...

APPENDIX A AESO System Planning Study Red Deer Technical Report

by user

on
Category: Documents
21

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

APPENDIX A AESO System Planning Study Red Deer Technical Report
APPENDIX A
AESO System Planning Study
Red Deer Technical Report
Report Index
Section
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Introduction
Number
of Pages
Introduction
9
Planning Criteria and Study Assumptions
14
Existing System Assessment
5
Development of System Reinforcement Options
18
Transmission Alternatives- Near Term Assessment
5
Transmission Alternatives- Long Term Assessment
4
Alternatives Comparison
4
Sensitivity Analysis
2
Recommended Proposal
7
Existing System Analysis
120
Historical Substation Load Details
2
Alternative Details
8
Steady State and Voltage Stability Analysis
1752
Transient Stability Analysis
2732
Sensitivity Analysis
20
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
1.1
1.2
2.0
Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
Study Region of Existing System ....................................................................................... 1
Study Objectives and Scope .............................................................................................. 8
Planning Criteria and Study Assumptions........................................... 10
2.1 Reliability Criteria .............................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Voltage Stability Methodology .......................................................................................... 12
2.3 Monitored Areas ............................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Load Scenarios ................................................................................................................. 14
2.5 Load Forecast ................................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Generation Assumptions .................................................................................................. 16
2.7 Facility Ratings ................................................................................................................. 17
2.8 Transmission Assumptions............................................................................................... 19
2.8.1 Bulk System Assumptions ....................................................................................... 19
2.8.2 Hanna Region System Assumptions ....................................................................... 20
2.8.3 Central East Region System Assumptions .............................................................. 21
2.8.4 Southern Alberta Transmission Reinforcements (SATR) ........................................ 22
2.9 System Inter Dependencies ............................................................................................. 23
3.0
Existing System Assessment ............................................................... 24
3.1 Power Flow Analysis ........................................................................................................ 24
3.1.1 Load Supply Adequacy ............................................................................................ 24
3.1.2 High SOK Cut Plane Flows ...................................................................................... 25
3.2 Voltage Stability Analysis ................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Transfer Capability Analysis ............................................................................................. 26
3.4 Short Circuit Analysis ....................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Existing System Need Assessment Summary ................................................................. 27
4.0
Development of System Reinforcement Options ................................ 29
4.1 Transmission Technology Options Screening .................................................................. 29
4.1.1 New Transmission Lines .......................................................................................... 29
4.1.2 Transmission Line Upgrades and Rebuild ............................................................... 30
4.1.3 Voltage Up-Rating.................................................................................................... 31
4.1.4 Build New Transmission Substations and Upgrade Existing Stations ..................... 31
4.1.5 Provide Reactive Power Support Equipment .......................................................... 31
4.1.6 Consideration of Operational Measures .................................................................. 32
4.2 Formulation and Screening of Red Deer Alternatives ...................................................... 32
4.2.1 Common Set of Transmission System Development .............................................. 33
4.2.2 Alternative 1 Development (80L Alternative) ........................................................... 37
4.2.3 Development of Alternative 2 (Hybrid Alternative) ................................................... 41
4.2.4 Development of Alternative 3 (Double Loop Alternative)......................................... 45
4.2.5 Summary of Screening of Alternatives .................................................................... 45
5.0
Transmission Alternatives- Near Term Assessment (2012) ............... 47
5.1 Power Flow Analysis (2012) ............................................................................................. 47
5.1.1 System Performance under Category C and D Contingency Events ...................... 48
5.2 Transient Stability Studies (2012) .................................................................................... 48
5.3 Voltage Stability (P-V and Q-V) Analysis ......................................................................... 49
5.4 Transfer Capability Analysis ............................................................................................. 49
5.5 Short Circuit Analysis ....................................................................................................... 51
iv
6.0
Transmission Alternatives- Long Term Assessment (2017) .............. 52
6.1 Power Flow Analysis (2017) ............................................................................................. 52
6.1.1 System Performance under Category C and D Contingency Events ...................... 52
6.2 2017 Transient Stability Studies (2017) ........................................................................... 53
6.3 Voltage Stability (P-V and Q-V) Analysis ......................................................................... 53
6.4 Transfer Capability Analysis ............................................................................................. 54
6.5 Short Circuit Analysis ....................................................................................................... 55
7.0
Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................. 56
8.0
Sensitivity Analysis (Load Forecast) .................................................... 60
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.0
9.1
Sensitivity Analysis for 2012 ............................................................................................. 60
Sensitivity Analysis for 2017 ............................................................................................. 61
Sensitivity Study Conclusions........................................................................................... 61
Recommended Development ................................................................ 62
Rationale for the Recommended Development ............................................................... 65
v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: General Acceptable Range of Voltage (kV) ................................................................ 11
Table 2-2: Acceptable Voltage Deviation and Equipment Loading .............................................. 11
Table 2-3: Buses Voltage (kV) Range in the Red Deer Area (OPP 702) ..................................... 11
Table 2-4: Voltage Stability Criteria .............................................................................................. 13
Table 2-5: Summary of Monitored Areas for Load flow Analysis ................................................. 14
Table 2-6: Assumptions for Import/Export to BC and SK (MW) ................................................... 15
Table 2-7: Assumptions for HVDC Dispatch in 2017 (MW) ......................................................... 15
Table 2-8: Load Forecast Modeled in Red Deer Region (MW) .................................................... 15
Table 2-9: Rated Capacity for Existing Generation in the Red Deer Region ............................... 16
Table 2-10:Generation Dispatch (MW) .......................................................................................... 17
Table 2-11:Transmission Line Ratings in the Red Deer Region ................................................... 17
Table 2-12:Transformer Ratings in Red Deer Region ................................................................... 19
Table 4-1: List of the Common Set of Transmission System Developments ............................... 36
Table 4-2: 2012 List of Alternative 1 Development Excluding Common Set of Transmission
System Developments ................................................................................................. 38
Table 5-1: Power Flow Analysis Results – 2012 .......................................................................... 47
Table 5-2: 2012 First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for Alternative 1.... 50
Table 5-3: 2012 First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for Alternative 2.... 50
Table 6-1: Power Flow Analysis Results – 2017 .......................................................................... 52
Table 6-2: 2017 First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for 2017................ 54
Table 6-3: First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for Alternative2.............. 55
Table 7-1: Category C Performance Comparison of Alternatives1&2 for 2012 High SOK and
2012WP with Nova Joffre Cogeneration Plant Out of Service .................................... 57
Table 7-2: Category C Performance Comparison of Alternatives1&2 for 2017WP with Nova Joffre
Cogeneration Plant Out of Service .............................................................................. 58
Table 7-3: Summary of the Technical Performance Evaluation of the Alternatives 1 and 2 ......... 59
Table 9-1: Details of the Recommended Plan............................................................................... 64
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Red Deer Region Planning Areas ................................................................................. 3
Figure 1-2: Schematic of Transmission System of Red Deer Region ............................................. 4
Figure 1-3 : Schematic of South of Keephills, Ellerslie and Genesee (SOK-240) cut plane ........... 5
Figure 1-4: Joffre Area Inflow Cut Plane ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 1-5: Joffre Area Outflow Cut Plane ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 4-1: Schematic of the Common Set of Transmission System Developments ................... 35
Figure 4-2: Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrades- Alternative 1 ...... 39
Figure 4-3: Map of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrades- Alternative 1.................. 40
Figure 4-4: Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrade - Alternative 2......... 43
Figure 4-5: Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrade - Alternative 2......... 44
Figure 4-6: Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrade - Alternative 3......... 46
Figure 9-1: Recommended Transmission Plan (Alternative 2) .................................................... 63
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Existing System Analysis
Attachment B: Historical Substation Load Details
Attachment C: Alternative Details
Attachment D: Steady State and Voltage Stability Analysis
Attachment E: Transient Stability Analysis
Attachment F: Sensitivity Analysis
vii
1.0
Introduction
The Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) is a vital component of the
electric industry and provides a platform for the competitive wholesale electricity
market in Alberta. The AIES connects generators to load over a large and diverse
geographic area and is planned, designed, and operated to deliver electric energy
to Alberta customers reliably and efficiently under a wide variety of system
operating conditions.
The AESO Long Term Transmission System Plan 2009 identifies system
constraints on the existing transmission system between and including the City of
Red Deer and the Town of Didsbury. This planning study report expands on this
by specifically studying the need for transmission system developments in the
Red Deer region.
This report identifies existing and future reliability constraints using the projected
load growth for the Red Deer region. Further, transmission system development
alternatives have been developed and evaluated for both the short term (2012)
and long term (2017) horizons and a preferred alternative have been proposed.
1.1
Study Region of Existing System
The Red Deer region mainly encompasses the AIES planning areas of:
Red Deer (Area 35), Didsbury (Area 39) and a part of Wetaskiwin (Area
31). Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the geographical areas and the schematic
of existing transmission system of the study region respectively.
The study region contains three 240kV source substations; Benalto 17S,
Gaetz 87S, and Red Deer 63S. Transmission in the study region primarily
consists of 138kV lines that supply industrial, commercial and residential
loads. The 240kV lines that connect the generation in the Wabamun (Area
40) in the north to the loads in the Calgary (Area 6) in the south pass
through the study region. These lines are known as South of Keephills,
Ellerslie and Genesee (SOK-240) cut plane (see Figure 1-3). The SOK-240
Total Transfer Capability (TTC) is estimated at about 2150MW1 and 2050
under winter and summer normal system conditions respectively.
The Joffre area, which lies to the east of the City of Red Deer, is an
important part of the Red Deer study region because it is a home for
several industrial loads and a large combined cycle generation plant which
consists of two gas turbines and one steam turbine. This plant is located at
Joffre 535S–Nova Complex. The Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) of
the Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is 510MW. Since 2005, the operation of
Nova Joffre cogeneration plant has been subjected to Operating Policies
1
OPP 521 SOK-240 Operation, can be found on the AESO website
1
and Procedures OPP 5022 that provides policies and procedures for
operation of the Joffre area 138kV transmission system, including transfer
limits into and out of the Joffre area. Under some system conditions,
generation may have to be curtailed at the Nova Joffre cogeneration plant
to comply with the Joffre outflow limits. When all three Nova Joffre
cogeneration plant units are off line, area load may need to be reduced by
load shedding to comply with the Joffre inflow limits. Both curtailment of
generation and reduction of loads are done in accordance with the AESO
Transmission Reliability Criteria. The Joffre area inflow and outflow cut
planes are presented in Figures 1-4 and 1-5 respectively.
2
OPP 502Joffre Area Operation, can be found on the AESO website
2
Figure 1‐1: Red Deer Region Planning Areas 3
Figure 1‐2: Schematic of Transmission System of Red Deer Region 4
Figure 1‐3 : Schematic of South of Keephills, Ellerslie and Genesee (SOK‐
240) Cut Plane3 3
SOK-240 flow is defined as the sum of: outflows on 926L and 922L measured at the Sundance
substation (T310P), outflows on 903L and 190L measured at the Keephills substation (T320P),
outflows on 914L and 910L at the Ellerslie substation (T89S), and 35 % of outflows on 912L at the
Red Deer substation (T63S) and inflows on 995L at the Benalto substation (T17S).
5
Figure 1‐4: Schematic of Joffre Area Inflow Cut Plane4 4
Sum of MW flow of: 756L: Gaetz 87S to Joffre 535S, measured at Gaetz, 759L: Gaetz 87S to
Prentiss 276S, measured at Gaetz, 793L: Gaetz 87S to Joffre 535S, measured at Gaetz, 755L:
Red Deer 63S to Piper Creek 247S, measured at Red Deer. This schematic is for illustrative
purposes only.
6
Figure 1‐5: Schematic of Joffre Area Outflow Cut Plane5 5
Sum of MW flow of, 756L: Joffre 535S to Gaetz 87S, measured at Joffre, 775L: Joffre 535S to
Prentiss 276S, measured at Joffre, 793L: Joffre 535S to Gaetz 87S, measured at Joffre, 755L:
Joffre 535S to Piper Creek 247S, measured at Joffre.
7
1.2
Study Objectives and Scope
The objectives of the system study are given below. A transmission
reinforcement solution is needed to:

Meet the projected load growth of approximately 3.5 per cent per
year and 1.7 per cent per year in the Red Deer and Didsbury areas
respectively over the 10-year period (2008- 2018). The load growth
is spurred by expansion in industrial, residential and commercial
sectors, and

Alleviate existing transmission constraints, including Joffre outflow
and inflow limits (i.e., OPP 502), in the study region.
The AESO Long Term Transmission System Plan 2009 identifies the
occurrence of system constraints on existing transmission system
elements between, and including, the Cities of Red Deer and Didsbury in
the year 2017.6
This Planning Study Report expands upon studies conducted for the LongTerm Plan by focusing on identifying the specific need for transmission
system upgrades in the Red Deer Region.
Accordingly, the AESO assessed the performance of the Red Deer region
transmission system considering its projections for load growth in the
region to identify existing and future reliability constraints. Study
assumptions and reliability criteria are described in Section 2. The
assessment of the existing system is presented in Section 3. The
transmission system low voltage and thermal constraints identified in
Section 3 were used to develop system reinforcement alternatives. The
development of system reinforcement options and the identification of the
preferred alternatives to address the transmission constraints are
presented in Section 4.
The performance of the preferred alternatives is evaluated for the shortterm (2012) and long-term (2017) horizons by performing load flow, short
circuit, voltage stability, transfer capability, and transient stability analyses.
These study results are presented in Sections 5 and 6.
Technical performance, future expandability, and operational flexibility of
study alternatives are compared in Section 7.
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to verify that the latest load forecast
(FC2009) does not have any impacts on the proposed preferred plan. The
results of this analysis are reported in Section 8.
6
Central Region Transmission Plan contained in the 2009 AESO Long-Term Transmission
System Plan, Appendix K, p.336. Figure 5.0-2 identifies forecasted transmission system
constraints in year 2017. Table 5.0-3 contains preliminary plans for system upgrades in and
around the Cities of Red Deer and Didsbury.
8
The recommended development for Red Deer region and its rationale are
presented and discussed in Section 9.
Note: The System studies utilized assumptions regarding the future
configuration of the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (AIES) follows
provisions of Section 8 of the Transmission Regulation (TReg)7.
The Study assumptions regarding the bulk transmission system are
generally consistent with those used in developing the 2009 AESO LongTerm Transmission System Plan. At the time the study was conducted,
the AESO may have made assumptions about the timing, load growth,
configurations and locations of future regional and bulk system
developments. While the AESO believes that its assumptions are realistic
and representative of the future system developments, the AESO
acknowledges that assumptions are subject to change as specific studies
are executed, plans refined, and facilities are approved and constructed.
The analyses performed in this study do not include explicit consideration
of all potential changes to assumptions. To the extent that future system
developments are different from those assumed in the study, the expected
system performance may also differ from the results predicted within. The
AESO addresses this uncertainty by performing regular system planning
studies and adjusting long-term plans as required.
7
TReg describes the AESO’s responsibilities in making assumptions about future load growth, the
timing and location of future generation additions and other related assumptions to support the
transmission system.
9
2.0
Planning Criteria and Study Assumptions To identify the need to reinforce the transmission system in the Red Deer region,
the AESO tests the present and future adequacy of the existing transmission
system by applying the AESO Transmission Reliability Criteria. The Red Deer
region transmission system was tested under specific load forecast and future
generation assumptions. This section describes the Reliability Criteria, study
assumptions and methodology.
2.1
Reliability Criteria
The AESO performs technical studies to assess transmission supply and
reliability needs in Alberta. These studies examine the transmission system
for adequacy, security, operability, and maintainability. The Reliability
Criteria were applied to determine the load supply adequacy of the planned
transmission system in the Red Deer region. That is, the existing
transmission system along with the proposed alternatives were tested to
see if the proposed alternatives were capable of supplying the forecasted
peak demand under both Category A (i.e., all elements in service) and
Category B (i.e., an element out of service, N-1 and N-G-1) contingencies.
The study alternatives were put through an iterative planning process to
optimize the planning alternatives and ensure that the planned
transmission system conformed to the Reliability Criteria. Category B
contingencies also cover single element outage contingency events while
the most critical generator is out of service (N-G-1), and the remaining
generators in the system are dispatched according to the forecasted merit
order. All equipment must operate within its acceptable thermal and
voltage limits. Category C and D contingencies are only studied for the
recommended alternatives. The system performance is evaluated to
ensure no system cascading occurs. Remedial Action Schemes (RAS),
suggested in the AESO’s OPPs, are tested to ensure planned system
security and additional RAS are proposed if deemed necessary. Table 2-1
presents the acceptable operational voltage range under steady state and
emergency conditions. The voltage stability criteria that were used to test
the system performance are provided in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
10
Table 2‐1: General Acceptable Range of Voltage (kV) Nominal
Extreme
Minimum
Normal
Minimum
Normal
Maximum
Extreme
Maximum
240
220
240
264
264
138
124
135
145
150
69
62
65
72
74
Table 2‐2: Acceptable Voltage Deviation and Equipment Loading Parameter
Post Transient (Up
to 30 sec.)
Post Auto
Control (30
sec. to 5 min.)
Post Manual
Control (Steady
State)
±10%
±7%
±5%
Voltage Deviation from
Steady State at Low
Voltage Bus
Transmission Equipment
Loading
100% of Emergency
Rating
100% of
Emergency
Rating
100% of
continuous
Rating
Table 2‐3: Buses Voltage (kV) Range in the Red Deer Area (OPP 702) Nominal
Voltage
Minimum
Operating
Limit
Desired
Range
Maximum
Operating
limit
240
242
246 – 256
260
138
138
138 – 144
145
240
240
245 – 256
257
138
138
138 -143
145
240
240
240 – 256
260
Gaetz 87S
138
138
138 – 144
145
Joffre 535S
138
138
138 – 142
142
Substation Name
Benalto 17S
Red Deer 63S
11
2.2
Voltage Stability Methodology
Among the methods for assessing steady-state voltage stability, the most
frequently used are P-V (Real Power-Voltage) and Q-V (Reactive PowerVoltage) analysis. In this study, transmission system steady-state voltage
stability was tested using P-V and Q-V analysis. The objective of P-V and
Q-V analysis is to determine the ability of a power system to maintain
sufficient reactive power margins at all the buses in the system under
normal and abnormal steady state operating conditions. P-V and Q-V
analysis are utilized to:

Ensure system voltage stability under steady state and abnormal
conditions by checking the buses’ voltage collapse points.

Ensure proper sizing of reactive power compensation devices that
deal with slow voltage stability.

Investigate the effects of Nova Joffre cogeneration plant, loads, and
reactive power compensation devices on the transmission network.
P-V analysis is obtained using a series of AC load flow solutions. The P-V
curve represents the bus voltage change as a function of increased power
transfer between two systems; the sending system is called ‘The source’
while the receiving system is called ‘The sink’.
P-V analysis was performed according to the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC) Voltage Stability Assessment Methodology,
as described in more detail in the AESO Transmission Reliability Criteria
that is outlined in Table 2-4. The reference load level is the maximum
established load level. The Red Deer region was considered the sink
system while the Wabamun (Area 40) was considered the source system.
While conducting P-V analysis, the forecasted loads in the Red Deer
region were increased with a corresponding generation increase in the
Wabamun area. P-V curves were generated for Category A conditions and
critical Category B contingencies in the study area. Table 2-4 was utilized
to judge compliance with voltage reliability criteria. The MW margin is
defined as the difference between maximum power transfer corresponding
to voltage level of 0.95 p.u. and the reference load level. The MW margin is
defined to ensure that steady state voltage does not go below 0.95 p.u, the
voltage level deemed necessary for proper operation of motor loads in the
area.
The Q-V curve represents the change in reactive power demand by a bus
or buses as the voltage level changes. Q-V curves are used to determine
the reactive power injection required at a bus in order to vary the bus
voltage to the required value. The curve is obtained through a series of AC
load flow calculations. Starting with the existing reactive loading at a bus,
the voltage at the bus can be computed for a series of power flows as the
reactive load is increased in steps, until the power flow experiences
12
convergence difficulties as the system approaches the voltage collapse
point. Q-V curves are commonly used to identify voltage stability issues
and reactive power margins for specific locations in the power system
under various loading and contingency conditions. The Q-V curves are
also used as a method to size shunt reactive compensation at any
particular bus to maintain the required scheduled voltage.
Q-V analysis was performed according to the Western Electricity
Coordination Council (WECC) methodology for the critical buses in Red
Deer region. A reactive margin is defined as a reactive power
corresponding to 0.95 p.u. voltage. A positive reactive margin indicates
that additional reactive power is needed to maintain the bus voltage above
0.95 p.u.
Table 2‐4: Voltage Stability Criteria Performance
Level
MW Margin
(P-V method)
MVAr Margin
(Q-V method)
A
Any element such as: one generator,
one circuit, one transformer, one
reactive power source, and one DC
monopole
≥ 5%
Worst Case
Scenario 8
B
Bus section
≥ 2.5%
50% of margin
requirement in
Level A
C
D
2.3
Disturbance Initiated by: Fault or No
fault HVDC Disturbance
Any combination of two elements such
as:
A line and a generator, A line and a
reactive power source, Two generators, ≥ 2.5%
Two circuits , Two transformers, Two
reactive power sources
DC bipole
Any combination of three or more
elements, such as: three or more circuit
>0
on ROW, entire substation, entire plant
including switchyard
50% of margin
requirement in
Level A
>0
Monitored Areas
The study areas monitored for voltage and thermal violations during
Category A and Category B contingency analysis are shown in Figure 1-1
and Table 2-5. The contingency list covers single element outage in the
8
The most reactive deficient bus must have adequate reactive power margin for the worst single
contingency to satisfy either of the following conditions, whichever is worst: (i) a 5% increase
beyond maximum forecasted loads or (ii) 5% increase beyond maximum allowable interface flows.
The worst single contingency is the one that causes the largest decrease in the reactive power
margin.
13
monitored areas (see Table 2-5) and also the Edmonton (Area 60) and the
Wabamun (Area 40). All elements in the voltage range (138-500kV) were
considered. In addition to these contingencies, the HVDC contingencies in
2017 were considered.
2.4
Table 2‐5: Summary of Monitored Areas for Load flow Analysis Area Number
Area Name
35
31
38
39
Red Deer
Wetaskiwin
Caroline
Didsbury
Voltage Range
(kV)
138-500
138-500
138-500
138-500
Load Scenarios
In this study, the following load scenarios were considered

2012 Winter Peak Load Condition (2012WP)

2012 Summer Peak Load Condition (2012SP)

2012 Summer Light Load Condition (2012SL)

2012 Summer High SOK Load Condition(2012S-SOK)

2017 Winter Peak Load Condition (2017WP)

2017 Summer Peak Load Condition (2017SP)

2017 Summer Light Load Condition (2017SL)
In addition, the 2012WP and 2017WP cases were studied with Nova Joffre
cogeneration plant out of service. For the purpose of assessing long-term
system performance, it was necessary to make assumptions regarding
future load, generation and transmission system developments outside of
the Red Deer region, as described in some detail in sections 2.5 to 2.8.
Table 2-6 presents the assumptions related to Alberta to BC and Alberta to
Saskatchewan (SK) system interchanges. The HVDC line dispatch
assumption for 2017 load scenarios is presented in Table 2-7. In Summer
High SOK load condition, the SOK-240 flow is set to about 2050MW which
is the allowable Total Transfer Capability (TTC) under summer loading
condition as defined in OPP520. Based on these assumptions, the
2012WP, 2012SP, 2012SL, and 2012 High SOK scenarios were utilized to
assess the performance of potential system reinforcement options and to
identify the AESO’s preferred system alternative. The 2017WP, 2017SP,
and 2017SL scenarios were utilized to assess long-term system
performance.
14
Table 2‐6: Assumptions for Import/Export to BC and SK (MW) 2012
2017
SL
SP
WP
High
SOK
SL
SP
WP
Import/Export (BC)
600
0
-150
0
600
0
-150
Import/Export (SK)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: For BC and SK interchange positive amount represents export, while negative sign denotes
import.
Table 2‐7: Assumptions for HVDC Dispatch in 2017 (MW) 2.5
SL
SP
WP
HVDC Genesee to Langdon
500
375
375
HVDC Heartland to W. Brooks
500
500
500
Load Forecast
The 2012 and 2017 load forecasts used in this study are based on Future
Demand and Energy Outlook, 2007-2027 and details are given in Appendix
titled Red Deer Region Load and Generation Forecasts. Table 2-8
summarizes the load forecast modeled in the 2012 and 2017 technical
studies.
The load forecasts for areas 35 and 39 included station service load,
system load, Behind-the-Fence (BTF) load, and motor load.
Table 2‐8: Load Forecast Modeled in Red Deer Region (MW) 2012
SL
2017
SP
WP
SOK
SL
SP
WP
Red Deer 318.9 539
581
321.7
346.1 575.0
653.4
109.1
83
66.3 100.3
114.3
Load (MW)
Didsbury 61.2
95.8
15
2.6
Generation Assumptions
The existing generation within the Red Deer region is located at the JoffreNova complex and consists of a gas fired combined cycle power plant. The
combined cycle plant consists of two gas units and one steam turbine. The
rated capacities of these individual units are listed in Table 2-9. Currently
there are no projects requesting connection in the Red Deer region
(Planning areas 35 and 39).
Table 2‐9: Rated Capacity for Existing Generation in the Red Deer Region Name
Location
Fuel
Type
Nova -Joffre GT1
Nova Chemicals near
Joffre 535S
Nova -Joffre GT2
Nova Chemicals near
Joffre 535S
Nova -Joffre ST2
Nova Chemicals near
Joffre 535S
Total - Existing
Gross
Capacity
(MW)
185
Gas
185
140
510
Generation forecast assumptions are based on Generation Scenario B3
presented in the AESO Long-term Transmission System Plan9. A
description of the generation scenario is included in the Appendix titled
Red Deer Region Load and Generation Forecasts. None of the generation
scenarios forecast additional generation developing in the Red Deer region
in the next ten year. Scenario B3 was chosen for this study as it stresses
the transmission system in the study region. The principal reasons for it are
listed below.
The Red Deer region’s 138kV transmission system is integrated into the
240kV system that runs between the Edmonton and Calgary regions. The
SOK cut plane is a part of this 240kV North –South (N-S) system in Central
Alberta that transfers power from the Wabamun area generation to loads in
Calgary and southern Alberta.
Scenario B3 contains a significant amount of base load generation in the
Wabamun area and North East areas of the province. Increased
generation located North of the Red Deer area (Wabamun and North East
areas) will result in increased flows on the SOK N-S 240kV system. Higher
SOK N-S flows will result in not only higher potential overloads but also
9
The 2009 AESO Long-Term Transmission System Plan can be found on the AESO website at:
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/AESO_LTTSP_Final_July_2009.pdf
16
under voltages on the 138kV system in the Red Deer region under a
number of contingencies. These stress conditions must be addressed in
developing transmission plans. Furthermore, the 240kV system is a major
source of supply to the Joffre area when the local Nova power plant is out
of service. The Red Deer’s regional system must be designed and
developed to maintain the established maximum SOK transfer capability
level.
There is less wind in generation scenario B3 than scenario B5. The impact
of wind generation in the Southern and Hanna regions on the Red Deer
region’s transmission system is relatively modest because a major portion
of it will be consumed in the Calgary, Hanna and the surrounding areas,
and any remaining generation will be shipped to the other areas via the
240kV system. Table 2-10 presents summary of the generation dispatch in
Red Deer, wind power generation dispatch in the southern and Hanna
regions of Alberta.
Table 2‐10: Generation Dispatch (MW) Generation
Dispatch
2012 SL 2012SP
Red Deer area
438
438
510
438
438
438
510
Southern Alberta Wind Power
600
600
600
0
1290
1290
1290
Central Area
Wind Power
( Hanna region)
150
150
150
150
300
300
300
2.7
Nova
2017
2012
2017
2012 SOK
2017 SP
WP
SL
WP
Facility Ratings
Thermal ratings of transmission facilities within the Red Deer region are
presented in Table 2-11 and 2-12.
Table 2‐11: Transmission Line Ratings in the Red Deer Region Line
From Substation
910L
914L
914L
914L
926L/922L
903L/190L
995L
900L
901L
925L/929L
Ellerslie 89S
Ellerslie 89S
Bigstone 86S
Gaetz 87S
Sundance 821S
Keephills 868S
Amoco W. G. 68S
Benalto 17S
Red Deer 63S
Red Deer 63S
To Substation
Red Deer 63S
Bigstone 86S
Gaetz 87S
Red Deer 63S
Benalto 17S
Benalto 17S
Benalto 17S
Red Deer 63S
Crossfield 64S
Janet 74S
Voltage
(kV)
Summer
(MVA)
Winter
(MVA)
Emergency
(MVA)
240kV
240kV
240kV
240kV
240kV
240kV
240kV
240kV
240kV
240kV
466
481
499
499
466
466
466
584
408
481
499
499
499
499
499
499
499
705
494
499
599
599
599
599
499
499
499
776
494
599
17
Line
912L
906L/928L
918L
716L
80L
From Substation
Red Deer 63S
Benalto 17S
Benalto 17S
Wetaskiwin 40S
Ponoka 331S
883L
80AL
Ponoka 331S
W. Lacombe 958S
80L
80L
W. Lacombe 958S
Blackfalds 198S
80L
778L/768L
80L
717L
N. Red Deer 217S
N. Red Deer 217S
S. Red Deer 194S
Red Deer 63S
717L
755L
755L
759L
793L/956L
774L
784AL
784L
775L
889L
757L
Sylvan Lake. 580S
Red Deer 63S
Piper Creek 247S
Gaetz 87S
Gaetz 87S
UC Prentiss 276S
Ellis 332S
Haynes TAP
UC Prentiss 276S
Joffre 535S
Benalto 17S Via
758L JNC
Eckville 534S
Rocky M.H. 262S
Benalto 17S
758L
717L
848L
80L
80L
80L
80L
189L
80L
166L
166L
166AL
719L
Red Deer 63S
Innisfail 214S
Olds 55S
Didsbury 152S
Madden TAP
Madden TAP
Didsbury 152S
166L JNC
166L JNC
Harmattan 256S
To Substation
Nevis 766S
Sarcee 42S
Beddington 162S
Ponoka 331S
W. Lacombe
958S
Nelson L. 429S
N.E. Lacombe
212S
Blackfalds 198S
N. Red Deer
217S
S. Red Deer 194S
Gaetz 87S
Red Deer 63S
Sylvan Lake.
580S
Benalto 17S
Piper Creek 247S
Joffre 535S
UC Prentiss 276S
Joffre 535S
Ellis 332S
Haynes TAP
Joffre 535S
Joffre 535S
Brookfield 536S
Rimbey 297S
758L JNC
Benalto 17S
Schrader Cr.
531S
Innisfail 214S
Olds 55S
Didsbury 152S
Madden TAP
Madden 373S
Ghost Plant 20S
166L JNC
Harmattan 256S
Shell H. 238S
Eagle TAP
Voltage
(kV)
Summer
(MVA)
Winter
(MVA)
Emergency
(MVA)
240kV
240kV
240kV
138kV
138kV
499
449
417
122
122
549
499
499
147
147
549
499
499
162
162
138kV
138kV
96
75
96
79
150
87
138kV
138kV
112
122
135
147
135
162
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
121
180
174
128
143
220
215
165
157
264
237
182
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
128
120
120
154
154
154
154
154
154
125
85
165
147
147
190
190
190
190
190
190
152
90
182
162
162
209
209
209
209
209
209
167
99
138kV
138kV
138kV
85
112
174
90
135
215
99
149
237
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
138kV
172
122
122
122
75
122
81
78
85
120
172
147
143
143
79
143
122
120
90
143
189
162
157
157
87
157
134
132
99
157
18
Table 2‐12: Transformer Ratings in Red Deer Region Transformer
Location
HV / LV
(kV)
Summer
(MVA)
Winter
(MVA)
T1/T2
T1/T2
Gaetz 87S
Red Deer 63S
240/138
240/138
200
200
200
200
T2
Benalto 17S
240/138
200
200
HV: High voltage; LV Low Voltage
2.8
Transmission Assumptions
The system model used for this study included the following bulk system
additions for the years indicated. These assumptions are consistent with
AESO long term plans, recently approved NIDs for South Area
Transmission Reinforcement (SATR), Hanna Region Transmission
Development (HRTD), and Central East Transmission Development
(CETD).
2.8.1
Bulk System Assumptions
Bulk System by 2012








240kV line from Brintnell to Wesley Creek;
New 240kV line to the Thickwood substation;
New Cache Creek substation located between Ruth Lake
and Kinosis substations;
240kV line from the Thickwood substation to Cache Creek;
240kV 600MVA phase shifting transformer at Keephills;
Reconfiguration of 946L/947L resulting in one 240kV line
from Ellerslie to Clover Bar and one 240kV line from Ellerslie
to East Edmonton;
240kV double circuit line from Ellerslie to the new Eastwood
substation; and
De-bottlenecking project:
o New 2x477 Kcmil 240kV lines from Keephills to new 904L –
908L – 909L confluence points;
o 908L (Ellerslie – Sundance) re-termination from its existing
location at Sundance to the new 904L – 908L – 909L
confluence point;
o Swap the connections of 904L (Jasper – Wabamun) and
908L at the confluence point so that the 904L termination at
Wabamun can be moved to Sundance; and
19
o New 240kV 600MVA phase shifting transformer located at
the new Livock substation and on 9L57 (Livock – Dover)
and the new 240kV line to the Fort Murray 240kV
substation.
Bulk System by 2017
New HVDC Lines Developments:


± 500kV, 1000MW, HVDC Monopole line from Genesee to
Langdon with associated static VAr compensators (SVC);
and
± 500kV, 1000MW, HVDC Monopole line from the new
Heartland 500kV substation to the existing 240kV West
Brooks with associated SVCs.
New Substations:


500kV Heartland substation; and
500kV Thickwood substation.
New Transmission Lines:


2.8.2
500kV AC line from Ellerslie to Thickwood via Heartland; and
500kV AC line from Ellerslie to Heartland.
Hanna Region System Assumptions
The following assumptions include upgrades and/or additions that are
proposed to be in place by 2012 and 2017 in the Hanna region:
System Reinforcements by 2012:







Single circuit 240kV line from Hansman Lake 650S to a new
substation Pemukan 932S;
Single circuit 240kV line from Pemukan 932S to a new
substation Lanfine 959S;
First 240kV line from Oakland 946S to Lanfine 959S;
Double circuit 240kV line from Anderson 801S to Oakland
switching station 946S;
Split 240kV line 953L mid-way between Cordel 755S and
Hansman Lake 650S and build a 240kV line using in and out
configuration at a new 240/138kV substation Nilrem 574S
(Nilrem 138kV bus will be tied to the newly added Tucuman
478S);
(-100/200MVAr) SVC at Hansman Lake 650S, and (100/200MVAr) SVC at Lanfine 959S.
New 240kV line between Ware Junction 132S and West
Brooks 28S;
20


New 240/144kV collector substation Coyote Lake 963S in the
Hand Hills area; and
New 240kV line (9L29) between Coyote Lake 963S and
Oakland 946S on double circuit structures with single side
strung.
System Reinforcements by 2017:









2.8.3
Second 240kV line from Oakland 946S to Lanfine 959S;
Second 240/138kV tie transformer at Hansman Lake 650S;
2x27MVAr 138kV capacitor banks at new Nilrem 574S;
2x36MVAr 240kV capacitor banks at Hansman Lake 650S;
27MVAr 138kV capacitor bank at Hansman Lake 650S;
27MVAr 138kV capacitor bank at Metiskow 648S; and
( -100/200 MVAr)SVC at Pemukan 932S.
Second side strung on planned D/C towers (9L31 240kV line)
between Coyote Lake 963S and Oakland 946S; and
New 240kV line between Halkirk switching station 401S and
Cordel 755S.
Central East Region System Assumptions
System Reinforcement by 2012

Conversion of existing 72kV St. Paul and Willingdon to 144
kV Substations
 Cold Lake Area Reinforcements
o A new 240kV switching station designated Bourque 970S
o A new double circuit 144kV line (< 2 km) from Bourque
970S to Mahihkan 837S
o A new double circuit 240kV line (approximately 50 km in
length) from Bourque 970S to Bonnyville 700S,
o Re-build the single circuit 144kV line 7L87
o Re-build the single circuit 144kV line 7L74
o Re-build the single circuit 144kV line 7L83
 Provost & Lloydminster Areas Line Rebuilds
o Rebuild the single circuit 144kV line 7L749 from Edgerton
899S to Lloydminster 716S
o Build a new single circuit 138kV line (approximately 30 km
in length) from Provost 545S to Hayter 277S
o Rebuild the single circuit 138kV line 748L from Hayter 277S
to Killarney Lake 267S
o Rebuild the single circuit 138kV line 715L from Hansman
Lake 650S to Provost 545S
o Rebuild the single circuit 138kV line 715L from Metiskow
648S to Edgerton 899S
21

Wainwright Area Upgrades
o Build a new single circuit 138kV line (approximately 40 km
in length) on the existing 69kV line right-of-way from
Wainwright 51S to Edgerton 899S
o Rebuild the single circuit 138kV lines 704L and 704AL
between Wainwright 51S, Tucuman 478S and Jarrow 252S
 Line Clearance Mitigations 7L14, 7L701, and 7L53
 Battler River & Lloydminster Areas Reinforcements
 25MVAr capacitor bank at Vermilion 710S.
System Reinforcement by 2017


2.8.4
Rebuild 7L50 using 1x477 Kcmil ACSR and single circuit
construction from Battle River 757S to Buffalo Creek 526S
Build a new double circuit 240kV line (with one circuit strung
initially) from Bourque 970S to Marguerite Lake 826S using
2x795 Kcmil ACSR conductors per phase. This line will be
initially operated at 144kV.
Southern Alberta Transmission Reinforcements (SATR)
The following assumptions include upgrades and/or additions that are
expected to be in place by 2012 and 2017 in southern Alberta:
System Reinforcements by 2012:









Replace the existing 240kV 911L (Langdon 102S to Peigan
59S) by Calgary South–Peigan 240kV double circuit
transmission line with 50% series compensation;
New 150 (2x-75MVAr) shunt reactor at Peigan 59S;
Milo Junction upgrade to Switching Station to tie in 924L,
927L, 923L and 933L;
New 120MVA Phase Shifting Transformer on 170L Coleman
to Natal;
New 240kV substation Whitla 251S (Sub D) close to the
Burdette substation;
New 240/138kV Medicine Hat 2 substation;
Whitla 251S (Sub D) – Medicine Hat2 240kV double circuit
transmission line;
New 240kV double circuit line from West Brooks to the new
Whitla 251S (Sub D) substation; and
Medicine Hat 138kV changes/upgrades.
22
System Reinforcements by 2017:





2.9
500kV Chapel Rock 491S substation located on the existing
500kV 1201L with two 500/240kV 1200MVA transformers
and one 240kV 400MVAr SVC;
240kV double circuit transmission line from Chapel Rock
491S to Goose Lake;
240kV single circuit transmission line from Goose Lake to
Journault 260S (Sub C);
240kV single circuit transmission line from Journault 260S
(Sub C) to MATL substation; and
240kV double circuit transmission line from Journault 260S
(Sub C) to Whitla 251S (Sub D).
System Inter Dependencies
The Red Deer Region development is mainly intended to address local
system constraints and hence it is classified as a local development. Its
development is not dependent upon other projects. However, customers
like the City of Red Deer and Joffre area depend upon the implementation
of this project.
23
3.0
Existing System Assessment
The AESO carried out power flow analysis for the existing system (i.e., without
any system reinforcements in the region) to assess whether the system can
supply forecasted demand in the year 2012 in accordance with Reliability Criteria
requirements. Three load conditions, namely, 2009 Winter Peak (2009WP), 2012
Winter Peak (2012WP) and 2012 Summer High SOK flow cases were studied to
assess load supply adequacy, and impact of High SOK flows on the existing
system. Category B contingencies, including N-G-1, were investigated. For this
analysis, Nova Joffre cogeneration plant was taken out of service during 2012WP
condition. A list of key contingencies is presented in Attachment A.
The following sections provide a description of the study region and discussion of
need assessment results. A set of representative power flow plots that show
reliability criteria violations is included in Attachment A.
3.1
Power Flow Analysis
3.1.1
Load Supply Adequacy
Load supply adequacy scenario investigates the ability of the
transmission system to meet expected load growth in the Red Deer
region. Load supply adequacy was investigated using both 2009WP and
2012WP load scenarios. The analysis showed that the system
sustained low voltage profile around Blackfalds, Innisfail and Didsbury
areas under certain Category B contingencies. When Nova Joffre
cogeneration power plant is out of service, Joffre loads are supplied by
the generation outside the Red Deer region and the Joffre area loses a
local source for reactive power support. The voltage support in the
Joffre area becomes the main concern in such conditions and hence
affects the Joffre inflow limits. The analysis showed that the voltage
level in the Joffre area is lower than the minimum operating voltage
stipulated in OPP 70210. Furthermore, the voltages during 2012WP
conditions deteriorated compared to already low voltage levels observed
in the 2009WP case due to load growth in the area.
In addition to voltage criteria violations, the following transmission
elements are overloaded under a number of contingencies:
 240/138kV autotransformer at Benalto 17S;
 138kV 80L line (N. Red Deer 217S through S. Red Deer 194S to
Red Deer 63S);
10
OPP 702 Voltage Control Procedure can be found on the AESO website.
24
 138kV 755L line (Red Deer 63S to Piper Creek 247S);
 138kV 756L/793L line (Gaetz 87S to N. Red Deer 217S); and
 240/138kV autotransformer at Gaetz 87S and Red Deer 63S.
3.1.2
High SOK Cut Plane Flows
In Alberta, a large part of the provincial load is located in southern
Alberta, including the City of Calgary, yet the mass of coal generation is
situated in northern Alberta, Edmonton area. As a result, a significant
amount of power has to be transferred via the north-south 240kV
transmission path (SOK cut plane) between Edmonton and Calgary.
Transmission system thermal overloads during high SOK flow conditions
were investigated using 2012 Summer High SOK flow scenario. The
following transmission lines are overloaded under a number of critical
Category B Contingencies:
 138kV 80L (N. Red Deer 217S through S. Red Deer 194S to Red
Deer 63S);
 138kV 80L (Innisfail 214S to Olds 55S);
 138kV 755L (Joffre 535S to Piper Creek 247S) ; and
 138kV 717L (Sylvan Lake 580S to Red Deer 63S).
3.2
Voltage Stability Analysis
Voltage stability analysis (both P-V and Q-V) was performed using the
2012WP scenario with Nova Joffre cogeneration plant out of service, to
determine the system reactive margin and maximum operation load limits
before the voltage drops below 0.95 p.u. following contingency conditions.
The summary of P-V analysis for the existing system is presented in
Attachment A. The P-V analysis reveals that the system does not have
sufficient capability to transfer additional power to the Red Deer and Joffre
areas. Any incremental change in real power transfer will cause the voltage
to drastically drop below 0.95p.u. Such low voltage will affect motor load
operation in this area.
Similar conclusion can be drawn from Q-V analysis which is presented in
Attachment A. The positive reactive power margin observed at Joffre
535S, Ellis 332S, Blackfalds 198S, and Innisfail 214S substations suggest
deficiency in reactive power. Hence suitable measures must be taken to
25
provide reactive power support to improve the voltage profile in the Joffre
area, in and around Blackfalds and Innisfail areas along the 138kV 80L.
3.3
Transfer Capability Analysis
Transfer capability is a measure of the ability of the transmission system to
reliably transfer electric power from one area (the source) to another area
(the sink) by the way of all transmission lines between those areas under
specific system condition.
First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) is used to
evaluate the transfer capability. FCITC is defined as the amount of electric
power, incremental above normal base power transfers that can be
transferred over the interconnected transmission systems in a reliable
manner. A negative FCITC indicates that the system has no room for
additional transfer following first contingency. The transfer out analysis for
2012WP, 2012SP, 2012SL, and 2012S-SOK load conditions were
conducted based on the following assumptions:

The generation source is Wabamun ( Area 40);

Calgary is the sink;

All the AIES facilities within the Red Deer region were monitored;
and

Category B contingencies for all the AIES facilities within the Red
Deer region and tie lines in the region were examined.
Table 3-1 presents a summary for the FCITC for the existing system. As
depicted in Table 3-1, the following transmission elements located in the
Red Deer region will limit the transfer capability between North and South
Systems.

240/138kV Transformer T2 at Benalto 17S

138kV 80L(Innisfail 214S to Olds 55S)

138kV 80L(N. Red Deer 217S to S. Red Deer 194S)

138kV 755L (Joffre 535S to Piper Creek 247S)
The negative values shown in Table 3-1 indicate that the system has no
capability to transfer any incremental power since there are already limiting
transmission elements that are overloaded under normal conditions.
26
Table 3‐1: First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for the Existing System Case
FCITC
(MW)
-391
2012WP
830
1193
-10
2012SP
36
207
-295
2012SL
-23
285
-5881
2012SSOK
-4565
-1002
3.4
Limiting Element (Red Deer
Region)
240/138kV Transformer T2 at
Benalto 17S
240kV 900L(Red Deer 63S to
Benalto 17S)
138kV 80L(Red Deer 63S to
Innisfail 214S)
138kV 80L(Innisfail 214S to
Olds 55S)
240/138kV Transformer T2 at
Benalto 17S
138kV 778L(Gaetz 87S to
787LSKP1)
138kV 80L(N. Red Deer 217S
to S. Red Deer 194S)
138kV 778L(Gaetz 87S to
787LSKP1)
138kV 80L(Red Deer 63S to
Innisfail 214S)
138kV 778L(Gaetz 87S to
787LSKP1)
138kV 755L(Piper Creek 247S
to Joffre 535S)
138kV 80L(N. Red Deer 217S
to S. Red Deer 194S)
Contingency
240kV 900L(Red Deer 63S to Benalto
17S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to Beddington
162S)
138kV 719L (Sundre 575S to Shell
Caroline 378S)
138kV 719L (Sundre 575S to Shell
Caroline 378S)
240kV 900L(Red Deer 63S to Benalto
17S)
240kV 914L(Gaetz 87S to Red Deer
63S)
240kV 914L(Gaetz 87S to Red Deer
63S)
240kV 914L(Gaetz 87S to Red Deer
63S)
138kV 719L (Sundre 575S to Shell
Caroline 378S)
138kV 755L(Piper Creek 247S to Joffre
535S)
138kV 778L(Gaetz 87S to 787LSKP1)
138kV 755L(Piper Creek 247S to Joffre
535S)
Short Circuit Analysis
Short circuit analysis was performed on the 2012WP load scenario to
determine the fault levels in the existing system. Both three phase and
single phase to ground fault currents were calculated for substations in the
Red Deer region. The results of the short circuit analysis are presented in
Attachment A.11
3.5
Existing System Need Assessment Summary
The detailed analysis of the existing system as described in the above
subsections (see 3.1 to 3.4) led to the following conclusions:
11
Short circuit current calculation is based on modeling information provided to the AESO by third parties.
Short circuit estimation is subject to change. The information provided in this study is not intended to be
used as the sole source of information for electrical equipment specification and the design of public or
worker safety-grounding systems.
27

The existing 138kV transmission system in the Red Deer region
is near its capacity and will not be able to reliably supply
forecasted load to customers without reinforcements;

The Joffre area would continue to be subjected to operational
measures (OPP 502) under certain contingencies if the
transmission system is not reinforced;

The portion of the existing 138kV 80L that traverses the Red
Deer region is subject to severe thermal overloads under a
number of credible contingency conditions;

The Blackfalds, Innisfail and Didsbury areas require reactive
power support to maintain normal voltages under Category B
conditions; and

Reactive power support is also required under both Category A
and Category B events in the Joffre area when Nova Joffre
cogeneration plant is out of service.
To address the above identified transmission system needs within the Red
Deer region, the AESO identified potential alternatives to relieve the
transmission constraints and screened them down to two technically viable
alternatives that were studied in detail. Attachment C contains description
of these alternatives for the Red Deer region.
28
4.0
Development of System Reinforcement Options
The need for reinforcements in the Red Deer region has been established in
Section 3. The next steps are to examine available transmission technologies and
determine their suitability of implementation in the Red Deer region, formulate a
set of study alternatives using suitable transmission technologies, screen the
preliminary alternatives and determine an appropriate and manageable set of
alternatives which can be studied further.
4.1
Transmission Technology Options Screening
The potential options for the Red Deer region transmission development
include:
 Developing new transmission lines
 Upgrading and/or rebuilding existing transmission lines
 Conversion of existing 138kV transmission to 240kV system
 Building new transmission substations and associated facilities
 Providing reactive power support
 Consideration of operational measures
The following subsections discuss potential transmission options for the
Red Deer region.
4.1.1
New Transmission Lines
Building new transmission lines is one of the viable transmission
options to solve thermal overload and voltage range violation problems
provided that right-of-ways are available to accommodate these new
transmission lines. Power systems around the globe use a variety of
transmission technology options to meet their needs. These include
Extra High Voltage 765kV, 500kV Alternating Current (AC) & High
Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technologies in addition to 240kV and
138/144kV voltage levels. In Alberta, both 500kV AC and HVDC
technologies are being considered as potential options for development
of the bulk system.
The 765kV, 500kV AC and HVDC technologies are well suited to
situations where large quantities of power need to be transported over
long distances. Since the amount of power transfers and the
transmission distances in the Red Deer region are far below the typical
levels used for such options, these technologies are not suitable for the
29
Red Deer region transmission plan. Therefore, these options will not be
pursued any further, leaving only lower voltage level options (i.e.,
240kV and 138kV lines).
The transmission system in the Red Deer region primarily consists of
138kV AC transmission lines with three 240/138kV substations at
Benalto 17S, Red Deer 63S and Gaetz 87S. Therefore, these two
voltages form a prudent choice for new transmission lines in this area.
When considering new transmission lines, single-circuit as well as
double circuit designs will be explored as potential options for the area.
Candidate new transmission lines include:

New 240kV line between Joffre 535S and Red Deer 63S to
replace existing 138kV line; and

New 138kV line between Ellis 332S to N.E. Lacombe 212S.
Transmission Line Upgrades and Rebuild12
4.1.2
Transmission line upgrade and/or rebuild options helps mitigate
thermal overloads on certain lines in the Red Deer region that were
identified in the Need Assessment. This option is valid for the existing
transmission lines and potentially avoids the need for acquiring new
rights-of-way. However, a temporary right of way maybe necessary
during the construction phase.
The following 138kV lines are candidates for the transmission line
upgrades

The following sections of 80L
o
80L ( S. Red Deer 194S to N. Red Deer 217S);
o
80L ( S. Red Deer 194S to Red Deer 63S);
o
80L ( Blackfalds 198S to W. Lacombe 958S);
o
80L ( Blackfalds 198S to N. Red Deer 217S);
o
80AL ( N.E. Lacombe 212S to W. Lacombe 958S);
12
The AESO uses the term “rebuild” in this Application as part of the identification of transmission
system developments required to address an identified need. The term “rebuild” means that an
existing connection between two points will be modified in some manner. The needs identification
documents do not identify locations of proposed facilities. The legal owner of transmission
facilities will identify in its facility application(s) proposed locations for facilities to be rebuilt, which
may be in existing locations or in new locations.
30

716L (Wetaskiwin 40S to Ponoka 331S);

717L (Red Deer 63S through Sylvan Lake 580S to Benalto 17S);
755L (Red Deer 63S through Piper Creek 247S to Joffre
535S);and

166L (Didsbury 152S to Harmattan 256S)
4.1.3
Voltage Up-Rating
Voltage up-rating from 138kV to 240kV can increase the capacity of
the transmission line under consideration by the ratio of the two
voltage level. Up-rating of existing 138kV transmission circuit requires
adding transformation capacity at both ends of the line and detailed
assessment of the existing transmission line under consideration. The
voltage up-rating from 138kV to 240kV may require completely
rebuilding the line. The following lines are candidates for voltage upratings

755L(Red Deer 63S through Piper Creek 247S to Joffre 535S)

717L (Red Deer 63S through Sylvan Lake 580S to Benalto 17S)
4.1.4
Build New Transmission Substations and Upgrade
Existing Stations
The Red Deer region is supplied from three 240/138kV substations,
namely, Benalto 17S, Red Deer 63S, and Gaetz 87S. Due to load
growth, addition of transformation capacity is required to alleviate
thermal overloads and provide voltage support in the region as outlined
in the Need Assessment stage. Voltage profile and thermal overloads
along 80L that traverses the Red Deer region can be improved by
building a number of new 240/138kV transmission substations along
with associated facilities. These proposed transmission substations will
add additional ties between the 240kV and the local 138kV system.
Application of this transmission option can minimize the required
upgrades on 80L lines. The following locations are potential candidates
for upgrading existing 138kV substations and building new 240/138kV
substations: Ponoka 331S, Blackfalds 198S, Innisfail 214S, Benalto
17S, N.E. Lacombe 212S, Olds 55S, and Didsbury 152S.
4.1.5
Provide Reactive Power Support Equipment
The Need Assessment has identified that reactive power support is
required for the Joffre area as well as other locations along 80L line
around Innisfail 214S, Blackfalds 198S and Didsbury 152S under a
number of contingencies. The required reactive power support can be
31
supplied by a variety of VAr supply device(s) such as shunt capacitors
and Static VAr compensators (SVCs). Potential locations for VAr
support devices include the following locations: Gaetz 87S; Joffre
535S; UC Prentiss 276S; Ellis 332S; Innisfail 214S and Didsbury 152S.
4.1.6
Consideration of Operational Measures
Operational measures are considered when AESO Transmission
Reliability Criteria are violated under Category C contingencies and
also under certain special circumstances. Under these contingencies,
Remedial Action Schemes will be developed to manage these
contingencies. These schemes may include operational measures
such as shedding of non firm loads; generation re dispatch and/or
curtailment, network reconfiguration and a suitable combination of
these are employed.
4.2
Formulation and Screening of Red Deer Alternatives
This section presents the analysis conducted during phase 2 of the
planning process which involves development and screening of
alternatives for further evaluation based on detailed technical, economic
and social impacts considerations.
Throughout the course of formulating these alternatives, AltaLink played an
active role and provided their comments and suggestions. In addition, the
Hanna region, SATR, and Central East developments have been fully
integrated into this region to maximize their combined effect on the overall
system. The following subsections identify possible alternative solutions
that could address each of the constraints identified in Section 3. The
formulation of study alternatives consisted of combining a variety of
technology options outlined in Section 4.1. The proposed alternatives will
help resolve system performance issues that have been already identified
and aim to achieve the following:





Identify reinforcements that will meet load supply adequacy
requirements up to 2017;
Provide adequate reactive power support to the area and identify
type of VAr support devices and their locations for mitigating
existing voltage issues (e.g. voltage violations in the Joffre area
when Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is out of service);
Eliminate the OPP 502 and provide sufficient Total Transfer
Capability in and out of the Joffre area;
Ensure proper operation of the system under high SOK power flow
conditions; and
Ensure adequacy of operational measures to handle critical system
contingencies.
32
Three alternatives were developed and then were reduced to two based on
high level technical analysis, engineering judgment and consideration of
rights-of-way. The three alternatives have common developments that
meet load supply adequacy requirements but represent three different
approaches to address the need to reinforce multiple sections of 80L that
experience thermal overloads under high SOK conditions.

Alternative 1 proposes upgrading the 80L sections to alleviate the
overload on those sections.

Alternative 2 proposes adding two new 240/138kV substations at
Ponoka and Innisfail areas and salvaging 80L line sections (Ponoka
331S to W. Lacombe 958S) and (Red Deer 63S to Innisfail 214S)
and Salvaging 716L (Wetaskiwin 40S to Ponoka 331S).

Alternative 3 proposes a new double circuit line between Gaetz 87S
and Piper Creek 247S and circuit reconfiguration of the existing
lines to form two separate 138kV loops one is for feeding the Joffre
area and the other one is for feeding the City of Red Deer.
4.2.1
Common Set of Transmission System Development
This section highlights the common set of transmission system
development for all three study alternatives. The ensuing three
sections present details on the three proposed alternatives, which
differ mainly in handling upgrades required for 80L line and how to
manage Joffre inflow and outflow limitations. The common
transmission elements required for the Red Deer region is shown in
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1. The following transmission reinforcements
are required to meet supply load adequacy:
1. The 138kV 768/778L is a double circuit (D/C) line but the ends
of these lines are tied together to make it as a single line.
Consequently, the end section of line gets overloaded under
several contingencies and thus limits the capacity of the double
circuit line. The line could be restored to its original D/C status
by splitting the end sections and terminating each line on an
individual breaker. This will enable the Nova Joffre cogeneration
plant to operate at full output. This development is required as
soon as possible, since this is a current operating problem being
managed under OPP 502.
2. A new substation (240/138kV) at Didsbury is required to provide
local voltage support to Didsbury and surrounding area loads.
The station will tie into the 240kV network via in/out
arrangement with 918L. The existing 138kV Didsbury substation
33
152S and associated infrastructure will be salvaged. The new
substation’s 138kV bus will be connected to the existing 80L
sections going to Olds 55S and Ghost 20S13, and the 166L to
Harmattan 256S.
3. A new transmission line from Ellis 332S to N.E. Lacombe 212S
will provide voltage support to the Blackfalds area loads under
the loss of 80L segment Blackfalds 198S to N. Red Deer 217S.
4. Rebuild 80L (S. Red Deer 194S to N. Red Deer 217S). The
capacity of 80L line segment is thermally limited (121/143MVA)
and needs to be upgraded to meet the future load growth.
5. Rebuild 166L (new Didsbury substation to Harmattan 256S):
This line has limited capacity and needs to be upgraded to
eliminate thermal overloads associated with load growth in this
area.
The following transmission reinforcements are required to meet load
supply adequacy when Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is out of
service:
1. A second Transformer at Benalto 17S will help mitigate thermal
overload on the existing transformer at Benalto 17S under
certain Category B contingencies including the loss of 900L.
2. Shunt capacitor banks at Joffre 535S, UC Prentiss 276S and
Ellis 332S will provide reactive power support when Nova
Joffre plant is out of service and also to compensate for
additional MVAr losses caused by higher MW import from the
system to the Joffre area.
3. Rebuild the existing 138kV 717L line (Red Deer 63S through
Sylvan Lake 580S to Benalto 17S) will address the 717L thermal
overload encountered under the loss of 240kV 900L.
13
The 80L sections: New Didsbury to Olds 55S and New Didsbury to Ghost 20S to be
renumbered as 417L and 418L respectively.
34
Figure 4‐1: Schematic of the Common Set of Transmission System Developments 35
Table 4‐1: List of the Common Set of Transmission System Developments Name
Voltage
kV
Capacity
(MVA)
Transmission
Option
Required
Year
Load Supply Adequacy Requirements
1
768L/778L split and
add circuit breakers to
North Red Deer 217S
and Gaetz 87S
2
Didsbury 240kV
transformer
3
138
180/220
Rebuild
ASAP
138/240
200MVA
New
2012
New 138kV
transmission line
(N.E. Lacombe 212 to
Ellis 332)
138
252/314
New
2012
4
Rebuild 80L line ( S.
Red Deer 194S to N.
Red Deer 217S)
138
350/450
Rebuild
2012
5
Rebuild 166L Line
from new Didsbury
substation to
Harmattan 256S
138
252/314
Rebuild
2017
Load Supply Adequacy- When Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is out of service
1
2nd autotransformer
at Benalto 17S
138/240
2.a
Joffre 535S – add 50
MVAr capacitor bank
138
2.b
UC Prentiss 276S –
add 50MVAr capacitor
bank
2.c
3
200MVA
New
2012
N/A
New
2012
138
N/A
New
2012
Ellis 332S – add 25
MVAr capacitor bank
138
N/A
New
2012
Rebuild 717L line(Red
Deer 63S through
Sylvan Lake 580S to
Benalto 17S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
36
4.2.2
Alternative 1 Development (80L Alternative)
As discussed in Section 3, the 80L line which traverses the Red Deer
region from north to south needs major upgrades to ensure reliable
performance under load supply adequacy and high SOK conditions.
Alternative 1 proposes the following developments:

Rebuild most sections of the existing 138kV 80L as well as 716L
to avoid thermal overloads during High SOK flow conditions,
and

Rebuild 755L (Red Deer 63S through Piper Creek 247S to
Joffre 535S) to higher capacity. The benefits of this line upgrade
are: provide extra transfer capability between the Joffre and
Red Deer areas which will help alleviate flow limitation of the
Joffre area.
Table 4.2 lists the detailed upgrades required for Alternative 1
excluding common set of transmission development presented in
Table 4-1. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 depict the transmission network
structure following the implementation of Alternative 1.
37
Table 4‐2: 2012 List of Alternative 1 Development Excluding Common Set of Transmission System Developments Name
14
Voltage
kV
Capacity
(MVA)14
Transmission
Option
Operating
Year
1
Rebuild 80L( Blackfalds
198S to W. Lacombe
958S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
2
Rebuild 80L(Blackfalds
198S to N. Red Deer
217S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
3
Rebuild 80L(Ponoka
331S to W. Lacombe
958S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
4
Rebuild 80L( Red Deer
63S through Innisfail
214S to Olds 55S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
6
Rebuild 80L( S. Red
Deer 194S to Red Deer
63S)
138
350/450
Rebuild
2012
7
Rebuild 716L
(Wetaskiwin 40S to
Ponoka 331S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
8
Rebuild 80AL( N.E.
Lacombe 212S to W.
Lacombe 958S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
9
Rebuild 755L( Red
Deer 63S through Piper
Creek 247S to Joffre
535S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
Expressed in the following format (Summer/Winter) rating
38
Figure 4‐2: Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrades‐ Alternative1 39
Figure 4‐3: Map of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrades‐ Alternative 115 15
This map shows the general areas where the AESO has identified the need for potential
transmission system developments. This map does not identify actual line routes and substation
locations. Line routes and substation locations will be determined when specific facility proposals
are prepared.
40
4.2.3
Development of Alternative 2 (Hybrid Alternative)
Discussion with AltaLink revealed that rebuilding of major portion of
80L is beset with a number of challenges which include acquiring new
right-of- ways since this line was built on cross country and difficulty of
scheduling line outages during construction period in a timely manner.
To minimize the required upgrades for 80L, a number of 240/138kV
transformer stations along 80L line path were considered. The AESO
carried out an optimization study to identify the suitable number and
locations of 240/138kV substations to minimize the upgrades to 80L.
These optimization studies showed that the addition of two (2)
240/138kV substations, at Ponoka and Innisfail, would be adequate to
serve the long–term needs of these areas. Furthermore, the 80L
sections from Ponoka 331S to W. Lacombe 958S and Red Deer 63S
to Innisfail 214S could be salvaged as they are no longer needed for
transmission purposes.
Additional Substations
Two new (240/138kV) substations are required at Ponoka 331S and
Innisfail 214S. The new substations will not only provide support to
boost voltage profile in and around the Ponoka and Innisfail areas but
more importantly enable them to serve the load growth over the long –
term because they are directly tied to the bulk supply system.
Salvage of Transmission Lines16
The addition of the above two 240/138kV substations will allow salvage
of the following 80L/716L line sections which total to approximately 100
km of line as follows:

716L (Wetaskiwin 40S to Ponoka 331S),

80L (Ponoka 331S to W. Lacombe 958S), and

80L (Red Deer 63S to Innisfail 214S).
80L Upgrades
The following 80L upgrades are required to avoid thermal overloads
under high SOK flow conditions

Rebuild 80L( S. Red Deer 194S to Red Deer 63S)
16
The AESO uses the term “salvage” in this document to mean that an existing transmission
facility is no longer required for the transmission system and that its operation will be
discontinued. The subsequent use of "salvaged" facilities and existing rights-of-way will be
determined by the legal owner of transmission facilities when preparing their facility
proposal(s), which will be filed with the Commission for approval.
41
It should be noted that only a short segment of 80L is to be upgraded
compared to almost entire 80L in Alternative 1.
755L Upgrade
Rebuild 755L (Red Deer 63S through Piper Creek 247S to Joffre
535S) to higher capacity. The benefit of this line upgrade is to provide
extra power transfer capability between Joffre and Red Deer areas
which will help alleviate the existing flow limitation of the Joffre area.
Table 4-3 summarizes the proposed development of Alternative 2
excluding common set of transmission development presented in
Table 4-1 and Figures 4-4 and 4-5 depict the transmission network
structure following the implementation of Alternative 2.
Table 4‐3: List of Reinforcements Excluding Common Set of Transmission System Developments‐ Alternative 2 (Hybird Alternative) 1
2
3
4
Name
Voltage
Level
Capacity
(MVA)
Transmission
Option
Operating
Year
Connect new
Ponoka sub to
240kV 910 L via in
/out configuration
240/138
2x100MVA
new
2012
Connect new
Innisfail sub to
240kV 918 L via in
/out configuration
240/138
200MVA
new
2012
Salvage 138kV
716L (Wetaskiwin
40S to Ponoka
331S)
138
NA
Salvage
TBD
Salvage 138kV
80L (Ponoka 331S
to W. Lacombe
958S)
138
NA
Salvage
TBD
138
NA
Salvage
TBD
5
Salvage 80L ( Red
Deer 63S to
Innisfail 214S)
6
Rebuild 138kV
80L( S. Red Deer
194S to Red Deer
63S)
138
350/450
Rebuild
2012
Rebuild 755L( Red
Deer 63S through
Piper Creek 247S
to Joffre 535S)
138
252/314
Rebuild
2012
7
42
Figure 4‐4: Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrade ‐ Alternative 2 43
Figure 4‐5:Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrade ‐
Alternative 217 17
This map shows the general areas where the AESO has identified the need for potential
transmission system developments. This map does not identify actual line routes and substation
locations. Line routes and substation locations will be determined when specific facility proposals
are prepared.
44
4.2.4
Development of Alternative 3 (Double Loop Alternative)
Alternative 3 proposes a new 138kV double circuit line between Gaetz
87S and Piper Creek 247S substations. This helps to create two new
138kV loops as shown in Figure 4-6. To facilitate the double loop, the
80L from Blackfalds will be connected to 768L instead of terminating it
at North Red Deer 217S.
The first loop consists of connecting N. Red Deer 217S to Piper Creek
247S with one of the new circuit of the double circuit lines between
Gaetz 87S via 778L. The second loop is formed by connecting Gaetz
87S via second circuit of the new Double circuit line to Joffre 535S
(note this line no longer passes through Piper Creek 247S). The first
loop is formed to feed the City of Red Deer and the second loop is
formed to feed the Joffre area.
This Alternative was eliminated for the following reasons and hence
will not be pursued further:

New rights-of-way are required between Gaetz 87S and Piper
Creek 247S substations for the proposed 138kV double circuit
transmission line;

The Red Deer and Joffre areas will be separated by the creation
of independent loops that will be fed from the 240 kV Gaetz
substation (see Figure 4-6). This configuration of lines will
degrade the reliability of supply to both areas;

This alternative did not alleviate overload on 80L line and hence
upgrading of 80L is still needed thereby increasing the cost; and

A third transformer at Gaetz 87S is required because of thermal
overload caused by the proposed configuration.
4.2.5
Summary of Screening of Alternatives
Three potential alternatives were formulated and evaluated based
on technical considerations and feasibility. Alternative 3, though
feasible, was eliminated because of need for new right-of ways, the
need for additional equipment which could drive up costs, and the
degradation of reliability in both the Red Deer and Joffre areas.
Hence only Alternatives 1 and 2 will be studied in detail to
determine their relative technical performance for use in selecting a
final one.
45
Figure 4‐6: Schematic of Red Deer Region Transmission System Upgrade ‐ Alternative 3 46
5.0
Transmission Alternatives- Near Term
Assessment (2012)
This section summarizes the results of the detailed technical studies carried out
to evaluate the relative performance of Alternatives 1 and 2 for meeting the
projected load growth over the planning period 2008-2017.
5.1
Power Flow Analysis (2012)
Power flow analysis for Alternatives 1 and 2 was carried out for 2012 under
winter peak, summer peak, summer light, high summer SOK flow
conditions. Generation Scenario B3 along with the existing generation was
modeled in these power flow analyses. A total of 37 Category B
contingencies for Alternative 1 and 39 Category B contingencies for
Alternative 2 were simulated to evaluate the system performance. Nova
Joffre cogeneration plant was identified as the critical generating station in
the area for the purposes of the load supply adequacy study as it is the
only generation station within the Red Deer region. With the Red Deer
region reinforcements in-service by 2012, the loads in the Joffre area will
be supplied from power plants in the Wabamun and Drayton areas via
928/922L, 903/190L, 910L, 914L, 900L and 995L respectively when the
Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is out of service.
Attachment D presents power flow plots for the load flow studies carried
out for Category A and B, in 2012 for Alternatives 1 and 2. These power
flow plots have been identified by the study year and contingency. A
summary table outlining the power flow plots is also included.
Simulation results reveal that the two alternatives satisfy voltage range and
deviation requirements without any thermal overloads for both Category A
and B contingencies. Thus the proposed alternatives meet the Reliability
Criteria for 2012 forecast load as shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5‐1: Power Flow Analysis Results – 2012 Alternative
Thermal Loading
Violations
Voltage Range
Violations
Alternative 1
None
None
Alternative 2
None
None
47
5.1.1
System Performance under Category C and D
Contingency Events
The system performance for the recommended plan (Alternative 2)
was tested using power flow analysis for a selected number of
Category C and D contingencies.
The power flow plots for Category C and D contingencies for year 2012
are presented in Attachment D. Summary of system performance
under Category C and D contingencies are also tabulated in
Attachment D. Tables D-2012-7 to D-2012-20 of Attachment D list
figure numbers of power flow plots for Category C and D contingency
events.
Overall, performance of Alternative 2 for the Red Deer region is
satisfactory and met the Reliability Criteria for 2012 load conditions.
However, it should be noted that for Category C, the worst case N-1-1
contingency involves losing both 928/906L (Benalto 17S to Sarcee
575S), which would cause overloads on 918L (Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation) by 16% of its summer rating; for Category D, the
worst case involves loss of 240kV bus and related 240kV lines at
Benalto 17S. In some extreme contingency conditions, shedding of the
load or tripping some generation are necessary to alleviate overloads
observed under these circumstances. This is accomplished in
compliance with the AESO Transmission Reliability Criteria.
5.2
Transient Stability Studies (2012)
Transient stability studies for both Alternatives 1 and 2 were conducted
using 2012SL and 2012WP load conditions as these load conditions stress
the system.
Over eighty (80) Category B contingencies, eighteen (18) C3
contingencies, seventeen (17) C5 contingencies, thirty (30) C7
contingencies and over twenty-five (25) D8 contingencies were simulated.
The following categories of system parameters in the Red Deer and
neighboring areas are included in the output channels for monitoring
system performances during the transient simulations:
 Active and reactive powers, terminal voltages and “speeds” of
generator’s bus voltages at 240kV and 138kV levels
 Bus frequencies
 Power flows on major 240kV and 138kV transmission lines
 Motor loads and motor load bus voltages
48
All simulation results are presented in Attachment E. The results of the
transient stability analyses are summarized below:
 The AIES system is stable for all simulated Category B, C3, C5
and C7 contingency events
 For Category D contingency events, there is only one contingency,
namely, loss of Benalto 240kV substation under winter peak load
condition that caused system to be unstable. The substation is one
of the major 240kV substations in AIES system with eight 240kV
transmission lines connected. Remedial Action Scheme is required
to manage this contingency.
No loss of load is anticipated except for those tripped due to the
radial network configuration such as Rimbey 297S and Nelson Lake
429S connected loads.
5.3
Voltage Stability (P-V and Q-V) Analysis
Voltage stability (P-V and Q-V) analysis were also performed to determine
the ability of the proposed system based on Alternatives 1 and 2 to be
voltage stable under normal and abnormal system conditions. Moreover,
these studies were used to calculate the reactive power margins available
under Category B contingency events. This information was used to
ensure that the reactive power compensation recommended is adequate
under normal and contingency conditions. The results of these P-V and QV analyses are presented in Attachment D. The results reveal that the
system is voltage stable and meets the AESO Voltage Stability Criteria.
5.4
Transfer Capability Analysis
The transfer analysis was repeated for the proposed Alternatives 1 and 2
using the same methodology and assumptions as outlined in section 3.3.
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 present a summary of the results for both alternatives.
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide sufficient FCITC for the Red Deer region.
In the case of High SOK flow conditions for Alternative 1, the 138kV 80L
(new Didsbury substation to Madden 373S) will be the limiting element for
the loss of parallel 240kV 918L (new Didsbury substation to Beddington
162S) line. This overload can be managed by developing a suitable RAS
which will be required until the west HVDC line comes into service. On the
other hand, Alternative 2 does not have this limitation. Thus Alternative 2
offers additional operational flexibility.
49
Table 5‐2: 2012 First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for Alternative 1 Case
FCITC
(MW)
2012WP
370
960
977
2012SP
285
740
907
2012SL
625
871
937
2012SPSOK
-106
194
226
Limiting Element ( Red Deer
Region)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S
to Benalto 17S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to New
Didsbury substation)
138kV 166L(Harmattan 256S to
166L_JNC)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
138kV 80L(Olds 55S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S
to Benalto 17S)
Contingency
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
Table 5‐3: 2012 First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for Alternative 2 Case
FCITC
(MW)
445
2012WP
899
924
340
2012SP
679
714
752
2012SL
842
999
31
2012SPSOK
112
184
Limit Element
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S
to Benalto 17S)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
138kV 166L(Harmattan 256S to
166L JNC)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury
substation to Beddington 162S)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S
to Benalto 17S)
Contingency
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 929L(Red Deer 63S to Innisfail
214S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
50
5.5
Short Circuit Analysis
A short circuit analysis was carried out by applying three phase and single
phase to ground faults at the existing and proposed 240kV and 138/144 kV
substations to determine the impact of Alternative 2 reinforcements on the
short circuit levels in the Red Deer region. Short circuit levels are
calculated and presented in Attachment D18. The results indicate that all
fault levels remain within their respective maximum equipment ratings.
18
Short circuit current calculation is based on modeling information provided to the AESO by third parties.
Short circuit estimation is subject to change. The information provided in this study is not intended to be
used as the sole source of information for electrical equipment specification and the design of public or
worker safety-grounding systems.
51
6.0
Transmission Alternatives- Long Term
Assessment (2017) 6.1
Power Flow Analysis (2017)
Power flow analysis was conducted for each alternative for the 2017 winter
peak, summer light and summer peak load conditions using Generation
Scenario B3. As with 2012, for purposes of the load supply adequacy
study, Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is assumed to be the critical
generation plant and was assumed to be out of service. Attachment D
presents power flow plots for the above load flow studies. A summary table
outlining the power flow plots is also included in the Attachment D. These
power flow plots have been identified by the study year and contingencies
in Attachment D.
The proposed system in 2017 was found to be free of both voltage
violations and thermal overloads for both Category A and B contingency
events. The results indicate that these proposed alternatives meet the
Reliability Criteria for supplying the forecast load in 2017 as shown in
Table 6-1 below.
Table 6‐1: Power Flow Analysis Results – 2017 6.1.1
Alternative
Thermal Loading
Violations
Voltage Range
Violations
Alternative 1
None
None
Alternative 2
None
None
System Performance under Category C and D
Contingency Events
The system performance for the preferred plan (Alternative 2) was
tested using power flow analysis for a number of Category C and D
contingencies.
The power flow plots for Category C and D contingency events for
years 2017 are presented in Attachment D. A summary of system
performance under Category C and D contingencies is also tabulated
in Attachment D. Tables D-2017-5 to D-2017-13 of Attachment D list
figure numbers of power flow plots for all load supply adequacy under
Category C and D contingency events.
52
Overall, performance of Alternative 2 for the Red Deer region is
satisfactory and met the Reliability Criteria for 2017 load adequacy
conditions. However, it should be noted that for Category C
contingency events, the worst case N-1-1 contingency involves loss of
both 914L (Bigstone 86S to Gaetz 87S and Gaetz 87S to Red Deer
63S), which would cause the transformer at Red Deer 63S to be
overloaded by 23% of its winter rating while Nova Joffre cogeneration
plant is out of service; for Category D contingency events the worst
case involves losing 240kV bus and related 240kV lines at Benalto
17S. Similar to 2012, under some extreme contingency conditions,
shedding of the load or curtailing some generation are necessary to
alleviate overloads observed under these circumstances. This is
accomplished in compliance with the AESO Transmission Reliability
Criteria.
6.2
2017 Transient Stability Studies (2017)
Similar to 2012 analysis, transient stability studies for both Alternatives 1
and 2 were carried out using 2017SL and 2017WP load conditions.
Simulated contingencies and monitored variables are similar to the ones
studies in 2012 transient stability studies. All simulation results are
presented in Attachment E. The results are summarized below:
6.3

The AIES system is stable for all simulated B, C3, C5, C7 and
D contingency events.

It is noted that the loss of the 240kV 995L transmission line
from Benalto 17S to Brazeau 62S has caused sustained power
oscillations in a number of lines. Further investigation shows
that loss of 995L results in heavy overload on 240/138kV
transformer at the Brazeau plant and one of its 138kV outgoing
transmission lines. Additional study suggests that a cross-trip of
one generator at Brazeau Hydro power station would eliminate
the oscillation.

No loss of load is anticipated except for those tripped due to the
radial network configuration such as Rimbey 297S and Nelson
Lake 429S connected loads.
Voltage Stability (P-V and Q-V) Analysis
Voltage stability (P-V and Q-V) analyses were carried out to determine the
ability of the proposed system based on Alternatives 1 and 2 to be voltage
stable under normal and abnormal system conditions. Also, these studies
were used to calculate the reactive power margins available under
Category B contingency events. This information was used to ensure that
53
the recommended reactive power compensation is adequate under normal
and contingency conditions. The results of this P-V and Q-V study are
presented in Attachment D. The results reveal that the system meets the
AESO Voltage Stability Criteria.
6.4
Transfer Capability Analysis
Transfer analysis for Alternatives 1 and 2 are repeated for 2017 using the
same methodology and assumptions outlined in Section 3.3. Tables 6-2
and 6-3 present a summary for the transfer analysis. Both Alternatives
offer large FCITC since the HVDC lines will be in service by 2017. The
HVDC lines will significantly increase the available FCITC.
Table 6‐2: 2017 First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for 2017 Case
FCITC
(MW)
2004
2017WP
2686
2717
1491
2017SP
2049
2296
1809
2017SL
2591
2684
Limit Element
Contingency
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S
to Benalto 17S)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)240kV
922/926L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury
substation to Madden 373S)
138kV 80L(Olds 55S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury
substation to Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to
Sarcee 42S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury
substation to Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to
Sarcee 42S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury
substation to Beddington 162S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to
Sarcee 42S)
54
Table 6‐3: First Contingency Incremental Transfer Capability (FCITC) for Alternative2 Case
FCITC
(MW)
2086
2017WP
2578
2672
1556
2017SP
1965
2257
1930
2017SL
2559
2673
6.5
Limit Element
Contingency
138kV 80L(New Didsbury substation to 240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Madden 373S)
Beddington 162S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury substation to
Madden 373S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
138kV 80L(New Didsbury substation to
Madden 373S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
240kV 918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
240kV 918L(Benalto 17S to new
Didsbury substation)
240kV 922/926L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
240kV 906/928L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
42S)
240kV 926/922L(Sundance 821S to
Benalto 17S)
Short Circuit Analysis
A short circuit analysis was carried out by applying three phase and single
phase to ground faults at the existing and proposed 240kV and 138/144 kV
substations to determine the impact of Alternatives 1 and 2 reinforcements
on the short circuit levels in the Red Deer region. Short circuit levels are
calculated for the planned system in 2017 and presented in Attachment D.
The results indicate that all fault levels remain within their respective
maximum equipment ratings.
55
7.0
Comparison of Alternatives
This section compares the technical performance of the Red Deer region
transmission Alternatives 1 and 2. Factors used for comparing Alternatives
consist of the following: ability to meet the reliability criteria, future expandability,
and operational flexibility.
Reliability Criteria
Sections 5 and 6 of this report present the near and long term assessment results
of the detailed technical analysis carried out for Alternatives 1 and 2. These
results demonstrate that both alternatives meet the Reliability Criteria and that
their performance is similar.
Future Expandability
Both Alternatives 1 and 2 provide adequate capacity to meet future needs.
However, Alternative 2 is better than Alternative 1 since it provides access to the
240kV network via two additional 240/138kV substations at Innisfail 214S and
Ponoka 331S. Consequently, Alternative 2 has more transmission capacity to
serve the long term needs for this region than Alternative 1. This means
Alternative 2 may not require additional rights-of-way in the long run.
Operational Flexibility
Performance of Alternatives 1 and 2 was evaluated under critical Category C
contingencies for all loading conditions presented in Section 2. Both alternatives
showed satisfactory and comparable performance under Category C
contingencies.
Table 7-1 compares the performance of Alternatives 1 and 2 under various
Category C contingencies for the 2012 Summer High SOK and 2012 Winter Peak
load with Nova Joffre cogeneration plant out of service conditions. In 2017, the
number of observed overloads has reduced significantly compared to 2012
because of the availability of the HVDC lines.
Table 7-2 compares the performance of Alternatives 1 and 2 for 2017 WP with
Nova Joffre cogeneration plant out of service loading condition. In all simulated
Category C contingencies in 2012 and 2017, the transmission line overloads did
not exceed 120% for both Alternatives 1 and 2. Applicable operational measures
according to the AESO Transmission Reliability Criteria and procedures will be
used to mitigate these overloads.
From transient stability point of view, Alternative 2 divides the existing integrated
138kV network into three independent 138kV sub networks interconnected by
56
240kV network. This will effectively isolate the faults at 138kV level thereby
considerably reducing the exposure of these affected areas and thus improving
the overall 138kV bus voltage profile under fault conditions. This is demonstrated
in the transient stability analysis.
Based on these technical performance measures, Alternative 2 meets the
reliability criteria equally well as Alternative 1, provides a better opportunity to
serve long term growth, and afford better operational flexibility.
Table 7-3 presents a summary of the technical comparison of Alternatives 1 and
2.
Table 7‐1: Category C Performance Comparison of Alternatives1&2 for 2012 High SOK and 2012WP with Nova Joffre Cogeneration Plant Out of Service Case
Contingency
9L12(Nevis 766S to Red Deer
63S)
918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
900L (Red Deer 63S to Benalto
17S)
918L(New Didsbury substation to
Beddington 162S)
High SOK
Flow
928/906L(Benalto 17S to Sarcee
575S)
925L(Red Deer 63S to Janet 74S)
929L (Red Deer 63S to Innisfail
214S)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Percent
Overload
Percent
Overload
108%
101%
113%
104%
80L(New
Didsbury
substation to
Madden Tap)
106%
None
900L (Red
Deer 63S to
Benalto 17S)
102%
102%
918L (Benalto
17 S to new
Didsbury
substation)
110%
116%
Overloaded
Element
80L (New
Didsbury
substation to
Madden Tap)
80L (New
Didsbury
substation to
Madden Tap )
918L (Benalto
17S to new
Didsbury
N/A
104%
(929L (Red
Deer to
57
Case
Contingency
914L (Bigstone 86S to Gaetz 87S)
910L (Red Deer 63S to Ponoka
331S)
2012WP
Nova –
Joffre Out
of Service
914L(Gaetz 87S to Red Deer
63S)
914L(Gaetz 87S to Bigstone 86S)
Overloaded
Element
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Percent
Overload
Percent
Overload
substation)
Innisfail does
not exist)
900L( Red
Deer 63S to
Benalto 17S)
N/A
138/240kV
Transformer at
Red Deer 63S
105%
(910L Red
Deer to
Ponoka does
not exist)
None
107%
Table 7‐2: Category C Performance Comparison of Alternatives1&2 for 2017WP with Nova Joffre Cogeneration Plant Out of Service Case
Contingency
2017WP
NovaJoffre Out
of Service
910L(Ellerslie 86S to Red Deer 63S)
914L(Gaetz 87S to Red Deer 63S)
Overloaded
Element
240/138kV
transformer at
Red Deer 63S
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Percent
Overload
Percent
Overload
117%
N/A
(910L Ellerslie
to Red Deer
63S does not
existing)
N/A
914L (Red Deer 63S to Gaetz 87S)
910L (Red Deer 63S to Ponoka
331S)
914L(Gaetz 87S to Red Deer 63S)
914L(Gaetz 87S to Bigstone 86S)
240/ 138kV
transformer at
Red Deer 63S
138/240kV
transformer at
Red Deer 63S
(910L Red
Deer 63S to
Ponoka 331S
does not
existing)
123%
112%
122%
58
Table 7‐3: Summary of the Technical Performance Evaluation of the Alternatives 1 and 2 Technical Performance
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Reliability Criteria
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Future Expandability
Offers good opportunity
Has higher capability than
Alternative 1 because of
additional 240/138kV substations
Operational Flexibility
Good Performance. Transmission
line overloads do not exceed
120%
Good Performance. Transmission
line overloads do not exceed
120%
Applicable operational measures
will be deployed to mitigate
overloads.
Applicable operational measures
will be deployed to mitigate
overloads.
Steady state: Performance under
Category C contingency events
Operational Flexibility
Dynamic Conditions
Dynamic analysis showed stable
voltage and angle recovery
following all simulated Category B
and C contingencies
Dynamic analysis showed stable
voltage and angle recovery
following all simulated Category B
and C contingencies.
Alternative 2 offers better voltage
performance recovery under
contingency conditions
59
8.0
Sensitivity Analysis (Load Forecast) The purpose of this section is to assess the impact of the most recent load
forecast, FC2009, on the proposed transmission developments. A comparison of
FC2007 and FC2009 load forecasts can be found in Appendix titled Red Deer
Region Load and generation forecasts.
Specifically, the objectives of the sensitivity analysis are:
 Investigate whether all elements of the proposed plan is still needed and
the possibility to defer some elements of the proposed transmission plan
to a later date when forecast peak load is lower than originally anticipated
in 2012; and
 Investigate whether the preferred plan is adequate or requires additional
reinforcements when the forecast peak load is higher than originally
projected in 2017.
The sensitivity analysis was carried out on the preferred alternative only.
8.1
Sensitivity Analysis for 2012
The sensitivity analysis was carried out by scaling the loads at all Red
Deer and Didsbury substations in original power flow cases (2012WP,
2012SP, High SOK) to match the FC2009 load forecast condition. All
other modeling assumptions, presented in Section 2, were kept the same
as before.
To assess the possibility of delaying some elements of the transmission
system plan post 2012, the need assessment for the existing system, prior
to the addition of any system reinforcement, was re-examined using the
updated 2012S-SOK and 2012WP base-cases. For 2012WP load
condition, the load flow analysis was performed for two scenarios, namely,
(i) Nova Joffre cogeneration plant in service and (ii) Nova Joffre
cogeneration plant out of service. The results of load flow analyses are
presented in Attachment F.
An examination of results reveals the following:
 Even though the peak loads were projected to be lower in 2012, the
existing system (i.e., prior to any reinforcement), still does not meet
reliability criteria because it experiences a number of thermal
overloads and low voltages under certain contingencies ( see
Attachment F); and
 All the reinforcements proposed in the preferred plan are still
required to mitigate the reliability criteria violations.
60
8.2
Sensitivity Analysis for 2017
To examine the ability of the planned system to cope with higher load
forecast in 2017, the loads at all Red Deer and Didsbury buses power flow
cases for, 2017WP and 2017SP with planned system in place were scaled
to represent the FC2009 load forecast condition. All other modeling
assumptions, presented in Section 2, are kept without any change. Load
flow analysis was then repeated for Category A and B contingencies.
Simulation results reveal that the preferred Alternative with FC2009 load
forecast satisfies AESO Transmission Reliability Criteria i.e., no voltage
range and deviation violations nor any thermal overloads for both Category
A and B contingencies.
8.3
Sensitivity Study Conclusions
A reassessment of system needs for 2012 (i.e., prior to the addition of
planned transmission development) using FC2009 load forecast indicated
that the change in load forecast between FC2007 and FC2009 values was
not large enough either to eliminate the need for system reinforcements or
to defer any components of proposed transmission plan to a later date.
Assessment of planned transmission system for 2017 using FC2009 load
forecast showed that there is no need to add any new additional
transmission facilities or introduce any change for the preferred
transmission plan (Alternative 2).
In summary, the preferred transmission development as identified in
Section 9 is not affected by the variation in load forecasts and is still
required.
61
9.0
Recommended Development This section describes the recommended development which was selected based
on an in-depth technical analysis outlined in Sections 5, 6 and 7. Alternative 2 is
recommended as the AESO’s preferred alternative to reliably supply forecasted
loads, eliminate both the Joffre area transmission constraints and overloads on
the Red Deer region 138kV network under various system operating conditions
including SOK cut plane flows. The recommended proposal is shown in Figure 91.
The AESO recommends a staged approach for implementation of the
recommended plan.
Stage I is recommended to meet load supply adequacy, eliminate Joffre inflow
and outflow limitation, and facilitate high SOK flows. The requested in-service
date for completion of Stage I is on or before Q4, 2012.
Stage II, as per studies presented here is required by 2017 to meet forecast load
in the region. This development consists of rebuilding approximately 20km of
138kV line from new Didsbury substation to Harmattan 256S. The need for it is
driven by the region’s peak load of 826MW. Accordingly, the timing of its
development will be determined by the future load projections. The AESO will
monitor Red Deer region’s annual load forecast and will take steps to proceed
with this development.
Table 9-1 summarizes the recommended development for two stages.
62
Figure 9‐1: Recommended Transmission Plan (Alternative 2) 19 19
This map shows the general areas where the AESO has identified potential transmission
system developments. This map does not identify actual line routes and substation locations. Line
routes and substation locations will be determined when specific facility proposals are prepared.
63
Table 9‐1: Details of the Recommended Development Item #
Description of
Details
Development
Stage I
I-1
Split existing 768L & 778L
Split existing 768L and 778L into two separate lines. Add two circuit
breakers one each at Gaetz 87S and another at North Red Deer
217S substations.
I-2
New 240kV Didsbury
substation
Build a new 240kV substation with a single 240/138kV, 200MVA
autotransformer near the existing 138kV Didsbury 152S within close
proximity to the existing 240kV transmission line. Connect the
existing 240kV 918L line to the new 240kV substation in an in/out
arrangement with a conductor that matches capacity of 918L line.
Connect the new substation’s 138kV bus to the existing 80L
sections going to Olds 55S and Ghost 20S, and the 166L to
Harmattan 256S. Install associated protection, control and SCADA
equipment. Discontinue operation of the existing Didsbury 152S
substation and associated infrastructure.
I-3
New 138kV line from N.E.
Lacombe 212S to Ellis
332S
Build approximately 17km of a new S/C 138kV line from N.E.
Lacombe 212S to Ellis 332S, utilizing appropriate conductor with
summer/winter capacity of at least 252/314MVA. Install 138kV
circuit breaker and associated protection and control equipment at
N.E. Lacombe and Ellis 332S.
I-4
New Autotransformer at
Benalto 17S
Add a second 200MVA, 240/138kV autotransformer at Benalto 17S
and associated equipment.
I-5
New 50MVAr 138kV
Capacitor bank at Joffre
535S
Add one (1) 50MVAr 138kV capacitor bank at Joffre 535S and
associated equipment.
I-6
New 50MVAr 138kV
Capacitor bank at UC
Prentiss 276S
Add one (1) 50MVAr 138kV capacitor bank at UC Prentiss 276S and
associated equipment.
I-7
New 25MVAr 138kV
Capacitor bank at Ellis
332S
Add one (1) 25MVAr 138kV capacitor bank at Ellis 332S and
associated equipment.
I-8
Rebuild 80L(S. Red Deer
194S to N. Red Deer 217S)
Rebuild 138kV transmission S/C line from South Red Deer 194S to
North Red Deer 217S utilizing appropriate conductor with
summer/winter capacity of at least 350/450MVA.
I-9
Rebuild 80L ( S. Red Deer
194S to Red Deer 63S)
Rebuild 138kV transmission S/C line from South Red Deer 194S to
Red Deer 63S utilizing appropriate conductor with summer/winter
capacity of at least 350/450MVA.
64
Item #
Description of
Details
Development
I-10
Rebuild 755L( Red Deer
63S to Joffre 535S)
New S/C 138kV transmission line from Red Deer 63S to Piper
Creek 247S to Joffre 535S, Utilizing appropriate conductor with
summer/winter capacity of at least 252/314MVA. For approximately
36km and 4km tapping into Piper Creek substation (total of 40km).
I-11
Rebuild 717L( Red Deer
63S to Benalto 17S via
Sylvan Lake 580S)
Rebuild 717L from Red Deer 63S to Sylvan Lake to Benalto 17S for
approximately 34km utilizing appropriate conductor with
summer/winter capacity of at least 252/314MVA.
I-12
New 240kV Ponoka
substation
Build a new 240kV substation with two 240/138kV 100MVA
autotransformers at a close proximity of the existing 240kV 910L
line. Connect the existing 240kV 910L line to the new substation in
an in/out arrangement with a conductor that matches capacity of
910L line. Build new D/C 138kV line from the new 240kV substation
to Ponoka 331S with a rated summer and winter capacity of 175/215
MVA. Install required protection, control and SCADA equipment.
I-13
New 240kV Innisfail
substation
Build a new 240kV substation with a single 240/138kV 200MVA
autotransformer within a close proximity of the existing 240kV 929L
line. Connect the existing 240kV 929L line to the new substation in
an in/out arrangement with a conductor that matches capacity of
929L line. Build a new D/C 14km 138kV line from the new 240kV
substation to Innisfail 214S with a rated summer and winter capacity
of 175/215 MVA. Install required protection, control and SCADA
equipment.
I-14
Salvage 716L(Wetaskiwin 40S to Ponoka 331S)
Lines Salvage
Salvage 80L(Ponoka 331S to W. Lacombe 958S)
Salvage 80L( Red Deer 63S to Innisfail 214S)
Stage II
II-1
Rebuild 166L (new
Didsbury substation to
Harmattan 256S)
Rebuild 166L from the new Didsbury substation to Harmattan 256S
for approximately 21km. utilizing appropriate conductor with
maximum summer/winter capacity of at least 252/314MVA.
Note: The specific developments shown in Table 9-1 represent configurations
that could address the transmission system needs identified in this study. The final
configuration of the recommended development, as well as the routing, location, and
sizing of the various components of this plan, will be proposed by the legal owner of
transmission facilities later in the process as they prepare the facility proposals.
9.1
Rationale for the Recommended Development
Split the existing 138kV 768L & 778L lines (Item I-1)
Split the ends of the existing 138kV 768L/778L double circuit line (Gaetz
87S to N. Red Deer 217S) into two separate circuits to improve the transfer
out capability of the Joffre area. Splitting of these lines requires one new
circuit breaker at both ends of this line. These additional breakers will allow
65
these 768L and 778L lines operate continuously as independent lines
thereby increasing the transfer out capability.
New 240kV Didsbury Substation (Item I-2)
Under steady state conditions, Didsbury 152S, Olds 55S, and Innisfail
214S substations are mainly fed from power coming from Red Deer 63S
via 80L. Under certain Category B contingencies such as the loss of 80L
(Red Deer 63S to Innisfail 214S), these three substations will be radially
fed from Benalto 17S via four lines (848L, 719L, 166L, and 80L) that are
far from this area. Consequently, these three substations will experience
low voltages because of the large voltage drop along this long transmission
path which get worse in the long run due to load growth in the area. The
proposed new 240kV Didsbury substation will provide additional strong
power source to the area and support the voltage profile under Category B
contingencies related to the loss of 80L sections (Red Deer 63S to Innisfail
214S), (Innisfail 214S to Olds 55S), and (Olds 55S to Didsbury 152S).
New Line from N.E. Lacombe 212S to Ellis 332S (Item I-3)
The new 138kV line (N.E. Lacombe 212S to Ellis 332S) will strengthen
supply to N.E. Lacombe area. This line will facilitate salvaging of 80L
(Ponoka 331S-W to Lacombe 958S) and also providing voltage support to
this area.
New Autotransformer at Benalto 17S (Item I-4)
Currently, Benalto substation has one 200MVA transformer which is
feeding local loads in the Red Deer and Caroline areas. Under Certain
Category B contingencies such as: loss of 240kV 900L (Benalto 17S to
Red Deer 63S) or loss of one autotransformer at Red Deer 63S or loss of
80L (Red Deer 63S to Innisfail 214S), more power will be pushed onto the
138kV network via existing Benalto 17S autotransformer, thereby resulting
in high overload on the existing autotransformer at Benalto 17S. A new
240/138kV autotransformer at Benalto 17S is required to alleviate this
overload.
Capacitor Bank Additions at Joffre 535S, UC Prentiss 276S, and Ellis
332S (Items I-5, I-6, I-7)
When Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is out of service, the Joffre area
experiences low voltages which limit the amount of power that can be
transmitted to the Joffre area. That is the system in the Joffre area will not
meet voltage criteria. Hence capacitor banks need to be installed at Joffre
535S, UC Prentiss 276S, and Ellis 332S for alleviating Joffre inflow
limitations and support voltage profile in the Joffre area when Nova Joffre
cogeneration plant is scheduled to be out of service or experiences forced
outage conditions.
66
Rebuild Sections of Existing 80L: (S. Red Deer 194S to N. Red Deer
217S) and (S. Red Deer 194S to Red Deer 63S) (Items I-8, I-9)
The existing 138kV 80L sections (North Red Deer 217S to South Red Deer
194S) & (South Red Deer 194S to Red Deer 63S) have limited thermal
capacity to meet the growing demand in this region including the City of
Red Deer. These line sections are overloaded under various Category B
contingencies including the loss of 914L (Red Deer 63S to Gaetz 87S) and
755L (Red Deer 63S to Joffre 535S). It is vital to upgrade these 80L line
sections to higher capacity for serving Red Deer area load reliably over the
long term.
Rebuild Existing 138kV 755L: Red Deer 63S to Joffre 535S (Item I-10)
When Nova Joffre cogeneration plant is out of service, the Joffre area load
is supplied from generation sources in the Wabamun and Brazeau which
lie out of the Joffre area. Loss of 80L (Red Deer 63S to S. Red Deer
194S) will cause overload on 755L (Red Deer 63S to Joffre 535S). Hence
755L needs to be upgraded to ensure reliability of supply to Joffre and City
of Red Deer loads.
Rebuild 717L: Red Deer 63S to Benalto 17S (Item I-11)
Upgrading 717L Red Deer 63S to Benalto 17S via Sylva Lake 580S is
necessary to avoid line overload under the loss of parallel 240kV 900L and
to serve growing load demand in the Sylvan Lake area.
New 240kV Ponoka, Innisfail Substations and Line Salvage (Item I-12,
I-13, I-14)
Under high SOK flow conditions, the existing 138kV 716L and 80L lines
sustain large thermal overloads for the loss of 240kV parallel lines (914L,
910L, and 918L). Salvage of 716L (Wetaskiwin 40S to Ponoka 331S) and
80L line sections (Ponoka 331S to West Lacombe 958S) & (Red Deer 63S
to Innisfail 214S) will eliminate over loads on 716L and 80L. Development
of new 240/138kV substations at Ponoka and Innisfail will provide alternate
supply source for Ponoka and Innisfail area loads. In addition, the two new
240/138kV substations in the region will offer ample capability to meet long
– term needs of the area with virtually no new right of way requirements as
they become part of the bulk system.
Rebuild 166L from the new Didsbury substation to Harmattan 256S
(Item II-1)
This development consists of rebuilding approximately 20km of 138kV line
from the new Didsbury substation to Harmattan 256S. Stage II, as per
studies presented here, is required by 2017 to meet forecasted peak load
of 826MW. Hence the timing of its development will depend upon the
future load growth in this region of Alberta. As part of long – term planning
process, the AESO will continue to monitor the Red Deer region’s annual
67
load forecast and will take necessary steps either to advance this
development if the peak load is projected to occur before 2017 or delay it if
the load growth slows down.
68
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Existing System Analysis
Attachment B: Historical Substation Load Details
Attachment C: Alternative Details
Attachment D: Steady State and Voltage Stability
Analysis
Attachment E: Transient Stability Analysis
Attachment F: Sensitivity Analysis 
Fly UP