INSTRUÇÕES PARA REALIZAÇÃO DA PROVA ESCRITA

Curso de Especialização em Sistemas Elétricos – Edição 2019

Leia Atentamente as Instruções Abaixo:

1. A prova consiste de uma leitura e análise discursiva crítica e sintética do artigo
técnico em anexo no e-mail enviado;

2. O texto dissertativo deve ter no MÁXIMO 700 PALAVRAS;

3. O texto dissertativo deve ser enviado pelo candidato para o endereço eletrônico do
coordenador, a saber: zulmar@unifei.edu.br;

4. No assunto da mensagem a ser enviado pelo candidato contendo seguinte o texto

dissertativo, deve escrever a seguinte frase “Resposta a Prova Escrita – CESE
Edição 2019”;

5. O texto dissertativo contendo a análise discursiva deve ser enviado em arquivo

anexado no formato PDF;

6. O inicio da prova começa no dia 08/04/2019 a partir do recebimento destas

instruções;

7. O término da prova será considerado às 22 horas do dia 10/04/2019;

8. Fique atento ao Horário de Término da Prova;

9. São de inteira e exclusiva responsabilidade do candidato a resposta por ele

fornecidas para a realização da prova escrita, as quais não poderão ser alteradas, em
nenhuma hipótese ou a qualquer título, após o término da prova;

10.Caso o candidato envie mais de uma resposta, será considerada a última resposta
enviada, sendo descartadas as respostas anteriores;

11.O Curso de Especialização não se responsabiliza se o candidato não conseguir em

tempo hábil enviar a mensagem contendo sua resposta por motivo de ordem técnica
dos recursos computacionais, falhas de comunicação, congestionamento das linhas
de comunicação, bem como de outros fatores técnicos que impossibilitem o
processamento das informações. Por isso, o Curso de Especialização sugere que os
candidatos não deixem para enviar sua resposta necessária para sua avaliação
próximo do horário de encerramento desta prova;

12.A Coordenação deseja a todos uma ótima prova e nos vemos no CESE edição 2019.
 Transient Stability of the US Western
Interconnection with High Wind and Solar
Generation
Kara Clark
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO USA
Abstract-The addition of large amounts of wind and solar
generation to bulk power systems that are traditionally
subject to operating constraints set by transient limitations is
the subject of considerable concern in the industry. The US
Western Interconnection (WI) is expected to experience
substantial additional growth in both wind and solar
generation. These plants will, to some extent, displace large
central station thermal generation, both coal and gas-fired,
which have traditionally helped maintain stability. This
paper reports the results of a study that investigated the
transient stability of the WI with high penetrations of wind
and solar generation. The main goals of this work were to (1)
create a realistic, baseline model of the WI, (2) test selected
transient stability events, (3) investigate the impact of large
amounts of wind and solar generation, and (4) examine
means to improve performance.
Index Terms-Solar generation, transient stability, wind
generation
1. INTRODUCTION
All of the large-scale regional wind and solar
integration studies have identified the lack of traditional
transmission planning analysis as a significant research
gap [1,2]. Acceptable dynamic performance (e.g.,
transient stability, frequency response) following large
disturbances (e.g., trip of a large nuclear plant or a major
transmission tie-line) is critical to system reliability. Thus,
the dynamic behavior of North American systems under
high variable renewable conditions needs to be better
understood.
There is general concern regarding the degradation of
frequency response over the past two decades [3.4]. The
decline is due to various factors, such as the withdrawal of
primary or governor response shortly after an event, the
lack of in-service governors on conventional generation,
and the unknown and changing nature of load frequency
characteristics. Large penetrations of inverter-based
technologies further complicate this issue. Recent research
is reported in [5-10].
The impact of significant renewable penetration on
large-scale system stability is also an open question. The
transient stability of the Western Interconnection is
critical to system operations, since many major interface
978-1-4673-8040-9/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
Nicholas W. Miller, Miaolei Shao, Slobodan Pajic,
Robert D'Aquila, GE Energy Consulting
Schenectady, NY USA
constraints are dictated by transient stability limitations
[11]. While transient stability can be both systemic and
local, this study focuses on large-scale events that affect
the security of the entire interconnection. Large
penetrations of inverter-based wind and solar generation
have the potential to substantially alter system stability as
a result of changes in angle/speed swing behavior due to
reduced inertia, changes in voltage swing behavior due to
different voltage control systems, different power flow
patterns, and displacement of synchronous generation at
key locations.
The primary objectives of the Western Wind and Solar
Integration Study III (WWSIS III) [12] were to examine
the Western Interconnection large-scale stability and
frequency response with high wind and solar penetration,
and identify means to mitigate any adverse performance
impacts via transmission reinforcements, storage,
advanced control capabilities or other alternative means.
Only the interconnection-wide transient stability results
are reported in this paper.
2. STUDY SCENARIOS
Transient stability is dominated by the generation
initial conditions. Thus, realistic and economically
rational initial conditions are needed. The load flow that
provides the starting point for dynamic simulations is a
single snapshot in time and not, in itself, an economic
tool. It is necessary to use economic tools to guide the
commitment and dispatch process. Thus, the WWSIS III
study scenarios leaned heavily on the work done for
WWSIS II [13] - particularly the WWISS II High Mix
Scenario which included 16.5% wind and 16.5% solar
penetration on an annual energy basis. While the mapping
between the WWSIS II system topology and the WWSIS
III cases is good, it is not perfect. The following data were
derived from WWSIS II:
• Wind and solar plant capacity and location data
• Total wind and solar power production by area
• Change in commitment and dispatch of
conventional generation plants between the base
case and the high renewables case.
 Four primary study scenarios were developed to with the very low load level of the base case. The wind
represent different system conditions (e.g., light and heavy and solar generation for this case is shown in Figure 3.
load) as well as different renewable penetration levels
(e.g., Base and High Mix renewables). Given the
Wind 2.5
objective of the study was to understand the impact of Wind PV 0.0
increasing renewable power levels, the choice of base, or Others 8.4 PV 0.0 CSP 0.0
Others DG 0.0
starting, cases was critical. After extensive stakeholder 14.6 CSP 0.0
12.3
DG 0.0
input, two well established future WECC planning cases
were selected. These cases include transmission system
upgrades that the WECC stakeholders deemed likely Wind 4.4
Wind 4.0
within the next 10 years. PV 0.2
CSP 0.0
The development included improvements to the DG 0.0
PV 3.7
original WECC power flow and dynamic databases, as Others
CSP 0.9
well as the addition of geographically appropriate wind 19.9
DG 0.0 Others 24.9
and solar plants, a composite load model to allow for an
appropriate representation of rooftop PV, high renewable Production/Dispatch in GW
penetration levels (40-60 GW), and a detailed analysis of
the WWSIS II [12] production simulation results to
determine de-commitment and re-dispatch procedures for Figure 1. Wind and solar generation in the Light Spring Base case.
the balance of the generation portfolio.
2.1. Light Spring Load Scenarios
Wind 5.3
The two light load scenarios include a Base case that Wind
Others
represents a future in which the current renewable Others 8.4 5.5
11.7 PV 0.3
portfolio standard (RPS) targets are met. The High Mix CSP 0.0 PV 0.8
DG 0.2 DG 0.4 CSP 0.0
case was built from the Base case, but with even higher
levels of wind and solar. This case represents a snapshot
in time - a windy, sunny morning in the spring. The Wind 4.7
details (e.g., renewable plant MW output and siting, re-
Others 11.4 Wind 6.9
dispatch/de-commitment of the conventional units, etc.) Others
PV 5.8
were mined from a year of WWSIS II High Mix 15.1
CSP 1.5 PV 3.3
production simulation results. Great care was exercised to DG 3.7
capture the economically rational change in commitment DG 2.6 CSP 7.0
and dispatch that would accompany the wind and solar Production/Dispatch in GW
displacement of other generation. Limited transmission
reinforcements (e.g., synchronous condensers, shunt Figure 2. Wind and solar generation in the Light Spring High Mix case
compensation) were added when the high renewables
over-stressed local areas. No major transmission projects
were added beyond those included in the WECC planning
cases. An overview of the renewable generation for the Wind Others Wind 7.0
Others 8.3 4.1
light load scenarios is shown in Figures 1 and 2. Each pie PV 0.2
9.3 DG 0.7
chart represents a different region - California, the CSP 0.0 CSP 0.0
DG 0.1
Northwest (approximately Oregon and Washington), the PV 0.7
Desert Southwest (approximately Arizona, New Mexico,
Nevada, Colorado) and the Northeast (approximately Wind 4.5
Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming). The rooftop PV is Others 9.1
Others Wind 10.9
shown in blue, and distinguished from utility scale PV in
12.4 PV 7.5
yellow, by the label “DG” (for distributed generation). DG CSP 2.2 DG 3.8 CSP
Green represents wind, and red represents concentrating 5.7
6.1 PV 5.1
solar thermal power (CSP).
A further sensitivity case, called Light Spring Extreme, Production/Dispatch in GW
was developed for some tests. This initial condition was
based on the simultaneous extremes of the highest wind
Figure 3. Wind and solar generation in the Light Spring Extreme case
and solar generation for this installed profile coincident
2.2. Heavy Summer Load Scenarios Interface (COI) are known to be stressful and to require a
Similarly, there are two heavy summer load scenarios – generation-tripping remedial action scheme (RAS) for
one base case and one high renewable case. Again, the large disturbances such as the loss of the Pacific DC
Base case represents a future with a relatively low Intertie (PDCI). For the Base case, system performance
production of wind and solar at the given snapshot in degrades significantly with high COI flows, as shown in
time. The High Mix case was again mined from the Figure 6. The transient stability of the system is not
WWSIS II High Mix production simulation results and fundamentally changed with the high wind and solar
represents a high wind and solar condition that might generation in the High Mix case, which also has high COI
occur during a summer high load day. As would be flows.
expected, the instantaneous production of wind, even with
a similar installed fleet, is rather less than the light spring
load case.
A summary of the variable renewable generation power
production (not installed capacity) for the four primary
scenarios and one sensitivity scenario are summarized in
Table 1.
Heavy summer
For the dynamic simulations, all new wind plants were Base case
modeled as type 3 doubly fed asynchronous machines Heavy summer
with voltage regulation and low voltage ride through Base case with
(LVRT), all new CSP plants were modeled as high COI flows
Heavy summer
synchronous machines without governor response, all new High Mix case with
utility scale PV plants were modeled as full converter high COI flows
asynchronous machines with voltage regulation and
LVRT, and all new distributed PV was modeled using the
WECC composite load model. Figure 6. COI Flows for PDCI event for Heavy Summer cases
The primary tool in this work is GE’s PSLF software
package – a commercial power flow and transient stability This suggests that the transient stability of the system
simulation tool. for one of the well-known and critical events for the
Western Interconnection is not fundamentally changed by
TABLE 1. RENEWABLE GENERATION PRODUCTION SUMMARY FOR ALL the high wind and solar generation. This conclusion is not
STUDY SCENARIOS a statement that the system behaves identically. It is
possible, and perhaps likely, that the system dynamics are
Light Heavy Heavy sufficiently different to require somewhat different levels
Light Light
WECC-wide Spring Summer Summer of generator tripping or different arming criteria. A
Spring Spring
Summary Extreme Base Hi-Mix complete evaluation of the current practice to check for
Base Hi-Mix
Sensitivity refinements would be prudent. There is, however, nothing
Wind (GW) 20.9 27.2 32.6 5.6 14.3 in this analysis to indicate that the system dynamics have
fundamentally changed and that radically different means
Utility scale to ensure stability for this event are required.
3.9 10.2 13.5 1.2 11.2
PV (GW)
3.1 System Inertia
CSP (GW) 0.9 8.4 8.3 0.4 6.6
Much has been said about the possible impact of loss
Distributed
0 7.0 10.4 0.0 9.4 of system inertia due to the displacement of synchronous
PV (GW) generation by inverter-based resources. For large
Total = 25.7 52.8 64.8 7.2 41.5 generation/load imbalances in this system the reduction in
system inertia affects the initial trajectory of the system.
Penetration(1)
21% 44% 53% 4% 20% Between the light spring Base case and the Hi-Mix case,
(%) =
the initial rate of change of frequency (ROCOF) increases
(1) Penetration is % of total generation. about 18%. The impact of this increased ROCOF on the
system stability is nearly invisible in terms of FR: both the
3. TRANSIENT STABILITY RESULTS nadir and the settling frequency are essentially unchanged.
It should be noted that these levels of ROCOF, on the
During heavy load conditions, the addition of high
order of 0.1 Hz/s, are quite small compared to some of the
levels of wind and solar generation increases the heavy
smaller systems around the world that have ROCOF
loading on the Pacific AC and DC Interties to about their
concerns primarily driven by the use of ROCOF relays.
present path ratings. High flows on the California Oregon
This reinforces other results that suggest that the loss of
system inertia associated with increased wind and solar
generation is of little or no consequence for up to at least
50% levels of instantaneous penetration for large U.S.
interconnections as long as adequately fast primary
recovers in an orderly fashion when the fault is cleared, as
shown by the pink trace in Figure 8. Another test, using
wind plant controls designed for weak grids, showed
substantial performance improvement as well.
35000

frequency responsive resources are maintained. The 30000

results support industry efforts to monitor and incentivize
WIND
fast frequency response, rather than to mandate arbitrary 25000 Steam

minimum levels of system inertia. PV

PSH

3.2. Coal Displacement and Weak Grid in the Northeast

20000 Other
NUC
Region 15000
HYDRO
GEO
The regional transmission system was designed based GasCT

on the size and location of the large coal power plants, 10000 CSP
Coal

which thus became critical nodes in the network. As a 5000

CCPP
Bio
result, transmission system operators have historically
counted on those plants to provide the voltage and 0

reactive power support needed for reliable operation.

LSP Base LSP HiMix LSP HiMixXtrm LSP Base LSP HiMix LSP HiMixXtrm
DSW NorthEast

Displacement of those central plants by more dispersed
wind and solar generation results in those nodes being less
well supported. And, local voltage and thermal problems
may occur.
System stability under light load conditions for an
EHV fault at Aeolus, in the heart of the high wind area of
Wyoming, was investigated under the various light load
scenarios. Figure 7 shows the change in dispatch with
increasing wind and solar production in the Desert
Southwest and Northeast regions for the light spring Base,
High Mix, and Extreme cases. A high de-commitment of
coal did not overstress the system, but local voltage and
thermal problems did occur and were addressed with
conventional transmission reinforcements. Thus, a more
than 80% reduction of coal commitment in the Northeast
region in the High Mix case, compared to the Base case,
resulted in acceptable dynamic behavior for the limited
tests performed. This is shown in Figure 8, where the blue
trace represents the light spring Base case and the red
trace represents the light spring High Mix case.
The de-commitment in the Extreme sensitivity case
further stresses the system, with a more than 90%
reduction of coal commitment from the light spring Base
case. This case, the green trace in Figure 8, is unstable.
The rapid voltage collapse and system separation during
the fault is representative of so-called “weak grid” issues.
Systems with very high levels of inverter-based generation
are challenged to provide fast, confident control during
faults and other disturbances. No commercially available
wind or utility-scale solar PV generation is capable of
operation in a system without the stabilizing benefit of
synchronous machines. Therefore, the conversion of some
coal plants to synchronous condensers and the addition of
mechanically switched shunt compensation were needed
to stabilize the Aeolus fault with the conservative load and
wind plant modeling used. The synchronous condenser
conversion works well to stabilize the system, which
Figure 7. Coal displacement in DSW and NE regions for Light Spring
cases
Light Spring Base
Light Spring High Mix
Light Spring
Extreme
Light Spring
Extreme with
synchronous
condenser
conversion
Figure 8. Dave Johnson bus voltage for Aeolus fault for Light Spring
cases
4. MODEL IMPROVEMENT AND FURTHER ANALYSIS
4.1. Load Model
As noted above, the new WECC complex composite
load model was used for most of the analysis. Changing
the load model had more impact on system performance
than did changing the level of renewable generation. A 3-
phase fault at Vincent 500 kV in California under heavy
summer load conditions resulted in very different
outcomes when the load model changed. The case with
the standard WECC load model was well behaved and
stable. The case with the composite load model suffered
complete transient voltage collapse within about 3
seconds. The behavior of the system for deep faults is
completely dominated by the load model, and more
specifically by the tripping vs. stalling behavior assumed
for the motor constituents of the composite load. The
motor stalling behavior is exacerbated by blocking or
tripping of embedded PV. This is an extraordinarily
complex issue for planning and for research. This stability
risk is not primarily one of utility-scale renewable
integration, but the explosive growth of distribution
connected PV in WECC highlights the need for focus on
load modeling issues. Understanding load/grid dynamic
interactions will become even more important as the
system evolves away from dominance of large central
station generation.
4.2. Wind and Solar Models
When wind and solar are the dominant source of
generation throughout the region, it will be important to
have appropriate dynamic models. WECC has a
longstanding best practice to keep dynamic models up-to-
date. Wind and solar plant models need to be held to the
same level of accuracy in a high penetration future.
Adoption of wind plant controls designed for weak grids
greatly improved system stability. Further, the results were
extremely sensitive to the assumptions about load
modeling, as described above.
4.3. Coal Displacement Analysis
The sequence of coal displacement sensitivities in this
study is illuminating, but in no way complete or
conclusive. The system appears to behave well for the
High Mix case when almost all of the large coal plants in
the eastern regions are off-line. However, displacing even
more coal units appears to cause problems. This small
sample suggests that care must be exercised in driving the
system from a high level of coal displacement to an
extreme level of coal displacement. More analysis is
needed.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This work did not identify any fundamental reasons why
the Western Interconnection cannot meet transient
stability performance criteria with high levels of wind and
solar generation. However, good system planning and
power system engineering practices must be followed. At
a minimum, local voltage and thermal problems will
require some transmission system improvements. The
dynamic behavior of distributed PV generation has the
potential to substantially impact the bulk power system.
Distribution is not decoupled from transmission, and will
impact bulk power system operation. From a transient
stability perspective, the system appears to tolerate
substantial displacement of thermal generation. However,
care will be needed in the event that the system, especially
the Desert Southwest and Northeastern regions, are driven
to near zero commitment of coal plants. Both traditional
means of improving transient stability, such as adding
transmission lines and other reinforcements, and more
novel methods, such as provision of governor controls on
CSP plants, conversion of thermal plants to synchronous
condensers, and weak grid controls on wind plants, were
shown in the study to be effective.
Note that this investigation is not a substitute for
thorough system planning studies.
6. REFERENCES
[1] GE Energy, "Western Wind and Solar Integration
Study," NREL Report No. SR-550-47434, May 2010.
[2] EnerNex Corporation, "Eastern Wind Integration and
Transmission Study," NREL Report No. SR-47078,
January 2010.
[3] NERC Operator Reliability Subcommittee Meeting
Minutes, NERC Frequency Response Initiative
presentation, May 2010.
[4] IEEE Task Force on Large Interconnected Power
Systems Response to Generation Governing,
Interconnected Power System Response to Generation
Governing: Present Practice and Outstanding Concerns,
IEEE Special Publication 07TP180, May 2007.
[5] J. Eto, J. Undrill, P. Mackin, R. Daschmans, B.
Williams, B. Haney, R. Hunt, J. Ellis, H. Illian, C.
Martinez, M. O'Malley, K. Coughlin, K. Hamachi
LaCommare, "Use of Frequency Response Metrics to
Assess the Planning and Operating Requirements for
Reliable Integration of Variable Renewable Generation,"
LBNL-4142E, December 2010.
[6] J. Undrill, "Power and Frequency Control as it Relates
to Wind-Powered Generation," LBNL-4143E, December
2010.
[7] S. Sharma, S. Huang, NDR Sarma, "System Inertial
Frequency Response Estimation and Impact of Renewable
Resources in ERCOT Interconnection," IEEE PES GM,
Detroit, MI, July 2011.
[8] N. Miller, M. Shao, S. Venkataraman, "California ISO
(CAISO) Frequency Response Study," November 2011.
[9] N. Miller, M. Shao, S. Pajic, R. D'Aquila, "Eastern
Frequency Response Study," NREL/SR-5500-58077
subcontractor report, May 2013.
[10] N. Miller, C. Loutan, M. Shao, K. Clark, "Emergency
Response: US System Frequency with High Wind
Penetration," IEEE/PES Power and Energy magazine,
Vol. 11, Issue 6, November, 2013.
[11] WECC Reliability Committee, "Variable Generation
Stability Study Results," July, 2013.
[12] “Western Wind and Solar Integration Study Phase 3
– Frequency Response and Transient Stability”,
NREL/SR-5D00-62906; December 2014
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/62906.pdf (full report).
[13] “Western Wind and Solar Integration Study, Phase
2”, NREL/SR-550-55888, September 2013.