Global Survey of Regulatory Approaches and Quality and Reliability of the Power Supply System

1008591

Global Survey of Regulatory Approaches and Quality and Reliability of the Power Supply System
1008591 Technical Update, October 2004

EPRI Project Manager D. Metz

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. ORGANIZATION THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT EPRI PEAC Corp.

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520. Toll-free number: 800.313.3774, press 2, or internally x5379; voice: 925.609.9169; fax: 925.609.1310. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 2004 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This report was prepared by EPRI PEAC Corporation 942 Corridor Park Blvd. Knoxville, TN 37932 Principal Investigators M. McGranaghan K. Forsten This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Global Survey of Regulatory Approaches and Quality and Reliability of the Power Supply System, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1008591.

iii

CONTENTS
1 UNDERSTANDING PQ AND RELIABILITY OF THE SUPPLY SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................................................1-1 Benchmarking Power Quality and Reliability Levels ............................................................1-1 2 THE WORK OF CIGRE C4.07 ...............................................................................................2-1 Scope and Objectives ..........................................................................................................2-1 Approach..............................................................................................................................2-1 3 STEADY STATE POWER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................3-1 Harmonics ............................................................................................................................3-1 MV Measurement Results ..............................................................................................3-3 HV Measurement Results ..............................................................................................3-3 EHV Measurement Results............................................................................................3-4 Conclusions Regarding Harmonic Measurement Results..............................................3-4 Flicker...................................................................................................................................3-5 Conclusions Regarding Flicker Measurement Results ..................................................3-9 Flicker Considerations....................................................................................................3-9 Unbalance ..........................................................................................................................3-10 Conclusions Regarding Voltage Unbalance Measurement Results.............................3-12 4 VOLTAGE SAGS (DIPS) AND MOMENTARY INTERRUPTIONS ........................................4-1 Comparison of MV Survey Data...........................................................................................4-1 Comparison of HV Survey Data ...........................................................................................4-3 Comparison of EHV Survey Data.........................................................................................4-5 Average Statistics ................................................................................................................4-6 Conclusions Regarding Voltage Dip Measurement Results ................................................4-8

5 RELIABILITY (LONG INTERRUPTIONS)..............................................................................5-1 Cigre Working Group ...........................................................................................................5-1 Second Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electric Supply, Council of European Regulators5-3 EPRI Report on Distribution Reliability Reporting in the United States................................5-6 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................6-1

vi

UNDERSTANDING PQ AND RELIABILITY OF THE SUPPLY SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS

Benchmarking Power Quality and Reliability Levels In recent years, as many electric utilities wrestle with deregulation issues, their customers are becoming even more concerned about the possible decline in reliability and power quality due to cost-cutting measures. Regulators throughout the world are trying to determine methods for assuring that the reliability and quality of the supply system does not deteriorate as deregulation of the industry takes place. Benchmarking of performance is often used by regulators and industry for comparison of quality and reliability. In order to be useful, benchmarking efforts need to use common indices, data collection and calculation methods, and documentation of the system characteristics associated with the power quality and reliability performance. There have been some significant efforts in both IEEE and IEC to work towards common indices for the different categories of power quality and reliability. In the first technical update, we focused on the recent efforts of the Joint Working Group Cigre C4.07/CIRED to define Power Quality and Reliability Indices. The final report, entitled Power Quality Indices and Objectives (CIGRE 4.07 Working Group: 2004), from this working group was published in 2003 and provides recommended indices for both power quality and reliability, along with results of surveys of existing reliability and quality levels from around the world. The indices as detailed in the report were the primary basis for the first technical update by EPRI PID 1008590 entitled Indices for Characterizing Quality and Reliability of the Power System. In this update, we will provide an overview of actual survey results from the Cigre C4.07/CIRED joint working group as well as some other benchmarking surveys conducted throughout the world. Specific details on measurement results for each survey are provided in the Joint Working Group Cigre C4.07/CIRED Power Quality Indices and Objectives Annex B Detailed Measurement Data.

1-1

THE WORK OF CIGRE C4.07

Scope and Objectives The joint working group CIGRE C4.07/ CIRED was formed in 2000 with the task of researching available power quality measurement data and existing indices for MV, HV and EHV systems1 with the intention of recommending a set of internationally relevant power quality indices and objectives. The overall intent of the working group was to provide a comprehensive recommendation on quality planning levels to determine emission limits for disturbing installations, provide recommendations on voltage characteristics to regulators and system users, and to influence power monitoring instrument manufacturers to improve products in order to comply with the new IEC 61000-4-30 (2003, Power Quality Measurement Methods) and provide the associated quality indices. Ultimately the desire is that these indices will help facilitate the future presentation of power quality data to third parties, typically regulators and customers. Approach This Working Group report presents power quality data gathered from several different countries across a number of monitoring points over a number of years. The report provides guidance on the key factors that need to be considered when gathering and presenting data. In so doing the report considers the benefits of consistency but recognizes the inherent differences between different electrical systems and different power quality objectives. The report develops the case for a consistent set of power quality indices and objectives that can be seen as the outer envelope of performance for each power quality parameter. Relevant power quality indices are prerequisites for assessing site and system performance with respect to power quality. Such indices will eventually facilitate the task of system operators with their obligation to routinely report power quality performance. Some site indices have already been defined in standards, but others are still missing - in particular for high and extra-high voltage (HV-EHV) systems. A major role of the working group activities was the collection of measurement data. Although the working group did not perform any measurements itself, it collected survey results from past or ongoing surveys. Much of the data is reported in an anonymous manner, except for cases that were found in other published material. This technical update is a summary of the measurement results available from the Cigre working group as well as results of other surveys that the research team has collected.

Unless otherwise specified in this report, definitions of LV, MV, HV and EHV are indicative and based on IEC definitions: LV is 1 kV or less, MV is from 1kV to 35 kV included, HV is from 35 kV to 230 kV included, and EHV is higher than 230kV.

2-1

In the first technical update, the indices were categorized as: Steady State Power Quality Characteristics including Harmonics, Flicker and Unbalance Voltage Sags (Dips) and Momentary Interruptions Reliability (Long Interruptions)

This technical update will provide summary of measurement results in each of these categories from both the Cigre working group as well as other available survey reports.

2-2

STEADY STATE POWER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS

The Cigre C4.07/CIRED working group addressed the following types of continuous power quality characteristics: Harmonics Flicker Unbalance This chapter provides a summary of the measurement results for steady state power quality characteristics as set forth in the Cigre report as well as other surveys for comparison. Harmonics Table 3-1 gives a summary of the survey results summarized in the CIGRE report. The table shows for each survey the statistical parameters, the harmonic orders, the number of sites and duration, and it shows which surveys had measurements that complied with the procedures of 61000-4-30.
Table 3-1 Summary of General Parameters for Harmonic Surveys Survey H-1 Index and Statistical Parameters Harmonic Orders Voltage Levels Number of Sites Duration Each Site 1 week MV HV EHV 2 45, THD 2 25, THD HV EHV MV HV EHV 118 32 3 43 205 7 4 1 20 months 36 months 36 months 1 week 1 week Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Comply Criteria

MV: Uh,sh95 + Uh,sh99 both for all-sites 2 45, and 95%-site THD HV: Uh,vs95 + Uh,vs99 + Uh,sh95 + Uh,sh99 for all-sites and 95%-site

H-2

Uh,sh95 + Uh,sh99 for all-sites and 95%-site Uh,sh95

H-3

3-1

Table 3-1 (cont.) Summary of General Parameters for Harmonic Surveys Survey H-4 Index and Statistical Parameters Uh,vsmax Harmonic Orders 2 45, THD 2 13, THD 5, THD 1 50, THD 3, 5, 7, 11 Voltage Levels MV HV MV HV, EHV HV MV HV EHV H-9 H-10 Uh,sh95 for all-sites and 95%-site Uh,sh95 for all-sites and 95%-site 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, THD 2, 3, 5, 7, THD 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 2 45, THD HV HV EHV HV MV Number of Sites 28 14 5 59 10 60 60 12 21 64 3 54 2 Duration Each Site Few hours to few days 1 day 5 days 3 years 1 week 1 week 1 week 1 week 2 years 2 years 3 years 12 weeks Comply Criteria No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

H-5 H-6 H-7 H-8

Uh,vs95 Uh,shmax Uh,vs95 + Uh,sh95 + Uh,vsmax + Uh,shmax for all-sites and 95%-site Uh,sh95 + Uh,shmax for all-sites and 95%-site.

H-11 H-12 Where:

Uh,sh95 for all-sites and 95%-site Uh,sh95, Uh,sh99

Uh,vs95: the greatest 95% probability daily value of Uh,vs (vs: 3-sec rms values) Uh,vs99: the greatest 99% probability daily value of Uh,vs Uh,vsmax: the maximum daily value of Uh,vs Uh,sh95: the greatest 95% probability weekly value of Uh,sh (sh:10-min rms values) Uh,sh99: the greatest 99% probability weekly value of Uh,sh Uh,shmax: the maximum weekly value of Uh,sh

3-2

The collection of survey results from the Cigre working group indicated that several methods were used; e.g. in some cases 1-min integration time instead of 10-min, some results were based on less than a full week of measurements, and different indices were used (average value or 95%-site). To take into consideration these issues, some assumptions were made (1-minute values will be considered as a short time and 5-seconds as a very short time) and all the survey results for harmonics were filtered according to the following criteria: Harmonic measurements made using capacitive voltage transformers are not considered. Only harmonic surveys consisting of 10 sites or more for at least one-week duration are reported. The most common index used is the maximum and 95% probability levels for the 10 minute harmonic values, Uh,sh95. These indices are used to summarize the results. For comparison purposes with planning levels in IEC 61000-3-6, a global average consisting of the mean value of harmonic voltages among the available surveys is shown in the following graphs. MV Measurement Results At MV, only 2 valid surveys (totaling 178 sites) met the criteria. The results are provided in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 MV Harmonic Survey Results Measurement Results Measurement Results Planning Max-Site for Uh,sh95 Harmonic Order 95%-Site for Uh,sh95 Levels Min Max Mean Min Max Mean 3 5 7 11 1,5 2,56 1,3 0,5 2,8 4,5 1,5 0,95 2,15 3,53 1,4 0,75 2 4,2 1,5 1 3,7 5 3,4 3,8 2,85 4,6 2,4 2,4 4 5 4 3

HV Measurement Results At the HV level, 7 valid measurement surveys totaling 284 sites were identified. The results in tabular form are provided in Table 3-3.

3-3

Table 3-3 HV Harmonic Survey Results Measurement Results Measurement Results Planning Max-Site for Uh,sh95 Harmonic Order 95%-Site for Uh,sh95 Levels
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

3 5 7 11

0,62 1,0 0,4 0,48

1,51 3 2,14 1,24

1,13 2,13 1,22 0,64

1 1 0,4 0,5

2,51 3,2 2,4 1,5

1,5 2,5 1,3 0,78

2 2 2 1,5

EHV Measurement Results For EHV harmonic levels, 2 valid surveys totaling 217 sites were identified and the results are provided in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 EHV Harmonic Survey Results Measurement Results Measurement Results Planning Max-Site for Uh,sh95 Harmonic Order 95%-Site for Uh,sh95 Levels Min Max Mean Min Max Mean 3 5 7 11 0,6 1,81 0,66 0,56 0,71 2,4 1 0,6 0,65 2,1 0,83 0,58 0,6 2,51 1 0,6 1,4 3 1 0,71 1 2,75 1 0,65 2 2 2 1,5

Conclusions Regarding Harmonic Measurement Results Although limited survey data is available meeting the criteria of sufficient sampling duration and measurements according to IEC 61000-4-30, the results presented show that harmonic distortion levels are generally within planning levels at medium voltage levels but harmonic distortion levels can be exceeding planning levels at some HV and EHV locations (see Figure 3-1 for a summary of different surveys at HV illustrating the relatively high 5th harmonic levels). This may be the results of increasing use of capacitor banks at these higher voltages and resonance issues.
3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 h=3 h=5 h=7 h=11

3-4

Figure 3-1 Low-Order Harmonic Voltages (Ordinate in %) From Seven Different Surveys at HV for Uh,sh 95 Considering All Sites (284 Sites)

Flicker In general, statistically valid samples of flicker levels are not readily available. Most flicker measurements are the result of investigations into specific problems and, therefore, the results tend to be distorted towards sites with higher flicker levels. Some results are nevertheless presented for completeness and to indicate the ranges of flicker levels that are possible. Table 3-5 summarizes the surveys that are used to generate flicker results. The results are presented in the subsequent figures.
Table 3-5 Summary of General Parameters for Flicker Surveys Survey F-1-5 F-6-7 F-8 F-9-11 F-12 F-13 F-14 F-15-16 F-17 F-18 F-19 Index and Statistical Parameters Pst 95 , Plt 95 Pst 95, Pst 99 Pst 95, Pst 99 and Pst max Plt 95 Pst 95, Pst 99 and Plt 95, Plt 99 Pst 95, Pst 99 and Plt 95, Plt 99 Plt 95, Plt 99 and Plt max and Pst 95, Pst 99 and Pst max for 1 site Pst 95, Pst 99 Pst 95 Comparison of statistical data Plt 95, Plt 99 daily and weekly profiles over 2,5 years Duration 2-3 wk. 1 month 3 wk. to 1 yr. 1 wk. 3 wk. to 6 months 8 days 3 - 8 days 1 wk. 1 wk. 2,5 years Voltage Levels MV, HV HV, EHV MV, HV EHV HV, EHV MV HV HV, EHV HV HV, EHV LV to EHV EHV Number of Sites 5 6 7 18 112 12 6 2 41 37 1

3-5

80% 70%

Percentage of sites per voltage level

MV: 118 sites

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0-0.4 0.8-1 1-1.2 1.8-2 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 1.2-1.4 1.4-1.6 1.6-1.8 2-2.2 2.2-2.4 2.4-2.6

HV : 65 sites

EHV:18 sites

Pst 95% [p.u.]

Figure 3-2 Measurement Data for Flicker Pst 95 at MV, HV and EHV All Sites

3-6

80% 70%

Percentage of sites per voltage level

MV : 115 sites
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

HV : 35 sites
EHV : 7 sites

0-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

1-1.2

1.2-1.4

1.4-1.6

1.6-1.8

1.8-2

2-2.2

Plt 95% [p.u.]

Figure 3-3 Measurement Data for Flicker Plt 95 at MV, HV and EHV All Sites

3-7

2.2-2.4

60% Percentage of sites per voltage level

50%

MV : 115 sites
40%

HV : 19 sites
EHV: 6 sites

30%

20%

10%

0% 0-0.4 1-1.2 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 1.2-1.4 1.4-1.6 1.6-1.8 2-2.2 2.2-2.4 2.4-2.6 2.6-3.6 0.8-1 1.8-2

Pst 99% [p.u.]

Figure 3-4 Measurement Data for Flicker Pst 99 at MV, HV and EHV All Sites

3-8

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Percentage of sites per voltage level

MV : 108 sites

HV : 11 sites
EHV: 6 sites

2.2 - 2.4

2.4 - 2.6

2.6 - 2.8

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

1.2-1.4

1.4-1.6

Plt 99% [p.u.]

Figure 3-5 Measurement Data for Flicker Plt 99 at MV, HV and EHV All Sites

Conclusions Regarding Flicker Measurement Results Although statistically valid measurements of flicker levels are not usually available, the limited results illustrate that some locations may have flicker levels exceeding the planning levels (sometimes by a factor of 2), often without complaints of problems. Flicker Considerations Since the results show that flicker levels can sometimes exceed planning levels and yet there may be no complaints about flicker levels, it is useful to review some basic characteristics of flicker. Voltage fluctuations that produce flicker are on the order of few percent or less and usually do not result in problems with equipment or processes. Flicker limits are based only on visual discomfort induced by light variations resulting from the voltage fluctuations.

3-9

1.6-1.8

2.8 - 3

0-0.4

0.8-1

1-1.2

1.8-2

2-2.2

3+

Perception of flicker depends on the physiology of the eye-brain of the person subjected to the luminance fluctuation (flicker is a subjective perception). Flicker was originally related to the behavior of a 230 V, 60 W incandescent light bulb when subjected to voltage fluctuations. Other types of lighting may be less susceptible to light variations and flicker perception problems when subjected to the same voltage fluctuations. EPRI-PEAC testing illustrated the different characteristics of other types of lighting and developed the concept of a gain factor for the lighting for comparison of susceptibility with that of a 60 W incandescent bulb (see Figure 3-6 for an example).

Figure 3-6 Lamp Gain Versus Flicker Frequency for Fluorescent Electronic and Incandescent Lamps

Unbalance Table 3-6 summarizes the surveys that were evaluated in the Cigre working group for levels of unbalance. The available statistical data covers 99 sites at MV, 76 sites at HV and 25 sites at EHV. The most commonly available index for voltage unbalance averaged over short 10 min periods: the 95 percentile over time for a weekly statistics (the number of sites versus Voltage Unbalance Factor - Uneg. in %). The results are summarized in Figure 3-7.

3-10

Table 3-6 Summary of General Parameters for Voltage Unbalance Surveys Survey Index and Statistical Parameters Uneg,sh95 U-1 Uneg,sh95 Uneg,sh95 U-2-3 Uneg,sh95 (in this case sh = 5 min) Uneg,sh95 ; Uneg,sh99 U-4 Uneg,lt95 ; Uneg,lt99 Uneg,sh95 ; Uneg,sh99 Uneg,sh95 ; Uneg,sh99 ; Uneg,lt95 ; Uneg,lt99 Uneg,sh95 Uneg,sh95 Uneg,sh95 Uneg,sh95 Uneg,vs95; Uneg,vs99; Uneg,vsmax U-10 3-sec values profiles over one year. 1 year HV 1 Duration 20 mths 1 wk 3-6 mths 3-6 mths 3-6 mths 1 wk 1 year 1 wk 1 wk 3 wks Voltage Levels MV HV EHV HV HV HV EHV MV HV HV HV EHV Number of Sites 7 4 1 62 28 11 13 92 2 8 1 1

U-5 U-6 U-7 U-8 U-9

3-11

30% Percentage of sites per voltage level 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0,2-0,3 0,4-0,5 0,6-0,7 0,8-0,9 1,2-1,3 1,4-1,5 1,6-1,7 1,8-1,9 0-0,1 1-1,1 2-2,1

MV : 99 sites
HV : 76 sites
EHV: 25 sites

U neg.sh95 weekly values

Figure 3-7 Measurement Data for Voltage Unbalance at MV, HV and EHV All Sites

Conclusions Regarding Voltage Unbalance Measurement Results As with flicker, system-wide survey results for levels of unbalance are not commonly available. Even with the limited data available, some conclusions are developed regarding levels of unbalance. None of the reported MV sites exceed 2%. For HV sites, more than 11,8% of sites (9 out of 76) reach or exceed 1% voltage unbalance, while less than 4 % of sites (3 out of 76) exceed 1,5% voltage unbalance. At EHV, very few sites (1 out of 25) show voltage unbalance exceeding 1,1%.

3-12

VOLTAGE SAGS (DIPS) AND MOMENTARY INTERRUPTIONS

Table 4-1 provides an overview of the surveys used in the Cigre work for evaluation of voltage dip performance. Due to limited statistical results available here, the definition of voltage range slightly differs from the previous one in that MV includes up to 36 kV.
Table 4-1 Overview of Surveys and Data Available for Voltage Sags System Voltage MV Survey D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 HV D-5 150 66kV, 77kV, 154kV MonitorYears 120 67 80 45 Voltage Level(s) 13 - 26kV 10 - 16.5kV 30kV, 36kV 20kV Non-UNIPEDE format Monitoring period only three months; Only average values available Non-UNIPEDE format D-6 D-7 D-9 D-10 D-11 EHV D-12 D-13 D-14 D-15 110 114 n.a. 126 59 24 6 100 9 70kV 150kV 110kV 132 kV 88 kV 380kV 400kV 400 kV 275 kV Monitoring takes place continuously, no information on monitoring duration available Non- UNIPEDE format Stochastic prediction of dip statistics Unavailable Data

Comparison of MV Survey Data Three MV surveys (D-1, D-2 and D-3) are compared in Table 4-2: the three values in each cell of the table give the voltage-dip frequency for the three surveys. The three surveys show a large
4-1

variation in voltage-dip frequency. It is difficult to find a representative value covering all three networks. The 50-% sites are compared in Table 4-3, which again shows a large variation in voltage-dip frequencies. The SARFI-index values for the three surveys are given in Table 4-4, where the 50-% index is used for surveys D-2 and D-4, instead of the average over the sites; the average over all the sites was not available for those surveys. For survey D-3 the SARFI values were calculated both for the average of all sites and for the 50% site. The average gives a higher value because it is dominated by a small number of sites with a very high dip frequency.
Table 4-2 Comparison of MV Surveys, Number of Events per Year, 95%-Sites Retained <20 ms Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% <10% 0-0-0.8 20100 ms 0.10.5 s 0.51 s 9-2.7-1.2 14-7-1.0 15-7-0.2 12-1-0 1-1-0.3 13 s 320 s 2060 s 2-0-0 60180 s 1-0-0

150-16.7-4.8 37-9.0-2.6 238-13.0-3.6 93-29.1-2.4 141-8-1.0 55-1.7-1.8 0-0-0.3 128-17.9-1.0 113-6.7-1.5 4-1-2.2

6-0.7-0.3 3-0-0 5-1.7-0.3 1-0-0 5-1-0.2 4-1.7-0 6-1-0 1-0-0 1-0-0 7-1-0.3

2-0-0.3

3-1-0.2

Table 4-3 Comparison of MV Surveys, Number of Events per Year, 50%-Sites Retained <20 ms Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% <10% 20100 ms 0.10.5 s 11.7-2-0.4 28.1-4-1.2 31.9-2-0.3 24.2-0-0.3 0.8-0-0.3 0.51 s 2.3-0-0 5.3-0-0 3.6-0-0 2.5-0-0 0.3-0-0 13 s 1.2-0-0 1.0-0-0 1.1-0-0 0.8-0-0 1.1-0-0 320 s 1.5-0-0 0.2-0-0 0.2-0-0 0.2-0-0 1.4-0-0 0.4-0-0 0.6-0-0 2060 s 1.1-0-0 60180 s 0.2-0-0

0-0-0.2 47.1-4-2 63.9-4-2 36.5-1-0.2 10.4-0-0.3

4-2

Table 4-4 Comparison of MV Surveys, SARFI-Values, Number of Events per Year SARFI-Index SARFI_90 SARFI_85 SARFI_70 SARFI_40 SARFI_10 Survey D-1 (Mean) 279.6 214.5 116.0 42.7 4.6 17 11 3 0 0 Survey D-2 (50%) 7.2 4.6 1.4 0.9 0.3 Survey D-3 (50%) (Mean) 11.3 7.2 3.4 2.5 1.4 181 n.a. 106 56 40 Survey D-4 (50%)

The effect of time-aggregation on the 50 percentile and 95 percentile tables for MV Survey D-3 is summarized in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Effect of Time Aggregation on the Indices for MV Survey D-3 Retained Voltage Range 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% 9.7 7.3 2.4 3.3 3.6 95-Percentile Values None 10-sec 9.1 7.0 2.4 3.0 3.6 10-min 8.9 6.8 2.1 2.1 3.6 2.6 3.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 None 50-Percentile Values 10-sec 2.2 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 10-min 2.2 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.3

Comparison of HV Survey Data The HV data is incompatible in two aspects. The results for survey D-5 and Survey D-9 are given in a different format; the results for survey D-9 are obtained through stochastic prediction instead of through monitoring. It was decided to translate the results from surveys D-5 and D-9 into the UNIPEDE-format through interpolation. A comparison of the voltage-dip frequencies is shown in Table 4-6. There are obvious differences between the different systems, but not as pronounced as with distribution networks. The SARFI values are compared in Table 4-7. For most surveys only the SARFI value for the 50%-site is provided as no other information was available. For surveys D-6 and D-7 also the SARFI value for the average of all sites is given.

4-3

Table 4-6 Comparison of HV Surveys, Number of Events per Year, 50%-Sites Retained Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% <10% 20100 ms 1.4-5.6-3.4-0-22-26 2.1-4.3-4.0-0-45-41 1.2-1.2-1.6-0-16-15 0.5-0.5-0.2-0-2-1 0.10.5 s 1.6-2.6-0.6-8-4-4 2.1-4.3-1.3-10-9-11 1.3-2.0-0.6-2.7-4-5 0.6-0.7-2-0.3-1-1 0.51 s 0.1-0.2-0-4-1-1 0.1-0.2-0-4-3-3 0.1-0-0-0-1-1 0.1-0-0-0-0-0 13 s 0.2-0-0-0-0-0-0 0.3-0-0-0-0-1 0.2-0-0-0-0-0 0.2-0-0-0-0-0

Table 4-7 Comparison of HV-Surveys, Number of Events per Year, SARFI-Values SARFI-Index SARFI_90 SARFI_85 SARFI_70 SARFI_40 SARFI_10 D-5 (50%) 12.1 8.8 4.2 1.4 (Mean) 32.7 20.8 8.6 3.1 1.3 D-6 (50%) 22.2 13.2 4.4 1.2 0.0 (Mean) 17.4 12.7 4.2 1.5 1.0 D-7 (50%) 12.1 7.9 2.6 0.4 0.0 D-9 (50%) 29.0 17.0 3.0 0.3 D-10 (50%) 109 81 24 3 0 D-11 (50%) 110 79 23 2 0

The effect of time-aggregation on the 50 percentile and 95 percentile tables for HV Survey D-6 and D-7 are summarized in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 respectively.
Table 4-8 Effect of Time Aggregation on the Indices for HV Survey D-6, Number of Events per Year Retained Voltage Range 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% 95-Percentile Values None 26.8 27.9 18.9 6.2 6.5 10-sec 19.0 25.5 18.3 6.2 6.6 10-min 17.6 23.5 16.7 5.7 6.2 9.0 8.8 3.2 1.2 None 50-Percentile Values 10-sec 8.2 8.8 3.2 1.0 10-min 7.4 8.0 3.0 0.9

4-4

Table 4-9 Effect of Time Aggregation on the Indices for HV Survey D-7, Number of Events per Year Retained Voltage Range 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% 9.3 15.3 6.4 1.6 2.7 95-Percentile Values None 10-sec 8.3 13.1 5.0 1.6 2.3 10-min 7.0 8.2 13.2 1.6 2.0 4.2 5.3 2.2 0.4 None 50-Percentile Values 10-sec 3.4 4.5 1.9 0.4 10-min 3.1 4.3 2.1 0.4

Comparison of EHV Survey Data The results for four EHV surveys are summarized in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11. Table 4-10 gives the dip frequency for the 50% site (with the exception of the second value, for survey D13, which gives the mean value over all sites). Table 4-11 gives the SARFI values.
Table 4-10 Comparison of EHV Surveys, Number of Events per Year, 50%-Sites Retained Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% <10% 20100 ms 34.7-25-1.5-3-10 41.7-30-3-4-32 10.0-13-1-3-13 1.7-1-0-0-1 0-0-0-1-0 0.10.5 s 2.0-4-1-1-1 8.0-3-0.5-8-3 1.3-4-0-2-0 0-0-0-1-0 0.3-1-0.5-0-0 0.51 s 0.7-1-0-0-1 0-0-0-1-0 13 s

Table 4-11 Comparison of EHV Surveys, Number of Events per Year, SARFI-Values D-12 SARFI-Index (Mean) SARFI_90 SARFI_85 SARFI_70 SARFI_40 SARFI_10 15.4 5.6 2.3 0.7 0.5 D-13 199697 (Mean) 109.7 65.0 13.3 2.0 0 D-13 199798 (Mean) 85 52 19 2 0 (50%) 24 19 7 2 1 (50%) 61 50 14 1 0 D-14 D-15

4-5

Average Statistics System indices were obtained from a number of network operators in different countries. Most operators provided the 95% and 50% values for the number of dips per year per site. The results are summarized in Table 4-12, Table 4-13, and Table 4-14, for EHV, HV and MV networks, respectively. For each survey the dip-frequencies were obtained for the 95% site or for the 95% bins (depending on the method of evaluating survey results). These 95% values were next averaged over all surveys for corresponding voltage levels: EHV (220 and 400kV), HV (66 - 154 kV) and MV (10 36 kV). The UNIPEDE format is used for the bins: the columns give duration range in seconds; the rows give range of retained voltage in percent of nominal voltage or pre-event voltage. The duration ranges 20-60 and 60-180 seconds are not shown as no dips in these ranges were recorded.
Table 4-12 Measurement Results for EHV Networks, Number of Events per Year Retained voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% 0.020.1 s 17.3 26.7 9.5 2.3 1.0 0.10.5 s 7.4 6.4 2.7 0.2 0.8 0.51 s 0.3 0.7 0.2 0 0.7 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 13 s 0 0 0 0 0 320 s

Table 4-13 Measurement Results for HV Networks, Number of Events per Year Retained 0.020.1 s Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% 53.0 55.0 30.2 19.4 1.8 0.10.5 s 36.0 25.8 15.6 4.8 1.4 0.51 s 16.4 7.6 4.4 1.0 0 7.0 5.0 1.6 0.6 1.2 13 s 0 0 0 0 0.2 320 s

4-6

Table 4-14 Measurement Results for MV Networks, Number of Events per Year Retained 0.020.1 s Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% 57.7 85.5 50.4 19.7 0 0.10.5 s 16.3 42.8 49.3 40.3 2.4 0.51 s 4.7 7.7 7.4 5.0 1.0 2.2 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.9 13 s 3-20 s 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.7

The results for EHV, HV and MV are based on 4, 6 and 4 surveys with 312, 559 and 139 monitor years, respectively. Especially for EHV there is a clear lack of measurement data (one survey contributed 100 of the 123 monitor-years), therefore the actual numbers have limited value. Other uncertainties that should be considered when interpreting the results are the variations in dip frequency among sites and between networks. It is not possible to directly compare the results between voltage levels. The results for different voltage levels were obtained in different countries and at different locations. Table 4-15 gives, for a large survey at each voltage level, the difference between the 95% and the 50% values. The dip frequencies given are the total number of dips within the retained voltage range for duration up to 180 seconds. Note that for survey D-1 the average over all sites is used instead of the value for the 50% site, the latter being unavailable.
Table 4-15 Variation of Dip Frequency Among Sites, Number of Events per Year Retained Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% EHV D-14 95% 16 24 13 1 0 5 12 5 1 1 50% HV D-7 95% 9.3 15.3 6.4 1.6 2.7 50% 4.2 5.3 2.2 0.4 0.0 HV D-10 95% 241 192 88 19 11 50% 27 57 21 3 0 95% 208 351 290 185 23 65 99 73 38 5 MV D-1 Mean MV D-3 95% 9.7 10.0 2.4 3.3 3.6 50% 2.6 3.2 0.5 0.6 0.3

Table 4-16 provides a comparison of the dip frequencies for the 50% site for five HV surveys. There is a wide range of dip-frequency values, up to a factor of ten in some cells. A discussion on the causes for this would be outside of the scope of this report, but the reader can refer to IEC 61000-2-8 for more information on the causes.

4-7

Table 4-16 Variation of Dip Frequency Among HV Surveys, Number of Events per Year for 50% Site Retained Voltage 8590% 7085% 4070% 1040% 010% D-6 9.0 8.8 3.2 1.2 0.0 D-7 4.2 5.3 2.2 0.4 0.0 D-9 12.0 15.0 2.3 0.3 0.0 D-10 27 57 21 3 0 D-11 31 56 21 2 0

Conclusions Regarding Voltage Dip Measurement Results Many different methods of summarizing voltage dip performance are used and this makes it difficult to compare results between systems. System characteristics result in widely different voltage dip performance anyway and methods of accounting for system characteristics are needed in addition to consistent reporting methods.

4-8

RELIABILITY (LONG INTERRUPTIONS)

Cigre Working Group Although the Cigre report provided no measurement data for individual sites, indices used by different companies for tracking reliability levels are included in Table 5-1.

5-1

Table 5-1 Comparison Indices/Objectives for Long Interruptions

Company / Organisation Company 1 Interruption measures Circuit availability Circuit services availability System minutes (Transmission Code) System minutes (Conventional) Number of supply interruptions Total number of unplanned interruptions Total system minutes (all interruptions) - system minutes (planned) - system minutes (unplanned) Underlying system minutes (<= 1 system minute) - system minutes (planned) - system minutes (unplanned) Average supply reliability (%) Planned interruption restoration performance Unplanned interruption response (%) Availability (AC system) Availability (HVDC system Bipole 1) Availability (HVDC system Pole 1) Availability (HVDC system Pole 2) Average number of interruptions per supply point Every supply point - number of events Average interruption time (AIT) Number of incidents Average incident duration Average Unsupplied Energy Per Incident Interconnector A availability Interconnector B availability Average annual system availability SAIFI-SI (> 1 minute events) SAIFI-MI (< 1 minute events) SAIDI SARI SAIFI-SI SAIFI-MI SAIDI SARI DPUI No. of interruptions (planned, unplanned, incl < 1 min) CI (planned, unplanned, incl < 1 min) SAIFI MAIFI System Minutes (previous year peak demand) Number of interruptions over last 3 years Total hours interrupted over last 3 years Load not served (minutes) Customer connection point interruptions (frequency) SAIDI TSMAIFI (100kV) TSMAIFI (44kV) System minutes Number of interruptions System minutes Number of interruptions SAIDI CAIDI Circuit availability Minutes off supply Average restoration time Hours constrained (intra-region) Hours constrained (inter-region) Number of incidents Average Unsupplied Energy Per Incident Unavailability (monthly basis) Interruption cost mechanism Number of interruptions Energy not supplied SAIFI (all interruption - including < 1 min) SAIDI (all interruption - including < 1 min) System Minutes (previous year peak demand used)* SARI SAIFI SAIDI SAIRI Target 99% 99.999% 5 21 Actual Performance 1999 2000 2001 99.6286% 99.9992% 5 27 110 62 102 9.7 4.9 12.4 2.7 2.8 0.9 7.1 2.1 11.6 7.3 4.9 4 1.7 2.8 0.9 5.6 2.1 3.1 99.9972 99.9986 99.9963 94.4 100.0 89.5 100 100 100 99.2% 97.3% 95.8% 98.9% 0.39 specified per point n/a 3 68min 292 MWh 96.2% 99.7% 95.8%

Company 2 (mandatory)

Company 2 (additional)

98.7% 95.0% 92.5% 97.7% n/a n/a

Company 3 Company 4

Company 5

Company 6

Company 7

Company 8 Company 9 Company 10

Company 11 Company 12

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.65 hrs/yr n/a n/a n/a 3 9 hrs n/a n/a 23.6 2/year 4/year 50

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

7.4 1.25

6 1.17

Regulator 1 (proposal 2002)

to be based on 5 yrs data to be based on 5 yrs data to be based on 5 yrs data to be based on 5 yrs data to be based on 5 yrs data 3 - 10 2 - 292 MWh 0.5% - 7.5% new for 2002

Regulator 2

Regulator 3

utility to decide on spending

CEA Survey (14 participants)

Cigre 1999

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

available to participants only available to participants only available to participants only available to participants only n/a n/a n/a

5-2

In addition, the following reports provide reliability levels information from other surveys: Second Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply, Working Group on Quality of Electricity Supply, Council of European Regulators, September, 2003. Distribution Reliability Indices Tracking Within the United States, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003. 1008459.

Second Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electric Supply, Council of European Regulators Within the working group of the Council of European Regulators, seven countries reported timeseries data for Unplanned Interruptions for the three years, 1999-2001. Data for the year 2001 is also available for Portugal and Spain.
Number of Minutes Lost Per Customer Per Year Including Major Events (Acts of God) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
ds ly d in d or wa y al la n an Ita Br ita Fr an er la n rtu g ai n Fi nl Ir e St a d U ni te Sp te s ce

531

183 53 70

203

236

218

179

214

29

at

G re

Figure 5-1 Number of Minutes Lost per Customer per Year Including Major Events

Th

5-3

et h

Po

Number of Minutes Lost Per Customer Per Year Excluding Major Events (Acts of God) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 109 45 n.a. 160 81 33 n.a. 139 107 413

ds

ly

in

or wa y

al

la n

an

Ita

Br ita

Fr an

er la n

rtu g

ai n

Fi nl

Ir e

at

et h

Po

G re

Figure 5-2 Number of Minutes Lost per Customer per Year Excluding Major Events

Th

5-4

ni te

St a

Sp

te s

ce

Number of Interruptions Per Customer Per Year Including Major Events (Acts of God) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
ds ly d in d or wa y al Br ita la n an Ita Fr an er la n rtu g ai n Fi nl Ir e St a ni te U Sp te s ce

7.5

4.1

3.8 2.7 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.5

3.3

1.4

at

et h

Po

G re

Figure 5-3 Number of Interruptions per Customer per Year Including Major Events
Number of Interruptions Per Customer Per Year Excluding Major Events (Acts of God) 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.2 0.6 1.1 2.3 3.4 2.9

Th

ds

ly

in

or wa y

al

la n

an

Ita

Br ita

Fr an

er la n

rtu g

ai n

Fi nl

Ir e

at

et h

Po

G re

Figure 5-4 Number of Interruptions per Customer per Year Excluding Major Events

Th

5-5

ni te

St a

Sp

te s

ce

EPRI Report on Distribution Reliability Reporting in the United States The following figures provide more detail based on reported reliability indices for Distribution in the United States and is based upon Distribution Reliability Indices Tracking Within the United States, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003. PID 1008459. Figure 5-5 below shows the 10-year trend of the lower quartile (25th percentile), median (50th percentile) and upper quartile (75th percentile) for annual SAIDI values for the different utilities in the United States. Since there is limited data available for the early years (19921996) the trend analysis focuses on the last five years (19972001) data. During this time period there is no indication of an upward or a downward trend for the median value of SAIDI over time. The 75th percentile (upper quartile) of the SAIDI value showed an increasing trend during the 19982000 period, which was reversed in 2001. During the time the data was collected for this project, information for 2002 was not yet available to validate whether the decreasing trend was a sustaining downward trend lasting beyond a single year.
10-Year Trend of SAIDI
160 140 120 100 Minutes 80 60 40 20 0 1992 (11) 1993 (14) 1994 (24) 1995 (25) 1996 (27) 1997 (39) 1998 (57) 1999 (57)

Lower Quartile Middle Quartile Upper Quartile

2000 (56) 2001 (53)

Year (# of Utilities Reporting)

Figure 5-5 Ten-Year Trend Plot of SAIDI in the United States (Without Major Events) Values for Lower, Middle, and Upper Quartile

Figure 5-6 below provides a 10-year trend of the lower quartile (25th percentile), median (50th percentile) and upper quartile (75th percentile) for SAIFI values reported. Since there is limited data available for the early years (1992-1996) the trend analysis focuses on the last five years (1997-2001). During this time period there is no indication of an upward or a downward trend for the lower quartile value of SAIFI for each year. The 75th percentile (upper quartile) of the SAIFI value showed a decreasing four-year trend from 1998 through 2001. The median value of SAIFI shows an increasing trend from 1998 to 2000, which was reversed in 2001. During the
5-6

time the data was collected, 2002 information was not yet available to validate whether the decreasing trend was only temporary or a sustaining downward trend.
10-Year Trend of SAIFI
1 .8 1 .6

# of Sustained Interruptions

1 .4 1 .2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 (1 1 (1 1 (26) 1 (26) 1 (28) 1 (39) 1 (55) 1 (59) 2000 (55) 2001(53) 992 2) 993 5) 994 995 996 997 998 999

Low er Quartile Middle Quartile Upper Quartile

Year (# of Utilities Reporting)

Figure 5-6 Ten-Year Trend Plot of SAIFI (Without Major Events) Values for Lower, Middle, and Upper Quartile

5-7

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Voltage Characteristics of Electricity Supplied by Public Distribution Systems, European Standard (Supersedes 1994 Edition). CENELEC EN 50160. 1999. 2. Power Quality Indices and Objectives. Final WG Report. CIGRE 4.07 Working Group. 2004. 3. IEEE Recommended Practice For Monitoring Electric Power Quality. IEEE P1159: 1995. IEEE Stds. Coordinating Committee 22 on Power Quality. 1995. 4. Trial Use Guide For Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices. IEEE 1366:2001. 2001. 5. Power Quality Measurement Methods. IEC 61000-4-30. 2003, 6. Assessment of Emission Limits for Distorting Loads in MV and HV Power Systems. IEC 61000-3-6. 1996. 7. Assessment Of Emission Limits For Fluctuating Loads In MV And HV Power Systems. IEC 61000-3-7. Technical Report Type 3. 1996. 8. Compatibility Levels For Low-Frequency Conducted Disturbances and Signalling in Public Medium-Voltage Power Supply Systems. IEC 61000-2-12, Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Part 2-12. 200304. 9. Electricity Supply Quality of Supply. Part 2: Minimum Standard for Application by National Electricity Regulator. NRS048-2. 1996. 10. Contrat meraude Pour La Fourniture Dlectricit Au Tarif Vert. Annexe 2 : Qualit Des Fournitures En HTA (1-50kv) and HTB (>50 Kv). Edf Emerald Contract. Electricit De France. 11. HQ Voltage Characteristics: Characteristics and Target Values of the Voltage Supplied by Hydro-Quebec Transmissions System. www.Hydroquebec.com. July 1999. 12. And for the Distribution System: Characteristics and Target Values of the Voltage Supplied by Hydro-Quebec MV and LV Systems. www.Hydroquebec.com. 2001. 13. General Guide on Harmonics and Interharmonics Measurements and Instrumentation for Power Supply Systems and Equipment Connected Thereto. IEC 61000-4-7. 2002. 14. Planning Levels for Harmonic Voltage Distortion and the Connection of Non-Linear Equipment to Transmission Systems and Distribution Networks in the United Kingdom. Electricity Association Engineering Recommendation G5/4. January 2001. 15. IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems. ANSI/IEEE 519. 1992. 16. Testing and Measurement Techniques Section 15: Flicker Meter Functional and Design Specifications. IEC 61000-4-15, Ed. 1.1. 200302. 17. A. Robert and J. Marquet on Behalf of WG36.05, Assessing Voltage Quality in Relation to Harmonics, Flicker and Unbalance. Cigre 1992 Paper 36203. 1992.

6-1

18. Voltage Dips and Short Interruptions on Public Electric Power Supply Systems with Statistical Measurement Results. IEC 61000-2-8. 2002. 19. Recommended Practice for the Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems. IEEE 493.1997. 20. Voltage Sag Indices, Draft 5, Working Document for IEEE Project Group 1564. IEEE P1564. 2003. 21. Guide to Quality of Electricity Supply for Industrial Applications, Part 2: Voltage Dips and Short Interruptions. UIE, Paris, France. 1996. 22. Recommended Practice for Evaluating Electric Power System Compatibility with Electronics Process Equipment. IEEE 1346. 1998. 23. Specification for Semiconductor Processing Equipment Voltage Sag Immunity. SEMI F47-0200. SEMI. 1999, 2000. 24. Planning Limits for Voltage Fluctuations Caused By Industrial, Commercial and Domestic Equipment in the United Kingdom. Electricity Association Engineering Recommendation P28. September 1989. 25. Planning Limits for Voltage Unbalance in the United Kingdom. Electricity Association Engineering Recommendation P29. 1990. 26. Performance Of Electricity Regulated Businesses. SAIIR. 1999/2000. 27. Report to the Director of the Office for Gas and Electricity Markets. National Grid Company. 20002001. 28. Measurements of Quality in Electric Systems. Cigre WG 39.04, Electra No. 185. August 1999. 29. A. Robert, Power Quality Monitoring at the Interface Between Transmission System and Users. International Conference on Harmonics and Power Quality. October 2000. 30. T. Langset, F. Trengereid, K. Sammdal, J. Heggsett, Quality Dependent Revenue Caps A Model for Quality of Supply Regulation. 2001. 31. U.G. Knight, Third Survey of Major Disturbances, Cigre SC 39, Electra. 32. IEEE Standard Terms for Reporting and Analyzing Outage Occurrences and Outage States of Electrical Transmission Facilities. IEEE 859. 1987 (Reaffirmed in 1993). 33. Audit Report Transpower. Price Waterhouse Coopers. November 2001. 34. C.A. Warren and M. J. Adams, Reliability on the Regulatory Horizon. 2001. 35. Sub-Chapter C. Electric Utilities, Part 411 Electric Reliability, Title 83 Public Utilities. Illinois Commerce Commission. 1999. 36. C.A. Warren, R. Ammon, and G. Welch, Survey of Distribution Reliability Measurement Practices. IEEE. 2000. 37. Brooks et al. and JWG CC02 Cigre-Cired, Recommendations for Tabulating RMS Voltage Variations Disturbances with Specific Reference to Utility Power Contracts. 38. M. H. J. Bollen, Definitions of Unbalance. IEEE Power Engineering Letters. November 2002. 39. NRS 048-2 Rev. 2. 2003

6-2

40. EPRIs Consortium for Electrical Infrastructure for a Digital Society The Cost of Power Disturbances to Industrial and Digital Economy Companies. PRIMEN, Madison, WI. June 2001. 41. D. S. Dorr et al., Interpreting Recent Power Quality Surveys to Define the Electrical Environment, IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting. 1996. 42. 1999/00 Quality Performance Report. Transpower New Zealand Limited. http://www.transpower.co.nz/publications. 43. Our National Transmission System Today and Tomorrow. DOE. November 2001. 44. EURELECTRIC Power Quality in European Electricity Networks, 1st Edition. Report 2002-2700-0005. February 2002. 45. S. M. Halpin, R. Bergeron, T. Blooming, R. F. Burch, L. E. Conrad, and T. S. Key, Voltage and Lamp Flicker Issues: Should the IEEE Adopt the IEC Approach? IEC/TC77A/WG2/TF1 Flicker Task Force. 46. Canadian Electricity Association (CEA). http://www.canelect.ca. June 2002. 47. Quality of Electricity Supply: Initial Benchmarking on Actual Levels, Standards, and Regulatory Strategies. Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER), Working Group on Quality of Electricity Supply. April 2001. 48. Second Benchmarking Report on Quality of Electricity Supply. Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER), Working group on quality of electricity supply. September 2003. 49. Distribution Reliability Indices Tracking Within the United States, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003. 1008459.

6-3

About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for the global energy and energy services industry. U.S. electric utilities established the Electric Power Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research consortium for the benefit of utility members, their customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI, the company provides a wide range of innovative products and services to more than 1000 energy-related organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers draws on a worldwide network of technical and business expertise to help solve todays toughest energy and environmental problems. EPRI. Electrify the World

Export Control Restrictions Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make available on a case by case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com