GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION REQUEST

BHBE-G7
Interconnection Feasibility Study

PREPARED
BY
BLACK HILLS POWER
TRANSMISSION PLANNING

April 1, 2008

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 4
1
Background ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.1
Study Objective................................................................................................................... 6
1.2
Project Description ............................................................................................................. 6
1.3
Modeled Layout.................................................................................................................. 8
2
Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 9
2.1
Transmission System .......................................................................................................... 9
3
Base Case Development............................................................................................................ 9
3.1
Base Case Origin and Year................................................................................................. 9
3.2
Area Load ........................................................................................................................... 9
3.3
Planned Projects.................................................................................................................. 9
3.4
Analytical Tools................................................................................................................ 10
4
Steady State Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................... 10
4.1
Steady State Analysis Methodology ................................................................................. 10
4.1.1
Voltage Limits .......................................................................................................... 10
4.1.2
Thermal Limits ......................................................................................................... 10
4.1.3
Solution Parameters .................................................................................................. 11
4.2
Case Naming Convention ................................................................................................. 11
4.3
Steady State Contingency List.......................................................................................... 13
4.4
Steady State Base Case Dispatch and Interface Conditions ............................................. 14
5
Steady State Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 14
5.1
Light Winter Pre-Wind Results ........................................................................................ 15
5.2
Light Winter Energy Resource Results ............................................................................ 15
5.3
Light Winter Network Resource Results .......................................................................... 15
5.4
Heavy Summer Pre-Wind Results .................................................................................... 15
5.5
Heavy Summer Energy Resource Results ........................................................................ 15
5.6
Heavy Summer Network Resource Results...................................................................... 15
6
Stability Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................. 16
6.1
Stability Testing Methodology ......................................................................................... 16
6.1.1
Stability Performance Criteria .................................................................................. 16
6.1.2
Low Voltage Ride Through Criteria......................................................................... 16
6.2
Stability Base Case Dispatch and Interface Conditions.................................................... 16
6.3
Stability Fault Descriptions .............................................................................................. 16
7
Stability Analysis Results ....................................................................................................... 17
8
TOT 4A/4B Analysis............................................................................................................... 17
8.1
TOT 4A/4B Analysis Procedure....................................................................................... 17
8.2
TOT 4A/4B Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 19
9
Short Circuit Analysis ............................................................................................................ 19
9.1
Short Circuit Study Modeling........................................................................................... 19
9.2
Short Circuit Analysis Results.......................................................................................... 20
9.3
Short Circuit Analysis Conclusion ................................................................................... 22
10
Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 22
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Preliminary One Line Diagrams of Proposed Wind Farm...................................... 24

List of Tables

Table 1: Proposed Project Generator Modeling Data......................................................................... 6

Table 2: Proposed Project Collector Data........................................................................................... 6
Table 3: Proposed Project Transformer Modeling Data..................................................................... 7
Table 4: Steady State Voltage Criteria ............................................................................................. 10
Table 5: Steady State Solution Parameters ....................................................................................... 11
Table 6: Pre-Wind Prior Outage List................................................................................................ 12
Table 7: Post-Wind Prior Outage List .............................................................................................. 12
Table 8: Pre-Wind Scenario Contingency List ................................................................................. 13
Table 9: Post-Wind Scenario Contingency List ............................................................................... 14
Table 10: Stability Fault Descriptions .............................................................................................. 16
Table 11: TOT 4A/4B Study Contingency List................................................................................ 18
Table 12: Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla POI Fault Results....................................................................... 21
Table 13: Pumpkin Buttes POI Fault Results ................................................................................... 21
Table 15: Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV Line POI Costs.............................................................. 22
Table 16: Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV Substation POI Costs ................................................................ 22
List of Figures

Figure 1: Modeled Layout of Proposed Project.................................................................................. 8

Figure 2: Case Naming Convention.................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3: TOT 4A/4B Analysis Results............................................................................................ 19

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

Executive Summary
Black Hills Power conducted an Interconnection Feasibility Study (FS) under the guidance of the Common Use System
(CUS) Open Access Transmission Tariff Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) for the interconnection
customer to construct and interconnect a 500 MW wind farm in northeast Wyoming. The proposed project consists of
three hundred thirty-four (334) 1.5 MW GE wind turbine generators and will connect to the CUS 230 kV transmission
system at or near Pumpkin Buttes substation in Campbell County, Wyoming. The initial interconnection date for the
project is September 2010.
The study was performed as a Feasibility Study (FS) based upon the information set forth in the signed Interconnection
Request dated September 25, 2007.
The purpose of the study was to:
(i)
Analyze the steady-state and short circuit conditions for the project
(ii) Evaluate limited worst-case stability performance
(iii) Determine any upgrades to the transmission system that would be required to mitigate any adverse
impacts that the proposed project could otherwise pose on the reliability and operating characteristics of
the transmission system.
(iv) Determine any upgrades required to mitigate any degradation to transmission transfer capability.
The primary area of concern for this study is northeast Wyoming. The proposed project is to be interconnected at a
new switching station on the Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV line. The Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV substation was
evaluated as an alternative Point of Interconnection (POI). The project was evaluated as both an Energy Resource and
as a Network Resource
Steady-State Analysis
Steady-state voltage and thermal analyses examined system performance without the proposed project in order to
establish a baseline for comparison. System performance was re-evaluated with the project in place and compared with
the baseline performance to demonstrate the impact of the project on local transmission reliability.
If the project was interconnected at a tap bus on the Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV line, a second 230 kV circuit from
the tap bus to the Pumpkin Buttes substation would be required to prevent thermal overload issues. Costs of this line
are dependent on the location of the tap bus relative to Pumpkin Buttes. Total costs of interconnecting on the Pumpkin
Buttes-Teckla 230 kV line were estimated at $6,318,000. These costs include a new 230 kV five-terminal substation, a
second 230 kV circuit connected from the POI to Pumpkin Buttes, and the addition of a new bay in the Pumpkin Buttes
substation.
Interconnecting directly to the Pumpkin Buttes substation would require a new bay in the Pumpkin Buttes substation at
an estimated cost of $1,000,000.
The interconnection of the proposed 500 MW project as an energy resource would require additional transmission
capacity to deliver the energy outside the study area. Identifying the best transmission alternative is dependent on the
size of the project and the point-of-delivery for the resource. A 150-mile 230 kV path from Carr Draw to Tongue River
to Yellowtail was modeled to provide a generic solution to the issues encountered in the study. The upgrade of a single
115 kV line in the study area was also required to accommodate the proposed 500 MW project. Total costs for these
upgrades were estimated at $44,480,000.
The required upgrades would be limited to the Dave Johnston-Dave Johnston South Tap 115 kV line if the nameplate
rating of the project was reduced to 250 MW. Cost estimates for this configuration were approximately $280,000.
No additional transmission system upgrades were identified in order to interconnect the proposed project as a network
resource.
Stability Analysis
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

Stability cases evaluated the impact of the proposed project on transmission system performance for the light winter
load level, as high energy exports and lower load levels present a worst-case model. Several wind dispatch scenarios
were utilized during the stability analysis.
The stability analysis identified the projects impacts on the transmission system following several different
disturbances and verified the projects Low Voltage Ride-Through (LVRT) capability was in accordance with the
current FERC LVRT standard. Stability analysis results showed that no reliability criteria were violated as a result of
the proposed interconnection.
TOT 4A/4B Analysis
The proposed project as studied was located in close proximity to the TOT4A and TOT4B paths. Steady state analysis
was performed to determine any adverse impacts on the established path operating limits. The results of the analysis
verified that there were no negative impacts to TOT4A and TOT4B as a result of interconnecting the proposed wind
plant.
Short Circuit Analysis
Short circuit analysis was performed during the FS to assess the impact of the proposed project on the fault current
levels and breaker duty in the area. The surrounding breakers were evaluated to determine if the additions to the
transmission system created any breaker over-duty conditions. No adverse short circuit impacts were identified as a
result of interconnecting the proposed project.
Conclusion
The interconnection Feasibility Study identified no necessary upgrades to the local transmission system if the proposed
project was interconnected as a Network Resource.
If the project proceeds with Energy Resource Interconnection Service, the maximum nameplate output of the project
would be limited to 250 MW to prevent thermal overloads on the surrounding transmission system. Upgrades
necessary to accommodate the entire 500 MW project as an energy resource were estimated at $44,480,000.
Approximate costs of the interconnection on the Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV line were $6,318,000. Approximate
costs of the Pumpkin Buttes interconnection were estimated at $1,000,000. These costs are separate from the upgrade
costs associated with the Energy Resource interconnection.
Interconnection Service in and of itself does not convey any right to deliver electricity to any specific customer or Point
of Delivery. Curtailment of the proposed interconnection project may be necessary under certain emergency operating
conditions.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

Background
1.1 Study Objective
The primary objective of the study was to determine whether the proposed interconnection had any adverse impacts
on the reliability, stability or operating characteristics of the Bulk Power System (BPS). Steady-state and shortcircuit conditions were analyzed in this study. Additionally, limited worst-case stability performance was
evaluated.
1.2 Project Description
The proposed project consists of three hundred thirty-four (334) 1.5 MW GE wind turbine generators, producing up
to 500 MW total. The project was studied as both a network resource and an energy resource, interconnected at
either a new switching station on the Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV line or directly to the Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV
substation.
The Project as modeled consists of the following electrical components and construction activities:
Construct a 230 kV substation estimated to be 5.6 miles from the Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV substation.
Alternatively, the project would tie directly into the Pumpkin Buttes substation.
Install four 230/34.5 kV transformers that will connect the 34.5 kV collector system feeders directly to a 230
kV bus, which will also be located at the projects substation.
Construct 333 wind turbine generators (WTGs) operating at 575 V nominal, each equipped with its own
dedicated 575 V: 34.5 kV generator step-up transformer (GSU). The change in the number of WTGs from
334 to 333 was per the modeling data submitted by the Interconnection Customer.
Construct four collector buses operating at 34.5 kV nominal; each bus consisting of approximately 83 GE 1.5
MW wind turbines. The collector buses will tie into one 34.5 kV main collector bus in the projects 230 kV:
34.5 kV substation.
1.2.1
Technical Specifications
Tables 1-3 list the technical specifications as provided by the interconnection customer.

Table 1: Proposed Project Generator Modeling Data

Proposed Project Generator Modeling Data Referenced From Low Side of GSU

Type

Power Factor Range

Individual Unit
MVA Rating

MW

1.67

1.5

Lagging

Leading

0.90

0.95

Doubly-Fed Induction Generator (DFIG)

Table 2: Proposed Project Collector Data

Description
34.5 kV Collector System

Proposed Project Transmission Line Data

Type
Base MVA
R (u-Ohm/ft)
500 MCM

100

0.00

X (u-Ohm/ft)

B (uS/mi)

0.0001

0.0001

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

Table 3: Proposed Project Transformer Modeling Data

STEP-UP

FEEDER PARAMETERS
Feeder#

Length
(mi)

#1 - rated 75/100/125 MVA

1.0

0.024

(x=0.1200 on 100 MVA Base)

2.0

230/34.5 kV Xfmr

EQUIVALENT GEN PARAMETERS

B

# of
Turbines

MVA

Qmax

Qmin

0.027

0.004

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

0.048

0.053

0.009

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

0.8

0.018

0.020

0.003

18

30.1

27.0

8.8

-13.1

2.5

0.060

0.067

0.011

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

2.0

0.048

0.053

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

86

143.6

129.0

42.1

0.009
Transformer
Total

-62.8

#2 - rated 75/100/125 MVA

4.5

0.108

0.120

0.020

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

(x=0.1200 on 100 MVA Base)

3.8

0.090

0.100

0.017

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

5.5

0.132

0.146

0.024

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

6.8

0.163

0.181

0.030

16

26.7

24.0

7.8

-11.7

10

8.0

0.192

0.213

16

26.7

24.0

7.8

-11.7

83

138.6

124.5

40.7

0.035
Transformer
Total

-60.6

#3 - rated 75/100/125 MVA

11

4.3

0.103

0.114

0.019

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

(x=0.1200 on 100 MVA Base)

12

5.5

0.132

0.146

0.024

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

13

7.0

0.168

0.186

0.031

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

14

7.5

0.180

0.200

0.033

16

26.7

24.0

7.8

-11.7

15

5.8

0.138

0.153

16

26.7

24.0

7.8

-11.7

83

138.6

124.5

40.7

0.026
Transformer
Total

-60.6

#4 - rated 75/100/125 MVA

16

6.3

0.151

0.168

0.028

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

(x=0.1200 on 100 MVA Base)

17

8.0

0.192

0.213

0.035

16

26.7

24.0

7.8

-11.7

18

9.1

0.218

0.242

0.040

15

25.1

22.5

7.4

-11.0

19

7.8

0.186

0.206

0.034

17

28.4

25.5

8.3

-12.4

20

7.8

0.186

0.206

-11.7

0.034
Transformer
Total

16

26.7

24.0

7.8

81

135.3

121.5

39.7

-59.1

Project Total

333

556.1

499.5

163.2

-243.1

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

1.3 Modeled Layout

The project was modeled using lumped equivalent machines as shown in Figure 1. The POI in Figure 1 is a new
substation on the Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV line. The Hartzog 230 kV bus as shown in Figure 1 is synonymous
with the Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV bus. A PSS/E single-line diagram is included in Appendix A.

Figure 1: Modeled Layout of Proposed Project

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

Study Area
2.1 Transmission System
The study area consists of the northeast Wyoming bulk transmission system centered on Campbell County,
Wyoming. The study area is bounded by TOT4B to the northwest, TOT4A to the southwest, Laramie River Station
and Stegall to the southeast, and Rapid City to the east.

Base Case Development

3.1 Base Case Origin and Year
The base cases originated from the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Library as part of the 2007
Study Program. The base case for the 2011 heavy summer load scenario was the 11HS1B1P study case. The 2011
light load scenario started with the 2011LSP1SA1P study case. These base cases were selected primarily due to their
recent approval dates with the assumption that the level of accuracy regarding system representation would be higher
than that of an older base case.
3.2

Area Load
3.2.1
2011 Heavy Summer
The 2011 heavy summer load case was created by updating BHP, CLF&P, and Basin Electric loads to their 2011
peak forecast values. Minor load additions were also included for better representation of the northeast
Wyoming area.
3.2.2
2011 Light Winter
The 2010 light winter load case was created by scaling BHP and CLF&P loads to 55% of 2011 peak summer
forecast values, and Basin Electric loads to 75% of 2011 peak winter forecast values. Coal Bed Methane (CBM)
loads were scaled to 100% of peak winter forecast values. As in the summer case, minor load additions were
included.

3.3 Planned Projects

Several planned projects exist that were deemed relevant to the study and were added to the WECC base cases.
These additions are listed below.
3.3.1
Hughes Transmission Project
The Hughes Transmission Project was included in all study cases. The project consists of two phases, the first
of which is a new 230 kV transmission line extending from the existing Hughes 230 kV substation to the new
Dry Fork 230 kV substation and on to the existing Carr Draw 230 kV substation. The second phase consists of a
new 230 kV transmission line from the new Dry Fork 230 kV substation extending north and west to the new
Tongue River 230 kV switching station and on to the existing PacifiCorp Sheridan 230 kV substation.
3.3.2
Wyodak-Dave Johnston Area 230 kV Line
The project consists of two new 230 kV transmission lines. The first line terminates at the new Donkey Creek
substation and the Pumpkin Buttes substation. The second line terminates at the Pumpkin Buttes substation and a
yet to be determined point in the Dave Johnston area. For purposes of this study the second line was modeled as
terminating at the Dave Johnston 230 kV substation.
3.3.3
Teckla Dynamic Voltage Support
Two 16 MVAR dynamic reactive devices were modeled at Teckla 230 kV substation, one device on each
tertiary winding of the existing 230/69 kV transformers. The existing 15 MVAR capacitors were modeled at
their respective 69 kV bus.
3.3.4
Rapid City Dynamic Voltage Support
A +100/-50 MVAR Static VAr Compensator was modeled on the Lange 230 kV bus.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

3.3.5
Casper-Dave Johnston Transmission Project
The DJ-Spence 230 kV line was looped into the Casper 230 kV substation. The resulting parallel DJ-Casper 230
kV lines were re-conductored to maintain TOT 4A/4B nomogram capabilities.
3.3.6
Dave Johnston Wind
Two identical 99 MW wind generating projects were modeled at the Dave Johnston 230 kV bus per PaciCorps
request.
3.3.7
300 MW Path C Upgrade
Various upgrades were made to the 138 kV lines between Populus and Terminal substations to increase the
transfer capability from Wyoming/Idaho to Utah by up to 300 MW.
3.3.8
Threemile Knoll 345 kV Project
The Bridger-Goshen 345 kV line was looped into a new Threemile Knoll 345/138 kV substation. Project
includes various 115 kV line additions.
Should the any one of the projects listed above not be complete prior to the proposed project in-service date, the
Interconnection project may be curtailed due to transmission prior outages or other emergency conditions. These
curtailments and/or operating restrictions, if needed, will be developed and identified through operational studies as
required.
3.4 Analytical Tools
Power flow and dynamic analyses were performed using PSS/E load flow and dynamic simulation software, version
30.2.1. Short circuit analysis was performed using ASPEN OneLiner, version 10.9.

Steady State Analysis Methodology

4.1 Steady State Analysis Methodology
The proposed project was evaluated at 2011 peak summer and light winter load levels to determine if it caused any
significant adverse impact to the reliability and operating characteristics of the WECC bulk transmission system and,
more specifically the CUS transmission system. Steady state voltage and thermal analyses examined system
performance without the proposed project in order to establish a baseline for comparison. Performance was reevaluated with the proposed project in-service and compared to the baseline performance to determine the impact of
the project on area transmission reliability. The criteria described below are consistent with the WECC Minimum
Operating Reliability Criteria and Colorado Coordinated Planning Groups Voltage Coordination Guide.
4.1.1
Voltage Limits
Table 4 identifies the voltage criteria used in or around the primary study area for the steady state voltage
assessment. Pre-existing voltage violations outside the localized study area were ignored during the evaluation
of the proposed projects impacts.
Table 4: Steady State Voltage Criteria
Applicable
Control Area

Voltage
Class

PACE, WAPA-RMR

69 kV and above

Acceptable Voltage Range

Pre-Contingency
Post-Contingency
(normal conditions)
(emergency conditions)
0.95 to 1.05 p.u.

0.90 to 1.10 p.u.

4.1.2
Thermal Limits
WECC member utilities follow a planning philosophy whereby normal thermal ratings shall not be violated
under system intact conditions, and the applicable emergency rating shall not be exceeded under contingency
conditions. It should be noted that the emergency rating for all monitored PacifiCorp 230 kV transmission lines
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

10

and transformers is 123% of the continuous thermal rating. This emergency rating is applied to all postcontingency scenarios.
4.1.3
Solution Parameters
The steady state analysis was performed with pre-contingency solution parameters that allowed adjustment of
load tap-changing (LTC) transformers, static VAR devices including switched shunt capacitors and reactors, and
DC taps. Post-contingency solution parameters only allowed adjustment of DC taps. Area interchange control
was disabled and generator VAR limits were applied immediately for all solutions. The solution method
implemented for all cases was a fixed-slope decoupled Newton solution. To maintain consistency with the 1990
TOT4A/4B study methodology, fixed capacitors in the TOT4A area were manually switched in and out of
service as necessary to help meet the performance criteria.

Table 5: Steady State Solution Parameters

Case

Area Interchange

Transformer
LTCs

Phase
Shifters

Static VAR
Devices

DC Taps

Pre-Contingency

Disabled

Stepping

Disabled

Stepping (discrete)

Enabled

Post-Contingency

Disabled

Disabled

Disabled

Disabled

Enabled

4.2 Case Naming Convention

Study case designations were formatted as shown in Figure 2:

POI_ Resource Type_ RCDC Tie Schedule_ Network Gen Offset by Wind_ Prior Outage
POI:

1
2

Tap bus on Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV line

Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV bus

Wind Resource Type:

A
B
C

Proposed Project Off-line

Energy Resource (Dispatched to Currant Creek)
Network Resource

RCDC Tie Schedule:

1
2

200 MW E>W
Blocked (0 MW)

Generation Offset:

A
B
C

No Offset
300 MW Network Resource Reduction
500 MW Network Resource Reduction

Prior Outage:

See Tables 6 and 7

Figure 2: Case Naming Convention

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

11

Table 6: Pre-Wind Prior Outage List

Steady State Pre-Wind Prior Outage List
1

SYSTEM INTACT

18

TECKLA-DJ MR

35

WYGEN3 UNIT

GOOSE CRK-SHERIDAN

19

RENO-TECKLA

36

DRYFORK UNIT

BUFFALO-SHERIDAN

20

DONKEY CRK-RENO

37

LRS UNIT

BUFFALO-KAYCEE

21

DONKEY CRK- P. BUTTES

38

DJ UNIT

CASPER-CLAIMJPR

22

WYODAK-DONKEY CRK

39

CASPER XFMR

CASPER-DJ

23

WYODAK-OSAGE

40

DJ XFMR

SHERIDAN-T. RIVER

24

WYODAK-HUGHES

41

WYODAK XFMR 2

T. RIVER-ARVADA

25

HUGHES-LOOKOUT

42

WESTHILL XFMR

ARVADA-DRYFORK

26

YELLOW CREEK-OSAGE

43

OSAGE XFMR

10

DRYFORK-CARR DRAW RB

27

LOOKOUT-YELLOW CREEK

44

LANGE XFMR 2

11

DRYFORK-HUGHES RB

28

OSAGE-WESTHILL

45

LOOKOUT XFMR 2

12

BUFFALO-CARR DRAW

29

LANGE-LOOKOUT

46

YELLOWCREEK XFMR

13

WYODAK-CARR DRAW

30

LANGE-SOUTH RAPID

47

SOUTH RAPID XFMR

14

CARR DRAW-BARBER CREEK

31

SOUTH RAPID-WESTHILL

48

15

BARBER CREEK- P. BUTTES

32

RCDCW-SOUTH RAPID

49

16

P. BUTTES -TECKLA

33

WESTHILL-STEGALL

50

17

P. BUTTES -DJ

34

WYODAK UNIT

51

*RB indicates Dryfork runback

*MR indicates Barber Creek and Hartzog DG Must Run (Heavy Summer loads only)

Table 7: Post-Wind Prior Outage List

Steady State Post-Wind Prior Outage List
1

SYSTEM INTACT

18

TECKLA-DJ MR

35

WYGEN3 UNIT

GOOSE CRK-SHERIDAN

19

RENO-TECKLA

36

DRYFORK UNIT

BUFFALO-SHERIDAN

20

DONKEY CRK-RENO

37

LRS UNIT

BUFFALO-KAYCEE

21

P. BUTTES -DJ

38

WYODAK UNIT

CASPER-CLAIMJPR

22

DONKEY CRK- P. BUTTES

39

DJ UNIT

CASPER-DJ

23

WYODAK-DONKEY CRK

40

CASPER XFMR

SHERIDAN-T. RIVER

24

WYODAK-OSAGE

41

DJ XFMR

T. RIVER-ARVADA

25

WYODAK-HUGHES

42

WYODAK XFMR 2

ARVADA-DRYFORK

26

HUGHES-LOOKOUT

43

WESTHILL XFMR

10

DRYFORK-CARR DRAW RB

27

YELLOW CREEK-OSAGE

44

OSAGE XFMR

11

DRYFORK-HUGHES RB

28

LOOKOUT-YELLOW CREEK

45

LANGE XFMR 2

12

BUFFALO-CARR DRAW

29

OSAGE-WESTHILL

46

LOOKOUT XFMR 2

13

WYODAK-CARR DRAW

30

LANGE-LOOKOUT

47

YELLOWCREEK XFMR

14

CARR DRAW-BARBER CREEK

31

LANGE-SOUTH RAPID

48

SOUTH RAPID XFMR

15

BARBER CREEK- P. BUTTES

32

SOUTH RAPID-WESTHILL

49

16

P. BUTTES-PBWIND

33

RCDCW-SOUTH RAPID

50

17

PBWIND-TECKLA

34

WESTHILL-STEGALL

51

*RB indicates Dryfork runback

*MR indicates Barber Creek and Hartzog DG Must Run (Heavy Summer loads only)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

12

4.3 Steady State Contingency List

A list of forced outages simulated for the various steady state scenarios is shown in Tables 8-9.
Table 8: Pre-Wind Scenario Contingency List
Pre-Wind Forced Outage List
1

ATLANTIC-WYOPO-1

26

RIVERTON-WYOPO-1

51

TONGRIVR-DRYFORK-1

BADWATER-SPENCE-1

27

SHERIDAN-TONGRIVR-1

52

CARR DRA- P. BUTTES

BADWATER-THERMOPL-1

28

WYODAK-OSAGE-1

53

TECKLA-DJ

BUFFALO-CARR DRA-1

29

WYODAK-HUGHES-1

54

WYODAK UNIT

BUFFALO-KAYCEE-1

30

WYODAK-DONKYCRK-1

55

WYGEN3 UNIT

BUFFALO-SHERIDAN-1

31

YELOWTLP-YELLOWBR-1

56

DRYFORK UNIT

CARR DRA-WYODAK-1

32

LOVELL-THERM 115

57

LRS UNIT

CARR DRA-DRYFORK-1

33

BGEORGE-LOVELL-1

58

DJ3 UNIT

CASPERPP-DAVEJOHN-1

34

BGEORGE-THERM-1

59

CASPER XFMR

10

CASPERPP-CLAIMJPR-1

35

WESTHILL-OSAGE-1

60

DJ XFMR

11

CASPERPP-RIVERTON-1

36

WESTHILL-STEGALL-1

61

WYODAK XFMR 1

12

CASPERPP-CASPERLM-1

37

WESTHILL-RCSOUTH1-1

62

WESTHILL XFMR

13

CASPER-SPENCE-1

38

LOVELL-YELLOWBR-1

63

OSAGE XFMR

14

DAVEJOHN-DIFICULT-1

39

OSAGE-YELOWCRK-1

64

LANGE XFMR 1

15

DAVEJOHN-LAR.RIVR-1

40

LANGE-LOOKOUT1-1

65

LOOKOUT XFMR 1

16

DAVEJOHN-STEGALL-1

41

LANGE-RCSOUTH1-1

66

YELLOWCREEK XFMR

17

DAVEJOHN-P. BUTTES-1

42

RENO-TEKLA-1

67

SNOWY RANGE XFMR 1

18

FRANNIE-GARLAND-1

43

RENO-DONKYCRK-1

68

RCSOUTH XFMR 1

19

FRANNIE-YELOWTLP-1

44

LOOKOUT1-YELOWCRK-1

69

HUGHES XFMR

20

GOOSE CK-SHERIDAN-1

45

LOOKOUT1-HUGHES-1

70

21

GOOSE CK-YELOWTLP-1

46

TEKLA- P. BUTTES -1

71

22

GRASS CK-OREBASIN-1

47

WYODAK-HUGHES-69

72

23

GRASS CK-THERMOPL-1

48

HUGHES-DRYFORK-1

73

24

MUSTANG-SPENCE-1

49

RCSOUTH1-RCDC W-1

74

25

RIVERTON-THERMOPL-1

50

DONKYCRK- P. BUTTES -1

75

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

13

Table 9: Post-Wind Scenario Contingency List

Post-Wind Forced Outages
1

ATLANTIC-WYOPO-1

26

RIVERTON-WYOPO-1

51

HUGHES-DRYFORK-1

BADWATER-SPENCE-1

27

SHERIDAN-TONGRIVR-1

52

RCSOUTH1-RCDC W-1

BADWATER-THERMOPL-1

28

WYODAK-OSAGE-1

53

DONKYCRK- P. BUTTES -1

BUFFALO-CARR DRA-1

29

WYODAK-HUGHES-1

54

TONGRIVR-DRYFORK-1

BUFFALO-KAYCEE-1

30

WYODAK-DONKYCRK-1

55

CARR DRA- P. BUTTES

BUFFALO-SHERIDAN-1

31

YELOWTLP-YELLOWBR-1

56

TECKLA-DJ

CARR DRA-WYODAK-1

32

LOVELL-THERM 115

57

WYODAK UNIT

CARR DRA-DRYFORK-1

33

BGEORGE-LOVELL-1

58

WYGEN3 UNIT

CASPERPP-DAVEJOHN-1

34

BGEORGE-THERM-1

59

DRYFORK UNIT

10

CASPERPP-CLAIMJPR-1

35

WESTHILL-OSAGE-1

60

LRS UNIT

11

CASPERPP-RIVERTON-1

36

WESTHILL-STEGALL-1

61

DJ3 UNIT

12

CASPERPP-CASPERLM-1

37

WESTHILL-RCSOUTH1-1

62

CASPER XFMR

13

CASPER-SPENCE-1

38

LOVELL-YELLOWBR-1

63

DJ XFMR

14

DAVEJOHN-DIFICULT-1

39

OSAGE-YELOWCRK-1

64

WYODAK XFMR 1

15

DAVEJOHN-LAR.RIVR-1

40

LANGE-LOOKOUT1-1

65

WESTHILL XFMR

16

DAVEJOHN-STEGALL-1

41

LANGE-RCSOUTH1-1

66

OSAGE XFMR

17

DAVEJOHN- P. BUTTES -1

42

RENO-TEKLA-1

67

LANGE XFMR 1

18

FRANNIE-GARLAND-1

43

RENO-DONKYCRK-1

68

LOOKOUT XFMR 1

19

FRANNIE-YELOWTLP-1

44

LOOKOUT1-YELOWCRK-1

69

YELLOWCREEK XFMR

20

GOOSE CK-SHERIDAN-1

45

LOOKOUT1-HUGHES-1

70

SNOWY RANGE XFMR 1

21

GOOSE CK-YELOWTLP-1

46

TEKLA-PB WIND-1

71

RCSOUTH XFMR 1

22

GRASS CK-OREBASIN-1

47

PB WIND- P. BUTTES -1

72

HUGHES XFMR

23

GRASS CK-THERMOPL-1

48

PB WIND-PB WIND2

73

24

MUSTANG-SPENCE-1

49

HARTZOG-PB WIND2

74

25

RIVERTON-THERMOPL-1

50

WYODAK-HUGHES-69

75

4.4 Steady State Base Case Dispatch and Interface Conditions

The steady state analysis looked at the addition of the project as an Energy Resource (ER) and a Network Resource
(NR). The ER scenario was dispatched against Currant Creek generation in Utah, with no changes made to
generation on the CUS. The NR was dispatched against network generation. First, the RCDC Tie was blocked in
scenarios where it was online, and on-line gas generation was taken off-line. The remainder of the proposed
projects generation was dispatched against network base load generation on a pro-rata basis.
Refer to Appendix B for a summary of generation dispatch and transmission line flows for the various system-intact
scenarios described in 4.2. Summaries include Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla POI cases only.

Steady State Analysis Results

Several criteria violations were discovered during the steady state analysis and were omitted from the results summary
below due to their numerous occurrences. In scenarios where the proposed project was interconnected to a tap bus
between Pumpkin Buttes and Teckla, loss of one of the 230 kV line segments connected to the tap bus overloaded the
remaining line. Utilizing this POI would require a second 230 kV circuit from the tap bus to Pumpkin Buttes. All
violations that could be mitigated through the application of existing BHP operating procedures were also omitted.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

14

5.1 Light Winter Pre-Wind Results

There were no criteria violations during the light winter pre-wind steady state analysis.
5.2 Light Winter Energy Resource Results
The addition of the proposed project as an Energy Resource in the light winter case resulted in numerous prior and
forced outage combinations which did not converge. The most critical prior outage was the loss of the Goose CreekSheridan 230 kV line. A solution could not be reached for most outage combinations that resulted in the loss of two
CUS outlet paths. The Alcova-CasperLM 115 kV line became overloaded under numerous prior and forced outage
combinations in the light winter Energy Resource scenarios.
A reduction of the proposed project to 250 MW resulted in the mitigation of all criteria violations except the AlcovaCasperLM 115 kV overload. However, the Alcova-CasperLM 115 kV line rating is currently planned to be
upgraded by WAPA prior to the Interconnection Customers in-service date.
In order to interconnect the proposed project at the full 500 MW, a new transmission path would be needed to
provide additional capacity for transfers out of the study area. The TOT 4B path appeared to be the limiting element
in the light winter analysis. As a sensitivity, a new 230 kV path from the new Tongue River 230 kV switching
station to the existing Yellowtail 230 kV substation was modeled and the simulations were repeated. Even with the
additional line between Yellowtail and Tongue River, the possibility still existed for the loss of two TOT 4B
elements from the CUS toward Yellowtail. A second line was added to the case, from the existing Carr Draw 230
kV substation to the new Tongue River 230 kV switching station. This transmission addition was used as one
possible solution to the issue of insufficient transmission capacity for transfers outside the study area. Additional
solutions may be identified during the System Impact Study or Transmission Service Request Study if the customer
elects to proceed with the project. The optimal solution will be directly dependent on the size of the project and the
specified Point of Delivery for the resource.
The Alcova-CasperLM 115 kV line also required a thermal rating increase to at least 91 MVA to prevent an
overload. However, this line rating is currently scheduled to be increased by WAPA. The additional 230 kV path
from Carr Draw-Tongue River-Yellowtail and the Alcova-CasperLM 115 kV upgrade mitigated all criteria
violations. Results were similar for either POI.
5.3 Light Winter Network Resource Results
There were no criteria violations for the light winter network resource steady state analysis due to the interconnection
of the proposed project.
5.4 Heavy Summer Pre-Wind Results
The steady state analysis for the 2011 heavy summer pre-wind case revealed no voltage criteria violations. Thermal
criteria violations on the Lovell-Nahne Jensen 115 kV line were experienced following the prior outage of the
Wyodak, Dryfork, LRS, or Dave Johnston generator and the forced outage of the PACE-WAPA 230 kV tie line at
Yellowtail. This overload occurred only for cases with the RCDC Tie off-line.
5.5 Heavy Summer Energy Resource Results
There were no voltage criteria violations as a result of the addition of the proposed project. The worst-case thermal
overload occurred on the Dave Johnston-Dave Johnston South Tap-Refinery 115 kV line following a Casper 230:115
kV prior outage coupled with the forced outage of the DJ-LRS 230 kV line. The overloads were similar for either
POI scenario. A manual reduction in the output of the proposed project to 250 MW mitigated all overload violations.
To accommodate the entire proposed 500 MW project, the Carr Draw-Tongue River-Yellowtail 230 kV line
described in 5.2 was inserted in the case to provide an additional CUS and TOT 4B transmission path. Also, the
Dave Johnston-Dave Johnston South Tap 115 kV line was upgraded to 185 MVA. Loading on the Dave Johnston
South Tap-Refinery 115 kV line was reduced to 100% of the continuous thermal rating following the addition of the
Carr Draw-Tongue River-Yellowtail 230 kV line.
5.6

Heavy Summer Network Resource Results

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

15

The heavy summer network resource analysis revealed results similar to those described in 5.4. There was a 1.6%
increase in the overload for the LRS and DJ generator prior outage cases, but this difference can be considered
negligible. There were no measurable differences in the results between either POI.

Stability Analysis Methodology

6.1 Stability Analysis Methodology

The primary objective of the stability analysis is to analyze the impact of the project on transient stability performance
of the bulk electric system for various system disturbances. Stability simulations were conducted with and without the
proposed interconnection project for the 2011 light winter load level scenario to confirm performance with respect to
applicable criteria.
6.1.1
Stability Performance Criteria
The disturbance performance criteria for this study requires that the transient low voltage swing shall not be
lower than 0.70 p.u. at any load or non-load bus and the system shall exhibit positive damping following any
contingency. Table W-1 of the NERC/WECC Planning Standards states that for a NERC Category B
contingency, the frequency at a load bus must not dip below 59.6 HZ for more than 6 cycles, but this
requirement was applied to all contingencies to simplify the presentation of the results.
6.1.2
Low Voltage Ride Through Criteria
The current WECC Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) Standard requires generators to remain in-service for 3phase faults with normal clearing (4-9 cycles) and single line-to-ground faults with delayed clearing that result
in a GSU high side voltage of 0.15 per unit or greater. The FERC LVRT Standard, however, requires generation
to remain on-line for GSU high side voltages of 0 per unit for similar faults. The more stringent FERC standard
was applied as the LVRT requirement for this study.
6.2 Stability Base Case Dispatch and Interface Conditions
The stability base case dispatch and interface conditions were a subset of the steady state base case dispatch and
interface conditions listed in Section 4.2. Dynamic simulations were run for the following light winter scenarios:
1B1A1
2B1A1
1C1B1
2C1B1
1C1C1
2C1C1
1C2B1
2C2B1
6.3 Stability Fault Descriptions
In addition to a disturbance-free steady state simulation, each dispatch scenario for the 2011 light winter load case
was simulated with various faults applied. Table 10 lists the faults and the load cases in which they were applied.
Table 10: Stability Fault Descriptions
Fault Description
Fault
Duration
3 PH Bus Fault
Cleared Element
Wyodak 230
Wyodak-Carr Draw 230 line
4.25 cycles
4.25 cycles
Wyodak 230
Wyodak-Donkey Crk 230 line
4.25 cycles
Donkey Crk 230
Donkey Creek-Reno 230 line
4.25 cycles
P. Buttes 230 kV
P. Buttes-Carr Draw 230 line
4.25 cycles
Donkey Crk 230
P. Buttes-Donkey Crk 230 line
PBWind 230
P. Buttes-PBWind 230 line
4.25 cycles
PBWind 230
P. Buttes-Teckla 230 line
4.25 cycles
P. Buttes 230
P. Buttes-Teckla 230 line
4.25 cycles
PBWind2 230 *
N/A
9 cycles
* This fault was used to test the LVRT performance of the proposed wind farm

Simulated Cases
POI
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
PB-Teckla
PB-Teckla
P. Buttes
P. Buttes

Resource
ER, NR
ER, NR
ER, NR
ER, NR
ER, NR
ER, NR
ER, NR
ER, NR
ER

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

16

Stability Analysis Results

There were no stability performance criteria violations observed on the transmission system as a result of the
interconnection of the proposed project. All post-contingent voltage dips remained well above the established limit and
rotor angles were positively damped. Additionally, there were no frequency excursions below the 59.6 HZ limit.

TOT 4A/4B Analysis

8.1 TOT 4A/4B Analysis Procedure
TOT 4A and TOT4B are transmission paths in Wyoming that may be affected by additions or changes to the
transmission system. TOT4A is an interface that is used to measure power flows from the study area to the
southwest, and TOT4B is used to measure flows to the northwest. The ratings of the path are interdependent, and are
defined using a nomogram defined in the WECC 2008 Path Rating Catalog. Transmission lines included in TOT4A
are:

Riverton-Wyopo 230 kV
Dave Johnston-Difficulty 230 kV
Spence-Mustang 230 kV

and transmission lines included in TOT4B for this study are:

Carr Draw-Buffalo 230 kV

Casper-Claim Jumper 230 kV
Riverton-Thermopolis 230 kV
Riverton 230/115 kV transformers
Alcova-Raderville 115 kV
Spence-Thermopolis 230 kV
Tongue River-Sheridan 230 kV

Adjustments were made to the system to reach the various operating points on the nomogram. These adjustments
included generation dispatch on either side of the path interfaces, changes to the phase shifter angles at Monument
and the Yellowtail area, and DC tie schedules at Rapid City, Stegall, and Sidney. The Miles City DC tie was blocked
for this analysis and the Foote Creek wind farm was online at 135 MW. The forced outages in Table 11 were
simulated at each of the operating points on the nomogram. The operating criteria listed in 4.1 were applied during
this analysis.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

17

Table 11: TOT 4A/4B Study Contingency List

TOT 4A/4B STUDY FORCED OUTAGES
1

BRDGR 345-230 XFMR

46

YELLOWBR XFMR

91

BAR-X XFMR

47

HUGHES XFMR

92

GRASSCRK-THERMOPL
KAYCEE-MIDWEST

BRDGR 230-34.5 XFMR

48

BLGS PHA-YELOWTLP

93

MINERS-PLATTE; FT CRK RAS

CASPER XFMR

49

CROS PHA-YELLOWBR

94

MUSTANG-SPENCE

DJ XFMR

50

RIMROCK P. SHIFTER

95

PALISADE-RAVEN

DJ3 GSU

51

ATLANTIC-ROCKSPR

96

PALISADE-ROCKSPGS

DJ4 GSU

52

ATLANTIC-WYOPO

97

LOVELL-YELLOWBR

FLAMING GORGE XFMR 1

53

BADWATER-SPENCE

98

RIVERTON-THERMOPL

FLAMING GORGE XFMR 2

54

BADWATER-THERMOPL

99

LOVELL-THERMOPL 115

10

FRANNIE XFMR 1

55

BLUERIM-BRIDGER PP

100

BGEORGE-LOVELL

11

FT CRK-FT CRK2 XFMR

56

BLUERIM-S TRONA

101

BGEORGE-THERMOPL

12

FT CRK-FT CRK 1 XFMR

57

BRIDGERPP-FIREHOLE

102

RIVERTON-WYOPO

13

GARLAND XFMR

58

BRIDGER-MUSTANG

103

WYODAK-OSAGE

14

GRASS CRK XFMR

59

BRIDGER-ROCKSPGS

104

WYODAK-DONKEYCRK

15

MIDWEST XFMR 1

60

BUFFALO-CARRDRAW

105

DONKEYCRK-RENO

16

MINERS XFMR

61

BUFFALO-KAYCEE

106

DONKEYCRK-HARTZOG

17

MUSTANG XFMR

62

BUFFALO-SHERIDAN

107

WYODAK-HUGHES

18

OREBASIN-OB 34.5 XFMR

63

CARR DRAW-WYODAK

108

YELLOWTLP-YELLOWBR

19

OREBASIN-OB 69 XFMR

64

CARR DRAW-DRYFORK

109

ARCHER-AULT

20

PLATTE XFMR

65

CARR DRAW-HARTZOG

110

ARCHER-STEGALL

21

PT ROCKS XFMR

66

TONGUE RIVR-DRYFORK

111

ARCHER-HAYDEN

22

RIVERTON XFMR

67

HUGHES-DRYFORK

112

AULT-LARAMIE RIVR

23

ROCKSPRINGS XFMR

68

CASPERPP-DJ

113

WESTHILL-OSAGE

24

SHERIDAN XFMR

69

CASPERPP-CLAIMJPR

114

WESTHILL-STEGALL

25

THERMOPL-THERPACE XFMR2

70

CASPERPP-RIVERTON

115

WESTHILL-RCSOUTH

26

WYODAK GSU

71

CASPERPP-CASPERLM

116

LAR. RIVR-STEGALL

27

WYODAK XFMR2

72

CASPER-SPENCE

117

LAR. RIVR-STORY

28

WYGEN GSU

73

DJ-DIFICULT; FTCRK RAS

118

N. YUMA-SIDNEY

29

WYGEN2 GSU

74

TECKLA-DJ

119

OSAGE-YELLOWCRK

30

WYOPO XFMR

75

DJ-LAR RIVR

120

LANGE-LOOKOUT

31

YELOWTLP XFMR

76

DJ-STEGALL

121

LANGE-RCSOUTH

32

ARCHER XFMR

77

DECKER-TONGUE RIVR

122

RENO-TECKLA

33

WESTHILL XFMR

78

SHERIDAN-TONGUE RIVR

123

SIDNEY-STEGALL

34

LRS XFMR

79

DECKER-WYOMONT

124

LOOKOUT-YELLOWCRK

35

MBPP1 GSU

80

MINERS-DIFFICULTY

125

LOOKOUT-HUGHES

36

OSAGE XFMR

81

FIREHOLE-LITTLEMT

126

STEGALLDC-STEGALL

37

LANGE XFMR

82

FIREHOLE-ROCKSPGS

127

TECKLA-PBWIND

38

SIDNEY XFMR

83

FLAMINGGORG-LITTLEMT

128

PBWIND-HARTZOG

39

SIDNEY-SIDNEYDC

84

FRANNIE-GARLAND

129

PBWIND-PBWIND2

40

SNOWYRNG XFMR 1

85

FRANNIE-YELOWTLP

130

RCSOUTH-RCDCW

41

MIRACLEM XFMR 1

86

FT. CRK-MINERS

131

HARTZOG-DJ

42

LOOKOUT XFMR 1

87

GARLAND-OREBASIN

132

R.SPRG-PT.RCKS-BRDGR

43

YELLOWCRK XFMR 1

88

GOOSECRK-SHERIDAN

133

PT.RCKS-BARX-PLATTE

44

STEGALL XFMR 2

89

GOOSECRK-YELOWTLP

134

DRYFORK UNIT

45

YELLO 3-4 GSU

90

GRASSCRK-OREBASIN

135

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

18

8.2 TOT 4A/4B Analysis Results

The established nomogram was verified at four points using a 2011 LW pre-wind base case. Then the proposed
project was placed in-service and the study process was repeated. The nomogram was verified using four operating
points similar to those used in the pre-wind analysis. The study results revealed that there were no negative impacts
to the existing established TOT 4A/4B path ratings. Figure 3 summarizes the results of the analysis.

Pumpkin Buttes Wind Feasibility Study

TOT4A / TOT4B Nomogram
800

700

TOT 4B FLOW (MW)

600

500
Existing Nomogram
Pre-Wind Nomogram
Post-Wind Nomogram

400

300

200

100

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

TOT 4A FLOW (MW)

Figure 3: TOT 4A/4B Analysis Results

Short Circuit Analysis

9.1 Short Circuit Study Modeling
The proposed generation as modeled will be connected to the 230 kV transmission system via 34.5 kV collector
system and four 125 MVA, 34.5/230 kV step-up transformers. Each step-up transformer has an impedance of 12%
on a 29 MVA base. The step-up transformer impedance modeled in the short circuit analysis was:
Z (collector step-up) = 0.00 + J0.12 p.u. (100 MVA base)
Each lumped wind turbine generator will have a 575V/34.5kV GSU transformer rated at 30 MVA. These
transformers have an impedance of 20% on a 100 MVA base. The generator step-up transformer impedance
modeled in the short circuit analysis was:
Z (eq. gen step-up) = 0.00 + J0.20 p.u. (100 MVA base)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

19

Transformer resistance was assumed to be negligible when compared to the reactance and was set to zero for this
analysis. The lumped generators have the following reactance values on the generator MVA base:
Xd = Direct Axis Synchronous Reactance = 0.8 per unit
Xd = Direct Axis Transient Reactance = 0.8 per unit
Xd = Direct Axis Sub-transient Reactance = 0.8 per unit
These equivalent lumped generator impedance values were obtained using the PSS/E Wind program. The 34.5 kV
collector system impedances were modeled as shown in the Conceptual Project Drawing in Appendix B.
Maximum fault currents were then determined at local substations of interest or importance. These buses included:

Carr Draw 230 kV

Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV
Teckla 230 kV
Reno 230 kV
Laramie River Station 230 kV
Stegall 230 kV
Casper 230 kV
Difficulty 230 kV
Dave Johnston 230 kV

The resulting fault current was then compared to the circuit breaker interruption ratings of the breakers at the above
mentioned substations.
9.2 Short Circuit Analysis Results
The short circuit analysis was initially performed without the proposed interconnection project. This gave the base
case fault duties of the interrupting devices. Then the proposed project was put in service at both of the proposed
points of interconnection and the short circuit study was repeated. The incremental fault duty difference between the
two studies gave the impact of the new generators on the existing interrupting devices in the study area. The short
circuit fault currents for simulated faults at all of the moderately impacted substations are shown in Tables 12-13.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

20

Table 12: Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla POI Fault Results

230 kV Bus
Fault

Fault Current W/O Project (A)

Fault Current W/ Project (A)

Project Contribution (A)

3L-G

2L-G

1L-G

L-L

3L-G

2L-G

1L-G

L-L

3L-G

2L-G

1L-G

L-L

Ant. Mine

5746

5535

4835

4970

6079

5875

5134

5259

333

340

299

289

Barber Crk

7014

6759

5841

6062

7354

7103

6146

6357

340

344

305

295

Carr Draw

9334

9144

8217

8062

9673

9466

8461

8357

339

322

244

295

Casper

10261

10050

9309

8868

10335

10114

9353

8932

74

64

44

64

D. Johnston

17209

18053

18621

14877

17473

18301

18854

15107

264

248

233

230

Difficulty

4319

4087

3428

3734

4331

4097

3434

3744

12

10

10

Donkey Crk

13960

15243

15802

12007

14474

15738

16289

12452

514

495

487

445

LRS

12710

13269

13648

10998

12718

13276

13654

11004

P. Buttes

7595

7311

6310

6563

8711

8849

8515

7530

1116

1538

2205

967

Reno

5913

5737

5154

5110

6179

5995

5355

5341

266

258

201

231

Stegall

7589

7595

7484

6533

7597

7601

7489

6540

Teckla

6403

6314

5923

5536

6905

6881

6517

5972

502

567

594

436

Wyodak

13966

15254

15816

12012

14480

15750

16303

12457

514

496

487

445

Yellowcake

7056

6668

5311

6106

7189

6791

5385

6221

133

123

74

115

Table 13: Pumpkin Buttes POI Fault Results

230 kV Bus
Fault

Fault Current W/O Project (A)

Fault Current W/ Project (A)

Project Contribution (A)

3L-G

2L-G

1L-G

L-L

3L-G

2L-G

1L-G

L-L

3L-G

2L-G

1L-G

L-L

Ant. Mine

5746

5535

4835

4970

5998

5785

5039

5189

252

250

204

219

Barber Crk

7014

6759

5841

6062

7402

7169

6245

6399

388

410

404

337

Carr Draw

9334

9144

8217

8062

9707

9509

8511

8387

373

365

294

325

Casper

10261

10050

9309

8868

10336

10115

9354

8933

75

65

45

65

D. Johnston

17209

18053

18621

14877

17469

18301

18856

15103

260

248

235

226

Difficulty

4319

4087

3428

3734

4331

4097

3434

3744

12

10

10

Donkey Crk

13960

15243

15802

12007

14485

15758

16309

12462

525

515

507

455

LRS

12710

13269

13648

10998

12718

13276

13654

11004

P. Buttes

7595

7311

6310

6563

8937

9602

9931

7726

1342

2291

3621

1163

Reno

5913

5737

5154

5110

6128

5941

5306

5298

215

204

152

188

Stegall

7589

7595

7484

6533

7598

7602

7489

6541

Teckla

6403

6314

5923

5536

6776

6715

6314

5860

373

401

391

324

Wyodak

13966

15254

15816

12012

14491

15770

16324

12467

525

516

508

455

Yellowcake

7056

6668

5311

6106

7169

6772

5371

6204

113

104

60

98

It should be noted that the values in Tables 12-13 represent the largest bus phase current for the listed fault. Detailed
fault analysis results will be provided upon request.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

21

9.3 Short Circuit Analysis Conclusion

The results of the short circuit analysis show that no existing breaker duties were exceeded as a result of the proposed
project. Any deviation from the system configuration as modeled may have significant impacts on the results of this
analysis and additional studies would be required.

10

Conclusions

This report describes the power flow and stability studies performed to determine the impacts of interconnecting a new
500 MW Wind Plant at or near the Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV substation in northeast Wyoming. The interconnection
project as studied is comprised of three hundred thirty-three (333) GE 1.5 MW wind turbine generators.
The identified impacts of the proposed project on the local transmission system are dependent on the resource type and
interconnection point selected.
Facilities required with the POI on the Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla line are listed in Table 15 below.
Table 14: Pumpkin Buttes-Teckla 230 kV Line POI Costs
Network Upgrades Required for Interconnection
230 kV Project Switching Station
Construct a ring bus tapping the existing Pumpkin ButtesTeckla 230 kV line.

$3,750,000

New Project-Pumpkin Buttes 230

kV Line

Construct a new parallel 230 kV line between Pumpkin

Buttes and the Project Switching Station.

$1,568,000

Pumpkin Buttes line terminal

Expand the Pumpkin Buttes substation to accommodate the

new Project-Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV line.

$1,000,000

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST

ESTIMATED TIME FRAME

$6,318,000
24 Months

The above estimate assumes that the project collector system step-up transformers are located within the 230 kV
Project Switching Station.
Facilities required with the POI in the Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV Substation are listed in Table 16 below.
Table 15: Pumpkin Buttes 230 kV Substation POI Costs
Customer Interconnection Facilities
Project Outlet Line
Construct a new 230 kV line connecting the Project
Collector substation to the Pumpkin Buttes substation.

$1,568,000

Network Upgrades Required for Interconnection

Pumpkin Buttes Line Terminal
Expand the Pumpkin Buttes substation to accommodate the
new interconnection of the Project

$1,000,000

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST

ESTIMATED TIME FRAME

$2,568,000
18 Months

Upgrades were required to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing transmission system if the project was
designated as an ER. Additional transmission capacity would be required to move the energy from the project to a
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

22

delivery point outside the study area. A new 150-mile 230 kV TOT4B path was modeled in the study to accommodate
the additional generation without criteria violations. Costs of the new path as modeled were estimated at $44,200,000.
The thermal capacity on the Alcova-CasperLM 115 kV line would need to be increased to at least 109 MVA. The
upgrade would require a CT tap ratio increase at the Casper terminal, which is currently planned as part of WAPAs
Miracle Mile transmission project. A thermal capacity increase on the Dave Johnston-Dave Johnston South Tap 115
kV line was also required. Costs of rebuilding the line were estimated at $280,000. Reducing the size of the project to
250 MW required only the Alcova-CasperLM upgrade.
No necessary upgrades to the existing transmission system were identified for a Network Resource interconnection.
All cost estimates include labor and materials for network infrastructure only, and do not reflect any additional
ancillary services that may be necessary. All direct assigned costs associated with radial transmission and/or
equipment from the point of interconnection (POI) to the generation facility would be the sole responsibility of the
customer. Preliminary cost estimates are subject to change pending a review of detailed design information of the
projects collector system in the Facility Study, providing the customer elects to proceed with the project.
Interconnection Service in and of itself does not convey any right to deliver electricity to any specific customer or Point
of Delivery. Curtailment of the proposed interconnection project may be necessary under certain emergency operating
conditions.
.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

23

APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY ONE-LINE DIAGRAMS

OF
PROPOSED
WIND FARM

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

24

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

25

PSS/E SINGLE-LINE REPRESENTATION

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BHBE-G7
Black Hills Power
Interconnection Feasibility Study Report
April 1, 2008

26