APPENDIX A CONNECTION ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A
CONNECTION ASSESSMENT
Engineering Study Report
Tehrn©nt
Connection to Enbndge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation
AESO P 1558
Revision Date: October 15, 2015
Revision: 4
Name
Prepared by:
Reviewed
Mahmud Rashid, P.Eng
AshrafHaque, P.Eng.
Ashikur Bhuiya, P.Eng.
.
Approved by:
Data
/5/Jo/2.olc
CS/1i3
David King, P.Eng.
Ashikur Bhuiya, REng.
6067.0O1.000.RevO4
[RevOO Issued: 2015-06-24)
Prepared by:
Teshmont Consultants LP
1190 Waverley Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 0P4
www.teshmontcom
Teshrnon&
PERMIT TO PRACTICE
TESHMO
SULTANTSLP
signature
IS
PERMIT NUMBER: P 03012
Date
The Association of Professional Engineers,
Geologists and Geophy’sicists of Alberta
Signature
7PLi64
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Executive Summary
This study report describes the engineering connection analysis that was performed on
the transmission alternative considered to connect Enbridge’s proposed Battle Sands
594S substation to the Alberta Interconnected Electricity System (AIES) in the Hardisty
area.
Project Overview
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. has submitted a System Access Service Request to the Alberta
Electric System Operator (AESO) requesting the reliable connection of Enbridge’s
proposed 138/6.9 kV point-of-delivery substation to serve new 6.9 kV load in the
Hardisty area (the Project). The proposed Enbridge substation, to be designated the
Battle Sands 594S substation, will be located on Enbridge’s Hardisty terminal and will
have a peak load of 26 MW. A Demand Transmission Service (DTS) capacity of 26 MW
was not requested. Instead, the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation DTS will be
totalized with Enbridge’s existing 60.3 MW DTS contract at the nearby Rosyth 296S and
Clipper 656S substations. The requested project in-service date is July 1, 2017.
Existing System
The requested connection to the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation is located in
Wainwright area (AESO Planning Area 32) in which the Hardisty 377S, Rosyth 296S,
and Clipper 656S substations are located. The Rosyth 296S and Clipper 656S
substations only serve Enbridge load. The Rosyth 296S substation is fed radially from
the Hardisty 377S substation via the 138 kV transmission line 769L. The Clipper 656S
substation is connected to the 138 kV transmission line 769L through a T-tap on the
138 kV transmission line 769AL.
The Wainwright area is located in the Central East Sub-Region and consists primarily of
138 kV and 144 kV transmission lines. A 240/138 kV switching substation, the Nilrem
574S substation, located in the Wainwright area, functions as the primary source of
supply in the area. The Wainwright area is connected through the transmission system
to the Battle River / Alliance (AESO Planning Area 36), Lloydminster (AESO Planning
Area 13), and Provost (AESO Planning Area 37) areas.
The Central East Sub-Region is impacted by the Central East Region Transmission
Development1 and Hanna Region Transmission Development Plan Stage 12 projects.
1
The Central East Region Transmission Development NID, as originally approved by AUC Decision 2011-048 and
Approval No. U2011-57
2
The Hanna Region Transmission System Development NID, as originally approved by AUC Decision 2010-188 and
Approval No. U2010-135
R(4)
2
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Study Summary
In order to identify existing system constraints, pre-connection power flow, voltage
stability, and short-circuit analyses were performed.
Short-circuit and motor starting analyses were performed after connection of the Project
to identify post-connection system constraints and to evaluate whether the performance
requirement of the Alberta Reliability Standards would be met under the studied
scenarios.
The Project connection will not impact Enbridge’s DTS, so post-connection power flow
and voltage stability analyses are expected to yield the same results as the preconnection results. Therefore, the post-connection power flow and voltage stability
analyses were not undertaken.
The Study Area analyzed included Wainwright, and the nearby Battle River/ Alliance,
Lloydminster, Provost, and Hanna areas. The study included all Category A, Category
B, and selected Category C5 contingencies within the Study Area and the tie lines from
the Study Area to the surrounding areas. All branches in the Study Area and the tie
lines to the surrounding areas were monitored for thermal violations. All busses (69 kV
and above) within the Study Area were monitored for voltage violations.
Connection Alternative Selected for Study
Of the four potential transmission connection configurations identified, only one
alternative, Alternative 1 was selected for further study. The other three alternatives
were ruled out either because of space constraints or because they would require more
facilities and hence would result in higher capital costs than Alternative 1.
Alternative 1 involves connecting the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation to the
existing 138 kV transmission line 769L between the Rosyth 296S substation and the
Clipper 656S substation T-tap (the 138 kV transmission line 769AL), by means of a Ttap configuration.
Study Results
The pre-connection power flow and the voltage stability analyses were performed for
the 2017 summer peak (SP) and 2017 winter peak (WP) pre-connection scenarios.
Motor starting analysis was performed for the 2017WP post-connection scenario. In
addition, short-circuit analysis was performed for 2017WP pre-connection and postconnection scenarios, as well as 2024WP post-connection scenario. The Study results
indicate:
Pre-connection results:
1. No Category A, Category B, or selected Category C voltage violations were
identified.
2. Category B thermal loadings violations were observed for the 2017SP and
2017WP pre-connection scenarios, under several Category B contingencies.
R(4)
3
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
These thermal loading violations are existing and known to the AESO. They are
currently being mitigated in real time by the AESO and Transmission Facilities
Owner (TFO) operating practices.
Post-connection results:
1. Short-circuit analysis showed that the Project connection will not negatively
impact short-circuit current levels in the Study Area.
2. Motor starting analysis showed that the impact of “across-the-line” starting of one
motor, in VFD bypass mode, is acceptable during both system normal and
contingency conditions.
Recommendation
The engineering study indicates that Alternative 1 will not adversely impact the AIES in
the Study Area. Based on these results, Teshmont recommends Alternative 1 to
connect the proposed Enbridge Battle Sands 594S substation to the AIES.
R(4)
4
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2
Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Existing System ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Study Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
Connection Alternative Selected for Study .......................................................................................... 3
Recommendation .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 8
1.1.
Project .............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.1.1.
Project Overview ..................................................................................................................... 8
1.1.2.
Load Component ..................................................................................................................... 8
1.1.3.
Generation Component ........................................................................................................... 9
1.2.
Study Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.1.
Study Objectives...................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.2.
Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 9
1.2.3.
Studies Performed ................................................................................................................. 11
1.3.
2.
Report Overview ............................................................................................................................ 12
CRITERIA, SYSTEM DATA, AND STUDY ASSUMPTIONS ................................. 12
2.1.
Criteria, Standards, and Requirements .......................................................................................... 12
2.1.1.
Transmission Planning Standards and Criteria ..................................................................... 12
2.1.2.
AESO Rules .......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.
Load and Generation Assumptions ................................................................................................ 14
2.2.1.
Load Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 15
2.2.2.
Generation and Intertie Flow Assumptions ........................................................................... 15
2.3.
System Projects ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.4.
Customer Connection Projects ...................................................................................................... 18
2.5.
Additional Projects ......................................................................................................................... 19
2.6.
Facility Ratings ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.7.
Voltage Profile Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 22
3.
STUDY METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 23
3.1.
Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.
Study Scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 23
3.3.
Connection Studies Performed ...................................................................................................... 24
R(4)
5
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
3.4.
Power Flow Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 24
3.4.1.
Contingencies Studied for Power Flow Analysis ................................................................... 24
3.5.
Voltage Stability Analysis ............................................................................................................... 25
3.6.
Short-Circuit Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.7.
Motor Starting Analysis .................................................................................................................. 26
4.
PRE-CONNECTION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 26
4.1.
Pre-Connection Power Flow Analysis ............................................................................................ 26
4.1.1.
2017SP Scenario .................................................................................................................. 26
4.1.2.
2017WP Scenario ................................................................................................................. 28
4.2.
5.
5.1.
Voltage Stability Analysis ............................................................................................................... 29
CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 30
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 30
5.2.
Evaluation of Connection Alternatives ........................................................................................... 31
5.2.1.
Connection Alternatives Eliminated....................................................................................... 31
5.2.2.
Connection Alternative Selected for Further Studies ............................................................ 34
6.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONNECTION ALTERNATIVE ........................ 35
6.1.
Power Flow Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 35
6.2.
Voltage Stability Analysis ............................................................................................................... 36
7.
SHORT-CIRCUIT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 36
7.1.
Pre-Connection Short-Circuit Analysis ........................................................................................... 36
7.2.
Alternative 1 Post-Connection Short-Circuit Analysis .................................................................... 36
8.
MOTOR STARTING ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 38
8.1.
Motor Starting Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 39
8.2.
Motor Starting Results for Alternative 1 ......................................................................................... 39
9.
PROJECT INTERDEPENDENCIES ...................................................................... 40
10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 41
11. REVISION HISTORY ............................................................................................. 43
R(4)
6
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Attachments
Attachment A
Pre-Connection Power Flow Single Line Diagrams
Attachment B
Pre-Connection Voltage Stability Results
Attachment C
Post-Connection (Alternative 1) Motor Starting Analysis Results
Figures
Figure 1-1: Wainwright Area Post-HRTD Stage One and CETD Development...................................................... 11
Figure 5-1: Alternative 2 – Radial Connection from Rosyth 296S (or Clipper 656S) Substation (connection to
the Rosyth 296S substation shown) ......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5-2: Alternative 3 – In-and-Out Connection to 138 kV Transmission Line 769L ....................................... 33
Figure 5-3: Alternative 4 – In-and-Out Connection to 138 kV Transmission Line 703L ....................................... 34
Figure 5-4: Alternative 1 – T-Tap Connection to the 138 kV Transmission Line 769L ......................................... 35
Figure 8-1: Equivalent Circuit of Induction Motor ................................................................................................... 39
Tables
Table 1-1: Study Area Transmission System Summary ...........................................................................................9
Table 2-1: Post-Contingency Voltage Deviation Guidelines .................................................................................. 14
Table 2-2: Studied Load Distribution between the Rosyth 296S, the Clipper 656S, and the proposed Battle
Sands 594S Substations ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2-3: Forecast Area Load ................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 2-4: Summary of Local Generators in the Study Case(s) ............................................................................. 15
Table 2-5: CETD Developments Included in the Connection Study ...................................................................... 16
Table 2-6: Summary of HRTD System Projects Not Included in the Connection Study, Stage 2 ........................ 17
Table 2-7: Summary of Relevant Facility Assumption included in the Connection Study, Market Participant
Projects past Gate 2................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 2-8: Summary of Key Transmission Lines in the Study Area. ..................................................................... 19
Table 2-9: Summary of Ratings of Key Transformers in the Study Area .............................................................. 21
Table 2-10: Summary of Key Shunt Elements in the Study Area ........................................................................... 21
Table 2-11: Summary of Voltages at Key Substation in the Study Area ............................................................... 22
Table 3-1: Contingencies Found in the Power Flow and the Voltage Stability Analyses .................................... 25
Table 4-1: 2017SP Pre-Connection Category B Line Loadings .............................................................................. 28
Table 4-2: 2017WP Pre-Connection Category B Transmission Line Loading....................................................... 29
Table 4-3: Worst Contingency Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 29
Table 7-1: Pre-Connection Short-Circuit Current Levels (2017WP) ....................................................................... 36
Table 7-2: Post-Connection Short-Circuit Current Levels for Alternative 1 (2017WP) ......................................... 37
Table 7-3: Post-Connection Short-Circuit Current Levels for Alternative 1 (2024WP) ......................................... 37
Table 8-1: Motor Nameplate and Calculated Data ................................................................................................... 38
Table 8-2: Equivalent Circuit Data ............................................................................................................................ 39
Table 8-3: Motor Starting Performance for Alternative 1 ........................................................................................ 40
R(4)
7
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Introduction
1.
This study report describes the engineering connection analysis that was performed on
the transmission alternative considered to connect Enbridge’s proposed Battle Sands
594S substation to the Alberta Interconnected Electricity System (AIES) in the Hardisty
area.
1.1.
Project
Project Overview
1.1.1.
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (the customer) submitted a System Access Service Request
(SASR) to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) requesting the connection of
the proposed Enbridge 138/6.9 kV point-of-delivery (POD) substation, comprised of two
138/6.9 kV, 25/33.3 MVA transformers, located on Enbridge’s Hardisty terminal.
In this report, the requested connection to the Enbridge’s proposed Battle Sands 594S
substation will be referred to as “the Project”. The requested in-service date (ISD) for
the Project is July 1, 2017.
Load Component
1.1.2.
The proposed facility includes 26 MW of new motor load. No additional Demand
Transmission Service (DTS) has been requested as part of the Project. The AESO
agreed to support Enbridge’s request for totalization of the proposed Battle Sands 594S
substation DTS with Enbridge’s existing DTS at Rosyth 296S and Clipper 656S
substations.
1.1.2.1.
R(4)
Proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation Project Load Details

Existing Hardisty DTS: 60.3 MW totalized from Rosyth 296S and Clipper 656S
substation loads.

Request for the Hardisty DTS: 60.3 MW totalized from the proposed Battle
Sands 594S, Rosyth 296S, and Clipper 656S substation loads.

Peak Substation Load: 26 MW @ 0.95 power factor, to be included in the 60.3
MW DTS

Load Type: Industrial motor / pump station

Number of Motors: 4 @ 7000 HP each

Future Allowance for Load Growth: Enbridge does not currently have future
expansion plans to increase the load above 26 MW at the proposed Battle Sands
594S substation.
8
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Generation Component
1.1.3.
This project has no generation component.
1.2.
Study Scope
Study Objectives
1.2.1.
The objectives of the study are the following:

To assess the impact of connecting the Project on the AIES.

To identify any system constraints that would prevent the granting of approval for
the Project.

To recommend the optimal connection point within the Study Area.
1.2.2.
Study Area
The Project is located in the Wainwright area (AESO Planning Area 32). The Study
Area includes the Wainwright area and the following AESO Planning Areas: Battle River
/ Alliance (AESO Planning Area 36), Lloydminster (AESO Planning Area 13), Provost
(AESO Planning Area 37), and Hanna (AESO Planning Area 42).
Table 1-1: Study Area Transmission System Summary
Area Number
1.2.2.1.
Planning Area Name
Voltage Range
32
Wainwright
69 kV to 240 kV
36
Battle River / Alliance
69 kV to 240 kV
13
Lloydminster
69 kV to 240 kV
37
Provost
138 kV to 240 kV
42
Hanna
69 kV to 240 kV
Study Area Description
The Project will be located approximately 4 km southeast of the Town of Hardisty in the
Wainwright area. The Wainwright area is located in the AESO’s Central East SubRegion and consists primarily of 138 kV and 144 kV transmission systems. A 240/138
kV switching substation, the Nilrem 574S substation, functions as the primary source of
supply in the Wainwright area. The area is connected to the AESO Planning Areas of
Battle River/Alliance, Lloydminster, and Provost.
R(4)
9
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
The Study Area is impacted by the Central East Region Transmission Development
(CETD)3 and the Hanna Region Transmission Development Plan Stage 1 (HRTD)4
projects.
The CETD consists of several 138/144 kV enhancements in the Wainwright and
Lloydminster areas intended to serve increasing load and generation, as well as 240 kV
and 144 kV enhancements in the Cold Lake area to serve oil sands expansions. Many
of these developments are under construction and are expected to enter service by
2017. However, due to changes in forecast assumptions and system conditions,
especially those related to the proposed wind generation connections in the eastern part
of the region, the AESO has reassessed the need for approved facilities in the CETD as
part of its regional plan assessments. The Central East Sub-Regional Plan is a part of
the published AESO 2013 Long-term Transmission Plan (2013 LTP).5
Currently, the Hanna region transmission system is being upgraded in accordance with
the HRTD to ensure that there is adequate capacity and reliability of supply for the
growing load in the area. As part of the HRTD, new 240 kV and 138 kV transmission
lines will be built and some existing 138/144 kV and 69/72 kV transmission lines will be
decommissioned. All of the facilities included in the HRTD Stage 1 are already in
service. The AESO is re-assessing the HRTD Stage 2 and will file necessary
components in the future. An area map of the transmission system near the Project
(excluding the HRTD Stage 2) is shown in Figure 1-1.
The closest existing substations to the Project are Rosyth 296S and Clipper 656S
substations, both approximately 1 km to the north of the proposed Battle Sands 594S
substation location. The Rosyth 296S substation is fed radially from the Hardisty 377S
substation via the 138 kV transmission line 769L. The Clipper 656S substation is
connected to the 138 kV transmission line 769L through a T-tap on the 138 kV
transmission line 769AL.
1.2.2.2.
Existing Constraints
The existing constraints in the Study Area are currently managed by the following
planned and installed Remedial Action Scheme (RAS):
1. Battle River 7L50 and 7L701 TPS
2. RAS #134: 174L-395S North Holden overload mitigation scheme
3. RAS #138: 7L50 -526S Buffalo Creek overload mitigation scheme
4. RAS #139: 901T-766S Nevis overload mitigation scheme
5. EATL RAS for 912L and 9L20 contingencies
3
The Central East Region Transmission Development NID, as originally approved by AUC Decision 2011-048 and
Approval No. U2011-57
4
The Hanna Region Transmission System Development NID, as originally approved by AUC Decision 2010-188 and
Approval No. U2010-135
5
Available on the AESO website at: http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/AESO_2013_LongtermTransmissionPlan_Web.pdf
R(4)
10
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
1.2.2.3.
AESO Long-Term Plans
The system development projects which impact the Study Area are defined in the
CETD. More details regarding the CETD projects and their in-service dates are
presented in Table 2-5 in Section 2.3.
The AESO published its 2013 LTP, which included its Central Region Plan in 2014. The
Central Region Plan includes new 240 kV transmission lines and substations to alleviate
the existing congestion and to facilitate the new wind generation interest in the Central
Region. The AESO will file the related Needs Identification Documents (NID) with the
Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) in 2016. These plans do not impact the Project
study results.
Figure 1-1: Wainwright Area Post-HRTD Stage One and CETD Development
1.2.3.
Studies Performed
The following pre-connection analyses were performed:
R(4)
11
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation

Power flow analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5 for 2017
Summer Peak (SP) and 2017 Winter Peak (WP) load scenarios)

Voltage stability analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5 for
2017WP load scenarios)

Short-circuit analysis (with all generators in service for 2017WP)
The following analyses were performed for the post-connection analysis:

Short-circuit analysis (with all generators in service for 2017WP and 2024WP)

Motor starting analysis (Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5 for
2017WP load scenarios)
1.3.
Report Overview
The Executive Summary provides a high-level summary of the report and its
conclusions.
Section 1 provides an introduction of the Engineering Study Report. Section 2 describes
the reliability criteria, system data, and other study assumptions used in this report.
Section 3 describes the study methodology. Section 4 discusses the pre-connection
power flow and voltage stability analysis of the system. Section 5 presents the
connection alternatives considered and studied. Section 6 discusses the power flow and
voltage stability analysis of the connection alternative selected for further study. Section
7 presents the short-circuit analysis results. Section 8 shows the motor start analysis
results. Section 9 discusses project interdependencies. Section 10 presents the
summary and conclusions of this engineering study.
Criteria, System Data, and Study Assumptions
2.
2.1.
2.1.1.
Criteria, Standards, and Requirements
Transmission Planning Standards and 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) 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), 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.
Category A, often referred to as the N-0 condition, or N-G with the most critical
generator out of service, 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
R(4)
12
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
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 result 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 TPL standards, TPL-001-AB-0, TPL-002-AB-0, and TPL-003-AB-0 reference
Applicable Ratings when specifying the required system performance under Category
A, Category B, and Category C events. For the purpose of applying the TPL standards
to the studies documented in this report Applicable Ratings are defined as follows:

Applicable Rating refers to the applicable normal and emergency facility thermal
and voltage rating, as applied by the facility owner, or to the system voltage limit,
as determined and consistently applied by the ISO. Applicable ratings may
include emergency ratings applicable for short durations as required to permit the
operating steps necessary to maintain system control. All ratings must be
established by the applicable entity consistent with applicable ISO rules
addressing facility ratings.

For Category A conditions: Voltage range under normal operating condition is in
accordance with AESO Information Document ID# 2010-007RS, General
Operating Practice – Voltage Control.

For Category B conditions: The extreme voltage range, as applicable, is taken
from Table 2-1 in the Transmission Planning Criteria – Basis and Assumptions.
The acceptable post-contingency voltage change limits for three defined post-event
timeframes are as provided in Table 2-1 below.
R(4)
13
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
The post-contingency voltage deviations following Category B events were compared
with the guidelines in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1: Post-Contingency Voltage Deviation Guidelines
Time Period
Parameter and Reference Point
Post-Transient
Post-Auto Control Post-Manual Control
(up to 30 sec)
(30 sec to 5 min)
(Steady State)
±10%
±7%
±5%
Voltage deviation from steady state at
POD low voltage bus.
2.1.2.
AESO Rules
The AESO Information Document ID # 2010-007RS will be applied to establish precontingency voltage profiles in the study region. The Section 302.1 of the ISO rules,
Real Time Constraint Management (the TCM Rule) will be followed in setting up the
study scenarios and assessment of the connection impact. In addition, due regard will
be given to the AESO Customer Connection Study Requirements Document and the
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 worstcase loading and generation conditions.
2.2.
Load and Generation Assumptions
Studies were conducted for 2017SP and 2017WP scenarios to align with the requested
ISD of July 1, 2017. The AESO Planning Base Case Suite was used to develop the
study cases. The 2024WP scenario was considered to calculate short-circuit current
levels for 2024.
Table 2-2 shows the load distribution amoung the Rosyth 296S, the Clipper 656S, and
the proposed Battle Sands 594S substations for pre-connection and post-connection
scenarios considering the total DTS of 60.3 MW.
Table 2-2: Studied Load Distribution between the Rosyth 296S, the Clipper 656S, and the
proposed Battle Sands 594S Substations
Load @
Scenario
Year /
Condition
Load @
Clipper 656S
Load @
Rosyth 296S
(MW DTS)
(MW DTS)
Proposed
Battle Sands
594S
Total Load
(MW DTS)
(MW DTS)
2017SP PreConnection*
2017SP
15.1
45.2
0
60.3
2017WP PreConnection*
2017WP
15.1
45.2
0
60.3
2017WP PostConnection*
2017WP
12
22.3
26
60.3
R(4)
14
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
* 2017 Scenarios were considered without the HRTD Stage 2 system developments.
2.2.1.
Load Assumptions
The forecasted SP and WP load levels for the relevant study years from the AESO 2014
Long-term Outlook is presented in Table 2-3. The ratio of active power to reactive power
in the study cases was maintained when scaling of the loads was required.
Table 2-3: Forecast Area Load
Area Name and Number
Central Region*
Alberta Internal Load
without losses
Season
Year
Forecast Peak Load
(MW)
Summer
2017
1,602
Winter
2017
1,847
Winter
2024
2,153
Summer
2017
11,440
Winter
2017
12,796
Winter
2024
15,532
*The Central Region comprises of the following AESO Planning Areas: 13, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
42, and 56
2.2.2.
Generation and Intertie Flow Assumptions
One of the major sources of power supply to the Study Area is the Battle River
Generation Plant located in the Battle River / Alliance area. Table 2-4 shows the
dispatch from the Battle River generators for different seasons and study years.
The selection of one Battle River unit out of service was determined as the most critical
unit for an N-G condition. This unit is out of service for power flow and voltage stability
studies. All the remaining generators were dispatched based on economic merit in
accordance with the generation dispatch provided by the AESO.
Table 2-4: Summary of Local Generators in the Study Cases
Name
Units
Generation Level Modelled in the
Study Case (MW)
2017SP
2017WP
Battle River
3
153
153
Battle River
4
163
163
Battle River
5
OFF
OFF
Power import through the intertie with British Columbia had no impact on this study and
therefore the intertie assumptions used were consistent with that in the AESO base
cases. The intertie with Saskatchewan was considered at zero. The study case
R(4)
15
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
assumed no wind as the most stressed case and consequently all wind generation in
the Study Area was set offline.
2.3.
System Projects
Table 2-5 lists the approved CETD plan, which was considered in the study.
Table 2-5: CETD Developments Included in the Connection Study
R(4)
Subproject Name and Description
Scheduled ISD
/ Complete /
Cancelled
Project
Subproject
811
1
Bourque 970S Substation (Partial Stage 1)
Complete
811
1
Bourque 970S Substation (Partial Stage 2)
Complete
811
2
138 kV transmission line 7L146 from Bonnyville
700S Substation to Bourque 970S substation
Complete
811
3
St. Paul Area Upgrades - Watt Lake 956S
substation
Complete
811
4
St. Paul Upgrades St. Paul 707S substation and the
138 kV transmission lines 7L139/ 7L70 in and out
April 2016
811
5
Vermillion 710S Substation Upgrade
Complete
811
6
Heisler Area Upgrades
Complete
811
7
Kitscoty 705S substation and 138 kV transmission
lines 7L14 and 7L130 in and out
Complete
811
9
144 kV transmission line 7L701 Line Clearance
Mitigation
Complete
811
10
144 kV Transmission Line 7L157 from the Bourque
970S substation to the Mahihkan 837S substation
Complete
811
11
138 kV transmission line 7L574 from the Bourque
970S substation to the Wolf Lake 822S substation
Complete
811
12
138 kV transmission line 7L583 from Bourque 970S
substation to the Leming Lake 715S substation
Complete
811
13
144 kV transmission line 7L160 from the Bourque
970S substation to the Mahihkan 837S substation
Complete
811
14
St. Paul Area Upgrades – 138 kV transmission line
7LA92 T-tap to Watt Lake 956S substation
Complete
811
16
138 kV transmission line 7L24 Termination at the
Bonnyville 700S substation
Complete
16
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Scheduled ISD
/ Complete /
Cancelled
Project
Subproject
Subproject Name and Description
811
20
144 kV transmission line 7L587 from the Marguerite
Lake 826S substation to the Wolf Lake 822S
substation
Complete
811
22
138 kV transmission line 7L14 Line Clearance
Mitigation
Cancelled
811
23
138 kV transmission line 7L53/7L117 Line
Clearance Mitigation
Cancelled
811
24
St. Paul Area Upgrades - Whitby Lake 819S Circuit
Breaker addition
June 2014
811
25
Bonnyville 700S substation Transformer addition
April 2016
811
26
Kitscoty 69 kV transmission line 6L06
Decommission
Complete
811
27
New 138 kV transmission line 408L from the Jarrow
252S substation to the Wainwright 51S substation
Cancelled
Table 2-6 lists the HRTD Stage 2 system reinforcement project developments. The
HRTD Stage 2 developments were not considered in the 2017 study scenarios.
Table 2-6: Summary of HRTD System Projects Not Included in the Connection Study, Stage 2
Project
Subproject
Subproject Name and Description
Scheduled ISD
1113
1
Energization 1 - 240 kV D/C transmission line 9L49 from
the Cordel 755S substation to the Halkirk 401S substation
Q2 2017
1113
2
Energization 2 - 240 kV D/C transmission line 9L31 from
the Oakland 946S substation to the Coyote Lake 963S
substation - second side strung
Q2 2017
1113
3
Energization 3 - 240 kV D/C transmission line 9L65 from
the Oakland 946S substation to the Lanfine 959S
substation - String second side
Q2 2017
1113
4
Energization 4 - Convert the existing 72 kV Hanna 763S
substation to a 144 kV substation and add a new 144 kV
transmission line 7L108L from the Coyote Lake 963S
substation to the upgraded Hanna 763S substation
Q2 2017
1113
5
Energization 5 - Pemukan 932S substation – add a
second 240/144 kV, 300 MVA transformer
Q2 2017
1113
6
Energization 6 - Lanfine 959S substation – add a second
240/144 kV, 300 MVA transformer
Q2 2017
1113
7
Energization 7 - Youngstown 772S substation - 5 MVAr
Q2 2017
R(4)
17
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Project
Subproject
Subproject Name and Description
Scheduled ISD
Capacitor Bank
1113
9
Energization 9 - Metiskow 648S substation – add one 27
MVAr (138 kV) capacitor bank
Q2 2017
1113
10
Energization 10 - Hansman Lake 650S substation – add a
second 240/144 kV - 200 MVA transformer
Q2 2017
1113
11
Energization 11 - Hansman Lake 650S substation – add
two 36 MVAr (240 kV) and one 27 MVAr (138 kV)
capacitor banks
Q2 2017
1113
12
Energization 12 - Coronation 773S substation- add 2.4
MVAr (25 kV) capacitor bank
Q2 2017
1113
13
Energization 13 - Nilrem 574S substation – add two 27
MVAr (138 kV) capacitor banks
Q2 2017
Notes:
1.
As Part of HRTD Stage 2, 138 kV transmission line 7L224 will be open at Monitor 774S substation, and
144 kV transmission line 7L141 will be energized. Based on the AESO 2013 LTP, 72 kV transmission line
6L56 (between Hanna 763S and Michichi Creek 802S substations) will still be required after HRTD Stage 2.
2.
138 kV transmission Line 7L760 will no longer be open at Oyen 767S substation after HRTD Stage 2.
2.4.
Customer Connection Projects
Table 2-7 shows the new load connection projects that passed Gate 2 and can be found
on the AESO’s website.
Table 2-7: Summary of Relevant Facility Assumption included in the Connection Study, Market
Participant Projects past Gate 2
Project
No
Project Name
Planning
Area
Generation
(MW)
Load
(MW)
MW Type
851
TransCanada Keystone
KXL Pump station #2-Eyre
37-Provost
0.0
25.0
Load
863
TransCanada Keystone
KXL Pump station #3Current
42- Hanna
0.0
25.0
Load
864
TransCanada Keystone
KXL Pump station #4Armitage
42- Hanna
0.0
25.0
Load
1319
ATCO 774S Monitor
Substation Upgrades
42-Hanna
0.0
4.3
Load
Feb 10,
2015
1366
Enbridge Sunken Lake
221S Substation
Expansion
37-Provost
0.0
14
Load
Jun 2014
1284
Nilrem 574S Substation
32-
0.0
24.1
Load
Dec 1,
R(4)
18
Scheduled/
Actual ISD
Jan 1, 2017
(on hold)
Jul 2, 2016
(on hold)
Jul 1, 2016
(on hold)
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Project
No
Planning
Area
Project Name
Expansion (formerly
Lagstaff)
Generation
(MW)
Load
(MW)
MW Type
Wainwright
Scheduled/
Actual ISD
2014
1390
Fortis Tucuman 478S
Substation-25KV Breaker
Addition
32Wainwright
0.0
41.7
Load
Aug 2014
1454
Fortis Tucuman 478S
Substation-T2 25KV
Feeder Breaker Addition
32Wainwright
0.0
12.4
Load
Nov 2014
1495
Fortis Hayter 277S
Substation 42 MVA
Transformer and 25 kV
Breaker Add.
37-Provost
0.0
0.0
Equipment
Change
Sep 16,
2015
1311
ATCO Irish Creek 706S
Substation Upgrades
13Lloydminster
0.0
7.3
Load
Nov 2014
2.5.
Additional Projects
Apart from those specified in Section 2.4, no other market participant facilities prior to
Gate 2 need to be included in the study cases.
2.6.
Facility Ratings
Table 2-8 shows key transmission lines in the Study Area operating at 69 kV and above.
Table 2-8: Summary of Key Transmission Lines in the Study Area
Nominal
Voltage
(kV)
Transmission
Line
138
769L
Hardisty
377S
138
769L
138
769AL
138
703BL
138
703L
138
885L
138
749L
R(4)
Summer
Rate
(MVA)
Winter
Rate
(MVA)
Emergency
Summer Rate
(MVA)
Emergency
Winter Rate
(MVA)
Clipper Tap
Point
86
115
95
127
Rosyth
296S
Clipper Tap
Point
86
115
95
127
Clipper
656S
Clipper Tap
Point
122
150
134
165
Express Tap
Point
123
150
135
165
83
83
83
83
287
287
287
287
121
148
133
163
From
HRT
Express
329S
Hardisty
377S
Metiskow
648S
Metiskow
648S
To
Express Tap
Point
Hansman
Lake 650S
Killarney Tap
Point
19
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Nominal
Voltage
(kV)
Transmission
Line
138
703L
138
703L
138
703L
138
715L
240
954L
138
703AL
138
748L
138
749AL
138
7L224
240
9L948/948L
240
1047L
240
9L966
138
749L
138
749L/7L749
138
7L749
138
7L42
138
7L14
138
R(4)
7L130
Summer
Rate
(MVA)
Winter
Rate
(MVA)
Emergency
Summer Rate
(MVA)
Emergency
Winter Rate
(MVA)
122
143
134
162
122
147
134
162
121
145
133
160
98
132
108
145
333
333
499
499
85
90
94
99
Hayter 277S
119
146
131
161
Edgerton
899S
121
148
133
163
109.25
138.9
9
123.63
150.5
PaintEarth
863S
332
332
432
432
Nilrem 574S
499
499
680
748
332
332
432
432
121
149
133
164
88
96
97
140
109.25
138.9
9
123.6
150.45
Hill 751S
94.88
94.88
123.63
123.63
Kitscoty 705S
71.88
86.25
71.88
86.25
Vermilion
710S
71.88
86.25
71.88
86.25
From
To
Metiskow
648S
Hughenden
213S
Hughenden
213S
Provost
545S
Metiskow
648S
Sunken
Lake 221S
Killarney
Lake 267S
Killarney
Lake 267S
Hansman
Lake 650S
Hansman
Lake 650S
Hansman
Lake 650S
Hansman
Lake 650S
Killarnery Ttap
Edgerton
899S
Briker Tap
Point
Lloydminster
716S
Hill 751S
Kitscoty
705S
703AL Tap
Point
Express Tap
Point
703AL Tap
Point
Hansman
Lake 650S
Hansman
Lake 650S
703AL Tap
Point
Monitor 774S
Pemukan
932S
Metiskow
648S
Briker Tap
Point
Lloydminster
716S
20
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Table 2-9 shows the key transformers in the Study Area.
Table 2-9: Summary of Ratings of Key Transformers in the Study Area
Transformers
Transformer ID
Transformer
Voltages (kV)
Rating (MVA)
Metiskow 648S
T3
240/138
200
Hansman Lake 650S
T1
240/138
200
Nilrem 574S
T1
240/138
400
Nilrem 574S
T2
240/138
400
T1/T2
138/25
42
Substation Name and Number
Tucuman 478S
Table 2-10 shows the relevant key shunt elements in the Study Area.
Table 2-10: Summary of Key Shunt Elements in the Study Area
Capacitors
Substation
Name and
Number
Nominal
Bus Voltage
(kV)
Reactors
Number of
Switched Shunt
Blocks
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Number of
Switched
Shunt
Blocks
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Amoco Empress
163S
138
2x24.35
48.70
-
-
McNeil 840S
138
2x24.80
49.6
-
-
Tilley 498S
138
1
27.17
-
-
138
2x27.55
55.1
-
-
34.5 (SVC)
1x200
200
1x-100
-100
Stettler 769S
138
1
13.78
-
-
Michichi Creek
802S
138
1
9.18
-
-
Youngstown
772S
69/25
1x4.6+1x2.4
7
-
-
Hanna 763S
25
1
4.95
-
-
Sullivan Lake
775S
69
1
9.19
-
-
Bull Pound 803S
25
2
2x2.4
-
-
Battle River 757S
69
1x9.19
9.19
-
-
Three Hills 770S
138/25
1x18.37/1x4.95
-
-
Lanfine 959S
R(4)
21
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Capacitors
Substation
Name and
Number
Nominal
Bus Voltage
(kV)
Reactors
Number of
Switched Shunt
Blocks
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Number of
Switched
Shunt
Blocks
Total at
Nominal
Voltage
(MVAr)
Hansman Lake
650S
18.0 (SVC)
1x200
200
1x-100
-100
Hardisty 377S
138
1x27+1x44.9
71.9
-
-
Killarney Lake
267S
138
1x9.1+2x10.9
30.9
-
-
Tucuman 478S
138
1x27.17
27.17
-
-
Pemukan 932S
138
2x27.55
55.1
-
-
Sunken Lake
221S
138
1x18.10
18.10
-
-
Monitor 774S
138
1x18.38+1x27.55
45.93
-
-
Hill 751S
138
1x18.12 +
1x22.96
41.08
-
-
Lloydminster
716S
138
1x18.12
18.12
-
-
Vermilion 710S
138
1x22.96
22.96
-
-
2.7.
Voltage Profile Assumptions
The typical voltage set-point for Hansman Lake 650S substation Static VAR
Compensator (SVC) is 253 kV and the normal operating range is -20 to 20 MVAr. The
typical Lanfine 959S substation SVC set-point is 258 kV with the same MVAr range.
The AESO Information Document ID# 2010-007RS was used to establish normal
system (i.e. pre-contingency) voltage profiles for all busses in the Study Area prior to
commencing any studies. All bus voltages in the Study Cases were established in the
‘Desired Range’ column of this document. A selection of the key substation voltage
ranges from this ID is listed in Table 2-11. Voltage standards listed in Table 2-11 are
applied where the ID does not specify voltage ranges for the study region bus nodes.
Table 2-11: Summary of Voltages at Key Substation in the Study Area
R(4)
Substation Names
and Number
Nominal
Voltage
(kV)
Minimum
Operating
Limit (kV)
Desired
Range
(kV)
Maximum
Operating
Limit (kV)
Battle River 757S
144
144
146 - 150
155
22
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Substation Names
and Number
Nominal
Voltage
(kV)
Minimum
Operating
Limit (kV)
Desired
Range
(kV)
Maximum
Operating
Limit (kV)
Cordel 755S
240
253
254 - 257
260
240
246
248 - 255
265
144
145
149 -152
155
Oyen 767S
144
140
143 - 146
155
Killarney Lake 267S
138
138
138-144
145
240
250
250-260
260
138
140
140-144
145
Hardisty 377S
138
140
140-144
145
Lloydminster 716S
138
137
142 - 149
151
Nevis 766S
Metiskow 648S
Study Methodology
3.
All studies were performed using the PSS/E software Version 33.
3.1.
Study Objectives
The objective of this study was to analyze the impacts of connecting the Project to the
transmission system upon the following parameters:

Thermal loading of the branches/transformers in the Study Area under Category
A, Category B, and selected Category C5 contingency conditions

Voltage profile of the Study Area under Category A, Category B, and selected
Category C5 contingency conditions

Voltage stability of the Study Area busses under the increased loading condition

Short-circuit analysis
 Maximum voltage dip under “across-the-line” starting of one motor at the
proposed Battle Sands 594S substation without a Variable Frequency Drive
(VFD)
3.2.
Study Scenarios
The following load scenarios were selected for the Project analyses:

R(4)
2017SP – Pre-connection System
23
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation

2017WP – Pre-connection System

2017WP – Post-connection System

2024WP – Post-connection System
The pre-connection system is defined as the 2017 system configuration immediately
prior to the connection of the Project. The post-connection system is defined as the
2017 system configuration immediately following the connection of the Project and the
post-connection system in 2024.
3.3.
Connection Studies Performed
The following pre-connection analyses were performed:

Power flow analysis (Category A, B, and selected Category C5 for 2017SP preconnection and 2017WP pre-connection scenarios)

Voltage stability analysis (Category A, B, and selected Category C5 for 2017WP
pre-connection scenarios)

Short-circuit analysis (with all generators on, for 2017WP)
The following studies were performed for the post-connection analysis: 6

Short-circuit analysis (with all generators on, for 2017WP and 2024WP)

Motor starting analysis (Category A, B, and selected Category C5 for 2017WP
post-connection scenarios)
3.4.
Power Flow Analysis
Pre-connection power flow analysis was performed to assess the system performance
for Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5 contingencies within the Study
Area and for the tie lines from the Study Area to the surrounding areas. All branches in
the Study Area at 69 kV and above and all tie lines to the surrounding areas were
monitored for thermal violation. All busses within the Study Area at 69 kV and above
were monitored for voltage violation.
3.4.1.
Contingencies Studied for Power Flow Analysis
The study included all Category B and selected Category C5 contingencies (69 kV and
above) within the Study Area and for the tie lines from the Study Area to the
surrounding areas shown in Table 3-1.
6
The Project connection will not impact the customer DTS; therefore, post-connection power flow
analysis was not undertaken.
R(4)
24
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Table 3-1: Contingencies Found in the Power Flow and the Voltage Stability Analyses
System Condition
Contingency
From Substation
To Substation
Category B (N-1)
7L130
Vermillion 710S
Kitscoty 705S
Category B (N-1)
7L14
Kitscoty 705S
Hill 751S
Category B (N-1)
749L
Metiskow 648S
Edgerton 899S
Category B (N-1)
Edgerton 899S - T3
Edgerton 899S
Edgerton 899S
Category B (N-1)
681L
Hardisty 377S
Tucuman 478S
Category B (N-1)
702L/7L702
Hardisty 377S
Battle River 757S
Category B (N-1)
703L/703BL/703AL
Metiskow 648S
Sunken Lake 221S/Hardisty 377S
Category C5 (N-2)
9L953/953L/1047L
Nilrem 574S
Hansman Lake 650S/Cordel 755S
Category C5 (N-2)
679L/680L
Nilrem 574S
Tucuman 478S
3.5.
Voltage Stability Analysis
The objective of the voltage stability analysis is to determine the ability of a power
system to maintain acceptable voltages at the busses in the system under normal
conditions and after being subjected to a contingency. In the study, PV (Power-Voltage)
voltage stability analysis was performed according to the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC) Voltage Stability Assessment Methodology, as described
in detail in the AESO Alberta Reliability Standards. The reference load level is the
forecasted peak load level. The WECC voltage stability criteria states, “for load areas,
post-transient voltage stability is required for the area modelled at a minimum of 105%
of the reference load level for the system normal conditions (Category A) and for single
contingencies (Category B). For multiple contingencies (Category C), post-transient
voltage stability is required with the area modelled at a minimum of 102.5% of the
reference load level.”7
The studies were performed using the PV method as follows:

The PV analysis was performed by increasing load in the Wainwright area and
increasing generation in the areas remote from the Study Area (i.e., AESO
Planning Areas 6, 30, 33, 35, 40, 43, 53, 54, 55, 57 and 60).

The analysis was performed with all discrete switched capacitors and reactors,
LTC transformers and phase shifting transformers locked.
7
System Performance Regional Business Practice, TPL–001–WECC–RBP–2.1, developed by Western
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), https://www.wecc.biz/Reliability/TPL-001-WECC-RBP-2.1.pdf
R(4)
25
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation

Results were generated for the Category A, Category B, and selected Category
C5 contingencies and the worst-case contingencies as identified by power flow
studies.
3.6.
Short-Circuit Analysis
All generators in Study Area and the neighboring area were switched on to evaluate the
maximum fault current under three-phase and single-line-to-ground faults for the shortcircuit analysis.
The automatic sequencing fault calculation function in PSS/E 33 was used to perform
the study.
3.7.
Motor Starting Analysis
Motor starting analysis was 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
VFD out of service, while the other motors were running at full load.
Pre-Connection System Assessment
4.
4.1.
Pre-Connection Power Flow Analysis
The steady-state performance was assessed under the 2017SP and 2017WP preconnection scenarios. The power flow analyses were based on the Reliability Criteria,
System Data and Study Assumptions as described in Section 2.
4.1.1.
2017SP Scenario
The steady state performance of the system under normal conditions (Category A),
single contingency (Category B), and selected Category C5 contingencies was
assessed using the 2017SP pre-connection scenario.
Results for System Normal Category A:
No thermal loading or voltage violation was observed for the 2017SP pre-connection
scenario.
Results for System Category B and Selected Category C5:
No voltage violation was observed for the 2017SP pre-connection scenario. A number
of thermal loadings above the continuous 100% thermal limit were observed for the
2017SP pre-connection scenario under several Category B contingencies and consist of
the following:
R(4)
26
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation

The 2017SP case with the contingency of Metiskow 648S substation transformer
T1 did not converge in the PSS/E simulation. There are no breakers separating
the AIES from T1. As a result, the transformer contingency will trip the 138 kV
transmission lines 749L, 703L, and 885L simultaneously. This contingency would
cause loss of load in the local area and is currently managed by the AESO and
TFO real time operating practices.

The 138 kV transmission line 749L (Metiskow 648S to the Killarney Tap Point)
shows a thermal loading of 108.5% for the contingency of 138 kV transmission
line 7L130 (from the Vermillion 710S substation to the Kitscoty 705S substation).
This is below the emergency rating of the 138 kV transmission line 749L. This
thermal loading is mitigated in real time by the AESO and TFO operating
practices.

The 138 kV transmission line 749L also shows a thermal loading of 105.6% when
there is an outage to the 138 kV transmission line 7L14 (from the Kitscoty 705S
substation to the Hill 751S substation). This is below the emergency rating of the
138 kV transmission line 749L.This thermal loading is mitigated in real time by
the AESO and TFO operating practices.

The 138 kV transmission line 7L130 (from the Vermillion 710S substation to the
Kitscoty 705S substation) shows a thermal loading of 112.1% for the contingency
of the 138 kV transmission line 749L (from the Metiskow 648S substation to the
Edgerton 899S substation). This is above the emergency rating of the 138 kV
transmission line 7L130. Under this contingency, the area load is fed radially
through line 138 kV transmission line 7L130. This thermal loading will be
mitigated in real time by the AESO and TFO operating practices.

The 138 kV transmission line 7L14 (from the Kitscoty 705S substation to the Hill
751S substation) shows a thermal loading of 105.5% for the contingency of 138
kV transmission line 749L (from the Metiskow 648S substation to the Edgerton
899S substation). This is above the emergency rating of the 138 kV transmission
line 7L14. Under this contingency, the area load is fed radially through the 138
kV transmission line 7L14. This thermal loading is mitigated in real time by the
AESO and TFO operating practices.

The 138 kV transmission lines 7L130 and 7L14 also show thermal loadings of
106.2% and 100.9%, respectively for the contingency Edgerton 899S substation
transformer T3. These thermal loadings are above the emergency ratings (see
Table 2-8). Under this contingency, the area load is fed radially through line 138
kV transmission lines 7L130 and 7L14. This thermal loading will be mitigated in
real time by the AESO and TFO operating practices.
The results of the power flow analysis are shown in Table 4-1. The power flow single
line diagrams (SLDs) are presented in Attachment A.
R(4)
27
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Table 4-1: 2017SP Pre-Connection Category B Line Loadings
2017SP Pre-Connection
Contingency
Category B: 138 kV
transmission line 7L130
(Vermillion 710S substation to
Kitscoty 705S substation)
Category B: 138 kV
transmission line 7L14 (Kitscoty
705S substation to Hill 751S
substation)
Category B: 138 kV
transmission line 749L
(Metiskow 648S substation to
Edgerton 899S substation)
Category B: Edgerton 899S
substation Transformer T3*
Branch
Nominal
Line
Rating
(MVA)
Power
Flow
(MVA)
%
Loading
749L (Metiskow 648S
substation to Killarney Tap
Point)
120.9
131.2
108.5
749L (Metiskow 648S
substation to Killarney Tap
Point)
120.9
127.7
105.6
71.9
80.6
112.1
71.9
75.9
105.5
71.9
76.4
106.2
71.9
72.6
100.9
7L130 (Vermillion 710S
substation to Kitscoty 705S
substation)
7L14 (Kitscoty 705S
substation to Hill 751S
substation)
7L130 (Vermillion 710S
substation to Kitscoty 705S
substation)
7L14 (Kitscoty 705S
substation to Hill 751S
substation)
* The transformer does not have a high side breaker and will trip the high voltage bus, taking several transmission
lines out of service.
4.1.2.
2017WP Scenario
The steady state performance of the system under normal conditions, single
contingency and selected Category C5 contingency was assessed using the 2017WP
pre-connection scenario.
Results for System Normal Category A:
No thermal loading or voltage violation was observed for the 2017WP pre-connection
scenario.
Results for System Category B and Selected Category C5:
No voltage violation was observed for the 2017WP pre-connection scenario.
Thermal loading above the continuous 100% thermal limit was observed for the
2017WP pre-connection scenario and consists of the following:

R(4)
The 2017WP case with the contingency of Metiskow 648S substation transformer
T1 did not converge in the PSS/E simulation. There are no breakers separating
the AIES from T1. As a result, the transformer contingency will trip the 138 kV
transmission lines 749L, 703L, and 885L simultaneously. This contingency would
28
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
cause loss of load in the local area and is currently managed by the AESO and
TFO real time operating practices.

The 138 kV transmission line 7L130 (from the Vermillion 710S substation to the
Kitscoty 705S substation) shows thermal loading of 103.7% for the contingency
of the 138 kV transmission line 749L (from Metiskow 648S substation to
Edgerton 899S substation). This line loading is above the emergency rating of
the 138 kV transmission line 7L130. Under this contingency the area load is fed
radially through the 138 kV transmission line 7L130. This thermal loading is
mitigated in real time by the AESO and TFO operating practices.
The results of the 2017WP pre-connection scenario power flow analysis are shown in
Table 4-2. The power flow SLDs are presented in Attachment A.
Table 4-2: 2017WP Pre-Connection Category B Transmission Line Loading
2017WP Pre-Connection
Contingency
Branch
Category B: 138 kV
transmission line 749L (from
the Metiskow 648S substation
to the Edgerton 899S
substation)
4.2.
138 kV transmission line
7L130 (from the Vermillion
710S substation to the
Kitscoty 705S substation)
Nominal
Rating
(MVA)
Power
Flow
(MVA)
%
Loading
86.3
89.5
103.7
Voltage Stability Analysis
To estimate the maximum load that can be served while meeting the performance
requirements of the AESO Reliability Criteria, a PV analysis was conducted using the
2017WP pre-connection scenario to identify the worst-case contingency conditions. The
analysis was performed under the following conditions.

Pre-connection

Under Category B and selected Category C5 contingencies
Table 4-3 lists the worst-case contingency scenarios used in the voltage stability
analysis.
Table 4-3: Worst Contingency Scenarios
Contingency
Category
Transmission
Line
Line
Voltage
(kV)
681L
B
681L
138
Hardisty 377S
Tucuman 478S
9L953
240
Nilrem 574S
Cordel 755S
From
To
9L953 and 1047L
C5
1047L
240
Nilrem 574S
Hansman Lake
650S
679L and 680L
C5
679L
138
Nilrem 574S
Tucuman 478S
R(4)
29
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Contingency
702L
703L
Category
Transmission
Line
Line
Voltage
(kV)
680L
138
Nilrem 574S
Tucuman 478S
702L
138
Sedgewick 137S
Hardisty 377S
702L
138
Sedgewick 137S
Battle River 757S
703L
138
703AL Tap Point
Metiskow 648S
703L
138
703AL Tap Point
Sunken Lake 221S
703L
138
703AL Tap Point
Hansman Lake
650S
703L
138
Express Tap Point
HRT Express 329S
703L
138
Express Tap Point
Hughenden 213S
703L
138
Express Tap Point
Hardisty 377S
B
From
B
To
The initial 2017WP pre-connection load (reference load) in the Wainwright area is
205.50 MW.
The sink sub-system included only the loads in the Wainwright area.
The source sub-system was chosen to consist of the surrounding and neighbouring
generation in the AESO Planning Areas 6, 30, 33, 35, 40, 43, 57, 60, 53, 54, and 55.
The PV analysis was performed with the switched capacitors, reactors and transformer
taps locked. The results of PV analysis confirm that there is no voltage stability violation
prior to the connection of the proposed development. The Wainwright area voltage
stability results under Category A, Category B, and selected Category C5 system
conditions are given in Attachment B.
Connection Alternatives
5.
5.1.
Overview
Four connection alternatives were identified for the Project. For each of the four
alternatives the addition of a 138 kV breaker at Rosyth 296S substation has been
included. This breaker will improve reliability by ensuring the isolation of local faults at
Rosyth 296S substation from the rest of 138 kV transmission system.
Alternative 1: T-Tap Connection to the 138 kV Transmission Line 769L
This alternative includes:

R(4)
Connecting the proposed Enbridge Battle Sands 594S substation to the existing
138 kV transmission line 769L through a T-tap configuration between the Rosyth
30
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
296S substation and the 138 kV transmission line 769AL T-tap that connects the
Clipper 656S substation to 138 kV transmission line 769L.
Alternative 2: Radial Connection to the Rosyth 296S or the Clipper 656S
Substations
This alternative includes:

Connecting the proposed Enbridge Battle Sands 594S substation radially to the
existing Rosyth 296S or Clipper 656S substation.

Adding a new 138 kV bay to the Rosyth 296S or Clipper 656S substation to
supply Battle Sands 594S substation.
Alternative 3: In-and-Out Connection to the 138 kV Transmission Line 769L
This alternative includes:

Connecting the proposed Enbridge Battle Sands 594S substation to the existing
138 kV transmission line 769L by an in-and-out configuration through a new
switching station.

Constructing a new switching station located adjacent to the Battle Sands 594S
substation, which will consist of two incoming 138 kV bays to terminate the 138
kV transmission line 769L and one bay to terminate the outgoing 138 kV
transmission line to Battle Sands 594S substation. The new switching station will
include three 138 kV circuit breakers.
Alternative 4: In-and-Out Connection to the 138 kV Transmission Line 703L
This alternative includes:

Connecting the proposed Enbridge Battle Sands 594S substation to the existing
138 kV transmission line 703L by an in-and-out configuration through a new
switching station.

Constructing a new switching station located adjacent to the Battle Sands 594S
substation, which will consist of two incoming 138 kV bays to terminate the 138
kV transmission line 703L and one bay to terminate the outgoing 138 kV
transmission line to the Battle Sands 594S substation. The new switching station
will include three 138 kV circuit breakers.
5.2.
5.2.1.
Evaluation of Connection Alternatives
Connection Alternatives Eliminated
As indicated below, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were ruled out and were not selected for
further studies, as they were either not considered viable due to space constraints or
had significantly higher capital costs.
R(4)
31
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Alternative 2
5.2.1.1.
Alternative 2 was ruled out because there is no space within the Rosyth 296S or Clipper
656S substation to accommodate an additional circuit breaker bay and there are rightof-way constraints surrounding the existing substations (see Figure 5-1).
Figure 5-1: Alternative 2 – Radial Connection from Rosyth 296S (or Clipper 656S) Substation
(connection to the Rosyth 296S substation shown)
Bus # 73
HARDIST7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Hardisty 377S
Bus # 809
EXPRESTP,138 kV
Area 37, PROVOST
703L
769L
Bus # 484
CLIPPER7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Clipper 656S
769AL
Bus # 373
IPL HAR7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Rosyth 296S
T1
20/26MVA
T3
25/25MVA
769BL
Bus # 715
CLIPP_TP2,138kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
769-2a, 3a
T2
33.3/33.3MVA
T1
33.3/33.3MVA
T1
25/33MVA
Bus # 2609
BAT SND2, 6.9 kV
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
Bus # 4484
CLIPPER9, 4.16 kV
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
Bus # 609
BAT SND1,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Battle Sands 594S
T2
25/33MVA
Bus # 3609
BAT SND3, 6.9 kV
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
Bus # 2373
Bus # 3373
Bus # 4373
IPL HAA8, 4.16 kV IPL HAA9, 4.16 kV IPL HAR9, 4.16 kV
Area 32,
Area 32,
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
Existing
New
5.2.1.2.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 was ruled out because it would require two circuits and an additional TFO
switching station (see Figure 5-2), and hence would result in a higher capital cost than
Alternative 1. This in-and-out configuration on the radial 138 kV transmission line 769L
would not result in any improvement in reliability for the Customer.
R(4)
32
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure 5-2: Alternative 3 – In-and-Out Connection to 138 kV Transmission Line 769L
Bus # 73
HARDIST7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Hardisty 377S
Bus # 809
EXPRESTP,138 kV
Area 37, PROVOST
703L
769L
T3
25/25MVA
T2
33.3/33.3MVA
769AL
T1
33.3/33.3MVA
Bus # 484
CLIPPER7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Clipper 656S
Bus # 609
BAT SND1,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Battle Sands 594S
T1
25/33 MVA
T1
20/26MVA
T2
25/33 MVA
594SM3
Bus # 4484
Bus # 2373
Bus # 3373
Bus # 4373
IPL HAA8, 4.16 kV IPL HAA9, 4.16 kV IPL HAR9, 4.16 kV CLIPPER9, 4.16 kV
Area 32,
Area 32,
Area 32,
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
594SM2
Bus # 3609
BAT SND3, 6.9 kV
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
594SD1
Bus # 2609
BAT SND2, 6.9 kV
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
594SM5
769-2a, 3a
769L
Bus # 373
IPL HAR7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Rosyth 296S
Switching
Station
769L
Bus # 715
CLIPP_TP2,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
594SM4
769L
Existing
New
5.2.1.3.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 in that it would also require two circuits and an
additional TFO switching station (see Figure 5-3), and hence would result in a higher
capital cost than Alternative 1. An improvement in reliability for the Customer over
Alternative 1 is possible because 138 kV transmission line 703L is capable of being fed
from both ends. However this advantage is not considered significant due to the overall
system configuration in the area, therefore Alternative 4 was rejected.
R(4)
33
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure 5-3: Alternative 4 – In-and-Out Connection to 138 kV Transmission Line 703L
Bus # 73
HARDIST7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Hardisty 377S
Bus # 809
EXPRESTP,138 kV
Area 37, PROVOST
703L
703L
703L
769L
Switching
Station
Bus # 715
CLIPP_TP2,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
703L
703L
T3
25/25MVA
T2
33.3/33.3MVA
769AL
T1
33.3/33.3MVA
T1
25/33 MVA
T1
20/26MVA
T2
25/33 MVA
594SM3
Bus # 4484
Bus # 2373
Bus # 3373
Bus # 4373
IPL HAA8, 4.16 kV IPL HAA9, 4.16 kV IPL HAR9, 4.16 kV CLIPPER9, 4.16 kV
Area 32,
Area 32,
Area 32,
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
WAINWRIG
594SM2
Bus # 3609
BAT SND3, 6.9 kV
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
594SD1
Bus # 2609
BAT SND2, 6.9 kV
Area 32,
WAINWRIG
594SM5
769-2a, 3a
Bus # 609
BAT SND1,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Battle Sands 594S
594SM4
Bus # 373
IPL HAR7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Rosyth 296S
Bus # 484
CLIPPER7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Clipper 656S
Existing
New
5.2.2.
Connection Alternative Selected for Further Studies
The connection alternative selected for further studies was Alternative 1.
5.2.2.1.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 includes connecting the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation to the
existing 138 kV transmission line 769L through a T-tap configuration between the
Rosyth 296S substation and the 138 kV transmission line 769AL T-tap that connects the
Clipper 656S substation to 138 kV transmission line 769L. Figure 5-4 shows the
connection diagram for Alternative 1.
R(4)
34
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure 5-4: Alternative 1 – T-Tap Connection to the 138 kV Transmission Line 769L
Bus # 73
HARDIST7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Bus # 809
EXPRESTP,138 kV
Area 37, PROVOST
Hardisty 377S
703L
Bus # 860
BATSD_TP,138 kV
769-1a1
Area 32, WAINWRIG
769-1a2
T2
33.3/33.3 MVA
769AL
T1
33.3/33.3 MVA
Bus # 484
CLIPPER7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Clipper 656S
T1
20/26 MVA
Bus # 609
BAT SND1,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Battle Sands 594S
T1
25/33 MVA
T2
25/33 MVA
594SM3
Bus # 4484
CLIPPER9, 4.16 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
594SD1
Bus # 3373
Bus # 4373
Bus # 2373
IPL HAA9, 4.16 kV
IPL HAR9, 4.16 kV
IPL HAA8, 4.16 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG Area 32, WAINWRIG Area 32, WAINWRIG
Bus # 3609
BAT SND3, 6.9 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
594SM2
Bus # 2609
BAT SND2, 6.9 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
594SM4
594SM5
T3
25/25 MVA
769-2a, 3a
769BL
Bus # 373
IPL HAR7,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Roysth 296S
»1Km
Bus # 715
CLIPP_TP2,138 kV
Area 32, WAINWRIG
Existing
New
Figures 5-1 to 5-4 contain simplified versions of the system configuration. Technical
detail has been reduced for illustration purposes. It does not indicate geographical
location of facilities.
6.
Technical Analysis of the Connection Alternative
6.1.
Power Flow Analysis
The Project connection will not impact the customer DTS. As a result, post-connection
power flow analysis is expected to yield the same results as pre-connection; therefore,
post-connection power flow analysis was not undertaken.
R(4)
35
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
6.2.
Voltage Stability Analysis
The Project will not impact the DTS on the radial 138 kV transmission line 769L. As a
result, post-connection voltage stability analysis is expected to yield the same results as
pre-connection; therefore, post-connection voltage stability analysis was not
undertaken.
7.
Short-Circuit Analysis
The short-circuit analysis involved calculating three-phase and single-line-to-ground
fault current levels for the substations in the Study Area.8
7.1.
Pre-Connection Short-Circuit Analysis
Short-circuit analysis was performed using the 2017WP pre-connection scenario. The
results of the short-circuit analysis are shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Pre-Connection Short-Circuit Current Levels (2017WP)
Substation
/ Tap Point
Hardisty
377S
Rosyth
296S
Clipper
656S
Clipper Tap
Point
Express
Tap Point
Bus
Base
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(pu)
3Phase
Fault
(A)
Singleline-toground
Fault (A)
Positive
Sequence
Impedance (pu)
Zero Sequence
Impedance (pu)
73
138
143.20
1.0377
6943.1
5950.3
0.02182+j0.05860
0.02247+j0.09117
373
138
143.00
1.0361
6671.9
5602.2
0.02295+j0.06078
0.02485+j0.09918
484
138
143.00
1.0361
6657.3
5582.9
0.02300+j0.06090
0.02499+j0.09971
715
138
143.00
1.0361
6682.7
5615.3
0.02290+j0.06069
0.02478+j0.09890
809
138
143.20
1.0374
6732.0
5662.0
0.02272+j0.06033
0.02433+j0.09815
Note: Pu values have been calculated using base voltage and 100 MVA as base power.
7.2. Alternative 1 Post-Connection Short-Circuit Analysis
Short-circuit analysis was performed using 2017WP and 2024WP post-connection
scenarios to determine the fault levels after the proposed T-tap connection to line 769L.
8
The information provided in the study should not be used as the sole source of information for electrical
equipment specifications or for the design of safety-grounding systems. Short-circuit analysis was based
on modelling information provided to the AESO by third parties. The authenticity of the modelling
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 changes be
monitored and fault levels reviewed to ensure that the fault levels are within equipment operating limits.
R(4)
36
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
The results of the short-circuit analysis for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 7-2 and
Table 7-3.
Table 7-2: Post-Connection Short-Circuit Current Levels for Alternative 1 (2017WP)
Substation
/ Tap Point
Hardisty
377S
Rosyth
296S
Clipper
656S
Clipper Tap
Point
Express
Tap Point
Battle
Sands
Bus
Base
Voltage
(kV)
Pre-Fault
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(pu)
3Phase
Fault
(A)
Singleline-toground
Fault (A)
73
138
142.20
1.0306
6960.3
6022.3
0.02143+j0.05813
0.02095+j0.08855
373
138
142.00
1.0292
6684.8
5664.6
0.02257+j0.06033
0.02334+j0.09657
484
138
142.00
1.0292
6670.1
5643.8
0.02263+j0.06046
0.02348+j0.09711
715
138
142.00
1.0293
6695.8
5677.1
0.02253+j0.06023
0.02327+j0.09629
809
138
142.20
1.0306
6746.4
5722.9
0.02234+j0.05986
0.02287+j0.09561
609
138
142.00
1.0288
6445.2
5368.4
0.02362+j0.06246
0.02558+j0.10401
Positive
Sequence
Impedance (pu)
Zero Sequence
Impedance (pu)
Note: Pu values have been calculated using base voltage and 100 MVA as base power.
Table 7-3: Post-Connection Short-Circuit Current Levels for Alternative 1 (2024WP)
Substation
/ Tap Point
Hardisty
377S
Rosyth
296S
Clipper
656S
Clipper Tap
Express
Tap
Battle
Sands
Bus
Base
Voltage
(kV)
Pre-Fault
Voltage
(kV)
PreFault
Voltage
(pu)
3Phase
Fault
(A)
Singleline-toground
Fault (A)
Positive
Sequence
Impedance (pu)
Zero Sequence
Impedance (pu)
73
138
145.08
1.0513
7579.5
6469.7
0.0193+j0.0547
0.0195+j0.0858
373
138
144.89
1.0499
7259.3
6066.3
0.0195+j0.0858
0.0219+j0.0938
484
138
144.89
1.0499
7242.3
6042.9
0.0219+j0.0938
0.0221+j0.0943
715
138
144.89
1.0499
7272
6080.3
0.0204+j0.0569
0.0218+j0.0935
809
138
145.06
1.0511
7333.6
6131.6
0.0202+j0.0565
0.0215+j0.0929
609
138
144.82
1.0495
6982.9
5734.1
0.0215+j0.0591
0.0242+j0.1012
Note: Pu values have been calculated using base voltage and 100 MVA as base power.
It can be seen from Table 7-2 and Table 7-3 that Alternative 1 does not negatively
impact the short-circuit current levels in the Study Area.
R(4)
37
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
8.
Motor Starting Analysis
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 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 2017WP post-connection scenario was used
in the analysis. The analysis were based on the dynamic analysis method in PSS/E 33.
Table 8-1 shows the nameplate data of the 7,000 HP induction motors.
Table 8-1: Motor Nameplate and Calculated Data
Motor Rating
R(4)
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-ft
Moment of inertia (Driven Machine)
400 lb-ft
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
2
38
2
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure 8-1 shows the equivalent circuit that was used to model the motors.
Figure 8-1: Equivalent Circuit of Induction Motor
Ra
La
L1
L2
R1
S
Lm
R2
S
Table 8-2 lists the equivalent circuit parameters.
Table 8-2: Equivalent Circuit Data
8.1.
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
Motor Starting Assumptions
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.

Motor starting was investigated for the following system scenario:
o 2017WP Post-connection Alternative 1
8.2.
Motor Starting Results for Alternative 1
Motor starting analysis was conducted for the 2017WP post-connection Alternative 1
configuration. The analysis was conducted under system normal Category A and critical
contingency conditions extracted from the power flow analysis. Table 8-3 shows the
summary for Alternative 1.
R(4)
39
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Table 8-3: Motor Starting Performance for Alternative 1
Substation
Condition
Contingency
From
To
Proposed
Battle
Sands 594S
Substation
Nominal
Voltage
(kV)
Before
Motor
Start
(kV)
After
Motor
Start
(kV)
Voltage
Dip (kV)
%
Voltage
Dip
Category A
(N-0)
Normal
N/A
N/A
138
142.83
139.66
3.17
2.22
Category B
(N-1)
681L
Hardisty
377S
Tucuman
478S
138
129.38
123.86
5.52
4.27
Category
C5 (N-2)
679L and
680L
Nilrem
574S
Tucuman
478S
138
129.38
123.86
5.52
4.27
Category
C5 (N-2)
953L and
1047L
Nilrem
574S
138
126.01
120.57
5.44
4.31
Category B
(N-1)
702L
Hardisty
377S
138
129.38
123.86
5.52
4.27
138
129.38
123.86
5.52
4.27
Category B
(N-1)
703L
Metiskow
648S
Hansman
Lake 650S/
Cordel
755S
Battle River
757S
Sunken
Lake 221S/
Hardisty
377S
The motor starting results show that the voltage dip caused by “across-the-line” motor
starting at the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation 138 kV bus is 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 the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation
busses are provided in Attachment C.
9.
Project Interdependencies
The Project is not dependent on any other planned developments in the Study Area.
R(4)
40
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
10. Summary and Conclusion
Enbridge submitted a SASR to the AESO requesting the connection of the proposed
Enbridge Battle Sands 594S substation. The substation DTS will be totalized with the
DTS at the Rosyth 296S and Clipper 656S substations. The requested ISD for the
connection to the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation is July 1, 2017.
The Project to connect the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation is located in the
Wainwright area, near the Hardisty 377S, Rosyth 296S, and Clipper 656S substations.
The Rosyth 296S and Clipper 656S substations only serve Enbridge load. The Rosyth
296S substation is fed radially from the Hardisty 377S substation via the 138 kV
transmission line 769L. The Clipper 656S substation is connected to the 138 kV
transmission line 769L through a T-tap, designated 138 kV transmission line 769AL.
Four possible alternatives were identified to meet the needs of the Project. Only one of
the four alternatives, Alternative 1, was selected for further study. Three of the
alternatives were eliminated either due to space constraints or because they would
require more facilities and hence result in higher capital costs than Alternative 1.
Alternative 1 consists of a tapped connection, designated 138 kV transmission line
769BL, from the existing 138 kV transmission line 769L to the proposed Battle Sands
594S substation between Rosyth 296S substation and Clipper 656S substation T-tap,
138 kV transmission line 769AL.
This Engineering Study Report details the system performance studies undertaken to
assess the impact of the connection of the proposed Battle Sands 594S substation on
the AIES. In order to identify the existing system constraints, pre-connection power flow
and voltage stability analyses were performed. No voltage violation was observed in the
power flow analysis for the 2017SP and 2017WP pre-connection scenarios. A number
of thermal loadings above the continuous 100% thermal limit were observed for the
2017SP and 2017WP pre-connection scenarios, under several Category B
contingencies. These thermal loadings are existing and known to the AESO. They are
currently being mitigated in real time by the AESO and TFO operating practices. The
results of voltage stability analysis confirm that there is no voltage stability violation prior
to the connection of the proposed development.
The connection of the Battle Sands 594S substation will not impact the customer’s DTS.
As a result, post-connection power flow and voltage stability analyses are expected to
yield the same results as the pre-connection analyses. Therefore, post-connection
power flow and voltage stability analyses were not undertaken.
The post-connection short-circuit and motor starting analyses were performed in order
to identify post-connection system constraints of Alternative 1.
The short-circuit analysis showed that Alternative 1 does not negatively impact shortcircuit current levels. The motor starting analysis results show that the impact of
R(4)
41
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
“across-the-line” starting of one motor, in VFD bypass mode, is acceptable during both
system normal (Category A) and contingency (Category B and C5) conditions.
The results of the engineering study indicate that Alternative 1, a tapped connection to
radial 138 kV transmission line 769L, will not adversely impact the AIES in the Study
Area. Based on these results, Teshmont recommends Alternative 1 to meet the request
for a connection to Enbridge’s proposed Battle Sands 594S substation.
R(4)
42
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
11. Revision History
R(4)
Revision
Issue Date
Author
Change Tracking
Revision 04
2015-10-15
Ashraf Haque
Final Draft
Revision 03
2015-10-08
Ashraf Haque
Fourth Draft
Revision 02
2015-09-25
Ashraf Haque
Third Draft
Revision 01
2015-08-07
Ashraf Haque
Second Draft
Revision 00
2015-06-24
Mahmud Rashid
First Draft
43
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Attachment A
Power Flow Single Line Diagrams
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Table A-1: SLD List for Thermal Loadings
Scenario
System Condition
Thermal Loadings
Category A : Normal Operation
None
Category B: 138 kV
Transmission Line 7L130
Contingency (from the Vermillion
710S substation to the Kitscoty
705S substation)
Category B: 138 kV
Transmission Line 7L14
Contingency (from the Kitscoty
705S substation to the Hill 751S
substation)
2017SP PreConnection
Category B: 138 kV
Transmission Line 749L (from
the Metiskow 648S substation to
the Edgerton 899S substation)
Category B: Edgerton 899S
substation transformer T3*
Category B: Edgerton 899S
substation transformer T3*
2017WP PreConnection
R(4)
% of
Overload
Figure in
Attachment
A
--
A-1
138 kV Transmission Line 749L
(from the Metiskow 648S
substation to the Killarney 267S
substation T-tap)
108.5
A-2
138 kV Transmission Line 749L
(from the Metiskow 648S
substation to the Killarney 267S
substation T-tap)
105.6
A-3
138 kV Transmission Line
7L130 (from the Vermillion 710S
substation to the Kitscoty 705S
substation)
138 kV Transmission Line 7L14
(from the Kitscoty 705S
substation to the Hill 751S
substation)
138 kV Transmission Line
7L130 (from the Vermillion 710S
substation to the Kitscoty 705S
substation)
138 kV Transmission Line 7L14
(from the Kitscoty 705S
substation to the Hill 751S
substation)
Category A: Normal Operation
None
Category B: 138 kV
Transmission Line 749L (from
the Metiskow 648S substation to
the Edgerton 899S substation)
138 kV Transmission Line
7L130 (from the Vermillion 710S
substation to the Kitscoty 705S
substation)
A-1
112.1
A-4
105.5
106.2
A-5
100.9
--
A-6
103.7
A-7
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure A-1: 2017SP Pre-Connection, Category A: Normal Operation
1047
DRURY_138
1383
VERMILO7
30.6
16.3
16.2
1387
KITSCOT7
7L130
24.0
29.8
26.1
22.1
23.1
1393
HILL 7
7L14
25.8
SW
21.9
44.7
9.58.8
1.0
141.3
1.0
143.1
SW
1377
IRISH C7
7L129
7.0
0.0
11.2
19.3
44.3
7L129
15.7
1.0
141.3
72
JARROW 7
704L
8.4
2.2
1.0
142.0
36
4.4
153.0
3
13.9R
9.6R
11.1
36
5.5
9L16
100.6
144.2
143.5
18.3
34.2
151.9
151.1
15.1
34.4
1.0
16.3
13.8
22.3
23.4
39.6
702L
45.2
5.2
9L79
88.6
88.7
45.2
41.0
37.9
19427
NILREM5
52.6
1469 1427
BAT RV79
NILREM3
33.8
99.6
4.4
13.7
13.7
10.5
679L
0.1
60.6
43.7
43.6
373
IP L HAR7
29.9
1.0
142.0
954L
1.0
142.5
17.8
15.4
15.3
10.1
8.9
15.0
10.1
8.5
19.9
19.8
0.1
0.0
34.7
63.3
63.2
19.8
22.2
27.9
27.9
28.4
1.0
18.5
17.9
9L966
885L
1.0
1451
EYRE7
1.1
257.3
68.1
7L967L79
1477
RIB STON1
7.8
10.7
2.6
4.2
1.1
145.0
10.8
2.3
10.8
2.4
1.1
145.6
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Connec tion P1558
2017 Summer Peak Pre-Connec tion
7L79
2.7
814
KILRY TP
89.2
749L
87.4
29.1
31.7
749L
41.9
19.3
219
KILLARN7
749A L
1410
CURR_TAP
27.2
26.9
12.9
14.8
45.5
45.1
11.9
1.0
141.7
11.6
1446
CURRANT7
7L111
9.5
9.5
1.0
143.0
4.4
5.1
7L127
57.2
8.1
8.5
7L110
25.2
1.1
145.6
19.2
SW
31.0
1.1
9.6
4.1
4.4
1.1
145.8
1.1
145.9
0.0
1.1
146.4
10471
774S 701T
2.8
2.8
1.1
1.1
146.3
1.1
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Pre-Connec tion - Diagram A-1
N-0: Normal Operation
1458
LOYALIS7
7L110
9.6
SW
10.9
41.3
19.9
7L224
25.2
1470
VETERA N7
6.6
2.4
9.5
19.2
716
LAK ESEN7
6.6
1.0
142.3
1.0
142.4
6.9
57.2
1.0
144.3
10.8
1471
MONITOR7
1.1
254.4
4.5
11.5
68.1
7.0
2.4
4.0
19419
932_LV
1.1
257.1
68.1
7.8
17.3
7L224
1.0
142.6
68.2
5.1
1425
EYRE_TAP
17.3
5.0
10419
932S901T
7.0
6.6
1.0
25.9
9.5
22.0
7L749
4361
EDGERTO9
7.1
7L224
1.1
255.6
111.6
99
59.9
1.1
149.1
Bus - Voltage (k V/pu)
Branc h - M W/M v ar
Equipm ent - M W/M v ar
100.0% Rate A
k V: >0.000<=20.000
<=50.000<=100.000<=200.000<=300.000<=500.000>500.000
1
R(4)
A-2
362
EDGERTO7
1.0
142.3
34.6
20.9
2.5
21.4
0.0
9.7
1.0
142.3
1.0
142.9
43.4
4.0
17.5
9.7
60.3
4.6
17.5
33.7
33.9
7.1
43.4
SW
26.4
862
PV-TAP7
648
HANSMAN9
59.9
60.3
112
SUNK EN7
1.6
11.2 11.2
703L703L
1.0
18.8
8.4
99
8.5
1.0
4.1
9.0
74
ME TIS647
26.4
SW
33.9
98.2
1419
932_HV A
2373
IPL HAA8
15.0
989
703ALTAP
1.1
2648
255.6
HA NSMSV
948L
99.1
703L
99
15.0
6.3
27.9
112.2 9L46
8.5
1.0
3373
4.1
IPL HAA9
63.3
1047L
99
8.5
87
METIS 644
649
HANSMAN7
63.3
99
4373
IPL HAR9
15.0
15.0
1.0
142.0
1.1
255.8
0.0
11.6
1.0
4.0
1.0
4.1
1.0
142.2
SW
1.0
142.2
58.5
1.1
255.0
1438
959S _HV
4484
CLIPPER9
15.1
11.6
60.7
29.9
61.1
10.5
9L27
110.7
110.3
0.0
3.4
769L
45.4
45.4
61.2 681L
4.3 3.2
1403
PAINTRT4
SW
9.0
15.0
0.1
52.5
13.1
22.2
7.3
52.5
3.2
58.6
4.4
1.1
255.6
15.2 15.1
13.7
1.0
142.0
27.1
680L
58.7
17.7
17438
LANFSV
3.6
484
CLIP PER7
769L
15.2
15.2
769L
483
TUCUMAN7
0.2
58.8
1.1
255.6
101.2 9L953
715
CLIPP_TP
0.0
9.9
20.3
27.6
1.6
1.0
142.2
9.7
1.1
146.3
19.3
27.8
702L
10.8
42.2
1.1
253.7
5.3
SW
1.0
143.0
1.1
255.6
9.8
9L20
99
15.8
38.1
0.2
52.6
42.4
2.0
1.0
4.2
SW
78
SEDGEWI7
1489
BA T RV80
9L80
19.3
4037
HRT EXP 9
3.9
1.0
141.7
76.4
88.6
45.1
1422
NEVIS 4
3.9
20.1
8.7
88.6
1.1
256.2
2.1
1.0
142.0
100.4
10.6
64.4
7L50LN
78.9
74.0
14.4
1499
CORDEL 4
1431
S WITCH_H
65.6
1.0
141.4
1.0
16.3
1496
BAT #4
163.0
4
9.2
3.8
8.4
703L
5.3
703L
9.2
16.1
7L50
2.0
1491
BAT. RV7
1495
BAT #3
8.8
3.9
2.3
2.3
75
HUGHEND7
73
HARDIST7
44.7
1.0
1490
141.2
JAROW TP
1.0
141.4
3.9
2.3
1.0
142.2
3.6
79
1.0
BUFFALO7
141.2
37.4
18.8
6.7
1113
BAUER1
3.9 703L 3.9
7.0
3.6
7L129
37.0
7L117
11.1
3.0
1.0
144.0
766
B AUERTAP
37
HRT EXP7
809
EXPRESTP
SW
32.3
1.0
141.2
1.0
141.8
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure A-2: 2017SP, Pre-Connection, Category B: 7L130 (Vermillion 710S to Kitscoty 705S)
Contingency
1047
DRURY_138
1383
VE RMILO7
1393
HILL 7
1387
KITS COT7
7L130
7.5
7L14
3.7
7.5
1.0
3.7
SW
1.0
45.4
2.51.8
1.0
140.1
1377
IRIS H C7
7.2
28.5
11.1
7L129
3.6
1.0
140.4
72
JARROW 7
704L
17.3
17.3
2.6
2.6
1.0
141.6
36
4.4
153.0
3
12.5R
4
8.3R
11.1
36
5.5
9L16
101.2
144.2
143.5
16.9
32.8
151.9
151.1
13.8
33.1
1.0
16.3
14.1
41.5
702L
47.1
38.9
99.4
99.5
47.1
41.9
9L79
105.4
5.8
50.7
50.6
66.1
12.9
679L
1.1
50.6
1.1
60.7
60.6
43.7
43.6
5.5
4.3
56.6
56.5
681L
15.2 15.1
13.7
13.7
13.7
1.0
142.4
8.0
29.9
29.9
1.0
141.8
15.0
15.0
9.7
8.5
15.4
15.3
10.1
8.9
15.0
15.0
10.1
8.5
19.6
0.0
26.6
76.5
76.4
19.6
23.0
26.5
26.5
27.0
1.0
18.5
18.5
9L966
885L
1451
EYRE7
1.1
257.3
1.0
144.4
31.6
11.3
13.0
1.0
143.0
19.2
7L967L79
1477
RIBSTON1
7.8
10.7
2.6
4.2
2.3
1.1
145.1
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation C onnec tion P1
2017 Summer Peak Pre-C onnec tion
10.8
2.4
1.1
145.7
7L127
62.1
23.7
1470
VETERAN7
10.8
7L79
749L
77.0
33.8
219
KILLARN7
45.5
45.1
11.6
1.0
141.2
11.3
1446
CURRANT7
7L111
9.5
9.5
4.4
5.1
8.1
8.5
7L110
23.7
1.1
145.7
19.2
SW
31.1
1.1
9.6
9.6
4.1
4.4
1.1
145.9
1.1
146.0
0.0
1.1
146.5
10471
774S701T
2.8
2.8
1.1
1.1
146.4
1.1
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Pre-C onnec tion - D iagram A-2
N -1: 7L130 (Vermillion 710S to Kits c oty 705S) C ontingenc y
1458
LOYA LIS7
7L110
SW
10.9
75.0
31.2
7L224
62.1
4.5
1410
CURR_TA P
32.1
1.1
254.6
7.8
42.8
9.5
8.5
716
LAKE SEN7
122.5
36.3
1.0
142.3
1471
MONITOR7
73.0
8.6
2.7
814
K ILRY TP
4.0
19419
932_LV
1.1
257.1
73.0
6.6
2.4
749AL
7L224
1.0
142.6
73.1
6.6
Overload
9.1
1.0
142.4
9.5
6.4
2.4
749L
126.1
22.1
5.0
73.0
1425
EY RE_TAP
7L224
10419
932S901T
8.6
6.6
1.0
25.7
9.7
2.5
36.5
7L749
4361
EDGERTO9
4.5
22.1
1.1
255.6
120.1
99
77.1
1.1
149.2
Bus - Voltage (k V/pu)
Branc h - M W/M v ar
Equipm ent - M W/M v ar
100.0% Rate A
k V: >0.000<=20.000
<=50.000<=100.000<=200.000<=300.000<=500.000>500.000
Note: Dashed black lines mark the contingencies and solid red lines mark the thermal loadings.
1
R(4)
A-3
362
EDGE RTO7
1.0
142.3
68.3
41.0
1.7
21.2
0.0
9.7
1.0
142.3
1.0
142.6
46.9
4.0
17.5
9.7
72.6
4.7
17.5
64.9
26.1
4.5
47.0
SW
19.9
862
PV-TAP7
648
HANSMAN9
77.1
72.7
112
S UNKEN7
5.3
15.0 15.0
703L703L
1.0
18.9
12.5
99
2.4
74
METIS647
19.9
SW
26.1
110.5
1419
932_HVA
8.5
1.0
4.1
989
703ALTAP
76.5
19.8
0.1
948L
703L
87
METIS644
954L
99
99
2373
IPL HAA8
15.0
1.0
141.8
1.1
255.7
120.7 9L46
8.5
1.0
3373
4.1
IPL HAA9
1.1
2648
255.6
HANSMSV
30.8
99
4373
IPL HAR9
15.0
1.0
4.1
1.0
142.0
SW
1047L
111.6
11.6
1.0
4.0
373
IPL HA R7
2.8
1.1
254.8
1438
959S_HV
4484
CLIPPE R9
15.1
11.6
13.0
76.5
9L27
123.3
122.8
0.0
7.2
1.0
141.8
66.1
649
HANSMAN7
5.4 4.3
1403
PA INTRT4
0.0
2.4
769L
45.4 45.4
1.0
142.1
16.7
SW
0.2
484
CLIPPER7
769L
15.2 15.2
769L
28.8
8.3
680L
56.7
8.0
25.1
702L
483
TUCUMAN7
1.0
56.8
1.1
255.5
1.1
255.5
715
CLIPP _TP
0.0
9.9
34.3
29.5
19427
NILREM5
1469 1427
BAT RV79
NILRE M3
19.3
107.2 9L953
17438
LANFSV
2.1
1.0
142.0
SW
78
SEDGEWI7
6.0
1.1
146.1
21.5
29.9
11.8
15.7
11.7
49.4
1.1
253.6
99
1.0
141.6
1.0
142.8
1.1
255.5
9.8
9L20
11.7
39.8
1.0
50.7
49.6
7L50
1489
BAT RV 80
9L80
19.3
703L
SW
76.2
99.4
47.0
1422
NE VIS 4
0.2
14.4
9.2
99.4
1.1
256.0
11.8
1.0
141.6
101.0
10.9
2.0
1.0
4.2
48.3
7L50LN
70.2 66.3
11.0
1499
CORDEL 4
1431
SWITCH_H
15.8
0.1
1.0
140.8
1.0
16.3
1496
BAT #4
163.0
4037
HRT EX P9
3.9
1491
BAT. RV7
1495
BAT #3
8.8
2.0
11.9
703L
15.8
4.5
49.0
3.9
2.3
2.3
75
HUGHEND7
73
HARDIST7
28.6
1.0
1490
140.3
JAROW TP
1.0
140.1
3.9
2.3
1.0
142.0
3.6
79
1.0
BUFFALO7
140.3
21.5
6.2
1113
BAUER1
3.9 703L 3.9
7.0
3.6
7L129
21.4
17.5
7.8
7L129
7.0
0.0
7L117
17.3
1.1
145.0
766
BAUERTAP
1.0
144.9
SW
37
HRT EXP7
809
EXPRESTP
SW
32.1
1.0
140.7
1.0
141.0
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure A-3: 2017SP, Pre-Connection, Category B: 7L14 (Kitscoty 705S to Hill 751S) Contingency
1047
DRURY_138
1383
VE RMILO7
8.5
1387
KITSCOT7
7L130
3.7
8.5
1393
HILL 7
7L14
3.7
2.6
46.5
3.32.5
1.0
140.3
1.0
140.1
SW
1377
IRISH C7
7L129
7.0
0.0
16.7
8.5
30.4
7L129
4.9
1.0
140.5
72
JA RROW 7
704L
16.2
2.1
1.0
141.6
4.4
153.0
3
12.7R
8.5R
11.1
36
5.5
143.5
17.1
33.0
9L16
151.9
151.1
14.0
33.3
1.0
16.3
14.1
46.9
41.2
9L79
98.2
98.3
46.9
41.8
702L
39.6
5.9
38.8
50.8
1469 1427
BA T RV79
NILREM3
1.1
255.5
34.3
104.7
1.0
141.9
43.7
43.6
373
IPL HAR7
29.9
65.4 681L
65.4
13.1
13.1
679L
5.1
4.0
29.9
1.0
141.9
9.1
15.0
15.0
9.7
8.5
15.4
15.3
10.1
8.9
954L
21.2
0.1
0.0
31.2
15.0
8.5
75.0
74.9
21.2
24.5
0.0
26.9
26.9
0.0
27.4
1.0
18.5
119.6 9L46
18.6
9L966
46.6
885L
2.5
1451
EYRE7
1.1
257.3
7L967L79
1477
RIBSTON1
7.8
10.7
2.6
4.2
1.1
145.1
10.8
2.3
10.8
2.4
1.1
145.7
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Connec tion P1558
2017 Summer Peak Pre-Connec tion
7L79
2.7
814
K ILRY TP
749L
121.5
39.3
118.2
45.3
Overload
749L
72.7
1410
CURR_TAP
35.8
219
KILLARN7
11.1
45.5
45.1
11.8
1.0
141.6
11.6
1446
CURRANT7
7L111
31.0
9.5
9.5
12.8
4.4
5.1
7L224
1.0
143.1
7L127
61.4
8.1
8.5
7L110
23.4
1.1
145.7
19.2
SW
31.1
1.1
9.6
4.1
4.4
1.1
145.9
1.1
146.1
0.0
1.1
146.6
10471
774S701T
2.8
2.8
1.1
1.1
146.4
1.1
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Pre-Connec tion - Diagram A-3
N-1: 7L14 (Kits c oty 705S to Hill 751S) Contingenc y
1458
LOYALIS7
7L110
9.6
SW
10.9
70.8
33.5
749AL
31.4
23.4
1470
VETERAN7
6.6
2.4
9.5
19.2
716
LAKESE N7
6.6
1.0
142.5
1.0
142.5
8.8
61.4
1.0
144.4
8.9
1471
MONITOR7
1.1
254.6
4.5
9.5
72.3
8.9
2.4
4.0
19419
932_LV
1.1
257.1
72.3
7.8
21.4
7L224
1.0
142.7
72.4
6.7
1425
E YRE_TAP
21.4
5.0
72.3
6.6
1.0
25.9
9.5
10419
932S 901T
8.9
64.1
38.5
2.9
7L224
1.1
255.6
119.0
99
75.0
1.1
149.2
Bus - Voltage (k V/pu)
Branc h - M W/M v ar
Equipm ent - M W/M v ar
100.0% Rate A
k V: >0.000<=20.000
<=50.000<=100.000<=200.000<=300.000<=500.000>500.000
Note: Dashed black lines mark the contingencies and solid red lines mark the thermal loadings.
1
R(4)
A-4
362
EDGERTO7
1.0
142.4
7L749
4361
EDGERTO9
0.3
21.5
0.0
9.7
61.0
42.3
46.5
4.2
17.5
1.0
142.4
71.2
3.2
17.5
9.7
1.0
144.1
2.9
1419
932_HVA
SW
20.8
862
P V-TAP7
648
HANSMAN9
75.0
71.3
112
SUNKEN7
5.3
14.9 14.9
703L703L
30.5
1.1
255.7
99
8.5
1.0
4.1
3.3
74
METIS 647
20.8
1.0
18.8
12.0
1438
959S_HV
2373
IPL HAA8
15.0
989
703ALTAP
SW
30.5
109.0
30.4
703L
10.1
75.0
21.4
99
99
15.0
1.1
2648
255.6
HANSMSV
948L
110.1
4373
IPL HAR9
15.0
87
ME TIS644
1047L
9L27
121.8
121.3
99
8.5
1.0
3373
4.1
IPL HA A9
3.5
1.1
254.9
11.6
1.0
4.0
1.0
141.9
75.0
1.0
142.4
4484
CLIP PER9
15.1
1.0
4.1
1.0
142.1
SW
649
HANSMA N7
56.7
5.1 4.0
1403
PAINTRT4
SW
7.2
769L
45.4
45.4
0.8
50.7
16.0
17438
LANFSV
3.3
11.6
60.6
1.0
142.1
9.1
24.7
13.7
13.7
769L
8.2
50.7
0.8
15.2 15.1
13.7
60.7
28.5
680L
56.9
56.8
5.8
1.1
255.5
702L
483
TUCUMA N7
0.7
56.9
21.4
29.6
0.1
484
CLIPPER7
769L
15.2
15.2
0.0
9.9
106.5 9L953
29.3
19427
NILREM5
1.1
146.2
19.3
715
CLIPP_TP
78
SE DGEWI7
11.6
48.5
1.1
253.6
2.0
1.0
142.1
SW
1.0
142.8
1.1
255.5
9.8
9L20
10.9
15.7
76.2
0.7
50.8
48.7
0.3
15.1
1489
BAT RV 80
9L80
19.3
703L
SW
13.0
99
1.0
141.7
1.0
140.8
98.2
46.8
1422
NEVIS 4
7L50
9.1
98.2
1.1
256.1
2.0
1.0
4.2
50.3
1.0
141.6
100.9
10.9
13.0
14.9
0.2
7L50LN
71.2
67.2
11.4
1499
CORDEL 4
1431
SWITCH_H
101.1
144.2
1.0
16.3
1496
BAT #4
163.0
4
2.1
4037
HRT EX P9
3.9
1491
BAT. RV7
1495
BAT #3
8.8
36
51.0
2.0
11.0
703L
14.9
5.8
16.2
3.9
2.3
2.3
75
HUGHEND7
73
HA RDIS T7
30.6
1.0
1490
140.4
JA ROW TP
1.0
140.2
3.9
2.3
1.0
142.1
3.6
79
1.0
B UFFALO7
140.4
23.5
7.6
10.6
1113
B AUER1
3.9 703L 3.9
7.0
3.6
7L129
23.3
7L117
16.5
7.3
1.1
146.8
766
BAUE RTAP
37
HRT EX P7
809
E XPRES TP
SW
1.0
SW
32.3
1.0
141.1
1.0
141.9
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure A-4: 2017SP, Pre-Connection, Category B: 749L (Metiskow 648S to Edgerton 899S)
Contingency
1047
DRURY_138
1383
VERMILO7
28.6
28.2
9.08.5
1.0
137.3
1387
KITSCOT7
7L130
75.3
28.7
Overload
71.4
67.7
33.4
34.4
Overload
40.6
7L129
23.6
7L129
19.9
1.0
138.1
72
JARROW 7
704L
3.5
36
4.4
153.0
3
11.3R
4
7.3R
11.1
36
5.5
9L16
93.9
144.2
143.5
15.7
31.6
151.9
151.1
12.8
32.1
1.0
16.3
16.3
47.0
35.4
32.4
72.7
72.7
47.0
43.8
702L
9L79
3.1
702L
4.8
1.1
255.5
83.9
55.1
680L
679L
55.0
50.1 681L
5.2
2.5
SW
7.1
5.8
43.6
373
IP L HAR7
29.9
29.9
1.0
141.6
50.1
1.0
142.2
38.5
15.4
15.3
10.1
8.9
15.0
15.0
10.1
8.5
13.1
0.0
27.7
31.0
13.1
13.7
1419
932_HV A
0.0
29.8
29.8
0.0
30.3
1.0
18.5
88.1
9L46
15.1
9L966
31.5
10.8
10.1
885L
1.1
255.6
87.8
3.8
1451
EYRE7
1.1
257.3
56.2
0.4
7L967L79
7.8
10.7
2.6
4.2
1.0
144.6
31.1
1470
VETERA N7
10.8
2.3
10.8
2.4
1.1
145.2
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Connec tion P1558
2017 Summer Peak Pre-Connec tion
7L79
749L
219
KILLARN7
749A L
9.5
SW
1.0
141.7
1410
CURR_TAP
15.3
15.1
18.8
20.9
1.0
142.5
19.2
1477
RIB STON1
2.7
814
KILRY TP
1446
CURRANT7
7L111
9.5
9.5
4.4
5.1
7L224
45.3
1.0
143.9
1.0
141.8
0.8
716
LAK ESEN7
6.6
2.4
1.0
141.8
1471
MONITOR7
1.1
253.6
4.5
16.9
56.2
0.9
6.6
4.0
19419
932_LV
1.1
256.9
56.2
7.8
5.5
17.6
7L224
1.0
142.1
56.3
2.4
749L
1425
EYRE_TAP
5.5
5.1
0.9
6.6
1.0
24.7
9.5
10419
932S901T
7L127
45.3
8.1
8.5
7L110
31.1
1.1
145.2
19.2
30.9
SW
1.0
9.6
4.1
4.4
1.1
145.4
1.1
145.5
0.0
1.1
146.1
10471
774S 701T
2.8
2.8
1.1
1.1
145.9
1.1
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Pre-Connec tion - Diagram A-4
N-1: 749L (Metis k ow 648S to Edgerton 899S) Contingenc y
1458
LOYALIS7
7L110
9.6
SW
10.9
2.7
7L749
4361
EDGERTO9
20.9
7L224
21.0
99
17.9
1.1
148.7
Bus - Voltage (k V/pu)
Branc h - M W/M v ar
Equipm ent - M W/M v ar
100.0% Rate A
k V: >0.000<=20.000
<=50.000<=100.000<=200.000<=300.000<=500.000>500.000
Note: Dashed black lines mark the contingencies and solid red lines mark the thermal loadings.
1
R(4)
A-5
362
EDGERTO7
1.0
141.8
6.6
0.2
31.5
3.3
0.0
9.7
6.6
20.8
30.0
17.5
1.0
141.8
1.0
136.4
648
HANSMAN9
17.9
30.1
17.5
9.7
862
PV-TAP7
27.2
1.1
255.7
SW
41.4
4.4 4.4
703L703L
1.0
18.8
1.8
112
SUNK EN7
5.3
74
ME TIS647
41.4
SW
27.2
68.2
99
8.5
1.0
4.1
24.0
31.1
1.1
2648
255.6
HA NSMSV
23.7
2373
IPL HAA8
15.0
989
703ALTAP
31.1
13.2
703L
99
1.0
4.1
6.0
948L
1438
959S _HV
8.5
1.0
3373
4.1
IPL HAA9
87
METIS 644
954L
99
8.5
1.0
141.6
1047L
1.1
254.7
99
4373
IPL HAR9
15.0
15.0
769L
45.4 45.4
1.0
141.8
31.1
68.7
1.1
255.5
60.6
43.7
11.6
1.0
4.0
5.1
0.1
18.0
4484
CLIPPER9
15.1
11.6
60.7
649
HANSMAN7
61.0
7.0 5.7
9L27
79.9
13.7
13.7
1.0
141.6
1.0
141.9
13.0
24.3
15.2 15.1
13.7
15.0
2.5
55.0
61.1
61.0
1403
PAINTRT4
484
CLIP PER7
769L
15.2 15.2
769L
23.4
483
TUCUMAN7
2.4
61.2
1.2
80.1
715
CLIPP_TP
0.0
9.9
9L953
23.9
19427
NILREM5
38.4
SW
23.8
3.8
9.7
1469 1427
BAT RV79
NILREM3
19.3
30.3
17438
LANFSV
10.9
SW
78
SEDGEWI7
34.2
1.1
146.0
14.1
85.0
9.0
1.0
141.8
15.1
8.8
18.0
1.1
253.6
11.3
9.5
SW
25.6
99
1.0
141.2
1.0
142.7
1.1
255.5
9.8
9L20
11.2
75.9
2.4
55.1
18.0
7L50
1489
BA T RV80
9L80
19.3
5.6
18.3
72.7
47.0
1422
NEVIS 4
2.0
1.0
4.2
89.3
7.2
72.7
1.1
256.0
19.0
1.0
139.4
93.8
13.0
21.8
2.0
703L
9.5
703L
5.6
7L50LN
91.0 84.6
9.1
1499
CORDEL 4
1431
S WITCH_H
3.5
2.3
4037
HRT EXP9
3.9
75
HUGHEND7
73
HARDIST7
69.6
1.0
138.0
1.0
16.3
1496
BAT #4
163.0
91.7
3.9
1491
BAT. RV7
1495
BAT #3
8.8
7.1
2.3
3.9
1.0
141.8
1.0
1490
137.4
JAROW TP
1.0
137.2
7.1
1.0
139.4
2.3
1113
BAUER1
3.7
79
1.0
BUFFALO7
137.4
68.7
7.8
3.9 703L 3.9
7.0
61.7
24.5
37
HRT EXP7
809
EXPRESTP
1.0
137.2
3.6
7L129
60.8
2.7
4.2
SW
36.6
7.0
0.0
7L117
2.6
65.8
766
B AUERTAP
1.0
136.7
SW
1377
IRISH C7
1393
HILL 7
7L14
1.0
141.2
1.0
135.6
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure A-5: 2017SP, Pre-Connection, Category B: Edgerton 899S Transformer T3 Contingency
1047
DRURY_138
1383
VERMILO7
27.1
35.0
11.911.4
1.0
139.3
1387
KITS COT7
7L130
67.8
27.2
Overload
64.4
60.7
38.8
39.8
Overload
43.4
7L129
25.4
7L129
21.8
1.0
139.7
72
JA RROW 7
704L
2.6
2.6
4.0
4.0
1.0
140.5
36
4.4
153.0
3
12.6R
8.5R
11.1
36
5.5
9L16
100.1
144.2
143.5
17.0
32.9
14.5
151.9
151.1
14.0
33.3
1.0
16.3
45.5
35.8
9L79
76.0
45.5
42.1
702L
4.1
702L
55.3
680L
0.8
55.3
679L
55.2
6.0
55.2 681L
0.9
55.2
7.4
0.9
SW
93.2
61.4
5.5
4.2
61.3
61.2
1.0
142.4
29.6
20.4
13.7
13.7
43.7
43.6
373
IPL HAR7
15.0
15.0
9.7
8.5
29.9
29.9
1.0
141.8
55.2
15.4
15.3
10.1
8.9
15.0
15.0
10.1
8.5
15.6
0.0
47.7
15.6
17.0
28.4
28.4
28.9
1.0
18.5
16.6
9L966
885L
62.8
1.1
255.6
1451
EYRE7
1.1
257.0
1.0
142.0
1410
CURR_TAP
21.9
21.6
15.9
1477
RIBSTON1
10.7
2.6
4.2
1.0
144.7
2.3
10.8
2.4
1.1
145.4
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation C onnec tion P1558
2017 Summer Peak Pre-C onnec tion
7L127
51.9
28.2
1470
VETERAN7
10.8
7L79
11.7
749L
219
K ILLARN7
17.9
45.1
11.7
1.0
141.4
11.4
1446
CURRANT7
7L111
9.5
9.5
1.0
142.7
4.4
5.1
8.1
8.5
7L110
28.2
1.1
145.4
19.2
SW
30.9
9.6
4.1
4.4
1.1
145.6
1.1
145.7
0.0
1.0
1.1
146.2
10471
774S 701T
2.8
2.8
1.1
1.1
146.1
1.1
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Pre-C onnec tion - D iagram A-5
N -1: Edgerton 899S Trans former T3 C ontingenc y
1458
LOYALIS7
7L110
9.6
SW
10.9
45.5
7L224
19.2
7.8
12.0
749AL
62.8
51.9
7L967L79
814
KILRY TP
45.5
9.5
3.8
716
LAKE SEN7
749L
1.0
142.0
1471
MONITOR7
1.1
254.0
1.0
144.1
13.9
46.0
4.0
19419
932_LV
3.9
4.5
12.1
14.6
7L224
1.0
142.3
62.9
62.8
7.8
12.1
9.5
2.3
7L749
4361
EDGERTO9
1.0
25.9
5.1
3.9
1.1
148.9
Bu s - Vo l ta g e (k V/p u )
Bra n c h - M W /M v a r
Eq u i p m e n t - M W /M v a r
1 0 0 .0 % Ra te A
k V: >0 .0 0 0 <=2 0 .0 0<=5
0 0 .0 0 0<=1 00 .0 0 0< =2 0 0 .0 0 0<=3 0 0 .0 0 0< =5 0 0 .0 0 0> 5 0 0 .0 0 0
Note: Dashed black lines mark the contingencies and solid red lines mark the thermal loadings.
1
R(4)
362
EDGERTO7
1.0
142.0
99
40.1
1425
EYRE_TAP
7L224
20.9
10419
932S901T
0.0
9.7
15.0
39.3
1.1
257.3
17.5
1.0
142.0
7.2
1.1
17.5
9.7
45.7
8.5
3.4
112
SUNKEN7
SW
7.2 7.2
703L703L
1.0
141.5
14.9
102.3
99
2.4
34.4
862
PV-TAP7
648
HANS MAN9
40.1
39.4
74
METIS647
34.4
28.4
1.1
255.7
102.7 9L46
8.5
1.0
4.1
16.9
47.8
1.0
18.8
5.4
1419
932_HVA
2373
IPL HAA8
15.0
SW
28.4
45.8
703L
989
703ALTAP
47.8
15.7
99
99
1.0
4.1
87
METIS644
954L
83.9
26.1
4373
IPL HAR9
15.0
1.0
141.8
28.9
99
8.5
1.0
3373
4.1
IPL HAA9
1.1
2648
255.6
HA NSMSV
948L
11.6
1.0
4.0
769L
45.4 45.4
1047L
84.6
1438
959S _HV
4484
CLIPPER9
15.1
11.6
1.0
141.8
1.0
142.0
0.1
95.8
15.2 15.1
13.7
6.2
9L27
0.0
16.8
0.7
7.4
47.8
1.1
1403
254.8
PAINTRT4
26.3
60.6
649
HA NSMAN7
5.5 4.2
13.0
96.1
60.7
1.0
142.0
29.6
0.0
7.8
484
CLIPPER7
769L
15.2 15.2
769L
25.2
483
TUCUMAN7
0.8
61.4
2.1
1.1
255.5
715
CLIPP_TP
0.0
9.9
9L953
25.8
19427
NILREM5
1469 1427
BA T RV79
NILRE M3
1.1
255.5
17438
LA NFSV
5.8
1.0
142.0
SW
78
SEDGEWI7
36.1
1.1
146.1
19.3
32.3
SW
2.6
15.4
9.8
75.9
17.9
94.6
28.2
99
1.0
141.4
1.0
142.9
34.1
1.1
253.6
37.4
1.1
255.5
9.8
9L20
34.2
7L50
1489
BA T RV80
9L80
19.3
703L
SW
76.2
75.9
45.4
1422
NE VIS 4
8.1
21.1
7.9
75.9
1.1
256.1
25.0
1.0
140.6
100.0
11.3
2.0
1.0
4.2
83.6
7L50LN
89.3 83.1
12.4
1499
CORDE L 4
1431
SWITCH_H
1.4
8.0
1.0
139.6
1.0
16.3
1496
B AT #4
163.0
4
4037
HRT EXP9
3.9
1491
BAT. RV7
1495
B AT #3
8.8
2.0
2.6
703L
1.4
21.2
85.7
3.9
2.3
2.3
75
HUGHEND7
73
HARDIST7
63.9
1.0
1490
139.2
JAROW TP
1.0
139.3
3.9
2.3
1.0
142.0
3.6
79
1.0
BUFFA LO7
139.2
63.1
5.5
1113
BA UER1
3.9 703L 3.9
7.0
56.2
26.0
37
HRT EXP 7
809
EXPRE STP
1.0
141.8
3.6
7L129
55.4
3.3
1.8
SW
41.4
7.0
0.0
7L117
3.3
59.1
766
BAUE RTAP
1.0
140.5
SW
1377
IRIS H C7
1393
HILL 7
7L14
A-6
SW
32.2
1.0
140.9
1.0
141.8
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure A-6: 2017WP, Pre-Connection, Category A: Normal Operation
1047
DRURY_138
1383
VERMILO7
32.3
20.6
20.5
1387
KITSCOT7
7L130
20.6
31.5
26.2
18.6
19.9
1393
HILL 7
7L14
25.9
SW
18.6
44.9
17.316.6
1.0
142.4
1.0
143.6
SW
1377
IRISH C7
24.5
54.6
7L129
23.2
1.0
140.5
72
JARROW 7
704L
5.5
3.1
1.0
143.0
4.4
153.0
3
11.0R
7.0R
11.1
36
5.5
9L16
148.7
144.2
143.5
15.4
31.2
151.9
151.1
12.5
31.7
1.0
16.4
4.6
42.5
702L
31.9
38.5
67.6
67.6
31.9
29.6
9L79
29.0
19427
NILREM5
113.1
7.9
65.6
13.7
13.7
60.6
1.0
143.6
43.5
43.5
373
IP L HAR7
769L
63.1 681L
6.9
679L
7.9
65.5
7.9
SW
2.1
3.9
72.5
72.4
29.8
29.8
1.0
143.7
63.1
1.0
144.1
32.0
15.4
15.3
10.1
8.9
15.0
10.0
8.5
954L
77.2
6.9
77.1
6.9
0.1
0.0
18.7
948L
3.6
862
PV-TAP7
885L
0.0
13.0
13.0
0.0
13.2
1.0
18.6
146.0 9L46
19.0
9L966
82.0
1425
EYRE_TAP
36.2
1451
EYRE7
1.1
256.8
63.2
17.6
4.8
1.0
136.9
1410
CURR_TAP
33.5
11.1
3.1
3.6
1.0
137.7
18.4
1470
VETERA N7
11.1
1.9
11.1
2.0
1.0
138.3
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Connec tion P1558
2017 Winter Peak Pre-Connec tion
7L79
30.7
749L
21.4
219
KILLARN7
50.3
49.8
9.4
1.0
142.0
9.3
1446
CURRANT7
7L111
10.1
10.0
32.3
4.8
5.4
1.0
142.1
7L127
51.9
10.7
11.0
7L110
18.4
1.0
138.4
23.3
SW
0.0
1.1
6.2
13.3
6.5
1.0
138.5
1.0
138.8
0.0
1.0
139.2
10471
774S 701T
3.3
3.3
1.3
1.0
139.2
1.3
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Pre-Connec tion - Diagram A-6
N-0: Normal Operation
1458
LOYALIS7
7L110
13.3
SW
11.2
50.9
21.3
21.9
23.4
1477
RIB STON1
102.2
7L224
51.9
8.3
749L
26.9
10.0
22.5
63.1
1.0
241.9
7L967L79
104.6
749A L
7L224
19.5
716
LAK ESEN7
3.1
814
KILRY TP
1.0
143.2
1471
MONITOR7
19419
932_LV
1.1
256.6
19.6
8.2
2.7
4.3
1.0
141.6
63.1
8.2
51.9
36.6
5.3
63.1
2.7
11.8
1.0
143.2
10.0
10419
932S901T
8.3
7L224
11.7
6.0
19.6
8.2
4.3
1.1
254.2
145.1
1.0
141.6
Bus - Voltage (k V/pu)
Branc h - M W/M v ar
Equipm ent - M W/M v ar
100.0% Rate A
k V: >0.000<=20.000
<=50.000<=100.000<=200.000<=300.000<=500.000>500.000
1
R(4)
A-7
362
EDGERTO7
24.5
7L749
4361
EDGERTO9
1.1
26.8
27.2
19.5
1.0
143.2
38.9
81.7
11.6
99
65.1
38.9
1419
932_HV A
9.3
42.7
24.4
73.9
7.5
18.1
9.3
1.0
143.2
1.0
142.9
648
HANSMAN9
65.1
74.0
18.1
41.4
18.4
1.1
254.9
SW
28.8
11.811.7
703L703L
1.0
18.8
5.1
2.4
74
ME TIS647
28.8
SW
18.4
104.4
112
SUNK EN7
10.7
77.2
6.8
99
8.5
1.0
4.1
989
703ALTAP
1.1
2648
254.1
HA NSMSV
23.9
2373
IPL HAA8
15.0
87
METIS644
1047L
105.4
703L
99
15.0
15.4
9L27
118.6
118.2
SW
8.5
1.0
3373
4.2
IPL HAA9
1.0
143.6
649
HANSMAN7
99
8.5
1.0
4.2
1.0
143.9
99
4373
IPL HAR9
15.0
15.0
6.9
77.2
1.1
254.2
1438
959S _HV
11.6
1.0
4.0
769L
45.4 45.4
1.0
143.9
2.13.9
1403
PAINTRT4
4484
CLIPPER9
15.1
11.6
15.0
65.5
3.6
18.0
15.2 15.1
13.7
60.7
28.3
8.6
680L
72.6
32.0
1.1
255.0
702L
483
TUCUMAN7
7.7
72.6
1.1
255.0
34.9
484
CLIP PER7
769L
15.2 15.2
29.6
9.9
115.2 9L953
17438
LANFSV
10.6
0.5
9.7
1469 1427
BAT RV79
NILREM3
19.3
715
CLIPP_TP
78
SEDGEWI7
6.4
1.1
147.8
20.9
23.1
7.9
SW
12.1
37.2
1.1
252.9
5.9
1.0
143.8
16.1
1.0
144.5
1.1
255.0
9.8
9L20
99
5.0
SW
30.0
40.8
7.7
65.6
37.3
3.5
1.0
4.2
1.0
142.9
78.2
1489
BA T RV80
9L80
19.3
9.8
24.6
67.6
31.9
1422
NEVIS 4
7L50
9.6
67.6
1.1
255.5
4037
HRT EXP 9
4.0
76.9
1.0
143.0
148.4
2.3
27.7
9.1
9.7
7L50LN
90.4 84.1
15.9
1499
CORDEL 4
1431
S WITCH_H
3.0
703L
5.0
703L
9.1
23.1
1.0
142.6
1.0
16.4
1496
BAT #4
163.0
4
78.7
3.5
1491
BAT. RV7
1495
BAT #3
8.8
36
5.5
4.0
3.9
3.9
75
HUGHEND7
73
HARDIST7
55.2
1.0
1490
142.5
JAROW TP
1.0
142.7
4.1
3.9
1.0
143.8
1.3
79
1.0
BUFFALO7
142.5
47.4
24.5
0.1
1113
BAUER1
4.1 703L 4.1
7.2
1.3
7L129
46.8
21.9
3.3
7L129
7.2
24.5
7L117
21.6
1.0
144.3
766
B AUERTAP
37
HRT EXP7
809
EXPRESTP
SW
32.4
1.0
141.2
1.0
141.9
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure A-7: 2017WP, Pre-Connection, Category B: Edgerton 899S Transformer T3
Contingency
1047
DRURY_138
1383
VERMILO7
35.9
17.8
13.212.9
1.0
135.3
1387
KITSCOT7
7L130
87.8
36.1
Overload
82.8
77.4
25.7
27.0
37.2
7L129
26.9
24.9
84.0
7L129
72
JARROW 7
704L
13.7
2.0
1.0
138.7
36
4.4
153.0
3
5.9R
4
143.5
10.3
26.0
27.0
1.0
16.4
8.4
37.4
702L
36.3
31.6
48.4
48.4
36.3
34.8
3.9
9L79
30.6
SW
702L
5.7
94.9
68.6
680L
679L
68.5
2.3
49.1 681L
1.8
3.7
SW
0.4
2.3 0.4
43.5
373
IP L HAR7
29.8
29.8
1.0
143.0
49.0
1.0
143.6
56.4
15.4
15.3
10.1
8.9
15.0
15.0
10.0
8.5
11.7
0.0
13.9
948L
40.0
39.9
11.7
10.7
1419
932_HV A
SW
0.0
16.6
16.6
0.0
16.8
1.0
18.6
118.6 9L46
17.0
9L966
68.4
12.0
11.0
885L
29.5
0.9
1451
EYRE7
1.1
256.8
49.6
49.6
12.4
4.8
1.0
136.6
8.3
11.1
3.1
3.7
1.0
137.3
11.1
1.9
11.1
12.5
2.0
1.0
137.9
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Connec tion P1558
2017 Winter Peak Pre-Connec tion
7L79
SW
1.0
142.0
1410
CURR_TAP
27.5
1446
CURRANT7
7L111
8.7
10.1
10.0
25.7
4.8
5.4
1.0
141.7
23.4
7L967L79
219
KILLARN7
7L224
38.4
1470
VETERA N7
749L
10.0
9.0
49.6
1.0
241.2
1477
RIB STON1
3.2
814
KILRY TP
749A L
7L224
13.5
716
LAK ESEN7
8.2
2.7
1.0
142.8
1471
MONITOR7
19419
932_LV
1.1
256.5
13.6
8.2
4.3
1.0
141.2
49.6
8.3
30.0
5.3
13.6
2.7
1.3
1.0
142.8
10.0
10419
932S901T
8.2
749L
1425
EYRE_TAP
7L224
1.4
1.1
254.2
118.0
99
16.6
7L127
38.4
10.7
11.0
7L110
12.5
1.0
138.0
23.3
0.0
SW
1.0
13.3
6.2
6.5
1.0
138.2
1.0
138.4
0.0
1.0
138.8
10471
774S 701T
3.3
3.3
1.3
1.0
138.8
1.3
Enbridge Battle Sands Subs tation Pre-Connec tion - Diagram A-7
N-1: 749L (Metis k ow 648S to Edgerton 899S) Contingenc y
1458
LOYALIS7
7L110
13.3
SW
11.2
1.0
141.2
Bus - Voltage (k V/pu)
Branc h - M W/M v ar
Equipm ent - M W/M v ar
100.0% Rate B
k V: >0.000<=20.000
<=50.000<=100.000<=200.000<=300.000<=500.000>500.000
Note: Dashed black lines mark the contingencies and solid red lines mark the thermal loadings.
1
R(4)
A-8
362
EDGERTO7
3.2
7L749
4361
EDGERTO9
1.0
24.3
27.8
19.4
1.0
142.8
25.5
68.2
11.5
9.2
8.2
0.6
25.5
38.5
18.1
9.2
1.0
142.8
0.9
130.0
648
HANSMAN9
16.6
38.6
18.1
8.3
13.7
1.1
254.7
SW
47.7
862
PV-TAP7
1.0
18.9
1.5
112
SUNK EN7
8.8
18.018.0
703L703L
SW
13.7
69.6
99
8.5
1.0
4.1
29.5
74
ME TIS647
47.7
1.1
2648
254.1
HA NSMSV
20.1
2373
IPL HAA8
15.0
989
703ALTAP
40.0
11.6
703L
99
1.0
4.2
12.6
70.0
1438
959S _HV
8.5
1.0
3373
4.2
IPL HAA9
87
METIS 644
954L
99
8.5
1.0
143.0
1047L
1.1
253.6
99
4373
IPL HAR9
15.0
15.0
769L
45.4 45.4
1.0
143.2
0.1
14.2
60.6
43.6
11.6
1.0
4.0
1.7
40.0
9L27
82.8
4484
CLIPPER9
15.1
11.6
60.7
649
HANSMAN7
75.4
5.6
20.5
13.7
13.7
1.0
143.0
1.0
143.3
56.2
83.0
15.2 15.1
13.7
15.0
3.7
68.5
75.6
75.5
1403
PAINTRT4
484
CLIP PER7
769L
15.2 15.2
769L
23.8
483
TUCUMAN7
3.5
75.7
0.9
1.1
254.7
715
CLIPP_TP
29.3
9.9
9L953
24.3
19427
NILREM5
1469 1427
BAT RV79
NILREM3
19.3
1.1
254.6
17438
LANFSV
29.2
7.5
9.7
1.1
147.2
13.4
96.4
14.9
14.8
9.7
9.2
1.1
252.7
13.2
1.0
143.2
1.0
142.4
1.0
143.9
1.1
254.6
9.8
9L20
99
13.6
SW
27.1
36.1
3.5
68.6
9.3
17.1
78
SEDGEWI7
1489
BA T RV80
9L80
19.3
17.0
77.4
48.4
36.3
1422
NEVIS 4
9.4
18.9
7.9
48.4
1.1
255.2
7L50
151.1
141.1
5.9
20.9
3.5
1.0
4.2
107.1
1.0
138.7
1499
CORDEL 4
9L16
21.6
7L50LN
105.2 96.8
5.2
7.9
5.5
1431
S WITCH_H
141.4
144.2
151.9
2.4R
11.1
36
2.0
4037
HRT EXP9
4.0
75
HUGHEND7
703L
13.5
703L
9.4
1.0
136.6
1.0
16.4
1496
BAT #4
163.0
110.5
3.5
3.9
1491
BAT. RV7
1495
BAT #3
8.8
13.7
4.0
3.9
73
HARDIST7
85.4
1.0
1490
135.8
JAROW TP
1.0
135.2
4.1
3.9
1.0
143.1
1.3
79
1.0
BUFFALO7
135.8
23.6
1.0
134.7
1113
BAUER1
4.1 703L 4.1
7.2
76.7
4.0
37
HRT EXP7
809
EXPRESTP
1.0
131.3
1.3
7L129
75.3
10.3
0.6
SW
30.4
7.2
22.0
7L117
10.3
75.1
766
B AUERTAP
1.0
131.9
SW
1377
IRISH C7
1393
HILL 7
7L14
1.0
141.2
0.9
128.9
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Attachment B
Pre-Connection Voltage Stability Results
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Table B-1: 2017WP Pre-Connection PV Results
From
To
2017WP
PreConnection
Reference
Load (MW)
Substation
Condition
Contingency
Margin
(MW)
Nose
Point
(MW)
Voltage Criteria
Category A
(N-0)
Normal
N/A
N/A
205.50
215.78
(105%)
475
Meets voltage
stability criteria
Category B
(N-1)
681L
Hardisty
377S
Tucuman
478S
205.50
215.78
(105%)
421
Meets voltage
stability criteria
Category
C5 (N-2)
679L and
680L
Nilrem
574S
Tucuman
478S
205.50
210.64
(102.5%)
294
Meets voltage
stability criteria
205.50
210.64
(102.5%)
273
Meets voltage
stability criteria
205.50
215.78
(105%)
471
Meets voltage
stability criteria
205.50
215.78
(105%)
471
Meets voltage
stability criteria
Category
C5 (N-2)
953L and
1047L
Nilrem
574S
Category B
(N-1)
702L
Hardisty
377S
Category B
(N-1)
703L
Metiskow
648S
Hansman
Lake
650S/
Cordel
755S
Battle
River
757S
Sunken
Lake
221S/
Hardisty
377S
Table B-2: Figure Description of Voltage Stability Analysis
R(4)
Figure Number
PV Curve Description
Figure B-1
PV curve at the Hardisty 377S substation for 2017WP preconnection
Figure B-2
PV curve at the Clipper 656S substation T-tap for 2017WP preconnection
Figure B-3
PV curve at the Express 329S substation T-tap for 2017WP preconnection
B-1
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure B-1: 2017WP Pre-Connection PV Curve for the Hardisty 377S Substation
2017WP Pre: At Hardisty 377S
Bus Voltage (PU)
1.000
0.500
0.000
25.000
50.000
75.000
100.000
125.000
150.000
175.000
N-0: Normal Operation
N-2: 9L953_1047L
N-2: 679L_680L
N-1: 681L
N-1: 702L
N-1: 703L
0.000
Incremental Load Addition (MW) in Area 32
R(4)
200.000
B-2
225.000
250.000
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure B-2: 2017WP Pre-Connection PV Curve for the Clipper Tap Bus
2017WP Pre: At Clipper Tap
Bus Voltage (PU)
1.000
0.500
0.000
25.000
50.000
75.000
100.000
125.000
150.000
175.000
N-0: Normal Operation
N-2: 9L953_1047L
N-2: 679L_680L
N-1: 681L
N-1: 702L
N-1: 703L
0.000
Incremental Load Addition (MW) in Area 32
R(4)
B-3
200.000
225.000
250.000
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure B-3: 2017WP Pre-Connection PV Curve for Express Tap Bus
2017WP Pre: At Express Tap
Bus Voltage (PU)
1.000
0.500
0.000
25.000
50.000
75.000
100.000
125.000
150.000
175.000
N-0: Normal Operation
N-2: 9L953_1047L
N-2: 679L_680L
N-1: 702L
N-1: 681L
0.000
R(4)
Incremental Load Addition (MW) in Area 32
B-4
200.000
225.000
250.000
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Attachment C
Motor Starting Analysis Results for
Post-Connection (Alternative 1)
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Table C-1: Figure Description of Motor Starting Analysis
R(4)
Figure Number
Contingency Description
Figure C-1
Induction Motor Curve
Figure C-2
Bus voltages during motor start under system normal condition for the
Alternative 1 configuration
Figure C-3
Bus voltages during motor start under a contingency of the 138 kV
transmission line 681L for Alternative 1 configuration
Figure C-4
Bus voltages during motor start under a contingency of the 138 kV
transmission lines 679L and 6807L for the Alternative 1 configuration
Figure C-5
Bus voltages during motor start under a contingency of the 138 kV
transmission lines 953L and 1427L for the Alternative 1 configuration
Figure C-6
Bus voltages during motor start under a contingency to the 138 kV
transmission line 702L for the Alternative 1 configuration
Figure C-7
Bus voltages during motor start under a contingency to the 138 kV
transmission line 703L for the Alternative 1 configuration
C-1
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure C-1: Induction Motor Curve, Torque, Current and Power Factor (in per unit)
R(4)
C-2
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure C-2: Voltage at the Proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation for 2017WP Alternative 1,
Category A
R(4)
C-3
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure C-3: Voltage at the Proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation for 2017WP Alternative 1, for
the 138 kV Transmission Line 681L Contingency
R(4)
C-4
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure C-4: Voltage at the Proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation for 2017WP Alternative 1, for
the 138 kV Transmission Line 679L and 680L Contingencies
R(4)
C-5
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure C-5: Voltage at the proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation for 2017WP Alternative 1,
Category C5, for the 138 kV Transmission Line 953L and 1047L Contingencies
R(4)
C-6
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure C-6: Voltage at the proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation for 2017WP Alternative 1, for
the 138 kV Transmission Line 702L Contingency
R(4)
C-7
Engineering Study Report
Connection to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Proposed
Battle Sands 594S Substation
Figure C-7: Voltage at the Proposed Battle Sands 594S Substation for 2017WP Alternative 1, for
the 138 kV Transmission Line 703L Contingency
R(4)
C-8