Connection Proposal Template
Project Title
AESO Project Number:
Date:
Role
Click and type date
Name
Prepared:
Reviewed:
Approved:
Version:
Click and type version number
Date
Signature
(Page intentionally blank)
R[x]
2
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION ONE
– CONNECTION STUDY SCOPE
SECTION TWO
– ENGINEERING STUDY REPORT
SECTION THREE – FACILITY DESIGN
SECTION FOUR – COST ESTIMATES
SECTION FIVE
– LAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What to include in Executive Summary of a Connection Proposal:

Provide the Project description including scheduled In-service date, a Rate STS, a Rate DTS.

Describe all alternatives considered in the Stage 1 Connection Study Scope (CSS). Provide
rationales what alternatives were initially screened out and was selected to perform studies.

Describe the preferred alternative for the Project after studies, and the rationales.

Include summary of estimated project cost for the preferred alternative.

Include summary of land impact for the preferred alternative.
SECTION ONE
CONNECTION STUDY
SCOPE
Stage 1 Connection Study Scope
[Insert Customer Name]
[Insert Project Name]
AESO Project Number: [000]
Company Name
Engineer Name P.Eng.
Date
Engineer Signature
Date
Signature
[Studies Consultant]
[AESO (Project Planning Engineer)]
[TFO]
Company Name
Name
[Insert Customer Name]
Document Release [R1]
[insert date]
Table of Contents
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.1
Load Component .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2
Generation Component .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2
STUDY AREA OVERVIEW..................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
2.1
Existing Constraints ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2
AESO Long-Term Transmission Plans (LTP) .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3
CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES ............ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
3.1
Connection Alternatives Identified ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2
Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3
Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies .............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4
SCOPE OF STUDY ................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.1
Connection Studies to be Performed ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2
Connection Studies to be Excluded ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5
AESO STUDY REQUIREMENTS, CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND RULES
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
5.1
Transmission Planning Standards and Reliability Criteria ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2
AESO Rules ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3
Other Requirements ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6
STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND MODELING ............. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
DEFINED.
6.1
Study Scenarios ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.2
Load Assumptions ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.3
Generation Assumptions .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.4
Intertie Flow Assumptions ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.5
HVDC Line Flow Assumptions ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.6
Project Assumptions ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.7
Additional Projects ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.8
Facility Ratings ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.9
Protection Fault Clearing Time ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.10
Dynamic Data ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.11
Voltage Profile Assumption .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.12
Motor Starting Assumptions ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.13
Data Required for Sub-Synchronous Studies .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7
7.1
STUDY METHODOLOGY ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Connection Studies Carried Out ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.2
Load Flow Analysis .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.2.1 Contingencies Studies ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.3
Voltage Stability Analysis ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.3.1 Contingencies Studies ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.4
Transient Stability Analysis .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.4.1 Contingencies Studies ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.5
Short Circuit Analysis ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.6
Motor Starting Analysis [as required] ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.7
Effectiveness Factor Analysis Studies [as required] ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.8
Sensitivity Studies [as required] ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.9
Sub-Synchronous Studies ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.10
Sub-Synchronous Torsional Interaction Study (SSTI) ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.11
Sub-Synchronous Resonance (SSR) and Sub-Synchronous Control Interaction (SSCI) Studies
Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.12
Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
8
ENGINEERING REPORT ....................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
9
APPLICABILITY TERM ......................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Page 2
Public
R1-2016-05-01
10 KEY ENGINEERS ................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
11 REVISION HISTORY ............................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Attachment A Transmission Reliability Standards and Criteria .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Page 3
Public
R1-2016-05-01
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

Template not to be changed, do not add or delete sections
o Place ‘N/A’ in sections that are not applicable.
PURPOSE

The purpose of the Stage 1 Connection Study Scope is to define the boundary of
the study parameters. It also identifies the assumptions, basis and criteria to be
used in the study and lists the steps to be taken in performing the study.
Page 4
Public
R1-2016-05-01
1
Project Description
This section is compiled by the Market Participant and is to describe the following:
•
•
•
•
Organization submitting SASR
SASR request (load DTS, gen STS, transformer add, breaker add, new POD, …) and why needed
(load growth, new load, new generator, DFO reliability – N-1, feeder loading, …)
location
Requested In-Service date
[Market Participant Legal Name (Market Participant Short Name)] has submitted a System
Access Service Request (SASR) to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) for [Demand
Transmission Service (DTS) and/or Supply Transmission Service (STS)] of [XXX] MW at
[Project location, e.g., south of the City of Grande Prairie to serve oilfield loads] (the Project).
The requested In-Service Date (ISD) for the Project is [Month, Day, Year of the In-Service date
as per the SASR request].
1.1
Load Component
Describe the load component of the project. Include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
State existing Demand Transmission Service (DTS) if applicable.
State the requested DTS to be connected along with the anticipated power factor;
Describe the type of load;
o
Motor sizes if applicable
o
Motor starting methods (Across-the-line vs Variable Frequency Drive)
State the magnitude of the potential DTS that the Market Participant intends to apply for; and
Comment on possible future expansion plans and anticipated timing for such expansion.
Below are two examples of the write up:
[1. The requested load addition is 17.9 MW by August 17, 2016.
2. Load Type: Residential, rural, commercial, or light industrial services.
3. DTS contract capacity at South Mayerthorpe 443S to remain at the existing level of 12.5 MW.
4. Currently there is no plan for future expansion.
5. The load will be studied assuming at 0.9 power factor (pf) lagging.]
or
[Current Demand Transmission Service (DTS) is 14 MW. There would be four (4) 6600 HP
motors with three (3) operating. All motors will have dedicated Variable Frequency Drives
(VFDs). The requested Demand Transmission Service (DTS) is for 29 MW]
1.2
Generation Component
Describe the generation component of the project. Include the following:
Page 5
Public
R1-2016-05-01
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
State size of the generator(s) and estimated Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP) and Maximum
Capability (MC) levels;1
Describe type of generator(s);
State estimated reactive power capability of the generator(s) when producing MARP. If this value
does not meet the generation interconnection standard specify the intended supplemental strategy. If
available, provide maximum capability curve based on pf/temperature.
State the potential magnitude of the Supply Transmission Service (STS) that the Market Participant
intends to apply for and operate at when connected to the grid;
State the seasonal generator capacity (if information available); and
State station service load if applicable.
Comment on possible future expansion plans and anticipated timing for such expansion;
Below is an example of the write up:
[Market Participant (MP) plans to install a co-generation facility consisting of a single 85 MW
(nominal) natural gas fuelled combustion turbine-generator. With the addition of this generator,
the MP has requested an anticipated STS capacity of 85 MW.
1. Generators:
Designation
Type
Model
G1
Round Rotor
GE 7A6
2. Supply Transmission Service (STS): 85 MW
3. Rated Nameplate Capacity: 93.9 MVA @ 0.85 pf, nominal
4. Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP): 100 MW
5. Maximum Capability (MC): 85 MW
6. Reactive Power Capability (preliminary): 48 MVar (0.9 pf lagging) / 33 Mvar (0.95 pf
leading) at MARP,
7. The customer advised that there is no future expansion planned.]
2
Study Area Overview
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer.
Define and describe the Study Area. Include a diagram of the Study Area that clearly shows salient
features such as transmission lines, substations, generating assets, and reactive elements in the area. In
a Single Line Diagram (the Study Area diagram) show how the Study Area is connected to the rest of the
Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES).
The Project is located in the AESO planning area of [AESO planning area, e.g., Grande Prairie
(Area 20)], as part of [The AESO region, e.g., the AESO Northwest (NW) Region].
1
Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP) and Maximum Capability (MC) are defined in the
Consolidated Authoritative Document Glossary posted on the AESO website:
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/Consolidated_Authoritative_Document_Glossary.pdf
Page 6
Public
R1-2016-05-01
This section will then describe the Study Area and the ‘Overview of existing system’. Please describe the
Key substations/lines in the Project area and intertie connection with neighbouring areas. Below is an
example of the write up:
[The Study Area for the Project consisted of the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie
(Area 20) areas, including the tie lines connecting the two planning areas to the rest of the
AIES. All transmission facilities within the two planning areas will be studied and monitored for
violations of the Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions (Reliability Criteria).
The five 144 kV transmission lines connecting the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas to
the rest of the AIES (namely transmission lines 7L73, 7L32, 7L45, 7L46 and 7L40) will also be
studied and monitored to identify any violations of the Reliability Criteria.
The H.R. Milner generation facility, with connection to the H.R. Milner 740S substation,
connects to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) through two 144 kV transmission
lines: one is transmission line 7L20, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Big
Mountain 845S substation in the Grande Prairie area; the other is transmission line 7L80, which
connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Simonette 733S substation, which further
connects to the Little Smoky 813S substation in the Valleyview planning area (Area 23) via
transmission line 7L40.
Figure 1-1 shows the existing study area transmission system.
Page 7
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Figure 2-1: Existing Study Area Transmission System
]
Page 8
Public
R1-2016-05-01
2.1
Existing Constraints
If applicable, describe any known constraint(s) in the Study Area. Explain how the constraint(s) are
managed. Discuss any Information Documents (IDs)/Authoritative Documents (ADs) presently applied in
the area. Outline relevant existing manual or automatic Remedial Action Schemes (RASs) in the Study
Area. Below is an example of the write up:
[The existing constraints in [AESO Region where the Project is located, e.g., the NW Region]
are managed in accordance with Section 302.1 of the ISO rules, Real Time Transmission
Constraint Management (TCM).]
2.2
AESO Long-Term Transmission Plans (LTP)
Describe the relevant AESO long-term transmission development plans for the Study Area and its vicinity
(either approved NID System Projects or developments identified in the AESO’s most recently published
Long Term Plan). List the anticipated in-service dates of those plans. Use a table. Discuss the known
impact(s) of any delays in the AESO Long-term Transmission Plans (LTP) for the area on the project.
Please specify if the AESO LTP topologies are included in the study scenarios here. Below is an example
of the write up:
[The AESO Central East sub-region near-term developments are listed in Table 2.2-1. These
developments are part of the AESO’s 2015 Long-Term Transmission Plan. These components
will not be considered in service unless triggered by the project or study results dictate.]
Table 2.2-1: Planned Central East Near-term Developments
Description
3

Add voltage reinforcement at Strome substation east of Camrose, Irish Creek substation north of
Kitscoty and Whitby Lake substation near Vilna


Add new 240/144 kV substation near Vermilion


Reconfigure 144 kV lines in vicinity of Vermilion to terminate at new substation

Rebuild 144 kV line from Vermilion to Irish Creek to higher capacity
Add new 240 kV line from Tinchebray substation northeast of Halkirk to new substation near
Vermilion energized at 144 kV
Add new 240 kV line from Hansman Lake substation southeast of Hughenden to Edgerton
substation energized at 144 kV
Connection Alternatives
This section is compiled by the Market Participant and Studies Consultant in collaboration with the AESO
Planning Engineer.
Other alternatives may be identified, considered and evaluated if the connection study results indicate the
initially proposed connection alternatives may cause potential adverse impact to the system, violations of
the AESO Reliability Criteria remain or where other unanticipated issues (such as connection cost and
schedule) arise following the execution of the study. Any such additional connection alternatives to the
preliminary set of alternatives described shall be documented in a signed Scope Amendment document.
Page 9
Public
R1-2016-05-01
3.1
Connection Alternatives Identified
Describe each connection alternative separately with associated single-line diagrams. For each
alternative, provide single-line diagrams (SLDs) for the proposed facilities. Below is an example of the
write up:
[Four alternatives were examined in this report. A description of the developments associated
with each alternative is provided below.
Alternative 1: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138 kV] transmission line [Line name] via an
in/out connection configuration.
Alternative 2: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138 kV] transmission line [Line name] via a Ttap connection configuration.
Alternative 3: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138 kV] transmission line [Line name] via a
radial connection configuration to the existing [substation name and number].
Alternative 4: Upgrade the capacity at the existing [Substation Name and number]
substation and shift load to neighboring [Substation Name and number]
substation.
The line length of each alternative will be subject to change after line routing by TFO.
]
3.2
Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies
Please address which Alternatives are selected for this Project. Below is an example of the write up:
[Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were selected for further study.]
3.3
Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies
Please state the rationale for ruling out the Alternatives.
If available,

Refer to the DFO’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR)

Address Market Participant (MP)’s preference (including cost estimates)

Specify Transmission Facility Owners (TFOs)’s position on any possible limitation/constraints that
would result in ruling out a specific alternative.
Below is an example of the write up:
[Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require greater transmission development and were
not selected for further studies.
Alternative 3: In addition to adding a new POD and converting the existing T-tap connection
configuration of Dome Cutbank 810S to an in/out connection configuration, ATCO has advised
that Alternative 3 involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the 25 kV and 144 kV
busses, and mitigation of substation outages. ATCO has also advised that the existing Dome
Cutbank 810S substation is constrained on all sides. Therefore, Alternative 3 involves relocating
the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new greenfield site to accommodate the transmission
developments.
Page 10
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Alternative 4: Alternative 4 involves upgrading the existing Dome Cutbank 810S substation,
including either (i) adding two 144 kV breakers and replacing the two existing 144/25 kV 10/13
MVA transformers and one voltage regulator with two 144/25 kV transformers of a higher
capacity, or (ii) adding one 144 kV breaker and a 144/25 kV 30/40/50 MVA LTC transformer.
ATCO has advised that Alternative 4 also involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the
25 kV and 144 kV busses, and mitigation of substation outages. As with Alternative 3, this
transmission alternative involves relocating the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new
greenfield site to accommodate the transmission developments.]
4
Scope of Study
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer.
Define the Study Area (i.e. the AESO Planning areas) that will be monitored when performing the
connection studies.
Describe the scope of engineering studies including the study scenarios the Market Participant intends to
complete to produce the connection proposal and the objectives of performing such studies.
4.1
Connection Studies to be Performed
Below is an example. Please update or delete the bullets that are not relevant to the Project:
[Outline all studies that the Market Participant is required to complete for assessing the
connection proposal, such as:







Load flow analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5), pre-Project and
post-Project conditions
Voltage stability analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5), postProject conditions
Transient stability analysis (Category B, and selected Category C5), post-Project
conditions
Motor starting analysis, post-Project conditions
Short-Circuit fault studies, pre-Project and post-Project conditions
In cases where transmission congestion is identified through the connection studies
conducted, the AESO will provide further direction on additional studies to identify
mitigation measures for congestion management under system normal (N-0) and
abnormal conditions (N-1).
Other studies deemed necessary to assess transmission system performance such as
large motor starting studies, Sub-Synchronous Torsional Interaction2 (SSTI) studies,
2
Thermal Turbine-Generator units, particularly steam driven units, in the vicinity of HVDC Transmission
systems can be vulnerable to sub-synchronous (below 60 Hz) torsional oscillations. For this reason,
special studies and analysis need to be carried out by an expert in the area of SSTI, to examine if and
when undesirable interactions would occur between the HVDC Transmission system and the proposed
Turbine-Generating units. Proposed protection and/or operational procedures will accordingly be
developed based on study results.
Page 11
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Sub-Synchronous Resonance3 (SSR) studies when the customer facility might have
potential of sub-synchronous interaction. ]
4.2
Connection Studies to be Excluded
Outline studies excluded from Section 4.1 See below for an example:
[The following studies were not performed in the connection study:



5
Load flow analysis (Category C)
Voltage stability analysis (Category C)
Transient stability analysis ( Category C)]
AESO Study Requirements, Criteria, Standards
and Rules
This part is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer.
5.1
Transmission Planning Standards and Reliability Criteria
The Transmission Planning (TPL) Standards, which are included in the Alberta Reliability
Standards, and the AESO’s Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions (Reliability
Criteria)4 were applied to evaluate system performance under Category A system conditions
(i.e., all elements in-service) and following Category B contingencies (i.e., single element
outage) and selected Category C5 contingencies (i.e., double circuit common tower
contingency), prior to and following the studied alternatives. Below is a summary of Category A
and Category B system conditions as well as a summary of Category C5 system conditions.
[NOTE: If Category C5 contingency assessment is not required, remove the reference to
Category C5]
Category A, often referred to as the N-0 condition, represents a normal system with no
contingencies and all facilities in service. Under this condition, the system must be able to
supply all firm load and firm transfers to other areas. All equipment must operate within its
applicable rating, voltages must be within their applicable range, and the system must be stable
with no cascading outages.
Category B events, often referred to as an N-1 or N-G-1 with the most critical generator out of
service, result in the loss of any single specified system element under specified fault conditions
with normal clearing. These elements are a generator, a transmission circuit, a transformer, or a
3
Potential Sub-Synchronous Resonance of the Turbine-Generator shaft system in the vicinity of Series
Capacitor Compensated Lines needs to be identified early during the connection planning process. For
this reason special studies and analysis, need to be carried out by an expert in the area of SSR, to
examine if and when undesirable interactions would occur between the Series Capacitor Compensated
lines and the proposed Turbine-Generating units. Proposed protection and operational considerations
and/or procedures will accordingly be developed based on study results. Wind farms electrically close to
the HVDC terminals or series capacitors will also require sub-synchronous control interaction (SSCI)
studies.
4 Please refer to Attachment A
Page 12
Public
R1-2016-05-01
single pole of a DC transmission line. The acceptable impact on the system is the same as
Category A. Planned or controlled interruptions of electric supply to radial customers or some
local network customers, connected to or supplied by the faulted element or by the affected
area, may occur in certain areas without impacting the overall reliability of the interconnected
transmission systems. To prepare for the next contingency, system adjustments are permitted,
including curtailments of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) transmission service electric
power transfers.
Category C5 events [NOTE: Category C wording may need to be adjusted on a project-byproject basis] results in loss of two circuits of a multiple circuit tower. All equipment must
operate within its applicable rating, voltages must be within their applicable range, and the
system must be stable with no cascading outages. For Category C5, the controlled interruption
of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain
generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) transmission
service electric power transfers may be necessary to maintain the overall reliability of the
interconnected transmission systems.
The Alberta Reliability Standards include the Transmission Planning (TPL) standards that
specify the desired system performance under different contingency categories with respect to
the Applicable Ratings. The transmission system performance under various system conditions
is defined in Appendix 1 of the TPL standards. For the purpose of applying the TPL standards to
this study, the Applicable Ratings shall mean:

Seasonal continuous thermal rating of the line’s loading limits.

Highest specified loading limits for transformers.

For Category A conditions: Voltage range under normal operating condition should
follow the AESO Information Document ID# 2010-007RS. For the busses not listed in
ID#2010-007RS, Table 2-1 in the Reliability Criteria applies.

For Category B and Category C5 conditions: The extreme voltage range values per
Table 2-1 in the Reliability Criteria. [NOTE: If Category C contingency assessment is not
required, remove the reference to Category C5]

Desired post-contingency voltage change limits for three defined post event timeframes
as provided in Table 5.1-1.
Table 5.1-1: Post Contingency Voltage Deviation Guidelines
Time Period
Parameter and reference point
Post Transient
(up to 30 sec)
Post Auto Control
(30 sec to 5 min)
Post Manual
Control (Steady
State)
Voltage deviation from steady state at
POD low voltage bus.
±10%
±7%
±5%
5.2
AESO Rules
The AESO Voltage Control Practice ID # 2010-007RS will be applied to establish precontingency voltage profiles in the Study Area. The Transmission Congestion Management
(TCM) Rule will be followed in setting up the study scenarios and assessment of the impact of
the Project connection. In addition, due regard will be given to the AESO Customer Connection
Study Requirements Document and the Generation and Load Interconnection Standard.
Page 13
Public
R1-2016-05-01
The Reliability Criteria is the basis for planning the AIES. The transmission system will normally
be designed to meet or exceed the Reliability Criteria under credible worst-case loading and
generation conditions.
5.3
Other Requirements
Other AESO requirements to be applied when performing connection studies are outlined below:

if applicable
Describe in detail the application of any other AESO requirements, criteria, standards, rules, practices,
and guidelines (market or otherwise) when the connection studies were carried out. Use subsection
headings that clearly identify the requirement being discussed or add another bullet.
6
Study Assumptions and Modeling
This part is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer.
The study will be conducted on the AIES system model using the AESO’s Planning Base Case
Suite. The 20XX Summer Light/Peak and Winter Peak study scenarios (for near-term
assessment [based on the proposed in service date]) will be studied as required. The 20YY
Winter Peak (20YY WP) will be used to determine the future post-project short circuit.
The base cases will be provided by AESO. In addition, incremental dispatch IDEVs may be
provided by the AESO to adjust the load and generation dispatch in the base cases to a closer
starting point for the required studies. Manual adjustments may be required to ensure full
alignment with the details outlined in this scope, as described in the process outlined below. The
AESO will provide guidance to the Market Participant’s consultant with regard to the setup of the
study cases should any questions arise.
The expected process for the creation of acceptable study cases is as follows:
 The consultant will request base cases from AESO.
 The AESO will provide guidance regarding the appropriate incremental IDEVs to use
and any other application information required to the consultant.
 The consultant will request the appropriate incremental IDEVs (as determined by the
AESO) or the AESO will provide alternate IDEVs. Project removal IDEVs, should they be
required, will be the responsibility of the consultant.
 The consultant will apply the identified IDEVs to the cases, and verify the cases are
consistent with the assumptions outlined within this scope document including
area/region loads, generator dispatch, intertie assumptions and system/customer
connection projects. The consultant will make adjustments as required to ensure the
cases represent these scoped assumptions correctly.
 If the IDEVs do not work, or result in cases that do not solve, the AESO will support the
consultant in resolving issues including providing corrected IDEV files.
 Once power flow cases are created to the consultant’s satisfaction, all cases will be
forwarded to the AESO for approval.
 The AESO will provide a list of required corrections, or IDEV scripts, as required, or will
give the go-ahead to proceed with power flow analysis
Page 14
Public
R1-2016-05-01
6.1
Study Scenarios
[The 20XX/20YY study cases shall represent the Project conditions as outlined in Table 6.1-1.
Load and generation conditions have been chosen as they represent the most reasonable
stressed conditions to assess the Project connection. For this study, the Study Area is defined
in Section 4 of the Study Scope.]
Table 6.1-1: Project Study Cases – Example
Condition
Project
Load (MW)
Project
Generation
(MW)
2016 SP
Pre-Project
0
0
2
2016 WP
Pre-Project
0
0
3
2016 SP
Post-Project
20
0
4
2016 WP
Post-Project
20
0
Scenario
Year/Season
Load
1
System
Generation
Dispatch
Conditions
High Wind, High
Import
High Wind, High
Import
Outline all scenarios (i.e. system conditions) the Market Participant must consider for the Connection
Studies. System conditions may include the following:

Low and high loading levels;

Low and high generation levels; and

If necessary, include major study assumptions for the study cases: transmission system operating
levels for major paths such as South of KEG (SOK), Fort McMurray transfer in and out, and other
relevant system operating levels. If requires, provide rationales why the conditions are the
credible and stressed scenarios for this Project.
6.2
Load Assumptions
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer in collaboration with the AESO Forecasting.
This section should be re-confirmed by AESO Forecasting before a Study Scope is signed off. An
updated System Access Service Request (SASR) from the MP was provided during the development of
study scope (Stage 1), PSAS Planning Engineer should forward the SASR to AESO forecasting.
Table 6.2-1 presents the load conditions and assumptions to be used in the connection studies.
The coincident load forecast is the AESO 20ZZ Long Term Outlook (LTO) at (Area, Region or
AIL) coincident peak. In this study the active power to reactive power ratio in the Base Cases
will be maintained when modifying the loads.
Table 6.2-1: Forecast Peak/Light Load (MW) - Example
Forecast Peak Load (MW)
Substation, Area or Region Name and
Season
2016
2018
SP
Central
WP
Page 15
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Substation, Area or Region Name and
Season
Forecast Peak Load (MW)
2016
2018
SL
SP
South*
WP
SL
SP
AIL w/o Losses
WP
SL
*Define used Areas/Regions as required.
Note: Scaling loads on the region or area should be done with Table 6.2-1. IDEV files contain non-motor
loads in zones 34, 36, and 351. These loads are not accounted for in the forecasted peak loads shown
above and should not be considered when scaling load. AESO Planning Engineer will provide guidance
to load scaling procedures as required.
6.3
Generation Assumptions
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer in collaboration with AESO Forecasting. This
section should be re-confirmed by AESO Forecasting before Study Scope is signed off. An updated
System Access Service Request (SASR) from the MP was provided during the development of study
scope (Stage 1), PSAS Planning Engineer should forward the SASR to AESO forecasting.
Describe the generation assumptions (including N-G) and the AESO forecast applied (e.g., 2014LTO).
Present existing and future units for consideration in the project studies (local generators) and the
dispatch level of each. Describe the notable features of the local generators, as required. Below is an
example of the write up:
The existing and proposed generators and their dispatch levels in the Study Area are listed in
Table 6.3-1, Table 6.3-2, and Table 6.3-3 below (Depending on the study, there may be one,
two or three tables).
For Wind Aggregated Generating Facility (WAGF) connection studies or where Wind dispatch
assumptions are influential to the study (include if required);
The wind dispatch level will include all existing and under construction wind generation facilities
dispatched as described in Table 6.3-2. Remaining forecast wind growth can be allocated to
projects in the Southern or Central Alberta region as identified in Table 6.3-3 to stress the local
transmission network. Any remaining wind generation will be distributed proportionally
throughout Southern, Central or other region in Alberta based on projects.
An incremental dispatch IDEV may be provided by the AESO to adjust the generation dispatch
in the Base Case to a closer starting point for the study conditions listed below. However, further
adjustments could be required to reach alignment with the details listed in Table 6.3-1 to Table
6.3-3. Guidance on further generation re-dispatch of the Alberta system will be provided if
necessary. All the remaining generators will be dispatched based on an economic merit order
as in the dispatch IDEV unless otherwise required and described by this scope document.
Page 16
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Existing/
Future
Existing
Future
Unit
Name
Table 6.3-1: Summary of Local Non-wind Generation
20xx
20xx
20xx
20yy
SL
SP
WP
SL
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Bus
Pmax
Area
net
net
net
net
Number
(MW)
Gener- Gener- Gener- Generation5
ation
ation
ation
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
Gen A
…
…
…
Gen B
#29
…
…
…
Gen C
…
…
…
Gen D
…
…
…
Gen E
…
…
…
20yy
SP
Unit
net
Gener
-ation
(MW)
20yy
WP
Unit
net
Generation
(MW)
Total
Table 6.3-2: Summary of Existing and Under Construction Wind Farms in Alberta
(For Wind Studies or where Wind is important to the study (include if required))
Plant Name
Planning
Area
Bus
Number in
the Base
Cases
Unit net
Generation
Output (MW)
20xx
Unit net
Generation
Output (MW)
20yy
Existing Southern Alberta
…
…
Total
Under construction South
Total
Subtotal South
Existing central
…
…
Total
Under Construction Central
Total
Subtotal Central
Total Alberta
5
Unit net Generation refers to Gross Generating unit MW output less Unit Service Load.
Page 17
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Table 6.3-3: Southern/Central Alberta future Wind Projects (Past Gate 2) - Example
(For Wind Studies or where Wind is important to the study (include if required))
Project
Modeling
Plant Name
No.
Alberta Wind Energy Old Man River
Wind Farm
Pteragen Peace Butte 116 MW Wind
Farm
519
513
ISD
Area
Busses
53
61543
4
2294, 4294
Oct,
2013
Jan,
2014
Dispatch (MW)
PMax
(MW)
20xx
20yy
…
Total
6.4
Intertie Flow Assumptions
Indicate the assumptions regarding the intertie flow between Alberta and neighbouring jurisdictions. If
Intertie flow is not a key assumption in a Connection project, please discard this section. Below are
examples of the write up:
[Intertie assumptions are included for the B.C., MATL, and Saskatchewan interties. Details on
the assumptions can be found in Table 6.4-1.]
or
[The intertie points are deemed to be too far away to have an effect on the assessment of the
proposed connection. The flows in the Study Area are not influenced by the AIES HVDC
facilities. As a result, the intertie and HVDC assumptions are kept consistent with that in the
AESO planning base cases and not adjusted for this study.]
Table 6.4-1: Intertie Assumptions6
Intertie
Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
Year / Condition
2016SL
(Pre-Project)
2016SP
(Pre- Project)
2016WP
(Pre- Project)
2016SL
(Post- Project)
2016SP
(Post-Project)
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
BC
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
Saskatchewan
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
MATL
-800
-150
0
480
150
300
480
150
300
-800
-150
0
480
150
300
6
Intertie assumption shall meet the AESO Available Transfer Capability and Transfer Path Management
ID#2011-001R
Page 18
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Intertie
Case No.
Year / Condition
2016WP
(Post-Project)
2018SL
(Post-Project)
2018SP
(Post- Project)
2018WP
(Post- Project)
6
7
8
9
6.5
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
BC
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
Saskatchewan
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
MATL
480
150
300
-800
-150
0
480
150
300
480
150
300
HVDC Line Flow Assumptions
This section is completed by the AESO Planning Engineer.
The influence of the HVDC to this study should be identified here. In general, the majority of connections
to the AIES will not require adjustment to the planned power flow order levels for the WATL and EATL
HVDC links during studies. For major projects and where the scoped study scenarios require adjustments
to the pre-set HVDC flow level provided by the AESO in the Base Cases, the AESO Planning Engineer
will provide guidance as to the new flow settings and associated VAR adjustments as required.
Table 6.5-1: HVDC Power Order by Scenario
6.6
Case No
Scenario
WATL (MW)
EATL (MW)
1
2016SL (Pre- Project)
475 N  S
Blocked
2
2016SP (Pre- Project)
250 S  N
450 S  N
3
2016WP (Pre- Project)
475 N  S
Blocked
Project Assumptions
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer.
Include any Market Participant and transmission projects that are not already in service but are included
in the AESO Base Cases or will be included in the study cases; use a suitable table format with all details
shown where possible.
Table 6.6-1: Summary of System Project Assumptions for Connection Studies
Project
Subproject
Subproject Name
In-Service Date
P850
South and
West
Edmonton
1
Harry Smith Sub
2
New Saunders Lake 240/138kV Substation; re-terminate 910L,
914L, 780L & 858L at Saunders Lake; build lines between
Nisku & proposed Saunders Lake; and reconfiguration of
September 2017
Page 19
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Project
Subproject
Subproject Name
Reinforce
ment
In-Service Date
affected substations.
3
New 138kV Lines from 780L to Cooking Lake & 174L; and
reconfiguration of affected substations
4
133L from Wabamun to 234L tap
5
New Capacitor Bank at Leduc 325S
All Market Participant projects within the study area and past Gate 2 of the Connection process must be
included in the study cases.
Table 6.6-2: Summary of Connection Project Assumptions for the Connection Studies (All Market
Participant Projects Past Gate 2)
Planning
Area
Queue
Position*
53
54
54
19
55
Energize
d
55
57
6.7
Planned
In-Service
Date
Jul.
2017
Apr.
2016
Oct.
2014
Feb.
2017
Project Name
Project
#
Gen
(MW)
Load
(MW)
Included/Excluded
from Studies
RESL McLaughlin WAGF
1500
47.0
1.0
Included
Lethbridge Chinook NW POD
1260
0
30.0
Included
Fortis Spring Coulee Upgrade
1338
0
2.0
Included
BowArk Energy Drywood Power
Gas Plant
1522
18.6
1.0
Excluded
Additional Projects
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer and Market Participant or Studies Consultant.
Include all Market Participant planned facilities that are not passed through gate 2 but will be included in
the study cases; use a suitable table format with all details shown where possible.
The AESO, Market Participant and Studies Consultant may add any projects that have not passed
through Gate 2 of the Connection Process to account for project development uncertainty and
development of sensitivity study scenarios.
Table 6.7-1: Summary of selected projects for inclusion in the study case (Market Participant
projects behind Gate 2)
Planned InService Date
Project Name
Project #
Gen
(MW)
Load
(MW)
Included/Excluded from
Studies
RESL McLaughlin WAGF
1500
47.0
1.0
Included
Lethbridge Chinook NW POD
1260
0
30.0
Included
Oct. 2014
Fortis Spring Coulee Upgrade
1338
0
2.0
Included
Feb. 2017
BowArk Energy Drywood Power Gas
Plant
1522
18.6
1.0
Excluded
Jul.
2017
Apr. 2016
Page 20
Public
R1-2016-05-01
6.8
Facility Ratings
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer. The TFO will verify the ratings and provide any
updates/corrections to the facility ratings as required.
Include suitable tables to show facility ratings for relevant equipment at voltage levels of 69 kV and above
(existing and new) in the study region.
[The Transmission Facility Owner (TFO) provided the ratings of the existing transmission lines
(Table 6.8-1), the existing transformers (Table 6.8-2), and the existing shunt elements (Table
6.8-3) in the Study Area.]
Table 6.8-1: Summary of Transmission Line Ratings in The Study Area (at 138 kV base)
Short-term7 Rating
(MVA)
Nominal Rating
(MVA)
Line ID
Line Description
Voltage
Class
(kV)
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
7L84
Flyingshot 749S – Crystal 722S
138
142.8
142.8
180
181
7L03
Flyingshot 749S – Elmworth 731S
138
109.3
139
123.6
150.5
7L68
Clairmont Lake 811S – Rycroft 730S
138
94.9 CT8
94.9 CT
94.9 CT
94.9 CT
Table 6.8-2: Summary of Transformer Ratings in The Study Area
Substation Name and Number
Transformer ID
Transformer
Voltages (kV)
MVA Rating
Battle River 757S
912T
240/144
224
Battle River 757S
701T
144/72
75
Nevis 766S
901T
240/144
100
144/72/25
H-M: 33.3
X-M: 33.3
Y-M: 16.6
Nevis 766S
701T
Table 6.8-3: Summary of Shunt Elements in The Study Area (at 138 kV base)
Capacitors
Substation
Name and
Number
Nominal
Bus
Voltage
(kV)
Hardisty 377S
138
Tucuman 478S
138
Hill 751S
138
Number of
Switched
Shunt
Blocks
1 x 27 MVAr
1 x 44.9
MVAr
1 x 27.17
MVAr
1 x 20 MVAr
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Reactors
Status in
Study
(on or off)
Number of
Switched
Shunt Blocks
2017S
P
2017
WP
(MVAr)
(MVAr)
71.9
27
(on)
27
(on)
-
27.17
(off)
(off)
45
45
45
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Status in
Study
(on or off)
2017
SP
2017
WP
(MVAr)
(MVAr)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
When line loading in post Category B contingency is observed to exceed nominal rating and is less than
the Short-term rating, it is assumed that AESO and TFO operating practices can manage the constraint
within the time requirements of TFO short time rating.
8 The limitation factor for the line rating is due to a current transformer.
Page 21
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Capacitors
Nominal
Bus
Voltage
(kV)
Substation
Name and
Number
Number of
Switched
Shunt
Blocks
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
1 x 25 MVAr
6.9
Reactors
Status in
Study
(on or off)
2017S
P
2017
WP
(MVAr)
(MVAr)
(both
on)
(both
on)
Number of
Switched
Shunt Blocks
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Status in
Study
(on or off)
2017
SP
2017
WP
(MVAr)
(MVAr)
Protection Fault Clearing Time
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer. The TFO will verify the ratings and provide any
updates/corrections to the facility ratings as required.
List the fault clearing times used for the transient stability analysis. Use a table. When providing near-end
and far-end fault clearing times, include different directions with the clearing times only when the clearing
times are not the same for faults at each end. Indicate if the fault clearing time assumptions have been
verified by the Transmission Facility Owner (TFO). Below is an example of the write up:
[Fault clearing times for existing facilities are provided by TFO and are listed in Table 6.9-1.]
Table 6.9-1: Stated Protection Fault Clearing Times
Terminal Location
Line
9Lxx
Nominal
Bus
Voltage
(kV)
240
Terminal
1
SUB 1S
Terminal
2
SUB 2S
Total Clearing Time
Terminal
3
SUB 3S
Faulted
Location
State if it is
calculated
(actual) or
estimated
(generic)
Faulted
Location
Terminal
1
Terminal
2
Terminal
3
SUB 1S
6
7
8
actual
SUB 2S
6
7
8
generic
SUB 3S
6
7
9
generic
6.10 Dynamic Data
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer.
Dynamic data will be referred to Stage 1 PDUP if available. Otherwise, the dynamic data will be specified
here. Motor composition information will be specified in this Section. Below is an example of the write up:
[Dynamic data for the Project is based on the submitted Stage 1 Project Data Update Package
(PDUP-1). Motor composition information is provided in Table 6.10-1.]
Table 6.10-1: Transient Stability Analysis Load Representation
Planning Areas
% of load
specified as
Large Motors
Page 22
% of load
specified as
Small
Motors
The Remainder of the Load
(excluding Motor loads)
Active
Power
Reactive
Power
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Constant
Current
Constant
Impedance
Areas in NW and NE regions
40%
30%
100%
100%
Areas in other regions
10%
10%
100%
100%
6.11 Voltage Profile Assumption
This section is checked by the AESO Planning Engineer. Please keep the following description unless
any change is required. The AESO Planning Engineer will verify the Voltage Profile Assumptions and
provide updates/correction corresponding to planned upgrades when required.
The AESO Voltage Control Practice ID # 2010-007RS9 is used to establish normal system (i.e.,
pre-contingency) voltage profiles for key area busses prior to commencing any studies. Table 21 of the Reliability Criteria applies for all the busses not included in the ID 2010-007RS. These
voltages will be utilized to set the voltage profile for the study base cases prior to load flow
analysis.
Table 6.11-1: Summary of voltage at key nodes in the study region
Nominal
Minimum
Desired
Maximum
Substation
Voltage
Operating
Range
Operating
(kV)
Limit (kV)
(kV)
Limit (kV)
Substation C (xxxS)
240
216
234-252
264
6.12 Motor Starting Assumptions
The section is to evaluate the potential impacts of motor starting operation on the surrounding system.
The customer must provide details of study assumptions (including how frequent the motor starts and
then find the voltage dip percentage for different voltage levels), motor model, and software used to
perform the studies. Also the type of motor starting equipment and/or starting methodology that would be
implemented must be specified.
If motor starting analysis is no longer required, remove the subsection – The example below assumes
that VFD will be installed with across the line staring capability as backup. If the Market Participant
confirms that the motors in the Project will not start motors across the line, Motor starting analysis is no
longer required.
Below is an example of the write up for motor starting assumption portion:
[The following assumptions were used in conducting motor starting analysis:

The transient voltage dip at the 138 kV transmission bus should not exceed 5% when
starting a single motor.
9Available
at
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/Version_for_posting_June_1_2015_under_blanket_approval.pdf
Page 23
Public
R1-2016-05-01

The motors will not start simultaneously. Only one motor will be allowed to start in VFD
bypass mode while the other motors are running at full load.]
6.13 Data Required for Sub-Synchronous Studies
This data will only be required if the initial screening studies identify the need for detailed
analyses of sub-synchronous torsional interaction (SSTI) with HVDC facilities or subsynchronous resonance (SSR) with serious capacitor compensated transmission lines. Also
control interaction between certain types of Wind Turbines (e.g.Type 3) and series capacitance
as well as with HVDC, may require special studies known as Sub-Synchronous Interaction
(SSCI). In this case detailed Wind Turbine modes and the associated controls are required.
Section 7.9 describes the methodology developed by the AESO and the TFOs to carry out the
screening studies as well as the detailed sub-synchronous as required. Table 6.13-1 and Table
6.13-2 list the data required for steam driven turbine-generator(s). Although gas driven
generating unit(s) are not as vulnerable to sub-synchronous phenomena as steam driven units,
data should also be obtained for these units to ensure that no adverse sub-synchronous
interaction/resonance will be overlooked.
Table 6.13-1: Required Data for Turbine-Generator Shaft System
Basic Requirements
Data
Number of poles of the Generator
Mechanical frequencies as calculated by the manufacturer
Table 6.13-2: Torsional Data for the Turbine-Generator Shaft System
Mass
No.
Rotor
Steam
Moment
Stiffness
Damping
Damping
section
Fraction
S
of
constants
Constant
Constant
(Min Load)
(Max Load)
Dmin
Dmax
[p.u.]
Inertia
J
K
[lb.ft²]
[lb.ft/rad]
[N.m.s/rad]
[N.m.s/rad]
Or
Or
Or
Or
[kg.m²]
[N.m/rad]
[lb.ft.s/rad]
[lb.ft.s/rad]
1
2
i
Generator
N/A
n
Page 24
Public
R1-2016-05-01
7
Study Methodology
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer in collaboration with the Consultant.
The following sections provide additional details on study requirements and methodology. However, they
are not meant to provide an exhaustive list. For additional guidance the studies consultant may refer to
the AESO Market Participant Connection Study Requirements Document. The studies consultant will
consult with the AESO on a regular basis and in particular at key steps in the course of the study. Such
key steps may include completion of the study case build-up, contingency analysis file preparation,
completion of the existing system studies, and completion of alternative evaluation.
The applicable requirement will be based on known system constraints and existing operating limitations
in the study region. There might be conditions where system configuration in the long term may impose
new operating limits. Adjustments are expected to be made in coordination with the AESO Planning
Engineer.
In case where transmission congestion is identified through the connection studies, the AESO will provide
further direction on additional studies on identifying the mitigation measure for congestion management,
under system normal (N-0) and abnormal conditions (N-1). Details of the mitigation measures are covered
in Section 7.10.
For each type of study explain the study methodology to be used in the following subsections. Describe
potential sensitivity tests the Market Participant will have to consider in addition to the given scenarios.
Identify if there is any variation of the given scenarios when performing the sensitivity studies.
Make sure to state the software that will be utilized to perform each study.
7.1
Connection Studies Carried Out
The studies to be carried out for the connection study area identified in Table 7.1-1.
Please delete the rows that are not applicable to the Project.
Table 7.1-1: Summary of Studies Performed
Project 1234
Scenario and Condition
Load
(MW)
Generation
(MW)
System Conditions
Load
Flow10
1
2016 SP Pre-project
0
0
Category A and Category B
X
2
2016 WP Pre-Project
0
0
Category A and Category B
X
3
2016 SP Post-Project
20
0
Category A and Category B
X
4
2016 WP Post-Project
20
0
Category A and Category B
X
7.2
Voltage
Stability9
Transient
Stability9
Motor
Starting9
11
X
X
X
Load Flow Analysis
The critical generator identified for this study will be [Name N-G unit, e.g., the H.R. Milner unit].
Only Category A - all generators online in the study area.
Page 25
11
X
Explain the objective of the Load flow studies. Describe the methodology used for the power flow
analysis: for example, studies will be performed for pre-connection and post-connection (all alternatives),
10
Shortcircuit
Public
R1-2016-05-01
X
which scenarios will be studied from the list in Section 7, how the studies will be run (such as for 10%
voltage deviation the transformer taps and adjustable shunts will be locked), the assumed power factor,
and any other relevant information.
Include the monitored quantities, such as thermal loading, or voltage magnitude pre and post
contingency.
State the software that will be utilized to perform the studies.
Outline a list of outages to be studied in the power flow and voltage stability analysis for each scenario in
a suitable table format where possible. For a very large contingency list, grouping the list is
recommended, such as outage of all 138kV and above transmission lines in the study region. All line
flows of power flow analysis are reported as percentage loading relative to line rating converted to current
(amperes)
The transmission lines in the study area whose thermal loading in post contingency, is above 90% of its
seasonal continuous ratings, should be reported in the table listing study results of the steady state power
flow. The PSSE Powerflow diagrams should be attached in Attachment of Engineering Study Report
(ESR) including contingencies of Category A, all the Category B, and selected Category C5 unless
otherwise the AESO advises
Below is an example of the write up:
[Load flow analysis will be completed for all study scenarios to identify any thermal or
transmission voltage violations as per the Reliability Criteria. Transformer tap and switched
shunt reactive compensation devices such as shunt capacitors and reactors will be locked and
continuous shunt devices will be enabled when performing Category B load flow analysis.
POD low voltage bus deviations will also be assessed by first locking all tap changers and area
capacitors to identify any post-transient voltage deviations above 10%. Tap changers will then
be allowed to adjust, while shunt reactive compensating devices remained locked; to determine
if any voltage deviations above 7% would occur in the area. Once all taps and shunt reactive
compensating devices have been adjusted, voltage deviations above 5% will be reported, for
both the pre-Project and post-Project networks.]
7.2.1 Contingencies Studies
Below are examples of the write up:
[Load flow analysis will be performed for the Category A condition and all Category B
contingencies in [the Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area
20) planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.]
Or
[All contingencies of lines and transformers in the study area must be simulated based on actual
fault isolation points for the equipment whose contingency is under study.
Table 7.2-1: Transmission Line Outages (Contingencies)
System Condition
Outage
From
Substation
To
Substation
Typical with all elements in service, N-0
Transmission line A
Example A 1S
Example B 2S
N - Generator 1
Transmission line B
Example C 3S
Example D 4S
Page 26
Public
R1-2016-05-01
System Condition
Outage
From
Substation
To
Substation
Table 7.2-2: Transmission Equipment Outages (Contingencies)
System Condition
Outage
Substation
Typical with all elements in service, N-0
Generator
1
Example A 1S
N - Generator 1
Transform
er Tx
Example A 1S
]
7.3
Voltage Stability Analysis
If this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.
The objective of the Power-Voltage (PV) curve is to determine the ability of the network to
maintain voltage stability at all the busses in the system under normal and abnormal system
conditions. The PV curve is a representation of voltage change as a result of increased power
transfer between two systems. The reported incremental transfers will be to the collapse point.
As per the AESO requirements, no assessment based upon other criteria such as minimum
voltage will be made at the PV minimum transfer. Voltage stability analysis for post-connection
scenarios will be performed. For load connection projects, the load level modelled in postconnection scenarios are the same or higher than in pre-connection scenarios. Therefore,
voltage stability analysis for pre-connection scenarios will only be performed if post-Project
scenarios show voltage stability criteria violations.
Voltage stability (PV) analysis will be performed according to the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC) Voltage Stability Assessment Methodology. The voltage stability
criteria states, for load areas, post-transient voltage stability is required for the area modeled at
a minimum of 105% of the reference load level for system normal conditions (Category A) and
for single contingencies (Category B). For this standard, the reference load level is the
maximum established planned load.
Typically, voltage stability analysis is carried out assuming the worst case scenarios in terms of
loading. The voltage stability analysis was performed by increasing load in [Study Areas, e.g.,
the Grande Prairie and Grande Cache Areas (AESO planning areas 20 and 22, respectively)],
and increasing the corresponding generation in the following AESO Planning Areas:
Page 27
Public
R1-2016-05-01

[Source area, e.g., the Wabamun planning area (Area 40)]

[Source area]

[Source area]
As per the voltage stability criteria, post transient techniques (all tap changers, all discrete
capacitors locked, but SVCs will be allowed to adjust) will used in applying the criteria and this
information is reflected in all tables and graphs. Also for this analysis, no limits will be selected
for the generation sources, non-negative active power constant MVA loads will be enforced and
the existing power factor for the reference will be maintained.
7.3.1 Contingencies Studies
Please refer to Section 7.2.1.
7.4
Transient Stability Analysis
If this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.
Transient stability analysis will be performed following the post-Project scenarios using [Study
scenarios, e.g., the 2017 SL and 2017 SP scenarios].
Stability plots for [State Monitoring quantities , e.g., bus voltage, machine relative angle and
active and reactive power outputs.etc] for all available generation units in [Study Area, e.g., the
Cold Lake (Area 28) planning area] are provided. [State reference generator, e.g., Genesee #1]
will be used as the system reference.
7.4.1 Contingencies Studies
Below are examples of the write up:
[Transient stability analysis will be performed for the Category A condition and all Category B
contingencies in [Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area 20)
planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.]
Or
Use a suitable table format to outline the selected contingencies and their descriptions for each scenario.
[
Table 7.4-1: Contingencies to be studied for Transient Stability Analysis
Contingency
Fault Location
N-1 of 1234L (Sub A to Sub B)
Sub A
N-1 of 1234L (Sub A to Sub B)
Sub B
N-1 of 5678L (Sub C to Sub D)
Sub C
]
Page 28
Public
R1-2016-05-01
7.5
Short Circuit Analysis
Short-circuit analysis will be performed for [Study scenarios, e.g., the 2016 WP pre Project
scenario and 2016 WP and 2025 WP post-Project scenarios] to determine the short-circuit
levels in the vicinity of the Project. The short-circuit analysis includes three phase and single line
to ground faults. Fault levels are provided in the form of currents in kilo amperes and per unit
positive and zero sequence impedances.
Highlight the short circuit current levels which are above 90% of equipment rating. Market
participants can approach the AESO for advice with respect to long-term anticipated short circuit
levels and can collaborate with the AESO on a system-based solution if a more locally-based
solution cannot solve it.
7.6
Motor Starting Analysis [as required]
If this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.
This section is to describe the study methodology of motor starting analysis. Below is an example of the
write up:
[Motor starting analysis will be performed for the proposed motors under system normal
(Category A) conditions and worst case contingencies identified in the voltage stability and
power flow analyses. The analysis considered the starting of one motor, with its Variable
Frequency Driver (VFD) out of service, while the other motors will be running at full load.]
7.7
Effectiveness Factor Analysis Studies [as required]
Effectiveness factor analysis studies are carried out to determine the generator/load
effectiveness factors and identify the most effective generator/load(s) to be curtailed in order to
mitigate the thermal violations observed following some Category B contingencies in the Study
Area.
7.8
Sensitivity Studies [as required]
Describe the methodology used for any other studies carried out. Use a separate heading for each study.
The headings should match the headings used in section 6.1. Include the intent, the assumptions, and
any relevant discussions regarding the study methodology. Use a table.
Page 29
Public
R1-2016-05-01
7.9
Sub-Synchronous Studies
7.9.1 Sub-Synchronous Torsional Interaction Study (SSTI)12
This study and analysis will be required when there is a concern of sub-synchronous torsional
interaction between turbine-generator units and the nearby HVDC transmission facilities.
7.9.1.1 Preliminary SSTI Screening
This section only applies to generation projects near HVDC convertor stations when the AESO or the
Consultant identifies potential SSTI.
Preliminary screening for potential SSTI for the proposed generating unit(s) does not require
detailed models for HVDC, turbine-generators or their controllers. The study should be carried
out by calculating the Unit Interaction Factors (UIF) under normal system conditions (N-0) and
single contingency (N-1) and credible multiple contingency (N-X) such as Category C and multielement outages. The UIF is calculated as follows:
UIFi = {MVAHVDC / MVAi } . {1 - (SCi / SCtot) }2
UIFi :
Unit Interaction Factor of the i-th generator
MVAHVDC: MVA rating of the HVDC
MVAi:
MVA rating of the i-th generator
SCtot:
Short-circuit capability at HVDC commutating bus including all generators
(Subtracting AC filters and shunt capacitors)
SCi :
Short-circuit capability at HVDC commutating bus excluding Generator(i)
(Subtracting AC filters and shunt capacitors)
An interaction factor close to or higher than 0.1 will require detailed SSTI studies as described in
Section 7.9.1.2. The Market Participant in consultation with the AESO should identify any other
dispatch combinations that are seen as credible in assessing the potential for SSTI.
7.9.1.2 Detailed SSTI Studies
This section will be complied by AESO Planning Engineer and will be carried out by Study Consultant
specialized in sub-synchronous oscillation analysis.
If the preliminary screening study shows an interaction factor for a generator higher than 0.1,
this indicates strong coupling between the particular generator and the HVDC under the studied
system condition. Therefore detailed SSTI studies are required to determine if there is a risk of
under-damped torsional modes of oscillations of turbine-generator shaft system. If the
calculated electrical damping is adequate, in the frequency range of torsional modes of concern,
no further studies are required. However, if the damping is not adequate, further studies are
required to investigate mitigation/protection measures.
Detailed ‘Process for SSTI Studies and Mitigation-protection’ between HVDC and Thermal Turbinegenerators is published in http://www.aeso.ca/connect/files/process_for_SSTI_studies_and_mitigationprotection.docx. Further SSTI studies documents will be published to the AESO website accordingly.
12
Page 30
Public
R1-2016-05-01
The detailed SSTI studies should check if under-damped torsional oscillations would be excited
during normal system conditions (N-0), single contingency (N-1) and multiple contingency (N-X)
events such as Category C and multi-outage conditions. The list of Category C and multielement outage conditions are provided in Table 7.9-1.
Table 7.9-1 Conditions to be tested for SSTI Studies
Scenario
Contingency
201X SP
Contingency
Category
B
C5
Multi-element
The AESO will provide the necessary support and review to ensure that SSTI study is carried
out with credible system conditions and contingencies. The SSTI study report will document the
results and identify the scenarios in which torsional interactions may exist and whether
mitigation measures are required. The AESO will engage the TFO to work with the vendor to retune the HVDC controls if this has been identified as a viable mitigation measure.
7.9.2 Sub-Synchronous Resonance (SSR) and Sub-Synchronous
Control Interaction (SSCI) Studies
Studies and analyses will be required when there is a concern of sub-synchronous resonance
between turbine-generator units and the nearby serious capacitor compensated AC
transmission lines. Studies are also required when there is a potential sub-synchronous control
interaction (SSCI) between the wind farms, particularly the DFIG (Type III), and serious
capacitor compensated lines or a nearby HVDC terminal. The AESO, TFO or the Consultant will
identify the need for SSR or SSCI studies.
7.9.2.1 Preliminary SSR and SSCI Screening
Preliminary screening for SSR and SSCI studies are carried out by frequency domain scanning,
and it does not require detailed models for turbine-generators or wind turbines or their
controllers. The frequency domain scanning for SSR looks for electrical resonance below 60 Hz.
In the case of wind turbine the frequency scanning for SSCI will look for sub-synchronous
frequency where the external reactance between the wind farm and the system dips by more
than 5%. This indicates a potential of unstable control interactions with the series capacitor.
If the results indicate potential risk of resonance with torsional modes oscillation or control
interaction under normal system conditions (N-0) and single contingency (N-1) and credible
multiple contingency (N-X) such as Category C and multi-element outages, then further study
will be required.
7.9.2.2 Detailed SSR and SSCI Studies
This section will be complied by AESO Planning Engineer and will be carried out by Study Consultant
specialized in sub-synchronous oscillation analysis
If the preliminary SSR or SSCI screening study shows potential risk of resonance or unstable
interaction between the turbine-generator control and the series capacitor(s), detailed SSR or
Page 31
Public
R1-2016-05-01
SSCI study is required. If risks are identified, further studies are required to investigate
mitigation/protection measures.
The detailed SSR or SSCI studies should check if under-damped torsional oscillations would be
excited during normal system conditions (N-0), single contingency (N-1) and multiple
contingency (N-X) events such as Category C and multi-outage conditions.
The AESO will provide the necessary support and review to ensure that SSR and SSCI studies
are carried out with credible system conditions and contingencies. The SSR or SSCI study
report will document the results and identify the scenarios in which potential risks may occur
and whether mitigation measures are required.
7.10 Mitigation Measures
If study results indicate transmission constraints associated with or exacerbated by the project
addition, modification to existing procedures and/or Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) or addition
of new procedures and/or RAS may be required.
The Studies Consultant must identify those anticipated constraints in a timely manner to the
AESO as they arise. The AESO Planning Engineer will guide the Studies Consultant to;
-
List study results in the constraint table in Attachment N of the part of the ESR
Template.
-
If N-0 overloads are observed in the post connection system, develop generation or
load effectiveness factor tables based on identified thermal constraints for N-0
system.
-
Develop generation or load effectiveness factor13 tables based on identified thermal
constraints under Category B contingencies.
-
Identify the components of the AESO system development plan which will alleviate
the identified constraint.
Propose adjustments to the original preliminary connection alternatives to avoid
proposing permanent RAS for Category B contingencies.
Study and propose possible modifications to existing RAS to ensure coordination of
proposed protection additions with the existing schemes.
Study and propose new temporary RAS required to ensure system reliability until
such time the planned system reinforcements are in place.
Proper study scenarios with the planned system reinforcements will be studied to
reflect removal of the identified constraints and the temporary nature of the RAS.
-
The AESO Planning Engineer will closely work with the Consultant and guide the development
and/or modifications of the proposed RAS to ensure system reliability, security and compliance
with AESO system access business practices.
13
Effectiveness factor analysis is carried out to determine the generator/load effectiveness factors which are used to
estimate the ability of each generator/load to relieve transmission element constraints. A generator/load’s
effectiveness factor is defined as the change in power flow over a specific line following a change in the generator’s
output power/ the load. As such, the larger the generator/load effectiveness factor the more helpful it can be in
alleviating a thermal violation on the transmission line associated to it.
Page 32
Public
R1-2016-05-01
8
Engineering Report
Study results will be presented to the AESO for review and comment in the form of a draft report
using the AESO’s Engineering Study Report (ESR) template:

A draft ESR will be provided in MS Word format (electronic format) for the AESO review
and comments;

Studies Consultant will discuss the followings:
-
the highlights of the studies as needed during the course of the study to
identify any unexpected surprises and resolve them.
-
the final study results and associated mitigation measures to the AESO
Planning Engineer before working on a draft ESR;

Study results will be presented using the AESO ESR template;

The consultant shall address AESO’s comments and finalize the report by taking into
account the comments and suggestions; and

Any variation from assumptions laid out in the study scope will be capture in the final
ESR.
Page 33
Public
R1-2016-05-01
9
Applicability Term
This section is compiled by the AESO Planning Engineer and the Consultant.
State the period the study scope as laid out in this document will be valid for assessing Market
Participant connection; include the anticipated timeline that the Market Participant expects to
complete the studies.
The study scope as laid out in this document will be valid for assessing the Market Participant
connection for a period of [state time (ex. six months)] from the date specified on this document
unless a material change occurs within this time. This timeline is [based on but not limited to the
system constraints, project interdependancies]. This study scope should not be considered
valid beyond this period without confirmation from the AESO.
The studies must be completed in accordance with the timelines required in the ‘Connection
Queue Business Practices’. The approximate timeline for the studies to begin is [state time (ex.
first week of February/Year)]. Prior to beginning the studies please check in with the AESO
Project Coordinator and Planning Engineer to ensure there are no new developments that might
impact the Study Scope.
Additional connection assessments including those needed to capture impact of changes in
forecast, introduction of new connection alternatives or delays in proposed system
developments as described herein shall be captured in a signed Scope Amendment document.
The Market Participant anticipates that the studies will be complete [state anticipated timeline
(ex. in six months from the date this document is issued)(on Month, Day, Year)].
If study assumptions change due to load forecast or project ISD after the completion of the
Connection ESR and Connection Proposal, the AESO will evaluate whether to use the same
ESR or create a new ESR for the NID filing. If necessary, further sensitivity study may be
required.
Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) may be required and will be developed by the AESO as
required.
Page 34
Public
R1-2016-05-01
10 Key Engineers
This section is compiled by the Studies Consultant in collaboration with the AESO Planning Engineer.
Outline all engineers who will be stamping, performing, supervising, and reviewing the
connection studies as stated in this document.

Role: [Name], [Title], [Company]

Role: [Name], [Title], [Company]
Page 35
Public
R1-2016-05-01
11 Revision History
This section is compiled by the AESO.
Rev.
Issue Date
Author
Change Tracking
0
Page 36
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Attachment A
Transmission Planning Criteria- Basis and Assumptions
(Reliability Criteria)
Page 37
Public
R1-2016-05-01
1 Introduction
This document presents the reliability standards, criteria, and assumptions to be used
as the basis for planning the Alberta Transmission System. The criteria, standards and
assumptions identified in this document supersede those previously established.
2 Transmission Reliability Standards and Criteria14
The AESO applies the following Alberta Reliability Standards to ensure that the
transmission system is planned to meet applicable performance requirements under a
defined set of system conditions and contingencies. A brief description of each of these
standards is given below:
1. TPL-001-AB-0: System Performance Under Normal Conditions
Category A represents a normal system condition with all elements in service (N0). All equipment must be within its applicable rating, voltages must be within
their applicable ratings and the system must be stable with no cascading
outages. Under Category A, electric supply to load cannot be interrupted and
generating units cannot be removed from service.
2. TPL-002-AB-0: System Performance Following Loss of a Single BES Element
Category B events result in the loss of any single element (N-1) under specified
fault conditions with normal clearing. The specified elements are a generating
unit, a transmission circuit, a transformer or a single pole of a direct current
transmission line. The acceptable impact on the system is the same as Category
A with the exception that radial customers or some local network customers,
including loads or generating units, are allowed to be disconnected from the
system if they are connected through the faulted element. The loss of
opportunity load or opportunity interchanges is allowed. No cascading can occur.
3. TPL-003-AB-0: System Performance Following Loss of Two or More BES Elements
Category C events result in the loss of two or more bulk electric system elements
(sequential, N-1-1 or concurrent, N-2) under specified fault conditions and
include both normal and delayed fault clearing. All of the system limits for
Category A and B events apply with the exception that planned and controlled
loss of firm load, firm transfers and/or generation is acceptable provided there is
no cascading.
4. TPL-004-AB-0: System Performance Following Extreme BES Events
Category D represents a wide variety of extreme, rare and unpredictable events,
which may result in the loss of load and generation in widespread areas. The
system may not be able to reach a new stable steady state, which means a
blackout is a possible outcome. The AESO needs to evaluate these events, at
its discretion, for risks and consequences prior to creating mitigation plans.
14
A complete description of these standards are given in: AESO. Alberta Reliability Standards. Available
from http://www.aeso.ca/rulesprocedures/17004.html
Page 38
Public
R1-2016-05-01
5. FAC-014-AB-2: Establishing and Communicating System Operating Limits
The AESO is required to establish system operating limits where a contingency is
not mitigated through construction of transmission facilities.
2.1 Thermal Loading Criteria
The AESO Thermal Loading Criteria require that the continuous thermal
rating of any transmission element is not exceeded under normal and postcontingency operating conditions. Thermal limits are assumed to be 100% of
the respective normal summer and winter ratings. Emergency limits are not
considered in the planning evaluations.
2.2 Voltage Range and Voltage Stability Criteria
The normal minimum and maximum voltage limits as specified in the following
table are used to identify Category A system voltage violations, while the
extreme minimum and maximum limits are used to identify Category B and C
system violations. Table 11.1-1 presents the acceptable steady state and
contingency state voltage ranges for the AIES.
Table 11.1-2 provides voltage stability criteria used to test the system
performance.
Table 11.1-1: Acceptable Range of Steady State Voltage (kV)
Nominal
Voltage
Extreme
Minimum
Normal
Minimum
Normal
Maximum
Extreme
Maximum
500
475
500
525
550
240
260 (Northeast
& Northwest)*
144
138
72
69
216
234
252
264
234
247
266
275
130
124
65
62
137
135
68.5
65.5
151
145
75.5
72.5
155
150
79
76
Table 11.1-2: Voltage Stability Criteria
Page 39
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Disturbance (1)(2)(3)(4)
Performance Initiated by:
Level
Fault or No fault
DC Disturbance
A
B
C
D
MW
Margin
(P-V
method)
(5)(6)(7)
MVAr Margin
(V-Q method)
(6)(7)
> 5%
Worst Case
Scenario(8)
> 5%
50% of
Margin
Requirement
in Level A
> 2.5%
50% of
Margin
Requirement
in Level A
Any element such as:
One Generator
One Circuit
One Transformer
One Reactive Power
Source
One DC Monopole
Bus Section
Any combination of two
elements such as:
A Line and a Generator
A Line and a Reactive
Power Source
Two Generators
Two Circuits
Two Transformers
Two Reactive Power
Sources
DC Bipole
Any combination of three or
more elements. i.e.:
Three or More Circuits on
ROW
Entire Substation
Entire Plant Including
Switchyard
>0
>0
2.3 Transient Stability Analysis Assumptions
Standard fault clearing times as shown in Table 11.1-3 are used for the new facilities
or when the actual clearing times are not available for the existing facilities. Double
line-to-ground faults are applied for the Category C5 events with normal clearing
times. Single line-to-ground faults are applied for Category C6 to C9 events with
delayed clearing times as depicted in Table 11.1-4 and Table 11.1-5.
Table 11.1-3: Fault Clearing Times
Nominal
Near
Page 40
Far End
Public
R1-2016-05-01
End
kV
500
240
144/138
Cycles
4
5
Cycles
5
6
with
telecommunications
6
8
6
30
144/138
without
telecommunications
Table 11.1-4: Stuck Breaker Clearing Times for Lines
Fault Clearing
Time
(Cycles)
138/144 kV
2nd
Ckt
(for
Near Far
C5
End End
and
C7
Only)
15
24
24
Fault Clearing Time Fault Clearing Time
(Cycles)
240 kV
(Cycles)
500 kV
2nd Ckt
2nd Ckt
Near Far
(for C5
End End
and C7
Only)
Near Far
(for C5
End End
and C7
Only)
12
6
14
9
5
11
Table 11.1-5: Stuck Breaker Clearing Times for Transformers
Fault Clearing Time (Cycles)
240/138 kV
Fault on 240 kV
Fault on 138 kV
Side
Side
nd
240 138 2 Ckt 138 240 2nd Ckt
kV
kV
kV
kV
(for
(for
Sid Sid Breake Sid Sid Breake
e
e
e
e
r Fail)
r Fail)
12
6
14
15
5
24
Fault Clearing Time (Cycles)
500/240 kV
Fault on 500 kV
Fault on 240 kV
Side
Side
nd
500 240 2 Ckt 240 500 2nd Ckt
kV
kV
kV
kV
(for
(for
Sid Sid Breake Sid Sid Breake
e
e
e
e
r Fail)
r Fail)
9
5
11
12
4
14
Page 41
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Page 42
Public
R1-2016-05-01
SECTION TWO
ENGINEERING STUDY
REPORT
Stage 2 Engineering Study Report
Project Title
Date:
Click and type date
Role
Name
Prepared:
Engineer, P. Eng.
Reviewed:
Engineer, P. Eng.
Approved:
Engineer, P. Eng.
Version:
Date
Signature
Click and type version number
Engineering Stamp
APEGA Permit to Practice: XXXXXX
Page 2
Public
R1-2016-05-01
(Page intentionally blank)
R[x]
3
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Executive Summary
What to include in Executive Summary:
 The Executive Summary is a high-level summary of the report. Be brief. Make sure the
information in the Executive Summary and the information in the Summary and Conclusion are
consistent.

Instructional statements are italicized with 10 font size.

In order to use acronyms/short form, acronyms should be defined in Executive summary. This
process will be repeated in the main body of the Engineering Study Report.

If referring to a transmission line, please use the following format: 138 kV transmission line 123L
(from 345S substation to 678S substation).

If referring to a substation, please use the following format: the ABC 345S substation.
Project Overview
[Market Participant Legal Name (Market Participant Short Name)] has submitted a System
Access Service Request (SASR) to the Alberta Electric System Operator for [Demand
Transmission Service and/or Supply Transmission Service] of XXXMW at [Project location, e.g.,
south of the City of Grande Prairie to serve oilfield loads] (the Project).
The requested In-Service Date for the Project is [Month, Day, Year of the In-Service date as per
the SASR request].
Existing System
The Project is located in the AESO planning area of [AESO planning area, e.g., Grande Prairie
(Area 20)], as part of [The AESO Region, e.g., the AESO Northwest (NW) Region]. Only if
Applicable The existing constraints in [The AESO Region, e.g., the NW Region] are managed in
accordance with Section 302.1 of the ISO rules, Real Time Transmission Constraint
Management.
This section will then describe the ‘overview of existing system’. Please describe the Key
substations/lines in the Project area and intertie connection with neighboring areas. Below is an example
of the write up:
[The H.R. Milner generation facility, with connection to the H.R. Milner 740S substation,
connects to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) through two 144 kV transmission
lines: one is transmission line 7L20, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Big
Mountain 845S substation in the Grande Prairie planning area (Area 20); the other is
transmission line 7L80, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Simonette 733S
substation, which further connects to the Little Smoky 813S substation in the Valleyview
planning area (Area 23) via transmission line 7L40.]
Study Summary
Study Area for the Project
The Study Area for the Project consisted of [The AESO Planning areas, e.g., the Grande Cache
and Grande Prairie areas], including the tie lines connecting [Specify how many planning areas
will be included in the Study Area, e.g., the two] planning areas to the rest of the AIES. All
transmission facilities within [Specify how many planning areas will be included in the Study
Page 1
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Area, e.g., the two] planning areas were studied and monitored for violations of the
Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions (Reliability Criteria). The [Insert the
number and voltage rating of the transmission lines connecting the Study Area to the rest of the
AIES, e.g., five (5) 144 kV] transmission lines connecting the [The AESO Planning area names,
e.g., the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas] to the rest of the AIES (namely transmission
lines [Insert the designation of the transmission lines connecting the Study Area to the rest of
the AIES, e.g. 7L73, 7L32, 7L45, 7L46 and 7L40] were also studied and monitored to identify
any violations of the Reliability Criteria.
Studies Performed for the Project
This section will provide a high level description of the studies performed to assess the impact of
connecting the Project to the AIES. Below is an example of the write up:
[Load flow analysis was performed for the 2016 summer peak (SP) and winter peak (WP) preProject and post-Project scenarios, with the 2016 AIES topology in the NW Region, to
determine the impact of the connection of the Project on the AIES.
Voltage stability analysis was performed for the 2016 WP post-Project scenario to identify
violations, if any, of the voltage stability criteria. Short-circuit analysis was performed for the
2016 WP pre-Project scenario and for the 2016 WP and 2025 WP post-Project scenarios to
determine the short-circuit levels in the vicinity of the Project.]
Results of the pre-Project Studies
Please follow the structure of the pre-Project study results as follows. Below is an example of the write up:
The following is a summary of the results of the pre-Project studies.
201X SP
Category A (N-G-0 [for Load Addition Projects] or N-0 [for Generation Addition Projects
– Please choose only one depending on the project type]) conditions
Please provide summary of the results for the pre-Project Category A scenario. Below is an example of
the write up:
[Under Category A conditions, no Reliability Criteria violations were observed for any of the preProject scenarios]
Category B (N-G-1 [for Load Addition Projects] or N-1 [for Generation Addition Projects
– Please choose only one depending on the project type]) conditions
Please provide summary of the results for the pre-Project Category B scenario. Below is an example of
the write up:
[Under Category B conditions, no Reliability Criteria violations were observed for any of the preProject scenarios]
Connection alternatives examined for the Project
Each Alternative should include details on what neighbouring substations/lines will be involved and what
associated equipment will be added for each alternative. Please use the same wording from the Project’s
Connection Study Scope to describe each alternative. Below is a new DTS example of the write up:
[Distribution Facility Owner] in [The Project area, e.g., south of Grande Prairie], examined and
ruled out the use of distribution-based solutions to serve the additional load [Only if Applicable].
This engineering study report will examine the following transmission alternatives to serve
[Requested Demand Transmisson Service].
Page 2
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Alternative 1: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138] kV transmission line [Line name] via an
in/out connection configuration.
Alternative 2: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138] kV transmission line [Line name] via a Ttap connection configuration.
Alternative 3: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing [Voltage Class, e.g. 138] transmission line [Line name] via a radial
connection configuration to the existing [substation name and number].
Alternative 4: Upgrade the capacity at the existing [Substation Name and number]
substation and shift load to neighboring [Substation Name and number]
substation.
Connection alternatives selected for further examination
Please address which Alternatives are selected for this Project and state the rationale for ruling out the
rest of the Alternatives.

Refer to the DFO’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR)

Address Market Participant (MP)’s preference (including cost estimates)

Specify Transmission Facility Owners (TFOs)’s position on any possible limitation/constraints that
would result in ruling out a specific alternative.
Below is an example of the write up:
[Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were selected for further study. Both Alternative 3 and
Alternative 4 would require greater transmission development for no incremental benefit and
were not selected for further study.]
Results of the post-Project studies
Please compare study results between selected Alternatives under each study scenario.
The following is a summary of the results of the post-Project studies.
201X SP
Category A (N-G-0 [for Load Addition Projects] or N-0 [for Generation Addition Projects
– Please choose only one depending on the project type]) conditions
Please provide summary of the results for the post-Project Cat A scenario.
Category B (N-G-1 [for Load Addition Projects] or N-1 [for Generation Addition Projects
– Please choose only one depending on the project type]) conditions
Please provide summary of the results for the post-Project Category B scenario. Below are examples of
the write up:
[Marginal thermal violations on the 144 kV line 7L50 from Battle River 757S to Buffalo Creek
726S were observed following the 144 kV line 7L53 contingency from Bonnyville 700S to Irish
Creek 706S. This line has clearance issues and continuous flow above the stated ratings cannot
be sustained; however, since the line loading is less than 100.8% this will be managed by real
time operational practices.
or
Voltage criteria violations were observed following the loss of the transmission line designated
as 7L228. The violations were observed at the Kakwa Ridge 857S, HR Milner 740S, Dome
Cutbank 810S and Thornton 2091S substations. To mitigate these violations, it would require a
Page 3
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
remedial action scheme (RAS) to trip the new Thornton 2091S substation. Following the 7L228
contingency, the load served by the Thornton 2091S substation would be left unserved.
Following the loss of 7L40 (Little Smoky 813S to Simonette 733S) a minor post-transient
deviation of 10.5% the Simonette 733S POD bus was noted; this is marginally higher than the
10% guideline. The TFO and DFO have confirmed that such marginal voltage deviation does
not impose any operational restriction.]
Mitigation Strategy and Sensitivity Analysis [as required]
Please describe how to mitigate the identified Reliability Criterial violations in these pre- and post-Project
studies.
Alternative Selected
This section will provide which Alternative is preferred based on performed studies. Please provide how
the study results impacted on the Alternative selections. Below is an example of the write up:
Alternative [State selected Alternative #, e.g., 2] was selected as the preferred alternative
since….. [Provide solid reasons why this Alternative was selected]
Recommendation
This section will provide the recommendation of this project including selected Alternative, new equipment
and mitigation measure (if required). Below is an example of the write up:
[The recommended alternative to connect the Facilities is Alternative 2, building the new 144/6.9
kV POD substation Vincent 2019S. The Project will include:
 Tapping the 144 kV line 7L65 and building 0.15 km of 144 kV line to connect the new
Vincent 2019S POD substation.
 Installing one 20/26.6/33.3 MVA, 144 kV to 6.9 kV LTC transformer, one 144 kV
transformer breaker, and associated equipment.
The 25 MVAr 144 kV capacitor at Irish Creek 706S, as identified in the 2015 Long-term
Transmission Plan (LTP), is required prior to the Project ISD, since the inclusion of this
capacitor bank mitigates all criteria violations noted in the pre- and post-connection results.]
Page 4
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................3
1.
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................5
1.1.
Project .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.1.
Load Component ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.2.
Generation Component ........................................................................................................... 6
1.2.
Study Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2.1.
Study Objectives...................................................................................................................... 7
1.2.2.
Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.2.3.
Studies Performed ................................................................................................................... 8
1.2.4.
Studies Excluded ..................................................................................................................... 9
1.3.
2.
Report Overview .............................................................................................................................. 9
CRITERIA, SYSTEM DATA, AND STUDY ASSUMPTIONS .............................9
2.1
Criteria, Standards, and Requirements ............................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 Transmission Planning Standards and Reliability Criteria ........................................................... 9
2.1.1 AESO Rules ............................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Other Requirements .................................................................................................................. 11
2.1. Study Scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2
Load and Generation Assumptions ................................................................................................ 12
2.2.1 Load Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Generation Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Intertie Flow Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 HVDC Power Order (if applicable) ............................................................................................. 14
2.3
System Projects ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.4
Customer Connection Projects ...................................................................................................... 15
2.5
Facility Ratings and Shunt Elements ............................................................................................. 16
2.6
Dynamic Data and Assumptions .................................................................................................... 17
2.7
Protection Fault Clearing Times ..................................................................................................... 17
2.8
Voltage Profile Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 18
2.9
Motor Starting Assumptions ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3
3.1
STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 19
Connection Studies Carried Out .................................................................................................... 19
Page 5
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
3.2
Load Flow Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.1 Contingencies Studied ............................................................................................................... 20
3.3
Voltage Stability (PV) Analysis ....................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Contingencies Studied ............................................................................................................... 21
3.4
Transient Stability Analysis ............................................................................................................ 21
3.4.1 Contingencies Studied ............................................................................................................... 21
3.5
Short-Circuit Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.6
Motor Starting Analysis .................................................................................................................. 21
3.7
Sub-Synchronous Studies [as required] ........................................................................................ 22
3.7.1 Sub-Synchronous Torsional Interaction Study (SSTI) ............................................................... 22
3.7.2 Sub-Synchronous Resonance (SSR) and Sub-Synchronous Control Interaction (SSCI) Studies
22
3.8
Effectiveness Factor Analysis Studies [as required] ...................................................................... 22
3.9
Sensitivity Studies [as required] ..................................................................................................... 22
3.10
Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 22
4
PRE-PROJECT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT...................................................... 23
4.1
Pre-Project Load Flow Analysis ..................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016
SP)
23
4.2
Pre-Project Voltage Stability Analysis [as required] ....................................................................... 24
4.3
Pre-Project Transient Stability Analysis [as required] .................................................................... 24
5
5.1
CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 25
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 25
5.2
Connection Alternatives Identified ................................................................................................. 25
5.2.1 Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies ............................................................... 25
5.2.2 Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies ........................................................ 25
6
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES ............... 26
6.1
Load Flow ....................................................................................................................................... 27
6.1.1 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................... 27
6.1.1.1
20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak –
2016SP, Scenario 4) ............................................................................................................................... 27
6.1.1.2
20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak –
2016WP, Scenario 5).............................................................................................................................. 28
6.1.2 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................... 28
6.1.2.1
20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak –
2016SP, Scenario 4) ............................................................................................................................... 28
6.1.2.2
20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak –
2016WP, Scenario 5).............................................................................................................................. 28
Page 6
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
6.1.3
Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 28
6.2
Voltage Stability ............................................................................................................................. 29
6.2.1 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................... 29
6.2.1.1
20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak –
2016WP, Scenario 5).............................................................................................................................. 29
6.2.2 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................... 29
6.2.2.1
20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak –
2016WP, Scenario 5).............................................................................................................................. 29
6.2.3 Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 29
6.3
Transient Stability........................................................................................................................... 29
6.3.1 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................... 30
6.3.1.1
Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016
Summer Peak – 2016 SP, Scenarios 4) ................................................................................................. 30
6.3.1.2
Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016
Winter Peak – 2016 WP, Scenarios 5) ................................................................................................... 30
6.3.2 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................... 30
6.3.2.1
Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016
Summer Peak – 2016 SP, Scenarios 4) ................................................................................................. 30
6.3.2.2
Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016
Winter Peak – 2016 WP, Scenarios 5) ................................................................................................... 30
6.3.3 Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 30
6.4
Motor Starting Analysis [as required] ............................................................................................. 30
6.4.1 Motor Starting Results for Alternative 1 ..................................................................................... 32
6.5
Sub-Synchronous Studies Analysis ............................................................................................... 33
6.6
Sensitivity Studies [as required] ..................................................................................................... 33
6.7
Effectiveness Factor Analysis [as required] ................................................................................... 33
7
MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................... 34
8
SHORT-CIRCUIT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 34
8.1
Pre-Project ..................................................................................................................................... 35
8.2
Post-Project .................................................................................................................................... 35
9
PROJECT INTERDEPENDENCIES .............................................................. 36
10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................. 37
Page 7
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachments
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Attachment I
Attachment J
Attachment K
Attachment L
Attachment M
Attachment N
Dynamic Data and Assumptions of All Equipment Proposed for Connection
Pre-Project Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Pre-Project Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Pre-Project Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Alternative 1: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Alternative XX: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Alternative 1: Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Alternative XX: Voltage Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Alternative 1: Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Alternative XX: Transient Stability Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Motor Starting Analysis and Diagrams
Category B Loading and Voltage Performance
Generation/Load Effectiveness Factor (if necessary)
Power Flow Diagrams after Mitigation Measures
Figures
Figure 6.4-1: Equivalent Circuit of Induction Motor ......................................................................... 32
Tables
Table 1.2-1: Summary of System Projects ........................................................................................ 8
Table 2.1-1: Post Contingency Voltage Deviation Guidelines ......................................................... 10
Table 2.2-1: List of the Connection Study Scenarios ...................................................................... 11
Table 2.3-1: Forecast Area Load (201X LTO at AIL Peak) ............................................................. 12
Table 2.3-2: Local Generation (MW) in the Study Cases ................................................................ 13
Table 2.3-3: Intertie Assumptions – Example .................................................................................. 13
Table 2.3-4: HVDC Power Order by Scenario ................................................................................. 14
Table 2.4-1: Summary of System Projects Included in the Study Cases ........................................ 15
Table 2.5-1: Summary of Customer Connection Assumptions ........................................................ 15
Table 2.6-1: Summary of Transmission Line Ratings in the Study Area (MVA on 138 kV Bases) .. 16
Table 2.6-2: Summary of Transformer Ratings in the Study Area ................................................... 16
Table 2.6-3: Summary of Shunt Elements in the Study Area .......................................................... 17
Table 2.8-1: Summary of Protection Fault Clearing Times .............................................................. 17
Table 3.1-1: Summary of Studies Performed* ................................................................................. 19
Table 4.1-1: Summary of System Performance (Element Loading) [2017SP Pre-Project N-G-1 Line Loading Above
Rate A] ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 6.1-1: Summary of System Performance (Element Loading) [Scenario 4- 2017 SP Post-Project N-G-1 Line
Loading Above Rate A] ................................................................................................................... 28
Table 6.1-2: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Range) ................................................... 28
Table 6.1-3: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Deviation) ............................................... 28
Table 6.2-1: Scenario 4: 2016 WP– Voltage stability analysis results (Minimum transfer = 22.5 MW)29
Table 6.3-1: Summary of Transient Instability ................................................................................. 30
Table 6.4-1: Motor Nameplate and Calculated Data ....................................................................... 31
Table 6.4-2: Equivalent Circuit Data................................................................................................ 32
Table 6.4-3: Motor Starting Performance for Alternative 1 .............................................................. 32
Table 8.1-1: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX) ......................... 35
Page 8
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Table 8.1-2: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed Connection + 10
Years]) ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Table 8.2-1: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX)........................ 35
Table 8.2-2: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed Connection + 10
Years]) ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Page 9
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
1.
Introduction
Present a brief overview of the project using the headings provided.
Note

If a subsection heading is not relevant to the project write "Not Applicable" under the heading in
the first draft of the report submitted for AESO review. Such headings must be removed before
submission of the final report.)

Acronym should be defined in the main body of the Engineering Study Report.
This Customer Connection Engineering Study Report (ESR) presents the results of the study
conducted to analyze the recommended connection alternative of [Project Name] (the Project)
to the Alberta Interconnected Electrical System (AIES).
1.1.
Project
1.1.1. Project Overview
This section is to describe the following:
•
•
•
•
Organization submitting SASR
SASR request (load DTS, gen STS, transformer add, breaker add, new POD, …) and why needed
(load growth, new load, new generator, DFO reliability – N-1, feeder loading, …)
location
Requested In-Service date
[Market Participant Legal Name (Market Participant Short Name)] has submitted a System
Access Service Request (SASR) to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) for [Demand
Transmission Service (DTS) and/or Supply Transmission Service (STS)] of [XXX] MW at
[Project location, e.g., south of the City of Grande Prairie to serve oilfield loads] (the Project).
The requested In-Service Date (ISD) for the Project is [Month, Day, Year of the In-Service date
as per the SASR request].
1.1.2. Load Component
Describe the load component of the project. Include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
State existing Demand Transmission Service (DTS) if applicable.
State the requested DTS along with the anticipated power factor;
Describe the type of load either Residential, Rural, Commercial, Industrial, and/or Oil Sands(these
are the sectors identified in the LTO);
o
Motor sizes if applicable
o
Motor starting methods (Across-the-line vs Variable Frequency Drive)
State the magnitude of the potential DTS that the Market Participant intends to apply for; and
Comment on possible future expansion plans and anticipated timing for such expansion.
Below are two examples of the write up:
Page 5
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
[1. The requested load addition is 17.9 MW by August 17, 2016.
2. Load Type: Residential, rural, commercial, or light industrial services.
3. DTS contract capacity at South Mayerthorpe 443S to remain at the existing level of 12.5 MW.
4. Currently there is no plan for future expansion.
5. The load will be studied assuming at 0.9 power factor (pf) lagging.]
or
[Current DTS is 14 MW. There will be an addition four 6600 HP motors with three in operation at
any one time. All motors will have dedicated Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). The requested
DTS increase is for an additional 25 MW for a total DTS 29 MW.]
1.1.3. Generation Component
Describe the generation component of the project. Include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
State size of the generator(s) and estimated Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP) and Maximum
Capability (MC) levels;15
Describe type of generator(s);
State estimated reactive power capability of the generator(s) when producing MARP. If this value
does not meet the generation interconnection standard specify the intended supplemental strategy. If
available, provide maximum capability curve based on pf/temperature.
State the potential magnitude of the Supply Transmission Service (STS) that the Market Participant
intends to apply for and operate at when connected to the grid;
State the seasonal generator capacity (if information available);
State station service load if applicable; and
Comment on possible future expansion plans and anticipated timing for such expansion;
Below is an example of the write up:
[Market Participant Short Name plans to install a co-generation facility consisting of a single 85
MW (nominal) natural gas fuelled combustion turbine-generator. With the addition of this
generator, Market Participant Short Name has requested an anticipated STS capacity of 85
MW.
1. Generators:
Designation
Type
Model
G1
Round Rotor
GE 7A6
2. Supply Transmission Service (STS): 85 MW
3. Rated Nameplate Capacity: 93.9 MVA @ 0.85 pf, nominal
4. Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP): 100 MW
5. Maximum Capability (MC): 85 MW
15
Maximum Authorized Real Power (MARP) and Maximum Capability (MC) are defined in the
Consolidated Authoritative Document Glossary posted on the AESO website:
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/Consolidated_Authoritative_Document_Glossary.pdf
Page 6
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
6. Reactive Power Capability (preliminary): 48 MVar (0.9 pf lagging) / 33 Mvar (0.95 pf
leading) at MARP,
7. The customer advised that there is no future expansion planned.]
1.2.
Study Scope
1.2.1. Study Objectives
The objective of the study is as follows:
1. Assess the impact of the Project connection on the AIES.
2. Evaluate the Project connection alternatives based on technical performance.
3. Recommend the Project connection alternative and any mitigation measures to address
system performance concerns, if any, to enable the reliable integration of the Project into
the AIES.
1.2.2. Study Area
1.2.2.1. Study Area Description
Define and describe the Study Area. Include a diagram of the Study Area that clearly shows salient
features such as transmission lines, substations, generating assets, and reactive elements in the area
and indicates their voltage classes. In the Single Line Diagram (the Study Area diagram) show how the
Study Area is connected to the rest of the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES).
The Project is located in the AESO planning area of [AESO planning area, e.g., Grande Prairie
(Area 20)], as part of [The AESO region, e.g., the AESO Northwest (NW) Region].
This section will then describe the Study Area and the ‘Overview of existing system’. Please describe the
Key substations/lines in the Project area and intertie connection with neighbouring areas. Below is an
example of the write up:
[The Study Area for the Project consisted of the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie
(Area 20) areas, including the tie lines connecting the two planning areas to the rest of the
AIES. All transmission facilities within the two planning areas will be studied and monitored for
violations of the Reliability Criteria (defined in Section 2.1.1). The five 144 kV transmission lines
connecting the Grande Cache and Grande Prairie areas to the rest of the AIES (namely
transmission lines 7L73, 7L32, 7L45, 7L46 and 7L40) will also be studied and monitored to
identify any violations of the Reliability Criteria.
The H.R. Milner generation facility, with connection to the H.R. Milner 740S substation,
connects to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) through two 144 kV transmission
lines: one is transmission line 7L20, which connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Big
Mountain 845S substation in the Grande Prairie area; the other is transmission line 7L80, which
connects the HR Milner 740S substation to the Simonette 733S substation, which further
connects to the Little Smoky 813S substation in the Valleyview planning area (Area 23) via the
144 kV transmission line 7L40.
Figure 1-1 shows the existing study area transmission system.
Page 7
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Figure 1-1: Existing Study Area Transmission System
Please add SLD here
1.2.2.2. Existing Constraints
If applicable, describe any known constraint(s) in the Study Area. Explain how the constraint(s) are
managed. Discuss any Information Documents (IDs)/Authoritative Documents (ADs) presently applied in
the area. Outline relevant existing manual or automatic Remedial Action Schemes (RASs) in the Study
Area. Below is an example of the write up:
[The existing constraints in [AESO Region where the Project is located, e.g., the Northwest
Region] are managed in accordance with Section 302.1 of the ISO Rules, Real Time
Transmission Constraint Management (TCM).]
1.2.2.3. AESO Long-Term Transmission Plans (LTP)
Describe the relevant AESO long-term transmission development plans for the Study Area and its vicinity
(either approved NID System Projects or developments identified in the AESO’s most recently published
Long Term Plan). List the anticipated in-service dates of those plans. Use a table. Discuss the known
impact(s) of any delays in the AESO Long-term Transmission Plans (LTP) for the area on the project.
Please specify if the AESO LTP topologies are included in the study scenarios here. Below is an example
of the write up:
[The AESO Central East sub-region near-term developments are listed in Table 1.2-1. These
developments are part of the AESO’s 2015 Long-Term Transmission Plan. These components
will not be considered in service unless triggered by the project or study results dictate.]
Table 1.2-1: Planned Central East Near-term Developments
Description

Add voltage reinforcement at Strome substation east of Camrose, Irish Creek substation north of
Kitscoty and Whitby Lake substation near Vilna


Add new 240/144 kV substation near Vermilion


Reconfigure 144 kV lines in vicinity of Vermilion to terminate at new substation

Rebuild 144 kV line from Vermilion to Irish Creek to higher capacity
Add new 240 kV line from Tinchebray substation northeast of Halkirk to new substation near
Vermilion energized at 144 kV
Add new 240 kV line from Hansman Lake substation southeast of Hughenden to Edgerton
substation energized at 144 kV
1.2.3. Studies Performed
Provide a high-level summary of the system conditions (20XX WP for example) and the studies
performed, such as analysis of the existing system before the connection and analysis of the system
performance after the connection. Include the contingency categories applicable to the project. Below is
an example. Please delete the bullets that are not relevant to the project:
The following studies were performed in the connection study:
Page 8
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
•
Load flow analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5), pre-Project and
post-Project conditions
Voltage stability analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5), post-Project
conditions
Transient stability analysis (Category B, and selected Category C5), post-Project conditions
Motor starting analysis, post-Project conditions
Short-Circuit fault studies, pre-Project and post-Project conditions
In cases where transmission congestion is identified through the connection studies
conducted, the AESO will provide further direction on additional studies to identify mitigation
measures for congestion management under system normal (N-0) and abnormal conditions
(N-1).
•
•
•
•
•
1.2.4. Studies Excluded
Provide a high-level summary of the studies excluded. See below for an example:
[The following studies were not performed in the connection study:
•
Load flow analysis (Category C)
Voltage stability analysis (Category C)
Transient stability analysis ( Category C)]
•
•
1.3.
Report Overview
The Executive Summary provides a high-level summary of the study and its conclusions.
Section 1 introduces this engineering study report. Section 2 describes the reliability criteria,
system data, and other study assumptions used in this study. Section 3 describes the
methodology used for this study. Section 4 discusses the pre-Project assessment of the system.
Section 4 presents all the connection alternatives contemplated. Section 6 provides a technical
analysis of the connection alternatives considered for further study. Section 8 provides the
results of the short-circuit analysis. Section 9 identifies any interdependencies this project may
have. Section 10 presents the summary and conclusions of this study.
2.
Criteria, System Data, and Study Assumptions
2.1 Criteria, Standards, and Requirements
2.1.1 Transmission Planning Standards and Reliability Criteria
The Transmission Planning (TPL) Standards, which are included in the Alberta Reliability
Standards, and the AESO’s Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions (Reliability
Criteria)16 were applied to evaluate system performance under Category A system conditions
(i.e., all elements in-service) and following Category B contingencies (i.e., single element
16
Please refer to Attachment A
Page 9
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
outage) and selected Category C5 contingencies (i.e., double circuit common tower
contingency), prior to and following the studied alternatives. Below is a summary of Category A
and Category B system conditions as well as a summary of Category C5 system conditions.
[NOTE: If Category C5 contingency assessment is not required, remove the reference to
Category C5]
Category A, often referred to as the N-0 condition, represents a normal system with no
contingencies and all facilities in service. Under this condition, the system must be able to
supply all firm load and firm transfers to other areas. All equipment must operate within its
applicable rating, voltages must be within their applicable range, and the system must be stable
with no cascading outages.
Category B events, often referred to as an N-1 or N-G-1 with the most critical generator out of
service, result in the loss of any single specified system element under specified fault conditions
with normal clearing. These elements are a generator, a transmission circuit, a transformer, or a
single pole of a DC transmission line. The acceptable impact on the system is the same as
Category A. Planned or controlled interruptions of electric supply to radial customers or some
local network customers, connected to or supplied by the faulted element or by the affected
area, may occur in certain areas without impacting the overall reliability of the interconnected
transmission systems. To prepare for the next contingency, system adjustments are permitted,
including curtailments of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) transmission service electric
power transfers.
Category C5 events [NOTE: Category C wording may need to be adjusted on a project-by-project
basis] results in loss of two circuits of a multiple circuit tower. All equipment must operate within
its applicable rating, voltages must be within their applicable range, and the system must be
stable with no cascading outages. For Category C5, the controlled interruption of electric supply
to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or
the curtailment of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) transmission service electric power
transfers may be necessary to maintain the overall reliability of the interconnected transmission
systems.
The Alberta Reliability Standards include the Transmission Planning (TPL) standards that
specify the desired system performance under different contingency categories with respect to
the Applicable Ratings. The transmission system performance under various system conditions
is defined in Appendix 1 of the TPL standards. For the purpose of applying the TPL standards to
this study, the Applicable Ratings shall mean:

Seasonal continuous thermal rating of the line’s loading limits.

Highest specified loading limits for transformers.

For Category A conditions: Voltage range under normal operating condition should
follow the AESO Information Document ID# 2010-007RS. For the busses not listed in
ID#2010-007RS, Table 2-1 in the Reliability Criteria applies.

For Category B and Category C5 conditions: The extreme voltage range values per
Table 2-1 in the Reliability Criteria.

Desired post-contingency voltage change limits for three defined post event timeframes
as provided in Table 5.1-1.
Table 2.1-1: Post Contingency Voltage Deviation Guidelines
Time Period
Parameter and reference point
Page 10
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Voltage deviation from steady state at
POD low voltage bus.
Post Transient
(up to 30 sec)
Post Auto Control
(30 sec to 5 min)
Post Manual
Control (Steady
State)
±10%
±7%
±5%
2.1.2 AESO Rules
The AESO Voltage Control Practice ID # 2010-007RS will be applied to establish precontingency voltage profiles in the Study Area. The Section 302.1 of the ISO Rules, Real Time
Transmission Constraint Management (TCM) will be followed in setting up the study scenarios
and assessment of the impact of the Project connection. In addition, due regard will be given to
the AESO’s Connection Study Requirements and the AESO’s Generation and Load
Interconnection Standard.
The Reliability Criteria is the basis for planning the AIES. The transmission system will normally
be designed to meet or exceed the Reliability Criteria under credible worst-case loading and
generation conditions.
2.1.3 Other Requirements
Other AESO requirements to be applied when performing connection studies are outlined below:

if applicable
Describe in detail the application of any other AESO requirements, criteria, standards, rules, practices,
and guidelines (market or otherwise) when the connection studies were carried out. Use subsection
headings that clearly identify the requirement being discussed or add another bullet.
2.2 Study Scenarios
Outline the scenarios (system conditions) studied and the study years. These scenarios should represent
a range of potential system conditions, assumed loading conditions, and assumed generation dispatches
sufficient to allow an analysis of the transmission system performance in the Study Area. The scenarios
may include the following:
•
•
•
•
Low and high loading levels
Low and high generation levels
Interchange conditions (for example, high, medium, or low export from Alberta to British Columbia or
high, medium, or low import from British Columbia to Alberta)
Transmission flow variations, such as South of Keephills/Ellerslie/Genesee (SOK), Fort McMurray
transfer in and out, HVDC power order and other relevant area transfers
[Table 2.2-1 provides a list of the study scenarios. Scenarios 1 and 2 are the pre-Project
scenarios for 2016 SP and WP. Scenarios 3 and 4 are the post-Project scenarios for 2016 SP
and WP with the requested DTS 20 MW addition at the Thornton 2091S. A power factor of 0.9
lagging was used for the new Project load]
Table 2.2-1: List of the Connection Study Scenarios
Page 11
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Condition
Project
Load (MW)
Project
Generation
(MW)
2016 SP
Pre-Project
0
0
2
2016 WP
Pre-Project
0
0
3
2016 SP
Post-Project
20
0
4
2016 WP
Post-Project
20
0
Scenario
Year/Season
Load
1
System
Generation
Dispatch
Conditions
High Wind, High
Import
High Wind, High
Import
2.3 Load and Generation Assumptions
2.3.1 Load Assumptions
The Study Area and Region load forecasts used for this connection study is shown in
Table 2.3-1 and is from [The AESO Forecast specified in the Study Scope, e.g., the AESO 2014
Long-term Outlook (2014 LTO)]. In this study the active power to reactive power ratio in the
base case scenarios was maintained when modifying the planning area loads.
Table 2.3-1: Forecast Area Load (201X LTO at AIL Peak)
Forecast Peak Load (MW)
Area or Region Name and Season
2016
Area 37 (Provost)
Central Region
2018
SP
WP
SL
SP
WP
SL
SP
South Region
WP
SL
SP
AIL w/o Losses
WP
SL
2.3.2 Generation Assumptions
Describe the generation assumptions (including N-G) and the AESO forecast applied (e.g., 2014LTO).
Present existing and future units for consideration in the project studies (local generators) and the
dispatch level of each. Describe the notable features of the local generators, as required. Below is an
example of the write up:
Page 12
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
[The generation conditions for this connection study are described in Table 2.3-2. The study
identified the HR Milner Generator at H.R. Milner 740S substation as the critical generator and it
is turned off to represent the N-G study condition in the Grand Cache area for all analysis
except for the short circuit analysis]
Table 2.3-2: Local Generation (MW) in the Study Cases
20xx
20xx
20xx
20yy
SL
SP
WP
SL
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Bus
Pmax
Area
Net
Net
Net
Net
Number
(MW)
Gener- Gener- Gener- Generation17
ation
ation
ation
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
(MW)
Existing/
Future
Unit
Name
Existing
Gen A
…
…
…
Gen B
#29
…
…
…
Gen C
…
…
…
Gen D
…
…
…
Gen E
…
…
…
Future
20yy
SP
Unit
Net
Gener
-ation
(MW)
20yy
WP
Unit
Net
Generation
(MW)
Total
2.3.3 Intertie Flow Assumptions
Indicate the assumptions regarding the intertie flow between Alberta and neighbouring jurisdictions. If
Intertie flow is not a key assumption in a Connection project, please discard this section. Below are
examples of the write up:
[Intertie assumptions are included for the B.C., MATL, and Saskatchewan interties. Details on
the assumptions can be found in Table 2.3-3.]
or
[The intertie points are deemed to be too far away to have an effect on the assessment of the
proposed connection. The flows in the Study Area are not influenced by the AIES HVDC
facilities. As a result, the intertie and HVDC assumptions are kept consistent with that in the
AESO planning base cases and not adjusted for this study.]
Table 2.3-3: Intertie Assumptions – Example18
Intertie
Case No.
Year / Condition
1
2016 SL
(Pre-Project)
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
BC
Import (+) /Export
(-) to
Saskatchewan
Import (+) /Export
(-) to MATL
-1000
-150
0
17
Unit Net Generation refers to Gross Generating unit MW output less Unit Service Load.
Intertie assumption shall meet the AESO Available Transfer Capability and Transfer Path Management
ID#2011-001R
18
Page 13
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Intertie
Case No.
Year / Condition
2016 SP
(Pre- Project)
2016 WP
(Pre- Project)
2016 SL
(Post- Project)
2016 SP
(Post-Project)
2016 WP
(Post-Project)
2018 SL
(Post-Project)
2018 SP
(Post- Project)
2018 WP
(Post- Project)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Import (+)
/Export (-) to
BC
Import (+) /Export
(-) to
Saskatchewan
Import (+) /Export
(-) to MATL
800
150
300
800
150
300
-1000
-150
0
800
150
300
480
150
300
-800
-150
0
480
150
300
480
150
300
2.3.4 HVDC Power Order (if applicable)
In general, the majority of connections to the AIES will not require adjustment to the planned load flow
order levels for the WATL and EATL HVDC links during studies. For major projects and where the scoped
study scenarios require adjustments to the pre-set HVDC flow level provided by the AESO in the Base
Cases, the AESO Planning Engineer will provide guidance as to the new flow settings and associated
VAR adjustments as required. In these cases, below are examples of wording:
[The power orders shown in Table 2.3-4 were assumed in this Study. HVDC dispatch aligns with
the AESO’s planned HVDC operating procedures. Under some scenarios, EATL was
dispatched to a higher power order in a South-to-North direction to reduce congestion on the
Central East 138/144 kV existing transmission system. The pre-Project and post-Project
dispatches were the same for each alternative.]
or
[The HVDC power orders will be set based on the minimum loss per the assumptions in
pre- and post-Project study scenarios.]
Table 2.3-4: HVDC Power Order by Scenario
Case No
Scenario
WATL19
(MW)
EATL20
(MW)
1
2016 SL (Pre-Project)
475 N  S21
Blocked
2
2016 SP (Pre- Project)
250 S  N
450 S  N
3
2016 WP (Pre- Project)
475 N  S
Blocked
19
Western Alberta Transmission Line (the west HVDC line)
Eastern Alberta Transmission Line (the east HVDC line)
21 N  S: HVDC flow direction is North to South
S  N: HVDC flow direction is South to North
20
Page 14
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Case No
Scenario
WATL19
(MW)
EATL20
(MW)
4
2018 WP (Post- Project)
250 S  N
800 S  N
2.4 System Projects
List the relevant transmission facilities that are not in service but were included in the study cases. Use a
table. Briefly discuss any relevant information regarding system projects, such as developments proposed
for each project. Below is an example of the write up:
[Table 2.4-1 lists the system reinforcement subprojects that are part of CETD and that have
been included in this study.]
Table 2.4-1: Summary of System Projects Included in the Study Cases
Project
Subproject
1
P850
South and
West
Edmonton
Reinforce
ment
Subproject Name
In-Service Date
Harry Smith Sub
New Saunders Lake 240/138kV Substation; re-terminate 910L,
914L, 780L & 858L at Saunders Lake; build lines between
Nisku & proposed Saunders Lake; and reconfiguration of
affected substations.
New 138kV Lines from 780L to Cooking Lake & 174L; and
reconfiguration of affected substations
2
3
4
133L from Wabamun to 234L tap
5
New Capacitor Bank at Leduc 325S
September 2017
2.5 Customer Connection Projects
List the relevant customer connection facilities that are not in the existing system but were included in the
study cases. Use a table. Include relevant information such as size of the load and/or generation for each
project. Below is an example of the write up:
[The list of the customer projects included in the study is shown in Table 2.5-1]
Table 2.5-1: Summary of Customer Connection Assumptions
Planning
Area
Queue
Position*
Planned
In-Service
Date
Project Name
Project
#
Gen
(MW)
Load
(MW)
Included/Excluded
from Studies
53
54
Jul.
2017
RESL McLaughlin WAGF
1500
47.0
1.0
Included
54
19
Apr.
2016
Lethbridge Chinook NW POD
1260
0
30.0
Included
55
Energize
d
Oct.
2014
Fortis Spring Coulee Upgrade
1338
0
2.0
Included
Page 15
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Planning
Area
Queue
Position*
Planned
In-Service
Date
Project Name
Project
#
Gen
(MW)
Load
(MW)
Included/Excluded
from Studies
55
57
Feb.
2017
BowArk Energy Drywood Power
Gas Plant
1522
18.6
1.0
Excluded
* Per the AESO Connection Queue posted in December 2015.
Provide any other relevant information for each project, such as whether it has already been approved by
the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC).
2.6 Facility Ratings and Shunt Elements
Include tables that show the facility ratings for key existing and proposed equipment rated XX kV and
above and any other relevant equipment ratings. Show only the most important equipment. Below is an
example of the write up:
[The Transmission Facility Owner (TFO) provided the ratings of the existing transmission lines
(Table 2.6-1) and the existing transformers (
Table 2.6-2) in the Study Area.]
Table 2.6-1: Summary of Transmission Line Ratings in the Study Area (MVA on 138 kV Base)
Line ID
Line Description
Nominal Rating
(MVA)
Short-term22 Rating
(MVA)
Voltage
Class
(kV)
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
7L84
Flyingshot 749S – Crystal 722S
138
142.8
142.8
180
181
7L03
Flyingshot 749S – Elmworth 731S
138
109.3
139
123.6
150.5
7L68
Clairmont Lake 811S – Rycroft 730S
138
94.9 CT23
94.9 CT
94.9 CT
94.9 CT
Table 2.6-2: Summary of Transformer Ratings in the Study Area
Substation Name and Number
Transformer ID
Transformer
Voltages (kV)
MVA Rating
Battle River 757S
912T
240/144
224
Battle River 757S
701T
144/72
75
Nevis 766S
901T
240/144
100
Nevis 766S
701T
144/72/25
H-M: 33.3
X-M: 33.3
Y-M: 16.6
22
When line loading in post Category B contingency is observed to exceed nominal rating and is less
than the Short-term (emergency) rating, it is assumed that AESO and TFO operating practices can
manage the constraint within the time requirements of TFO short time (emergency) rating.
23 The limitation factor for the line rating is due to a current transformer.
Page 16
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
List the shunt elements in the Study Area, including shunt element size and status. Use a table. Present
all assumptions made regarding the shunt elements, such as whether they were switched on or off in the
studies. Below is an example of the write up:
[The details of shunt elements in the Study Area are given in Table 2.6-3.]
Table 2.6-3: Summary of Shunt Elements in the Study Area (MVAr on 138 kV Base)
Capacitors
Substation
Name and
Number
Voltage
Class
(kV)
Hardisty 377S
138
Tucuman 478S
138
Hill 751S
138
Number of
Switched
Shunt
Blocks
1 x 27 MVAr
1 x 44.9 MVAr
1 x 27.17 MVAr
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Reactors
Status in
Study
(on or off)
Number of
Switched
Shunt Blocks
2017S
P
2017
WP
(MVAr)
(MVAr)
71.9
27
(on)
27
(on)
-
27.17
(off)
(off)
45
45
(both
on)
45
(both
on)
1 x 20 MVAr
1 x 25 MVAr
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Status in
Study
(on or off)
2017
SP
2017
WP
(MVAr)
(MVAr)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.7 Dynamic Data and Assumptions
Dynamic data and Assumption including motor composition information will be a part of Attachment
section. Below is an example of the write up:
[Dynamic data and assumptions including motor composition information are provided in
Attachment A. Dynamic data for the Project is based on the submitted stage 2 Project Data
Update Package (PDUP-2).
2.8 Protection Fault Clearing Times
List the fault clearing times used for the transient stability analysis. Use a table. When providing near-end
and far-end fault clearing times, include different directions with the clearing times only when the clearing
times are not the same for faults at each end. Indicate if the fault clearing time assumptions have been
verified by the Transmission Facility Owner (TFO). Below is an example of the write up:
[Fault clearing times for existing facilities were provided by TFO and are listed in Table 2.8-1.]
Table 2.8-1: Summary of Protection Fault Clearing Times
Terminal Location
Line
9Lxx
Nominal
Bus
Voltage
(kV)
240
Terminal
1
SUB 1S
Terminal
2
SUB 2S
Total Clearing Time
Terminal
3
SUB 3S
Faulted
Location
State if it is
calculated
(actual) or
estimated
(generic)
Faulted
Location
Terminal
1
Terminal
2
Terminal
3
SUB 1S
6
7
8
actual
SUB 2S
6
7
8
generic
SUB 3S
6
7
9
generic
Page 17
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
2.9 Voltage Profile Assumptions
Please keep the following description unless any change is required.
The AESO Voltage Control Practice ID # 2010-007RS is used to establish normal system (i.e.
pre-contingency) voltage profiles for key area busses prior to commencing any studies. Table 21 of the Reliability Criteria applies for all the busses not included in the ID 2010-007RS. These
voltages were utilized to set the voltage profile for the study base cases prior to load flow
analysis.
2.10 Motor Starting Assumptions
The section is to evaluate the potential impacts of motor starting operation on the surrounding system.
The customer must provide details of study assumptions (including how frequent the motor starts and
then find the voltage dip percentage for different voltage levels), motor model, and software used to
perform the studies. Also the type of motor starting equipment and/or starting methodology that would be
implemented must be specified.
If Motor starting analysis is no longer required, remove the subsection – The example below assumes
that VFD will be installed with across the line staring capability as backup. If the Market Participant
confirms that the motors in the Project will not start motors across the line, Motor starting analysis is no
longer required.
Below is an example of the write up for motor starting assumption portion:
[The following assumptions were used in conducting motor starting analysis:

The transient voltage dip at the 138 kV transmission bus should not exceed 5% when
starting a single motor.

The motors will not start simultaneously. Only one motor will be allowed to start in VFD
bypass mode while the other motors are running at full load.]
Page 18
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
3
Study Methodology
3.1
Connection Studies Carried Out
The studies to be carried out for this connection study were identified in
Table 7.1-1:
Please delete the rows that are not applicable to the Project.
Table 3.1-1: Summary of Studies Performed*
Project 1234
Scenario and Condition
Load
(MW)
Generation
(MW)
System Conditions
Load
Flow24
1
2016 SP Pre-project
0
0
Category A and Category B
X
2
2016 WP Pre-Project
0
0
Category A and Category B
X
3
2016 SP Post-Project
20
0
Category A and Category B
X
4
2016 WP Post-Project
20
0
Category A and Category B
X
3.2
Voltage
Stability9
Transient
Stability9
Motor
Starting9
X
X
X
Load Flow Analysis
[Load flow analysis will be completed for all study scenarios to identify any thermal or
transmission voltage violations as per the Reliability Criteria. Transformer tap and switched
shunt reactive compensation devices such as shunt capacitors and reactors will be locked and
continuous shunt devices will be enabled when performing Category B load flow analysis.
POD low voltage bus deviations will also be assessed by first locking all tap changers and area
capacitors to identify any post-transient voltage deviations above 10%. Tap changers will then
be allowed to adjust, while shunt reactive compensating devices remained locked; to determine
if any voltage deviations above 7% would occur in the area. Once all taps and shunt reactive
compensating devices have been adjusted, voltage deviations above 5% will be reported, for
both the pre-Project and post-Project networks.]
25
The critical generator identified for this study was [Name N-G unit, e.g., the H.R. Milner unit].
Only Category A with all generators on.
Page 19
25
X
Each project has different loadflow analysis methodology based on Study Area characteristics and study
assumptions. Please describe the methodology used in the loadflow analysis in this section.
If any abnormal thermal loadings (above 100% thermal loading) are observed, perform Category B load
flow analysis on the identified contingencies by stepping Transformer tap adjustment. The identified
abnormal thermal loadings are still observed, it should be addressed in the load flow results.
Below is an example of the write up:
24
Shortcircuit
Public
R1-2016-05-01
X
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
3.2.1 Contingencies Studied
Load flow analysis was performed for the Category A condition and all Category B
contingencies in [the Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area
20) planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.
3.3
Voltage Stability (PV) Analysis
If this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.
The objective of the Power-Voltage (PV) curve is to determine the ability of the network to
maintain voltage stability at all the busses in the system under normal and abnormal system
conditions. The PV curve is a representation of voltage change as a result of increased power
transfer between two systems. The reported incremental transfers will be to the collapse point.
As per the AESO requirements, no assessment based upon other criteria such as minimum
voltage will be made at the PV minimum transfer. Voltage stability analysis for post-connection
scenarios will be performed. For load connection projects, the load level modelled in postconnection scenarios are the same or higher than in pre-connection scenarios. Therefore,
voltage stability analysis for pre-connection scenarios will only be performed if post-Project
scenarios show voltage stability criteria violations.
Voltage stability (PV) analysis will be performed according to the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC) Voltage Stability Assessment Methodology. The voltage stability
criteria states, for load areas, post-transient voltage stability is required for the area modeled at
a minimum of 105% of the reference load level for system normal conditions (Category A) and
for single contingencies (Category B). For this standard, the reference load level is the
maximum established planned load.
Typically, voltage stability analysis is carried out assuming the worst case scenarios in terms of
loading. The voltage stability analysis was performed by increasing load in [Study Areas, e.g.,
the Grande Prairie and Grande Cache Areas (AESO planning areas 20 and 22, respectively)],
and increasing the corresponding generation in the following AESO Planning Areas:

[Source area, e.g., the Wabamun planning area (Area 40)]

[Source area]

[Source area]
As per the voltage stability criteria, post transient techniques (all tap changers, all discrete
capacitors locked, but SVCs will be allowed to adjust) will used in applying the criteria and this
information is reflected in all tables and graphs. Also for this analysis, no limits will be selected
for the generation sources, non-negative active power constant MVA loads will be enforced and
the existing power factor for the reference will be maintained.
Page 20
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
3.3.1 Contingencies Studied
Voltage stability analysis was performed for the Category A condition and all Category B
contingencies in [Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area 20)
planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.
3.4
Transient Stability Analysis
If this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.
Transient stability analysis will be performed following the post-Project scenarios using [Study
scenarios, e.g., the 2017 SL and 2017 SP scenarios].
Stability plots for [State Monitoring quantities , e.g., bus voltage, machine relative angle and
active and reactive power outputs.etc] for all available generation units in [Study Area, e.g., the
Cold Lake (Area 28) planning area] are provided. [State reference generator, e.g., Genesee #1]
will be used as the system reference.
3.4.1 Contingencies Studied
Transient stability analysis was performed for the Category A condition and all Category B
contingencies in [Study Area, e.g., the Grande Cache (Area 22) and Grande Prairie (Area 20)
planning areas], including ties to surrounding areas for all pre- and post-Project scenarios.
3.5
Short-Circuit Analysis
Short-circuit analysis was performed for [Study scenarios, e.g., the 2016 WP pre Project
scenario and 2016 WP and 2025 WP post-Project scenarios] to determine the short-circuit
levels in the vicinity of the Project. The short-circuit analysis includes three phase and single line
to ground faults. Fault levels are provided in the form of currents in kilo amperes and per unit
positive and zero sequence impedances.
3.6
Motor Starting Analysis
If this analysis is not required, please remove the subsection.
This section is to describe the study methodology of motor starting analysis. Below is an example of the
write up:
[Motor starting analysis will be performed for the proposed motors under system normal
(Category A) conditions and worst case contingencies identified in the voltage stability and
power flow analyses. The analysis considered the starting of one motor, with its Variable
Frequency Driver (VFD) out of service, while the other motors will be running at full load.]
Page 21
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
3.7
Sub-Synchronous Studies [as required]
3.7.1 Sub-Synchronous Torsional Interaction Study (SSTI) 26
This study and analysis will be required when there is a concern of sub-synchronous torsional
interaction between turbine-generator units and the nearby HVDC.
3.7.2 Sub-Synchronous Resonance (SSR) and Sub-Synchronous
Control Interaction (SSCI) Studies
Studies and analyses will be required when there is a concern of sub-synchronous resonance
between turbine-generator units and the nearby serious capacitor compensated AC
transmission lines. Studies are also required when there is a potential sub-synchronous control
interaction (SSCI) between the wind farms, particularly the DFIG (Type III), and series capacitor
compensated lines or a nearby HVDC terminal. The AESO, TFO or the Consultant will identify
the need for SSR or SSCI studies.
3.8
Effectiveness Factor Analysis Studies [as required]
Effectiveness factor analysis studies are carried out to determine the generator/load
effectiveness factors and identify the most effective generator/load(s) to be curtailed in order to
mitigate the thermal violations observed following some Category B contingencies in the Study
Area.
3.9
Sensitivity Studies [as required]
Describe the methodology used for any other studies carried out. Use a separate heading for each study.
The headings should match the headings used in section 2.2. Include the intent, the assumptions, and
any relevant discussions regarding the study methodology. Use a table.
3.10 Mitigation Measures
If study results indicate transmission constraints associated with or exacerbated by the project addition,
modification to existing procedures and/or Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) or addition of new
procedures and/or RAS may be required.
The Studies Consultant must identify those anticipated constraints in a timely manner to the
AESO as they arise. The AESO Planning Engineer will guide the Studies Consultant to;
-
List study results in the constraint table in Attachment N.
-
If N-0 overloads are observed in the post connection system, develop generation or
load effectiveness factor tables based on identified thermal constraints for N-0
system.
Detailed ‘Process for SSTI Studies and Mitigation-protection’ between HVDC and Thermal Turbinegenerators is published in http://www.aeso.ca/connect/files/process_for_SSTI_studies_and_mitigationprotection.docx. Further SSTI studies documents will be published to the AESO website accordingly.
26
Page 22
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
-
Develop generation or load effectiveness factor27 tables based on identified thermal
constraints under Category B contingencies.
-
Identify the components of the AESO system development plan which will alleviate
the identified constraint.
Propose adjustments to the original preliminary connection alternatives to avoid
proposing permanent RAS for Category B contingencies.
Study and propose possible modifications to existing RAS to ensure coordination of
proposed protection additions with the existing schemes.
Study and propose new temporary RAS required to ensure system reliability until
such time the planned system reinforcements are in place.
Proper study scenarios with the planned system reinforcements will be studied to
reflect removal of the identified constraints and the temporary nature of the RAS.
-
The AESO Planning Engineer will closely work with the Consultant and guide the development
and/or modifications of the proposed RAS to ensure system reliability, security and compliance
with AESO system access business practices.
4
Pre-Project System Assessment
4.1
Pre-Project Load Flow Analysis
For each scenario, report and discuss the load flow analysis results. If any violation appears, please
include tables that summarize the results with respect to thermal overloads, voltage violation and
deviations. Describe the results of the contingency categories that were analyzed. Present the results for
each scenario separately. In the appropriate attachments, include load flow diagrams that provide a
general representation of the overall Study Area.
4.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g.,
2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP)
Provide the results for all system conditions and contingencies considered, as outlined in Section 3
(Category A, Category B, and Category C5 analysis).
Summarize the thermal overload results based on a 100% seasonal static thermal rating (specify the
season). Use a table as the example tables below. In the appropriate attachment sections, include load
flow diagrams that encompass a general representation of the overall Study Area. For each scenario,
include a diagram that shows generator output, the switched shunts, and the SVCs, as appropriate, in the
attachment to this section.
Below is an example of the write up for load flow analysis portion:
[No criteria violations for the Category A condition were found. No thermal or voltage violations
for the selected Category C5 contingencies were found.
27
Effectiveness factor analysis is carried out to determine the generator/load effectiveness factors which are used to
estimate the ability of each generator/load to relieve transmission element constraints. A generator/load’s
effectiveness factor is defined as the change in power flow over a specific line following a change in the generator’s
output power/ the load. As such, the larger the generator/load effectiveness factor the more helpful it can be in
alleviating a thermal violation on the transmission line associated to it.
Page 23
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
No transmission voltage criteria violations for the Category B contingencies were found.
Transmission line flows above the short-term summer rating (Rate A) were identified for the
Category B contingency as shown in Table 4.1-1. 749L contingency leaves 7L130 to radially
feed the area load which causes a slight overload on this line.
Please refer to Attachment B for pre-Project load flow diagram.]
Table 4.1-1: Summary of System Performance28 (Element Loading) [2017SP Pre-Project N-G-1 Line
Loading Above Rate A]
Contingency
749L (Metiskow 267S –
Edgerton 899S)
4.2
Limiting Branch
Continuous
Line
Rating
(MVA)
Short-term
Rating
(MVA)
72
72
7L130 (Vermilion 710SKitscoty 705S)
Pre-Project
Load Flow29
(MVA)
%
Loading30
72.1
100.1
Pre-Project Voltage Stability Analysis [as required]
Use Power Voltage (PV) curves and tables to show the critical steady state voltage stability analysis
results. For each scenario, provide complete information regarding any Category A, Category B, and
selected Category C5 analyses carried out and the outcomes of each. Present the results for each
scenario separately. If any constraints are identified, AESO will advise the study consultant if these
constraint(s) has previously been identified in other studies done by or for the AESO. If so, specify how
the constraints are currently managed. In the appropriate attachment sections, include voltage stability
diagrams.
4.3
Pre-Project Transient Stability Analysis [as required]
Discuss the main study outcomes of the transient stability analysis. The complete transient stability
diagrams should be included in an attachment. This section, please use tables to show summarize results
of all Category A, Category B and Category C5 contingencies examined. If any constraints are identified,
AESO will advise the study consultant if these constraint(s) has previously been identified in other studies
done by or for the AESO. If so, specify how the constraints are currently managed. In the appropriate
attachment sections, include transient stability diagrams.
28
All line flows of load flow analysis are reported as percentage loading relative to normal line rating as shown in Table 2.6-1.
Load flow (MVA) is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x Vbase x Iactual)
30 % loading is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x V
base x Iactual)
29
Page 24
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
5
Connection Alternatives
5.1
Overview
Section 5 is to list all the conceptual connection alternatives considered. Please refer to the alternative
section in the signed study scope. If any additional alternatives were added during the studies, please
include the additional alternatives and explain why the alternatives were proposed. Below is an example
of the write up:
[The DFO examined and ruled out the use of distribution-based solutions to serve the load
additions31. This engineering study report examined four transmission alternatives to serve the
Project, as detailed in Section 5.2.]
5.2
Connection Alternatives Identified
Describe each connection alternative separately. For each alternative, include a connection diagram that
shows the main transmission network in the Study Area post-connection. Provide single-line diagrams
(SLDs) for the proposed facilities. The connection diagrams and proposed facilities SLDs can be
presented in the appropriate attachment. Below is an example of the write up:
[Four alternatives were examined in this report. A description of the developments associated
with each alternative is provided below.
Alternative 1: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing transmission line [Line name] via an in/out connection
configuration.
Alternative 2: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing transmission line [Line name] via a T-tap connection configuration.
Alternative 3: Add a new point of delivery (POD) substation, and connect the new POD
to the existing transmission line [Line name] via a radial connection configuration
to the existing [substation name and number].
Alternative 4: Upgrade the capacity at the existing [Substation Name and number]
substation and shift load to neighboring [Substation Name and number]
substation.
The line length of each alternative will be subject to change after line routing by TFO.
]
5.2.1 Connection Alternatives Selected for Further Studies
Please address which Alternatives are selected for this Project.
[Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were selected for further study.]
5.2.2 Connection Alternatives Not Selected for Further Studies
Please state the rationale for ruling out the Alternatives.
If available,
31
The DFO’s report detailing this analysis is included in section [YY] of the [DFO Legal Name]
Distribution Deficiency Report, [DDR Report Title], which is filed under a separate cover.
Page 25
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title

Refer to the DFO’s Distribution Deficiency Report (DDR)

Address Market Participant (MP)’s preference (including cost estimates)

Specify Transmission Facility Owners (TFOs)’s position on any possible limitation/constraints that
would result in ruling out a specific alternative.
Below is an example of the write up:
[Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require greater transmission development and were
not selected for further studies.
Alternative 3: In addition to adding a new POD and converting the existing T-tap connection
configuration of Dome Cutbank 810S to an in/out connection configuration, ATCO has advised
that Alternative 3 involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the 25 kV and 144 kV
busses, and mitigation of substation outages. ATCO has also advised that the existing Dome
Cutbank 810S substation is constrained on all sides. Therefore, Alternative 3 involves relocating
the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new greenfield site to accommodate the transmission
developments.
Alternative 4: Alternative 4 involves upgrading the existing Dome Cutbank 810S substation,
including either (i) adding two 144 kV breakers and replacing the two existing 144/25 kV 10/13
MVA transformers and one voltage regulator with two 144/25 kV transformers of a higher
capacity, or (ii) adding one 144 kV breaker and a 144/25 kV 30/40/50 MVA LTC transformer.
ATCO has advised that Alternative 4 also involves reconfiguring or modifying equipment and the
25 kV and 144 kV busses, and mitigation of substation outages. As with Alternative 3, this
transmission alternative involves relocating the Dome Cutbank 810S substation to a new
greenfield site to accommodate the transmission developments.]
6
Technical Analysis of the Connection
Alternatives
Using the structure below, detail the results of the studies carried out for each connection alternative.
Exclude any subsection that does not apply to the connection studies.
If criteria violations were observed based on the study results for Alternatives, investigate and propose
the needed mitigation method(s) -in consultation with AESO- to alleviate or manage the condition(s).
System performance issues may include, for example, the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thermal loading violations of transformers based on 100% static seasonal thermal rating
Thermal loading of lines exceeding 100% nominal seasonal thermal rating and less than TFO
declared short-term seasonal rating which would require real time operation adjustments.
Thermal loading of lines exceeding TFO declared short-term seasonal rating which would be
managed by the remedial action scheme or by procedure in curtailing load or generation in pre
contingency or by re-configuration.
Voltage levels and deviations beyond the allowed levels indicated in the AESO Transmission
Reliability Criteria.
Inadequate Voltage stability margin.
Transient instability
Page 26
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
6.1
Load Flow
For each scenario, report and discuss the load flow analysis results by comparing Alternatives. If any
violation(s) are observed, please include tables that summarize the results with respect to thermal
overloads, voltage violations, and deviations. Describe the results of the contingency categories that were
analyzed. Present the results for each scenario separately. In the appropriate attachments, include load
flow diagrams that provide a general representation of the overall Study Area.
6.1.1 Alternative 3
Below is an example of the write up:
[The following is a summary of the Alternative 3 load flow analysis.]
6.1.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light]
(e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016SP, Scenario 4)
Provide the results for all system conditions and contingencies considered, as outlined in Section 3
(Category A, Category B, and Category C5 analysis).
Summarize any observed thermal overload results based on a 100% seasonal static thermal rating
(specify the season). Use a table as the example tables below.
In the appropriate attachment sections, include load flow diagrams that encompass a general
representation of the overall Study Area. For each scenario, include a diagram that shows generator
output, the switched shunts, and the SVCs, as appropriate, in the attachment to this section.
Below is an example of the write up:
[Category A:

No criteria violations for the Category A condition were found in this scenario.
Category B:

Marginal thermal violations on the 138 kV line 174L between Bardo 197S to North
Holden 395S were observed following the loss of the 912L/9L912 from Red Deer 63S to
Nevis 766S in Table 6.1-1. The 174L thermal loading under the loss of the 912L/9L912
was only identified in the 2016 SP post-Project scenario

Table 6.1-2 for the Category B voltage criteria violations identified. Voltage criteria
violations were observed following the loss of the transmission line designated as 7L228.
The violations were observed at the H.R Milner 740S substation.

Following the loss of 7L40 (Little Smoky 813S to Simonette 733S) a minor post-transient
deviation of 10.5% at the Simonette 733S POD bus in
 Table 6.1-3; this is marginally higher than the 10% guideline. The TFO and DFO have
confirmed that such marginal voltage deviation does not impose any operational
restriction.
The load flow diagrams are shown in Attachment E and F. The possible mitigation measures
to alleviate theses loadings are provided in Attachment L and the associated
Generation/Load Effectiveness factor tables under thermal constraint lines under Category
B contingencies are provided in Attachment M. The load flow diagrams after mitigation
measures’ actions are provided in Attachment N.]
Page 27
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Table 6.1-1: Summary of System Performance32 (Element Loading) [Scenario 4- 2017 SP Post-Project
N-G-1 Line Loading Above Rate A]
Contingency
Limiting Branch
912L\9L912 (Red 63S
Deer to Nevis 766S)
174L (Bardo 197S to
North Holden 395S)
Continuous
Line
Rating
(MVA)
Shortterm
Rating
(MVA)
85.0
94.0
Pre- Project
%
Loading
Difference
Post- Project
Load Flow
33
(MVA)
% Loading34
Load Flow
(MVA)
%
Loading
Post-Pre
57.0
67.0
89.1
104.8
37.8
Table 6.1-2: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Range)
Contingency
Substation
Name and
Number
Bus
No.
Nominal
kV
Emergency
Minimum
Voltage
(kV)
Emergency
Maximum
Voltage
(kV)
Initial
Voltage
(kV)
Steady
State
(kV)
7L228 (Big Mountain 845S
to Thornton 2091S)
H.R Milner
740S
1147
144
130
155
143.4
112.7
Table 6.1-3: Summary of System Performance (Voltage Deviation)
Contingency
7L40 (Little Smoky
813S to Simonette
733S)
Substation
Name and
Number
Bus
No.
Nominal
kV
Initial
Voltage
(kV)
Simonette
733S
19170
25
25.9
Voltage Deviations for POD Busses Only
Post
Transient
(kV)
%
Change
Post
Auto
(kV)
%
Change
Post
Manual
(kV)
%
Change
23.3
10.5
--
--
--
--
6.1.1.2 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light]
(e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)
6.1.2 Alternative 4
6.1.2.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light]
(e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016SP, Scenario 4)
6.1.2.2 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light]
(e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)
6.1.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Compare the load flow results amoung selected Alternatives.
32
All line flows of load flow analysis are reported as percentage loading relative to normal line rating as shown in Table 2.6-1.
Load flow (MVA) is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x Vbase x Iactual)
34 % loading is current expressed as MVA (ie. S =√3 x V
base x Iactual)
33
Page 28
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
6.2
Voltage Stability
Present the critical voltage stability results using tables. Provide the complete study results regarding the
Category A, Category B, and Category C5 events studied. Present the voltage stability analysis results for
each scenario separately. Discuss the study results in this section and include the corresponding PV
curves diagrams in the appropriate attachment.
6.2.1 Alternative 3
6.2.1.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light]
(e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)
Provide explanation to clarify the study results and conclusions, as appropriate. Include any var support
devices required to alleviate voltage instability or voltage collapse. Below is an example of the write up for
voltage stability analysis portion:
[Voltage stability analysis was performed for the 2016 WP scenario. The reference load level for
the Grande Prairie area and Grande Cache area (AESO Planning Areas 20 and 22) is 449.1 MW.
MW. The minimum incremental load transfer for the Category B contingencies is 5.0% of the
reference load or 22.5 MW to meet the voltage stability criteria (0.05 x 449.1 MW = 22.5 MW).
Table 6.2-1 summarizes the voltage stability results for Category A and the worst contingencies
for voltage stability transfer margins.
The voltage stability diagrams are shown in Attachment G and H]
Table 6.2-1: Scenario 4: 2016 WP– Voltage stability analysis results (Minimum transfer = 22.5 MW)
Contingency
From
N-G
To
System Normal
Maximum
incremental transfer
(MW)
Meets 105%
transfer
criteria?
73.8
Yes
7L46
Little Smoky 813S
Big Mountain 845S
30.6
Yes
7L73
Rycroft 730S
Friedenstal 800S
38.1
Yes
6.2.2 Alternative 4
6.2.2.1 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load Condition [Peak/Light]
(e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016WP, Scenario 5)
6.2.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Compare Voltage Stability results amoung selected Alternatives.
6.3
Transient Stability
Present the transient stability analysis results for each scenario separately and include the corresponding
transient stability result diagrams in the appropriate attachment. Below is an example of the write up for
transient stability analysis portion:
Page 29
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
6.3.1 Alternative 3
6.3.1.1 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load
Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP,
Scenarios 4)
[Transient stability analysis shows well damped responses with no stability concerns. Table
6.3-1 shows all the contingencies that were studied. The transient stability results are provided
in Attachment I and J.
Transient Stability analysis was not conducted for the pre-Project study scenarios because
transient stability analysis results for the post-Project scenarios demonstrated system stability
without any stability concerns.]
Table 6.3-1: Summary of Transient Instability
System
Condition
Contingency
Fault Description (fault location)
Category B (N-1)
1001L
(sub A to sub B)
Fault Location (ex Sub A)
Figure #
6.3.1.2 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load
Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016 WP,
Scenarios 5)
6.3.2 Alternative 4
6.3.2.1 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load
Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Summer Peak – 2016 SP,
Scenarios 4)
6.3.2.2 Stability Results 20XX Season [Summer/Winter] Load
Condition [Peak/Light] (e.g., 2016 Winter Peak – 2016 WP,
Scenarios 5)
6.3.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Compare the transient stability results amoung selected Alternatives.
6.4
Motor Starting Analysis [as required]
If the MP has confirmed that the motors will not start with VFD, then motor starting analysis will not be
required. Present the motor starting analysis results by using “across-the-line” starting of the motors at the
proposed substation. Please list the nameplate data of the proposed motors in a table. Specify equivalent
circuit diagram and corresponding data (parameter). Below is an example of the write up for motor
starting analysis portion:
Page 30
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
[Motor starting analysis was performed to assess the feasibility of the “across-the-line” starting
of the 7,000 HP motors at the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation. Although Enbridge has
indicated that Variable Frequency Drivers (VFDs) will be used to start the motors, the analysis
assesses the voltage dip at the transmission busses in the case of a VFD failure (VFD by-pass
condition) and to determine if starting restrictions would be imposed.
Motor starting analysis was conducted for the start-up of a single motor with all other motors in
the station already running at full load. All four motors were supplied by one 138/6.9 kV, 25/33
MVA transformer. The 2017 WP post-Project scenario was used in the analysis. The analysis
was based on the dynamic analysis method in PSS/E 33. ]
Table 6.4-1 shows the nameplate data of the 7,000 HP induction motors.
Table 6.4-1: Motor Nameplate and Calculated Data
Motor Rating
Value
Rated power
7,000 HP
Rated voltage
6,600 V
Rated current
516 A
Rated speed
1780 rpm
Rated torque
20,676 lb-ft
Nominal power factor
0.92
Nominal efficiency
0.964
Moment of inertia (motor)
4667 lb-ft2
Moment of inertia (Driven Machine)
400 lb-ft2
Locked-rotor torque
75.7%
Breakdown torque
196.2%
Locked-rotor current
650%
MVA base
5.889 MVA
Rated motor speed pu
0.9889
Driven machine torque pu @ n=ns
0.8
H (combined motor and driven machine)
0.6297
Page 31
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Figure 6.4-1 shows the equivalent circuit that was used to model the motors.
Figure 6.4-1: Equivalent Circuit of Induction Motor
Ra
La
L1
L2
R1
S
Lm
R2
S
Table 6.4-2 lists the equivalent circuit parameters.
Table 6.4-2: Equivalent Circuit Data
Equivalent Circuit Parameter
Value in Per
Unit
Ra
0.037
La
0.071
Lm
3.4
R1
0.025
L1
0.07
R2
0.0195
L2
0.024
6.4.1 Motor Starting Results for Alternative 1
Please provide the motor starting results in a table. Below is an example of the write up for motor starting
results portion:
[Motor starting analysis was conducted for the 2017 WP post-Project Alternative 1 configuration.
The analysis was conducted under system normal Category A and critical contingency
conditions extracted from the power flow analysis. Table 6.4-3 shows the summary for
Alternative 1.
Table 6.4-3: Motor Starting Performance for Alternative 1
Contingencies
Substation
Substation
A
Nominal Bus
Voltage (kV)
Category A
(N-0)
Category B
(N-1)
681L (From
Hardisty 377S
to Tucuman
478S)
Category C5
(N-2)
679L and
680L (From
Nilrem 574S
to Tucuman
478S)
138
138
138
Page 32
…
…
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Before Motor
Start (kV)
142.83
129.38
129.38
After Motor
Start (kV)
139.66
123.86
123.86
Voltage Dip
(kV)
3.17
5.52
5.52
% Voltage
Dip
2.22
4.27
4.27
Nominal Bus
Voltage (kV)
…
..
..
Before Motor
Start (kV)
Substation
B
After Motor
Start (kV)
Voltage Dip
(kV)
% Voltage
Dip
The motor starting results show that the voltage dip caused by “across-the-line” motor starting at
Substation A and B 138 kV busses are below 5% under both system normal and contingency
conditions. The simulation results suggest that the impact on the voltage due to “across-the-line”
starting of one motor is acceptable. The induction motor curves and the voltages at Substation
A and B busses are provided in Attachment K.]
6.5
Sub-Synchronous Studies Analysis
The AESO will provide detailed guidance if sub-synchronous studies are required.
6.6
Sensitivity Studies [as required]
Discuss the results obtained from all sensitivity tests carried out to determine the robustness of the study
conclusions.
6.7
Effectiveness Factor Analysis [as required]
Describe the analysis carried out to determine the generator/load effectiveness factors which are used to
estimate the ability of each generator/load to relieve transmission element constraints. The effectiveness
factor is defined as the proportional change in MW over a specific line as a result of a change in the
Page 33
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
generator’s output power or the load to be supplied. As such, the larger the generator/load effectiveness
factor the more helpful it can be in alleviating a thermal violation on the transmission line associated with
that particular effectiveness factor. The results of the effectiveness factor analysis are presented in detail
in Attachment M.
7
Mitigation Measures
This section summarizes the mitigation measures identified in Section 6.
If any constraints are identified, AESO will advise the study consultant if any constraints are identified.
Please make sure to check and answer the following questions.
1. Is it the existing constraint and captured in pre-Project scenarios? If so, please describe how the
addition of the Project worsen or improve a pre-existing condition? Also specify how the existing
constraints are currently managed.
2. If this is not a previously identified constraint in the Study Area, will AESO and the consultant
identify solutions for mitigating the identified constraints?
Demonstrate the generation/load effectiveness (depending on the Project) of the proposed mitigation
methods using the study results. Use tables and figures where possible. Include any explanations
required to clarify the study outcome and conclusions.
Below is an example of the write up:
[The steady state analysis showed N-1 thermal violations for the studied 2017 scenarios.
Operational measures will be utilized to alleviate line loadings above continuous loading limit
and below emergency rating. Loadings beyond emergency rating will be mitigated by the
existing RAS already in service, RASs specified for the other projects connections, and
proposed new connection RASs. The application of these RASs in alleviating the thermal
violations is demonstrated in Attachment L and the associated power flow diagrams after
mitigation measures are shown in Attachment N. The corresponding Generation/Load
Effectiveness factor tables under thermal constraint lines under Category B contingencies are
provided in Attachment M.
AESO will specify new RASs in the Functional Specifications for the EON and Mainstream
Wainwright WAGFs to include the additional needed functionality and equipment.
Several thermal violations were observed for double circuit Category C5 contingencies. These
existing violations will be mitigated by the real-time measures.]
8
Short-Circuit Analysis
For load and generator connection, all the generators in the Study Area should be on-line.
Include the short-circuit analysis for the preferred alternative amoung the listed alternatives in Section 5.2.
If connection alternatives will impact short-circuit current, provide the results, include the short-circuit
analysis for the studied alternative. Explain if the short-circuit current levels35 would not be materially
changed or not.
35 Short-circuit current studies were based on modeling information provided to the AESO by third parties. The
authenticity of the modeling information has not been validated. Fault levels could change as a result of system
developments, new customer connections, or additional generation in the area. It is recommended that these
Page 34
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Highlight the short circuit current levels which are above 90% of equipment rating. Market
participants can approach the AESO for advice with respect to long-term anticipated short circuit
levels and can collaborate with the AESO on a system-based solution if a more locally-based
solution cannot solve it.
8.1
Pre-Project
Provide pre-Project short-circuit current levels for the studied alternative. Use a table.
Table 8.1-1: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX)
Substation Name and
Number
Base
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(kV)
3-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Positive Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R1+jX1)
(pu)
1-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Zero Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R0+jX0)
(pu)
Table 8.1-2: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Pre-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed
Connection + 10 Years])
Substation Name and
Number
8.2
Base
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(kV)
3-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Positive Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R1+jX1)
(pu)
1-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Zero Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R0+jX0)
(pu)
Post-Project
Provide post-Project short-circuit current levels for the preferred alternative. Use a table.
Table 8.2-1: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX)
Substation Name and
Number
Base
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(kV)
3-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Positive Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R1+jX1)
(pu)
1-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Zero Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R0+jX0)
(pu)
Table 8.2-2: Summary of Short-Circuit Current Levels – Post-Project (Year 20XX [Year of Proposed
Connection + 10 Years])
changes be monitored and fault levels reviewed to ensure that the fault levels are within equipment operating limits.
The information provided in this study should not be used as the sole source of information for electrical equipment
specifications or for the design of safety-grounding systems.
Page 35
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Substation Name and
Number
9
Base
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(kV)
3-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Positive Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R1+jX1)
(pu)
1-Φ
Fault
(kA)
Zero Sequence
Thevenin Source
Impedance (R0+jX0)
(pu)
Project Interdependencies
Discuss if there are any interdependencies between this project and other system projects and customer
connection projects. Indicate the impact of such interdependencies between the projects. Below are some
examples of the write up:
Example for no project independency
[The Projects are not dependent on the future developments of the AESO Long Term Plan for
the region.]
Examples for project dependency
[Transmission voltage criteria violations identified both pre- and post-Projects indicate the need
for the Irish Creek 706S capacitor addition, as identified in the 2015LTP, prior to the 2017WP.]
Another example
[The Project is dependent on line 7L44 relay tele-communication upgrade to mitigate instability
of Lowe Lake (NPP1) generator on a fault on line 7L44. The existing relay upgrade at Flyingshot
749S and Big Mountain 847S substation is scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2016
(ATCO capital maintenance project). This upgrade will incorporate tele-communication
functionality, i.e. communications assisted tripping, and will allow for reduced fault clearing
times of 8 cycles for a remote fault on line 7L44.
Upon the completion of this capital maintenance project, the NPP1 request to increase its STS
contract from 93 MW to 105 MW can be realized.]
Page 36
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
10 Summary and Conclusion
Copy and paste the executive summary here in its entirety.
Page 37
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment A
Dynamic Data and Assumptions of All Equipment
Proposed for Connection
Page 38
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Study Area load representation assumed for the transient studies is in Table A-1
Table A-1: Transient Stability Analysis Load Representation
Planning Areas
% of load
specified as
Large Motors
% of load
specified as
Small
Motors
Areas in NW and NE regions
40%
Areas in other regions
10%
The Remainder of the Load
(excluding Motor loads)
Active
Power
Constant
Current
Reactive
Power
Constant
Impedance
30%
100%
100%
10%
100%
100%
In Attachment A, list the dynamic data of all equipment proposed for connection to the grid, such
as generators, excitation systems and their limiters, power system stabilizers (PSSs), turbine
governors, wind turbines, static VAR compensators (SVCs), large motors, as well as all other
relevant dynamic representations of the proposed facilities. Use a table. If it is not possible to
present the information in a table, attach the detailed dynamic data in a comprehensive format
or attach it directly as a dyr file.
Table A-2: Generator Dynamic (Example)
Generator Dynamic Data (GENROU model)
T’do
T"do
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
T’qo
T"qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X’d
X’q
X"d
Xl
Table A-3: Exciter Dynamic Data (Example)
Exciter Dynamic Data (EXAC2 model)
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
KH
Table A-4: Stabilizer Dynamic Data (Example)
Stabilizer Dynamic Data (PSS2B model)
Tw1
Tw2
T6
Tw3
Tw4
T7
KS2
KS3
T8
T9
KS1
T1
T2
T3
T4
T10
T11
VSI1M
AX
VSI2MI
N
VSI1M
AX
VSI2MI
N
VSTM
AX
VSTMI
N
ICS1
Page 39
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Stabilizer Dynamic Data (PSS2B model)
REMBUS
1
ICS2
REMBU
S2
M
N
Table A-5: Governor Dynamic Data (Example)
Governor Dynamic Data (GGOV1 model)
R
Tpelec
Maxerr
Minerr
Kpgov
Kigov
Kdgov
Tdgov
Vmax
Vmin
Tact
Kturb
Wfnl
Tb
Tc
Teng
Tfload
Kploa
d
kiload
Ldref
Dm
Ropen
Rclose
Kimw
Aact
Ka
Ta
Trate
db
Tsa
Tsb
Rup
Rdown
Rsele
ct
Flag
Provide a high-level summary of the modelling assumptions made for all other generators, such
as the dynamic data provided by AESO used, the generator test reports used (where such test
reports were available), and/or the standard generator data used (where such test reports were
not available).
Page 40
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment B
Pre-Project Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 41
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment C
Pre-Project Voltage Stability Diagrams
(Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 42
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Table C-1: Summary of Voltage Stability Outages; Initial Load Level for Area XX is YY MW
Incremental Area
Available Voltage
System Condition
Worst Case Outage
Load Increase before
Stability Margin
Collapse Point (MW)
(%)
All figures must be easy to read and have proper labels for both the x axis and the y axis. See
Figure C-1 for an example. The table headings must identify the initial amount of static load in
the study region or the initial transfer level, whichever is applicable. Figure C-1: Overview of
Voltage Stability Outages (Example)
Figure C-1: Overview of Voltage Stability Outages (Example)
System Condition: N-FNG,
Area Capacitor banks utilized to prepare for next outage,
RB Area Load = ~140 MW including losses,
Examined: N-FNG-RL1
Rainbow Lake 791S 144kV Bus
155
Voltage (kV) t
150
145
140
135
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
Rainbow Area Total Load (MW)
N-FNG
N-FNG-RL1+LS1
N-FNG-RL1+LS2
Page 43
N-FNG-RL1+LS3
N-FNG-RL1+LS4
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment D
Pre-Project Transient Stability Diagrams
(Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 44
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Use figures to illustrate the system dynamic responses following Category A, Category B, and
Category C5 contingencies. The figures must be easy to read and properly labelled. The figure
numbers should be noted in the Summary of Transient Stability table and in the attachment.
Include figures for system voltages at key nodes in the Study Area, relevant generator angles
with respect to the reference generator, the power output of the relevant generators in the area,
and any other relevant information. Figure D-1 and Figure D-2 are examples of figures that
show system response.
Figure D-1: Three-Phase Fault near Example 1S Substation on 1001L (Example)
Bus Voltage (kV)
160
155
150
145
140
Example
135
130
125
120
0
5
Blumenort
10
15
Ft.Nelson
20
High Level
25
Hotchkiss
30
Keg River
35
Rainbow Lake
Figure D-2: Transient System Response following Loss of Example Generator (Example)
NW generators angle: N-FNG
0
Example
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
0
5
RB2
10
RL1
15
RB5
20
Bear Creek (Gas)
Page 45
25
Bear Creek (Steam)
30
35
H.R.Milner
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment E
Alternative 1: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 46
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Page 47
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment F
Alternative XX: Load Flow Diagrams (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 48
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Page 49
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment G
Alternative 1: Voltage Stability Diagrams
(Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 50
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Page 51
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment H
Alternative XX: Voltage Stability Diagrams
(Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 52
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Page 53
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment I
Alternative 1: Transient Stability Diagrams
(Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 54
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Page 55
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment J
Alternative XX: Transient Stability Diagrams
(Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 56
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment K
Motor Starting Analysis and Diagrams
Page 57
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Attachment L
Category B Loading and Voltage Performance (Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 58
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Table L-1: Remedial Action Scheme
RAS Number
RAS Name
134
174L-395S North Holden overload mitigation scheme
Table L-2: Performance Violations and Potential Mitigation Options
Mitigation Approach6
Triggering
Events
(Element out
of Service)
Type of
System
Constraint
(Nature of
constraint)
(ex. thermal
violation,
instability,
voltage range
violation)
Details of Constraint36
(ex. %I of MVA loading of nominal rating, nominal and short-term emergency rating,
and direction of flow, or what type of instability, or voltage level)
Voltage (SteadyState)
Thermal
Nomin
al
rating
(MVA)
Shortterm
rating
(MVA
)
Load
Flow
(MVA
)
Assumed System
Conditions
%I of MVA
continuou
s ratings
(ex. Summer peak, year,
and other critical project
assumptions)
Stability
Location
Voltage
(RAS or Procedure, also include
post-RAS system performance,
ex. %I of MVA loading of nominal
rating)
Automat
ic (RAS)
OR
Real
Time
Operati
ng
Practice
Post RAS
Action
Action 1
% of
MVA
continuo
us
Rating
Action 2
% of
MVA
continuo
us
Rating
Tempo
rary
or
Perma
nent
Mitigat
ion
Measu
re
Propose
d LongTerm
Planning
Solution
201xLTP
xxxL
(xxx xxxS
to xxx xxxS
36
Thermal
Violation
xxxL (xxx
xxxS to xxx
xxxS)
85
94
89.0
104.7
20xx Summer Peak
Scenario 1
(List other critical
project assumption)
May include sub-columns for details
Page 59
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Tempo
rary
(Please
specify on
what
portion of
LTP will
remove the
temporary
mitigation
measure)
Page 60
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
Attachment M
Generation/Load Effectiveness Factor (if necessary)
Page 61
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
Regarding Generation Effectiveness Factor analysis, please address generator types in the Study
Area and created effectiveness analysis table for N-0 and N-1 contingencies.
Table M-0: Generator Types
Plant
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Type
Wind
Wind
Wind
Gas
Gas
Hydro
Hydro
Coal
Coal
Coal
Table M-1: 20xxSL (Post-Project), Generators Effectiveness Factors under Normal
Condition (N-0)
Plant
xxx
xxx
xxx
Xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Line
Table M-2: 20xxSL (Post- Project), Generators Effectiveness Factors under Normal
Condition (N-1)
Plant
xxx
xxx
xxx
Xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Line
Page 62
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
Attachment N
Load Flow Diagrams after RAS Action
(Scenarios 1 to XX)
Page 63
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
SECTION THREE
FACILITY DESIGN
Page 64
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
Facility Design Template
AESO Project Number: #
Date:
Click and type date
Company Name
Version:
Name
Signature
Date
Click and type version number
Engineering Stamp
APEGA Permit to Practice: XXXXXX
Page 65
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
(Page intentionally blank)
Page 66
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Table of Contents
SECTION THREE- FACILITY DESIGN TEMPLATE....... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
DEFINED.
1
PROPOSED FACILITY ADDITION/UPGRADES ............................................ 68
2
SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................... 68
2.1
STANDARD COMPLIANCE ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2
SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS .......................................................................... 68
2.2.1 MAXIMUM FAULT LEVEL ......................................................................................................... 69
2.2.2 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM CONTINUOUS VOLTAGE RATINGS (kV) ................................... 69
2.2.3 MINIMUM CONTINUOUS CURRENT RATINGS (A) ................................................................ 69
2.2.4 INSULATION LEVEL ................................................................................................................. 69
2.3
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT DETAILS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................. 70
2.3.1 Preferred Alternative .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OPERATING REQUIREMENTS .......................... 71
3.1
SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT LEVELS ......................................................................................... 71
3.2
OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................. 71
3.2.1 Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) .............................................................................................. 71
3.2.2 Generator Synchronization ........................................................................................................ 71
3.2.3 Sync-Check or Anti-Islanding .................................................................................................... 71
4
REVISION HISTORY ................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX AA. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................................................... 73
A.1 CUSTOMER CONNECTION – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE....................................................... 73
A.1.1 SLD – ###S SUBSTATION – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................................................... 73
A.1.2. TELE-COMMUNICATION CONNECTION – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................ 73
Page 67
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
1
Proposed Facility Addition/Upgrades
This section is compiled by the Market Participant and is to describe the following:
•
•
•
•
Organization submitting SASR
SASR request (load DTS, gen STS, transformer add, breaker add, new POD, …) and why needed
(load growth, new load, new generator, DFO reliability – N-1, feeder loading, …)
location
Requested In-Service date
The Engineering Study Report (ESR) evaluated multiple alternates. The AESO or TFO or Studies
Consultant proposes to implement the preferred alternate which requires the following facilities (list the
facilities herein):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Line nominal voltage, minimum capacity, and approximate length
Transformer voltage (high/low voltage), minimum capacity and the type of tap changer (on-load or offload)
Salvage of any existing transmission facilities
Bus arrangement and breakers (25 kV or higher voltage)
Tele-protection requirement to meet the ESR (stability) and AESO (protection rule) fault clearing
requirements
Remedial Action Schemes (RAS), if needed, for the preferred alternate
Anything else (incl. SVC or other voltage control devices, etc.)
Please include a relevant single line diagrams for the existing transmission system in the project area.
2
Scope of Work
2.1
Standard Compliance
All work undertaken by TFOs or customers must be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the
standards, guidelines, codes and regulations governing such installations including, but not limited to
those listed below. All AESO documentation can be found on the AESO website
(http://www.aeso.ca/rulesprocedures/8778.html).
List only the applicable standards related to the facilities listed in Section 1.
2.2
Substation Equipment Specifications
All proposed new transmission equipment must meet the minimum specifications provided below or in the
following subsections:
Page 68
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title




Any exceptions from the Alberta Reliability Standards (e.g., there may be different temperature rating
for the north region vs. the south region, exceptions to line and tower design, exceptions to protection
requirements, etc.)
Maximum Fault Level as indicated in Section 2.2.1.
Equipment maximum and minimum voltage ratings as indicated in Section 2.2.2.
Minimum continuous equipment current ratings as indicated in Section 2.2.3.
2.3
Maximum Fault Level
Provide the maximum fault level for the nominal voltage. The Alberta standard fault duty levels are: 31.5
kA for 138/144 kV, and 40 kA for 240 kV. These values may need to be changed, depending on the short
circuit study results.
2.4
Maximum and Minimum Continuous Voltage Ratings (kV)
Provide appropriate nominal voltages in Table 3 based on the connection area and modify the column
headers accordingly.
Table 3: Equipment Maximum and Minimum Continuous Voltage Ratings (kV)
Area
25 kV
69/72 kV
138/144 kV
240 kV
500 kV
Minimum
Maximum
2.5
Minimum Continuous Current Ratings (A)
Provide appropriate values in Table 4 based on the connection area and modify the column headers
accordingly.
Table 4: Equipment Minimum Continuous Current Ratings (A)
Component
25 kV
69/72 kV
138/144 kV
240 kV
500 kV
Main Bus
Cross Bus
Feeder
Provide Single Line Diagrams (SLD) of the proposed facilities showing substation ampacities and other
information, detailed as follows.
2.6
Insulation Level
Table 5: Basic Insulation Level (kV)
Nominal Voltage Classification (kV rms)
25 kV
69/72 kV
138/144 kV
240 kV
500 kV
Station Post Insulators and Airbreaks
Page 69
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Nominal Voltage Classification (kV rms)
25 kV
69/72 kV
138/144 kV
240 kV
500 kV
Circuit Breakers
Current and Potential Transformers
Transformer Windings
2.7
Facilities and Equipment Details for the Preferred Alternative
Describe preferred alternative as the outcome of Stage 2 Engineering Study Report (ESR). Include the
pre- and post-Project diagrams.
2.8
Transmission lines
Specify number of circuits, the approximate length of the new line(s) to be constructed and the minimum
capacity (summer/winter) requirement.
2.9
Substations
Itemize all major equipment as follows.

Bus arrangement

Transformer size and type of tap changer

Number of breakers at ≥25 kV

Number of motor operated disconnect (MOD) switches at 138 kV or higher voltage

Cap banks (if any and if at or higher than 25 kV voltage)

Transformer neutral reactor/resistor
2.10 Protection, Control Requirements
The protection and control will be designed to meet ISO Rules.
2.11 SCADA
All SCADA requirements will be designed as per ISO Rules.
2.12 Telecommunication
All Telecommunication requirements will be designed as per ISO Rules.
Page 70
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
2.13 Revenue Metering
The Revenue metering will be designed to meet the current AESO’s Measurement System Standard 37.
3
Transmission System Operating Requirements
In the following sections provide brief description to outline the need for mitigation measures to connect
commission and operate the new connection as per the electrical environment in which the facilities
outlined in this document will operate.
3.1
Short Circuit Current Levels
Summarize the short circuit current levels from the Stage 2 Engineering Study Report, pre- and postProject, and 10 years into the future.
Highlight the short circuit current levels which are above 90% of equipment rating. Market participants can
approach the AESO for advice with respect to long-term anticipated short circuit levels and can
collaborate with the AESO on a system-based solution if a more locally-based solution cannot solve it.
3.2
Operational Constraints
The following sections identify the need for new or potential changes to existing mitigation measures to
successfully commission and operate the new connection to meet AESO reliability standards in
operations domain.
3.2.1 Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)
Provide brief description of the identified constraints as identified in the Stage 2 Engineering Study
Report. Briefly describe new RAS requirement, or the necessary changes to existing RAS schemes or
procedures for the project or in the project area.
3.2.2 Generator Synchronization
Refer to the AESO’s Generation and Load Interconnection Standard38 related to synchronization
requirements. Provide detailed information of any synchronization plan which deviates from the standard.
3.2.3 Sync-Check or Anti-Islanding
If there is an existing anti-islanding scheme in the project area, specify the modifications needed. If no
existing scheme, provide suggested options to address anti-islanding requirements.
37
38
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/AESO_Measurement_System_Standard(1).pdf
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/Generation_and_Load_Standard_Rev1.pdf
Page 71
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
4
Revision History
Revision
Issue Date
Author
Page 72
Change Tracking
Public
R1-2016-05-01
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Appendix A. Preferred Alternative
A.1 Customer connection – Preferred Alternative
Provide a drawing showing the proposed area transmission system including the development
described in the Specification.
A.1.1 SLD39 – ###S Substation – Preferred Alternative
Provide a drawing showing the proposed configuration of each substation that will be affected by the
development described in the Specification. Each drawing should clearly indicate the following as a
minimum:

Station layout and bus configuration

Switches at 138 kV or higher voltage

Interrupting devices at 25 kV or higher voltage

Voltage control equipment (e.g. capacitors and reactors)

Transformers complete with configuration, tap changing and grounding

Proposed additions/changes/salvages clearly indicated

Current ratings of bus sections (only if bus upgrades are required)

Delineation of ownership
Provide information of other subsections as necessary.
A.1.2. Tele-communication Connection – Preferred Alternative
Provide a drawing(s) showing the proposed area tele-communication system including the
development described in this Functional Specification. Each drawing should clearly indicate the
following as a minimum:

Proposed connection and upgrades to existing tele-communication system.

Proposed type (microwave, fiber, and etc.) of new and upgraded tele-communication systems.

Specify for all new and upgraded tele-communication systems what (if any) TPR or protection
applications will be carried.
Note – that RAS requirements determined at a later date may modify the tele-communication
requirement
39
SLD in Microsoft Visio format to the AESO is required
Page 73
Public
R1-2016-05-01
SECTION FOUR
COST ESTIMATES
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project Title
Refer to the AESO website40 for Cost Estimates Template.
40
Refer to the ‘Templates’ section in http://www.aeso.ca/connect/files/aeso_cost_estimate_template.xlsx
SECTION FIVE
LAND IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
Land Impact Assessment
AESO Project Number: #
Date:
Click and type date
Company Name
Version:
Name
Click and type version number
Signature
Date
Connection Proposal Template
Stage 2 Connection Engineering Study Report for AUC Application: Project
Title
(Page intentionally blank)
1
Land Impact Assessment
To meet the AUC Rule 007 requirements, a land impact assessment may be needed depending on the
scope of development being proposed to connect the Market Participant project.
Provide a summary of the land assessment for the technically feasible connection alternatives as advised
by AESO.
Page 79
Public
R1-2016-05-01