|

Overlaying DC Transmission On an AC System
August 2005
By R. Austria, K. Dartawan, M. Elfayoumy, M. Gutierrez, R. Tapia, Pterra Consulting
One of the ideas proposed for developing a transmission super
highway is to construct a number of DC lines to overlay the existing
AC system. The motivation comes from DC’s inherent capability to
overcome voltage and stability issues for transfers over long distances,
making the network electrically “smaller.” (There is also an
economic motivation that is important to recognize, but which we will
not treat in this article.) How would such a massive development change
the nature of a power system? What issues do system planners have to
consider? In a more global view, what would investors and regulatory
agencies need to take into account in funding and approving this type of
project?
A recent system reliability impact study (SRIS) of a proposed
HVDC line from Albany, NY to New York City offers some key insights. Two
1000-MW HVDC bipoles are proposed. The DC lines would bring
ostensibly cheaper upstate energy to the New York City load area,
characterized by high locational energy prices. The bipoles would
overlay an existing 345 and 230 kV network, and specifically impact
several key AC interfaces in the New York
grid: Upstate New York – ConEd (UPNY-ConEd), Central-East, Total
East, Upstate New York – Southeast New York (UPNY-SENY) and New York
City Cables (NYC Cable). Using New York ISO standards for conducting an
SRIS, the study identified the following changes in transfer limits:
|
Interface |
Condition |
MW Incr |
|
Central East |
Summer Peak Thermal Emergency |
685 |
|
Central East |
Summer Peak Thermal Normal |
730 |
|
Central East |
Winter Peak Thermal Normal |
161 |
|
Central East |
Summer Peak Voltage Transfer |
487 |
|
Total East |
Summer Peak Thermal Emergency |
730 |
|
Total East |
Summer Peak Thermal Normal |
1006 |
|
Total East |
Winter Peak Thermal Normal |
98 |
|
Total East |
Summer Peak Voltage Transfer |
744 |
|
|
Average |
580 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Closed |
Summer Peak Thermal Emergency |
2648 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Closed |
Summer Peak Thermal Normal |
2522 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Closed |
Winter Peak Thermal Normal |
2147 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Closed |
Summer Peak Voltage Transfer |
1392 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Open |
Summer Peak Thermal Emergency |
2648 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Open |
Summer Peak Thermal Normal |
2523 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Open |
Winter Peak Thermal Normal |
2147 |
|
UPNY-ConEd Open |
Summer Peak Voltage Transfer |
1887 |
|
UPNY-SENY Closed |
Summer Peak Thermal Emergency |
2157 |
|
UPNY-SENY Closed |
Summer Peak Thermal Normal |
2605 |
|
UPNY-SENY Closed |
Winter Peak Thermal Normal |
1801 |
|
UPNY-SENY Open |
Summer Peak Thermal Emergency |
2158 |
|
UPNY-SENY Open |
Summer Peak Thermal Normal |
2606 |
|
UPNY-SENY Open |
Winter Peak Thermal Normal |
2101 |
|
|
Average |
2239 |
|
NYC Cable |
Summer Peak Thermal Emergency |
1625 |
|
NYC Cable |
Summer Peak Thermal Normal |
1625 |
|
NYC Cable |
Winter Peak Thermal Normal |
1409 |
|
NYC Cable |
Summer Peak Voltage Transfer |
1450 |
|
|
Average |
1527 |
On the average, the increase in transfer capacity on the Central-East
and Total East interfaces is 29% of the project’s 2000-MW
capacity. Of particular note is the voltage-constrained Central
East interface in which capacity increases by 487 MW at summer peak (obtained
using P-V curves). The location of the project’s sending terminals are
just east of these interfaces, and so the project does not, in fact,
offer a new parallel path for these particular interfaces. However, the
project redistributes power flows in a way that a previously
limiting constraint is relieved, and this accounts for the incremental
capacity. Also, since the DC terminals require reactive compensation,
the voltage limit would actually decrease, if it were not for the
resolution of a limiting contingency.
Across the main interfaces from upstate NY to NYC (UPNY-Coned and
UPNY-SENY), there is an average increase in transfer capacity of 112% of
the bipoles' capacity. Since these interfaces are thermally limited, the
increase is even higher considering only thermal constraints, up to 117%
of bipole capacity. The reason that we don’t seem to see a one-to-one
compensation between the added DC capacity and incremental interface
capacity is that there is a significant offloading of underlying
lower voltage lines that eliminates the impact of certain limiting
contingencies.
Coming closer into the New York City load pocket, the incremental
capacity averages 76% of the bipole capacity. This is the result of an
interesting locational feature: as more power is dispatched upstate, the
particular power plants that are ramped down or taken offline in the
load pocket causes local congestions. One could view this in
another way: the bipole results in certain must-run dispatch
patterns in the load pocket.
None of the interfaces studied was stability-limited, and in the SRIS
process this meant that the stability limits were not pushed as much.
The relative response with and without the bipoles to typical
disturbances show little change. We posit that there are two
influences at play here: the AC system is more stable with less
power being carried on the AC lines, and it is less stable due to the
reactive consumption of the bipoles. Also, we note that for the design
with two bipoles
of 1000 MW each, the loss of any one bipole can be withstood by the
system. If the design were for one bipole of 2000 MW, this result could
be significantly different.
Short circuit calculations indicate that for unbalanced fault
currents the bipoles cause an increase in the total short circuit
currents of some stations. Three phase short circuit currents were not
affected since the HVDC delta-wye grounded converter transformers only
affect unbalanced faults.
From this one example, we offer the following insights with respect
to overlaying a DC line over an existing AC system:
- On thermally limited interfaces, the
incremental capacity is slightly above the DC line capacity due to
the offloading of parallel paths.
- The DC line can have negative impact on
voltage-constrained interfaces due to its reactive characteristics.
However, the impact is compensated for by flow re-distribution that
eases system response seen from the P-V curve and could relieve
certain constraints altogether.
- Stability in general improves where
sufficiently stiff connection points are chosen for the terminals.
The opposite is true when the connection points have weak voltage
support.
- The DC lines themselves could become
the limiting condition for stability, thermal or voltage conditions
because of their high capacity. Splitting them into smaller capacity
lines resolves this, but then introduces a financial burden.
- Fault duties may rise.
One test of the above observations is to apply them to the case of
the California-Oregon interface which operates in parallel with the DC
tie from Oregon to Southern California. That, as they say in the
textbooks, is left to the reader. Or, for further discussion.
A more detailed cop of the SRIS for the Empire Interconnection is
available to market participants and interested parties at the
New
York Independent System Operator.
The source for the analytical data on the HVDC line in New York is
the following article: "Transmission
and the Reliability of the New York State Bulk Power System, Part I:
Thermal Transfer Limit Analysis," by R. Tapia, M. Elfayoumy and R.
Clayton, September, 2004, Power System Conference and Exhibition, New
York, New York.
For questions, comments and further discussion, contact us at
mailto:info@pterra.us
© 2005. All rights reserved.
|