q184 generator interconnection project - oatiall power flow , transient stability, and post...

A subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corporation

Q184 Generator Interconnection Project

System Impact Study

APS Contract No. 52479

By

Arizona Public Service Company Transmission Planning

May 3, 2012

Version 2.2

Prepared by Utility System Efficiencies, Inc.

Ben Stephenson, P.E. Utility System Efficiencies, Inc.

Jason Spitzkoff Arizona Public Service Company

Q184 System Impact Study APS Contract No. 52479

Page i

Q184 SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3 1 STUDY DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................... 5

1.1 Power Flow Case Modeling ............................................................................................................ 8 1.2 Power Flow Project Modeling ....................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Dynamic Data ............................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Reliability Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 13

1.4.1 Power Factor Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13 1.4.2 Power Flow (Steady State) Criteria ....................................................................................... 13 1.4.3 Transient Stability Criteria ..................................................................................................... 14

2 STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Power Factor Requirements ......................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Power Flow ................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Post Transient ............................................................................................................................... 16 2.4 Transient Stability ......................................................................................................................... 16

3 RESULTS & FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Power Factor Capability Analysis ................................................................................................. 17 3.2 Power Flow and Post Transient Analysis ..................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 2015 Thermal Results ........................................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 2021 Thermal Results ........................................................................................................... 18 3.2.3 Voltage Results ..................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Transient Stability Analysis ........................................................................................................... 19 3.3.1 2015 Transient Stability Results ............................................................................................ 19 3.3.2 2021 Transient Stability Results ............................................................................................ 20

3.4 Network Resource Interconnection Service Analysis ................................................................... 20 3.5 Short Circuit / Fault Duty Analysis ................................................................................................ 21

4 Generation and Transmission Mitigation ............................................................................................. 22 5 Cost & Construction Time Estimates ................................................................................................... 23

5.1 Point of Interconnection cost – Delaney 500kV Switchyard ......................................................... 23 5.2 System Upgrades ......................................................................................................................... 25

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Power Flow Diagrams

Appendix B – List of Contingencies

Appendix C – Transient Stability Modeling

Appendix D – Transient Stability Plots


Page ii

ACC List of Acronyms

Arizona Corporation Commission ACSS Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported ANPP Arizona Nuclear Power Project APS Arizona Public Service ATC Available Transfer Capability CAISO California Independent System Operator Corporation CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CCVT Coupling Capacitor Voltage Transformer COD Commercial Operation Date CSP Concentrated Solar Power CT Combustion Turbine or Current Transformer EPE El Paso Electric ER Energy Resource ERIS Energy Resource Interconnection Service FaS Facilities Study FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FeS Feasibility Study GT Gas Turbine IC Interconnection Customer IID Imperial Irrigation District IR Interconnection Request LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LGIA Large Generator Interconnection Agreement NEC Navopache Electric Cooperative NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NR Network Resource NRIS Network Resource Interconnection Service NTUA Navajo Tribal Utility Authority OASIS Open Access Same Time Information System OATT Open Access Transmission Tariff PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric PNM Public Service Company of New Mexico POI Point Of Interconnection PPA Purchase Power Agreement PSLF/PSDS/SCSC Positive Sequence Load Flow/Positive Sequence Dynamic

Simulation/Short-Circuit Saturation Curve PST Phase-Shifting Transformer PV Photovoltaic RAS Remedial Action Scheme (also known as SPS) RFP Request for Proposal SCE Southern California Edison Company SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company SIS System Impact Study SLG fault Single Line-to-Ground fault SPS Special Protection System (also known as RAS) SRP Salt River Project SSVEC Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. SVC Static VAR Compensator SVD Static VAR Device SWTC Southwest Transmission Cooperative TEP Tucson Electric Power TPIF Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities WAPA Western Area Power Administration WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council


Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section summarizes the System Impact Study (SIS) results for the Q184 generator interconnection project proposing to connect 620 MW to the Delaney 500 kV bus. The project is planned in four phases with Phase 1 planned to be completed in January of 2014, Phase 2 in September 2014, Phase 3 in May 2015, and Phase 4 in May 2015. Specific details of the proposed generation’s impact on the surrounding transmission system can be found in the “Results and Findings” section of this report. Disclaimer Nothing in this report constitutes an offer of transmission service or confers upon the Interconnection Customer any right to receive transmission service. APS and other interconnected utilities may not have the Available Transmission Capacity to support the interconnection described in this report. It should also be noted that the results in this SIS are dependent upon the assumed topology and timing of new projects, which are subject to change. Background: APS completed a Feasibility Study for this project in the third quarter of 2011. Under provisions of the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), APS entered into a System Impact Study agreement with the Applicant in September 2011. The Applicant has requested the project be studied with both Network Resource Interconnection Service and Energy Resource Interconnection Service. APS has retained Utility System Efficiencies (USE) to perform the technical analysis. Figure E-1 shows a sketch of the proposed interconnection and the nearby transmission system.

Figure E-1: Q184 Interconnection and Surrounding System

Sensitivity

Sun Valley (2014)

Delaney (2013)

Morgan

Queue 38, 39, 56 (1,500 MW)

Palo Verde Hub

Pinnacle Peak

Dugas

Westwing

Trilby Wash (2015)

TS2 (TBD)

Palm Valley

Hassayampa Pump

Hassayampa Tap

Harcuvar Liberty

500 kV 230 kV

Queue 184 (620 MW)


Page 4

As seen in Figure E-1, there are numerous generation interconnection requests in the area. The pre-existing Delaney generation interconnection requests total 1,500 MW as follows:

• APS Q38 – 400 MW of Solar at Delaney 500 kV bus as ER in March 2015. • APS Q39 – 800 MW of Solar at Delaney 500 kV bus as ER in March 2015. • APS Q56 – 300 MW of Solar at Delaney 500 kV bus as NR in January 2014.

What was studied: This System Impact Study (SIS) examined the effects upon the surrounding transmission system of interconnecting 620 MW of generation to the Delaney 500 kV bus. This SIS used the machine parameters and characteristics provided by the Applicant. Subsequent detailed Facilities Studies may want to revisit and tune specific generator parameters. Analyses for the proposed generator consisted of computer-based power flow studies, transient stability simulations, post-transient voltage stability studies, and short circuit/fault duty analysis. This study modeled the generation under 2015 and 2021 Summer Peak load conditions. Selected contingencies which stressed the transmission system were simulated. Power flow, transient stability, and post-transient results were monitored for APS, SRP, TEPC, SWTC, WAPA, SDG&E, SCE, and other neighboring systems; short circuit analyses were also performed. The Interconnection Customer is expected to follow APS’s power factor and low-voltage-ride-through criteria as stated in APS’s OATT as well as any applicable WECC standards. A power factor capability study was performed and noted in section 3.1 “Power Factor Capability Analysis.” System performance criteria used in the study: The criteria applied in this study are consistent with NERC/WECC Reliability Criteria. For more detailed information on the criteria used for each analysis see section 1.7 “Reliability Criteria.” Results: This study shows the project is required to install 100 MVAr of shunt reactive support in addition to the reactive capabilities of the turbines/inverters installed to achieve +/- 0.95 power factor at the point of interconnection. This upgrade is required for interconnection under all generation scenarios. The project also resulted new reliability criteria violations under pre-contingency and applicable (single element WECC Category B, and multiple element WECC Category C) outage conditions when other nearby generator interconnection projects are considered under 2021 conditions. Three projects are required under this condition to maintain system reliability:

1. Install a second Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer. 2. Upgrade CAWCD’s Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line. 3. Incorporate Q184 into a generator tripping scheme that trips Delany generation greater than

810 MW following an outage of the Palo Verde-Delaney 500 kV line until the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line project is complete.

When Q184 alone is considered, no new reliability criteria violations were detected. The results of this study may vary should the assumptions, used in this study, of the current transmission plans and higher queued interconnection requests around this area change. Prior to starting the Facilities Study, the latest transmission plans and interconnection queue should be considered, and may trigger re-examination of the results.


Page 5

1 STUDY DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS This section of the report provides details pertaining to the power flow case development and an overview of major study assumptions. All power flow , transient stability, and post-transient work was performed using General Electric’s Positive Sequence Load Flow (GEPSLF) program, version 17.0_06. The study is comprised of the following technical analyses: Power flow analysis, Post-Transient analysis, Transient Stability analysis, and Short circuit analysis.

The following significant planned transmission projects were assumed in-service in the base model: Transmission Assumptions

• Hassayampa-North Gila #2 500 kV line planned for 2015. • Delaney-Sun Valley 500 kV line planned for 2015. • Palo Verde-Delaney 500 kV line planned for 2013. • Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230 kV line planned for 2015. • Trilby Wash-Palm Valley 230 kV line planned for 2015.

A Sensitivity case was created to assess the impact of planned nearby transmission project:

• Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line planned for 2016.

The following nearby generation Interconnection Requests ahead in the queue were modeled in all analyses and all cases because the applicants have a signed LGIA and/or Power Purchase Agreement (PPA):

Generation Assumed Online in the Base Model

• Agua Caliente (formerly APS Q43): 500 MW at Hoodoo Wash 500 kV substation. o Loop the Hoodoo Wash substation into the Hassayampa-North Gila #1 500 kV Line. o Agua Caliente has a PPA with PG&E for Phase 1 (290 MW) of their project.

• Solana (formerly APS Q44): 280 MW at Panda 230 kV. This unit has a PPA with APS and is modeled as an APS network resource along with the following system upgrades:

o Upgrade Butterfield Tap-Gila Bend 69 kV (6 mi 795 ACSS) o Upgrade Cotton Center-Butterfield Tap 69 kV (5 mi 795 ACSS)

The following nearby generation Interconnection Requests (IR) ahead in the queue were modeled in the short circuit analysis and

Generation Assumed Online as a Sensitivity

as a sensitivity

in the power flow, post-transient, and transient stability analysis:

• APS Q38 – 400 MW at Delaney 500 kV Sub as ER in March 2015. Delaney IR (1,500 MW)

• APS Q39 – 800 MW at Delaney 500 kV Sub as ER in March 2015. • APS Q56 – 300 MW at Delaney 500 kV Sub as NR in January 2014.

The following system upgrades are assumed in-service to accommodate the Delaney generation: o Will install an SPS that trips Delaney generation greater than 810 MW for an outage of the

Palo Verde-Delaney 500 kV line. o TS8 230/69 kV transformer tripping scheme that opens the transformer following the outage

of the N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500 kV line. o Pilot Knob 161/92 kV Transformer Upgrade

• Q51 – 150 MW CSP to the Qx 500 kV Sub as NR in April 2015. North Gila/Hyder Valley IR (150 MW)

• Q63 – 150 MW CSP to the Panda 230 kV Sub as NR in July 2013. Panda IR (150 MW)

The following system upgrades are assumed in-service to accommodate the Panda generation: o Upgrade the Cotton Center-Gillespi 69 kV line (7.5 mi 795 ACSS).


Page 6

The following nearby ANPP generation Interconnection Requests are modeled as a sensitivity in the power flow, post-transient, and transient stability analysis because the applicants have a queue date ahead of Q184 (12/23/2010):

• ANPP Q2 (5/22/2007) – 720 MW at the Hassayampa 500 kV bus in mid 2014. • ANPP Q3 (2/11/2008) – 500 MW at the Jojoba 500 kV line in late 2012. • ANPP Q8 (1/29/2009) – 125 MW at the Hassayampa 500 kV bus in mid 2011. • ANPP Q9 (1/29/2009) – 125 MW at the Hassayampa 500 kV bus in late 2011. • ANPP Q13 (2/18/2010) – 200 MW at the Hassayampa 500 kV bus in mid 2013. • ANPP Q15 (7/13/2010) – 150 MW at the Hassayampa 500 kV bus in late 2012.

In addition to the generation noted above, the following nearby generation Interconnection Requests (IR) ahead in the queue

Generation Assumed Online in the Short Circuit Study Only

are modeled in the short circuit analysis only

:

• Q33 – 400 MW CSP to the N. Gila 500 kV Sub as ER in March 2015. North Gila/Hyder Valley IR (1,898 MW)

• Q44b – 300 MW CSP to the Qx 500 kV Sub as ER in May 2014. • Q58 – 99 MW CSP to the Qx 500 kV Sub as ER in December 2012. • Q59 – 99 MW CSP to the Qx 500 kV Sub as ER in December 2013. • Q60 – 40 MW PV to the Qx 500 kV Sub as ER in June 2012. • Q65 – 480 MW CSP to the Hoodoo Wash 500 kV Switch Station as ER in January 2014. • Q73 – 480 MW CSP to the Hoodoo Wash 500 kV Switch Station as ER in January 2014.

The following system upgrades are assumed in-service to accommodate the Hyder Valley generation: o Add second Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer. o Upgrade the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line with 1272 ACSS rated at

936 MVA. o Upgrade the 1.7 mile Pilot Knob-Yucca 161 kV line with 795 ACSS.

Sensitivity cases are run to assess the impacts of offsetting Q184 at various locations: Generation Dispatch Assumptions

• Offset output of Q184 at the Palo Verde Hub. • Offset output of Q184 at Four Corners.

All new IR generation added to the cases are offset throughout the AZ and adjacent systems proportionally according to load as follows:

Table 1-1. IR Distribution Area 2015 Case 2021 Case

Load Allocation Load Allocation Area 10 (NM) 2,554 2% 2,986 2% Area 11 (EPE) 1,883 2% 2,275 2% Area 14 (AZ) 20,232 18% 22,899 18% Area 18 (NV) 6,156 6% 7,988 6% Area 21 (IID) 970 1% 1,155 1% Area 22 (SDG&E) 5,301 5% 5,628 5% Area 24 (SCE) 26,230 23% 28,234 23% Area 26 (LADWP) 7,294 6% 7,779 6% Area 30 (PG&E) 28,438 25% 30,893 25% Area 70 (CO) 7,756 7% 8,718 7% Area 73 (WAPA RM) 5,080 5% 6,128 5%


Page 7

The generation reduction will be distributed proportionally across each area according to their generation output. Base loaded units will be ignored. AZ generation will be reduced at the PV Hub due to normal loading concerns when all AZ units are proportionally reduced. The study used the 2014 Heavy Summer APS detailed planning case “sm14#09.sav” as the base model without the nearby IR generation. The case was then updated to reflect 2015 conditions. The study used the 2021 Heavy Summer APS detailed planning case “az21hs_final4.sav” as the base model with the nearby IR generation. Both cases have undergone review and updates by all of the Arizona utilities for planning purposes, and have corresponding dynamic data files that were used for transient stability analysis. A total of 11 study cases were created to properly study each study sensitivity. After loading the generation into the case. A pre-contingency overload of the Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer triggered the need to create an additional set of cases that model the second parallel transformer in the 2021 cases. A pre-contingency overload of the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line was observed in the 2021 post-project case when the project is offset at Four Corners. A 15th case was created that models this line upgrade under these conditions. Table 1-2 summarizes the cases utilized in this System Impact Study.

Table 1-2. Basecase Modeling Summary

Case # Scenario Description Sun

Valle

y-M

orga

n 50

0 kV

Lin

e

APS

IR

AN

PP IR

Palo

Ver

de H

ub

Four

Cor

ners

2015 Heavy Summer Case 1. Pre-Project 2. Post-Project √ 3. Post-Project √ 4. Post-Project, All Gas No Solar √ 5. Post-Project, All Solar No Gas √

2021 Heavy Summer Case 6. Pre-Project, with IR √ √ 7. Post-Project, with IR √ √ √ 8. Post-Project, with IR √ √ √ 9. Pre-Project, with IR, with SVM √ √ √ 10. Post-Project, with IR, with SVM √ √ √ √ 11. Post-Project, with IR, with SVM √ √ √ √ 12. Pre-Project, with IR, with SV Xfmr √ √ 13. Post-Project, with IR, with SV Xfmr √ √ √ 14. Post-Project, with IR, with SV Xfmr √ √ √ 15. Post-Project, with IR, with SV Xfmr & Hassy Upgrade √ √ √


Page 8

1.1 Power Flow Case Modeling The 2015 base power flow cases simulated a high load, high generation condition. As a 2014 starting point, the SIS utilized an APS Detailed Planning study case (“sm14#09.sav”), which includes modeling of the 69 kV sub-transmission system. The additional modifications described below were made to create the SIS power flow cases. All Cases: “2015” Heavy Summer High Load/High Generation

1) Study base case “sm14#09.sav” was obtained from APS Transmission Planning. General Changes

2) Changed all isolated/islanded busses from Type “0” to Type “99”. 3) Renamed buses with identical name and kV (eliminating duplicates). 4) Eliminated overloads on distribution and GSU banks by increasing rating. 5) Added emergency ratings equal to normal rating where emergency ratings were missing. 6) Updated emergency ratings where emergency ratings were less than normal ratings. 7) Fixed lines with R and X values equal to zero by increasing X to 0.0003.

Arizona Changes 8) Emergency ratings (120-125% of normal) were added to selected transformers. 9) The Four Corners 500/345 kV transformer was updated to reflect transformer replacement. 10) The Cholla-Saguaro 500kV line ratings were set to 1515MVA normal and 2046MVA emergency. 11) Emergency ratings of 750MVA were added to the Pinnacle Peak 500/230kV transformers 12) The Yavapai-Verde 230kV line ratings were set to 318MVA normal and 374MVA emergency. 13) The Yavapai-Willow Lake 230kV line ratings were set to 308MVA normal and 356MVA emergency. 14) The Willow Lake – Prescott 230kV line ratings were set to 640MVA normal and emergency. 15) Set Cholla 4 to 387MW Pmax. 16) Pinto-Four Corners 345kV series capacitors were added (28.5 Ohms). 17) The Four Corners – Pinto 345 kV shunt reactor was moved from the Four Corners bus to the line. 18) The Shiprock 345/230kV transformer was updated to reflect the recent transformer replacement.

The new transformer is rated at 600MVA normal and 720MVA emergency. 19) Emergency ratings of 900MVA were added to the Sun Valley 500/230kV Transformers. 20) The Saguaro – Oracle 115kV line ratings were set to 150MVA normal and 165MVA emergency. 21) The Oracle – Tucson 115kV line ratings were set to 76MVA normal and 83.6MVA emergency. 22) Pmax on the Harquahala ST’s were set to 138MW. 23) Desert Basin generation was reduced to 480MW (gross output). 24) The Mesquite step-up transformers were set to 205MVA normal and 220 emergency for the CT’s

and 336MVA normal and 420MVA emergency for the ST’s. 25) Updated line shunt impedance on the Moenkopi – Eldorado 500kV line to 226 MVAr (-2.26pu). 26) Updated impedance on the Old Home Manor – Chino Tap 69kV line. 27) Various transformer impedance and rating updates were added to transmission transformers. 28) Updated Southern Navajo system impedance and ratings. 29) The Springer-Gladston 115kV line ratings were set to 159MVA normal and emergency. 30) The Montrose-SoCanal 115kV line ratings were set to 133MVA normal and emergency. 31) The Springer-Coronado 345kV line ratings were set to 1195MVA normal and emergency. 32) Updated various 69kV lines impedance and ratings in zone 147 and 148 in APS area. 33) Green Path North transmission project was removed. 34) Ratings on multiple 500, 345, and 230kV lines were updated to reflect correct ratings. 35) The impedance was updated on the Cholla – Showlow 69kV transmission system. 36) Multiple generators were modified for stability reasons. 37) Various shunt capacitors were switched and transformer taps updated to increase or lower bus

voltages.


Page 9

38) The latest model for the Rocking Chair East generator interconnection project was added. 39) The Hassayampa-N.Gila #2 500 kV line and TS8 230/69 kV substation was placed into service. 40) The Trilby Wash-Palm Valley 230 kV line was placed into service.

A summary of the 2015 power flow case attributes are listed in Table 1-3.. Power flow diagrams of the transmission system are provided in Appendix A

.

Table 1-3. Study Case Attributes

2015 No Nearby Interconnection Requests

Pre-Project Post - Project

PV Dispatch FC Dispatch Total Gen Total Gen Only GAS Only SOLAR

Major Path/Branch Flows: Path 46 – West of the River 6,016 6,017 6,067 6,049 6,048 Path 49 – East of the River 3,462 3,461 3,460 3,455 3,456 Path 50 – Cholla-Pinnacle Peak 397 396 367 381 382 Palo Verde-Colorado River 500 kV 1,544 1,548 1,589 1,568 1,565 Delaney-Palo Verde 500 kV 373 -204 -193 76 107 Delaney-Sun Valley 500 kV 373 414 425 400 397 Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV 0 0 0 0 0 N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500 kV 1,384 1,385 1,416 1,401 1,399 Hassayampa-Hoodoo Wash 500kV 689 689 706 698 697 Hassayampa-Qx #1 500 kV 0 0 0 0 0 Qx-Hoodoo Wash #1 500 kV 0 0 0 0 0 Hoodoo Wash-N.Gila #1 500 kV 960 960 977 969 968 Hassayampa-N.Gila #2 500 kV 752 753 770 762 761 Sun Valley 500/230 kV 1 373 414 424 400 397 Sun Valley 500/230 kV 2 0 0 0 0 0 Sun Valley-Hassy Pump 230 kV 209 232 239 225 223 Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV -188 -211 -218 -204 -202 Hassayampa-Trilby Wash 230 kV 164 181 185 175 173 Trilby Wash-Palm Valley 230 kV 79 95 96 88 87 Trilby Wash 230/69 kV 83 85 88 86 85 Palm Valley-Rudd 230 kV 99 103 105 102 102 Palm Valley-TS4 230 kV 168 157 158 163 164 Arizona Area 14 (incl. WALC) Load 20,402 20,388 20,404 20,404 20,404 Losses 737 744 716 723 727 Generation 28,155 28,147 28,136 28,143 28,147 Interchange (exports) 7,016 7,015 7,016 7,016 7,016

Case 1 2 3 4 5


Page 10

The 2021 base power flow cases simulated a high load, high generation conditions. As a 2021 starting point, the SIS utilized an APS Detailed Planning study case (“az21hs_final4.sav”), which includes modeling of the 69 kV sub-transmission system. The additional modifications described below were made to create the SIS power flow cases. All Cases: “2021” Heavy Summer High Load/High Generation

1) Study base case “az21hs_final4.sav” was obtained from APS Transmission Planning. General Changes

2) Changed all isolated/islanded busses from Type “0” to Type “99”. 3) Renamed buses with identical name and kV (eliminating duplicates). 4) Eliminated overloads on distribution and GSU banks by increasing rating. 5) Added emergency ratings equal to normal rating where emergency ratings were missing. 6) Updated emergency ratings where emergency ratings were less than normal ratings. 7) Fixed lines with R and X values equal to zero by increasing X to 0.0003.

Arizona Changes 8) Emergency ratings (120-125% of normal) were added to for selected APS 230/69 kV transformers. 9) Emergency rating of 1225 MVA was added to the Four Corners 500/345 kV transformer. 10) The Four Corners 500/345 kV transformer was updated to reflect transformer replacement. 11) The Cholla-Saguaro 500 kV line ratings were set to 1515 MVA normal and 2046 MVA emergency. 12) Emergency ratings of 750 MVA were added to the Pinnacle Peak 500/230 kV Transformers 13) The Willow Lake – Prescott 230kV line ratings were set to 640 MVA normal and emergency. 14) Set Cholla 4 to 387MW Pmax. 15) Pinto-Four Corners 345kV series capacitors were added (28.5 Ohms). 16) The Shiprock 345/230kV transformer was updated to reflect the recent transformer replacement.

The new transformer is rated at 600MVA normal and 720MVA emergency. 17) Emergency ratings of 900MVA were added to the Sun Valley 500/230kV Transformers. 18) The Saguaro – Oracle 115kV line ratings were set to 150MVA normal and 165MVA emergency. 19) The Oracle – Tucson 115kV line ratings were set to 76MVA normal and 83.6MVA emergency. 20) Pmax on the Harquahala ST’s were set to 138MW. 21) Desert Basin generation was reduced to 480MW (gross output). 22) The Mesquite step-up transformers were set to 205MVA normal and 220 emergency for the CT’s

and 336MVA normal and 420MVA emergency for the ST’s. 23) Updated line shunt impedance on the Moenkopi – Eldorado 500kV line to 226 MVAr (-2.26pu). 24) Updated impedance on the Old Home Manor – Chino Tap 69kV line. 25) Various transformer impedance and rating updates were added to transmission transformers. 26) Updated Southern Navajo system impedance and ratings. 27) The Springer-Gladston 115kV line ratings were set to 159MVA normal and emergency. 28) The Montrose-SoCanal 115kV line ratings were set to 133MVA normal and emergency. 29) The Springer-Coronado 345kV line ratings were set to 1195MVA normal and emergency. 30) Updated various 69kV lines impedance and ratings in zone 147 and 148 in APS area. 31) Ratings on multiple 500, 345, and 230kV lines were updated to reflect correct ratings. 32) The impedance was updated on the Cholla – Showlow 69kV transmission system. 33) Multiple generators were modified for stability reasons. 34) Various shunt capacitors were switched and transformer taps updated to increase or lower bus

voltages. 35) The latest model for the Rocking Chair East generator interconnection project was added. 36) The Q43 terminal voltage schedule was set to 1.04 pu. 37) The PERRYVIL-PRYVLTP 69 kV line was opened to mitigate the PERRYVIL-WS4 69 kV line pre-

contingency overload.


Page 11

A summary of the 2021 power flow case attributes are listed in Table 1-4.. Power flow diagrams of the transmission system are provided in Appendix A

.

Table 1-4. Study Case Attributes

2021 With Nearby Interconnection Requests

With Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV Line

With 2nd Sun Valley 500/230 kV Xfmr

Hassy Upgrade

Pre-Project

Post - Project Pre-Project

Post - Project Pre-Project

Post - Project Post - Project

PV FC PV FC PV FC FC

Major Path/Branch Flows Path 46 – West of the River 7,010 7,009 7,016 7,018 7,018 7,026 7,014 7,012 7,020 7,018 Path 49 – East of the River 4,514 4,513 4,470 4,511 4,510 4,465 4,513 4,512 4,469 4,473 Path 50 – Cholla-Pinnacle Peak 740 737 677 729 725 664 739 736 675 676 Palo Verde-Colorado River 500 kV 2,028 2,032 2,077 2,001 2,002 2,043 2,022 2,026 2,071 2,073 Delaney-Palo Verde 500 kV -904 -1,475 -1,464 -257 -760 -711 -769 -1,330 -1,316 -1,365 Delaney-Sun Valley 500 kV 593 638 649 1,240 1,355 1,404 729 783 797 749 Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV 0 0 0 824 912 960 0 0 0 0 N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500 kV 1,325 1,326 1,349 1,310 1,308 1,333 1,321 1,322 1,345 1,347 Hassayampa-Hoodoo Wash 500kV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hassayampa-Qx #1 500 kV 673 673 691 662 661 680 670 670 687 689 Qx-Hoodoo Wash #1 500 kV 817 817 835 806 805 824 814 814 831 833 Hoodoo Wash-N.Gila #1 500 kV 1,083 1,083 1,101 1,072 1,071 1,089 1,079 1,079 1,097 1,099 Hassayampa-N.Gila #2 500 kV 513 513 524 506 506 517 511 511 522 523 Sun Valley 500/230 kV 1 592 636 648 412 437 438 369 396 403 379 Sun Valley 500/230 kV 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 385 392 368 Sun Valley-Hassy Pump 230 kV 284 308 315 187 201 203 358 388 396 315 Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV -263 -288 -295 -167 -181 -183 -337 -367 -375 -293 Hassayampa-Trilby Wash 230 kV 237 254 257 165 174 174 290 311 316 345 Trilby Wash-Palm Valley 230 kV 124 139 140 66 75 73 169 187 189 216 Trilby Wash 230/69 kV 111 113 115 98 99 100 119 122 124 126 Palm Valley-Rudd 230 kV 44 48 48 12 12 11 72 78 79 75 Palm Valley-TS4 230 kV 168 157 157 187 179 180 156 145 144 115 Arizona Area 14 (incl. WALC)

Load 22,984 22,969 22,986 22,984 22,969 22,986 22,984 22,969 22,986 22,986 Losses 904 913 900 895 903 889 907 917 904 907 Generation 33,320 33,314 33,319 33,310 33,304 33,308 33,323 33,318 33,323 33,326 Interchange (exports) 9,432 9,431 9,432 9,431 9,431 9,432 9,432 9,432 9,432 9,432

Case 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Page 12

1.2 Power Flow Project Modeling APS Q184 connects to the Delaney 500 kV bus. The detailed power flow modeling at the Delaney substation is depicted in Figure 1-5 below. The project is comprised of eight combustion turbines that total 320MW, and three blocks of solar PV units that total 300MW. Each pair of CT units share a 13.8/69kV Generator Step-Up (GSU) transformer. The GSUs connect to a common 69kV bus that is then connected to a 500kV collector bus via a 69/500kV transformer. The three PV arrays each have a dedicated 34.5/69kV GSU transformer and a 1-mile dedicated 69kV tie line to a common 69kV bus. A 69/500kV transformer connects the PV project to the 500kV collector bus. A 1-mile 1590 Lapwing ACSR (2-bundled) 500kV transmission line connects the project to the Delaney 500kV bus. According to the data sheets provided by the applicant, the VAR capability for each CT unit is +/- 28 MVAR. The PV arrays will be capable of Qmax/Qmin +/- 32.9 MVAR. The power flow modeling at Delaney is depicted in Figure 1-5 below.

Figure 1-5. Power Flow Model of Q184

Delaney 500kV

Queue #184 (620MW)

1 mi of 1590 Lapwing ACSR (2-bundled) R = 0.0000 X = 0.0002 B= 0.0254

500kV 375MVA

Z=10% (225MVA)

101 MW (PV) +/- 32.9 MVAR

69kV

34.5kV 34.5kV 34.5kV

125MVA Z=8%

(75MVA)

71 MVA 60.5 MW

-28/+28MVAR 2 CTs

69kV

13.8kV 13.8kV 13.8kV 13.8kV

71 MVA 60.5 MW

-28/+28MVAR 2 CTs

71 MVA 60.5 MW

-28/+28MVAR 2 CTs

71 MVA 60.5 MW

-28/+28MVAR 2 CTs

120MVA Z=8% (72MVA)

375MVA Z=10% (225MVA)

1 mi of 1272 Bittern ACSR R = 0.00174 X = 0.01336 B = 0.00000

101 MW (PV) +/- 32.9 MVAR

101 MW (PV) +/- 32.9 MVAR

0.48kV 0.48kV 0.48kV

125MVA Z=4.5%

(75MVA)

Q184 500kV Project Sub

Q184 Solar Sub Q184 CT Sub


Page 13

1.3 Dynamic Data Transient stability simulations were performed using the dynamic data files associated with the each seed case. Prior to the finalization of the cases and dynamics data sets, a flat-run and “bump test” were simulated to ensure true power system behavior was not masked by any remote dynamic modeling anomalies. The following changes were made to the cases and corresponding dynamic data files: 2015 Dynamic Data File:

1. Dynamic data file “AZ14hs_AZ_final4_aps.dyd” (developed for use with the sm14#09.sav base case) was obtained from APS Transmission Planning.

2. Dynamic models for Rocking Chair East and West, Q43, Q44, Q113, Q162, and Q184 were added.

2021 Dynamic Data File:

1. Dynamic data file “21hs12_final4.dyd” (developed for use with the az21hs_final4.sav base case) was obtained from APS Transmission Planning.

2. Dynamic models for APS queue Rocking Chair East and West, Q38, Q39, Q43, Q44, Q51, Q56, Q63, Q113, and Q184 were added.

3. Dynamic models for SRP queue Q2, Q3, Q8, Q9, Q13, and Q15 were added. Appendix C provides the transient stability models used in this study, and details of these assumptions. Modeling for the new generation utilized typical machine characteristics provided by the Applicant. A stability plot of the flat run and bump test simulation is also provided in Appendix C

.

1.4 Reliability Criteria In general, an evaluation of the system reliability investigates the system’s thermal loading capability, voltage performance (not too high or low), and transient stability (the system should not oscillate excessively and generators should remain synchronized). The evaluation of these criteria must be conducted for credible ‘emergency’ conditions, such as loss of a single or double circuit line, a transformer, or a generator (TPL-002 and TPL-003). Performance of the transmission system and neighboring Control Areas were measured against the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Reliability Standards and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Planning Standards described in the following subsections. The criteria for Category A (TPL-001, “All lines in service”) and Category B (TPL-002, single element outage) conditions were explicitly applied both internally (within APS system) and to external Control Areas. (Steady-State) Power Flow Criteria

1.4.1 Power Factor Criteria The study applies APS power factor criteria that states a generator must be capable of providing dynamic reactive support within the range of +/-0.95 power factor at the POI.

1.4.2 Power Flow (Steady State) Criteria

• All line loadings must be less than 100% of their continuous (normal) thermal ratings. Normal Conditions

• All transformer loadings must be less than 100% of their continuous (normal) ratings.

• For TPL-002, a single (N-1) contingency or TPL-003, a double (N-2) contingency, no transmission element will be loaded above the emergency rating.

Contingency Conditions

• Depending upon the type of analysis and applied case/sensitivity, applicable criteria for system performance will be identified. In some instances, resulting local circuit overloads and/or voltage deviations may be deemed acceptable per local criteria; as long as the local system’s post-contingency performance does not result in cascading outages.

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


Page 14

• Voltage deviations at any bus must be no more than 5% for TPL-002, N-1 contingencies, and no more than 10% for TPL-003, N-2 contingencies.

1.4.3 Transient Stability Criteria With respect to the transient stability assessment of the system, this SIS applied the reliability criteria contained within the WECC disturbance-performance table of allowable effects on other systems. Table 3 and Figure 4 are excerpts from the WECC Reliability Criteria.

Table 3. WECC Disturbance-Performance Table of Allowable Effects on Other Systems

NERC and WECC Categories

Outage Frequency Associated with the

Performance Category

(outage/year)

Transient Voltage Dip Standard

Minimum Transient Frequency Standard

Post Transient Voltage Deviation Standard

A System normal

(TPL-001) Not Applicable Nothing in addition to NERC

B One element out-of-service

(TPL-002)

≥ 0.33

Not to exceed 25% at load buses or 30% at non-load buses. Not to exceed 20% for more than 20 cycles at load buses.

Not below 59.6Hz for 6 cycles or more at a load bus.

Not to exceed 5% at any bus.

C Two or more

elements out-of-service

(TPL-003)

0.033 – 0.33

Not to exceed 30% at any bus. Not to exceed 20% for more than 40 cycles at load buses.

Not below 59.0Hz for 6 cycles or more at a load bus.

Not to exceed 10% at any bus.

D Extreme multiple-element outages

< 0.033 Nothing in addition to NERC

Figure 4. NERC/WECC Voltage Performance Parameters


Page 15

2 STUDY METHODOLOGY This section summarizes the methods used to derive the power factor requirements, power flow, post transient, and transient stability results. Appendix B details the contingencies run for the study.

2.1 Power Factor Requirements The APS Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) policy regarding power factor requires all Interconnection Customers, with the exception of wind generators, to maintain an acceptable power factor (typically near unity) at the Point of Interconnection (POI), subject to system conditions. The APS OATT also requires Interconnection Customers to be able to achieve +/- 0.95 power factor at the POI, with the maximum "full-output" VAr capability available at all outputs. Furthermore, APS requires Interconnection Customers to have dynamic voltage control and maintain the voltage as specified by the transmission operator within the limitation of +/- 0.95 power factor, as long as the Project is online and generating. If the Project’s equipment is not capable of this type of response, a dynamic reactive device will be required. APS has the right to disconnect the Project from the power grid if system conditions dictate the need to do so in order to maintain system reliability. The method for determining whether or not the generator meets these requirements is to first record the pre-project POI bus voltage. Next, model the generator with zero reactive capabilities at full output. Any shunt devices are turned off. Two synchronous condensers are added to the case with infinite reactive capability. One is at the terminal bus of the unit regulating the bus voltage to 1.0 pu. The other is one bus away from the POI regulating the POI to the pre-project voltage level. The amount of plant losses can be determined by recording the MVAR flow at the POI and adding that to the sum of the synchronous condenser output. Based on the maximum output of the plant, determine the minimum reactive capabilities required to meet the +/-0.95 power factor range. The sum of the two numbers determines the maximum amount of reactive support the project must provide.

2.2 Power Flow Power flow analysis considers a snapshot in time where the transformer tap changers, SVD’s and, the phase shifters have not adjusted, and the system swing bus balances the system during each contingency scenario. All power flow analysis was conducted with version 17.0_06 of General Electric’s PSLF/PSDS/SCSC software. Power flow results were monitored and reported for APS and other neighboring systems, including TEP and SRP. Traditional power flow analysis was used to evaluate the thermal and voltage performance of the system under Category A (TPL-001, all elements in service) and Category B (TPL-002, N-1, single contingency) conditions. The applicable WECC reliability planning criteria is listed below.

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

• All equipment loadings must be below their normal ratings under normal conditions. • All equipment loadings must be below their emergency ratings for single contingencies. • Depending upon the type of analysis and applied case/sensitivity, applicable criteria for system

performance will be identified. In some instances, resulting local circuit overloads and/or voltage deviations may be deemed acceptable per local criteria; as long as the local system’s post-contingency performance does not result in cascading outages.

Thermal loading was reported when a modeled transmission element was loaded over 98% of its appropriate MVA rating modeled in the power flow database and when the incremental change in loading, between Pre-Project and Post-Project, exceeded 1%. Transmission voltage violations for Category A (TPL-001, no contingency) conditions were reported where per unit voltages for <500kV buses were less than 0.95 or greater than 1.05 and per unit voltages for 500kV buses were less than 1.05 or greater than 1.08. For Category B outages (TPL-002, N-1) the voltage violations were reported when the post-contingency voltage deviation was greater than 5%.


Page 16

2.3 Post Transient Post-transient analysis determines if the voltage deviations at critical buses meet the maximum allowable voltage dip criteria and if any transmission elements exceed their maximum rating for selected Category B (TPL-002, N-1) disturbances. This snapshot focuses on the first few minutes following an outage where the transformer tap changers, the phase shifters, and SVDs have not adjusted, and all of the system generation reacts by governor control to balance the system during each contingency scenario. All loads are modeled as constant power during the Post-Transient time frame. Generator VAR limits will be modeled as a constant single value for each generator since the reactive power capability curve will not be modeled in the power flow program. Alpha min and Gamma min of the PDCI and IPPDC will be adjusted to 5 degrees and 13 degrees, respectively. Shunt capacitors (132 MVAR) at Adelanto and Marketplace will be used if the post-transient voltage deviation exceeds 5% at those buses.

2.4 Transient Stability Transient stability analysis is a time-based simulation that assesses the performance of the power system during (and shortly following) a contingency. Transient stability studies were performed to verify the system stability following a critical fault on the system. Prior to finalization of the power flow and dynamic data set, a flat–run was run to ensure true power system behavior was not masked by any remote dynamic modeling anomalies. Transient stability analysis was performed based on WECC Disturbance-Performance Criteria for selected system contingencies. Initial transient stability contingencies were simulated out to 11 seconds to ensure a damped system performance. All simulated faults were assumed to be three-phase. Table 2.1 identifies the breaker clearing times for faults on different voltage levels.

Table 2.1 Breaker Clearing Times

Voltage Level Breaker clearing times

69 kV 7-cycles 115/161 kV 6-cycles 345/230 kV 5-cycles

500 kV 4-cycles All transient stability simulations were conducted using version 17.0_06 of General Electric’s PSLF/PSDS/SCSC software. The Worst Condition Analysis (WCA) tool, available in the PSDS software package, tracks and records the transient stability behavior of all output channels contained within the binary output file of a transient stability simulation. The monitoring of channel output was initiated two cycles after fault clearing, to ensure that all post-fault stability behavior would be captured. System damping was assessed visually with the aid of stability plots. Parameters Monitored to Evaluate System Stability Performance: Rotor Angle

Rotor angle plots provide a measure for determining how the proposed generation unit would swing with respect to other generation units in the area. This information is used to determine if a machine would remain in synchronism or go out-of-step from the rest of the system following a disturbance.

Bus Voltage

Bus voltage plots, in conjunction with the relative rotor angle plots, provide a means of detecting out-of-step conditions. The bus voltage plots are useful in assessing the magnitude and duration of post disturbance voltage dips and peak-to-peak voltage oscillations. Bus voltage plots also give an indication of system damping and the level to which voltages are expected to recover in steady state conditions.


Page 17

Bus Frequency Bus frequency plots provide information on magnitude and duration of post-fault frequency swings with the new Project(s) in service. These plots indicate the extent of possible over-frequency or under-frequency, which can occur due to an area’s imbalance between load and generation.

Other Plotted Parameters

• Real Power Output

3 RESULTS & FINDINGS This section provides the results obtained by applying the previous assumptions and methodology. It illustrates all findings associated with the power factor capability, power flow, post transient, and transient stability analysis.

3.1 Power Factor Capability Analysis The power factor capability of Q184 must meet the power factor requirement under all operating conditions. The project must be able to achieve the power factor requirement when only the solar portion of the project is online, when only the gas portion of the project is online, and when both the gas and solar portions are operating at full output.

This project does not satisfy the 0.95 power factor requirement when only the solar portion of the project is operating. The calculated plant losses are 93.8 MVAr resulting in a 0.99987 power factor capability when only the 98.7 MVAr dynamic capability of inverters are considered. A minimum of 100 MVAr of shunt capacitors are required in addition to the 98.7 MVAr dynamic capability of the solar inverters to satisfy the 0.95 power factor requirement.

All Solar No Gas Power Factor Capability

This project narrowly satisfies the 0.95 power factor requirement when only the gas portion of the project is operating. The calculated plant losses are 55.2 MVAr resulting in a 0.94998 power factor capability when the only the 224 MVAr dynamic capability of the gas turbines are considered.

All Gas No Solar Power Factor Capability

This project does not satisfy the 0.95 power factor requirement when both the gas and solar portions of the project are simultaneously operating at full output and only the dynamic reactive capability of the solar inverters and the gas turbines are considered. The calculated plant losses are 156 MVAr resulting in a power factor capability of 0.96570. A minimum of 40 MVAr of shunt capacitors are required in addition to the 322.7 MVAr of dynamic reactive support provided by the gas turbines and solar inverters to achieve 0.94848 power factor capability.

Full Gas and Full Solar Power Factor Capability

The worst case scenario for this project is when only the Solar portion of the project is on-line. Therefore, as shown above, the project needs to add a minimum of 100 MVAr of shunt capacitors in order to meet the power factor requirements.

3.2 Power Flow and Post Transient Analysis The power flow and post transient analysis focused on high load, high generation conditions for summer 2015 and summer 2021 conditions. The Pre-Project case was used as a baseline to measure the impact of the new generation and planned transmission upgrades. Contingencies were then applied to the cases. The list of contingencies simulated is provided in Appendix B. Selected plots from the cases under pre-contingency and post-contingency system conditions are included in Appendix A

.


Page 18

3.2.1 2015 Thermal Results No issues to report. 3.2.2 2021 Thermal Results Numerous thermal overloads were observed in the 2021 contingency analysis. Pre-existing overloads on were observed in IID on the Coachella Valley 161/92 kV transformer and on the Dixiland-RTAP1-6 92 kV line following critical category C outages. The overloads are not noted in this section because the addition of the project had a minimal effect (approximately 1%-2%) upon the resulting overload. Numerous category C3 outages (N-1-1) resulted in thermal overloads when system adjustments were not applied and the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line was not in-service. All thermal loading concerns can be mitigated with system adjustments which primarily consist of increasing generation in the Phoenix Valley and Eastern Arizona and reducing generation at the Palo Verde Hub. The amount of overloads following category C3 outages is significantly reduced when the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line is in-service. System adjustments will still be required to mitigate thermal loading concerns although less severe. These results are not published in this section since the result is not attributed to the interconnection. The Gila Bend 230/69 kV transformer 2 is overloaded to 105% following an outage of the parallel Gila Bend 230/69 kV transformer 1 in all 2021 pre-project cases indicating a pre-existing issue. This result is not published in this section since the result is not attributed to the interconnection.

Table 3-1 shows the thermal loading results of the 2021 analysis where the nearby interconnection requests were modeled. The Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer is overloaded under pre-contingency conditions regardless of the dispatch scenario. A second parallel 500/230 kV transformer at Sun Valley or the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line is required to mitigation this issue.

2021 Heavy Summer Thermal Results (Cases 6-8)

In addition to the Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer loading concern, the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line is overloaded following an outage of the Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230 kV line when the project is offset at Four Corners. The line will need to be upgraded to mitigate this thermal loading concern. Table 3-1. 2021 Thermal Loading Results

Contingency Description Overloaded Element Area Rate Pre-Project PV FC

N-0 Normal Conditions Sun Valley 500/230 kV Xfmr 1 14 600 100 108 110 N-1 Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014 100 102

Case 06 07 08

The Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer and Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line overload concerns are sufficiently mitigated without creating any new thermal loading concerns when the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line is in-service.

2021 Heavy Summer Thermal Results with the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV Line (Cases 9-11)


Page 19

2021 Heavy Summer Thermal Results with a Second Sun Valley 500/230 kV Xfmr (Cases 12-14) Table 3-2 shows the thermal loading results of the 2021 analysis where the second Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer is placed in-service. The Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer overload concern is sufficiently mitigated, but the change exacerbates the overload concern of the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line overload. The line is overloaded under pre-project and both post-project dispatch scenarios. The second Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer is not a sufficient mitigation project without also upgrading the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line. Table 3-2. 2021 Thermal Loading Results with a Second Sun Valley 500/230 kV Transformer

Contingency Description Overloaded Element Area Rate Pre-Project PV FC

N-0 Normal Conditions Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014 102 N-1 N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014 103 105 N-1 Palo Verde-CO River 500 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014 102 109 112 N-1 Hassayampa-Pinal W 500 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014

100 102

N-1 Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014

102 105 N-1 Palo Verde-Rudd 500KV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014 111 119 122 N-1 Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014

103 106

N-1 Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014

103 106 N-1 Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014 111 120 123 N-1 TW-TS2-Palm Valley 230 kV Line Hassy Pump-Hassy Tap 230 kV Line 14 1014

108 110

Case 12 13 14 2021 Heavy Summer Thermal Results with a Second Sun Valley 500/230 kV Xfmr and the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV Line Upgrade (Case 15) No overload concerns exist when both mitigation projects are in place. 3.2.3 Voltage Results The interconnection does not cause any voltage deviation violations. 3.3 Transient Stability Analysis Seventy-one (71) transient stability outages were simulated. Many of these transient stability simulations met Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Disturbance Performance Criteria. As referenced in the Reliability Criteria section of this report, the system should meet the following transient stability performance criteria for a NERC/WECC Category ‘B’ disturbance (N-1): • Transient voltage dip should not be below 25% at any load busses or 30% at any non-load busses at

any time. • The duration of a transient voltage dip greater than 20% should not exceed 20 cycles at load busses. • The minimum transient frequency should not fall below 59.6 Hz for more than 6 cycles at load

busses. Appendix D1

contains transient stability plots of selected contingencies that provide a representative illustration of the transmission system’s Pre-Project and Post-Project transient response.

3.3.1 2015 Transient Stability Results No issues to report. 1 Selected transient stability plots are provided in Appendix D; additional transient stability plots are available upon request.


Page 20

3.3.2 2021 Transient Stability Results Without Morgan to Sun Valley 500 kV line A known transient stability concern was confirmed in the 2021 simulation. Loss of the Palo Verde-Delaney 500 kV line causes unstable oscillations to the generation at Delaney when only the Delaney-Sun Valley 500 kV line is in-service. An SPS is required to trip generation post-contingency until the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line is constructed. The concern exists in the pre-project case where APS Q38, Q39, and Q56 are modeled. These projects total 1,500 MW of new generation at Delaney. Previous interconnection studies indicate an SPS is required to trip generation greater than 810 MW within 8 cycles from fault inception. The pre-project simulations performed in this study confirm those results. This study indicates that the additional generation provided by Q184 will need to participate in the generator tripping scheme in order to maintain transient stability. The total amount of generation armed to trip following the single-element outage of the Palo Verde-Delaney 500 kV line is therefore increased from 690 MW to 1,310 MW as a result of this interconnection. With Morgan to Sun Valley 500 kV line No issues to report. 3.4 Network Resource Interconnection Service Analysis The Q184 project has requested to be studies with both Energy Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS) and also Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS). This analysis discusses the deliverability of the output of the Q184 project to APS’s retail load under their NRIS request. This analysis does not evaluate the deliverability of the project’s output to any of the other load serving entities that are potential participants in the Delaney substation; which include SRP and CAWCD. The point of interconnection for the Q184 project is the future Delaney 500kV substation. The project is expected to be built in multiple phases. The projected in-service date for the first phase, which is 100 MW of solar PV, is January 2014. The projected in-service date for the second phase, which is an additional 100 MW of solar PV, is September 2014. The projected in-service date for the final phase, which is another 100 MW of solar PV and 320 MW of natural gas CTs, is May 2015. The current in-service date for the Delaney substation and the Palo Verde-Delaney 500kV line is scheduled to be approximately December 2013. The in-service date for the Delaney-Sun Valley 500kV and Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV projects are currently planned for May 2014. At the Delaney substation there are three higher queued projects requesting interconnection (Q38, Q39, and Q56) totaling 1500 MW. However, of those projects, only Q56 has requested NRIS. Therefore, this NRIS analysis is using the assumption of the Q56 project being interconnected at the Delaney substation with 300 MW of NRIS. For the network request of the Q184 project, the project’s output can be delivered to APS at the Delaney substation. The current transmission plans for the Delaney substation have it initially connecting back to the Palo Verde Hub via the Palo Verde-Delaney 500kV line. This would give APS a transmission path from Delaney back to the Palo Verde Hub, which until the Delaney-Sun Valley 500kV and the Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV lines are in-service will be the only path back to APS’s load. Since the initial build-out of Delaney will have the Palo Verde-Delaney 500kV line as a radial line, the thermal capacity of the line will be high enough to handle the 300 MW of the Q56 project and the 620 MW of the Q184 project and deliver it into the Palo Verde Hub. After getting to the Palo Verde Hub the Q184 project would be eligible to be delivered as a Network Resource along with all of the other resources APS currently owns/purchases at the Palo Verde Hub. After the Delaney-Sun Valley 500kV and the Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV lines go into service that will add a new delivery path and additional scheduling capacity into the Phoenix load pocket for APS to


Page 21

deliver resources. Currently, the additional capability expected2

in 2014 will be 188 MW. This is due to the limitation at the Trilby Wash end of the project. In 2015 the Trilby Wash-Palm Valley 230kV line is expected to go into service. Once that project is in-service it will alleviate the limitation at Trilby Wash and the expected limit will be the Sun Valley 500/230kV transformer. The Sun Valley substation is currently planned to initially only have one 500/230kV transformer rated at 600 MVA. Since the total output of both Q56 and Q184 is 920 MW, in-order to be able to deliver all of the output for both projects a second 500/230kV transformer would be needed. As part of the assumptions for this study, if all of the higher queued generation in APS’s queue in the Hyder Area and the Delaney substation develop, a second transformer is assumed in-service because it will be needed for reliability reasons.

After the Delaney-Sun Valley 500kV, the Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV, and the Palm Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV lines are in-service, it is expected that the Sun Valley 230kV bus will become a delivery point internal to APS’s Phoenix load pocket and delivery of the Q184 project can be accepted at the Sun Valley 230kV bus. If there is only one 500/230kV transformer at Sun Valley the scheduling capacity to the Sun Valley 230kV bus will be limited to a maximum of 600 MW. If there are two 500/230kV transformers the scheduling capacity to the Sun Valley 230kV bus will be increased and may be able to accommodate both the Q56 and Q184 projects. However, the specific scheduling capacity across the two transformers would have to be determined by a rating study. 3.5 Short Circuit / Fault Duty Analysis Short circuit analysis of the proposed generator interconnection was performed by the APS Transmission Planning Department, using the CAPE program and parameters supplied by the Applicant. Fault duties were calculated for both single-phase-to-ground and three-phase faults at substation busses in the immediate surrounding area before and after the proposed generator installation. The results presented here assume a “worst-case” scenario, with all of the higher queued project’s generating units assumed on-line. However, in addition to the results shown here due to this projects proximity to the Palo Verde and Hassayampa switchyards there may be additional effects at those locations that would need to be explored in a System Impact Study. The analysis at Palo Verde and Hassayampa would be performed by SRP as the operator of those yards. This analysis shows that there may be some breakers above their fault duty capability, however it has been shown in the past that under a more detailed analysis there were no breakers over their capabilities. The factor examined in this study is the incremental fault duty shown at Palo Verde is less than 1 kA. Table 3.3 provides a comparison of fault duties at several local busses for both the Pre-Project and Post-Project conditions. The summary table also provides the minimum circuit breaker rating at each of these substations. Because the Sun Valley and Delaney substations have not yet been constructed there is no minimum circuit breaker rating to report. The circuit breakers for those substations will be ordered according to the needs at that time, with the assumption they will be at 63 kA or greater. Table 3.3. Short Circuit results

Base Case With Q184

Station 3 Ph. (kA) X/R Ph-G (kA) X/R 3 Ph. (kA) X/R Ph-G (kA) X/R Min. Brkr Rating -kA

Q184 500kV NA NA NA NA 34.93 17.07 21.31 18.75 As needed Sun Valley 500kV 22.43 24.26 16.41 22.9 22.49 24.24 16.52 22.79 As needed Delaney 500kV 36.91 28.97 31.26 15.91 37.19 28.94 32.49 17.02 As needed

Palo Verde 500kV 66.48 40.25 70.82 33.02 66.67 40.21 71.07 32.98 63 kA

Note: 1.05 pu pre-fault voltage

2 The Palo Verde-Delaney-Sun Valley 500kV, Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV, and Palm Valley-Trilby Wash 230kV paths do not yet have an official rating. The capacities discussed above are preliminary values determined from prior study work.


Page 22

4 Generation and Transmission Mitigation This section discusses the possible generation curtailment and/or transmission mitigation projects required for interconnection. These mitigation projects may or may not be required for interconnection. The actual transmission system upgrades are more properly determined in a Transmission Service request because it addresses the actual scheduling of the facilities that will determine the true impacts to the transmission system. This study only makes assumptions about the dispatch of the project and the higher queued generators. Mitigation #1: Sun Valley Upgrades Condition: No Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line, with Nearby Interconnection Requests

The overload of the Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer pre-contingency triggers the need for a second transformer. The second Sun Valley 500/230 kV transformer will be the same as the first. Addition of the second transformer creates a new overload of the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line requiring it to be upgraded as well. CAWCD’s Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230 kV line (operated by Western) potentially overloads following an outage of the Sun Valley-Trilby Wash 230 kV line. The actual mitigation of this overload will need to be coordinated with CAWCD and Western. The mitigation project is potentially either installing an overload protection scheme on the line that opens it when flow exceeds its emergency rating or upgrading the 5.93 mile 230 kV line with 1272 ACSS rated at 936 MVA. This line is currently under study by Western as part of CAWCD’s request to interconnect the line into the Sun Valley substation. The results of that study will greatly impact the results of this line overload.

Mitigation #2: Delaney Generator Tripping Scheme Condition: No Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV line, with Nearby Interconnection Requests

A transient stability concern requires Q184 to be added to a generator tripping scheme that would also include Q38, Q39, and Q56. With a total of 2120 MW of generation connected at Delaney, a total of 1,310 MW of generation would have to be armed to trip following an outage of the Palo Verde-Delaney 500 kV line.

Mitigation #3: Shunt Capacitor Addition for Power Factor Capability Condition: All Interconnection Conditions

This study shows the project is required to install 100 MVAr of shunt reactive support in addition to the reactive capabilities of the turbines/inverters installed. The cost of this equipment will not be estimated since the equipment will be installed and maintained by the customer.

Table 4-1. Upgrade Projects To Achieve Full Output

Schedule Upgrade Requirement PV FC

2015 No Nearby Interconnection Requests Modeled 0-620 0-620 Mitigation #3: Shunt Capacitor Addition for Power Factor Capability

2021 With Nearby Interconnection Requests Modeled No Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV Line

0-620 0-620 Mitigation #1: Sun Valley Upgrades Mitigation #2: Delaney Generator Tripping Scheme Mitigation #3: Shunt Capacitor Addition for Power Factor Capability

2021 With Nearby Interconnection Requests Modeled With the Sun Valley-Morgan 500 kV Line

0-620 0-620 Mitigation #3: Shunt Capacitor Addition for Power Factor Capability


Page 23

5 Cost & Construction Time Estimates This section provides the cost estimates for interconnecting the project and for any transmission system upgrades, if needed. Also included are estimates for the construction timeline for each facility. If the in-service dates for transmission projects and timing of interconnections are different than what is assumed in this study, the costs for interconnection may be different than what is listed in this report.

5.1 Point of Interconnection cost – Delaney 500kV Switchyard The Q184 IC has requested interconnection to the future Delaney 500kV switchyard. At the time of this study the future Delaney switchyard, at the in-service date for this project, is currently planned to have as many as six terminations, however it also may not yet even be constructed. The Delaney substation is being planned for the interconnection of three FERC Large Generator Interconnection requests. Each of those requests are currently negotiating the LGIA, hence there is no guarantee that they will sign an interconnection agreement and move forward with their project. However, this study was performed with the assumption that at least one of the projects moves forward and the Delaney substation will be constructed as scheduled. If none of the three higher queued projects move forward, and hence the Delaney switchyard is not constructed as scheduled, the estimates provided in this study will no longer be valid. The Q184 project would then be the project triggering the construction on the Delaney switchyard and the costs would need to be revised. As shown in Figure 5.1, at the time of the Q184 project’s interconnection, the Delaney switchyard is assumed to be built with six 500kV line terminations in a breaker-and-a-half configuration. Given the location of the Q184 project, in relation to Delaney and the other assumed lines terminating at Delaney, the Q184 project is assumed to terminate in the southwestern bay. The Q184 project will require that the southern bays to be constructed, including two 500kV breakers which are shown in Figure 5.1 in red. Figure 5.1 shows a conceptual one-line diagram of the assumed Delaney configuration and the additions needed for the Q184 termination. The facilities shown in green are Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities (TPIF) for the Q184 project, which consists of 2 A-frames, metering CTs & CCVTs, and a line disconnect switch. The TPIF also includes a span of 500kV conductor brought from the A-frames to the first structure outside of the Delaney fence line.


Page 24

Figure 5.1. Preliminary Delaney Switchyard Design – Q184 500kV Interconnection


Page 25

Table 5.2 summarizes all of the interconnection costs at the Delaney switchyard. The total costs for the facilities needed to interconnect are $4,336,930. Of the total costs, $2,572,641 is identified as network upgrades and $1,764,289 is identified as Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities (TPIF).

Table 5.2. Cost Estimates – Q184 Interconnection

Description Network Upgrades for Q184 Q184 TPIF

New 500kV line bay at Delaney switchyard: 2 500kV breakers, 4 switches $2,572,641

Q184 500kV gen-tie exit: 2 A-frames, 1 switch, CTs & CCVTs, 1 500kV span $1,764,289

Total = $4,336,930 The design, permitting, procurement, and construction time of this substation would be approximately 18 months. Construction schedule estimates are from the date the Interconnection Customer provides written authorization to proceed, provided all interconnection agreements and funding arrangements are in place.

5.2 System Upgrades Given the study assumptions and the results of the study there were three system mitigations that have been identified in this study, as discussed in Section 4. The costs of those mitigations are discussed below. Mitigation #1: Sun Valley Upgrades

The study shows the need to add a second 500/230kV transformer at Sun Valley. Given the assumptions of this report, before the addition of the second 500/230kV transformer the Sun Valley 500kV bus is only going to be a three breaker ring. As shown in Figure 5.2 below, the addition of a second 500/230kV transformer would be the fourth 500kV element at the 500kV bus and would entail adding a new 500kV breaker, one switch, and other associated equipment to add a single 500kV bay. The additions at the 500kV bus are shown red. Also, before the addition of the second 500/230kV transformer the Sun Valley 230kV bus is assumed to have four terminations set-up in a four breaker ring configuration and the addition of a new termination would push the bus from a ring to a breaker and a half scheme. As shown in Figure 5.2 below, the addition of the second transformer would require extending the 230kV bus, adding an additional five 230kV breakers, four switches, and other miscellaneous substation equipment. The additions at the 230kV bus are shown in green.

Table 5.3. Cost Estimates – Sun Valley Upgrades

Description Estimate New 500kV termination: 1 500kV breakers, 1 switches $1,001,000

1 three phase 600MVA 500/230kV transformer $11,217,000

New 230kV termination: 5 230kV breakers, four switches $2,060,000

Total = $14,278,000


Page 26

Figure 5.2: 500/230kV transformer addition at Sun Valley

It is estimated that adding a second 500/230kV transformer would take approximately 24 months from the date the Interconnection Customer provides written authorization to proceed, provided all interconnection agreements and funding arrangements are in place. Depending on the in-service schedule of the Sun Valley substation and the Q184 project, the 24 months may overlap the initial design, permitting, procurement, and construction of the Sun Valley substation.


Page 27

Mitigation #2: Delaney Generator Tripping Scheme This mitigation would require relatively minimal system upgrades; if any at all. The proposed generator tripping scheme, or RAS, should be able to be implemented using the communications and fiber optic equipment that is already a part of the plan of service for the Delaney switchyard. Also, any generation facility wishing to connect into APS’s transmission system is required to provide sufficient communications paths between their facility and the POI.

Mitigation #3: Shunt Capacitor Addition for Power Factor Capability

There will be no costs for this mitigation provided in this report. The Q184 project is responsible to meet APS’s power factor requirements and any additional equipment needed to meet the criteria should be part of their project design.

APPENDIX A – POWER FLOW PLOTS

A-1

Appendix A

Power Flow Plots

2015 HS Case, Q184 System Impact Study

Case 1: Pre-Project

AZ Plng. Case sm14#09, USE updated

Q184 620MW to Delaney 500kV Bus

MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_woir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:33:17 2012 01_15hs_pre.sav

N.GILA

530.71.061

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.71.065

JOJOBA

529.1

1.058

HDWSH

529.5

1.059

Q43_GEN11.000

Q43_GEN21.050

GILARIVR

527.41.055

Q43_U1B10.996

Q43_U2B11.050

GILARIVR

234.8

1.021

JOJOBA

234.6

GILABEND

234.8

Q044

237.4

1.032

Q044STG1

1.030

Q044STG2

1.030

70.73

BUTERFLD71.02

COTN CTR71.27

PATTERSN70.80

GILLWEST71.14

PVNGPUMP

70.67

PALOMA70.72

THAYERAP70.35

COLRIVER

533.2

1.066

DEVERS

528.0

1.056

SNVLY

531.9

1.064

SNVLY

237.5

1.033

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.13

1.016

TS2

PLMVLY

235.2

1.023

PLMVLY

70.82

1.026

290

12

1 2

140

31

1

140

31

2

b1

b2

0

15

b1

1 1

1 1

7

1AP

5

0AP

0 0

AP

2 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 3

AP

2

1AP

7 0

AP

4

2

AP

21

0CA

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1384 25

1372 51

954

52

960

59

273

104

127143

127

186

1474

24

1465 123

800

105

800

105

1544 26

1516 197

373 42

1108 48

1107 48

373 12

849150

846104

64

52

272

18

270

35

280

42

71

7 34

2

36 3

35

10

35

11

62

15

19

1

32

6

17 5

73

751 11

750 11

373 40 209

14

188

14

100 8

87

19

164 4

8313

7912

7917

99 1

168 10

148 33

1473 26

752121

747

30

687

44

689128


Case 2: Post-Project (PV)



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_woir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:32:58 2012 02_15hs_pst_pv.sav

N.GILA

530.71.061

HASSYAMP

532.3

1.065

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.91.066

JOJOBA

529.3

1.059

HDWSH

529.6

1.059

Q43_GEN11.000

Q43_GEN21.050

GILARIVR

527.51.055

Q43_U1B10.996

Q43_U2B11.050

GILARIVR

235.0

1.022

JOJOBA

234.9

GILABEND

234.9

Q044

237.5

1.032

Q044STG1

1.030

Q044STG2

1.030

70.77

BUTERFLD71.07

COTN CTR71.34

PATTERSN70.88

GILLWEST71.22

PVNGPUMP

70.76

PALOMA70.76

THAYERAP70.39

COLRIVER

533.1

1.066

DEVERS

527.9

1.056

SNVLY

531.9

1.064

SNVLY

237.5

1.032

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.13

1.016

TS2

PLMVLY

235.2

1.023

PLMVLY

70.84

1.027

Q184

532.91.066

Q184PV

67.43

Q184G

68.68

Q184G1 Q184G2 Q184G3 Q184G4 Q184G5 Q184G6 Q184G7 Q184G8

Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

290

13

1 2

140

30

1

140

30

2

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

14

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

b1

b2

0

15

b1

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

7

1AP

5

0AP

0 0

AP

2 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 3

AP

2

1AP

7 0

AP

4

2

AP

21

0CA

1

0

SV

1

0

SV SV SV SV SV SV SV

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1385 26

1373 50

955

52

960

59

273

104

355111

355

151

1372

36

1364 106

509

94

509

94

1548 25

1520 198

204 32

1129 46

1128 46

414 7

874148

870106

33

54

244

19

242

32

280

41

67

7 33

2

35 3

33

10

32

11

59

15

17

2

31

5

16 5

73

753 12

752 12

414 44 232

13

212

13

120 4

90

18

181 5

8513

9510

9514

103

1

157 13

149 32

1496 23

618

7

618

10

753121

747

30

687

45

689128


Case 3: Post-Project (FC)



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_woir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:32:47 2012 03_15hs_pst_fc.sav

N.GILA

530.31.061

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.81.066

JOJOBA

529.0

1.058

HDWSH

529.3

1.059

Q43_GEN11.000

Q43_GEN21.050

GILARIVR

527.41.055

Q43_U1B10.996

Q43_U2B11.050

GILARIVR

234.8

1.021

JOJOBA

234.7

GILABEND

234.8

Q044

237.4

1.032

Q044STG1

1.030

Q044STG2

1.030

70.74

BUTERFLD71.02

COTN CTR71.28

PATTERSN70.81

GILLWEST71.15

PVNGPUMP

70.69

PALOMA70.72

THAYERAP70.35

COLRIVER

532.3

1.065

DEVERS

527.4

1.055

SNVLY

531.8

1.064

SNVLY

237.5

1.032

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.19

1.017

TS2

PLMVLY

235.3

1.023

PLMVLY

70.86

1.027

Q184

532.81.066

Q184PV

67.42

Q184G

68.68


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

290

12

1 2

140

31

1

140

31

2

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

b1

b2

0

15

b1

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

7

1AP

5

0AP

0 0

AP

2 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 3

AP

2

1AP

7 0

AP

4

2

AP

21

0CA

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1416 29

1403 54

971

53

977

56

273

104

48140

48

184

1549

24

1538 145

798

104

798

104

1589 7

1559 204

193 32

1241 54

1240 54

425 6

931147

926115

68

53

276

18

273

36

280

42

71

7 35

2

37 3

36

10

35

11

62

15

19

1

32

6

17 5

73

773 20

772 20

424 44 239

12

219

12

122 3

94

18

185 6

8814

96 9

9614

104

0

158 12

149 32

1534 21

618

7

618

10

770126

764

31

704

47

706133


Case 4: Post-Project (FC), All Gas No Solar



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_woir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:32:33 2012 04_15hs_pst_gas.sav

N.GILA

530.51.061

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

533.01.066

JOJOBA

529.0

1.058

HDWSH

529.4

1.059

Q43_GEN11.000

Q43_GEN21.050

GILARIVR

527.41.055

Q43_U1B10.996

Q43_U2B11.050

GILARIVR

234.9

1.021

JOJOBA

234.7

GILABEND

234.8

Q044

237.4

1.032

Q044STG1

1.030

Q044STG2

1.030

70.74

BUTERFLD71.02

COTN CTR71.28

PATTERSN70.81

GILLWEST71.16

PVNGPUMP

70.69

PALOMA70.73

THAYERAP70.35

COLRIVER

532.7

1.065

DEVERS

527.7

1.055

SNVLY

532.0

1.064

SNVLY

237.5

1.033

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.17

1.017

TS2

PLMVLY

235.3

1.023

PLMVLY

70.85

1.027

Q184

533.01.066

Q184PV

66.83

Q184G

68.69


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

290

12

1 2

140

31

1

140

31

2

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

1 1 1

b1

b2

0

15

b1

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

7

1AP

5

0AP

0 0

AP

2 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 3

AP

2

1AP

7 0

AP

4

2

AP

21

0CA

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1401 27

1389 52

963

53

969

57

273

104

86141

86

185

1513

25

1503 135

799

105

799

105

1568 16

1539 201

7651

1177 53

1176 53

400 8

892149

888110

66

53

274

18

271

36

280

42

71

7 34

2

36 3

36

10

35

11

62

15

19

1

32

6

17 5

73

763 16

762 16

400 43 225

14

204

13

112 6

91

18

175 5

8613

8811

8816

102

0

163 11

149 33

1505 24

324

9

324

6

762124

756

31

696

46

698130


Case 5: Post-Project (FC), All Solar No Gas



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_woir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:32:16 2012 05_15hs_pst_sol.sav

N.GILA

530.51.061

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.71.065

JOJOBA

529.0

1.058

HDWSH

529.4

1.059

Q43_GEN11.000

Q43_GEN21.050

GILARIVR

527.41.055

Q43_U1B10.996

Q43_U2B11.050

GILARIVR

234.9

1.021

JOJOBA

234.7

GILABEND

234.8

Q044

237.4

1.032

Q044STG1

1.030

Q044STG2

1.030

70.74

BUTERFLD71.02

COTN CTR71.28

PATTERSN70.80

GILLWEST71.15

PVNGPUMP

70.68

PALOMA70.72

THAYERAP70.35

COLRIVER

532.8

1.066

DEVERS

527.7

1.055

SNVLY

531.8

1.064

SNVLY

237.5

1.032

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.16

1.017

TS2

PLMVLY

235.3

1.023

PLMVLY

70.84

1.027

Q184

532.71.065

Q184PV

67.41

Q184G

67.29


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

290

12

1 2

140

31

1

140

31

2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

b1

b2

0

15

b1

0

38

b1 b1

1 1

1 1

7

1AP

5

0AP

0 0

AP

2 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 3

AP

2

1AP

7 0

AP

4

2

AP

21

0CA

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1399 27

1387 52

962

52

968

58

273

104

89141

89

185

1510

25

1500 134

800

105

800

105

1565 17

1536 200

107 34

1170 52

1169 52

397 10

888149

885110

66

53

274

18

271

36

280

42

71

7 34

2

36 3

36

10

35

11

62

15

19

1

32

6

17 5

73

761 15

760 15

397 41 223

13

202

13

111 5

91

18

173 5

8513

8711

8715

102

0

164 11

149 33

1502 24

291

10

291

13

761123

755

31

695

45

697130


Case 6: Pre-Project, wIR, No SVL-MRG

AZ Plng. Case az21hs_final4.sav, USE updated


MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:31:49 2012 06_21hs_pre_wir.sav

N.GILA

524.11.048

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.91.066

JOJOBA

533.7

1.067

HDWSH

524.8

1.050

QX500

527.61.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.581.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

537.21.074

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.4

1.023

JOJOBA

233.5

GILABEND

235.0

Q044

236.4

1.028

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

534.2

Q063

237.4

1.032

Q063STG1

1.020

70.43

BUTERFLD69.75

COTN CTR69.40

PATTERSN69.18

GILLWEST69.44

JOJOBA69.23

PVNGPUMP

67.54

PALOMA70.17

THAYERAP70.02

COLRIVER

519.3

1.039

DEVERS

517.5

1.035

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

530.6

1.061

SNVLY

236.8

1.030

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.85

1.027

TS2

PLMVLY

233.5

1.015

PLMVLY

70.28

1.019

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

LIBERTY

234.2

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

89

1 2

150

33

1

140

15

1

140

15

2

270

4

1

135

4

1

135

4

1

300

93

1

171

37

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

41

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

13b2

0

15

b1

0

221

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1325 147

1313 16

1075

28

1083

52

266

221

0 1

817

267

671

274

673344

207 88

207

44

1966

191

1949 73

837

153

837

153

73

0

73

0

2028 253

1978 258

904 6

1894 159

1892 159

593 0

1231 38

1224 69

146

7

87

1

367

3

362

34

280

10

499

71

149

5 72

3

77 2

83

0

81

5

73

11

24

3

16

6

37

1

42 8

82

150

13

977111

976111

592 63 284

11

264

11

166 8

96

6

237 21

111 4

124 28

122 26

44 8

168 30

122 0

1853 99

150 0

449 0

513224

510

165

347

54

347 51


Case 7: Pst-Project with IR (PV), No SVL-MRG



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:31:30 2012 07_21hs_pst_pv_wir.sav

N.GILA

524.11.048

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.71.065

JOJOBA

533.4

1.067

HDWSH

524.8

1.050

QX500

527.61.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.581.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

536.31.073

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.4

1.023

JOJOBA

233.7

GILABEND

235.0

Q044

236.4

1.028

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

533.9

Q063

237.4

1.032

Q063STG1

1.020

70.47

BUTERFLD69.83

COTN CTR69.48

PATTERSN69.23

GILLWEST69.49

JOJOBA69.26

PVNGPUMP

67.58

PALOMA70.22

THAYERAP70.07

COLRIVER

519.2

1.038

DEVERS

517.4

1.035

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

530.0

1.060

SNVLY

236.6

1.029

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.82

1.026

TS2

PLMVLY

233.4

1.015

PLMVLY

70.26

1.018

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

Q184

532.71.065

Q184PV

67.41

Q184G

68.68


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

LIBERTY

234.1

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

89

1 2

150

33

1

140

15

1

140

15

2

270

5

1

135

5

1

135

5

1

300

94

1

171

37

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

41

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

13b2

0

15

b1

0

221

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1326 148

1313 16

1076

28

1083

53

266

221

0 1

817

267

671

274

673344

276 93

276

51

1866

166

1851 61

545

143

545

143

73

0

73

0

2032 256

1981 258

1475 63

1914 164

1912 164

638 9

1256 34

1248 72

146

7

55

6

338

0

334

31

280

10

499

69

145

4 70

3

75 2

80

0

79

5

70

10

22

2

14

5

37

1

41 8

82

150

13

979112

978112

636 67 308

9

289

9

187 3

99

5

254 26

113 5

139 35

137 35

48 6

157 36

123 0

1873 106

150 0

449 0

618

6

618

9

513224

510

165

347

54

347 51


Case 8: Pst-Project with IR (FC), No SVL-MRG



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:31:15 2012 08_21hs_pst_fc_wir.sav

N.GILA

523.61.047

HASSYAMP

532.0

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.4

1.065

DELANY

532.51.065

JOJOBA

533.5

1.067

HDWSH

524.5

1.049

QX500

527.31.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.561.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

537.01.074

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.3

1.023

JOJOBA

233.3

GILABEND

234.8

Q044

236.3

1.027

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

533.9

Q063

237.3

1.032

Q063STG1

1.020

70.37

BUTERFLD69.68

COTN CTR69.32

PATTERSN69.09

GILLWEST69.35

JOJOBA69.14

PVNGPUMP

67.44

PALOMA70.10

THAYERAP69.96

COLRIVER

518.5

1.037

DEVERS

517.4

1.035

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

529.8

1.060

SNVLY

236.4

1.028

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.80

1.026

TS2

PLMVLY

233.2

1.014

PLMVLY

70.20

1.017

Q8Q9

532.0

ANPP Q15

532.0

Q184

532.51.065

Q184PV

67.40

Q184G

68.68


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

LIBERTY

233.9

MESSOLAR

233.7

290

89

1 2

150

33

1

140

15

1

140

15

2

270

5

1

135

5

1

135

5

1

300

94

1

171

37

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

42

1

204

56

1

150

0 1

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

12b2

0

15

b1

0

221

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1349 155

1336 21

1093

32

1101

58

266

220

0 1

835

273

689

279

691350

125 87

125

42

2043

200

2025 96

835

156

835

156

73

0

73

0

2077 277

2024 274

1464 63

2022 171

2020 171

649 13

1314 26

1306 79

146

7

91

0

370

4

365

34

280

11

499

69

150

6 72

3

77 2

83

0

82

5

73

10

24

3

16

6

38

1

42 8

82

150

14

999126

998126

648 69 315

9

296

9

189 2

104

5

257 26

115 5

140 36

138 35

48 4

157 35

123 0

1914 116

150 0

449 0

618

5

618

8

524228

521

168

347

54

347 51


Case 9: Pre-Project with IR, With SVL-MRG



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:30:58 2012 09_21hs_pre_wsvm_wir.sav

N.GILA

524.31.049

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.51.065

JOJOBA

534.0

1.068

HDWSH

525.0

1.050

QX500

527.71.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.001

Q051

71.581.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

537.41.075

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.001

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.6

1.024

JOJOBA

233.9

GILABEND

235.2

Q044

236.5

1.028

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

534.4

Q063

237.5

1.033

Q063STG1

1.020

70.53

BUTERFLD69.89

COTN CTR69.56

PATTERSN69.38

GILLWEST69.63

JOJOBA69.44

PVNGPUMP

67.76

PALOMA70.28

THAYERAP70.12

COLRIVER

520.2

1.040

DEVERS

518.1

1.036

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

530.1

1.060

SNVLY

237.0

1.031

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.94

1.028

TS2

PLMVLY

234.2

1.018

PLMVLY

70.50

1.022

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

LIBERTY

234.8

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

90

1 2

150

32

1

140

14

1

140

14

2

270

3

1

135

4

1

135

4

1

300

94

1

171

36

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

41

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

13b2

0

15

b1

0

221

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1310 142

1297 12

1065

25

1072

49

266

221

0 1

806

264

660

271

662340

259 97

259

54

1914

175

1898 68

837

151

837

151

73

0

73

0

2001 235

1951 253

257 8

1669 109

1667 109

1240 17

1180 51

1173 70

146

7

87

2

367

0

363

37

280

8

499

73

149

4 72

3

76 2

82

1

81

6

72

11

23

3

15

6

38

1

42 8

82

150

12

964104

963104

412 36

821 3

187 11

167

11

8717

79

9

165 8

98 1

66 6

65 3

1219

187 17

120 0

1806 73

150 0

449 0

506221

503

163

347

54

347 51


Case 10: Post-Project with IR (PV), With SVL-MRG



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:30:42 2012 10_21hs_pst_pv_wsvm_wir.sav

N.GILA

524.31.049

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.31.065

JOJOBA

533.7

1.067

HDWSH

525.0

1.050

QX500

527.71.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.001

Q051

71.581.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

536.61.073

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.001

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.6

1.024

JOJOBA

234.1

GILABEND

235.2

Q044

236.5

1.028

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

534.2

Q063

237.5

1.033

Q063STG1

1.020

70.58

BUTERFLD69.97

COTN CTR69.65

PATTERSN69.45

GILLWEST69.70

JOJOBA69.49

PVNGPUMP

67.83

PALOMA70.35

THAYERAP70.18

COLRIVER

520.1

1.040

DEVERS

518.0

1.036

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

529.5

1.059

SNVLY

236.9

1.030

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.93

1.028

TS2

PLMVLY

234.2

1.018

PLMVLY

70.49

1.022

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

Q184

532.31.065

Q184PV

67.39

Q184G

68.67


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

LIBERTY

234.8

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

90

1 2

150

32

1

140

14

1

140

14

2

270

4

1

135

4

1

135

4

1

300

95

1

171

36

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

41

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

13b2

0

15

b1

0

221

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1308 142

1296 12

1064

25

1071

49

266

221

0 1

805

263

659

271

661340

219105

218

61

1808

150

1793 55

545

141

545

141

73

0

73

0

2002 236

1953 253

760 27

1664 113

1662 113

1355 33

1199 48

1192 72

146

7

55

7

339

3

335

34

280

8

499

71

145

3 70

2

75 1

79

1

78

6

70

10

22

2

14

5

37

1

41 8

82

150

12

965104

964104

437 35

910 20

201 9

181

9

100 14

80

9

174 11

99 2

7510

74 8

1219

179 21

120 0

1821 77

150 0

449 0

618

5

618

7

506221

503

163

347

54

347 51


Case 11: Post-Project with IR (FC), With SVL-MRG



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:30:23 2012 11_21hs_pst_fc_wsvm_wir.sav

N.GILA

524.01.048

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

532.31.065

JOJOBA

533.8

1.068

HDWSH

524.7

1.049

QX500

527.51.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.571.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

537.31.075

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.5

1.024

JOJOBA

233.8

GILABEND

235.1

Q044

236.4

1.028

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

534.3

Q063

237.5

1.032

Q063STG1

1.020

70.50

BUTERFLD69.85

COTN CTR69.52

PATTERSN69.34

GILLWEST69.59

JOJOBA69.40

PVNGPUMP

67.71

PALOMA70.25

THAYERAP70.09

COLRIVER

518.9

1.038

DEVERS

517.2

1.034

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

529.4

1.059

SNVLY

236.9

1.030

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.93

1.028

TS2

PLMVLY

234.1

1.018

PLMVLY

70.47

1.021

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

Q184

532.31.065

Q184PV

67.38

Q184G

68.67


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

LIBERTY

234.7

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

89

1 2

150

33

1

140

14

1

140

14

2

270

4

1

135

4

1

135

4

1

300

95

1

171

36

1

134

20

1134

20

2

134

20

3

134

20

1

134

20

2

134

20

3

134

20

4

134

20

5

134

20

6

141

40

1

141

41

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

13b2

0

15

b1

0

221

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1333 150

1321 17

1082

30

1089

54

266

221

0 1

824

269

678

276

680346

186 95

186

51

1982

182

1965 88

834

152

834

152

73

0

73

0

2043 263

1991 260

711 27

1760 117

1758 117

1404 36

1254 42

1246 79

146

7

92

1

371

1

366

38

280

9

499

72

149

5 72

3

77 2

83

1

82

6

73

11

24

3

16

6

38

1

42 8

82

150

12

984114

982114

438 36

956 34

203 9

183

9

9814

84

8

174 11

100 1

7310

72 7

1118

180 19

120 0

1860 86

150 0

449 0

618

4

618

7

517226

514

167

347

54

347 51


Case 12: Pre-Project with IR, With 2nd SV Xfmr



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:30:02 2012 12_21hs_pre_wsvx_wir.sav

N.GILA

524.11.048

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

533.21.066

JOJOBA

533.7

1.067

HDWSH

524.8

1.050

QX500

527.61.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.581.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

537.21.074

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.3

1.023

JOJOBA

233.3

GILABEND

234.9

Q044

236.3

1.028

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

534.2

Q063

237.3

1.032

Q063STG1

1.020

70.40

BUTERFLD69.71

COTN CTR69.34

PATTERSN69.08

GILLWEST69.35

JOJOBA69.12

PVNGPUMP

67.42

PALOMA70.13

THAYERAP69.99

COLRIVER

519.5

1.039

DEVERS

517.6

1.035

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

532.0

1.064

SNVLY

236.0

1.026

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.74

1.025

TS2

PLMVLY

233.0

1.013

PLMVLY

70.15

1.017

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

LIBERTY

233.8

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

90

1 2

150

33

1

140

15

1

140

15

2

270

4

1

135

4

1

135

4

1

300

91

1

171

37

1

134

18

1134

18

2

134

18

3

134

18

1

134

18

2

134

18

3

134

18

4

134

18

5

134

18

6

141

40

1

141

41

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

12b2

0

15

b1

0

221

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1321 146

1309 15

1072

27

1079

52

266

221

0 1

814

266

668

274

670343

228 88

228

44

1954

190

1937 70

841

153

841

153

73

0

73

0

2022 250

1972 257

769 23

1869 156

1867 156

729 26

1217 39

1210 68

146

7

78

0

359

4

354

31

280

10

499

71

148

5 72

3

76 2

82

0

81

5

72

10

23

3

15

6

37

1

41 8

82

150

13

974109

973109

369 71

358 47

358 5

338

5

227 8

108

3

290 36

119 6

169 51

165 52

72 6

156 42

124 0

1814 98

150 0

449 0

511223

508

165

347

54

347 51


Case 13: Post-Project with IR (PV), With 2nd SV Xfmr



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:29:46 2012 13_21hs_pst_pv_wsvx_wir.sav

N.GILA

524.11.048

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

533.01.066

JOJOBA

533.4

1.067

HDWSH

524.8

1.050

QX500

527.61.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.581.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

536.31.073

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.3

1.023

JOJOBA

233.5

GILABEND

234.9

Q044

236.3

1.027

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

533.9

Q063

237.3

1.032

Q063STG1

1.020

70.43

BUTERFLD69.77

COTN CTR69.41

PATTERSN69.12

GILLWEST69.39

JOJOBA69.14

PVNGPUMP

67.45

PALOMA70.18

THAYERAP70.03

COLRIVER

519.4

1.039

DEVERS

517.5

1.035

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

531.4

1.063

SNVLY

235.8

1.025

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.71

1.025

TS2

PLMVLY

232.8

1.012

PLMVLY

70.11

1.016

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

Q184

533.01.066

Q184PV

67.44

Q184G

68.69


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

LIBERTY

233.7

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

90

1 2

150

33

1

140

15

1

140

15

2

270

5

1

135

5

1

135

5

1

300

92

1

171

37

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

41

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

14

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

13b2

0

15

b1

0

221

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1322 147

1309 15

1072

27

1079

52

266

221

0 1

814

266

668

274

670343

254 94

254

51

1853

164

1838 57

550

142

550

142

73

0

73

0

2026 252

1975 257

1330 30

1887 161

1885 161

783 17

1241 36

1233 70

146

7

45

5

330

2

326

27

280

10

499

69

144

4 70

3

74 2

79

0

78

5

69

9

22

2

14

5

36

1

41 8

82

150

13

976110

975110

396 72

385 45

388 4

368

4

252 14

112

2

311 41

122 6

187 60

183 61

78 9

145 49

124 0

1831 104

150 0

449 0

618

8

618

11

511223

508

165

347

54

347 51


Case 14: Post-Project with IR (FC), With 2nd SV Xfmr



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:29:22 2012 14_21hs_pst_fc_wsvx_wir.sav

N.GILA

523.81.048

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

533.01.066

JOJOBA

533.6

1.067

HDWSH

524.6

1.049

QX500

527.41.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.571.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

537.11.074

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.2

1.023

JOJOBA

233.1

GILABEND

234.8

Q044

236.3

1.027

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

534.0

Q063

237.3

1.032

Q063STG1

1.020

70.34

BUTERFLD69.64

COTN CTR69.27

PATTERSN69.00

GILLWEST69.27

JOJOBA69.04

PVNGPUMP

67.32

PALOMA70.07

THAYERAP69.94

COLRIVER

518.7

1.037

DEVERS

517.5

1.035

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

531.2

1.062

SNVLY

235.7

1.025

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.70

1.025

TS2

PLMVLY

232.7

1.012

PLMVLY

70.07

1.015

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

Q184

533.01.066

Q184PV

67.43

Q184G

68.69


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

LIBERTY

233.6

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

89

1 2

150

33

1

140

16

1

140

16

2

270

5

1

135

5

1

135

5

1

300

92

1

171

37

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

42

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

41

5

1

41

5

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

14

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

12b2

0

15

b1

0

221

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1345 154

1333 19

1089

32

1097

57

266

221

0 1

831

272

685

279

687350

149 85

149

40

2030

198

2012 92

840

154

840

154

73

0

73

0

2071 274

2018 272

1316 31

1996 168

1994 168

797 13

1299 28

1291 76

146

7

81

1

362

6

357

30

280

11

499

70

149

6 72

3

76 2

82

0

81

5

72

10

24

3

16

6

37

1

42 8

82

150

14

997124

995124

403 73

392 44

396 5

376

4

255 15

117

1

316 42

124 6

189 61

185 63

7911

144 48

124 0

1871 115

150 0

449 0

618

7

618

10

522228

519

168

347

54

347 51


Case 15: Post-Project with IR (FC), With 2nd SV Xfmr, HA reconductor



MW/MVAR

Rating = 1

q184_wir.drw

General Electric International, Inc. PSLF Program Tue Jan 24 11:29:08 2012 15_21hs_pst_fc_wsvx_wha_wir.sav

N.GILA

523.71.047

HASSYAMP

532.2

1.064

PALOVRDE

532.5

1.065

DELANY

533.11.066

JOJOBA

533.5

1.067

HDWSH

524.6

1.049

QX500

527.41.055

Q43_GEN10.875

Q43_GEN21.000

Q051

71.571.037

Q051STG11.030

GILARIVR

537.01.074

Q43_U1B10.891

Q43_U2B11.000

Q051-QX1.006

GILARIVR

235.2

1.023

JOJOBA

233.0

GILABEND

234.8

Q044

236.3

1.027

Q044STG1

1.007

Q044STG2

1.007

PVQ3

534.0

Q063

237.2

1.031

Q063STG1

1.020

70.32

BUTERFLD69.61

COTN CTR69.23

PATTERSN68.96

GILLWEST69.23

JOJOBA69.00

PVNGPUMP

67.27

PALOMA70.04

THAYERAP69.91

COLRIVER

518.6

1.037

DEVERS

517.5

1.035

Q38 Q39

SNVLY

531.8

1.064

SNVLY

235.9

1.026

HASSY AZ

HASSYTAP

TRLBY

TRLBY

70.72

1.025

TS2

PLMVLY

232.5

1.011

PLMVLY

70.02

1.015

Q8Q9

532.2

ANPP Q15

532.2

Q184

533.11.066

Q184PV

67.44

Q184G

68.69


Q184PV1

Q184PV2

Q184PV3

LIBERTY

233.4

MESSOLAR

233.8

290

89

1 2

150

33

1

140

16

1

140

16

2

270

5

1

135

5

1

135

5

1

300

92

1

171

38

1

134

19

1134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

1

134

19

2

134

19

3

134

19

4

134

19

5

134

19

6

141

40

1

141

42

1

204

55

1

150

0 1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

41

4

1

100

14

1

100

15

1

100

15

1

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

100

0

EQ

b1

0

12b2

0

14

b1

0

221

0

38

b1

0

30

b1

1 1

1 1

20

10

1

10

5

1

10

5

1

20

10

1

9

3AP

7

2AP

0 0

AP

8 0

AP

10

0

AP

8 2

AP

3

1AP

11

0

AP

4

0

AP

0 01

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

1

0 0

2

0 0

3

0 0

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

20

0CA

15

9

1

15

9

1

4 1

1

1

1

0

SV

1

0


1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.990

1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000

0.0

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1347 155

1334 20

1091

33

1099

58

266

221

0 1

833

273

687

280

689350

141 84

141

39

2034

200

2016 92

838

154

838

154

73

0

73

0

2073 275

2020 272

1365 28

2004 171

2002 171

749 24

1304 26

1296 76

146

7

85

1

365

7

360

30

280

11

499

70

149

6 72

4

77 3

83

0

81

5

73

10

24

3

16

6

37

1

42 8

82

150

14

998125

997125

379 70

368 47

315 10

295

10

187 8

105

2

345 44

126 7

216 68

211 72

7513

115 55

124 0

1884 120

150 0

449 0

618

8

618

11

523228

520

169

347

54

347 51

APPENDIX B – CONTINGENCY LIST

B-1

Appendix B

Contingency List

TPL-002 (Category B) Outages 500 kV Lines

1. N-1 N.GILA-IMPERIAL VALLEY 500kV Line 1 (wSLRC woBlth) • 3 phase fault at N.Gila 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps • Flash the N.Gila-IV 500kV series caps (no restore)

2. N-1 PALO VERDE-COLORADO RIVER 500kV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps (no restore)

3. N-1 PALO VERDE-DELANEY 500kV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Delaney 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps • With SPS that trips Delaney generation greater than 810 MW.

4. N-1 CRYSTAL-MCCULLOUGH 500kV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Crystal 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Navajo-Crystal 500kV series caps • Flash the Crystal-McCullough 500kV series caps (no restore)

5. N-1 CORONADO-SILVERKG 500KV Line 1 (incl. SPS) • 3 phase fault at Coronado 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 12.5% fault damping on Coronado Units 1 & 2 • Insert 2 caps at PP, Papago, or Rogers in 15 cycles • Drop Coronado Unit 2 in 90 cycles

6. N-1 FOURCORN-MOENKOPI 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Four Corners 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 10% fault damping on Four Corners Units 4 & 5

7. N-1 DELANEY-SNVLY 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Delaney 500kV cleared in 4 cycles

8. N-1 HASSYAMP-JOJOBA 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Jojoba 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3

9a. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-QX 500KV Line 1 (When Qx is modeled) • 3 phase fault at Hassayampa 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps

9b. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-HOODOO WASH 500KV Line 1 (When Qx is not modeled) • 3 phase fault at Hassayampa 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps

10. N-1 QX-HOODOO WASH 500KV Line 1 (When Qx is modeled) • 3 phase fault at Qx 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps

11. N-1 HOODOO WASH-N.GILA 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Q43 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps

12. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-N.GILA 500KV Line 2 • 3 phase fault at Hassayampa 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps

13. N-1 HASSAYAMPA-PINAL_W 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Hassayampa 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps

14. N-1 JOJOBA-KYRENE 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Jojoba 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3

15. N-1 KYRENE-BROWNING 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Kyrene 500kV cleared in 4 cycles

16. N-1 MEAD-PERKINS 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Perkins 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Mead-Perkins 500kV series caps (no restore)

17. N-1 MOENKOPI-ELDORDO 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Moenkopi 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Four Corners-Moenkopi 500kV series caps • Flash the Moenkopi-El Dorado 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Moenkopi-Yavapai 500kV series caps • Flash the Moenkopi-Red Mesa 500kV series caps • Flash the El Dorado-Lugo 500kV series caps

18. N-1 MOENKOPI-YAVAPAI 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Yavapai 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Four Corners-Moenkopi 500kV series caps • Flash the Moenkopi-El Dorado 500kV series caps • Flash the Moenkopi-Yavapai 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Moenkopi-Red Mesa 500kV series caps • Flash the Yavapai-Westwing 500kV series caps

19. N-1 NAVAJO-CRYSTAL 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Navajo 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Navajo-Crystal 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Navajo-Dugas 500kV series caps • Flash the Navajo-Red Mesa 500kV series caps • Flash the Crystal-McCullough 500kV series caps

20. N-1 NAVAJO-DUGAS 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Dugas 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Navajo-Dugas 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Navajo-Crystal 500kV series caps • Flash the Navajo-Red Mesa 500kV series caps

21. N-1 DUGAS-MORGAN 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Morgan 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Flash the Navajo-Dugas 500kV series caps

22. N-1 MORGAN-WESTWING 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Westwing 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Yavapai-Westwing 500kV series caps

23. N-1 PALOVRDE-RUDD 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps

24. N-1 PALO VERDE-RUDD 500KV Line 1 (w Hassayampa SPS) - Exploratory • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps • Open the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230kV line in 5 cycles

25. N-1 PALO VERDE-WESTWING 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps

26. N-1 PALO VERDE-WESTWING 500KV Line 2 • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Palo Verde-Colorado River 500kV series caps • Flash the Hassayampa-N.Gila 500kV series caps

27. N-1 YAVAPAI-WESTWING 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Westwing 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • 7.2485% Fault Damping on Palo Verde Units 1-3 • Flash the Yavapai-Westwing 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the Moenkopi-Yavapai 500kV series caps

28. N-1 IMPERIAL VALLEY-MIGUEL 500KV Line 1 (W SPS) • 3 phase fault at Imperial Valley 500kV cleared in 4 cycles • Trip IV Gen Units 1-3 and INTB CT and ST in 8 cycles • Trip Otay Mesa-Tijuana 230kV line in 120 cycles • Flash the Imperial Valley-Miguel 500kV series caps (no restore) • Flash the N.Gila-Imperial Valley 500kV series caps

29. N-1 JOJOBA-GILARIVR 500KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Gila River 500kV cleared in 4 cycles

TPL-002 (Category B) Outages 230 kV Lines

31. N-1 PANDA-JOJOBA-TS4-LIBERTY-PALM VALLEY 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Palm Valley 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

32. N-1 RUDD-PLMVLY 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Palm Valley 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

33. N-1 BUCKEYE-LIBERTY 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Liberty 230kV cleared in 5 cycles • Close the Buckey-Buckey2 230kV line in 5 cycles

34. N-1 SUN VALLEY-TRILBY WASH 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Sun Valley 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

35. N-1 SUN VALLEY-TRILBY WASH 230KV Line 1 (w Hassayampa SPS) – Exploratory • 3 phase fault at Sun Valley 230kV cleared in 5 cycles • Open the Hassayampa Pump-Hassayampa Tap 230kV line in 5 cycles

36. N-1 TRILBY WASH-TS2-PALM VALLEY 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Trilby Wash 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

37. N-1 SUN VALLEY-HASSYAMPA PUMP 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Sun Valley 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

38. N-1 HASSYAMPA PUMP-HASSYAMPA TAP 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Hassyampa Pump 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

39. N-1 HARCUVAR-HASSYAMPA TAP 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Hassyampa Tap 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

40. N-1 LIBERTY-HASSYAMP TAP 230KV Line 1 • 3 phase fault at Hassyampa Tap 230KV cleared in 5 cycles

TPL-002 (Category B) Outages Transformers

41. N-1 SNVLY 500/230KV XFMR • 3 phase fault at Sun Valley 500kV cleared in 4 cycles

42. N-1 TRILBY WASH 230/69KV XFMR • 3 phase fault at Trilby Wash 500kV cleared in 5 cycles

43. N-1 PALM VALLEY 230/69KV XFMR 1 • 3 phase fault at Palm Valley 230kV cleared in 5 cycles

44. N-1 RUDD 500/230KV XFMR 4 • 3 phase fault at Rudd 500kV cleared in 4 cycles

45. N-1 BUCKEYE 230/69KV XFMR 1 • 3 phase fault at Buckeye 230KV cleared in 5 cycles

46. N-1 WESTWING (E) 500/230KV XFMR 1

• 3 phase fault at Westwing 500kV cleared in 4 cycles 47. N-1 MORGAN 500/230KV XFMR 1

• 3 phase fault at Raceway 230kV cleared in 4 cycles 48. N-1 KYRENE 500/230KV XFMR 6

• 3 phase fault at Kyrene 500kV cleared in 4 cycles 49. N-1 KYRENE 500/230KV XFMR 7

• 3 phase fault at Kyrene 500kV cleared in 4 cycles 50. N-1 KYRENE 500/230KV XFMR 8

• 3 phase fault at Kyrene 500kV cleared in 4 cycles 51. N-1 GILA RIVER 500/230KV XFMR 1

• 3 phase fault at Panda 230KV cleared in 4 cycles 52. N-1 GILA BEND 230/69KV XFMR 1

• 3 phase fault at Gila Bend 230KV cleared in 5 cycles TPL-003 (Category C) Outages 500kV Lines

53. N-2 Palo Verde Unit 1 & Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Line 1 • SLG fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 10 cycles (C6)

54. N-2 Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Line 1 & Westwing 500/230 kV Xfmr 10 • SLG fault at Westwing 500 kV cleared in 10 cycles (C7)

55. N-1 Hassayampa-Palo Verde 500 kV Line 2 • SLG fault at Hassayampa 500 kV cleared in 10 cycles (C8)

56. N-1 Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Line 2 • SLG fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 10 cycles (C8)

57. N-1 Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV Line • 3 phase fault at Jojoba 500 kV cleared in 10 cycles (D8)

58. N-2 Palo Verde-Hassayampa 500 kV Lines 1 & 2 • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C5)

59. N-2 IPP DC Bi-pole • No Fault DC Outage • Trip Intermountain and Adelanto shunt caps in 4 cycles • Trip Intermountain Units 1 & 2 in 10.2 cycles

60. G-2 Palo Verde Units 1 & 2 • No Fault Outage of Palo Verde Units 1 and 2 • Drop APS load at Aguafria and Papago (45 MW) • Drop SRP load at Santan, Corbellers, Orme, Thunderstone (75 MW)

61. N-1-1 Palo Verde-Westwing & Palo Verde-Colorado River 500 kV Lines • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)

62. N-1-1 Palo Verde-Devers & Palo Verde-Hassayampa 500 kV Lines • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)

63. N-1-1 Palo Verde-Devers & Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV Lines • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)

64. N-1-1 Palo Verde-Westwing & Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV Lines • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)

65. N-1-1 Palo Verde-Westwing 500 kV Lines 1 & 2 • 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)

66. N-1-1 Palo Verde-Hassayampa & Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV Lines

• 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3) 67. N-1-1 Hassayampa-Jojoba & Jojoba-Kyrene 500 kV Lines

• 3 phase fault at Jojoba 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3) • Gila River SPS Action: Open the Gila River at 4 cycles dropping all Gila

River generation 68. N-1-1 Jojoba-Kyrene & Palo Verde-Rudd 500 kV Lines

• 3 phase fault at Palo Verde 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3) 69. N-1-1 Hassayampa-North Gila 2 & North Gila-Hoodoo Wash 500 kV Lines

• 3 phase fault at N.Gila 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3) 70. N-1-1 Hassayampa-North Gila 2 & Hassayampa-Hoodoo Wash 500 kV Lines

• 3 phase fault at Hassayampa 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3) 71. N-1-1 Morgan-Pinnacle Peak 500 kV line & Avery-Raceway 230 kV line

• 3 phase fault at Pinnacle Peak 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3) 72. N-1-1 Morgan-Pinnacle Peak 500 kV line & Morgan 500/230 kV Xfmr

• 3 phase fault at Pinnacle Peak 500 kV cleared in 4 cycles (C3)

APPENDIX C – TRANSIENT STABILITY MODELING

C-1

Appendix C

Transient Stability Modeling

Project Q184 - Dynamic Data Solar Model – Q184 Project Q184 will use solaron inverters for the solar portion of the project. The user-written model was provided by the customer. The specific parameters of the model are outlined below: Parameter Description Value MVA MVA base 100 rsrc Source resistance, pu on plant base 0 xsrc Source reactance, pu on plant base 0 Vratio Ratio of PV array open circuit to peak power voltage 1.2 Iratio Ratio of PV array short circuit to peak power current 1.1 Tdc Inverter DC capacitor proportional gain 0.003 Kpdc DC voltage regulator proportional gain 1.8 Kidc DC voltage regulator integral gain 22.5 Kpq Reactive power regulator proportional gain 0.4 Kiq Reactive power regulator integral gain 25 Ilim Inverter AC rms current limit, pu on plant base 1.12 OV1L Overvoltage trip point #1, pu 1.2 OV1T Overvoltage delay #1, sec 0.2 OV2L Overvoltage trip point #2, pu 1.1 OV2T Undervoltage delay #2, sec 2.5 UV1L Undervoltage trip point #1, pu 0.5 UV1T Undervoltage delay #1, sec 1.1 UV2L Undervoltage trip point #2, pu 0.88 UV2T Undervoltage delay #2, sec 5.0 OFL Overfrequency trip point, pu 62.5 OFT Overfrequency delay, sec 2.0 UFL Underfrequency trip point, pu 57 UFT Underfrequency delay, sec 2.0

Gas Turbine Model – Q184 Model Name: genrou

Description Solid rotor generator represented by equal mutual inductance rotor modeling

Invocation: genrou [<n>] {<name> <kv>} <id> : Parameters:

EPCL MVA=71.176 Variable Description Project Data

Tpdo D-axis transient rotor time constant 9.7

Tppdo D-axis sub-transient rotor time constant 0.05 Tpqo Q-axis transient rotor time constant 3.0

Tppqo Q-axis sub-transient rotor time constant 0.05 H Inertia constant, sec. 0.97 D Damping factor, p.u. 0 Ld D-axis synchronous reactance 1.69 Lq Q-axis synchronous reactance 1.69

Lpd D-axis transient reactance 0.2 Lpq Q-axis transient reactance 0.24 Lppd D-axis sub-transient reactance 0.144 L1 Stator leakage reactance, p.u. 0.082 S1 Saturation factor at 1 p.u. flux 0.05

S12 Saturation factor at 1.2 p.u. flux 0.3 Ra Stator resistance, p.u. 0.0033

Rcomp Compounding resistance for voltage control, p.u. 0 Xcomp Compounding reactance for voltage control, p.u. 0

Notes:

1. Applicant-defined data values selected for this study are shown in red bold 2. All rotor time constants must be non-zero. 3. All reactances must be specified. Lppq is taken to be equal to Lppd. 4. D has the dimensions DP(p.u.) / Dspeed(p.u.). 5. S1 and S12 are defined in Figure 3.10.2, and must be non- zero. 6. (Ra+jLppd) overwrites the load flow machine subtransient impedance when the

INIT, RDYD, or RDWS command is executed. 7. If Rcomp and Xcomp are absent from the data record read by RDYD, they are

set to zero. If Ra is also absent, it is set to the resistance part of the machine subtransient impedance from the load flow generator data table.

Block Diagram, “genrou” model

Model Name: ggov1

Description General governor model Inputs: Shaft speed

Invocation: ggov1 [<n>] {<name> <kv>} <id> : #r [mwcap=<value>] Parameters:

EPCL mwcap=46 Variable Description

r Permanent droop, p.u. 0.045 rselect Feedback signal for droop 1

=1 selected electrical power =0 none (isynchronous governor) =-1 fuel valve stroke (true stroke) =-2 governor output (requested stroke)

Tpelec Electric power transducer time constant, sec. (>0.) 1 maxerr Maximum value for speed error signal 10 minerr Minimum value for speed error signal -10 Kpgov Governor proportional gain 3 Kigov Governor internal gain 0 Kdgov Governor derivative gain 1.2 Tdgov Governor derivative controller time constant, sec. 1 vmax Maximum valve position limit 1.2 vmin Minimum valve position limit 0.17 Tact Actuator time constant 0.3 Kturb Turbine gain (>0.) 1.3 wfnl No load fuel flow, p.u. 0.22 Tb Turbine lag time constant, sec. (>0.) 0.1 Tc Turbine lead time constant, sec. 0

Flag Switch for fuel source characteristic 0 =0 for fuel flow independent of speed =1 fuel flow proportional to speed

Teng Transport lag time constant for diesel engine 0 Tfload Load limiter time constant, sec. (>0.) 0.3 Kpload Load limiter proportional gain for PI controller 1 Kiload Load limiter integral gain for PI controller 3.3 Ldref Load limiter reference value p.u. 0.9 Dm Speed sensitivity coefficient, p.u. 0

ropen Maximum valve opening rate, p.u./sec. 99 rclose Minimum valve closing rate, p.u./sec. -99 Kimw Power controller (reset) gain 0

Pmwset Power controller setpoint, MW 0 aset Acceleration limiter setpoint, p.u./sec. 99 Ka Acceleration limiter gain 10 Ta Acceleration limiter time constant, sec. (>0.) 0.1 db Speed governor dead band 0

Tsa Temperature detection lead time constant, sec. 1 Tsb Temperature detection lag time constant, sec. 1 rup Maximum rate of load limit increase 99

rdown Maximum rate of load limit decrease -99 Notes:

1. Applicant -defined data values employed for this study are shown in red bold. 2. This model can be used to represent a variety of prime movers controlled by PID

governors. It is suitable, for example, for representation of • gas turbine and single shaft combined cycle turbines • diesel engines with modern electronic or digital governors • steam turbines where steam is supplied from a large boiler drum or a large

header whose pressure is substantially constant over the period under study • simple hydro turbines in dam configurations where the water column length is

short and water inertia effects are minimal 3. Per unit parameters are on base of turbine MW capability. If no value is entered

for "mwcap", the generator MVA base is used. 4. The range of fuel valve travel and of fuel flow is unity. Thus the largest possible

value of vmax is 1.0 and the smallest possible value of vmin is zero. Vmax may, however, be reduced below unity to represent a loading limit that may be imposed by the operator or a supervisory control system. For gas turbines vmin should normally be greater than zero and less than wfnl to represent a minimum firing limit. The value of the fuel flow at maximum output must be less than, or equal to unity, depending on the value of Kturb. If the initial power requires a fuel flow greater than 1.0, a warning message is written and Kturb is increased to permit initialization with valve position = 1.0.

5. The parameter Teng is provided for use in representing diesel engines where there is a small but measurable transport delay between a change in fuel flow setting and the development of torque. Teng should be zero in all but special cases where this transport delay is of particular concern.

6. The parameter Flag is provided to recognize that fuel flow, for a given fuel valve stroke, can be proportional to engine speed. This is the case for GE gas turbines and for diesel engines with positive displacement fuel injectors. Flag should be set to unity for all GE gas turbines and most diesel engines. Flag should be set to zero where it is known that the fuel control system keeps fuel flow independent of the engine speed.

7. The load limiter module may be used to impose a maximum output limit such as an exhaust temperature limit. To do this the time constant Tfload should be set to represent the time constant in the measurement of temperature (or other signal), and the gains of the limiter, Kpload, Kiload, should be set to give prompt stable control when on limit. The load limit can be deactivated by setting the parameter Ldref to a high value.

8. The parameter Dm can represent either the variation of the engine power with the shaft speed or the variation of maximum power capability with shaft speed.

If Dm is positive it describes the falling slope of the engine speed verses power characteristic as speed increases. A slightly falling characteristic is typical for reciprocating engines and some aero-derivative turbines. If Dm is negative the engine power is assumed to be unaffected by the shaft speed, but the maximum permissible fuel flow is taken to fall with falling shaft speed. This is characteristic of single-shaft industrial turbines due to exhaust temperature limits.

9. This model includes a simple representation of a supervisory load controller. This controller is active if the parameter Kimw is non-zero. The load controller is a slow acting reset loop that adjusts the speed/load reference of the turbine governor to hold the electrical power output of the unit at its initial condition value. This value is stored in the parameter Pmwset when the model is initialized, and can be changed thereafter. The load controller must be adjusted to respond gently relative to the speed governor. A typical value for Kimw is 0.01, corresponding to a reset time of 100 seconds.

10. The load reference of the supervisory load control loop is accessible as the parameter, Pmwset. Pmwset is given a value automatically when the model is initialized. This value overwrites any value entered prior to initialization. This parameter should not be manipulated by the manual operation or an EPCL program prior to the execution of the “INIT’ command.

11. The parameters aset, Ka, and Ta describe an acceleration limiter. Ta must be non-zero, but the acceleration limiter can be disabled by setting aset to a large value, such as 1.

12. The parameter, db, is the speed governor dead band. This parameter is stated in terms of per unit speed. In the majority of applications of ggov1 it is recommended that this value be set to zero.

13. The parameters, Tsa, Tsb, are provided to augment the exhaust gas temperature measurement subsystem in gas turbines. For example, they may be set to values such as 4., 5., to represent the ‘radiation shield’ element of large gas turbines. If both parameters are left off the end of the parameter list, they default to 1.0.

14. The parameters, rup, rdown, specify the maximum rate of increase and decrease of the output of the load limit controller (Kpload/Kiload). These parameters should normally be set, or defaulted to 99/-99, but may be given particular values to represent the temperature limit controls of some GE heavy-duty engine controls. If both parameters are left off the end of the parameter list, they default to 99 and –99.

15. The fuel flow command (fsr) is determined by whichever is lowest of fsrt, fsra, and fsrn. Although not explicitly shown in the block diagram, the signals that are not in control track fsr so that they do not “windup” beyond that value. This represents GE gas turbine control practice but may not be true for other controller designs.

16. As shown in the block diagram, when Kpgov is non-zero, the governor PI control is implemented to “track” fsr to prevent windup when fsr is limited by another signal (fsrt, fsra) or Vmax/Vmin. If Kpgov is zero, the integral path is

implemented directly. The same applies to the load limiter PI control with regard to Kpload.

17. The “fix bad data” option will do the following: a. Set Ta, Tpelec, Tfload, and Tb to a minimum of 4*delt. b. If non-zero, set Tact, Tsb and Tdgov to a minimum of 4*delt c. Set Kturb to a minimum of 0.1. d. If Vmax < Vmin, swap the values. e. If Vmax > 1., set to 1. f. If Vmin < 0., set to 0.

Block Diagram, “ggov1” model

Model Name: esac7b

Description IEEE (2005) type AC7B excitation system Inputs: Compounded generator terminal voltage,

generator field current, generator speed Invocation: esac7b [<n>] {<name> <kv>} <id> : Parameters:

EPCL Variable Description

Tr Filter time constant, sec 0 Kpr Regulator proportional gain, pu (>0 if Kir=0) 26.5815 Kir Regulator integral gain, pu 26.5815 Kdr Regulator derivative gain, pu 0 Tdr Derivative gain washout time constant, sec 0

Vrmax Maximum regulator output, pu 11.52 Vrmin Minimum regulator output, pu 0 Kpa Amplifier proportional gain (>0 if Kia=0) 1.3909 Kia Amplifier integral gain, pu 1.15913

Vamax Maximum amplifier output, pu 1 Vamin Minimum amplifier output, pu -1

Kp Exciter field voltage source gain, pu 92.1115 Kl Exciter field voltage lower limit parameter, pu 1 Te Exciter time constant, sec (>0) 102

Vfemax Exciter field current limit parameter, pu Efd (note 5) 20 Vemin Minimum exciter output voltage, pu Efd 0

Ke Exciter field resistance constant, pu 1 Kc Rectifier regulator factor, pu 0.68 Kd Exciter internal reactance, pu 1.89 Kf1 Field voltage feedback gain, pu 0 Kf2 Exciter field current feedback gain, pu 0.25573 Kf3 Rate feedback gain, pu 0 Tf Rate feedback time constant, sec (>0) 1 E1 Field voltage value 1, pu (note 4) 7.1

S(E1) Saturation factor at E1 (note 4) 0.41 E2 Field voltage value 2, pu (note 4) 9.4

S(E2) Saturation factor at E2 (note 4) 4.01 Spdmlt If not 0, multiply output (Efd) by generator speed (note 6) 1

Notes:

1. Applicant -defined data values employed for this study are shown in red bold. 2. Te and Tf must be non-zero. If Tr or Tdr are zero, the respective blocks are

bypassed. Kpa and Kpi must not be zero if their corresponding integral gains are zero.

3. To disable the rate feedback, set Kf3 = 0.

4. Saturation parameters are consistent with the IEEE saturation factor definition using the open circuit magnetization of the exciter. Either point [E1, S(E1) or E2, S(E2)] may be the higher value and the other the lower.

5. The upper limit on Ve (s3) represents the effect of the field current limiter. If Vfemax is zero, this limit will not be enforced.

6. If spdmlt is omitted from the input data, it is set to 0 (disabled) to be consistent with the IEEE model, which does not have this option.

7. In the IEEE Std 421.5 – 2005 document, the denominator of integrator s3 in the block diagram below is written as “1 + sTE” - this is incorrect. The block diagram below shows the correct notation: “sTe”.

8. If Kp is set to zero, the term KpVt (input to multiplier) defaults to one. 9. The “fix bad data” option will do the following:

a. Set Te and Tf to a minimum of 4*delt. b. If non-zero, set Tr and Tdr to a minimum of 4*delt c. If Vfemax is non-zero, set it to a minimum of 3. d. If Vrmax < Vrmin, swap the values. e. If Vamax < Vamin, swap the values.

Block Diagram for “esac7b” Model

Model Name: pss2a

Description Dual input Power system stabilizer (IEEE type PSS2A)

Inputs:

Generator shaft speed Frequency of generator terminal or system bus voltage Generator electric power or accelerating power Voltage amplitude of generator terminal bus or system bus Current amplitude specified branch

Invocation: pss2a [<n>] {<name> <kv>} <id> : Parameters:

EPCL Variable Description Project Data

J1 Input signal #1 code 1 K1 Input signal #1 remote bus number 0 J2 Input signal #2 code 3 K2 Input signal #2 remote bus number 0

Tw1 First washout on signal #1, sec. 2 Tw2 Second washout on signal #1, sec. 2 Tw3 First washout on signal #2, sec. 2 Tw4 Second washout on signal #2, sec. 0 T6 Time constant on signal #1, sec. 0 T7 Time constant on signal #2, sec. 2

Ks2 Gain on signal #2 0.8518 Ks3 Gain on signal #2 1 Ks4 Gain on signal #2 0 T8 Lead of ramp tracking filter 0.5 T9 Lag of ramp tracking filter 0.1 n Order of ramp tracking filter 1 m Order of ramp tracking filter 5

Ks1 Stabilizer gain 10 T1 Lead/lag time constant, sec. 0.6 T2 Lead/lag time constant, sec. 0.015 T3 Lead/lag time constant, sec. 0.5 T4 Lead/lag time constant, sec. 0.01

Vstmax Stabilizer output max limit, p.u. 0.1 Vstmin Stabilizer output min limit, p.u. -0.1

a Lead/lag num. Gain (not in IEEE model) 1 Ta Lead/lag time constant (not in IEEE model) 0.6 Tb Lead/lag time constant (not in IEEE model) 5

Notes:

1. Project data values provided by the Applicant are shown in red. 2. The input signal code j1 and j2 are

a. 1 for shaft speed b. 2 for frequency of bus voltage c. 3 for generator electrical power d. 4 for generator accelerating power e. 5 for amplitude of bus voltage f. 6 for amplitude of branch current

Block Diagram, “pss2a” model

1sTw11sTw

+

n

m)9sT1(

8sT1

+

+ Ks1

ks3 ks4

3sTw13sTw

+

S3

S1 S2S8-S17

S7

S6

S4 S5

S0

Input

1

Input

2

2sTw12sTw

+ 6sT11

+ 2sT11sT1

++

4sT13sT1

++

4sTw14sTw

+ 7sT12Ks

+

-

S18

Vstmax

Vstmin

VstsTb1sTaa

++

APPENDIX D – TRANSIENT STABILITY PLOTS

D-1

Appendix D

Transient Stability Plots

z02674

Text Box

Appendix D not provided due to size- Available Upon Request

q184 generator interconnection project - oatiall power flow , transient stability, and post...

Documents