2006-089 (TR) Kinectrics DG Stability e

DEVON
OTTAWA
VARENNES
- ..
IMPACT OF LARGE-SCALE
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
PENETRATION ON
POWER SYSTEM STABILITY
---~-._--~"-
CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

TECHNIQUES D'NERGIE COLOGIQUE
C TEe CENTRE DE LA TECHNOLOGIE DE L'NERGIE DE CANMET
1+1
Natural Resources
Canada
Ressources naturelles
Canada
Canad
IMPACT OF LARGE-SCALE
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
PENETRATION ON
POWER SYSTEM STABILITY
Prepared by:
Kinectrics Inc.
A. Narang
Principal Research Engineer
Transmission and Distribution Technologies
Presented to:
Scientific Authority : Chad Abbey

Natural Resources Canada
CETC Varennes Energy Technology and Programs Sector
1615 Boul.. Lionel Boulet CP4800
Varennes (Qubec) J3X 1S6
March 9, 2006
CITATION
Narang, A., Impact of Large-Scale Distributed Generation Penetration on Power System
Stability, report # CETC-Varennes 2006-089 (TR), CANMET Energy Technology Centre,
Natural Resources Canada, March 2006, 66 pp.
DISCLAMER
This report is distributed for informational purposes and does not necessarily reflect the views of
the Government of Canada nor constitute and endorsement of any commercial product or person.
Neither Canada nor its ministers, officers, employees or agents makes any warranty in respect to
this report or assumes any liability arising out of this report.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A debt of gratitude to my colleague, Mr Peter Dick, for helping to shape the project and for
follow-up discussions related to its scope. Thanks are also extended to Mr Chad Abbey and Dr
Lisa Dignard-Bailey at Natural Resources Canada (CETC Varennes) for their patience and
understanding throughout the course of the project. Financial support for this research project
was provided by Natural Resources Canada through the Technology and Innovation Program as
part of the climate change plan for Canada.
Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)
March 2006
TABLE OF CONTENT
1
Impact of large-scale distributed generation penetration on power system stability.............................. 3
1.1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................3
Objectives & Scope ................................................................................................................................ 6
The Stability Problem............................................................................................................................. 7
Candidate Study System......................................................................................................................... 9
4.1
4.2
4.3
Transmission Grid.............................................................................................................9
Generation Resources & Characteristics ........................................................................16
Generator Models............................................................................................................19
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.4
5
Cherrywood ................................................................................................................... 21
Lennox........................................................................................................................... 21
Chats Falls ..................................................................................................................... 24
Saunders ........................................................................................................................ 27
DG Units........................................................................................................................ 27
Embedded Network Units ............................................................................................. 28
Load Representation .......................................................................................................29
Impact of Large-Scale DG Penetration ................................................................................................ 30
5.1 Study Scenarios...............................................................................................................30

5.2 Steady-State Stability......................................................................................................31
5.3 Transient Stability...........................................................................................................32
5.4 Assessment......................................................................................................................34
6
References ............................................................................................................................................ 60
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 63
7.1 Distribution System Impacts...........................................................................................63

7.2 Industry Standards ..........................................................................................................64
7.3 Utility Standards .............................................................................................................65
7.4 Major Reports .................................................................................................................66
ii
March 2006
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Simplified representation of transmission network serving Ottawa area....................... 10
Figure 2 Solved loadflow for NERC base case (2005 Winter case)............................................. 13
Figure 3 Condensed view of power flows for NERC base case ................................................... 14
Figure 4 Solved base case for the truncated study system............................................................ 15
Figure 5 Required DG response to abnormal system voltages/1/................................................. 19
Figure 6 Required DG response to abnormal system frequency/1/ .............................................. 19
Figure 7 IEEE Type ST1 Excitation System Model..................................................................... 22
Figure 8 PSS/E IEEEG1 Turbine-Governor Model .................................................................. 23
Figure 9 PSS/E IEEEST Stabilizer model................................................................................. 23
Figure 10 PSS/E IEEEX1 (IEEE Type 1) Excitation System Model ........................................ 25
Figure 11 PSS/E HYGOV Hydro Turbine-Governor Model..................................................... 26
Figure 12 PTI Type SCRX bus fed static exciter model............................................................ 28
Figure 13 Power flows relative to thermal line ratings................................................................. 37
Figure 14 Load in Ottawa area increased by 150% ...................................................................... 38
Figure 15 Outage on both Lennox units and 150% load growth in Ottawa area.......................... 39
Figure 16 Chats Falls (2 units) outage, 150% load growth near Ottawa ...................................... 40
Figure 17 Line outage at Chats Falls curtailing reactive power support ...................................... 41
Figure 18 Outage on a 500-kV Lennox circuit yielding unacceptable voltage levels .................. 42
Figure 19 Outage on a 500-kV Lennox circuit limits and 50% load growth................................ 43
Figure 20 Load growth matched by DG capacity (unity power factor), and considering
line-outage contingency at Chats Falls ......................................................................... 44
Figure 21 DG contribution limited to reactive support during line-outage at Chats Falls ........... 45
Figure 22 100% Load growth matched by Local DG Penetration; line outage at Chats Falls ..... 46
Figure 23 100% Load growth matched by Local DG Penetration; 500-kV circuit outage .......... 47
Figure 24 Hawthorne fault scenario; Base operating posture....................................................... 48
Figure 25 Chats Falls fault scenario; Base operating posture....................................................... 49
Figure 26 Hawthorne fault scenario; 100% Load Growth at Hawthorne, no new generation...... 50
Figure 27 Chats Falls fault scenario; 100% Load Growth at Hawthorne, no new generation ..... 51
Figure 28 Hawthorne fault scenario; 100% load surge at Hawthorne (simulating DG tripping) . 52
Figure 29 Chats Falls fault scenario; 100% load surge at Hawthorne (simulating DG tripping). 53
Figure 30 Hawthorne fault scenario; Constant Voltage DG matching 100% Load Growth
Trips at Hawthorne ...................................................................................................... 54
Figure 31 Chats Falls fault scenario; Constant Voltage DG matching 100% Load Growth
Trips at Hawthorne ...................................................................................................... 55
Figure 32 Hawthorne fault scenario; Constant Voltage model DG matching 100% Load
Growth remains I/S ...................................................................................................... 56
Figure 33 Chats Falls fault scenario; Constant Voltage DG matching 100% Load Growth
remains I/S .................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 34 Hawthorne fault scenario; Rotating DG with exciter matching 100% Load Growth,
remains in service. ........................................................................................................ 58
Figure 35 Chats Falls fault scenario; Rotating DG with exciter matching 100% Load Growth,
remains in service. ........................................................................................................ 59
iii
March 2006
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Lennox generator model parameters................................................................................ 22
Table 2 Lennox exciter model parameters.................................................................................... 22
Table 3 Lennox governor model parameters ................................................................................ 23
Table 4 Lennox stabilizer model parameters /2 p. 815/................................................................ 24
Table 5 Chats Falls generator model parameters.......................................................................... 24
Table 6 Chats Falls exciter model parameters (PSS/E Model IEEEX1) ...................................... 26
Table 7 Chats Falls turbine-governor model parameters (PSS/E Model HYGOV) ..................... 26
Table 8 Generic DG model parameters (GENROU) .................................................................... 28
Table 9 Parameters for bus-fed static exciter (PSS/E Model SCRX)........................................... 28
Table 10 Embedded Generation.................................................................................................... 29
iv
March 2006
SUMMARY
Todays electrical power systems typically connect a few fairly large generators to a large
number of small and widely distributed loads. For several reasons, future generation in Canada
and elsewhere will probably include many more units of rather smaller size. For now, the
penetration of DG on power systems is relatively low, measured either in terms of aggregate
system load or available generating capacity. Existing regulations governing DG operation are
relatively forgiving, allowing DG units to isolate at will upon first signs of a grid disturbance,
potentially denying the grid support at times when it is needed the most. However as DG
penetrations increase, their cumulative impact on bulk power systems will increase in severity
and importance, perhaps in ways that are not yet well understood.
This report addresses the impact of large-scale DG penetration on the stability of bulk power
transmission networks. Analysis is presented for a portion of the grid serving Eastern Ontario in
Canada, serving almost 4 000 MW aggregate load over a geographic territory approximately
rectangular in area and spanning some 400 km. Consideration is given to DG technologies
relying on either a power converter interface or rotating a synchronous machine, and operating
with various voltage control modes.
The report concludes that maximum permissible levels of DG penetration are unlikely to be
dictated by angular stability concerns in grid networks serving the fringes of larger urban
networks that (a) serve loads over distances of a few hundred kilometres, (b) have sufficient
generating reserves as well as thermal transmission capacity in the backbone to make up the
generation shortfall resulting from unplanned DG capacity outages. Steady-state voltage stability
considerations, based on assessment of the voltage levels in the network following the loss of
DG capacity, are more likely to be a governing factor.
More generally, although DG controls will inevitably influence the nature of system dynamics,
the imminent threat to system security is more likely to arise from reactionary (undesirable or
overly aggressive) operation of protections than from considerations involving first-swing
instability.
This study was conducted as part of the Grid integration of distributed energy resources
programme managed by CETC-Varennes, Natural Resources Canada.
Keywords: distributed generation, disturbances, stability.
March, 2006
SOMMAIRE
Actuellement, les rseaux lectriques transportent lnergie de quelques gnratrices de trs
grandes capacits (centrales) plusieurs charges qui sont relativement petites et distribues. Pour
plusieurs raisons, le portfolio dnergie du futur va probablement inclure davantage de
gnratrices de faible capacit, situes du ct charge. Prsentement la production dcentralise
(PD) ne reprsente quun petit pourcentage de la charge ou gnration totale, selon la dfinition
de pntration). Les rglementations qui gouvernent lopration de ces sources sont, pour
linstant, relativement relches permettant la dconnexion mme pour les perturbations assez
ngligeables. Cependant, limpact cumulatif de ces dconnexions sur la stabilit du systme peut
devenir important avec la croissance de cette technologie, possiblement dune faon que nous
comprenons encore mal.
Ce rapport dcrit une investigation de limpact de la haute pntration de PD sur la stabilit des
rseaux de transport. Lanalyse est prsente pour une partie du rseau alimentant lest de la
province dOntario au Canada, ce qui reprsente 4 000 MW de charge sur un territoire stendant
sur une distance denviron 400 km. Ltude considre les gnratrices interfaces par un
convertisseur, ainsi que les machines tournantes. De plus, leffet de diffrentes modes de
contrle de tension est galement considr.
Les rsultats nous amnent la conclusion que le niveau maximum de pntration de la PD
permis ne sera pas dterminer par les proccupations de stabilit angulaire. Cette conclusion est
valide pour les systmes de puissance qui alimentent les rseaux urbains qui : (a) serve les
charges sur une distance de quelques centaines de kilomtres, et (b) ont assez de rserves de
gnration et de capacit thermique disponible dans le systme de transport pour compenser pour
une perte de PD non-planifie. Les considrations de stabilit de tension en tat permanant, bas
sur les tensions dans le rseau suite une perte de PD, est probablement un facteur beaucoup
plus important.
Plus gnralement, bien que les contrles de la PD vont srement influencer les dynamiques du
systme, la menace imminente la scurit du systme proviendra vraisemblablement de
lopration ractionnaire (particulirement agressive ou indsirable) des protections, plutt que
des considrations rsultant de linstabilit transitoire rapide.
March, 2006
Impact of large-scale distributed generation penetration on

power system stability
1.1
Introduction
Todays electrical power systems typically connect a few fairly large generators to a large
number of small and widely distributed loads. For several reasons, future generation in Canada
and elsewhere will probably include many more units of rather smaller size. Drivers for this
trend include a shift towards the use of renewable resources, a desire for increased energy
efficiency, an aversion to the risk and long construction periods characteristic of large stations,
the benefit of assembling machines in factories rather than in the field, and a general
deregulation of the utility industry which favours diversity.
For some years, modelling studies have reviewed the impact of distributed generation on utility
distribution systems, including power quality, feeder protections, service reliability and public
safety [B1 B20 in Section 7]. Many issues have been identified for study, to assess the merits
and drawbacks of Distributed Generation (DG) in traditional power distribution systems. Some
studies have attempted to quantify the levels of DG penetration relative to feeder capacity or
existing load, where one or more of these pose a limiting constraint. The bibliography at the end
of this report lists a number of industry standards, utility standards and major reports that have
come out of this previous work in addition to the above papers.
At this time, the penetration of DG on power systems is relatively low, measured either in terms
of aggregate system load or available generating capacity. Existing Standards/1/ favour
regulations governing DG operation that are simpler and least disruptive to utility operations.
They tend to require that the DG not take part in voltage and frequency control. If a disturbance
takes place that causes either voltage or frequency to deviate beyond specified limits, the DG is
required to isolate from the grid, and then reconnect when normal operation is restored. Thus
frequency and voltage continue to be maintained just as they would without the presence of any
DG.
However DG penetrations appear destined to escalate. Therefore attention is shifting towards
considering the cumulative effect on the bulk power system due to significant levels of DG
capacity. It can be expected that such large-scale presence will have global or system-wide
impacts that are not yet fully understood. The present project is concerned primarily with the
impact on system stability. Other relevant issues may include impact on resource scheduling to
meet real demand, for the provision of ancillary services such as reactive power support, for
spinning reserve to accommodate contingencies, and for black start capability following major
outages. These however are not within the present scope.
March, 2006
Stability covers the ability of the power system to supply rated voltage to loads. It includes the
need for generators to maintain synchronism (angular stability) when the transmission lines are
heavily loaded and stressed by transients such as system faults. Stability may be affected by
large-scale presence of DG units because of their differing characteristics, as follows:
They tend to carry small power ratings, ranging from just a few 10s of kW to perhaps 5
MW, compared to 100s or 1000s of MW for centralized plants. Their proportional
mechanical inertia is reduced, so stability is lost more rapidly after a system disturbance.
They are connected on distribution systems, within several kilometers of loads while
centralized plants may transmit power 100s of kilometers to major load centres. This helps
promote angular stability, but increases the number of disturbances likely to trip the unit.
They are generally classified as being non-dispatchable, delivering power sporadically or at

will. In this respect, their production must be viewed statistically and cannot be relied upon
to meet the system demand for aggregate real or local reactive power.
Their protections and controls differ significantly from larger plants because they are
typically unstaffed. Standard IEEE 1547 calls for DG to trip within specified disturbance
levels. They are not allowed to regulate terminal voltage or system frequency.
In due course, a greater proportion of DGs are likely to utilize advanced technologies such as
fuel-cells, solar, wind or biomass, with a power converter interface for delivering power to
the grid. The dynamic operating characteristics of such units may differ dramatically from
rotating machines.
Under the authority of the Energy Efficiency Act, and to support future compliance with the
Kyoto Accord, the Government of Canada wishes to encourage the deployment of renewable
sources of electrical energy, most of which will be realized as DG. However it also wishes to
ensure that this does not compromise the reliability of electricity supply in Canada. Furthermore
it wishes to promote the development of Standards that reflect best available practices, and this
in turn requires that the impact of large-scale DG penetrations be studied and understood in
advance.
This report begins by identifying the project scope and objectives. This is followed by a brief
introduction to the stability problem and the types of analysis that it entails for large scale power
systems. Next follows a brief discussion on the types of DG resources likely to be deployed in
the foreseeable future, leading to their characterization essentially as those relying on a power
converter based interface or those utilizing a more conventional rotating synchronous machine.
A representative benchmark system is then identified, corresponding to the network serving
Eastern Ontario in Canada (region surrounding Ottawa, the nations capitol) and covering a
narrow rectangular corridor spanning about 400 km East to West. Analysis of this benchmark is
March, 2006
then carried out, taking into account steady-state voltage and angular stability considerations,
including various DG control modes and system contingencies. This provides a basis for
generalizing findings related to the impact of large-scale DG penetration on the stability of grid
networks of the type studied here.
March, 2006
Objectives & Scope
The objective of this project is to investigate the impact of future large-scale penetrations of DG
on power system stability, considering the normal Canadian utility network architectures: highly
meshed to highly radial systems. The goal is to determine the penetration limit expressed as a
proportion of total generating capacity, as dictated by considerations of power system stability,
assuming that DG operation is governed by existing IEEE 1547 or typical Canadian utility
interconnection standards with respect to normal operation, including voltage and frequency
tripping thresholds. Strategies for extending the limit to facilitate greater DG integration are
considered.
Accordingly the first task in the project involved identifying a suitable candidate system for
detailed simulations. It was envisaged that this network would incorporate a variety of
conventional generation, including some sufficiently remote from the major load centres to make
angular and voltage stability studies worthwhile. It would include meshed and radial connection
points for introducing DG. The modelled DG would consider the variety of technologies,
fundamentally differentiated as those requiring a power converter interface for exchanging
power with the grid and those utilizing a conventional rotating machine interface. The two
classes of generation are likely to exhibit different responses in the event of disturbances in the
power system, due to differences in their inertias, governor response, tripping characteristics and
control function.
Once the above network was chosen and a model suitable for carrying out stability studies had
been assembled, it was exercised to determine the limits of DG penetration for different system
loading, mix of conventional generation, equipment or line outage contingencies, sources of
disturbance, DG location, DG technologies and DG controls. The challenge here is to adequately
cover significant permutations of these parameters without conducting an excessive number of
simulations.
Finally, the findings of all simulations are condensed into conclusions or applicable guidelines
useful to DG proponents, utility planners and government policy makers.
March, 2006
The Stability Problem
A fundamental requirement in the operation of a power system is that power flows and bus
voltages be maintained within acceptable limits throughout the network despite changes in load
or available transmission and generation resources. Furthermore the system needs to exhibit an
ability to remain in a state of operating equilibrium under normal operating conditions and to
regain an acceptable state of equilibrium after being subjected to a disturbance/2/. The
disturbance may be associated with an outage of a generator, transformer, line or loads.
Historically, stability has been associated with the need for conventional rotating machines
(synchronous or induction) to remain in synchronism in order to deliver power. This aspect of
stability is termed angular stability, and is governed by dynamics of generator rotor angles and
the power angle relationships that result across the transmission network. However instability
can also occur without loss of synchronism. This can occur when voltages reduce uncontrollably
due to curtailed generation, equipment outage or an increase in load. It stems from the attempt of
load dynamics to restore power consumption beyond the capability of the combined transmission
and generation system/3/. The ability of the network to maintain voltage levels within
permissible limits at all points on the network, both in normal operation and after being subjected
to a disturbance, is termed voltage stability. It tends to be governed by the ability of the system to
maintain a balance between the demand and supply of reactive power in the network.
Angular and voltage stability are relevant to steady state conditions, to conditions involving
dynamic (small signal) perturbations occurring continuously on the system due to incremental
load changes, and for major disturbances such as faults or the loss of significant generation, lines
or loads. The phenomena of interest cover dynamics in the range of about 1-10 Hz in frequency,
appreciably lower than the fundamental power frequency (60 Hz in North America).
Analysis of system stability begins with a load flow study, performed using a steady-state power
frequency model assuming balanced three-phase operation of all transmission lines, loads and
generating resources. The model takes the form of an impedance or admittance matrix, and is
solved iteratively to yield desired power flows. Voltage regulating apparatus (e.g. transformer
taps, reactive sources) may be adjusted automatically to bring voltage levels within permissible
limits throughout the network.
Load flow analysis does not include dynamics involving the generator due to incremental
changes in voltage, frequency or load. This is addressed by analysis of dynamic stability, and
requires introducing models reflecting the response of the prime mover, the excitation system
controls, and rotor dynamics. Dynamic stability is checked by linearizing the power flow
equations about a specified operating point and analyzing whether small swings in phase angle or
voltage will grow over time. This usually occurs only when generators are distant from system
loads, so the need for these studies should ease as DG penetration increases.
March, 2006
Finally analysis is performed to ensure that the system can remain stable following major system
disturbances such as faults and equipment outages. The term Transient Stability is reserved for
this class of analysis. It covers simulating the system response some time into the future, so that
dynamic interactions involving control systems, generator dynamics and regulating apparatus
can be evaluated. Consideration must be given to all conceivable disturbance events and
operating contingencies deemed to be reasonable. Note that a successful transient stability study
can prove steady state and dynamic stability, making it a sufficient (but expensive) test.
All of the above studies require consideration of alternative contingencies that may weaken the
transmission capability of the system. The focus in the present project is on steady-state and
transient stability aspects of power system operation, assuming future load growth to be met
largely by large-scale DG which may behave differently than conventional utility-type
generation.
March, 2006
Candidate Study System
A previous study/4/ that had considered the impact of large DG capacities on the bulk power
system had performed illustrative simulations on the power grid in North America under the
jurisdiction of the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC). This serves a territory
covering the western half of the United States, the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia in
Canada, and a portion of northern Baja in Mexico. The studied model consisted of over 12,000
buses and about 2,290 generators.
Another study was found/5/ that focused specifically on transient stability issues, and identified
benchmark systems for analysis, but it is not clear that these necessarily resemble a typical
Canadian network.
In order to complement the earlier study focussing specifically on DG issues/4/, but using a
rather massive interconnected grid, it was decided that the present effort would focus on a
smaller network associated with the fringes of a large interconnected grid. It was reasoned that
large DG capacities may impact such remote portions of the grid in a more pronounced, and
perhaps different manner.
4.1
Transmission Grid
The candidate study system was envisaged to include essentially an infinite bus, representing a
central bulk power grid, branching out into a meshed network supplying a mix of load buses
electrically close to as well as remote from this anchor. The network should include a variety of
existing generation, including hydraulic and thermal units. There should be sufficient HV circuits
and meshing to provide realistic responses for various loading conditions; contingencies such as
loss of generation, load, or lines; and disturbances due to faults possibly with delayed clearing.
The simulations can be expected to yield a conservative lower limit for DG penetration if the
system includes a large load centre connected to the infinite bus through relatively few lines,
with intermediate buses containing conventional generation. This would allow interaction
between the dynamics of these remote generators with DG units located at the major load centre
to accommodate load growth. At the same time, the DG units will provide little local voltage
support at the load centre if the controls are configured according to existing standards.
As it happens, the power system supplying the Ottawa area in the Province of Ontario has many
of these features, as depicted in a simplified representation of the network belonging to Hydro
One (Figure 1). Regional load in the Ottawa area is supplied out of the Hawthorne TS 230-kV
bus. Much of the supply arrives on only two 500-kV circuits from Lennox GS near Kingston.
This station is then more heavily connected back to Cherrywood (and Pickering), which may be
considered an infinite bus since it is electrically close to two major nuclear stations comprising 8
active units and representing about 6000 MW of aggregate capacity. Circuits at 230-kV connect
March, 2006
Hawthorne TS to hydraulic generation at Chat Falls and St. Lawrence, thus incorporating their
dynamics. DG may be added at these stations as well as on busses serving Ottawa area loads, to
explore their interaction on meshed parts of the system, as well as the interaction of DG versus
the infinite bus over a more radial network. Thus this benchmark network incorporates sufficient
diversity to serve as a good test bed for exploring both benefits and drawbacks arising from
significant penetration of DG to the power system.
Ottawa
Hawthorne
230 kV
Pickering
Cherrywood
230 kV
Chat Falls
230 kV
35 km
Load
271 km
Hydraulic
8x24 MVA
302 km
St Lawrence GS
230 kV
75 km
DG
Hydraulic
16x70 MVA
500 kV
Lennox GS
230 kV
215 km
240 km
Thermal
2x550 MVA
3x750 MVA
500 kV
2x750 MVA
500 kV
5x750 MVA
225 km
Thermal
2x575 MVA
182 km
V infinite
Figure 1 Simplified representation of transmission network serving Ottawa area
A loadflow model for this portion of the Hydro One network was already available in the public
domain, designated as Series 2003 NERC1 study case. The version corresponding to 2005
Winter study case, and available in PSS/E software format, was used as the starting point. It
includes about 3200 busses, 4300 lines, 420 generating units and 2300 transformers, comprising
about 26 600 MW of net generation and 25 900 MW of aggregate load. The solved loadflow for
the area of interest is shown in Figure 2, showing only the major generation and load busses, also
revealing the relative size and complexity of the network serving even this relatively small
portion of the North American power grid. Figure 3 reproduces this result in a more condensed
North American Electric Reliability Council
10
March, 2006
format, showing the bulk power flows over this part of the region. The model reflects the
following defining characteristics:
The bulk power grid consists of lines operating nominally at 500 kV (depicted in red) and
230-kV (blue).
Available generating resources of interest to this project include two identical 550 MVA
thermal units at Lennox, eight similar hydraulic units at Chats Falls amounting to about 200
MVA capacity, and almost 1000 MVA of hydraulic capacity at Saunders (16 similar units,
feeding into St Lawrence TS). An additional 910 MVA of primarily hydraulic resources is
scattered over the depicted region (remote from the Ottawa area), though not shown here
explicitly.
The total load for the Ottawa area amounts to about 1000 MW, as supplied from Hawthorne
TS, Merivale TS and Nepean TS. Substantially all of it can be viewed as being met by the
infeed over the 500-kV lines from Lennox and from Saunders generation (via St Lawrence).
The reader is cautioned that the net power flows into and out of the respective busses do not
always balance in the depicted network because of the presence of an underlying 115-kV
network that is not depicted here.
For the purpose of this project, the foregoing network comprising the NPCC2 portion of the
North American power grid (serving New York, the six New England states, and Ontario,
Quebec, and Maritime Provinces in Canada) was truncated so that only the relevant portions
serving Eastern Ontario remained. This was done in anticipation of planned dynamic simulations
that require all generating units and their control systems to be modelled in greater detail.
Furthermore it was deemed appropriate to focus on dynamics involving generation just in the
study area. Hence all generating units not directly relevant to this region needed to be eliminated,
and this meant that the associated parts of the network had to be truncated, as follows.
The entire Ontario power grid West of Cherrywood TS was eliminated from the model, as was a
weak interconnection to New York at St Lawrence. Defining Cherrywood TS 500-kV bus as the
system swing bus (i.e. infinite bus) meant that the nearby generation at Darlington (supplying
Bowmanville) was superfluous, therefore it was eliminated. The existing generation at Pickering
(feeding into the 230-kV network) was transferred to the respective 230 kV busses at
Cherrywood TS. Finally, a 230/115-kV 75 MVA autotransformer at DesJoachims (near Ottawa)
was removed from service, to sever a weak connection between the central Ontario power grid
and the underlying 115-kV network in the candidate benchmark system (the Eastern grid). This
merely reinforces the predominantly radial nature of supply to the Ottawa area. The remaining
network therefore corresponds to a nearly rectangular, narrow corridor spanning about 400 km in
length.
2
Northeast Power Coordinating Council
11
March, 2006
The resulting truncated model includes about 570 busses, 725 lines, 65 generating units and 360
transformers. Total generation is about 4 000 MW, serving about 3 900 MW of aggregate load.
Its solved loadflow is illustrated in Figure 4 for comparison with Figure 3. Power flows in the
Ottawa area are seen to be in substantial agreement, confirming that the reduced model remains
relevant.
12
March, 2006
Figure 2 Solved loadflow for NERC base case (2005 Winter case)
13
March, 2006
Ottawa Area
(Load centre)
Ontario Easter Power Grid

Blue: 230 kV Red: 500 kV
Toronto
Area
Thermal
Generation
Hydraulic
Generation
Figure 3 Condensed view of power flows for NERC base case
14
March, 2006
Figure 4 Solved base case for the truncated study system
15
March, 2006
4.2
Generation Resources & Characteristics
Conventional power system resources consist of large synchronous generators, typically carrying
ratings ranging from 100 to 1000 MVA, and connected directly to the transmission network.
Direct manipulation of the synchronous generator inputs (mechanical torque, field current
applied to rotor winding) is used as the primary method of controlling power system frequency
and voltage. Speed droop is incorporated in governor controls to automatically share demand
changes equitably among all interconnected units without the need for explicit communication,
and reactive power droop is used on field excitation systems to regulate voltages.
Distributed generators on the other are generally connected to non-dedicated feeders, located at
or near other loads on the distribution system. Their ratings range from a few kilowatts up to a
limit of about 10 MW. They may be connected directly at customer premises, downstream of the
service entrance, or they may be interconnected to some point on the distribution system via a
dedicated tap and transformer unit that is not part of a customer load. Larger units may be
connected through dedicated feeders or directly at the distribution substation. These locations are
in contrast to conventional utility generation that is generally located far from the loads,
interconnected to the bulk transmission networks, and usually configured as plants sizes greater
than 50 MW. While this difference may create unique requirements for interfacing to the grid,
these details are not relevant to the present study as they have been covered elsewhere/R1-R20/.
Of greater relevance here is that DG resources encompass a wide variety of technologies and
primary energy sources, and as such, their operating characteristics can differ from conventional
generation. A brief summary of the more common DG technologies follows:
1. Reciprocating Engines: Many commercial and institutional facilities include standby
generators rated from about 0.1 to 1.0 MW, which could be reconfigured to provide power
system peaking capability. Typically these are powered by diesel reciprocating engines, and
as such their development may be inhibited by local noise ordinances and by provincial air
quality regulations. The generators may be induction or synchronous types. Governors and
voltage regulators are provided for terminal voltage and speed control. The inertia of the
engine and generator tend to be similar to larger units in per unit of rating. Induction
generators do not require governor or voltage controls, relying on the grid to manage both.
2. Conventional Combustion Turbines (CT): CT gensets are a very mature technology, ranging
in size from 1 to 25 MW, and are mostly adapted from aircraft engine design. They are
fuelled by natural gas, oil or dual fuel systems, and the turbine serves as the prime mover for
a conventional synchronous generator. CT units are commonly used for baseload support in
cogeneration facilities, where the waste heat from the generation stage can be utilized
beneficially for material processing or space heating applications. Alternatively, their quick
start capability makes them a good choice for backup emergency power and peak shaving
16
March 2006
applications. Generator parameters for larger units would be similar to machines applied to
steam turbines. Smaller units will have higher per unit resistances in field and damping
circuits, reducing the time constants for transients, but otherwise exhibiting similar rotational
dynamics. The governor characteristics may also be similar to a steam turbine.
3. Microturbines: These are extremely small physically compared to their conventional
counterparts, while typically sized from 10 to 250 kW in rating. They are designed to operate
optimally at very high rotational speeds, up to 100 000 rpm. With the generator rotor on the
same shaft as the turbine, its output frequency is on the order of a few kilohertz. This output
is rectified and inverted to 60 Hz using a static power converter. Modern inverter control will
normally be current-controlled with real and reactive power outer loops. For loadflow
analysis, this translates to a constant real and reactive power (P, Q) model. In order to
promote dynamic stability, these loops could include integral, proportional or differential
feedback controls, though this is not yet common practice. In this event, it may be necessary
to include a dynamic representation including some artificial inertia, current and voltage
limits for stability studies.
4. Photovoltaics (PV): PV arrays produce direct current from solar energy. Modules are
available with output ranging from less than 5 W to over 300 W. Hundreds of these are used
to make a PV array for utility scale applications. However for typical residential scale
applications, a PV system may consist of just a handful or more modules in the form of a
small rooftop installations yielding in the order of 10 kW. In urban areas, at best the ratings
could reach a few hundreds of kilowatts for installations on larger commercial buildings.
Since PV output is produced as direct current, a static power converter is required to deliver
its output to utility supply systems. Stability impacts on the power system are similar to those
mentioned above for inverters.
5. Fuel-cell: A fuel-cell is like a battery in that an electrochemical reaction is used to create
electric current. There are various fuel cell technologies under rapid development, all
utilizing hydrogen and oxygen as the primary reactants which in turn can be derived from a
variety of fuels depending on the type of fuel process and reformer used. Regardless of the
type of fuel cell utilized, electricity is delivered at the output as direct current. A static power
converter is used to interface the unit to the distribution system. Again impacts are similar to
those mentioned above for inverters. Little information is available regarding the time
dynamics of governor control. Feedback loops schedule appropriate flows of hydrogen and
oxygen, with lags resulting from gas-filled volumes, however the dynamics here are too slow
to matter for most stability studies.
6. Wind: Wind turbines capture energy from the wind and drive a conventional rotating
generator as the prime mover. Individual units can range in size from a few kilowatts to
ratings approaching 5 MW. Individual units may be grouped together into wind farms
17
March 2006
ranging in capacities to tens of megawatt and connected to utility distribution systems. The
larger wind farms tend to be more like bulk generation, often connected to subtransmission
networks. It is the smaller scale farms or individual units that can be classified as DG. Wind
turbines use squirrel cage generators (constant speed direct-connected induction) or variable
speed generators with power electronic converters (doubly fed induction, or inverter
interfaced synchronous). Induction machines have been popular historically since they tend
to be more rugged in operation and economical in capital cost. However since they draw
reactive power for operation, and this need increases with machine output and rating, they
can exacerbate voltage regulation problems. Variable speed wind turbines based on either
synchronous or wound-rotor (doubly fed induction) machines are a superior alternative, and
gaining favour for utility applications. Permanent magnet synchronous machines produce
variable frequency output, which must be interfaced to the utility through a power converter
interface. Doubly fed induction machines are operated at variable slip by controlling the
frequency of the excitation applied to the rotor winding using a power converter interface.
The stator output is therefore maintained at power frequency. Force-commutation on the
interface allows the units to either supply or absorb reactive power from the utility system.
7. Mini Hydro: Most applications utilize induction motors run as generators. Therefore the
parameters are the same as for motors of the same size, and the machines exhibit rotor and
electrical dynamics traditionally associated with motor loads.
From the standpoint of system dynamics, this range of DG technologies can be condensed into
two categories/4, 6, 7/: those utilizing a rotating machine interfaced directly to the grid, and those
requiring an inverter interface for transferring power to the grid. The two classes of generation
are distinguished by certain unique performance features and operating parameters that impact
power system performance. Fundamentally however, all DG units are required to implement
protections and controls that comply with existing applicable Canadian utility connection
standards for operation, including voltage and frequency tripping limits, which essentially reflect
the requirements defined in IEEE Std 1547. These generally require that in normal operation, the
DG shall not actively regulate the voltage at its terminals, which implies that the DG must
operate at a constant power factor. This restriction, however, is destined to be moderated since a
consensus already exists that DG must in due course be allowed to participate fully in exercising
grid control in order to achieve maximal societal benefits.
In the event of a disturbance resulting in voltage or frequency excursions beyond certain
thresholds, the units must isolate within specified durations (Figure 5 and Figure 6). A further
clause in the Standards requires the DG to cease to energize the circuit to which it is connected
in the event of a fault. As a consequence of these requirements, DG owners have tended to
choose overly-aggressively trip settings, whether to guarantee compliance or to shield the unit
from undue stresses during system disturbances.
18
March 2006
Figure 5 Required DG response to abnormal system voltages/1/
Figure 6 Required DG response to abnormal system frequency/1/
4.3
Generator Models
Conventional synchronous machine based utility generators rely on governor controls based on
speed feedback to schedule real power output, and excitation control based on voltage feedback
to schedule reactive power output. In a traditional loadflow program, the real power output of
synchronous machines is held at a specified (scheduled) value and the reactive output is allowed
to vary within specified limits to control the voltage at some location on the network (often at the
machine terminals). Synchronous or inverter based DG is modelled in the same manner, with the
exception that the limits on its reactive power output may need to be constrained artificially to
comply with regulations requiring it to operate at fixed power factor.
For studies involving system disturbances, generator models must provide for the accurate
representation of the machines response to changes in terminal voltage and frequency.
Modelling of synchronous machines is well developed for bulk power system studies. Suitable
models are available in standard stability programs to allow accurate representation of the
19
March 2006
response to changes in voltage or frequency, including the contribution of prime movers,

excitation systems and auxiliary controls/2/.
Specific details concerning such control systems tend to be held in confidence by the owners of
such facilities, ostensibly due to a concern about security and commercial interests. Our strategy
has therefore been to rely on generic models for similar machines, supplemented by our
knowledge of the particular units from past experience or from earlier publications already in the
public domain. Guidance in this respect was sought from several sources. Reference /2/ includes
numerous examples corresponding specifically to major Ontario generating facilities, though the
particular stations are not identified explicitly. Archived reports for some facilities were also
available internally to Kinectrics due to its former status as a Division of Ontario Hydro (the
previous owner and operator of these facilities)/8-10/. Finally, synchronous machine parameters
are known to be remarkably constant for a wide range of machine sizes when normalized on
machine rating. On this basis, synchronous DG machines can be taken to realistically assume
time constants, reactances and inertias similar to a conventional utility-owned generator/2, 11,
12/.
Models for induction generators are also available in standard stability software. However
directly connected induction generators tend not to be grid friendly since they rely on the grid to
supply reactive power for excitation, providing no inherent means of regulating the terminal
voltage. Special measures may also be required while paralleling a large machine to ensure that
the fluctuation caused to the system voltage does not does not exceed 5%/1/. Accordingly
induction machines are not favoured for grid applications. Their global impact on system
stability will remain muted because of marginal aggregate capacity, and is deemed not to merit
particular consideration in the present context.
Power converters presently used for DG applications incorporate control systems exhibiting time
constants in the range of milliseconds much faster than conventional rotating machines. For
stability studies, their operation is modeled simply as a controlled current source, or as a source
of active and reactive power/6/. In future, power converters may be designed to mimic the
dynamics of conventional synchronous machines to facilitate utility interconnections. This can
be achieved by introducing additional feedback control loops to simulate inertia as well as
voltage and frequency droop. In this event, the dynamics involving power converter based DG
will become indistinguishable from conventional machines, and therefore existing stability
models will apply. Both modeling approaches are considered in this study to illustrate the impact
on grid stability.
Details follow on the models and parameters used for the various generators.
20
March 2006
4.3.1
Cherrywood
The infinite bus at Cherrywood need not exhibit any rotor dynamics. Accordingly a classical,
constant flux-linkage model is appropriate, as provided by GENCLS in PSS/E. The inertia
constant (H) is specified as being arbitrarily large, about 3000, to approximate a stiff bus. This
also means that system frequency perturbations will be negligible for all reasonable
contingencies a realistic assumption given the capacity of the modeled system relative to much
larger grid to which it is paralleled. No exciter or governor model is required since the classical
model comprises a constant voltage source behind a fixed reactance.
4.3.2
Lennox
Each of two 550 MVA thermal units is modeled as a round rotor machine using the GENROU
model in PTIs PSS/E software. Model parameters as listed in Table 1 (normalized on machine
rating). A potential-source controlled-rectifier exciter seems appropriate for this vintage of
generators, as characterized by IEEE Type ST1 excitation system model (Figure 7), with
parameters as per Table 2. The excitation power is supplied through a transformer from the
generator terminals or the station auxiliary bus, and is regulated by a controlled rectifier.
Although models for the turbine-governor (Figure 8, Table 3) and a stabilizer (Figure 9, Table 4)
are also specified for completeness, neither of these is particularly relevant for either steady-state
stability or transient stability. The response time of turbine governors can be several seconds
too long to matter for transient stability studies and irrelevant for steady-state stability studies.
Similarly, power system stabilizers are intended to enhance small-signal stability performance
(i.e. provide damping of inter-area oscillatory modes involving machines coupled through
relatively weak transmission links)/13/, and are therefore not relevant for transient stability
studies.
21
March 2006
Table 1 Lennox generator model parameters
Tdo
Tdo
Tqo
Tqo
H
D
Xd
Xq
Xd
Xq
Xd = Xq
Xl
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
d-axis transient time constant (s)

d-axis subtransient time constant (s)
q-axis transient time constant (s)
q-axis subtransient time constant (s)
Inertia constant (s)
Damping factor (pu)
d-axis synchronous reactance (pu)
d-axis transient reactance (pu)
d- & q-axis subtransient reactance (pu)
Stator leakage reactance (pu)
Saturation factor at 1 pu flux
Saturation factor at 1.2 pu flux
4
0.03
0.5
0.07
2.8
0
1.8
1.75
0.3
0.65
0.24
0.15
0.057
0.33
Figure 7 IEEE Type ST1 Excitation System Model

Table 2 Lennox exciter model parameters
TR
VIMAX
VIMIN
TC
TB (s)
KA
0.01
0.3
-0.3
1.0
1.0
200
TA (s)
VRMAX
VRMIN
KC
KF
TF
22
0
6.0
-6.0
0.04
0
1.0
March 2006
Figure 8 PSS/E IEEEG1 Turbine-Governor Model

Table 3 Lennox governor model parameters
K
T1 (s)
T2 (s)
T3 (s)
Uo (pu/s)
Uc (pu/s)
PMAX (pu)
PMIN (pu)
T4 (s)
K1
25
0.1
0
0.25
0.3
-0.3
0.85
0
0.4
0.25
K2
T5 (s)
K3
K4
T6 (s)
K5
K6
T7 (s)
K7
K8
0
4.0
0.25
0
2.0
0.5
0
0
0
0
Figure 9 PSS/E IEEEST Stabilizer model
23
March 2006
Table 4 Lennox stabilizer model parameters /2 p. 815/
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
T1 (sec)
T2 (sec)
T3 (sec)
4.3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0.02
3.0
T4 (sec)
T5 (sec)
T6 (sec)
KS
LSMAX
LSMIN
VCU (pu)
VCL (pu)
5.4
10
10
20
0.1
-0.1
0
0
Chats Falls
Each of eight hydraulic units rated about 40 MVA is modeled as a salient pole machine using the
GENSAL model. The specified parameters are listed in Table 5. A generic hydraulic governor
model was specified, as per Figure 11 and Table 7.
Table 5 Chats Falls generator model parameters
Tdo
Tdo
Tqo
H
D
Xd
Xq
Xd
Xd = Xq
Xl
S(1.0)
S(1.2)

Damping factor (pu)
24
4.2
0.045
0.035
3.0
0
0.925
0.57
0.373
0.262
0.1
0.2
0.72645
March 2006
Figure 10 PSS/E IEEEX1 (IEEE Type 1) Excitation System Model
25
March 2006
Table 6 Chats Falls exciter model parameters (PSS/E Model IEEEX1)
TR (s)
KA
TA (s)
TB (s)
TC (s)
VRMAX
VRMIN
KE
0
200
0.02
1.0
1.0
3
0
1.0
TE (s)
KF
TF1
Switch
E1
SE(E1)
E2
SE(E2)
0.8
0.04
1.0
0
3
0.03
4
0.1
Figure 11 PSS/E HYGOV Hydro Turbine-Governor Model

Table 7 Chats Falls turbine-governor model parameters (PSS/E Model HYGOV)
R
r
Tr
Tf
Tg
VELM
GMAX
GMIN
TW
At
Dturb
qNL
Permanent droop
Temporary droop
Governor time constant
Filter time constant
Servo time constant
Gate velocity limit
Maximum gate limit
Minimum gate limit
Water time constant
Turbine gain
Turbine damping
No-load flow
26
0.04
0.6
6
0.4
0.5
0.095
0.95
0
1.4
1.25
1
0.125
March 2006
4.3.4
Saunders
Each of 16 hydraulic units rated 60 MVA is modeled as being identical to the Chats Falls units.
4.3.5
DG Units
Three variations are considered for modeling aggregate DG presence:
Existing power converter based DG tend to behave as a source of active and reactive
power/6/. Accordingly they can be modeled as such either explicitly or essentially as
negative loads (i.e. switching in a DG is equivalent to switching out an identical load).
Generator represented by a classical machine model, denoting a constant voltage source

behind a fixed reactance/2/. This models a generator providing a fixed voltage output,
corresponding to the behaviour of a power converter without voltage control or a
conventional synchronous generator with fixed (or manually controlled) field excitation. The
rotor inertia can be specified as being 1-3 for conventional machine, or arbitrarily small
values for power converter based units if it is desired that the DG track system frequency
without undue lag.
A detailed round rotor machine model exhibiting rotor dynamics and modeling the rotor and
stator windings explicitly is available in all stability analysis software. This corresponds to
Model GENROU in PSS/E software. Provision is available for interfacing various models
characterizing exciters, governor and stabilizers. Table 8 lists the generic model parameters
used for this study to represent the synchronous generator. Modern generators are equipped
with static exciters, and these are most commonly bus-fed, meaning they are powered by the
generator terminal voltage so the output will be lower during the fault period. The
corresponding PTI model is denoted Type SCRX (Figure 12). Representative values of
model parameters were taken from PSS/E Program Application Guide3, and are listed in
Table 9.
Power Technologies Incorporated Program Application Guide section 12 pages 12-5 and 12-6
27
March 2006
Table 8 Generic DG model parameters (GENROU)
Tdo
Tdo
Tqo
Tqo
H
D
Xd
Xq
Xd
Xq
Xd = Xq
Xl
S(1.0)
S(1.2)

q-axis transient time constant (s)
Damping factor (pu)
7.6
0.05
2.33
0.05
1.2
0
2.57
2.35
0.248
0.41
0.172
0.161
0.2
0.6
Table 9 Parameters for bus-fed static exciter (PSS/E Model SCRX)
TA/TB
TB
K
TE (s)
0.1
10.0
200
0.05
EMIN
EMAX
Switch
RC/RFD
0
5
0
0
Figure 12 PTI Type SCRX bus fed static exciter model
4.3.6
Embedded Network Units
As with the infinite bus at Cherrywood, all of the embedded generation in the network is
represented by a classical machine having an inertia constant of 3 s, without any excitation or
governor control. Table 10 identifies the buses incorporating this generation and the respective
ratings.
28
March 2006
Table 10 Embedded Generation
Whiby
Arnprior
Barrett Chute
Stewartville
Brockville
OHC
Cardinal Power
AES
4.4
60 MVA
2 x 42 MVA
(2 x 68 MVA) & (2 x 21 MVA)
(3 x 21 MVA) & (2 x 56 MVA)
33 MVA
52 MVA & 32 MVA
56 MVA & 102 MVA
2 x 90 MVA
Load Representation
Loads, as represented in large-scale steady-state or transient stability studies, are intended to

reflect the composite real and reactive power demand characteristic of thousands of individual
end-use components and devices, such as motors, lighting and electrical appliances. Accurate
representation of this characteristic can be important in transient stability studies, especially
following major disturbances that result in large variations in system voltage or frequency/1416/. However it is not so crucial for qualitative investigations where the aim is to establish the
approximate limits of system instability/16/, as intended here. Accordingly, and in line with the
normal practice among most utilities/14/, the aggregate load at each system bus was modeled as
an element exhibiting:
Constant MVA demand in load flow studies; and
Constant current demand for active power, and constant conductance for reactive power, in
transient stability studies.
29
March 2006
Impact of Large-Scale DG Penetration
The number of permutations in study scenarios that can be explored is formidable in principle.
On the system side, there are variations to be considered in loading, in the dispatch of
conventional generation, and in contingencies such as lines or equipment outages, or events
causing disturbances such as faults, loss of generation or load. On the DG side they include
location, the technology (inverter or rotating), power dynamics (exciter characteristics),
protection (tripping due to undervoltage or overcurrent), control (whether power remains
constant, whether current or power factor are scheduled), and finally DG penetration relative to
load growth. In addition, voltage and frequency controls incorporated in the individual units are
evidently relevant since these will impact stability. Similarly load characteristics, meaning the
manner in which real and reactive demand varies, can influence system stability during major
disturbances.
5.1
Study Scenarios
It was envisaged at the outset that the range of parameter variations having relevance is large,
possibly including all of the following:
Aggregate system demand (light load, peak load)
Available generating capacity
Outage contingencies (various lines, buses, generators)/17/
Types and locations for faults, with normal (0.1 s) and delayed (0.5 s) clearing/17/
DG location (aggregated at Chat Falls GS, Hawthorne TS, at both locations)
DG technology (rotating machine only ranging to inverter only)
DG controls (base case, voltage, frequency, voltage and frequency)
For each combination of the above scenarios, the DG penetration could be increased in discrete
steps to the point where stability is lost. Clearly several penetration levels multiplied by the
various permutations listed above represents an impractical number of simulations. In any event,
many of these permutations are expected to result in only minor changes to the stability limit, or
will allow such high DG penetration as to be of little interest. Therefore it was deemed sufficient
to focus on just a reasonable number of studies with the objective of mapping out the penetration
limits over significant parameters.
30
March 2006
All simulations were conducted using PTI PSS/E software (version 29), used commonly
throughout the industry.
5.2
Steady-State Stability
The notion of steady-state stability is related to the networks ability to maintain power flows
within permissible limits while respecting equipment ratings and maintaining acceptable voltage
levels at all buses.
The base case loadflow solution for the projected 2005 winter peak was presented earlier (Figure
4). Its careful examination reveals that the major power corridors are surprisingly lightly loaded
relative to their thermal capacities. This is illustrated in Figure 13 by means of shaded
rectangular bars overlaying the respective line sections, with the portion in green denoting the
relative line loading. The apparent surplus transmission capacity appears to be a consequence of
an ambitious program, undertaken in the 1970s, to enhance the East-West power transfer
capacity in the province. The primary transmission corridor, comprising the double circuit 500kV corridor between Lennox and Hawthorne, is seen to be loaded only to about 10% of its
thermal rating.
Further exploratory studies suggest that, neglecting contingencies, the existing network resources
can accommodate almost 150% load growth at Hawthorne (amounting to about the regions
aggregate load) before upgrades may be required. This is illustrated in Figure 14, showing
another 930 MW (0.95 pf) of additional load supplied out of Hawthorne. Note that the loadflow
solution has automatically switched out a 140 MVAr reactor at Hawthorne (provided for voltage
control and connected to the autotransformer tertiary) to compensate for the additional reactive
demand. Redistributing the load among Hawthorne, Merivale and Nepean was found not to
matter appreciably because of their relative proximity. The limiting constraint is found to be
associated with an emerging shortfall in the available reactive resources, not the thermal capacity
of the 500-kV corridor. This is indicated by the bus voltages in the region (about 1 pu) falling
substantially below normal operating level (1.05 pu), and the units at Chats Falls reaching their
reactive ceiling. It also illustrates that while the 500-kV lines are efficient at delivering the
additional real power demand, they are ineffective at transporting reactive power over the
distance involved (about 200 km). Evidence of this can be found in Figure 15, showing that an
outage on both Lennox units can be accommodated without causing further degradation in the
voltage levels near Ottawa. Hence the critical contingency impacting steady-state (voltage)
stability in the Ottawa area is associated with the loss of reactive support.
Reactive power is provided most effectively by nearby generation at Chats Falls and Saunders.
Thus loss of generation involving these stations will degrade voltage stability, reducing the
ability to accommodate future load growth without further network enhancements. At Chats
Falls for instance, an outage of a step up transformer, each of which is shared by two units, is
31
March 2006
seen to increase system stress, though only marginally (Figure 16). An outage on the 115-kV
radial feed from Chats Falls to Hawthorne (via Nepean and Merivale) is found to be more
limiting (Figure 17). Here the available margin for load growth is closer to 100% of existing
values. Bear in mind that the available margin may be lower in the summer because of airconditioning load which poses a considerable reactive burden.
An outage on either one of the Lennox-Hawthorne 500-kV circuits is found to be even more
detrimental (Figure 18). It results in the parallel circuit being more heavily loaded, increasing the
associated reactive power losses. The available margin for load growth is found to be closer to
50% considering this contingency (Figure 19).
Not surprisingly, the provision of new generation in the Ottawa area is seen to enhance supply
security. If these units are restricted to operation at unity power factor (assuming DG units
operating at constant power factor) a potential remains for the voltage levels to remain depressed
following contingencies, as illustrated in Figure 20 for loss of reactive support from Chats Falls.
Figure 21 confirms that normal voltage levels can be restored by providing 370 MVAr of
reactive generation locally, confirming once again that the region is starved of reactive resources
and that existing transmission corridors have ample capacity to deliver the added real power
demand. Finally, Figure 22 and Figure 23 illustrate the impact of having DG resources providing
real and reactive power support equitably during the identified critical contingencies. The
operating posture in this case is more favourable, with voltage levels remaining normal.
Evidently there is no limit in the ability of the network to accommodate load growth, other than
the thermal rating of the associated apparatus (lines, transformers), provided that it is matched by
new generation. In the event that new DG capacity outpaces load growth, the region seems to
have ample capacity to export the surplus power to other load centres in the province, given that
the major transmission corridors are lightly loaded.
5.3
Transient Stability
Network disturbances such as equipment outages, load changes or faults disrupt the prevailing
steady state operating conditions, causing a redistribution of power flows. The ability of the
network to cope with these disturbances and to re-establish steady-state operation with
permissible line flows and voltage levels is addressed by transient stability studies. The
networks transient stability limit is that operating posture (defined as a specified demand and
generator loading scenario) beyond which it cannot cope with a specified set of contingencies.
Foregoing steady-state stability analysis identified limits to the candidate networks capacity to
accommodate additional load growth in the absence of new local generating capacity, or
assuming this new capacity to be made up entirely of DG that could trip aggressively in case of
network disturbances. It was determined that the limiting constraint was a shortfall in reactive
32
March 2006
power reserve. This however did not consider potential instabilities associated with generator
controls that might interfere with the networks ability to re-establish stable post-disturbance
operating conditions. For instance, certain generators may lose synchronism (angular instability)
during the period immediately following the disturbance, potentially causing cascaded outages.
Alternatively, the network can experience voltage collapse over a period of seconds to
minutes/18/, as slower acting network controls (e.g. tap changes, switched capacitor/reactor
banks) attempt to compensate for depressed voltage conditions due to either loss of reactive
resources or an increase in reactive losses across the network. Our focus here is primarily on the
impact of generator controls on new DG units, and is therefore concerned primarily with angular
stability.
Simulations were carried out for various single contingencies (e.g. outage on various lines or
existing generating resources). In all cases however, the modelled network was found to be
remarkably resilient, resisting angular instability. To illustrate, we have chosen the scenarios
identified earlier as representing limiting contingencies from the standpoint of steady-state
stability, as follows:
3-phase permanent fault near Hawthorne 500-kV bus resulting in the loss of a Lennox circuit
for normal fault clearing time (0.1 s)
3-phase permanent fault near Chats Falls 230-kV bus resulting in the loss of the circuit
towards Nepean.
For each of these contingencies, simulations were carried assuming the following six operating
scenarios, therefore amounting to 12 study cases. Simulated responses are shown in Figures
identified in parentheses:
Case 1:
Base case operating scenario, therefore assuming no load growth and no new
generation. This represents the benchmark response reflecting the response of the
existing network for comparison. (Figure 24 and Figure 25)
Case 2:
100% load growth at Hawthorne 230-kV bus without any new generation, representing
the limiting scenario for steady-state stability. (Figure 26 and Figure 27)
Case 3:
100% load growth matches new generation (denoted hereafter as DG, in brief) such
that there is no net impact on load flows in the bulk network. Upon occurrence of a
system disturbance, all connected DG is assumed to trip, subjecting the network to the
full burden of supplying the assumed load growth. This mode of DG operation may be
interpreted to correspond to present practice involving all DG types (power converter
or rotating) with aggressive trip settings. (Figure 28 and Figure 29)
33
March 2006
Case 4:
Repeat Case 3 with DG modeled explicitly as a classical machine, representing a

power converter based unit without voltage control or a rotating machine based DG
with manual field excitation control. (Figure 30 and Figure 31)
Case 5:
DG is modeled explicitly as a classical machine with 100% load growth as before, but
not tripped during the disturbance. This illustrates possible beneficial impact on
network response due to local DG support. (Figure 32 and Figure 33)
Case 6:
DG is modeled explicitly as a conventional round rotor machine with fast responding

static excitation system for voltage control. This can be interpreted as representing
conventional rotating generator or an advanced breed of grid-friendly power
converter based DG designed to artificially mimic the same behaviour. All DG is
assume to remain in service during disturbance. Note that premature tripping defaults
to the scenario modeled in Cases 4. (Figure 34 and Figure 35)
The results of the simulations illustrate that the rotors of all existing conventional machines (at
Lennox, Saunders and Chats Falls) oscillate in concert against the rest of the system represented
here by the Cherrywood bus. The oscillations appear to be well damped, decaying within 10 s
even in the absence of modern static exciters on the available generators. This should be viewed
as demonstrating that angular stability is unlikely to be a limiting constraint for the modeled
network in the near future even in the event of large-scale DG penetration, and even assuming
aggressive tripping provided that adequate generating reserve can be made available to offset the
resource shortfall.
5.4
Assessment
The overriding requirement for future supply security in the Ottawa area appears to be the
provision of reactive support. New generation, whether in the form of DG or more conventional
units, will be most effective if it can contribute this capacity. Otherwise, network upgrades in the
form of transmission line reinforcement or other forms of reactive apparatus (e.g. capacitor
banks, or more advanced FACTS4 devices) will be necessary. Analysis suggests that from the
standpoint of maintaining steady-state stability in the region:
Existing resources can accommodate about 150% increase in local load at Hawthorne in
normal operation (representing almost 60% of the regions aggregate load) neglecting any
contingencies that cause an outage on certain critical lines. This can be interpreted in a
number of ways. It can mean that up to 150% load growth can be accommodated without any
DGs subject to availability of generating resources elsewhere in the province. Alternatively,
it can infer an even greater load growth that is partially offset by new local DG resources,
Commonly used industry term denoting Flexible AC Transmission Systems, and generally referring to advanced
power-converter based apparatus.
34
March 2006
and provided that no more than specified amount of generating resource (in MW)
experiences a sudden outage (e.g. due to aggressive tripping).
The foregoing projection is overly optimistic given that it does not contemplate any
contingencies that could result in the loss of a critical network element. Making this
allowance reduces the available margin for load growth to about 50% of existing Hawthorne
load (or alternatively, no more than this amount of net generation loss in a single contingency
event).
If new generating capacity matching load growth is added, but restricted to operation at unity
power factor, the regions ability to accommodate load growth is enhanced marginally,
reaching about 100% of existing Hawthorne load.
If local generating resources are able to carry their proportionate share of reactive load, as per
existing practice for utility generation, the available margin reverts to that given in (a) subject
to immediate availability of local DG resources subsequent to a contingency and possible
thermal loading limitations for local power infrastructure.
In the event that new DG capacity outpaces load growth, the region has adequate capacity to
export the surplus to other load centres in the province, given that the major transmission
corridors are lightly loaded.
Angular stability is found not to be a limiting constraint for dictating permissible levels of DG
penetration.
The foregoing conclusions can therefore be generalized as follows. Permissible levels of DG
penetration are unlikely to be dictated by angular stability concerns in grid networks serving the
fringes of larger urban networks that (a) serve loads over distances of a few hundred kilometres,
(b) have sufficient generating reserves as well as thermal transmission capacity in the backbone
to make up the generation shortfall resulting from unplanned DG capacity outages. Steady-state
voltage stability considerations, based on assessment of the voltage levels in the network
following the loss of DG capacity, are more likely to be a governing factor. This is generally the
case if generating resources are more distant from the load centres (as for instance for the Hydro
Quebec system, where major generating resources are remote from major load centres near
Montreal), since reactive support is not transported efficiently over large distances. Finally, we
note that these conclusions take into account normally anticipated single-event contingencies,
and do not rely on DG to provide post-contingency support.
These findings complement the results of a similar study carried out by Miller/4/, differing in
certain fundamental respects. The latter study covered a much larger network comprising the
entire WECC grid (including over 12,000 buses and almost 2,300 generators), serving large parts
of Western Canada and the United States. The model therefore included all of the generation in
35
March 2006
the system, obviating the need for an infinite bus (equivalent to a swing bus in loadflow
solution), having the capacity to make up any generation shortfall caused by generator outages.
Accordingly, the model exhibited larger frequency deviations during disturbances than in the
present study. This allowed the study to examine the impact of various DG control strategies
(governor and excitation systems) on system dynamics. Maximum DG penetration level
considered was limited to 20% of system demand. The study concluded that while the various
DG controls evidently alter the nature of system dynamics following disturbances (e.g. damping
of the resulting oscillations), the system was not at risk of losing angular or voltage stability
immediately after the disturbance (first swing instability). Instead, the primary risk was overly
aggressive under-frequency trip settings on DG units that could cause cascaded tripping of units,
and ultimately yield an unmanageable generation shortfall.
Accordingly, the findings of these two studies, taken together, may be reduced to the following
conclusion when applied to large-scale DG penetration in power systems. Although DG controls
will inevitably influence the nature of system dynamics, the imminent threat to system security is
more likely to arise from reactionary (undesirable or overly aggressive) operation of protections
than from first-swing instability.
36
March 2006
Figure 13 Power flows relative to thermal line ratings
37
March, 2006
Figure 14 Load in Ottawa area increased by 150%
38
March, 2006
Figure 15 Outage on both Lennox units and 150% load growth in Ottawa area
39
March, 2006
Figure 16 Chats Falls (2 units) outage, 150% load growth near Ottawa
40
March, 2006
Figure 17 Line outage at Chats Falls curtailing reactive power support
41
March, 2006
Figure 18 Outage on a 500-kV Lennox circuit yielding unacceptable voltage levels
42
March, 2006
Figure 19 Outage on a 500-kV Lennox circuit limits and 50% load growth
43
March, 2006
Figure 20 Load growth matched by DG capacity (unity power factor), and considering line-outage contingency at Chats Falls
44
March, 2006
Figure 21 DG contribution limited to reactive support during line-outage at Chats Falls
45
March, 2006
Figure 22 100% Load growth matched by Local DG Penetration; line outage at Chats Falls
46
March, 2006
Figure 23 100% Load growth matched by Local DG Penetration; 500-kV circuit outage
47
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
80
40
20
0
-20
Freq deviation (pu)
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
60
10
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.005
-0.005
10
1000
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)

St Law-Hawth (81261)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
St Law-Hinch (81260)
Chts-Cherrywd (81131)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
750
500
250
0
0
10
TIME (s)
Figure 24
Hawthorne fault scenario; Base operating posture
48
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
60
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
40
20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.004
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
10
600
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)

Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
400
200
-200
10
TIME (s)
Figure 25
Chats Falls fault scenario; Base operating posture
49
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
75
50
25
-25
Freq deviation (pu)
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
10
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.005
-0.005
10
1500
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
1000
500
-500
10
TIME (s)
Figure 26
Hawthorne fault scenario; 100% Load Growth at Hawthorne, no new generation
50
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
60
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
40
20
-20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.004
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
10
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
600
300
-300
0
10
TIME (s)
Figure 27
Chats Falls fault scenario; 100% Load Growth at Hawthorne, no new generation
51
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
80
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
60
40
20
0
-20
10
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
Freq deviation (pu)
0.005
-0.005
10
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
800
400
10
TIME (s)
Figure 28
Hawthorne fault scenario; 100% load surge at Hawthorne (simulating DG tripping)
52
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
60
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
40
20
-20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.004
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
10
750
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)

Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
500
250
-250
10
TIME (s)
Figure 29
Chats Falls fault scenario; 100% load surge at Hawthorne (simulating DG tripping)
53
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.9
0.6
0.3
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
80
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
60
40
20
0
-20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.0050
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.0025
-0.0025
-0.0050
10
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
800
400
10
TIME (s)
Figure 30
Hawthorne fault scenario; Constant Voltage DG matching 100% Load Growth

Trips at Hawthorne
54
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
60
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
40
20
-20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.004
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
10
800
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
600
400
200
0
-200
10
TIME (s)
Figure 31
Chats Falls fault scenario; Constant Voltage DG matching 100% Load Growth
Trips at Hawthorne
55
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.9
0.6
0.3
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
80
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
60
40
20
0
-20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.0050
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.0025
-0.0025
-0.0050
10
1000
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
750
500
250
0
0
10
TIME (s)
Figure 32
Hawthorne fault scenario; Constant Voltage model DG matching 100% Load

Growth remains I/S
56
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
60
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
40
20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.0030
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0030
10
600
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
400
200
-200
10
TIME (s)
Figure 33
Chats Falls fault scenario; Constant Voltage DG matching 100% Load Growth
remains I/S
57
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.3
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
75
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
50
25
-25
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.015
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.010
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.010
10
1200
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)

Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
800
400
-400
10
TIME (s)
Figure 34
Hawthorne fault scenario; Rotating DG with exciter matching 100% Load Growth,
remains in service.
58
March, 2006
Bus Voltage (pu)
1.2
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.8
0.4
10
Rotor Angle (deg)
60
Lennox G2 (230-kV)
Lennox G4 (500-kV)
Chats G1 (81406)
Saunders G1 (81429)
40
20
10
Freq deviation (pu)
0.004
Lennox 500
Lennox 230
Hawth 230
Chats Falls
St Lawrence
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
10
600
Lnx-Hawth (500 kV)
Chts-Hawth (81240)
Lnx-Bowm
P (MW)
400
200
-200
10
TIME (s)
Figure 35
Chats Falls fault scenario; Rotating DG with exciter matching 100% Load Growth,
remains in service.
59
March, 2006
References
[1]
IEEE Std 1547-2003. IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems, July 2003.
[2]
Power System Stability and Control, Prabha Kundur, McGraw Hill Inc, New York, 1994.
[3]
Voltage Stability of Electric Power Systems, Van Cutsem T. and Vournas C., Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1998.
[4]
N. Miller and Z. Ye, Report on Distributed Generation Penetration Study, NREL/SR560-34715, August 2003.
[5]
IEEE Committee Report, Transient Stability Test Systems for Direct Stability Methods,
Prepared by the IEEE Stability Test Systems Task Force of the Dynamic System
Performance Subcommittee, IEEE T-PAS Vol 7, No 1, February 1992.
[6]
J.G. Slootweg et al, Modeling New Generation and Storage Technologies in Power
System Dynamics Simulations, Presented at 2002 IEEE Power Engineering Society
Summer Meeting.
[7]
Philip P. Barker and Bradley K. Johnson, Power System Modeling Requirements for
Rotating Machine Interfaced Distributed Resources, Presented at IEEE PES Summer
Power Meeting, 2002.
[8]
Les Hajagos, Digital Static Pilot Exciter Test Report Chats Falls Units 2-5, Ontario
Power Technologies Report 7095-050-1998-RA-0001-R00, November 22, 1999.
[9]
R. Berube, Governor Test Report Otto Holden GS, Ontario Power Technologies
Report 8264-020-RA-0002-R00, July 28, 2000.
[10]
Excitation System Acceptance Tests Lambton TGS, Unit G2, Ontario Power
Technologies Report 7095-060-1998-RA-0001-R00, 1998.
[11]
W.B. Gish, Small Induction Generator and Synchronous Generator Constants for DSG
Isolation Studies, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol PWRD-1, No 1, April
1986.
[12]
IEEE Std 421.5-1992, Recommended Practice for Excitation System Models for Power
System Stability Studies.
[13]
P. Kundur et al, Application of Power System Stabilizers for Enhancement of Overall

System Stability, IEEE T-PAS Vol 4, No 2, May 1989.
60
March, 2006
[14]
IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance, Load

Representation for Dynamic Performance Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol 8, no 2, May 1993.
[15]
IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance, Standard Load
Models for Power Flow and Dynamic Performance Simulation, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol 10, no 3, Aug 1995.
[16]
Ian A. Hiskens, Significance of Load Modelling in Power System Dynamics, X

Symposium of Specialists in Electric Operational and Expansion Planning, May 21-25,
2006, Florianopolis, Brasil.
[17]
Document A-2: Basic Criteria for Design and Operation of Interconnected Power
Systems, Northeast Power Coordinating Council, August 1995.
[18]
G.K. Morrison et al , Voltage Stability Analysis Using Static and Dynamic

Approaches, IEEE T-PAS Vol 8, No 3, August 1993.
61
March, 2006
62
March, 2006
Bibliography
7.1
Distribution System Impacts
B1
F.C. Schweppe et al. "Homeostatic Utility Control". IEEE PAS V 99 (1980) n 3 (May) p
1151.
B2
G.L. Park and O.W. Zastrow. "Interconnection Issues Concerning Consumer-Owned

Wind Electric Generators". IEEE PAS 101 (1982) n 7 (July) p 2375.
B3
R.C. Dugan, W.T. Jewell and D.J. Roesler. Harmonics and Reactive Power from LineCommutated Inverters in Proposed Photovoltaic Subdivision. IEEE PAS 102 (1983) n 9
(Sep) p 3205.
B4
R.C. Dugan. Check Dispersed-Generation Harmonics. Electrical World, Jan 1984 p 75.
B5
R.C. Dugan and D.T. Rizy. "Electric Distribution Protection Problems Associated with
the Interconnection of Small Dispersed Generation Devices". IEEE PAS V 103 (1984) n
6 (Jun) p 1121.
B6
M.F. McGranaghan, R.C. Dugan, J.A. King and W.T. Jewell. Distribution Feeder
Harmonic Study Methodology. IEEE PAS V 103 (1984) n 12 (Dec) p 3663.
B7
D.T. Rizy and W.T. Jewell. Power Quality and Protection of Electric Distribution
Systems with Small, Dispersed Generation Devices. IEEE 16th Southeastern
Symposium on Systems, 1984.
B8
T. Jewell and T. Rizy. Interconnection Problems Associated with Small Dispersed

Electric Generators and Inverter Devices. ISA Trans V 23 (1984) n 2 p 21.
B9
Paul Longrigg. Effects on Electrical Distribution Networks of Dispersed Power

Generation at High Levels of Connection Penetration. International Journal of Ambient
Energy V 13 (1992) n 4 (Oct) p 199.
B10
D. Kundu. "Technical Requirements to Connect Parallel Generators to the Ontario Hydro

Distribution Electrical System", IEEE Energy Conversion, V 7 (1992) n 1 (Mar) p 8.
B11
M.F. McGranaghan et al. Impact of Utility Switched Capacitors on Customer Systems

Magnification at Low Voltage Capacitors. IEEE PAS V 7 (1992) n 2 (Apr) p 862.
63
March, 2006
B12
D. Kundu et al. "Electrical Impact of a Nug Under 5 MW Rating When Connected to a

Distribution Feeder with Various Transformer Connections". IEEE Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, Irvine Ca, 1994.
B13
A. Bagnasco et al. Management and Dynamic Performances of Combined Cycle Power

Plants During Parallel and Islanding Operations. IEEE EC V 13 (1998) n 2 (Jun) p 194.
B14
J.L. Keopfinger. "Barriers to Interconnection of Distributed Generation and Other

Issues". Presentation to EEI Distributed Resources Task Force, Chicago, Jun 1998.
B15
M.W. Davis. System Protection Options and Relative Costs. Presentation to EEI
Distributed Resources Task Force, Chicago, Jun 1998.
B16.
P. Barker, T. Leskan, H. Zaininger and D. Smith, Integration of Distributed Resources in

Electric Utility Systems: Current Interconnection Practice and Unified Approach EPRI
TR-111489, Nov 1998.
B17.
E.P. Dick et al, Integration of Distributed Resources in the Electric Utility Distribution
Systems: Distribution System Behavior Analysis for Suburban Feeder, EPRI TR
111490, Nov 1998.
B18.
E.P. Dick, R.W. Beresh and R.D. Quick, Integration of Distributed Resources in the
Electric Utility Distribution Systems: Distribution System Behavior Analysis for Urban
and Rural Feeders, EPRI TR 112737, Nov 1999.
B19.
M. Davis, D. Costyk and A. Narang. Distributed and Electric Power System

Aggregation Model and Field Configuration Equivalency Validation Testing. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory Report 560-33909, July 2003.
B20.
G.L. Campen. Results of the Harmonics Measurement Program at the John F. Long
Photovoltaic House. Oak Ridge National Lab report ORNL-5838, 1982.
7.2
Industry Standards
B21
ANSI/IEEE Std 929-1988. "IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of

Residential and Intermediate Photovoltaic (PV) Systems." May 1987.
B22
ANSI/IEEE Std 1021-1988. "Recommended Practice for Utility Interconnection of Small

Wind Energy Conversion Systems". May 1987.
B23
ANSI/IEEE Std 1001-1988. "IEEE Guide for Interfacing Dispersed Storage and
Generation Facilities with Electric Utility Systems." Apr 1989.
64
March, 2006
B24
ANSI/IEEE Std 1035-1989. "IEEE Recommended Practice: Test Procedure for UtilityInterconnected Static Power Converters", Jun 1989.
B25
IEEE C37.95-1989. "IEEE Guide for Protective Relaying of Utility-Consumer

Interconnections." Jun 1989.
B26
ANSI C84.1-1989. American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and
Equipment Voltage Ratings (60 Hertz), New York, 1989.
B27
IEEE. "National Electrical Safety Code Handbook". A discussion of Grounding Rules,

General Rules and Parts 1 to 4 of the 1990 Edition of the National Electrical Safety Code.
B28
IEC Std 1000-2-2. Electromagnetic Compatibility, Part 2: Environment, Section 2:

Compatibility levels for low-frequency conducted disturbances and signalling in public
low-voltage power supply systems. CEI 1990.
B29
IEEE Std 1094-1991. "Recommended Practice for the Electrical Design and Operation of
Windfarm Generating Stations". Apr 91.
B30
IEEE Std 519-1992. "Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control
in Electrical Power Systems". Jan 93.
B31
ANSI/IEEE Std C2-1993. "National Electrical Safety Code".
B32
National Fire Protection Association. "National Fire Codes". Volume 3 covering

electrical equipment, 1996 Edition.
B33
D.S. Dorr. Evolution of the New CMEMA Curve. EPRI Power Electronics
Applications Center, Knoxville Tennessee, 1996.
B34.
IEEE Std 1547-2003. IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems, July 2003.
7.3
Utility Standards
B35
D. Kundu. "Technical Requirements to Connect Parallel Generating Systems to the

Ontario Hydro Distribution Electricity System." Ontario Hydro Distribution Planning and
Design report 1900p46, Jan 1988.
B36
Brad King. "An Outline of Idaho Power Co Cogeneration and Small Power Producers
(CSPP) Protection Requirements". Report to Northwest Power Pool Meeting, Boise
Idaho, Sep 1988 with notes added Feb 1998.
65
March, 2006
B37
7.4
Ohio Edison/Penn Power. General Conditions for Interconnection of Customer-Owned

Generation With the Ohio Edison System. Revision 2, Apr 1996.
Major Reports
B38
A.B. Sturton Consultants, Inc. "Preliminary Survey on Connection of Dispersed

Generation at the Distribution Level." Canadian Electrical Association report SD-128,
May 1981, 50 p.
B39
IEEE Power Engineering Society Tutorial. "Intertie Protection of Consumer-Owned

Source of Generation, 3 MVA or Less." Power System Relaying Committee report
88TH0224-6-PWR, 1988, 33 p.
B40
Gulachenski et al. Photovoltaic Generation Effects on Distribution Feeders. EPRI

Report El-6754s Vol 2, Sep 1991, 139 p.
B41
D.C. Blackburn, Jr. et al. "Static Power Converters of 500 kW or less Serving as the
Relay Interface Package for Non-Conventional Generators." IEEE Power System Relay
Committee report TH 5975, Feb 1993, 50 p.
B42
A.B. Sturton, S. Otal, J. Carr. "Connecting Small Generators to Utility Distribution

Systems." Canadian Electrical Association Report 128 D 767, Jun 1994, ~200 p.
B43
R.C. Dugan and G. Ball. "Engineering Handbook for Dispersed Energy Systems on
Utility Distribution Systems". EPRI Report TR 105 589, Nov 1995, 125 p.
B44
J.B. Cardell and M. Illic. The Control and Operation of Distributed Generation in a
Competitive Electric Market". Chapter 12 of: M. Ilic, F. Galiana, C. Fink. Power
Systems Restructuring Engineering and Economics. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston,
1998, 65 p.
B45
E. Wong et al. Collaborative Report and Action Agenda. California Alliance for
Distributed Energy Resources, Jan 1998, ~ 250 p.
B46
P. Barker et al. Distributed Resources Interconnection Guidelines and Recommended

Practices. EPRI Report, Mar 1998.
66
March, 2006

2006-089 (TR) Kinectrics DG Stability e

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2006-089 (TR) Kinectrics DG Stability e

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DEVON

CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

C TEe CENTRE DE LA TECHNOLOGIE DE L'NERGIE DE CANMET

Scientific Authority : Chad Abbey

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Impact of large-scale distributed generation penetration on power system stability.............................. 3

Objectives & Scope ................................................................................................................................ 6

The Stability Problem............................................................................................................................. 7

Candidate Study System......................................................................................................................... 9

Load Representation .......................................................................................................29

Impact of Large-Scale DG Penetration ................................................................................................ 30

5.1 Study Scenarios...............................................................................................................30

7.1 Distribution System Impacts...........................................................................................63

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Impact of large-scale distributed generation penetration on

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

They are generally classified as being non-dispatchable, delivering power sporadically or at

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Objectives & Scope

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

The Stability Problem

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Candidate Study System

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Figure 1 Simplified representation of transmission network serving Ottawa area

North American Electric Reliability Council

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Ontario Easter Power Grid

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Figure 4 Solved base case for the truncated study system

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Generation Resources & Characteristics

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Figure 5 Required DG response to abnormal system voltages/1/

Figure 6 Required DG response to abnormal system frequency/1/

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

response to changes in voltage or frequency, including the contribution of prime movers,

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Table 1 Lennox generator model parameters

d-axis transient time constant (s)

Figure 7 IEEE Type ST1 Excitation System Model

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Figure 8 PSS/E IEEEG1 Turbine-Governor Model

Figure 9 PSS/E IEEEST Stabilizer model

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

Table 4 Lennox stabilizer model parameters /2 p. 815/

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)

d-axis transient time constant (s)

Figure 10 PSS/E IEEEX1 (IEEE Type 1) Excitation System Model

Report CETC 2006-089 (TR)