Transient frequency performance and

wind penetration

J. McCalley
 Content
1. Motivation
2. Power balance-frequency basics
3. Frequency Performance Analysis

2
 Motivation
• In many parts of the country, wind and/or solar is increasing.
• Fossil-based generation is being retired because
– There is significant resistance to coal-based plants due to their high
CO2 emission rates.
– There are other environmental concerns, e.g., once-through cooling
(OTC) units in California and the effects of EPA’s Cross-state air
pollutions rules (CSAPR) and Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS)
(also known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology, MACT). For
CSAPR effects, see, e.g.,
www.powermag.com/POWERnews/4011.html (Texas shut downs) and
for CSAPR/MATS effects, see the next slide. For OTC effects, see
www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-
California_moves_to_ban_once_through_cooling-0605105.html,
http://www.caiso.com/1c58/1c58e7a3257a0.html, and next-next
slide.
• Fossil-based generation contributes inertia. Wind and solar do
not contribute inertia, unless they are using inertial emulation.
• Inertia helps to limit frequency excursions when power
imbalance occurs.
 Decreased fossil w/ increased wind/solar creates trans freq risk.3
 Potential effects of CSAPR/MATS

Source: A. Saha, “CSAPR & MATS: What do they mean for electric power plants?” presentation slides at the 15 th Annual Energy, Utility, and
Environmental Conference, Jan 31, 2012, available at www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/EUEC2012_Saha_MATS-CSAPR.pdf. 4
 Once-through cooling units in S. California

New wind
and solar
generation
due to Cal
requiring
33% by
2020.

There are 8 plants (26 units) that are impacted Load center
Total potential MW capacity at risk = 7,416 MW.
5
Summary of power balance control levels

No. Control Name Time frame Control objectives Function

Power balance and
Transient frequency
1 Inertial response 0-5 secs transient frequency dip
control
minimization
Power balance and
Primary control, Transient frequency
2 1-20 secs transient frequency
governor control
recovery

Secondary 4 secs to 3 Power balance and steady-

3 Regulation
control, AGC mins state frequency

Power balance and Load following and

4 Real-time market Every 5 mins
economic-dispatch reserve provision

Day-ahead Power balance and Unit commitment and

5 Every day
market economic-unit commitment reserve provision

6
• Inertia
Frequency Study Basics
The greater the inertia, the less acceleration will be
observed and the less will be the frequency deviation.
Inertia is proportional to the total rotating mass.
2H
 (t )  Pau
Re

• Primary Control
Senses shaft speed, proportional to frequency, and modifies
the mechanical power applied to the turbine to respond to
the sensed frequency deviations.

7
 First 2 Levels of Frequency Control
• The frequency declines from t=0 to about t=2 seconds. This frequency decline is due to
the fact that the loss of generation has caused a generation deficit, and so generators
decelerate, utilizing some of their inertial energy to compensate for the generation deficit.
• The frequency recovers during the time period from about t=2 seconds to about t=9
seconds. This recovery is primarily due to the effect of governor control (also,
underfrequency load shedding also plays a role).

• At the end of the simulation

period, the frequency has
reached a steady-state, but it is
not back to 60 Hz. This steady-
state frequency deviation is
intentional on the part of the
governor control and ensures
that different governors do not
constantly make adjustments
against each other. The resulting
steady-state error will be zeroed
by the actions of the automatic
generation control (AGC).

8 / 12
 First 2 Levels of Frequency Control – another look

This is load decrease,

shown here as a gen
increase.

9
Source: FERC Office of Electric Reliability available at: www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20100923101022-
Complete%20list%20of%20all%20slides.pdf
 First 3 Levels of Frequency Control

The Sequential Actions of frequency control following the sudden loss of

generation and their impact on system frequency
10 / 12
 Renewable Integration Effects on Frequency
Our work in these slides is
about the first two bullets.

• Reduced inertia, assuming renewables do not have inertial emulation

• Decreased primary control (governors), assuming renewables do not
have primary controllers
• Decreased secondary control (AGC), assuming renewables are not
dispatchable.
• Increased net load variability, a regulation issue
• Increased net load uncertainty, a unit commitment issue

11
 Transient frequency control
A power system experiences a load increase (or equivalently, a
generation decrease) of ∆PL at t=0, located at bus k.
At t=0+, each generator i compensates according to its proximity to the
change, as captured by the synchronizing power coefficient PSik between
units i and k, according to

Pei 
 PSik  PL 

PSik
PL
n n (1)
P
j 1
Skj P
j 1
Skj

Pik
PSik 
 ik  ik 0
Equation (1) is derived for a multi-machine power system model where
each synchronous generator is modeled with classical machine models,
loads are modeled as constant impedance, the network is reduced to
generator internal nodes, and mechanical power into the machine is
12
assumed constant. Then the linearized swing equation for gen i is …
 Transient frequency control
2 H i d 2  i
1 W
Wi  J R2 , H i  i
2 S B3  Pei (2)
KE in MW-sec of turb-gen
set, when rotating at ωR
Re dt 2

For a load change PLk, at t=0+, substituting (1) into the right-
hand-side of (2):
2 H i d 2  i PSik
 n PL
Re dt 2 (3)
P j 1
Skj

Bring Hi over to the right-hand-side and rearrange to get:

2 d 2  i  PSik  PL
Re dt 2
   n (4)
 i P
 Skj
H
j 1
For PL>0, initially, each machine will decelerate but at different
rates,
13 according to PSik/Hi.
 Transient frequency control
Now rewrite eq. (3) with Hi inside the differentiation, use i instead
of i, write it for all generators 1,…,n, then add them up. All Hi must
be given on a common base.
2 dH 11 P
  n S1k PL
 Re
 PSkj
dt


j 1
(5a)
2 dH n  n P
   n Snk
 Re
 PSkj
dt
j 1

2 n
dH i i  PSik

Re i 1 dt
  i n1 PL  PL (5b)
 P
j 1
Skj

We will come back

to this equation (5b).
14
 Transient frequency control
Now define the “inertial center” of the system, in terms of
angle and speed, as
• The weighted average of the angles:
n n
H  i i  H 
 i 1
n
or   i 1
n
i i
(6)
H
i 1
i H i
i 1

• The weighted average of the speeds:

n

H 
n

i i  H  i i
 i 1
n or   i 1
n
(7)
H i H
i 1
i
i 1

Differentiating  with respect to time, we get…

15
 Transient frequency control
d H i i 
n

d  
 i 1 n dt (8)
dt H
i 1
i

Solve for the numerator on the right-hand-side, to get:

n
d H i i   n   d  

i 1 dt
  H i  
 i 1   dt 
 (9)

Now substitute (9) into (5b) to get:

n
dH i i 2 n   d  
2
  PL (5b)   Hi 
Re  i 1   dt 
  PL (10)
Re i 1 dt
16
 Transient frequency control
2 n   d  
  Hi 
Re  i 1   dt 
  PL (10)

Bring the 2*(summation)/ωRe over to the right-hand-side:

d   PLRe (11a)
 n
 m
2 H i
dt
i 1
Eq. (11a) gives the average deceleration of the system, m, the initial slope of the avg frequency
deviation plot vs. time. This has also been called the rate of change of frequency (ROCOF) [*].
All Hi (units of seconds) must be given on a common power base for (11a) to be correct. In
addition -∆PL should be in per-unit, also on that same common base, so that -∆PL/2 ΣHi is in
pu/sec, and mω=-∆PL ωRe/2 ΣHi is in rad/sec/sec. Alternatively,
d f  PL f Re
Units of Hz/sec   mf
dt n
2 H i
(11b)
i 1

17
[*] G. lalor, A. Mullane, and M. O’Malley, “Frequency control and wind turbine technologies,” IEEE Trans. On Power
Systems, Vol. 20, No. 4, Nov. 2005.
 Transient frequency control
Consider losing a unit of ∆PG at t=0. Assume:
• There is no governor action between time t=0+ and time t=t1
(typically, t1 might be about 1-2 seconds).
• The deceleration of the system is constant from t=0+ to t=t1.
The frequency will decline to 60-mft1. The next slide illustrates.

d f PG f Re
 n  mf
2 H i
dt
i 1

18
 Transient frequency control
Frequency(Hz) t1

Time (sec)

d f PG f Re
60
mf1

 n  mf 60-mf1t1

2 H i
dt mf2

60-mf2t1
i 1 mf3

60-mf3t1

The greater the ROCOF following loss of a generator ∆PG, the lower
will be the frequency dip.
• ROCOF increases as total system inertia ΣHi decreases.
• Therefore, frequency dip increases as ΣHi decreases.
19
 Frequency Basics
• Aggregation
– Network frequency is close to uniform throughout the inter-
connection during the 0-20 second time period of interest for
transient frequency performance.
– For analysis of average frequency, the inertial and primary
governing dynamics may be aggregated into a single machine.
– This means the interconnection’s (and not the balancing area’s)
inertia is the inertia of consequence when gen trips happen.

20
Inertia and primary control from
solar PV and wind
Fuel Steam valve
supply control
control Steam Generator
FUEL
Boiler

MVAR
voltage
control
STEAM-
only
TURBINE CONTROL
SYSTEM
Mechanical
power control

Generator
Gear
Wind
Box
speed
Real power MVAR
output control voltage
WIND- control
TURBINE CONTROL
SYSTEM

21
 Inertia and primary control from
solar PV and wind
• A squirrel-cage machine or a wound-rotor machine (types
1 and 2) do contribute inertia.
• DFIG and PMSG wind turbines (types 3 and 4) and Solar PV
units cannot see or react to system frequency change
directly unless there is an “inertial emulation” function
deployed, because power electronic converters isolate
wind turbine/solar PV from grid frequency.
No inertial response from normal control methods of wind & solar
• Neither wind nor solar PV use primary control capabilities
today.
• There is potential for establishing both inertial emulation
and primary control for wind and solar in the future, but
so far, in North America, only Hydro Quebec is requiring it.
22
 Transient frequency control
So what is the issue with wind types 3,4 & solar PV….?
1. Increasing wind & solar PV penetrations tend to
displace (decommit) conventional generation.
2. DFIGs & solar PV, without special control, do not
contribute inertia. This “lightens” the system
(decreases denominator)  df P f
 nG Re  m f
2 H i
dt
3. DFIGs & solar PV, without special
control, do not have primary control capability. i 1
This causes frequency response degradation along
with other effects (e.g., increased deadband, sliding
pressure controls, blocked governor, use of power load
controllers, change in load frequency response)

23
Frequency Governing Characteristic, β

P
 (MW/0.1 Hz)
f
β,

The above is eastern interconnection characteristic.

Decline is not caused by wind/solar. However, IF…
• wind/solar displaces conventional units having
inertia and having primary control
• wind/solar does not have appropriate control.
THEN wind/solar will exacerbate decline in β.
“If Beta were to continue to decline, sudden frequency declines due to loss of large units will
bottom out at lower frequencies, and recoveries will take longer.”
Source: J. Ingleson and E. Allen, “Tracking the Eastern Interconnection Frequency Governing
24
Characteristic,” Proc. of the IEEE PES General Meeting, July 2010.
 Potential Impacts of Low Frequency Dips
• f<59.0 Hz  can impact turbine blade life.
• Gens may trip an UF relay (59.94 Hz, 3 min; 58.4, 30 sec;
57.8, 7.5 sec; 57.3, 45 cycles; 57 Hz, instantaneous)
• UFLS can trip interruptible load (59.75 Hz) and 5 blocks
(59.1, 58.9, 58.7, 58.4, 58.3 Hz)
• Can violate WECC criteria:

25

25
Some illustrations

26
 Crete
In 2000, the island of Crete had only 522 MW of conventional generation [*]. One plant has
capacity of 132 MW. Let’s consider loss of this 132 MW plant when the capacity is 522 MW.
Then remaining capacity is 522-132=400 MW. If we assume that all plants comprising that
400 MW have inertia constant (on their own base) of 3 seconds, then the total inertia
following loss of the 132 MW plant, on a 100 MVA base, is
[*] N. Hatziargyriou, G. Contaxis, M. Papadopoulos, B. Papadias, M. Matos, J. Pecas Lopes, E.
Nogaret, G. Kariniotakis, J. Halliday, G. Dutton, P. Dokopoulos, A. Bakirtzis, A. Androutsos, J.
Stefanakis, A. Gigantidou, “Operation and control of island systems-the Crete case,” IEEE
Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Volume 2, 23-27 Jan. 2000, pp. 1053 -1056.
n
400 * 3
 Hi 
i 1 100
 12

Then, for ∆PL=132/100=1.32 pu, and assuming the nominal frequency is 50 Hz, ROCOF is:
d f  PL f Re  1.32(50)
mf   n
  2.75Hz / sec
2 H i
dt 2 *12
i 1
If we assume t1=2 seconds, then ∆f=-2.75*2=-5.5 Hz, so that the nadir would be 50-
5.5=44.5Hz! For a 60 Hz system, then mf=-3.3Hz/sec, ∆f=-3.3*2=-6.6 Hz, so that the nadir
would be 60-6.6=53.4 Hz.
27
 Ireland
Reference [*] reports on frequency issues for Ireland. The authors performed analysis on the
2010 Irish system for which the peak load (occurs in winter) is inferred to be about 7245 MW.
The largest credible outage would result in loss of 422 MW. We assume a 15% reserve margin is
required, so that the total spinning capacity is 8332 MW.
Consider this 422 MW outage, meaning the remaining generation would be 8332-422=7910MW.
The inertia of the Irish generators is likely to be higher than that of the Crete units, so we will
assume all remaining units have inertia of 6 seconds on their own base. Then the total inertia
following loss of the 422 MW plant, on a 100 MVA base, is
n
7910 * 6
i 1 100
 Hi 
 475

Then, for ∆PL=422/100=4.32, and assuming the nominal frequency is 50 Hz, ROCOF is:
d f  PL f Re  4.32(50)
mf   n
  0.227 Hz / sec
2 H i
dt 2 * 475
i 1 2.75 sec
Nadir
Assuming t1=2.75 seconds, then
∆f=-0.227*2.75=-0.624 Hz,
so that the nadir is 50-0.624=49.38Hz.
The figure [*] illustrates simulated response
for this disturbance. 49.35

[*] G. lalor, A. Mullane, and M. O’Malley, “Frequency control and wind turbine 28
technologies,” IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol. 20, No. 4, Nov. 2005.
 Reasons why computed nadir is lower
than simulated one
• Governors have some influence in the simulation that is not
accounted for in the calculation.
• Some portion of the load is modeled with frequency
sensitivity in the simulation, and this effect is not accounted
for in the calculation.

29
 Contingencies
• Category C disturbance
i. Loss of large amounts of generation via two units at a single power plant
• Category D disturbance
i. Loss of large amounts of generation via three units at a single power
plant
ii. Loss of the California-Oregon Interface (COI) followed by activation of
the NE/SE islanding scheme
iii. Loss of large amounts of generation simultaneous with a reduction in
solar or wind power output
• The category (C or D) is indicated in a small box below lower
left-hand corner of each plot. Remember:
– Category B minimum freq dip is 59.6 Hz.
– Category C minimum freq dip is 59.0 Hz.
– Category D does not have a minimum
– Category “D-” indicates it is a particularly unlikely, but
severe event
30
 Some additional issues
• Spinning reserve levels affect on-line inertia and therefore results of transient
freq performance
• Solar-PV is “inertial-less.” Solar-thermal is not.
• Underfrequency load shedding can activate for “worse” initial freq performance
and make it look better at 10 secs.
• Severe voltage decline can reduce power consumption and improve freq
performance.
• The contingency selected has much effect.
d f PG f Re
 n  mf
2 H i
dt
i 1
o 2 units have greater ΔPG but
less restrictive criterion.
o What about loss of 2 units
AND large wind or solar
ramp?
o Islanding may be worst one.
Why?

31
Reduced inertia and governing capability in
SCE area (33% renewable for SCE in 2020)

Off-Peak Case

Peak Case

C: 59.0Hz
Nadir is around 59.82 / 59.74 Hz for reduced inertia in SCE area when Loss
of two Palo Verde units (2800MW in total)

32
 Reduced inertia and governing capability in
WECC area
• Less Inertia causes steeper drop of
frequency
Peak Case
• Loss of 3 PV units, nadir is about
59.72/ 59.68 Hz for Peak/Off-Peak
case

Off-Peak Case

D 33
 Less Reserve

• Less Reserve causes slower

restoration of frequency, lower
Peak Case post-contingency frequency
• Loss of 3 PV units, nadir is about
59.71/ 59.68 Hz for Peak/Off-Peak
case

Off-Peak Case

34
D
Lower Inertia/Governor Capability and Less
Reserve
Off-Peak Case

• Less Inertia and Less Reserve causes faster drop and slower
restoration of frequency, lower post-contingency frequency
• Loss of 3 PV units, nadir is about 59.67 Hz for Off-Peak case 35
Interaction Between Voltage Stability and
Frequency Stability-Loss of 2 Songs

Peak Case

• Lower Inertia case has better frequency performance for loss of 2

C: 59.0Hz Songs units in load center area
• Voltage sensitive load influences frequency response positively (“less”
36
load for lower inertia case)
Interaction Between Voltage Stability and
Frequency Stability-Loss of 2 Songs

Peak Case

• Put SVC near Songs Units, Frequency performance become worse than
C: 59.0Hz
the case without SVC, for loss of 2 Song Units
37
NE/SE Separation- Peak Case is studied
• Less Inertia and
primary control in
each island
• For peak case,
there is 4719 MW
of power flow on
those lines which
are part of the
separation
scheme.
• For off-peak case,
there are only
1405 MW.
• Only Peak Case is
studied

38
 NE/SE Separation
- Frequency of South Island
Peak Case with
Lower Inertia

• Lower Inertia or
Peak Case less reserve causes
bigger ROCOF,
which leads to
more load
shedding
(2000MW more)
Peak Case with and higher post-
Less Reserve
Frequency
Peak Case

39
D-
 NE/SE Separation
- Frequency of South Island

Peak Case with Lower Inertia

and Less Reserve

Peak Case

D-
• Lower Inertia and less reserve causes bigger ROCOF, which
leads to more load shedding and higher post-Frequency

40
 Renewable Ramp Down Together
with Loss of 1 PV Unit
Simulation Conditions:
– Max-solar case (Peak)
– Disable all automatic load shedding in dynamic
data
– In 0.1 s, turn off 3300 MW renewable( 1500 wind
+ 1800 Solar)
– At 0.1s, shut down 1 Palo Verde unit
– Lower Inertia and Lower governor ( only for one
case)

41
 Renewable ramp down with loss of 1 PV
unit
Peak Case

Ramp Down

Ramp Down +
1PV
Ramp Down+1 PV+
Lower Inertia and
Less Reserve

B-: 59.6Hz

• Lower nadir is about 59.63Hz at 500KV bus

42
Renewable ramp down with loss of 1 PV unit

Below 59.6 Hz
for more than 6
B-: 59.6Hz cycles (0.1s)

Frequency on different load buses (Ramp down renewable and loss of 1 biggest
unit with lower inertia and lower governor), Load shedding is disabled.

43
 Replace CST with solar PV and Reduce
Reserve
• Change all solar thermal units to solar PV in
dynamic models
• Reduce reserve level to 5% from 18% for solar
PV case by decreasing Pmax at SCE/WECC
Or
Shutdown conventional units to reduce
reserve level to 10%

44
Change all solar thermal to solar PV in
dynamic models for islanding

Max-Solar Case with all Solar PV

Max-Solar Case
with CST

• Max-solar case under NE/SE islanding contingency, all Solar PV case is

with less Inertia and less governor
45
 All Solar PV model and Less Reserve in
SCE or WECC
Peak Case with all Solar
PV+5% Reserve in SCE

Peak Case with all Solar

PV+5% Reserve in WECC

• NE/SE islanding contingency.

• Circle Red—with all solar PV model and reserve is reduced to 5% in area SCE.
• Star green— with all solar PV model and reserve is reduced to 5% in WECC for max-solar case.

46
All Solar PV model and Two Ways to
Change Reserve
Peak Case with all Solar
PV+5% Reserve in SCE

Peak Case with all Solar

PV+10% Reserve in SCE

Peak Case with all Solar

PV+5% Reserve in WECC

• Circle Red—with all solar PV model and 5% reserve in area SCE,

• Star green— with all solar PV model and 5% reserve in WECC,
• Square Brown-- with all solar PV model and 10% reserve in SCE by shutting off units for max-solar case
47
under NE/SE islanding contingency.