Solar

Impact Case Study

Trishia Swayne, P.E.

Leidos
Introduction
Clean Energy Outlook
Agenda
Case study prole
Load scenarios determined
Base case model established
Analysis and results
Summary and mi@ga@ons
Case Study Prole
298 kW of proposed PV
Two primary points of interconnec@on through exis@ng u@lity
distribu@on transformers
Four interconnec@on step down transformers within camp
Two 23 kW inverters and nine 28 kW inverters total
Primary distribu@on voltage of 13.2 kV; only one circuit served from
the substa@on transformer
Site is 3.4 miles from the substa@on
There is 5,135 feet of secondary overhead construc@on within the
camp to interconnect the inverters
The circuit has 8.1 kW of exis@ng rooQop, residen@al solar
Case Study Prole

PV Site
Substa'on
Load Scenarios
One year of hourly circuit data provided (MW, MVAR)-
Filter to day@me hours only

PEAK

MIN
Base Case Model
Regulator and capacitor verica@on
Pole # Phase Size Layout Hold Voltage Bandwidth Compensa'on (R) Compensa'on (X) Time Delay
K45399 A 219 Pole 126 2 0 0 75
K44869 A 50 Pole 125 2 5 0 45
K44867 B 100 Pole 122 2 8 0 45
K44868 C 100 Pole 123 2 5 0 45
175145 A 219 Pla\orm 124 2 1 0 60
175145 B 219 Pla\orm 124 2 3 0 60
175145 C 219 Pla\orm 124 2 1 0 60
K45291 C 100 Pole 122 2 8 0 75

Pole # KVAR Total Type Control Phase Can Size(s) Voltage

165747 50 Fixed 50 4.16
K44892 150 Fixed 50 4.16
K45154 600 Time Controlled A 200 13.2
K45416 50 Fixed 50 2.4
Base Case Model
Add exis@ng/queued
PV to model
Pole Interconnected? Type kW
129829 Yes as of 12/11/2012 PV 4.085
K45473 Yes as of 10/8/2014 PV 4
Analysis
Reverse power ow problem iden@ca@on
Voltage and capacity review
Voltage icker analysis
Short circuit analysis
Risk of islanding assessment
Analysis - Reverse Power Flow
Load dura@on curve at substa@on transformer
(day@me hours only)

0.063 MW
Analysis Voltage and Capacity
Pre and post project load ows conducted
Primary feeder voltage remains within planning
criteria (126 V 118 V)
Conductor capacity issues were not iden@ed
High voltage was iden@ed on the secondary side of
the project site, as high 146 V
Bank of single-phase line regulators will experience
reverse power ow
Analysis Voltage and Capacity
Analysis Voltage Flicker Analysis
Criteria for this u@lity is IEEE 519; all PV in the model is
studied in on/o format
Analysis Voltage Flicker Analysis

Primary System Secondary System

Allowable
Min Load Max Load Min Load Max Load
Flicker (%) Flicker (%) Flicker (%) Flicker (%)
2% 0.23% 1.03% 15.94% 16.46%
Analysis Short Circuit
The primary transformers at the two points of
interconnec@on are grounded wye on both
windings
The four new transformers within the camp
are also grounded wye on both windings
The inverters are able to @e to the neutral of
the step-transformers, crea@ng a solidly
grounded system
Analysis Short Circuit
Eec@ve grounding calcula@ons indicate the
system is eec@vely grounded with the project
online, based on IEEE 142

X0
0 < < 3 R0
0 < < 1
X1 X1
Analysis Short Circuit
Analysis was conducted to conrm if
overvoltages on unfaulted phases at the point
of interconnec@on would be of concern
Use fault ow in WindMil to evaluate
Analysis Short Circuit
Run fault current and determine if fault currents
on the feeder exceed interrup@ng ra@ngs
LG LG LLL LLL Maximum % Fault
GEN
Fault Loca'on
Status (Amps) (MVA) (Amps) (MVA) Current Contribu'on
OFF 13 kV Bus Substa@on 3,019 690 3,070 702
0.33%
ON 13 kV Bus Substa@on 3,028 692 3,080 704

OFF 69 kV Bus Substa@on 4,346 5,193 4,982 5954

0.04%
ON 69 kV Bus Substa@on 4,347 5,195 4,984 5957
Analysis Risk of Islanding
Four-step analysis was conducted based on the
November 2012 Sandia Suggested Guidelines
for Assessment of DG Uninten@onal Islanding
Risk report
Analysis Risk of Islanding
Step 1: Determine whether the aggregate AC ra@ng of all DG exceeds 2/3 of the minimum feeder loading. If
Yes, proceed to Step 2. If No, there is minimal risk of islanding and analysis is complete.
Step 2: Determine whether QPV + Qload is within 1% of the total aggregate capacitor ra@ng within the island,
or alterna@vely, use real and reac@ve power ow measurements or simula@ons at the point at which the island
can form to determine whether the feeder power factor is ever higher than 0.99 (lag or lead) at that point for an
extended period of @me. If Yes to either evalua@on, a detailed islanding analysis should be considered. If No,
proceed to Step 3.
Step 3: Determine whether the poten@al island contains both rota@ng and inverter-based DG, and the sum of
the AC ra@ngs of the rota@ng DG is more than 25% of the total AC ra@ng of all DG in the poten@al island. If Yes,
a detailed islanding analysis should be considered. If No, proceed to Step 4.
Step 4: Sort the inverters by manufacturer, sum up the total AC ra@ng of each manufacturers product within
the poten@al island, and determine each manufacturers percentage of the total DG. If no single manufacturers
product makes up at least 2/3 of the total DG in the poten@al island, then further study may be prudent. If the
situa@on is such that more than 2/3 of the total DG is from a single manufacturer, then the risk of uninten@onal
islanding can be considered negligible.
Analysis Risk of Islanding
Y indicates risk

Poten'al
Step 1 (Y/N) Step 2 (Y/N) Step 3 (Y/N) Step 4 (Y/N)
Island
Circuit 3096 Y Y N N
Analysis Summary & Mi@ga@ons

Viola'on Mi'ga'on
Reverse power ow at substa@on Replace substa@on regulator controls
Excessive voltage icker at site secondary Construct primary construc@on to site
Excessive steady state voltage at inverters instead of ~1 mile of secondary
Reverse power ow at bank of line Replace regulator controls
regulators
Risk of uninten@onal islanding Direct Transfer Trip (DTT)
Ques@ons

Trishia Swayne, P.E.

Leidos Director Interconnec@on Studies

Email: Trishia.S.Swayne@leidos.com
Phone: 615-431-3227