to the allowable 5%. Peddie66 busbar

voltage per unit is around 0.9, while Commitees11kV and Committees 22kV voltages

each is around 1p.u.

4.9.2 LINE LOADING RESPONSE

Figure 4.33 is the line loading response after one series capacitor was connected at

the Breakfastvlei busbar. The simulation was taken at susceptance B=0.006S

(BRKb0.006) and B=0.0065S (BRK b0.0065) so as to compare the change of

susceptance with line loading as seen before. The lines were denoted as explained

previously in 4.8.2.

Observation: All lines loading at susceptance of 0.006S and 0.0065S are between

60% and 80%, this is a safe loading for the transmission system.

Figure 4.33: BREAKFASTVLEI SERIES CAPACITOR LINE LOADING

4.9.3 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE Figure 4.34 is the transformer loading response after one series capacitor was

connected at Breakfastvlei busbar at susceptance B=0.006S (BRKb0.006) and

B=0.0065S (BRKb0.0065) so as to relate the change of susceptance and the line

loading.The transformers are denoted as explained previously. The transformers

which showed safe loading that is, less than 100% are Albany and Fishriver. The

rest are overloaded between 120% and 130% .The Wesley transformer has highest

overload.

91

Figure 4.34: BREAKFASTVLEI SERIES CAPACITOR TRANSFORMER LOADING

4.9.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OPTION 2 By comparing the voltage, line and transformer loadings responses at Susceptance

0.0065S, and the series capacitor connected at Breakfastvlei busbar, not much

improvement was observed; hence option 2 could not be entertained. In the next

section (4.9.5) a second series capacitor was added in the Peddie-Wesley line.

4.9.5 ALTERNATIVE CONNECTION OF SERIES CAPACITOR The Peddie and Wesley transformer overloading problem needed to be solved.

Overloading was caused by the series capacitor but at the same time the same

capacitor raised the voltage at Peddie HV busbar. The load angle profile of the whole

transmission system was improved. Further improvements were achieved by adding

a second series capacitor.

4.9.5.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE

At this stage the line and transformer loadings are the motivation to have a second

series capacitor.The expectation is that the loading will dramatically reduce. In all

cases, the capacitors at Committees11&22 are kept at 2.25MVAr. Figure 4.35 is the

line loading analysis and characterization of the transmission system after a second

series capacitor was added into the Peddie-Wesley line (option 3) is outlined, and

susceptance taken between 0.25S-0.0065S as explained with varying suspectance

as follow WESB0.0065 (B=0.0065S), WESB0.025 (B=0.025S),WESB0.05 (B=0.05S)

,WESB0.25 (B=0.25S) as mentioned in the OPTION 3 (Alternative connection of

series capacitor). Option 4 is implemented by adding a second capacitor in the

Committees-Peddie line (COM-PED) whose susceptance is varied between 0.005S

and 1S.

92

4.9.5.2 MODELLING AND SIMULATION PROCEDURE OPTION 3

Following is the procedure after a second series capacitor was added in the Peddie-

Wesley line. The model and simulations were documented in appendices E.3.1 to

E.3.7:

Keep one series capacitor at the Committees busbar at susceptance B=0.0065S

Add a second capacitor in the Peddie–Wesley line(PED-WES).The capacitor is

connected at, and the susceptance varied between0.0065S-0.25S, because

outside this range the loadflow could not converge

OPTION 4

Following is the procedure after a second series capacitor was added in the

Committee-Peddie line. The model and simulation results are documented in

Appendices E.4.1 and E.4.2:

Keep one series capacitor at Committees busbar with susceptance =0.0065S

Add a second series capacitor in the Committees-Peddie line (COM-PED), the

capacitor is connected at Breakfastvlei busbar, this series capacitor‟s susceptance is

varied 0.05-1.

N.B. The series capacitor susceptance in the different models had to be confined in

a certain range as mentioned, otherwise the loadflow could not converge.

4.9.5.3 LINE LOADING OBSERVATION

The line loading throughout the system is below 80%. Figure 4.36 explains the

analysis and characterization of the transformer loading, after a second series

capacitor was added into the Peddie-Wesley line (Option 3), and susceptance taken

between 0.25S-0.0065S. The responses were taken at transformers: Albany

(ALBTR),Committees11(COM11TR), Committees22(COM22TR), Peddie(

PEDTR),Wesley(WESTR) and Fishriver(FISHTR).

93

Figure 4.35: LINE LOADING AFTER SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR (OPTION3)

4.9.5.4 TRANSFORMER LOADING OBSERVATION

After the series compensation simulation, when a second series capacitor was

added in the Peddie-Wesley line, the following were observed:

The transformer loading throughout the system is generally above 100%,

with the exception of the Albany and Fishriver transformers whose loading is less

than full load.

Wesley transformer recorded the highest overloading of 120% throughout the

simulations.

Figure 4.36: TRANSFORMER LOADING AFTER SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR (OPTION 3)

Figure 4.37 shows the voltage response after a second series capacitor was added

into the Peddie-Wesley line (Option 3) and susceptance was taken between 0.25S-

0.0065S as explained above in 4.9.5.3.The voltage was recorded at the load

busbars.

94

4.9.5.5 VOLTAGE RESPONSE OBSERVATION (Option 3)

Voltage response at PeddieHV,PeddieLV, WesleyHV and Fishriver busbars is poor

between 0.8 and 0.9 pu. It must be noted that option 3 did not yield the expected

results on voltage response, transformer and line loading, therefore the next section

will implement option 4 of the alternative connection of the series capacitor, at which

time a second capacitor was connected at the Breakfstvlei busbar. The following

section is an analysis after a second series capacitor was connected at the

Breakfastvlei busbar. The layout and simulation results are documented in

appendices E.4.3 to E.4.6. Figure 4.38 is the voltage response after the second

series capacitor was connected at the Breakfastvlei busbar, at susceptance varying

between 0.05 and 1, the readings were taken at busbars as indicated.

Figure 4.37: VOLTAGE RESPONSE (OPTION3)

Grahamstown (GHM), Committees66kV (COMM66). Committees11kV (COMM11).

Committees22 kV(COMM11), Breakfastvlei (BRK/VLEI), PeddieHV (PEDHV )

,PeddieLV (PEDLV ),WesleyHV (WESHV), WesleyLV (WESLV) and Fishriver LV

(FISH).

95

Figure 4.38: VOLTAGE RESPONSE (OPTION4)

4.9.5.6 VOLTAGE RESPONSE OBSERVATION (Option 4)

The load busbars; PeddieLV (PEDLV), and Fishriver (FISH) have the per unit (pu)

voltage of between 0.8 - 0.85, this is too low, unlike Grahamstown (GHM),

Committees22 kV (COM 22) and Committees11kV (COM 11) whose per unit voltage

is close to unity. Figure 4.39 is the load angle response when a second series

capacitor was connected at the Breakfastvlei and its susceptance varied between

0.05 and 1, the load angles were taken at the load busbars as applied to voltage

response.

Figure 4.39: LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE (OPTION 4)

4.9.5.7 LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE OBSERVATION

The load angle response for busbars at Grahamstown, Committees 66kV,

Committees 22kV and Committees11kV is between 0˚ and -8˚, while the

Breakfastvlei, PeddieHV, PeddieLV, WesleyHV, WesleyLV and Fishriver the

response is between +28° to +38˚.Figure 4.40 shows the line loading response when

a second series capacitor was connected at the Breakfastvlei substation. The lines

96

concerned are: Albany-Committees (ALB-COMM), Committees-Breakfastvlei

(COMM-BREAK), Breakfastvlei-Peddie(BREAK-PED) and Peddie-Wesley(PED-

WESL).

Figure 4.40: LINE LOADING (OPTION4)


The line loading at susceptance (B) =0.25S is the lowest around 54%, for

Committees-Breakfastvlei, and Breakfastvlei-Peddie lines. The Peddie-Wesley line

remains unchanged at around 62%, also the Committees-Breakfastvlei line remains

constant at around 55% throughout the simulations. Figure 4.41 shows the

transformer loading response for option 4 after the second capacitor was connected

at the Breakfastvlei busbar for susceptance between 0.05S-1S. The responses were

taken at transformers:

Albany(ALBTR),Committees11(COM11TR),Committees22(COM22TR),Peddie(PED

TR),Wesley(WESTR) and Fishriver(FISHTR.

4.9.5.9 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE OBSERVATION (option 4)

Transformers at Committees 11kV&22 kV,Peddie and Wesley are experiencing an

overloading of between 110% and 130%, the rest of the transformers at Albany and

Fishriver experience lighter loading between to 40% and 60%.

97

Figure 4.41: TRANSFORMER LOADING (OPTION4)

Observation on option 4

Option 4 of the alternative connection of the series capacitor, failed to provide relief

for the Wesley transformer and yet the voltage response was no different from option

3 for Fishriver busbar. Despite the additional capacitor that meant increased

investment costs, so option 4 was not worth pursuing.

4.9.6 SUMMARY ON SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR

Adding a second series capacitor into the transmission system resulted in the

following:

The Fishriver busbar voltage remains minimum at 0.8 p.u

Wesley transformer remains highly overloaded at about 120%

The variation of susceptance of the second capacitor results in not much loading

changes

A second series capacitor makes no difference in terms of line and transformer

loading and voltages

The above confirms that only one series capacitor of susceptance 0.0065S is

enough and the greatest achievement is that the load angle of the system becomes

more positive.

4.9.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON ONE SERIES CAPACITOR The following are the findings after a second series capacitor was added into the

transmission system:

Locating the capacitor at PeddieHV busbar showed many benefits;

PeddieHV busbar voltage improved to 0.96 p.u, line loading at the end of

transmission and remained constant between 60% and 70%.

98

The busbar load angle profile was generally more positive.

The Peddie and Wesley transformers loading remained too high between 110%

and 140%.

The next section will consider the maximum rating of the series capacitor based on

the foregoing simulations.

4.9.8 SPECIFICATION OF SERIES CAPACITOR SUSCEPTANCE

In the next section simulation are carried out to determine the highest susceptance

rating of the series capacitor.

4.9.8.1 PLAN AND OBJECTIVE

From section 4.9.7, simulations on the probable locations of the series capacitor

identified the PeddieHV busbar as the suitable location for the series capacitor,

because of the voltage improvement at the busbar and the reduced line loading of

the transmission system, to within acceptable limits.

4.9.8.2 MODELING SIMULATION PROCEDURE

The C-shunt capacitors at the Committees11kV and Committees22kV busbars were

kept at 2.25MVAr.The susceptance of the series capacitor connected at the Peddie

HV busbar was varied between 0.005S and 0.0125S.

4.9.9 SERIES CAPACITOR SUSCEPTANCE SPECIFICATION SIMULATION

Simulation results for the series capacitor susceptance specification simulation are

recorded in appendices F.1.1 to F.1.9. The following is the analysis and

characterization in order to determine the maximum susceptance specification of the

series capacitor in order to improve the power transfer of the transmission system.

Figure 4.42 is the graphical representation of the simulation for the susceptance

between 0.006S-0.0125S.

99

Figure 4.42: SERIES CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION

The analysis focused on the critical parts of the transmission system and how they

were impacted by the series capacitor. These parts are: the Wesley transformer

(WESTR), the loading on the Breakfastvlei-Peddie (BRK-PED) and Peddie-Wesley

(PED-WES) lines, and the Fishriver substation voltage.

Series capacitor susceptance specification observations

The following are findings on the series capacitor specifications;

For susceptance from 0.006S to 0.008S:

The WESTR (transformer) loading dropped from 130% to around 120% and then

the line loading remained constant.

The BRK-PED and PED-WES lines respectively dropped from 75% to 68% and

65% to 60%.

Also the Fishriver voltage rose from 84% to 92%.

For susceptance above 0.008S all the parameters remained constant.

For series susceptance around 0.005S there was no loadflow convergence.

For series susceptance above 0.01S and below 0.007S the transmission lines

loading for example. BRK-PED and PED-WES increased rapidly as well as the

WESTR transformer loading.

The busbar voltage at the PEDLV reached a maximum of 0.91 pu between the

series susceptance of 0.0079S and 0.0125S.

100

4.10 CONCLUSION ON SERIES CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION Chapter four has considered three different models applicable to the Albany-Wesley

transmission system. The models are: uncompensated, large and small scale

compensated. The uncompensated model could not transmit the designed full load

power because of overloading and terminal voltage constraints. The large scale

compensated transmission was modeled as a conventional compensation practice;

this model could not transmit the designed full load power either, because the large

scale compensation could only mitigate only one constraint on the transmission

system. The small scale compensated model was characterized by the ability to

mitigate different transmission constraints. This model is comprised of shunt and

series capacitors. From Figure 4.42; 0.0095S is the minimum susceptance value

for the series capacitor, required for stable and constant voltage at Fishriver

substation. Also to relieve the Wesley transformer overloading, as well as BRK- PED

and PED-WES lines overloading. The shunt capacitors values and types are still

causing thermal overloading; hence the next chapter will discuss the thermal loading.

101

CHAPTER FIVE THERMAL LOADING

5.1. INTRODUCTION At this stage the small scale compensation (2.25 MVAr) has managed to raise the

nominal voltage at the Committees11kV and Committees 22kV busbars at an

acceptable level, and the series compensation has changed the characteristics of

the transmission line by altering the load angles to be more positive. Critical

problems encountered were: the overloading at the Wesley transformer. This

problem has to be solved.

5.1.1 COMPENSATION PLAN AND OBJECTIVE Figure 5.1 is of the Wesley transformer whose overloading had to be reduced; the

nominal voltages at Peddie LV and Fishriver busbars that had to be raised so as to

reach the standard voltage regulation level.The shunt capacitors used at Committees

11kV & 22kV are of C-type, which could be managed by varying the amount of

reactive power. In the following models other types or technologies of shunt

capacitors will be applied, to ease the overloading on the Wesley transformer. Apart

from the C-type capacitor, other types to be considered were:

RLC-Type

RL-Type

Figure 5.1: WESLEY TRANSFORMER

102

5.1.2 MODELING AND SIMULATION PROCEDURE In order to reduce the overloading at the Wesley transformer it was important to

identify the relevant compensating capacitor technology and its appropriate location.

The following procedure was undertaken:

Keeping the series capacitor connected at the Peddie HV busbar with

susceptance of B=0.0095S.

Small scale compensation at Committees11kV and Committees22kV reactive

power was reduced to capacitive 2.25MVAr.

Then connect a shunt capacitor at Peddie LV or Fishriver.

C-Type capacitor was connected at Fishriver substation and thereafter at Peddie

substation.

The following section is an analysis and characterization of the results obtained after the compensation reactive power was generated by the C-type shunt.

5.1.3 C-TYPE SHUNT AT FISHRIVER AND PEDDIE LV SUBSTATIONS The reactive power of the C-type capacitor simulations and results are recorded in

Appendices G.1.1 to G.1.11.The following is the analysis done and how the system

responded. Figure 5.2 below is the voltage response when the shunt capacitor was

connected at the Fishriver busbar. The reactive power was varied between:

0.005MVAr and 2MVAr. In some other cases (at PeddieHV busbar), lower reactive

power was simulated so as to observe the response at lower compensation levels

Figure 5.2: C- SHUNT AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION VOLTAGE RESPONSE

103

5.1.3.1 VOLTAGE RESPONSE OBSERVATION

The 2 MVAr resulted in slightly less the nominal voltage, the WESHV, WESLV and

Fishriver busbars were all at 0.8 p.u while at 0.005 MVAr and 0.5 MVAr the voltage

rose to around 0.85 p.u.It could also be deduced that the less the reactive power the

higher the voltage, although at 0.005 MVAr and 0.5 MVAr the change in voltage is

small. Next, Figure 5.3 is the transformer loading graphical analysis when the shunt

was connected and varied as explained above.

Figure 5.3: C- SHUNT AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER LOADING

Figure 5.4: C-SHUNT AT PEDDIE LV SUBSTATION VOLTAGE RESPONSE

104


The loading for all transformers under all levels of reactive power remained

unchanged except for the Peddie transformer (PEDTR) where loading rose from

around 110% to 116% as reactive power rose from 0.005 MVAr to 2MVAr. Yet

Committees 11kV, Committees 22kV, Peddie and Wesley transformers remained

overloaded between 110% and 120%, while the Fishriver transformer were 60% and

Albany about 44%. Next, Figure 5.4 below shows the voltage response when the C-

shunt capacitor was connected at the Peddie LV substation and reactive power

varied between 0.00005MVAr and 2 MVAr.


It was observed that when the shunt was connected at Fishriver busbar, the voltage

the voltage at WESHV, WESLV and Fishriver busbars was the lowest; on this

occasion, under 0.8 p.u. at 2MVAr. When the compensator was connected at the

PeddieLV busbar, and then as the reactive power was reduced towards

0.0005MVAr, the voltage response at the busbars showed no difference as the

compensating reactive power changed. However, at the three mentioned busbars

the voltage regulation were within acceptable standard. Figure 5.5 below shows the

transformer loading response when the C-shunt capacitor was connected at the

Peddie LV busbar and reactive power varied as above.

5.1.3.4 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE OBSERVATION

WESTR (Wesley transformer) loading at 2MVAr was the highest about 130%,

though the Committees11kV, Committees 22 kV and Peddie transformers remained

overloaded. Also the Fishriver transformer rose to around 65%.The loading at

0.00005S, 0.0005S and 0.05MVAr did not show much difference.

105

Figure 5.5: C-SHUNT AT PEDDIE LV SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER LOADING

5.1.3.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON C-TYPE CAPACITOR COMPENSATION AT

FISHRIVER AND PEDDIE LV SUBSTATIONS

Much attention was paid to the terminal voltage and transformer loading response

because either of these is a key indicator of the quality of power transmission.


The higher the reactive power, up to 2MVAr, the lower the terminal voltage in

both cases.

The voltage response ranged between 0.8-0.85 p.u for the Fishriver substation.

The Wesley Transformer (WESTR) loading remained fairly constant at 120%

when shunt capacitor was connected at the Fishriver substation.

When shunt capacitor was connected at Peddie LV substation the higher the

reactive power, the higher the loading at Wesley transformer above 120%.

The next section will consider the RLC-Type shunt model. This type was simulated

at both Fishriver and PeddieLV substations.

5.1.4 RLC-TYPE SHUNT The following are simulations, at Fishriver and Peddie LV substations whose results are documented in appendices G.2.1 to G.2.4 .Considered the RLC-

shunt, and the reactive power (Q) were varied between 1.5 and 5.5 MVAr:

An RLC-type capacitor was connected at the Fishriver busbar as documented in

appendix G.2.1.Tthe voltage response was too low for a 2.5 MVAr and hence

discouraging the implementation of this model at Fishriver busbar.

106

When the compensator was installed at the PeddieLV busbar the terminal

voltage was raised, as documented in appendices: G.2.2 to G.2.4

The following section is an analysis of the results obtained when the reactive power

was varied between 1.5MVAr and 2.5MVAr at the Peddie LV busbar. Figure 5.6 is a

depiction of the transformer loading after the RLC-Type capacitor was connected at

the Peddie LV busbar. The reactive power was varied between 1.5 to 2.5 MVAr.

Nonetheless the same RLC-Type capacitor was connected at Fishriver substation.

Figure 5.6: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR TRANSFORMER LOADING


The reactive power variation resulted in no loading change, in other words the

loading remained constant: Wesley (120%), Commitees11kV (112%), Peddie(110%)

and Committees 22kV (108%). Figure 5.7 records the voltage response after the

RLC-Type capacitor was connected at the Peddie LV busbar.

Figure 5.7: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR VOLTAGE RESPONSE

107

Figure 5.8 is the line loading after the RLC-Type capacitor was connected at the

Peddie LV busbar.


As had previously happened occurred, change in reactive power resulted with

change of busbar voltage magnitude. Albany (1 p.u), Committees 66kV and

Committees 22kV (0.96 p.u),Committees11kV,Peddie 66kV and Breakfastvlei (0.92

p.u),WesleyHV. WesleyLV and Fishriver (0.82 p.u).

Figure 5.8: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR LINE LOADING

Figure 5.9: RLC-TYPE CAPACITOR LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE


The line loading did not change as the reactive power was varied. The Albany-

Committees line 76%, Committees-Breakfastvlei line equaled to Breakfastvlei-

Peddie line 65% and Peddie-Wesley line 60%. Figure 5.9 depicts the load angle

108

response after the RLC-Type capacitor was connected at the Peddie LV busbar. As

the reactive power was varied between 1.5 and 2.5 MVAr.

5.1.4.4 LOAD ANGLE OBSERVATION

The negative angles vary between -1º to -6º for Albany, Committees 66kV,

Committees22kV, Committees11kV and Breakfastvlei busbars. The positive angles

vary between 16º and 19º for Peddie 66kV, WesleyHV and FishriverLV. This means

an improvement into the transmission system.

Observation on RLC-type capacitor

The variation in reactive power with this type of capacitor (RLC) does not bring

changes to the nominal voltage, transformer and line loading and load angle

parameters. The Wesley transformer‟s loading remains as high as 120%. The next

section will consider RL-type capacitor simulations.

5.1.5 RL-TYPE SHUNT AT FISHRIVER AND PEDDIE LV SUBSTATIONS Simulation results on the RL type shunt are documented in appendices G.3.1 to

G.3.3. Figure 5.10 is the voltage response as the shunt was connected at either

Fishriver or PeddieLV busbars. The reactance was varied between 1 and 3 MVAr.

Figure 5.10: RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR VOLTAGE RESPONSE


Voltage at Fishriver busbar with a capacitor of 2MVAr connected at the same busbar

equals to voltage at Peddie LV busbar with a capacitor of 1MVAr connected at the

Peddie LV busbar. Since the aim is to use less reactive power and produce reliable

109

terminal voltage, 3MVAr shunt was not considered at the PeddieLV busbar, because

this location looked promising. Figure 5.11 is the transformer loading response when

the RL shunt was connected as mentioned above with reactive power varied

between 1 and 3MVAr.

Figure 5.11: RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR TRANSFORMER LOADING

5.1.5.2 TRANSFORMER LOADING RESPONSE OBSERVATION When the 2MVAr RL shunt was connected at PeddieLV busbar, the Wesley

transformer loading droped to around 110% loading. This proved to be most

satisfactory because when compensator was connected to other busbars the

transformer loading was higher. On the other hand there was no change in loading

for Albany, Committees11kV and Committees22kV transformers. Also the Peddie

transformer loading remained unchanged to around 100%, when the shunt was

connected at Fishriver busbar, but also the loading rose as the shunt was connected

at the PeddieLV busbar.

5.1.5.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON OPTIONS TO RAISE PEDDIE AND FISHRIVER VOLTAGES A shunt compensator was required for this purpose. The idea was to obtain the

smallest rating of reactive power for compensation, to ease the loading at the

Wesley transformer while simultaneously raising the nominal voltages at Peddie and

Fishriver substations, bearing in mind that the other substations were in a better

position. Simulations were carried out by employing all capacitor technology options

in terms of the three types; C-type, RL-type and RLC-type. Observations relating to

these simulations are as follows:

110

Any type of compensation connected at the Fishriver, though it raised the

nominal voltage, negatively impacted the Wesley Transformer by overloading

Compensation at Peddie LV substation with RL type shunt compensator eased

The loading on the Wesley transformer and hence this location must be studied

closely in order to solve the voltage and overloading problems that are presently

being experienced.

5.2 SHUNT CAPACITOR COMPENSATION SPECIFICATIONS BACKGROUND

It was previously shown (in 4.8.1.1) that the determining parameter of the series

capacitor is its susceptance (B). As such simulations revealed that the susceptance

values do influence the nominal voltage proportionally while the line and transformer

loadings are both inversely proportional to the susceptance. Also it was established

that the RL type capacitor responded well at PeddieLV substation. The addition of

this capacitor affected the whole transmission system. Therefore, in the next section,

the effects of RL capacitor were investigated together with other types of capacitors

already identified in the transmission system. Eventually specifications of different

capacitors needed to achieve the optimised compensation of the transmission

system that were obtained. Simulations were carried out at Fishriver substation too

and comparisons were made with the results when the shunt capacitor was

connected at the PeddieLV. The analysis included the type and rating as seen in

appendices G.2.1 and H.1.1 to H.1.10.

5.3 SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION AT THE PEDDIE LV

Objective: The shunt capacitor was connected at the PEDLV busbar in order to

raise the busbar voltage.

Modeling simulation procedure: The reactive power Q for all types of capacitors

was varied from 1.5MVAr to 5.5 MVAr. C-shunt capacitors at the Committees11kV

and Committees 22kV remained at 2.25MVAr. Series capacitor of susceptance (B)

=0.0095 was connected at PeddieHV. Simulation results are documented in

appendices H.1.1 to H.1.10 for RL capacitors.

5.3.1 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION FOR RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR

SPECIFICATION Figure 5.12 depicts the graphical response in percentage of the voltage response,

line and transformer loadings. When the RL type capacitor connected at the

PeddieLV busbar, the reactive power was varied between 1.5 and 5.5 MVAr.

111

Figure 5.12: RL-SHUNT SPECIFICATION

5.3.1.1 OBSERVATIONS ON RL-CAPACITOR SHUNT SIMULATION.

The following are findings after RL capacitor shunt compensation had taken place:

The BRK-PED line loading increased as the reactive power increased.

from 93% to 100% respectively.

The PED-WES line loading decreased, as the reactive power increased

from 59% to 53% respectively.

The voltages at FISHLV and PEDLV increased while the latter reached 1p.u.

The following simulation, as outlined in section 5.3.2 considered the RLC-shunt. The

reactive power (Q) was varied as mentioned in 5.3.2 above. Simulation results are

documented in Appendices G.2.1 to G.2.4.

5.3.2 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION FOR RLC-SHUNT CAPACITOR

SPECIFICATION Figure 5.13 shows the RLC-shunt response as the capacitor was connected at the

PeddieLV and Fishriver busbars as mentioned in subsection 5.3.1.1. The graphical

record of the voltage response, line and transformer loading is represented in

percentages in the graph.

5.3.2.1 OBSERVATION ON RLC –SHUNT SPECIFICATION

The reactive power (Q) was varied; no improvement in voltages at PEDLV and

FISHLV, and still the Wesley transformer remained overloaded. The following

section considers the simulations done on the C-type shunt capacitor. The results

are documented in appendix G.3.

112

Figure 5.13: RLC-SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION

5.3.3 ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION C-TYPE SHUNT CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION

Figure 5.14 is the graphical analysis of the results obtained after simulation. The

reactive power was varied between 0.025 to 5.5MVAr, the voltage response, as well

as line and transformer loading is in percentage for Fishriver and PeddieLV busbars

as referred to in the graph. The results are documented in appendices G.1.4 to

G.1.11

Figure 5.14: C-SHUNT AT PEDDIE BUSBAR SPECIFICATION

113

5.3.3.1 OBSERVATION ON C-CAPACITOR SHUNT SIMULATION

The following are findings after C-Capacitor shunt compensation:

The lower the reactive power, the lower the loading at BRK-PED and PED-WES

lines. At both lines, loading steadily rises as Q (reactive power) increases

respectively from 68% to 72% for BRK-PED line and 60% 68% for PED-WES

line.

The minimum loading of the Wesley transformer was around 120% but increased

to 139% as Q increased.

The voltages at PEDLV and FISHLV also improved as at lower reactive power,

but as Q increased the voltages dropped respectively from: 91% and 83% to 84%

and 72% respectively.

As seen in Figure 5.15, all the above simulations pointed to Peddie substation as the

most suitable location for the shunt capacitor, in order to improve the terminal

voltage at Fishriver and Peddie substations, and ultimately relieve the overloading on

the Wesley transformer. The simulation on the PeddieLV busbar also confirms that

the Peddie substation as the most suitable location to alleviate the Wesley

transformer (WESTR) overloading, as well as improving the voltage at Fishriver.

Further simulations were carried out on the HV side of the substation using the RL-

type shunt.

Figure 5.15: PEDDIE SUBSTATION ISOLATOR

114

5.4 RL-TYPE SHUNT CONNECTED AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR ANALYSIS

Following the simulations on the Peddie LV substation, the 5.5 MVAr, RL- shunt

type capacitor was connected at the PeddieHV busbar as well as other smaller rated

capacitors as discussed. The results are documented in appendix H.1.10.

Observation on transmission parameters in the result box report at this stage, reveal

the following results as seen graphically in Figures 5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 which

outline responses of the: voltage, line loading, load angle and transformer loading.

Figure 5.16: VOLTAGE RESPONSE

Figure 5.17: LINE LOADING

115

Figure 5.18: LOAD ANGLE

The small scale compensated transmission model constituted the shunt capacitors at

Committees 11kV, Committees 22kV and Peddie HV busbars with series capacitor

as shown in Figure 5.20.The analysis will follow in the observation underneath.

Figure 5.19: TRANSFORMER LOADING

5.4.1 OBSERVATIONS ON RL-SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDDIE HV BUSBARS

Locating the shunt capacitor at the Peddie HV busbar solved most problems that had

been experienced, the following are the results:

Wesley transformer (WESTR) loading is less than 101%.

Peddie-Wesley (PED-WES) line loading is less than 80%.

Peddie and Fishriver substations voltage is around 1p.u.

Terminal voltage is generally within the standard regulation of ±5%.

116

Load angle: Committees11kV&22kV busbars are at a minimum of around -5˚, the

maximum angle is; around +18˚.

Line loading: The lines are greatly relieved with loading being between 52% -

77%.

Transformer loading: Wesley transformer is much relieved at 106%, however,

Committees11kV and Committees22kV transformers are overloaded at 112%

and108%respectively. Peddie transformer is safe at 99%.

The overloading, at other transformers, remains a problem, because other

capacitors are still too large.

5.5 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED OPTIMISED MODEL

The small scale compensated transmission model as outlined above, can now

generate sufficient reactive power to support the voltage. Therefore, any variation of

compensating reactive power or change in transformer tapping could affect the line,

or transformer loading, as well as the terminal voltage. This allowed the reduction of

the compensating reactive power at Committees 11kV and 22kV and the transformer

loading at PEDTR and WESTR to be adjusted by means of transformer tapping

(regulator). As all the transformers were modeled at the neutral tapping (tap 9), the

transformer loading results at Peddie, Wesley, Committees 11kV and Committees 22

kV were further brought to within the standard range of 100%. Likewise, the voltage

regulation at Peddie and Fishriver substations was adjusted to within ±5% of the

nominal voltage. Figure 5.20 shows the single line layout of the small scale

compensated optimised transmission model whose textual report is documented in

Appendix H.2. The capacitors employed are outlined as follows: Series capacitor at

Peddie HV is 66kV, B 0.0055S, Shunt for Committees 11kV is 11kV, 1MVAr and

Committees 22 kV is 22kV, 2MVAr and then Shunt for Peddie HV is 66kV,

4.85MVAr.

Transformers tapping were set at:

ALBTR= TAP 17

COM11TR=9

COM22TR=9

PEDTR=17

WESTR=5

FISHTR=5

117

The working power factor of the small scale compensated optimised model adopted

was 0.95 lagging, the pattern and characteristics were not different to any other

power factors. The optimised small scale compensation model followed the

identification of the critical lines, which caused the system to fail to transmit the full

load designed power whereby reactive power was injected into these lines in order to

mitigate the condition. Ultimate capacitor locations were chosen after different

simulations had taken place, at other probable locations with the same capacitors‟

type and reactive power rating. The small scale compensated model is characterized

by the lines and transformer loading which is within the standard range of 100%

loading with minimum infeed current, and reactive power, as well as lowest total

losses. The system voltage profile is kept within ±5% of the nominal voltage, and the

voltage angle is mostly positive. More details follow in Table 5.1 and figures 5.21 to

5.24.

.

118

Figure 5.20 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED OPTIMISED TRANSMISSION MODEL

119

5.6. CONCLUSION REMARKS ON SMALL SCALE OPTIMISED

TRANSMISSION MODEL

Successful connection of the RL–Type shunt at Peddie HV (PED HV) busbar

brought about improvements at this busbar. This was in addition to

improvements experienced at the already installed small capacitors at

Committees 11kV and Committees22 kV busbars, as well as the series capacitor

at the Peddie HV. Further dramatic improvements also resulted at Committees

22kV and Peddie HV where voltages at these busbars were kept within the

standard voltage regulation.

As it is, the optimised transmission model has more reactive power than the

uncompensated and large scale compensated models. This was so evident, that

it became possible to control the nominal voltage by means of transformer

tappings as occurred when all the previous models simulations were carried out

with taps (Tap 9) in neutral position. Therefore the reduction of compensating

reactive power, together with the tap regulation prevented overloading the

Wesley transformer; and Fishriver busbar voltage remained within the standard

voltage regulation of ±5%, as seen in the small scale compensated optimised

transmission.

5.6.1 COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE

This part of the research looks into the performance of the three models:

Uncompensated, large and small scale compensated and hence identifies the

limits to transfer the maximum designed power. Power flow over a transmission

system is limited by one or more of the following network characteristics:

• Stability limits

• Thermal limits

• Voltage limits

Technically, limitations on power transfer can always be removed by adding new

transmission and/or generation capacity. Many of these now established

technologies fall under the title of FACTS (Flexible AC Transmission Systems).

Lines ratings are generally expressed in terms of ampacity or current carrying

capacity in amperes and this ampacity is independent of voltage. Thus the

120

amount of power that can actually be transmitted by a given conductor depends

on the operating voltage.

Table 5.1 compares the simulated values under the named models; per unit

voltage (p.u), load angle (δ), transformer and line loading and the criteria

expected. The line and transformer loading must be less or equal to 100% at full

load demand. The voltage regulation must be within a regulation of ±5% of the

nominal voltage. The Voltage angle (load angle) must be characterized by a

positive voltage angle.

Table 5.1: Performance comparison

OPTIMISED

UNCOMPENSATED

LARGE SCALE COMPENSATED

(FISHRIVER)

VOLTAGE

SUBSTATION PU δ PU δ PU δ

ALBANY66 1 -0.75° 0.995 -0.77° 0.998 -0.81°

COMM 0.95 -3.75° 0.92 -3.86° 0.948 -5°

PEDDIE66 1.05 34.44° 0.83 -6.88° 0.855 -12.9°

WESLV 0.99 33.19° 0.69 -8.16° 0.913 -29.8°

WESHV 1 34.85° 0.71 -2.81° 0.81 -27.58°

BFAST 0.91 -5.25° 0.87 -3.15° 0.91 -8.1°

COMM22 0.95 -5.56° 0.91 -4.66° 0.94 -6.84°

COMM11 0.95 -5.56° 0.906 -4.68° 0.93 -6.85°

PEDLV 1.05 32.97° 0.783 -6.48° 0.85 -15.14°

FISHLV 0.98 32.35° 0.683 -7.89° 0.966 -30.72°

LINE LOADING

LINE % % %

ALB-COM 75.41 87.1 93.8

BRK-PED 68.14 80.46 95.83

PED-WES 50.54 80.46 182.64

TRANSFORMER LOADING

TRANSFORMER % % %

ALBTR 44.7 47.52 47.82

COM11TR 100 110.42 107.27

COM22TR 100 109.85 106.72

PEDTR 95.32 128.28 118.58

WESTR 101 146.32 367.47

FISHTR 50.84 73.16 183.73

5.6.1.1 FROM TABLE 5.1: OBSERVATIONS MADE FOR UNCOMPENSATED MODEL

The voltage response shows that for Albany substation infeed, the voltage is unity of the rated value. The other substations, all fall below the -10% of their

rated voltages.

121

The Fishriver LV substation which is at the receiving end of the transmission

manages to attain 0.7 pu of its rated voltage.

The voltage (load) angle (δ) response at all substations range between 0˚ and

-10˚,the lowest angle is at the Fishriver LV substation

The line loading response is fairly below full load, with same loadings in ;

Committees-Breakfastvlei (COM-BRK), Breakfastvlei-Peddie (BRK-PED) and

Peddie-Wesley (PED-WES) they are all at 80%.

The transformer loading response shows that Albany (ALBTR) and

Fishriver(FISHTR) transformers are underloaded with the Albany transformer

supplying less than half of their transformer rating. The other transformers

are overloaded between 110% and 150%.

5.6.1.2 FROM TABLE 5.1: OBSERVATIONS MADE FOR LARGE SCALE

COMPENSATED MODEL

The voltage response shows an improvement in voltage .The Fishriver LV

substation came to within a -5% of the rated voltage. Although the voltage at

other substations improved, they remained between -5% and -10% of their

rated voltages.

The voltage (load) angle (δ) response at substations range between 0˚ and -

30˚, the lowest angle being at the Fishriver LV substation.

The line loading responses show a substantial rise, where Albany-

Committees (ALB-COM), Committees-Breakfastvlei (COM-BRK),

Breakfastvlei-Peddie line (BRK-PED) loading rises to above 90%. while the

Peddie-Wesley line (PED-WES) almost doubles its full load.

The transformer loading response shows that Albany transformer (ALBTR)

remains unchanged compared to increases in other transformers loadings.

On other hand, Fishriver transformer (FISHTR) almost doubles its full load,

while Wesley transformer (WESTR) is loaded more than 3 times its full load.

5.6.1.3 FROM TABLE 5.1: OBSERVATIONS MADE FOR SMALL SCALE

COMPENSATED MODEL

The voltage response at all load substations shows that; the regulation is within

±5%. The Breakfastvlei substation voltage response is 0.9 pu. This substationis

in the centre of the transmission system and no consumer load is connected the

busbar. The voltage (load) angle, (δ) response at substations range between -6˚

and +35. The negative angles happen at substations closer to the sending end

while the more positive angles happen towards the end of the transmission

122

system.The line loading response shows a reduced loading less than the

uncompensated transmission scenario. The Peddie-Wesley (PED-WES) line

becomes half full load. The transformer loading response shows a slight

decrease in the infeed transformer ALBTR at the Albany substation. The

Fishriver transformer (FISHTR) carries half of its rated capacity and there is a

slight rise in loading in the smaller rated transformers.

5.6.1.4 COMMENTS ON THE OBSERVATIONS ON TABLE 5.1

The installed infeed transformer is capable of doubling the power supply of the

Albany-Wesley power transmission system, as its current loading is less than

half. The length of the transmission system in the uncompensated model results

in underperformance of the transmission system, while the large scale

compensated scenario deals with one parameter of the transmission system, and

other parameters on the transmission develop constraints to the power carrying

capacity of the system. The small scale compensated scenario addressed

different constraints of the transmission system at one time. The size of the

installed electrical equipment influences the performance and location of the

compensator, while the compensator size can inversely affect the power

transmission hence small rated compensator are efficient.

5.6.2 COMPARISON OF MODELS RESULTS

The following part is the graphical comparison and analysis of the results

obtained. This will entail the transformer and line loading, load angle and voltage

response. The large scale compensation (L/S) discussed, is when the capacitor

was connected at the receiving end that is Fishriver busbar.


Figure 5.21 is the comparison of transformer loading for the uncompensated,

small and large scale compensated transmission models at 0.95 power factor.

The Wesley transformer (WESTR) is the transformer which clearly displays

different loading characteristics under all the scenarios. Likewise Fishriver

transformer has noticeable responses. Large scale (L/S) compensation pushes

the transformers into overloading condition; WESTR to about 390%, while

FISHTR reaches above 180%. This indicates that the loading is proportional to

the transformer capacity. The small scale (S/S) compensation is taken at the

123

optimised state where smaller rated capacitors were installed in the transmission,

in order to deal with different constraints in the system at one time.

Figure 5.21: COMPARISON TRANSFORMER LOADING

This resulted in the WESTR (Wesley Transformer) loading reducing to around

100% while the FISHTR (Fishriver Transformer) reduced to less than half the

the L/S compensation. The uncompensated transmission causes the WESTR

loading to reduce to one and a half times its normal rating. The large scale

compensation causes great losses on the transmission system and temperature

rise in transformer, conductor and allied equipment. The same happens as well

for the uncompensated transmission, they all result in not delivering the designed

power and low terminal voltage at the consumers.

5.6.2.2 LOAD ANGLE RESPONSE

Figure 5.22 is comparison of load angle response for the uncompensated, small

and large scale compensated transmission model at 0.95 power factor loading.

The load angle response of large and small scale compensation is an almost

symmetrical pattern divided by the uncompensated model response. The

uncompensated load angle response picks up a steady negative increase

between 0˚ and -30˚ for Committees(COMM) and Breakfastvlei (BFAST)

busbars.The small scale compensation load angle response is more positive with

the Wesley HV busbar and Fishriver LV busbar attaining the highest positive

angles of 35°. The opposite response happens with the large scale

124

compensation whereby the same busbars, for example WesleyHV and Fishriver

LV, attain the highest negative angles.

Figure 5.22: COMPARISON LOAD ANGLE

This proves once again the different effects of large scale compensation as

opposed to small scale compensation in terms of absorbing or generating

reactive power. The large scale compensation was installed at the end of the line

at the Fishriver substation and succeeded in raising the far end voltage by

generating reactive power into the transmission system. The small scale

compensation, on the other hand, comprising of smaller reactive power rated

capacitors located at critical lines, has raised the transmission power transfer.

Also it can be deduced that the ratings selected for small and large scale

compensation are realistic values as they result in opposite outcomes.

Figure 5.23: COMPARISON OF LINE LOADING

125

5.6.2.3 LINE LOADING RESPONSE

Figure 5.23 above is the comparison of line loading response for the

uncompensated, small and large scale compensated transmission model at 0.95

power factor. The small and large scale compensation displayed opposite

patterns to the former resulting in the line loading decreasing from about 80% for

the uncompensated model to close to 50%for the following lines: Albany-

Committees (ALB-COM), Breakfastvlei-Peddie (BRK-PED) and Peddie-Wesley

(PED-WES) where the loadings decreased and hence relieved the transmission

system stress. The large scale compensation resulted in increased loading on

the transmission lines from around 90% on uncompensated model to more than

180%. Again the Peddie-Wesley line (PED-WES) is greatly affected because of

the large reactive power generated into the transmission system by the

compensator at the end of transmission (Fishriver).


Figure 5.24 below is the comparison of the voltage response for uncompensated,

small and large scale compensated transmission models at 0.95 power factor

lagging. The uncompensated transmission system profile shows a generally poor

voltage regulation for nominal terminal voltage. The busbars with the highest

voltage drops are: WesleyLV and Fishriver, whereby the per unit voltage is

around 0.7 Committees11kV (COMM11) and together with Committees22kV

(COMM22) their voltages response is about 0.9 p.u.

Figure 5.24: COMPARISON VOLTAGE RESPONSE

126

The large scale compensation raises the voltage and the terminal voltage at the

transmission system receiving end ( Fishriver busbar) to about 1p.u , this is the

highest gain mainly because this is where the compensator is installed.The

Wesley HV busbar voltage also improves and rises to just above 0.9 p.u.

The voltage regulation leaves much to be desired. Contrary to the voltage

response observed thus far, the small scale compensation improves the overall

transmission system voltage profile to around 0.95pu with the exception of the

Breakfastvlei busbar, which remains close to the value attained by large scale

compensation and to which no load is connected.

5. 7 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER FIVE The compensation simulations revealed distinct characteristics relating to

uncompensated, large and small scale compensated models. The characteristics

observed were: the line and transformer loading load angle and voltage

magnitude. These characteristics, when they were not within the accepted

standard, they became constraints to the power transmission and hence the

inability of the transmission system to deliver the designed full load power. The

small scale compensated transmission model mitigated different constraints

simultaneously; this resulted into an ideal full load designed power transfer. The

small scale compensated model generated reactive power just enough to keep

the voltage regulation within acceptable standard and also safe line and

transformer thermal loading.

127

CHAPTER SIX SIMULATION RESULTS ANALYSIS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this research simulations was to evaluate the reliability of

different FACTS technologies, applicable to the Albany-Wesley 66/22 kV

transmission system, also increase the power transfer capacity of the

transmission system by optimising the physical and electrical design of the

transmission system. Other objectives were to develop a suitable specification

for FACTS as well as to identify a suitable Compensation technology for use on

the distribution networks.

6.1.1 OPTIMISATION METHODOLOGY Using the Digsilent power factory program, simulations were done in order to

generate load flow. The results of the simulations showed: line-line voltage

magnitude (kV), voltage magnitude per unit (p.u.), voltage/load angle (degree),

active power (MW), reactive power (MVAr) and loading percentage (%), this

Loading translates directly into the current flowing in the transmission system.

The total current in the network is the basic criteria for designing an electrical

system, however in practice the thermal capacity of the line and line losses

would limit the power transfer of the transmission system. Hence the thermal

loading, voltage drop, insufficient reactive power reserves and negative load

angle are some of the constraints that prevent the maximum power transfer.

Therefore in order to achieve the optimised power transfer criteria reference is

made to section 3.4.

6.1.2 THERMAL LOADING

In any transmission system the thermal limitation is the most common constraint

that limits its capability to transfer the maximum designed power. The thermal

ratings for transmission lines are usually expressed in terms of current flow,

rather than actual temperatures for ease of measurement. Hence the thermal

capacity of a line sets a limit to the maximum apparent power (MVA) transfer.

The fact that current is used as the deciding factor means that load will be shed if

a certain current or power transfer limit is exceeded on the line. Hence from the

simulations in this research the researcher strived to keep the thermal loading

within limits that is equal or less than full load (≤100%), because a normal

thermal rating for a line is the current flow level the transmission can support

indefinitely. This current will prevent the transmission system from being loaded

128

to the thermal limit, while increasing the transfer capacity of the transmission

system.

6.1.3 REACTIVE POWER

The reactive power as generated by compensators is provided and maintained

for the explicit purpose of ensuring continuous and steady voltage on

transmission networks. Also the loadability of a bus in a transmission system

depends on the reactive power support that the bus can receive from the system.

The reactive power in a transmission system depends on the transmission line

impedance, the magnitude of the sending end and receiving end voltages, and

the angle between these voltages. The reactive power is also a significant

component of the apparent power that determines the thermal loading. Hence in

this research the reactive power was managed and controlled so that only the

needed reactive power to support the transmission system is generated.

6.1.4 VOLTAGE Normally the voltage at the consumers‟ terminals should be within a certain

range around the nominal voltage, while the load transferred varies. Also it is

expected that the voltage regulation to remain fairly within narrow limits, around

the nominal voltage. Hence in this research the terminal voltage was kept within

the ±5 percent of the nominal voltage.

The main cause of voltage instability is the inability of the transmission system to

meet the demand for reactive power, also when the system approaches the

maximum loading point or voltage collapse point, both real and reactive power

losses increase rapidly. Normally under voltage is a common problem but this

can be easily controlled and by so doing, the nominal voltage and thermal

loading of a transmission can be brought into the acceptable limits. Hence in the

simulations the reactive compensation helped to control voltage and thermal

loading.

6.2 COMPENSATION In this research compensation was implemented by reactive compensation as

offered by capacitors.

6.2.1 UNCOMPENSATED TRANSMISSION The type of connected load determines the power factor of the transmission

system; for this reason the power factor was varied between 0.5 and Unity at the

129

rated full load. Against this principle the uncompensated transmission model was

simulated, the power factor range mentioned was intentional, as it includes

hypothetical values especially those below 0.8 and the unity power factor. Also

the power factor variation in this range was also made so close at 0.05 intervals.

The simulations were intended to identify the critical lines, voltage drops and line

and transformer loadings under those diverse conditions. However later, the

simulations focused on the 0.65, 0.8 and 0.95 power factors lagging.

Because the aim of the research is to transmit the designed full load, therefore

the observations on simulations results at full load confirm the effect of the

transmission system length, that causes large voltage drop at the transmission‟s

receiving end. This voltage drop is consistent in the power factor range. Likewise

the Wesley transformer being the source of Fishriver, the receiving end

substation is affected as its thermal loading rises above the accepted limit. Under

these circumstances the transmission system can never be expected to deliver

the maximum power, based on its designed specification, because of the low

nominal voltage and thermal overloading in lines and transformers. Despite these

constraints (low voltage and thermal loading), the infeed transformers at Albany

substation are loaded under their capacities and hence the transmission system

has the potential to deliver more power to the transmission system.

6.2.2 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION SIMULATION

The next simulation was the large scale compensated model, the aim of the large

scale compensation was to raise the receiving end voltage to unity voltage, from

the 0.7 p.u voltage, the highest voltage obtained in the uncompensated

transmission model when the system supplies full load. The large scale

compensated model focused on 0.65, 0.8 and 0.95 power factors. The

compensation as supplied by capacitors aimed at solving a particular

transmission problem that is voltage drop.

A 20MVAr reactive power compensator was required in order to achieve the

unity receiving end voltage. This compensator was alternately injected at load

substations namely: Fishriver, Committees 22kV, Committees 11kV,

Grahamstown and Peddie. The large scale compensation injected from the

Fishriver substation which is fed from the Wesley caused this transformer‟s

130

thermal loading to rise above the limit, while the Peddie-Wesley line (PED-

WESL) overloading rose to 166.13%, that is more than half overloaded

throughout the power factor variation range. Also the compensation (large scale)

caused the smaller rated transformers: Committees11kV and Committees 22kV

to experience excessive overloading.

The large scale compensated model resulted in a large negative load angle at

the same busbar, decreasing as power factor increases. A noticeable change of

load angle happens at 0.95 power factor, where the load angle is more negative

in the transmission system. The expected load angle for the transmission system

to deliver the full load designed power together with reliable voltage should be

close to zero degrees or more positive.

The large scale compensation acted like an SVC whose output is varied so as to

maintain or control specific parameters (for example. voltage, frequency) of the

electric power system. In this case the large scale compensation was applied to

counteract possible voltage collapses. hence in the SVC operation the reactive

power generated tends to remedy one parameter in the transmission system. In

this case the impact of the large scale compensation on transmission loading in

the transmission system is of little concern. But in reality, the capacity and

location of the compensator are of much importance and do matter in the

performance of a transmission system. In this case the large scale compensation

resulted in thermal overloading lines and transformer and also causing negative

load angles, all these aspects influence negatively the transfer of maximum

power.

6.2.3 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SIMULATION

The small scale compensation initially focused on the Committees11kV and

Committees 22kV transformers, by providing smaller rated reactive power so as

to bring down the transformer loading to within safe range. The simulations were

done at 0.95 power factor lagging, because like at 0.65, 0.8 power factors, the

simulation response pattern in the large scale compensation were similar. Apart

from reducing the transformer loading, the voltage regulation in the small scale

compensation model was expected to be within the ±5% of the nominal voltage

throughout the transmission system.

131

A shunt compensator between 2 MVAr to 4 MVAr was modeled at Committees

11kV and Committees 22kV at 0.95 power factor. Then the same compensator‟s

reactive power was injected at to busbars at 66kV. In the small scale

compensation transmission model, the series compensation was executed where

necessary, so as to alter some of inherent transmission system characteristics.

The series compensation required alteration in the original transmission system

topology by adding busbar(s): depending on where the series capacitors needed.

The series capacitor specified as: Voltage: 66kV, Current: 0.219kA, susceptance:

0.006S-0.007S, Position: Connected at Peddie HV busbar, this resulted in the

following: the voltages at the smaller transformers (Committees11kV and

Committees 22kV) improved into within acceptable voltage regulation. The

Fishriver busbar experienced no change in voltage; its nominal voltage remained

very low to about 0.7 p,u. the Wesley and Peddie transformers remained with an

overloading problem, while generally the transmission system load angle

became positive which was a good thing. And the lines loading were within the

acceptable limits ( ≤100%). Further simulations showed that the 2.25 MVAr

compensator rating was sufficient to keep the nominal voltage, transformers and

line loadings within acceptable limits. Although the Peddie and Wesley

transformer overloading problem was caused by the series capacitor,

nevertheless the same series capacitor raised the voltage at Peddie HV busbar,

also the load angle profile of the whole transmission system greatly improved.

6.2.4 OPTIMISED POWER FLOW

The power flow optimisation includes: sizing, placement of number of capacitor

banks and switching time. In order to determine the optimal settings for control

variables in consideration of various constraints such as; thermal loading, load

and voltage regulation, the transmission system was modeled at the mains

voltage level. Therefore the small scale compensated model was characterized

by the ability to mitigate different transmission constraints; this model was

comprised of shunt and series capacitors.

In order to reduce the overloading at the Wesley and Peddie transformers it was

important to identify the relevant compensating capacitor technology and its

132

appropriate location: Therefore by applying C-type capacitor compensation at

Fishriver substation, the voltage response ranged between 0.8-0.85 p.u ( large

voltage drop) for Fishriver substation. The Wesley Transformer (WESTR) loading

remained fairly constant at 120% when shunt capacitor was connected at the

Fishriver substation. Also when shunt capacitor was connected at Peddie LV

substation the higher the reactive power, the higher the loading at Wesley

transformer above 120%. The same response was obtained by applying the

RLC-type capacitor. Then the RL-type capacitor was simulated at 5.5MVAr, the

voltages at Fishriver and Peddie substations increased and reached 1p.u, as

well as reducing the thermal loading at the Wesley transformer, and a more

positive voltage angle was observed and this corresponded to an injection of

power into the system and hence an increased power transfer.

In this research, in order to optimise the power transfer from the loadflow,

appropriately–sized capacitors were placed accordingly as seen in the small

scale compensated model, whereby an 5.5 MVAr RL-type capacitor, a series

capacitor of 0.0095S and two C-type 2.25MVAr capacitors were used. The

optimised power transmission model was reached at when the standard nominal

voltage and designed thermal limit were attained at the same loading. Also this

model has more reactive power than the uncompensated and large scale

compensated models, this will result into the ability to control the nominal voltage

by means of transformer tapings, also further reducing the compensating

reactive power, together with the tap regulation will prevent overloading to the

Wesley transformer.

6.3 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER SIX

In this chapter the simulation results analysis was discussed. This entailed the

optimisation methodology that considered the current in the transmission system

as a basic criteria for designing an electrical transmission system. The reactive

compensation was applied to mitigate different constraints in the transmission

system. The simulations results analysis in this chapter looked at different results

obtained in the transmission models established. These are: uncompensated,

large scale and small scale compensated and finally the optimised transmission

implemented by small scale compensation.

133

CHAPTER SEVEN CONSTRAINTS MITIGATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will discuss the merit of the simulations carried out, and how the

ultimate aim was to mitigate the constraints, in the transmission systems, which

prevent the transfer of maximum designed power. The small scale compensated

model has proven to transfer the full load. Also the static VAr compensator will

be discussed, in addition power factor correction. Conductor template

temperature perspective, new line construction option, economy survey and

contingency plan in case of compensation failure will be examined.

7.1.1 STATIC VAR COMPENSATOR (SVC) The SVC, in its simplest form, consists of a TCR in parallel with a bank of

capacitors. From an operational point of view the SVC behaves like a shunt–

connected variable reactance, which either generates or absorbs reactive power

in order to regulate the voltage magnitude at the point of connection to the AC

network (Acha, 2005). The most important application of an SVC is to counteract

possible voltage collapses, for example during peak load conditions, when many

load areas are vulnerable. This applies to load areas at a relatively long distance

from the generation plants, where voltage support can be found. By increasing

load, the voltage in the areas starts to drop. Another important application of the

SVC is continuous voltage support during the daily load cycle without having to

have very large capacitor banks energized. SVCs are normally installed to

prevent low voltages during active power swings and to avoid excessive

temporary over-voltages or under voltages in the event of major power lines or

generating stations being lost. In this research the large scale compensation is

applying the SVC principle, and as seen in chapters four and five, the large scale

compensation performance creates a constraint to the power transfer.

7.1.1.1 SVC RATINGS AND VOLTAGE SUPPORT

Typically, SVCs are rated such that they are able to vary the system voltage by

at least ± 5 %. This means that the dynamic operating range is normally from

about 10 % to 20 % of the short-circuit power at the point of common connection

(PCC). The reactive power output of the SVC subsequently increases in order to

prevent the voltage reduction. The above is in contrast with the small scale

compensation that requires a reduced reactive power.

134

7.1.1.2 SVC LOCATIONS

Three different locations are suitable for the SVCs:

Close to major load centers, such as large urban areas,

Critical substations, normally in remote grid locations,

Infeeds to large industrial or traction loads.

For this research the small scale compensation rating was determined by the

need to transmit the designed full load power of the system, and the choice of

compensators locations were guided by mitigating different constraints in the


7.1.2 POWER FACTOR CORRECTION Power factor correction for any transmission system can be achieved by means

of fixed, switched shunt and series capacitors. The following are the advantages

of power factor correction:

To avoid power costs by avoiding low power factor penalties

To reduce active and reactive power losses in the distribution network

To release current capacity of transformers and cables or overhead lines

To increase the voltage level and attain and an acceptable voltage regulation.

The power factor in the transmission system is determined by a number of

parameters including the type and rating of the load being supplied. The

uncompensated transmission was characterized by low voltage, line and

transformer overloading. If the transmission system attempts to meet the

designed full load, the system has to transmit a less than expected power at the

load power factor. Likewise the large scale compensated transmission met the

expected voltage at a particular load power factor but again, as happened in the

uncompensated transmission, other constraints such as lines and transformers

over loading developed that prevented the transmission of full load at standard

voltage. The small scale compensated transmission at a particular power factor

was determined by the designed full load power within standard voltage and

physical design of the system.

7.1.3 REDUCTION OF KVA DEMAND BY MEANS OF POWER FACTOR

CORRECTION.

By means of power factor correction the effect of the current on the thermal

135

dimensioning of the system is reduced. The power that can be transmitted

through the same network can be calculated from:

1cos

2cos12

PP

,where

1p = Transmission capacity of effective power of the network at power f actor

1cos

2p = Transmission capacity of effective power of the network at power factor

2cos

7.1.4 TRANSMISSION OF MORE EFFECTIVE POWER

In an existing transmission system more effective power can be transmitted

when PI is increased and the reactive power transmission is cut down when QI

is reduced at the same time that the total load I remains constant.

I = Current having effect on the design of the network.

PI = Current component caused by effective power transmission.

QI = Current component caused by reactive power.

I = 22

QP II

7.2. CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE PERSPECTIVE

The transmission system planner has to consider a large number of variables,

constraints and criteria. It has been found that the ruling criteria vary with the

voltage of the system.

7.2.1 PRESENT PRACTICE IN THE PLANNING FIELD At present, should the load flow analysis show that a line under single

contingency is exceeding the 90°C thermal limit, another line will have to be built

or another item of major equipment purchased (Stevens,Nd) The Planner should

thus base a decision purely on the calculated expected current. If this current is

higher than the prescribed limit, action must be taken in the form of system

strengthening. The simulations in this research have revealed that the low

terminal voltage, lines and transformers overloading characteristics of the

uncompensated and large transmission models when the system delivers the full

136

designed load, called for a remedy to the system. The controlling criteria can be

described in broad terms as follows;

Up to 22kV, thus voltage drops in the main criteria in the range, and the line

will exhibit poor voltage regulation before the thermal or stability limits are

met.

From 33kV-275kV; although voltage is occasionally the limiting criterion in

this range of voltages, the thermal limit of the lines forms a limiting criterion in

many cases. This range applies particularly to this current research, as seen

in the different simulations undertaken. Owing to the complexity of this

phenomenon, it was necessary for Eskom to use empirical data as then

presented by Butterworth and Morgan (Stevens, 1985). The data as seen in

Figure 7.1 and appendix I contains information useful to derive a factor by

which the Joule heating terms could be multiplied. This factor is a function of

current and the type of conductor to be used. For the sake of appreciating

how thermal loading is critical in power transmission, that type of overloading

should never be entertained. The templating temperature principle is applied

in the next section.

Figure 7:1 ALLOWABLE POWER TRANSFER WITH TEMPLATING TEMPERATURE

137

7.2.2 TEMPLATING TEMPERATURE The maximum allowable temperature on a transmission line varies from utility to

utility. However, a figure of ninety degrees celcius (90˚) is used by Eskom and

hence the templating temperature. Under normal operating conditions it is the

rated power that would result in the conductor attaining the templating

temperature of the line. Otherwise under abnormal conditions the transmission

line is forced to carry more current and hence the power that would result in a

conductor temperature to rise and adversely affect the life of the conductor

through creepage, sag and so on. The end result is the fact that current is used

as the deciding factor, meaning that load will be shed if a certain current or

power transfer limit is exceeded on the line, as seen in Figure 7.1.

This figure is the graphical identification of the allowable excess power transfer.

Using the Butterworth and Morgan graph as presented in appendix I, at 90°

templating temperature, the allowable power transfer is 1.1mVA. This criterion is

used to build another transmission line and it should be borne in mind that the

Wesley transformer loading, as seen in the large scale compensation, is about

155%.This means that at full load this transformer will have to carry 7.75 MVA

while its rating is 5MVA.

From the interpolation, this type of overloading will eventually damage the

transformer. While the allowable power transfer at the standard templating

temperature of 90° is 1.1mVA, the overloading of 2.75 MVA above the Wesley

transformer designed capacity will drive the transformer and its allied equipments

to temperatures of more than 100°C. This temperature is not acceptable and

therefore a new transmission has to be built based on the Butterworth and

Morgan principle (Stevens, Nd)). However in the small scale compensated

optimised transmission, after compensation at 0.95 p.f. the Wesley transformer

has delivered P=4.75MW, Q=1.56MVAr, S=5MVA at normal loading. Compared

to the Peak demand of; 2.7MVA (2006) and 2.4MVA (2007).

7.2.2.1 OTHER VARIABLES IN RELATION TO CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE

The following are variables that can affect the conductor temperature:

Conductor temperature to power transfer increases as wind speed

decreases.

Effect of templating temperature on allowable power transfer.

138

Determination of the required power transfer capability of overhead lines for

example conductor size, transformers (MVA rating) and continuous current

and fault level rating of terminal equipment.

Effect of power transfer on sag

As seen previously all the above can be exploited and allow an excessive

overload, but this can only be applied for limited a time only, otherwise

irreparable damage to the transmission system will result.

7.3 NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION OPTION

When the load of the line approaches the thermal capacity of the line or the

losses become excessive, the design engineers consider alternatives to meet

voltage regulation (Vector, July 1995, barsteel). At present, should the load flow

analysis show that a line under single contingency conditions is exceeding the

90°C limit, another line will have to be built or another item of major equipment

purchased. As seen from the conductor temperature perspective in subsection

7.2.2, the transmission line temperature rose to above 100˚C (in the large

compensated model), which is higher than the templating temperature it

therefore becomes necessary to build a new line. The following section is an

investigation of different key processes in building a new line. The investigation

highlights the planning, execution and economic survey and execution of building

a new line.

7.3.1 INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING AUTHORITIES In the planning procedure, if a new proposal for an overhead line is to have any

chance of succeeding, it is most important that the fullest consultations take

place with the local planning authorities affected, prior to making a formal

application (Carruthers, 1987). This will involve discussions with planning officers

of the various authorities. Experience and research has shown that the main

points to be discussed are:

The need for the scheme.

The content of the scheme, for example type of construction, substation

requirements and others.

The engineering, way leaving and amenity consideration that has led to the

choice of route.

Any alternative schemes that have been considered and their comparative

cost.

139

Any dismantling of existing lines made possible by the proposed scheme.

The need for a new line is necessitated by Eskom‟s obligation to meet the

consumers‟ need for electrical power, as stipulated in the Eskom‟s forward

planning, see Appendix J. Therefore this research conforms to the following

criteria:

Analysis of the existing network capability

Identification and evaluation of alternatives

Financial evaluation

An alternative to building a new line is the small scale compensated model, as

discussed previously in this research. However the new line construction was

initially considered to be a solution for the Albany-Wesley line and this is how the

aspects of the new line construction are presented. Based on Gonen (2009) the

traditional transmission system planning techniques; the starting point of the

procedure is to develop load forecast in terms of annual peak demands for the

entire system. In the logic diagram for transmission expansion, the main

objective is to identify potential problems, in terms of unacceptable voltage

conditions, overloading of facilities, decreasing reliability or any failure of the

transmission system to meet performance criteria. After this analysis stage, the

planner develops alternative plans or scenarios that will not only present the

foreseen problems, but will also best meet the long–term objectives of the

system reliability and economy. The effectiveness of alternative plans is

determined by loadflow studies under both normal and emergency operations.

7.3.2 NEW LINE DESIGN The following are the key specifications for the anticipated new line which will be

fed from the existing infeed transformer at the Albany substation. Other

considerations that will characterize the new line are the following:

Line length: 92.4 km

Transformer (1no): 5MVA, 66/22kV.

Overhead line: 3phase

Latitude: Inland

Line name: Albany- Wesley

Towns located close to Grahamstown and East London, for resources

for example; cement and readymix

140

Conductors

ACSR (Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced ACSR).

Data communication and Protection

Earth wire which prevents a flash over from lightening

OPGW-Optical ground wire which can be used as an earthwire, and can also

be used as a telecommunication cable, it is also good for protection, with

communication between the substations.

7.3.2.1 STRUCTURE DESIGN: POLE SELECTION

In general the basic structure configuration selected depends on many

interrelated factors including aesthetic considerations, economics and practice,

line profile, right of way restriction, preferred materials and construction

techniques. After proper consideration of voltage drop, power loss, thermal

overloading and other considerations, the design of a transmission line simply

becomes the adaptation of the available standard designs which best fit the

requirements of a particular job at hand (Gonen, 2009).

7.3.2.2 TRANSMISSION ORIENTATION

This relates to position of transmission cables and supporting towers relative to

the power source and load substation as seen in Figs 7.2a, 7.2b, 7.2c and 7.2d.

141

Figure 7.2a: SELF SUPPORTING TOWER LEG ORIENTATION

Figure 7.2b: CONDUCTOR PHASING- SINGLE ACSR

1, 2&3 are phases

Figure 7.2c: OPGW

Figure 7.2d: EARTH WIRE

7.3.2.3 TOWERS AND LEG QUANTITIES

The type of towers chosen will determine the height and base size and hence the

steel weight that should be ordered. Also the tower type will determine the pole

span and chainage. Therefore, it has been established that the suitable tower

type for the new line is Type 515E, 500 pcs and the fittings summary is

documented in appendix K.

7.3.2.3 TOWERS AND LEG QUANTITIES

The type of towers chosen will determine the height and base size and hence the

steel weight that should be ordered. Also the tower type will determine the pole

span and chainage. Therefore, it has been established that the suitable tower

142

type for the new line is Type 515E, 500 pcs and the fittings summary is

documented in appendix K.

7.4 VIABILITY OF NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION

It is known that a large number of electrical supply authorities in the Republic of

South Africa and abroad use the current flowing in the conductor as the deciding

factor when operating a system. Atmospheric conditions are considered

constant for any time of the day. Against this background the new line is

expected to meet the consumers‟ demands at a reliable and quality voltage

within the normal atmospheric and operational designed temperatures of the

transmission line and the associated equipment. Normally the cable reactance is

relatively very low when the cross sectional area of a cable is large. Also when

the transmission distance is long, the reactive voltage drop can be substantial

and this phenomenon will not be different for the proposed new line.

7.4.1 SIMULATION OF THE NEW LINE

As an alternative to small scale compensation, so as to alleviate the voltage drop

and reduce the thermal loading at the substations, facing the Albany-Wesley

transmission line, it was suggested, to look into the possibility of building a new

line to feed the Wesley substation.

PLAN AND OBJECTIVE

A new diagram was drawn on the Digsilent as seen in Figure 7.3 and thereafter

simulations were done to determine the system performance.

7.4.2 SYSTEM SIMULATION PROCEDURE

After creating a new line to feed Wesley substation the system will be loaded at

100%. No compensation will be applied for this option. The system was loaded to

100% its designed load, at 0.95 power factor lagging. Observations were done at

the Fishriver substation terminal voltage and the Wesley transformer loading.

143

Figure 7.3: SYSTEM LOAD FLOW INCLUDING NEW LINE

PowerFactory 13.2.338

NEW LINE OPTION

UNCOMPENSATED @ 0.95PF

Project:

Graphic: FISHRIVER

Date: 11/10/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes

Line-Line Voltage, Magnitude [kV]

Voltage, Magnitude [p.u.]

Voltage, Angle [deg]

Branches

Active Power [MW]

Reactive Power [Mvar]

Loading [%]

COM11TR

2.3

80

.87

10

6.9

9

-2.3

8-0

.78

10

6.9

9

WESTR

4.7

51

.99

13

8.0

9

-4.7

5-1

.70

13

8.0

9

NEW LINE

6.4

42

.40

68

.63

-4.7

5-1

.99

68

.63

V~

AL

BA

NY

69

.52

25

.56

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

M11

LD

2.3

80

.78

CO

M22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DL

D

9.5

03

.12

Ge

nera

l L

oad

4.7

51

.56

FISHTR2

2.3

70

.85

69

.04

-2.3

7-0

.78

69

.04

FISHTR1

2.3

70

.85

69

.04

-2.3

7-0

.78

69

.04

PEDTR

9.5

03

.52

11

4.4

7

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

4.4

7

BRK-PED

9.9

33

.76

45

.72

-9.5

0-3

.52

45

.72

COM-BRK

10

.08

3.9

23

5.1

4

-9.9

3-3

.76

35

.14

ALB-COM1

7.9

57

.30

59

.76

-17

.21

-6.5

25

9.7

6

COMM22TR

4.7

51

.73

10

6.9

9

-4.7

5-1

.56

10

6.9

9

ALBTR2

34

.76

12

.78

46

.29

-34

.76

-12

.27

46

.29

ALBTR1

34

.76

12

.78

46

.29

-34

.76

-12

.27

46

.29

69

.52

24

.53

0.0

0

69

.52

25

.56

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

1/W

ES

HV

49

.23

0.7

51

.55

Station10/PEDDIELV

19

.22

0.8

7-5

.20

Sta

tion9

/WE

SL

V

16

.08

0.7

3-1

.44

Station8/PEDDIEHV

58

.40

0.8

8-3

.08

Station7/COMM11kV

10

.28

0.9

3-3

.99

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.9

70

.72

-2.9

9

Station5/BREAKFASTVLEI

61

.21

0.9

3-2

.66

Station4/COMM22kV

20

.56

0.9

3-3

.99

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITT

EE

S66

62

.38

0.9

5-2

.14

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

16

5.6

9

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

2

65

.69

1.0

0-0

.75

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

144

7.4.2.1 AFTER NEW LINE CONSTRUCTION: SIMULATION ANALYSIS

Figure 7.4 is the voltage response comparison at the busbars, between the small

scale compensated transmission model and the model incorporating the new line

supplying the Wesley substation directly. The great concern is Fishriver busbar

voltage, because an improved regulation at full load demand at this busbar should be

an indication of the viability of the proposed new line. Figure 7.5 below outlines the

load angle response comparison at the busbars between the small scale

compensated transmission model and the new line model supplying the Wesley

substation directly

Figure 7.4: VOLTAGE COMPARISON

OBSERVATION

The new line construction results in load angle response that is between 0 and -5

degrees as opposed to optimised compensated response that attains roughly the

same response at PeddieHV, Committees11kVand 22kV substations, otherwise the

small scale compensated model is more positive. The nominal voltage at the Fishriver

busbar is 0.72 per unit, this is much less when compared to the voltage obtained

during the small scale compensated model.

Figure 7.5: LOAD ANGLE SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED vs NEW LINE MODELS

145

Figure 7.6 is the line loading response comparison between the lines, for example.

small scale compensated transmission model and the new line model supplying the

Wesley substation directly.

Figure 7.6: LINE LOADING SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED vs NEW LINE

7.4.2.2 OBSERVATION ON LINE LOADING

The existing part of the transmission system experiences great relief after

constructing a new line. However the new line is relatively more loaded at about 70%.

As a result of introducing a new line, the loading of Committees-Breakfastvlei line is no

longer equal to Breakfastvlei-Peddie line as was experienced with other simulations.

Figure 7.7: TRANSFORMER LOADING: SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED vs NEW LINE MODELS

Figure 7.7 is the transformer loading response comparison between the small scale

compensated optimised transmission model and the new line supplying the Wesley

substation directly.

Observation:The new line causes the Wesley transformer to be overloaded close

to140%.

146

7.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON NEW LINE The new line model simulations indicate that the Wesley transformer (WESTR)

experiences excessive overloading, and then the terminal voltage at the Fishriver

busbar is far below the minimum regulation when the transmission system delivers full

load. Therefore the conclusion is that construction is not a sustainable solution.

7.6 ECONOMY SURVEY

The following section is the economic survey undertaken in relation to the investment

and financial impact of the optimisation of the power transfer of the Albany-Wesley

transmission system. The alternative option of building another line is presented. This

economic survey cannot be claimed to be exhaustive. However, it sheds light on the

cost difference and outlines the different approaches to budget constraints for

implementation of the chosen project. The prices indicated were correct at the time of

survey at the beginning of 2009. The economy survey consists of identifying local

leading suppliers in SVCs and large series and shunt compensators and then

obtaining prices. The suppliers‟ operations are custom made, for example customers

supply specifications and then place orders. The researcher followed this method

based on the small scale compensated optimised model and the prices are presented

in section 7.6.3. For the construction of a new line a template for bill of material is

presented.

7.6.1 ECONOMIC CONCERNS FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PLANNING There are several traditional economic factors that will still have significant effects on

the transmission system planning of the future, these are:

Inflation fuelled by energy shortage

Increasing expense of acquiring capital

Increasing difficulties linked to customer-related rate increases.

According to Gonen(2009).It is inevitable that, the transmission systems will become

more expensive to build, expand and modify. The researcher is aware of diverse

factors that have been affecting the world‟s economy since the beginning of the

research. Some diverse factors include inflation, recession and material costs have

soared beyond any projections or forecasts made at any time. Despite this, the

researcher believes that the prices have changed proportionally and hence the

difference between the two projects namely small scale compensation and new line

construction prevails, in terms of financial investment. Therefore one project remains a

147

cheaper option than the other. However, experience has shown that properly applied

capacitors return their investment very quickly. Capacitors save significant amounts of

money in reduced loadings and their extra capability can also delay building more

distribution infrastructure. (Short, 2006)

7.6.2 LEADING COMPANIES FOR SCVs AND LARGE SERIES REACTIVE POWER

COMPENSATION. Westingcorp Capacitors (Pretoria) is a local company that designs, manufactures

and tests high voltage capacitor in accordance with an international organization,

known for its quality standards, its trademark is ISO 9001. Westingcorp is the sole

manufacturer of high voltage power capacitors in South Africa and operates the only

high voltage capacitor test facility on the African continent. (EE publishers, 2010),

ABB is a leading supplier of different types of capacitors in South Africa as shown in

appendix L. An enquiry was made to ABB for a price list of their products, it was

established that ABB has no catalogues and, their products are custom designed.

Other companies are:

Siemens

GE

Areva (formerly Alstom T & D).

In order to obtain any prices ABB, the following information was required:

System single line diagrams and Proper functional specifications.

For the sake of this project, based on early 2009 costs, excluding VAT, taxes, duties,

transport and Installation, the budget prices not valid for purposes of sale are as

shown in Table 7.1. Budget prices and Table 7.2 are purchasing cost for

compensation equipment.

7.6.3 NEW LINE BILL OF MATERIALS

Up to the end of October 2008. Depending on the electrical consultant approached. To

build a new line, in the Eastern Cape rural area. The estimate per kilometre for:

supplied, installed and commissioned cost of building a new line ranged between

R150000.00 (One hundred and fifty thousand rand) to R250000.00 (Two hundred and

fifty thousand rand) per km as shown in Table 7.3.

148

Table 7.1: Compensation equipment budget prices

CAPACITIVE SHUNT COMPENSATOR

BASIC PRICE PRICE PER INSTALLED KVAr

Single step plain

capacitor bank

R200,000.00 R100.00

Single step detuned capacitor bank

R200,000.00 R150.00

Multistep plain/detuned capacitor

R200,000.00 (For each additional step)

Nil

Harmonic filter bank R200,000.00 (For each additional step)

Nil

SVC R200,000.00 R 250.00

STATCOM R200,000.00 R 1400.00

UPF R200,000.00 R 3500.00

22 kV, 2.25 Mvar shunt capacitor bank

R370,000.00

Nil

. 22 kV, 5.5Mvar

shunt reactor

R550, 000.00

Nil

66 kV, 415 ohm, 220 A

series capacitor bank with controller

R25, 000,000.00

Nil

Table 7.2: Total purchasing cost of the compensation project

SUB STATION SPECIFICATION QUANTITY

PRICE PER UNIT

COMMITTES 11kV 11 kV, 1 Mvar shunt capacitor bank

1

R270,000.00

COMMITTES 22kV 22 kV, 2.25 Mvar shunt capacitor bank

1

R370,000.00

PEDDIE HV 66kV, 5.5Mvar shunt reactor

1

R550, 000.00

PEDDIE HV 66 kV, 415 ohm, 220 A series capacitor bank with controller

1

R25, 000,000.00

Sub Total R25, 290,000.00

The sub total excludes VAT, taxes, duties, transport and Installation as previously stated.

Table 7.3: New line cost

COST PER km(RANDS) 250000.00

LINE LENGTH(km) 92.4

TOTAL(RANDS) 23100000.00

The cost as by September 2008

149

7.6.4 ADDITIONAL COSTS The additional costs involved in building a new line are inevitable and will vary both

with the capacity of the line and the increase in the line voltage. The anticipated costs

that could not be quantified in this research are:

Reinstatement: This is a cost that will have to be used to compensate for privately

owned agricultural fields or woodland in order to obtain a route for the overhead line.

Tree cutting: Tree felling and lopping will be required in order to clear a passage for

the proposed new line.

7.6.5 MANPOWER AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT COSTS. The manpower and project management costs include manpower remuneration;

nevertheless it is worth noting that completion of the project in time is the only way to

avoid soaring costs of line construction, therefore in order to achieve this it is important

to meet the deadline set for:

Access Road construction

Bush Cleaning

Tower peg

Soil excavation

Peg reinforcing

Concrete

Backfill

Tower delivery

Tower assembly

Tower erection

Line stringing and regulation

Anti-climbing and

Handover

7.7 CONTIGENCY PLANS

The immediate reaction, for any transmission system compensators failure, is

loadshedding. Thus eventually reduce the load on the system, such that only the

essential loads are supplied. Loadshedding will entail: taking the capacitors out of

service, by disconnecting the shunt from the system or by-passing the series

capacitor. The optimised small scale compensated model presented, has been made

150

possible by a combination of shunt and series reactive power. Next in 7.7.1 the unique

features that underlie the performances of shunt or series capacitors will be discussed.

7.7.1 SHUNT CAPACITORS A shunt capacitor is a single capacitor unit or, it is more frequently referred to as a

bank of capacitor units connected in shunt to a power system for the purpose of

producing reactive power. Outstanding features of shunt capacitors are their low

overall cost and their high application flexibility. However, during major outages and

disturbances their support is limited, because the reactive power output is proportional

to the voltage squared. Nevertheless a proper mix with other reactive power sources

can result in extensive use of shunt capacitors.

7.7.2 SERIES CAPACITOR

A series capacitor is essentially the reactance compensation device that greatly

influences the reactive power conditions of the systems where they are installed. The

reactive power in a series capacitor is proportional to the current squared. For

example it increases with increasing transmitted power and thus influences the

reactive power balance of the system. Series compensation reduces transmission

reactance at power frequency and increases the power transmission capability of an

existing transmission lines. These benefits include:

An improvement in system stability.

Improvement of voltage regulation and reactive power balance.

In many cases, a reduction in transmission losses.

Series compensation can be used in power systems for power flow control in the

steady state. The series capacitors are rated for operation during normal, steady-state

grid conditions as well as for severe system contingencies. Similarly, series

compensation may be used as a means for adapting the loadability of certain critical

lines that would risk being operated with too large an angle separation or amplitude

deviations during contingencies. This kind of application often requires a substantial

rating of the controllable inserted reactance but does not require very high speed

control.

7.8 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH COMPENSATORS

Consideration in this section was given to the problems associated with the capacitors.

This section exposes the nature of problems and the required protection. Hence in

151

cases of contingency, troubleshooting and faultfinding should reduce down-time so

that full load power may be restored quickly.

7.8.1 HARMONICS

Capacitors and „tuned capacitors' or 'filters' are generally overloaded by harmonic

components. This must be considered during the planning and designing of shunt

capacitor installations. In many cases, shunt capacitors are arranged for both

functions: reactive power production at fundamental frequency and filtering of

harmonic currents. Excessive harmonic distortion is caused by resonance between

capacitors and inductive supply.

7.8.1.1 EFFECTS OF HARMONICS

Increase the RMS and modify the peak value of the distorted waveform. (In case of medium and high voltage capacitors)

This increase in RMS value is what leads to the increase heating of electrical

equipment. (in case low-voltage capacitor and fitter reactors)

Circuit breaker may trip due to higher thermal or instantaneous higher current level.

Fuses may blow.

Power factor correction maybe damaged.

And motor Iron & winding losses increase.

It is worth noting that a TSC does not produce harmonic currents, but a TCR does

(Hingoran, 2000). All SVCs with continuous reactive power control include one TCR or

more and they do produce harmonic currents. For the sake of the model presented

harmonics can be avoided, by employing one of the methods. The harmonics of zero-

sequence character (3rd, 9th and others.) are eliminated by some delta connection. The

5th and 7th harmonics are in some cases eliminated by 12-pulse arrangement.

Moreover, the harmonics are reduced by using the TSC/TCR scheme and by splitting

up the SVC in steps and as a last resort a filter is included.

7.8.1.2 HARMONICS OVERLOADING AND PROTECTION

Impedance of a capacitor is inversely proportional to frequency, the lower order

harmonic currents (3rd, 5th and others) result in higher order harmonics (11th, 23rd

and others). Protection against harmonic overloading must take into account both

voltage and current. The overload tripping must happen if the capacity bank is likely to

suffer permanent damage. Nearly all practical conditions require inverse-time

protection, based on peak voltage. Clearly the maximum equivalent current at higher

152

resonance frequencies cannot be ignored, particularly when capacitors are in circuit.

Parallel connected capacitor banks produce different harmonic resonance frequency.

The lowest resonance frequency corresponds to the maximum number of capacitor in

circuit and vice versa for the highest resonance frequency. Therefore when one group

of banks is tripped the resonance frequency will increase, thereby reducing harmonic

overloading.

7.8.2 SUB SYNCHRONOUS RESONANCE

Sub synchronous resonance or super synchronous resonance (SSR) is a

phenomenon which can be associated with series compensation under certain

adverse conditions. In a series compensated grid the SSR mitigation within a certain

critical frequency band is achieved by means of the controlled inductor in parallel with

the capacitor.

7.8.3 OTHER CAPACITOR PROBLEMS Several problems contribute to the overall reliability or unreliability of capacitor banks.

These problems are mostly blown fuse and failed oil switch or hardware accidentally

set at local or manual, defective capacitor unit and control power transformer. A

number of problems can lead to a capacitor failure. Reported problems that have been

encountered are:

Multi-phase fault (instantaneous over current)

Earth fault (zero sequence current)

Capacitor element/fuse failure (unbalance)

Transient in rush current causing overcurrent trips or earth fault trips due to current

transformer saturation

Unbalanced harmonies causing tripping of lines or unbalanced relays.

Therefore, a capacitor protection system must prevent the tripping of transformer

caused by faults as described in the last bullet point above, applicable to normal 50Hz

supply. The protection must also provide suitable 'grading' between adjacent

capacitors to minimize the amount of capacitance removed from the system in event

of an overload trip. The protection must control harmonic voltage distortion associated

with the power system. Therefore, based on findings, here are some suggested key

areas for protection.

153

7.8.3.1 FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY LOADING AND PROTECTION

Capacitors have fixed impedances unlike motors and transformers which have

variable equivalent "output impedances" therefore:

Capacitors cannot be overloaded by fundamental frequency (50Hz) components,

except in the unlikely event of excessive supply voltage (110% of normal)

Capacitor experiences excessive fundamental current only after the occurrence of a

fault. A fault of 50Hz overcurrent and unbalance protection require instantaneous or

definite time proportions, as they indicate an existing fault.

7.8.4 SERIES CAPACITOR SCHEME

For proper functioning, series compensation requires control, protection and

supervision facilities to enable it to perform as an integrated part of any power system.

Also, since the series capacitor is working at the same voltage level as the rest of the

system, it needs to be fully insulated to ground. The main protective device is a

varistor, usually of ZnO varistors type to bypass system and circuit-breakers. The first

protective measure is to limit the voltage across the capacitor and is supplemented by

a forced-triggered spark gap to handle excess current during a fault sequence. The

circuit-breakers which connect and disconnect are also needed to extinguish the spark

gap which is not self-extinguishing and the spark gap is utilized in many cases as

back-up protection.

7.9 CONCLUSION ON CHAPTER SEVEN

Chapter seven discussed the relevance of the small scale compensated model, as

intended to mitigate the power transfer constraints on the transmission system. The

constraints include: voltage and thermal limits. Alternatively construction of new line

was expounded as a solution on the Albany-Wesley transmission line. Economic

survey was carried out in relation to the two approaches that is: upgrading with small

scale compensation and building a new line. This economic survey will highlight the

difference involved in terms of capital investment. The contingency plan takes into

account that the Albany-Wesley line meets the necessary protection measures as

required by Eskom so the contingency highlights the basic compensators protection

schemes. The capacitor protection should be incorporated so as to avoid blackout,

and should circumstances arise, capacitors should be easily taken out of operation in

the system and then run the transmission at a reduced load.

154

CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 INTRODUCTION The research has identified that the Eskom‟s Eastern Cape Albany-Wesley 66/22kV

voltage drop is an indication of imbalance between the generated and consumed

reactive power in the transmission system. The thermal loading, voltage and other

operating constraints affect the system‟s capability to transmit power. Loadflow

solutions, as obtained from the DigSilent program, have enabled the researcher to

identify the constraints and come up with mitigation in terms of reactive compensation.

The suggested transmission model envisages transmitting the full load designed within

the thermal and voltage limits. The researcher has disseminated the small scale

compensated model at different forums as an alternative idea in the constantly rising

global power demand to optimise a power system under stressed conditions. An

article from this research was published in EE Publishers (Pty) Ltd, with head office in

Krugersdorp, Gauteng, South Africa. The Energize Editor commented on the article as

follows: “… the topic is of interest to our readership base and it stimulates discussions

on current issues in the field of knowledge….” September 2010. In addition the article

seen, in Appendix N, was presented at the IEEE Africon 2011 in Livingstone, Zambia.

8.1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Over time, it has become clear that the maximum safe operating capacity of a

transmission system is often based on voltage and angular stability rather than on its

physical limitations. So rather than constructing new lines, power utili ties tend towards

the development of technologies or devices that increase transmission network

capacity while maintaining or even improving grid stability. It is felt that this research

has clearly proved these contentions by demonstrating in the foregoing simulations

and subsequent analysis on the uncompensated, large scale and small scale

compensated models, and finally on the simulation and analysis of the model

incorporating a new line. A thorough comparison of the key electrical power

transmission parameters namely, voltage and voltage angle and line and transformer

loading were discussed.

8.1.1.1 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED CAPACITORS

The following are the specifications for each capacitor in the small scale compensated

model:

COMM11-Shunt for Committees 11kV substations= 1MVAr, 11kV

155

COMM22-Shunt for Committees 22kV substations= 2. MVAr,kv

BRK-PEDCAP the series capacitor =0.2kA, B=0.0055 S.

PDEHV –shunt for Peddie substation=4.85MVAr, 22 kV.

8.1.2 LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS The analysis considers the comparison between the small scale compensated, large

scale compensated, uncompensated and new line transmission models. The table

shows the full load demand at the different substations at 0.95 power factor lagging.

Based on load flow textual reports, in Chapters 4 and 5, below, Table 8.1 are the

power results, then Table 8.2 captures information about line losses and Table 8.3 is

the ideal Maximum peak demand for the Optimized small scale compensated model.

In the discussion the uncompensated transmission model is compared with the new

line. In both models the transmission system could not meet the designed full load

within acceptable voltage regulation. Thereafter the large scale compensated model is

compared with the small scale compensated model.

Table 8.1 shows the breakdown of power flow for the connected loads. The new line

transmission model shows a slight decrease compared to the uncompensated model

of the infeed active power, the same applies to infeed reactive power.

Table 8.1: Loads

SUBSTATION SMALL SCALE

COMPENSATED UNCOMPENSATED LARGE SCALE

COMPENSATED NEW LINE

ALBANY (Sending end)

69.85 MW 17.19 MVAr

70.97 MW 26.20 MVAr

75.45 MW 12.70 MVAr

69.52 MW 25.56 MVAr

GRAHAMSTOWN66 45.13 MW 14.83MVAr

45.13 MW 14.83 MVAr

45.3 MW 14.83 MVAr

45.13 MW 14.83 MVAr

COMMITTEES11KV 2.38 MW 0.78 MVAr

2.37 MW 0.78 MVAr

2.38 MW 0.78 MVAr

2.38 MW 0.78 MVAr

COMMITTEES22Kv 4.75 MW 1.56 MVAr

4.75 MW 1.56 MVAr

4.75 MW 1.74 MVAr

4.75 1.56 MVAr

PEDDIE LV 9.5 MW 3.12 MVAr

9.5 MW 3.12 MVAr

9.5 MW 3.12 MVAr

9.5 MW 3.12 MVAr

FISHRIVER (Receiving end)

4.75 MW 1.54MVAr

4.75 MW 1.56 MVAr

4.75 MW 1.56 MVAR

4.75 MW 1.56 MVAr

The small scale compensated model compared to the large scale compensated

transmission model at the sending end, the infeed real power is reduced while the

reactive power increases. At the receiving end, the active power remains constant

156

while the active power increases. This increase in reactive power supports and

maintains a reliable voltage to the consumers. Apart from the sending and receiving

ends power flow, on other substations (loads) the active powers remain unchanged in

both simulations. For the uncompensated and large scale compensated transmission

model, the same (reliable voltage) cannot be said, though the active power remains

unchanged. For the small scale compensated transmission model there is an overall

increase of reactive power at the following busbars; Grahamstown (Albany 66 kV),

Committees11kV, Committees 22kV as well as the receiving end, the Fishriver

substation. At the sending end (infeed), the large scale compensation results in more

than half reduction of reactive power, and there is 6.3% increase in active power of the

uncompensated transmission model. The new line infeed active and reactive powers

are comparable to the uncompensated transmission model.

Table 8.2: Line losses

LINE NAME SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED (kW)

UNCOMPENSATED (kW)

L ARGE SCALE COMPENSATED (kW)

NEW LINE (kW)

ALBANY- COMMITTEES (ALB-COM)

1180.06 1574.44 1825.91 741.22

COMMITTEES- BREAKFASTVLEI(COM-BRK)

682.10 950.96 1349.01 154.73

BRAKFASTVLEI- PEDDIE ( BRK-PED)

952.28 1327.64 1883.35 428.80

PEDDIE- WESLEY (PED-WES) or NEW LINE

297.51 615.97 3884.92 1689.71

TOTAL 3110 4.469 8943.19 3014.46

Table 8.2 outlines and compares the lines losses under the three mentioned scenarios

(uncompensated, large and small scale compensated transmission models) together

with the new line model at 0.95 power factor. From the table it is apparent that the total

line losses, for the small scale compensated transmission model is 3110 kW,

compared to the large scale compensation loss of 8943.19 kW. The uncompensated

model shows a total loss of 4469kW, while the total loss for the new line model is only

3014.46kW. The large scale compensated transmission model, where the

compensator is connected at the Fishriver Substation which is fed by the PED-WES

line, this is the scenario with the highest total loss of the transmission system. The

PED-WES line losses rose to 3884.92kW which is more than six times (600%) of the

uncompensated loading, while the increase in the losses on the ALB-COM line is 16%.

The small scale compensated transmission model is characterized by the lowest total

157

line losses as well as the lowest individual line losses of the three scenarios with PED-

WES and ALB-COM lines reduced from the uncompensated model by 23% and 47%

respectively. In all the above line losses, the amount and location of reactive power

injected into the system plays a large role and hence determines the outcome in terms

of meeting consumers‟ demand and voltage supply reliability.

8.1.3 REACTIVE POWER GENERATED SVCs are installed to perform dynamic voltage stabilization by reducing the voltage

variation and improving the power transfer, it also helps in system synchronous

stability by improving transient stability and power system damping as well as

providing steady-state voltage support. The SVC‟s operating range is determined by

the impedances of the reactors, and power transformer. At the same time capacitors

are generally utilized to optimise overall power system operation in respect of

maximum demand (MD) control and/or power flow. The unavailability of capacitors

results in major penalties in MD charges and is often also associated with

unacceptable thermal loading of transformers, cables and switch gears, coupled to

higher voltage drops and unacceptable voltage regulation. Fixed and switched

capacitor banks offer economical voltage regulation for changing system conditions.

Shunt capacitors are recommended whenever VAr support is needed anywhere in the

power system to reduce generator VAr requirements and release generation capacity.

The capacitors used for small scale compensated models generated the following

powers:

SERIES CAPACITOR= -14.55MW-j10.69MVAr

PEDLV-RL SHUNT= 0MW+j5.43MVAr

COMM11SHUNT= 0MW-j0.9MVAr

COMM22SHUNT= 0MW-j1.81MVAr

The above generated reactive power has been essential in supporting transmission

voltage, reducing line losses, and relieving the loading on the line and transformers

and thus reducing the thermal loading.

8.2 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATED TRANSMISSION MODEL ADVANTAGES

The capacitor type, rating and location are essential criteria that establish the

differences between large and small scale compensation. The small scale

compensated transmission model aims to control a number of parameters within a

transmission system simultaneously, by using carefully selected low rated capacitors

located at strategic locations. The small scale compensated transmission model differs

158

from the large scale compensated transmission, which normally aims to control one

parameter of the transmission system, and whose compensator is normally located at

the sending or receiving end of its transmission system. The results obtained after

simulations produced some distinct trends in the transformer loading, line loading,

voltage (load) angle and voltage response that characterized the large and small scale

compensation. The small scale compensation as observed displayed a reliable voltage

supply, safe transformer and line loading and overall reduced line losses. The voltage

profile in the small scale compensated model consistently remained within the

prescribed voltage regulation throughout the transmission system; while the voltage

response on the large scale compensated model the terminal voltage would improve

at the busbar where the compensator was connected. Other gains achieved with the

small scale compensation include:

Reduced total losses

Reduced infeed current

Reduced infeed reactive power

Increased Reactive power at the distribution loads 22kV and 11kV loads.

Referring to the following:

Selection criteria in Table 3.5 on page 55

Peak demand record in Table 4.1 on page 67, and

Models performance comparison in Table 5.1 on page 121.

The Albany-Wesley transmission system has been optimised as seen in Table 8.3

Table 8.3: OPTIMISED MODEL

Substation Feeder OPTIMISED

Peak Demand (MVA)

Committees 7.5

Wesley Wesley - Peddie 5

Peddie 10

From Table 8.3 the substation can deliver more power than before optimisation as

following: Committees 7.5 MVA instead of 1.8 MVA, Wesley 5 MVA instead of

3.1MVA and Peddie 10 MVA instead of 6.5 MVA. As for the new line voltage the

receiving end voltage remains below the prescribed voltage regulation because of the

voltage drop on the lines as is the case with the uncompensated transmission model.

159

8.3 ECONOMY SURVEY

Owing to rapid load growth on the Albany-Wesley line, the need of additional capacity

must be met, by upgrading the line with small scale compensation.

In this connection reference is made to Appendix L.1. As noted form the economy

survey, delivery of electric power to consumers is a capital-intensive business and

based on the Eskom holistic approach in planning process namely the:

NMP- Network master planning, long term based on geospatial techniques around 20

years, and the

NDP- Network development planning, short term actual registered needs up to 5

years.

The small scale compensation can be fitted into Eskom‟s capital plan and financial

evaluation by refining and phasing the capital cost. Acquisition costs of capacitors are

discussed in section 7.5.1 and new line construction costs are outlined in section

7.5.2.The construction of new line is certainly the cheaper option than the cost of

introducing small scale compensation into the system, but by all accounts such

construction would not meet the power demand that could adequately be met by the

small scale compensated system.

8.4 SELECTION AND WAY FORWARD

For various reasons electricity grid upgrades, and especially the construction of new

transmission lines, cannot keep pace with the growing power plant capacity and

energy demand. But this idea comes with certain challenges such as:

Finding suitable right-of-ways

Gaining the necessary approval is more time-consuming than ever.

Power line construction ties up investment capital that could be used for other

projects.

Owing to the present realities outlined in this dissertation it is emphasized that gains

are to be realized in the compensation models. The researcher‟s strongly-held view is

to select that the upgrade of the ESKOM‟S Albany-Wesley 66/22KV transmission

system should be carried by installing small scale compensation and utilizing the

existing power lines, electrical and physical designs.

160

8.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

Optimised electrical power transmission can only be achieved after careful

planning based on the load flow (power flow) solutions. Investigation must be

carried out in order to keep the voltage regulation within standard values. Also the

line and transformer loading must be kept within a level less than the designed full

load, the smaller reactive power compensators can be used to achieve this.

The small scale compensation specifications adopted in this research should be

the maximum required, because the transmission generates enough reactive

power after compensation, then further voltage and loading adjustments can be

carried out by transformer tapping adjustment.

As shown in this dissertation small scale compensation has successfully remedied

all transmission constraints, voltage regulation, line and transformer loading, and

ultimately the compensation has improved the power transmission capacity within

its physical design.

The small scale compensation is an intensive capital investment and requires long

term planning. It is suggested that this project should be undertaken as a network

master planning (NMP) project.

A financial analysis must be undertaken to confirm that the capital invested in the

project will yet meet the cash flow and net income requirements.

The constraints that prevent the existing transmission system from delivering the

designed full load can be overcome. It is therefore recommended that building a

new transmission system should the last option.

8.6 GENERIC APPLICATION In this research a problem with the Albany-Wesley 66/22kV transmission line has

been solved and the system can safely deliver the maximum designed power.

Following underneath are some of the key ideas that can be applicable into any

electrical power transmission.

8.6.1 LOADFLOW Load flow analysis is the most popular analysis tool used by planning and

operation, also it can be used for development of control strategies also it

embraces a large area of calculations, from calculating the voltage profiles and

power flows transmission system and energy management. The DigSilent program

was used in this research to adequately describe and place appropriately–sized

161

capacitors in the transmission, therefore loadflow should be basic tool in


8.6.2 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION NOT NEW INSTALLATION

For medium and long transmission lines, the designed electrical power must be

delivered so as to meet the consumers‟ demand, if not, building another line should

not be an option, rather small scale compensation should be applied and the

choice of compensator‟ locations and ratings should be guided by mitigating

different constraints in the transmission system.

8.6.3 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM UPGRADE. As recommended by different utilities, it should be mandatory to evaluate how the

utilities are meeting the power demand from the consumers and hence institute

regular upgrade of the transmission systems.

8.7 RESEARCH LIMITATION AND SHORTCOMINGS

With the successful completion of this research, certainly not all the possible ideas

were incorporated, the researcher believes that issues mentioned below can or

cannot have an impact on the optimised small scale compensated model.

8.7.1 HIGH INVESTMENT CAPITAL As seen from the economy survey, the capital investment in small scale

compensation is relatively higher than building a new line. However in the light of

the unavoidable constraints in the transmission system the researcher is of the

view that the cost of small scale compensation is justifiable in terms of efficient

transmission system operation.

8.7.2 PARALLELING TRANSFORMERS The simplistic approach to solve thermal overloading at the transformer feeding the

receiving end (Wesley transformer), would be to add a parallel transformer, the

researcher is of the opinion that this will not be a long term solution to the inability

to transmit the full load designed power, because even after paralleling, the under

voltage and negative load angle will remain.

8.7.3 COMPENSATORS CONTROL In this research the compensators (capacitors) models were considered to have in

built protection as discussed in the contingency section, these capacitors were

162

considered to be connected permanently in the transmission system and switched

on by means of a circuit breaker. The researcher‟s view is that there should have

been a way to automatically by-pass or connect the compensators in the system

whenever need arises.

8.7.4 LOADS LESS THAN A FULL LOAD.

All the simulations in research were carried out at full load; however the reality is

that this is not always. Consideration was not done at other loading levels of power

transmission. However there is no doubt on the researcher‟s side that provided the

full load is effectively transmitted, then any load transmitted below the full load will

not cause any problem to the transmission system.

8.8 RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Bearing in mind on constant technological changes, the following are

recommendations for further research that can directly improve the application of

the small scale compensated transmission.

8.8.1 CAPITAL REVENUE As seen the capital investment for the small scale compensation is relatively high.

Research is needed in order to establish how quickly the capital revenue can be

quickly realized so that the investment can make business, bearing in mind of the

current applicable tariffs and the public income.

8.8.2 INTELLIGENT CONTROL

These capacitors are designed to be switched on by means of a circuit breaker

More recently gate turn-off thyristors and other power semiconductors with internal

turn-off capability have been used in switching converter circuits to generate and

absorb reactive power without the use of AC capacitors or reactors.In this research

the opening and closing of the circuit breakers was implemented by circuit

breakers, this requires physical presence of a technician at the substation to

constantly monitor the power demand from the transmission system. Research

should be done for the intelligent supervisory system to monitor the thermal loading

on the transmission system and switch on or off the compensators as need arises

and reduce the human factor in the optimization of power transfer.

163

REFERENCES

[1].Acha, E. et al. (2005). FACTS Modelling and Simulation in Power Networks.

Chippenham, Wiltshire: Antony Rowe LTD .

[2].Anderson, E. M. (1985). Electric Transmission line Fundamentals . Reston

Virginia: Reston Publishing Inc.

[3].Anderson, P. (1999). Power system protection . New York: McGraw-Hill.

[4].ArrilagaJ, L. &. (2007). Flexible Power Transmission ,thr HVDC option. West

Sussex PO19 85Q,England: John Wiley &Sons LTD.

[5].Arrillaga, e. A. (1983). Computer modeling of electrical power systems. New York:

John Wiley& sons.

[6].Baggini, A. (2008). Handbook of Power Quality. The atrium,Southern Gate

Chichester,West Sussex, PO198SQ England : Wiley & Sons LTD.

[7].Barstead, J. (July,1995). Voltage drop compensation. Vector Electrical

Engineering, p16-18.

[8].Barstead, J. (May,1994). Voltage drop compensation on distribution line. Vector

Electrical Engineering, p18-22.

[9].Bosela, T. (1997). INTRODUCTION to electrical power system technology. Ohio:

Prentice Hall.

[10].Braun, K. R. (April 2007). The world's biggest FACTS project with series

compensation. Energize, p36-39.

[11].Carruthers, R. (1987). Planning Overhead Power line Routes. Yarmouth,UK:

Research Studies Press LTD.

[12].Chow, e. A. (1995). Systems and Control theory for power systems. New York:

Springer.

[13].Das, J. (2002). Power Syatem Analysis Short-circuit Load flow and Harmonics,

1st Edition. New York: Marcel Dekker inc.

[14].Dwight, H. (1925). Transmission Line Formulas. New York: Van Nostrand

Company .

[15].El-Hawary, M. (1982). Electrical Power System Design and Analysis 1st Edition.

Halifax: Reston Publishing Co.

[16].ESKOM. (2008). Maximum demand. Eastern Cape: Eskom.

[17].Fetea, R. &. (2000). Reactive power: a strange concept? Retrieved January 30,

2007, from Physics Teaching and Engineering Education:

http://www.bme.hu/ptee2000/papers /fetea.pdf

164

[18].Gibbs, P. (Oct/Nov,2003). Specifying an inductor-a cautionary tale. IET Power

Engineer, p38-39.

[19].Glover, J. S. (1987). Power System Analysis and Design, 1st Edition . Boston

Massachussetts: PWS Publishers.

[20].GmbH, D. (2008). Filter/Shunt. DigSILENT Technical Documentation.

[21].GonenT. (2009). Electrical Power Transmission System Engineering Analysis

and Design 2nd Edition. Boca Raton : CRC Press.

[22].Guile, A. P. (1977). Electrical Power Systems Vol 1 2nd Edition. Oxford:

Permagon Press.

[23].Hanson, D. W. (June,2002). STATCOM: a new era of reactive compensation .

IET Power Engineer , p151-160.

[24].Hingoran, N. G. (2000). Understanding FACTS, Concepts and Technology of

Flexible AC Transmission Systems, 1st Edition . New York: IEEE Press book.

[25].IEEE. (n.d.). Constraints on the transmission lines.2006. Retrieved April 5, 2006,

from IEEE Website:

http://www.eia.doc.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/feat_trans_capacity/w_sale.html

[26].Information, U. E. (2011, February 11). US Energy Information . Retrieved

February 2011, 2011, from http://www.eia.gov: http://www.eia.gov

[27].Jones, P. (Feb/March 2007). Harder and Smarter. IET Power Engineer, p34-37.

[28].Kersting, W. H. (2007). Distrubution System Modeling and Analysis 2nd Edition .

Boca Raton Florida: CRC Press.

[29].Kusic, G. (2009). Computer-Aided Power Systems Analysis, 2nd Edition . New

York: CRC Press.

[30].Lee, W. (1997). Power Distribution Planning Reference Book. New York: Marcel

Dekker.

[31].LP, S. (1992). Advanced power system analysis and dynamics 3rd Edition. New

Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited.

[32].Matlab& Simulink:Static Var Compensator (Phasor type) . (2005). Retrieved July

28, 2005, from Math Works website:

http://www.mathworks.com/helpdesk/help/toolbox/physmod/powersys/staticvarco

mpensatorphasortype.html

[33].Momoh, J. (2001). Electrical Power System Applications of Optimisation ,1st

Edition. New York: Marcel Dekker.

[34].Momoh, J. (2001). Electrical Power System Applications of Optimisation,1st

Edition. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.

165

[35].Momoh, J. (2009). Electrical Power Systems Applications of Optimisation 2nd

edition . New York: CRC Press.

[36].Morgan, C. (April,2003). Power System Analysis: emerging issues for utilities.

IET Power Engineer , p16-18.

[37].Pansini, A. (2006). Electrical Distribution Engineering 3rd Edition. Boca Raton,

Florida USA: The Fairmont Press Inc.

[38].Pretorius, R. (April,1989). Optimised Protection for Capacitor Banks. Vector

Electrical Engineering , p12-14.

[39].R.Mohan Mathur, R. K. (2002). Thyristor-based FACTS controllers for electrical

transmission Systems . New York: John Wiley & sons Inc.

[40].Schipman, K. (June/July 2007). Active flters can be used for controlling power

quality problems in applications fro ski-lifts to hospitals and banks to ferries . IET

Power Engineer , p30-33.

[41].Sen, K. , (2009). Introduction to FACTS Controllers ,Theory,Modelling and

Applications. New Jersey: IEEE Press, jOHN wILEY & Sons.

[42].Short, T. (2006). Electrical Power Distribution Equipment and Systems. Boca

Raton Florida: CRC Press.

[43].Slabbert, C. (2003). Three phase Load compensator report no

RES/RR/03/21253. Eastern Cape: ESKOM.

[44].Stevens, R. (1985). Optimisation of Overhead Power Transmission Line From a

thermal View point. Eskom.

[45].Stevenson, W. D. (1982). Elements of Power System Analysis 4th Edition.

Singapore: Tien Wah Press.

[46].T, G. (1986). Electrical power distribution system engineering. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book company.

[47].T, G. (2009). Electrical Power Transmission System Engineering Analysis snd

Design, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, New York: CRC Press.

[48].Valasco, J. M. (1997). Computer Analysis of Electric Syatem Transient selected

readings. New Jersey: IEEE.

[49].Von Meier, A. (2006). Electrical Power Systems A Conceptual Introduction .

Hoboken,New Jersey: John wiley & Sons Inc .

[50].Vores, P. G. (2004). IEEE:Optimal power flow as a tool for fault level constrained

network capacity analysis. Retrieved May 2006, from IEEE: IEEE database

[51].Vortex. (n.d.). Vortex:Reactive power . Retrieved April 5, 2006, from Vortex

website: http://www.energyvortex.com/energy dictionary/reactive power_html

166

[52].Wadhwa, C. (1991). Electrical Power Systems 2nd Edition . New Delhi: Wiley

Eastern.

[53].Wadhwa, C. (1994). High Voltage Engineering . New Delhi: New Age

International.

[54].Wood, R. (Dec, 1992). Reduction of KVA demand and associatde system

loading by means of power factor correction:Part 2: Transmission of reactive

power and design of the network. Vector Electrical Engineering , p17-19.

[55].Yome, S. ,. (April, 2004). Comparison of shunt capacitor, SVC and STATCOM in

static voltage stability margin enhancement. International Journal of Electrical

Engineering of Education.

[56].Zhang, X. R. (2006). A grid for tomorrow. IET Power Engineer, p22-27.

167

APPENDIX A.1 UNCOMPENSATED SIMULATION 100% L0ADING AT 0.5 POWER FACTOR

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

39.7

466

.37

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

23

.75

41

.14

CO

MM

11

LD

1.2

52

.16

CO

MM

22

LD

2.5

04

.33

PE

DD

LD

5.0

08

.66

FIS

HLD

2.5

04

.33

COMM11TR

1.25

2.26

114

.79

-1.2

5-2

.16

114

.79

COMM22TR

2.50

4.53

114

.18

-2.5

0-4

.33

114

.18

WESTR

2.50

4.83

149

.76

-2.5

0-4

.50

149

.76

PEDDIETR

-5.0

0-8

.66

13

2.7

2

5.0

09

.18

13

2.7

2

FISH2TR

-1.2

5-2

.16

74.8

8

1.25

2.25

74.8

8

FISH1TR

-1.2

5-2

.16

74.8

8

1.25

2.25

74.8

8

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.66

0.7

63

.36

PED-WES

3.15

4.99

74.4

3

-2.5

0-4

.83

74.4

3

BREAK-PED

9.55

14.9

782

.89

-8.1

5-1

4.17

82.8

9

COMM-BREAK

10.5

615

.54

82.8

9

-9.5

5-1

4.97

82.8

9

ALB-COMM

15.9

924

.10

89.9

0

-14.

31-2

2.33

89.9

0

ALBANY1

19

.87

33

.18

48

.35

-19

.87

-32

.62

48

.35

ALBANY2

19

.87

33

.18

48

.35

-19

.87

-32

.62

48

.35

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.5

80

.87

-0.6

2S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19

.27

0.8

8-0

.61

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56

.49

0.8

62

.13

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

47

.97

0.7

39

.67

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.3

40

.67

7.0

1

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.12

0.6

97

.95

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

52

.00

0.7

94

.79

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

59

.77

0.9

10

.47

39

.74

65

.24

0.0

0

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.18

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.1

80

.99

-0.4

3

39

.74

66

.37

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%] PowerFactory 13.2.338

0.5PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/21/2008

Annex:

DIg

SIL

EN

T

168



0.6PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

46.8

661.8

5

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

28

.50

38

.00

CO

MM

11

LD

1.5

02

.00

CO

MM

22

LD

3.0

04

.00

PE

DD

LD

6.0

08

.00

FIS

HLD

3.0

04

.00

COMM11TR

1.5

02.1

011

4.6

3

-1.5

0-2

.00

11

4.6

3

COMM22TR

3.0

04.2

011

4.0

2

-3.0

0-4

.00

11

4.0

2

WESTR

3.0

04.5

315

2.8

2

-3.0

0-4

.18

15

2.8

2

PEDDIETR

-6.0

0-8

.00

13

3.8

4

6.0

08

.53

13

3.8

4

FISH2TR

-1.5

0-2

.00

76.4

1

1.5

02.0

976.4

1

FISH1TR

-1.5

0-2

.00

76.4

1

1.5

02.0

976.4

1

PED-WES

3.6

74.6

975.9

5

-3.0

0-4

.53

75.9

5

BREAK-PED

11.1

214.0

483.9

6

-9.6

7-1

3.2

283.9

6

COMM-BREAK

12.1

514.6

283.9

6

-11.1

2-1

4.0

483.9

6

ALB-COMM

18.3

622.7

290.7

1

-16.6

5-2

0.9

290.7

1

ALBANY1

23

.43

30

.93

48

.50

-23

.43

-30

.36

48

.50

ALBANY2

23

.43

30

.93

48

.50

-23

.43

-30

.36

48

.50

46

.86

60

.72

0.0

0

46

.86

61

.85

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.52

0.7

51

.69

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.6

00

.87

-1.4

1S

tatio

n9/

CO

MM

22K

V

19

.30

0.8

8-1

.39

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

56

.23

0.8

51

.26

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

46

.90

0.7

17

.97

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

7.2

00

.65

4.6

5

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

14

.80

0.6

75

.82

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

1.4

40

.78

3.4

5

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

59

.71

0.9

0-0

.09

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.24

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.2

40

.99

-0.5

1

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

169

APPENDIXA.3 UNCOMPENSATED SIMULATION 100% L0ADING AT 0.65 POWER FACTOR


0.65PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

50.4

159

.08

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

30

.88

36

.10

CO

MM

11

LD

1.6

21

.90

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

6.5

07

.60

FIS

HLD

3.2

53

.80

COMM11TR

1.62

2.00

114

.44

-1.6

2-1

.90

114

.44

COMM22TR

3.25

3.99

113

.84

-3.2

5-3

.80

113

.84

WESTR

3.25

4.33

153

.93

-3.2

5-3

.98

153

.93

PEDDIETR

-6.5

0-7

.60

13

4.1

3

6.5

08

.13

13

4.1

3

FISH2TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

76.9

6

1.62

1.99

76.9

6

FISH1TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

76.9

6

1.62

1.99

76.9

6

PED-WES

3.93

4.50

76.5

1

-3.2

5-4

.33

76.5

1

BREAK-PED

11.8

913

.46

84.3

0

-10.

43-1

2.63

84.3

0

COMM-BREAK

12.9

314

.05

84.3

0

-11.

89-1

3.46

84.3

0

ALB-COMM

19.5

321

.85

90.9

5

-17.

81-2

0.04

90.9

5

ALBANY1

25

.20

29

.54

48

.54

-25

.20

-28

.98

48

.54

ALBANY2

25

.20

29

.54

48

.54

-25

.20

-28

.98

48

.54

50

.41

57

.95

0.0

0

50

.41

59

.08

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.48

0.7

50

.78

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.6

10

.87

-1.8

2S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19

.33

0.8

8-1

.80

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56

.15

0.8

50

.78

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

46

.45

0.7

06

.98

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.1

50

.65

3.3

1

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

14

.68

0.6

74

.60

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

51

.23

0.7

82

.69

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

59

.71

0.9

0-0

.40

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.27

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.2

70

.99

-0.5

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

170



0.7PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

53.9

255

.87

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

33

.25

33

.90

CO

MM

11

LD

1.7

51

.79

CO

MM

22

LD

3.5

03

.57

PE

DD

LD

7.0

07

.14

FIS

HLD

3.5

03

.57

COMM11TR

1.75

1.89

114

.32

-1.7

5-1

.79

114

.32

COMM22TR

3.50

3.76

113

.55

-3.5

0-3

.57

113

.55

WESTR

3.50

4.11

154

.59

-3.5

0-3

.75

154

.59

PEDDIETR

-7.0

0-7

.14

13

4.1

9

7.0

07

.67

13

4.1

9

FISH2TR

-1.7

5-1

.78

77.3

0

1.75

1.87

77.3

0

FISH1TR

-1.7

5-1

.78

77.3

0

1.75

1.87

77.3

0

PED-WES

4.19

4.27

76.8

4

-3.5

0-4

.11

76.8

4

BREAK-PED

12.6

512

.78

84.4

6

-11.

19-1

1.95

84.4

6

COMM-BREAK

13.7

013

.37

84.4

6

-12.

65-1

2.78

84.4

6

ALB-COMM

20.6

720

.84

91.0

4

-18.

95-1

9.02

91.0

4

ALBANY1

26

.96

27

.93

48

.53

-26

.96

-27

.37

48

.53

ALBANY2

26

.96

27

.93

48

.53

-26

.96

-27

.37

48

.53

53

.92

54

.74

0.0

0

53

.92

55

.87

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.48

0.7

5-0

.19

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.6

30

.88

-2.2

4S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19

.37

0.8

8-2

.22

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56

.12

0.8

50

.27

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

46

.08

0.7

05

.85

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.1

10

.65

1.8

5

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

14

.60

0.6

63

.26

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

51

.09

0.7

71

.87

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

59

.74

0.9

1-0

.71

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.31

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.3

10

.99

-0.5

9

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

171



0.75PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

57.4

052

.19

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

35

.60

31

.42

CO

MM

11

LD

1.8

81

.65

CO

MM

22

LD

3.7

53

.31

PE

DD

LD

7.5

06

.61

FIS

HLD

3.7

53

.31

COMM11TR

1.88

1.75

113

.97

-1.8

8-1

.65

113

.97

COMM22TR

3.75

3.50

113

.19

-3.7

5-3

.31

113

.19

WESTR

3.75

3.85

154

.82

-3.7

5-3

.49

154

.82

PEDDIETR

-7.5

0-6

.61

13

4.0

1

7.5

07

.15

13

4.0

1

FISH2TR

-1.8

7-1

.65

77.4

1

1.87

1.74

77.4

1

FISH1TR

-1.8

7-1

.65

77.4

1

1.87

1.74

77.4

1

PED-WES

4.44

4.01

76.9

5

-3.7

5-3

.85

76.9

5

BREAK-PED

13.4

011

.99

84.4

4

-11.

94-1

1.16

84.4

4

COMM-BREAK

14.4

512

.58

84.4

4

-13.

40-1

1.99

84.4

4

ALB-COMM

21.8

019

.64

90.9

5

-20.

08-1

7.83

90.9

5

ALBANY1

28

.70

26

.10

48

.49

-28

.70

-25

.53

48

.49

ALBANY2

28

.70

26

.10

48

.49

-28

.70

-25

.53

48

.49

57

.40

51

.06

0.0

0

57

.40

52

.19

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.50

0.7

5-1

.23

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.6

70

.88

-2.6

8S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19

.44

0.8

8-2

.66

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56

.14

0.8

5-0

.28

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

45

.80

0.6

94

.59

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.1

10

.65

0.2

8

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

14

.55

0.6

61

.78

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

51

.03

0.7

70

.98

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

59

.81

0.9

1-1

.05

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.36

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.3

60

.99

-0.6

2

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

172



0.8PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

60.8

847

.85

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

38

.00

28

.50

CO

MM

11

LD

2.0

01

.50

CO

MM

22

LD

4.0

03

.00

PE

DD

LD

8.0

06

.00

FIS

HLD

4.0

03

.00

COMM11TR

2.00

1.60

113

.29

-2.0

0-1

.50

113

.29

COMM22TR

4.00

3.19

112

.70

-4.0

0-3

.00

112

.70

WESTR

4.00

3.54

154

.37

-4.0

0-3

.18

154

.37

PEDDIETR

-8.0

0-6

.00

13

3.4

7

8.0

06

.53

13

3.4

7

FISH2TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

77.1

9

2.00

1.59

77.1

9

FISH1TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

77.1

9

2.00

1.59

77.1

9

PED-WES

4.69

3.70

76.7

3

-4.0

0-3

.54

76.7

3

BREAK-PED

14.1

411

.05

84.1

4

-12.

69-1

0.23

84.1

4

COMM-BREAK

15.1

811

.64

84.1

4

-14.

14-1

1.05

84.1

4

ALB-COMM

22.8

818

.23

90.6

0

-21.

18-1

6.43

90.6

0

ALBANY1

30

.44

23

.93

48

.40

-30

.44

-23

.36

48

.40

ALBANY2

30

.44

23

.93

48

.40

-30

.44

-23

.36

48

.40

60

.88

46

.73

0.0

0

60

.88

47

.85

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.57

0.7

5-2

.35

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.7

10

.88

-3.1

3S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19

.52

0.8

9-3

.11

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56

.22

0.8

5-0

.87

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

45

.65

0.6

93

.17

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.1

30

.65

-1.4

4

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

14

.56

0.6

60

.16

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

51

.06

0.7

7-0

.00

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

59

.93

0.9

1-1

.40

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.41

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.4

10

.99

-0.6

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

173



0.85PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vol

tag.

.

64.3

442

.86

GR

AH

AM

SLD

40.3

825

.00

CO

MM

11LD

2.12

1.32

CO

MM

22LD

4.25

2.83

PE

DD

LD

8.50

5.27

FIS

HLD

4.25

2.63

COMM11TR

2.12

1.42

112.

78

-2.1

2-1

.32

112.

78

COMM22TR

4.25

3.02

114.

61

-4.2

5-2

.83

114.

61

WESTR

4.25

3.16

153.

21

-4.2

5-2

.81

153.

21

PEDDIETR

-8.5

0-5

.27

132.

64

8.50

5.79

132.

64

FISH2TR

-2.1

2-1

.31

76.6

1

2.12

1.40

76.6

1

FISH1TR

-2.1

2-1

.31

76.6

1

2.12

1.40

76.6

1

PED-WES

4.93

3.32

76.1

5

-4.2

5-3

.16

76.1

5

BREAK-PED

14.8

69.

9283

.58

-13.

43-9

.11

83.5

8

COMM-BREAK

15.8

810

.50

83.5

8

-14.

86-9

.92

83.5

8

ALB-COMM

23.9

616

.74

90.4

2

-22.

26-1

4.94

90.4

2

ALBANY1

32.1

721

.43

48.3

1

-32.

17-2

0.87

48.3

1

ALBANY2

32.1

721

.43

48.3

1

-32.

17-2

0.87

48.3

1

64.3

441

.74

0.00

64.3

442

.86

0.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16.6

70.

76-3

.54

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.76

0.89

-3.5

8S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19.5

90.

89-3

.56

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56.3

60.

85-1

.50

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

45.6

20.

691.

55

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.18

0.65

-3.3

1

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

14.6

30.

66-1

.63

Sta

tion4

/PE

DD

IE51

.18

0.78

-1.0

7

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

60.0

70.

91-1

.76

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.47

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

265

.47

0.99

-0.7

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

132.

001.

000.

00

DIg

SIL

EN

T

174



0.9PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

67.7

336

.16

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

42

.80

20

.70

CO

MM

11

LD

2.2

51

.09

CO

MM

22

LD

4.5

02

.18

PE

DD

LD

9.0

04

.36

FIS

HLD

4.5

02

.18

COMM11TR

2.25

1.18

111

.73

-2.2

5-1

.09

111

.73

COMM22TR

4.50

2.36

111

.15

-4.5

0-2

.18

111

.15

WESTR

4.50

2.69

150

.65

-4.5

0-2

.35

150

.65

PEDDIETR

-9.0

0-4

.36

13

0.9

1

9.0

04

.87

13

0.9

1

FISH2TR

-2.2

5-1

.09

75.3

3

2.25

1.17

75.3

3

FISH1TR

-2.2

5-1

.09

75.3

3

2.25

1.17

75.3

3

PED-WES

5.15

2.85

74.8

8

-4.5

0-2

.69

74.8

8

BREAK-PED

15.5

48.

5082

.38

-14.

15-7

.72

82.3

8

COMM-BREAK

16.5

49.

0782

.38

-15.

54-8

.50

82.3

8

ALB-COMM

24.9

314

.35

88.8

9

-23.

29-1

2.62

88.8

9

ALBANY1

33

.87

18

.08

47

.99

-33

.87

-17

.53

47

.99

ALBANY2

33

.87

18

.08

47

.99

-33

.87

-17

.53

47

.99

67

.73

35

.05

0.0

0

67

.73

36

.16

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.89

0.7

7-4

.91

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.8

50

.90

-4.1

1S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19

.79

0.9

0-4

.09

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56

.70

0.8

6-2

.26

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

45

.94

0.7

0-0

.40

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.3

00

.66

-5.4

3

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

14

.83

0.6

7-3

.70

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

51

.59

0.7

8-2

.34

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

60

.37

0.9

1-2

.21

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.56

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.5

60

.99

-0.7

3

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

175



0.95PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.9

727

.28

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

11

LD

2.3

70

.78

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

110

.42

-2.3

8-0

.78

110

.42

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

109

.85

-4.7

5-1

.56

109

.85

WESTR

4.75

2.04

146

.32

-4.7

5-1

.72

146

.32

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

8.2

8

9.5

03

.61

12

8.2

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

73.1

6

2.37

0.86

73.1

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

73.1

6

2.37

0.86

73.1

6

PED-WES

5.37

2.19

72.7

3

-4.7

5-2

.04

72.7

3

BREAK-PED

16.1

96.

5580

.46

-14.

87-5

.80

80.4

6

COMM-BREAK

17.1

47.

0980

.46

-16.

19-6

.55

80.4

6

ALB-COMM

25.8

411

.37

87.1

0

-24.

27-9

.71

87.1

0

ALBANY1

35

.49

13

.64

47

.52

-35

.49

-13

.10

47

.52

ALBANY2

35

.49

13

.64

47

.52

-35

.49

-13

.10

47

.52

70

.97

26

.20

0.0

0

70

.97

27

.28

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.24

0.7

8-6

.48

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.9

60

.91

-4.6

8S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

20

.03

0.9

1-4

.66

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

57

.24

0.8

7-3

.15

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

46

.65

0.7

1-2

.81

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.5

20

.68

-7.8

9

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.19

0.6

9-6

.16

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

52

.29

0.7

9-3

.86

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

60

.79

0.9

2-2

.72

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.67

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.6

70

.99

-0.7

7

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

176

TEXTUAL LOADFLOW REPORT : UNCOMPENSATED SYSTEM AT 0.95 POWER FACTOR

(POWER FLOW WILL BE DISCUSSED IN CHAPTER EIGHT)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 1 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rated Active Reactive Power | |

177

| Voltage Bus-voltage Power Power Factor Current Loading| Additional Data | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] [MW] [Mvar] [-] [kA] [%] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station1 | | | ALBANYHV12.00 1.00 132.00 0.00 | | | Cub_0.3/Vac ALBANY 69.52 25.56 0.94 0.32 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 69.52 25.56 0.94 0.32 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | ALBANYHV22.00 1.00 132.00 0.00 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 -69.52 -25.56 -0.94 0.32 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 ALBTR1 34.76 12.78 0.94 0.16 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 ALBTR2 34.76 12.78 0.94 0.16 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station2 | | | ALBANYLV26.00 1.00 65.69 -0.75 | | | Cub_0.5/Lod GRAHAMSLD 45.13 14.83 0.95 0.42 |Pl0: 45.13 MW Ql0: 14.83 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 -69.52 -24.53 -0.94 0.65 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.3/Lne ALB-COM 17.95 7.30 0.93 0.17 59.76 |Pv: 741.22 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 25.50 km|

178

| Cub_0.5/Lne NEW LINE 6.44 2.40 0.94 0.06 68.63 |Pv: 1689.71 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 92.40 km| | ALBANYLV16.00 1.00 65.69 -0.75 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 69.52 24.53 0.94 0.65 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 ALBTR1 -34.76 -12.27 -0.94 0.32 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 ALBTR2 -34.76 -12.27 -0.94 0.32 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station3 | | | COMMITTEES.00 0.95 62.38 -2.14 | | | Cub_0.2/Lne ALB-COM -17.21 -6.52 -0.94 0.17 59.76 |Pv: 741.22 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 25.50 km| | Cub_0.3/Lne COM-BRK 10.08 3.92 0.93 0.10 35.14 |Pv: 154.73 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 15.40 km| | Cub_0.3/Tr2 COM11TR 2.38 0.87 0.94 0.02 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 COMM22TR 4.75 1.73 0.94 0.05 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station4 | | | COMM22kV22.00 0.93 20.56 -3.99 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod COM22LD 4.75 1.56 0.95 0.14 |Pl0: 4.75 MW Ql0: 1.56 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 COMM22TR -4.75 -1.56 -0.95 0.14 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 |

179

| | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 2 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rated Active Reactive Power | | | Voltage Bus-voltage Power Power Factor Current Loading| Additional Data | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] [MW] [Mvar] [-] [kA] [%] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station5 | | | BREAKFASTV.00 0.93 61.21 -2.66 | | | Cub_0.1/Lne BRK-PED 9.93 3.76 0.94 0.10 45.72 |Pv: 428.80 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 21.50 km| | Cub_0.0/Lne COM-BRK -9.93 -3.76 -0.94 0.10 35.14 |Pv: 154.73 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 15.40 km| | | | |Station6 | | | FISHLV 11.00 0.72 7.97 -2.99 | | | Cub_0.2/Lod General Load 4.75 1.56 0.95 0.36 |Pl0: 4.75 MW Ql0: 1.56 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 FISHTR1 -2.37 -0.78 -0.95 0.18 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 |

180

| Cub_0.1/Tr2 FISHTR2 -2.37 -0.78 -0.95 0.18 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station7 | | | COMM11kV11.00 0.93 10.28 -3.99 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod COM11LD 2.38 0.78 0.95 0.14 |Pl0: 2.38 MW Ql0: 0.78 Mvar | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 COM11TR -2.38 -0.78 -0.95 0.14 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station8 | | | PEDDIEHV66.00 0.88 58.40 -3.08 | | | Cub_0.0/Lne BRK-PED -9.50 -3.52 -0.94 0.10 45.72 |Pv: 428.80 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 21.50 km| | Cub_0.1/Tr2 PEDTR 9.50 3.52 0.94 0.10 114.47 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station9 | | | WESLV 22.00 0.73 16.08 -1.44 | | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 FISHTR1 2.37 0.85 0.94 0.09 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 FISHTR2 2.37 0.85 0.94 0.09 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 WESTR -4.75 -1.70 -0.94 0.18 138.09 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | |

181

|Station10 | | | PEDDIELV22.00 0.87 19.22 -5.20 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod PEDLD 9.50 3.12 0.95 0.30 |Pl0: 9.50 MW Ql0: 3.12 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 PEDTR -9.50 -3.12 -0.95 0.30 114.47 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station11 | | | WESHV 66.00 0.75 49.23 1.55 | | | Cub_0.0/Lne NEW LINE -4.75 -1.99 -0.92 0.06 68.63 |Pv: 1689.71 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 92.40 km| | Cub_0.1/Tr2 WESTR 4.75 1.99 0.92 0.06 138.09 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

182

| Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 3 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rtd.V Bus - voltage Voltage - Deviation [%] | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] -10 -5 0 +5 +10 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station1 | | ALBANYHV1 132.00 1.000 132.00 0.00 | | | ALBANYHV2 132.00 1.000 132.00 0.00 | | |Station2 | | ALBANYLV2 66.00 0.995 65.69 -0.75 <| | | ALBANYLV1 66.00 0.995 65.69 -0.75 <| | |Station3 | | COMMITTEES66 66.00 0.945 62.38 -2.14 <<<<<<<<<<<<<| |

183

|Station4 | | COMM22kV 22.00 0.935 20.56 -3.99 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station5 | | BREAKFASTVLEI 66.00 0.927 61.21 -2.66 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station6 | | FISHLV 11.00 0.724 7.97 -2.99 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station7 | | COMM11kV 11.00 0.935 10.28 -3.99 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station8 | | PEDDIEHV 66.00 0.885 58.40 -3.08 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station9 | | WESLV 22.00 0.731 16.08 -1.44 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station10 | | PEDDIELV 22.00 0.874 19.22 -5.20 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station11 | | WESHV 66.00 0.746 49.23 1.55 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: |

184

| | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 4 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Volt. Generation Motor Load Compen- External Power Total Load Noload | | Level Load sation Infeed Interchange Interchange Losses Losses Losses | | [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ to [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ | | [kV] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

185

| 11.00 0.00 0.00 7.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 22.00 kV -4.75 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -1.56 0.14 0.14 0.00 | | 66.00 kV -2.38 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -0.78 0.09 0.09 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 22.00 0.00 0.00 14.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 11.00 kV 4.75 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 1.70 0.14 0.14 0.00 | | 66.00 kV -19.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -6.39 0.85 0.85 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 66.00 0.00 0.00 45.13 0.00 0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 14.83 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.60 0.00 | | 11.00 kV 2.38 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.00 | | 22.00 kV 19.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 |

186

| 7.24 0.85 0.85 0.00 | | 132.00 kV -69.52 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -24.53 1.03 1.03 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 66.00 kV 69.52 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 25.56 1.03 1.03 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total: 0.00 0.00 66.51 0.00 69.52 0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 0.00 25.56 0.00 3.71 3.71 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

187

| Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total System Summary | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 5 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Generation Motor Load Compen- External Inter Area Total Load Noload | | Load sation Infeed Flow Losses Losses Losses | | [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ | | [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | \Alexis\NEW LINE\FISHRIVER | | 0.00 0.00 66.51 0.00 69.52 0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 0.00 25.56 0.00 3.71 3.71 0.00 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

188

| Total: | | 0.00 0.00 66.51 0.00 69.52 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 0.00 25.56 3.71 3.71 0.00 |-

189



0.975PF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

72.5

620

.81

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

46

.30

10

.55

CO

MM

11

LD

2.4

40

.56

CO

MM

22

LD

4.8

81

.11

PE

DD

LD

9.7

52

.22

FIS

HLD

4.8

81

.11

COMM11TR

2.44

0.65

109

.54

-2.4

4-0

.56

109

.54

COMM22TR

4.88

1.29

108

.98

-4.8

8-1

.11

108

.98

WESTR

4.88

1.57

142

.93

-4.8

8-1

.26

142

.93

PEDDIETR

-9.7

5-2

.22

12

6.1

6

9.7

52

.69

12

6.1

6

FISH2TR

-2.4

4-0

.56

71.4

6

2.44

0.63

71.4

6

FISH1TR

-2.4

4-0

.56

71.4

6

2.44

0.63

71.4

6

PED-WES

5.47

1.71

71.0

4

-4.8

8-1

.57

71.0

4

BREAK-PED

16.5

05.

1378

.93

-15.

22-4

.41

78.9

3

COMM-BREAK

17.4

15.

6578

.93

-16.

50-5

.13

78.9

3

ALB-COMM

26.2

69.

1985

.71

-24.

73-7

.58

85.7

1

ALBANY1

36

.28

10

.41

47

.18

-36

.28

-9.8

74

7.1

8

ALBANY2

36

.28

10

.41

47

.18

-36

.28

-9.8

74

7.1

8

72

.56

19

.74

0.0

0

72

.56

20

.81

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.53

0.8

0-7

.47

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.05

0.9

1-5

.03

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.21

0.9

2-5

.01

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

57

.70

0.8

7-3

.73

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

47

.35

0.7

2-4

.41

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.7

00

.70

-9.4

2

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.52

0.7

1-7

.72

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

52

.92

0.8

0-4

.86

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.14

0.9

3-3

.04

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.75

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

51

.00

-0.7

8

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

190

APPENDIX A.11 UNCOMPENSATED SIMULATION 100% L0ADING AT UNITY POWER FACTOR


unitPF

100% LOADING

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/27/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

73.8

64.

82

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

47

.50

-0.0

0

CO

MM

11

LD

2.5

0-0

.00

CO

MM

22

LD

5.0

0-0

.00

PE

DD

LD

10

.00

-0.0

0

FIS

HLD

5.0

0-0

.00

COMM11TR

2.50

0.09

106

.87

-2.5

00.

0010

6.8

7

COMM22TR

5.00

0.17

106

.34

-5.0

00.

0010

6.3

4

WESTR

5.00

0.40

133

.22

-5.0

0-0

.13

133

.22

PEDDIETR

-10

.00

0.0

01

20

.45

10

.00

0.4

31

20

.45

FISH2TR

-2.5

00.

0066

.61

2.50

0.07

66.6

1

FISH1TR

-2.5

00.

0066

.61

2.50

0.07

66.6

1

PED-WES

5.51

0.52

66.2

2

-5.0

0-0

.40

66.2

2

BREAK-PED

16.6

61.

6074

.70

-15.

51-0

.95

74.7

0

COMM-BREAK

17.4

72.

0674

.70

-16.

66-1

.60

74.7

0

ALB-COMM

26.3

63.

7981

.82

-24.

97-2

.32

81.8

2

ALBANY1

36

.93

2.4

14

6.2

6

-36

.93

-1.8

94

6.2

6

ALBANY2

36

.93

2.4

14

6.2

6

-36

.93

-1.8

94

6.2

6

73

.86

3.7

90

.00

73

.86

4.8

20

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.36

0.8

3-9

.35

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.29

0.9

4-5

.63

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.69

0.9

4-5

.61

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

59

.05

0.8

9-4

.91

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

49

.70

0.7

5-7

.74

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.2

60

.75

-12

.30

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.52

0.7

5-1

0.7

8

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

54

.85

0.8

3-6

.88

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

62

.10

0.9

4-3

.66

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.95

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

51

.00

-0.7

9

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

191

APPENDIXB.1 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR)


0.65PF

100% LOADING

COMP@FISH

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/28/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

FISH-SHUNT

0.00

-20.

34

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

50.9

139

.25

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

30

.85

36

.10

CO

MM

11

LD

1.6

21

.90

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

6.5

07

.60

FIS

HLD

3.2

53

.80

COMM11TR

1.63

1.99

108

.80

-1.6

3-1

.90

108

.80

COMM22TR

3.25

3.98

108

.23

-3.2

5-3

.80

108

.23

WESTR

3.25

-14.

0233

4.2

5

-3.2

515

.70

334

.25

PEDDIETR

-6.5

0-7

.60

11

6.9

3

6.5

08

.01

11

6.9

3

FISH2TR

-1.6

28.

2716

7.1

2

1.62

-7.8

516

7.1

2

FISH1TR

-1.6

28.

2716

7.1

2

1.62

-7.8

516

7.1

2

PED-WES

6.46

-13.

2416

6.1

3

-3.2

514

.02

166

.13

BREAK-PED

13.7

9-4

.77

63.3

4

-12.

965.

2463

.34

COMM-BREAK

14.3

8-4

.44

63.3

4

-13.

794.

7763

.34

ALB-COMM

20.0

62.

3862

.46

-19.

25-1

.52

62.4

6

ALBANY1

25

.46

19

.63

40

.18

-25

.46

-19

.24

40

.18

ALBANY2

25

.46

19

.63

40

.18

-25

.46

-19

.24

40

.18

50

.91

38

.48

0.0

0

50

.91

39

.25

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.91

0.8

6-9

.10

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.11

0.9

2-4

.08

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.33

0.9

2-4

.06

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

60

.73

0.9

2-4

.72

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

56

.84

0.8

6-2

0.6

0

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

11

.09

1.0

1-2

2.5

3

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

21

.10

0.9

6-2

1.9

5

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

58

.20

0.8

8-7

.63

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

62

.63

0.9

5-2

.79

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.52

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.5

20

.99

-0.5

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

192

APPENDIXB.2

LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT COMMITTEES11kV SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR)


0.65PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Comm11

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/29/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

Com

m11

shun

t

0.0

0-3

0.9

7

V~

AC

Vol

tag.

.

48.6

532

.40

GR

AH

AM

SLD

30.8

536

.10

CO

MM

11LD

1.62

1.90

CO

MM

22LD

3.25

3.80

PE

DD

LD

6.50

7.60

FIS

HLD

3.25

3.80

COMM11TR

1.62

-22.

5093

5.97

-1.6

229

.07

935.

97

COMM22TR3.

253.

9710

5.86

-3.2

5-3

.80

105.

86

WESTR

3.25

4.21

134.

38

-3.2

5-3

.94

134.

38

PEDDIETR

-6.5

0-7

.60

120.

91

6.50

8.03

120.

91

FISH2TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

67.1

9

1.62

1.97

67.1

9

FISH1TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

67.1

9

1.62

1.97

67.1

9

PED-WES

3.77

4.33

66.7

9

-3.2

5-4

.21

66.7

9

BREAK-PED

11.4

313

.02

75.1

2

-10.

27-1

2.37

75.1

2

COMM-BREAK

12.2

613

.49

75.1

2

-11.

43-1

3.02

75.1

2

ALB-COMM

17.8

0-4

.35

56.5

7

-17.

135.

0556

.57

ALBANY1

24.3

216

.20

36.5

3

-24.

32-1

5.88

36.5

3

ALBANY2

24.3

216

.20

36.5

3

-24.

32-1

5.88

36.5

3

48.6

531

.75

0.00

48.6

532

.40

0.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18.2

90.

83-2

.24

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

13.6

91.

24-4

.15

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20.7

80.

94-4

.44

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

60.7

90.

92-2

.23

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

52.2

20.

792.

67

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.19

0.74

-0.1

8

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16.7

10.

760.

81

Sta

tion4

/PE

DD

IE56

.41

0.85

-0.6

7

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63.9

60.

97-3

.22

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.60

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

265

.60

0.99

-0.5

3

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

132.

001.

000.

00

DIg

SIL

EN

T

193

APPENDIX B.3 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT COMMITTEES22kV SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR)

CO

MM

22

KV

0.0

0-2

2.7

8

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.06

0.8

2-1

.83


0.65PF

100% LOADING

COMP@COMM22

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/28/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

48.6

835.9

6

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

30

.85

36

.10

CO

MM

11

LD

1.6

21

.90

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

6.5

07

.60

FIS

HLD

3.2

53

.80

COMM11TR

1.6

31.9

910

7.3

9

-1.6

3-1

.90

10

7.3

9

COMM22TR

3.2

5-1

7.0

336

0.8

5

-3.2

518.9

836

0.8

5

WESTR

3.2

54.2

213

6.5

3

-3.2

5-3

.94

13

6.5

3

PEDDIETR

-6.5

0-7

.60

12

2.4

4

6.5

08

.04

12

2.4

4

FISH2TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

68.2

7

1.6

21.9

768.2

7

FISH1TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

68.2

7

1.6

21.9

768.2

7

PED-WES

3.7

94.3

567.8

6

-3.2

5-4

.22

67.8

6

BREAK-PED

11.4

813.0

776.1

6

-10.2

9-1

2.3

976.1

6

COMM-BREAK

12.3

313.5

576.1

6

-11.4

8-1

3.0

776.1

6

ALB-COMM

17.8

3-0

.82

55.1

7

-17.2

01.4

955.1

7

ALBANY1

24

.34

17

.98

37

.83

-24

.34

-17

.64

37

.83

ALBANY2

24

.34

17

.98

37

.83

-24

.34

-17

.64

37

.83

48

.68

35

.28

0.0

0

48

.68

35

.96

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.24

0.9

3-4

.09

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

23

.48

1.0

7-3

.93

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.20

0.9

1-1

.83

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.49

0.7

83

.21

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.0

60

.73

0.2

8

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

16

.46

0.7

51

.29

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

5.7

50

.84

-0.2

3

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.41

0.9

6-2

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.56

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.5

60

.99

-0.5

3

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

194

APPENDIX B.4 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT GRAHAMSTOWN SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR)

GR

AH

AM

SS

HU

NT

0.0

0-1

9.7

1

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.61

0.7

60

.77


0.65PF

100% LOADING

COMP@GRAHAMS

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/28/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

50.2

938.9

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

30

.85

36

.10

CO

MM

11

LD

1.6

21

.90

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

6.5

07

.60

FIS

HLD

3.2

53

.80

COMM11TR

1.6

32.0

011

3.8

5

-1.6

3-1

.90

11

3.8

5

COMM22TR

3.2

53.9

911

3.2

5

-3.2

5-3

.80

11

3.2

5

WESTR

3.2

54.3

215

2.3

1

-3.2

5-3

.97

15

2.3

1

PEDDIETR

-6.5

0-7

.60

13

3.1

0

6.5

08

.13

13

3.1

0

FISH2TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

76.1

6

1.6

21.9

976.1

6

FISH1TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

76.1

6

1.6

21.9

976.1

6

PED-WES

3.9

24.4

875.7

0

-3.2

5-4

.32

75.7

0

BREAK-PED

11.8

513.4

283.5

7

-10.4

2-1

2.6

183.5

7

COMM-BREAK

12.8

814.0

083.5

7

-11.8

5-1

3.4

283.5

7

ALB-COMM

19.4

421.7

890.2

5

-17.7

5-1

9.9

990.2

5

ALBANY1

25

.15

19

.46

39

.75

-25

.15

-19

.08

39

.75

ALBANY2

25

.15

19

.46

39

.75

-25

.15

-19

.08

39

.75

50

.29

57

.88

0.0

0

50

.29

38

.92

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.6

60

.88

-1.8

0S

tatio

n9/

CO

MM

22K

V

19

.43

0.8

8-1

.78

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

56

.48

0.8

60

.77

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

46

.86

0.7

16

.85

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

7.2

20

.66

3.2

6

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

14

.83

0.6

74

.52

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

1.6

00

.78

2.6

5

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

60

.00

0.9

1-0

.39

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.52

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.5

20

.99

-0.5

4

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

195

APPENDIX B.5

LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT PEDDIE SUBSTATION (0.65 POWER FACTOR)

ped

-sh

unt

0.0

0-1

8.0

5

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20.9

00.

95-7

.91


0.65PF

100% LOADING

COMP@pedd

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 5/28/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

47.3

838

.15

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

30.8

536

.10

CO

MM

11

LD

1.62

1.90

CO

MM

22

LD

3.25

3.80

PE

DD

LD

6.50

7.60

FIS

HLD

3.25

3.80

COMM11TR

1.62

1.99

107.

71

-1.6

2-1

.90

107.

71

COMM22TR

3.25

3.97

107.

14

-3.2

5-3

.80

107.

14

WESTR

3.25

4.14

123.

26

-3.2

5-3

.91

123.

26

PEDDIETR

-6.5

010

.45

130.

19

6.50

-9.9

513

0.19

FISH2TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

61.6

3

1.62

1.96

61.6

3

FISH1TR

-1.6

2-1

.90

61.6

3

1.62

1.96

61.6

3

PED-WES

3.69

4.25

61.2

6

-3.2

5-4

.14

61.2

6

BREAK-PED

10.7

2-5

.40

51.0

9

-10.

195.

7051

.09

COMM-BREAK

11.1

1-5

.18

51.0

9

-10.

725.

4051

.09

ALB-COMM

16.5

31.

3651

.26

-15.

98-0

.78

51.2

6

ALBANY1

23.6

919

.08

38.0

2

-23.

69-1

8.73

38.0

2

ALBANY2

23.6

919

.08

38.0

2

-23.

69-1

8.73

38.0

2

47.3

837

.46

0.00

47.3

838

.15

0.00

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10.2

10.

93-3

.67

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20.5

30.

93-3

.66

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61.9

40.

94-4

.12

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

56.3

80.

85-3

.79

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.92

0.81

-6.2

1

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18.1

60.

83-5

.38

Sta

tion4

/PE

DD

IE60

.23

0.91

-6.6

3

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63.2

30.

96-2

.41

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.53

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

265

.53

0.99

-0.5

1

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

132.

001.

000.

00

DIg

SIL

EN

T

196



0.8PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Comm11

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/5/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

Co

mm

11s

hunt

0.0

0-3

1.3

8

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

58.7

022.2

7

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

38

.00

28

.50

CO

MM

11

LD

2.0

01

.50

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

8.0

06

.00

FIS

HLD

4.0

03

.00

COMM11TR

2.0

0-2

3.0

295

6.3

1

-2.0

029.8

895

6.3

1

COMM22TR

3.2

53.9

710

5.5

9

-3.2

5-3

.80

10

5.5

9

WESTR

4.0

03.4

113

4.8

7

-4.0

0-3

.14

13

4.8

7

PEDDIETR

-8.0

0-6

.00

12

0.5

7

8.0

06

.43

12

0.5

7

FISH2TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

67.4

4

2.0

01.5

767.4

4

FISH1TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

67.4

4

2.0

01.5

767.4

4

PED-WES

4.5

23.5

467.0

4

-4.0

0-3

.41

67.0

4

BREAK-PED

13.6

810.6

275.1

0

-12.5

2-9

.97

75.1

0

COMM-BREAK

14.5

111.0

975.1

0

-13.6

8-1

0.6

275.1

0

ALB-COMM

20.7

0-6

.97

67.3

1

-19.7

67.9

667.3

1

ALBANY1

29

.35

11

.13

39

.24

-29

.35

-10

.77

39

.24

ALBANY2

29

.35

11

.13

39

.24

-29

.35

-10

.77

39

.24

58

.70

21

.53

0.0

0

58

.70

22

.27

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.34

0.8

3-4

.78

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

13

.78

1.2

5-5

.11

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

20

.84

0.9

5-5

.19

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.80

0.9

2-3

.54

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.44

0.7

8-0

.43

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.1

60

.74

-4.0

0

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

16

.58

0.7

5-2

.77

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

6.1

90

.85

-2.8

5

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

64

.11

0.9

7-3

.98

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.73

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

31

.00

-0.6

3

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

197


Co

mm

22s

hunt

0.0

0-2

2.9

0


0.8PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Comm22

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

58.7

025.7

9

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

38

.00

28

.50

CO

MM

11

LD

2.0

01

.50

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

8.0

06

.00

FIS

HLD

4.0

03

.00

COMM11TR

2.0

01.5

910

6.5

2

-2.0

0-1

.50

10

6.5

2

COMM22TR

3.2

5-1

7.1

336

2.1

0

-3.2

519.1

036

2.1

0

WESTR

4.0

03.4

213

7.0

4

-4.0

0-3

.14

13

7.0

4

PEDDIETR

-8.0

0-6

.00

12

2.0

7

8.0

06

.44

12

2.0

7

FISH2TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

68.5

2

2.0

01.5

768.5

2

FISH1TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

68.5

2

2.0

01.5

768.5

2

PED-WES

4.5

43.5

568.1

1

-4.0

0-3

.42

68.1

1

BREAK-PED

13.7

310.6

776.1

3

-12.5

4-1

0.0

076.1

3

COMM-BREAK

14.5

811.1

576.1

3

-13.7

3-1

0.6

776.1

3

ALB-COMM

20.7

0-3

.48

64.7

4

-19.8

34.4

064.7

4

ALBANY1

29

.35

12

.90

40

.07

-29

.35

-12

.51

40

.07

ALBANY2

29

.35

12

.90

40

.07

-29

.35

-12

.51

40

.07

58

.70

25

.02

0.0

0

58

.70

25

.79

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.11

0.8

2-4

.42

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.33

0.9

4-5

.13

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

23

.54

1.0

7-4

.68

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.21

0.9

1-3

.15

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

50

.71

0.7

70

.06

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.0

30

.73

-3.6

2

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

16

.33

0.7

4-2

.35

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

5.5

30

.84

-2.4

5

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.56

0.9

6-3

.60

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.68

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.6

81

.00

-0.6

3

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

198

APPENDIX B.8 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT FISHRIVER SUBSTATION (0.8 POWER FACTOR)

Fis

hshu

nt

0.0

0-1

9.1

1


0.8PF

100% LOADING

COMP@fish

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

61.7

531

.02

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

38

.00

28

.50

CO

MM

11

LD

2.0

01

.50

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

8.0

06

.00

FIS

HLD

4.0

03

.00

COMM11TR

2.00

1.59

108

.62

-2.0

0-1

.50

108

.62

COMM22TR

3.25

3.98

108

.67

-3.2

5-3

.80

108

.67

WESTR

4.00

-13.

5233

9.6

4

-4.0

015

.25

339

.64

PEDDIETR

-8.0

0-6

.00

11

8.7

4

8.0

06

.42

11

8.7

4

FISH2TR

-2.0

08.

0616

9.8

2

2.00

-7.6

216

9.8

2

FISH1TR

-2.0

08.

0616

9.8

2

2.00

-7.6

216

9.8

2

PED-WES

7.32

-12.

7116

8.8

1

-4.0

013

.52

168

.81

BREAK-PED

16.5

2-5

.61

76.5

8

-15.

326.

2976

.58

COMM-BREAK

17.3

8-5

.13

76.5

8

-16.

525.

6176

.58

ALB-COMM

23.7

51.

6273

.50

-22.

63-0

.44

73.5

0

ALBANY1

30

.88

15

.51

43

.19

-30

.88

-15

.06

43

.19

ALBANY2

30

.88

15

.51

43

.19

-30

.88

-15

.06

43

.19

61

.75

30

.12

0.0

0

61

.75

31

.02

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.62

0.8

5-1

1.2

4

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.13

0.9

2-5

.06

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.25

0.9

2-4

.75

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

60

.07

0.9

1-5

.80

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.78

0.8

3-2

2.8

1

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

10

.75

0.9

8-2

5.3

6

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

20

.42

0.9

3-2

4.6

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

57

.01

0.8

6-9

.37

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

62

.39

0.9

5-3

.47

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.62

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.6

20

.99

-0.6

7

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

199

APPENDIX B.9

LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT GRAHAMSTOWN SUBSTATION (0.8 POWER FACTOR)

Gra

ham

sh

unt

0.0

0-1

9.7

9


0.8PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Grahams

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

60.0

428

.49

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

38

.00

28

.50

CO

MM

11

LD

2.0

01

.50

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

8.0

06

.00

FIS

HLD

4.0

03

.00

COMM11TR

2.00

1.60

112

.76

-2.0

0-1

.50

112

.76

COMM22TR

3.25

3.99

112

.86

-3.2

5-3

.80

112

.86

WESTR

4.00

3.53

152

.88

-4.0

0-3

.18

152

.88

PEDDIETR

-8.0

0-6

.00

13

2.5

4

8.0

06

.52

13

2.5

4

FISH2TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

76.4

4

2.00

1.59

76.4

4

FISH1TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

76.4

4

2.00

1.59

76.4

4

PED-WES

4.67

3.69

75.9

9

-4.0

0-3

.53

75.9

9

BREAK-PED

14.1

011

.02

83.4

7

-12.

67-1

0.21

83.4

7

COMM-BREAK

15.1

211

.60

83.4

7

-14.

10-1

1.02

83.4

7

ALB-COMM

22.0

418

.95

89.7

0

-20.

37-1

7.18

89.7

0

ALBANY1

30

.02

14

.24

41

.54

-30

.02

-13

.83

41

.54

ALBANY2

30

.02

14

.24

41

.54

-30

.02

-13

.83

41

.54

60

.04

47

.45

0.0

0

60

.04

28

.49

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

16

.68

0.7

6-2

.12

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.7

60

.89

-2.8

9S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

19

.49

0.8

9-2

.57

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

56

.52

0.8

6-0

.66

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

46

.04

0.7

03

.30

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.2

00

.65

-1.2

3

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

14

.70

0.6

70

.35

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

51

.40

0.7

80

.19

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

60

.20

0.9

1-1

.19

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.65

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.6

50

.99

-0.6

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

200

APPENDIX B.10

LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT PEDDIE (0.8 POWER FACTOR)

Pe

dshu

nt

0.0

0-1

7.8

3


0.8PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Peddie

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

57.9

628

.82

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

38

.00

28

.50

CO

MM

11

LD

2.0

01

.50

CO

MM

22

LD

3.2

53

.80

PE

DD

LD

8.0

06

.00

FIS

HLD

4.0

03

.00

COMM11TR

2.00

1.59

107

.19

-2.0

0-1

.50

107

.19

COMM22TR

3.25

3.97

107

.23

-3.2

5-3

.80

107

.23

WESTR

4.00

3.35

124

.85

-4.0

0-3

.12

124

.85

PEDDIETR

-8.0

01

1.8

31

52

.03

8.0

0-1

1.1

51

52

.03

FISH2TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

62.4

2

2.00

1.56

62.4

2

FISH1TR

-2.0

0-1

.50

62.4

2

2.00

1.56

62.4

2

PED-WES

4.45

3.46

62.0

5

-4.0

0-3

.35

62.0

5

BREAK-PED

13.3

1-7

.20

64.7

5

-12.

457.

6964

.75

COMM-BREAK

13.9

2-6

.86

64.7

5

-13.

317.

2064

.75

ALB-COMM

19.9

6-0

.46

61.6

1

-19.

171.

3061

.61

ALBANY1

28

.98

14

.41

40

.46

-28

.98

-14

.02

40

.46

ALBANY2

28

.98

14

.41

40

.46

-28

.98

-14

.02

40

.46

57

.96

28

.04

0.0

0

57

.96

28

.82

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.77

0.9

4-1

0.2

6

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.26

0.9

3-4

.71

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.52

0.9

3-4

.41

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.61

0.9

3-5

.38

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.16

0.8

4-6

.57

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.8

10

.80

-9.6

6

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.87

0.8

1-8

.60

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.57

0.9

0-8

.66

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.18

0.9

6-3

.16

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.65

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.6

50

.99

-0.6

3

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

201

APPENDIX B.11 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT COMMITTEES 22 (0.95 POWER FACTOR)

Co

mm

22S

hun

t

0.0

0-2

4.1

0


0.95PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Comm11

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.3

84.

98

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

11

LD

2.3

70

.78

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.86

104

.19

-2.3

8-0

.78

104

.19

COMM22TR

4.75

-19.

8941

9.6

4

-4.7

522

.54

419

.64

WESTR

4.75

1.95

131

.65

-4.7

5-1

.69

131

.65

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

8.2

6

9.5

03

.54

11

8.2

6

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.8

2

2.37

0.85

65.8

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.8

2

2.37

0.85

65.8

2

PED-WES

5.25

2.07

65.4

3

-4.7

5-1

.95

65.4

3

BREAK-PED

15.8

66.

2473

.53

-14.

75-5

.61

73.5

3

COMM-BREAK

16.6

56.

6973

.53

-15.

86-6

.24

73.5

3

ALB-COMM

25.2

5-1

0.79

84.3

6

-23.

7812

.35

84.3

6

ALBANY1

35

.19

2.4

94

4.1

0

-35

.19

-2.0

24

4.1

0

ALBANY2

35

.19

2.4

94

4.1

0

-35

.19

-2.0

24

4.1

0

70

.38

4.0

40

.00

70

.38

4.9

80

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.70

0.8

5-8

.35

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.56

0.9

6-6

.83

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

24

.15

1.1

0-6

.60

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.10

0.9

3-5

.48

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.49

0.7

8-5

.33

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.3

60

.76

-9.4

7

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.85

0.7

7-8

.07

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

56

.58

0.8

6-6

.12

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

64

.34

0.9

7-5

.07

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.94

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

41

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

202

APPENDIX B.12 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT COMMITTEES 11 (0.95 POWER FACTOR)

Co

mm

11S

hun

t

0.0

0-3

0.3

1


0.95PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Comm11

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.4

52.

94

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

11

LD

2.3

70

.78

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.37

-22.

8694

3.1

6

-2.3

729

.53

943

.16

COMM22TR

4.75

1.72

103

.15

-4.7

5-1

.56

103

.15

WESTR

4.75

1.94

130

.53

-4.7

5-1

.69

130

.53

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

7.4

6

9.5

03

.53

11

7.4

6

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.2

7

2.37

0.84

65.2

7

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.2

7

2.37

0.84

65.2

7

PED-WES

5.24

2.06

64.8

8

-4.7

5-1

.94

64.8

8

BREAK-PED

15.8

36.

2172

.98

-14.

74-5

.59

72.9

8

COMM-BREAK

16.6

26.

6672

.98

-15.

83-6

.21

72.9

8

ALB-COMM

25.3

2-1

2.82

87.1

4

-23.

7414

.48

87.1

4

ALBANY1

35

.22

1.4

74

4.0

7

-35

.22

-1.0

14

4.0

7

ALBANY2

35

.22

1.4

74

4.0

7

-35

.22

-1.0

14

4.0

7

70

.45

2.0

10

.00

70

.45

2.9

40

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.82

0.8

6-8

.54

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

13

.82

1.2

6-6

.62

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.33

0.9

7-7

.01

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.44

0.9

3-5

.69

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.90

0.7

9-5

.56

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.4

30

.77

-9.6

3

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.99

0.7

7-8

.25

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

56

.95

0.8

6-6

.33

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

64

.65

0.9

8-5

.29

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.97

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

71

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

203

APPENDIX B.13 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT FISHRIVER (0.95 POWER FACTOR)

Fis

hSh

unt

0.0

0-1

8.6

6


0.95PF

100% LOADING

COMP@fish

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

75.4

512.7

0

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

11

LD

2.3

70

.78

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

70.8

710

7.2

7

-2.3

7-0

.78

10

7.2

7

COMM22TR

4.7

51.7

310

6.7

2

-4.7

5-1

.56

10

6.7

2

WESTR

4.7

5-1

4.0

636

7.4

7

-4.7

516.0

936

7.4

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

8.5

8

9.5

03

.54

11

8.5

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

78.5

518

3.7

3

2.3

7-8

.04

18

3.7

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

78.5

518

3.7

3

2.3

7-8

.04

18

3.7

3

PED-WES

8.6

3-1

3.1

218

2.6

4

-4.7

514.0

618

2.6

4

BREAK-PED

20.0

2-8

.52

95.8

3

-18.1

39.5

895.8

3

COMM-BREAK

21.3

7-7

.75

95.8

3

-20.0

28.5

295.8

3

ALB-COMM

30.3

2-3

.23

93.8

0

-28.4

95.1

693.8

0

ALBANY1

37

.72

6.3

54

7.8

2

-37

.72

-5.8

04

7.8

2

ALBANY2

37

.72

6.3

54

7.8

2

-37

.72

-5.8

04

7.8

2

75

.45

11

.60

0.0

0

75

.45

12

.70

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.65

0.8

5-1

5.1

4

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.25

0.9

3-6

.85

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

20

.61

0.9

4-6

.84

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.85

0.9

1-8

.10

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

53

.32

0.8

1-2

7.5

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

10

.63

0.9

7-3

0.7

2

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

20

.09

0.9

1-2

9.8

0

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

6.4

30

.85

-12

.90

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.54

0.9

5-5

.00

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.85

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

51

.00

-0.8

1

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

204

APPENDIX B.14 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT GRAHAMSTOWN (0.95 POWER FACTOR)

Gra

ham

sh

unt

0.0

0-1

9.9

5


0.95PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Grahams

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.9

17.

14

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

11

LD

2.3

70

.78

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

109

.89

-2.3

8-0

.78

109

.89

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

109

.33

-4.7

5-1

.56

109

.33

WESTR

4.75

2.03

144

.97

-4.7

5-1

.72

144

.97

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

7.3

9

9.5

03

.60

12

7.3

9

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

72.4

8

2.37

0.86

72.4

8

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

72.4

8

2.37

0.86

72.4

8

PED-WES

5.35

2.18

72.0

5

-4.7

5-2

.03

72.0

5

BREAK-PED

16.1

66.

5279

.83

-14.

85-5

.78

79.8

3

COMM-BREAK

17.1

07.

0579

.83

-16.

16-6

.52

79.8

3

ALB-COMM

25.7

811

.31

86.5

0

-24.

22-9

.66

86.5

0

ALBANY1

35

.45

3.5

74

4.5

4

-35

.45

-3.0

94

4.5

4

ALBANY2

35

.45

3.5

74

4.5

4

-35

.45

-3.0

94

4.5

4

70

.91

26

.14

0.0

0

70

.91

7.1

40

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.36

0.7

9-6

.42

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.01

0.9

1-4

.64

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.12

0.9

1-4

.62

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

57

.55

0.8

7-3

.13

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

47

.05

0.7

1-2

.81

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.5

90

.69

-7.8

0

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.33

0.7

0-6

.10

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

52

.64

0.8

0-3

.84

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.08

0.9

3-2

.69

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.92

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

21

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

205

APPENDIX B.15 LARGE SCALE COMPENSATION AT PEDDIE (0.95 POWER FACTOR)

Pe

dshu

nt

0.0

0-1

8.4

3


0.95PF

100% LOADING

COMP@Peddie

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/6/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.8

18.

99

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

11

LD

2.3

70

.78

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.86

105

.34

-2.3

8-0

.78

105

.34

COMM22TR

4.75

1.73

104

.80

-4.7

5-1

.56

104

.80

WESTR

4.75

1.90

122

.31

-4.7

5-1

.67

122

.31

PEDDIETR

-9.5

01

5.3

11

88

.64

9.5

0-1

4.2

51

88

.64

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

6

2.37

0.84

61.1

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

6

2.37

0.84

61.1

6

PED-WES

5.18

2.00

60.7

9

-4.7

5-1

.90

60.7

9

BREAK-PED

16.1

3-1

1.43

84.1

1

-14.

6812

.25

84.1

1

COMM-BREAK

17.1

7-1

0.84

84.1

1

-16.

1311

.43

84.1

1

ALB-COMM

25.6

8-6

.79

81.6

6

-24.

308.

2681

.66

ALBANY1

35

.40

4.5

04

4.6

1

-35

.40

-4.0

24

4.6

1

ALBANY2

35

.40

4.5

04

4.6

1

-35

.40

-4.0

24

4.6

1

70

.81

8.0

40

.00

70

.81

8.9

90

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.12

0.9

6-1

4.1

5

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.44

0.9

5-6

.51

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.99

0.9

5-6

.49

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.97

0.9

4-7

.76

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.20

0.8

4-1

1.6

4

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

90

.82

-15

.22

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.12

0.8

2-1

4.0

1

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.94

0.9

1-1

2.2

9

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.65

0.9

6-4

.71

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

206

APPENDIX C.1 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT WESLEY LV BUSBAR (0.95pf)

ssC

om

p9

5pfW

es

LV

0.0

0-2

.23

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@WESLV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.3

224

.46

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

109

.67

-2.3

8-0

.78

109

.67

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

108

.90

-4.7

5-1

.56

108

.90

WESTR

4.75

-0.2

912

8.5

9

-4.7

50.

5412

8.5

9

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

4.8

6

9.5

03

.59

12

4.8

6

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

67.5

1

2.37

0.85

67.5

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

67.5

1

2.37

0.85

67.5

1

PED-WES

5.23

-0.1

763

.91

-4.7

50.

2963

.91

BREAK-PED

15.8

64.

0574

.25

-14.

73-3

.41

74.2

5

COMM-BREAK

16.6

74.

5174

.25

-15.

86-4

.05

74.2

5

ALB-COMM

25.1

98.

5982

.07

-23.

80-7

.12

82.0

7

ALBANY1

35

.16

12

.23

46

.54

-35

.16

-11

.71

46

.54

ALBANY2

35

.16

12

.23

46

.54

-35

.16

-11

.71

46

.54

70

.32

23

.42

0.0

0

70

.32

24

.46

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.71

0.8

0-7

.52

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.05

0.9

1-4

.88

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.30

0.9

2-4

.84

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

58

.11

0.8

8-3

.75

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

48

.85

0.7

4-6

.62

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.1

50

.74

-11

.03

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.44

0.7

5-9

.56

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.67

0.8

1-5

.04

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.30

0.9

3-2

.94

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.70

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

01

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

207

APPENDIX C.2 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT WESLEY HV BUSBAR (0.95pf)

SS

Co

mp

Wes

HV

-0.0

0-2

.18

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@WESHV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.3

424

.58

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

109

.71

-2.3

8-0

.78

109

.71

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

108

.94

-4.7

5-1

.56

108

.94

WESTR

4.75

1.99

139

.44

-4.7

5-1

.71

139

.44

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

4.9

9

9.5

03

.59

12

4.9

9

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

69.3

7

2.37

0.85

69.3

7

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

69.3

7

2.37

0.85

69.3

7

PED-WES

5.23

-0.0

763

.95

-4.7

50.

1963

.95

BREAK-PED

15.8

64.

1574

.43

-14.

73-3

.51

74.4

3

COMM-BREAK

16.6

84.

6174

.43

-15.

86-4

.15

74.4

3

ALB-COMM

25.2

18.

7182

.23

-23.

81-7

.22

82.2

3

ALBANY1

35

.17

12

.29

46

.57

-35

.17

-11

.77

46

.57

ALBANY2

35

.17

12

.29

46

.57

-35

.17

-11

.77

46

.57

70

.34

23

.54

0.0

0

70

.34

24

.58

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.69

0.8

0-7

.48

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.04

0.9

1-4

.87

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.30

0.9

2-4

.83

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

58

.08

0.8

8-3

.73

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

48

.77

0.7

4-6

.46

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.9

30

.72

-11

.04

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.01

0.7

3-9

.48

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.62

0.8

1-4

.99

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.29

0.9

3-2

.93

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.70

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

01

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

208

APPENDIX C.3 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT PEDDIE LV BUSBAR (0.95pf)

Pe

dLV

shu

nt

0.0

0-2

.67

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@COM11KV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/20/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.4

024

.04

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

109

.57

-2.3

8-0

.78

109

.57

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

108

.80

-4.7

5-1

.56

108

.80

WESTR

4.75

2.00

140

.67

-4.7

5-1

.71

140

.67

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-0

.45

11

7.0

2

9.5

00

.86

11

7.0

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

69.9

8

2.37

0.85

69.9

8

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

69.9

8

2.37

0.85

69.9

8

PED-WES

5.32

2.14

69.9

2

-4.7

5-2

.00

69.9

2

BREAK-PED

15.9

53.

6474

.09

-14.

82-3

.00

74.0

9

COMM-BREAK

16.7

54.

0974

.09

-15.

95-3

.64

74.0

9

ALB-COMM

25.2

78.

1781

.89

-23.

88-6

.70

81.8

9

ALBANY1

35

.20

12

.02

46

.50

-35

.20

-11

.50

46

.50

ALBANY2

35

.20

12

.02

46

.50

-35

.20

-11

.50

46

.50

70

.40

23

.00

0.0

0

70

.40

24

.04

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.97

0.8

2-7

.73

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.06

0.9

1-4

.94

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.32

0.9

2-4

.90

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

58

.19

0.8

8-3

.89

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

48

.37

0.7

3-4

.35

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.8

60

.71

-9.0

1

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.87

0.7

2-7

.42

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.80

0.8

2-5

.29

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.36

0.9

3-3

.00

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.71

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

11

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

209

APPENDIX C.4 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT PEDDIE HV BUSBAR (0.95pf)

PE

DS

hu

nt

-0.0

0-2

.65

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@PED

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.4

124.1

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

80.8

710

9.6

0

-2.3

8-0

.78

10

9.6

0

COMM22TR

4.7

51.7

410

8.8

2

-4.7

5-1

.56

10

8.8

2

WESTR

4.7

52.0

014

0.7

9

-4.7

5-1

.71

14

0.7

9

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

4.6

4

9.5

03

.58

12

4.6

4

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.0

4

2.3

70.8

570.0

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.0

4

2.3

70.8

570.0

4

PED-WES

5.3

22.1

469.9

8

-4.7

5-2

.00

69.9

8

BREAK-PED

15.9

53.7

174.2

1

-14.8

2-3

.07

74.2

1

COMM-BREAK

16.7

64.1

774.2

1

-15.9

5-3

.71

74.2

1

ALB-COMM

25.2

88.2

581.9

9

-23.8

9-6

.77

81.9

9

ALBANY1

35

.21

12

.06

46

.52

-35

.21

-11

.54

46

.52

ALBANY2

35

.21

12

.06

46

.52

-35

.21

-11

.54

46

.52

70

.41

23

.08

0.0

0

70

.41

24

.12

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.74

0.8

1-7

.73

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.06

0.9

1-4

.93

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

20

.32

0.9

2-4

.89

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

58

.17

0.8

8-3

.87

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

48

.33

0.7

3-4

.31

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

7.8

50

.71

-8.9

8

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

15

.85

0.7

2-7

.39

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

3.7

70

.81

-5.2

6

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

61

.35

0.9

3-3

.00

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.71

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

11

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

210

APPENDIX C.5 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT ALBANY 66 BUSBAR (0.95pf)

GH

MS

hun

t

-0.0

0-3

.97

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@GRAHAMS

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.9

623

.26

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

110

.51

-2.3

8-0

.78

110

.51

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

109

.73

-4.7

5-1

.56

109

.73

WESTR

4.75

2.04

145

.97

-4.7

5-1

.72

145

.97

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

8.0

9

9.5

03

.61

12

8.0

9

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

72.6

2

2.37

0.86

72.6

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

72.6

2

2.37

0.86

72.6

2

PED-WES

5.36

2.18

72.5

5

-4.7

5-2

.04

72.5

5

BREAK-PED

16.1

96.

5480

.31

-14.

86-5

.79

80.3

1

COMM-BREAK

17.1

37.

0880

.31

-16.

19-6

.54

80.3

1

ALB-COMM

25.8

311

.35

86.9

8

-24.

26-9

.69

86.9

8

ALBANY1

35

.48

11

.63

46

.67

-35

.48

-11

.11

46

.67

ALBANY2

35

.48

11

.63

46

.67

-35

.48

-11

.11

46

.67

70

.96

26

.18

0.0

0

70

.96

23

.26

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.26

0.7

8-6

.47

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

9.9

70

.91

-4.6

8S

tatio

n9/C

OM

M22

KV

20

.15

0.9

2-4

.64

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

57

.31

0.8

7-3

.15

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

46

.73

0.7

1-2

.82

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.5

70

.69

-7.8

3

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.30

0.7

0-6

.12

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

52

.36

0.7

9-3

.86

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

60

.85

0.9

2-2

.71

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.72

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

21

.00

-0.7

7

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

211

APPENDIX C.6 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT FISHRIVER LV BUSBAR (0.95pf)

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

SS

fish

shu

nt

0.0

0-2

.25


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@FISH

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.3

224

.42

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

109

.66

-2.3

8-0

.78

109

.66

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

108

.89

-4.7

5-1

.56

108

.89

WESTR

4.75

-0.3

212

8.5

8

-4.7

50.

5712

8.5

8

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

4.8

2

9.5

03

.58

12

4.8

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

70.

3563

.97

2.37

-0.2

863

.97

FISH1TR

-2.3

70.

3563

.97

2.37

-0.2

863

.97

PED-WES

5.23

-0.2

163

.91

-4.7

50.

3263

.91

BREAK-PED

15.8

54.

0274

.18

-14.

73-3

.38

74.1

8

COMM-BREAK

16.6

64.

4774

.18

-15.

85-4

.02

74.1

8

ALB-COMM

25.1

98.

5682

.02

-23.

79-7

.08

82.0

2

ALBANY1

35

.16

12

.21

46

.53

-35

.16

-11

.69

46

.53

ALBANY2

35

.16

12

.21

46

.53

-35

.16

-11

.69

46

.53

70

.32

23

.39

0.0

0

70

.32

24

.42

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.71

0.8

1-7

.54

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.05

0.9

1-4

.89

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.31

0.9

2-4

.84

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

58

.12

0.8

8-3

.76

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

48

.88

0.7

4-6

.67

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.2

50

.75

-11

.06

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.45

0.7

5-9

.60

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.69

0.8

1-5

.06

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.31

0.9

3-2

.95

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.70

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

01

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

212

APPENDIX C.7 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT COMMITEES BUSBAR (0.95pf)

CO

MS

hun

t

-0.0

0-3

.46

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@COMM

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.7

123

.51

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

109

.49

-2.3

8-0

.78

109

.49

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

108

.72

-4.7

5-1

.56

108

.72

WESTR

4.75

2.02

143

.39

-4.7

5-1

.71

143

.39

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

6.3

8

9.5

03

.60

12

6.3

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

71.3

4

2.37

0.86

71.3

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

71.3

4

2.37

0.86

71.3

4

PED-WES

5.34

2.16

71.2

7

-4.7

5-2

.02

71.2

7

BREAK-PED

16.1

36.

4879

.12

-14.

84-5

.76

79.1

2

COMM-BREAK

17.0

47.

0079

.12

-16.

13-6

.48

79.1

2

ALB-COMM

25.5

87.

6382

.29

-24.

17-6

.15

82.2

9

ALBANY1

35

.36

11

.75

46

.57

-35

.36

-11

.23

46

.57

ALBANY2

35

.36

11

.75

46

.57

-35

.36

-11

.23

46

.57

70

.71

22

.46

0.0

0

70

.71

23

.51

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.49

0.8

0-6

.79

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.06

0.9

1-5

.04

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.34

0.9

2-5

.00

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

57

.91

0.8

8-3

.54

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

47

.51

0.7

2-3

.25

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.7

10

.70

-8.0

9

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.57

0.7

1-6

.44

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.05

0.8

0-4

.24

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.41

0.9

3-3

.11

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.71

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

11

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

213

APPENDIX C.8

SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT COMMITEES22kV BUSBAR (0.95pf)

CO

M22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.59

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@COM22KV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.7

023.3

7

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

80.8

710

9.4

5

-2.3

8-0

.78

10

9.4

5

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.85

10

9.5

7

-4.7

52.0

310

9.5

7

WESTR

4.7

52.0

214

3.2

9

-4.7

5-1

.71

14

3.2

9

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

6.3

2

9.5

03

.60

12

6.3

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

71.2

9

2.3

70.8

671.2

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

71.2

9

2.3

70.8

671.2

9

PED-WES

5.3

42.1

671.2

2

-4.7

5-2

.02

71.2

2

BREAK-PED

16.1

26.4

879.0

7

-14.8

4-5

.76

79.0

7

COMM-BREAK

17.0

47.0

079.0

7

-16.1

2-6

.48

79.0

7

ALB-COMM

25.5

77.5

082.1

5

-24.1

7-6

.02

82.1

5

ALBANY1

35

.35

11

.68

46

.54

-35

.35

-11

.16

46

.54

ALBANY2

35

.35

11

.68

46

.54

-35

.35

-11

.16

46

.54

70

.70

22

.33

0.0

0

70

.70

23

.37

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.50

0.8

0-6

.80

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.07

0.9

2-5

.05

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

20

.85

0.9

5-4

.97

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

57

.94

0.8

8-3

.56

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

47

.54

0.7

2-3

.27

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

7.7

10

.70

-8.1

0

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

15

.58

0.7

1-6

.45

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

3.0

70

.80

-4.2

6

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

61

.43

0.9

3-3

.12

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.72

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

21

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

214

APPENDIX C.9

SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT COMMITEES11kV BUSBAR (0.95pf)

CO

M11

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.70

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@COM11KV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.7

023

.35

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-2.7

415

6.7

0

-2.3

82.

9215

6.7

0

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

108

.67

-4.7

5-1

.56

108

.67

WESTR

4.75

2.02

143

.28

-4.7

5-1

.71

143

.28

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

6.3

1

9.5

03

.60

12

6.3

1

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

71.2

8

2.37

0.86

71.2

8

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

71.2

8

2.37

0.86

71.2

8

PED-WES

5.34

2.16

71.2

1

-4.7

5-2

.02

71.2

1

BREAK-PED

16.1

26.

4879

.06

-14.

84-5

.76

79.0

6

COMM-BREAK

17.0

47.

0079

.06

-16.

12-6

.48

79.0

6

ALB-COMM

25.5

77.

4882

.13

-24.

17-6

.00

82.1

3

ALBANY1

35

.35

11

.67

46

.54

-35

.35

-11

.15

46

.54

ALBANY2

35

.35

11

.67

46

.54

-35

.35

-11

.15

46

.54

70

.70

22

.31

0.0

0

70

.70

23

.35

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.50

0.8

0-6

.80

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.58

0.9

6-4

.96

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.35

0.9

2-5

.01

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

57

.94

0.8

8-3

.56

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

47

.55

0.7

2-3

.27

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.7

20

.70

-8.1

0

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.58

0.7

1-6

.46

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.08

0.8

0-4

.26

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.43

0.9

3-3

.13

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.72

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

21

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

215

APPENDIX C.10 SMALL SCALE COMPENSATION SINGLE CAPACITOR AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (0.95pf)

BR

KS

hu

nt

-0.0

0-3

.11

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78


0.95PF

100% LOADING

SSCOMP@BRKFAST

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/19/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.5

723

.76

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

0.87

109

.53

-2.3

8-0

.78

109

.53

COMM22TR

4.75

1.74

108

.76

-4.7

5-1

.56

108

.76

WESTR

4.75

2.01

142

.14

-4.7

5-1

.71

142

.14

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

5.5

5

9.5

03

.59

12

5.5

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.7

2

2.37

0.86

70.7

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.7

2

2.37

0.86

70.7

2

PED-WES

5.33

2.15

70.6

5

-4.7

5-2

.01

70.6

5

BREAK-PED

16.1

06.

4678

.53

-14.

83-5

.74

78.5

3

COMM-BREAK

16.9

13.

8174

.44

-16.

10-3

.34

74.4

4

ALB-COMM

25.4

47.

8982

.11

-24.

04-6

.41

82.1

1

ALBANY1

35

.28

11

.88

46

.54

-35

.28

-11

.36

46

.54

ALBANY2

35

.28

11

.88

46

.54

-35

.28

-11

.36

46

.54

70

.57

22

.72

0.0

0

70

.57

23

.76

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.61

0.8

0-7

.21

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.06

0.9

1-4

.99

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.33

0.9

2-4

.95

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

58

.22

0.8

8-4

.00

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

47

.90

0.7

3-3

.73

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.7

80

.71

-8.4

8

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.71

0.7

1-6

.87

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.39

0.8

1-4

.70

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.38

0.9

3-3

.06

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.71

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

11

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

216

APPENDIX D.1 COMPENSATION AT BOTH COMMITTEES11kV&COMMITTEES22kV (4MVAr) (0.95pf)

CO

MM

11

SH

UN

T

0.0

0-3

.82

CO

MM

22

SH

UN

T

0.0

0-3

.63


4 MVAR REACTANCE CAPACITORS

AT BOTH COMMITTEES 11&22 SUBSTATIONS

100% LOADING @0.95PF

Project:

Graphic: FISHRIVER

Date: 11/12/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

FISHTR2

-2.3

7-0

.78

70

.27

2.3

70

.85

70

.27

GR

AH

MS

LD

45

.13

14

.83

CO

M11

LD

2.3

70

.78

CO

M22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

D L

D

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COM11TR

2.3

8-2

.85

15

7.8

9

-2.3

83

.04

15

7.8

9

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70

.49

19

.38

COM22TR

4.7

5-1

.89

10

8.7

6

-4.7

52

.07

10

8.7

6

ALBTR2

35

.25

9.6

94

5.6

9

-35

.25

-9.1

94

5.6

9

ALBTR1

35

.25

9.6

94

5.6

9

-35

.25

-9.1

94

5.6

9

PEDTR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

4.4

5

9.5

03

.59

12

4.4

5

FISHTR1

-2.3

7-0

.78

70

.27

2.3

70

.85

70

.27

WESTR

4.7

52

.01

14

0.5

4

-4.7

5-1

.71

14

0.5

4

PED-WES

5.3

22

.14

69

.85

-4.7

5-2

.01

69

.85

BRK-PED

16

.06

6.4

37

7.7

8

-14

.82

-5.7

37

7.7

8

COM-BRK

16

.95

6.9

37

7.7

8

-16

.06

-6.4

37

7.7

8

ALB-COM

25

.36

3.5

57

8.8

9

-24

.07

-2.1

97

8.8

9

70

.49

19

.38

0.0

0

70

.49

18

.38

0.0

0

Station11/FISHLV

7.8

30

.71

-8.4

1

Station10/WESLV

15

.80

0.7

2-6

.81

Station9/WESHV

48

.43

0.7

3-3

.71

Station8/PEDLV

17

.68

0.8

0-7

.14

Station7/PED HV

53

.85

0.8

2-4

.65

Station6/COMM11

10

.75

0.9

8-5

.32

Station5/BREAKFASTVLEI

58

.64

0.8

9-3

.97

Station4/COM22

20

.97

0.9

5-5

.36

Station3/COMMITTEES

62

.07

0.9

4-3

.54

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YLV

16

5.7

7

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YLV

2

65

.77

1.0

0-0

.76

DIg

SIL

EN

T

217

APPENDIX D.2 COMPENSATION AT BOTH COMMITTEES11&COMMITTEES22 (2.25MVAr)(0.95pf)

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.64

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.02


0.95PF

100% LOADING

2.25mvarCOMP@COM11+sscom22

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 6/28/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.5

821

.18

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.1

411

3.3

3

-2.3

81.

2411

3.3

3

COMM22TR

4.75

-1.9

010

9.2

8

-4.7

52.

0710

9.2

8

WESTR

4.75

2.01

141

.72

-4.7

5-1

.71

141

.72

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

5.2

7

9.5

03

.59

12

5.2

7

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.5

1

2.37

0.86

70.5

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.5

1

2.37

0.86

70.5

1

PED-WES

5.33

2.15

70.4

4

-4.7

5-2

.01

70.4

4

BREAK-PED

16.0

96.

4578

.34

-14.

83-5

.74

78.3

4

COMM-BREAK

16.9

96.

9678

.34

-16.

09-6

.45

78.3

4

ALB-COMM

25.4

55.

3380

.12

-24.

12-3

.92

80.1

2

ALBANY1

35

.29

10

.59

46

.06

-35

.29

-10

.08

46

.06

ALBANY2

35

.29

10

.59

46

.06

-35

.29

-10

.08

46

.06

70

.58

20

.16

0.0

0

70

.58

21

.18

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.65

0.8

0-6

.98

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.41

0.9

5-5

.21

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

20

.97

0.9

5-5

.17

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

58

.32

0.8

8-3

.78

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

48

.03

0.7

3-3

.52

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

7.8

00

.71

-8.2

4

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

15

.75

0.7

2-6

.64

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.50

0.8

1-4

.48

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.78

0.9

4-3

.35

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.74

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

41

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

218

APPENDIX E.1.1 OPTION1-SERIES CAPACITOR AT COMMITTEES BUSBAR B=1

COM-BRK

16

.97

6.9

47

8.0

7

-16

.07

-6.4

47

8.0

7

COMSeCAP

16

.97

6.8

55

9.9

9

-16

.97

-6.9

45

9.9

9S

tatio

n11/

CO

MC

AP

BA

R6

1.9

10

.94

-3.1

1

BRK-PED

16

.07

6.4

47

8.0

7

-14

.82

-5.7

37

8.0

7


BRK-PED SERIES COMPENSATION

cap at COMB=1

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/14/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

PED-WES

5.3

22

.14

70

.15

-4.7

5-2

.00

70

.15

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.64

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.02

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.5

621.0

6

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.14

11

3.3

1

-2.3

81.2

411

3.3

1

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.90

10

9.2

7

-4.7

52.0

810

9.2

7

WESTR

4.7

52.0

014

1.1

5

-4.7

5-1

.71

14

1.1

5

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

4.8

8

9.5

03

.59

12

4.8

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.2

2

2.3

70.8

570.2

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

70.2

2

2.3

70.8

570.2

2

ALB-COMM

25.4

35.2

279.9

8

-24.1

0-3

.81

79.9

8

ALBANY1

35

.28

10

.53

46

.02

-35

.28

-10

.02

46

.02

ALBANY2

35

.28

10

.53

46

.02

-35

.28

-10

.02

46

.02

70

.56

20

.05

0.0

0

70

.56

21

.06

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

17

.71

0.8

0-6

.71

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.42

0.9

5-5

.22

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

20

.98

0.9

5-5

.18

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

58

.47

0.8

9-3

.54

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

48

.22

0.7

3-3

.28

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

7.8

30

.71

-7.9

7

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

15

.82

0.7

2-6

.37

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

53

.67

0.8

1-4

.23

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

61

.80

0.9

4-3

.36

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.75

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

51

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

219

APPENDIX E.1.2 OPTION1-SERIES CAPACITOR AT COMMITTEES BUSBAR B=0.1

SER-CAP

16

.66

6.2

45

8.1

8

-16

.66

-7.0

75

8.1

8

COM-ALB

16

.66

7.0

75

8.1

8

-15

.96

-6.3

35

8.1

8

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

63

.02

0.9

5-0

.94


SERIES CAP

ALBCAP

SUSPECTANCE0.1

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/1/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.66

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.03

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.2

020

.36

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.1

511

3.2

3

-2.3

81.

2511

3.2

3

COMM22TR

4.75

-1.9

210

9.1

5

-4.7

52.

1010

9.1

5

WESTR

4.75

1.97

136

.16

-4.7

5-1

.70

136

.16

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

12

1.4

8

9.5

03

.56

12

1.4

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

67.7

4

2.37

0.85

67.7

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

67.7

4

2.37

0.85

67.7

4

PED-WES

5.28

2.10

67.6

7

-4.7

5-1

.97

67.6

7

BREAK-PED

15.9

66.

3375

.71

-14.

78-5

.66

75.7

1

ALB-COMM

25.0

74.

5378

.48

-23.

79-3

.18

78.4

8

ALBANY1

35

.10

10

.18

45

.68

-35

.10

-9.6

84

5.6

8

ALBANY2

35

.10

10

.18

45

.68

-35

.10

-9.6

84

5.6

8

70

.20

19

.36

0.0

0

70

.20

20

.36

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.20

0.8

3-5

.33

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.44

0.9

5-5

.24

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.03

0.9

6-5

.20

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

59

.77

0.9

1-2

.31

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

49

.86

0.7

6-2

.12

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.1

20

.74

-6.4

9

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.38

0.7

4-5

.01

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

55

.12

0.8

4-2

.98

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

61

.95

0.9

4-3

.39

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.75

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

51

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

220


SER-CAP

16

.26

-3.9

55

3.2

5

-16

.26

-6.6

85

3.2

5

COM-ALB

16

.26

6.6

85

3.2

5

-15

.67

-6.0

65

3.2

5

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.87

1.0

13

1.5

0


SERIES CAP

ALBCAP

SUSPECTANCE0.0065

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/1/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.86

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.14

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

89.

75

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

1

-2.3

81.

3611

2.4

1

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

5

-4.7

52.

3010

7.9

5

WESTR

4.75

1.90

122

.99

-4.7

5-1

.67

122

.99

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

1.9

9

9.5

03

.49

11

1.9

9

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

9

2.37

0.84

61.1

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

9

2.37

0.84

61.1

9

PED-WES

5.19

2.00

61.1

3

-4.7

5-1

.90

61.1

3

BREAK-PED

15.6

76.

0669

.29

-14.

68-5

.50

69.2

9

ALB-COMM

24.6

5-6

.02

78.0

2

-23.

397.

3578

.02

ALBANY1

34

.89

4.8

74

4.0

4

-34

.89

-4.4

14

4.0

4

ALBANY2

34

.89

4.8

74

4.0

4

-34

.89

-4.4

14

4.0

4

69

.78

8.8

10

.00

69

.78

9.7

50

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.74

0.9

02

7.7

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.23

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.62

0.9

8-6

.20

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.91

0.9

73

0.3

0

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.90

0.8

33

0.3

6

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

90

.82

26

.77

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.11

0.8

22

7.9

9

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.66

0.9

02

9.7

0

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.66

0.9

6-4

.49

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

221


COM-BRK

16

.62

6.6

67

3.0

7

-15

.84

-6.2

17

3.0

7

COMSeCAP

16

.62

-6.1

55

6.1

5

-16

.62

-6.6

65

6.1

5S

tatio

n11/

CO

MC

AP

BA

R6

4.6

00

.98

37

.34

BRK-PED

15

.84

6.2

17

3.0

7

-14

.74

-5.5

97

3.0

7



cap at COMB=0.006

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/14/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

PED-WES

5.2

42

.06

64

.95

-4.7

5-1

.94

64

.95

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.90

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.16

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.2

57.

61

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

911

2.3

0

-2.3

81.

3811

2.3

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

710

7.7

8

-4.7

52.

3410

7.7

8

WESTR

4.75

1.94

130

.68

-4.7

5-1

.69

130

.68

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

7.6

0

9.5

03

.53

11

7.6

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.0

1

2.37

0.84

65.0

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.0

1

2.37

0.84

65.0

1

ALB-COMM

25.1

2-8

.16

81.1

7

-23.

759.

6081

.17

ALBANY1

35

.12

3.8

04

4.1

6

-35

.12

-3.3

44

4.1

6

ALBANY2

35

.12

3.8

04

4.1

6

-35

.12

-3.3

44

4.1

6

70

.25

6.6

70

.00

70

.25

7.6

10

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.80

0.8

53

4.0

9

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.78

0.9

8-6

.51

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.72

0.9

9-6

.48

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.38

0.9

33

6.9

4

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.83

0.7

93

7.0

7

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.4

60

.77

33

.03

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.06

0.7

83

4.4

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

56

.89

0.8

63

6.3

0

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.94

0.9

7-4

.78

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.91

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

11

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

222

APPENDIX E.1.5 OPTION1-SERIES CAPACITOR AT PEDDIE BUSBAR B=1



cap at ped B=1

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/14/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.33

6.1

45

6.9

7

-14

.76

-5.5

45

6.9

7

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.76

5.5

47

4.1

4

-14

.76

-5.6

27

4.1

4

PED-WES

5.2

62

.08

66

.05

-4.7

5-1

.95

66

.05

Line

16

.13

6.6

07

4.1

4

-15

.33

-6.1

47

4.1

4

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.66

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.03

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.6

220.6

4

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.15

11

3.2

1

-2.3

81.2

511

3.2

1

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.92

10

9.1

3

-4.7

52.1

010

9.1

3

WESTR

4.7

51.9

513

2.8

8

-4.7

5-1

.69

13

2.8

8

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

9.1

7

9.5

03

.54

11

9.1

7

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

66.1

1

2.3

70.8

566.1

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

66.1

1

2.3

70.8

566.1

1

ALB-COMM

24.4

94.8

276.9

0

-23.2

6-3

.52

76.9

0

ALBANY1

34

.81

10

.32

45

.38

-34

.81

-9.8

34

5.3

8

ALBANY2

34

.81

10

.32

45

.38

-34

.81

-9.8

34

5.3

8

69

.62

19

.65

0.0

0

69

.62

20

.64

0.0

0

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

56

.05

0.8

5-4

.94

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.55

0.8

4-6

.93

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.45

0.9

5-5

.12

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.04

0.9

6-5

.08

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

58

.71

0.8

9-3

.68

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.01

0.7

7-3

.86

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.3

20

.76

-8.0

3

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

16

.78

0.7

6-6

.62

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

6.1

50

.85

-4.6

7

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

61

.98

0.9

4-3

.27

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.75

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

51

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

223

APPENDIX E.1.6 OPTION1-SERIES CAPACITOR AT PEDDIE BUSBAR B=0.1



cap at ped B0.1

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/14/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.27

5.3

95

5.6

7

-14

.73

-4.8

25

5.6

7

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.73

4.8

27

2.4

5

-14

.73

-5.5

87

2.4

5

PED-WES

5.2

32

.05

64

.32

-4.7

5-1

.93

64

.32

Line

16

.04

5.8

37

2.4

5

-15

.27

-5.3

97

2.4

5

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.68

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.04

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.5

119

.81

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.1

611

3.1

4

-2.3

81.

2611

3.1

4

COMM22TR

4.75

-1.9

410

9.0

2

-4.7

52.

1210

9.0

2

WESTR

4.75

1.93

129

.40

-4.7

5-1

.69

129

.40

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

6.6

8

9.5

03

.53

11

6.6

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

64.3

8

2.37

0.84

64.3

8

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

64.3

8

2.37

0.84

64.3

8

ALB-COMM

24.3

84.

0076

.10

-23.

17-2

.73

76.1

0

ALBANY1

34

.75

9.9

04

5.1

7

-34

.75

-9.4

14

5.1

7

ALBANY2

34

.75

9.9

04

5.1

7

-34

.75

-9.4

14

5.1

7

69

.51

18

.83

0.0

0

69

.51

19

.81

0.0

0

Sta

tion1

1/B

RK

-PE

DB

US

BA

R

56

.40

0.8

5-5

.20

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.95

0.8

6-4

.76

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.47

0.9

5-5

.19

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.09

0.9

6-5

.15

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

58

.94

0.8

9-3

.87

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

52

.31

0.7

9-1

.83

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.5

40

.78

-5.8

0

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.22

0.7

8-4

.45

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

57

.32

0.8

7-2

.59

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

62

.12

0.9

4-3

.35

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.76

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

61

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

224

APPENDIX E.1.7 OPTION1-SERIES CAPACITOR AT PEDDIE B=0.006



cap at ped B=0.006

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/14/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.16

-5.2

35

2.5

6

-14

.67

5.7

45

2.5

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-5.7

46

8.3

9

-14

.67

-5.4

86

8.3

9

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

60

.23

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.23

Line

15

.84

-4.8

46

8.3

9

-15

.16

5.2

36

8.3

9

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.89

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.16

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.3

58.7

8

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.28

11

2.3

3

-2.3

81.3

811

2.3

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.16

10

7.8

3

-4.7

52.3

310

7.8

3

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

1.1

9

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

1.1

9

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.6

4

9.5

03

.49

11

0.6

4

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.2

9

2.3

70.8

460.2

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.2

9

2.3

70.8

460.2

9

ALB-COMM

24.2

2-6

.96

77.4

7

-22.9

78.2

877.4

7

ALBANY1

34

.67

4.3

94

3.6

9

-34

.67

-3.9

34

3.6

9

ALBANY2

34

.67

4.3

94

3.6

9

-34

.67

-3.9

34

3.6

9

69

.35

7.8

70

.00

69

.35

8.7

80

.00

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

60

.73

0.9

2-8

.90

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.98

0.9

13

0.9

8

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.77

0.9

8-6

.26

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.69

0.9

9-6

.23

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

61

.80

0.9

4-6

.57

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.68

0.8

43

3.5

7

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

20

.83

30

.08

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.37

0.8

43

1.2

6

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

0.3

70

.91

32

.94

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.86

0.9

7-4

.52

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.90

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

01

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

225

APPENDIX E.2.1 OPTION2-SERIES COMPENSATION AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR B=0.0065

brk-ped

15

.73

6.1

17

0.6

2

-14

.70

-5.5

37

0.6

2

brk cap

15

.73

-4.9

37

0.6

2

-15

.73

-6.1

17

0.6

2

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

62

.98

0.9

53

2.0

0



cap at BfastvleiBar

B0.0065

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/15/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

COM-BRK

16

.46

-4.5

27

0.6

2

-15

.73

4.9

37

0.6

2

PED-WES

5.2

02

.02

62

.47

-4.7

5-1

.91

62

.47

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.0

29.

21

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.3

9

-2.3

81.

3711

2.3

9

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

410

7.9

2

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

2

WESTR

4.75

1.91

125

.68

-4.7

5-1

.68

125

.68

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

3.9

8

9.5

03

.51

11

3.9

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

62.5

2

2.37

0.84

62.5

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

62.5

2

2.37

0.84

62.5

2

ALB-COMM

24.8

9-6

.55

79.1

3

-23.

597.

9379

.13

ALBANY1

35

.01

4.6

14

4.1

4

-35

.01

-4.1

44

4.1

4

ALBANY2

35

.01

4.6

14

4.1

4

-35

.01

-4.1

44

4.1

4

70

.02

8.2

80

.00

70

.02

9.2

10

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.40

0.8

82

9.3

1

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.75

0.9

8-6

.32

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.64

0.9

8-6

.29

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

61

.52

0.9

3-6

.64

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

53

.78

0.8

13

2.0

8

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.8

00

.80

28

.34

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.73

0.8

12

9.6

1

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

58

.64

0.8

93

1.3

8

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.71

0.9

7-4

.58

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

226

APPENDIX E.2.2 OPTION2-SERIES COMPENSATION AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR B=0.006

brk-ped

15

.84

6.2

17

3.0

7

-14

.74

-5.5

97

3.0

7

brk cap

15

.84

-6.5

97

3.0

7

-15

.84

-6.2

17

3.0

7

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

61

.38

0.9

33

6.9

4



cap at BfastvleiBar

B0.006

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/15/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

COM-BRK

16

.62

-6.1

57

3.0

7

-15

.84

6.5

97

3.0

7

PED-WES

5.2

42

.06

64

.95

-4.7

5-1

.94

64

.95

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.90

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.16

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.2

57.

61

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

911

2.3

0

-2.3

81.

3811

2.3

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

710

7.7

8

-4.7

52.

3410

7.7

8

WESTR

4.75

1.94

130

.68

-4.7

5-1

.69

130

.68

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

7.6

0

9.5

03

.53

11

7.6

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.0

1

2.37

0.84

65.0

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.0

1

2.37

0.84

65.0

1

ALB-COMM

25.1

2-8

.16

81.1

7

-23.

759.

6081

.17

ALBANY1

35

.12

3.8

04

4.1

6

-35

.12

-3.3

44

4.1

6

ALBANY2

35

.12

3.8

04

4.1

6

-35

.12

-3.3

44

4.1

6

70

.25

6.6

70

.00

70

.25

7.6

10

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.80

0.8

53

4.0

9

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.78

0.9

8-6

.51

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.72

0.9

9-6

.48

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

61

.89

0.9

4-7

.08

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.83

0.7

93

7.0

7

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.4

60

.77

33

.03

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.06

0.7

83

4.4

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

56

.89

0.8

63

6.3

0

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.94

0.9

7-4

.78

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.91

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

11

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

227

APPENDIX E.3.1 OPTION3-SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR IN PEDDIE-WESLEY LINE

AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR (B=1)

PED-WESCAP

5.1

81

.99

61

.12

-5.1

8-2

.00

61

.12

PED-WES

5.1

82

.00

61

.12

-4.7

5-1

.90

61

.12

Sta

tion1

3/P

ED

WE

S B

US

BA

R

59

.67

0.9

02

9.7

9

BRK-PED

15

.67

6.0

56

9.3

0

-14

.68

-5.4

96

9.3

0


PED-WES SERIES COMPENSATION

COMMCAP 0.0065SUSPECTANCE

WES1SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

SER-CAP

16

.26

-3.9

65

3.2

6

-16

.26

-6.6

75

3.2

6

COM-ALB

16

.26

6.6

75

3.2

6

-15

.67

-6.0

55

3.2

6

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.86

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.14

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

89.

73

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

1

-2.3

81.

3611

2.4

1

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

5

-4.7

52.

3010

7.9

5

WESTR

4.75

1.90

122

.96

-4.7

5-1

.67

122

.96

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.0

3

9.5

03

.50

11

2.0

3

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

7

2.37

0.84

61.1

7

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

7

2.37

0.84

61.1

7

ALB-COMM

24.6

5-6

.03

78.0

3

-23.

397.

3678

.03

ALBANY1

34

.89

4.8

74

4.0

4

-34

.89

-4.4

04

4.0

4

ALBANY2

34

.89

4.8

74

4.0

4

-34

.89

-4.4

04

4.0

4

69

.78

8.8

00

.00

69

.78

9.7

30

.00

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.85

1.0

13

1.5

2

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.74

0.9

02

7.7

1

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.23

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.20

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.89

0.9

73

0.3

1

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.91

0.8

33

0.4

5

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

90

.82

26

.86

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.11

0.8

22

8.0

8

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.64

0.9

02

9.7

1

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.66

0.9

6-4

.49

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

228


AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR ( B=0.5)

PED-WESCAP

5.1

81

.99

61

.10

-5.1

8-2

.00

61

.10

PED-WES

5.1

82

.00

61

.10

-4.7

5-1

.90

61

.10

Sta

tion1

3/P

ED

WE

S B

US

BA

R

59

.68

0.9

02

9.8

8

BRK-PED

15

.67

6.0

46

9.3

1

-14

.68

-5.4

86

9.3

1




WES0.5SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

SER-CAP

16

.26

-3.9

75

3.2

6

-16

.26

-6.6

65

3.2

6

COM-ALB

16

.26

6.6

65

3.2

6

-15

.67

-6.0

45

3.2

6

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.14

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

89.

72

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

1

-2.3

81.

3611

2.4

1

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

5

-4.7

52.

3010

7.9

5

WESTR

4.75

1.90

122

.93

-4.7

5-1

.67

122

.93

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.0

7

9.5

03

.50

11

2.0

7

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

6

2.37

0.84

61.1

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

6

2.37

0.84

61.1

6

ALB-COMM

24.6

5-6

.04

78.0

4

-23.

397.

3778

.04

ALBANY1

34

.89

4.8

64

4.0

4

-34

.89

-4.4

04

4.0

4

ALBANY2

34

.89

4.8

64

4.0

4

-34

.89

-4.4

04

4.0

4

69

.78

8.7

90

.00

69

.78

9.7

20

.00

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.83

1.0

13

1.5

3

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.73

0.9

02

7.7

1

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.23

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.20

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.87

0.9

73

0.3

2

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.92

0.8

33

0.5

4

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

90

.82

26

.96

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.12

0.8

22

8.1

7

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.61

0.9

02

9.7

2

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.66

0.9

6-4

.49

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

229



PED-WESCAP

5.1

81

.97

61

.07

-5.1

8-2

.00

61

.07

PED-WES

5.1

82

.00

61

.07

-4.7

5-1

.90

61

.07

Sta

tion1

3/P

ED

WE

S B

US

BA

R

59

.71

0.9

03

0.0

7

BRK-PED

15

.67

6.0

26

9.3

4

-14

.68

-5.4

66

9.3

4




WES0.25SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

SER-CAP

16

.26

-4.0

05

3.2

8

-16

.26

-6.6

45

3.2

8

COM-ALB

16

.26

6.6

45

3.2

8

-15

.67

-6.0

25

3.2

8

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.14

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

89.

70

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

1

-2.3

81.

3611

2.4

1

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

5

-4.7

52.

3010

7.9

5

WESTR

4.75

1.90

122

.87

-4.7

5-1

.67

122

.87

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.1

5

9.5

03

.50

11

2.1

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

3

2.37

0.84

61.1

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.1

3

2.37

0.84

61.1

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

5-6

.06

78.0

6

-23.

397.

4078

.06

ALBANY1

34

.89

4.8

54

4.0

3

-34

.89

-4.3

84

4.0

3

ALBANY2

34

.89

4.8

54

4.0

3

-34

.89

-4.3

84

4.0

3

69

.78

8.7

70

.00

69

.78

9.7

00

.00

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.78

1.0

13

1.5

5

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.72

0.9

02

7.7

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.24

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.20

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.83

0.9

73

0.3

4

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.95

0.8

33

0.7

2

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.0

00

.82

27

.14

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.12

0.8

22

8.3

5

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.57

0.9

02

9.7

3

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.66

0.9

6-4

.49

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

230


AT PEDDIEHV BUSBAR (B=0.1)

PED-WESCAP

5.1

81

.91

60

.98

-5.1

8-2

.00

60

.98

PED-WES

5.1

82

.00

60

.98

-4.7

5-1

.90

60

.98

Sta

tion1

3/P

ED

WE

S B

US

BA

R

59

.77

0.9

13

0.6

1

BRK-PED

15

.67

5.9

76

9.4

0

-14

.68

-5.4

16

9.4

0




WES0.1SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

SER-CAP

16

.26

-4.0

75

3.3

3

-16

.26

-6.6

05

3.3

3

COM-ALB

16

.26

6.6

05

3.3

3

-15

.67

-5.9

75

3.3

3

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.14

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

99.6

3

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.27

11

2.4

0

-2.3

81.3

611

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.13

10

7.9

4

-4.7

52.3

110

7.9

4

WESTR

4.7

51.9

012

2.6

9

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

2.6

9

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.4

0

9.5

03

.50

11

2.4

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.0

4

2.3

70.8

461.0

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.0

4

2.3

70.8

461.0

4

ALB-COMM

24.6

6-6

.13

78.1

2

-23.3

97.4

778.1

2

ALBANY1

34

.89

4.8

24

4.0

3

-34

.89

-4.3

54

4.0

3

ALBANY2

34

.89

4.8

24

4.0

3

-34

.89

-4.3

54

4.0

3

69

.79

8.7

00

.00

69

.79

9.6

30

.00

Sta

tion11

/CA

P-B

US

BA

R

66

.66

1.0

13

1.6

2

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.67

0.8

92

7.7

6

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.24

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.21

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

63

.70

0.9

73

0.4

0

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.03

0.8

33

1.2

7

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.0

10

.82

27

.69

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.15

0.8

32

8.9

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.45

0.9

02

9.7

8

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.67

0.9

6-4

.50

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

231



PED-WESCAP

5.1

81

.83

60

.85

-5.1

8-2

.00

60

.85

PED-WES

5.1

82

.00

60

.85

-4.7

5-1

.90

60

.85

Sta

tion1

3/P

ED

WE

S B

US

BA

R

59

.88

0.9

13

1.5

3

BRK-PED

15

.67

5.8

96

9.5

1

-14

.68

-5.3

36

9.5

1




WES0.05SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

SER-CAP

16

.26

-4.1

85

3.4

1

-16

.26

-6.5

15

3.4

1

COM-ALB

16

.26

6.5

15

3.4

1

-15

.67

-5.8

95

3.4

1

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

99.

52

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

0

-2.3

81.

3711

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

410

7.9

3

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

3

WESTR

4.75

1.90

122

.43

-4.7

5-1

.67

122

.43

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.8

1

9.5

03

.50

11

2.8

1

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.9

1

2.37

0.84

60.9

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.9

1

2.37

0.84

60.9

1

ALB-COMM

24.6

6-6

.24

78.2

2

-23.

397.

5978

.22

ALBANY1

34

.90

4.7

64

4.0

2

-34

.90

-4.2

94

4.0

2

ALBANY2

34

.90

4.7

64

4.0

2

-34

.90

-4.2

94

4.0

2

69

.79

8.5

90

.00

69

.79

9.5

20

.00

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.45

1.0

13

1.7

3

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.60

0.8

92

7.8

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.26

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.64

0.9

8-6

.22

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.50

0.9

63

0.5

0

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.14

0.8

43

2.1

8

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.0

30

.82

28

.62

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.19

0.8

32

9.8

2

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.23

0.9

02

9.8

5

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.69

0.9

6-4

.51

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

232



PED-WESCAP

5.1

81

.66

60

.65

-5.1

8-2

.00

60

.65

PED-WES

5.1

82

.00

60

.65

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.65

Sta

tion1

3/P

ED

WE

S B

US

BA

R

60

.04

0.9

13

3.3

7

BRK-PED

15

.68

5.7

36

9.7

5

-14

.68

-5.1

66

9.7

5




WES0.025SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

SER-CAP

16

.27

-4.4

15

3.6

0

-16

.27

-6.3

65

3.6

0

COM-ALB

16

.27

6.3

65

3.6

0

-15

.68

-5.7

35

3.6

0

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.8

19.

28

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.3

8

-2.3

81.

3711

2.3

8

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

410

7.9

1

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

1

WESTR

4.75

1.89

122

.02

-4.7

5-1

.67

122

.02

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

3.6

5

9.5

03

.51

11

3.6

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.7

0

2.37

0.84

60.7

0

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.7

0

2.37

0.84

60.7

0

ALB-COMM

24.6

8-6

.48

78.4

4

-23.

407.

8378

.44

ALBANY1

34

.90

4.6

44

4.0

1

-34

.90

-4.1

84

4.0

1

ALBANY2

34

.90

4.6

44

4.0

1

-34

.90

-4.1

84

4.0

1

69

.81

8.3

50

.00

69

.81

9.2

80

.00

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.03

1.0

03

1.9

7

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.46

0.8

82

7.9

5

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.75

0.9

8-6

.28

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.65

0.9

8-6

.25

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.08

0.9

63

0.7

0

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.31

0.8

43

4.0

2

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.0

60

.82

30

.48

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.25

0.8

33

1.6

8

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

58

.81

0.8

93

0.0

1

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.72

0.9

7-4

.54

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

233



PED-WESCAP

5.1

90

.67

61

.17

-5.1

9-2

.00

61

.17

PED-WES

5.1

92

.00

61

.17

-4.7

5-1

.90

61

.17

Sta

tion1

3/P

ED

WE

S B

US

BA

R

59

.63

0.9

04

5.0

2

BRK-PED

15

.74

4.8

17

1.8

2

-14

.69

-4.2

17

1.8

2




WES0.0065SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

SER-CAP

16

.38

-5.9

45

5.1

9

-16

.38

-5.4

85

5.1

9

COM-ALB

16

.38

5.4

85

5.1

9

-15

.74

-4.8

15

5.1

9

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.90

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.16

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.9

77.

77

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

911

2.3

0

-2.3

81.

3811

2.3

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

710

7.7

8

-4.7

52.

3410

7.7

8

WESTR

4.75

1.90

123

.06

-4.7

5-1

.67

123

.06

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

9.3

3

9.5

03

.54

11

9.3

3

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.2

2

2.37

0.84

61.2

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.2

2

2.37

0.84

61.2

2

ALB-COMM

24.8

4-7

.98

80.2

0

-23.

519.

4080

.20

ALBANY1

34

.99

3.8

94

4.0

0

-34

.99

-3.4

24

4.0

0

ALBANY2

34

.99

3.8

94

4.0

0

-34

.99

-3.4

24

4.0

0

69

.97

6.8

50

.00

69

.97

7.7

70

.00

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

63

.39

0.9

63

3.7

1

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.53

0.8

42

8.9

5

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.79

0.9

8-6

.45

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.72

0.9

9-6

.42

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

60

.43

0.9

23

2.2

0

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.87

0.8

34

5.6

8

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

80

.82

42

.09

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.10

0.8

24

3.3

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

56

.08

0.8

53

1.2

2

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.94

0.9

7-4

.72

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.91

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

11

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

234

APPENDIX E4.1 OPTION4-SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR IN COMMITEES-PEDDIE LINE

AT BREAKTASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=0.5)


COMM-PED SERIES COMPENSATION


PED0.5 SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.68

6.0

66

9.5

1

-14

.69

-5.5

06

9.5

1

BRK-PED CAP

15

.68

5.9

35

3.4

1

-15

.68

-6.0

65

3.4

1

SER-CAP

16

.27

-4.1

45

3.4

1

-16

.27

-6.5

55

3.4

1

COM-ALB

16

.27

6.5

55

3.4

1

-15

.68

-5.9

35

3.4

1

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.8

09.

55

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

0

-2.3

81.

3711

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

4

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

4

WESTR

4.75

1.90

123

.42

-4.7

5-1

.67

123

.42

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.3

0

9.5

03

.50

11

2.3

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.4

0

2.37

0.84

61.4

0

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.4

0

2.37

0.84

61.4

0

PED-WES

5.19

2.01

61.3

4

-4.7

5-1

.90

61.3

4

ALB-COMM

24.6

7-6

.21

78.2

2

-23.

407.

5578

.22

ALBANY1

34

.90

4.7

84

4.0

3

-34

.90

-4.3

14

4.0

3

ALBANY2

34

.90

4.7

84

4.0

3

-34

.90

-4.3

14

4.0

3

69

.80

8.6

20

.00

69

.80

9.5

50

.00

Sta

tion

13/C

AP

-PE

D

63

.76

0.9

73

0.9

2Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.53

1.0

13

1.7

1

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.69

0.8

92

8.3

1

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.25

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.22

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.57

0.9

63

0.4

8

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.72

0.8

33

0.9

8

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

60

.81

27

.37

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.04

0.8

22

8.5

9

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.49

0.9

03

0.3

2

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.68

0.9

6-4

.51

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

235

APPENDIX E.4.2 OPTION4-SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR IN COMMITEES-PEDDIE LINE

AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=1)




PED1 SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.67

6.0

66

9.4

0

-14

.69

-5.5

06

9.4

0

BRK-PED CAP

15

.67

5.9

95

3.3

3

-15

.67

-6.0

65

3.3

3

SER-CAP

16

.26

-4.0

55

3.3

3

-16

.26

-6.6

15

3.3

3

COM-ALB

16

.26

6.6

15

3.3

3

-15

.67

-5.9

95

3.3

3

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.14

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

99.

65

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

0

-2.3

81.

3611

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

5

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

5

WESTR

4.75

1.90

123

.20

-4.7

5-1

.67

123

.20

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.1

4

9.5

03

.50

11

2.1

4

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.2

9

2.37

0.84

61.2

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.2

9

2.37

0.84

61.2

9

PED-WES

5.19

2.00

61.2

3

-4.7

5-1

.90

61.2

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

6-6

.11

78.1

2

-23.

397.

4578

.12

ALBANY1

34

.90

4.8

34

4.0

3

-34

.90

-4.3

64

4.0

3

ALBANY2

34

.90

4.8

34

4.0

3

-34

.90

-4.3

64

4.0

3

69

.79

8.7

20

.00

69

.79

9.6

50

.00

Sta

tion

13/C

AP

-PE

D

63

.84

0.9

73

0.6

1Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.70

1.0

13

1.6

1

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.72

0.9

02

8.0

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.24

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.21

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.74

0.9

73

0.3

9

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.81

0.8

33

0.6

7

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

70

.82

27

.07

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.08

0.8

22

8.2

9

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.58

0.9

03

0.0

1

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.67

0.9

6-4

.50

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

236


AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR (B=0.25)




PED0.25SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.69

6.0

76

9.7

4

-14

.69

-5.5

16

9.7

4

BRK-PED CAP

15

.69

5.7

95

3.5

9

-15

.69

-6.0

75

3.5

9

SER-CAP

16

.28

-4.3

45

3.5

9

-16

.28

-6.4

25

3.5

9

COM-ALB

16

.28

6.4

25

3.5

9

-15

.69

-5.7

95

3.5

9

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.8

29.

36

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.3

9

-2.3

81.

3711

2.3

9

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

410

7.9

2

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

2

WESTR

4.75

1.90

123

.88

-4.7

5-1

.68

123

.88

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.6

5

9.5

03

.50

11

2.6

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.6

3

2.37

0.84

61.6

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.6

3

2.37

0.84

61.6

3

PED-WES

5.19

2.01

61.5

7

-4.7

5-1

.90

61.5

7

ALB-COMM

24.6

9-6

.40

78.4

2

-23.

417.

7578

.42

ALBANY1

34

.91

4.6

84

4.0

3

-34

.91

-4.2

14

4.0

3

ALBANY2

34

.91

4.6

84

4.0

3

-34

.91

-4.2

14

4.0

3

69

.82

8.4

30

.00

69

.82

9.3

60

.00

Sta

tion

13/C

AP

-PE

D

63

.60

0.9

63

1.5

6Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

66

.18

1.0

03

1.9

2

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.63

0.8

92

8.9

3

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.75

0.9

8-6

.28

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.64

0.9

8-6

.24

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

63

.22

0.9

63

0.6

7

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.52

0.8

33

1.6

2

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

20

.81

27

.98

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.98

0.8

22

9.2

2

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.32

0.9

03

0.9

5

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.71

0.9

7-4

.53

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

237


AT BREAKFASTVLEI BUSBAR ( B=0.1)




PED0.1SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.73

6.1

17

0.5

8

-14

.70

-5.5

37

0.5

8

BRK-PED CAP

15

.73

5.3

95

4.2

3

-15

.73

-6.1

15

4.2

3

SER-CAP1

6.3

4-4

.99

54

.23

-16

.34

-6.0

45

4.2

3

COM-ALB

16

.34

6.0

45

4.2

3

-15

.73

-5.3

95

4.2

3

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.88

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.9

08.7

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.28

11

2.3

5

-2.3

81.3

711

2.3

5

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.15

10

7.8

6

-4.7

52.3

210

7.8

6

WESTR

4.7

51.9

112

5.5

9

-4.7

5-1

.68

12

5.5

9

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

3.9

0

9.5

03

.51

11

3.9

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

62.4

8

2.3

70.8

462.4

8

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

62.4

8

2.3

70.8

462.4

8

PED-WES

5.2

02.0

262.4

2

-4.7

5-1

.91

62.4

2

ALB-COMM

24.7

7-7

.04

79.1

5

-23.4

78.4

279.1

5

ALBANY1

34

.95

4.3

64

4.0

2

-34

.95

-3.8

94

4.0

2

ALBANY2

34

.95

4.3

64

4.0

2

-34

.95

-3.8

94

4.0

2

69

.90

7.7

90

.00

69

.90

8.7

20

.00

Sta

tion

13

/CA

P-P

ED

63

.01

0.9

53

3.6

0Sta

tion11

/CA

P-B

US

BA

R

65

.05

0.9

93

2.6

6

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.41

0.8

83

0.9

1

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.76

0.9

8-6

.35

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.68

0.9

9-6

.32

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

62

.10

0.9

43

1.3

0

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

53

.82

0.8

23

3.6

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.8

00

.80

29

.94

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

17

.74

0.8

13

1.2

1

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

8.6

80

.89

32

.99

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.80

0.9

7-4

.61

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.90

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

01

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

238

APPENDIX E.4.5 OPTION4-SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR IN COMMITTEES-PEDDIE LINE





PED0.05SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/2/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.82

6.2

07

2.6

9

-14

.74

-5.5

87

2.6

9

BRK-PED CAP

15

.82

4.6

85

5.8

6

-15

.82

-6.2

05

5.8

6

SER-CAP1

6.4

7-6

.34

55

.86

-16

.47

-5.3

65

5.8

6

COM-ALB

16

.47

5.3

65

5.8

6

-15

.82

-4.6

85

5.8

6

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.91

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.17

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.0

87.4

0

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.29

11

2.2

8

-2.3

81.3

911

2.2

8

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.17

10

7.7

5

-4.7

52.3

510

7.7

5

WESTR

4.7

51.9

412

9.9

0

-4.7

5-1

.69

12

9.9

0

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

7.0

4

9.5

03

.53

11

7.0

4

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

64.6

3

2.3

70.8

464.6

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

64.6

3

2.3

70.8

464.6

3

PED-WES

5.2

42.0

564.5

6

-4.7

5-1

.94

64.5

6

ALB-COMM

24.9

5-8

.37

80.8

9

-23.6

09.8

080.8

9

ALBANY1

35

.04

3.7

04

4.0

5

-35

.04

-3.2

34

4.0

5

ALBANY2

35

.04

3.7

04

4.0

5

-35

.04

-3.2

34

4.0

5

70

.08

6.4

60

.00

70

.08

7.4

00

.00

Sta

tion

13

/CA

P-P

ED

61

.62

0.9

33

7.6

6Sta

tion11

/CA

P-B

US

BA

R

62

.81

0.9

53

4.3

0

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.89

0.8

63

4.8

4

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.79

0.9

8-6

.51

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.74

0.9

9-6

.47

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.83

0.9

13

2.7

4

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

52

.13

0.7

93

7.7

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.5

10

.77

33

.79

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

17

.16

0.7

83

5.1

4

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

7.1

50

.87

37

.02

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.99

0.9

7-4

.78

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.91

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

11

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

239

APPENDIX E.4.6 OPTION4-SECOND SERIES CAPACITOR IN COMMITTEES-PEDDIE LINE


BRK-PED

15

.71

6.0

97

0.2

7

-14

.70

-5.5

27

0.2

7

BRK-PED CAP

15

.71

5.5

35

4.0

0

-15

.71

-6.0

95

4.0

0

Sta

tion

13/C

AP

-PE

D

63

.22

0.9

63

2.9

0

SER-CAP

16

.32

-4.7

75

4.0

0

-16

.32

-6.1

75

4.0

0

COM-ALB

16

.32

6.1

75

4.0

0

-15

.71

-5.5

35

4.0

0

Sta

tion1

1/C

AP

-BU

SB

AR

65

.44

0.9

93

2.4

0




PED0.125 SUSPECTANCE

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/1/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.88

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.8

78.

94

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

811

2.3

6

-2.3

81.

3711

2.3

6

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

510

7.8

8

-4.7

52.

3210

7.8

8

WESTR

4.75

1.91

124

.97

-4.7

5-1

.68

124

.97

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

3.4

5

9.5

03

.50

11

3.4

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

62.1

7

2.37

0.84

62.1

7

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

62.1

7

2.37

0.84

62.1

7

PED-WES

5.20

2.02

62.1

1

-4.7

5-1

.91

62.1

1

ALB-COMM

24.7

4-6

.82

78.8

9

-23.

458.

1978

.89

ALBANY1

34

.93

4.4

74

4.0

2

-34

.93

-4.0

04

4.0

2

ALBANY2

34

.93

4.4

74

4.0

2

-34

.93

-4.0

04

4.0

2

69

.87

8.0

10

.00

69

.87

8.9

40

.00

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.49

0.8

93

0.2

3

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.76

0.9

8-6

.32

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.67

0.9

8-6

.29

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

62

.48

0.9

53

1.0

7

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.07

0.8

23

2.9

7

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.8

50

.80

29

.27

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.82

0.8

13

0.5

2

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

58

.91

0.8

93

2.2

9

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.77

0.9

7-4

.58

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.90

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

01

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

240

APPENDIX F.1.1 SERIES CAPACITOR SPECIFICATION B=0.0095



cap at PEDBar

B0.0095

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.0

26

8.1

3

-14

.67

1.5

66

8.1

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.5

66

8.1

3

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

3

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.6

46

8.1

3

-15

.62

1.0

26

8.1

3

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

59

.98

-4.7

5-1

.89

59

.98

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.80

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

713.1

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.23

11

2.6

3

-2.3

81.3

311

2.6

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.06

10

8.3

0

-4.7

52.2

410

8.3

0

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

0.6

7

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

0.6

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

5

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.66

76.2

5

-23.4

33.9

376.2

5

ALBANY1

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

ALBANY2

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

69

.77

12

.17

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.12

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.08

0.8

6-7

.96

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.06

0.9

11

6.6

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.65

0.9

7-5

.90

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.44

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.57

0.9

2-5

.63

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.90

0.8

51

9.1

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

60

.83

15

.73

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.45

0.8

41

6.9

0

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

0.5

80

.92

18

.56

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.13

0.9

6-4

.12

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

241




cap at PEDBar

B0.006

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.84

-6.5

97

3.0

7

-14

.74

7.2

17

3.0

7

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.74

-7.2

17

3.0

7

-14

.74

-5.5

97

3.0

7

COM-BRK

16

.62

-6.1

57

3.0

7

-15

.84

6.5

97

3.0

7

PED-WES

5.2

42

.06

64

.95

-4.7

5-1

.94

64

.95

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.90

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.16

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.2

57.6

1

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.29

11

2.3

0

-2.3

81.3

811

2.3

0

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.17

10

7.7

8

-4.7

52.3

410

7.7

8

WESTR

4.7

51.9

413

0.6

8

-4.7

5-1

.69

13

0.6

8

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

7.6

0

9.5

03

.53

11

7.6

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.0

1

2.3

70.8

465.0

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

65.0

1

2.3

70.8

465.0

1

ALB-COMM

25.1

2-8

.16

81.1

7

-23.7

59.6

081.1

7

ALBANY1

35

.12

3.8

04

4.1

6

-35

.12

-3.3

44

4.1

6

ALBANY2

35

.12

3.8

04

4.1

6

-35

.12

-3.3

44

4.1

6

70

.25

6.6

70

.00

70

.25

7.6

10

.00

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

59

.21

0.9

0-1

0.5

4

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.80

0.8

53

4.0

9

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.78

0.9

8-6

.51

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.72

0.9

9-6

.48

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

61

.89

0.9

4-7

.08

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

51

.83

0.7

93

7.0

7

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.4

60

.77

33

.03

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

17

.06

0.7

83

4.4

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

56

.89

0.8

63

6.3

0

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.94

0.9

7-4

.78

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.91

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

11

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

242




cap at PEDBar

B0.007

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.68

-3.8

66

9.4

6

-14

.69

4.4

16

9.4

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.69

-4.4

16

9.4

6

-14

.69

-5.5

06

9.4

6

COM-BRK

16

.39

-3.4

56

9.4

6

-15

.68

3.8

66

9.4

6

PED-WES

5.1

92

.01

61

.30

-4.7

5-1

.90

61

.30

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.85

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.14

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.9

110

.27

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

611

2.4

5

-2.3

81.

3611

2.4

5

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

210

8.0

2

-4.7

52.

2910

8.0

2

WESTR

4.75

1.90

123

.33

-4.7

5-1

.67

123

.33

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

2.2

3

9.5

03

.50

11

2.2

3

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.3

5

2.37

0.84

61.3

5

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.3

5

2.37

0.84

61.3

5

ALB-COMM

24.7

8-5

.50

78.0

5

-23.

526.

8378

.05

ALBANY1

34

.96

5.1

34

4.1

6

-34

.96

-4.6

74

4.1

6

ALBANY2

34

.96

5.1

34

4.1

6

-34

.96

-4.6

74

4.1

6

69

.91

9.3

30

.00

69

.91

10

.27

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

58

.21

0.8

8-9

.27

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.70

0.9

02

5.9

8

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.72

0.9

7-6

.20

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.59

0.9

8-6

.17

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

61

.27

0.9

3-6

.36

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.76

0.8

32

8.6

5

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

60

.81

25

.05

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.06

0.8

22

6.2

7

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.53

0.9

02

7.9

9

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.56

0.9

6-4

.45

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.88

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

81

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

243




cap at PEDBar

B0.008

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.63

-2.4

16

8.4

5

-14

.67

2.9

56

8.4

5

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-2.9

56

8.4

5

-14

.67

-5.4

86

8.4

5

COM-BRK

16

.32

-2.0

26

8.4

5

-15

.63

2.4

16

8.4

5

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

60

.29

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.29

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.83

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.12

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.8

111.7

1

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.25

11

2.5

4

-2.3

81.3

411

2.5

4

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.09

10

8.1

5

-4.7

52.2

710

8.1

5

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

1.3

0

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

1.3

0

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.7

2

9.5

03

.49

11

0.7

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.3

5

2.3

70.8

460.3

5

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.3

5

2.3

70.8

460.3

5

ALB-COMM

24.6

8-4

.06

76.9

3

-23.4

55.3

676.9

3

ALBANY1

34

.91

5.8

64

4.2

4

-34

.91

-5.3

94

4.2

4

ALBANY2

34

.91

5.8

64

4.2

4

-34

.91

-5.3

94

4.2

4

69

.81

10

.77

0.0

0

69

.81

11

.71

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.64

0.8

7-8

.60

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.97

0.9

12

1.2

7

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.68

0.9

7-6

.04

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.52

0.9

8-6

.01

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

60

.92

0.9

2-5

.99

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.63

0.8

42

3.8

7

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

10

.83

20

.37

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.36

0.8

32

1.5

6

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

60

.32

0.9

12

3.2

3

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.34

0.9

6-4

.28

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.86

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

61

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

244




cap at PEDBar

B0.0085

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.63

-1.8

76

8.2

5

-14

.67

2.4

16

8.2

5

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-2.4

16

8.2

5

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.2

5

COM-BRK

16

.31

-1.4

96

8.2

5

-15

.63

1.8

76

8.2

5

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

60

.09

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.09

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.82

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.12

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

912

.25

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

411

2.5

8

-2.3

81.

3411

2.5

8

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.0

810

8.2

1

-4.7

52.

2610

8.2

1

WESTR

4.75

1.89

120

.90

-4.7

5-1

.67

120

.90

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.4

2

9.5

03

.48

11

0.4

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.1

5

2.37

0.83

60.1

5

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.1

5

2.37

0.83

60.1

5

ALB-COMM

24.6

6-3

.52

76.6

2

-23.

444.

8176

.62

ALBANY1

34

.89

6.1

34

4.2

8

-34

.89

-5.6

64

4.2

8

ALBANY2

34

.89

6.1

34

4.2

8

-34

.89

-5.6

64

4.2

8

69

.79

11

.31

0.0

0

69

.79

12

.25

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.43

0.8

7-8

.35

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.02

0.9

11

9.4

9

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.67

0.9

7-5

.99

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.49

0.9

8-5

.95

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

60

.79

0.9

2-5

.85

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.80

0.8

52

2.0

7

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.1

40

.83

18

.60

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.42

0.8

41

9.7

7

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

60

.48

0.9

22

1.4

4

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.26

0.9

6-4

.22

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.85

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

51

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

245




cap at PEDBar

B0.009

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.4

26

8.1

6

-14

.67

1.9

66

8.1

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.9

66

8.1

6

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

6

COM-BRK

16

.30

-1.0

36

8.1

6

-15

.62

1.4

26

8.1

6

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

60

.00

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.00

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.81

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

812

.71

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

411

2.6

1

-2.3

81.

3311

2.6

1

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.0

710

8.2

5

-4.7

52.

2510

8.2

5

WESTR

4.75

1.89

120

.72

-4.7

5-1

.67

120

.72

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

8

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

6

2.37

0.83

60.0

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

6

2.37

0.83

60.0

6

ALB-COMM

24.6

5-3

.06

76.4

0

-23.

434.

3476

.40

ALBANY1

34

.89

6.3

64

4.3

3

-34

.89

-5.8

94

4.3

3

ALBANY2

34

.89

6.3

64

4.3

3

-34

.89

-5.8

94

4.3

3

69

.78

11

.77

0.0

0

69

.78

12

.71

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.24

0.8

7-8

.14

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.05

0.9

11

7.9

6

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.66

0.9

7-5

.94

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.46

0.9

8-5

.91

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

60

.67

0.9

2-5

.73

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.88

0.8

52

0.5

3

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.1

60

.83

17

.07

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.44

0.8

41

8.2

4

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

60

.56

0.9

21

9.9

0

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.19

0.9

6-4

.17

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.85

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

51

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

246




cap at PEDBar

B0.0095

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.0

26

8.1

3

-14

.67

1.5

66

8.1

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.5

66

8.1

3

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

3

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.6

46

8.1

3

-15

.62

1.0

26

8.1

3

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

59

.98

-4.7

5-1

.89

59

.98

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.80

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

713.1

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.23

11

2.6

3

-2.3

81.3

311

2.6

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.06

10

8.3

0

-4.7

52.2

410

8.3

0

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

0.6

7

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

0.6

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

5

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.66

76.2

5

-23.4

33.9

376.2

5

ALBANY1

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

ALBANY2

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

69

.77

12

.17

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.12

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.08

0.8

6-7

.96

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.06

0.9

11

6.6

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.65

0.9

7-5

.90

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.44

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.57

0.9

2-5

.63

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.90

0.8

51

9.1

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

60

.83

15

.73

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.45

0.8

41

6.9

0

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

0.5

80

.92

18

.56

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.13

0.9

6-4

.12

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

247




cap at PEDBar

B0.01

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-0.6

86

8.1

6

-14

.67

1.2

16

8.1

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.2

16

8.1

6

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

6

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.2

96

8.1

6

-15

.62

0.6

86

8.1

6

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

60

.00

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.00

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.79

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.10

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

713.4

7

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.23

11

2.6

6

-2.3

81.3

211

2.6

6

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.06

10

8.3

3

-4.7

52.2

310

8.3

3

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

0.7

2

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

0.7

2

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

8

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

6

2.3

70.8

360.0

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

6

2.3

70.8

360.0

6

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.30

76.1

4

-23.4

33.5

876.1

4

ALBANY1

34

.88

6.7

44

4.4

1

-34

.88

-6.2

64

4.4

1

ALBANY2

34

.88

6.7

44

4.4

1

-34

.88

-6.2

64

4.4

1

69

.77

12

.53

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.47

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

56

.93

0.8

6-7

.80

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.05

0.9

11

5.4

4

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.64

0.9

7-5

.86

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.42

0.9

7-5

.83

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.48

0.9

2-5

.54

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.88

0.8

51

8.0

1

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

60

.83

14

.55

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.44

0.8

41

5.7

2

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

0.5

50

.92

17

.38

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.07

0.9

6-4

.08

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

248




cap at PEDBar

B0.0125

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.64

0.6

16

8.6

2

-14

.68

-0.0

66

8.6

2

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.68

0.0

66

8.6

2

-14

.68

-5.4

86

8.6

2

COM-BRK

16

.33

1.0

06

8.6

2

-15

.64

-0.6

16

8.6

2

PED-WES

5.1

81

.99

60

.46

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.46

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.77

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.09

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

914

.80

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

111

2.7

6

-2.3

81.

3111

2.7

6

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.0

310

8.4

8

-4.7

52.

2110

8.4

8

WESTR

4.75

1.89

121

.64

-4.7

5-1

.67

121

.64

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.9

8

9.5

03

.49

11

0.9

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.5

2

2.37

0.84

60.5

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.5

2

2.37

0.84

60.5

2

ALB-COMM

24.6

6-0

.98

75.9

5

-23.

462.

2575

.95

ALBANY1

34

.89

7.4

04

4.5

9

-34

.89

-6.9

24

4.5

9

ALBANY2

34

.89

7.4

04

4.5

9

-34

.89

-6.9

24

4.5

9

69

.79

13

.85

0.0

0

69

.79

14

.80

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

56

.38

0.8

5-7

.20

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.92

0.9

11

1.0

7

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.60

0.9

6-5

.73

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.35

0.9

7-5

.70

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

60

.13

0.9

1-5

.22

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.47

0.8

41

3.6

8

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.0

90

.83

10

.17

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.30

0.8

31

1.3

6

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

60

.18

0.9

11

3.0

4

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

62

.86

0.9

5-3

.94

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.82

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

21

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

249

APPENDIX G.1.1 SHUNT CAPACITOR CONNECTED AT FISHRIVER LV

-C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.005MVAR

Fis

h -S

hu

nt

-0.0

0-0

.00



COMPCOM11&22+PEDSERIES

FISHLV0.005MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/8/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.12

-4.0

25

1.5

1

-14

.65

4.5

15

1.5

1

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.65

-4.5

16

7.0

4

-14

.65

-5.4

46

7.0

4

PED-WES

5.1

51

.97

58

.88

-4.7

5-1

.87

58

.88

Line

15

.78

-3.6

46

7.0

4

-15

.12

4.0

26

7.0

4

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.2

49.

97

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

0

-2.3

81.

3711

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

4

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

4

WESTR

4.75

1.87

118

.46

-4.7

5-1

.66

118

.46

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

10

8.6

0

9.5

03

.47

10

8.6

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

58.9

3

2.37

0.83

58.9

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

58.9

3

2.37

0.83

58.9

3

ALB-COMM

24.1

1-5

.77

76.2

4

-22.

917.

0576

.24

ALBANY1

34

.62

4.9

94

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

34

3.7

2

ALBANY2

34

.62

4.9

94

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

34

3.7

2

69

.24

9.0

60

.00

69

.24

9.9

70

.00

Sta

tion1

1/B

RK

-PE

DB

US

BA

R

60

.29

0.9

1-8

.48

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.36

0.9

32

7.1

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.13

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.10

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.52

0.9

3-6

.26

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

56

.88

0.8

62

9.5

8

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.3

30

.85

26

.24

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.78

0.8

52

7.3

7

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

61

.47

0.9

32

8.9

9

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.68

0.9

6-4

.38

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.88

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

81

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

250


- C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.5MVAR

Fis

h -S

hu

nt

-0.0

0-0

.35




FISHLV0.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/8/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.12

-4.4

85

1.8

2

-14

.65

4.9

75

1.8

2

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.65

-4.9

76

7.4

4

-14

.65

-5.1

06

7.4

4

PED-WES

5.1

51

.61

58

.37

-4.7

5-1

.52

58

.37

Line

15

.78

-4.1

06

7.4

4

-15

.12

4.4

86

7.4

4

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.88

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.2

69.

52

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

811

2.3

7

-2.3

81.

3711

2.3

7

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

410

7.9

0

-4.7

52.

3210

7.9

0

WESTR

4.75

1.52

117

.44

-4.7

5-1

.31

117

.44

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.1

6

9.5

03

.48

11

0.1

6

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.60

58.4

2

2.37

0.66

58.4

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.60

58.4

2

2.37

0.66

58.4

2

ALB-COMM

24.1

3-6

.23

76.6

3

-22.

917.

5276

.63

ALBANY1

34

.63

4.7

64

3.7

0

-34

.63

-4.3

04

3.7

0

ALBANY2

34

.63

4.7

64

3.7

0

-34

.63

-4.3

04

3.7

0

69

.26

8.6

00

.00

69

.26

9.5

20

.00

Sta

tion1

1/B

RK

-PE

DB

US

BA

R

60

.47

0.9

2-8

.63

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.07

0.9

12

7.3

6

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.75

0.9

8-6

.18

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.66

0.9

8-6

.14

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.63

0.9

3-6

.37

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

56

.05

0.8

52

9.6

1

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.2

30

.84

26

.19

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.56

0.8

42

7.3

4

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

60

.62

0.9

22

9.3

0

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.75

0.9

7-4

.43

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.89

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

251


-C REACTIVE POWER Q=2MVAR

Fis

h -S

hu

nt

0.0

0-1

.31




FISHLV2MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/8/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.14

-5.8

95

3.1

2

-14

.65

6.4

15

3.1

2

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.65

-6.4

16

9.1

2

-14

.65

-4.1

76

9.1

2

PED-WES

5.1

50

.65

58

.63

-4.7

5-0

.56

58

.63

Line

15

.85

-5.4

96

9.1

2

-15

.14

5.8

96

9.1

2

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.90

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.16

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.3

78.1

4

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.29

11

2.2

9

-2.3

81.3

811

2.2

9

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.17

10

7.7

7

-4.7

52.3

410

7.7

7

WESTR

4.7

50.5

611

7.9

7

-4.7

5-0

.35

11

7.9

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

5.0

8

9.5

03

.52

11

5.0

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.12

58.6

9

2.3

70.1

858.6

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.12

58.6

9

2.3

70.1

858.6

9

ALB-COMM

24.2

4-7

.61

78.1

0

-22.9

88.9

578.1

0

ALBANY1

34

.69

4.0

74

3.6

5

-34

.69

-3.6

14

3.6

5

ALBANY2

34

.69

4.0

74

3.6

5

-34

.69

-3.6

14

3.6

5

69

.37

7.2

20

.00

69

.37

8.1

40

.00

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

60

.98

0.9

2-9

.11

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.21

0.8

72

8.2

8

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.79

0.9

8-6

.33

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.73

0.9

9-6

.29

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

61

.96

0.9

4-6

.73

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

53

.51

0.8

12

9.8

5

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.9

10

.81

26

.14

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

17

.85

0.8

12

7.3

8

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE5

8.0

90

.88

30

.40

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.96

0.9

7-4

.60

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.90

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

01

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

252

APPENDIX G.1.4 SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV-C REACTIVE POWER 5.5MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hunt

-0.0

0-3

.85


SERIES COMPENSATION+PEDLVRLSHUNT

C SHUNT

Q5.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.84

-5.4

17

1.6

5

-14

.79

6.0

07

1.6

5

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.79

-6.0

07

1.6

5

-14

.79

-1.7

77

1.6

5

COM-BRK

16

.60

-4.9

87

1.6

5

-15

.84

5.4

17

1.6

5

PED-WES

5.2

92

.11

68

.19

-4.7

5-1

.98

68

.19

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.88

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

70.1

98.

77

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

811

2.3

7

-2.3

81.

3711

2.3

7

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

410

7.8

9

-4.7

52.

3210

7.8

9

WESTR

4.75

1.98

137

.20

-4.7

5-1

.70

137

.20

PEDDIETR

-9.5

00

.73

11

4.4

6

9.5

0-0

.34

11

4.4

6

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

68.2

6

2.37

0.85

68.2

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

68.2

6

2.37

0.85

68.2

6

ALB-COMM

25.0

6-7

.00

79.9

7

-23.

738.

4079

.97

ALBANY1

35

.09

4.3

94

4.2

1

-35

.09

-3.9

24

4.2

1

ALBANY2

35

.09

4.3

94

4.2

1

-35

.09

-3.9

24

4.2

1

70

.19

7.8

30

.00

70

.19

8.7

70

.00

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

58

.73

0.8

9-1

0.0

3

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

18

.40

0.8

41

6.5

5

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.75

0.9

8-6

.39

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.66

0.9

8-6

.35

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

61

.60

0.9

3-6

.79

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

49

.51

0.7

51

9.7

7

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.0

60

.73

15

.33

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

16

.26

0.7

41

6.8

4

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

54

.81

0.8

31

8.8

9

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.76

0.9

7-4

.65

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.90

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

01

.00

-0.7

6

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

253

APPENDIX G.1.5 SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV- C REACTIVE POWER 2.5MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hunt

0.0

0-1

.92



C SHUNT

Q2.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.70

-3.0

76

9.0

5

-14

.72

3.6

26

9.0

5

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.72

-3.6

26

9.0

5

-14

.72

-3.6

06

9.0

5

COM-BRK

16

.40

-2.6

76

9.0

5

-15

.70

3.0

76

9.0

5

PED-WES

5.2

22

.04

63

.55

-4.7

5-1

.93

63

.55

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.84

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.13

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.9

111.0

6

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.25

11

2.5

0

-2.3

81.3

511

2.5

0

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.10

10

8.1

0

-4.7

52.2

810

8.1

0

WESTR

4.7

51.9

312

7.8

7

-4.7

5-1

.68

12

7.8

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-1

.20

10

9.8

2

9.5

01

.56

10

9.8

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

63.6

1

2.3

70.8

463.6

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

63.6

1

2.3

70.8

463.6

1

ALB-COMM

24.7

8-4

.71

77.5

7

-23.5

36.0

377.5

7

ALBANY1

34

.95

5.5

34

4.2

4

-34

.95

-5.0

64

4.2

4

ALBANY2

34

.95

5.5

34

4.2

4

-34

.95

-5.0

64

4.2

4

69

.91

10

.12

0.0

0

69

.91

11

.06

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.88

0.8

8-8

.93

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.28

0.8

81

6.5

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.70

0.9

7-6

.12

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.55

0.9

8-6

.09

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

61

.07

0.9

3-6

.17

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

52

.91

0.8

01

9.3

6

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

8.6

50

.79

15

.49

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

17

.43

0.7

91

6.8

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

57

.86

0.8

81

8.6

3

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.43

0.9

6-4

.36

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.87

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

71

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

254

APPENDIX G.1.6 SHUNT CAPACITOR CONNECTED AT PEDDIE LV

-C REACTIVE POWER Q =2MVAr

Pe

d S

hu

nt

0.0

0-1

.51




PEDLV2MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/8/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.24

-6.3

05

3.8

4

-14

.73

6.8

45

3.8

4

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.73

-6.8

47

0.0

7

-14

.73

-4.0

37

0.0

7

PED-WES

5.2

32

.05

64

.13

-4.7

5-1

.93

64

.13

Line

15

.96

-5.8

97

0.0

7

-15

.24

6.3

07

0.0

7

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.91

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.17

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.5

17.

75

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

911

2.2

8

-2.3

81.

3911

2.2

8

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

710

7.7

4

-4.7

52.

3510

7.7

4

WESTR

4.75

1.93

129

.02

-4.7

5-1

.68

129

.02

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-1

.61

11

1.4

9

9.5

01

.98

11

1.4

9

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

64.1

9

2.37

0.84

64.1

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

64.1

9

2.37

0.84

64.1

9

ALB-COMM

24.3

8-8

.00

78.8

6

-23.

099.

3678

.86

ALBANY1

34

.75

3.8

84

3.7

1

-34

.75

-3.4

24

3.7

1

ALBANY2

34

.75

3.8

84

3.7

1

-34

.75

-3.4

24

3.7

1

69

.51

6.8

30

.00

69

.51

7.7

50

.00

Sta

tion1

1/B

RK

-PE

DB

US

BA

R

61

.09

0.9

3-9

.29

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.11

0.8

72

8.7

7

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.80

0.9

8-6

.38

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.74

0.9

9-6

.35

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

62

.03

0.9

4-6

.86

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

52

.46

0.7

93

1.6

7

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.5

70

.78

27

.73

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

17

.27

0.7

92

9.0

6

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

57

.45

0.8

73

0.9

2

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

64

.00

0.9

7-4

.66

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.91

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.9

11

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

255

APPENDIX G.1.7 SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV-C REACTIVE POWER 1MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hunt

0.0

0-0

.81



C SHUNT

Q1MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.65

-1.8

56

8.3

4

-14

.69

2.3

96

8.3

4

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.69

-2.3

96

8.3

4

-14

.69

-4.6

86

8.3

4

COM-BRK

16

.33

-1.4

66

8.3

4

-15

.65

1.8

56

8.3

4

PED-WES

5.1

92

.01

61

.38

-4.7

5-1

.90

61

.38

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.82

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.12

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.8

112

.28

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

411

2.5

8

-2.3

81.

3411

2.5

8

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.0

810

8.2

1

-4.7

52.

2510

8.2

1

WESTR

4.75

1.90

123

.49

-4.7

5-1

.67

123

.49

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-2

.32

10

9.5

3

9.5

02

.67

10

9.5

3

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.4

4

2.37

0.84

61.4

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

61.4

4

2.37

0.84

61.4

4

ALB-COMM

24.6

8-3

.50

76.6

9

-23.

464.

7976

.69

ALBANY1

34

.91

6.1

44

4.3

0

-34

.91

-5.6

74

4.3

0

ALBANY2

34

.91

6.1

44

4.3

0

-34

.91

-5.6

74

4.3

0

69

.81

11

.33

0.0

0

69

.81

12

.28

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.41

0.8

7-8

.35

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

19

.74

0.9

01

6.5

7

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.67

0.9

7-5

.99

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.49

0.9

8-5

.96

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

60

.78

0.9

2-5

.85

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

54

.69

0.8

31

9.2

4

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

8.9

50

.81

15

.62

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.04

0.8

21

6.8

5

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

59

.47

0.9

01

8.5

8

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.25

0.9

6-4

.22

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.85

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

51

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

256

APPENDIX G.1.8 SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV- C REACTIVE POWER 0.025MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hunt

-0.0

0-0

.02



C SHUNT

Q0.025MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.0

46

8.1

4

-14

.67

1.5

86

8.1

4

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.5

86

8.1

4

-14

.67

-5.4

56

8.1

4

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.6

66

8.1

4

-15

.62

1.0

46

8.1

4

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

60

.01

-4.7

5-1

.89

60

.01

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.80

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

713.1

0

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.23

11

2.6

3

-2.3

81.3

311

2.6

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.06

10

8.2

9

-4.7

52.2

410

8.2

9

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

0.7

4

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

0.7

4

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.10

11

0.2

2

9.5

03

.46

11

0.2

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

7

2.3

70.8

360.0

7

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

7

2.3

70.8

360.0

7

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.68

76.2

6

-23.4

33.9

676.2

6

ALBANY1

34

.89

6.5

54

4.3

7

-34

.89

-6.0

84

4.3

7

ALBANY2

34

.89

6.5

54

4.3

7

-34

.89

-6.0

84

4.3

7

69

.77

12

.15

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.10

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.09

0.8

6-7

.97

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.05

0.9

11

6.6

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.65

0.9

7-5

.90

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.44

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.58

0.9

2-5

.64

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.87

0.8

51

9.1

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

60

.83

15

.73

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.44

0.8

41

6.9

0

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

0.5

50

.92

18

.56

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.13

0.9

6-4

.13

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

257


-C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.005MVAr

Pe

d S

hu

nt

-0.0

0-0

.04




PEDLV0.05MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/8/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.12

-4.0

75

1.5

6

-14

.66

4.5

65

1.5

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.66

-4.5

66

7.0

9

-14

.66

-5.4

06

7.0

9

PED-WES

5.1

61

.97

59

.01

-4.7

5-1

.88

59

.01

Line

15

.78

-3.7

06

7.0

9

-15

.12

4.0

76

7.0

9

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.2

59.

92

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

711

2.4

0

-2.3

81.

3711

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.1

310

7.9

3

-4.7

52.

3110

7.9

3

WESTR

4.75

1.88

118

.72

-4.7

5-1

.67

118

.72

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.08

10

8.6

1

9.5

03

.43

10

8.6

1

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

59.0

6

2.37

0.83

59.0

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

59.0

6

2.37

0.83

59.0

6

ALB-COMM

24.1

2-5

.82

76.3

0

-22.

917.

1076

.30

ALBANY1

34

.62

4.9

64

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

04

3.7

2

ALBANY2

34

.62

4.9

64

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

04

3.7

2

69

.25

9.0

10

.00

69

.25

9.9

20

.00

Sta

tion1

1/B

RK

-PE

DB

US

BA

R

60

.31

0.9

1-8

.50

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.33

0.9

22

7.1

4

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.14

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.64

0.9

8-6

.10

Sta

tion8

/BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LEI

61

.53

0.9

3-6

.27

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

56

.78

0.8

62

9.6

3

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.3

10

.85

26

.28

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.75

0.8

52

7.4

1

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

61

.37

0.9

32

9.0

3

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.69

0.9

6-4

.39

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.88

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

81

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

258

APPENDIX G.1.10 SHUNT CAPACITOR CONNECTED AT PEDDIE LV –C REACTIVE POWER Q =0.0005MVAr

Pe

d S

hu

nt

-0.0

0-0

.00




PEDLV0.0005MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/8/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.12

-4.0

15

1.5

1

-14

.65

4.5

05

1.5

1

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.65

-4.5

06

7.0

3

-14

.65

-5.4

46

7.0

3

PED-WES

5.1

51

.97

58

.89

-4.7

5-1

.87

58

.89

Line

15

.78

-3.6

46

7.0

3

-15

.12

4.0

16

7.0

3

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.2

49.9

8

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.27

11

2.4

0

-2.3

81.3

711

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.13

10

7.9

4

-4.7

52.3

110

7.9

4

WESTR

4.7

51.8

711

8.4

8

-4.7

5-1

.67

11

8.4

8

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

10

8.5

9

9.5

03

.47

10

8.5

9

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

58.9

4

2.3

70.8

358.9

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

58.9

4

2.3

70.8

358.9

4

ALB-COMM

24.1

1-5

.77

76.2

4

-22.9

17.0

476.2

4

ALBANY1

34

.62

4.9

94

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

34

3.7

2

ALBANY2

34

.62

4.9

94

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

34

3.7

2

69

.24

9.0

60

.00

69

.24

9.9

80

.00

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

60

.29

0.9

1-8

.48

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.36

0.9

32

7.1

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.13

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.10

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

61

.51

0.9

3-6

.26

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

56

.89

0.8

62

9.5

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.3

30

.85

26

.25

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.79

0.8

52

7.3

7

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

1.4

80

.93

28

.98

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.68

0.9

6-4

.38

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.88

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

81

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

259


-C REACTIVE POWER Q=0.00005MVAr


C- COMPENSATION

Q=0.00005MVAR @PEDLV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 11/12/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hunt

-0.0

0-0

.00

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.0

26

8.1

3

-14

.67

1.5

66

8.1

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.5

66

8.1

3

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

3

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.6

46

8.1

3

-15

.62

1.0

26

8.1

3

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

59

.97

-4.7

5-1

.88

59

.97

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.80

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.13

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

713

.09

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.38

-1.2

511

2.5

0

-2.3

81.

3511

2.5

0

COMM22TR

4.75

-2.0

610

8.2

9

-4.7

52.

2410

8.2

9

WESTR

4.75

1.88

120

.65

-4.7

5-1

.67

120

.65

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

4

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

4

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

2

2.37

0.83

60.0

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

2

2.37

0.83

60.0

2

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.68

76.2

6

-23.

433.

9676

.26

ALBANY1

34

.88

6.5

54

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

74

4.3

7

ALBANY2

34

.88

6.5

54

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

74

4.3

7

69

.77

12

.15

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.09

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.08

0.8

6-7

.96

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.06

0.9

11

6.6

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.70

0.9

7-5

.88

Sta

tion9

/CO

MM

22K

V

21

.44

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

60

.58

0.9

2-5

.63

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.91

0.8

51

9.1

8

Sta

tion6

/FIS

HLV

9.2

10

.84

15

.74

Sta

tion5

/WE

SLE

YLV

18

.45

0.8

41

6.9

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

60

.58

0.9

21

8.5

6

Sta

tion3

/CO

MM

ITE

E

63

.13

0.9

6-4

.13

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1

/ALB

AN

YH

V1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

260

APPENDIX G.2.1 RLC CAPACITOR 2.5 MVAr AT FISHRIVER LV




RLC2.5MVARSHUNT@FISHLV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/9/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

FIS

H-S

hun

t

0.0

00

.00

BRK-PED

15

.12

-4.0

15

1.5

1

-14

.65

4.5

05

1.5

1

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.65

-4.5

06

7.0

3

-14

.65

-5.4

46

7.0

3

PED-WES

5.1

51

.97

58

.89

-4.7

5-1

.87

58

.89

Line

15

.78

-3.6

46

7.0

3

-15

.12

4.0

16

7.0

3

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.87

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.15

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.2

49.9

8

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.27

11

2.4

0

-2.3

81.3

711

2.4

0

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.13

10

7.9

4

-4.7

52.3

110

7.9

4

WESTR

4.7

51.8

711

8.4

8

-4.7

5-1

.67

11

8.4

8

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

10

8.5

9

9.5

03

.47

10

8.5

9

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

58.9

4

2.3

70.8

358.9

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

58.9

4

2.3

70.8

358.9

4

ALB-COMM

24.1

1-5

.77

76.2

4

-22.9

17.0

476.2

4

ALBANY1

34

.62

4.9

94

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

34

3.7

2

ALBANY2

34

.62

4.9

94

3.7

2

-34

.62

-4.5

34

3.7

2

69

.24

9.0

60

.00

69

.24

9.9

80

.00

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

60

.29

0.9

1-8

.48

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.36

0.9

32

7.1

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.74

0.9

8-6

.13

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.63

0.9

8-6

.10

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

61

.51

0.9

3-6

.26

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

56

.89

0.8

62

9.5

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.3

30

.85

26

.24

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.79

0.8

52

7.3

7

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

1.4

80

.93

28

.98

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.68

0.9

6-4

.38

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.88

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

81

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

261

APPENDIX G.2.2 SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV- RLC REACTIVE POWER 1.5MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

0.0

00

.00



RLC SHUNT

Q1.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.0

26

8.1

3

-14

.67

1.5

66

8.1

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.5

66

8.1

3

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

3

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.6

46

8.1

3

-15

.62

1.0

26

8.1

3

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

59

.97

-4.7

5-1

.89

59

.97

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.80

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

713.1

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.23

11

2.6

3

-2.3

81.3

311

2.6

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.06

10

8.3

0

-4.7

52.2

410

8.3

0

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

0.6

7

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

0.6

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

5

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.66

76.2

5

-23.4

33.9

376.2

5

ALBANY1

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

ALBANY2

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

69

.77

12

.17

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.12

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.08

0.8

6-7

.96

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.06

0.9

11

6.6

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.65

0.9

7-5

.90

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.44

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.57

0.9

2-5

.63

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.91

0.8

51

9.1

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

60

.83

15

.73

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.45

0.8

41

6.9

0

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

0.5

80

.92

18

.56

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.13

0.9

6-4

.12

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

262

APPENDIX G.2.3 SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV- RLC REACTIVE POWER 2MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hunt

-0.0

00

.00



RLC SHUNT

Q2MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.0

26

8.1

3

-14

.67

1.5

66

8.1

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.5

66

8.1

3

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

3

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.6

46

8.1

3

-15

.62

1.0

26

8.1

3

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

59

.98

-4.7

5-1

.89

59

.98

ssc

om22

Sh

unt

0.0

0-3

.80

225

mv

arC

om11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1LD

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

ltag

..

69.7

713.1

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.23

11

2.6

3

-2.3

81.3

311

2.6

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.06

10

8.3

0

-4.7

52.2

410

8.3

0

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

0.6

7

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

0.6

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

5

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.66

76.2

5

-23.4

33.9

376.2

5

ALBANY1

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

ALBANY2

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

69

.77

12

.17

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.12

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.08

0.8

6-7

.96

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.06

0.9

11

6.6

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.65

0.9

7-5

.90

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.44

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tion

8/B

/FA

ST

VL

EI

60

.57

0.9

2-5

.63

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.90

0.8

51

9.1

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

60

.83

15

.73

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.45

0.8

41

6.9

0

Sta

tion

4/P

ED

DIE

60

.58

0.9

21

8.5

6

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.13

0.9

6-4

.12

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

263

APPENDIX G.2.4 SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV- RLC REACTIVE POWER 2.5MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

0.0

00

.00



RLC SHUNT

Q2.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.62

-1.0

26

8.1

3

-14

.67

1.5

66

8.1

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.67

-1.5

66

8.1

3

-14

.67

-5.4

76

8.1

3

COM-BRK

16

.30

-0.6

46

8.1

3

-15

.62

1.0

26

8.1

3

PED-WES

5.1

71

.99

59

.98

-4.7

5-1

.89

59

.98

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.80

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

713.1

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.23

11

2.6

3

-2.3

81.3

311

2.6

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.06

10

8.3

0

-4.7

52.2

410

8.3

0

WESTR

4.7

51.8

912

0.6

7

-4.7

5-1

.67

12

0.6

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

11

0.2

5

9.5

03

.48

11

0.2

5

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

60.0

3

2.3

70.8

360.0

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

4-2

.66

76.2

5

-23.4

33.9

376.2

5

ALBANY1

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

ALBANY2

34

.88

6.5

64

4.3

7

-34

.88

-6.0

94

4.3

7

69

.77

12

.17

0.0

0

69

.77

13

.12

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

57

.08

0.8

6-7

.96

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.06

0.9

11

6.6

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.65

0.9

7-5

.90

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.44

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.57

0.9

2-5

.63

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

55

.90

0.8

51

9.1

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.1

60

.83

15

.73

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

18

.45

0.8

41

6.9

0

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

0.5

80

.92

18

.56

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.13

0.9

6-4

.12

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.84

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

41

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

264

APPENDIX G.3.1 RL CAPACITOR 1 MVAR AT PEDDIE LV BUSBAR




RL 1MVARSHUNT@PEDLV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/9/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

Sh

un

t/Filt

er

0.0

00

.91

BRK-PED

15

.07

-2.8

55

0.7

4

-14

.62

3.3

35

0.7

4

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.62

-3.3

36

6.0

4

-14

.62

-6.3

26

6.0

4

PED-WES

5.1

21

.94

56

.49

-4.7

5-1

.85

56

.49

Line

15

.71

-2.4

96

6.0

4

-15

.07

2.8

56

6.0

4

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.85

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.13

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.1

511.1

3

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.26

11

2.4

7

-2.3

81.3

511

2.4

7

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.11

10

8.0

5

-4.7

52.2

910

8.0

5

WESTR

4.7

51.8

511

3.6

6

-4.7

5-1

.66

11

3.6

6

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-4

.03

10

8.5

8

9.5

04

.38

10

8.5

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

56.5

5

2.3

70.8

356.5

5

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

56.5

5

2.3

70.8

356.5

5

ALB-COMM

24.0

2-4

.62

75.2

2

-22.8

45.8

675.2

2

ALBANY1

34

.57

5.5

64

3.7

7

-34

.57

-5.1

04

3.7

7

ALBANY2

34

.57

5.5

64

3.7

7

-34

.57

-5.1

04

3.7

7

69

.15

10

.21

0.0

0

69

.15

11

.13

0.0

0

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

59

.87

0.9

1-8

.07

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.02

0.9

62

6.3

8

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.71

0.9

7-6

.00

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.58

0.9

8-5

.97

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

61

.24

0.9

3-5

.96

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

59

.19

0.9

02

8.6

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.7

30

.88

25

.61

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

19

.57

0.8

92

6.6

5

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

3.6

00

.96

28

.15

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.51

0.9

6-4

.25

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.87

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

71

.00

-0.7

4

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

265

APPENDIX G.3.2: RL CAPACITOR 2MVAR AT FISHRIVER LV

FIS

H-S

hun

t

-0.0

01

.57




RL 2.MVARSHUNT@FISHLV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/9/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.18

-2.1

95

0.9

2

-14

.73

2.6

75

0.9

2

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.73

-2.6

76

6.2

7

-14

.73

-7.0

56

6.2

7

PED-WES

5.2

33

.62

64

.20

-4.7

5-3

.50

64

.20

Line

15

.83

-1.8

36

6.2

7

-15

.18

2.1

96

6.2

7

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.83

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.13

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.2

611.8

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.25

11

2.5

2

-2.3

81.3

511

2.5

2

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.10

10

8.1

2

-4.7

52.2

710

8.1

2

WESTR

4.7

53.5

012

9.1

8

-4.7

5-3

.25

12

9.1

8

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

10

2.6

2

9.5

03

.43

10

2.6

2

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-1

.56

64.2

7

2.3

71.6

364.2

7

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-1

.56

64.2

7

2.3

71.6

364.2

7

ALB-COMM

24.1

3-3

.93

75.2

1

-22.9

65.1

775.2

1

ALBANY1

34

.63

5.9

14

3.9

2

-34

.63

-5.4

54

3.9

2

ALBANY2

34

.63

5.9

14

3.9

2

-34

.63

-5.4

54

3.9

2

69

.26

10

.90

0.0

0

69

.26

11

.82

0.0

0

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

59

.56

0.9

0-7

.88

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.54

0.9

82

6.2

8

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.69

0.9

7-5

.95

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.53

0.9

8-5

.92

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

61

.03

0.9

2-5

.82

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

60

.28

0.9

12

9.6

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.7

30

.88

26

.68

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

19

.70

0.9

02

7.7

1

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

4.9

70

.98

27

.97

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.39

0.9

6-4

.19

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.86

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

61

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

266

APPENDIX G.3.3 : RL CAPACITOR 3MVAR AT FISHRIVER LV

FIS

H-S

hun

t

-0.0

02

.45




RL 3MVARSHUNT@FISHLV

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/9/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.26

-1.3

05

1.0

4

-14

.80

1.7

85

1.0

4

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.80

-1.7

86

6.4

2

-14

.80

-7.9

86

6.4

2

PED-WES

5.3

04

.57

68

.76

-4.7

5-4

.43

68

.76

Line

15

.90

-0.9

36

6.4

2

-15

.26

1.3

06

6.4

2

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.81

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.11

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.3

312.7

5

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.24

11

2.5

9

-2.3

81.3

311

2.5

9

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.08

10

8.2

2

-4.7

52.2

510

8.2

2

WESTR

4.7

54.4

313

8.3

5

-4.7

5-4

.15

13

8.3

5

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

99

.83

9.5

03

.42

99

.83

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-2

.00

68.8

3

2.3

72.0

768.8

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-2

.00

68.8

3

2.3

72.0

768.8

3

ALB-COMM

24.2

0-3

.02

75.0

3

-23.0

34.2

575.0

3

ALBANY1

34

.67

6.3

74

4.0

6

-34

.67

-5.9

14

4.0

6

ALBANY2

34

.67

6.3

74

4.0

6

-34

.67

-5.9

14

4.0

6

69

.33

11

.81

0.0

0

69

.33

12

.75

0.0

0

Sta

tion11

/BR

K-P

ED

BU

SB

AR

59

.17

0.9

0-7

.60

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

22

.15

1.0

12

6.0

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.66

0.9

7-5

.87

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.48

0.9

8-5

.84

Sta

tion8/

BR

EA

KF

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.78

0.9

2-5

.61

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

61

.99

0.9

42

9.8

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.9

30

.90

27

.00

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

20

.16

0.9

22

7.9

9

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

6.7

51

.01

27

.60

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

63

.24

0.9

6-4

.10

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.85

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

51

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

267

APPENDIX H.1.1 SPECIFICATION OF SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV- RL REACTIVE POWER 5.5MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

0.0

05

.47



RL SHUNT

Q5.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.63

3.8

27

1.5

6

-14

.58

-3.2

27

1.5

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.58

3.2

27

1.5

6

-14

.58

-10

.98

71

.56

COM-BRK

16

.38

4.2

47

1.5

6

-15

.63

-3.8

27

1.5

6

PED-WES

5.0

81

.89

52

.86

-4.7

5-1

.81

52

.86

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.70

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.05

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.8

518.1

9

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.18

11

3.0

2

-2.3

81.2

711

3.0

2

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.96

10

8.8

6

-4.7

52.1

410

8.8

6

WESTR

4.7

51.8

110

6.3

5

-4.7

5-1

.64

10

6.3

5

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-8

.59

12

9.0

8

9.5

09

.09

12

9.0

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

52.9

1

2.3

70.8

252.9

1

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

52.9

1

2.3

70.8

252.9

1

ALB-COMM

24.7

22.3

976.4

9

-23.5

1-1

.10

76.4

9

ALBANY1

34

.93

9.1

04

5.1

1

-34

.93

-8.6

14

5.1

1

ALBANY2

34

.93

9.1

04

5.1

1

-34

.93

-8.6

14

5.1

1

69

.85

17

.22

0.0

0

69

.85

18

.19

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

54

.99

0.8

3-5

.63

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.94

1.0

01

7.2

9

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.51

0.9

6-5

.40

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.16

0.9

6-5

.37

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.26

0.9

0-4

.38

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

63

.10

0.9

61

9.3

4

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

10

.39

0.9

41

6.6

4

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

20

.90

0.9

51

7.5

5

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

7.2

31

.02

18

.89

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.33

0.9

4-3

.58

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.78

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

81

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

268

APPENDIX H.1.2 SPECIFICATION OF SHUNT CAPACITOR AT PEDLV- RL REACTIVE POWER 5MVAr

PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

0.0

04

.89



RL SHUNT

Q5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.61

3.3

67

0.8

9

-14

.58

-2.7

87

0.8

9

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.58

2.7

87

0.8

9

-14

.58

-10

.39

70

.89

COM-BRK

16

.35

3.7

87

0.8

9

-15

.61

-3.3

67

0.8

9

PED-WES

5.0

81

.90

53

.47

-4.7

5-1

.82

53

.47

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.71

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.06

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.8

217.7

0

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.18

11

2.9

8

-2.3

81.2

811

2.9

8

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.97

10

8.8

0

-4.7

52.1

510

8.8

0

WESTR

4.7

51.8

210

7.5

8

-4.7

5-1

.65

10

7.5

8

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-8

.01

12

6.2

8

9.5

08

.49

12

6.2

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

53.5

2

2.3

70.8

253.5

2

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

53.5

2

2.3

70.8

253.5

2

ALB-COMM

24.6

91.8

976.2

5

-23.4

8-0

.62

76.2

5

ALBANY1

34

.91

8.8

54

5.0

2

-34

.91

-8.3

64

5.0

2

ALBANY2

34

.91

8.8

54

5.0

2

-34

.91

-8.3

64

5.0

2

69

.82

16

.72

0.0

0

69

.82

17

.70

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

55

.20

0.8

4-5

.86

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.76

0.9

91

7.2

0

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.52

0.9

6-5

.45

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.19

0.9

6-5

.41

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.39

0.9

0-4

.49

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

62

.41

0.9

51

9.2

9

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

10

.28

0.9

31

6.5

3

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

20

.67

0.9

41

7.4

6

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

6.5

81

.01

18

.83

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.41

0.9

5-3

.63

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.79

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

269


PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

0.0

04

.33



RL SHUNT

Q4.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.60

2.9

07

0.3

0

-14

.59

-2.3

37

0.3

0

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.59

2.3

37

0.3

0

-14

.59

-9.8

17

0.3

0

COM-BRK

16

.33

3.3

17

0.3

0

-15

.60

-2.9

07

0.3

0

PED-WES

5.0

91

.91

54

.09

-4.7

5-1

.82

54

.09

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.72

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.06

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

917.2

1

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.19

11

2.9

4

-2.3

81.2

811

2.9

4

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.98

10

8.7

4

-4.7

52.1

610

8.7

4

WESTR

4.7

51.8

210

8.8

2

-4.7

5-1

.65

10

8.8

2

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-7

.45

12

3.7

0

9.5

07

.91

12

3.7

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

54.1

4

2.3

70.8

254.1

4

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

54.1

4

2.3

70.8

254.1

4

ALB-COMM

24.6

61.4

176.0

6

-23.4

6-0

.14

76.0

6

ALBANY1

34

.90

8.6

04

4.9

3

-34

.90

-8.1

24

4.9

3

ALBANY2

34

.90

8.6

04

4.9

3

-34

.90

-8.1

24

4.9

3

69

.79

16

.24

0.0

0

69

.79

17

.21

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

55

.41

0.8

4-6

.08

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.58

0.9

81

7.1

2

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.53

0.9

6-5

.49

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.22

0.9

6-5

.46

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.52

0.9

0-4

.61

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

61

.73

0.9

41

9.2

5

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

10

.16

0.9

21

6.4

3

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

20

.43

0.9

31

7.3

8

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

5.9

41

.00

18

.78

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.49

0.9

5-3

.68

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.79

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

91

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

270


PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

0.0

03

.79



RL SHUNT

Q4MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.60

2.4

56

9.7

8

-14

.60

-1.8

96

9.7

8

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.60

1.8

96

9.7

8

-14

.60

-9.2

66

9.7

8

COM-BRK

16

.31

2.8

66

9.7

8

-15

.60

-2.4

56

9.7

8

PED-WES

5.1

01

.92

54

.71

-4.7

5-1

.83

54

.71

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.73

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.07

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

716.7

3

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.19

11

2.9

0

-2.3

81.2

911

2.9

0

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.99

10

8.6

9

-4.7

52.1

710

8.6

9

WESTR

4.7

51.8

311

0.0

7

-4.7

5-1

.65

11

0.0

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-6

.91

12

1.3

4

9.5

07

.35

12

1.3

4

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

54.7

6

2.3

70.8

354.7

6

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

54.7

6

2.3

70.8

354.7

6

ALB-COMM

24.6

40.9

375.9

1

-23.4

40.3

375.9

1

ALBANY1

34

.88

8.3

64

4.8

4

-34

.88

-7.8

84

4.8

4

ALBANY2

34

.88

8.3

64

4.8

4

-34

.88

-7.8

84

4.8

4

69

.77

15

.76

0.0

0

69

.77

16

.73

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

55

.61

0.8

4-6

.30

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.40

0.9

71

7.0

4

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.55

0.9

6-5

.54

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.25

0.9

7-5

.50

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.65

0.9

0-4

.73

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

61

.05

0.9

21

9.2

2

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

10

.04

0.9

11

6.3

4

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

20

.20

0.9

21

7.3

1

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

5.3

10

.99

18

.73

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.57

0.9

5-3

.73

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.80

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

01

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

271


PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

-0.0

03

.26



RL SHUNT

Q3.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.59

2.0

06

9.3

3

-14

.61

-1.4

46

9.3

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.61

1.4

46

9.3

3

-14

.61

-8.7

36

9.3

3

COM-BRK

16

.30

2.4

06

9.3

3

-15

.59

-2.0

06

9.3

3

PED-WES

5.1

11

.92

55

.34

-4.7

5-1

.84

55

.34

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.74

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.07

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

516.2

5

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.20

11

2.8

6

-2.3

81.2

911

2.8

6

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.00

10

8.6

3

-4.7

52.1

810

8.6

3

WESTR

4.7

51.8

411

1.3

4

-4.7

5-1

.65

11

1.3

4

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-6

.38

11

9.2

0

9.5

06

.80

11

9.2

0

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

55.3

9

2.3

70.8

355.3

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

55.3

9

2.3

70.8

355.3

9

ALB-COMM

24.6

20.4

675.8

1

-23.4

30.8

075.8

1

ALBANY1

34

.88

8.1

34

4.7

6

-34

.88

-7.6

54

4.7

6

ALBANY2

34

.88

8.1

34

4.7

6

-34

.88

-7.6

54

4.7

6

69

.75

15

.29

0.0

0

69

.75

16

.25

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

55

.81

0.8

5-6

.51

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.23

0.9

61

6.9

7

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.56

0.9

6-5

.58

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.27

0.9

7-5

.55

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.77

0.9

1-4

.84

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

60

.38

0.9

11

9.2

0

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.9

30

.90

16

.24

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

19

.98

0.9

11

7.2

4

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

4.6

90

.98

18

.69

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.64

0.9

5-3

.78

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.80

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

01

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

272


PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

-0.0

02

.75



RL SHUNT

Q3MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.59

1.5

66

8.9

6

-14

.61

-1.0

16

8.9

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.61

1.0

16

8.9

6

-14

.61

-8.2

16

8.9

6

COM-BRK

16

.29

1.9

56

8.9

6

-15

.59

-1.5

66

8.9

6

PED-WES

5.1

11

.93

55

.98

-4.7

5-1

.84

55

.98

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.75

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.08

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

415.7

8

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.20

11

2.8

3

-2.3

81.3

011

2.8

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.01

10

8.5

8

-4.7

52.1

910

8.5

8

WESTR

4.7

51.8

411

2.6

2

-4.7

5-1

.66

11

2.6

2

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-5

.87

11

7.2

8

9.5

06

.28

11

7.2

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

56.0

3

2.3

70.8

356.0

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

56.0

3

2.3

70.8

356.0

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

1-0

.00

75.7

6

-23.4

21.2

675.7

6

ALBANY1

34

.87

7.8

94

4.6

9

-34

.87

-7.4

14

4.6

9

ALBANY2

34

.87

7.8

94

4.6

9

-34

.87

-7.4

14

4.6

9

69

.74

14

.83

0.0

0

69

.74

15

.78

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

56

.00

0.8

5-6

.73

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

21

.05

0.9

61

6.9

1

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.57

0.9

6-5

.63

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.30

0.9

7-5

.59

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.90

0.9

1-4

.96

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

59

.72

0.9

01

9.1

8

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.8

20

.89

16

.16

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

19

.75

0.9

01

7.1

8

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

4.0

80

.97

18

.66

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.72

0.9

5-3

.83

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.81

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

11

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

273


PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

-0.0

02

.25



RL SHUNT

Q2.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.59

1.1

26

8.6

6

-14

.62

-0.5

76

8.6

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.62

0.5

76

8.6

6

-14

.62

-7.7

16

8.6

6

COM-BRK

16

.28

1.5

16

8.6

6

-15

.59

-1.1

26

8.6

6

PED-WES

5.1

21

.94

56

.62

-4.7

5-1

.85

56

.62

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.76

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.08

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

315.3

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.21

11

2.7

9

-2.3

81.3

011

2.7

9

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.02

10

8.5

3

-4.7

52.2

010

8.5

3

WESTR

4.7

51.8

511

3.9

2

-4.7

5-1

.66

11

3.9

2

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-5

.37

11

5.5

7

9.5

05

.77

11

5.5

7

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

56.6

8

2.3

70.8

356.6

8

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

56.6

8

2.3

70.8

356.6

8

ALB-COMM

24.6

0-0

.46

75.7

4

-23.4

11.7

275.7

4

ALBANY1

34

.87

7.6

64

4.6

2

-34

.87

-7.1

84

4.6

2

ALBANY2

34

.87

7.6

64

4.6

2

-34

.87

-7.1

84

4.6

2

69

.73

14

.37

0.0

0

69

.73

15

.32

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

56

.19

0.8

5-6

.94

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.88

0.9

51

6.8

5

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.59

0.9

6-5

.67

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.32

0.9

7-5

.64

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.02

0.9

1-5

.07

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

59

.06

0.8

91

9.1

7

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.7

00

.88

16

.08

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

19

.53

0.8

91

7.1

2

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

3.4

80

.96

18

.63

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.79

0.9

5-3

.88

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.82

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

21

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

274


PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

-0.0

01

.77



RL SHUNT

Q2MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.59

0.6

86

8.4

3

-14

.63

-0.1

46

8.4

3

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.63

0.1

46

8.4

3

-14

.63

-7.2

36

8.4

3

COM-BRK

16

.28

1.0

76

8.4

3

-15

.59

-0.6

86

8.4

3

PED-WES

5.1

31

.95

57

.28

-4.7

5-1

.86

57

.28

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.77

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.09

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

314.8

7

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.21

11

2.7

6

-2.3

81.3

111

2.7

6

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.03

10

8.4

8

-4.7

52.2

110

8.4

8

WESTR

4.7

51.8

611

5.2

4

-4.7

5-1

.66

11

5.2

4

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-4

.89

11

4.0

8

9.5

05

.28

11

4.0

8

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

57.3

3

2.3

70.8

357.3

3

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

57.3

3

2.3

70.8

357.3

3

ALB-COMM

24.6

0-0

.91

75.7

7

-23.4

12.1

775.7

7

ALBANY1

34

.87

7.4

34

4.5

6

-34

.87

-6.9

64

4.5

6

ALBANY2

34

.87

7.4

34

4.5

6

-34

.87

-6.9

64

4.5

6

69

.73

13

.92

0.0

0

69

.73

14

.87

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

56

.38

0.8

5-7

.15

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.71

0.9

41

6.7

9

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.60

0.9

6-5

.72

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.35

0.9

7-5

.69

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.13

0.9

1-5

.19

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

58

.42

0.8

91

9.1

6

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.5

90

.87

16

.00

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

19

.31

0.8

81

7.0

7

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

2.8

80

.95

18

.60

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.86

0.9

5-3

.93

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.82

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

21

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

275


PE

DL

V-R

LS

hu

nt

-0.0

01

.31



RL SHUNT

Q1.5MVAR

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 7/30/2008

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.60

0.2

56

8.2

6

-14

.64

0.2

96

8.2

6

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.64

-0.2

96

8.2

6

-14

.64

-6.7

76

8.2

6

COM-BRK

16

.28

0.6

46

8.2

6

-15

.60

-0.2

56

8.2

6

PED-WES

5.1

41

.96

57

.94

-4.7

5-1

.86

57

.94

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.78

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.09

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.7

314.4

2

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.22

11

2.7

3

-2.3

81.3

111

2.7

3

COMM22TR

4.7

5-2

.04

10

8.4

3

-4.7

52.2

110

8.4

3

WESTR

4.7

51.8

611

6.5

7

-4.7

5-1

.66

11

6.5

7

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-4

.43

11

2.8

1

9.5

04

.81

11

2.8

1

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

57.9

9

2.3

70.8

357.9

9

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

57.9

9

2.3

70.8

357.9

9

ALB-COMM

24.6

0-1

.36

75.8

3

-23.4

12.6

275.8

3

ALBANY1

34

.87

7.2

14

4.5

1

-34

.87

-6.7

44

4.5

1

ALBANY2

34

.87

7.2

14

4.5

1

-34

.87

-6.7

44

4.5

1

69

.73

13

.47

0.0

0

69

.73

14

.42

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

56

.56

0.8

6-7

.35

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

20

.54

0.9

31

6.7

4

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.61

0.9

6-5

.76

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.37

0.9

7-5

.73

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

60

.25

0.9

1-5

.30

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

57

.78

0.8

81

9.1

6

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

9.4

80

.86

15

.93

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

19

.09

0.8

71

7.0

2

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

2.2

90

.94

18

.59

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.93

0.9

5-3

.98

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.83

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.8

31

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

276

APPENDIX H.1.10 RL CAPACITOR 5.5MVAr AT PEDDIE HV BUSBAR

Sh

un

t/Filt

er

0.0

05

.71


OPTIMUM COPMENSATION

FISH TR @ TAP9

Project:

Graphic: WESLEY

Date: 2/13/2009

Annex:

Load Flow Balanced

Nodes




Branches

Active Power [MW]


Loading [%]

BRK-PED

15

.63

3.8

57

1.6

0

-14

.57

-3.2

57

1.6

0

BRK-PEDCAP

14

.57

3.2

57

1.6

0

-14

.57

-11

.02

71

.60

COM-BRK

16

.38

4.2

77

1.6

0

-15

.63

-3.8

57

1.6

0

PED-WES

5.0

71

.89

52

.82

-4.7

5-1

.81

52

.82

ssc

om

22

Sh

un

t

0.0

0-3

.70

225

mv

arC

om

11

-0.0

0-2

.07

Co

m1

1L

D

2.3

80

.78

V~

AC

Vo

lta

g..

69.8

518.2

0

GR

AH

AM

SL

D

45

.13

14

.83

CO

MM

22

LD

4.7

51

.56

PE

DD

LD

9.5

03

.12

FIS

HLD

4.7

51

.56

COMM11TR

2.3

8-1

.20

11

2.8

7

-2.3

81.2

911

2.8

7

COMM22TR

4.7

5-1

.96

10

8.8

6

-4.7

52.1

410

8.8

6

WESTR

4.7

51.8

110

6.2

6

-4.7

5-1

.64

10

6.2

6

PEDDIETR

-9.5

0-3

.12

99

.04

9.5

03

.41

99

.04

FISH2TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

52.8

7

2.3

70.8

252.8

7

FISH1TR

-2.3

7-0

.78

52.8

7

2.3

70.8

252.8

7

ALB-COMM

24.7

22.3

976.5

0

-23.5

1-1

.11

76.5

0

ALBANY1

34

.93

9.1

04

5.1

2

-34

.93

-8.6

14

5.1

2

ALBANY2

34

.93

9.1

04

5.1

2

-34

.93

-8.6

14

5.1

2

69

.85

17

.22

0.0

0

69

.85

18

.20

0.0

0

Sta

tion

11

/BR

LC

apb

ar

54

.98

0.8

3-5

.62

Sta

tion1

2/P

ED

DIE

LV

22

.32

1.0

11

7.3

1

Sta

tion1

0/C

OM

M11

KV

10

.56

0.9

6-5

.38

Sta

tion9/

CO

MM

22K

V

21

.16

0.9

6-5

.37

Sta

tio

n8

/B/F

AS

TV

LE

I

59

.25

0.9

0-4

.37

Sta

tion7

/WE

SLE

YH

V

63

.15

0.9

61

9.3

3

Sta

tion6/F

ISH

LV

10

.46

0.9

51

6.6

5

Sta

tion5/W

ES

LE

YLV

20

.92

0.9

51

7.5

5

Sta

tio

n4

/PE

DD

IE6

7.2

71

.02

18

.88

Sta

tion3/C

OM

MIT

EE

62

.33

0.9

4-3

.58

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

1

65

.78

Sta

tion2

/ALB

AN

YLV

26

5.7

81

.00

-0.7

5

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

2

13

2.0

0

Sta

tion1/A

LBA

NY

HV

1

13

2.0

01

.00

0.0

0

DIg

SIL

EN

T

277

APPENDIX H.2. TEXTUAL ANALYSIS REPORT FOR SMALL SCALE OPTIMISED TRANSMISSION

(POWER FLOW WILL BE DISCUSSED IN CHAPTER 6)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 7/7/2010 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 1 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

278

| rated Active Reactive Power | | | Voltage Bus-voltage Power Power Factor Current Loading| Additional Data | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] [MW] [Mvar] [-] [kA] [%] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station1 | | | ALBANYLV16.00 1.00 65.80 -0.75 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 69.62 15.41 0.98 0.63 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 ALBTR1 -34.81 -7.70 -0.98 0.31 44.70 |Tap: 17.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.3/Tr2 ALBTR2 -34.81 -7.70 -0.98 0.31 44.70 |Tap: 17.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | ALBANYLV26.00 1.00 65.80 -0.75 | | | Cub_0.4/Lod GRAHMS LD 45.13 14.83 0.95 0.42 |Pl0: 45.13 MW Ql0: 14.83 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 -69.62 -15.41 -0.98 0.63 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.1/Lne ALB-COM 24.49 0.58 1.00 0.21 75.41 |Pv: 1180.06 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 25.50 km| | | | |Station10 | | | WESLV 22.00 0.99 21.74 33.19 | | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 FISHTR1 2.37 0.82 0.95 0.07 50.84 |Tap: 5.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 FISHTR2 2.37 0.82 0.95 0.07 50.84 |Tap: 5.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 WESTR -4.75 -1.64 -0.95 0.13 101.69 |Tap: 5.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 |

279

| | | |Station11 | | | FISHLV 11.00 0.98 10.82 32.35 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod FISHLD 4.75 1.56 0.95 0.27 |Pl0: 4.75 MW Ql0: 1.56 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 FISHTR1 -2.37 -0.78 -0.95 0.13 50.84 |Tap: 5.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 FISHTR2 -2.37 -0.78 -0.95 0.13 50.84 |Tap: 5.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station2 | | | ALBANYHV12.00 1.00 132.00 0.00 | | | Cub_0.3/Vac AC Voltage Source 69.62 16.37 0.97 0.31 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 69.62 16.37 0.97 0.31 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | ALBANYHV22.00 1.00 132.00 0.00 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 -69.62 -16.37 -0.97 0.31 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 ALBTR1 34.81 8.18 0.97 0.16 44.70 |Tap: 17.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 ALBTR2 34.81 8.18 0.97 0.16 44.70 |Tap: 17.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 2 |

280

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rated Active Reactive Power | | | Voltage Bus-voltage Power Power Factor Current Loading| Additional Data | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] [MW] [Mvar] [-] [kA] [%] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station3 | | | COMMITTEES.00 0.95 62.64 -3.75 | | | Cub_0.0/Lne ALB-COM -23.31 0.67 -1.00 0.21 75.41 |Pv: 1180.06 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 25.50 km| | Cub_0.1/Lne COM-BRK 16.18 -0.53 1.00 0.15 68.14 |Pv: 682.10 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 15.40 km| | Cub_0.3/Tr2 COM11TR 2.38 -0.05 1.00 0.02 100.11 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 COM22TR 4.75 -0.09 1.00 0.04 100.11 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station4 | | | COM22 22.00 0.95 20.90 -5.56 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod COM22LD 4.75 1.56 0.95 0.14 |Pl0: 4.75 MW Ql0: 1.56 Mvar | | Cub_0.2/Shnt Shunt/Filter(1) -0.00 -1.81 -0.00 0.05 | | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 COM22TR -4.75 0.24 -1.00 0.13 100.11 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station5 | |

281

| BREAKFASTV.00 0.91 60.07 -5.25 | | | Cub_0.1/Lne BRK-PED 15.50 -0.91 1.00 0.15 68.14 |Pv: 952.28 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 21.50 km| | Cub_0.0/Lne COM-BRK -15.50 0.91 -1.00 0.15 68.14 |Pv: 682.10 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 15.40 km| | | | |Station6 | | | COMM11 11.00 0.95 10.45 -5.56 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod COM11 LD 2.37 0.78 0.95 0.14 |Pl0: 2.38 MW Ql0: 0.78 Mvar | | Cub_0.2/Shnt Shunt/Filter(2) -0.00 -0.90 -0.00 0.05 | | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 COM11TR -2.38 0.12 -1.00 0.13 100.11 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station7 | | | PED HV 66.00 1.06 69.85 34.44 | | | Cub_0.3/Shnt Shunt/Filter 0.00 5.43 0.00 0.04 | | | Cub_0.1/Lne PED-WES 5.05 1.87 0.94 0.04 50.54 |Pv: 297.51 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 30.00 km| | Cub_0.3/Scap Series Capacitor -14.55 -10.69 -0.81 0.15 74.61 |B: | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 PEDTR 9.50 3.39 0.94 0.08 95.32 |Tap: 17.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station8 | | | PEDLV 22.00 1.05 23.08 32.97 | |

282

| Cub_0.1/Lod PED LD 9.50 3.12 0.95 0.25 |Pl0: 9.50 MW Ql0: 3.12 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 PEDTR -9.50 -3.12 -0.95 0.25 95.32 |Tap: 17.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station9 | | | WESHV 66.00 1.00 65.91 34.85 | | | Cub_0.0/Lne PED-WES -4.75 -1.79 -0.94 0.04 50.54 |Pv: 297.51 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 30.00 km| | Cub_0.1/Tr2 WESTR 4.75 1.79 0.94 0.04 101.69 |Tap: 5.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 3 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rated Active Reactive Power | | | Voltage Bus-voltage Power Power Factor Current Loading| Additional Data | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] [MW] [Mvar] [-] [kA] [%] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station12 | | | PED-BUS 66.00 0.86 56.56 -7.58 | | | Cub_0.1/Lne BRK-PED -14.55 1.45 -1.00 0.15 68.14 |Pv: 952.28 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 21.50 km|

283

| Cub_0.0/Scap Series Capacitor 14.55 -1.45 1.00 0.15 74.61 |B: | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 7/7/2010 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 4 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

284

| rtd.V Bus - voltage Voltage - Deviation [%] | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] -10 -5 0 +5 +10 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station1 | | ALBANYLV1 66.00 0.997 65.80 -0.75 <| | | ALBANYLV2 66.00 0.997 65.80 -0.75 <| | |Station10 | | WESLV 22.00 0.988 21.74 33.19 <<<| | |Station11 | | FISHLV 11.00 0.983 10.82 32.35 <<<<| | |Station2 | | ALBANYHV1 132.00 1.000 132.00 0.00 | | | ALBANYHV2 132.00 1.000 132.00 0.00 | | |Station3 | | COMMITTEES 66.00 0.949 62.64 -3.75 <<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station4 | | COM22 22.00 0.950 20.90 -5.56 <<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station5 | | BREAKFASTVLEI 66.00 0.910 60.07 -5.25 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| |

285

|Station6 | | COMM11 11.00 0.950 10.45 -5.56 <<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station7 | | PED HV 66.00 1.058 69.85 34.44 |>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | |Station8 | | PEDLV 22.00 1.049 23.08 32.97 |>>>>>>>>>>>> | |Station9 | | WESHV 66.00 0.999 65.91 34.85 | | |Station12 | | PED-BUS 66.00 0.857 56.56 -7.58 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 7/7/2010 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

286

| Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 5 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Volt. Generation Motor Load Compen- External Power Total Load Noload | | Level Load sation Infeed Interchange Interchange Losses Losses Losses | | [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ to [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ | | [kV] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 11.00 0.00 0.00 7.12 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 2.34 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 22.00 kV -4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | -1.56 0.08 0.08 0.00 | | 66.00 kV -2.38 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.00 |

287

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 22.00 0.00 0.00 14.25 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 4.68 -1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 11.00 kV 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 1.64 0.08 0.08 0.00 | | 66.00 kV -19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | -4.52 0.58 0.58 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 66.00 0.00 0.00 45.13 0.00 0.00 3.11 3.11 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 14.83 0.00 0.00 -9.90 -9.90 0.00 | | 11.00 kV 2.38 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -0.05 0.08 0.08 0.00 | | 22.00 kV 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 5.09 0.58 0.58 0.00 | | 132.00 kV -69.62 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -15.41 0.96 0.96 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 |

288

| 66.00 kV 69.62 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 16.37 0.96 0.96 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total: 0.00 0.00 66.50 0.00 69.62 0.00 3.11 3.11 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 -2.71 16.37 0.00 -8.21 -8.21 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 7/7/2010 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

289

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total System Summary | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 6 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Generation Motor Load Compen- External Inter Area Total Load Noload | | Load sation Infeed Flow Losses Losses Losses | | [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ | | [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | \Alexis\ALBANY\FISHRIVER | | 0.00 0.00 66.50 0.00 69.62 0.00 3.11 3.11 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 -2.71 16.37 0.00 -8.21 -8.21 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total: | | 0.00 0.00 66.50 0.00 69.62 3.11 3.11 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 -2.71 16.37 -8.21 -8.21 0.00 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

290

APPENDIX I: TEMPLATING TEMPERATURE

Source :Optimisation of Overhesd power Transmission line loading from a

thermal viewpoint (Morgan,Davies,Butterworth,W.Lewis)

291

APPENDIX J: ESKOM PLANNING

Source: Energize –Special AMEU Proceedings Edition Durban 15-17 October 2007

292

APPENDIX K: FITTINGS SUMMARY

Line Designation

4%

Item

No. Description Unit

Req.

Qty Spares Total Qty

Unit

rate

1 AGS Clamp - To Suit Earthwire ea 678 27 705

2 AGS Clamp - To Suit OPGW ea 678 27 705

3 Ball / Clevis - Hot Line Maintenance ea 2472 99 2571

4 Ball Oval Eye ea 1352 54 1406

5 Chain Link ea 558 22 580

6 Clevis Thimble - 70kN for AAAC OPGW ea 186 7 193

7 Compression Dead - To Suit ACSR "TERN" - Ø27mm ea 1674 67 1741

8 Compression Dead - To Suit Earthwire ea 186 7 193

9 Corona Ring ea 558 23 581

10 Earth Bond - Flexi Type ea 864 35 899

11 Extension 210kN - 200c/c ea 186 7 193

12 Insulator - Ball / Socket - With Corona Ring ea 3828 153 3981

13 Insulator (E/W)- Twisted Clevis / Tongue ea 0 0 0

14 Preformed Dead End - To Suit OPGW ea 186 7 193

15 Quadrant Sag Adjustor ea 1674 67 1741

16 Socket / Clevis - Hot Line Maintenance ea 2474 99 2573

17 Spacer Damper -Flexi Type - for ACSR "TERN" - Conductor ea 19854 794 20

18 Spacer Damper - Rigid Type- for ACSR "TERN" - Conductor ea 1116 45 1161

19 Straight Shackle (Split Pin & Bolted Type ) ea 6510 260 6770

20 Suspension Clamp ea 3390 136 3526

21 Twisted Clevis / Tongue ea 1356 54 1410

293

22 Twisted Shackle ea 3390 136 3526

23 Vibration Damper - Conductor - To suit ACSR "TERN"- Stockbridge Type ea 2961 118 3079

24 Vibration Damper - E/W - To suit GSW "19/2.64" - Stockbridge Type ea 2961 118 3079

25 Vibration Damper - OPGW - To suit OPGW - Spiral ea 2961 118 3079

26 Yoke Plate - "Y1' - For Triple Conductor ea 1356 54 1410

27 Yoke Plate - "Y2' - For Triple Conductor ea 678 27 705

28 Yoke Plate - Composite ea 558 22 580

29 Yoke Plate - Tri-Angular ea 558 22 580

Miscellaneous

M.1 OPGW Joint Box ea 0

75

M.2 Farm Gates ea 0

150

M.3 Midspan Joint for ACSR TERN ea 0

750

M.4 Midspan Joint for GSW 19/2.64 ea 0

105

M.5 Downleads - Insulatored for OPGW ea 0

2232

M.6 ea

Stays

S.1 m 0 0

S.2 ea 0 0

S.3 ea 0 0

S.4 ea 0 0

S.5 ea 0 0

294

S.6 m 0 0

S.7 ea 0 0

S.8 ea 0 0

S.9 ea 0 0

S.10 ea 0

0

0

295

APPENDIX L.1: CABLES DATASHEET

ABERDARE CABLES

Code Name DINOSAUR CONDUCTOR

DETAILS Specification IEC 61089

Stranding and Wire Diameters 54/3.95+7/2.36 No. AL/No. St/mm Diameter over Steel 11.80 mm

Overall Diameter 35.50 mm

Strand Build-up 1St-6St12St–

12Al-18Al-24Al

Type of Grease Castrol BJ20

Grease Drop Point > 220 °C

Aluminium Area 661.73 mm²

Steel Area 83.11 mm²

Total Area 744.84 mm²

Aluminium Mass 1825.08 kg/km

Steel Mass 698.20 kg/km

Grease Mass (Case 4)

89.96 kg/km

Total Mass 2613.24 kg/km

DC Resistance at 20°C 0.0438 ohm/km

Ultimate Tensile Strength 202920 Newtons

Breaking Load 20685 kg

Coefficient of Linear Expansion 19.91 per °C *10-6

Initial Modulus of Elasticity 46700 N/mm²

Final Modulus of Elasticity 72200 N/mm²

Current Rating ( as per Operating Conditions stated below ) 1190 A

Short Circuit Rating ( Temp rise from 75 to 200°C)

57.53 kA for 1 Second

Conductor - Black and Exposed to Sun OPERATING CONDITIONS

Operating Temperature 75 °C

Ambient Temperature 25 °C

Wind Speed 0.44 m/s

Solar Radiation 0.089 W/cm²

DRUM DETAILS

Offered Length 2000 m

Diameter over Flange Batterns 2176 mm

Overall Drum Width 1702 mm

296

Gross Mass 5930 kg

Drum Material WOOD

Treated ( i.e. Resistant against Biological attack ).

NO Unless otherwise stated all Dimensions are Nominal and are Subject to Manufacturing Tolerances. Aberdare reserves the right to make changes to this data as and when required.

Prepared by Technical Design Department, Port Elizabeth

297

APPENDIX L.2 : ABB PRODUCTS

ABB pioneered the use of series capacitors in electric power systems in the

late 1940s. The ABB series capacitors have a well proven design and have over the years demonstrated extraordinarily good reliability. This is essential as the installations are unmanned and often located in remote areas far away

from service centres. ABB's success in the series compensation field is best illustrated by the

confidence in our solutions evidenced by customers. Today, 274 installations

located all over the world are in service or under construction. This represents 77900 Mvar, equal to 47% of the world total.

ABB Series Capacitor projects in South Africa

Customer Location System Rated Protection Order Voltage Power Scheme* year

Eskom-Cape South Africa 400kV 229Mvar MOV 2004 Strengthening Proteus No.1

Eskom-Cape South Africa 400kV 656Mvar MOV 2004

Strengthening Bacchus No.1


Strengthening Komsberg No.1


Strengthening Komsberg No.2

ESCOM - South Africa 400 kV 246Mvar SG 1976

Luckhoff II

ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 137Mvar SG 1975

- Aurora

ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 137Mvar SG 1975 - Juno

ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 137Mvar SG 1975 - Helios

ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 137Mvar SG 1975 - Kronos

ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 137Mvar SG 1975 - Aires

ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 212Mvar SG 1974

298

- Nestor II ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 222Mvar SG 1973

- Victoria II ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 246Mvar SG 1973

- Luckhoff II ESCOM South Africa 400 Kv 222Mvar SG 1973

- Victoria I ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 246Mvar SG 1973

- Luckhoff I ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 315Mvar SG 1972

- Komsberg II ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 315Mvar SG 1972

- Komsberg I ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 212Mvar SG 1972

- Nestor III ESCOM South Africa 400 kV 212Mvar SG 1972

- Nestor I

*) SG: Single-gap MOV: Metal Oxide Varistor DG: Dual-gap SiC: Silicon carbide varistor

ABB Power Technologies AB

16-aug-07 A02-0137 E

299

APPENDIX.M: NEW LINE SIMULATION TEXTUAL REPORT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 1 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rated Active Reactive Power | | | Voltage Bus-voltage Power Power Factor Current Loading| Additional Data | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] [MW] [Mvar] [-] [kA] [%] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station1 | | | ALBANYHV12.00 1.00 132.00 0.00 | | | Cub_0.3/Vac ALBANY 69.52 25.56 0.94 0.32 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 69.52 25.56 0.94 0.32 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | ALBANYHV22.00 1.00 132.00 0.00 | |

300

| Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 -69.52 -25.56 -0.94 0.32 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 ALBTR1 34.76 12.78 0.94 0.16 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 ALBTR2 34.76 12.78 0.94 0.16 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station2 | | | ALBANYLV26.00 1.00 65.69 -0.75 | | | Cub_0.5/Lod GRAHAMSLD 45.13 14.83 0.95 0.42 |Pl0: 45.13 MW Ql0: 14.83 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 -69.52 -24.53 -0.94 0.65 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.3/Lne ALB-COM 17.95 7.30 0.93 0.17 59.76 |Pv: 741.22 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 25.50 km| | Cub_0.5/Lne NEW LINE 6.44 2.40 0.94 0.06 68.63 |Pv: 1689.71 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 92.40 km| | ALBANYLV16.00 1.00 65.69 -0.75 | | | Cub_0.0/Switch S0.0.0 69.52 24.53 0.94 0.65 0.00 |Bus-Coupler | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 ALBTR1 -34.76 -12.27 -0.94 0.32 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 ALBTR2 -34.76 -12.27 -0.94 0.32 46.29 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station3 | | | COMMITTEES.00 0.95 62.38 -2.14 | | | Cub_0.2/Lne ALB-COM -17.21 -6.52 -0.94 0.17 59.76 |Pv: 741.22 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 25.50 km| | Cub_0.3/Lne COM-BRK 10.08 3.92 0.93 0.10 35.14 |Pv: 154.73 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 15.40 km| | Cub_0.3/Tr2 COM11TR 2.38 0.87 0.94 0.02 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 COMM22TR 4.75 1.73 0.94 0.05 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station4 | | | COMM22kV22.00 0.93 20.56 -3.99 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod COM22LD 4.75 1.56 0.95 0.14 |Pl0: 4.75 MW Ql0: 1.56 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 COMM22TR -4.75 -1.56 -0.95 0.14 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | |

301

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 2 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rated Active Reactive Power | | | Voltage Bus-voltage Power Power Factor Current Loading| Additional Data | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] [MW] [Mvar] [-] [kA] [%] | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station5 | | | BREAKFASTV.00 0.93 61.21 -2.66 | | | Cub_0.1/Lne BRK-PED 9.93 3.76 0.94 0.10 45.72 |Pv: 428.80 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 21.50 km| | Cub_0.0/Lne COM-BRK -9.93 -3.76 -0.94 0.10 35.14 |Pv: 154.73 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 15.40 km| | | | |Station6 | | | FISHLV 11.00 0.72 7.97 -2.99 | | | Cub_0.2/Lod General Load 4.75 1.56 0.95 0.36 |Pl0: 4.75 MW Ql0: 1.56 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 FISHTR1 -2.37 -0.78 -0.95 0.18 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 FISHTR2 -2.37 -0.78 -0.95 0.18 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station7 | | | COMM11kV11.00 0.93 10.28 -3.99 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod COM11LD 2.38 0.78 0.95 0.14 |Pl0: 2.38 MW Ql0: 0.78 Mvar | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 COM11TR -2.38 -0.78 -0.95 0.14 106.99 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station8 | | | PEDDIEHV66.00 0.88 58.40 -3.08 | | | Cub_0.0/Lne BRK-PED -9.50 -3.52 -0.94 0.10 45.72 |Pv: 428.80 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 21.50 km|

302

| Cub_0.1/Tr2 PEDTR 9.50 3.52 0.94 0.10 114.47 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station9 | | | WESLV 22.00 0.73 16.08 -1.44 | | | Cub_0.1/Tr2 FISHTR1 2.37 0.85 0.94 0.09 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 FISHTR2 2.37 0.85 0.94 0.09 69.04 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | Cub_0.2/Tr2 WESTR -4.75 -1.70 -0.94 0.18 138.09 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station10 | | | PEDDIELV22.00 0.87 19.22 -5.20 | | | Cub_0.1/Lod PEDLD 9.50 3.12 0.95 0.30 |Pl0: 9.50 MW Ql0: 3.12 Mvar | | Cub_0.0/Tr2 PEDTR -9.50 -3.12 -0.95 0.30 114.47 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | |Station11 | | | WESHV 66.00 0.75 49.23 1.55 | | | Cub_0.0/Lne NEW LINE -4.75 -1.99 -0.92 0.06 68.63 |Pv: 1689.71 kW cLod: 0.00 Mvar L: 92.40 km| | Cub_0.1/Tr2 WESTR 4.75 1.99 0.92 0.06 138.09 |Tap: 9.00 Min: 1 Max: 17 | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

303

| Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 3 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | rtd.V Bus - voltage Voltage - Deviation [%] | | [kV] [p.u.] [kV] [deg] -10 -5 0 +5 +10 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Station1 | | ALBANYHV1 132.00 1.000 132.00 0.00 | | | ALBANYHV2 132.00 1.000 132.00 0.00 | | |Station2 | | ALBANYLV2 66.00 0.995 65.69 -0.75 <| | | ALBANYLV1 66.00 0.995 65.69 -0.75 <| | |Station3 | | COMMITTEES66 66.00 0.945 62.38 -2.14 <<<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station4 | | COMM22kV 22.00 0.935 20.56 -3.99 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station5 | | BREAKFASTVLEI 66.00 0.927 61.21 -2.66 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| | |Station6 | | FISHLV 11.00 0.724 7.97 -2.99 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station7 | | COMM11kV 11.00 0.935 10.28 -3.99 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| |

304

|Station8 | | PEDDIEHV 66.00 0.885 58.40 -3.08 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station9 | | WESLV 22.00 0.731 16.08 -1.44 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station10 | | PEDDIELV 22.00 0.874 19.22 -5.20 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | |Station11 | | WESHV 66.00 0.746 49.23 1.55 <\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grid: FISHRIVER System Stage: FISHRIVER | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 4 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Volt. Generation Motor Load Compen- External Power Total Load Noload | | Level Load sation Infeed Interchange Interchange Losses Losses Losses |

305

| [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ to [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ | | [kV] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 11.00 0.00 0.00 7.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 22.00 kV -4.75 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -1.56 0.14 0.14 0.00 | | 66.00 kV -2.38 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -0.78 0.09 0.09 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 22.00 0.00 0.00 14.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 11.00 kV 4.75 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 1.70 0.14 0.14 0.00 | | 66.00 kV -19.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -6.39 0.85 0.85 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 66.00 0.00 0.00 45.13 0.00 0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 14.83 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.60 0.00 | | 11.00 kV 2.38 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.00 | | 22.00 kV 19.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 7.24 0.85 0.85 0.00 | | 132.00 kV -69.52 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | -24.53 1.03 1.03 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 |

306

| 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | 66.00 kV 69.52 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 | | 25.56 1.03 1.03 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total: 0.00 0.00 66.51 0.00 69.52 0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 0.00 25.56 0.00 3.71 3.71 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | DIgSILENT | Project: | | | | PowerFactory |------------------------------- | | | 13.2.338 | Date: 5/25/2009 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Load Flow Calculation Complete System Report: Substations, Voltage Profiles, Area Interchange | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Balanced, positive sequence | Automatic Model Adaptation for Convergency No | | Automatic Tap Adjust of Transformers Yes | Max. Acceptable Load Flow Error for | | Consider Reactive Power Limits No | Nodes 1.00 kVA | | | Model Equations 0.10 % | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total System Summary | Study Case: Study Case | Annex: / 5 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Generation Motor Load Compen- External Inter Area Total Load Noload | | Load sation Infeed Flow Losses Losses Losses | | [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ [MW]/ |

307

| [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] [Mvar] | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | \Alexis\NEW LINE\FISHRIVER | | 0.00 0.00 66.51 0.00 69.52 0.00 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 0.00 25.56 0.00 3.71 3.71 0.00 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Total: | | 0.00 0.00 66.51 0.00 69.52 3.01 3.01 0.00 | | 0.00 0.00 21.85 0.00 25.56 3.71 3.71 0.00 |

308

APPENDIX.N: PUBLISHED ARTICLE

FACTS Compensation Modeling of the Eskom‟s Albany-Wesley 66/22kV Transmission

System for Optimal Power Transfer

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

Documents

OPTIMISED SMALL SCALE REACTIVE COMPENSATION FOR … · i OPTIMISED SMALL SCALE REACTIVE COMPENSATION FOR ESKOM’S ALBANY-WESLEY 66/22KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM By: Alexis Ndimurwimo