system impact study final report ca200s generation …

SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY FINAL REPORT

CA200S GENERATION STUDY

Prepared for:

El Paso Electric Company

Prepared by:

TRC Engineers, LLC 1526 Cole Boulevard Building 3, Suite 150

Lakewood, CO 80401 (303) 395-4018

October 2016

As supplemented January 2017

CA200S System Impact Study TRC October 2016 as supplemented January 2017 i

FOREWORD

This report was prepared for the project Interconnection Customer, by System Planning at El Paso Electric Company. Any correspondence concerning this document, including technical and commercial questions should be referred to:

David Tovar

Manager – System Planning Department El Paso Electric Company

100 North Stanton, Loc. 751 El Paso, Texas 79901

Phone: (915) 543-4355 Fax: (915) 521-4763

or

David Gutierrez

Principal Engineer El Paso Electric Company

100 North Stanton, Loc. 751 El Paso, Texas 79901

Phone: (915) 543-4083 Fax: (915) 521-4763

CA200S System Impact Study TRC October 2016 as supplemented January 2017 ii

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Development and Description of Cases ................................................................................................. 7 CA200S Study Generation Modeling ..................................................................................................... 8 Contingency Lists ................................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 STEADY STATE POWER FLOW ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 10 3.1 NORMAL OPERATING CONDITION POWER FLOW EVALUATION ...................................................................... 10

Pre-project N-0 Power Flow Evaluation ............................................................................................. 10 Post-project N-0 Power Flow Evaluation ............................................................................................ 10

3.2 EMERGENCY OPERATING CONDITION POWER FLOW EVALUATION ................................................................ 10 Pre-project N-1 Power Flow Evaluation ............................................................................................. 10 Post-project N-1 Power Flow Evaluation ............................................................................................ 10

3.3 POWER FLOW ANALYSIS NETWORK UPGRADE TESTING ................................................................................ 11 3.4 EXTREME OUTAGE PROTECTION (STEADY STATE) ........................................................................................ 14 3.5 POWER FLOW ANALYSIS CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 14

4.0 STEADY STATE VOLTAGE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 15 4.1 NORMAL OPERATING CONDITION VOLTAGE EVALUATION ............................................................................ 15

Pre-project N-0 Voltage Evaluation .................................................................................................... 15 Post-project N-0 Voltage Evaluation ................................................................................................... 15

4.2 EMERGENCY OPERATING CONDITION VOLTAGE EVALUATION ...................................................................... 15 Pre-project N-1 Voltage Evaluation .................................................................................................... 15 Post-project N-1 Voltage Evaluation ................................................................................................... 15

4.3 DELTA VOLTAGE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................... 16 4.4 POWER FACTOR TEST .................................................................................................................................... 16 4.5 STEADY STATE VOLTAGE ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 16

5.0 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 17 5.1 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS MODELING .......................................................................................................... 17 5.2 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................... 17 5.3 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS RESULTS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 18

6.0 STABILITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 21 6.1 DYNAMIC MODELING .................................................................................................................................... 21 6.2 STABILITY STUDY CASE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 21 6.3 PRELIMINARY STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................... 21 6.4 FINAL STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 22 6.5 EXTREME OUTAGE PROTECTION (STABILITY)................................................................................................ 23 6.6 STABILITY ANALYSIS CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 23

7.0 COST ESTIMATES, ONE-LINES, & PROJECT SCHEDULE ....................................................................... 24 8.0 DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................................................... 30 9.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 31

CA200S System Impact Study TRC October 2016 as supplemented January 2017

iii

List of Tables

Table 0-1: Project Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................. 3 Table 1-1: EPE and New Mexico Performance Criteria .............................................................................. 6 Table 2-1: Pre-project Base Case Scenarios ................................................................................................ 8 Table 2-2: Stability Contingencies ............................................................................................................... 8 Table 3-1: CA200S Impacts to Summer Emergency Equipment Loading ................................................ 11 Table 3-2: CA200S Impacts to Winter Emergency Equipment Loading ................................................... 11 Table 3-3: CA200S Impacts to Summer Emergency Equipment Loading After Network Upgrades ....... 12 Table 3-4: CA200S Impacts to Winter Emergency Equipment Loading After Network Upgrades .......... 12 Table 4-1: Pre-project Over Voltage Criteria Violations ............................................................................ 15 Table 5-1: Generator Short Circuit Modeling Data ................................................................................... 17 Table 5-2: Short Circuit Analysis Results .................................................................................................. 18 Table 6-1: Transient Stability Analysis Preliminary Results ..................................................................... 22 Table 6-2: Transient Stability Analysis Post-Network Upgrade Results ................................................... 23 Table 7-1: Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................ 24 Table 7-2: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for POI Station (CA200S) ............................................. 26 Table 7-3: EPE Network Upgrade Costs for the CA200S POI Station ..................................................... 26

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Year 2020 EPE Transmission System with CA200S POI ......................................................... 6 Figure 3-1: Year 2020 EPE Transmission System with CA200S POI and Network Upgrades ................. 13 Figure 7-1: CA200S POI Station One Line ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 7-2: Corona Switching Station (Network Upgrade) ........................................................................ 27 Figure 7-3: Cost Estimate Map ................................................................................................................... 29

Appendices

Appendix A Power Flow Contingency List Appendix B Initial Stability Plots Appendix C Worst Case Analysis Report Appendix D CA200S One Line Diagram Appendix E CA200S Project Schedule Appendix F Post-Project Stability Plots Appendix G Extreme Outage Protection Stability Plots

CA200S System Impact Study TRC October 2016 as supplemented January 2017 1

CA200S Generation System Impact Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of this System Impact Study (SIS) was to determine the impact of the proposed CA200S Project (Project) on the El Paso Electric Company (EPE) transmission system. In addition, EPE identified Public Service of New Mexico (PNM) as an Affected System, given the location of the proposed interconnection. The proposed CA200S Project (Project) is comprised of 200 MW of Photovoltaic (PV) solar powered generation to be interconnected on an existing 345 kV line running between EPE’s Amrad and Caliente Substations.

The proposed Commercial Operation date for the Project included is June 1st, 2021. In the SIS, the generation from the Project was modeled as delivered to serve EPE native load. The Study Areas for the analysis were limited to WECC Areas 11 - EPE and 10 - PNM.

By the proposed 2021 operation date for the CA200S Project, EPE plans to tie the 345 kV line from Amrad to Caliente at Picante. Effectively making two separately protected line sections, Amrad-Picante and Picante-Caliente. The new Amrad-Picante 345 kV line section will then ultimately be tapped to create the Point of Interconnection (POI) for CA200S.

Senior queued projects in the EPE study queue that have Interconnection Agreements (IA) with EPE were included in the base cases for this SIS. The only projects in the study queue that have signed IA with EPE are the 420 MW Montana Power Station (MPS) Project and 90 MW Santa Teresa Solar Project. Both projects were added to the study models.

Steady State and Stability analysis were conducted using two benchmark cases provided by EPE. The cases were a 2021 Heavy Summer (Peak) and a 2021/2022 Light Winter (Off Peak). Afton generation was assumed online in all Peak cases and offline in the Off Peak case. The Arroyo Phase Shifter was set to regulate N-S Flows from in all cases (10-20 MW under Peak loads and 150-160 MW under Off Peak loads).

Sensitivity cases were also developed to determine Project impacts on dispatch scenarios with the MPS Project and the Eddy County 200 MW High Voltage Direct Current Tie (Eddy County HVDC) being online or offline.

This System Impact Study Report addresses generation interconnection upgrades only, and does not address or imply any right to receive transmission service from EPE or any other transmission provider. Here, the Interconnection Customer has requested Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS). The study performed for NRIS assumed that the output of the Generating Facility may displace the output of other Network Resources on the EPE Transmission System, and then identifies the Network Upgrades that would be required to allow the Generating Facility to be counted towards system resource needs in the same manner as the displaced EPE resources. To be clear, the identification of Network Resources set forth herein does not eliminate the need for studies to be performed if and when an application is submitted to request transmission service for the delivery of the output of the Generating Facility, whether the transmission service requested is Network Integration Transmission Service or Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service. After receipt of a transmission service request, the Transmission Provider may perform studies and those studies may identify additional upgrades necessary to allow delivery service under the OATT. In contrast, the identification of Network Upgrades in the instant generator interconnection study is for the purpose of allowing the Interconnection Customer to be eligible to have its resource designated as a Network Resource on the EPE system. The upgrades identified in the report would be necessary for EPE to integrate the Generating Facility into the EPE Transmission System in a manner that permits aggregate generation to meet aggregate EPE load while satisfying reliability criteria and planning requirements, and without impinging upon adjacent transmission systems.


Steady State Results

EPE’s evaluation of the Project covered two alternative assumptions with regard to the status of the Eddy County HVDC. When the Eddy County HVDC were assumed online, results show that operating the Project and the Eddy County HVDC at the same time has potential to create overloads on the Amrad 345/115 kV autotransformer and the underlying Amrad 115 kV system under N-1 conditions. When the Eddy County HVDC were assumed to be off-line, the analysis showed that the Project exceeded EPE’s rights on the Amrad 345/115 kV autotransformer. Under either set of assumptions, Network Upgrades would be necessary. A new 345 kV switching Substation and an approximately 6 mile long 345 kV transmission line is recommended.

The recommended Network Upgrades are required for CA200S interconnection, and are described as follows:

Create New Corona Substation 1. Tap POI-Picante 345 kV Line where it begins to share Right-of-Way

(ROW) with the Newman-Picante 345 kV Line. a. Note: Amrad-Caliente 345 kV line = Amrad-Picante 345 kV

line by 2020 2. Tap Newman-Picante 345 kV Line In addition to the Corona Station 3. Build Corona- POI 345 kV Line (5.9 miles)

Results showed no remaining criteria violations after the addition of these Network Upgrades. However, during the Facility Study, operating restrictions may be established to protect against N-2 concerns when the Eddy County HVDC is set to import and CA200S is at its maximum (200 MW) output.

Short Circuit Results

A Short Circuit analysis was performed to determine if the addition of the CA200S generation would cause any existing EPE or PNM transmission system circuit breakers to exceed their interrupting ratings.

The results of the short circuit analysis show that after the addition of the Project maximum fault currents did not exceed breaker interrupting capability at any EPE or PNM circuit breakers.

Stability Results

Transient system stability was analyzed for faults relevant to the CA200S Study Areas under both peak and off peak load conditions. The CA200S dynamic model was provided by the developer as a GE 4 MW 1500V inverter which consists of the WECC required regc_a, reeec_b, and repc_a models with appropriate voltage and frequency parameters to comply with Low Voltage Ride Through criteria.

The analysis compared the system response to the fault simulations before and after the CA200S generation was added. After the addition of the Network Upgrades, results from the stability analysis showed that the EPE and Southwestern New Mexico transmission system remained stable for all simulated faults.

A Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) test was also completed. LVRT testing showed the Project can withstand a 9 cycle fault at the POI.

N-2 testing showed the Project must be taken out of service after/during an N-2 outage on the 345 kV path south of the POI (toward Corona). Therefore as mentioned above, during the Facility Study, operating restrictions may be established to protect against N-2 concerns when the Eddy County HVDC is set to import and CA200S is at its maximum (200 MW) output.

More details to be provided in the Facilities Study Report.


Cost Estimates and Schedule

Good faith cost estimates are presented. The cost estimates are in 2016 dollars (no escalation applied) and are based upon typical construction costs for previously performed similar construction. These costs include all estimated applicable labor and overheads associated with the engineering, design, and construction of these new EPE facilities. These estimates did not include the Generator Interconnection Costs1 for any other Interconnection Customer owned equipment or associated design and engineering except for the POI facilities.

The estimated total cost for the required upgrades is $34.7 Million for CA200S project. This breaks down to 0.86 Million for the EPE Interconnection Costs2 at the POI and $33.84 Million for Network Upgrade Costs3. Table 0-1 details the estimated costs. Please note, associated Generator Interconnection Costs have not been estimated as part of this study.

The estimated time frame for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction of Network Upgrades is approximately 45 months upon notice to proceed with construction from the Interconnection Customers.

Table 0-1: Project Cost Estimate

Project Item

EPE Interconnection

Substation Network Upgrade

Transmission Network Upgrade

Total

Cost Cost Cost Cost

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

CA200S CA200S Interconnection Station Construction

$0.86 $12.00 $12.86

Corona Switching Station $16.04 $16.04

CA200s POI to Corona 345 kV Transmission Line

$5.80 $5.80

Total CA200S $ 34.70 M

Conclusion

Results for this SIS show that operating the Project requires the following EPE facilities:



line by 2020

1 Generator Interconnection Costs: cost of facilities paid for by Interconnection Customer and owned and operated

by the Interconnection Customer from the generator facilities to the Change of Ownership Point, which is typically on the first dead-end at the Point of Interconnection substation.

2 EPE Interconnection Costs: cost of facilities paid for by Interconnection Customer but owned and operated by

EPE from the Change of Ownership Point to the Point of Interconnection. 3 Network Upgrades Costs: cost of facilities from the Point of Interconnection outward, paid for by the

interconnector but owned and operated by EPE.


2. Tap Newman-Picante 345 kV Line In addition to the Corona Station

3. Build Corona- POI 345 kV Line (5.9 miles)

The estimated total cost for the required upgrades is $34.7 Million for CA200S project, and the estimated time frame for Engineering, Procurement, and Construction of Network Upgrades is approximately 45 months upon notice to proceed with construction from the Interconnection Customers.


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires that a SIS be performed for generation facilities desiring to connect to any Transmission System. Here, the Interconnection Customer seeks to interconnect to the EPE Transmission System and to have its generating facility studied for Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS). The proposed CA200S Project (Project) is comprised of 200 MW of PV solar powered generation requesting to be interconnected on an existing 345 kV line running between EPE’s Amrad and Caliente Substations. This Study Report addresses generation interconnection upgrades only, and does not address or imply any right to receive transmission service from EPE or any other Transmission Provider.

The proposed Commercial Operation date for the Project included is June 1st, 2021. In the SIS, the generation from the Project was modeled as delivered to serve EPE native load. The Study Areas for the analysis were limited to WECC Areas 11 - EPE and 10 - PNM.

By the proposed 2021 operation date for the CA200S Project, EPE plans to tie the 345 kV line from Amrad to Caliente at Picante. Effectively making two separately protected line sections, Amrad-Picante and Picante-Caliente. The new Amrad-Picante 345 kV line section will then ultimately be tapped to create the POI for CA200S. The POI is approximately 15.7 miles away from Picante substation and 33 miles away from Amrad substation. The Project interconnection location is shown in Figure 1-1. The Detailed Project One Line Diagram is provided as Appendix E.

The Study was performed in accordance with Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and EPE standards. The EPE local reliability standards can be found in Section 4 of EPE’s FERC Form No. 715. The steady state and stability analysis was performed using General Electric’s (GE) Power System Load Flow (PSLF) software Version 19.

Transformer tap and phase-shifting transformer angle movement, as well as static var device switching, were allowed for the steady state pre-contingency analysis. All regulating equipment such as transformer controls and switched shunts were fixed at pre-contingency positions when the contingency analysis was performed. For post-contingency analysis Static var device switching was allowed, but all other regulation equipment was locked.

All facility loadings, as well as voltages 69 kV and greater, were monitored within the El Paso and PNM control areas. Pre-contingency and Post-contingency flows on lines and transformers were required to remain at or below the normal rating, while post-contingency flows on lines and transformers were required to remain at or below the emergency rating. Flows above 100% of an element’s pre-project or post-contingency rating were considered violations. All post-project voltage criteria violations that improve an existing pre-project violation were not considered an adverse impact to the system.

The performance criteria utilized for qualifying violations in the study area are shown in Table 1-1.


Table 1-1: EPE and New Mexico Performance Criteria

* Taiban Mesa and Guadalupe 345 kV bus voltage must be between 0.95 and 1.10 p.u. under normal and contingency conditions. ** For PNM buses in southern New Mexico the allowable N-1 voltage drop is 7%. *** Provided operator action can be utilized to adjust voltages back down to 1.05

Figure 1-1: Year 2020 EPE Transmission System with CA200S POI

Area Conditions Loading Limits Voltage (p.u.) Voltage Drop Application

EPE

Normal Normal Rating 0.95 - 1.05 69kV and above

Contingency Emergency Rating 0.90 - 1.05 7% 69 kV to 115 kV 0.90 - 1.10 7% 345 kV

5% 345 kV Greenlee

PNM

Normal ALIS Normal Rating 0.95-1.05 46 kV and above* Contingency

N-1 Emergency Rating 0.925-1.08*** 6 %** 46 kV to 115 kV 0.90 – 1.08*** 6 %** 230 kV and above

Contingency N-2 Emergency Rating 0.90-1.08*** 10 % 46 kV and above*

Tri- State

Normal ALIS Normal Rating 0.95-1.05 All buses

Contingency N-1 Emergency Rating

0.90 – 1.10 6 % Tri-State buses in the PNM Service Area (list provided by Tri-State)

0.90-1.10 7 % Tri-State buses in southern and northeastern New Mexico (list provided by Tri-State)

Contingency N-2

Emergency Rating 0.90-1.10 10% All buses


2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Assumptions

The following assumptions are consistent for all study scenarios unless otherwise noted.

• This study assumed that all system expansion projects as planned by area utilities by the year under analysis are completed, and that any system improvements required by the interconnections senior to the CA200S Study generation are implemented.

• This study did not analyze any transmission service from the interconnection point to any specific point on the grid for the interconnections senior to the CA200S Study generation. For the purposes of this SIS the Project generation was dispatched and delivered to serve EPE native load. To the extent the Interconnection Customer were to seek to transmit the Project generation to a particular delivery point on the EPE Transmission System, additional studies would have to be conducted as part of a point-to-point transmission service request.

2.2 Procedure

The analyses in this study included Steady State (including Power Factor Testing), Transient Stability, and Short Circuit Breaker Duty Analysis as stated in the CA200S Study SIS Statement of Work provided as Appendix A. Presented below is a description of the procedures used to complete the analyses.

Development and Description of Cases

Two benchmark cases 2021 Heavy Summer (Peak) and 2021/2022 Light Winter (Off Peak) were provided by EPE to develop the Pre-project and Post-project study cases. The Off Peak case was modified to include minimum EPE gas-fired generation online and maximum renewable generation online. The outcome of this modification left the Rio Grande #8 unit as the lone online gas-fired generation. Therefore, Rio Grande #8 unit was set as the system swing in the Off Peak cases.

Afton Generation was modeled in service for Peak cases and out of service for Off Peak cases. The Arroyo Phase Shifter was modeled to provide 10-20 MW N-S flow under Peak load conditions and 150-160 MW N-S flow during the Off Peak load conditions.

All study cases (Peak and Off Peak) were developed with the senior queued project Santa Teresa 90 MW PV as being in service. The Santa Teresa Solar project is proposed to be 90 MW interconnected between the proposed NW2 and Santa Teresa 115 Substations. The MPS project is planned to consist of four (4) 105 MW gas powered units, located about 3 miles east of EPE’s Caliente Substation. MPS Generation was modeled in service for all Off Peak cases. For the Peak cases, sensitivity cases were created with MPS switched on and off. Generation from both Santa Teresa PV and MPS were delivered to serve native EPE load.

Sensitivity cases were also developed for Eddy County HVDC On/Off operation for both Peak (with and without MPS) and Off Peak scenarios. In total there are (6) pre-project study cases, with various operating conditions, for both Peak and Off Peak loads. A list of the Pre-project study cases is given in Table 2-1 below.


Table 2-1: Pre-project Base Case Scenarios

Eddy County HVDC Status

Base Case – Peak (2021 Heavy Summer)

Base Case – Off Peak (2020/21 Winter Off Peak)

Off

Senior Queued Projects Arroyo PST 10-20 MW N-S

Afton in service MPS In Service


Afton out of service

Off


Afton in service MPS Out of Service



On


Afton in service MPS In Service



On


Afton in service MPS Out of Service



CA200S Study Generation Modeling

Post-project cases were created by adding the CA200S Project to the cases listed in Table 2-1. The Project was set initially at 200 MW and dispatched to serve EPE system native load.

The CA200S generation consists of 54 GE 4 MVA inverters and PV array installations to be located about 15.7 miles north of Picante 345 kV substation and 33 miles south of Amrad 345 kV substation. The requested maximum full output of this project is 200 MW at the POI.

The PV inverters proposed for this project are expected to produce 4.141 MW at 0.55 kV. This initial voltage would be immediately stepped up to the 34.5 kV collector voltage that is planned for the PV installations. A 345/34.5 kV main transformer will then step up the collector voltage to the 345 kV EPE Transmission System voltage.

Contingency Lists

The steady state contingency list can be found in Appendix B. The stability contingency lists is shown below in Table 2-2. Both lists were selected based on engineering judgement to represent a good cross section of potential contingencies that would stress the EPE and PNM systems.

Table 2-2: Stability Contingencies

Fault Type Location Duration Trip

3-Phase Caliente 345 kV 4 cycles Caliente 345/115 kV XMFR

3-Phase Caliente 345 kV 4 cycles Caliente - Picante 345 kV

3-Phase Afton 345 kV 4 cycles Afton - Newman 345 KV

3-Phase Afton 345 kV 4 cycles Loss of all Afton Gen

3-Phase Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman – Afton 345 kV

3-Phase Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman - Arroyo 345 kV

3-Phase Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman - Picante 345 kV

3-Phase* Picante 345 kV 4 cycles Amrad – Picante 345 KV

3-Phase** Picante 345 kV 4 cycles CA200S – Picante 345 KV

3-Phase Picante 345 kV 4 cycles Newman - Picante 345 kV


Fault Type Location Duration Trip

3-Phase Picante 345 kV 4 cycles Caliente - Picante 345 kV

3-Phase Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman 345/115 kV XMFR #1

3-Phase Newman 115 kV 4 cycles Newman - Chaparral 115 kV

3-Phase Newman 115 kV 4 cycles Newman 345/115 kV XMFR #1

3-Phase Chaparral 115 kV 4 cycles Chaparral - Newman 115 kV

3-Phase Chaparral 115 kV 4 cycles Chaparral - Oro Grande/Amrad 115 kV

3-Phase Amrad 115 kV 4 cycles Chaparral - Oro Grande/Amrad 115 kV

3-Phase Amrad 345 kV 4 cycles Amrad 345/115 kV XFMR

3-Phase* Amrad 345 kV 4 cycles Amrad - Picante 345 kV

3-Phase** Amrad 345 kV 4 cycles Amrad - CA200S 345 kV

3-Phase** CA200S POI 345 kV 4 cycles CA200S – Amrad 345 kV

3-Phase** CA200S POI 345 KV 4 cycles CA200S – Picante 345 KV

3-Phase** CA200S POI 345 kV 4 cycles CO200S 345/34.5 kV XFMR

3-Phase** CA200S POI 345 KV

9 cycles (VRT TEST)

N/A

No Fault** N/A N/A CA200S Generation

* Pre-project Only ** Post-project Only


3.0 STEADY STATE POWER FLOW ANALYSIS

This section provides a high-level understanding of the CA200S impact on the loading of transmission lines and transformers in the Study Area. The analysis was performed under both normal and contingency conditions. Peak and Off Peak base cases were evaluated for thermally overloaded facilities under both normal (N-0) and contingency (N-1) conditions prior to the addition of the CA200S generation.

3.1 Normal Operating Condition Power Flow Evaluation

Power flow analysis was completed under system Normal (N-0) conditions before and after the addition of the Project using both the Peak and Off Peak cases.

Pre-project N-0 Power Flow Evaluation

Power flow analysis results showed no overloaded transmission facilities were present in the El Paso Electric (EPE) and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) areas under Normal (N-0) system conditions prior to the addition of CA200S generation.

Post-project N-0 Power Flow Evaluation

After the addition of CA200S, power flow study results continued to show no overloaded transmission facilities in the El Paso Electric (EPE) and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) areas under Normal system conditions.

3.2 Emergency Operating Condition Power Flow Evaluation

Contingency power flow analysis was completed by testing the contingencies listed in Appendix B on the Peak and Off Peak cases both before and after the addition of the Project.

Pre-project N-1 Power Flow Evaluation

Power flow analysis results showed no overloaded transmission facilities were present in the El Paso Electric (EPE) and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) areas under Emergency (N-1) system conditions prior to the addition of CA200S generation.

Post-project N-1 Power Flow Evaluation

After the addition of CA200S, contingency power flow analysis showed no overloads in the cases with Eddy County HVDC offline, but with Eddy County HVDC online, the results showed overloads at the Amrad substation and EPE’s underlying 115 kV system under N-1 conditions. However, even when Eddy County HVDC is offline, the addition of CA200S, under N-1 conditions, exceeds EPE’s rights on the Amrad 345/115 kV autotransformer. PNM has ownership rights in this autotransformer, and such rights make a portion of the autotransformer a part of the PNM Transmission System, but the instant study does not address or imply any right to transmission service from any Transmission Provider. When the Interconnection Customer wants to deliver the output of its Generating Facility to a particular load, or sets of load, it may request Network Integration Transmission Service or Point-to-Point Transmission Service under the OATTs of the Transmission Providers on whose systems the target load or sets of load are located. After receipt of a transmission service request, the Transmission Provider(s) may perform studies and those studies may identify additional upgrades necessary to allow delivery service under the OATT. In contrast, the identification of Network Upgrades in the instant generator interconnection study is for the purpose of allowing the Interconnection Customer to be eligible to have its resource designated as a Network Resource on the EPE system.


Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show the thermal overloads caused by the addition of Project when the Picante-CA200S POI is modeled out of service.

Table 3-1: CA200S Impacts to Summer Emergency Equipment Loading

Monitored Element & Contingency Results (% of Rating)

Pre-CA200S Post-CA200S From

Bus Name kV To Bus Name kV MVA

Rating Contingency Description

2021HSDC

2021HS DC_MPS

2021HSDC

2021HS DC_MPS

AMRAD 345 AMRAD 115 333 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE

345.0 Circuit 1 59.5 59.2 117.7 118.8

AMRAD 115 ORO_GRAN 115 155 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE

345.0 Circuit 1 28.2 27.1 111.0 113.9

ORO_GRAN 115 CHAPARAL 115 155 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE

345.0 Circuit 1 18.0 17.0 100.3 103.2

Table 3-2: CA200S Impacts to Winter Emergency Equipment Loading


Pre-CA200S Post-CA200S From



2021LW DC

2021LW DC

AMRAD 345 AMRAD 345 333 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE

345.0 Circuit 1 59.2 118.8

AMRAD 115 ORO_GRAN 115 160 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE

345.0 Circuit 1 33.1 115.6

ORO_GRAN 115 CHAPARAL 115 140 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE

345.0 Circuit 1 28.6 121.8

AMRAD 115 LARGO 115 100 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE

345.0 Circuit 1 67.5 106.8

3.3 Power Flow Analysis Network Upgrade Testing

In order to address the Project impacts shown in the tables above, several different Network Upgrade alternatives were considered. While weighing constraints such as Right-of-Way issues, installation costs, construction time, and existing contract restrictions, a single set of Network Upgrades to address CA200S Project impacts was determined. The suggested Network Upgrades can be described as follows:

Create New Corona Substation 1. Tap CA200S POI-Picante 345 kV Line where it begins to share

Right-of-Way (ROW) with the Newman-Picante 345 kV Line. a. Note: Amrad-Caliente 345 kV line = Amrad-Picante 345 kV

line by 2020 2. Tap Newman-Picante 345 kV Line

In addition to the Corona Station 3. Build Corona-CA200S POI 345 kV Line (5.9 miles)


The Network Upgrades include the creation of a new 345 kV substation (“Corona”) and a 5.9 mile long 345 kV transmission line from the new Corona Substation to the CA200S POI. The proposed location of the Corona Substation is shown in Figure 3-1 (below).

Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show that the overloads caused by the addition of CA200S (presented in Section 3.2.2) are removed after the addition of the Network Upgrades.

Table 3-3: CA200S Impacts to Summer Emergency Equipment Loading After Network Upgrades


Pre-Network Upgrades Post-Network Upgrades From



2021HS DC

2021HS DC_MPS

2021HS DC

2021HS DC_MPS

AMRAD 345 AMRAD 115 333 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA

345.0 Circuit 1 117.7 118.8 40.6 41.0

AMRAD 115 ORO_GRAN 115 155 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA

345.0 Circuit 1 111.0 113.9 6.2 5.4

ORO_GRAN 115 CHAPARAL 115 155 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA

345.0 Circuit 1 100.3 103.2 6.1 7.2

Table 3-4: CA200S Impacts to Winter Emergency Equipment Loading After Network Upgrades


Pre-Network Upgrades Post-Network Upgrades From



2021LW DC

2021LW DC

AMRAD 345 AMRAD 115 333 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA

345.0 Circuit 1 118.8 42.8

AMRAD 115 ORO_GRAN 115 160 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA

345.0 Circuit 1 115.6 13.7

ORO_GRAN 115 CHAPARAL 115 140 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA

345.0 Circuit 1 121.8 7.9

AMRAD 115 LARGO 115 100 Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA

345.0 Circuit 1 106.8 57.6


Figure 3-1: Year 2020 EPE Transmission System with CA200S POI and Network Upgrades

In order to ensure that the Network Upgrades described in Section 3.3 will not cause any new thermal criteria violations, the Network Upgrades were added to the heaviest stressed Study cases (all cases with Eddy County HVDC), then tested under Normal (N-0) and Emergency (N-1) System Conditions. Outages of lines leaving the proposed Corona (345 kV) Substation were accounted for during the N-1 verification by the addition of three (3) new contingencies added to the initial set of (N-1) contingencies.

1. Corona – CA200S POI 345 kV Line (#1) 2. Corona – Newman 345 kV Line 3. Corona – Caliente 345 kV Line (#1)

The results in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 reflect this change in system topology before and after the addition of the proposed Network Upgrades. (i.e. Pre-Network Upgrade Contingency Description is actually the CA200 POI – Picante 345 kV Line as shown in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, while the Post-Network Upgrade Contingency Descriptions is accurately labeled for the loss of one of the two CA200 POI – Corona 345 kV Line that will exist after construction of the Corona Substation.)


3.4 Extreme Outage Protection (Steady State)

After the addition of the Network Upgrades discussed in Section 3.3, the same Pre-Network Upgrade overloads presented in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 (above) will become Post-Network Upgrade overloads under N-2 (or N-1-1) conditions. For instance, thermal overloads are seen around the Amrad Substation when both 345 kV circuits from the CA200S POI toward the new Corona Substation are out of service at the same time. EPE and NERC criteria allow for a RAS to address extreme outages such as the N-2 outages. Therefore, a RAS will be developed during the Facilities Study portion of the CA200S Interconnection Request. This RAS will establish dispatch conditions and operating limits that may require CA200S to be taken offline under some N-2 or N-1-1 conditions.


3.5 Power Flow Analysis Conclusion

In order to address CA200S Project impacts, a single set of Network Upgrades are recommended, described as follows:

Create New Corona Substation 1. Tap CA200S POI-Picante 345 kV Line where it begins to share

Right-of-Way (ROW) with the Newman-Picante 345 kV Line. a. Note: Amrad-Caliente 345 kV line = Amrad-Picante 345 kV


In addition to the Corona Station 3. Build Corona-CA200S POI 345 kV Line (5.9 miles)

After the addition of the proposed Network Upgrades, Power Flow Analysis Results showed there are no remaining overloaded facilities, under applicable N-0 or N-1 conditions, caused or worsened by the addition of the CA200S Project. Please note however that potential curtailment of CA200S under certain N-2 conditions will be investigated further within the Facilities Study Report.


4.0 STEADY STATE VOLTAGE ANALYSIS

Bus voltages within the Study Area were evaluated under both normal and contingency conditions with and without the CA200S PV generation in service. The Performance Criteria shown in Table 1-1 were considered when analyzing bus voltages for violations. Please note that the Post-project Voltage Evaluation discussed below includes the addition of the proposed Network Upgrades described in Section 3.3 of this report.

4.1 Normal Operating Condition Voltage Evaluation

Steady state voltage analysis was completed under system Normal (N-0) conditions before and after the addition of the Project using both the Peak and Off Peak cases.

Pre-project N-0 Voltage Evaluation

Steady state voltage analysis showed no voltage violations in the El Paso Electric (EPE) and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) areas under Normal (N-0) system conditions prior to the addition of CA200S generation.

Post-project N-0 Voltage Evaluation

Steady state voltage analysis showed no voltage violations in the El Paso Electric (EPE) and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) areas under Normal (N-0) system conditions after the addition of CA200S generation.

4.2 Emergency Operating Condition Voltage Evaluation

Contingency Voltage analysis was completed by testing the contingencies listed in Appendix B on the Peak and Off Peak cases both before and after the addition of the Project and relevant Network Upgrades discussed in Section 3.3.

Pre-project N-1 Voltage Evaluation

Study results show voltages above 1.05 pu at the Alamo 69 kV bus when the Sparks-Wrangler 115 kV is lost. This over voltage concern is due to an EPE modeling issue near Alamo 69 kV substation and is not affected by the addition of the Project. Allowing automated voltage regulation equipment to operate after the contingency reduces the voltage at Alamo 69 kV within criteria. Therefore no Network Upgrades are required.

Table 4-1: Pre-project Over Voltage Criteria Violations

Monitored Bus & Contingency Voltages (pu)

Name kV Area Contingency Description 2021LW Pre-CA200S

ALAMO 69 11 Line LANE___# 115.0 to WRANGLER 115.0 Circuit 1 1.062

Post-project N-1 Voltage Evaluation

The Alamo 69 kV over voltage violation remains present after the additional of the Project. However, the mitigation operations presented above remove the violation even after the additional of the Project, therefore no Network Upgrades are required.


4.3 Delta Voltage Evaluation

Bus voltages within the Study Area were evaluated under contingency conditions to determine the change in voltage due to applicable design contingencies both with and without the CA200S PV generation in service. The Performance Criteria shown in Table 1-1 were considered when analyzing bus voltages for violations. After testing all contingencies listed in Appendix B on Study Cases that included the Network Upgrades described in Section 3.3 of this report, results showed no bus voltages exceed the 7% Delta Voltage threshold allowed by EPE Performance Criteria.

4.4 Power Factor Test

A power factor test was conducted to show that the CA200S PV generator can maintain a 0.95 pu leading and lagging power factor at the POI.

Results showed the Project, as designed and operated at full 200 MW output, will continue to absorb vars past a 0.95 pu leading power factor. However, as seen in the below, the Project inverters can maintain only a 0.987 pu lagging power factor at the POI which is far short of the 0.95 pu lagging target required by EPE.

In order to account for reactive loss across the CA200S collector system, an additional 33 Mvar of capacitors will need to be added at the POI station in order to maintain a 0.95 lagging power factor at the POI bus.

Table 4-2: Power Factor Test Results

Power Factor Test Results PF Test Location

Power Factor (pu)

POI Voltage

CA200S MW

CA200S Mvar

POI Reactive (Mvar)

CA200S_POI 0.940 Leading 1.010 204 -31.0 N/A

CA200S_POI 0.987 Lagging 1.033 204 67.4 N/A

CA200S_POI 0.951 Lagging 1.037 204 67.4 33.0

4.5 Steady State Voltage Analysis Conclusions

There are no voltage violations caused or worsened by the addition of the CA200S Project once the Network Upgrades proposed in Section 3.3 have been modeled. However, in order to account for reactive loss across the CA200S collector system, an additional 33 Mvar of capacitors will need to be added at the POI station in order to maintain a 0.95 lagging power factor at the CA200S POI.


5.0 SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS

A short circuit analysis was performed to determine if the addition of the CA200S PV generation to the EPE transmission system would cause any of EPE’s transmission system’s existing substation circuit breakers to exceed their interrupting capability ratings.

The results below do not include the Network Upgrades described in Section 3.3. Because the Network Upgrades will consist solely of bus work and a transmission line, they are expected to have only marginal impact to fault currents and subsequent breaker duty.

5.1 Short Circuit Analysis Modeling

Pre-project and Post-project cases were developed to perform this analysis. As mentioned, any planned or proposed third party generation listed in EPE’s study queue ahead of CA200S PV generation was also modeled in the cases. The generator and collector system impedance data used in the study is shown in Table 5-1.

This analysis evaluated the impact of the CA200S generation by comparing the pre-project and post- project fault current levels at selected buses.

Table 5-1: Generator Short Circuit Modeling Data

Project Total

Output (MW)

Interconnection Customer GSU

Unit ID

Pmax (MW)

Qmax (Mvar)

Qmin (Mvar)

Z sub-transient

Rating (MVA)

Voltage (kV)

Z Sub-transient

CA200S 200 1 205.2 67.44 -67.44 0.000 +j0.2 225 345/34.5 0.00212 +j0.085

5.2 Short Circuit Analysis Procedure

The initial short circuit analysis was performed with all other third-party generation projects ahead of the CA200S generation in the study queue in service and CA200S generation out of service. This identified the “base case” fault duties of the circuit breakers. The short circuit analysis was performed again with CA200S generation in service.

Three phase, two phase, and single-phase line-to-ground faults were simulated at all buses in the EPE and PNM system. The ASPEN One Liner and Batch Short Circuit Module were used to perform the short circuit analysis. The short circuit fault analyses were performed with the following settings:

• Transmission line G+jB ignored. • Shunts with positive sequence impedance ignored. • Transformer line shunts ignored • The pre-fault voltage was calculated using a Flat bus voltage of 1.05 per unit.

Fault currents within the EPE System where analyzed before and after the addition of the CA200S project. Buses that showed an increase of 100 amps or more were reported. These scenarios were then compared against the smallest breaker interruption ratings at each substation to determine whether any breaker was over dutied under pre-project or post-project conditions.


5.3 Short Circuit Analysis Results and Conclusion

The results of this short circuit study showed that CA200S project has no significant impact to the fault currents on the EPE system. The study also showed that the fault currents produced by the CA200S generation will not exceed the interrupting capability of any existing or proposed circuit breakers on the EPE system. A complete list of the short circuit results is given in Table 5-1 below.

Table 5-2: Short Circuit Analysis Results

Bus Fault On Lowest Breaker Rating (kA) Fault

Pre-project Current

(Amperes)

Post-project Current

(Amperes)

Delta (Amperes)

AFTON 345 kV 50 3LG 9,638.3 9,860.1 221.8

2LG 9,432.4 9,569.3 136.9

AMRAD 115 kV 40 3LG 7,228.4 7,401.8 173.4

2LG 7,731.5 7,861.5 130.0

AMRAD 345 kV 40 3LG 4,348.4 4,627.6 279.2

2LG 4,180.2 4,345.5 165.3

ARROYO 115 kV 22 3LG 14,553.0 14,772.1 219.1

2LG 14,393.0 14,534.2 141.2

ARROYO 345 kV 40 3LG 7,112.5 7,301.5 189.0

2LG 6,975.0 7,092.7 117.7

ASCARATE 115 kV 20 3LG 19,205.1 19,425.8 220.7

2LG 18,869.6 19,008.5 138.9

AUSTIN 115 kV 20 3LG 19,222.8 19,422.3 199.5

2LG 18,452.4 18,570.4 118.0

BIGGS 115 kV 40 3LG 15,294.4 15,576.1 281.7

2LG 14,918.7 15,089.2 170.5

CA200S 34.5 kV 40 Assumed

3LG 0.0 26,594.2 26,594.2

2LG 0.0 21,393.6 21,393.6

1LG 0.0 17,596.1 17,596.1

CA200S COLR 34.5 40 Assumed

3LG 0.0 26,359.1 26,359.1

2LG 0.0 19,687.7 19,687.7

1LG 0.0 14,611.1 14,611.1

CA200S GEN 0.55 NA

3LG 0.0 1,835,888.1 1,835,888.1

2LG 0.0 1,562,619.9 1,562,619.9

1LG 0.0 1,055,776.5 1,055,776.5

CA200S POI 345 40 Assumed

3LG 6,521.4 7,234.9 713.5

2LG 6,386.3 6,812.1 425.8

1LG 5,814.1 5,989.6 175.5

CALIENTE 115 kV 40

3LG 22,091.8 22,718.0 626.2

2LG 23,492.0 23,954.7 462.7

1LG 24,155.3 24,400.4 245.1



Pre-project Current

(Amperes)


(Amperes)

Delta (Amperes)

CALIENTE 345 kV 40

3LG 8,336.6 8,923.8 587.2

2LG 8,538.2 8,933.4 395.2

1LG 8,481.0 8,674.5 193.5

CHAPARRAL 115 kV 40 3LG 16,642.2 16,816.6 174.4

COPPER 115 kV 25 3LG 17,221.4 17,415.0 193.6

2LG 16,732.8 16,850.8 118.0

COX 69 kV 18 3LG 14,212.2 14,420.5 208.3

2LG 14,002.7 14,135.4 132.7

COYOTE 115 kV 25 3LG 13,965.7 14,178.1 212.4

2LG 13,570.4 13,698.5 128.1

CROMO 115 kV 40 3LG 20,264.3 20,422.4 158.1

DIABLO 115 kV 31 3LG 21,783.2 21,956.1 172.9

2LG 22,063.4 22,180.7 117.3

DIAMONDHEAD 115 kV 40 3LG 15,525.6 15,783.1 257.5

2LG 14,957.0 15,109.1 152.1

DURAZNO 115 kV 40 3LG 15,656.0 15,783.5 127.5

DYER 69 kV 19 3LG 17,991.8 18,108.1 116.3

DYER 115 kV 20 3LG 16,299.8 16,445.0 145.2

FARAH 69 kV 19 3LG 15,620.8 15,724.8 104.0

FT_BLISS 115 kV 25 3LG 15,688.9 15,819.9 131.0

GLOBAL_RCH 115 kV 40 3LG 16,263.6 16,574.4 310.8

2LG 15,852.3 16,039.6 187.3

HORIZON 115 kV 40 3LG 10,235.6 10,345.7 110.1

INDUSTRIAL 115 kV 40 3LG 13,799.1 14,026.2 227.1

2LG 13,373.9 13,508.7 134.8

LANE 69 kV 19 3LG 14,954.8 15,072.3 117.5

LANE 115 kV 25 3LG 18,105.8 18,429.0 323.2

2LG 17,870.5 18,073.6 203.1

LAS_CRUC 115 kV 31 3LG 11,824.3 11,959.6 135.3

LIBERTY 115 kV 40 3LG 14,005.3 14,237.2 231.9

2LG 13,532.1 13,669.0 136.9

MARLOW 115 kV 31 3LG 18,547.2 18,740.7 193.5

2LG 17,807.6 17,922.5 114.9

MESA 115 kV 23 3LG 18,324.9 18,465.6 140.7

MONTANA-G1 13.8 kV 80 3LG 75,245.6 75,365.0 119.4

MONTANA-G2 13.8 kV 80 3LG 75,316.7 75,436.8 120.1

MONTANA-G3 13.8 kV 80 3LG 75,375.6 75,496.2 120.6

MONTANA-G4 13.8 kV 80 3LG 76,259.6 76,353.1 93.5

MONTWOOD 115 kV 40 3LG 13,881.8 14,105.5 223.7

2LG 13,257.2 13,387.4 130.2


20


Pre-project Current

(Amperes)


(Amperes)

Delta (Amperes)

MPS 115 kV 63

3LG 20,193.4 20,628.5 435.1

2LG 21,250.8 21,566.8 316.0

1LG 21,778.2 21,944.6 166.4

NEW5 _ST1 13.8 80 3LG 75,021.1 75,150.9 129.8

NEW_4ST 13.8 kV 80 3LG 75,293.4 75,427.6 134.2

NEWMAN 115 kV 50

3LG 33,153.0 33,740.5 587.5

2LG 38,322.4 38,831.1 508.7

1LG 40,076.2 40,359.3 283.1

NEWMAN 345 kV 50

3LG 9,955.9 10,463.3 507.4

2LG 10,166.1 10,505.5 339.4

1LG 9,955.8 10,119.2 163.4

PATRIOT 115 kV 40 3LG 23,249.0 23,529.4 280.4

2LG 23,627.1 23,810.5 183.4

PELLICANO 115 kV 40 3LG 11,012.9 11,148.6 135.7

PENDALE 115 kV 40 3LG 16,430.3 16,673.9 243.6 2LG 15,949.0 16,097.1 148.1

PICANTE 115 kV 40

3LG 17,516.1 17,915.8 399.7

2LG 17,242.6 17,492.8 250.2

1LG 16,067.0 16,177.4 110.4

PICANTE 345 kV 40

3LG 8,702.9 9,374.8 671.9

2LG 8,993.3 9,452.3 459.0

1LG 8,985.0 9,212.1 227.1

PICANTE TERT 13.8 40 3LG 24,071.0 24,279.5 208.5

RGD_GEN8 17.2 kV 86 3LG 83,799.4 83,909.3 109.9

RIO_GRAN 115 kV 40 3LG 23,828.2 24,044.6 216.4

2LG 24,714.5 24,868.5 154.0

RIPLEY 115 kV 40 3LG 16,000.4 16,104.7 104.3

SALOPEK 115 kV 22 3LG 10,847.1 10,955.5 108.4

SOL 115 kV 40 3LG 16,886.1 17,183.6 297.5

2LG 16,364.6 16,542.8 178.2

SPARKS 115 kV 40 3LG 11,546.9 11,682.0 135.1

SUNSET_N 115 kV 20 3LG 17,803.3 17,938.1 134.8

TROWBRIDGE 115 kV 30 3LG 18,771.4 18,978.0 206.6

2LG 18,218.8 18,345.0 126.2

VISTA 115 kV 25 3LG 18,339.5 18,710.7 371.2

2LG 18,002.7 18,230.7 228.0

WRANGLER 115 kV 40 3LG 15,793.8 16,041.0 247.2

2LG 15,260.3 15,408.4 148.1


6.0 STABILITY ANALYSIS

A Transient Stability analysis was performed under Peak and Off Peak load conditions to determine the degree of impact the Project may have on the EPE system. This analysis evaluated the performance of the system for selected faults. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure the system has adequate damping after a fault/trip event.

The analysis compared the system response to the fault simulations before and after the CA200S generation was added.

The simulations were conducted using the PSLF power flow and dynamic simulation software, General Electric, Inc. PSLF load flow software package, Version 18.1 and the associated “DYTools” module. Dynamic stability simulations were conducted for Peak and Off Peak load conditions with the CA200S generation off, and on at full capacity.

6.1 Dynamic Modeling

EPE provided the dynamic file data base for this part of the study. The Interconnection Customer provided the detailed model data sheets and/or parameter values for the CA200S inverters. For this analysis, the CA200S generation was modeled as a single PV inverter unit with capacity of 200 MW.

6.2 Stability Study Case Development

The same set of pre-project and post-project cases used for the Steady State analysis were used for the stability analysis representing the various Peak and Off Peak operating conditions.

6.3 Preliminary Stability Analysis Results

A Preliminary Stability Analysis was completed without the Network Upgrades included. Results for this preliminary set of tests are presented in the “post-project” stability plots found in Appendix C2. Table 6-1 shows the set of simulations completed for this initial line of testing. The fault names listed in the table correspond to the order and fault names of the plots in Appendix C of this report. Fault location, duration, and system response for all pre-project and post-project cases are also shown in Table 6-1. Please note, post-project faults on the 345 kV line from Picante to CA200S POI caused system collapse, so are not presented in Appendix C2 or Table 6-1. However, as discussed in Section 6.4, the recommended Network Upgrades resolve this issue. The stability plots in Appendix C are in separate files for pre-project and post-project simulations. The pre- project and post-project fault simulations are separated further by monitored parameter (Angle, Voltage, Frequency, and Project/POI Plots).

WECC Worst Case Analysis (WCA) was run during the preliminary testing to confirm that there were not any frequency or voltage violations occuring during the faults. Results in a Appendix D show that there were not any violations.


Table 6-1: Transient Stability Analysis Preliminary Results

Fault Name in Appendix C

Pre (C1) / Post (C2) Fault Location Fault

Duration Trip Pre-CA200S ALL CASES

Post-CA200S ALL CASES

Tran_1 / Tran_1 Amrad 345 kV 4 cycles Amrad 345/115 kV XFMR Stable Stable

Tran_2 / Tran_2 Caliente 345 kV 4 cycles Caliente 345/115 kV XMFR #1 Stable Stable

Tran_3 / Tran_3 Caliente 345 kV 4 cycles Caliente 345/115 kV XMFR #2 Stable Stable

Tran_4 / Tran_4 Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman 345/115 kV XMFR #1 Stable Stable

Tran_5 / Tran_5 Newman 115 kV 4 cycles Newman 345/115 kV XMFR #1 Stable Stable

Tran_6 / Tran_6 Afton 345 kV 4 cycles Loss of all Afton Gen Stable Stable

N/A / Tran_7 CA200S POI 345 kV 4 cycles CO200S 345/34.5 kV XFMR N/A Stable

Line _1/ Line _1 Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Afton - Newman 345 KV Stable Stable

Line _2/ Line _2 Afton 345 kV 4 cycles Newman – Afton 345 kV Stable Stable

Line_7 / Line_8 Caliente 345 kV 4 cycles Caliente - Picante 345 kV Stable Stable

Line_8 / Line_9 Picante 345 kV 4 cycles Caliente - Picante 345 kV Stable Stable

Line_9 / Line_10 Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman - Arroyo 345 kV Stable Stable

Line_10 / Line_11 Picante 345 kV 4 cycles Newman - Picante 345 kV Stable Stable

Line_11 / Line_12 Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman - Picante 345 kV Stable Stable

Line_12/ Line_13 Newman 115 kV 4 cycles Newman - Chaparral 115 kV Stable Stable

Line_13 / Line_14 Chaparral 115 kV 4 cycles Chaparral - Newman 115 kV Stable Stable

Line_14 / Line_15 Chaparral 115 kV 4 cycles Chaparral - Oro Grande 115 kV Stable Stable

Line_15 / Line_16 Amrad 115 kV 4 cycles Oro Grande - Amrad 115 kV Stable Stable

N/A / Line_17 Amrad 345 kV 4 cycles CA200S – Amrad 345 kV N/A Stable

N/A / Line_19 (VRT TEST) CA200S POI 345 KV 9 cycles CA200S – Picante 345 KV N/A Stable

N/A / Line_20 CA200S POI 345 kV 4 cycles CA200S – Amrad 345 kV N/A Stable

N/A / Gen_21 N/A N/A CA200S Generation N/A Stable

6.4 Final Stability Analysis Results

In order to ensure the Network Upgrades discussed in Section 3.3 address all Project impacts, additional stability simulations were completed with the Network Upgrades included.

The simulations completed during this “Final” analysis represent the most extreme fault conditions to be impacted by the Project or associated Network Upgrades (within applicable criteria). The simulated fault conditions are shown in Table 6-2. The set of fault simulations include a fault on one of the two 345 kV lines south of the POI that exist after the addition of the Network Upgrades.

The plots supporting the results discussed in Table 6-2 can be found in Appendix G1. Similar to the correlation between Table 6-1 and Appendix C, the fault names listed in Table 6-2 correspond to the order and fault names of the plots in Appendix G1 of this report.


Table 6-2: Transient Stability Analysis Post-Network Upgrade Results

Fault Name in Appendix G2 Fault Location Fault

Duration Trip Post-CA200S

Network Upgrade ALL CASES

Line_1 CA200S POI 345 KV 4 cycles CA200S – Corona 345 kV Stable

Line_2 Corona 345 kV 4 cycles CA200S – Corona 345 kV Stable

Line_3 Picante 345 kV 4 cycles Picante – Corona 345 kV Stable

Line_4 Corona 345 kV 4 cycles Picante – Corona 345 kV Stable

Line_5 Newman 345 kV 4 cycles Newman – Corona 345 kV Stable

Line_6 Corona 345 kV 4 cycles Newman – Corona 345 kV Stable

Line_7 Amrad 345 kV 4 cycles CA200S – Amrad 345 kV Stable

Line_8 CA200S POI 345 KV 4 cycles CA200S – Amrad 345 kV Stable

The stability plots in Appendix G1 are in separate files for pre-project and post-project simulations. The pre-project and post-project fault simulations are separated further by monitored parameter (Angle, Voltage, Frequency, and Project/POI Plots).

WECC Worst Case Analysis (WCA) was also run on these final set of simulation. Results in a Appendix G2 show that there were not any viloations.

6.5 Extreme Outage Protection (Stability)

As discussed in Section 3.4, EPE, WECC, and NERC criteria allow for a RAS to address reliability concerns caused by extreme outages. The loss of both 345 kV circuits from the CA200S POI toward the new Corona Substation is an example of an extreme outage created and impacted by the addition of CA200S. In order to ensure a RAS would address potential instability caused by an extreme outage, limited N-2 testing was completed.

The plots in Appendix H show that the system remains positively damped during an N-2 outage on the 345 kV path south of the CA200S POI, only if the CA200S Project is taken out of service after/during the N-2 outage. Therefore, during the Facilities Study detailed dispatch conditions and operating limits will be developed that may require CA200S to be taken offline under some N-2 or N-1-1 conditions.


6.6 Stability Analysis Conclusion

Once the Network Upgrades are included, the study area remains stable and well damped for all the faults analyzed. Potential N-2 or N-1-1 CA200S dispatch restrictions will be established as a RAS during the Facility Study portion of this Generation Interconnection Request.


7.0 COST ESTIMATES, ONE-LINES, & PROJECT SCHEDULE

Good faith cost estimates in 2016 dollars (no escalation applied) are presented below. The cost estimates are based upon costs for previously performed similar construction. These costs include all estimated applicable labor and overheads associated with the engineering, design, and construction of these new EPE facilities. These estimates did not include the Generator Interconnection Costs4 for any other Interconnection Customer owned equipment or associated design and engineering except for the POI and Network Upgrade facilities.

The estimated total cost for the required upgrades is $34.7 Million for CA200S project. This breaks down to 0.86 Million for the EPE Interconnection Costs5 at the POI and $33.84 Million for Network Upgrade Costs6. Table 7-1 details the estimated costs. Please note, associated Generator Interconnection Costs have not been estimated as part of this study.

Table 7-1: Cost Estimate

Project Item

EPE Interconnection

Substation Network Upgrade

Transmission Network Upgrade

Total

Cost Cost Cost Cost

(in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)

CA200S CA200S Interconnection Station Construction

$0.86 $28.04 $5.80 $34.70

Total CA200S $ 34.70 M

The one-line seen in Figure 7-1 shows the POI Substation equipment with a color coded cost responsibility breakdown. The substation costs for CA200S are given in Table 7-2 and Table 7-3 and provide a more detailed breakdown of the POI substation construction costs.

Figure 7-2 shows the Corona Substation equipment, all of which are Network Upgrades. A detailed breakdown of construction costs for Corona Substation and the 345 kV line between Corona and the CA200S POI are given in Table 7-4 and Table 7-5, respectively. A cost estimate map of the impacted study area is also presented in Figure 7-3.

The Project Schedule in Appendix F provides a more detailed breakdown of the estimated time for Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Commissioning.

4 Generator Interconnection Costs: cost of facilities paid for by Interconnection Customer and owned and operated

by the Interconnection Customer from the generator facilities to the Change of Ownership Point, which is typically on the first dead-end at the Point of Interconnection substation.

5 EPE Interconnection Costs: cost of facilities paid for by Interconnection Customer but owned and operated by

EPE from the Change of Ownership Point to the Point of Interconnection. 6 Network Upgrades Costs: cost of facilities from the Point of Interconnection outward, paid for by the

interconnector but owned and operated by EPE.


Figure 7-1: CA200S POI Station One Line


26

Table 7-2: EPE Interconnection Facilities Costs for POI Station (CA200S)

Element Description Cost Est. Millions

CA200S EPE Interconnection Facilities located at CA200S POI

• One 345 kV 2000 A disconnect switch w/ grounding • One 345 kV Dead-end Structure • One set of CCVT’s and Structures • Three Lightning arresters and Structures• One Set of 345 kV 3-Phase Metering Units and structures • Relaying, communication, and testing

$0.86

Estimated Time Frame for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning 19 Months

Table 7-3: EPE Network Upgrade Costs for the CA200S POI Station


CA200S POI 345 kV Substation

Build a new 345 kV Two-bay Breaker and a Half Scheme Switching station. The new equipment required includes:

• Six 345 kV 3000 A circuit breakers • Twelve 345 kV 2000 A disconnect switches • Three 345 kV 2000 A line disconnect switches w/ grounding • Nine sets of CCVT’s and Structures• Nine Lightning arresters and Structures• Four sets of Transmission Line Dead-end Assemblies for Substation Dead-end • One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural supports • One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA, communication, and testing • One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete, conduit, cable trench, and

fencing • Relay Setting Changes will also be needed at Amrad 345 kV

$12.00



27

Figure 7-2: Corona Switching Station One Line (Network Upgrade)


28

Table 7-4: EPE Network Upgrade Costs for the Corona Switching Station


CA200S POI 345 kV Substation

Build a new 345 kV Three bay Breaker and a Half Scheme Switching Station to Accommodate 5 345 kV transmission lines. The new equipment required includes:

• Eight 345 kV 3000 A circuit breakers • Seventeen 345 kV 2000 A disconnect switches • Five 345 kV 2000 A line disconnect switches w/ grounding • Fifteen sets of CCVT’s and Structures • Fifteen Lightning arresters and Structures• Five sets of Transmission Line Dead-end Assemblies for Substation Dead-end • One lot 345 kV bus, insulators, and structural supports • One lot Transmission line relaying, SCADA, communication, and testing • One lot ground grid, misc. grounding, concrete, conduit, cable trench, and

fencing • Relay Setting Changes will also be needed at Newman and Picante

$16.00


Table 7-5: EPE Transmission Line Network Upgrades


CA200S to Corona 345 kV Line

Build a new 5.9 Mile 345 kV line from CA200S POI to the new Corona 345 kV Switching Station.

$5.8



29

Figure 7-3: Cost Estimate Map


8.0 DISCLAIMER

If any of the project data provided by Interconnection Customer and used in this study varies significantly from the actual data of the installed generation equipment for CA200S, the results from this study will need to be verified with the actual data at the Project Interconnection Customer's expense. Additionally, any change in the generation in EPE’s Interconnection Queue that is senior to the CA200S may require a re-evaluation of this Study. Finally, this study focuses on the interconnection of the Interconnection Customer’s project to the EPE Transmission System, and does not provide or reflect transmission service rights to deliver the project’s generation to any particular point on the EPE Transmission System, or a third-party Transmission System.


9.0 CONCLUSIONS

This CA200S System Impact Study, consisted of a Steady State, Power Factor, Short Circuit and Stability Analysis, for a net 200 MW of generation interconnecting on the EPE Transmission System. The results of the analysis showed the need for a new 345 kV switching Substation and an approximately 6 mile long 345 kV transmission line.

The required Network Upgrades for CA200S interconnection are as follows:




In addition to the Corona Station 6. Build Corona- POI 345 kV Line (5.9 miles)

Results showed no remaining criteria violations after the addition of these Network Upgrades.

The estimated cost for integrating the CA200S Project and associated Network Upgrades onto the EPE Transmission System for NRIS is $34.7 Million. The good faith estimate for the time frame to Engineer, Procure, and Construct all facilities is 45 months for this POI switching station.

The identification of Network Upgrades in the instant generator interconnection study is for the purpose of allowing the Interconnection Customer to be eligible to have its resource designated as a Network Resource on the EPE system.

When the Interconnection Customer wants to deliver the output of its Generating Facility to a particular load, or sets of load, it may request Network Integration Transmission Service or Point-to-Point Transmission Service under the OATTs of the Transmission Provider(s) on whose system(s) the target load or sets of load are located. After receipt of a transmission service request, the Transmission Provider(s) may perform studies and those studies may identify additional upgrades necessary to allow delivery service under the OATT.

Appendix A

Power Flow Contingency List

CONTINGENCY LIST Transmission Lines

EPE Line Contingencies 1. ALA_5 115.0 to ORO_GRAN 115.0 Circuit 12. AMRAD 115.0 to LARGO 115.0 Circuit 13. AMRAD 345.0 to ARTESIA 345.0 Circuit 14. ANTHONY 115.0 to BORDER 115.0 Circuit 15. ANTHONY 115.0 to TRANSMTN 115.0 Circuit 16. ANTHONY 115.0 to NEWMAN 115.0 Circuit 17. ANTHONY 115.0 to SALOPEK 115.0 Circuit 18. ASCARATE 115.0 to COPPER 115.0 Circuit 19. ASCARATE 115.0 to RIVERENA 115.0 Circuit 110. AUSTIN_N 115.0 to MARLOW 115.0 Circuit 111. AUSTIN_N 115.0 to MARLOW 115.0 Circuit 212. BUTERFLD 115.0 to FT._BLIS 115.0 Circuit 113. CALIENTE 115.0 to LANE___# 115.0 Circuit 114. CALIENTE 115.0 to VISTA__# 115.0 Circuit 115. CALIENTE 345.0 to AMRAD 345.0 Circuit 116. CHAPARAL 115.0 to ORO_GRAN 115.0 Circuit 117. COPPER 115.0 to LANE___# 115.0 Circuit 118. COPPER 115.0 to PENDALE 115.0 Circuit 119. COYOTE 115.0 to MPS 115.0 Circuit 120. COYOTE 115.0 to RGC_DC 115.0 Circuit 121. CROMO 115.0 to RIO_GRAN 115.0 Circuit 122. DIABLO 115.0 to RIO_GRAN 115.0 Circuit 123. DIABLO 115.0 to RIO_GRAN 115.0 Circuit 224. DIABLO 115.0 to INSURG 115.0 Circuit 125. DYER 115.0 to AUSTIN_N 115.0 Circuit 126. DYER 115.0 to SHEARMAN 115.0 Circuit27. BIGGS 115.0 to PICANTE 115.0 Circuit 128. FT._BLIS 115.0 to AUSTIN_N 115.0 Circuit 129. GR 115.0 to VISTA__# 115.0 Circuit 130. HATCH 115.0 to JORNADA 115.0 Circuit 131. HOLLOMAN 115.0 to LARGO 115.0 Circuit 132. HORIZON 115.0 to PELICANO 115.0 Circuit 133. JORNADA 115.0 to ARROYO 115.0 Circuit 134. LANE___# 115.0 to WRANGLER 115.0 Circuit 135. LAS_CRUC 115.0 to ARROYO 115.0 Circuit 136. LAS_CRUC 115.0 to SALOPEK 115.0 Circuit 137. LUNA 345.0 to DIABLO 345.0 Circuit 138. LUNA 345.0 to HIDALGO 345.0 Circuit 139. LUNA 345.0 to AFTON 345.0 Circuit 140. MAR 115.0 to LARGO 115.0 Circuit 141. MARLOW 115.0 to TROWBRIG 115.0 Circuit 142. MESA___# 115.0 to AUSTIN_N 115.0 Circuit 143. MESA___# 115.0 to RIO_GRAN 115.0 Circuit 144. MILAGRO 115.0 to NEWMAN 115.0 Circuit 145. MILAGRO 115.0 to NEWMAN 115.0 Circuit 246. MILAGRO 115.0 to LEO 115.0 Circuit 1

47. NEWMAN 115.0 to BUTERFLD 115.0 Circuit 148. NEWMAN 115.0 to CHAPARAL 115.0 Circuit 149. NEWMAN 115.0 to PATRIOT 115.0 Circuit 150. NEWMAN 115.0 to SHEARMAN 115.0 Circuit 151. NEWMAN 345.0 to ARROYO 345.0 Circuit 152. NEWMAN 345.0 to AFTON 345.0 Circuit 153. PATRIOT 115.0 to NEWMAN 115.0 Circuit 154. PELICANO 115.0 to HORIZON 115.0 Circuit 155. PELICANO 115.0 to MONTWOOD 115.0 Circuit 156. RIPLEY 115.0 to THORN 115.0 Circuit 157. MONTWOOD 115.0 to CALIENTE 115.0 Circuit 158. MONTWOOD 115.0 to COYOTE 115.0 Circuit 159. ORO_GRAN 115.0 to AMRAD 115.0 Circuit 160. RIO_GRAN 115.0 to RIPLEY 115.0 Circuit 161. SALOPEK 115.0 to ARROYO 115.0 Circuit 162. SANTA_T 115.0 to DIABLO 115.0 Circuit 163. SANTA_T 115.0 to MONTOYA 115.0 Circuit 164. SANTA_T 115.0 to NW2 115.0 Circuit 165. SCOTSDALE 115.0 to VISTA__# 115.0 Circuit 166. PENDALE 115.0 to LANE___# 115.0 Circuit 167. SOL 115.0 to LANE___# 115.0 Circuit 168. SOL 115.0 to VISTA__# 115.0 Circuit 169. SPARKS 115.0 to HORIZON 115.0 Circuit 170. SUNSET_N 115.0 to RIO_GRAN 115.0 Circuit 171. TALAVERA 115.0 to ANTHONY 115.0 Circuit 172. THORN 115.0 to MONTOYA 115.0 Circuit 173. NW2 115.0 to DIABLO 115.0 Circuit 174. WHITE_SA 115.0 to ALA_5 115.0 Circuit 175. WRANGLER 115.0 to SPARKS 115.0 Circuit 176. WRANGLER 115.0 to SPARKS 115.0 Circuit 277. AEP 115.0 to AZTECAS 115.0 Circuit 178. AEP 115.0 to REA2 115.0 Circuit 179. CHAMIZAL 115.0 to COLEGIO 115.0 Circuit 180. CHAMIZAL 115.0 to RIVERENA 115.0 Circuit 181. CHAVENA 115.0 to AZTECAS 115.0 Circuit 182. COLEGIO 115.0 to CHAVENA 115.0 Circuit 183. COLEGIO 115.0 to FTS 115.0 Circuit 184. FTS 115.0 to TEC 115.0 Circuit 185. INSURG 115.0 to CHAMIZAL 115.0 Circuit 186. INSURG 115.0 to CHAVENA 115.0 Circuit 187. REA2 115.0 to AZTECAS 115.0 Circuit 188. REA2 115.0 to INSURG 115.0 Circuit 189. CALIENTE 345.0 to PICANTE 345.0 Circuit 190. NEWMAN 115.0 to PIPELINE 115.0 Circuit 191. LEO 115.0 to DYER 115.0 Circuit 192. PICANTE 345.0 to NEWMAN 345.0 Circuit 193. PICANTE 115.0 to BIGGS 115.0 Circuit 1

Appendix A Page 1of 5


94. PICANTE 115.0 to GR 115.0 Circuit 195. ANTHONY 115.0 to NW3 115.0 Circuit 196. ARROYO 115.0 to LE1 115.0 Circuit 197. APOLLOSS 115.0 to APOLLO 115.0 Circuit 198. HATCH 115.0 to LEASBURG 115.0 Circuit 199. LE1 115.0 to APOLLOSS 115.0 Circuit 1100. LE1 115.0 to JORNADA 115.0 Circuit 1 101. SUNSET_N 115.0 to DURAZNO 115.0 Circuit 1 102. DURAZNO 115.0 to ASCARATE 115.0 Circuit 1 103. LEASBURG 115.0 to JORNADA 115.0 Circuit 1 104. AFTON 115.0 to AIRPOR 115.0 Circuit 1 105. ASCARATE 115.0 to COPPER 115.0 Circuit 1 106. JORNADA 115.0 to AIRPOR 115.0 Circuit 1 107. AFTON_N 115.0 to AIRPOR 115.0 Circuit 1 108. SOL 115.0 to VISTA__# 115.0 Circuit 2 109. NEWMAN 115.0 to PICANTE 115.0 Circuit 1 110. PIPELINE 115.0 to BIGGS 115.0 Circuit 1 111. HIDALGO 345.0 to GREENLEE 345.0 Circuit 1 112. DONA_ANA 115.0 to LAS_CRUC 115.0 Circuit 1 113. AMRAD 115.0 to ALAMOGCP 115.0 Circuit 1 114. HOLLOMAN 115.0 to ALAMOGCP 115.0 Circuit 1 115. WESTMESA 345.0 to ARROYO 345.0 Circuit 1 116. AIRPOR_T 115.0 to AIRPOR 115.0 Circuit 1 117. CABALLOT 115.0 to UVAS 115.0 Circuit 1 118. UVAS 115.0 to MIMBRES 115.0 Circuit 1 119. ORO_GRAN 115.0 to JARILLA1 115.0 Circuit 1 120. WSTAP 115.0 to WHITE_SA 115.0 Circuit 1 121. ASCARATE 115.0 to TROWBRIG Circuit 1 122. MPS 115.0 to COYOTE 115.0 Circuit 2 123. MPS 115.0 to MONTWOOD 115.0 Circuit 1 124. CALIENTE 115.0 to MPS 115.0 Circuit 1 125. CALIENTE 115.0 to MPS 115.0 Circuit 2 126. LE1 115.0 to ARROYO 115.0 Circuit 1 127. CALIENTE 115.0 to DIAMOND_HEAD 115.0 Circuit 1 128. RIPLEY 115.0 to THORN 115.0 Circuit 2 129. CALIENTE 345.0 to PICANTE 345.0 Circuit 1 130. MACHO_SPRNGS 345.0 to LUNA 345. Circuit 1 131. MACHO_SPRNGS 345.0 to SPRINGR 345.0 Circuit 1 132. Line LE1 115.0 to ARROYO 115.0 Circuit 1 133. PICANTE 345.0 to AMRAD 345.0 Circuit 1 134. WESTMESA 345.0 to ARR___PS 345.0 Circuit 1 135. NW2 115.0 to DIABLO 115.0 Circuit 1 136. AMRAD 345.0 to OTERO_POI 345.0 Circuit 1 137. OTERO_POI 345.0 to PICANTE 345.0 Circuit 1

PNM Line Contintengincies 138. BA-PACHMANN 115 kV (CB)

139. BELEN-WILLARD 115 kV (WL) 140. BELEN-TOME 115 kV (TJ) 141. BELEN-WEST MESA 3 115 kV (WB) 142. BELEN-SOCORRO 115 kV (SOC) 143. CORRALES-IRVING 115 kV (IC) 144. CORRALES-PACHMANN 115 kV (CY) 145. EMBUDO-SANDIA 2 115 kV (SE) 146. EMBUDO-NORTH(TL)/EB86 (EB) 115 kV 147. EMBUDO-REEVES 1 115 kV (RE) 148. EMBUDO-REEVES 2 115 kV (ER) 149. IRVING-WEST MESA 1 115 kV (WR) 150. IRVING-REEVES 1 115 kV (IR) 151. KIRTLAND-PERSON 115 kV (PS) 152. KIRTLAND-SANDIA 1 115 kV (KS) 153. NORTH-PRAGER 115 kV (PN) 154. NORTH-MISSION 115 kV (MN) 155. NORTH-REEVES 1 115 kV (RN) 156. NORTON-ETA 115 kV (NL) 157. NORTON-ZIA 2 115 kV (NS) 158. NORTON-HERNANDEZ 115 kV (NH) 159. OJO-HERNANDEZ 115 kV (HO) 160. PACHMANN-WEST MESA 3 115 kV (CE) 161. PERSON-SP83/HW43 115 kV (SP) 162. PERSON-WEST MESA 2 115 kV (PM) 163. PERSON-TOME 115 kV (AT) 164. PERSON-WEST MESA 1 115 kV (PW) 165. PRAGER-WEST MESA 2 115 kV (WP) 166. REEVES 2-MISSION 115 kV (NR) 167. REEVES 2-WEST MESA 2 115 kV (NW) 168. SANDIA 1-HW43/EB68 115 kV (EB) 169. SANDIA 2-SP83 115 kV (SP) 170. VALENCIA-ZIA 115 kV (SL) 171. VALENCIA-STORRIE LAKE 115 kV (VS) 172. WEST MESA 115 kV BUS TIE 1-3 173. WEST MESA 1-GULF PGT 115 kV (KM) 174. WEST MESA 115 kV BUS TIE 1-2 175. WEST MESA 3-BLUEWATER 115 kV (BW) 176. YAHTAHEY-PEGS 115 kV (GYTH&WTG) 177. ZIA 115 kV BUS TIE 178. ETA-STA 115 kV (SA) 179. ETA-WTA 115 kV (TE) 180. ETA-TA53 115 kV (LA) 181. STA-WTA 115 kV (SW) 182. TA3-TA53 115 kV (SW) 183. TA3-WTA 115 kV (WT) 184. SPRINGER-TAOS 115 kV 185. SPRINGER-STORRIE LAKE 115 kV

Appendix A Page 2 of 5


186. TAOS-HERNANDEZ 115 kV 187. GLADSTONE-CLAPHAM 115 kV 188. RIO PUERCO - CORRALES BLUFFS (RR) 115 kV 189. AMBROSIA-WEST MESA 230 kV (WA) 190. AMBROSIA-PEGS 230 kV 191. AMBROSIA-BISTI 230 kV (BI) 192. BA-RIO PUERCO 345 kV 193. WEST MESA-RIO PUERCO 345 kV 194. BA-GAUDALUPE 345 kV (BB) 195. B-A-RIO PUERCO 345 kV 196. SAN JUAN-RIO PUERCO 345 kV 197. BA-NORTON 345 kV (NB) 198. BISTI-PILLAR 230 kV (BP) 199. FOUR CORNERS-WEST MESA 345 kV (FW) 200. GALLEGOS-PILLAR 230 kV (GC) 201. OJO-SAN JUAN 345 kV (OJ) 202. OJO-TAOS 345 kV (OT) 203. PILLAR-FOUR CORNERS 230 kV (AF) 204. SANDIA-WEST MESA 345 kV (WS) 205. SAN JUAN-SHIPROCK 345 kV (SR) 206. SAN JUAN-MCKINLEY 345 kV #1 207. SAN JUAN-MCKINLEY 345 kV #2 208. SAN JUAN-SANJN PS 345 kV (SH) 209. TAIBAN-BLACKWATER 345 kV (TB) 210. WALSENBURG - GLADSTON 230 kV 211. LORDSBURG-MD 69 kV 212. SILVER CITY-TURQUOISE 69 kV 213. SILVER CITY-MD 69 kV 214. ALMAMOGORDO-AMRAD 115 kV 215. ALAMOGORDO-DONA ANA 115 kV 216. ALAMOGORDO-HOLLOMAN 115 kV 217. AMRAD-LARGO/HOLLOMAN 115 kV 218. AMRAD-OROGRANDE 115 kV 219. HIDALGO-LORDSBURG 115 kV 220. HIDALGO-TURQUOISE 115 kV 221. LUNA-MIMBRES 115 kV 222. LUNA-MD 115 kV 223. MD-TURQUOISE 115 kV 224. MIMBRES-PICACHO 115 kV 225. MIMBRES-ELEPHANT BUTTE 115 kV 226. PICACHO-DONA ANA 115 kV 227. PICACHO-ELEPHANT BUTTE 115 kV 228. BRIGS – NEW EPE 115 kV 229. LUNA-LEF 345.0 kV


CONTINGENCY LIST Transformers

EPE Transformers 230. AMRAD 345/115 kV Circuit 1 231. ARROYO 345/115 kV Circuit 1 232. ARROYO 345/115 kV Circuit 2 233. CALIENTE 345/115 kV Circuit 1 234. CALIENTE 345/115 kV Circuit 2 235. DIABLO 345/115 kV Circuit 1 236. DIABLO 345/115 kV Circuit 2 237. DIABLO 345/115 kV Circuit 3 238. NEWMAN 345/115 kV Circuit 1 239. PICANTE 345/115 kV Circuit 1 240. AFTON 345/115 kV Circuit 1 241. HIDALGO 345/115 kV Circuit 1 242. HIDALGO 345/115 kV Circuit 2 243. LUNA 345/115 kV Circuit 1

PNM Transformers 244. ZIA 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER #1 245. ZIA 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER #2 246. PERSON 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER 247. PRAGER 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER 248. SANDIA 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER #2 249. TOME 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER 250. ZIA 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER #3 251. ZIA 115/46 kV TRANSFORMER #1 & 2 252. SPRINGER-GLADSTONE 115 kV 253. TAOS 345/115 kF TRANSFORMER #3 254. TAOS 345/115 kF TRANSFORMER #4 255. AMBROSIA 230/115 kV TRANSFORMER 256. BA 345/115 TRANSFORMER 257. OJO 345/115 kV TRANSFORMER 258. SANDIA 345/115 kV TRANSFORMER 259. WESTMESA 345/115 kV TRANSFORMER #1 260. WESTMESA 345/115 kV TRANSFORMER #2 261. WESTMESA 230/115 kV TRANSFORMER #1 262. WESTMESA 230/115 kV TRANSFORMER #2 263. NORTON 345/115 kV TRANSFORMER 264. MCKINLEY-YAHTAHEY 345/115 kV TRANSFORMER 265. SAN JUAN-HOGBACK 230/115 kV TRANSFORMER


CONTINGENCY LIST Generators

EPE GENERATORS 266. AMRAD_A 13.2 Unit ID 1 267. NEWMANG3 13.8 Unit ID 1 268. NEWMN4S1 13.8 Unit ID 1 269. NEWMN5G1 13.8 Unit ID 1 270. NEWMN5G2 13.8 Unit ID 1 271. NEWMN5S1 13.8 Unit ID 1 272. NEWMN6G1 13.8 Unit ID 1 273. NEWMN6G2 13.8 Unit ID 1 274. NEWMN6S1 13.8 Unit ID 1 275. RIOGD_G8 17.5 Unit ID 1 276. RIOGD_G9 13.8 Unit ID 1

277. ST_DIST_PV 24.9 Unit ID 1 278. APT_DIST_PV 24.9 Unit ID 1 279. CHAP_DIST_PV 13.8 Unit ID 1 280. HAT_DIST_PV 24.9 Unit ID 1 281. MPS G1 13.8 Unit ID 1 282. MPS G2 13.8 Unit ID 1 283. MPS G3 13.8 Unit ID 1 284. MPS G4 13.8 Unit ID 1 285. CA200S 286. DS90S PV


Appendix B Initial Stability Plots

Initial Stability plots are not included in this report because there are 645 pages of plots in this Appendix. Plots for this study will be provided in a zip file upon request.

Appendix C

Worst Case Analysis

The Worst Case Analysis (WCA) report is not included because there are 1,155 pages of results in this study. The WCA report for this study will be provided in a zip file upon request.

Appendix D

Detailed Project One Line Diagram

Appendix E

Project Schedule

ID Task Mode

Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors

1 CA200S Switching Station 590 days Tue 1/3/17 Mon 4/8/19

2 Preliiminary Engineering 4 wks Tue 1/3/17 Mon 1/30/17

3 Permitting 26 wks Tue 1/31/17 Mon 7/31/17 2

4 Engineering and Procurement 52 wks Tue 8/1/17 Mon 7/30/18 3

5 Construction 36 wks Tue 7/31/18 Mon 4/8/19 4

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q32017 2018 2019

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only

Manual Summary Rollup

Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Progress

Manual Progress

CA200S Project Schedule

Page 1

Project: CA200S InterconnectioDate: Fri 8/12/16

Appendix F

Post-Project Stability Plots

Post-Project Stability Plots are not included because there are 1,468 pages of results in this study. Post-Project Stability results for this study will be provided in a zip file upon request.

Appendix G

Stability Plots – Extreme Outage Protection

System Rotor Angles

Heavy Summer

Without MPS With DC

Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 11208 NEWMN5G1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11209 NEWMN5G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11261 NEWMN5S1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11227 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11112 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11113 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

line_1Line OTERO_POI 345.0 to CORONA 345.0 Circuit 1

pslf19\samples\DYTOOLS-HD

Tue Sep 06 16:10:20 2016

Page 2DC-ON_MPS-OFF-2-line_1.chf

Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10485 AFTONS 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11115 NEWMN4G1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10396 LEF_S1 18.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:20 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10262 REEVE_G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10320 SJUAN_G3 22.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11114 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11135 RIOGD_G8 17.5 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10486 AFTONG 18.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 16500 SPR GEN1 19.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:22 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 11208 NEWMN5G1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11209 NEWMN5G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11261 NEWMN5S1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11227 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11112 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11113 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:22 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:22 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10262 REEVE_G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10320 SJUAN_G3 22.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11114 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11135 RIOGD_G8 17.5 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10486 AFTONG 18.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 16500 SPR GEN1 19.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:20 2016


Heavy Summer

With MPS With DC

Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10262 REEVE_G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10320 SJUAN_G3 22.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11114 NEWMANG3 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11135 RIOGD_G8 17.5 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10486 AFTONG 18.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 16500 SPR GEN1 19.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:23 2016

Page 1DC-ON_MPS-ON-2-line_1.chf

Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 11208 NEWMN5G1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11209 NEWMN5G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11261 NEWMN5S1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11227 MPS1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11112 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11113 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:23 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:23 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10262 REEVE_G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10320 SJUAN_G3 22.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11114 NEWMANG3 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11135 RIOGD_G8 17.5 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10486 AFTONG 18.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 16500 SPR GEN1 19.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:25 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 11208 NEWMN5G1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11209 NEWMN5G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11261 NEWMN5S1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11227 MPS1 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11112 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11113 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:25 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:25 2016


Light Winter

With DC

Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10262 REEVE_G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10320 SJUAN_G3 22.0 gentpf 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11114 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11135 RIOGD_G8 17.5 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10486 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 16500 SPR GEN1 19.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:26 2016

Page 1LW_DC-ON-2-line_1.chf

Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 11208 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11209 0.0 gentpf 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11261 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11227 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11112 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11113 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:26 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10485 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11115 0.0 gentpf 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10396 LEF_S1 18.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:26 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10262 REEVE_G2 13.8 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10320 SJUAN_G3 22.0 gentpf 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11114 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11135 RIOGD_G8 17.5 genrou 1 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10486 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 16500 SPR GEN1 19.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:28 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 11208 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11209 0.0 gentpf 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11261 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11227 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11112 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11113 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:28 2016


Rotor Angles (deg)

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

-100.0000 a ang 10485 0.0 genrou 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 11115 0.0 gentpf 1 100.0000 -100.0000 a ang 10396 LEF_S1 18.0 genrou 1 1 100.0000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:10:28 2016


System Bus Voltages

Heavy Summer

Without MPS With DC

Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25

0.0000 a vbus 10292 SAN_JUAN 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2500 0.0000 a vbus 10294 SANDIA 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2500 0.0000 a vbus 10369 WESTMESA 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2500 0.0000 a vbus 11014 ARR___PS 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2500 0.0000 a vbus 11093 LUNA 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2500

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:34:03 2016


Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25

0.0000 a vbus 11010 AMRAD 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2500 0.0000 a vbus 11017 ARROYO 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2500 0.0000 a vbus 11080 HIDALGO 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2000 0.0000 a vbus 11111 NEWMAN 345.0 vmeta 1 1 1.2000

Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:34:03 2016


Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

Otero 70 MW PV Plant ModelFirst Solar, Tempe, AZ


Tue Sep 06 16:34:05 2016


Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:34:05 2016


Heavy Summer

With MPS With DC

Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:34:06 2016


Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:34:08 2016


Light Winter

With DC

Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:34:09 2016


Bus Voltages (pu)

0.00

0.13

0.25

0.38

0.50

0.63

0.75

0.88

1.00

1.13

1.25


Time( sec )0.0 10.01.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0



Tue Sep 06 16:34:11 2016


System Bus Frequency

Heavy Summer

Without MPS With DC

Frequency (Hertz)

57.00

57.50

58.00

58.50

59.00

59.50

60.00

60.50

61.00

61.50

62.00

57.0000 a fbus 11010 AMRAD 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000 57.0000 a fbus 11017 ARROYO 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000 57.0000 a fbus 11080 HIDALGO 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000 57.0000 a fbus 11111 NEWMAN 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000 57.0000 a fbus 10292 SAN_JUAN 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000 57.0000 a fbus 10294 SANDIA 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000

Time( sec )1.0 10.01.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1



Tue Sep 06 16:36:56 2016


Frequency (Hertz)

57.00

57.50

58.00

58.50

59.00

59.50

60.00

60.50

61.00

61.50

62.00

57.0000 a fbus 10369 WESTMESA 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000 57.0000 a fbus 11014 ARR___PS 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000 57.0000 a fbus 11093 LUNA 345.0 fmeta 1 1 62.0000

Time( sec )1.0 10.01.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1



Tue Sep 06 16:36:56 2016


Frequency (Hertz)

57.00

57.50

58.00

58.50

59.00

59.50

60.00

60.50

61.00

61.50

62.00


Time( sec )1.0 10.01.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1



Tue Sep 06 16:36:57 2016


Heavy Summer

With MPS With DC

Frequency (Hertz)

57.00

57.50

58.00

58.50

59.00

59.50

60.00

60.50

61.00

61.50

62.00


Time( sec )1.0 10.01.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1



Tue Sep 06 16:36:59 2016


Frequency (Hertz)

57.00

57.50

58.00

58.50

59.00

59.50

60.00

60.50

61.00

61.50

62.00


Time( sec )1.0 10.01.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1



Tue Sep 06 16:37:00 2016


Light Winter

With DC

Frequency (Hertz)

57.00

57.50

58.00

58.50

59.00

59.50

60.00

60.50

61.00

61.50

62.00


Time( sec )1.0 10.01.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1



Tue Sep 06 16:37:02 2016


Frequency (Hertz)

57.00

57.50

58.00

58.50

59.00

59.50

60.00

60.50

61.00

61.50

62.00


Time( sec )1.0 10.01.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1



Tue Sep 06 16:37:03 2016


system impact study final report ca200s generation …

Documents